Philosophy Now Forum

HexHammer wrote:

sthitapragya wrote:So are prophecies. It's a matter of perspective.

So could you elevate on this perspective? ..or are you just dispensing elaborate bs to dodge giving an intelligent answer.

I think I misunderstood your sarcasm. Unless it wasn't.

attofishpi wrote:

sthitapragya wrote:What kind of reasoning concludes God exists?

Deductive - from 19yrs of experience of 'it'.

That' 's not how it works. You need to give your conclusion in logical steps. Your saying so does not unfortunately make it acceptable as deductive reasoning.

sthitapragya wrote:

attofishpi wrote:

sthitapragya wrote:What kind of reasoning concludes God exists?

Deductive - from 19yrs of experience of 'it'.

That' 's not how it works. You need to give your conclusion in logical steps. Your saying so does not unfortunately make it acceptable as deductive reasoning.

It works for me. I am not going to lay out the past 19yrs of my life and experiences of God for your analysis.

attofishpi wrote:

sthitapragya wrote:

attofishpi wrote:Deductive - from 19yrs of experience of 'it'.

That' 's not how it works. You need to give your conclusion in logical steps. Your saying so does not unfortunately make it acceptable as deductive reasoning.

It works for me. I am not going to lay out the past 19yrs of my life and experiences of God for your analysis.

Well okay then. But I wasn't asking for 19 years of experience. Just the reasoning behind you belief which obviously got reinforced in 19 years.

To the OP, Søren Kierkegaard has made some important contributions to understanding the reason for religion.
Here are some links from Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosoph ... es_of_life
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stages_on_Life%27s_Way

I happen to believe Kierkegaard is dead on correct in explaining the becoming of religious person as immersing oneself in religion has a kind of three stages, 1) the aesthetic (seeing whole humans is beautiful compared to injured people), 2) the ethical (as people are considered beautiful, what ways destroy this beauty?), 3) the religious (in all beauty, the world is wonderful, how come all of this grand wonder of the World?)

As one enters this 3rd level/stage, one is lost to religion, consumed with being grateful for all the good aspects of life and seeing/condemning the bad and the pervert/corrupt go/to Hell!

The wonders of life, charms of nature, existence and Universe make such immense impact that one is bound to live it out, to see what death is, to see what the cause of these feelings of life's miracle is all due.

Clearly, I see it as a loss when people turn to Atheism and make the meaning of life "one's stamp collection"! How hard isn't it to be true to the ethics of humanity in such a light? I just question this kind of existence...

Good?

I like Kierkegaard's description of a human being: the relating of a relation relating to itself.

I like Kierkegaard's description of a human being: the relating of a relation relating to itself.

That deserves a toast.

Reflex wrote:I like Kierkegaard's description of a human being: the relating of a relation relating to itself.

This isn't Facebook, there's no facility to like things here. Just go away.

Harbal wrote:

Reflex wrote:I like Kierkegaard's description of a human being: the relating of a relation relating to itself.

This isn't Facebook, there's no facility to like things here. Just go away.

Aw, come on, Hairball. You don't even know what it means.

Reflex wrote: Aw, come on, Harbal. You don't even know what it means.

That's cos I'm not a wanker.

Harbal wrote:

Reflex wrote: Aw, come on, Harbal. You don't even know what it means.

That's cos I'm not a wanker.

I dunno about that. You're in Yorkshire, aren't you? The Lonely Planet website says: "Stay here for a while and you'll come away believing, like the locals, that God is indeed a Yorkshirewoman."

Harbal wrote: Just go away.

Good advice.

Reflex wrote:I like Kierkegaard's description of a human being: the relating of a relation relating to itself.

Kirkegaard was a tard, using overly fancy words and phrases that essentially meant nothing and are unachievable.

Objective truth, what's that? ..no one really knows, imo it would require a super genius to know, then again they can be wrong too, so there's too great uncertainty to determined what is an objective truth and what is falsehood. So it's essentially "rainbow chasing" at it's finest.

attofishpi wrote:

sthitapragya wrote:What kind of reasoning concludes God exists?

Deductive - from 19yrs of experience of 'it'.

You do know that Brian is an atheist don't you?

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:

attofishpi wrote:

sthitapragya wrote:What kind of reasoning concludes God exists?

Deductive - from 19yrs of experience of 'it'.

You do know that Brian is an atheist don't you?

Which Brian? Me or the dog from Family Guy? Yes i know Brian the dog is an atheist.