Originally posted by AutokratThat's as ignorant as me saying all philosophy majors are insecure mental masturbaters based on my experience of two classes. Yes I realize I've said it but I'm pointing out the ignorance in both my posts and yours.
Their religious fundamentalist bizzaro people that consider me a degenerate pig.And you people wonder why I have a really hard time being objective with religion.
Now they are fighting on ice and it continues to win.Is it bad that I've picked a side?
Nope. I'm on the final fantasy side.
only if the side youve picked doesnt have tifa or yuna (chick in blac, chick with two guns) on it.i liked dead fantasy 1. DF2 sucked though imo.
Both Tifa and Yuna are awesome sauce. Tifa in DF5 is the best thing ever. And I think DF2 is the best one.
Having never played Final Fantasy, am I wrong in thinking that the little glowing spheres falling out of her are magic or health?
Yeah, magic or techniques etc.
Originally posted by Borbarad
Well...Maybe I can explain that to you.
That kind of thought-experiments (e.g. "Define LOVE"😉 are just there to teach students a different method of thinking. In everyday life, there isn't much reason to define the feeling (or subconscious processes) related to the term "love". Yet, that kind of exercise is needed to get into more complex subjects. One could also say it develops the ability to think "outside the box" that might lead to a better understanding of certain subjects.Of course, in terms of everyday live, most of that experiments are pretty much meaningless. That also applies to a workout at the gym, but that set of muscles you get there might help you in other situations. 😉
That's the point. Following the theory of determinism, there is just one possible choice for every human, that said human has to take. So there isn't any "free will" involved.
Well. I think our look on the topic differs - or rather than that, we're talking about different topics in this very situation.
Determinism states that everything follows from a set of conditions. It basically states that certain conditions force you to act in a certain way. So you don't have any choice. If you follow that "backwards" - and believe in determinsm - than God [ultimately] created all conditions, means he forces you to take a certain decission.
If you have a free will, he can't force you to decide in a certain way. It's all up to you - and not happening because of the mentioned conditions. But if that's true, than we always have - at least - two different possible outcomes for every possible decission - and that's indeterminism.
Yes. This is what it should be like. But if determinism is correct, than the line of conditions God created himself led - without a choice - to them being cast out of paradise. In a determined world, they never had a real choice to obey or not. From there, either God must be a rather sadistic ******* [which I don't belive] or determinism doesn't work.
Because if everything is predetermined by God, I don't have a choice but to follow a way that he has already determined for me. So why I would think that I make choices, I would always be acting according to his plan for me. And provided that he is in "control" of all conditions that I would meet prior to choices, he can control my choices. That would be the illusion of a free will, even if I would perceive it as "true" free will.
Still God himself would know better. And if that's the case, a whole lot of things doesn't make sense. If I can't decide wheather to break his laws or not, because he has predetermined if I will do so, than it wouldn't make any sense for him to punish me for my "wrongdoing", as he would be the cause of that wrongdoing.
Bottom line: "Free will" and determinism can't be combined in a logical fashion. Hence the corresponding theories mentioned earlier in this thread try to create a combination of both appear to be wrong, unless there is a reality determined according to every possible choice (and combination of choices) that can be made.
But then I'd have to ask, why God [or the universe, or natural laws, or whatever] would work in such a strange fashion...
I appreciate the enlightening post as I've learned much from the logical perspective.
I had a discussion about this with my Rabbi today and it was very interesting. His first question to me was "Can God create a rock he can't lift"? Rather, that was his short answer to "can God be omniscient and allow us to still have free will." He then said that the first problem with philosophers or anyone to produce rational thought regarding God, is just that. You can't put human limitations or logic on God, otherwise he wouldn't be God. The very fact that he is God/omniscient means we can't accurately describe what he is. The only thing we can do is describe what God is not, which I believe is called "negative theology" created by the Rambam, and I'll have to look at that. So yes, God can create a rock that he can't lift, AND he can lift it. God knows with certainly what we are going to choose yet he allows us to make those choices AND we can change our destiny.
If you strictly adhere to logic and don't believe in God or a higher power, then you and Veneficus are completely right and I can't argue with that. But I was blown away by the rebuttals and that's the first thing I should have noticed. It isn't logical to apply logic to God..
I'll need to dissect this.
Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
I appreciate the enlightening post as I've learned much from the logical perspective.I had a discussion about this with my Rabbi today and it was very interesting. His first question to me was "Can God create a rock he can't lift"? Rather, that was his short answer to "can God be omniscient and allow us to still have free will."
We've determined that the God being used in this example is both capable of anything and all knowing. The illusion of humans having a choice independent of determining factors like natural laws and cause and effect has no bearing whatsoever on God's true nature.
Look at it this way - if you have five movies to watch, movies which you know from beginning to end and you present them to a friend. Four of them are kid's films of poor quality, and the fifth one is an action movie starring his favorite actor, one which he has not seen before, is it not logical that his first choice is the action movie?
Let's take that a step further. Let's say for the purpose of the argument that you possess very specific supernatural knowledge of the future, and you've divined that your friend will pick the movie. By presenting him with those options, are you not determining his future? To bring that logic another step further, if God creates all variables which are posed to Man and creates Man's nature through very specific, natural rules, does it not stand to reason that he has predetermined all choices by virtue of knowing all variables and presenting very specific ones to his pets?
The only other explanation you can offer is that free will exists in a void beyond the reach of God. I don't see how you can defend this argument.
He then said that the first problem with philosophers or anyone to produce rational thought regarding God, is just that. You can't put human limitations or logic on God, otherwise he wouldn't be God. The very fact that he is God/omniscient means we can't accurately describe what he is.
This is not a surprising argument from a religious man. They tend to build entire organizations on the idea of "it's beyond reason, to not try to understand it; just embrace it" ideology. Let me attempt again a very basic way of illustrating the error with this:
A. All sound arguments have logical form, or else they are opinions which do not bear any proof or truth value unless they happen to match up with established valid arguments by accident.
B. Human knowledge is defined by its ability to discover more about the world through demonstration of observation and rational thinking and organizing. The two ideas comprise all of knowledge. Anything outside of these two scopes is not knowledge.
C. Since there is no contradicting empirical evidence, a sound rational argument is the only requirement to present a valid argument.
D. The concept of "omnipotent", while difficult to envision for humans because of our limited powers and scope, is not a term which transcends rationality. It poses a problem for clear definitions, because the term appears contradictory. However, if you assume that God has an established identity and has goals and agendas, it stands to reason that having the ability to contradict himself is never an issue. If God cannot lift the rock, it is because he wills not to do it, not because he is incapable.
E. Since God can still be all powerful and yet not inclined to counter balance his own power, and no other entity can be identified that could act as his balance, God's power remains unchecked, period. This means that he can still maintain the identify of unbridled power but not suffer a paradox simply by existing.
Thus you can still conclude that God is all powerful, but does not exist in two conflicting natures simultaneously; he does not both lift and press down on the rock in the same instance, because he chooses to use his powers for specific goals. The idea of the omnipotent being who deliberately contradicts themselves is silly; that entity would be not worth consideration.
The only thing we can do is describe what God is not, which I believe is called "negative theology" created by the Rambam, and I'll have to look at that. So yes, God can create a rock that he can't lift, AND he can lift it. God knows with certainly what we are going to choose yet he allows us to make those choices AND we can change our destiny.
You can't have your cake and eat it too. No, this is faulty. While God has the power to do any one task he puts his mind to, it is irrational to conclude that he, a sentient being (which means he has subjective feelings and perceptions!), exists in complete conflict with his own desires, to the point at which he contradicts his own laws - rationality. For if God did create everything, he created the very tool with which we evaluate his works.
Furthermore, this does not eliminate the idea of God being a determining factor for all human choices. God > all. All > individual human choice. Ergo, God > human choice. It's grossly over simplified, but the bottom line is that God - by definition - is powerful enough to make all the rules humans are defined by. Thus he makes us and our destinies.
If you strictly adhere to logic and don't believe in God or a higher power, then you and Veneficus are completely right and I can't argue with that. But I was blown away by the rebuttals and that's the first thing I should have noticed. It isn't logical to apply logic to God..
Nonsense, it isn't logical to eschew logic just to satisfy one's need to believe. If I believe that there's a green midget on the moon who kidnaps children, but his powers are beyond what I perceive to be the threshold of reason, that does not immediately mean he exists exactly as I perceive him, or at all.
Originally posted by Andrew Ryan
Look at it this way - if you have five movies to watch, movies which you know from beginning to end and you present them to a friend. Four of them are kid's films of poor quality, and the fifth one is an action movie starring his favorite actor, one which he has not seen before, is it not logical that his first choice is the action movie?
Let's take that a step further. Let's say for the purpose of the argument that you possess very specific supernatural knowledge of the future, and you've divined that your friend will pick the movie. By presenting him with those options, are you not determining his future? To bring that logic another step further, if God creates all variables which are posed to Man and creates Man's nature through very specific, natural rules, does it not stand to reason that he has predetermined all choices by virtue of knowing all variables and presenting very specific ones to his pets?
This is not a surprising argument from a religious man. They tend to build entire organizations on the idea of "it's beyond reason, to not try to understand it; just embrace it" ideology. Let me attempt again a very basic way of illustrating the error with this:
A. All sound arguments have logical form, or else they are opinions which do not bear any proof or truth value unless they happen to match up with established valid arguments by accident.
B. Human knowledge is defined by its ability to discover more about the world through demonstration of observation and rational thinking and organizing. The two ideas comprise all of knowledge. Anything outside of these two scopes is not knowledge.
C. Since there is no contradicting empirical evidence, a sound rational argument is the only requirement to present a valid argument.
D. The concept of "omnipotent", while difficult to envision for humans because of our limited powers and scope, is not a term which transcends rationality. It poses a problem for clear definitions, because the term appears contradictory. However, if you assume that God has an established identity and has goals and agendas, it stands to reason that having the ability to contradict himself is never an issue. If God cannot lift the rock, it is because he wills not to do it, not because he is incapable.
Thus you can still conclude that God is all powerful, but does not exist in two conflicting natures simultaneously; he does not both lift and press down on the rock in the same instance, because he chooses to use his powers for specific goals. The idea of the omnipotent being who deliberately contradicts themselves is silly; that entity would be not worth consideration.
You can't have your cake and eat it too. No, this is faulty. While God has the power to do any one task he puts his mind to, it is irrational to conclude that he, a sentient being (which means he has subjective feelings and perceptions!), exists in complete conflict with his own desires, to the point at which he contradicts his own laws - rationality. For if God did create everything, he created the very tool with which we evaluate his works.
Furthermore, this does not eliminate the idea of God being a determining factor for all human choices. God > all. All > individual human choice. Ergo, God > human choice. It's grossly over simplified, but the bottom line is that God - by definition - is powerful enough to make all the rules humans are defined by. Thus he makes us and our destinies.
Nonsense, it isn't logical to eschew logic just to satisfy one's need to believe. If I believe that there's a green midget on the moon who kidnaps children, but his powers are beyond what I perceive to be the threshold of reason, that does not immediately mean he exists exactly as I perceive him, or at all. [/B]
And if I try to introduce logic to the idea of omniscience, I'm not actually refuting the concept of an omniscient and omnipotent being, I just think I am through what I perceive to be rational thinking.
The principle, which inspired his philosophical activity, was identical with the fundamental tenet of Scholasticism: there can be no contradiction between the truths which God has revealed, and the findings of the human mind in science and philosophy. Maimonides primarily relied upon the science of Aristotle and the teachings of the Talmud, commonly finding basis in the former for the latter. In some important points, however, he departed from the teaching of Aristotle; for instance, he rejected the Aristotelian doctrine that God's provident care extends only to humanity, and not to the individual.Maimonides was led by his admiration for the neo-Platonic commentators to maintain many doctrines which the Scholastics could not accept. For instance, Maimonides was an adherent of "negative theology" (also known as "Apophatic theology".) In this theology, one attempts to describe God through negative attributes. For instance, one should not say that God exists in the usual sense of the term; all we can safely say is that God is not non-existent. We should not say that "God is wise"; but we can say that "God is not ignorant," i.e. in some way, God has some properties of knowledge. We should not say that "God is One," but we can state that "there is no multiplicity in God's being." In brief, the attempt is to gain and express knowledge of God by describing what God is not; rather than by describing what God "is."
The Scholastics agreed with him that no predicate is adequate to express the nature of God; but they did not go so far as to say that no term can be applied to God in the affirmative sense. They admitted that while "eternal," "omnipotent," etc., as we apply them to God, are inadequate, at the same time we may say "God is eternal" etc., and need not stop, as Maimonides did, with the negative "God is not not-eternal," etc. In essence what Maimonides wanted to express is that when people give God anthropomorphic qualities they do not explain anything more of what God is, because we cannot know anything of the essence of God.
Maimonides' use of apophatic theology is not unique to this time period or to Judaism. For example, Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite and Maximus the Confessor, Eastern Christian theologians, developed apophatic theology for Christianity nearly 900 years earlier. See Negative theology for uses in other religions.
This is not something that can be proved or disproved no matter how hard you try. It's a matter of belief/faith.
That was a quick reply.
Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Again, you're calling God omniscient and omnipresent, and then claiming he abides by human rationale and logic.
Actually, I'm saying that God is only knowable by means of human rationale and logic, and that God obviously created that framework. Think of it this way - IF God created the natural universe and all its workings and laws, THEN it stands to reason that he created logic and rationality because it is the defining method of knowing the universe. If some other method exists, we cannot know it. Ergo, it is not worth consideration. Anything outside of reason cannot be justified or falsified, it becomes fancy.
Saying God is within all scopes of human understand is one thing; obviously we may never be able to observe him directly or if we can, our view may be limited. But saying God is beyond any kind of human speculation or rationalizing is another. You're drawing a definite line that God is unknowable even though we describe him in human rational terms. That's just silly.
Furthermore, God is apparently not above rational concepts like "Good" and "creation" and "protection", "miracles", etc. So apparently he operates like a sentient (read: subjective, goal-oriented being) puppet master but is still somehow beyond human comprehension.
At what point do you just stop trying to understand?
I think you missed the whole point of my example. Nowhere did I say "just embrace it". The fact of the matter is you can't believe in a being who exists outside of our intellectual capacities, and then throw human terminology and limitations on him.
You haven't defined how God is outside of human intellectual capacities. Since all evidence of God exists theoretically (there's no empirical evidence), we may as well be arguing the color of a far-flung moon. Reason can be applied to all sorts of concepts, and the whole point of applying rational thought is to come closer to understanding reality when direct observation is impossible or incomplete.
Because you have arbitrarily decided to remove God from the realm of the understandable to the unknowable does not make it so.
You're SUPPOSED to question it, that's the whole point. And the answer is "he can do something and he can't." This is why philosophy and religion don't mix. You can sit there and claim to think rationally and logically and through your human logic you can conclude that a God does not exist. What you CAN'T do is claim the former, and then use that to describe what God is.So apparently all philosophy is mutually exclusive with religion? I think you're generalizing here. Philosophy is a field of questioning things and trying to find truth. Those who take philosophy courses will also cover some religious texts and evaluate them. Of course, religious people seldom evaluate anything without placing it under a lens of dogma, so the methods used by both are vastly different.
Considering philosophy has to do with evaluating concepts that are important like "logic", "knowledge", "truth" "validity" and "soundness", I can see why some may be opposed to independent thought when they can just bury their heads in the sand like an ostrich.
In any case, I think your reasoning leaves much to be desired. I'm seeing a lot of baseless assertions, but nothing concrete.
[quote]Which has little to do with religion seeing as how religion is mostly faith based.
Faith = lacking in any kind of observation or rational basis. In other words, if I believe there's a sea serpent in the public pool despite all evidence to the contrary, no one can attack my argument because it's "faith-based".
But as I'm continuously describing, arguing about God in terms of human logic is a flawed argument to begin with.
Saying and providing adequate arguments are two different things.
Except that the "valid" argument fails yet again when you try to debate God through a "logical" standpoint, placing human terminology on an omniscient being.
Omniscient is a human term. When you can tell me how it's not a human term that can be reasonably evaluated, please be so kind as to demonstrate that knowledge and not just assert it blindly.
If God exists everywhere and yet nowhere, if God knows the past and the future, than that pretty much exists rationality as it pertains to humans, does it not?
Since when are we arguing God as a pure contradiction? Are you aware of definitions? What definition of "omniscient", "omnipotent", and "omnipresent" implies being everywhere and nowhere which is a contradiction? If you intend to argue without knowing what it is you're arguing with or against, please push yourself away from the computer and seek help. Or better yet, schooling.
That's your opinion, based on so called "rational" thought. The idea that an omnipotent being has any limitations or that we can pretend to understand what's going on in God's mind or the rationale of an omnipotent being, is even more silly.
None of the definitions you've used have been beyond reasonable arguments nor human definition. I'll ask plainly: prove your stance with something other than assertions.
And yet again, it's irrational to debate the motives of an omnipotent being through human understanding.
So your argument is that God is a contradiction? Because omnipotent = contradiction? Do you have any understanding of how omnipotent is properly defined?
Merriam-Webster Online DictionaryMain Entry: 1om·nip·o·tent
Pronunciation: \-tənt\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin omnipotent-, omnipotens, from omni- + potent-, potens potent
Date: 14th century
1 often capitalized : almighty 1 < This links to God
2 : having virtually unlimited authority or influence <an omnipotent ruler> This is the relevant definition.
3 obsolete : arrant
— om·nip·o·tent·ly adverb
Dictionary.com is the same thing: powerful, infinite, almighty, God. Notice what is missing: "contradiction". You can find a contradiction in application of the term, but this does not mean conclusively that said contradiction exists in nature. You can argue that a cowboy came into town on Sunday and left three days later on Sunday without knowing it's his horse's name.
Context is important. A conditional: IF God is all powerful AND God is sentient THEN it stands to reason he would not contradict himself with the full extent of his seemingly endless powers.
Your argument is: IF God is all powerful, THEN rock scenario occurs and he contradicts himself, ERGO God cannot be knowable.
And yet, we are able to change our destiny, even though God KNOWS the choice we are going to make. God KNEW Adam and Eve would sin, but he gave them the power to change their destiny.
1. Show me an argument which demonstrates how humans change their destiny without being effected by God's work.
2. To build on that argument, tell me how humans are uncaused by the First Mover, God.
3. While you're building that argument, demonstrate to me how humans make choices in a void which is not effected by God, the universe, or their own personal limitations which are predetermined.
4. If you have successfully done this, melt down your Nobel Prize Award and make the Perpetual Motion.
And if I try to introduce logic to the idea of omniscience, I'm not actually refuting the concept of an omniscient and omnipotent being, I just think I am through what I perceive to be rational thinking.
So in other words your viewpoint is lacking, therefore logic is invalid? Poor show.
Originally posted by Andrew RyanActually, I'm saying that God is only knowable by means of human rationale and logic, and that God obviously created that framework. Think of it this way - IF God created the natural universe and all its workings and laws, THEN it stands to reason that he created logic and rationality because it is the defining method of knowing the universe. If some other method exists, we cannot know it. Ergo, it is not worth consideration. Anything outside of reason cannot be justified or falsified, it becomes fancy.
Saying God is within all scopes of human understand is one thing; obviously we may never be able to observe him directly or if we can, our view may be limited. But saying God is beyond any kind of human speculation or rationalizing is another. You're drawing a definite line that God is unknowable even though we describe him in human rational terms. That's just silly.
Furthermore, God is apparently not above rational concepts like "Good" and "creation" and "protection", "miracles", etc. So apparently he operates like a sentient (read: subjective, goal-oriented being) puppet master but is still somehow beyond human comprehension.At what point do you just stop trying to understand?
You haven't defined how God is outside of human intellectual capacities. Since all evidence of God exists theoretically (there's no empirical evidence), we may as well be arguing the color of a far-flung moon. Reason can be applied to all sorts of concepts, and the whole point of applying rational thought is to come closer to understanding reality when direct observation is impossible or incomplete.
1. You haven't explained how God CAN be defined by human capacities. You've tried to define him but you haven't shown how fallible humans can logically or reasonably define an all knowing, all powerful being, other than arrogance.
2. You've yet to explain how reason can be applied to a theoretical, omnipotent being, other than stating that it can.
Because you have arbitrarily decided to remove God from the realm of the understandable to the unknowable does not make it so.
Faith = lacking in any kind of observation or rational basis. In other words, if I believe there's a sea serpent in the public pool despite all evidence to the contrary, no one can attack my argument because it's "faith-based".
Saying and providing adequate arguments are two different things.
Omniscient is a human term. When you can tell me how it's not a human term that can be reasonably evaluated, please be so kind as to demonstrate that knowledge and not just assert it blindly.
Since when are we arguing God as a pure contradiction? Are you aware of definitions? What definition of "omniscient", "omnipotent", and "omnipresent" implies being everywhere and nowhere which is a contradiction? If you intend to argue without knowing what it is you're arguing with or against, please push yourself away from the computer and seek help. Or better yet, schooling.
None of the definitions you've used have been beyond reasonable arguments nor human definition. I'll ask plainly: prove your stance with something other than assertions.
So your argument is that God is a contradiction? Because omnipotent = contradiction? Do you have any understanding of how omnipotent is properly defined?
A deity is able to do absolutely anything, even the logically impossible.
I can use that definition alone to refute your whole nonsensical argument. I wouldn't need to though since you're constantly trying to flex intellectual nuts(and failing) by trying to use logic and reason discussing a theoretical higher power.
Context is important. A conditional: IF God is all powerful AND God is sentient THEN it stands to reason he would not contradict himself with the full extent of his seemingly endless powers.
Your argument is: IF God is all powerful, THEN rock scenario occurs and he contradicts himself, ERGO God cannot be knowable.
1. Show me an argument which demonstrates how humans change their destiny without being effected by God's work.
3. While you're building that argument, demonstrate to me how humans make choices in a void which is not effected by God, the universe, or their own personal limitations which are predetermined.
4. If you have successfully done this, melt down your Nobel Prize Award and make the Perpetual Motion.
So in other words your viewpoint is lacking, therefore logic is invalid? Poor show. [/B]
Yes.. Says the guy who tries to use human reason to define God, and a faith based system. Poor showing indeed. Thanks for playing.
Originally posted by Andrew Ryan
There's an invisible man on the moon who created mankind and loves Cheerios.Disprove, please. [/B]
My, you're failing at a rapid pace. This is what happens when you spend more time trying to sound like an intellectual, and less time making a sound argument. Since you said "man", that implies that a human made other human beings. It also would contradict the whole retarded notion, since a human can't create mankind. And finally, a man can't breathe on the moon because it lacks oxygen. Again, thanks for playing🙂
This is why philosophy and religion don't mix. You can sit there and claim to think rationally and logically and through your human logic you can conclude that a God does not exist. What you CAN'T do is claim the former, and then use that to describe what God is.
DS, I think you've finally said something I can agree with.
The root of the matter is that you've decided (or have been brought up to decide) that there is a criteria that is more important than rationality. For all of the words that have been thrown at each side by the other, the most progress I've ever seen is this-- the admission that belief in God is not rational. In fact, the word admission is too loaded a word. More like recognition, or even awareness.
I don't know if the ability to abandon (or, with a less-charged phrase, set aside) rationality is one that should be lauded. It seems like knowing that would settle the issue once and for all. What I do know is that a quote recently put up onto my facebook speaks to the issue quite nicely:
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into.
So when DS says "God is" and I say "prove it," he is not operating from a position where conventional Burden of Proof applies.
I don't think this makes theistic reasoning any less vacuous or its platform any more appealing, but it is, at the very least, consistently vacuous and unappealing. As I've said before, the long-lifespan of many present-day religions has afforded them time to iron out many inconsistencies. (For all practical purposes, at least.) That consistency may not make them true, but from what I've gathered that isn't exactly the point.
Spoiler:
(This is essentially NOMA where theism stays the hell out of my way.)