Philosophy Now Forum

The Inglorious One wrote:So it must be true that the Earth is the center of the universe. After all, it's both obvious and simple.

Not at all. What is obvious and simple is that the universe has no centre.

Obvious Leo wrote:

The Inglorious One wrote:So it must be true that the Earth is the center of the universe. After all, it's both obvious and simple.

Not at all. What is obvious and simple is that the universe has no centre.

You'd drown in a parking lot puddle!

Inglorious. This is not about me, but about the statement you made. How do you obviously and simply conclude that the earth is at the centre of the universe? This strikes me as the most illogical and counter-intuitive proposition imaginable.

The Inglorious One wrote:I love paradoxes. That's why I get a kick out of atheists who ask for proof or think God is able to demonstrate he is God. For if God is infinite -- which is to say wholeness itself -- any "proof" would require a definition of God, which necessitates God being limited.

If god is infinite. If god is wholeness, then you have to ask, what is the word "god" for? As this means that god is reduced to a meaningless word.
You, and I mean YOU, change from a position of believing in a "god", to believing in the universe. Rather than god is the universe; for you The Universe is your God.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:You, and I mean YOU, change from a position of believing in a "god", to believing in the universe.

As if the universe was something which required believing in.

Inglorious. Are you willing to accept the existence of the universe as a proposition of the bloody obvious or are you going to need to make a fucking Hegelian meal out of this as well?

Obvious Leo wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:You, and I mean YOU, change from a position of believing in a "god", to believing in the universe.

As if the universe was something which required believing in.

Well.... Duh. LOL

Inglorious. Are you willing to accept the existence of the universe as a proposition of the bloody obvious or are you going to need to make a fucking Hegelian meal out of this as well?

Lacewing has the same problem; but solved with fluffy flowers, moonbeams and rainbows.

I seem to choose to admit ignorance on the matter. Others seem to choose to believe in the existence of a god. Maybe it wouldn't be very "sporting" of god to make us deterministically incapable of disbelief. I don't know.

Are you agnostic or do you think there is a God who has created the capacity for doubt?

Hobbes' Choice wrote: Lacewing has the same problem; but solved with fluffy flowers, moonbeams and rainbows.

You would like it.

Oh, the simple definitions of men from their swamps. I think they are numb from the swamp gasses.

Lacewing wrote: I think they are numb from the swamp gasses.

You might have a point there. I've never met a bloke yet who doesn't brag about his farts.

Obvious Leo wrote:

raw_thought wrote:. But the most profound experiences arise from questioning the obvious.

Bollocks. Our most profound experiences arise from understanding the obvious.

"simplex sigillum veri"...The simple is the seal of the true.

I did not write that!
The inglorious one wrote that!
However, that is not to say that I disagee with it.
One must first question something before one understands it. So you both are right!

I am an agnostic.I admit that I do not know if God exists. That seems to be the only rational response.
PS: I will not get into a trivial semantic debate. Some say that all agnostics are atheists because atheism is a lack of belief in God. I am using the common definition. Athiests believe that there is no God. Theists believe that there is a God and agnostics admit that they do not know. That is no fence sitting. Similarly, if I said that I do not know what element is at the center of Pluto, that is not fence sitting.
Argument against atheism : you cannot prove a negative.
Argument against theism: God is ineffable. Let "X" represent an undefined term. Does it make sense to say that X exists?
I will say that the ultimate truth is ineffable tho. What is a tooth pick? Wood. What is wood? Cellulose fibers...ad infinitum. There is no final definition. And if there were,that term would be undefined.

raw_thought wrote:Athiests believe that there is no God.

This is a non-standard usage of the word, although I concede that this is the common American usage.

Atheists do not believe there is a god rather than believe there is no god and the difference is not a trivial one. The former is a statement of disbelief and the latter is a statement of belief and this is also widely reflected in the world-views of atheists more generally. The atheist is far less likely to be a believing kind of bloke on most matters in which belief is a prerequisite. Many surveys have shown that atheists are far less likely than theists to believe in ghosts, astrology, UFOs, homeopathy, conspiracy theories, etc.

As I said, I do not want to get into a trivial semantic debate. If one says that all agnostics are atheists then why even have the word "agnostic" in the first place? The common usage of the words is far more rational and efficient.

Are you saying that an atheist believes that God is possible???
That seems a very non-standard definition of atheist.

The chicken paradox that shows that if God is all knowing he cannot be all powerful!
In the famous game of chicken, two drivers hurtle their cars toward each other, and the one who turns away at the last minute loses. Or they collide, and both lose even bigger, or they both swerve and have reciprocal embarrassment. Before you play this game, you might make a matrix of your actions (stay the course vs. swerve) against the opponent's actions (same two choices), and see what happens with the four different possible outcomes. But then imagine that your opponent is omniscient. He knows just what you are going to do. Surprisingly, this restricts the results of the game in unexpected ways so that you cannot lose. If your opponent is omniscient, all you have to do is to stay the course. He will know that you are not going to swerve, and (assuming that he does not want a collision), he will have to be the one to do the swerving himself. You win whenever you play chicken with an omniscient being!
FROM
http://www.amazon.com/The-Paradox-God-S ... 1403964572