Skip to main content

Topic: The Awesomesauce with Religion (Read 111925 times)

  • Frenzie
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Administrator
The Awesomesauce with Religion
I suppose we need one of these.

Edit (20-02-2014): maybe a more positive title will make some difference? :)
  • Last Edit: 2014-02-20, 18:13:52 by Frenzie

  • Banned Member
  • [*]
  • Banned
Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion
Reply #375
Quote from: ersi link=topic=33.msg20059#msg20059 date=1400505043
God is ineffable. God cannot be material. God cannot, as sophisticated theology and philosophy teaches us, be "a" being at all. God is, rather than ineffable ground of all being or Being Itself. God is that from which all other beings derive their essence and that by which they are instantiated in reality. To call Him merely "a" being would be absurd since that would imply He was just one of the beings rather than that inexplicable, self-existence in which, and through which, all those beings have their being.
Bullshit, sorry.
If some god is not a being, thus it/she/he/phe does not exist. Otherwise its/her/his/pher non-being - and at the same time existing? - will deny linguistics, gnoseology, logic, etc. Thus again, the world as we know it should turn into a mere insanity, mess, etc.

  • Frenzie
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Administrator
Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion
Reply #376
Quote
I used to be a devout Christian and I never thought any such silly thing.

And now he's an atheist and doesn't think "any such silly thing" either. Logic fail.

Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion
Reply #377
Philosophers need something to work on. :right:

  • ersi
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion
Reply #378

Quote
I used to be a devout Christian and I never thought any such silly thing.

And now he's an atheist and doesn't think "any such silly thing" either. Logic fail.
Why is that a logic fail? If the guy never believed any stuff, then he never converted to atheism. He was atheist all along, and only accidentally belonged to some church, just like people are born in some country but may feel better home completely elsewhere.

Anyway, a simple logical solution for all cases when addressing people's beliefs is to address the actual beliefs that are there, not those that are not there. This guy's faith did not need demolishing, because it never existed, but at least he has done the homework now, not like most people.

  • Banned Member
  • [*]
  • Banned
Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion
Reply #379
I believe in Yellow Nipples. They are ineffable, so just shut up.

  • Frenzie
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Administrator
Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion
Reply #380
Why is that a logic fail?

I'm Dutch and I don't like kaassouflés, therefore no Dutch people like kaassouflés. :)



But anyway, based on your extract I didn't realize it was satire, so I take back my reaction.

  • Banned Member
  • [*]
  • Banned
Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion
Reply #381
You should've submitted it to my "cookie" thread, huh? In case you like it, ;).

  • ersi
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion
Reply #382
Yes, it's a satire. But it's an informed one, not ignorant. It actually speaks somewhat to thinking Christians, not to non-thinkers who should logically not even be worth addressing.

But you knew this, right? You know there's a difference between layman and expert, and the difference matters, right? I'm sure you know it, but when it comes to anything to do with religion, you conveniently forget all about it.

Or do you prefer the appeal-to-popularity fallacy here? By this analogy, e.g. physics would be whatever an average schoolboy believes it to be. The physicists are in minority, so they'd better shut up about their own convoluted ideas on the matter.

  • Frenzie
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Administrator
Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion
Reply #383
But you knew this, right?

I believe I just said I didn't realize it was a satire, so no...

You know there's a difference between layman and expert, and the difference matters, right? I'm sure you know it, but when it comes to anything to do with religion, you conveniently forget all about it.

Sounds like you missed the point.
  • Last Edit: 2014-05-19, 18:48:46 by Frenzie

  • tt92
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion
Reply #384


Sounds like you missed the point.

There's a lot of that about.

  • ersi
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion
Reply #385
There was no point to miss. There was a soundbite maybe. You need some more effort to make a point out of it.

  • Frenzie
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Administrator
Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion
Reply #386
Alright.

  • ersi
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion
Reply #387
The aim for posting this was to amuse Jim, and perhaps make him think a bit too, if it's possible to make an old man think with a new perspective. Sadly looks like he is not here these days.

Read the piece as an amusing satire that it is, but don't go along with its fallacies. Namely, there actually are Christians who have the kind of philosophy about God as the text describes, and it's no more special, funny, or weird as any other kind of metaphysics is.

Metaphysics works as explanation of things in life for people who do metaphysics. Importantly, metaphysics is that which distinguishes an explanation from a mere guess, belief, or doubt. So metaphysics is a good thing, when used rightly.

Most people don't do metaphysics and live just fine. They can live, but their ideas and actions are more ad hoc and self-contradictory. They live okay, because they are the majority.

It is logically fallacious to equate these two classes of people. When you mix them up, you get either a fallacy or a satire. Or a fallacious satire, which can be amusing.

I know I took all the fun out of it. Sorry.

  • Belfrager
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion
Reply #388
There is "philosophical" Religion and there is "religious" Religion. Different subjects for different objectives.
The first demands culture, study and good teachers, the second "only" demands faith. The result is not the same.
Advanced Religions knows how to conjugate both, obviously.

From all the serious debates, arguments and writings I ever saw between philosophical pro religion and pro atheism, religion had deeper, more solid and correct reasoning.

I find modern atheism to be merely an extension of a dominant culture of individualism, hedonism and easiness disguised as a pseudo-philosophical stance.
A matter of attitude.

  • rjhowie
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion
Reply #389
Well said there.
"Quit you like men:be strong"

  • jseaton2311
  • [*][*][*][*]
Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion
Reply #390
God is no longer a necessary entity to explain our existence.  You can't tell that to the average believer, they will argue forever that some God created all of us and the universe.  However, there is a new story about to be told in the science classrooms of our children.  The story states simply that our universe would be here today, just as it is, with or without any God.  This statement still allows for the belief that God could have done it, but just as with Darwinism, eventually most rational people will come to realize that God is simply a fairy tale told by scientifically ignorant peasants in ancient times. 

You can read the book 'The Grand Design' by Stephen Hawking (along with other leading physicists), and try to understand it the best you can (it is written in layman's terms), or you can be an ostrich and bury your head in the sand with the old ideas of your God until you croak.  I prefer to be on the cutting edge of new scientific discoveries and I'm in the process of reading this book now.  It is an elegant story which not only makes perfect scientific sense, but also fits seamlessly with the well-established laws of physics and nature. 

So if someone (perhaps Ersi), wants to claim the existence of a supernatural being in the universe, he will have to find a new purpose for his existence because creation is going to happen anyway.  Ersi wishes to live forever, so no doubt 'eternal life' will be his God's specialty (be careful what you wish for, btw).  The fact of the matter is that any designer God is as good as the next one because it's only make-believe, so fantasize away. 

Since a God isn't necessary for our existence, is the existence of a God necessary?  No, it is not.  We can close the book on God once and for all now--besides a God complicates the question of existence simply because you then have to explain an impossible-to-explain entity--very messy and contra Occam's Razor.  It will certainly take some time for God to fade into obscurity, but fade he will.  Science explained the existence of all species as coming from lower species and now science has shown how we came into existence as a universe in the first place.  Everyone can stick to their antiquated and highly debatable ideas of god if they wish, but if you want to simplify your life and yet stay one step ahead of the rest--just read the book.    :monkey:  :cheers:


  • Last Edit: 2014-05-24, 17:34:00 by jseaton2311
James J

  • Sparta
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion
Reply #391
people learn to lie at some point because not everyone deserves to know the truth

onthe other hand ,

there is no truth , there is only Perception

  • tt92
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion
Reply #392
I have just listened (again) to Pergolesi's Stabat Mater, and am overwhelmed  (again) in the contemplation of the immensity  of the sublime music that has been written "to the glory of God".

  • Sparta
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion
Reply #393
sometimes , some memories  that makes us feel happier
is just some memories that   make us feel happier .

our memories , and what we believe , not a guarantee can make another people feel happier if they have that kind of memories  .

  • ersi
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion
Reply #394

You can read the book 'The Grand Design' by Stephen Hawking (along with other leading physicists), and try to understand it the best you can (it is written in layman's terms), or you can be an ostrich and bury your head in the sand with the old ideas of your God until you croak.

Old is not necessarily bad. Stephen Hawking is old, at least older than me, and this is not a bad thing. I have read an older book by him, A Brief History of Time, and I am okay with the concept of God there. A quote from there:

Quote from: Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time
When asked: "What did God do before he created the universe?" Augustine didn't reply: "He was preparing Hell for people who asked such questions." Instead, he said that time was a property of the universe that God created, and that time did not exist before the beginning of the universe.

Therefore it's false to assume that God is an arbitrary starting/end point for irrational people. Instead, God is a logically necessary metaphysical foundation of everything for intellectuals who see or seek reason and rationality everywhere.

Please become acquainted with the actual arguments for God, instead of flawed strawmen. Hawking inspired me to read Augustine, and from there I have read on and thought things through myself. I'm not interested in directly recommending books to you, but the argumentation that Hawking referred to, I found it in Augustine's Confessions. Go to the actual source texts to find out the actual source arguments, instead of misrepresented third-hand summaries.

Also, here's an intro for you what an argument is. Argument is a set of propositions among which there are premises and a conclusion. The classical form of argument is the syllogism. The schoolbook example of the syllogism:

Premise #1: All men are mortal.
Premise #2: Socrates is a man.
Conclusion: Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

Notice that you cannot deny the conclusion. The conclusion follows necessarily from the premises. You can only attack one or some of the premises. For example, you can take "All men are mortal" and quibble: "How do you know this? Have you verified everybody's death? How is it that you and I are alive and not dead? Maybe Socrates was the kind of dude who is actually immortal, an exception to what appears mostly to be the case?"

When you question the premise this way, you undermine the conclusion. If you manage to prove that the premise is false, the conclusion is refuted and you shall have defeated the argument.

So, it has no effect at all on me when you deny God and keep touting the triumph of science. It has no effect on me because *God is the conclusion,* and my premises include science in proper perspective. To provide you with (yet) an(other) opportunity to exercise actual argumentation, here's a proof of God for you:

- Instead of atomism or emergentism (forms of physicalist theory), I hold to the continuum theory. Lengthy argumentation here in two successive posts https://thedndsanctuary.eu/index.php?topic=33.msg9793#msg9793
- The continuum theory implies an omnipresence, where the principle of life and consciousness inheres.
- The technical term for the principle of life and consciousness is spirit, and this also happens to be one of the names/titles/descriptions of God (John 4:24)


Since a God isn't necessary for our existence, is the existence of a God necessary?  No, it is not.  We can close the book on God once and for all now--besides a God complicates the question of existence simply because you then have to explain an impossible-to-explain entity--very messy and contra Occam's Razor.

I quite agree with the principle of explanatory economy, and that's why I adhere to spiritual monism. The tenet of this philosophy is that, in the ultimate sense, only God exists. It doesn't get any more economical than this. Instead of gods of the gaps, there's omnipresent God. There's no grand designer, watchmaker, or first mover. There's Existence Itself in singular nature.

Then how does the world appear variegated and the things in the world multiple? By means of the power of will that inheres in the omnipresent consciousness. The live will may acquire a direction, thus making it appear that consciousness moves in some particular direction. Such particular directions of consciousness we call time, movement, dimensions of space, causation, evolution, etc. In truth its omnidirectional, but to us it analytically appears as a particular dimension #1, #2, etc., wherein there's entity #1, #2, etc. So on to infinity. There are really infinite ways to analyse existence. Note that this is not the theory of emergentism (from matter, which I refuted earlier in this thread). Rather, its name is the theory of emanation (from spirit), akin to the original Gnosticism and Neoplatonism.

When things are infinite in number, then how is it that it's all one? By means of self-referential logic. The tenet of self-referential logic states that a thing is the same as its properties. You are the same as the list of your properties or qualities. Your character or nature is your definition, and your definition is what you are - it equals yourself. (Note that the list is not about your physical components or body parts, but exactly properties/qualities, both material and immaterial. This distinction is technically important.) Ultimately, the absolute existence is an infinite mass of verbal or notional properties/qualities conceivable in endless ways. When the analysis has been brought to a successful (right and good) conclusion, the mind arrives at the blissful state of rest. You either analyse the existence to death or you let the inevitable conclusion illumine thy self (soul).

Also a note on the problem of evil. God is the same as His own nature and the world is its reflection. If God is all good, then whence cometh evil? God is good because he wisely provides everyone with intellect to have a meaningful life, and free will to work it out. God is also merciful in allowing the critters' free will to reign for their lifetime. Indeed, that's what makes the will free; it's its rational definition! God is generous in giving such life with free will to everyone impartially, both to the good and to the evil beings.

From the absolute point of view, only God exists and the world is His glory. From the individual point of view, many go after the glory and thus forget God. The result is evil. Spiritual people choose God over the glory, which in turn leads to good fruits. In spiritual metaphysics, God is the light of the world, and hell is the shadow cast by the world. Hell is not directly God's doing, but an inevitable result proportionate to one's affirmation of the world over God. More comments on the problem of evil https://thedndsanctuary.eu/index.php?topic=33.msg9063#msg9063

Now you know the game. Or should. If you still don't get it, then all I said in the humour thread is ridiculously true. But even so there's still hope. String here has said is a PhD in philosophy and can perhaps share from his authoritative knowledge base in a didactical way.

  • Barulheira
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion
Reply #395

God is a logically necessary metaphysical foundation of everything for intellectuals who see or seek reason and rationality everywhere.

I couldn't agree more. :rolleyes:

  • Belfrager
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion
Reply #396
- Instead of atomism or emergentism (forms of physicalist theory), I hold to the continuum theory.

You're probably right but we'll have a lot of difficulty if we want to defend to a general public the existence of God based at the continuum theory.

I find the continuum theory very much something that either is a monumental fallacy (a fallacy that I can't identify because it seems to me to make sense in everything and to be a much more "pure" model) or a revolutionary truth.
So revolutionary that it affects the entire way how humans sees the world.

But if so, it will change linguistic and philosophical concepts necessarily. By so, it will affect sociology and psychology. It will affect our understanding of History, it will literally change the past. It will even change sex, I suppose...

The world human beings created was not modeled by the continuum theory but by several evolutions of the atomistic perception.
As a conservative, I think that's too soon to spread continuum from the closed world of physician's labs and spread it to the general world.
People don't get it and people don't need it.

It will be impossible to make a coherent liaison, a bridge, between both "atomic and continuum God(s)" for the established religions.

By the way, your explanation about it is better and more concise than many science or philosophy vulgarization books or wikipedia's articles. I strongly recommend our DnD colleagues to re-read it again.

Finally, with the continuum there will be no more any distinction between physics and philosophy. We'll get the Unified Theory of Knowledge. :)
A matter of attitude.

  • ersi
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion
Reply #397

I find the continuum theory very much something that either is a monumental fallacy (a fallacy that I can't identify because it seems to me to make sense in everything and to be a much more "pure" model) or a revolutionary truth.
So revolutionary that it affects the entire way how humans sees the world.

Really? Have you even read your Bible? Oops, I remembered that you consider it an obsession. Then you will simply have to take my word on it. Continuum theory is not some new revolutionary thing. Instead, it's the original thing. And it's not going to change the sciences and the society to something new, but provides an opportunity to get back to the normal.


The world human beings created was not modeled by the continuum theory but by several evolutions of the atomistic perception.

False. Just take my word on it. Continuum theory is the original basis of science, has always been undeterred in metaphysics and mathematics, and has returned in physics as electromagnetism gained more interest and quantum mechanics was developed. Continuum theory is both the ultimate source and end of it all. Atomism was a temporary aberration.

And no, this is not the reason that converted me. Continuum theory is what I always held, because it always worked. It's universally applicable in all circumstances despite atomists' insistence to the contrary. It's possible to be converted by connecting the dots, but this is not what converted me. However, when talking to outsiders, it makes more sense to talk in terms that allow connecting some dots.

  • Belfrager
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion
Reply #398
I'm afraid that your continuum post wasn't enough to reply to the dot-points my dot- post made. :)
Too much semantics for too less substrate.

But this is a discussion very worthy. I'll get back later after finishing more prosaic business.
A matter of attitude.

  • ersi
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion
Reply #399
In math, there's an infinite amount of dots on an infinitely long line. Also there's an infinite amount of dots on a finite line. How does this compute? The dots are imaginary, that's how.

If the dots are imaginary, then what is undeniably true or real? That wherein you imagine the dots, that is undeniably true. That where you draw the lines to connect the dots, that is real all along no matter how you draw the lines to build structure. The substance (or substrate, as you say) wherein we do semantics - that is undeniable. It's the absolute continuum, beyond formulation, yet it's the logically undeniable background of everything. It's both inevitable and self-evident.