Philosophy Now Forum

"Show Me"

Yep...I wanna see (said the man fingering the Lament Configuration).

"Sheep lie, ya' know."

HA!

"Either the universe has existed forever or it hasn't"

Ah, but that's not the question at hand.

The question: is it "an infinite regress of causation, or, a non-contingent ground of being"? Is it 'a cyclical universe extending back infinitely, or, a supranatural entity standing outside the order of things'?

For myself: I say the universe has a finite lifetime (had a beginning) and is a one shot (is not part of a multiverse).

What I can't say: what came before the beginning, or how the beginning 'began'.

What I'm not willing to do: accept (for me) an unacceptable solution to the problem solely cuz there's no better solution offered. So: I live with problem, the gulf, the unknown.

ReliStuPhD wrote:

thedoc wrote:Wasn't expecting to, just wanted to propose a 3rd possibility.

The problem is that it's not a possibility. Nothing comes from nothing.

Ah, not so Grasshopper!

henry quirk wrote:'ganz andere…hrhshndhurbdi'

Alien, and –- perhaps –- unrecognizable?

If god is wholly 'other' then how to recognize him 'as' god?

That is: if god is so removed from me that he is unrecognizable as god then how am I to relate to such a thing?

ganz andere is not 'wholly other' but.......'completely different'!

https://youtu.be/K2P86C-1x3o

https://youtu.be/FGK8IC-bGnU

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x27yax ... shortfilms

"ganz andere is not 'wholly other' but.......'completely different'"

Which is to say -- again -- alien.

Proponents of any of the Big Three would have me love such a thing, roll around on the floor and worship such a thing.

Cthulhu only wants to eat me (as part of eating the world)...I can respect that.

henry quirk wrote:"ganz andere is not 'wholly other' but.......'completely different'"

Which is to say -- again -- alien.

Proponents of any of the Big Three would have me love such a thing, roll around on the floor and worship such a thing.

Cthulhu only wants to eat me (as part of eating the world)...I can respect that.

Depending on the context, 'utterly alien' is another potential translation.

ReliStuPhD wrote:The more time I spend talking/debating with atheists, the more it seems to me that atheists are debating something that they don't entirely understand. With respect to religion, it is my experience that, more often than not, the atheist presents caricatures of this or that religion that an informed believer* in said tradition would find similarly ridiculous. Based on the typical position of an atheist (that they are concerned with arriving at truth through rational inquiry), I would think that the average atheist would find it extremely important to be familiar with the primary sources for whatever tradition they're debating. I also would think that they would also place a high value on stating religious beliefs as the religious believer would state them him/herself. Obviously, this doesn't mean the atheist has to believe the tradition, but surely being able to present it fairly would be the first step in any successful rebuttal of that particular tradition/mindset? So I wonder...

Do (most) atheists take the time to read the (Hebrew) Bible/Qur'an/vedas/suttas/Analects/etc in their entirety (as opposed to cherry-picking)?
Do (most) atheists take the time to read the writings of the "great thinkers" in that tradition? (e.g. Aquinas, Ibn Rushd, Shankara, Nagarjuna, etc)?
Do (most) atheists think it is important to correctly describe the religious beliefs they attack?

As someone who studies religion in an academic setting, I wouldn't last long if I simply ignored primary sources when publishing articles, etc. Of course, when I teach undergrads, they're under no such pressure (professionally. They're certainly under that pressure when it comes to a grade!). As such, they end up debate all sorts of misunderstandings, in much the same way that atheists I debate do. This type of misinformed-ness is something we all want to avoid, no?

*Many religionists who do not understand their own tradition. Of course, the atheist has good grounds to take on these misunderstandings, but that would only be a rebuttal of the incorrect ways in which believers understand their tradition. Surely if the atheist wants to tear down the tradition itself, he/she would go to the strongest arguments, not the weakest?

PS I'm open to critiques of how I may misunderstand what it is that atheists are doing. I may simply not "get" what it is that they're doing.

It doesn't take much to understand that no words can make me believe that people can rise from the dead, no matter how fervently and adamantly the believer insists it happened. Read Hume's treatise Of Miracles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Of_Miracles

henry quirk wrote:"ganz andere is not 'wholly other' but.......'completely different'"

Incorrect. ganz has several cognates, one of which is "whole." andere can be other "other," "different," and a few other cognates. To translate ganz andere as "completely different" is certainly fine, but so is "wholly other." Still, even if you weren't mistaken about translating ganz andere, "wholly other" is not contradicted by "completely different," so you still wouldn't have the case you think you do.

EDIT: Here's an online dictionary's breakdown of the various meanings for the two terms. Ideally, we'd refer to a a German dictionary to see how the words are defined in their native language, but I think this will do for an internet forum: http://en.bab.la/dictionary/german-english/ganz-andere (it's also worth noting that translations from one language to another are rarely 1:1).

Obvious Leo wrote:

thedoc wrote:But if you are going to say it, at least say it correctly.

Quite right, doc, and thank you for pointing it out. As it happens I did know this but I wrote in haste and carelessness and I've always been a lousy editor. Since I have a well-deserved reputation for gratuitous pedantry myself I'm delighted to find a brother nit-picker in the village willing to do such things pro bono publico.

Points for a gracious response. Thumbs up!

ReliStuPhD wrote:The more time I spend talking/debating with atheists, the more it seems to me that atheists are debating something that they don't entirely understand. .

I was surprised by the stupidity behind the question, and so I had to take a closer look.

It is a fact that by and large those self declaring as "atheists" are by definition people who, having thought about the question (or more rightly questions) of god/gods, have decided that they have no need for such a concept in their life. This immediately puts them far above the mainstream of people ticking "theist" on the census form, having not really thought the question through at all, and are just "theists" by tradition, habit or indoctrination: these are legion.

All the literature on the subject of "atheism" and its growth demonstrates that people of intelligence, with education tend to predict high for atheism, and by contrast inmates in prison and people of lower education score higher "theists".

Aside from all that what is really funny about this thread is that underlining assumption that "Theists" whosever they might be "understand" the something that Mr. ReliStuPhD claims to understand, when in fact Mr. ReliStuPhD has a very parochial and limited understanding of the width and breadth of "Theism", and is restricted to ONE god, One religion, with One of its forebears (Judaism), and one of its successors (Islam). Mr. ReliStuPhD thinks that "theism" is basically about Christianity, and the narrow-minded collection of beliefs that has adhered to this age-old superstition.

By contrast many atheists that I meet have a far wider appreciation of the social phenomenon that is religion. Archaeologists, anthropologists, and serious philosophers soon realise that a single definable "god" is not sustainable, but is as changeable in history and across cultures are their own socks.
Sadly Mr. ReliStuPhD does NOT understand this. He does not understand the roles that Theism has played in the thousands of years of humans history long before his own pet god was invented by a bunch of illiterate post-neolithic goat-herders in the desert. His imagination simply cannot extend to the complexities of, say, 40,000 years of Aboriginal religion, which culture has been all but stamped out by the bigotry of his co-religionists the "Christians".
This is nothing to say of the missing sense of irony that would never occur to Mr. ReliStuPhD: if intelligent and educated people find your version of theism too difficult to understand, then how are they expected by god to achieve salvation, the very thing which underpinns his superstition?
He damns his own religion by his own musings. Obviously God has made a notion of theism so difficult that only idiots who do not think are capable of achieving a state of grace.

It is obvious enough that Mr. ReliStuPhD is incapable of understanding theism, bound as he is with faith of dogma of a single strand of religion.

ReliStuPhD wrote:

henry quirk wrote:"ganz andere is not 'wholly other' but.......'completely different'"

Incorrect. ganz has several cognates, one of which is "whole." andere can be other "other," "different," and a few other cognates. To translate ganz andere as "completely different" is certainly fine, but so is "wholly other." Still, even if you weren't mistaken about translating ganz andere, "wholly other" is not contradicted by "completely different," so you still wouldn't have the case you think you do.

EDIT: Here's an online dictionary's breakdown of the various meanings for the two terms. Ideally, we'd refer to a a German dictionary to see how the words are defined in their native language, but I think this will do for an internet forum: http://en.bab.la/dictionary/german-english/ganz-andere (it's also worth noting that translations from one language to another are rarely 1:1).

No, 'wholly other' is an incorrect translation of ganz andere. That's my point. When used together, the words cannot be translated that way.
'Wholly other' is not idiomatic English. I have published translations of Nietzsche, so I know whereof I speak. I understand better than you that translation is not word-for-word, which is what 'wholly other' is. The page that you yourself linked to shows that 'quite different' and 'completely different' are the usual translations.

"other" and "different" are synonyms

"wholly", "completely" and also "entirely" are also synonyms

wholly different, wholly other, completely different, completely other, entirely different, entirely other

what else ?

absolutely the opposite ?

duszek wrote:"other" and "different" are synonyms

"wholly", "completely" and also "entirely" are also synonyms

wholly different, wholly other, completely different, completely other, entirely different, entirely other

what else ?

absolutely the opposite ?

'Other' and 'different' are not synonyms. 'Other' does not admit of degree, dumbass. 'Different' does. The single word andere can be used in German to mean what we use two different words for in English. 'Wholly other' is impossible. There is no such thing in English. 'Other' is not an adjective that can be qualified by degree. It's not even an adjective in the usual sense. 'Utterly alien' or 'completely different' would be suitable translations of ganz andere. Also, 'something else altogether' would be acceptable.

So if "else" admits a degree then "other" admits a degree too, dumbass.

Something else or something other can differ a lot or not so much from something else.

What "sounds good" in English is an entirely different story.

We need to translate whole sentences or utterances from one language to another.
And try to pick two idiomatic versions in both languages.