PURPOSE OF LIFE
What Does Islam Say About Life's Purpose?
_________________________________
Have you ever asked yourself these questions?
"What is the purpose of L I F E?"
"My life?"
"Your Life?"
People everywhere are asking the questions; "What is the purpose of life?" and "Why are we here?" You might be amazed to learn, that Islam is providing clear and concise answers for these questions.
Most of those who reflect or think about life in any detail will consider and ponder these questions. There are as many different answers to these questions as there are people asking the questions. Some would hold that the purpose of life was to acquire wealth. Yet suppose they were to acquire millions of dollars, what then would they claim is their purpose after doing so?
If the purpose of life is to become wealthy, there would be no purpose after becoming wealthy.
The fact is that when people approach their purpose here in this life from the aspect of only gaining wealth, after collecting the money they have dreamed of their lives loose purpose and then they live in restless tension suffering from a feeling of worthlessness.
How could wealth then be considered as the aim of life?
Could the acquisition of wealth guarantee happiness? Of course not.
When we hear of millionaires or members of their families committing suicide, how could we consider the purpose of life would be to gain great wealth?
A child of 5 years would obviously prefer a new toy to a deposit slip for a million dollars.
A teenager does not consider millions of dollars in the bank a substitute for movies, videos, pizza and hanging out with his friends.
A person in their 80s or 90s would never consider holding on to their wealth in place of spending it to hold on to or regain their health.
This proves that money is not the main purpose at all the stages of one's life.
Wealth can do little or nothing to bring happiness to one who is a disbeliever in Almighty God, because regardless of what he or she would gain in this life they would always live in fear of what will happen to them in the end. They would wonder what would become of them and how they would end up.
Wealth and its accumulation as a purpose would be doomed to a temporary success at best and in the end it would only spell out self destruction.
So, what is the use of wealth to a person without belief? He would always fear his end and would always be skeptical of everything. He may gain a great material wealth but he would only lose himself in the end.
Worship of the One True Almighty God of the Universe [Allah in Arabic] as a primary goal or aim in life provides a believer with everything he needs to succeed in both this life and the Next Life.
The word for total surrender, submission, obedience, purity of heart and peace in the Arabic language is "Islam". Those who try to perform these actions are called "MU-slims" [Islam-ERs].
To a Muslim the whole purpose of life is "ibadah" or worship to the One True Almighty God on Terms and under His Conditions.
The term "worship" to a Muslim includes any and all acts of obedience to Almighty Allah.
So his purpose of life is a standing purpose; Worshipping Allah by accepting Allah's Will over his own.
This act of ibadah [worshipping, thanking and extolling the Greatness Almighty Allah on His Terms and Conditions] is for the Muslim, throughout his whole life regardless of the stage. Whether he is a child, adolescent, adult or aged person, he is seeking after the Will of the Almighty in all these stages.
His life here on earth although short, is full of purpose and is totally meaningful within the complete framework of total submission [Islam].
Similarly, in the Next Life as well, his faith, intentions, attitudes and good deeds will all be weighed into his account as favorable putting him in high esteem with his Creator and Sustainer.
Because Islam teaches that this life is only a test or trial for the individual to show him his true nature it is only natural that he would accept death as not so much an ending to everything but more as a beginning of the final and lasting life in the Hereafter.
Before entering into either of the final lodging places i.e.; Heaven or Hell, there must needs be a Day of Judgment or showing of one's true self to make them aware of their own nature and thereby understand what they have sent on ahead during the life here on the earth.
Every person will be rewarded [or punished] according to their attitude, appreciation and efforts during this stay on earth. None will be asked about the actions and beliefs of others, nor will anyone be asked regarding that which he was unaware of or incapable of doing.
As the life here is considered as an examination for the individual, the death stage is considered as a resting period after the test. It could be easy for those who were faithful and dedicated or it could be grueling and horrible for the wicked.
Reward and punishment will be in direct proportion to each person and it is only Allah, alone who will be the Final Judge over us all.
So in the teachings of the True Surrender, Submission, Obedience, In Sincerity and Peace to the Almighty One God [Islam], the line of life and its purpose is logical, clear and simple:
The first life is a test
The life in the grave is a resting or waiting place before the Day of Judgment
The Day of Judgment brings about the clear understanding of what will now happen to the individual based on his own desires and actions
The Permanent or Afterlife will either be spend in luxurious splendor or miserable punishment .
Following this clear understanding of life, the Muslim's purpose is clear.
First of all, he has no doubt in his mind that:
he is only created by Allah
he is going to spend a period of time in this material world [called "Ad Dunyah" in Arabic]
he knows he will die
he knows he will spend time in the grave, either pleasant or difficult depending on his own choice of attitude and actions
he knows he will be resurrected for the Day of Judgment
he knows he will be judged according to the most fair of standards by Allah the Almighty, the All
Knowing he realizes his attitude and actions are going to come under very close scrutiny
he knows that this short life compared to the Eternal Life was in fact, only for a test
This life is very meaningful and purposeful to the Believing Muslim, as he realizes that it will determine is outcome and permanent position in the Next Life.
The Muslim's permanent purpose is to Surrender, Submit, Obey, in Purity and Peace to Allah the Almighty, carrying out His Orders and staying in some form of worship to Him as much as possible everyday.
This includes the orders of Allah in His Book, the Holy Quran and His final Messenger and Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him as follows:
Believing and declaring that "There is no god throughout all the Creation of Allah that is worthy of worship, all worship is due only to Allah, alone and He has no partners or helpers nor does He share His Lordship with any of His creations. And Muhammad, the son of Abdullah ibn Abdul Mutallib (1450 years ago) is the last and final messenger and servant of Almighty Allah, and is the culmination in a long line of prophets sent to mankind throughout man's history, including Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, David, Solomon, Jesus Christ, may Almighty Allah's Peace and Blessings be upon them all."
Establishing the regular five times ritualistic prayer [salat] in the stated times (in the mosques for the men when possible)
Paying the charity tax [Zakat = about 2.5% of one's holdings - not his income, annually]
Fasting the month of Ramadhan [lunar calendar]
Pilgrimage to the House of Allah in Mecca at least once in the life of the person, provided he has the ability and the way is safe
For a disbeliever the purpose of this life is to collect and amass great wealth, money, power and position. Over indulging in eating, drinking, drugs, sex and gambling are a high priority to them. But all of this will not avail them anything good in the grave, on the Day of Judgment or in the Next Life. Eventually he will be faced with the question:
Now what?
What's Next?
Where am I going?
What will happen to me?
He will come to know. For sure he will come to know. But then what will the knowledge avail him?
Look how Islam solves the mystery of the puzzle of life. It provides the answers to the questions and concerns of the human beings on all levels and in every aspect. It is really quite simple.
The purpose of life as understood by the Believing Muslim can be simply stated in only two (2) words:
Obey God.
Our only purpose and salvation lie in these two words.
We must come to know our Creator, Sustainer and Ultimate Judge. We must learn to believe in Him, thank Him, praise Him, honor Him and worship Him, alone without any partners from His Creation. We must learn about His Messengers and Prophets, peace be upon them, and the message with which they were all sent. We must learn the Word of God as was directly revealed, preserved and memorized and passed down by memory throughout all the generations of Muslims to the present day.
Those who are in search of truth, having open minds and hearts will recognize this as a message in truth and sincerity. Open your heart and your mind now and ask the Almighty God of the Universe [Allah] to guide you now to His True Way. And then be ready to accept your true purpose in life.
_______________________________
read more
islamtomorrow.com/purpose.htm
.
Hello and welcome, ahmd.
Good luck and good thinking!
As to your 'thrust' regarding "purpose", please allow me to give your brain-mind something else to ponder that may not have already occurred to you in your 'religious philosophy'.......
Have you and all other 'religionists' ever considered that there may actually be no 'god-mandated' nor nor 'believer invented "divine purpose" at all?
And that the eternal universat phenomena is what it is irrespective of what we think or imagine it may be 'subjectively'?
And that we naturally evolved highly complex human 'brain-mind emergences' from that sufficiently highly evolved complexity have acquired the emergent capability to make currently incomplete SUBJECTIVE 'abstract thought world constructs' which, given sufficient scientific exploration of the universal phenomena may eventually evolve into a 'complete' abstract thought world construct that reflects that phenomena as it is OBJECTIVELY?
And that the any a-priori NATURAL "purpose"-like aspect to 'life processes' in the universal reality is 'LIFE ITSELF (in our case, Earth's human 'brain-mind' emergent 'life forms') as an INEVITABLE CONSEQUENCE of evolutionary processes and possibilities and probabilities INHERENT IN THE ETERNAL UNIVERSAL PHENOMENA?
And that the most REASONABLE AND OBJECTIVELY SUSTAINABLE 'post-priori' "purpose" which individual/collective human brain-mind world construct MEME for "purpose" is the THE CONTINUING NATURAL EVOLUTION AND JOURNEY TOWARDS COMPLETE OBJECTIVE COMPREHENSION OF THE UNIVERSE AS IT IS....for it's own sake rather than some 'god/religionists' abstract SUBJECTIVE 'world constuct' overlay's sake?
Basically, have you considered the possibility that we humans are on an objective journey of discovery that has many subjective distractions, not the least of which is man's evolutionary 'hangover tendencies and memes' which still subjectively confused the objective 'signposts' that the SCIENTFIC METHOD has allowed us to detect along the way amongst all those subjective 'signposts' that 'religions and superstitions and mercenary/political miscreants/ignoramuses' have put up along the way since ancient times to keep the 'masses' of humans under THEIR control instead of allowing them to join the rest of the objective thinkers that will advance the journey of self/universal discovery we CURIOUS AND THINKING BEINGS are NATURALLY EMBARKED UPON AND EVOLVED TO PERFORM AS OBJECTIVELY AS POSSIBLE WITH THE AID OF OUR MOST VALUABLE INVENTED TOOL YET.....THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD AND OBJECTIVE INTEGRITY OF THOUGHT IN APPLYING SAME?
Just a few questions for you to ponder before commiting yourself to any SUBJECTIVE 'god/religion' trajectory for your journey of discovery which may lead you to miss out on the REAL and OBJERCTIVE journey of discovery the highly evolved complex brain-mind is admirably naturally suited to pursue.
Anyhow, that's all the time I have today for this topic; so I will again wish you good luck and good thinking, and I hope you enjoy yourself in discussions here as well as enlighten and be enlightened as the case may be! Please forgive any typos etc due to my haste in writing this.
Cheers, ahmd, everyone....from your collective friend in science and humanity!
RealityCheck.
Hello and welcome, ahmd.
Good luck and good thinking!
As to your 'thrust' regarding "purpose", please allow me to give your brain-mind something else to ponder that may not have already occurred to you in your 'religious philosophy'.......
Have you and all other 'religionists' ever considered that there may actually be no 'god-mandated' nor nor 'believer invented "divine purpose" at all?
And that the eternal universat phenomena is what it is irrespective of what we think or imagine it may be 'subjectively'?
And that we naturally evolved highly complex human 'brain-mind emergences' from that sufficiently highly evolved complexity have acquired the emergent capability to make currently incomplete SUBJECTIVE 'abstract thought world constructs' which, given sufficient scientific exploration of the universal phenomena may eventually evolve into a 'complete' abstract thought world construct that reflects that phenomena as it is OBJECTIVELY?
And that the any a-priori NATURAL "purpose"-like aspect to 'life processes' in the universal reality is 'LIFE ITSELF (in our case, Earth's human 'brain-mind' emergent 'life forms') as an INEVITABLE CONSEQUENCE of evolutionary processes and possibilities and probabilities INHERENT IN THE ETERNAL UNIVERSAL PHENOMENA?
And that the most REASONABLE AND OBJECTIVELY SUSTAINABLE 'post-priori' "purpose" which individual/collective human brain-mind world construct MEME for "purpose" is the THE CONTINUING NATURAL EVOLUTION AND JOURNEY TOWARDS COMPLETE OBJECTIVE COMPREHENSION OF THE UNIVERSE AS IT IS....for it's own sake rather than some 'god/religionists' abstract SUBJECTIVE 'world constuct' overlay's sake?
Basically, have you considered the possibility that we humans are on an objective journey of discovery that has many subjective distractions, not the least of which is man's evolutionary 'hangover tendencies and memes' which still subjectively confused the objective 'signposts' that the SCIENTFIC METHOD has allowed us to detect along the way amongst all those subjective 'signposts' that 'religions and superstitions and mercenary/political miscreants/ignoramuses' have put up along the way since ancient times to keep the 'masses' of humans under THEIR control instead of allowing them to join the rest of the objective thinkers that will advance the journey of self/universal discovery we CURIOUS AND THINKING BEINGS are NATURALLY EMBARKED UPON AND EVOLVED TO PERFORM AS OBJECTIVELY AS POSSIBLE WITH THE AID OF OUR MOST VALUABLE INVENTED TOOL YET.....THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD AND OBJECTIVE INTEGRITY OF THOUGHT IN APPLYING SAME?
Just a few questions for you to ponder before commiting yourself to any SUBJECTIVE 'god/religion' trajectory for your journey of discovery which may lead you to miss out on the REAL and OBJERCTIVE journey of discovery the highly evolved complex brain-mind is admirably naturally suited to pursue.
Anyhow, that's all the time I have today for this topic; so I will again wish you good luck and good thinking, and I hope you enjoy yourself in discussions here as well as enlighten and be enlightened as the case may be! Please forgive any typos etc due to my haste in writing this.
Cheers, ahmd, everyone....from your collective friend in science and humanity!
RealityCheck.
Thank you RealityCheck
Is there evidence God Exists?
Yes. Allah has sent down miracles, revelations and messengers to give clear proofs He exists and more important, what we should do once we come to this realization.
Allah has sent prophets and messengers with many proofs throughout the ages for people to be able to clearly see with their own eyes and to be able to use their own senses the miracles and proofs pointing to the fact, Allah does in fact, exist.
Miracles of prophets and messengers of Allah have come to people through the ages. Moses, peace be upon him, showed many miracles to pharaoh and to the children of Israel. Plagues, locusts, water turning to blood, his stick becoming a snake, the voice in the burning bush and the parting of the Red Sea are clear miracles for the people of Moses time.
Again, Allah sent Jesus, the son of Mary, peace be upon him, with clear miracles for the people of his time. Speaking from the cradle while still a new born infant, creating birds from clay, curing the sick, giving sight to the blind and even bringing a dead man back to life, were all clear signs to the people to know Jesus, peace be upon him, was a messenger of Allah as was Moses before him.
Muhammad, peace be upon him, was the last and final messenger of Allah, and he was sent to all of mankind. Allah sent him with a number of miracles, not the least of which was the Quran. The predictions and prophecies of Muhammad, peace be upon him, have come true even in this century and the Quran has been used to convince even scientists of the existence of Allah.
[Please visit "Science Proves Allah": Watch video of famous scientists admit Quran is from Allah and even accept Islam]
The Quran is the best of proofs for the existence of Allah and today over one and half billion people memorize and recite from the exact text, in the exact same language it was revealed in; Arabic. More than 10 million Muslims have completely memorized the entire Quran from cover to cover, and can recite it from memory without looking at it.
No one sees or hears Allah, not even the prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him. Nor are we able to use our senses to make some kind of contact with Him. However, we are encouraged in Islam to use our senses and our common sense to recognize this entire universe could not possibly come into existence on its own. Something had to design it all and then put it into motion. This is beyond our ability to do, yet it is something we can understand.
We know from the teachings of Muhammad, peace be upon him, the proofs for the existence of God (Allah) are most obvious to us in our everyday surroundings. Anyone with understanding would quickly acknowledge His existence provided they are not so stubborn as to ignore the obvious evidences right in front of us.
We don't have to see an artist to recognize a painting, correct? So, if we see paintings without seeing artists painting them, in the same way, we can believe Allah created everything without having to see Him (or touch, or hear, etc.).
What proof is there?
Note: "Proving" God exists is really not our purpose. We are only interested in providing clear statements based on facts and logic and then allow the individual decide for themselves who they would like to believe. There have always been people who believed in the existence of God and there have always been those who have denied in His existence. We must realize there are those who will never believe no matter how much proof or evidence we produce. The reason is some people don't want to believe in a Creator or Sustainer. They would not like to consider one day they will have to answer for their actions and for their refusal to acknowledge their Benefactor to whom they owe their very existence. We come to know it is not so much a matter of us trying to convey our beliefs as it is for them to set aside preconceived prejudices against proper belief. Meaning: this is really a matter of guidance from Above. If they refuse even with evident proofs in front of them, this is not between us and them; it is between them and their Creator. Again, it is not our job to "prove" anything to anyone. We only need to present the facts in truth and allow the listener to make up their own mind.
We just begin with simple logic. When something is right in front of our eyes it is difficult to deny it, right? Asking rhetorical questions can be very helpful in presenting our case. Begin by asking the question; "Can you prove you exist?" Yes, of course you can. You merely use your senses to determine what you can see, hear, feel, smell, taste and you have emotions as well. All of this is a part of your existence. But this is not how we perceive God in Islam. We can look to the things He has created and the way He cares for things and sustains us, to know there is no doubt of His existence.
One approach is to suggest simple yet convincing experiments anyone could comprehend. For instance, say to someone, "Consider this the next time you are looking up at the moon or the stars on a clear night; could you drop a drinking glass on the sidewalk and expect it would hit the ground and on impact it would not shatter, but it would divide up into little small drinking glasses, with iced tea in them? Of course not."
Another example is have them consider what might happen if a tornado came through a junkyard and tore through the old cars; would it leave behind a nice new Mercedes with the engine running and no parts left around? Naturally not.
Or ask someone to consider what it would be like if someone told us about a fast food restaurant operating itself without any people there? The food just cooks itself, files from the kitchen to the table and then when we are done, the dishes jump back the kitchen to wash themselves. This is too crazy for anyone to even think about.
After reflecting on all of the above, how could we look to the universe above us through a telescope or observe the cells in a microscope and then think all of this came about as a result of a "big bang" or some "accident"?
(see also "Quran")
read more
What is the Origin of God?
Does God have limitations?
Why did God create everything?
Did God create evil too?
Does God know future?
Why so many religions?
Can we prove Quran is from God?
Why does Quran say, "We & He"?
God of the Jews and Christians?
Will all of us be treated equally?
godallah.com/
Is there evidence God Exists?
Yes. Allah has sent down miracles, revelations and messengers to give clear proofs He exists and more important, what we should do once we come to this realization.
Allah has sent prophets and messengers with many proofs throughout the ages for people to be able to clearly see with their own eyes and to be able to use their own senses the miracles and proofs pointing to the fact, Allah does in fact, exist.
Miracles of prophets and messengers of Allah have come to people through the ages. Moses, peace be upon him, showed many miracles to pharaoh and to the children of Israel. Plagues, locusts, water turning to blood, his stick becoming a snake, the voice in the burning bush and the parting of the Red Sea are clear miracles for the people of Moses time.
Again, Allah sent Jesus, the son of Mary, peace be upon him, with clear miracles for the people of his time. Speaking from the cradle while still a new born infant, creating birds from clay, curing the sick, giving sight to the blind and even bringing a dead man back to life, were all clear signs to the people to know Jesus, peace be upon him, was a messenger of Allah as was Moses before him.
Muhammad, peace be upon him, was the last and final messenger of Allah, and he was sent to all of mankind. Allah sent him with a number of miracles, not the least of which was the Quran. The predictions and prophecies of Muhammad, peace be upon him, have come true even in this century and the Quran has been used to convince even scientists of the existence of Allah.
[Please visit "Science Proves Allah": Watch video of famous scientists admit Quran is from Allah and even accept Islam]
The Quran is the best of proofs for the existence of Allah and today over one and half billion people memorize and recite from the exact text, in the exact same language it was revealed in; Arabic. More than 10 million Muslims have completely memorized the entire Quran from cover to cover, and can recite it from memory without looking at it.
No one sees or hears Allah, not even the prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him. Nor are we able to use our senses to make some kind of contact with Him. However, we are encouraged in Islam to use our senses and our common sense to recognize this entire universe could not possibly come into existence on its own. Something had to design it all and then put it into motion. This is beyond our ability to do, yet it is something we can understand.
We know from the teachings of Muhammad, peace be upon him, the proofs for the existence of God (Allah) are most obvious to us in our everyday surroundings. Anyone with understanding would quickly acknowledge His existence provided they are not so stubborn as to ignore the obvious evidences right in front of us.
We don't have to see an artist to recognize a painting, correct? So, if we see paintings without seeing artists painting them, in the same way, we can believe Allah created everything without having to see Him (or touch, or hear, etc.).
What proof is there?
Note: "Proving" God exists is really not our purpose. We are only interested in providing clear statements based on facts and logic and then allow the individual decide for themselves who they would like to believe. There have always been people who believed in the existence of God and there have always been those who have denied in His existence. We must realize there are those who will never believe no matter how much proof or evidence we produce. The reason is some people don't want to believe in a Creator or Sustainer. They would not like to consider one day they will have to answer for their actions and for their refusal to acknowledge their Benefactor to whom they owe their very existence. We come to know it is not so much a matter of us trying to convey our beliefs as it is for them to set aside preconceived prejudices against proper belief. Meaning: this is really a matter of guidance from Above. If they refuse even with evident proofs in front of them, this is not between us and them; it is between them and their Creator. Again, it is not our job to "prove" anything to anyone. We only need to present the facts in truth and allow the listener to make up their own mind.
We just begin with simple logic. When something is right in front of our eyes it is difficult to deny it, right? Asking rhetorical questions can be very helpful in presenting our case. Begin by asking the question; "Can you prove you exist?" Yes, of course you can. You merely use your senses to determine what you can see, hear, feel, smell, taste and you have emotions as well. All of this is a part of your existence. But this is not how we perceive God in Islam. We can look to the things He has created and the way He cares for things and sustains us, to know there is no doubt of His existence.
One approach is to suggest simple yet convincing experiments anyone could comprehend. For instance, say to someone, "Consider this the next time you are looking up at the moon or the stars on a clear night; could you drop a drinking glass on the sidewalk and expect it would hit the ground and on impact it would not shatter, but it would divide up into little small drinking glasses, with iced tea in them? Of course not."
Another example is have them consider what might happen if a tornado came through a junkyard and tore through the old cars; would it leave behind a nice new Mercedes with the engine running and no parts left around? Naturally not.
Or ask someone to consider what it would be like if someone told us about a fast food restaurant operating itself without any people there? The food just cooks itself, files from the kitchen to the table and then when we are done, the dishes jump back the kitchen to wash themselves. This is too crazy for anyone to even think about.
After reflecting on all of the above, how could we look to the universe above us through a telescope or observe the cells in a microscope and then think all of this came about as a result of a "big bang" or some "accident"?
(see also "Quran")
read more
What is the Origin of God?
Does God have limitations?
Why did God create everything?
Did God create evil too?
Does God know future?
Why so many religions?
Can we prove Quran is from God?
Why does Quran say, "We & He"?
God of the Jews and Christians?
Will all of us be treated equally?
godallah.com/
[I] l Life is its own validation and reward and ultimate meaning.
Ponder Albert Ellis's "The Myth of Self-Esteem" and Robert Price's "The Reason-Driven Life" to fathom that.
Allah is just another sociopath!
Ponder Albert Ellis's "The Myth of Self-Esteem" and Robert Price's "The Reason-Driven Life" to fathom that.
Allah is just another sociopath!
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Oct 18 2008, 09:44 AM)
.
Hello and welcome, ahmd.
Good luck and good thinking!
As to your 'thrust' regarding "purpose", please allow me to give your brain-mind something else to ponder that may not have already occurred to you in your 'religious philosophy'.......
Have you and all other 'religionists' ever considered that there may actually be no 'god-mandated' nor nor 'believer invented "divine purpose" at all?
And that the eternal universat phenomena is what it is irrespective of what we think or imagine it may be 'subjectively'?
And that we naturally evolved highly complex human 'brain-mind emergences' from that sufficiently highly evolved complexity have acquired the emergent capability to make currently incomplete SUBJECTIVE 'abstract thought world constructs' which, given sufficient scientific exploration of the universal phenomena may eventually evolve into a 'complete' abstract thought world construct that reflects that phenomena as it is OBJECTIVELY?
And that the any a-priori NATURAL "purpose"-like aspect to 'life processes' in the universal reality is 'LIFE ITSELF (in our case, Earth's human 'brain-mind' emergent 'life forms') as an INEVITABLE CONSEQUENCE of evolutionary processes and possibilities and probabilities INHERENT IN THE ETERNAL UNIVERSAL PHENOMENA?
And that the most REASONABLE AND OBJECTIVELY SUSTAINABLE 'post-priori' "purpose" which individual/collective human brain-mind world construct MEME for "purpose" is the THE CONTINUING NATURAL EVOLUTION AND JOURNEY TOWARDS COMPLETE OBJECTIVE COMPREHENSION OF THE UNIVERSE AS IT IS....for it's own sake rather than some 'god/religionists' abstract SUBJECTIVE 'world constuct' overlay's sake?
Basically, have you considered the possibility that we humans are on an objective journey of discovery that has many subjective distractions, not the least of which is man's evolutionary 'hangover tendencies and memes' which still subjectively confused the objective 'signposts' that the SCIENTFIC METHOD has allowed us to detect along the way amongst all those subjective 'signposts' that 'religions and superstitions and mercenary/political miscreants/ignoramuses' have put up along the way since ancient times to keep the 'masses' of humans under THEIR control instead of allowing them to join the rest of the objective thinkers that will advance the journey of self/universal discovery we CURIOUS AND THINKING BEINGS are NATURALLY EMBARKED UPON AND EVOLVED TO PERFORM AS OBJECTIVELY AS POSSIBLE WITH THE AID OF OUR MOST VALUABLE INVENTED TOOL YET.....THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD AND OBJECTIVE INTEGRITY OF THOUGHT IN APPLYING SAME?
Just a few questions for you to ponder before commiting yourself to any SUBJECTIVE 'god/religion' trajectory for your journey of discovery which may lead you to miss out on the REAL and OBJERCTIVE journey of discovery the highly evolved complex brain-mind is admirably naturally suited to pursue.
Anyhow, that's all the time I have today for this topic; so I will again wish you good luck and good thinking, and I hope you enjoy yourself in discussions here as well as enlighten and be enlightened as the case may be! Please forgive any typos etc due to my haste in writing this.
Cheers, ahmd, everyone....from your collective friend in science and humanity!
RealityCheck.
Hi RC
Where do we place a dog's instinct?...Is this similar in construct?...Though a dog could rip our hand ....and under certain circumstances might....when confronted with love and affection from a known source, they will respond in kind. I'm using the dog as an example, but other animals do the same thing......When is instinct NOT instinctive, but a learned experience...?
a dog's instinct is cowardly. Unless supported by a group a dog must summon courage to attack. It requires the support of the group to be at peace(this is the reason we communicate with them.)
Perhaps we also have an instinctive need for group support that comes via fear or a cowardly nature . If the position we find ourselves is inferior, our cowardly nature allows the will of others to cover such fears...Patch protection of another bent.
Cheers
Iseason
Hello and welcome, ahmd.
Good luck and good thinking!
As to your 'thrust' regarding "purpose", please allow me to give your brain-mind something else to ponder that may not have already occurred to you in your 'religious philosophy'.......
Have you and all other 'religionists' ever considered that there may actually be no 'god-mandated' nor nor 'believer invented "divine purpose" at all?
And that the eternal universat phenomena is what it is irrespective of what we think or imagine it may be 'subjectively'?
And that we naturally evolved highly complex human 'brain-mind emergences' from that sufficiently highly evolved complexity have acquired the emergent capability to make currently incomplete SUBJECTIVE 'abstract thought world constructs' which, given sufficient scientific exploration of the universal phenomena may eventually evolve into a 'complete' abstract thought world construct that reflects that phenomena as it is OBJECTIVELY?
And that the any a-priori NATURAL "purpose"-like aspect to 'life processes' in the universal reality is 'LIFE ITSELF (in our case, Earth's human 'brain-mind' emergent 'life forms') as an INEVITABLE CONSEQUENCE of evolutionary processes and possibilities and probabilities INHERENT IN THE ETERNAL UNIVERSAL PHENOMENA?
And that the most REASONABLE AND OBJECTIVELY SUSTAINABLE 'post-priori' "purpose" which individual/collective human brain-mind world construct MEME for "purpose" is the THE CONTINUING NATURAL EVOLUTION AND JOURNEY TOWARDS COMPLETE OBJECTIVE COMPREHENSION OF THE UNIVERSE AS IT IS....for it's own sake rather than some 'god/religionists' abstract SUBJECTIVE 'world constuct' overlay's sake?
Basically, have you considered the possibility that we humans are on an objective journey of discovery that has many subjective distractions, not the least of which is man's evolutionary 'hangover tendencies and memes' which still subjectively confused the objective 'signposts' that the SCIENTFIC METHOD has allowed us to detect along the way amongst all those subjective 'signposts' that 'religions and superstitions and mercenary/political miscreants/ignoramuses' have put up along the way since ancient times to keep the 'masses' of humans under THEIR control instead of allowing them to join the rest of the objective thinkers that will advance the journey of self/universal discovery we CURIOUS AND THINKING BEINGS are NATURALLY EMBARKED UPON AND EVOLVED TO PERFORM AS OBJECTIVELY AS POSSIBLE WITH THE AID OF OUR MOST VALUABLE INVENTED TOOL YET.....THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD AND OBJECTIVE INTEGRITY OF THOUGHT IN APPLYING SAME?
Just a few questions for you to ponder before commiting yourself to any SUBJECTIVE 'god/religion' trajectory for your journey of discovery which may lead you to miss out on the REAL and OBJERCTIVE journey of discovery the highly evolved complex brain-mind is admirably naturally suited to pursue.
Anyhow, that's all the time I have today for this topic; so I will again wish you good luck and good thinking, and I hope you enjoy yourself in discussions here as well as enlighten and be enlightened as the case may be! Please forgive any typos etc due to my haste in writing this.
Cheers, ahmd, everyone....from your collective friend in science and humanity!
RealityCheck.
Hi RC
Where do we place a dog's instinct?...Is this similar in construct?...Though a dog could rip our hand ....and under certain circumstances might....when confronted with love and affection from a known source, they will respond in kind. I'm using the dog as an example, but other animals do the same thing......When is instinct NOT instinctive, but a learned experience...?
a dog's instinct is cowardly. Unless supported by a group a dog must summon courage to attack. It requires the support of the group to be at peace(this is the reason we communicate with them.)
Perhaps we also have an instinctive need for group support that comes via fear or a cowardly nature . If the position we find ourselves is inferior, our cowardly nature allows the will of others to cover such fears...Patch protection of another bent.
Cheers
Iseason
QUOTE (iseason+Oct 18 2008, 05:57 AM)
Hi RC
Where do we place a dog's instinct?...Is this similar in construct?...Though a dog could rip our hand ....and under certain circumstances might....when confronted with love and affection from a known source, they will respond in kind. I'm using the dog as an example, but other animals do the same thing......When is instinct NOT instinctive, but a learned experience...?
a dog's instinct is cowardly. Unless supported by a group a dog must summon courage to attack. It requires the support of the group to be at peace(this is the reason we communicate with them.)
Perhaps we also have an instinctive need for group support that comes via fear or a cowardly nature . If the position we find ourselves is inferior, our cowardly nature allows the will of others to cover such fears...Patch protection of another bent.
Cheers
Iseason
Hi iseason.
Excellently observed.
And the dog 'world construct' is just as 'basic' as that of any 'animal' except humans (ie, to varying degrees 'limited' as to levels of 'abstraction' and comprehension of 'self/other' and time/temporality and 'purpose/intent' and 'past/future/goals' etc concepts).
The reason for this is the 'closed loop' nature of HARDWIRED 'programming/faculties' (ie, physical GROUP evolution of brain-mind physiology/circuitry-structure) and SOFTWARE 'programming' (ie, experiential development/evolution of more 'closed loop' and NON-abstracting MEMETIC 'routines', both at autonomic and voluntary levels (ie, arising in the brain and 'animal mind' synergy/evolution/development over an INDIVIDUAL's lifetime).
The essential difference between some animals like apes and humans compared to dogs is that dog's 'survival' INSTINCTS (as embodied/reflected in brain-mind evolved form/function) are more close-looped and less flexible than the more 'flexibly' hardwired/softwared apes and the most flexibly 'ape' of all, humans. When I say 'flexible', I mean that dogs and most lower animals cannor 'break' their primtive and limited 'programming' for survival in their NICHE STATES for which they evolved, ie, whether social 'pack' etc animal, or solitary 'loner' etc animal (except temporarily when mating, of course).
In other words, human's ability to 'abstractly' MIRROR in his BRAIN-MIND 'world construct' the external world and the 'other' individual is much more 'complete' and 'representative'; that is, the 'mirror construct' humans can build and handle MENTALLY and OVER LONG TIME SPANS is much more COMPLEX AND RICH IN RECOGNITION AND COMPREHENSION OF ALL THE 'POSSIBILITIES' that are nowhere near as 'apparent' to lower animal cognition/faculties/comprehension/manipulation etc.
In short, the survival INSTINCTS are animalistic and based on hardwired/software that is more 'closed loop' for IMMEDIACY and TRIGGER RESPONSES (for 'fight or flight' and gratification of hormonally driven food/shelter/sexual etc. which needs) which animals generally CANNOT BREAK OUT OF excpet in exceptionally BRIEF 'excursions' caused by exceptional immediate circumstances (like TRAINING or REPROGRAMMING their INDIVIDUAL MEMETIC repertoir which makes use of pre-existing evolved memetic 'routines' which are 'bundled in a new way by the training).
We humans have no such 'immediacy' limitation (except as 'children'); and we CAN 'REPROGRAM' OURSELVES because we CAN 'mirror' other/world in our brain-mind 'construct' in great DETAIL AND COMPLEXITY and 'KNOWLEDGE' of HOW AND WHAT to do to EFFECT CHANGES in the 'other/world' IN REALITY.....simply by using our more OPEN LOOPED memetic 'routines' and other evolved capabilities that went beyond what ordinary animals have because they are IN NICHE STATES whereas humans are in SELF-AWARE STATES that can AFFECT which 'niche' we may 'choose' from time to time to best effect for SURVIVAL DURING DRAMATIC CHANGE/UPHEAVALS (it is a well observed fact that the more 'flexible' and greater the comprehension/possibility 'states' can handle environmental/group-social change more effectively and successfully for survival than niche states can).
Naturally, the whole BODY capability and flexibility as to physical manipulation of the real world other/objects is part of the evolutionary suite of 'elements' which come together most effectively in the 'ape' life form and especially in the human (highest ape) life form. That is why dogs etc do not get past the 'niche barrier' for which their own body plans are most suitably evolved but are not suited to CREATING AND MANIPULATING THEIR OWN 'NICHES' as they need to as thoings change. Also, HUMANS have since become capable of CREATING THEIR OWN 'NICHES' if need be (evidence our technologies and capbabilities to venture forth in 'niches' we have not experienced/been equipped 'naturally' (ie, SPACE and ABYSSAL OCEAN DEEPS etc).
Sorry I haven't more time, iseason. I hope that is enough to satisfactorily answer your immediate questions? As usual, I'm rushed, so please forgive typos etc.
Cheers!
RC.
.
Where do we place a dog's instinct?...Is this similar in construct?...Though a dog could rip our hand ....and under certain circumstances might....when confronted with love and affection from a known source, they will respond in kind. I'm using the dog as an example, but other animals do the same thing......When is instinct NOT instinctive, but a learned experience...?
a dog's instinct is cowardly. Unless supported by a group a dog must summon courage to attack. It requires the support of the group to be at peace(this is the reason we communicate with them.)
Perhaps we also have an instinctive need for group support that comes via fear or a cowardly nature . If the position we find ourselves is inferior, our cowardly nature allows the will of others to cover such fears...Patch protection of another bent.
Cheers
Iseason
Hi iseason.
Excellently observed.
And the dog 'world construct' is just as 'basic' as that of any 'animal' except humans (ie, to varying degrees 'limited' as to levels of 'abstraction' and comprehension of 'self/other' and time/temporality and 'purpose/intent' and 'past/future/goals' etc concepts).
The reason for this is the 'closed loop' nature of HARDWIRED 'programming/faculties' (ie, physical GROUP evolution of brain-mind physiology/circuitry-structure) and SOFTWARE 'programming' (ie, experiential development/evolution of more 'closed loop' and NON-abstracting MEMETIC 'routines', both at autonomic and voluntary levels (ie, arising in the brain and 'animal mind' synergy/evolution/development over an INDIVIDUAL's lifetime).
The essential difference between some animals like apes and humans compared to dogs is that dog's 'survival' INSTINCTS (as embodied/reflected in brain-mind evolved form/function) are more close-looped and less flexible than the more 'flexibly' hardwired/softwared apes and the most flexibly 'ape' of all, humans. When I say 'flexible', I mean that dogs and most lower animals cannor 'break' their primtive and limited 'programming' for survival in their NICHE STATES for which they evolved, ie, whether social 'pack' etc animal, or solitary 'loner' etc animal (except temporarily when mating, of course).
In other words, human's ability to 'abstractly' MIRROR in his BRAIN-MIND 'world construct' the external world and the 'other' individual is much more 'complete' and 'representative'; that is, the 'mirror construct' humans can build and handle MENTALLY and OVER LONG TIME SPANS is much more COMPLEX AND RICH IN RECOGNITION AND COMPREHENSION OF ALL THE 'POSSIBILITIES' that are nowhere near as 'apparent' to lower animal cognition/faculties/comprehension/manipulation etc.
In short, the survival INSTINCTS are animalistic and based on hardwired/software that is more 'closed loop' for IMMEDIACY and TRIGGER RESPONSES (for 'fight or flight' and gratification of hormonally driven food/shelter/sexual etc. which needs) which animals generally CANNOT BREAK OUT OF excpet in exceptionally BRIEF 'excursions' caused by exceptional immediate circumstances (like TRAINING or REPROGRAMMING their INDIVIDUAL MEMETIC repertoir which makes use of pre-existing evolved memetic 'routines' which are 'bundled in a new way by the training).
We humans have no such 'immediacy' limitation (except as 'children'); and we CAN 'REPROGRAM' OURSELVES because we CAN 'mirror' other/world in our brain-mind 'construct' in great DETAIL AND COMPLEXITY and 'KNOWLEDGE' of HOW AND WHAT to do to EFFECT CHANGES in the 'other/world' IN REALITY.....simply by using our more OPEN LOOPED memetic 'routines' and other evolved capabilities that went beyond what ordinary animals have because they are IN NICHE STATES whereas humans are in SELF-AWARE STATES that can AFFECT which 'niche' we may 'choose' from time to time to best effect for SURVIVAL DURING DRAMATIC CHANGE/UPHEAVALS (it is a well observed fact that the more 'flexible' and greater the comprehension/possibility 'states' can handle environmental/group-social change more effectively and successfully for survival than niche states can).
Naturally, the whole BODY capability and flexibility as to physical manipulation of the real world other/objects is part of the evolutionary suite of 'elements' which come together most effectively in the 'ape' life form and especially in the human (highest ape) life form. That is why dogs etc do not get past the 'niche barrier' for which their own body plans are most suitably evolved but are not suited to CREATING AND MANIPULATING THEIR OWN 'NICHES' as they need to as thoings change. Also, HUMANS have since become capable of CREATING THEIR OWN 'NICHES' if need be (evidence our technologies and capbabilities to venture forth in 'niches' we have not experienced/been equipped 'naturally' (ie, SPACE and ABYSSAL OCEAN DEEPS etc).
Sorry I haven't more time, iseason. I hope that is enough to satisfactorily answer your immediate questions? As usual, I'm rushed, so please forgive typos etc.
Cheers!
RC.
.
QUOTE (skepticgriggsy+Oct 18 2008, 03:48 AM)
[I] l Life is its own validation and reward and ultimate meaning.
Ponder Albert Ellis's "The Myth of Self-Esteem" and Robert Price's "The Reason-Driven Life" to fathom that.
Allah is just another sociopath!
The seven heavens and the earth and all that is therein praise Him, and there is not a thing but hymneth His praise; but ye understand not their praise. Lo! He is ever Clement, Forgiving. (44) And when thou recitest the Qur'an we place between thee and those who believe not in the Hereafter a hidden barrier; (45) And We place upon their hearts veils lest they should understand it, and in their ears a deafness; and when thou makest mention of thy Lord alone in the Qur'an, they turn their backs in aversion. (46) We are best aware of what they wish to hear when they give ear to thee and when they take secret counsel, when the evil-doers say: Ye follow but a man bewitched. (47) See what similitudes they coin for thee, and thus are all astray, and cannot find a road! (48) And they say: When we are bones and fragments, shall we forsooth, be raised up as a new creation? (49) Say: Be ye stones or iron (50) Or some created thing that is yet greater in your thoughts! Then they will say: Who shall bring us back (to life). Say: He Who created you at the first. Then will they shake their heads at thee, and say: When will it be? Say: It will perhaps be soon; (51) A day when He will call you and ye will answer with His praise, and ye will think that ye have tarried but a little while. (52)
read more
quranexplorer.com/Quran/Default.aspx
Ponder Albert Ellis's "The Myth of Self-Esteem" and Robert Price's "The Reason-Driven Life" to fathom that.
Allah is just another sociopath!
The seven heavens and the earth and all that is therein praise Him, and there is not a thing but hymneth His praise; but ye understand not their praise. Lo! He is ever Clement, Forgiving. (44) And when thou recitest the Qur'an we place between thee and those who believe not in the Hereafter a hidden barrier; (45) And We place upon their hearts veils lest they should understand it, and in their ears a deafness; and when thou makest mention of thy Lord alone in the Qur'an, they turn their backs in aversion. (46) We are best aware of what they wish to hear when they give ear to thee and when they take secret counsel, when the evil-doers say: Ye follow but a man bewitched. (47) See what similitudes they coin for thee, and thus are all astray, and cannot find a road! (48) And they say: When we are bones and fragments, shall we forsooth, be raised up as a new creation? (49) Say: Be ye stones or iron (50) Or some created thing that is yet greater in your thoughts! Then they will say: Who shall bring us back (to life). Say: He Who created you at the first. Then will they shake their heads at thee, and say: When will it be? Say: It will perhaps be soon; (51) A day when He will call you and ye will answer with His praise, and ye will think that ye have tarried but a little while. (52)
read more
quranexplorer.com/Quran/Default.aspx
ahmd
Life has no purpose, other than to live on(reproduction). All else is opinion.
Grumpy
Life has no purpose, other than to live on(reproduction). All else is opinion.
Grumpy
QUOTE (Grumpy+Oct 19 2008, 01:11 PM)
ahmd
Life has no purpose, other than to live on(reproduction). All else is opinion.
Grumpy
Hi Grumpy
Is That opinion a reproduction?
Cheers
Iseason
Life has no purpose, other than to live on(reproduction). All else is opinion.
Grumpy
Hi Grumpy
Is That opinion a reproduction?
Cheers
Iseason
QUOTE (Grumpy+Oct 19 2008, 12:11 AM)
ahmd
Life has no purpose, other than to live on(reproduction). All else is opinion.
Grumpy
Then you already found one "purpose of life" congratulations!
Put your thinking cap on, you might find some of the others.
Life has no purpose, other than to live on(reproduction). All else is opinion.
Grumpy
Then you already found one "purpose of life" congratulations!
Put your thinking cap on, you might find some of the others.
QUOTE (Gary Gaulin+Oct 19 2008, 03:51 AM)
QUOTE (Grumpy @ Oct 19 2008+ 12:11 AM)
ahmd
Life has no purpose, other than to live on(reproduction). All else is opinion.
Grumpy
Then you already found one "purpose of life" congratulations!
Put your thinking cap on, you might find some of the others.
Hi Gary, Grumpy, ahmd, all.
Gary, I wouldn't sound too cocky about that, mate....what I think Grumpy meant to write was 'purpose' in INVERTED COMMAS....since what he aludes to (and what his posting history makes apparent that he knows full well) could more correctly be called LIFE PROCESS' INHERENT NATURAL IMPERATIVE is REPRODUCTION.
There is no life's purpose per se; merely a CONSEQUENTIALLY OBSERVED TENDENCY INHERENT TO LIFE PROCESSES....in the absence of which there would not BE, BY DEFINITION and EFFECT, any life process that COULD be called life process.
See?
Grumpy, have I read you right....did you mean to write 'purpose' in inverted commas instead of just straight unqualified purpose per se?
Back tomorrow. Cheers all!
RC.
.
Attempting to answer questions like this is difficult if not impossible because the question it's self is flawed.
A better question might be to ask, " What is the purpose of your life" or "What does life mean to you?"
To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentations of the women.
I feel fulfilled and I know there is no god, yours or any other flavour! I have, therefore, disproved your assertion. Next.................................................................
Physfan
Can you prove that? Based on Physfan's comment it would seem you cannot.
Annnd...
Can you prove that? Based on Physfan's comment it would seem you cannot.
Annnd...
and I know there is no god
Can you prove that?
In the same way, I cannot prove the non-existence of the Tooth Fairy, the Easter Bunny, Father Christmas (that is what Aussies call him), yeti, desert devils (which the fictional Jesus believed in), unicorns, angels, talking snakes, winged horses (that took Mohamed to heaven for a chat with Allah), the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Monkey Magic (oh wait, he does exist because I've seen him on TV) or fairies at the bottom of the garden. These things exist only in peoples' heads so are you asking me to disprove everything else that exists only in peoples' heads? An odd conundrum indeed.
Physfan
Are you suggesting that these things exist?
Physfan
No... but many people do suggest that God exists.
So... what steps should a reasonable person take?
You can state "No God exists"... and inherit the burden of proof.
Or ...
You can state "No evidence of God exists"... and be correct.
Let's be more specific.
You say.... "God doesn't exist" right?
I ask you then... Define God.
Which version of God doesn't exist?
Without a precise definition you cannot make a specific statement. So far as I know, you don't have a specific definition.
Even more specific...
If you did have a definition of God... would anyone else share that definition. If they do not, can you categorically say that they are wrong?
Therefore, I can say a god or gods do not exist. The people making the claim of the existence of a supernatural being have been unable to furnish proof in any form at all, despite, in many cases, having thousands of years to provide some tiny shred. In the absence of any evidence, again despite countless claims, I can conclude that it, they or them do not exist. Strike me with lightning if I am wrong. Tick, tick, tick............. hmmm, I'm still here.
Secondly, how can I, or anyone else for that matter, define something of which I and they have no evidence or information.
Physfan
If you cannot define it, you can neither affirm it nor deny it. It simply does not apply in either case.
Let's look at an example.
Does a quijit exit?
Did I make it up? Maybe it's a local term. Maybe it's a saying in my circle of family and friends.
Until I define what it is.. you cannot say if it exists.
Now... let's take God.
You talk about God striking you down. Maybe He/She/It doesn't do that. You seem to be stuck on the Judeo Christian God specifically.
Pick a specific God and pick it's specific attributes and we can start to determine whether or not it's likely. If not... we can't even discuss it.
In all honesty, considering the multiplicity of beliefs, I don't think it's as easy and simple a subject as you make it out to be.
BOLD According to you, that isn't possible because semanticism would cripple any discussion. In fact, the degree to which an unbelievable level of pedantic semanticism invades your points makes discussion almost impossible. You may think it clever; I don't. You seem to be going so far backwards, anal retentiveness would be a relief.
BOLD According to you, that isn't possible because semanticism would cripple any discussion. In fact, the degree to which an unbelievable level of pedantic semanticism invades your points makes discussion almost impossible. You may think it clever; I don't. You seem to be going so far backwards, anal retentiveness would be a relief.
Ever heard of the phrase "pseudo-skepticism?"
As pointed out by MP, this is hardly true.
Any philosophical discussion depends on establishing correct definitions before addressing the subject, something you have not done.
If all you are looking for is a flame fest, I would point out that not only does this not prove your point but it likely provides support to those who oppose your point.
If you are looking to make a cogent point, then I would suggest you answer the questions rather than waste your time berating people for simply trying to be thorough.
As pointed out by MP, this is hardly true.
Any philosophical discussion depends on establishing correct definitions before addressing the subject, something you have not done.
If all you are looking for is a flame fest, I would point out that not only does this not prove your point but it likely provides support to those who oppose your point.
If you are looking to make a cogent point, then I would suggest you answer the questions rather than waste your time berating people for simply trying to be thorough.
Doubt and the sense of wonder
As Aristotle wrote in the Metaphysics, philosophy depends greatly upon wonder. Philosophizing may begin with some simple doubts about accepted beliefs. The initial impulse to philosophize may arise from suspicion, for example that we do not fully understand, and have not fully justified, even our most basic beliefs about the world.
[edit] Formulate questions and problems
Another element of philosophical method is to formulate questions to be answered or problems to be solved. The working assumption is that the more clearly the question or problem is stated, the easier it is to identify critical issues.
A relatively small number of major philosophers prefer not to be quick, but to spend more time trying to get extremely clear on what the problem is all about.
[edit] Enunciate a solution
Another approach is to enunciate a theory, or to offer a definition or analysis, which constitutes an attempt to solve a philosophical problem. Sometimes a philosophical theory by itself can be stated quite briefly. All the supporting philosophical text is offered by way of hedging, explanation, and argument.
Not all proposed solutions to philosophical problems consist of definitions or generalizations. Sometimes what is called for is a certain sort of explanation — not a causal explanation, but an explanation for example of how two different views, which seem to be contrary to one another, can be held at the same time, consistently. One can call this a philosophical explanation.
[edit] Justify the solution
An argument is a set of statements, one of which (the conclusion), it is said or implied, follows from the others (the premises). One might think of arguments as bundles of reasons — often not just a list, but logically interconnected statements — followed by the claim they are reasons for. The reasons are the premises, the claim they support is the conclusion; together they make an argument.
Philosophical arguments and justifications are another important part of philosophical method. It is rare to find a philosopher, particularly in the Western philosophical tradition, who lacks many arguments. Philosophers are, or at least are expected to be, very good at giving arguments. They constantly demand and offer arguments for different claims they make. This therefore indicates that philosophy is a quest for arguments.
A good argument — a clear, organized, and sound statement of reasons — may ultimately cure the original doubts that motivated us to take up philosophy. If one is willing to be satisfied without any good supporting reasons, then a Western philosophical approach may not be what one actually requires.
Again I will ask...
What God are you talking about? What are the characteristics you object to? Do you state that all possible Gods have been proven not to exist?
Do you really think that defining your statement properly is wrong?
Life has no purpose, other than to live on(reproduction). All else is opinion.
Grumpy
Then you already found one "purpose of life" congratulations!
Put your thinking cap on, you might find some of the others.
Hi Gary, Grumpy, ahmd, all.
Gary, I wouldn't sound too cocky about that, mate....what I think Grumpy meant to write was 'purpose' in INVERTED COMMAS....since what he aludes to (and what his posting history makes apparent that he knows full well) could more correctly be called LIFE PROCESS' INHERENT NATURAL IMPERATIVE is REPRODUCTION.
There is no life's purpose per se; merely a CONSEQUENTIALLY OBSERVED TENDENCY INHERENT TO LIFE PROCESSES....in the absence of which there would not BE, BY DEFINITION and EFFECT, any life process that COULD be called life process.
See?
Grumpy, have I read you right....did you mean to write 'purpose' in inverted commas instead of just straight unqualified purpose per se?
Back tomorrow. Cheers all!
RC.
.
With "purpose" being relative to what a person finds purposeful this is a topic that goes on forever with billions of possible answers. But have fun trying to find the one that works for you!
QUOTE
What's The Purpose Of Life ?
Attempting to answer questions like this is difficult if not impossible because the question it's self is flawed.
A better question might be to ask, " What is the purpose of your life" or "What does life mean to you?"
Purpose is a personal or shared belief, that expresses our limited understanding of how we, or anything else, fits into various levels of universal order. Assigning purpose to any human action is all a matter of perspective. Using a well known figure such as George W Bush as an example, we can easily use a number of labels to define his purpose. He is savior, devil, protector of life, murderer, user and producer of organic compounds, host to billions of bacteria, host to hundreds of living brain cells, and countless other examples of human purpose. These and all other imagined purposes are all valid at some level of existence, and are all elements of universal action, which is the ultimate purpose.
We must distinguish between "purpose", as defined by "reason we come into existence", and "purpose", as in the reasons to live we find for ourselves.
It is the first which simply does not exist, there are no "reasons" that life or the Universe came to be, it just is. It is up to us to determine our own justification for our continued existence.
Grumpy
It is the first which simply does not exist, there are no "reasons" that life or the Universe came to be, it just is. It is up to us to determine our own justification for our continued existence.
Grumpy
QUOTE (Grumpy+Oct 19 2008, 12:11 AM)
ahmd
Life has no purpose, other than to live on(reproduction). All else is opinion.
Grumpy
WHY IS IT DECEPTIVE TO PORTRAY CLONING AS "EVIDENCE FOR EVOLUTION"?
THE fact that such a question as whether such a scientific advance as cloning "supports evolution" is asked or even comes to mind actually reveals a very important truth. This is the cheapness of the propaganda that evolutionists resort to to get people to accept their theory. Since the subject of cloning has nothing to do with the theory of evolution, it cannot be a matter of concern for any professional evolutionist. However, some of those who blindly support evolution at whatever cost, and particularly certain circles within media organizations, have even tried to turn such a totally unconnected matter as cloning into propaganda for evolution.
Cloning is the using of one life form's DNA code to make a copy of that life form in the laboratory. It is a biological process, and has nothing to do with evolution. There is no question of the emergence of a new species or organ, nor indeed of any development or change.
What does cloning a living thing mean?
The DNA of the living thing that is proposed to be copied is used in the cloning process. The DNA is extracted from any cell belonging to the organism in question, and then placed into an egg cell belonging to another organism of the same species. A shock is then given immediately afterwards, which prompts the egg cell to start dividing. The embryo is then placed into a living thing's womb, where it continues to divide. Scientists then await its development and birth.
Why has cloning nothing to do with evolution?
Copying consists of adding already existing genetic information to the already existing reproductive mechanism of a living thing. No new mechanism or genetic information is created by the process.
Cloning has recently become a matter of major concern to scientists.
Although it is a biological process carried out within the framework of known laws, evolutionists have tried to take it over in the excited hope that it might support their theory, as happens with every new scientific discovery. The media that gives ideological backing to evolution made headlines out of it, accompanied by slogans supporting evolution. Although it has absolutely no scientific foundation, Darwinists attempted to use cloning as evidence for evolution in various debates. Yet it was clear that cloning had nothing to do with evolution. The scientific community did not even take these ridiculous efforts seriously. Right: A diagram of how cloning works, taken from a scientific publication.
The concepts of cloning and evolution are completely different. The theory of evolution is built on the claim that inanimate matter turned into living matter by chance. (There is not the slightest scientific proof that this could actually happen.) Cloning, on the other hand, is the copying of a living thing by using genetic material from that creature's cells. The new organism starts from a single cell, and a biological process is transferred to the laboratory and repeated there. In other words, there is no question of such a process happening by "chance"-the basic claim of the theory of evolution-nor of "lifeless matter coming to life."
The cloning process is no evidence for evolution whatsoever. It is, however, clear evidence of a biological law that totally undermines evolution. That is the famous principle that "Life can only come from life," put forward by the famous scientist Louis Pasteur towards the end of the nineteenth century. The fact that cloning is presented as evidence for evolution, despite that open truth, is a deception being carried out by the media.
Advances in many branches of science over the last 30 years have demonstrated that the emergence of life cannot be explained in terms of chance. Evolutionists' scientific errors and one-sided comments have been well-documented, and the theory of evolution has become indefensible within the realm of science. This fact has propelled some evolutionists to look in other areas. That is why scientific advances such as "cloning," or "test-tube babies," have been so fanatically used as evidence for evolution in the recent past.
Evolutionists have nothing more to say to society in the name of science, and so take refuge in the gaps in people's scientific knowledge and try to prolong the theory's life in that way, even though that merely brings the theory to a pitiable state. Just like all other scientific advances, cloning is a very important and revealing scientific advance that also sheds light on the fact that life was created.
Other misinterpretations of cloning
Another misunderstanding that people have fallen into as regards cloning is the idea that cloning can "create human beings." However, cloning bears no such interpretation. Cloning consists of adding genetic information which already exists to a living reproduction mechanism that also already exists. No new mechanism or genetic information is created in the process. Genetic information is taken from someone who already exists and is placed inside a female womb. This enables the child that is eventually born to be the "identical twin" of the person from whom the genetic information was taken.
Many people who do not fully understand what cloning is have all kinds of fantastic ideas about it. For instance, they imagine that a cell can be taken from a 30-year-old man and another 30-year-old can be created that same day. Such an example of cloning is only to be found in science fiction, and is not and never will be possible. Cloning basically consists of bringing a person's "identical twin" to life by natural methods (in other words in a mother's womb).This has nothing to do with the theory of evolution, nor with the concept of "creating man."
Creating a human being or any other living thing-in other words bringing something into existence out of nothing-is a power peculiar to God. Scientific advances confirm the same thing by showing that this creation cannot be done by man. This is expressed in a verse:
The Originator of the heavens and Earth. When He decides on something, He just says to it, "Be!" and it is. (Qur'an, 2: 117)
Of a book
(THE COLLAPSE OF THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION IN 20 QUESTIONS)
Download
Here
harunyahya.com/20questions01.php
or
85.17.146.1/download/19/23/0e785e308a88dcc50670971d7ac33732/evolution_20_questions.zip
or
85.17.146.1/download/19/23/b9ff8deab0f2a11269808977c67272cc/20questions.zip
Life has no purpose, other than to live on(reproduction). All else is opinion.
Grumpy
WHY IS IT DECEPTIVE TO PORTRAY CLONING AS "EVIDENCE FOR EVOLUTION"?
THE fact that such a question as whether such a scientific advance as cloning "supports evolution" is asked or even comes to mind actually reveals a very important truth. This is the cheapness of the propaganda that evolutionists resort to to get people to accept their theory. Since the subject of cloning has nothing to do with the theory of evolution, it cannot be a matter of concern for any professional evolutionist. However, some of those who blindly support evolution at whatever cost, and particularly certain circles within media organizations, have even tried to turn such a totally unconnected matter as cloning into propaganda for evolution.
Cloning is the using of one life form's DNA code to make a copy of that life form in the laboratory. It is a biological process, and has nothing to do with evolution. There is no question of the emergence of a new species or organ, nor indeed of any development or change.
What does cloning a living thing mean?
The DNA of the living thing that is proposed to be copied is used in the cloning process. The DNA is extracted from any cell belonging to the organism in question, and then placed into an egg cell belonging to another organism of the same species. A shock is then given immediately afterwards, which prompts the egg cell to start dividing. The embryo is then placed into a living thing's womb, where it continues to divide. Scientists then await its development and birth.
Why has cloning nothing to do with evolution?
Copying consists of adding already existing genetic information to the already existing reproductive mechanism of a living thing. No new mechanism or genetic information is created by the process.
Cloning has recently become a matter of major concern to scientists.
Although it is a biological process carried out within the framework of known laws, evolutionists have tried to take it over in the excited hope that it might support their theory, as happens with every new scientific discovery. The media that gives ideological backing to evolution made headlines out of it, accompanied by slogans supporting evolution. Although it has absolutely no scientific foundation, Darwinists attempted to use cloning as evidence for evolution in various debates. Yet it was clear that cloning had nothing to do with evolution. The scientific community did not even take these ridiculous efforts seriously. Right: A diagram of how cloning works, taken from a scientific publication.
The concepts of cloning and evolution are completely different. The theory of evolution is built on the claim that inanimate matter turned into living matter by chance. (There is not the slightest scientific proof that this could actually happen.) Cloning, on the other hand, is the copying of a living thing by using genetic material from that creature's cells. The new organism starts from a single cell, and a biological process is transferred to the laboratory and repeated there. In other words, there is no question of such a process happening by "chance"-the basic claim of the theory of evolution-nor of "lifeless matter coming to life."
The cloning process is no evidence for evolution whatsoever. It is, however, clear evidence of a biological law that totally undermines evolution. That is the famous principle that "Life can only come from life," put forward by the famous scientist Louis Pasteur towards the end of the nineteenth century. The fact that cloning is presented as evidence for evolution, despite that open truth, is a deception being carried out by the media.
Advances in many branches of science over the last 30 years have demonstrated that the emergence of life cannot be explained in terms of chance. Evolutionists' scientific errors and one-sided comments have been well-documented, and the theory of evolution has become indefensible within the realm of science. This fact has propelled some evolutionists to look in other areas. That is why scientific advances such as "cloning," or "test-tube babies," have been so fanatically used as evidence for evolution in the recent past.
Evolutionists have nothing more to say to society in the name of science, and so take refuge in the gaps in people's scientific knowledge and try to prolong the theory's life in that way, even though that merely brings the theory to a pitiable state. Just like all other scientific advances, cloning is a very important and revealing scientific advance that also sheds light on the fact that life was created.
Other misinterpretations of cloning
Another misunderstanding that people have fallen into as regards cloning is the idea that cloning can "create human beings." However, cloning bears no such interpretation. Cloning consists of adding genetic information which already exists to a living reproduction mechanism that also already exists. No new mechanism or genetic information is created in the process. Genetic information is taken from someone who already exists and is placed inside a female womb. This enables the child that is eventually born to be the "identical twin" of the person from whom the genetic information was taken.
Many people who do not fully understand what cloning is have all kinds of fantastic ideas about it. For instance, they imagine that a cell can be taken from a 30-year-old man and another 30-year-old can be created that same day. Such an example of cloning is only to be found in science fiction, and is not and never will be possible. Cloning basically consists of bringing a person's "identical twin" to life by natural methods (in other words in a mother's womb).This has nothing to do with the theory of evolution, nor with the concept of "creating man."
Creating a human being or any other living thing-in other words bringing something into existence out of nothing-is a power peculiar to God. Scientific advances confirm the same thing by showing that this creation cannot be done by man. This is expressed in a verse:
The Originator of the heavens and Earth. When He decides on something, He just says to it, "Be!" and it is. (Qur'an, 2: 117)
Of a book
(THE COLLAPSE OF THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION IN 20 QUESTIONS)
Download
Here
harunyahya.com/20questions01.php
or
85.17.146.1/download/19/23/0e785e308a88dcc50670971d7ac33732/evolution_20_questions.zip
or
85.17.146.1/download/19/23/b9ff8deab0f2a11269808977c67272cc/20questions.zip
.
ahmd.
It seems that you are here only to 'proselytise' and 'sell' some religion/writings to people in this forum.
If you continue in that vein I will have no choice but to IGNORE all your future posts, and treat them just as I would any other SPAM POSTS.
OK?
RealityCheck.
ahmd.
It seems that you are here only to 'proselytise' and 'sell' some religion/writings to people in this forum.
If you continue in that vein I will have no choice but to IGNORE all your future posts, and treat them just as I would any other SPAM POSTS.
OK?
RealityCheck.
ahmd
Then why are you blathering about it???
No one has ever claimed that cloning is evidence of evolution.
Grumpy
QUOTE
Since the subject of cloning has nothing to do with the theory of evolution, it cannot be a matter of concern for any professional evolutionist.
Then why are you blathering about it???
No one has ever claimed that cloning is evidence of evolution.
Grumpy
QUOTE (Grumpy+Oct 19 2008, 01:36 PM)
We must distinguish between "purpose", as defined by "reason we come into existence", and "purpose", as in the reasons to live we find for ourselves.
It is the first which simply does not exist, there are no "reasons" that life or the Universe came to be.
It is the first which simply does not exist, there are no "reasons" that life or the Universe came to be.
There are always reasons or causes for any condition. Purpose is a label to define those reasons within a given context. It can be used to describe the function of an element in a system, e.g., the purpose of nebulae in a galaxy are for the formation of stars, just as the purpose of a woman's uterus is for the formation of a fetus. Both statements are true for a given context, but both statements do not necessarily imply an intentional source for their design.
QUOTE
It is up to us to determine our own justification for our continued existence.
Just as universal conditions may not imply intentional design, being an elemental part of that universe, human justifications are subject to the same rule. In other words, human intention is as intentional as the condensation of nebular gas into a protostar.
[I][COLOR=red][/COLOR][/
Grumpy and Sinister Utopia, yea!
"Life is its own validation and reward and purpose." Our own meanings and purposes, human love and this Sally Field life suffice: adding eternity to them would not further validate them.
One should not bleat, therefore, for divine purpose and love and a future state: those are the illusions of pie in the sky. That would be mere puerile crying, ignoring reality.
Grumpy and Sinister Utopia, yea!
"Life is its own validation and reward and purpose." Our own meanings and purposes, human love and this Sally Field life suffice: adding eternity to them would not further validate them.
One should not bleat, therefore, for divine purpose and love and a future state: those are the illusions of pie in the sky. That would be mere puerile crying, ignoring reality.
Continuation Is The Purpose Of Life.
I think life does have an driving imperative. It "wants" to continue long enough to begin toward moving to a near infinite state. The 1st step is reproduction; the 2nd is sentience. The 3rd step is to spread widely enough to ensure that local and non-local catastrophic events don't wipe it out. (that'll take upwards of at least another million years).
The fact that our particular version of sentience always looks to conquer new frontiers is evidence of this unseen preprogrammed imperative. Ask an explorer ... Why? And likely as not you'll get that "because it's there" answer. That a frontier exists is reason enough in and of itself to challenge us to conquer it.
There isn't a gene for this "continuation" imperative. But instead it's a higher level protocol expressed by the genome as a whole ... just as "reproduction" is.
I think life does have an driving imperative. It "wants" to continue long enough to begin toward moving to a near infinite state. The 1st step is reproduction; the 2nd is sentience. The 3rd step is to spread widely enough to ensure that local and non-local catastrophic events don't wipe it out. (that'll take upwards of at least another million years).
The fact that our particular version of sentience always looks to conquer new frontiers is evidence of this unseen preprogrammed imperative. Ask an explorer ... Why? And likely as not you'll get that "because it's there" answer. That a frontier exists is reason enough in and of itself to challenge us to conquer it.
There isn't a gene for this "continuation" imperative. But instead it's a higher level protocol expressed by the genome as a whole ... just as "reproduction" is.
The answer to the life puzzle is that life is the answering of the puzzle.
ahmd
Another word for it is "slavery". Slavery to false ideas and religious authorities who use you for their own evil purposes. "Here, strap on this bomb. Allah has your reward in Paradise."
QUOTE
To a Muslim the whole purpose of life is "ibadah" or worship to the One True Almighty God on Terms and under His Conditions.
The term "worship" to a Muslim includes any and all acts of obedience to Almighty Allah.
So his purpose of life is a standing purpose; Worshipping Allah by accepting Allah's Will over his own.
This act of ibadah [worshipping, thanking and extolling the Greatness Almighty Allah on His Terms and Conditions] is for the Muslim, throughout his whole life regardless of the stage. Whether he is a child, adolescent, adult or aged person, he is seeking after the Will of the Almighty in all these stages.
His life here on earth although short, is full of purpose and is totally meaningful within the complete framework of total submission [Islam].
The term "worship" to a Muslim includes any and all acts of obedience to Almighty Allah.
So his purpose of life is a standing purpose; Worshipping Allah by accepting Allah's Will over his own.
This act of ibadah [worshipping, thanking and extolling the Greatness Almighty Allah on His Terms and Conditions] is for the Muslim, throughout his whole life regardless of the stage. Whether he is a child, adolescent, adult or aged person, he is seeking after the Will of the Almighty in all these stages.
His life here on earth although short, is full of purpose and is totally meaningful within the complete framework of total submission [Islam].
Another word for it is "slavery". Slavery to false ideas and religious authorities who use you for their own evil purposes. "Here, strap on this bomb. Allah has your reward in Paradise."
That's why every Islamic adherent you meet will at some point say these words, "Allah Willing". It's a fence-sitting exercise that allows them to completely remove personal responsibility for any of their actions. If they are successful they say "god willed it" and if they aren't successful then "god didn't want it to happen". It's self-delusional clap-trap that makes what Xtians tell themselves look tame in comparison.
Call me unoriginal, but in answer to the thread title:
...
...
...
42.
...
...
...
42.
The purpose of life is to find out what the purpose of life is 
Religion only serves the purpose to those who need it. Everyone should be allowed to find the purpose of life according to his needs.
Religion only serves the purpose to those who need it. Everyone should be allowed to find the purpose of life according to his needs.
The purpose is the await the Messaiah so that He Will Achieve:
a)Jews will lead in Spiritual Guidance (Zechariah 8:23)
b)Many Jewish men and women will become prophets (Joel 3:1)
c)World Peace (Isaiah 2:4, Isaiah 11:6)
d)World Knowledge of G-d (Isaiah 11:9)
e)No more Death (Isaiah 25:8)
f)Resurrection of the Dead (Isaiah 26:19)
g)All blindness and disabilities will be cured (Isaiah 35:5-6)
h)Ingathering of all Jews to Israel (Isaiah 43:5-6, Isaiah 11:11-12)
i)Everlasting happiness for the Jews (Isaiah 51:11)
j)Many Jews will achieve prophecy -- forever (Isaiah 59:21)
k)Non-Jews will help Jews materially (Isaiah 60:5)
l)The gentiles will give great honor to the Jews (Isaiah 60:14)
m)The Jews will be happy forever and never hated (Isaiah 60:15)
n)Each Jewish tribe will recieve its inheritance (Ezekiel 37:14)
and the building of the Third Temple in Jerusalem (Ezekiel 37:28)
a)Jews will lead in Spiritual Guidance (Zechariah 8:23)
b)Many Jewish men and women will become prophets (Joel 3:1)
c)World Peace (Isaiah 2:4, Isaiah 11:6)
d)World Knowledge of G-d (Isaiah 11:9)
e)No more Death (Isaiah 25:8)
f)Resurrection of the Dead (Isaiah 26:19)
g)All blindness and disabilities will be cured (Isaiah 35:5-6)
h)Ingathering of all Jews to Israel (Isaiah 43:5-6, Isaiah 11:11-12)
i)Everlasting happiness for the Jews (Isaiah 51:11)
j)Many Jews will achieve prophecy -- forever (Isaiah 59:21)
k)Non-Jews will help Jews materially (Isaiah 60:5)
l)The gentiles will give great honor to the Jews (Isaiah 60:14)
m)The Jews will be happy forever and never hated (Isaiah 60:15)
n)Each Jewish tribe will recieve its inheritance (Ezekiel 37:14)
and the building of the Third Temple in Jerusalem (Ezekiel 37:28)
According to Smith the purpose of life is to end and since thats the path of each individual life I suppose thats as good an answer as any.
QUOTE
What's The Purpose Of Life ?
To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentations of the women.
“The greatest happiness is to scatter your enemy, to drive him before you, to see his cities reduced to ashes, to see those who love him shrouded in tears, and to gather into your bosom his wives and daughters.”
-Genghis Khan
-Genghis Khan
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+Jul 9 2009, 06:53 PM)
To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentations of the women.
That´s the cows (dairy) you´re thinkin´of Molly - with the great pendulous udders swingin as you drive them home for the evening milking. Actually I figured out what you were on about when you said you had tipped a cow (non-dairy). The "non-dairy" reference was the clue - twas only a heifer, which in mainstream thinking is a kind of a virgin cow, but is really only a half-grown up calf. So, to say you tipped a cow (non-dairy), might even be accounted for by the fact that you probably got pissed while you were line dancing that night and bumped into the poor wee little calf on the way home - and it fell over !!
And as for the lamentations of the women - might be something to do with your line-dancin skills !! Could be that alright , Moll !
That´s the cows (dairy) you´re thinkin´of Molly - with the great pendulous udders swingin as you drive them home for the evening milking. Actually I figured out what you were on about when you said you had tipped a cow (non-dairy). The "non-dairy" reference was the clue - twas only a heifer, which in mainstream thinking is a kind of a virgin cow, but is really only a half-grown up calf. So, to say you tipped a cow (non-dairy), might even be accounted for by the fact that you probably got pissed while you were line dancing that night and bumped into the poor wee little calf on the way home - and it fell over !!
And as for the lamentations of the women - might be something to do with your line-dancin skills !! Could be that alright , Moll !
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+Jul 9 2009, 01:53 PM)
To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentations of the women.
Conan the Barbarian
Conan the Barbarian
QUOTE (AlexG+Jul 9 2009, 02:23 PM)
Conan the Barbarian
Simon the Sociopath?
There is really no purpose except to some some sort of self justifiable cause for a pitifull existence.
I became a Satanist quite some time ago, and it has helped me justify my own cause.
I invite you to share my beliefs to help you on your journey.
I became a Satanist quite some time ago, and it has helped me justify my own cause.
I invite you to share my beliefs to help you on your journey.
I won't even say that people who flaunt satanic affairs and deviate from God's word are acting like animals, mainly because animals don't act as shamefully as some human beings do.
People are trying to find some kind of fulfillment for the emptiness they feel in their souls, when all they need is before them in the salvation that Christ gave us. The more people sin and pervert themselves, the emptier and emptier they will feel, there is no fulfillment without God.
People are trying to find some kind of fulfillment for the emptiness they feel in their souls, when all they need is before them in the salvation that Christ gave us. The more people sin and pervert themselves, the emptier and emptier they will feel, there is no fulfillment without God.
QUOTE
I won't even say that people who flaunt satanic affairs and deviate from God's word are acting like animals, mainly because animals don't act as shamefully as some human beings do.
People are trying to find some kind of fulfillment for the emptiness they feel in their souls, when all they need is before them in the salvation that Christ gave us. The more people sin and pervert themselves, the emptier and emptier they will feel, there is no fulfillment without God.
People are trying to find some kind of fulfillment for the emptiness they feel in their souls, when all they need is before them in the salvation that Christ gave us. The more people sin and pervert themselves, the emptier and emptier they will feel, there is no fulfillment without God.
I feel fulfilled and I know there is no god, yours or any other flavour! I have, therefore, disproved your assertion. Next.................................................................
Physfan
QUOTE
The more people sin and pervert themselves, the emptier and emptier they will feel, there is no fulfillment without God.
Can you prove that? Based on Physfan's comment it would seem you cannot.
Annnd...
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The more people sin and pervert themselves, the emptier and emptier they will feel, there is no fulfillment without God. |
Can you prove that? Based on Physfan's comment it would seem you cannot.
Annnd...
and I know there is no god
Can you prove that?
QUOTE
Can you prove that?
In the same way, I cannot prove the non-existence of the Tooth Fairy, the Easter Bunny, Father Christmas (that is what Aussies call him), yeti, desert devils (which the fictional Jesus believed in), unicorns, angels, talking snakes, winged horses (that took Mohamed to heaven for a chat with Allah), the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Monkey Magic (oh wait, he does exist because I've seen him on TV) or fairies at the bottom of the garden. These things exist only in peoples' heads so are you asking me to disprove everything else that exists only in peoples' heads? An odd conundrum indeed.
Physfan
QUOTE (Physfan+Nov 3 2009, 12:01 AM)
These things exist only in peoples' heads so are you asking me to disprove everything else that exists only in peoples' heads? An odd conundrum indeed.
Physfan
But you haven't disproven anything yet.
Physfan
But you haven't disproven anything yet.
QUOTE
Tooth Fairy, the Easter Bunny, Father Christmas (that is what Aussies call him), yeti, desert devils (which the fictional Jesus believed in), unicorns, angels, talking snakes, winged horses (that took Mohamed to heaven for a chat with Allah)
Are you suggesting that these things exist?
Physfan
QUOTE
Are you suggesting that these things exist?
No... but many people do suggest that God exists.
So... what steps should a reasonable person take?
You can state "No God exists"... and inherit the burden of proof.
Or ...
You can state "No evidence of God exists"... and be correct.
Let's be more specific.
You say.... "God doesn't exist" right?
I ask you then... Define God.
Which version of God doesn't exist?
Without a precise definition you cannot make a specific statement. So far as I know, you don't have a specific definition.
Even more specific...
If you did have a definition of God... would anyone else share that definition. If they do not, can you categorically say that they are wrong?
QUOTE
No... but many people do suggest that God exists.
Therefore, I can say a god or gods do not exist. The people making the claim of the existence of a supernatural being have been unable to furnish proof in any form at all, despite, in many cases, having thousands of years to provide some tiny shred. In the absence of any evidence, again despite countless claims, I can conclude that it, they or them do not exist. Strike me with lightning if I am wrong. Tick, tick, tick............. hmmm, I'm still here.
Secondly, how can I, or anyone else for that matter, define something of which I and they have no evidence or information.
Physfan
QUOTE
Secondly, how can I, or anyone else for that matter, define something of which I and they have no evidence or information.
If you cannot define it, you can neither affirm it nor deny it. It simply does not apply in either case.
Let's look at an example.
Does a quijit exit?
Did I make it up? Maybe it's a local term. Maybe it's a saying in my circle of family and friends.
Until I define what it is.. you cannot say if it exists.
Now... let's take God.
You talk about God striking you down. Maybe He/She/It doesn't do that. You seem to be stuck on the Judeo Christian God specifically.
Pick a specific God and pick it's specific attributes and we can start to determine whether or not it's likely. If not... we can't even discuss it.
In all honesty, considering the multiplicity of beliefs, I don't think it's as easy and simple a subject as you make it out to be.
QUOTE (Physfan+Nov 2 2009, 08:58 PM)
Therefore, I can say a god or gods do not exist.
Ever heard of the phrase "pseudo-skepticism?"
When you are asserting that god does not exist simply because you have been exposed to no evidence that god exists, you are relying on faith that no evidence will ever be uncovered. Hence, although you are nominally taking a position often espoused by skeptics, you are yourself guilty of the same fallacy which these skeptics are arguing against.
If you say "I don't believe that any gods exist," then you will be asserting facts (assuming, of course that you don't actually believe any gods exist, which seems to be a safe assumption). If you say "There is no evidence to support the conclusion that any gods exist," then you will be asserting facts. However, when you say "No gods exist," you are asserting only your own personal beliefs as facts, and placing yourself on a level playing field with theists, as well as helping to justify the position of any theist who asserts that atheism is a faith.
Ever heard of the phrase "pseudo-skepticism?"
When you are asserting that god does not exist simply because you have been exposed to no evidence that god exists, you are relying on faith that no evidence will ever be uncovered. Hence, although you are nominally taking a position often espoused by skeptics, you are yourself guilty of the same fallacy which these skeptics are arguing against.
If you say "I don't believe that any gods exist," then you will be asserting facts (assuming, of course that you don't actually believe any gods exist, which seems to be a safe assumption). If you say "There is no evidence to support the conclusion that any gods exist," then you will be asserting facts. However, when you say "No gods exist," you are asserting only your own personal beliefs as facts, and placing yourself on a level playing field with theists, as well as helping to justify the position of any theist who asserts that atheism is a faith.
QUOTE
If you cannot define it, you can neither affirm it nor deny it. It simply does not apply in either case.
Let's look at an example.
Does a quijit exit?
Did I make it up? Maybe it's a local term. Maybe it's a saying in my circle of family and friends.
Until I define what it is.. you cannot say if it exists.
Now... let's take God.
You talk about God striking you down. Maybe He/She/It doesn't do that. You seem to be stuck on the Judeo Christian God specifically.
Pick a specific God and pick it's specific attributes and we can start to determine whether or not it's likely. If not... we can't even discuss it.
In all honesty, considering the multiplicity of beliefs, I don't think it's as easy and simple a subject as you make it out to be.
Let's look at an example.
Does a quijit exit?
Did I make it up? Maybe it's a local term. Maybe it's a saying in my circle of family and friends.
Until I define what it is.. you cannot say if it exists.
Now... let's take God.
You talk about God striking you down. Maybe He/She/It doesn't do that. You seem to be stuck on the Judeo Christian God specifically.
Pick a specific God and pick it's specific attributes and we can start to determine whether or not it's likely. If not... we can't even discuss it.
In all honesty, considering the multiplicity of beliefs, I don't think it's as easy and simple a subject as you make it out to be.
BOLD According to you, that isn't possible because semanticism would cripple any discussion. In fact, the degree to which an unbelievable level of pedantic semanticism invades your points makes discussion almost impossible. You may think it clever; I don't. You seem to be going so far backwards, anal retentiveness would be a relief.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| If you cannot define it, you can neither affirm it nor deny it. It simply does not apply in either case. Let's look at an example. Does a quijit exit? Did I make it up? Maybe it's a local term. Maybe it's a saying in my circle of family and friends. Until I define what it is.. you cannot say if it exists. Now... let's take God. You talk about God striking you down. Maybe He/She/It doesn't do that. You seem to be stuck on the Judeo Christian God specifically. Pick a specific God and pick it's specific attributes and we can start to determine whether or not it's likely. If not... we can't even discuss it. In all honesty, considering the multiplicity of beliefs, I don't think it's as easy and simple a subject as you make it out to be. |
BOLD According to you, that isn't possible because semanticism would cripple any discussion. In fact, the degree to which an unbelievable level of pedantic semanticism invades your points makes discussion almost impossible. You may think it clever; I don't. You seem to be going so far backwards, anal retentiveness would be a relief.
Ever heard of the phrase "pseudo-skepticism?"
ditto. Even knobEda is starting to sound sensible.
Physfan
Physfan
QUOTE (Physfan+Nov 3 2009, 02:27 AM)
BOLD According to you, that isn't possible because semanticism would cripple any discussion. In fact, the degree to which an unbelievable level of pedantic semanticism invades your points makes discussion almost impossible. You may think it clever; I don't. You seem to be going so far backwards, anal retentiveness would be a relief.
So you're accusing Rob of arguing semantics? He's not. He's arguing points of logic. I suppose one could claim he's arguing the semantics of logic, but that would be rather redundant, as any discussion of logic necessarily involves semantics.
I'm also curious as to why you would think that NoPeDaLs sounds sensible.
So you're accusing Rob of arguing semantics? He's not. He's arguing points of logic. I suppose one could claim he's arguing the semantics of logic, but that would be rather redundant, as any discussion of logic necessarily involves semantics.
QUOTE
ditto. Even knobEda is starting to sound sensible.
Are you accusing me of pseudo-skepticism? If so, I challenge you to find even a single post of mine in which I claim to posses knowledge when no evidence exists by which to justify that knowledge. I've already demonstrated to any reasonable person's satisfaction what makes your post pseudo-skeptical. If you have any integrity, you will make a case for this point, instead of simply asserting it.I'm also curious as to why you would think that NoPeDaLs sounds sensible.
QUOTE
I'm also curious as to why you would think that NoPeDaLs sounds sensible.
Read the words and context.QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I'm also curious as to why you would think that NoPeDaLs sounds sensible. |
Read the words and context.
He's not. He's arguing points of logic.
He's not. He's arguing points of logic.
ditto.
Physfan
Physfan
QUOTE (Physfan+Nov 3 2009, 12:10 AM)
Are you suggesting that these things exist?
Physfan
I'm suggesting you have not proven that they do not.
I believed that there was no map requiring four colours before it was proven there was not.
Physfan
I'm suggesting you have not proven that they do not.
I believed that there was no map requiring four colours before it was proven there was not.
QUOTE
BOLD According to you, that isn't possible because semanticism would cripple any discussion.
As pointed out by MP, this is hardly true.
Any philosophical discussion depends on establishing correct definitions before addressing the subject, something you have not done.
If all you are looking for is a flame fest, I would point out that not only does this not prove your point but it likely provides support to those who oppose your point.
If you are looking to make a cogent point, then I would suggest you answer the questions rather than waste your time berating people for simply trying to be thorough.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| BOLD According to you, that isn't possible because semanticism would cripple any discussion. |
As pointed out by MP, this is hardly true.
Any philosophical discussion depends on establishing correct definitions before addressing the subject, something you have not done.
If all you are looking for is a flame fest, I would point out that not only does this not prove your point but it likely provides support to those who oppose your point.
If you are looking to make a cogent point, then I would suggest you answer the questions rather than waste your time berating people for simply trying to be thorough.
Doubt and the sense of wonder
As Aristotle wrote in the Metaphysics, philosophy depends greatly upon wonder. Philosophizing may begin with some simple doubts about accepted beliefs. The initial impulse to philosophize may arise from suspicion, for example that we do not fully understand, and have not fully justified, even our most basic beliefs about the world.
[edit] Formulate questions and problems
Another element of philosophical method is to formulate questions to be answered or problems to be solved. The working assumption is that the more clearly the question or problem is stated, the easier it is to identify critical issues.
A relatively small number of major philosophers prefer not to be quick, but to spend more time trying to get extremely clear on what the problem is all about.
[edit] Enunciate a solution
Another approach is to enunciate a theory, or to offer a definition or analysis, which constitutes an attempt to solve a philosophical problem. Sometimes a philosophical theory by itself can be stated quite briefly. All the supporting philosophical text is offered by way of hedging, explanation, and argument.
Not all proposed solutions to philosophical problems consist of definitions or generalizations. Sometimes what is called for is a certain sort of explanation — not a causal explanation, but an explanation for example of how two different views, which seem to be contrary to one another, can be held at the same time, consistently. One can call this a philosophical explanation.
[edit] Justify the solution
An argument is a set of statements, one of which (the conclusion), it is said or implied, follows from the others (the premises). One might think of arguments as bundles of reasons — often not just a list, but logically interconnected statements — followed by the claim they are reasons for. The reasons are the premises, the claim they support is the conclusion; together they make an argument.
Philosophical arguments and justifications are another important part of philosophical method. It is rare to find a philosopher, particularly in the Western philosophical tradition, who lacks many arguments. Philosophers are, or at least are expected to be, very good at giving arguments. They constantly demand and offer arguments for different claims they make. This therefore indicates that philosophy is a quest for arguments.
A good argument — a clear, organized, and sound statement of reasons — may ultimately cure the original doubts that motivated us to take up philosophy. If one is willing to be satisfied without any good supporting reasons, then a Western philosophical approach may not be what one actually requires.
Again I will ask...
What God are you talking about? What are the characteristics you object to? Do you state that all possible Gods have been proven not to exist?
Do you really think that defining your statement properly is wrong?
QUOTE (Physfan+Nov 3 2009, 03:06 AM)
Read the words and context.
I have. Your words don't make sense in the context, seeming to be a non-sequiter.
I'm curious still about NoPeDaLs, and now I find myself wondering why you can't present a thorough response to anything I've said. One line responses which fail to answer any question or address any point I made will hardly make your case.
I have. Your words don't make sense in the context, seeming to be a non-sequiter.
QUOTE
ditto.
So you are acknowledging your error in asserting that he's arguing semantics? Since Rob is arguing points of logic and you are responding, it is therefore a given than you yourself were arguing points of logic, even if you incorrectly classified them as semantics.I'm curious still about NoPeDaLs, and now I find myself wondering why you can't present a thorough response to anything I've said. One line responses which fail to answer any question or address any point I made will hardly make your case.
QUOTE
He's not. He's arguing points of logic.
More like erecting a strawman.QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| He's not. He's arguing points of logic. |
More like erecting a strawman.
What God are you talking about? What are the characteristics you object to? Do you state that all possible Gods have been proven not to exist?
Do you really think that defining your statement properly is wrong?
What God are you talking about? What are the characteristics you object to? Do you state that all possible Gods have been proven not to exist?
Do you really think that defining your statement properly is wrong?
Aah, which god indeed? Shall I start with the relatively lowly ones and build up to the omnipotent? At last count, at least 2,500 and with new gods seemingly being manufactured each day, I suspect a strawman will follow closely behind each and I also suspect more will be freshly minted as I proceed.
Physfan
QUOTE
So you are acknowledging your error in asserting that he's arguing semantics?
No but I don't have time for a couple of days. You are quick to throw that in; an early attempt to gain a concession. I suspect both of you have a bit of god-lovin' in you but I'll be back.Physfan
QUOTE (Physfan+Nov 4 2009, 03:26 AM)
More like erecting a strawman.
This is yet another assertion which you have no absolutely evidence for. Do you expect me to simply take your word as gospel? There is no straw man there.
Interestingly, this statement is specifically a strawman attempt. Not a very good one at that.
In my case... let's look at what a strawman argument is.
Interestingly, this statement is specifically a strawman attempt. Not a very good one at that.
In my case... let's look at what a strawman argument is.
A straw man is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue.
In my request that you define your statement, I address your central point. However, I do not allow you to make a general statement.. ie that you know for a fact that there is not God... without asking A. Which God or concept of God are you talking about ... and B. What is your proof for that statement.
A. must preceed B. or you have no argument.
Ergo.. not a strawman.
It's amusing to me that you speculate on my, as well as MP and Buttershug's, motivation for our argument. One could easily do the same for you. However it hardly matters.
You made a claim... you have yet to back up that claim.
Ergo... the claim is unproven.
It may be your opinion but in this you are doing the exact same thing as theists... asserting your opinion as a fact.
You should know why that is wrong by now.
This is yet another assertion which you have no absolutely evidence for. Do you expect me to simply take your word as gospel? There is no straw man there.
QUOTE
Aah, which god indeed? Shall I start with the relatively lowly ones and build up to the omnipotent? At last count, at least 2,500 and with new gods seemingly being manufactured each day, I suspect a strawman will follow closely behind each and I also suspect more will be freshly minted as I proceed.
All you're doing is dodging the issue. You claim that Rob is arguing semantics and setting up straw men (however the hell you rationalize that), yet I could easily respond to this portion of his challenge. I could say "the Hebrew God as described by the bible," and I've established exactly which god I was referring to. But that seems to be too much trouble for you. All in all, you're coming across the same way theists do: Willing to say anything to avoid admitting your error.QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Aah, which god indeed? Shall I start with the relatively lowly ones and build up to the omnipotent? At last count, at least 2,500 and with new gods seemingly being manufactured each day, I suspect a strawman will follow closely behind each and I also suspect more will be freshly minted as I proceed. |
All you're doing is dodging the issue. You claim that Rob is arguing semantics and setting up straw men (however the hell you rationalize that), yet I could easily respond to this portion of his challenge. I could say "the Hebrew God as described by the bible," and I've established exactly which god I was referring to. But that seems to be too much trouble for you. All in all, you're coming across the same way theists do: Willing to say anything to avoid admitting your error.
No but I don't have time for a couple of days. You are quick to throw that in; an early attempt to gain a concession.
No but I don't have time for a couple of days. You are quick to throw that in; an early attempt to gain a concession.
Your own post implied that you were agreeing that he's arguing points of logic. Are you really this dense? Or is it dishonesty?
I think it's rather ironic that you have a line pertaining to the value of skepticism in your signature, yet you reject the very fundamental notion of skepticism.
QUOTE
I suspect both of you have a bit of god-lovin' in you but I'll be back.
So you hypocritically claim as you sit here asserting that you know something for which there is no evidence. I'll tell you the truth, I do believe in a sort of pantheistic god, but I have enough common sense and integrity not to sit here and assert that I "know" it exists.I think it's rather ironic that you have a line pertaining to the value of skepticism in your signature, yet you reject the very fundamental notion of skepticism.
QUOTE (Physfan+Nov 4 2009, 08:26 AM)
More like erecting a strawman.
Physfan
What about your strawman?
I said you have not proven anything.
You came back asking if I believed in any of those things. My belief has no bearing on proof of their non-existence.
Physfan
What about your strawman?
I said you have not proven anything.
You came back asking if I believed in any of those things. My belief has no bearing on proof of their non-existence.
QUOTE
I suspect both of you have a bit of god-lovin' in you but I'll be back.
Interestingly, this statement is specifically a strawman attempt. Not a very good one at that.
In my case... let's look at what a strawman argument is.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I suspect both of you have a bit of god-lovin' in you but I'll be back. |
Interestingly, this statement is specifically a strawman attempt. Not a very good one at that.
In my case... let's look at what a strawman argument is.
A straw man is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue.
In my request that you define your statement, I address your central point. However, I do not allow you to make a general statement.. ie that you know for a fact that there is not God... without asking A. Which God or concept of God are you talking about ... and B. What is your proof for that statement.
A. must preceed B. or you have no argument.
Ergo.. not a strawman.
It's amusing to me that you speculate on my, as well as MP and Buttershug's, motivation for our argument. One could easily do the same for you. However it hardly matters.
You made a claim... you have yet to back up that claim.
Ergo... the claim is unproven.
It may be your opinion but in this you are doing the exact same thing as theists... asserting your opinion as a fact.
You should know why that is wrong by now.
He is taking a lack of confirming evidence as proof of the negative view. There is no physical evidence either way.
QUOTE (RobDegraves+Nov 4 2009, 12:34 PM)
In my case... let's look at what a strawman argument is.
QUOTE
A straw man is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue.
Where did you get that definition? That's actually describing a red herring (or a non-sequitur, however you wish to describe it).
A straw man is an argument which presents a similar proposition to that which your opponent is making, then defeats it in order to give the impression that the original proposition has been defeated.
http://www.logicalfallacies.info/ambiguity/straw-man/
Example:
"(1) Trinitarianism holds that three equals one.
(2) Three does not equal one.
Therefore:
(3) Trinitarianism is false."
The first position misrepresents the claims of Trinatarianism in a way that isn't immediately obvious, so while the rest of this argument is logical, it fails to actually refute Trinitarianism.
http://www.logicalfallacies.info/relevance/red-herring/
Example:
“You may think that he cheated on the test, but look at the poor little thing! How would he feel if you made him sit it again?”
A person's potential emotional state at having to re-take a test has absolutely no bearing on whether or not he cheated on the test.
A straw man is an argument which presents a similar proposition to that which your opponent is making, then defeats it in order to give the impression that the original proposition has been defeated.
http://www.logicalfallacies.info/ambiguity/straw-man/
Example:
"(1) Trinitarianism holds that three equals one.
(2) Three does not equal one.
Therefore:
(3) Trinitarianism is false."
The first position misrepresents the claims of Trinatarianism in a way that isn't immediately obvious, so while the rest of this argument is logical, it fails to actually refute Trinitarianism.
http://www.logicalfallacies.info/relevance/red-herring/
Example:
“You may think that he cheated on the test, but look at the poor little thing! How would he feel if you made him sit it again?”
A person's potential emotional state at having to re-take a test has absolutely no bearing on whether or not he cheated on the test.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| A straw man is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. |
Where did you get that definition? That's actually describing a red herring (or a non-sequitur, however you wish to describe it).
A straw man is an argument which presents a similar proposition to that which your opponent is making, then defeats it in order to give the impression that the original proposition has been defeated.
http://www.logicalfallacies.info/ambiguity/straw-man/
Example:
"(1) Trinitarianism holds that three equals one.
(2) Three does not equal one.
Therefore:
(3) Trinitarianism is false."
The first position misrepresents the claims of Trinatarianism in a way that isn't immediately obvious, so while the rest of this argument is logical, it fails to actually refute Trinitarianism.
http://www.logicalfallacies.info/relevance/red-herring/
Example:
“You may think that he cheated on the test, but look at the poor little thing! How would he feel if you made him sit it again?”
A person's potential emotional state at having to re-take a test has absolutely no bearing on whether or not he cheated on the test.
He is taking a lack of confirming evidence as proof of the negative view. There is no physical evidence either way.
A straw man is an argument which presents a similar proposition to that which your opponent is making, then defeats it in order to give the impression that the original proposition has been defeated.
http://www.logicalfallacies.info/ambiguity/straw-man/
Example:
"(1) Trinitarianism holds that three equals one.
(2) Three does not equal one.
Therefore:
(3) Trinitarianism is false."
The first position misrepresents the claims of Trinatarianism in a way that isn't immediately obvious, so while the rest of this argument is logical, it fails to actually refute Trinitarianism.
http://www.logicalfallacies.info/relevance/red-herring/
Example:
“You may think that he cheated on the test, but look at the poor little thing! How would he feel if you made him sit it again?”
A person's potential emotional state at having to re-take a test has absolutely no bearing on whether or not he cheated on the test.
He is taking a lack of confirming evidence as proof of the negative view. There is no physical evidence either way.
That is correct, however he fails to acknowledge that "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." (Carl Sagan)
Strawman...
Wiki on Strawman
And...
Wiki on Strawman
And...
Exposition:
Judging from my experience, Straw Man is one of the commonest of fallacies. It is endemic in public debates on politics, ethics, and religion.
The Straw Man is a type of Red Herring because the arguer is attempting to refute his opponent's position, and in the context is required to do so, but instead attacks a position—the "straw man"—not held by his opponent. In a Straw Man argument, the arguer argues to a conclusion that denies the "straw man" he has set up, but misses the target. There may be nothing wrong with the argument presented by the arguer when it is taken out of context, that is, it may be a perfectly good argument against the straw man. It is only because the burden of proof is on the arguer to argue against the opponent's position that a Straw Man fallacy is committed. So, the fallacy is not simply the argument, but the entire situation of the argument occurring in such a context.
Fallacies
A strawman is indeed related to a red herring in that it is an attempt at diverting the attention away from the central point. A non sequitur would only be an accurate description if the new subject was more or less unrelated to the current argument.
QUOTE
The straw man fallacy occurs in the following pattern:
1. Topic A is under discussion.
2. Topic B is introduced under guise of being equivalent to topic A.
Topic B is usually a distorted version of A. It can be set up in several ways, including:
1. Misrepresenting the opponent's position and refuting the misrepresentation, giving the appearance that it was the opponent's position which has been refuted.[3]
2. Quoting an opponent's words out of context — i.e. choosing quotations which are intentionally misrepresentative of the opponent's actual intentions (see contextomy and quote mining).[4]
3. Presenting someone who defends a position poorly as the defender, then refuting that person's arguments - thus giving the appearance that every upholder of that position (and thus the position itself) has been defeated.[3]
4. Inventing a fictitious persona with actions or beliefs which are then criticized, implying that the person represents a group of whom the speaker is critical.
5. Oversimplifying an opponent's argument, then attacking this oversimplified version.
3. A participant (usually the one who introduced attacks B, as if it were A.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious, because attacking a distorted version of a position fails to constitute an attack on the actual position.
1. Topic A is under discussion.
2. Topic B is introduced under guise of being equivalent to topic A.
Topic B is usually a distorted version of A. It can be set up in several ways, including:
1. Misrepresenting the opponent's position and refuting the misrepresentation, giving the appearance that it was the opponent's position which has been refuted.[3]
2. Quoting an opponent's words out of context — i.e. choosing quotations which are intentionally misrepresentative of the opponent's actual intentions (see contextomy and quote mining).[4]
3. Presenting someone who defends a position poorly as the defender, then refuting that person's arguments - thus giving the appearance that every upholder of that position (and thus the position itself) has been defeated.[3]
4. Inventing a fictitious persona with actions or beliefs which are then criticized, implying that the person represents a group of whom the speaker is critical.
5. Oversimplifying an opponent's argument, then attacking this oversimplified version.
3. A participant (usually the one who introduced
attacks B, as if it were A.This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious, because attacking a distorted version of a position fails to constitute an attack on the actual position.
Wiki on Strawman
And...
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The straw man fallacy occurs in the following pattern: 1. Topic A is under discussion. 2. Topic B is introduced under guise of being equivalent to topic A. Topic B is usually a distorted version of A. It can be set up in several ways, including: 1. Misrepresenting the opponent's position and refuting the misrepresentation, giving the appearance that it was the opponent's position which has been refuted.[3] 2. Quoting an opponent's words out of context — i.e. choosing quotations which are intentionally misrepresentative of the opponent's actual intentions (see contextomy and quote mining).[4] 3. Presenting someone who defends a position poorly as the defender, then refuting that person's arguments - thus giving the appearance that every upholder of that position (and thus the position itself) has been defeated.[3] 4. Inventing a fictitious persona with actions or beliefs which are then criticized, implying that the person represents a group of whom the speaker is critical. 5. Oversimplifying an opponent's argument, then attacking this oversimplified version. 3. A participant (usually the one who introduced attacks B, as if it were A.This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious, because attacking a distorted version of a position fails to constitute an attack on the actual position. |
Wiki on Strawman
And...
Exposition:
Judging from my experience, Straw Man is one of the commonest of fallacies. It is endemic in public debates on politics, ethics, and religion.
The Straw Man is a type of Red Herring because the arguer is attempting to refute his opponent's position, and in the context is required to do so, but instead attacks a position—the "straw man"—not held by his opponent. In a Straw Man argument, the arguer argues to a conclusion that denies the "straw man" he has set up, but misses the target. There may be nothing wrong with the argument presented by the arguer when it is taken out of context, that is, it may be a perfectly good argument against the straw man. It is only because the burden of proof is on the arguer to argue against the opponent's position that a Straw Man fallacy is committed. So, the fallacy is not simply the argument, but the entire situation of the argument occurring in such a context.
Fallacies
A strawman is indeed related to a red herring in that it is an attempt at diverting the attention away from the central point. A non sequitur would only be an accurate description if the new subject was more or less unrelated to the current argument.
I thought I said that I didn't have time but would be back. Wait, let me check that...................................yes, I did. Can't you smartarses wait for my reply before launching back in to claim a false victory?
Physfan
ps Graverobber, as a supposed pedant for definitions, you can't even get strawman correct.
Physfan
ps Graverobber, as a supposed pedant for definitions, you can't even get strawman correct.
QUOTE (RobDegraves+Nov 4 2009, 01:01 PM)
A strawman is indeed related to a red herring in that it is an attempt at diverting the attention away from the central point. A non sequitur would only be an accurate description if the new subject was more or less unrelated to the current argument.
This is absolutely true, although a red herring doesn't involve the pretense of defeating an argument, merely diverting attention away from the argument. The straw man adds to this by attempting to cause someone to think that person A said X -which is an invalid point or defeated argument- when in all actuality, person A said Y, which is superficially similar to X, but may or may not be a valid point or undefeated argument (it usually is, otherwise there is no need for a straw man).
A straw-man is thus a type of argument, whereas a red herring is simply a tactic. Additionally, I really am curious as to where you got that definition of straw man, would you mind sharing?
Non-sequiturs and red herrings both operate the same way, however. They distract from the main point by bringing up something completely different. I usually refer to points as 'non-sequiturs,' as opposed to 'red herrings,' when they are completely (or nearly so) irrelevant to the discussion as a whole, such as when Physfan said that NoPeDaLs is beginning to sound sensible, as that particular dumbass has had absolutely no participation in this discussion, and his posts tend to be about the nature of god within his own unique definition, not the existence of the various gods espoused by common religions. I refer to something as a red herring when it is relevant to this discussion, but not directly related to the particular point it is brought up in response to.
Now, the thing that makes differentiating between a straw man and a red herring can be subtle: It can be implied instead of explicit. For instance, I agree with you that Physfan's claim that we seem like theists is a straw man, because in the context of this discussion, a theist is considered to be axiomatically wrong, and thus by comparing us to them he is implying that we are wrong because we are theists (I don't think this qualifies as an ad hominem, because in the context of this discussion, I think we can all agree that anyone who asserts the existence of a god or gods as fact is wrong). This is superficially similar to our actual position, because a theist would also agree with us that Physfan cannot possibly know that god does not exist. It differs in that a theist would insist that this is because god does exist, whereas our actual position is that it is impossible to know that which is not evinced, and Physfan has not shown us any evidence of god's nonexistence.
If we only consider what is explicitly said, then one would have to describe that as a red herring, distracting from the value of our arguments by focusing on our own personal beliefs, as he made no explicit argument from that.
As opposed to MP.... you seem to have a genuine problem differentiating between assertion and proof.
MP and I discussed our definitions and thus we can arrive at a reasonable agreement, thus moving the discussion forward.
However....
I like to think I am a reasonable man. Let's try it your way for a bit and see how that works out.
I know that you are wrong.
Is that better? I could write it in all caps if you prefer.
If this works for you it sure will make further discussions easier.
See my latest post @ theistic dread. Ho hum.
' Life is its own validation and reward and ultimate meaning."
Gee, I don't need Sky Pappy for anything! God did it cannot make me happier!
[/B][B]
Physfan
You are an arrogant f*ck, that's for sure. If you want to write it in CAPS, you'll more than confirm it.
Physfan
Well..that definitely proves your case.
This is absolutely true, although a red herring doesn't involve the pretense of defeating an argument, merely diverting attention away from the argument. The straw man adds to this by attempting to cause someone to think that person A said X -which is an invalid point or defeated argument- when in all actuality, person A said Y, which is superficially similar to X, but may or may not be a valid point or undefeated argument (it usually is, otherwise there is no need for a straw man).
A straw-man is thus a type of argument, whereas a red herring is simply a tactic. Additionally, I really am curious as to where you got that definition of straw man, would you mind sharing?
Non-sequiturs and red herrings both operate the same way, however. They distract from the main point by bringing up something completely different. I usually refer to points as 'non-sequiturs,' as opposed to 'red herrings,' when they are completely (or nearly so) irrelevant to the discussion as a whole, such as when Physfan said that NoPeDaLs is beginning to sound sensible, as that particular dumbass has had absolutely no participation in this discussion, and his posts tend to be about the nature of god within his own unique definition, not the existence of the various gods espoused by common religions. I refer to something as a red herring when it is relevant to this discussion, but not directly related to the particular point it is brought up in response to.
Now, the thing that makes differentiating between a straw man and a red herring can be subtle: It can be implied instead of explicit. For instance, I agree with you that Physfan's claim that we seem like theists is a straw man, because in the context of this discussion, a theist is considered to be axiomatically wrong, and thus by comparing us to them he is implying that we are wrong because we are theists (I don't think this qualifies as an ad hominem, because in the context of this discussion, I think we can all agree that anyone who asserts the existence of a god or gods as fact is wrong). This is superficially similar to our actual position, because a theist would also agree with us that Physfan cannot possibly know that god does not exist. It differs in that a theist would insist that this is because god does exist, whereas our actual position is that it is impossible to know that which is not evinced, and Physfan has not shown us any evidence of god's nonexistence.
If we only consider what is explicitly said, then one would have to describe that as a red herring, distracting from the value of our arguments by focusing on our own personal beliefs, as he made no explicit argument from that.
QUOTE (Physfan+)
I thought I said that I didn't have time but would be back. Wait, let me check that...................................yes, I did. Can't you smartarses wait for my reply before launching back in to claim a false victory?
This quote of yours is an outright lie.
No-one has proclaimed any false victory (we would have to be wrong to do so regardless, which I am perfectly confident is not the case) or even a true victory. No-one has claimed that evidence of god's nonexistence does not exist, we have merely asked you to present it. The fact that we consider your argument thus far to be shot through with fallacies is simply because it is. You may be correct, and have seen some evidence that no-one else has ever been exposed to which proves beyond any reasonable doubt that god does not exist, however you have done absolutely nothing to show that you have, and your arguments against our challenge to you is utterly worthless.
Absent any affirming evidence, your beliefs about god are no more valid than any theists, and your arguments to defend them are much less valid than those of most theists I have encountered. I'm seriously considering just neg repping you and being done with this.
No-one has proclaimed any false victory (we would have to be wrong to do so regardless, which I am perfectly confident is not the case) or even a true victory. No-one has claimed that evidence of god's nonexistence does not exist, we have merely asked you to present it. The fact that we consider your argument thus far to be shot through with fallacies is simply because it is. You may be correct, and have seen some evidence that no-one else has ever been exposed to which proves beyond any reasonable doubt that god does not exist, however you have done absolutely nothing to show that you have, and your arguments against our challenge to you is utterly worthless.
Absent any affirming evidence, your beliefs about god are no more valid than any theists, and your arguments to defend them are much less valid than those of most theists I have encountered. I'm seriously considering just neg repping you and being done with this.
QUOTE
ps Graverobber, as a supposed pedant for definitions, you can't even get strawman correct.
As opposed to MP.... you seem to have a genuine problem differentiating between assertion and proof.
MP and I discussed our definitions and thus we can arrive at a reasonable agreement, thus moving the discussion forward.
However....
I like to think I am a reasonable man. Let's try it your way for a bit and see how that works out.
I know that you are wrong.
Is that better? I could write it in all caps if you prefer.
If this works for you it sure will make further discussions easier.
See my latest post @ theistic dread. Ho hum.
' Life is its own validation and reward and ultimate meaning."
Gee, I don't need Sky Pappy for anything! God did it cannot make me happier!
[/B][B]
QUOTE
Absent any affirming evidence, your beliefs about god are no more valid than any theists, and your arguments to defend them are much less valid than those of most theists I have encountered. I'm seriously considering just neg repping you and being done with this.
Go for your life if your sensibilities are so tender. You can crap on without saying much so you may as well be succint for once.Physfan
QUOTE
However....
I like to think I am a reasonable man. Let's try it your way for a bit and see how that works out.
I know that you are wrong.
Is that better? I could write it in all caps if you prefer.
If this works for you it sure will make further discussions easier.
I like to think I am a reasonable man. Let's try it your way for a bit and see how that works out.
I know that you are wrong.
Is that better? I could write it in all caps if you prefer.
If this works for you it sure will make further discussions easier.
You are an arrogant f*ck, that's for sure. If you want to write it in CAPS, you'll more than confirm it.
Physfan
QUOTE (Physfan+Nov 5 2009, 02:41 AM)
Go for your life if your sensibilities are so tender. You can crap on without saying much so you may as well be succint for once.
Physfan
"If my sensibilities are so tender?" You must be as deluded as you are conceited if you think I actually give a crap about anything that happens here.
Tell me, what have you even presented a coherent argument for in this entire discussion? Not a damn thing, yet you seem to think you're absolutely right regardless.
Which leads me to wonder, how much work does it take to inflate your empty head this much? It must be a lot, as I'm supposedly quite arrogant, yet I've clearly got nothing on your unshakable sense of your own righteousness. How right do you have to be in order to not be held to any standards of integrity? Obviously you think you are that right, but I'm curious as to whether or not you can quantify it for me. It would save me a lot of time when arguing with people if I could just lie through my teeth the way you have, secure in the knowledge that I'm just soooo right that it's okay for me to be dishonest.
Physfan
"If my sensibilities are so tender?"
You must be as deluded as you are conceited if you think I actually give a crap about anything that happens here.Tell me, what have you even presented a coherent argument for in this entire discussion? Not a damn thing, yet you seem to think you're absolutely right regardless.
Which leads me to wonder, how much work does it take to inflate your empty head this much? It must be a lot, as I'm supposedly quite arrogant, yet I've clearly got nothing on your unshakable sense of your own righteousness. How right do you have to be in order to not be held to any standards of integrity? Obviously you think you are that right, but I'm curious as to whether or not you can quantify it for me. It would save me a lot of time when arguing with people if I could just lie through my teeth the way you have, secure in the knowledge that I'm just soooo right that it's okay for me to be dishonest.
QUOTE
You are an arrogant f*ck, that's for sure. If you want to write it in CAPS, you'll more than confirm it.
I see you recognize the arrogance of simply asserting one's position as fact without bothering to evince it in others... Why can't you recognize it in yourself?
QUOTE (Physfan+Nov 5 2009, 07:45 AM)
You are an arrogant f*ck, that's for sure. If you want to write it in CAPS, you'll more than confirm it.
Physfan
But he's right.
At one time I believed there was no "five colour" map but there was no proof that one did not exist. The proof does exist now but it's beyond me so I still can't prove that you only need four colours for any given map.
All we are saying is that you have not proven there is no God.
And we don't have to believe that there is one to make that statement.
Physfan
But he's right.
At one time I believed there was no "five colour" map but there was no proof that one did not exist. The proof does exist now but it's beyond me so I still can't prove that you only need four colours for any given map.
All we are saying is that you have not proven there is no God.
And we don't have to believe that there is one to make that statement.
QUOTE
You are an arrogant f*ck, that's for sure.
Well..that definitely proves your case.
What I said was; no one who has claimed the existence of a god, any god of any kind, has provided any evidence at all to substantiate their claim. I do not need to prove my statement because the initial claims were never proven.
Physfan
Physfan
QUOTE (Physfan+Nov 2 2009, 11:48 PM)
I feel fulfilled and I know there is no god, yours or any other flavour! I have, therefore, disproved your assertion. Next.................................................................
Physfan
You were saying?
Physfan
You were saying?
My "flavor" of god is if the pantheistic variety. You know, god IS the universe.
I think it's fairly obvious that god does exist... Now if you want to discuss the "nature" of god, that's probably up for debate.
I think it's fairly obvious that god does exist... Now if you want to discuss the "nature" of god, that's probably up for debate.
QUOTE (Goofus A Gallant+Nov 5 2009, 08:01 PM)
...You know, god IS the universe...
..I think it's fairly obvious that god does exist...
What is even slightly obvious about your statement?
At this point the universe is still proven to be a quantum mechanism.
Such an entity requires no initial state...nor instigator.
Nature is highly advanced, but nothing so specialized as to require "creating".
P.S.- Still waiting for the translation of the "Universe Operation Manual" you'll NEED to find in the Cosmic Microwave Background photos:
http://sci.esa.int/science-e/www/object/in...fobjectid=45547
(Probably not so obvious).
..I think it's fairly obvious that god does exist...
What is even slightly obvious about your statement?
At this point the universe is still proven to be a quantum mechanism.
Such an entity requires no initial state...nor instigator.
Nature is highly advanced, but nothing so specialized as to require "creating".
P.S.- Still waiting for the translation of the "Universe Operation Manual" you'll NEED to find in the Cosmic Microwave Background photos:
http://sci.esa.int/science-e/www/object/in...fobjectid=45547
(Probably not so obvious).
QUOTE (keith*+Nov 5 2009, 03:43 PM)
What is even slightly obvious about your statement?
At this point the universe is still proven to be a quantum mechanism.
Such an entity requires no initial state...nor instigator.
Nature is highly advanced, but nothing so specialized as to require "creating".
You are completely misunderstanding his statement. Given that I don't know how his statement could possibly be made any clearer, this does not reflect well upon you.
At this point the universe is still proven to be a quantum mechanism.
Such an entity requires no initial state...nor instigator.
Nature is highly advanced, but nothing so specialized as to require "creating".
You are completely misunderstanding his statement. Given that I don't know how his statement could possibly be made any clearer, this does not reflect well upon you.
QUOTE (keith*+Nov 5 2009, 08:43 PM)
What is even slightly obvious about your statement?
At this point the universe is still proven to be a quantum mechanism.
Such an entity requires no initial state...nor instigator.
Nature is highly advanced, but nothing so specialized as to require "creating".
P.S.- Still waiting for the translation of the "Universe Operation Manual" you'll NEED to find in the Cosmic Microwave Background photos:
http://sci.esa.int/science-e/www/object/in...fobjectid=45547
(Probably not so obvious).
Did I mention "creating", "instigating" or anything else like that? What part of god IS the universe did you not understand? I think it's fairly obvious that the universe exists.
Now, if you want to ask "is the universe intelligent?" or "is the universe alive?" these are very different questions into the "nature" of god.
I realize this is a different concept of god that many people from a Judeo-Christian background have a difficult time dealing with. They need to let their mind out of the little box they've allowed themselves to be herded into.
And others need to quit thinking that everybody who uses the word "god" is talking about the Judeo-Christian concept.
At this point the universe is still proven to be a quantum mechanism.
Such an entity requires no initial state...nor instigator.
Nature is highly advanced, but nothing so specialized as to require "creating".
P.S.- Still waiting for the translation of the "Universe Operation Manual" you'll NEED to find in the Cosmic Microwave Background photos:
http://sci.esa.int/science-e/www/object/in...fobjectid=45547
(Probably not so obvious).
Did I mention "creating", "instigating" or anything else like that? What part of god IS the universe did you not understand? I think it's fairly obvious that the universe exists.
Now, if you want to ask "is the universe intelligent?" or "is the universe alive?" these are very different questions into the "nature" of god.
I realize this is a different concept of god that many people from a Judeo-Christian background have a difficult time dealing with. They need to let their mind out of the little box they've allowed themselves to be herded into.
And others need to quit thinking that everybody who uses the word "god" is talking about the Judeo-Christian concept.
QUOTE (Goofus A Gallant+Nov 5 2009, 08:01 PM)
... Now if you want to discuss the "nature" of god, that's probably up for debate...
You DID warn me you would be difficult.
You DID warn me you would be difficult.
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+Nov 5 2009, 09:37 PM)
You are completely misunderstanding his statement. Given that I don't know how his statement could possibly be made any clearer, this does not reflect well upon you.
Is that your simple way of answering for others (maybe your puppet?),
or are you miffed I shot down Pantheism in three sentences.
Is that your simple way of answering for others (maybe your puppet?),
or are you miffed I shot down Pantheism in three sentences.
QUOTE (keith*+Nov 5 2009, 10:21 PM)
You DID warn me you would be difficult.
Did I? I don't recall ever interacting with you before.
Did I? I don't recall ever interacting with you before.
QUOTE (Grumpy+Oct 19 2008, 12:11 AM)
ahmd
Life has no purpose, other than to live on(reproduction). All else is opinion.
Grumpy
Actually life does have other purposes Grumpy, let me help... Reproducing with multiple partners in a single night. (expansion of your reproduction comment)
Then there is beer. good beer, not that cheap crap like MGD. 
Then there is skiing. the penultimate sport, when one is on skis it is the closest thing to Nirvana that exists on this plane of existence...
HAHAHAHA
MM
Life has no purpose, other than to live on(reproduction). All else is opinion.
Grumpy
Actually life does have other purposes Grumpy, let me help... Reproducing with multiple partners in a single night. (expansion of your reproduction comment)
Then there is beer. good beer, not that cheap crap like MGD. Then there is skiing. the penultimate sport, when one is on skis it is the closest thing to Nirvana that exists on this plane of existence...HAHAHAHA
MM
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+May 12 2009, 04:09 AM)
Call me unoriginal, but in answer to the thread title:
...
...
...
42.
Dadgum, I thought it was
56
Spank me for being bad.
...
...
...
42.
Dadgum, I thought it was
56
Spank me for being bad.
QUOTE (Goofus A Gallant+Nov 5 2009, 08:01 PM)
My "flavor" of god is if the pantheistic variety. You know, god IS the universe.
I think it's fairly obvious that god does exist... Now if you want to discuss the "nature" of god, that's probably up for debate.
You mean it isn't a noble bearded white guy in a robe with lightning coming from his eyes?
I have been sold a lie! I want my money back! Hey! anybody listening?
(I didn't think so)
I think it's fairly obvious that god does exist... Now if you want to discuss the "nature" of god, that's probably up for debate.
You mean it isn't a noble bearded white guy in a robe with lightning coming from his eyes?
I have been sold a lie! I want my money back! Hey! anybody listening?
(I didn't think so)
Yes, you have been sold a lie. Mine may be a lie too, but I'm not trying to sell it to anybody.
At least we can all take comfort in a pint of Guinness while we mull it over.
At least we can all take comfort in a pint of Guinness while we mull it over.
QUOTE (Goofus A Gallant+Nov 6 2009, 03:50 PM)
Yes, you have been sold a lie. Mine may be a lie too, but I'm not trying to sell it to anybody.
At least we can all take comfort in a pint of Guinness while we mull it over.
Now THAT sounds like a plan... and a much better way to spend the day.
At least we can all take comfort in a pint of Guinness while we mull it over.
Now THAT sounds like a plan... and a much better way to spend the day.
QUOTE (keith*+Nov 5 2009, 05:53 PM)
...I shot down Pantheism in three sentences.
ROFLMAO
Ignorance and arrogance combine to create such humorous beliefs.
ROFLMAO
Ignorance and arrogance combine to create such humorous beliefs.
QUOTE (keith* (to MjolnirPants) +Nov 5 2009, 10:53 PM)
...answering for others (maybe your puppet?)...
By your silence, that statement must have been a direct hit too.
(That makes two pretty big battle ships sunk, if I'm allowed to brag so...
kah-ching kah-ching )
By your silence, that statement must have been a direct hit too.
(That makes two pretty big battle ships sunk, if I'm allowed to brag so...
kah-ching kah-ching
)
That would be a "no". I am no one's puppet. I am me and only me.
So far you're striking out.
So far you're striking out.
I still think the answer is 56.
QUOTE (Goofus A Gallant+Nov 6 2009, 08:22 PM)
So far you're striking out.
Yes, I'm striking out Pantheism off my list of philosophic possibilities.
Easy kill. No big loss. Appreciate the appreciation. Write again soon.
Yes, I'm striking out Pantheism off my list of philosophic possibilities.
Easy kill. No big loss. Appreciate the appreciation. Write again soon.
Be my guest. My concept of god doesn't care if you believe or not. There are no consequences either way. No reward, no punishment. The same fate awaits the believer, the non-believer, the sinner and the saint. And it has no effect on the study of science. It is totally unprovable, and even irrelevant.
Good luck on your own search to make sense of the universe.
Good luck on your own search to make sense of the universe.
QUOTE (Goofus A Gallant+Nov 6 2009, 11:51 PM)
Be my guest. My concept of god doesn't care if you believe or not. There are no consequences either way. No reward, no punishment. The same fate awaits the believer, the non-believer, the sinner and the saint. And it has no effect on the study of science. It is totally unprovable, and even irrelevant.
Good luck on your own search to make sense of the universe.
Yes but you are using a floating definition.
So why not just say "what is, is".
And not use the word God at all?
Good luck on your own search to make sense of the universe.
Yes but you are using a floating definition.
So why not just say "what is, is".
And not use the word God at all?
buttershug,
This is also what I said. Did you miss this part?
This is also what I said. Did you miss this part?
Therefore, I can say a god or gods do not exist. The people making the claim of the existence of a supernatural being have been unable to furnish proof in any form at all, despite, in many cases, having thousands of years to provide some tiny shred. In the absence of any evidence, again despite countless claims, I can conclude that it, they or them do not exist. Strike me with lightning if I am wrong. Tick, tick, tick............. hmmm, I'm still here.
Bertrand Russell nailed it when he wrote about the china teapot orbiting the sun between the Earth and Mars. Just because some one claims one is there doesn't mean he would spend any time looking for it. Just as many gods are claimed to exist, none has shown the slightest evidence despite the rantings of human beings. All sorts of logical fallacies and claims of rational arguments won't make it so. Even more absurd are the clammers for me to disprove gods; their existence shoiuld be self-evident otherwise they DO NOT exist.
Physfan
Incorrect assumption.
If God or Gods did exist, there is no reason they would have to make His or Their existence known. If I was a God and I wanted to hide, I think I probably could.
Incorrect assumption.
If God or Gods did exist, there is no reason they would have to make His or Their existence known. If I was a God and I wanted to hide, I think I probably could.
Bertrand Russell nailed it when he wrote about the china teapot orbiting the sun between the Earth and Mars. Just because some one claims one is there doesn't mean he would spend any time looking for it.
That is an incorrect projection.
If I claimed that a china teapot orbits the Earth and had no evidence to back it up, there is no reason to believe that I am telling the truth.
However...
It's possible.
Ergo... you cannot disprove it either.
Einstein was right. Refer below.
Physfan
It's even funnier since you seem to think that insults are a substitute to logic or rational debate.
I wonder who the fool really is.
It's even more ironic when you read this...
It's even funnier since you seem to think that insults are a substitute to logic or rational debate.
I wonder who the fool really is.
It's even more ironic when you read this...
Fanning the flames of reason.
As for irony, one day you will recognise it. Maybe you are smarter than Bertrand Russell? (Hint; very close.)
Physfan
Again.. assertion in lieu of a rational argument.
It seems all you can do is make statements and issue poorly reasoned insults. You have yet to construct a single well established and reasonable argument. Then you insult us for asking something very basic.
We want you to think.
Is that really so hard?
As buttershug says... you are no better than the theists you despise. You have faith that you are correct.
You won't reason with anyone who doesn't share your viewpoint, you just make claims and refuse to discuss anything in a reasonable fashion.
I wonder.... who do we encounter that does that....
Ever have Jehovah's witnesses come to your door?
QUOTE
You were saying?
This is also what I said. Did you miss this part?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| You were saying? |
This is also what I said. Did you miss this part?
Therefore, I can say a god or gods do not exist. The people making the claim of the existence of a supernatural being have been unable to furnish proof in any form at all, despite, in many cases, having thousands of years to provide some tiny shred. In the absence of any evidence, again despite countless claims, I can conclude that it, they or them do not exist. Strike me with lightning if I am wrong. Tick, tick, tick............. hmmm, I'm still here.
Bertrand Russell nailed it when he wrote about the china teapot orbiting the sun between the Earth and Mars. Just because some one claims one is there doesn't mean he would spend any time looking for it. Just as many gods are claimed to exist, none has shown the slightest evidence despite the rantings of human beings. All sorts of logical fallacies and claims of rational arguments won't make it so. Even more absurd are the clammers for me to disprove gods; their existence shoiuld be self-evident otherwise they DO NOT exist.
Physfan
But the gods are carved in stone! That has to make them real.
My favorite is still Sobek, the Egyptian half man-half crocodile god.
My god can kick your god's butt!
He eats the Flying Spaghetti Monster for breakfast.
Maybe newguy needs a new deity!
My favorite is still Sobek, the Egyptian half man-half crocodile god.
My god can kick your god's butt!
He eats the Flying Spaghetti Monster for breakfast.
Maybe newguy needs a new deity!
QUOTE
their existence shoiuld be self-evident otherwise they DO NOT exist.
Incorrect assumption.
If God or Gods did exist, there is no reason they would have to make His or Their existence known. If I was a God and I wanted to hide, I think I probably could.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| their existence shoiuld be self-evident otherwise they DO NOT exist. |
Incorrect assumption.
If God or Gods did exist, there is no reason they would have to make His or Their existence known. If I was a God and I wanted to hide, I think I probably could.
Bertrand Russell nailed it when he wrote about the china teapot orbiting the sun between the Earth and Mars. Just because some one claims one is there doesn't mean he would spend any time looking for it.
That is an incorrect projection.
If I claimed that a china teapot orbits the Earth and had no evidence to back it up, there is no reason to believe that I am telling the truth.
However...
It's possible.
Ergo... you cannot disprove it either.
QUOTE
That is an incorrect projection.
If I claimed that a china teapot orbits the Earth and had no evidence to back it up, there is no reason to believe that I am telling the truth.
However...
It's possible.
Ergo... you cannot disprove it either.
And that is exactly what Russell was getting at. Why would he waste his time on a patently absurd nonsense? Apparently though, you think it worthwhile. So, the choice of preferred logic is between one of humanities greatest minds and you. Hahahahahahahahahahahahahah.If I claimed that a china teapot orbits the Earth and had no evidence to back it up, there is no reason to believe that I am telling the truth.
However...
It's possible.
Ergo... you cannot disprove it either.
Einstein was right. Refer below.
Physfan
QUOTE
So, the choice of preferred logic is between one of humanities greatest minds and you. Hahahahahahahahahahahahahah.
It's even funnier since you seem to think that insults are a substitute to logic or rational debate.
I wonder who the fool really is.
It's even more ironic when you read this...
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| So, the choice of preferred logic is between one of humanities greatest minds and you. Hahahahahahahahahahahahahah. |
It's even funnier since you seem to think that insults are a substitute to logic or rational debate.
I wonder who the fool really is.
It's even more ironic when you read this...
Fanning the flames of reason.
QUOTE
It's even funnier since you seem to think that insults are a substitute to logic or rational debate.
It isn't but neither is your view of logic and rationality.As for irony, one day you will recognise it. Maybe you are smarter than Bertrand Russell? (Hint; very close.)
Physfan
QUOTE (Physfan+Nov 7 2009, 02:56 AM)
buttershug,
This is also what I said. Did you miss this part?
Bertrand Russell nailed it when he wrote about the china teapot orbiting the sun between the Earth and Mars. Just because some one claims one is there doesn't mean he would spend any time looking for it. Just as many gods are claimed to exist, none has shown the slightest evidence despite the rantings of human beings. All sorts of logical fallacies and claims of rational arguments won't make it so. Even more absurd are the clammers for me to disprove gods; their existence shoiuld be self-evident otherwise they DO NOT exist.
Physfan
So when there was no proof of the four colour map theorem I could have assumed that there was none?
When explorers were exploring Africa and had no evidence of "mountain men", they could assume there were no gorillas?
You say that there is no God. You cross a line when you go from "there is no evidence of God" to "there is no God".
All we are asking is that you admit there is no evidence that there is no God. That you should be saying things like "there is no evidence that there is a God." or even "there is no reason to believe in God". Or even go as far as saying "it's irrational to believe in God". But you take an unjustified step to say "there is no God."
You are a believer as much as any Theist. you can't say "we don't know".
This is also what I said. Did you miss this part?
Bertrand Russell nailed it when he wrote about the china teapot orbiting the sun between the Earth and Mars. Just because some one claims one is there doesn't mean he would spend any time looking for it. Just as many gods are claimed to exist, none has shown the slightest evidence despite the rantings of human beings. All sorts of logical fallacies and claims of rational arguments won't make it so. Even more absurd are the clammers for me to disprove gods; their existence shoiuld be self-evident otherwise they DO NOT exist.
Physfan
So when there was no proof of the four colour map theorem I could have assumed that there was none?
When explorers were exploring Africa and had no evidence of "mountain men", they could assume there were no gorillas?
You say that there is no God. You cross a line when you go from "there is no evidence of God" to "there is no God".
All we are asking is that you admit there is no evidence that there is no God. That you should be saying things like "there is no evidence that there is a God." or even "there is no reason to believe in God". Or even go as far as saying "it's irrational to believe in God". But you take an unjustified step to say "there is no God."
You are a believer as much as any Theist. you can't say "we don't know".
QUOTE
It isn't but neither is your view of logic and rationality.
Again.. assertion in lieu of a rational argument.
It seems all you can do is make statements and issue poorly reasoned insults. You have yet to construct a single well established and reasonable argument. Then you insult us for asking something very basic.
We want you to think.
Is that really so hard?
As buttershug says... you are no better than the theists you despise. You have faith that you are correct.
You won't reason with anyone who doesn't share your viewpoint, you just make claims and refuse to discuss anything in a reasonable fashion.
I wonder.... who do we encounter that does that....
Ever have Jehovah's witnesses come to your door?
QUOTE (Physfan+Nov 7 2009, 12:23 AM)
And that is exactly what Russell was getting at. Why would he waste his time on a patently absurd nonsense? Apparently though, you think it worthwhile. So, the choice of preferred logic is between one of humanities greatest minds and you. Hahahahahahahahahahahahahah.
Could you please quote where Russell claimed that it is a fact that God does not exist?
Here's an interesting quote from Russell...
It's you.
Here's an interesting quote from Russell...
QUOTE
As a philosopher, if I were speaking to a purely philosophic audience I should say that I ought to describe myself as an Agnostic, because I do not think that there is a conclusive argument by which one can prove that there is not a God. On the other hand, if I am to convey the right impression to the ordinary man in the street I think that I ought to say that I am an Atheist, because, when I say that I cannot prove that there is not a God, I ought to add equally that I cannot prove that there are not the Homeric gods.
It's not Rob who's disagreeing with Bertrand Russell. It's you.
QUOTE
We want you to think.
No you don't, you want me to think like you.QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| We want you to think. |
No you don't, you want me to think like you.
There is something feeble and a little contemptible about a man who cannot face the perils of life without the help of comfortable myths.
There is something feeble and a little contemptible about a man who cannot face the perils of life without the help of comfortable myths.
B Russell; Human Society in Ethics and Politics, 1954
And I know you will read into that whatever you want to. Anyway, I would rather spend my time with people such as Dawkins, Onfray, Russell and other prodigious thinkers than you excessively pedantic f*cks; afraid to reach a sound conclusion because of a minor incursion into a logic that holds ridiculous extremes, eg, the orbiting teapot as a sensible idea.
Goodbye.
And I know you will read into that whatever you want to. Anyway, I would rather spend my time with people such as Dawkins, Onfray, Russell and other prodigious thinkers than you excessively pedantic f*cks; afraid to reach a sound conclusion because of a minor incursion into a logic that holds ridiculous extremes, eg, the orbiting teapot as a sensible idea.
Goodbye.
QUOTE (Physfan+Nov 8 2009, 03:02 AM)
No you don't, you want me to think like you.
B Russell; Human Society in Ethics and Politics, 1954
And I know you will read into that whatever you want to. Anyway, I would rather spend my time with people such as Dawkins, Onfray, Russell and other prodigious thinkers than you excessively pedantic f*cks; afraid to reach a sound conclusion because of a minor incursion into a logic that holds ridiculous extremes, eg, the orbiting teapot as a sensible idea.
Goodbye.
Who said the orbiting tea pot is a sensible idea?
Who even said that God is a sensible idea?
You simply can't accept that it is impossible to know.
B Russell; Human Society in Ethics and Politics, 1954
And I know you will read into that whatever you want to. Anyway, I would rather spend my time with people such as Dawkins, Onfray, Russell and other prodigious thinkers than you excessively pedantic f*cks; afraid to reach a sound conclusion because of a minor incursion into a logic that holds ridiculous extremes, eg, the orbiting teapot as a sensible idea.
Goodbye.
Who said the orbiting tea pot is a sensible idea?
Who even said that God is a sensible idea?
You simply can't accept that it is impossible to know.
QUOTE (Physfan+Nov 7 2009, 10:02 PM)
B Russell; Human Society in Ethics and Politics, 1954
And I know you will read into that whatever you want to. Anyway, I would rather spend my time with people such as Dawkins, Onfray, Russell and other prodigious thinkers than you excessively pedantic f*cks; afraid to reach a sound conclusion because of a minor incursion into a logic that holds ridiculous extremes, eg, the orbiting teapot as a sensible idea.
Goodbye.
And I know you will read into that whatever you want to. Anyway, I would rather spend my time with people such as Dawkins, Onfray, Russell and other prodigious thinkers than you excessively pedantic f*cks; afraid to reach a sound conclusion because of a minor incursion into a logic that holds ridiculous extremes, eg, the orbiting teapot as a sensible idea.
Goodbye.
I've some more Russell quotes for you...
QUOTE
Copleston: Well, my position is the affirmative position that such a being actually exists, and that His existence can be proved philosophically. Perhaps you would tell me if your position is that of agnosticism or of atheism. I mean, would you say that the non-existence of God can be proved?
Russell: No, I should not say that: my position is agnostic.
—Bertrand Russell v. Fr. Copleston, 1948 BBC Radio Debate on the Existence of God
Russell: No, I should not say that: my position is agnostic.
—Bertrand Russell v. Fr. Copleston, 1948 BBC Radio Debate on the Existence of God
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Copleston: Well, my position is the affirmative position that such a being actually exists, and that His existence can be proved philosophically. Perhaps you would tell me if your position is that of agnosticism or of atheism. I mean, would you say that the non-existence of God can be proved? Russell: No, I should not say that: my position is agnostic. —Bertrand Russell v. Fr. Copleston, 1948 BBC Radio Debate on the Existence of God |
There is no logical impossibility in the hypothesis that the world sprang into being five minutes ago, exactly as it then was, with a population that "remembered" a wholly unreal past. There is no logically necessary connection between events at different times; therefore nothing that is happening now or will happen in the future can disprove the hypothesis that the world began five minutes ago.
—Bertrand Russell, The Analysis of Mind, 1921, pp. 159–60; cf. Philosophy, Norton, 1927, p. 7, where Russell acknowledges Gosse's paternity of this anti-evolutionary argument.
—Bertrand Russell, The Analysis of Mind, 1921, pp. 159–60; cf. Philosophy, Norton, 1927, p. 7, where Russell acknowledges Gosse's paternity of this anti-evolutionary argument.
QUOTE
I do not believe that I am now dreaming, but I cannot prove that I am not. I am, however, quite certain that I am having certain experiences, whether they be those of a dream or those of waking life.
-Human Knowledge: Its Scope and Limits (1948)
-Human Knowledge: Its Scope and Limits (1948)
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I do not believe that I am now dreaming, but I cannot prove that I am not. I am, however, quite certain that I am having certain experiences, whether they be those of a dream or those of waking life. -Human Knowledge: Its Scope and Limits (1948) |
An atheist, like a Christian, holds that we can know whether or not there is a God. The Christian holds that we can know there is a God; the atheist, that we can know there is not. The Agnostic suspends judgment, saying that there are not sufficient grounds either for affirmation or for denial. At the same time, an Agnostic may hold that the existence of God, though not impossible, is very improbable; he may even hold it so improbable that it is not worth considering in practice. In that case, he is not far removed from atheism. His attitude may be that which a careful philosopher would have towards the gods of ancient Greece. If I were asked to prove that Zeus and Poseidon and Hera and the rest of the Olympians do not exist, I should be at a loss to find conclusive arguments. An Agnostic may think the Christian God as improbable as the Olympians; in that case, he is, for practical purposes, at one with the atheists.
-What is an Agnostic? (1953)
Hey, if you can interpret Rob's dreams as well as you seem to think you can interpret his motives, there might be a chance for you to earn some money here. Er, assuming Rob want's his dreams interpreted, that is.
-What is an Agnostic? (1953)
QUOTE
No you don't, you want me to think like you.
Ahhhh. In addition to being arrogant, hypocritical, uncritical of thought and more offensive than even me (no mean feat, there), you're also psychic. Amazing.Hey, if you can interpret Rob's dreams as well as you seem to think you can interpret his motives, there might be a chance for you to earn some money here. Er, assuming Rob want's his dreams interpreted, that is.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.