In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
quote:
There are absolutes, yes, easily proven through pure logic. However, I do not personally believe that metaphysics are properly part of a religious discussion. To me, my beliefs are axiomatic, unable to discuss unless they are true, which is the proper epistemological definition af an axiom.
Timberbeast: I know this is English, but it makes no sense whatsoever; each sentence contradicts the one preceding it. Is this some errant "Objectivism"?
Often the mind believes it is thinking, when it is only passing from one metaphor to the next.
Figgered that would make you come running to smack me, 'Clouder!
Kasey, Ayn Rand, I figured that your alluding to "absolutes" was a tip-off, but I was wrong. Dances, I do not believe that I have contradicted myself in the least, and no, I am not, nor have ever been an "Objectivist." What is axiomatic to yourself? If you believe with faith, or with logic, that a subject cannot be discussed without its topic in existence, that makes it axiomatic to you. The difference is faith vs. logic, speaking e..........unhhhhh!!! Clouder just whapped me upside the head!!!!
My point is that nobody can absolutely prove the existence of a higher power by philosophical means, but CAN disprove it with the same means. In my world, God exists, therefore faith is the ingredient. Which is why I say that logic and faith cannot meet between two individuals who disagree, but can reconcile themselves within one's self. Since I believe that I was created by God, any discussion to the contrary which would be accepted by myself as truth would negate my existence. Therefore, my aversion to mixing philosophy and religion. I believe that Aquinis stated pretty much the same, although with much more clarity than I'm capable of.
Much religious discussion includes what is known as "the argument from intimidation.", which is, basically stating that: "Only an immoral person could fail to see my point.", etc., then backing that up with syllogisms which can be bent in any direction that one wants to bend them, thusly:
Basic: "God created the earth."
Secondary: "Man lives on the Earth."
Conclusion: "Man was created by God."
Or, conversely:
Basic: "God created the universe from nothing."
Secondary: "There is no nothing."
Conclusion: "There is no God."
As I said earlier, my belief comes from experiences that I have had, and therefore is not open to interpretation by others, nor is it my business to interpret or judge the beliefs of others, so long as they do not threaten my own rights in any fashion.
Kasey, ya wouldn't need any dictionary around my campfire, unless you needed to look up the definition of a burp ..............
I have one criterion for separating garbage from flowers (i.e., determining a valid statement from an invalid one). It isn't that the statement must be able to be proven TRUE, it is that the statement must at least be able to be proven FALSE. If you say something for which nothing can count as disproving it, any further discussion of that statement re: truth value is a waste of time.
Often the mind believes it is thinking, when it is only passing from one metaphor to the next.
Yikes! DancesWithSheep "I know this is English, but it makes no sense whatsoever" comes to mind after reading your last post. Maybe I just don't get it. Mind explaining it a bit further?
It means that if you say "All swans are white", you don't have to produce every swan on the planet to prove it. However, if somebody in Australia presents a black swan and you say "What do the Australians know about biology?" or "It is a criterion of being a swan that it be white", you are using dishonest strategems to prevent your statement from ever being proven false.
Often the mind believes it is thinking, when it is only passing from one metaphor to the next.
Comments
quote:epistemological
Don't ever use that word again. And you know why.
Clouder..
There are absolutes, yes, easily proven through pure logic. However, I do not personally believe that metaphysics are properly part of a religious discussion. To me, my beliefs are axiomatic, unable to discuss unless they are true, which is the proper epistemological definition af an axiom.
Timberbeast: I know this is English, but it makes no sense whatsoever; each sentence contradicts the one preceding it. Is this some errant "Objectivism"?
Often the mind believes it is thinking, when it is only passing from one metaphor to the next.
Seems you got some company on the smart side of things....
How is the piece of literature going for you?
If you have one shot...Accu-Shot Website
Kasey, Ayn Rand, I figured that your alluding to "absolutes" was a tip-off, but I was wrong. Dances, I do not believe that I have contradicted myself in the least, and no, I am not, nor have ever been an "Objectivist." What is axiomatic to yourself? If you believe with faith, or with logic, that a subject cannot be discussed without its topic in existence, that makes it axiomatic to you. The difference is faith vs. logic, speaking e..........unhhhhh!!! Clouder just whapped me upside the head!!!!
My point is that nobody can absolutely prove the existence of a higher power by philosophical means, but CAN disprove it with the same means. In my world, God exists, therefore faith is the ingredient. Which is why I say that logic and faith cannot meet between two individuals who disagree, but can reconcile themselves within one's self. Since I believe that I was created by God, any discussion to the contrary which would be accepted by myself as truth would negate my existence. Therefore, my aversion to mixing philosophy and religion. I believe that Aquinis stated pretty much the same, although with much more clarity than I'm capable of.
Much religious discussion includes what is known as "the argument from intimidation.", which is, basically stating that: "Only an immoral person could fail to see my point.", etc., then backing that up with syllogisms which can be bent in any direction that one wants to bend them, thusly:
Basic: "God created the earth."
Secondary: "Man lives on the Earth."
Conclusion: "Man was created by God."
Or, conversely:
Basic: "God created the universe from nothing."
Secondary: "There is no nothing."
Conclusion: "There is no God."
As I said earlier, my belief comes from experiences that I have had, and therefore is not open to interpretation by others, nor is it my business to interpret or judge the beliefs of others, so long as they do not threaten my own rights in any fashion.
Kasey, ya wouldn't need any dictionary around my campfire, unless you needed to look up the definition of a burp
It's not what you know that gets you in trouble, it's what you know that just ain't so!
Often the mind believes it is thinking, when it is only passing from one metaphor to the next.
If you have one shot...Accu-Shot Website
Often the mind believes it is thinking, when it is only passing from one metaphor to the next.