Root of all evil
Pages
| Author | Topic: Root of all evil |
|---|---|
|
Shock Trooper
Member # 156
|
written Wednesday, February 9 2005 05:00
Profile
I was going to give a standard reply to Thuryl's latest but Bad-Ass-Mother-Custer did much better with an economy of words(something I REALLY need to work on) so basically..."What HE said." Except I WILL add that observation DOES come before hypothesizing in the SM because you cannot hypothesize without first observing(try it. I can guarantee all hypothesis you come up with have their roots in your frame of reference as an observer). You cannot really even THINK without being able to observe in some sense. quote:But all consciousness IS brain activity(more below). quote:Not entirely true. Cosnciousness is not a single "thing" to which there is a single corresponding area of the brain that produces it. It is a complex of chemical reactions/emotions, experiences, knowledge, intellect, perception etc. quote:See above and I disagree with your assertion that it is not useful to define consciousness as purely physical manifestations. quote:No, no, no...it is like defining gravity as a property emergent from MATTER(not "mass"). If there were no matter, there would be no "gravity". If there were no brains, there would be no consciousness. quote:Consciousness = sentience = awareness = activity of brained things and dependent on the existence of brains. All of the above are accurate. quote:I refered to your example of a God that was not logically inconsistent which fit, to a 'T' the "God of ambiguity" example I gave. You refused to define the "God" in any way that would allow me to scrutinise it and determine whetyher it could be logically consistent or not. I did not intend any offense by it but I do see what you are saying and I apologise for the seemingly snide invocations. [ Wednesday, February 09, 2005 05:01: Message edited by: SkeleTony ] -------------------- "I am in a very peculiar business. I travel all over the world telling people what they should already know." - James Randi Posts: 219 | Registered: Saturday, October 13 2001 07:00 |
|
Shock Trooper
Member # 156
|
written Wednesday, February 9 2005 05:38
Profile
quote:Objectively? No. it is not. Subjectively? Maybe. The point is that whether you find the question intriguiging or not does not necessarily lend crerdence to the views he(or I) is espousing with regards to reality. It is not the question that is problematic for ME...it is his ANSWER. quote:Say that 'A' = "This geometric shape has angles." Not 'A' then = "This geomtric shape has NO angles." Something cannot both HAVE angles adn NOT have angles at the same time. SOmething cannot be both 'A' and 'Not A'. Any concept of a transcendent God I have ever heard(and I assert WILL ever hear) which is not so ambiguous as to be useless, is one which is somehow both 'A' and 'Not A'. The Christian God, Yahweh/Jehova for example is omniscient and yet has free will and grants US free will(a logical impossibility). He is "all merciful" and yet omniJUST(again a logical imnpossibility). He is omnipresent AND omnibenevolent, yet "evil" exists!? Theists try to escape the conundrum by asserting their god's "transcendent nature". They claim that, since he is "beyond" the constraints of physical reality(time, nature, etc.), he cannot be held to the standards by which we measure existent things of our universe(planets, animals etc.). Problem is that, in order to exist within THIS universe a thing MUST necessarily be bound by the physical laws which govern it unless these physical laws themselves do not exist. If God can, on a whim decide to move faster than the speed of light or cause anything else to do so, then what grounds does such a restriction/barrier exist? We have no reason to think God will not allow our rocketships to travel FTL towards other solar systems. We have no grounds to assume that gravity is real since God could snap his proverbial fingers in two seconds and we would all be 2 dimensional entities in some plane of geometric existence(Re: "Flatlanders"). In other words NOTHING is "impossible" so even the idea that I am 50% likely to be born as I am dying or that I can move towards you while getting further away are all equally worthy of consideration. quote:It does not. A painting is not a free willed, sentient entity. It is a visual representation of a (creative) idea. Read the book Flatland(free online. Do a Google for it). In it there is a universe of just two dimensions wherein these sentient 2d entities("squares", "circles" etc.) exist. One day, a 3dimensional "sphere" passes through their universe but he appears just as a 2D "circle which grows then shrinks before vanishing which is entirely conssitent with the laws of "Flatland". Then "Sphere" decides one day to grab "Square" and show him the reality of the 3D universe outside his own. When he takes "Square" into 3D space, "Square" of course becomes "Cube" because one cannot remain bound by constraints which do not exist. When "Cube" eventaully returns to "Flatland" and becomes, once again, a "Square", he is unable to explain his experiences outside of Flatland to the other shapes. It is all gibberish and nonsense because they have no frame of reference to understand what he is saying and as he has become, once again bound by the physical laws of Flatland and 2D existence, he himself cannot make sense. The point being made by the author is that we cannot say 'X' exists without being a part of 'X's reality(in this case Gods ourselves) OR 'X' becoming part of OUR reality(God becoming natural and mortal and mundane). Without this frame of refernce, saying "X(re:God) exists" makes no more sense than saying "Gibbleslotch varga7es!" -------------------- "I am in a very peculiar business. I travel all over the world telling people what they should already know." - James Randi Posts: 219 | Registered: Saturday, October 13 2001 07:00 |
|
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
|
written Wednesday, February 9 2005 05:53
Profile
Homepage
I am a bit bothered by your idea that any concept of a god outside of the omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent one is too vague to be useful, since it seems to be entirely based on your own desire not to think about such a thing. You have not refuted it; you have simply refused to deal with it. At any rate, I'm bored, so I guess I'm done here. -------------------- Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens. Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00 |
|
Shock Trooper
Member # 156
|
written Wednesday, February 9 2005 06:17
Profile
quote:I am sorry this bothers you. DO you have a God concept that refutes this idea? EDIT: Also, this is a strawman. I never said that any god-concept outside the tri-omni one was necessarily too vague to be useful. [ Wednesday, February 09, 2005 06:19: Message edited by: SkeleTony ] -------------------- "I am in a very peculiar business. I travel all over the world telling people what they should already know." - James Randi Posts: 219 | Registered: Saturday, October 13 2001 07:00 |
|
By Committee
Member # 4233
|
written Wednesday, February 9 2005 07:47
Profile
quote:Thank you for this reference - this book is very intriguing. Doesn't the example this text sets actually refute the entire basis for your assertion that God can't both exist and be logically impossible? That WE CAN'T say X exists without being a part of X's reality does not equal X CANNOT EXIST. The sphere could enter and leave the two-dimensional world at will, a seemingly impossible feat - could not the same thing occur within the three-dimensional world along a fourth dimension? What the author illustrates is not the all-binding nature of the rules but our own limits of perception. I assert that just because we cannot observe/comprehend a fourth dimension does not mean that that dimension cannot exist. [ Wednesday, February 09, 2005 07:59: Message edited by: Andrew Miller ] Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00 |
|
Shock Trooper
Member # 156
|
written Thursday, February 10 2005 05:33
Profile
quote:You misunderstand. The "sphere" could ONLY interact with the 2D world as a 2D entity. It effectively had NO 3rd dimension when doing so. What's more, no one in "Flatland" could possibly percieve the "Sphere" as anything but another "Circle". To apply this to "God", if a God were interacting with OUR reality he would be indistinguishable from another mortal human(or, theoretically some other type of sentient animal life). UNLESS...We somehow became part of GOD's reality(re: became gods ourselves). -------------------- "I am in a very peculiar business. I travel all over the world telling people what they should already know." - James Randi Posts: 219 | Registered: Saturday, October 13 2001 07:00 |
|
Guardian
Member # 2476
|
written Thursday, February 10 2005 06:16
Profile
I know 'Flatland', though it's been a while that I've read it. quote:The third dimension - our world - is aware of the second and first, as our reality contains and surpasses them both. The same would probably be true for a fourth, fifth, sixth dimension. What we know as our world would be embedded in and be part of a larger reality that we cannot imagine. And if that multi-dimensional consciousness at the end of the ladder (if there is an end) is what we call by the name of 'God', then certainly we are part of it and its reality, just as the first and second dimensions are part of ours. -------------------- Polaris Posts: 1828 | Registered: Saturday, January 11 2003 08:00 |
|
Shock Trooper
Member # 156
|
written Thursday, February 10 2005 08:11
Profile
quote:Completely irrelevant. The question is NOT whether God can say that we exist. It is whether WE can say that God exists. The claim is nonsensical because God would have to be indistinguishable from other mundanities(Maybe Koresh WAS God?) OR we would have to become God-like ourselves. -------------------- "I am in a very peculiar business. I travel all over the world telling people what they should already know." - James Randi Posts: 219 | Registered: Saturday, October 13 2001 07:00 |
|
By Committee
Member # 4233
|
written Thursday, February 10 2005 09:06
Profile
That something is indescribable != impossible. I really don't think citing "Flatland" as an example is helping your case. At best, it demonstrates that while we're incapable (currently) of perceiving/describing a "higher" order/additional dimension, a "higher" order/dimension could exist. This was my point with the blind person analogy way back when. [ Thursday, February 10, 2005 10:10: Message edited by: Andrew Miller ] Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00 |
|
Shock Trooper
Member # 156
|
written Thursday, February 10 2005 13:05
Profile
quote:You're still not getting what I am saying(and the "Blind man analogy" was a false one as has been demonstrated). The assertion that "God MAY exist(somehow)." is on par with saying "Snozzwoggler may exist". If you leave it at that it is, at best, a worthless/meaningless assertion. I do not have to prove or disprove it because it is vacuous. But when you try and define "God" is when you run into the problems I have mentioned a dozen or more times now. Either you describe something that, by your own definition, CANNOT exist in any way that would be meaningful(i.e. God could exist as just another human and therefore be indistinguishable from any human claiming to be God such as David Koresh OR he is "GOd" adn we are ALSO "Gods" and so are able to comprehend this "higher dimension") OR you describe something that is natural and we already have a name for(i.e. the Sun). -------------------- "I am in a very peculiar business. I travel all over the world telling people what they should already know." - James Randi Posts: 219 | Registered: Saturday, October 13 2001 07:00 |
|
By Committee
Member # 4233
|
written Friday, February 11 2005 06:41
Profile
I assert that people don't have the perceptive capability necessary to make such determinations, and it follows that what a person can't perceive he can't describe. Given that our logic relies on our capacity for observation (currently in three dimensions + time), it is thus doomed to failure because we (currently) can't observe a fourth (or other) dimension. Logic, when applied to matters of additional dimensions, will return a result of nonsense, "undefined," or what have you, because our logic is a tool rooted in our context. I think therefore that logic doesn't rule out that other dimensions could exist, so much as demonstrate that it, based on a ruleset of three dimensions + time, is the wrong tool for the job. I can't prove that another dimension exists. You, hovever, for the same reason cannot prove that it does not exist. "Nonsense" is not the same thing as "false." Given this inability to observe another dimension, I think the best answer we have right now is: "We don't know." Your stance seems to me to be that what we can observe - three dimensions & time - is the absolute limit of existence. Because you are incapable of proving or disproving this, however, this assertion is "nonsense" in kind; in other words, a belief. That to me seems short-sighted. And so I propose a god that exists not only in our three dimensional + time context, but also in another dimensional sense that we cannot prove or disprove. This god could be omnipotent or very nearly so, perhaps not omniscient but omnipresent, able to observe and touch our world, moving in and out of it along this other dimension just as Sphere used height to move in and out of Flatland. I cannot prove this god exists; you cannot disprove it. [ Friday, February 11, 2005 06:45: Message edited by: Andrew Miller ] Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00 |
|
Apprentice
Member # 5489
|
written Friday, February 11 2005 06:49
Profile
The root of all evil is: Lack of self-knowledge/lack of capacity for self-reflection. In other words, the inability or unwillingness to reflect critically and honestly about one's own actions and motivations. [ Friday, February 11, 2005 06:52: Message edited by: Verloc ] -------------------- "What we can say with confidence is that Rome fell gradually--and that Romans, for many decades, scarcely noticed what was happening." --Thomas Cahill, How the Irish Saved Civilization Posts: 4 | Registered: Friday, February 11 2005 08:00 |
|
Shock Trooper
Member # 156
|
written Saturday, February 12 2005 00:31
Profile
quote:First of all, I do not say that "other dimensions" are impossible. THe claim that "other dimensions MAY exist" is to insubstantial/vacuous for me to make any sense of. Second, there are two possible reasons why we might not percieve a thing: 1)Some deficiency of or too-limited a capacity for perception. This is the one YOU are assuming in your argument. That humans do not see God because we lack a "God detector". 2)The thing does not exist. Now if we were talking about, say a henceforth undiscovered breed of dog or a planet or somesuch, then 1) would be a valid consideration. Your reasoning would at least be solid enough to say such a thing cannot be ruled out. Since we are NOT talking about such a thing but rather a TRANSCENDENT GOD(pay attention to that, it is important), 1) does not suffice anymore than saying the reason we cannot see a round square is because our eyes are faulty or too limited. We are left with 2). Such things do not exist. quote:Not true. "Other dimensions" by itself is not nonsensical. There is not enough info there to say ANYTHING about such a claim(not even that it is "possible"). Logic rules out transcendent gods as "nonsense" because in order for them to be transcendent, there can be NO WAY for us to know them, detect them, understand them etc. They must be INDISTINGUISHABLE from an imaginary thing in terms of existence within OUR reality. Either WE become "gods" and part of God's reality OR God becomes natural and part of OUR'S. Trust me, I didn't see it at first either and I remained a weak atheist for years and years not seeing it. quote:I have no idea what you are talking about here or what it might have to do with ME. quote:Nonsense DOES = "false". Nonsensical things do not exist and CANNOT exist. If I am wrong then it will be an easy task for you to prove it by showing us a square shaped circle or a God who is both WITHIN our reality and outside our reality. quote:No. My stance is that the universe has limitations. It MUST have limits or we cannot know ANYTHING about it and there would be no consistency to it. The question then becomes : WHat are those limitations? Where ARE the boundries? That is where science comes in. Science is about exploring the limits and discovering the boundries of reality. Logic is a sort of tool we use to help us out. Logic works in our reality and logic tells us that round swquares and transcendent gods do not exist. Those are some of the limits of OUR universe. Some find this depressing. SO depressing that they plug their ears and scream at those who would say such things. They scream at skeptics for telling them that psychics are not using ESP and they REALLY scream when strong atheists have the gaul to say there is no God. As if aknowledging the plain truth that Santa Claus does not exist is fine but to do so in regards to God makes one "closed-minded". We live in a reality and universe where things work a certain way. People do not age backwards, going from death to birth. A ball is not thrown because it was caught to someone. A geometricx shape cannot be both "round" and "not at all round" at the same time adn transcendent gods do not exist either. quote:The burden of proof is not on ME. It is on whoever might claim such a thing. I do not have to prove that round squares do not exist anywhere in the universe. You cannot prove a negative adn "God doesn't exist" is STILL a negative because the "God" in question is either undefined or logically inconsistent(nonsensical), like a round square. quote:And this claim is automatically dismissed because it is absolutely void of ANY meaning. What "other dimension" are you talking about? WHat does this term mean?!? What is "God"? quote:"could be"?!? When you get it worked out then come back here and we will discuss whether it is possible or not. quote:But YOU have the burden of proof, not I. YOU are the claimant here, not me. NOTHING can be "disproven" to the proponent of the existential claim in question. Try disproving Santa Claus right now. You cannot do it. Also, if this God is passing in and out of dimensions then it cannot be omnipresent. You might want to iron out these bugs before having another go. [ Saturday, February 12, 2005 00:33: Message edited by: SkeleTony ] -------------------- "I am in a very peculiar business. I travel all over the world telling people what they should already know." - James Randi Posts: 219 | Registered: Saturday, October 13 2001 07:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Saturday, February 12 2005 00:52
Profile
Homepage
quote: quote:I seem to recall you repeatedly disputing my assertion that a meaningless statement couldn't be true. Why the sudden about-face? [ Saturday, February 12, 2005 00:53: Message edited by: Sagieuleaux ] -------------------- My BoE Page Bandwagons are fun! Roots Hunted! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 5450
|
written Saturday, February 12 2005 13:28
Profile
Homepage
How come we are off topic so much? The topic started as "Root Of All Evil" and now we are talking about "meaningless statements.' Come on people. -------------------- I'll put a Spring in your step. Polaris Posts: 2396 | Registered: Saturday, January 29 2005 08:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Saturday, February 12 2005 14:29
Profile
Homepage
Isn't the topic what people are actually talking about, rather than some individual's attempt to pre-summarise the range of discussion in a concise yet unavoidably misleading title? What right does any one of us have to exert hegemony over the topic that others choose to discuss? -------------------- My BoE Page Bandwagons are fun! Roots Hunted! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
Shock Trooper
Member # 156
|
written Sunday, February 13 2005 02:30
Profile
quote:Not an about face. I may have misunderstood you but here is the original exchange/context: quote:See ...? Different context. If you go back through the whole discussion(as I just did) then you will note that I have been EXTREMELY consistent on this point(that existential claims for undefined entities are worthless). YOUR assertion was offered in support of your contention that if there are no abstract thinking entities around to create languages and infer "meaning" then matter ceases to exist. -------------------- "I am in a very peculiar business. I travel all over the world telling people what they should already know." - James Randi Posts: 219 | Registered: Saturday, October 13 2001 07:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Sunday, February 13 2005 04:45
Profile
Homepage
quote:Isn't every entity an undefined entity until someone defines it? [ Sunday, February 13, 2005 04:46: Message edited by: Sagieuleaux ] -------------------- My BoE Page Bandwagons are fun! Roots Hunted! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
Agent
Member # 2210
|
written Sunday, February 13 2005 11:30
Profile
Evil is the root of all evil... Prove me wrong... Most people don't even realize they are evil it is like the pink elephant that the drunk sees in the living room which really isn't there. -------------------- Wasting your time and mine looking for a good laugh. Star Bright, Star Light, Oh I Wish I May, I Wish Might, Wish For One Star Tonight. Posts: 1084 | Registered: Thursday, November 7 2002 08:00 |
|
By Committee
Member # 4233
|
written Monday, February 14 2005 06:51
Profile
quote:NO, it does NOT. NONSENSE is a LACK of MEANING, and meaning is NECESSARY for logic to make a true/false determination - ANY beginning chapter of an intro logic textbook will tell you this. What no one can verify - that a fourth dimension exists, whether god does/does not exist - is meaningless, and therefore CANNOT be said to be true or false. The burden is on YOU to prove that god does not exist, because I am not asserting that god DOES exist, but that god COULD exist. [ Monday, February 14, 2005 07:58: Message edited by: Andrew Miller ] Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00 |
|
Warrior
Member # 3241
|
written Tuesday, February 15 2005 10:22
Profile
I am sorry, I tried to read every post, but was too tired... Read nearly half of the first page though. But I think humans are the root of all evil. Just my opinion. An example of this, no animal kills any other creature without needing to do it, they kill it for food, or because it threatens them, but never only for fun. -------------------- Visit the www.monkkonen.net and if you like, be the member of the forums. KOTOR 2 is coming! Posts: 76 | Registered: Sunday, July 20 2003 07:00 |
|
By Committee
Member # 4233
|
written Tuesday, February 15 2005 11:04
Profile
quote:My cat kills for fun. He brings his prey to our doorstep, uneaten. Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00 |
|
E Equals MC What!!!!
Member # 5491
|
written Tuesday, February 15 2005 12:22
Profile
Homepage
quote:Dingoes kill for fun all the time. -------------------- Sex is easier than love. Posts: 1861 | Registered: Friday, February 11 2005 08:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 247
|
written Tuesday, February 15 2005 12:40
Profile
Homepage
^ Oh and cats, ahh the assassins of the pet world. My cat chews up mice and birds, bats, snakes all the time, what of it. :P edit: Dogs kill things even more maliciously than cats, such as mice, cats, and basically anything they can get at. Of course that's only certain breeds of dogs such as terriers etc. [ Tuesday, February 15, 2005 12:43: Message edited by: VCH ] -------------------- I stop rubber at 160km/h, five times a week. CANUCKS RESPEK! My Style The Knight Between Posts. Posts: 2395 | Registered: Friday, November 2 2001 08:00 |
|
BANNED
Member # 4
|
written Tuesday, February 15 2005 15:57
Profile
Homepage
quote:Given, there is no conclusive way to prove/disprove the existence of a god of any sort. Nevertheless, what is the relevance of that to the discussion? Well, no DUH that would have relevance; that's not what I'm asking. What I'm pointing at is why an unverifiable concept that cannot be reproduced or observed is in a discussion like this. Perhaps this may be a logical leap, but I would espouse that the existence of God and the existence of Evil are cocentric, insomuch as both are unverifiable, undefined, and cannot be remedied under any sort of debate. When somebody espouses an ethical system, there are ethical implications. The existence of God, for example, has the ramification of being an omnipresent and omniscient metaphor of every power structure in existence. (In 1 Corinthians 11:3, for example, this is illustrated rather bluntly...) But any sort of supposition has its implications on behalf of the supposer. (Duh.) So what a debate on good and evil is, then, is essentially a conflict of interests of various sorts. So rather than discuss what evil is, it would be more effective to discuss why we define evil as we do, what we get out of it, etc., since all else becomes a theological debate that demands axioms that this community (and rightfully so) does not seem willing to adhere to. -------------------- 人 た ち を 燃 え る た め に 俺 は か れ ら に 火 を 上 げ る か ら 死 ん だ Posts: 6936 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00 |