Make up your mind. When you have tell us what use or work is done by your 'god theory'. If you can decide what it is.Nick_A wrote:
1) [God is, ] The conscious source of creation within which the process of existence takes place.
2) God doesn't exist so needs no grounds for existence.
3) God IS. Existence is a process always in change..
I think in your quest to find the true atheist you may encounter situations in which simulacra of philosophy are limited to critique, and thus without the power to critique the void looms; of course this not only can have an unhinging effect but hinges on defining the void as the ineffable made apparent by loss of attachment to conceptual granite, and why would anyone define void any other way on a philosophy forum?Nick_A wrote:The blind denier leaves themselves two choices: blind belief or blind denial. The conscious act of pondering or contemplation of the unknown is foreign to them. I find it sad but they feel this neglect to be a sign of progress. Curious!uwot wrote: It is not blind denial that stops people from believing in worn out Platonic nonsense. On the contrary, it is necessarily blind belief that allows you believe in things you cannot see.
What do you think you are actually pondering and contemplating about?Nick_A wrote:...The conscious act of pondering or contemplation of the unknown is foreign to them. ...
Would you feel happier if we said we'd pondered this 'unknown' and come to different conclusions than yours?I find it sad but they feel this neglect to be a sign of progress. Curious!
Indeed, but are you saying that the way you 'know' this ineffable is by way this lose of attachment or that the critique depends upon this idea?Walker wrote:I think in your quest to find the true atheist you may encounter situations in which simulacra of philosophy are limited to critique, and thus without the power to critique the void looms; of course this not only can have an unhinging effect but hinges on defining the void as the ineffable made apparent by loss of attachment to conceptual granite, and why would anyone define void any other way on a philosophy forum?
Was it, then why didn't you answer the response?Walker wrote:uwot’s response was also predictable. ...
He just asked you what you hoped to gain here, not to leave - strange you read it that way? He also told you its not his business whether you stay or go, so not his responsibility.He had the chance to end the existence of Walker but got all tangled up in an ethics and intellectual weighing of the spheres which resulted in an inability to carry that responsibility within the context of all things considered, which was that specific situation. ...
Who you talking to?Speculation subject to probability: cash incentive would likely eased the burden to end an existence, like a mercenary or one paid to guard the faith of atheism, but that incentive was absent from the situation. Dalek's need no incentive, uwot's price is more muddled.
We'd be more interested in what facts you have about this 'God' of yours?Of course now, that situation is history.
That’s a fact Jack, established after the event, predicted prior.
Oh yeah.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3bQnxlHZsjY
As has been said, some of us have studied, so not so terrible and dangerous after all but can be very bad indeed.Walker wrote:...
Though it may seem terrible and dangerous when reality doesn’t fit into the box you’ve been taught, it really isn’t so bad.
Oh good, so you could answer then.Once you accept what is, that you’re surrounded by creation, you can address your hangup about how creation and your human tendency towards duality (e.g., conceptually dividing your existence and the existence of anything else into creator and creation) comes into being and interfaces. Then you can start working on that fixation with the tools of rationality that God gave you via evolution, natural law, whatever. (OMG look he used that word he’s one of them, activate the rote litany.)
Until then all you’re doing is repeating your assertions and conclusions, sans authority, sans reasoning, sans empiricism ... all stuff heard before.
That's easy to say. Have you any evidence that you did predict it?Walker wrote:uwot’s response was also predictable.
You are talking about yourself in the third person. It's not a good sign.Walker wrote:He had the chance to end the existence of Walker...
There really is no context. The only contributor I have any responsibility for is myself; it is your choice to engage or not.Walker wrote:...but got all tangled up in an ethics and intellectual weighing of the spheres which resulted in an inability to carry that responsibility within the context of all things considered, which was that specific situation.
Well, since there was no money on the table at the time, we'll never know. This is mythologizing again. You have a set of premises you believe to be true, and you have created a narrative that is consistent with those premises. In doing so, you have made crass judgements about the personality of a human being you have never met. Does your god sanction such anti-intellectual behaviour?Walker wrote:Speculation subject to probability: cash incentive would likely eased the burden to end an existence, like a mercenary or one paid to guard the faith of atheism, but that incentive was absent from the situation. Dalek's need no incentive, uwot's price is more muddled.
Of course now, that situation is history.
Anyway. Since we are stuck with you: other than that, what else have you offered that is a fact?Wanker (Well, someone had to.) wrote:That’s a fact Jack, established after the event, predicted prior.
Oh yeah.
I think if you follow the logic, the blind denier has left themselves with no choice but blind denial.Nick_A wrote:The blind denier leaves themselves two choices: blind belief or blind denial.
Pondering or contemplating the unknown is metaphysics, finding out is research. The point of philosophy is to make sense of the available data. Any philosopher worth her salt will gather as much information as is available, and make a coherent story out of that. Lazy, simple minded light weights, will settle for something they are comfortable with and build a house from those bricks.Nick_A wrote:The conscious act of pondering or contemplation of the unknown is foreign to them.
Yup, more mythologizing. It is what you believe; you haven't troubled yourself to find out if it is true.Nick_A wrote:I find it sad but they feel this neglect to be a sign of progress. Curious!
uwot wrote:I think if you follow the logic, the blind denier has left themselves with no choice but blind denial.
A typical response from somebody with no argument or counter-argument, a person who is more comfortable with smilies than words.Arising_uk wrote:uwot wrote:I think if you follow the logic, the blind denier has left themselves with no choice but blind denial.
No surprise you can't follow the logic nor have a sense of ironic humour bob(no please!! Don't tell me at least you know how to spell it).bobevenson wrote:A typical response from somebody with no argument or counter-argument, a person who is more comfortable with smilies than words.
Old stuff is right, word salad. If it isn’t created, it’s ever-existent. This fact has already been covered.Arising_uk wrote:As has been said, some of us have studied, so not so terrible and dangerous after all but can be very bad indeed.Walker wrote:...
Though it may seem terrible and dangerous when reality doesn’t fit into the box you’ve been taught, it really isn’t so bad.Oh good, so you could answer then.Once you accept what is, that you’re surrounded by creation, you can address your hangup about how creation and your human tendency towards duality (e.g., conceptually dividing your existence and the existence of anything else into creator and creation) comes into being and interfaces. Then you can start working on that fixation with the tools of rationality that God gave you via evolution, natural law, whatever. (OMG look he used that word he’s one of them, activate the rote litany.)
Until then all you’re doing is repeating your assertions and conclusions, sans authority, sans reasoning, sans empiricism ... all stuff heard before.
Presumably your creator was outside its creation when it made it? If so its in a creation no? So what created that and it? And should we not be worshiping they?
If you look at reality it appears to be about change with the corollary that with intelligence we can notice causation but not all causes are conscious ones so why couldn't this 'creation' be one of those?
Let's say its not, why do you think this reality is what its all about? Specifically why do you think living things are at the top of the tree in this 'creators' scheme of things? Or to put it another way, why do you think this program is about us?
Now Obvious Leo would say it is in a sense and appears to need no act of creation and is eternally becoming, now there's a dangerous and terrible unbox-like teaching, old like yours of course but those bloody Greeks and Germans eh!
Going to be addressing the other ones?Walker wrote:...
Old stuff is right, word salad. If it isn’t created, it’s ever-existent. This fact has already been covered.
Your hunger to know of God makes you suspect as an atheist. ...
Sue me! You've obviously not met many atheists then as I've never met one who hasn't said that an actual visit would be nice, just to confirm things an' all. Until then I'll take all the claims by others about their 'Gods' as the bullshit it is(if one is referring to this dungeon-master 'God' that many seem to believe in).
Your strawmen abound. There's nothing hesitant about the Agnostic position - nobody knows and nobody can know, shut-up.Uncertain and hesitant, like an agnostic. ...
No they don't, if anything they wish the proselytiser would shut-up.Agnostic seeks proseltyzer. ...
So the Muslims claim.No man can truly tell you of God. ...
That's because its just you.Everything changes except God and you, that's enough to know. ...
The problem is that I haven't been giving this belief before I could think logically and as such all the taps I've had I ascribe to different things. Otherwise I'd be pretty pissed if I thought some of them were deliberately intentional.What obscures God's presence has been covered many times in numerous ways. Check it out if you're sincerely interested. Wait for the tap. Tap tap tapparoo. ...
What I'm effing stuck on is how convenient a word ineffable is when asked to say how you know all these things your 'God' wants, as apparently it can tap so should at least know Morse.Either you don’t know the meaning of ineffable or you’re stuck on effing.
Wrong comedian for me thanks.
UK wrote:We'd be more interested in what facts you have about this 'God' of yours?
Clue in: asking someone to prosteylze and then telling them to shut up. Is this how a philosopher should behave? Who taught you to do that?UK wrote:shut up
