A question for all Atheists

[Yoda]

I asked this on another thread, but it really deserves it's own discussion:

Did we invent Mathematics, or did we discover it?

[OptimalDelusion]

Isn't it both? We descovered certain laws that any intelligent beings could discover, but we also made up some of our own stuff. Why is this a question for atheists?

[Yoda]

Originally posted by OptimalDelusion
Isn't it both? We descovered certain laws that any intelligent beings could discover, but we also made up some of our own stuff.
What stuff did we make up? As far as I can tell, we only NAMED things that were already there so we could more easily study them.


Originally posted by OptimalDelusion
Why is this a question for atheists?
One thing at a time. :)

[OptimalDelusion]

Well, I'm not sure I'm an atheist. I have enough of a suspicion that there is a god out there that you could call it a belief, but I wouldn't be surprised if there is no god at all.

[Yoda]

Well, I don't believe I called you an Atheist. :) If I were to have guessed, I would've suspected so, but I didn't really know either way.

Anyway, anyone can take part in this discussion if they wish; I'm just trying to point a few things out and propose questions that most people simply do not ask themselves.

What parts of Mathematics do you believe we made up?

[OptimalDelusion]

Originally posted by Yoda
Well, I don't believe I called you an Atheist. :) If I were to have guessed, I would've suspected so, but I didn't really know either way.

I know you didn't call me an atheist. I just said that because of the name of the thread.

Anyway, anyone can take part in this discussion if they wish; I'm just trying to point a few things out and propose questions that most people simply do not ask themselves.

What parts of Mathematics do you believe we made up?

I'm not sure, specifically. It just seems like we kind of invent guidelines that are necessary for the way we figure certain things, but that someone else might have come up with different guidelines if they had made the discoveries or were expounding on someone else's discoveries. I can't think of anything specific though.

[The Silver Bullet]

Well, you could say that we developed the theories regarding mathematics, but that it already existed, whether we discovered it or not. Hope that helps your argument...

;)

I hate mathematics. I hate organised religion.

We made up maths classes and mass. That is the bit I dislike.

[OptimalDelusion]

:laugh: I couldn't agree more! Math! :sick:

[LordSlaytan]

I replied to the other thread, but since you moved the question...

Invention means that the laws of nature are nothing but an outgrowth of human activities; other thinking beings at other places or times may invent completely different systems fitting for their peculiar needs. At the best, we may come up with some approximation to something intrinsically intangible, because there are no absolute truths. This statement, of course, must be an absolute truth, which opens a different can of worms labeled Godels theory.

Discovery means that the laws of nature exist in a defined form, totally independent of humans or anybody else below the level of an almighty being, and that there is a possibility to discover them in total (if there is a finite number of natural laws) or at least in parts and to describe them in some language (including the language of mathematics). Maybe we find only parts, or we see the laws coarse-grained (i.e. in some approximations), but it is out there to be discovered.

I believe that our ancestors discovered mathematics due to particular needs that warranted defining. One case in point:

A 35,000 year old, fossilized baboon bone found in Zaire, the Ishango Bone, is covered with a series of notches or tally marks, which makes it the oldest mathematical object in the world, and the world's earliest number system. The bone is also a lunar phase counter, which suggest that African women were the first mathematicians, since keeping track of menstrual cycles requires a lunar calendar.

As needs are met throughout the history of mankind, curiosity takes over. Mathematics and Language become the end all of the modern thinkers of the day. As new concepts are discovered, so are new needs. When certain civilizations discover a new, bold way of keeping track of seasonal shifts, then a way to make more out of their harvesting becomes clearer, and the drive to make an even more accurate calendar arises. Another case in point:

Mathematics in Africa started much earlier from the first written numerals of ancient Egypt around 3100 BC. Ancient African calendars made use of numbers and calculation at an early stage. Ancient Africans also discovered and use the concept of zero, and wrote several texts on math and other subjects.

Where did zero come from--and what, exactly, does it mean? The Nothing That Is begins as a mystery story, tracing back to ancient times the way this symbol for nothing developed, constantly changing shape, even going underground at times. (The ancient Greeks, mathematically brilliant as they were, didn't have zero--or did they?) The trail leads from Babylon through Athens, to India, then to Europe in the Middle Ages. Brought to the West by Arab traders, zero was called "dangerous Saracen magic" at first, but quickly made itself indispensable. With the invention (discovery?) of calculus in the seventeenth century, zero became a linchpin of the Scientific Revolution. And in our own time, even deeper layers of this thing that is nothing are coming to light: our computers speak only in zeros and ones, and modern mathematics and physics have shown that "nothing" can be the source of everything.

Was zero invented? I think not. As we progress in our own evolutionary way, and our minds are capable of grasping newer and fresher concepts, the more readily we will be able to find the ways to discovery.

[Henry The Kid]

Something must have set 2 + 2 = 4 blah blah blah blah yadda yadda yadda yadda, right? I know you too well...




We discovered mathematics, but we invented practical uses to put them towards.

[Yoda]

Originally posted by Henry The Kid
Something must have set 2 + 2 = 4 blah blah blah blah yadda yadda yadda yadda, right? I know you too well...
:rolleyes: You don't even know my middle name. :D

Anyway, that's only roughly what I'm getting at. Mathematics is being found to be applicable to more things all the time...a trend which shows no signs of letting up. I'm not saying something must have set it, so much as I'm asking this: why should the Universe have what amounts to mutha-flippin' blueprints?

[LordSlaytan]

What are you getting at Yoda, that it was created by a higher power for us to find and use? That it cannot be a coincidence?

[OptimalDelusion]

Originally posted by LordSlaytan
I replied to the other thread, but since you moved the question...

Invention means that the laws of nature are nothing but an outgrowth of human activities; other thinking beings at other places or times may invent completely different systems fitting for their peculiar needs. At the best, we may come up with some approximation...

Yeah, what Lord Slayton said!! :eek:

[Henry The Kid]

I can't even begin to comprehend the mysteries of the universe. I don't rule out the possibility of a God, I just don't have the faith to have blind following in him.(And lets not do the"Do you love your father? prove it!" routine). Part of the perks of being agnostic, I honestly don't know everything the universe has done and will do in its time. All I can possibly know in this lifetime if myself, and thats being optimistic.



Being Agnostic and being Atheist are NOT the same things.

[Yoda]

Originally posted by LordSlaytan
What are you getting at Yoda, that it was created by a higher power for us to find and use? That it cannot be a coincidence?
In a way, yes. This is not an argument for Jesus, Christianity, or anything specific. It is an argument for SOMETHING beyond this world, however. I'm not saying some Higher Power intended for us to find it, use it, or anything. That's a seperate matter.

I'm a firm believer in taking one thing at a time in matters of thought. Maybe people reject, for example, the lifestyle of Christianity, without bothering to really examine beliefs. So I say this: start at the beginning. Think about a "something" beyond us. If you conclude there is a something, think about what it would probably be like. Etc.

In short, though, yes, I am doubtful that it could be a mere coincidence. Natural selection may be able to explain biological complexity (though only to a degree, IMO), but it doesn't explain the immutability of Universal laws...because Universal laws, as far as I know, don't breed. :)

[Yoda]

Originally posted by Henry The Kid
I can't even begin to comprehend the mysteries of the universe. I don't rule out the possibility of a God, I just don't have the faith to have blind following in him.
Like I said; this isn't about religion, or following any path of life. I'm not trying to convert anyone. This is about whether or not there's something beyond us, whatever it may be. It seems to me that you've got to believe in one incredibly remote coincidence to deny any Higher Power of any sort. I'm asking you (and the others) what they think of this...and, if they disagree, why. :)

[OptimalDelusion]

Originally posted by Henry The Kid
I can't even begin to comprehend the mysteries of the universe. I don't rule out the possibility of a God, I just don't have the faith to have blind following in him.(And lets not do the"Do you love your father? prove it!" routine). Part of the perks of being agnostic, I honestly don't know everything the universe has done and will do in its time. All I can possibly know in this lifetime if myself, and thats being optimistic.



Being Agnostic and being Atheist are NOT the same things.

I've never met an atheist that claimed to know everything the universe has done and will do. Most atheists I know claim that all you have to do to be one is not have a belief in a god at all, and I've always subcribed to that. I'm just curious, do you have a belief in a god?

EDIT- I should have said "most people I know who call themselves atheists"

[Henry The Kid]

Well as I said Agnostic is not quite the same as Atheistic. I basically am saying that I don't know if their is a God, but instead just looking at the facts I have layed out in front of me and using logic from there. Atheistic would be saying flat out"You are wrong, there is no God."

[OptimalDelusion]

Originally posted by Henry The Kid
Atheistic would be saying flat out"You are wrong, there is no God."

Not according to the people I know who call themselves atheist. I would say the majority of the 15 or so I know never make that kind of difinitive claim about a god.

[Yoda]

An Atheist is someone who has come to the conclusion that there is no God. It doesn't mean there cannot be one, or that they may not change their mind eventually...it just means that, if forced to decide, they would say no. They do not believe any God exists.

An Agnostic, for one reason or another, won't say either way. Some Agnostics think we don't have nearly enough information to do anything other than guess.

Theists say there's plenty of reason to believe in something-or-other up there.


I basically am saying that I don't know if their is a God, but instead just looking at the facts I have layed out in front of me and using logic from there.
Exactly. So, laying out the things we've discussed about Mathematics, what conclusion does your logic lead you to? Does it appear more or less likely that a Higher Power of some sort or another exists?

[The Silver Bullet]

Wait, so, Chris...

I'm sorta right?

[Yoda]

Originally posted by The Silver Bullet
Wait, so, Chris...

I'm sorta right?
Huh?

[The Silver Bullet]

I made a post.
You ignored it because you hate me.

:yup:

[Yoda]

There's not really much to say to it, other than this: I hate math, too
I don't hate organized religion.
You can't really "develop theories" within Mathematics. You can't have the "theory" that this Math answer may have that problem. You just work through the numbers and find out. The theories we're discussing are concerned with the origin of the entire concept.Happy? :p

[The Silver Bullet]

No.

You don't like me.

[OG-]

Math was discovered, but the language of mathematics was invented.


What does this have to do with atheists?

[LordSlaytan]

Originally posted by Yoda

In a way, yes. This is not an argument for Jesus, Christianity, or anything specific. It is an argument for SOMETHING beyond this world, however. I'm not saying some Higher Power intended for us to find it, use it, or anything. That's a seperate matter.

I'm a firm believer in taking one thing at a time in matters of thought. Maybe people reject, for example, the lifestyle of Christianity, without bothering to really examine beliefs. So I say this: start at the beginning. Think about a "something" beyond us. If you conclude there is a something, think about what it would probably be like. Etc.

In short, though, yes, I am doubtful that it could be a mere coincidence. Natural selection may be able to explain biological complexity (though only to a degree, IMO), but it doesn't explain the immutability of Universal laws...because Universal laws, as far as I know, don't breed. :)

STOP YELLING AT ME< OKAY?!?!?!?!:bawling:

Alright, alright, I'm converted!!! Are you happy???;D

[The Silver Bullet]

God was discovered, his word was written.

What does this have to do with mathematics?

:rotfl:

[Yoda]

Originally posted by The Silver Bullet
No.

You don't like me.
No comment.


Originally posted by OG-
What does this have to do with atheists?
Already went over that...a couple of times. :)

[The Silver Bullet]

You don't like me! You think I'm retrarded!

:rotfl:

[Yoda]

Originally posted by The Silver Bullet
You don't like me! You think I'm retrarded!
Wow. You misspelled "retarded."

Irony, thy name is Matthew.

[The Silver Bullet]

It was deliberate, man.

I even made a point of adding the third r so as that it didn't read as retreaded.

Why do you think I added the :rotfl:?

:rolleyes:

[Yoda]

Someone wrote "gullible" on the ceiling.

Enough of your thread contamination. Begone, vagabond.

[Monkeypunch]

Honestly, I never, ever thought about where math came from. It's unimportant. It's always existed, people just gave it a name. I only have one question, and it's not a diss or anything towards anyone.

A question for all Religious folks

Why does it bother you if people believe in a higher power or not? People get all up in arms over somebody else's choice to not believe in God. It doesn't make any sense. Live and let live. I've had athiests as friends, and none of them forced me to convert to their side, and vice versa. So why the big deal?

[Piddzilla]

Originally posted by Yoda
I asked this on another thread, but it really deserves it's own discussion:

Did we invent Mathematics, or did we discover it?

I wasn't there to observe the event.

[Piddzilla]

:idea:

I believe in The Matrix

[Yoda]

Originally posted by Monkeypunch
Honestly, I never, ever thought about where math came from. It's unimportant. It's always existed, people just gave it a name. I only have one question, and it's not a diss or anything towards anyone.
It's not unimportant. Frankly, it's apathy like that that hurts us all, in my opinion. The worst thing you can do is take a "who cares?" attitude to issues like this.

Okay, so it's always existed. So what of that? Why does the Universe has a roadmap of sorts if it's based on chaos? That's the question I've asked several times now: if it doesn't imply some Higher Power, then why is it here? How do you explain its existence?

It's a simple question...but it appears no one's even TRYING to answer it. Everyone's dancing around it, instead.


Originally posted by Monkeypunch
Why does it bother you if people believe in a higher power or not? People get all up in arms over somebody else's choice to not believe in God. It doesn't make any sense. Live and let live. I've had athiests as friends, and none of them forced me to convert to their side, and vice versa. So why the big deal?
Uh, what're you talkin' about? :) You say "people get all up in arms," but fact is, there really aren't any of them here. I only get up in arms when I see something I strongly disagree with. I have a low BS tolerance level. It applies to all issues...not just that of God.


Originally posted by Piddzilla
I wasn't there to observe the event.
Irrelevant. :) You weren't there to observe The Civil War, but you can comment on its origins. You can read about such things and figure it out for yourself if you really want to.

[r3port3r66]

At its root, Mathmatics is a language. All languages are invented, therefore, mathmatics is an invention.

[Yoda]

Originally posted by r3port3r66
At its root, Mathmatics is a language. All languages are invented, therefore, mathmatics is an invention.
That relies on a presupposition. If Mathematics is a language, who says all languages are invented? I think you mean that speech-based languages are invented, which is quite a different thing.

[r3port3r66]

Name one language, spoken or not, that was not invented.

[Yoda]

Originally posted by r3port3r66
Name one language, spoken or not, that was not invented.
Congratulations; you've completely and utterly missed the point. :D

I'm not saying that languages (like the one I'm writing this in) are not invented. I'm asking on what basis you've chosen to place Mathematics under the same category.

[r3port3r66]

I'm not sure there is a point to miss.

:p

All I'm saying is that mathmatics is an invented tool. A tool of which is used to explain things. Actually it is a tool, to many, that explains things to their ultimate solutions. Or rather, to communicate any given idea to it's proven end.

A language, any language, does the same thing--explains things-- but to a lesser degree.

[Piddzilla]

Originally posted by Piddzilla
I wasn't there to observe the event.
Originally posted by Yoda
Irrelevant. :) You weren't there to observe The Civil War, but you can comment on its origins. You can read about such things and figure it out for yourself if you really want to.

Well, my remark was actually a sarcastic comment referring to the discussion we had about evolution in another topic. In that topic you said you couldn't believe in evolution partly because it couldn't be observed anywhere around.

I don't get this discussion.... Are we trying to decide what rules the universe by debating whether math was invented or discovered?

[Yoda]

Originally posted by r3port3r66
All I'm saying is that mathmatics is an invented tool. A tool of which is used to explain things. Actually it is a tool, to many, that explains things to their ultimate solutions. Or rather, to communicate any given idea to it's proven end.
If humanity were to start over, would we or would we not come up with the same mathematical principles under different names?


Originally posted by Piddzilla
I don't get this discussion.... Are we trying to decide what rules the universe by debating whether math was invented or discovered?
C'mon, man...I've already answered this question. :) I think it was on Page 2...

[Piddzilla]

Originally posted by Yoda
C'mon, man...I've already answered this question. :) I think it was on Page 2...

Yeah, ok, I guess I didn't read that....

So, math is the strong evidence of God's existence that you were talking about in the evolution topic? You've probably answered to that here before too but I haven't been paying very close attention to this topic (as you might have noticed). So a straight "yes" or "no" will do very fine for me, thank you.

[Sir Toose]

We discovered it. Even if early man knew nothing about it, it still existed... like a fossil waiting to be dug out.

My succinct dos centavos.

[Yoda]

Originally posted by Piddzilla
So, math is the strong evidence of God's existence that you were talking about in the evolution topic? You've probably answered to that here before too but I haven't been paying very close attention to this topic (as you might have noticed). So a straight "yes" or "no" will do very fine for me, thank you.
Mathematics is one of the things that serves as strong evidence for God. There's more...but it's a significant part of it, sure.

Why? It doesn't imply something Higher to you?


Originally posted by Toose
We discovered it. Even if early man knew nothing about it, it still existed... like a fossil waiting to be dug out.

My succinct dos centavos.
Well stated. It is clearly a discovery. If you were to put ten groups of people on ten different islands, their languages and cultures would vary, but they'd all eventually come to the SAME Mathematical conclusions. Hence, Mathematics is not an invention like language. It's undoubtedly a discovery.

[r3port3r66]

Master Yoda,

I think it's interesting that you use the words "...come up with..." in one of your last replies.

I'm assuming that what you mean by humanity beginning again is that it would not be the same reality as this one, yet there would be, in your words; 'mathmatical principles'. By that definition, everything might have different names, human kind's beliefs might be a little different and this thread might not exist;).

But the same basic needs would exist. One of those needs would be communication, and a form of language by which to use it. Assuming humans would again populate the planet, intelligence would grow and the need to solve problems absolutely would intensify. Different names to scientific methods? Perhaps. But, in my opinion, the invention of 'mathmatical principles' would be inevitable. Perhaps an neverending attempt to explain life itself.

[Yoda]

Originally posted by r3port3r66
Different names to scientific methods? Perhaps. But, in my opinion, the invention of 'mathmatical principles' would be inevitable.
EXACTLY. All the same Mathematical principles would be inevitable. Why? Because they exist outside of us. They are a law that we cannot bend to our liking. They are the way we are and always have been no matter what we think of them. They are set and undeniable. They are unchanging and immutable...just like the laws of Gravity or Thermondynamics.

Language we can change. It can evolve any one of a million ways. The remote island example says it all: the religions and languages may vary...but they'll all come to the same conclusion about Math, basically. This is exactly the way something works when it is discovered: it's there, and it's the same, no matter what. Language is not the same way. It can be bent and modified and need not be any one specific way.

Math, on the other hand, is one way and one way only. People on seperate ends of the world who have never heard of each other come to the same conclusions about Math. Therefore, it is not invented the way a light bulb is. It is discovered the way a fossil is.

[Sir Toose]

Unless of course one allows for chaos... which is also a mathematical certainty.

I do believe mathematical principles exist seperate of us. With no man on earth would not gravity exist?

The sun would rise in the east and set in the west regardless of our presence or lack thereof.

Incidentally, the recognizeable patterns of the sun and moon led to the first rudimentary equations

[r3port3r66]

I see your point. But mathmatics, unlike your fossil example, is not a solid form of matter. It cannot be found by touch, sight or smell. It can only come from a thought or idea. And any thought or idea brought into reality is an invention.

[Yoda]

Originally posted by r3port3r66
I see your point. But mathmatics, unlike your fossil example, is not a solid form of matter. It cannot be found by touch, sight or smell. It can only come from a thought or idea. And any thought or idea brought into reality is an invention.
Something has to be made of matter to be discovered? If it's a thought, it's automatically an invention? Are you sure you believe what you're saying? :) Because if you do, you're inherently contradicting yourself.

[Sir Toose]

True, good point.

I still see mathematics as existing without the necessity of man to prove it's validity. If a dinosaur ate two mangoes in the morning and two in the afternoon his daily consumption of mangoes was four for that day regardless of whether or not someone witnessed it or named it as 'four'.

[Yoda]

I'd like to add something...

And any thought or idea brought into reality is an invention.
That only applies to the naming system. The invention lies in our bringing the thought "into reality." The word "one" is an invention...the laws of Mathematics are not. Civilizations who had no idea of the other's existence would both eventually discover that you have to multiply a circle's radius by a certain set of numbers to get its circumference. Their name for that number would differ...but that's it. It'd be the exact same concept.

[r3port3r66]

Uh, yeah something has to be made of matter in order for it to be classified as a discovery. You have to be able to prove to others what it is, and that it exsists or can exist, not just in your mind, but in reality.

And what I said was, "any thought or idea brought into reality is an invention." Like mathmatics. :)

At first I wasn't able to see where the athiest part of this thread fit into the topic, but now it seems apparent.:p

[Yoda]

Uh, yeah something has to be made of matter in order for it to be classified as a discovery. You have to be able to prove to others what it is, and that it exsists or can exist, not just in your mind, but in reality.
This is simply untrue, unless you're using some arbitrary definition of the word "discovery." :)

A discovery is the act of learning about something that was there even though you did not know about it. That's where it differs from invention: the television did not exist before we made it. It was not waiting for us. It was possible for it to have never existed.

The method of calculating the area of a triangle, on the other hand, is immutable. There has never been any other way to make that calculation. There was no other option for us. If you say we invented it, tell me how: how did we somehow CAUSE a circle's radius, multipled by Pi and doubled, to equal its circumference?

If Math were not a discovery, why would so many people completely cut off from one another all define it the same way, with different names being the only variables?


And what I said was, "any thought or idea brought into reality is an invention." Like mathmatics. :)
Yes, but it's the names that are the invention. That's what I'm saying. The concepts are not. We could rename the letters "one," "two," and "three" and Math would carry on as usual. We can not, however, rework the principles of Math.

[r3port3r66]

Honestly Yoda, I do hear and see what you're saying. And frankly 'm just having a hard time wrapping myself around the concept.


So let me get this straight;

Even if humans did not exist mathmatics would.
Which would mean that only a cognizant brain, man, would be able to "discover" math and "invent" ways to use it.
Which means that man was discovered, not invented (it takes only one person to discover a another human, but both to confirm each others existence).

Which means God is, in fact, an invention.

But so many people believe in God....

:D

[Yoda]

Honestly Yoda, I do hear and see what you're saying. And frankly 'm just having a hard time wrapping myself around the concept.
I can't think of any other way to say it, and frankly, I can't imagine which part is tripping you up. It's pretty straightforward, in my opinion. :)

Even if humans did not exist mathmatics would.
Obviously. We didn't invent something that we have no influence over. We merely observe Math. We do not manipulate it.

Which would mean that only a cognizant brain, man, would be able to "discover" math and "invent" ways to use it.
I guess I would assume so.

Which means that man was discovered, not invented
This is where you lose me. I don't see the connection from the last statement to this one.

[LordSlaytan]

You need to quit reading C.S. Lewis and starting debates about what you've read. Sheesh...:rolleyes: ;)

[Yoda]

This doesn't come from C.S. Lewis at all. Or at least, none of his stuff I know of.

You're assuming I read it in The Abolition of Man, right? :)

[LordSlaytan]

I didn't know for sure. I thought you had, my mistake.

BTW, I was teasing you, of course.:yup:

[Yoda]

BTW, I was teasing you, of course. :yup:
Of course. :yup:

Don't worry, I'd never, ever allow myself to be the type to read something and then go around spouting off about it as if I'd known about it for years. :) I'm somewhat new to philosophy, theology, and apologetics, so some of these concepts are still pretty fresh to me.

However, there's no doubt that I've found that forums like this one are the best way to test such ideas out, so to speak, to see if they hold up under scrutiny.

[LordSlaytan]

Well, in Genesis, didn't God say, "Be fruitful and multiply"? There's your answer to the question; Which came first, God or the slide rule? :yup:

[Monkeypunch]

Originally posted by Yoda

It's not unimportant. Frankly, it's apathy like that that hurts us all, in my opinion. The worst thing you can do is take a "who cares?" attitude to issues like this.



It's not a Who Cares attitude, and don't mistake it for apathy. I honestly believe that while it is important to remember the past or be doomed to repeat it, it is not important to know where math came from. There are many things in this world that we should concern ourselves with, but this isn't one of them. (I have no patience for existentialism....:D )

[Yoda]

If you're an Atheist, it is definitely something you should concern yourself with.

I just realized our Head Atheist hasn't weighed in yet. What say you to this issue, fire? I've been anxiously awaiting your viewpoint and/or explanation. :yup:

[Piddzilla]

Did we invent the laws of gravity? No. There you have it! An evidence of God's existence!!!

Listen, this discussion is exactly the same as the one about evolution, it leads nowhere. It's just an excuse for some people to show off their rethorical skills (I confess, do you?). This discussion is also a symbol of a paradox that is the base for this debate:

The human being is intelligent enough to come up with great ideas (Time, Space, God) to explain the world around us so we don't go crazy. But after having discovered (or invented or what the hell ever) these things the human being says: "Hey, this is too good to be natural! It has to be supernatural or a work of the Gods!". So the human being start using its intelligence to prove its lack of intelligence, and that is the paradox.

It's not an established fact, hell, it's not even a fact! But that doesn't seem to be required here anyway... This discussion is completely philosophical, which is fine with me, but to say that loose arguments and assumtions are the same as evidences is naive.

Mathematic is definite (right?). Philosophing about its origin doesn't lead to anything close to definite. This little planet is part of a much much bigger picture and the question of who or what painted that picture (if it was ever painted) will only receive a man made answer after all.

[Yoda]

The human being is intelligent enough to come up with great ideas (Time, Space, God) to explain the world around us so we don't go crazy. But after having discovered (or invented or what the hell ever) these things the human being says: "Hey, this is too good to be natural! It has to be supernatural or a work of the Gods!". So the human being start using its intelligence to prove its lack of intelligence, and that is the paradox.
It isn't a paradox, because the "prove its lack of intelligence" part is your own fabrication. Surmising that God exists is not acknowleding a lack of intelligence. It's just acknowleding a Higher Power...there's no inherent paradox.


It's not an established fact, hell, it's not even a fact! But that doesn't seem to be required here anyway... This discussion is completely philosophical, which is fine with me, but to say that loose arguments and assumtions are the same as evidences is naive.
What loose arguments? What assumptions? Your entire post is some kind of odd appeal to get others to stop talking about this; it doesn't seem to contribute to this discussion at all. It doesn't even ATTEMPT to offer an explanation for the immutable laws of the Universe. So what the heck's your point, man? :)

What's naive is the assumption that everyone here argues for the same reasons you do. I don't argue to show off. I argue because I can't stand what I see as BS, and because I want to do everything I can to contribute to The Great Relearning. If I impress anyone along the way, it's gravy.


Mathematic is definite (right?). Philosophing about its origin doesn't lead to anything close to definite. This little planet is part of a much much bigger picture and the question of who or what painted that picture (if it was ever painted) will only receive a man made answer after all.
The fact that Mathematics is definite is definitely strong evidence of something, because precision always requires explanation.

If we find ten coins scattered on the ground, we assume someone dropped them. If we find ten coins on the ground all lined up, we assume someone put them that way. Precision and complexity imply intelligence and require explanation. "Luck" is a cop-out answer.

Natural selection may, potentially, explain biological complexity in our world; so where's the explanation for the complexity of things that do not breed and evolve?

If you think there is no Higher Power, tell me why these Universal laws exist. I'm sorry, but something akin to "oh, well this is all a waste of time" is not an answer. I'm not going to stop talking about this because you happen to think it fruitless. I argue for many reasons...the ones you mention are at the BOTTOM of my list. If you don't like it, great...then you can ignore this thread. It'd certainly make more sense than arguing, arguing, and then arguing about how ridiculous you think it is.

Frankly, I'm amazed at your post; it's the all-too-common (I'm not exaggerating...it pops up all over the Internet) "we're so small...we know nothing. This is pointless" argument...if you can even call it an argument. By that logic, why should we ever discuss anything that's not definite?

[r3port3r66]

Yoda,

If mathmatics is, as you believe, a discovery, then why must it be taught?

also,

It is my understanding that all mathmatical equations are only theories. And theories aren't discovered, they're invented.

[Yoda]

Originally posted by r3port3r66
If mathmatics is, as you believe, a discovery, then why must it be taught?
Two things:

1 - It doesn't NEED to be taught. No one was taught Math at first. Like I said: people have, in the past, by your logic, invented the exact same thing besides never coming into contact with each other. Seems rather convienent.

2 - We teach math because it's quicker to be taught about a discovery than to wait around for someone to discover it themselves. Fossils are discoveries...that doesn't mean that when they are discovered every single person in the World instantly knows about them. Mathematics is no different. Just because you CAN discover something doesn't mean you necessarily WILL, which is why we share information and education with each other in schools, forums like this, and all sorts of other places.


Originally posted by r3port3r66
It is my understanding that all mathmatical equations are only theories. And theories aren't discovered, they're invented.
Incorrect. Technically gravity is a theory, too; do you think we invented gravity? Certainly not. We just gave it a name. We DOCUMENT gravity. We observe it and write down what we see. It's the exact same thing with Math.

I'm sorry, but this is really grasping at straws. I've asked you numerous questions that you haven't answered which I think clearly demonstrates that Mathematics cannot possibly be an invention; so you brush those aside as if I didn't ask them and then ask your OWN questions? :p

[Monkeypunch]

Originally posted by Yoda
If you're an Atheist, it is definitely something you should concern yourself with.


So if I was an atheist (Which I'm not) I should walk around wondering "Gee, I wonder where MATH came from?" That should consume my every waking thought? MATH. Really? :laugh:

[The Silver Bullet]

Oh, I would so kill myself...

[Monkeypunch]

Blame my brother for this little nugget: If God did create math, He didn't WANT us to find it. In the bible, God tried to keep Adam and Eve from eating from the Tree of Knowledge, keeping them innocent and ignorant. The Tree of knowledge. Think about that.....:D

[The Silver Bullet]

If I walked around all day thinking about the meaning of math, I would put a bullet in my face.

And not even a normal bullet from a revolver. I would shoot myself in the face with a shotgun so that the various pellets would make sure that I died witohut question.

[LordSlaytan]

I don't understand what you want from all of us, Yoda. From what I have seen, we have all agreed that math was discovered and not invented. It seems that the root of all your argumentitive threads are for us to acknowledge your faith as an unequivocal reality. That your truth is the truth. Why is it so important to you whether we believe in God or not?

Maybe Pid is right. Maybe this question is not as important as you think it is, or maybe it is to you alone. For me, this is not a question that keeps me up at night. I do have an understanding of it though, just not a definite answer to it.

I believe that the Law of Mathematics is universal. I do not see it as proof of God, rather a proof that for everything that seems unexplainable, there is an explanation. There are significant Laws that the universe seems to cling to. Perhaps for it's own sake of survival. If I had a belief that the universe was alive, you would be hard pressed to deny that belief, because it is a belief based on faith, just as yours is. You prefer a religious reasoning of faith for your idea of what constitutes an explanation of the universe. I do not, nor should I have to defend my reasoning ad nauseum to you. Not that I really mind, but regardless.

I admire your thirst for understanding, and your hunger for knowledge. I do not admire, however, your constant brow beating of people that do not share your beliefs. You may not see what you do in that way, but I have a feeling that there are more than a few of us that do. I, of course, cannot speak for anyone other than myself, and it's quite possible that I'm using language that is a bit too harsh. If I am, I sincerely apologize. I'm also not trying to imply that I dislike the debates, but sometimes they quit looking like debates, and more like sermons.

So, you believe God placed the Law of Mathematics into our hands to learn as we evolve. I believe that the Law of Mathematics is a part of the fundamental Law of the Universe, there because it is. Maybe someday we will learn the truth in life, or maybe only after death.

[Piddzilla]

Originally posted by Yoda

It isn't a paradox, because the "prove its lack of intelligence" part is your own fabrication.

Yup! Everything I write here is my own fabrication.

Surmising that God exists is not acknowleding a lack of intelligence. It's just acknowleding a Higher Power...there's no inherent paradox.

Why not? Because YOU say so? Just because I didn't read it in some book doesn't mean it's a worse theory than any other.

I never said believing in God's existence explicitly means acknowledging lack of intelligence, and you know I didn't. I acknowledge a Higher Power too - there's no way the human beings are the ruler of the Universe, even if some of them think so. But acknowledging a Higher Power to me isn't the same as believing in God.

What loose arguments? What assumptions? Your entire post is some kind of odd appeal to get others to stop talking about this; it doesn't seem to contribute to this discussion at all.[

Oh, is THAT what it is!?!

It doesn't even ATTEMPT to offer an explanation for the immutable laws of the Universe. So what the heck's your point, man? :)

My point is that this discussion is discussed for the sake of the discussion. Do you honestly think that you can convert any atheists by stating that math is the proof of God's existence? I don't think you believe you can. You're just upset because I'm telling you this discussion is totally fruitless.

I believe the question was whether I believe we discovered or invented math. Well, I guess we figured out how some parts of the universe functions, so then it must be kind of a discovery. But what would we have discovered if we were twice as intelligent than we in fact are? Or three times that intelligent? Or if we had two or three more senses of some sort?

What's naive is the assumption that everyone here argues for the same reasons you do. I don't argue to show off.

Come on, Yoda! Admit that you do it for the fun of it!

I argue because I can't stand what I see as BS, and because I want to do everything I can to contribute to The Great Relearning. If I impress anyone along the way, it's gravy.

The Great Relearning? Is that some kind of republican education program? Back to "the roots"? "The Good Old Days"?

Now THAT is BS.

The fact that Mathematics is definite is definitely strong evidence of something, because precision always requires explanation.

What?

If we find ten coins scattered on the ground, we assume someone dropped them. If we find ten coins on the ground all lined up, we assume someone put them that way. Precision and complexity imply intelligence and require explanation. "Luck" is a cop-out answer.

Laws of the Universe.

Natural selection may, potentially, explain biological complexity in our world; so where's the explanation for the complexity of things that do not breed and evolve?

A Higher Power? Nature? Constructions of the human mind?

If you think there is no Higher Power, tell me why these Universal laws exist. I'm sorry, but something akin to "oh, well this is all a waste of time" is not an answer. I'm not going to stop talking about this because you happen to think it fruitless. I argue for many reasons...the ones you mention are at the BOTTOM of my list. If you don't like it, great...then you can ignore this thread. It'd certainly make more sense than arguing, arguing, and then arguing about how ridiculous you think it is.

Again, didn't say there's no Higher Power.

Well, as long as I motivate why I think it's fruitless I think I'm entitled to speak.

You have serious problems with taking critic, Yoda. You are constantly telling everybody here "how it is!". And since I don't agree with you I'm just say "No, it's not!". I think I'm explaining my view of the universe fine by pointing out the irrelevance (the way I see it) of your arguments and so called evidences. You think a lot of what your opponents arguments, especially mine, are BS. Well, the feelings are mutual.

Frankly, I'm amazed at your post; it's the all-too-common (I'm not exaggerating...it pops up all over the Internet) "we're so small...we know nothing. This is pointless" argument...if you can even call it an argument. By that logic, why should we ever discuss anything that's not definite?

I do think we are small. I think we know something but not everything. I don't think it's pointless to discuss, just the way this discussion turned out.

You need order and answers to everything. If I thought there was a chance in hell to prove God's existence or non-existence by theories about the origin of mathematics I would participate in THAT discussion. Since I don't find any valid evidence in your argumentation about God's existence I chose to criticize the discussion as a whole. I'm sorry you can't take that.

[Piddzilla]

Well spoken LordSlaytan, especially this:

Originally posted by LordSlaytan
So, you believe God placed the Law of Mathematics into our hands to learn as we evolve. I believe that the Law of Mathematics is a part of the fundamental Law of the Universe, there because it is. Maybe someday we will learn the truth in life, or maybe only after death.

[OG-]

The fact that Mathematics is definite is definitely strong evidence of something, because precision always requires explanation.
So...if math was discovered, there needs to be an explanination for its existance. If precision "always requires explanation", then please explain why God exists? Please propose the explanation as to what created God? Everything needs a creator. If you're just going to say something along the lines of "god was always there", then don't even bother saying it because that is more of a cop-out answer than "luck" could ever aspire to be.

I believe math was invented. If we didn't exist, math wouldn't exist. We invented a system that happens to fit. No we didn't invent gravity...we didn't invent any purposes for gravity...we didn't invent any effects of gravity...but if we weren't around, gravity wouldn't matter at all. It all just goes back to "if a tree falls in the woods, and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound", I personally don't think it does. Humans invent their own reality, it is different for each person, doesn't make one persons reality any more so true than anothers.

Lemme just put it this way. If we didn't exist...would God exist? Did we discover God, or did we invent God?

[Yoda]

Internet was done for awhile. Fear not; I have returned to brow-beat further. :p

Monkeypunch

So if I was an atheist (Which I'm not) I should walk around wondering "Gee, I wonder where MATH came from?" That should consume my every waking thought? MATH. Really? :laugh:
Funny. :rolleyes: I never said anything even remotely like that. I said it's worth thinking of. I can't exactly be held responsible if you translate "thinking" into "consuming my every waking thought."


Blame my brother for this little nugget: If God did create math, He didn't WANT us to find it. In the bible, God tried to keep Adam and Eve from eating from the Tree of Knowledge, keeping them innocent and ignorant. The Tree of knowledge. Think about that.....:D
Nice try; it was called the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Not the Tree of Knowledge. The idea was that, by eating from it, you were saying you know what was good and bad BETTER than God.


LordSlaytan

I don't understand what you want from all of us, Yoda. From what I have seen, we have all agreed that math was discovered and not invented. It seems that the root of all your argumentitive threads are for us to acknowledge your faith as an unequivocal reality. That your truth is the truth. Why is it so important to you whether we believe in God or not?
It's not. You don't see me PMing people and picking fights. I ask questions. I only argue when argued with. I'm not talking to myself, am I? ;) It takes two. I don't make a point to start arguing, or set out to prove someone wrong. I read things. If I agree with them, I say something to that effect, usually. If I don't, the same applies.

It only becomes a sermon if I start ignoring what people say and going off on pre-written speeches that don't address the questions or opposite side of the issue. I don't think I do that, frankly. I go out of my way to address everything everyone says in response to me, don't I?

How is that equivalent to brow-beating?


I believe that the Law of Mathematics is universal. I do not see it as proof of God, rather a proof that for everything that seems unexplainable, there is an explanation. There are significant Laws that the universe seems to cling to. Perhaps for it's own sake of survival. If I had a belief that the universe was alive, you would be hard pressed to deny that belief, because it is a belief based on faith, just as yours is. You prefer a religious reasoning of faith for your idea of what constitutes an explanation of the universe. I do not, nor should I have to defend my reasoning ad nauseum to you. Not that I really mind, but regardless.
A "living" Universe would indeed help to explain the Law of Mathematics, and the other Universal laws out there. Is this what you believe? Even if it were, it wouldn't answer our questions about God: who created this living Universe? Can it be killed? Etc.


So, you believe God placed the Law of Mathematics into our hands to learn as we evolve. I believe that the Law of Mathematics is a part of the fundamental Law of the Universe, there because it is. Maybe someday we will learn the truth in life, or maybe only after death.
If you attribute the Law of Mathematics to the Law of the Universe, we haven't really gotten anywhere. It just asks a slightly different question: where did the Law of the Universe come from? The same questions about coincidence and precision apply there.

[Yoda]

Pidzilla

Yup! Everything I write here is my own fabrication.
No. A logical chain is not your own fabrication. But saying that one thing implies another without any bridge is indeed a fabrication. That's what I'm saying.


Why not? Because YOU say so? Just because I didn't read it in some book doesn't mean it's a worse theory than any other.
What're you talking about? I didn't read this in a book. Here's why not: because, logically, that's the way it is. You said it was a paradox; I'm saying there IS NONE.

Let's go back to what you said:

"But after having discovered (or invented or what the hell ever) these things the human being says: "Hey, this is too good to be natural! It has to be supernatural or a work of the Gods!". So the human being start using its intelligence to prove its lack of intelligence, and that is the paradox."

What I said before (and am saying again now) is that you're making an assumption: that saying "this is evidence of God" is somehow "proving its lack of intelligence." How do you get to that point? I realize you can't possibly be saying what you are saying, so, accordingly, I'm asking you what you actually meant.


But acknowledging a Higher Power to me isn't the same as believing in God.
Eh? :) How do you define "God"? It's generally used to describe a Higher Power. Occasionally it's used to describe a Higher Power with some kind of Will. How do you use it?


My point is that this discussion is discussed for the sake of the discussion. Do you honestly think that you can convert any atheists by stating that math is the proof of God's existence? I don't think you believe you can. You're just upset because I'm telling you this discussion is totally fruitless.
I'm not upset at all. THAT would be fruitless.

No, I dont' think I can convert anyone. Since when is that the only possible benefit of arguing, man?


Come on, Yoda! Admit that you do it for the fun of it!
I don't do it for the fun of it. If you want to know why I argue, I can tell you. I'd appreciate it if you'd stop making all these assumptions, though. :)


The Great Relearning? Is that some kind of republican education program? Back to "the roots"? "The Good Old Days"?

Now THAT is BS.
Geez, ANOTHER baseless assumption.

The Great Learning is a lot of things. But what do you care? Clearly you've already decided not only what it is, but that you don't like it, too.


Laws of the Universe.
See above: that's merely a semantic change that doesn't address the question. It's the same thing under a different name. It's akin to saying "God didn't create us...aliens did!" The question is the same: okay, if we came from aliens, where did the aliens come from?

If the Law of Mathematics is just one of the Laws of the Universe, how exactly does that explain anything about it? All it does is place it in an arbitrary group/naming system.


You have serious problems with taking critic, Yoda. You are constantly telling everybody here "how it is!". And since I don't agree with you I'm just say "No, it's not!". I think I'm explaining my view of the universe fine by pointing out the irrelevance (the way I see it) of your arguments and so called evidences. You think a lot of what your opponents arguments, especially mine, are BS. Well, the feelings are mutual.
I disagree with many, many, many people. As many as I agree with, easily. And you know what? The bulk of them have no problem with me. We don't see eye to eye, but we treat each other with respect.

Let me ask you this: if I have a problem taking criticism, why haven't I once insulted anyone? Why have you used stronger language than I have? Why haven't I made any personal attacks in the vein that you have? And I'm the one who can't take criticism? I implore you to step back and look at the way I've talked to you, and the way you've talked to me.

Your opinions of me are only a reflection of your courtesy towards me. I never said your arguments were BS; it's you that started using harsher language like that. Again...an assumption. I think we both know there's a difference between saying "I think you're mistaken" and "your argument is BS."


You need order and answers to everything. If I thought there was a chance in hell to prove God's existence or non-existence by theories about the origin of mathematics I would participate in THAT discussion. Since I don't find any valid evidence in your argumentation about God's existence I chose to criticize the discussion as a whole. I'm sorry you can't take that.
With all due respect, that's just very rude. I can take it just fine. I've taken tons of abuse. I've been called everything under the sun for merely disagreeing with others. I've been insulted and even threatened for respectful disagreement. I can take it as much as anyone you'll talk to on here, P.

Statements like "you need order and answers to everything" are just out of line. They attempt to explain what kind of person I am through simple arguments like this. They also express a dismissive "I know your type" kind of attitude. Frankly, that's just impolite.

When my friend tells me something, I listen...even if it's criticism. When someone like you comes along and acts rudely while also trying to tell me about my problems, I find it much more difficult to take what you say seriously. Why should I take advice on courtesy and respect from someone who can't show me either?

[Yoda]

Peter returns! Your prescence in this thread is appreciate, oh Orange One.


Originally posted by OG-
So...if math was discovered, there needs to be an explanination for its existance. If precision "always requires explanation", then please explain why God exists? Please propose the explanation as to what created God? Everything needs a creator. If you're just going to say something along the lines of "god was always there", then don't even bother saying it because that is more of a cop-out answer than "luck" could ever aspire to be.
A fine point, but there is a crucial distinction here that changes the entire issue: the statement "everything needs a creator" is inherently false. Clearly everything cannot have a creator. Something needs to exist for its own sake, outside of everything else. You can't trace everything back to a creator, because the chain would never end.

Therefore, seeing as how SOMETHING had to come out of nothing, or always be here, it can't be called a cop-out at all to say that that thing is God. It might've been God...it might've been the Universe...but it had to be something. It can't be a cop-out to say something was always there if there is no other explanation.


Originally posted by OG-
I believe math was invented. If we didn't exist, math wouldn't exist. We invented a system that happens to fit. No we didn't invent gravity...we didn't invent any purposes for gravity...we didn't invent any effects of gravity...but if we weren't around, gravity wouldn't matter at all. It all just goes back to "if a tree falls in the woods, and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound", I personally don't think it does. Humans invent their own reality, it is different for each person, doesn't make one persons reality any more so true than anothers.
The tree question depends: how do you define sound? :) If it's the sound waves themselves, then yes, it makes a sound. If it's the noises you hear when your ear translates sound waves, then no, it doesn't.

The gravity example doesn't hold; gravity would matter. It keeps the Universe running, basically. And besides: notice that you say, without us, Math wouldn't exist, but without us, gravity wouldn't "matter." You acknowledge that gravity would exist if we did not.

I'll ask the same questions as before: if Math is an invention, why would people the world over come to the same conclusions about it? How did we CAUSE a circle's radius, multiplied by Pi and then by two, to equal its circumference?

Heck, how can it be an invention when all we did was observe something, and give it names? I can't imagine what kind of definition the word "invention" would have to have for that to qualify. Technically we did the same thing with fossils: observed something and named it and discussed it. But we didn't invent them. We observed fossils to exist the same way we observed certain Mathematical principles to exist.


Originally posted by OG-
Lemme just put it this way. If we didn't exist...would God exist? Did we discover God, or did we invent God?
That's an old concept; and, unfortunately, impossible to answer for sure. I think God would clearly exist...though I imagine that depends on whether or not we mean the same thing when we say "God." There's little to no doubt, reasonably, that there's a Something out there.

[r3port3r66]

Dear Yoda,

You've accused me of grasping for straws, I suppose you're right, but you have exceeded my IQ by about 80 points by now, and I'm trying to understand your responses to this the best I can. Please, I'm not saying your wrong, and that I'm right, in fact, I must commend you for explaining your side of this as well as you have already. It has opened my mind a little; it confirms that there can be many answers to a single question.

But there must have been a time when you weren't as sure as you are right now about the answer. logically you must have weighed both sides, and then found a position you could live with. I've read the thread, and your responses, and therein lies your beliefs. But what finally convinced you that math was not invented, but discovered? I mean was there one specific thing?

Or do you know something the rest of us do not?
:suspicious: ;) :drevil:

[Yoda]

You've accused me of grasping for straws
In retrospect, that was a bit harsh of me to say. I think your arguments don't hold up, but I didn't need to say it the way I did. I hope I haven't offended you.


I suppose you're right, but you have exceeded my IQ by about 80 points by now, and I'm trying to understand your responses to this the best I can. Please, I'm not saying your wrong, and that I'm right, in fact, I must commend you for explaining your side of this as well as you have already. It has opened my mind a little; it confirms that there can be many answers to a single question.
You're being far too hard on yourself; frankly, you've come off as incredibly intelligent to me. You seem open to the opposite point of view and you make your case rather well. It admit, once or twice you've caused me to pause and re-think things before continuing, and for that, I owe you a thank you. :)


But there must have been a time when you weren't as sure as you are right now about the answer. logically you must have weighed both sides, and then found a position you could live with. I've read the thread, and your responses, and therein lies your beliefs. But what finally convinced you that math was not invented, but discovered? I mean was there one specific thing?
I don't know that I can pinpoint it. There are a few concepts that it's all based around, though:

1 - How can it be an invention if we cannot manipulate it in any way?

2 - If Math, which is all about documentation and naming, is not a discovery, what is? What stops it from becoming a discovery? It can't be the naming system we've given it, because we name all the things we discover, from animals to minerals to disease.

3 - It's too much of a coincidence for people with no contact with each other to come up with the same system. People don't invent exactly the same thing for no reason.

Those are the things that, for me, seal the deal. On the other side of the issue, we can find ways in which Math is kinda, sorta, a little bit like an invention in some vague, small way, but I don't think that even comes close to tipping the scales here.

[OG-]

Originally posted by Yoda
A fine point, but there is a crucial distinction here that changes the entire issue: the statement "everything needs a creator" is inherently false. Clearly everything cannot have a creator. Something needs to exist for its own sake, outside of everything else. You can't trace everything back to a creator, because the chain would never end.

But what makes you think God didn't have a creator? What is the logic to it? What is the basis to it? What is the reason for saying that, besides that otherwise there would be a large gapping hole in your beliefs.

God...it might've been the Universe...but it had to be something. It can't be a cop-out to say something was always there if there is no other explanation.
I agree entirely, but why does God have to be the originator?

The gravity example doesn't hold; gravity would matter. It keeps the Universe running, basically. And besides: notice that you say, without us, Math wouldn't exist, but without us, gravity wouldn't "matter." You acknowledge that gravity would exist if we did not.

Gravity and math are by no means the same thing. Math is a language that attempts to explain gravity. All math does is represent a thought, it doesn't represent anything concrete. Pi may be exact, but it is only exact because we made it exact. If the man who "discovered" pi decided to, he could of given it any other value he wanted, as long as it was congruent with every other equation he used. Its not like if pi weren't what it is, every pi based equation would crumble, the equations would just change. No one discovered any mathamatical equations, they invented them. No one stumbled upon that the circumfrence of a circle was 2pir, they made it so that the circumfrence of a circle was 2pir. Math is all about constants....the constants aren't discovered, they essentially don't matter, they are given values to remain consistent with every other thing, it really doesn't matter what the values are, as long as they are consistent.

pi (http://www.myownlittleworld.com/pi/history.html)

if Math is an invention, why would people the world over come to the same conclusions about it?
You seem to have the idea that people all over the world don't base their ideas off of previous existing peoples ideas....Someone came up with it, and everyone else based their findings off of that. People can discover rocks all over the world, but no one discovers values all over the world, someone gives sometihng a value and the word is simply spread.

Ever taken a math or physics class? You're often given insane constants...like what one Coloumb is....ask the proffessor why it is that and they will say "because that's the value it was given". A constant needed to be reached for everything to work, it doesn't matter what the constant is as long as it can be manipulated to work. If you think there is only one way to find something, you're wrong.

That's an old concept; and, unfortunately, impossible to answer for sure. I think God would clearly exist...though I imagine that depends on whether or not we mean the same thing when we say "God." There's little to no doubt, reasonably, that there's a Something out there.
I don't mean a something out there, I mean God; specific to your faith.

[Yoda]

But what makes you think God didn't have a creator? What is the logic to it? What is the basis to it? What is the reason for saying that, besides that otherwise there would be a large gapping hole in your beliefs.
Isn't it obvious? If something created God, then THAT is God. :) That's like asking "you say this guy is the oldest...what if there was someone older?" Well, the answer would be that that someone would then be the oldest.


I agree entirely, but why does God have to be the originator?
Depends on what you mean by God. Could you be more specific?


Gravity and math are by no means the same thing. Math is a language that attempts to explain gravity. All math does is represent a thought, it doesn't represent anything concrete. Pi may be exact, but it is only exact because we made it exact. If the man who "discovered" pi decided to, he could of given it any other value he wanted, as long as it was congruent with every other equation he used.
They're not the same thing, no; I haven't even implied otherwise. However, they are both discoveries. We cannot manipulate either. All we do with Mathematics AND gravity is name and document it.


Its not like if pi weren't what it is, every pi based equation would crumble, the equations would just change. No one discovered any mathamatical equations, they invented them. No one stumbled upon that the circumfrence of a circle was 2pir, they made it so that the circumfrence of a circle was 2pir. Math is all about constants....the constants aren't discovered, they essentially don't matter, they are given values to remain consistent with every other thing, it really doesn't matter what the values are, as long as they are consistent.
I think you're misunderstanding me: Pi is just a name. We could name the number one Pi if we wanted, and it wouldn't change a thing. However, you'd still have to multiple by the number 3.14 to get the desired result. That's just the way it is.

You say constants like that are not discovered...but what are they, then? We did not invent the concept that 3.14 gives us an answer to that question. We just found out that that's the way it always works...so we keep using it. The only thing we made up was the name.

How can something be an invention when we had no choice but to use it the way it is? How can it be an invention when we cannot do anything to manipulate or modify it? What kind of definition to you ascribe to the words "discovery" and "invention" so that something can be the latter when we do nothing but observe it?


You seem to have the idea that people all over the world don't base their ideas off of previous existing peoples ideas....Someone came up with it, and everyone else based their findings off of that. People can discover rocks all over the world, but no one discovers values all over the world, someone gives sometihng a value and the word is simply spread.
People can discover rocks all over the world...but that's vague. The fact that people use the same Mathematical principles always tells us that it's not just our own invention, anymore than observing that certain minerals are inherently denser, for example, than others. If we all came to THAT conclusion by observing rocks, would you call it an invention?

Today, information is anywhere and everywhere. But different civilizations throughout history have had the same basic Mathematical system, even though they had no records of others from the past. What your argument seems to be saying is that people don't discover it because they've already discovered it! That's why it's merely passed along.

And I think you know very well that if we left a group of people to themselves in isolation, eventually they'd yield the same basic Mathematical system as us. How could they possibly do otherwise? What would be their alternative?

The same thing can be applied to fossils, though: you don't base the idea of fossils on your own...someone finds it and you base your knowledge off of that. So clearly this point is moot, as it fits both discoveries and inventions.


Ever taken a math or physics class? You're often given insane constants...like what one Coloumb is....ask the proffessor why it is that and they will say "because that's the value it was given". A constant needed to be reached for everything to work, it doesn't matter what the constant is as long as it can be manipulated to work. If you think there is only one way to find something, you're wrong.
No one gave Pi a value of 3.14, because the 3.14 came before the name Pi. Pi is just a name. That's all. No one CHOSE a number to go with that name...we chose a name to go with the number.


I don't mean a something out there, I mean God; specific to your faith.
I'm afraid I don't see what it is you're asking; would you mind putting it another way?

[OG-]

If I ever mention the word God, I am referring to how you percieve God...I'm talking about the entity you pray to. This is a debate you started and thus I feel any refrences to God need to be in your terms. I'm not talking a "something out there', I'm talking your terms.

You want specifics? Why can't the entity you pray to and you worship not of had an originator?

You say constants like that are not discovered...but what are they, then? We did not invent the concept that 3.14 gives us an answer to that question. We just found out that that's the way it always works...so we keep using it. The only thing we made up was the name.
My whole argument is based off this; if it weren't for us (and when I say us, I mean everything in this universe), then those wouldn't exist simply because we wouldn't be there to give them a name.

How can something be an invention when we had no choice but to use it the way it is? How can it be an invention when we cannot do anything to manipulate or modify it? What kind of definition to you ascribe to the words "discovery" and "invention" so that something can be the latter when we do nothing but observe it?
By you're deffintion of a discovery, then nothing is an invention...we only discover things, hell we've only discovered that we can invent things, and thus anything invented is just a discovery.

Think of it this way. The wheel is hailed as one of the greatest inventions of all time. But by your deffinition it wasn't invented, because it was discovered that it was the only possible thing that would work...a square won't roll, an elipse won't, a cone won't, but a circle will. Now you can say that a wheel was invented, but the properties of a wheel were discovered, thus leading to its ivention. I find that to be too much of a roundabout way of explaining it.

The fact that people use the same Mathematical principles always tells us that it's not just our own invention, anymore than observing that certain minerals are inherently denser, for example, than others. If we all came to THAT conclusion by observing rocks, would you call it an invention?
I don't think it is debateable at all that a computer is not an invention. But ponder this....if every single person on the planet invented one, would it still be an invention or would it be a discovery? If more than one person invents the exact same thing, then by your own logic it shouldn't be an invention, but a discovery?

Who says that the value of pi is exact? How is there any possible way to prove it? Everyone thought the world was flat. Hell, the greek often associated with the first very precise find that pi was more digits than 3.14 denied the idea that the universe was heliocentric. So lemme question you this. If pi is proven to be different than it really is, then it is the number everyone using an invention or a discovery? Read that timeline of the history of pi, there are several instances where the value of pi is constantly changing....this would make the number before it invalid, it just happened to work. 3.14 isn't Pi. ****, pi can't even be calculated to its last decimal to this day. I'm not sure if I'm making my point clear. The next time that pi is recalculated to a more exact number...then what was the number before that was always used? Was it a discovery, or was it an invention? You're saying math is deffinite, obviously not if it is constantly changing.

I'm afraid I don't see what it is you're asking; would you mind putting it another way?
If we didn't exist...would the entity you worship exist? Did we discover the entity you worship, or did we invent the entity you worship?

[Yoda]

If I ever mention the word God, I am referring to how you percieve God...I'm talking about the entity you pray to. This is a debate you started and thus I feel any refrences to God need to be in your terms. I'm not talking a "something out there', I'm talking your terms.
Those aren't my terms, though. Often when I use the word God, I just mean "Higher Power." Especially if I'm having a debate about the concept of God in general, and not Christianity, specifically.


You want specifics? Why can't the entity you pray to and you worship not of had an originator?
Technically, there's no reason. If it did have a Creator of some sort, though, then that thing would be God, as I explained in my last post. Furthermore, the "entity" I pray to would also, most likely, be a liar.

My point's the same, though: your logic doesn't hold. Everything can not have had a Creator, therefore it's not a cop-out to offer up what is essentially the only other explanation.


My whole argument is based off this; if it weren't for us (and when I say us, I mean everything in this universe), then those wouldn't exist simply because we wouldn't be there to give them a name.
Eh? If something doesn't have a name, it doesn't exist?


By you're deffintion of a discovery, then nothing is an invention...we only discover things, hell we've only discovered that we can invent things, and thus anything invented is just a discovery.

Think of it this way. The wheel is hailed as one of the greatest inventions of all time. But by your deffinition it wasn't invented, because it was discovered that it was the only possible thing that would work...a square won't roll, an elipse won't, a cone won't, but a circle will. Now you can say that a wheel was invented, but the properties of a wheel were discovered, thus leading to its ivention. I find that to be too much of a roundabout way of explaining it.
There would be two things I'd say to this:

1 - The analogy of the wheel does not work. You say a wheel does not work; but work for what? Rolling down a hill? An oval WILL roll...just not smoothly. A square can roll given enough force, too.

Math is quite different. It is exact. There is not a less effective version of Math; there is only Math. All or nothing, really. It works, and that's it. There's no other way. You say a wheel is the only possible thing that would "work" -- but work for what? Whatever it is, is it the only thing, or is it simply the best thing?

2 - I can't help but notice that when I ask you questions about what constitutes a discovery/invention, you simply come back with claims about how you don't think my definitions are any good. That's fine; I've got no problem when it comes to defending my own definitions...but what of the questions I ask you? For example:

"What kind of definition to you ascribe to the words "discovery" and "invention" so that something can be the latter when we do nothing but observe it?"


I don't think it is debateable at all that a computer is not an invention. But ponder this....if every single person on the planet invented one, would it still be an invention or would it be a discovery? If more than one person invents the exact same thing, then by your own logic it shouldn't be an invention, but a discovery?
Third time: what, in your mind, constitutes the difference between a discovery and an invention?

Yes, a computer is an invention. If every single person invented a computer SEPERATELY with no knowledge of what any of the others were doing, it would not, by definition, make it a discovery; but it'd be one hell of a coincidence.

That's why I use that analogy for Math; because you've never had groups of people all inventing highly specific IDENTICAL things completely apart from each other like that. The coincidences were always in more basic forms. Nothing as precise and Universal as Mathematics. People have never coincidentally created things like that completely apart from each other. And when they do create similar things, they are never the exact same thing. With Math, however, the principles are always the same because there is NO alternative.

There's not even room to bend in Math. It's precise and exact in every way.


Who says that the value of pi is exact? How is there any possible way to prove it? Everyone thought the world was flat. Hell, the greek often associated with the first very precise find that pi was more digits than 3.14 denied the idea that the universe was heliocentric.
Again: Pi is just a name. A name we give a number. We're not talking about the name; we're talking about the number itself. So what are you asking? How can I prove that a name we gave a number is really the name for that number? Wha? :)


So lemme question you this. If pi is proven to be different than it really is, then it is the number everyone using an invention or a discovery? Read that timeline of the history of pi, there are several instances where the value of pi is constantly changing....this would make the number before it invalid, it just happened to work. 3.14 isn't Pi. ****, pi can't even be calculated to its last decimal to this day. I'm not sure if I'm making my point clear. The next time that pi is recalculated to a more exact number...then what was the number before that was always used? Was it a discovery, or was it an invention? You're saying math is deffinite, obviously not if it is constantly changing.
Ah, but don't you see? Math is not changing; our understanding of it is. That's like saying the Universe is changing because our science textbooks are constantly being updated. The Universe was the same all along. We just didn't get it right at first.

That's what Truth is...that's what makes something true; it is ALWAYS true, no matter what we think of it. Truth is not contingent on people believing it.


If we didn't exist...would the entity you worship exist? Did we discover the entity you worship, or did we invent the entity you worship?
Why even bother asking? If I really believed we invented God, like a flippin' Palm Pilot, do you think I'd worship Him?

[Piddzilla]

Ok, Yoda... Let's just leave it, ok. I'm not going to lower myself to a fight about who used the BS-phrase first or who called who what first. "You started it!" "No, you did!", I don't need that.

Just one thing... To say that you can't believe in a higher power just because you don't believe in God is the dumbest thing I've ever heard...

[Yoda]

Originally posted by Piddzilla
Ok, Yoda... Let's just leave it, ok. I'm not going to lower myself to a fight about who used the BS-phrase first or who called who what first. "You started it!" "No, you did!", I don't need that.
I don't really care who started it. I just can't take hypocriscy. I refuse to let someone lecture me on respect when they themselves can't show any.


Originally posted by Piddzilla
Just one thing... To say that you can't believe in a higher power just because you don't believe in God is the dumbest thing I've ever heard...
Eh? Who said that?

[LordSlaytan]

Originally posted by Yoda
It's not. You don't see me PMing people and picking fights. I ask questions. I only argue when argued with. I'm not talking to myself, am I? ;) It takes two. I don't make a point to start arguing, or set out to prove someone wrong. I read things. If I agree with them, I say something to that effect, usually. If I don't, the same applies.

What I see usually, is you ask a question, someone replys, then you tell them they're wrong. I hardly ever see you agree with anyone. We're usually always wrong, and you're always right. Oh well, I'm probably wrong about that. ;D

Originally posted by Yoda
It only becomes a sermon if I start ignoring what people say and going off on pre-written speeches that don't address the questions or opposite side of the issue. I don't think I do that, frankly. I go out of my way to address everything everyone says in response to me, don't I?

Yes, you are the best at telling everyone they're wrong again. ;D

Originally posted by Yoda
How is that equivalent to brow-beating?

It feels like brow-beating when I'm always wrong, and you're always right. ;D Even more so when your proof of my being wrong is based on your faith and not with any facts or evidence. You blame people of assumptions, when the entire subject matter of this thread is assumption based. Anything any of us can say about where mathematics came from is conjecture, faith, or assumptions.

Originally posted by Yoda
A "living" Universe would indeed help to explain the Law of Mathematics, and the other Universal laws out there. Is this what you believe? Even if it were, it wouldn't answer our questions about God: who created this living Universe? Can it be killed? Etc.

I said if I believed that, not I do. How the hell would I know, or you? None of us can know, but that doesn't stop you from telling us we're wrong. ;D

Originally posted by Yoda
If you attribute the Law of Mathematics to the Law of the Universe, we haven't really gotten anywhere. It just asks a slightly different question: where did the Law of the Universe come from? The same questions about coincidence and precision apply there.

We haven't gotten anywhere attributing to God either, because it's all guesswork. I must admit, it would be nice to figure it out, but we can't. Unless of course, you are right. ;D

[Yoda]

What I see usually, is you ask a question, someone replys, then you tell them they're wrong. I hardly ever see you agree with anyone. We're usually always wrong, and you're always right.
C'mon, man...you know I don't just "tell them they're wrong." I explain my reasoning simply and respectfully almost every single time. Honestly, what else do you expect out of me? I don't say things for no reason. I don't disagree with something with rude insults, and I always explain why I think the way I do. I fail to see what part of it bothers you...is it the mere fact that you and I happen to see things differently?


It feels like brow-beating when I'm always wrong, and you're always right. ;D
I'm not always right...but I'm less likely to speak up if I totally agree with something.


Even more so when your proof of my being wrong is based on your faith and not with any facts or evidence. You blame people of assumptions, when the entire subject matter of this thread is assumption based. Anything any of us can say about where mathematics came from is conjecture, faith, or assumptions.
That's not true; we can use logic to deduce certain things. For example: it's not an assumption to say that the statement "everything has a Creator" is false. We know that can't be true, because a chain of Creators like that would never end. That's the kind of thing I'm talking about. It's philosophy...not assumption.

We can discuss things like Mathematics and come to certain conclusions just by talking about them. We can realize that Mathematics behave a certain way, and we can discuss what that means in the bigger picture. It's just logical deduction. In that sense, the ONLY assumption a lot of this discussion is based on is the assumption that we can rely on logic.

I'll be shocked if you can provide me with just one example of where my arguments consisted entirely of Faith, without any "proof or evidence" as you put it. Maybe not proof (having proof in such matters is incredibly rare)...but evidence? I don't think I've ever thrown utterly Faith-based arguments at you or anyone else in any thread like this ever, frankly.


I said if I believed that, not I do. How the hell would I know, or you? None of us can know, but that doesn't stop you from telling us we're wrong. ;D
I didn't say it was wrong; if you asked me, I would, but you already know anyway, and it's a mere difference of opinion. We'll find out eventually.


We haven't gotten anywhere attributing to God either, because it's all guesswork. I must admit, it would be nice to figure it out, but we can't. Unless of course, you are right. ;D
Depends on what you mean by getting somewhere. Attributing it to God would certainly explain it. A living Universe would too. Atheism does not. Atheism's answer is one of luck, basically: it just does. It just is. And I think, if we're going to be honest with ourselves, we know that if a Creationist gave that sort of answer for something, they'd be (rightly so) accused of trying to pass a cop-out answer off as a real one.

[LordSlaytan]

How can you say that we can come to a logical conclusion about the origins of math? It is all conjecture Yoda. Whether we believe it came from a supreme being or not, there is never going to be a definite answer. You're basing your logic on your assumption(faith) that there is a God. That's all well and good, yet it will never lead to an answer that can irrefutably prove where and how...

As far as my teasing you, that's all it is. Good natured at it's core. I hesitate to debate with you though, because it seems that you cannot accept other's beliefs. You've never agreed with me about anything before. Until I met you, I had no idea that everything that I had ever believed true was so utterly false. I have lived a lie, I'm so depressed.:yup:

[Yoda]

How can you say that we can come to a logical conclusion about the origins of math? It is all conjecture Yoda. Whether we believe it came from a supreme being or not, there is never going to be a definite answer. You're basing your logic on your assumption(faith) that there is a God. That's all well and good, yet it will never lead to an answer that can irrefutably prove where and how...
We don't need to come to a definite conclusion about Mathematics to come to conclusions about where it did NOT come from, or where it's not LIKELY to come from.

None of my arguments require that you believe in God to acknowledge them as logical. None of them at all. I'm sorry, but you keep throwing accusations like that at me with no backing. I defy you to produce something to support that claim.


As far as my teasing you, that's all it is. Good natured at it's core. I hesitate to debate with you though, because it seems that you cannot accept other's beliefs. You've never agreed with me about anything before. Until I met you, I had no idea that everything that I had ever believed true was so utterly false. I have lived a lie, I'm so depressed. :yup:
A gross exaggeration. I'm sure we agree on many things. Taking Saddam out, for example.

But think about this: doesn't it work both ways? According to you, I'm wrong about all those things, too. You and I disagree on things, yet when it comes down to it, I'm the one who cannot accept other's beliefs. You haven't accepted my beliefs either, have you?

You say it as I have not agreed with you. Couldn't I just as easily, and correctly, say that you have not agreed with me? Why am I at fault when neither of us agrees? Because I take the issue seriously enough to provide detailed explanations as to why I've chosen the side I have? Isn't that a GOOD thing?

[OG-]

My point's the same, though: your logic doesn't hold. Everything can not have had a Creator, therefore it's not a cop-out to offer up what is essentially the only other explanation.
I already said once I agreed entirely, I'm just curious as to how you can deduce that the entity you worship didn't have an originator.

Eh? If something doesn't have a name, it doesn't exist?
I'm not saying that, what I'm saying is that if no one is around to name it, it doesn't exist. There is that whole trick question "before the discovery of everst, what was the tallest mountain in the world?" It is Everst regardless if it had been named or not, because there were people who could name it. But if no one is around to name it, implying no one on earth capable of doing it, I don't see it as existing. It goes back to the tree thing, does it make a sound or not. I don't think it does, and you think it does...but there is absolutely no way of proving it.

hehe, just realized I've had this window open since I started my homework...so I'll post this and get to the rest later.

[Yoda]

I already said once I agreed entirely, I'm just curious as to how you can deduce that the entity you worship didn't have an originator.
My last post answers that as best I can; if something created the God I worship, then my God isn't really God at all. He's also a big, big liar. :) It also means that the other God would have had to do virtually nothing to correct all these lies, and the billions of people who are worshipping something that is not God. That doesn't ring true...I think, of course, you can see why.


I'm not saying that, what I'm saying is that if no one is around to name it, it doesn't exist. There is that whole trick question "before the discovery of everst, what was the tallest mountain in the world?" It is Everst regardless if it had been named or not, because there were people who could name it. But if no one is around to name it, implying no one on earth capable of doing it, I don't see it as existing.
You're telling me that if we all dissappeared from the face of the Earth tomorrow, Everest would not be the tallest mountain in the world?


It goes back to the tree thing, does it make a sound or not. I don't think it does, and you think it does...but there is absolutely no way of proving it.
Well, like I said: it depends on what you mean by "sound." If "sound" means sound waves, then yes, it does make a sound...unless you believe it defies physics simply because no one is within a certain radius.


hehe, just realized I've had this window open since I started my homework...so I'll post this and get to the rest later.
No sweat. :)

[LordSlaytan]

Originally posted by Yoda

We don't need to come to a definite conclusion about Mathematics to come to conclusions about where it did NOT come from, or where it's not LIKELY to come from.

None of my arguments require that you believe in God to acknowledge them as logical. None of them at all. I'm sorry, but you keep throwing accusations like that at me with no backing. I defy you to produce something to support that claim.



A gross exaggeration. I'm sure we agree on many things. Taking Saddam out, for example.

But think about this: doesn't it work both ways? According to you, I'm wrong about all those things, too. You and I disagree on things, yet when it comes down to it, I'm the one who cannot accept other's beliefs. You haven't accepted my beliefs either, have you?

You say it as I have not agreed with you. Couldn't I just as easily, and correctly, say that you have not agreed with me? Why am I at fault when neither of us agrees? Because I take the issue seriously enough to provide detailed explanations as to why I've chosen the side I have? Isn't that a GOOD thing?

Yoda, do I have to make this any clearer? I'M F*CKING WITH YOU BECAUSE YOU ARE SO EASY TO GET RILED UP!!! I know most of what I've said is a gross exaggeration, I said it that way on purpose. Sheeze.... I've tried to make it obvious with all the ;D;D;D;D.

Except, I am wrong about your using religion as a basis for your arguments, I have been reading over some of your more animated discussions. I could tell that your faith is an under current for your convictions, but you do not use blind faith as your argument. Sorry 'bout that. :yup:

BTW, if you supported my idea's in the elections thread...it be nice to know it. I've hated you all these looong years, when you've loved me behind the scenes...:bawling:

[Piddzilla]

Originally posted by Yoda

I don't really care who started it. I just can't take hypocriscy. I refuse to let someone lecture me on respect when they themselves can't show any.

Oh, so I'm a hypocrite now too? When did I lecture you on respect? I have never attacked you personally. In the post I made, criticizing this discussion, I didn't mention any names but you for some reason took it personally and started accusing me of being rude. :rolleyes: And harsh or strong language... Please. I say what I will about your arguments, I don't say a word about you. But I haven't used strong language, for mathematics' sake!

Eh? Who said that?

Originally posted by Piddzilla
But acknowledging a Higher Power to me isn't the same as believing in God.

Originally posted by Yoda
Eh? How do you define "God"? It's generally used to describe a Higher Power.

Maybe I misunderstood, but to me it sounds like your respond to my statement means that you think that acknowledging a Higher Power is acknowledging God. Otherwise your respond makes no sense. Because it's not agreeing with what I said, right?

[Sir Toose]

Originally posted by Monkeypunch
Blame my brother for this little nugget: If God did create math, He didn't WANT us to find it. In the bible, God tried to keep Adam and Eve from eating from the Tree of Knowledge, keeping them innocent and ignorant. The Tree of knowledge. Think about that.....:D

He did say go forth and multiply:randy:

he must have wanted us to be dumb and happy.


(I'm kidding, unwad thy panties those who may take offense)

[Yoda]

Originally posted by LordSlaytan
Yoda, do I have to make this any clearer? I'M F*CKING WITH YOU BECAUSE YOU ARE SO EASY TO GET RILED UP!!! I know most of what I've said is a gross exaggeration, I said it that way on purpose. Sheeze.... I've tried to make it obvious with all the ;D;D;D;D.
My mistake; I didn't realize. Partially because some people use smilies as a form of deniability, if you catch my drift.


Originally posted by LordSlaytan
BTW, if you supported my idea's in the elections thread...it be nice to know it. I've hated you all these looong years, when you've loved me behind the scenes...:bawling:
I did speak up a bit in the Elections thread, a bit. Perhaps I should do so more often. :)


Pidzilla

Oh, so I'm a hypocrite now too? When did I lecture you on respect? I have never attacked you personally. In the post I made, criticizing this discussion, I didn't mention any names but you for some reason took it personally and started accusing me of being rude. :rolleyes:
Oh, come on. Read your post and try to tell me it wasn't over the top. "You need this, Yoda." "I'm sorry you can't take that." "That's BS." Yes, you've been wonderfully respectful. :rolleyes:

It's not that I can't take crap like this; I do all the time. Frankly, this is incredibly tame compared to the insults I get on some other boards (for the most insane reasons, too, I might add). However, it's hypocritical to rant about how I apparently can't "take" something when you yourself seem even more "guilty" of the accusation you're making. You made countless assumptions about not only words I'd used, but my personality in general. I've never found the need to make assumptions about YOU.

A general rule: when you start arguing with the person, rather than their words, you're making a mistake.


Maybe I misunderstood, but to me it sounds like your respond to my statement means that you think that acknowledging a Higher Power is acknowledging God. Otherwise your respond makes no sense. Because it's not agreeing with what I said, right?
I said that God is "generally used to describe a Higher Power." Which is true. How do you differentiate between the two words? Is it sentience? A Will?

[firegod]

Sorry for butting in, but I think there was a misunderstanding here. I'm pretty sure Yoda used the word BS first, but was talking about something general and not insulting Pid. Pid seemed to think Yoda was talking about him personally, and responded in kind. I apologize if I'm mistaken, or if I should mind my own business. :)

[r3port3r66]

Here's a crude thought.

Some people subscribing to this thread believe that math was discovered, some don't. Those that do, argue that math was discovered because so many civilizations use the same systems, albeit different terms, without ever having had contact with each other.

Well I am a person that found this website. It didn't find me. I existed before anyone at this site saw my avatar or my screen name (also, I've never met any of you, but I assume you are all human) Yet, I wasn't invented, nor was I discovered. In fact, I could be anyone. I could make up anything about myself and you would have to have faith that what I was saying was true. I'm not made of flesh or blood on this site, but rather words and syntax.

Faith is all you need in order for math to work. If you believe 2+2=4, then it will be. Then if you can convince everyone that 2+2=4 you have succeeded in developing a following. Which means people will have faith in you; trust what you say without conviction.

Maybe math is not a discovery at all, it's just a lie; something we're taught to believe is true but actually it isn't. I mean think about it; how do you know for sure 2+2=4? What makes you so sure? Just because someone tells you that something IS true doesn't mean it IS.

Faith in a higher power is the same, no matter what that belief is. There is something inside all of us that makes us believe, or want to believe, something outside of reality is true. We constantly try to convince ourselves, and others of this don't we?

Post Edit: Besides, aren't we the only species to use math? Beavers build dams without it, wasps develop architecture and birds build nests without it...?

[Piddzilla]

Originally posted by Yoda

Oh, come on. Read your post and try to tell me it wasn't over the top. "You need this, Yoda." "I'm sorry you can't take that." "That's BS." Yes, you've been wonderfully respectful. :rolleyes:

*sigh*

Originally posted by Yoda

What's naive is the assumption that everyone here argues for the same reasons you do. I don't argue to show off. I argue because I can't stand what I see as BS, and because I want to do everything I can to contribute to The Great Relearning. If I impress anyone along the way, it's gravy.

So, You said "BS" and to clearify what I consider to be "BS" I said:

Originally posted by Piddzilla

The Great Relearning? Is that some kind of republican education program? Back to "the roots"? "The Good Old Days"?

Now THAT is BS.

I just used the same terminology as you did. The fact that I spelled "that" in capital letters should have made it obvious that I was comparing what I think is "BS" to what you think is "BS", and that our views on that one are completely different.

I couldn't bother to check it, but I do believe that was the first time I used the phrase "BS".

And I'm sorry, but that's what The Great Relearning sounded like to me. I have never heard the phrase so I just wrote what I associtated it too. It has a very patronizing and reactionary sound to it in my ears. But everything I wrote about it was followed by a question mark, so instead of ignoring it you should have accepted the invitation and enlightened me about The Great Relearning.

It's not that I can't take crap like this; I do all the time. Frankly, this is incredibly tame compared to the insults I get on some other boards (for the most insane reasons, too, I might add). However, it's hypocritical to rant about how I apparently can't "take" something when you yourself seem even more "guilty" of the accusation you're making. You made countless assumptions about not only words I'd used, but my personality in general. I've never found the need to make assumptions about YOU.

I said "Sorry you can't take that" and suddenly I'm ranting? Look, if I have said something that you took personal, I'm very sorry and I assure you I didn't write it in a personal or offensive way deliberately. (And I say that without sarcasm, seriously). And I think I "take" your "critic" pretty well actually... I still feel good about myself even after having been a member of MoFo and participated in these discussions.

Oh, and the part where I said something like "you need it" or "Admit you do it for the fun of it"... For crying out loud. I was just joking around a little to ease up the tension... Man... Should have used a smiley there...

A general rule: when you start arguing with the person, rather than their words, you're making a mistake.

Thanx for the advice!

I think it's hard to have a discussion with someone and at the same time ignore everything that person has said in other discussions. I don't claim to know anybody here but it's impossible for me not to create a picture of those that I have had arguments and discussions with. It makes me understand better where that person's views come from and what they are based on.

When I'm debating with someone, I'm not only debating with the guy who wants to solve the mystery of math. I'm also debating with the guy who thought so and so about abortion, the guy who thought so and so about death penalty and the guy who felt so and so about evolution.

I said that God is "generally used to describe a Higher Power." Which is true. How do you differentiate between the two words? Is it sentience? A Will?

Yes, I have never denied that God, if you believe in him, is accurately described as a Higher Power. But to me a Higher Power doesn't necessarily have to be the same as God. What part am I not pointing out clearly enough? I believe that there is a power or there are powers that exist beyond our comprehension and that we don't have any control over. I do however have problems with believing in everything that the christian religion describes God to be. And before you say "Care to elaborate?". Well, for example, I doubt that God created the world in 7 days just because it says so in a book. A book written by men thousands of years ago but about an event that obviously took place millions of years ago (which I think we can agree on whatever our views on evolution are).

[Piddzilla]

Originally posted by firegod
Sorry for butting in, but I think there was a misunderstanding here. I'm pretty sure Yoda used the word BS first, but was talking about something general and not insulting Pid. Pid seemed to think Yoda was talking about him personally, and responded in kind. I apologize if I'm mistaken, or if I should mind my own business. :)

I understood that he was speaking generally, but still he thought it was ok to call other views BS (which is totally ok with me too). But read all about it in my latest post to Yoda. :D
And you're not butting in. Not at all, dude. It's nice to see that someone's reading your posts. :yup:

Originally posted by r3port3r66
Here's a crude thought.



Interesting.... In psychology class in school (oooh, so long ago... :eek: ) we talked about this experiment. 12 people that didn't know each other before were put together in a room and they were shown a paper with a circle. 11 of the people were told before they walked into the room to say that the paper showed a triangle. So, when in the room each one were asked to tell the psychologist what they saw on the paper and 11 persons said "a triangle" it of course made the 12th person confused. For a while he stood his ground and said "Hell no, it's a circle!". But after some time with all other saying that it was a triangle he gave in and finally said, "Well, I guess I'm confusing things. It's a triangle.".

And that was only 11 against 1.

[OG-]

Originally posted by r3port3r66
Faith is all you need in order for math to work. If you believe 2+2=4, then it will be. Then if you can convince everyone that 2+2=4 you have succeeded in developing a following. Which means people will have faith in you; trust what you say without conviction.

Maybe math is not a discovery at all, it's just a lie; something we're taught to believe is true but actually it isn't. I mean think about it; how do you know for sure 2+2=4? What makes you so sure? Just because someone tells you that something IS true doesn't mean it IS.

Bravo. Thank you. Chris was saying math is deffinite, but it isn't at all. Theorms are constantly arrising that disprove previous ones. Like I pointed out before, the value of pi is always changing. You just need faith. Faith isn't a discovery, faith is an invention.

You're telling me that if we all dissappeared from the face of the Earth tomorrow, Everest would not be the tallest mountain in the world?
Of course not, and I don't think I implied that. I said things only exist if people are around to give it a name; if people suddenly dissapear, the things they have already named still exist. because things like these are discoveries. They are concrete. Anyone can observe them. Anything can observe them.

Lemme rephrase my thoughts. There are those weird theories that say Aliens created life on earth. Lets say hypothetically those aliens were to return to earth and inform the world of everything. Would that make the God you have faith in of been a discovery or an invention? If you say a discovery, well then your whole basis for arguement is moot.

Well, like I said: it depends on what you mean by "sound." If "sound" means sound waves, then yes, it does make a sound...unless you believe it defies physics simply because no one is within a certain radius.
I believe it SHOULD make a sound, but I don't believe that it does, because there is absolutely no way of proving it; just like there is no way of proving that math is 100% correct. For me to say it does make a sound is a trite and uniformed statement, considering I know there is no way of proving it.

[Yoda]

Bravo. Thank you. Chris was saying math is deffinite, but it isn't at all. Theorms are constantly arrising that disprove previous ones. Like I pointed out before, the value of pi is always changing. You just need faith. Faith isn't a discovery, faith is an invention.
This is false, and I've already addressed it: Math IS definite. It never changes. It is only our understanding and documentation that changes it. By your logic, mercury did not have a larger atomic weight than, say, arsenic, until we realized that it did.

Or, to use the analogy I used before (which you appear to have glossed over for some reason): scienctific facts are facts whether we realize them or not. They don't become true when we update our science textbooks. The facts are the same; it is only our understanding of them that is in flux. The facts were the same ALL along.

Your version of Truth just doesn't work; things are true before we discover them. Heck, your said it yourself: we used to scoff at the heliocentric theory. Copernicus had plenty of detractors when we put forth the idea. But does that mean it wasn't true? No. Truth is true no matter who believes it. It is not contingent on popular opinion. Fossils are fossils even before we have any idea that such things exist.


Of course not, and I don't think I implied that. I said things only exist if people are around to give it a name; if people suddenly dissapear, the things they have already named still exist. because things like these are discoveries. They are concrete. Anyone can observe them. Anything can observe them.
And anyone can observe that the laws of Mathematics are consistent. We can observe that when you line something up against something else, and perform certain proven calculations, you get the same results you would expect to get...which is why we can do things like fly to the moon with relative safety even before ever having tried such a thing before.



Lemme rephrase my thoughts. There are those weird theories that say Aliens created life on earth. Lets say hypothetically those aliens were to return to earth and inform the world of everything. Would that make the God you have faith in of been a discovery or an invention? If you say a discovery, well then your whole basis for arguement is moot.
No, not necessarily. Aliens don't contradict the Christian God.

But I realize that's not the point you're making. Correct me if I'm wrong: you're basically asking this: if what I believe was proven to be wrong somehow (we can set aside HOW you could prove such a thing and assume it's been disproven for the sake of argument), you want to know whether or not it would THEN be an invention, or a discovery, right?

In that case, it would be a fabrication, which, yes, is an invention of sorts. The problem with this argument of yours, though, is that it's only applicable if you disprove Math. Math works; we all know that. That's a GIVEN in this discussion. You can "what if?" about how we'd think of it if it were proven wrong, but you can ask any hypothetical question. You might as well as "if you found out there as a mountain taller than Everest, would you still call Everet the tallest?" The answer is obviously no; so what's your point?

If Math did not work reliably the way it does, I wouldn't have even brough any of this up. However, it does work; we merely refine our knowledges of it over time...the same way we do with records of the tallest mountain, deepest ocean, and a billion other things.


I believe it SHOULD make a sound, but I don't believe that it does, because there is absolutely no way of proving it; just like there is no way of proving that math is 100% correct. For me to say it does make a sound is a trite and uniformed statement, considering I know there is no way of proving it.
TECHNICALLY, there's no way of proving it, because by definition it cannot be proven. It makes as much sense to say "prove something without proving it."

Like I said: it completely depends on your definition of sound. If "sound" means "sound waves," then you'd have to believe in a complete abberation of the laws of physics to say that it makes no sound.

Regardless, it's really not relevant to this discussion. If your entire argument is based around the idea that we can't know for sure what would happen if we were not here, then how are we ever supposed to really discuss anything in-depth? I notice you don't apply this same skepticism when using what you and I agree is basic logic...but we all know that agreeance, by ANY number of people, does not by definition make it necessarily so. Truth is true no matter who believes it, or why.

[LordSlaytan]

Originally posted by Yoda
My mistake; I didn't realize. Partially because some people use smilies as a form of deniability, if you catch my drift.


Do I know what you mean? I think I do.

You can be very arrogant ...;D;D;D

You are smug sometimes ...;D;D;D

You give people a hard time for being overly dramatic, then you say something like this:

"...because I want to do everything I can to contribute to The Great Relearning."
Lucky you're not guilty of that...;D;D;D

You're absolutely the most annoying debater I have ever run up against ...;D;D;D

You may not use God in your argument, but acknowledgement of God seems to be your goal often enough ...;D;D;D

Ah c'mon, I'm just messin' with ya' ...:indifferent:

In all seriousness, I can be a real prick. I get tired of having every sentence picked apart and having holes poked into every thought I come up with. Frustration makes me edgy and anxious. I acquiesce, you are the better debater. Your arguments all tend to be part of your esoteric quests for knowledge where for me, they are subjects I have never spent time trying to pursue. I'll quit picking on you now. :(

[OG-]

Originally posted by Yoda
This is false, and I've already addressed it: Math IS definite. It never changes. It is only our understanding and documentation that changes it. By your logic, mercury did not have a larger atomic weight than, say, arsenic, until we realized that it did.

This arguement just turned extremely for the worse because it has become apparent to me that you won't abandon the concept that nothing is deffinite. Nothing is deffinite. Things are only as we percieve them. They are entirely only as we percieve them andhere is absolutely no standards. Everyone's ideas are all relevant because they are simply ideas. Nothing can be validated and the only standard is the act of percieving. Yes I know that statement contradicts itself, but that doesn't mean it isn't valid.

Think about this, does everyone in the world that is color blind actually see the wrong colors, or do they see the right colors and the rest of the population is seeing the wrong colors? You can't prove it, and thus it isn't true. Nothing is true. Yes, I've contradicted myself again, I'm aware of this. Which is basically my point...everything is a paradox. Eventually everything contradicts itself.

The colors you see are no more or no less correct than the colors a colorblind person sees. Walk into a crowded mall, you're bound to bump into someone. Now, did you bump into them or did they bump into you? Or did you both bump into each other at the same time? No one statement is any more valid than the next.

There are things we come to accept, but that doesn't mean they are truths. An insane person is no more or no less sane than a sane person. Someone who thinks irrationally is no more or no less rational than a person who thinks rationally. People make their own realities, does not mean one person's reality is more so true than any other persons reality. Because of this, math is invented. If there is no way to prove something's existence, then you didn't discover it, you invented it. I don't see how you can possibly being to even try to prove anything.

scienctific facts are facts
There are no scientific facts, there are only theories.

Aliens don't contradict the Christian God.
Aliens responsible for the creation of man don't contradict the Christian God?

Truths are only personal. That is my point right there. Anything known to be true is just someones personal truth that was made publicly accepted.

[Yoda]

Sorry for the delay in this response. :)

This arguement just turned extremely for the worse because it has become apparent to me that you won't abandon the concept that nothing is deffinite. Nothing is deffinite. Things are only as we percieve them. They are entirely only as we percieve them andhere is absolutely no standards. Everyone's ideas are all relevant because they are simply ideas. Nothing can be validated and the only standard is the act of percieving.
I can accept the concept; but I also ignore it. You HAVE to if you are EVER to have ANY rational discourse at all.

I'm sorry, but if your entire argument against Mathematics being a discovery consists of the fact that "nothing is definite," then you really have no argument at all, because you are not making an argument against my argument; you're making an argument against ALL forms of arguing. We're discussing Mathematics under the assumption that basic perception and logic are reliable, simply because there is no other way to discuss it.

Believe me; I'm WELL aware of this Matrix-esque philosophy. I don't avoid the topic because I don't know much about it; I avoid the topic because I know all about it, and therefore see what a waste of time it is. It's good to know and have under your belt, but not good to dwell on, because if you ever give it any real credence, you'll find yourself unable to carry on any conversation or thought whatsoever.

So, if you want to make the case against Mathematics being a discovery, you'd need to operate from this common base, otherwise there's no point in discussing anything at all. With that in mind, if you want to continue, it's probably best to go back to my last post sans the "nothing is definite" concept. :)


Yes I know that statement contradicts itself, but that doesn't mean it isn't valid.
THAT statement contradicts itself, too. :)


Eventually everything contradicts itself.
Not necessarily true. It may be so, or it may not. If God exists as a "stopping point" of sorts, it need not be true at all.


Aliens responsible for the creation of man don't contradict the Christian God?
I don't recall you saying anythign about them being responsbile for the creation of man...because yes, THAT would contradict the Christian God (probably; depends on how loose you want to get with Scripture). But just aliens? No. Not at all.

So, with that cleared up, I'd quote these past points:


Math IS definite. It never changes. It is only our understanding and documentation that changes it. By your logic, mercury did not have a larger atomic weight than, say, arsenic, until we realized that it did.

Or, to use the analogy I used before (which you appear to have glossed over for some reason): scienctific facts are facts whether we realize them or not. They don't become true when we update our science textbooks. The facts are the same; it is only our understanding of them that is in flux. The facts were the same ALL along.
We can observe that when you line something up against something else, and perform certain proven calculations, you get the same results you would expect to get...which is why we can do things like fly to the moon with relative safety even before ever having tried such a thing before.
The problem with this argument of yours, though, is that it's only applicable if you disprove Math. Math works; we all know that. That's a GIVEN in this discussion. You can "what if?" about how we'd think of it if it were proven wrong, but you can ask any hypothetical question. You might as well as "if you found out there as a mountain taller than Everest, would you still call Everet the tallest?" The answer is obviously no; so what's your point?

If Math did not work reliably the way it does, I wouldn't have even brough any of this up. However, it does work; we merely refine our knowledges of it over time...the same way we do with records of the tallest mountain, deepest ocean, and a billion other things.

[Yoda]

*bump* :)

[planet news]

bump.

AHAHAHAHAHA!

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

[Sedai]

Think about this, does everyone in the world that is color blind actually see the wrong colors, or do they see the right colors and the rest of the population is seeing the wrong colors?


This doesn't mean anything. What determines right and wrong colors? Colors have names because we gave them names. Meanwhile, the science behind how colors work, in that light bounces off surfaces at different vibrational rates due to absorbency and acidic content, is sound. This can all be measured with a Densitometer, a tool I use daily in my work.

[John McClane]

Yes, but can a person who is color blind learn of what certain colors look like by learning about how colors work? Ah, that's the important question that will drive you mad. :D

[Yoda]

Booo, resurrecting ancient threads!

People think disagreements on MoFo are abrasive, just check 'em out before. Everyone was tenser.

[Sedai]

Yes, but can a person who is color blind learn of what certain colors look like by learning about how colors work? Ah, that's the important question that will drive you mad. :D

As long as they have a reference to go by, of course they can. The proof is the pressman I know that is color blind. As long as he has a swatch book to match his output to, he matched color perfectly every time. To his eyes, the greens and reds got mixed up, but he could mix the appropriate inks and match the density (with a tool, which pressman who aren't color blind are required to do also).

Meanwhile, why is your question the important one? ;)

[Yoda]

Meanwhile, why is your question the important one? ;)
Clearly, this is the important question.

[planet news]

Idealism v. materialism fecal hurricane is a'brewin already. Do signifiers have a material referent, or do they get their meaning from differ[a]nce?

[Sedai]

A dead horse, to be sure.

[John McClane]

As long as they have a reference to go by, of course they can. The proof is the pressman I know that is color blind. As long as he has a swatch book to match his output to, he matched color perfectly every time. To his eyes, the greens and reds got mixed up, but he could mix the appropriate inks and match the density (with a tool, which pressman who aren't color blind are required to do also).

Meanwhile, why is your question the important one? ;)Ah, but you missed my entire point. Yes, someone can say hey this is red and this is green. He might understand all the inks and density of the color (in the example you've provided) but can he preceive (subjective experience) the color by way of theoritical knowledge. In other words, wavelengths and that sort.

Believe me, dude, it's just best to not think about this sorta stuff sometimes. This particular topic was in my metaphysics class on the mind...and you think Foucault is dense! ;)

[Sedai]

I know what you mean, I just think it doesn't matter in practice, so why worry about it? Do you mean can he imagine the color through someone telling him about it? Why does that even matter? People don't think about colors this way.

[John McClane]

I know what you mean, I just think it doesn't matter in practice, so why worry about it? Do you mean can he imagine the color through someone telling him about it? Why does that even matter? People don't think about colors this way.I can't remember the importance/context of the problem and I don't have the textbook anymore, so I honestly can't say without doing some digging.

[will.15]

I add therefore I am.

From Exodus:

God said to Moses: "I will give you twenty commandments."

Moses: "I can't count that high."

God: "Okay, I'll make it ten."

[planet news]

I know what you mean, I just think it doesn't matter in practice, so why worry about it?The consequences extend mostly to science and materialism. If people think naming colors creates them, then science is just a particular way of naming colors that could or could not be right---and is just as right as anyone's random way of naming or grouping colors. However, if colors are real, material substances then the tables are, of course, turned.

I could see some political type problems arising from a devaluing of science as "just another" style of language presenting the world in "just another" way.

Nothing serious enough to stop people from accepting science or anything though... which is why I like Deleuze.

[Ash_Lee]

A question for atheists? Why, I have a question for Christians, one overheard by myself in a doctors surgery a few weeks ago, from a small boy asking his father the deepest of questions:

Boy: Why is God?

Dad: What do you mean "Why is God?"

Boy: Well why?

Chew on that :D

[will.15]

If there is a God, why do we need a religion to worship him?

[mark f]

I admit that any religion is an imperfect way to worship a God, but that God, if it isn't just the Cosmos and actually has some plan (no matter how incoherent and/or irrational you may find it) really does want to be known, respected and loved. Why else would such a Being create? Think about it in terms of an artist creating and wanting to be known for and through the work. God is the artist and the Universe and We are all part of the work in progress.

Sorry, but you asked...

[Sexy Celebrity]

I've never understood why God needs people to know who he is, love him and worship him. It sounds like God has Narcissistic Personality Disorder. I think we're a sad existing creation if we've got a creator who acts like that.

[mark f]

So most parents never want their children to know and love them?

[Sexy Celebrity]

So most parents never want their children to know and love them?

Not all. That doesn't happen in every case. Probably doesn't even matter in certain species. That could be where the idea of having to love your creator (God) comes from.

[wintertriangles]

Otiose

[will.15]

The difference is God at best is an absentee parent and those kind of parents don't care what their children think of them.

[John McClane]

Did anyone ever stop to think that God had no choice in creating the cosmos?

[Yoda]

I've never understood why God needs people to know who he is, love him and worship him. It sounds like God has Narcissistic Personality Disorder. I think we're a sad existing creation if we've got a creator who acts like that.
The reason we call such things narcissistic in people is because no people are worthy of them. If they were, it wouldn't be narcissistic: it'd be just and right to exalt them.

As for why God creates; it's a tough question on which there has been much speculation and disagreement even amongst believers. Personally, I've always felt there were two very compelling rationales:

First, that certain virtues cannot be expressed without other independent beings. Mercy could not exist, for example, if we did not exist to require it. Gratitude could not exist if something unworthy of that mercy did not first exist, as well.

Second, I find that every person with their head on straight is glad to be alive, and glad that people in general are alive. I think it's safe to say that well-adjusted folks see existence in and of itself as a positive thing. I realize there are some very cynical folks who feel otherwise, and that's fine, but by and large we're not lining up to off ourselves. So, anyone who's glad to be alive at all, really, would seem to already have an answer to their question.

[Sexy Celebrity]

The reason we call such things narcissistic in people is because no people are worthy of them. If they were, it wouldn't be narcissistic: it'd be just and right to exalt them.

Okay, so you're saying God is worthy of being loved and admired while people aren't. Then we need to know exactly why he should be better than anybody who's ever lived.

As for why God creates; it's a tough question on which there has been much speculation and disagreement even amongst believers. Personally, I've always felt there were two very compelling rationales:

First, that certain virtues cannot be expressed without other independent beings. Mercy could not exist, for example, if we did not exist to require it. Gratitude could not exist if something unworthy of that mercy did not first exist, as well.

Well, nothing would exist if God didn't create it. How does God think up things like mercy and gratitude and all the other emotions? Why are the virtues even so important to life and creation? I'm considering this from the perspective of God before life even began. Since he is a creator, I'm guessing there must have been a period of time where human beings and human emotions and problems did not exist. Was he inspired by something from pre-life? Was there another world where he learned these things? Was he created himself by another creator?

Where did these virtues come from and why are they the important reasons to exist in life?

Second, I find that every person with their head on straight is glad to be alive, and glad that people in general are alive. I think it's safe to say that well-adjusted folks see existence in and of itself as a positive thing. I realize there are some very cynical folks who feel otherwise, and that's fine, but by and large we're not lining up to off ourselves. So, anyone who's glad to be alive at all, really, would seem to already have an answer to their question.

Not sure why this was brought up, but okay.

I wouldn't say "well-adjusted folks see existence as positive" because not all of them do and you don't have to be not well-adjusted to see it as negative. People suffering, people with physical problems, illness, deformities, with bad luck or living in bad conditions don't always see their existence as positive. Is life itself a bad thing? I don't think so, but a lot of people do think it's bad. I would say they're not well-adjusted, but I can't be so sure about every person out there.

[will.15]

I'm glad the discussion has shifted away from math and colors.

[John McClane]

Consciousness is the greatest burden for which I could ever ask.

[planet news]

I've never understood why God needs people to know who he is, love him and worship him. It sounds like God has Narcissistic Personality Disorder. I think we're a sad existing creation if we've got a creator who acts like that.Yall don't know seem to know about the Holy Ghost.

Part of God is in his community of believers. God is in people too. The Holy Ghost is as much God as Jesus was God, which was completely and utterly so---God in man, once again.

Also, the idea of treating God as a person is kinda silly when dealing with any competent Christian theology. Clearly "narcissism" cannot and should not be applied to an infinite being. In some sense, as Yoda says, the only correct way for a being like that to be is narcissistic in the human sense.

[Sexy Celebrity]

Alright. Well, if I'm a part of God, and if I've got this Holy Ghost inside of me, and God wants me to love and worship him, then clearly I am also loving and worshipping myself. So, basically, God and life is nothing but this big Narcissism club and we're all so vain but we're supposed to ignore the negative side to this and just imagine it as this big, spiritual thing.

[planet news]

Love is always a kind of narcissistic imbalance. And Christianity is the religion of this radical imbalance.

[John McClane]

I think you're also missing the fact that God doesn't want people to worship him by...worshiping him (i.e. human/animal sacrifices, grand temples/churches, or sitting at home praying 24/7). Instead, you worship him by putting others first and helping those in need.

Modern day Christianity is far removed from its roots and it's rather depressing at times. :(

[will.15]

Doing good deeds and being a swell person is fine, but he also wants you to go to church and sing and chant how great He is.

[John McClane]

Doing good deeds and being a swell person is fine, but he also wants you to go to church and sing and chant how great He is.This is wrong on two accounts. First, Jesus's message was "dude, the churches are getting it wrong" (this is the critique I ascribe to). Second, some people would argue that since you are human and flawed you need church to reinforce your beliefs (the same way you constantly remind someone who's forgetful or the way you train new recruits).

[Sexy Celebrity]

Let me just tell people how it is. Let me tell you how to live your lives -- my divine God-self is calling me to let you know the truth about life. I've experienced plenty of hard knocks already and I know what to do to live your life as best as possible:

Live it for yourself.

Let YOU be your guide. Don't let God be your guide. Don't let your parents be your guide. Don't let your boyfriends or your girlfriends or your husbands and wives be your guide. YOU should be your guide. Love yourself that much. Be the ultimate narcissist.

You are alone. Everyone else is just an image your eyes are taking in and processing in your brain. This is not a videogame where it's okay to shoot people or whatever, but life is sort of like a game and you're playing it as one player at ALL times. Your mission in life is to succeed at living to an old age and having as many delightful experiences as possible. I don't mean you should be a total hedonist, but if you can manage to sustain an acceptable level where you're happy and comfortable, you've got it made.

Don't fall into the traps of religions and every cultural idea that comes along. THINK FOR YOURSELF. FEEL FOR YOURSELF. Judge everything. Make up your mind about stuff. Do what feels right and think before you act. You are a temporary being. You were born, you grew, you learned things, you became what you are, and one day you're gonna die and rot and it'll be no different than losing a plant to death, as far as nature and the world sees it.

The flip side to this is I'm not even suggesting that God isn't there. God might be there. I don't know the true nature of why we're here. I don't know for sure what happens after we die. I just know it's a solid fact right now that this is all we have. Every single day you wake up and you wake up as yourself. You do this for years and years and years. It's the same for everybody. Life can be a long time if you make it far and when you do you'll probably look back and wonder where the time went. But that's just a feeling. Feelings are amazing things. Feelings can make us feel God and feel like there's something more to life than this. Thoughts can do that, too. We're an amazing species and we've created so much and we can do so much. We know how to manipulate a lot of stuff in the large environment of our existence -- the planet Earth.

But, ultimately, each and every one of us is alone in the long run. I totally do believe that we should help one another and I think that there's not enough of that in this world. But don't fall into traps and don't mess around with people and things that might harm you or get you to harm others. Avoid church if you've had bad experiences with it. Avoid God if God doesn't make you feel right. As far as we know now, you are just the sum total of all that's going on in your brain. Don't make your life stressful with worrying about God and the afterlife and your survival after death if it's only gonna harm you and put a damper on things. If God is truly there, he's probably in the elements and in nature and in the things that make us ourselves. Connect with yourself and be happy. Avoid danger and unhappiness. Love yourself and know you have the power to be perfect. Don't feel like you're not as great as some being out there you will never see in your lifetime.

[planet news]

Read Nietzsche, people. Or, if you're a Christian, read Kierkegaard.

It's all there.

Nevertheless the ontological character of mathematics remains undiscussed.

[John McClane]

SC: I find so many things disturbing about your post but I am too tired to address them now. First thing tomorrow morning, as I can finally sleep!

[Sexy Celebrity]

Disturbing? Eeek. Yes, please tell me what you find disturbing.

[will.15]

SC, that was beautiful! Tomorrow I suspect we will read a really long rebuttle not just from JM, but also someone else.

[Sexy Celebrity]

Oh, please. Nobody responds to my posts. But I am looking forward to John's thoughts.

[planet news]

I agree with you "in spirit", but there're some technical problems/vagaries with your reasoning. I'll see how John responds before defending you.

[will.15]

I agree with you "in spirit", but there're some technical problems/vagaries with your reasoning. I'll see how John responds before defending you.
As Pat Paulsen would say:

Picky...picky...picky...

[Sexy Celebrity]

I am a religious man, though.

Jesus has returned in a new form:

http://img593.imageshack.us/img593/4475/jakechrist.jpg

[Yoda]

Okay, so you're saying God is worthy of being loved and admired while people aren't.
Not really; I love and admire lots of people. I'd be more accurate to say that I think God is worth of being worshipped while people aren't.

Then we need to know exactly why he should be better than anybody who's ever lived.
I think there's a book on this very topic. ;)

Well, nothing would exist if God didn't create it. How does God think up things like mercy and gratitude and all the other emotions? Why are the virtues even so important to life and creation? I'm considering this from the perspective of God before life even began. Since he is a creator, I'm guessing there must have been a period of time where human beings and human emotions and problems did not exist. Was he inspired by something from pre-life? Was there another world where he learned these things? Was he created himself by another creator?

Where did these virtues come from and why are they the important reasons to exist in life?
These aren't really answerable questions, and they wouldn't be under any worldview, really. The core "why?" of all existence never is. But insofar as we can speculate (which isn't much), most theists seem to regard God as the source of all virtue; they come from Him.

I'm not sure if we can say there was a "period of time" before humans. I mean, I think there is, but I don't know what time looks like to a being outside of it. I also don't think God can be "inspired" -- He's the source, the inspiration. And if God was created by some other Creator, then He's not really God, and we just shift all these questions up one level onto whoever made Him.

As for whether or not there was another world before ours; I actually don't see any reason why not. We know what we need to, but not a lot more.

Not sure why this was brought up, but okay.
To demonstrate that people like existence, and it seems odd for people who like their existence to ask why they should exist. If you enjoy existing, then you have your answer, don't you?

I wouldn't say "well-adjusted folks see existence as positive" because not all of them do and you don't have to be not well-adjusted to see it as negative. People suffering, people with physical problems, illness, deformities, with bad luck or living in bad conditions don't always see their existence as positive. Is life itself a bad thing? I don't think so, but a lot of people do think it's bad. I would say they're not well-adjusted, but I can't be so sure about every person out there.
I think you misunderstand me. You might not see the existence of someone with an illness or deformity as positive...but I'll bet they usually do.

Yup, a lot of people think life is just bad. I think that's a shame, and I'm glad God did not decide against creating life simply because some people would come to resent it.

[Yoda]

Doing good deeds and being a swell person is fine, but he also wants you to go to church and sing and chant how great He is.
This is generally seen as a bit lower on the priorities list, but yeah. That seems a relatively small tribute to a grand Being who creates everything, humbles itself for our sins, etc. Insofar as you decide to treat God like a flawed person, sure, the worship looks silly. But not as silly as deciding to judge Him on that scale to begin with.

[Yoda]

Let me just tell people how it is. Let me tell you how to live your lives -- my divine God-self is calling me to let you know the truth about life. I've experienced plenty of hard knocks already and I know what to do to live your life as best as possible:

Live it for yourself.

Let YOU be your guide. Don't let God be your guide. Don't let your parents be your guide. Don't let your boyfriends or your girlfriends or your husbands and wives be your guide. YOU should be your guide. Love yourself that much. Be the ultimate narcissist.

You are alone. Everyone else is just an image your eyes are taking in and processing in your brain. This is not a videogame where it's okay to shoot people or whatever, but life is sort of like a game and you're playing it as one player at ALL times. Your mission in life is to succeed at living to an old age and having as many delightful experiences as possible. I don't mean you should be a total hedonist, but if you can manage to sustain an acceptable level where you're happy and comfortable, you've got it made.

Don't fall into the traps of religions and every cultural idea that comes along. THINK FOR YOURSELF. FEEL FOR YOURSELF. Judge everything. Make up your mind about stuff. Do what feels right and think before you act. You are a temporary being. You were born, you grew, you learned things, you became what you are, and one day you're gonna die and rot and it'll be no different than losing a plant to death, as far as nature and the world sees it.

The flip side to this is I'm not even suggesting that God isn't there. God might be there. I don't know the true nature of why we're here. I don't know for sure what happens after we die. I just know it's a solid fact right now that this is all we have. Every single day you wake up and you wake up as yourself. You do this for years and years and years. It's the same for everybody. Life can be a long time if you make it far and when you do you'll probably look back and wonder where the time went. But that's just a feeling. Feelings are amazing things. Feelings can make us feel God and feel like there's something more to life than this. Thoughts can do that, too. We're an amazing species and we've created so much and we can do so much. We know how to manipulate a lot of stuff in the large environment of our existence -- the planet Earth.

But, ultimately, each and every one of us is alone in the long run. I totally do believe that we should help one another and I think that there's not enough of that in this world. But don't fall into traps and don't mess around with people and things that might harm you or get you to harm others. Avoid church if you've had bad experiences with it. Avoid God if God doesn't make you feel right. As far as we know now, you are just the sum total of all that's going on in your brain. Don't make your life stressful with worrying about God and the afterlife and your survival after death if it's only gonna harm you and put a damper on things. If God is truly there, he's probably in the elements and in nature and in the things that make us ourselves. Connect with yourself and be happy. Avoid danger and unhappiness. Love yourself and know you have the power to be perfect. Don't feel like you're not as great as some being out there you will never see in your lifetime.
If you believe you're alone out there, it might as well be true. I don't think you are, but I do believe that thinking that is somewhat self-fulfilling. If you think you're alone, you will be.

So, here's my little speech:

Don't live for yourself. Live for others. Serve others. It's always better. You will often regret putting yourself first. You will almost never regret putting others first, not if you do it for the right reasons. You say at the end that we should help one another, and that there aren't enough people who do that. But they don't for all the reasons you're advocating. What you're saying is convincing people to be this way. People don't help each other more by deciding they're going to die alone and they shouldn't rely on anyone: they do it by deciding the exact opposite.

I don't believe I have ever admired a person who lived for themselves. We usually call that "selfish," and selfishness is one of those things that no stable human society has ever admired.

If you avoid anything that becomes hard, you only do easy things, and they aren't ever going to be things worth doing. Forget that: ask the hard questions. Think deep thoughts about important things. Keep following them down into the rabbit hole. There are discoveries to be made, you know. And some of them only happen with other people.

Let your friends and parents be your guide if you respect and admire them. Don't reject other people just because they're other people: reject the ones who haven't earned your trust and love. But if they have? Absolutely let them guide you. There is so much to learn outside of ourselves that the overarching feeling I have for someone who is focused internally is never anger, but always pity. They will live a sheltered life, hiding behind transient, disposable things to avoid ever facing the profound and the sublime.

They will miss so much.

[John McClane]

Let me just tell people how it is. Let me tell you how to live your lives -- my divine God-self is calling me to let you know the truth about life. I've experienced plenty of hard knocks already and I know what to do to live your life as best as possible:

Live it for yourself.

Let YOU be your guide. Don't let God be your guide. Don't let your parents be your guide. Don't let your boyfriends or your girlfriends or your husbands and wives be your guide. YOU should be your guide. Love yourself that much. Be the ultimate narcissist.Now I seriously hope this is just all in good fun but I've seen you use this type of language in other religious threads. However, there's a staggering difference between being your own guide and being a narcissist. I also believe that saying be your own guide is, at best, dangerous. This is the type of attitude that breeds subjective morality and apathy, and that's precisely what's tearing our culture apart—this huge spectacle of me.

What's the huge spectacle of me? Well, I think it's largely revealed in the motives of individuals. People who ascribe to what you're advocating for do not take others into account. Instead, you get this twisted "how can I get what I want" attitude that dismisses other people as inconveniences.

However, and for example, when an individual buys organic food or environmentally responsible shipping materials there's typically a different motive behind said purchase versus their narcissistic counterparts (i.e. supporting local farmers and taking care of the environment). Of course, they could easily be thinking about themselves (I want safer food and being green is cool) but I don't believe that these individuals are commonplace because of two things: lack of options and higher price tags. People want their cake and want to eat it, too.

So what does this mean? It means that in being your own guide you must also evaluate the repercussions on others, whether it be your parents, kids, or some local farmer you don't know.

Last but not least, would you not look to a guide when traveling an unknown land? I certainly know there's no way I'd climb Mount Everest without one, nor would I traverse the Sahara without one. Why? Because guides are experts in their fields. They know how to safely lead you from beginning to end. So no, not all guides are bad.

You are alone. Everyone else is just an image your eyes are taking in and processing in your brain. This is not a videogame where it's okay to shoot people or whatever, but life is sort of like a game and you're playing it as one player at ALL times. Your mission in life is to succeed at living to an old age and having as many delightful experiences as possible. I don't mean you should be a total hedonist, but if you can manage to sustain an acceptable level where you're happy and comfortable, you've got it made.First off, your videogame analogy is subject to the very same aloneness as the real world. But that's just me nitpicking! ;)

But seriously, I tend to agree that we are alone and it's one of the most difficult things to handle. However, I tend to think that this is one of the saddest excuses made by people who disregard others. I also tend to think that if people ACTUALLY felt alone they would off themselves, rather than striving for old age. However, by and large, most people keep on living. Why is this the case? Well, I believe it's largely dependent on the fact that at some level, even deep down where you might reject the claim, people believe they are not alone. This is because shared experiences with friends, lovers, and family all create the grandest illusion in life—you are not alone.

Don't fall into the traps of religions and every cultural idea that comes along. THINK FOR YOURSELF. FEEL FOR YOURSELF. Judge everything. Make up your mind about stuff. Do what feels right and think before you act. You are a temporary being. You were born, you grew, you learned things, you became what you are, and one day you're gonna die and rot and it'll be no different than losing a plant to death, as far as nature and the world sees it. Now this I actually agree with you on. It's fundamental that everyone in life learn how to live responsibly. What does this mean? It means sometimes you have to rail against the system. Go against the grain, amigo. However, in going against the grain, you must also be careful to not turn into the very thing you're going against. Fascism breeds fascism.

The flip side to this is I'm not even suggesting that God isn't there. God might be there. I don't know the true nature of why we're here. I don't know for sure what happens after we die. I just know it's a solid fact right now that this is all we have. Every single day you wake up and you wake up as yourself. You do this for years and years and years. It's the same for everybody. Life can be a long time if you make it far and when you do you'll probably look back and wonder where the time went. But that's just a feeling. Feelings are amazing things. Feelings can make us feel God and feel like there's something more to life than this. Thoughts can do that, too. We're an amazing species and we've created so much and we can do so much. We know how to manipulate a lot of stuff in the large environment of our existence -- the planet Earth.Yes, this is all we have. This is the only thing that we can be sure of and it is this primary fact that drives our existence. There's only one Earth and the people after us have to use it, too. We cannot simply disregard this responsibility just so we can enjoy ourselves. There's a balance to life—in living life, you must also know how to live. In other words, do not be solely occupied with living life (eating whatever you want, when you want) or planning out how to live (exercising and worrying about every calorie). Instead, the two must be embraced together to where you can live life well.

But, ultimately, each and every one of us is alone in the long run. I totally do believe that we should help one another and I think that there's not enough of that in this world. But don't fall into traps and don't mess around with people and things that might harm you or get you to harm others. Avoid church if you've had bad experiences with it. Avoid God if God doesn't make you feel right. As far as we know now, you are just the sum total of all that's going on in your brain. Don't make your life stressful with worrying about God and the afterlife and your survival after death if it's only gonna harm you and put a damper on things. If God is truly there, he's probably in the elements and in nature and in the things that make us ourselves. Connect with yourself and be happy. Avoid danger and unhappiness. Love yourself and know you have the power to be perfect. Don't feel like you're not as great as some being out there you will never see in your lifetime.Gah! :D

I've already addressed aloneness and helping people, so I won't repeat myself again. The point I wish to address here is you can't control life by avoiding it. The only way that we can control life is by standing up and fighting evil. Only then will life truly be blessed for us all, regardless of religious beliefs. Pipe dream? Maybe, but I'm not willing to bet my life and the lives of my family on indifference and avoidance.

Lastly, you do not have the power to be perfect, even with God. We are humans and we are flawed. We're gunna screw up. However, this doesn't mean you just shouldn't care, nor does it mean that God requires you to debase yourself. This is why I was so fascinated by the word metanoia last night in the shoutbox. Repentance embraces guilt and harms us. Metanoia, on the other hand, embraces change and perseverance in said change. If you believe that positive trumps the negative, then I dare say that you should stop repenting and start changing.

[SammyJ88]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HY-03vYYAjA

That's what it felts like trying to understand this topic :p
But seriously, seeing what SC said and Yoda's, JM's reply, i think that's what it's all about in my opinion - believing in the core ethics (good/bad, right/wrong) and common sense but being flexible and open minded enough to be "enlightened" by others along the way and vice versa, so as to not settle on just one view.

I see where you are coming from saying we are alone in the world, but I don't believe it, we rely on people everyday for basic things food, shelter, entertainment (movies yay!) etc, we work, build, live together. It's sounds obvious but if you were literally alone you wouldn't get very far or know very much or be very happy. We also don't just learn from ourselves and our mistakes but from others too. We do need everyone in this world, they help shape us, they bring us together during hard times and good times, and most of all they help us experience emotions which are "Godly" and that no-one can truly explain. It all sounds sort of hippieish(?) and cliche, but thats my view on the topic keep on moving foward, have fun, and realize we aren't alone, all will be revealed in death.

I'm missing a lot of what I have to say in this post and being a bit broad as it's hard to put into words what I think about this topic, i'll have to think about it more.

[will.15]

If Cronenberg was God, humanity would really be screwed up.

[DexterRiley]

http://charleshamel.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/goldenrule1.jpg

[planet news]

i think that's what it's all about in my opinion - believing in the core ethics (good/bad, right/wrong) and common sense but being flexible and open minded enough to be "enlightened" by others along the way and vice versa, so as to not settle on just one view.I like this.

SC has the catchphrase right, but develops it in a rather random way, so I feel like you're all misunderstanding the main point---even if a lot of what either you said seems right. In short, this idea of living for oneself is not 1) to live without consulting others (what MattJohn responded to) or 2) to live without regard for others (what Yoda responded to)---rather, the point is to never blindly obey a set of rules without having any personal relationship or intellectual/emotional fidelity with that set of rules.

The best example here might be Nietzsche's critique of Kant's categorical imperative (see DexterRiley post above). And here you see how Nietzsche was a true underminer of his opponents. He does not even play Kant's game. It is, in some sense, madness to deny the categorical imperative---this shaky Socratic game of asking "what is the one character of all good actions?" and Nietzsche does not necessarily deny the practical "truth" of it; he merely comments at how it is obscene to subordinate yourself to a larger ethical standard on the notion of Kantian duty alone.

So yes, it might be wrong to lie (in general, which is as much as Kant really asks for), but if you are in a situation where you believe it is wrong not to lie, you should never subordinate yourself to that duty against what you believe (in such a way that you could even blame that duty for making you do whatever you did). The same goes for utilitarianism---apparently Kant's opposite, though not on any meaningful sense, since both propose universal tests. This classic example of the man who must pull one of two levers to save one over many. This man should not obey the obvious mathematical duty of utilitarianism unless he himself feels a fidelity to it. And even then, he should only take pride in the act if he feels a full fidelity towards it---that, if he is ashamed or guilty afterwards, then he did wrong because he didn't really do what he believed should have been done.

One should only do what one himself feels should be done---to feel the full necessity in that act, to not be a hypocrite, so to speak. And, in response to Yoda mostly, anyone who even begins to examine the psychology of desire and enjoyment discovers that 90% of the time we enjoy ourselves it is in some way an infringement against something that we felt "should have been" done---whether this is a prohibition, a priority, or a conscience.

Another way to put it is to act in such a way with such a fidelity to that action and yourself that the action no longer even seems contingent. You see an overwhelming necessity to all your actions.

And of course the key to all this is that, for everyone, the form of this necessity is different. This is not a moral law in the traditional sense. It is existentialism at its purest---fidelity to the self, fidelity to the event.

[planet news]

Don't live for yourself. Live for others. Serve others. It's always better.I smell a... communist...

[Sexy Celebrity]

I'm not sure if we can say there was a "period of time" before humans. I mean, I think there is, but I don't know what time looks like to a being outside of it. I also don't think God can be "inspired" -- He's the source, the inspiration. And if God was created by some other Creator, then He's not really God, and we just shift all these questions up one level onto whoever made Him.

As for whether or not there was another world before ours; I actually don't see any reason why not. We know what we need to, but not a lot more.

This is kind of a shocking statement to me, coming from you. Christianity Science Fiction, almost. I'm just surprised you'd imagine there was another world before ours. I'm guessing God and his laws were still a part of it. No need to explain something that's impossible to explain, it's just curious that you'd consider the possibility.

To demonstrate that people like existence, and it seems odd for people who like their existence to ask why they should exist. If you enjoy existing, then you have your answer, don't you?

No. I don't think it's odd for anyone to question their existence, happy or not. I know it's certainly odd to a lot of people that anyone should question why the world even exists. I have done this in the presence of people -- religious people, even -- and they can be quite baffled by it. Am I sending off signals that I don't like my existence or something? That is not the case. I have wondered why we exist at all ever since I was a child. I mean, if you don't think about religion -- if you don't take what religion says as the truth, then what you have left is science -- and science is far more intriguing and fascinating than religion ever could be.

Why? Because science can deal with surreal, spooky facts that can be a lot more reliable than religion. I know religion can have surreal, spooky ideas, too, but in my mind they are just that -- ideas.

Let's not even call it "science". Let's call it the laws of nature. I'm sure you'd feel the laws of nature have a tie with religion and God since I'm sure you would believe God created nature and its laws. That's perfectly alright. But allow me to look for answers that might lead me to areas of truth that steps far away from Christianity. Allow my mind to expand. It's not that I wouldn't go back and think about how it all works with God, it's just... the answers given by the Bible are too easy. Too humanly. Too much like an idea thought up by man in an earlier stage of life.

What if The Bible was rewritten by people now? Imagine what The Bible would be like now. Can you imagine it being vastly different? I can. I think it would totally incorporate so many things from the world we know live in. I think it might even be drastically altered in regards to stories and rules and beliefs. I'm not thinking if The Bible was rewritten to sound more modern and appeal to readers of this generation -- I'm thinking if The Bible never existed until the year 2011. How would it sound? What would its stories be? I think if someone came up with The Bible now and everyone took it seriously, Christianity would be totally different. I'm sure you find all of this silly, but I don't think it is. I think it makes a point if you believe it could be possible.

I think you misunderstand me. You might not see the existence of someone with an illness or deformity as positive...but I'll bet they usually do.

Oh, I'm sure there are people that do, but I'm positive lots of them do not like life. That's why there's the case for euthanasia. Some of those people want out, don't worry/don't fear/don't believe something bad's gonna happen to them after death for taking their life, don't care about what it might "mean" to society -- they're suffering and they want the option to stop suffering. I'm sure they suffer mentally and philosophically and that's probably terrible. With a less painful, less scary method of dying, they could end their consciousness and forget all about the misery of their life. I know that's not gonna convince you, but I think it's real for a lot of people. It might even be real for you someday. I hope not, but life has ways of surprising you sometime.

[DexterRiley]

If you believe you're alone out there, it might as well be true. I don't think you are, but I do believe that thinking that is somewhat self-fulfilling. If you think you're alone, you will be.

So, here's my little speech:

Don't live for yourself. Live for others. Serve others. It's always better. You will often regret putting yourself first. You will almost never regret putting others first, not if you do it for the right reasons. You say at the end that we should help one another, and that there aren't enough people who do that. But they don't for all the reasons you're advocating. What you're saying is convincing people to be this way. People don't help each other more by deciding they're going to die alone and they shouldn't rely on anyone: they do it by deciding the exact opposite.

I don't believe I have ever admired a person who lived for themselves. We usually call that "selfish," and selfishness is one of those things that no stable human society has ever admired.

If you avoid anything that becomes hard, you only do easy things, and they aren't ever going to be things worth doing. Forget that: ask the hard questions. Think deep thoughts about important things. Keep following them down into the rabbit hole. There are discoveries to be made, you know. And some of them only happen with other people.

Let your friends and parents be your guide if you respect and admire them. Don't reject other people just because they're other people: reject the ones who haven't earned your trust and love. But if they have? Absolutely let them guide you. There is so much to learn outside of ourselves that the overarching feeling I have for someone who is focused internally is never anger, but always pity. They will live a sheltered life, hiding behind transient, disposable things to avoid ever facing the profound and the sublime.

They will miss so much.

And you are a republican because...?

[Yoda]

I smell a... communist...
Communism - Coercion = Charity.

[Yoda]

And you are a republican because...?
Because I believe in the importance of limited government.

I think I see the error here: you're equating conservatism with some kind of cold-hearted "every man for themselves" Darwinism. But conservatism is not, despite what its opponents would have you believe, a rejection of charity or helping people. It is a rejection of the idea that government should (or effectively can) coerce people to do so. This shouldn't be a difficult distinction to grasp: we all have things, I'm sure, that we think should happen, but don't want government to do for us.

Being a conservative is not the opposite of charity. In fact, it's liberalism that is more at odds with the idea of charity, because charity is only possible when it is given willingly. By forcing people give of their money to fix larger societal problems, they remove the possibility of charity.

[DexterRiley]

i didnt say conservatism i said republican.

as an idea its great, it just isnt reality in the Republican policies.

i agree with your idea of serving others before serving yourself.

that isn't a republican ideal though, no matter how u want to dress it up.

I honestly believe if Roe vs Wade and the Homosexual issues were solved, Christians would be liberal. Because Jesus said as much.

A rich man has as much luck chance getten to heaven as a camel through an eye of a needle..or words to that effect.

that doesnt jive with the ridiculously wealthy power brokers of either the Democrats or the Republicans.

[Sexy Celebrity]

I do like what Yoda and John McClane have written. I don't feel the need to say much about it yet or maybe even at all since I'm still taking it all within myself. But I just wanted to say that I do find them both spiritually uplifting no matter what.

[planet news]

Because I believe in the importance of limited government.

I think I see the error here: you're equating conservatism with some kind of cold-hearted "every man for themselves" Darwinism. But conservatism is not, despite what its opponents would have you believe, a rejection of charity or helping people. It is a rejection of the idea that government should (or effectively can) coerce people to do so. This shouldn't be a difficult distinction to grasp: we all have things, I'm sure, that we think should happen, but don't want government to do for us.

Being a conservative is not the opposite of charity. In fact, it's liberalism that is more at odds with the idea of charity, because charity is only possible when it is given willingly. By forcing people give of their money to fix larger societal problems, they remove the possibility of charity.>implying Social Darwinism has anything to do with Darwinism
>implying there is coercion in communism
>implying there is capital in communism
>implying charity is good
>implying this is political thread

[Yoda]

This is kind of a shocking statement to me, coming from you. Christianity Science Fiction, almost. I'm just surprised you'd imagine there was another world before ours. I'm guessing God and his laws were still a part of it. No need to explain something that's impossible to explain, it's just curious that you'd consider the possibility.
Well, if you're asking me if I think it's true, the answer is no. But logically speaking I have no strong reason to reject it as a possibility.

C.S. Lewis wrote about this very subject in his Space Trilogy. The first two books are about this very idea, and the second book, Perelandra, is one of my top five or ten favorite books of all time.


No. I don't think it's odd for anyone to question their existence, happy or not. I know it's certainly odd to a lot of people that anyone should question why the world even exists. I have done this in the presence of people -- religious people, even -- and they can be quite baffled by it. Am I sending off signals that I don't like my existence or something? That is not the case. I have wondered why we exist at all ever since I was a child. I mean, if you don't think about religion -- if you don't take what religion says as the truth, then what you have left is science -- and science is far more intriguing and fascinating than religion ever could be.
Oh, I think the exact opposite is true. Science reduces everything to formula, to empiricism, to mere cataloging and observation. The idea that everything can be boiled down to the mere interaction of molecules and, with enough information, predicted and categorized and stripped of its mystery is far, far less fascinating than the idea that some things defy categorizing. Materialism is utterly boring when you get down to it, because it means that no type of matter is fundamentally different from any other and even the things we feel most deeply are random nonsense with no larger purpose.

I find scientific discovery fascinating, but I find it fascinating because I think it's part of a larger goal, and I think of it like a scavenger hunt left here for us to find and study, not a cosmic exercise in futility. Bor-ing.


Let's not even call it "science". Let's call it the laws of nature. I'm sure you'd feel the laws of nature have a tie with religion and God since I'm sure you would believe God created nature and its laws. That's perfectly alright. But allow me to look for answers that might lead me to areas of truth that steps far away from Christianity. Allow my mind to expand. It's not that I wouldn't go back and think about how it all works with God, it's just... the answers given by the Bible are too easy. Too humanly. Too much like an idea thought up by man in an earlier stage of life.
The Bible is easy? How much of it have you read? I find the things it prescribes to be borderline impossible, and I find its insights into human nature eternal. Think of the Golden Rule, which Dex just posted an image of; it is universal. Christians, Buddhists, Muslims, and fire-breathing Atheists all more or less agree with its wisdom and breadth.

Anyway, I don't really think God can win under these sorts of conditions, regardless. The more complicated The Bible is, the less accessible it is. But I find it plenty complicated all.

I'd recommend talking to someone who's studied The Bible at length. I'm constantly amazed at how much subtly is in some of its passages and parables. If you don't study it, obviously it won't look this way because the only parts you'll have heard will be the dumbed-down Sunday school versions, the famous nutshell passages (like John 3:16), or anything else that reaches you through some kind of societal osmosis. By definition, those are going to be the simplistic, digestible parts.


What if The Bible was rewritten by people now? Imagine what The Bible would be like now. Can you imagine it being vastly different? I can. I think it would totally incorporate so many things from the world we know live in. I think it might even be drastically altered in regards to stories and rules and beliefs. I'm not thinking if The Bible was rewritten to sound more modern and appeal to readers of this generation -- I'm thinking if The Bible never existed until the year 2011. How would it sound? What would its stories be? I think if someone came up with The Bible now and everyone took it seriously, Christianity would be totally different. I'm sure you find all of this silly, but I don't think it is. I think it makes a point if you believe it could be possible.
You'd need to stipulate a lot of other things. For example, did the Crucifixation and Resurrection still take place? If so, when? I can't fathom a Bible written today because the world of today is so heavily influenced by the Bible. It's like asking what would happen if Shakespeare were born today: you'd first have to strip out his influence on the whole of literature, but there's really no way to do that.


Oh, I'm sure there are people that do, but I'm positive lots of them do not like life. That's why there's the case for euthanasia. Some of those people want out, don't worry/don't fear/don't believe something bad's gonna happen to them after death for taking their life, don't care about what it might "mean" to society -- they're suffering and they want the option to stop suffering. I'm sure they suffer mentally and philosophically and that's probably terrible. With a less painful, less scary method of dying, they could end their consciousness and forget all about the misery of their life. I know that's not gonna convince you, but I think it's real for a lot of people. It might even be real for you someday. I hope not, but life has ways of surprising you sometime.
It might be, yeah. And it's terrible. But there is no good thing that some people can't come to hate anyway. It might even be understandable, but I don't think it invalidates the basic goodness of existence and creation.

[Yoda]

i didnt say conservatism i said republican.
There's quite a bit of overlap between the two. ;) But you can swap out the word "conservativism" for "Republicanism" and my post wouldn't change much.

as an idea its great, it just isnt reality in the Republican policies.
Sure it is. It's in lower taxes and lessened regulation. It's in creating an economy favorable to business and individual economic liberty.

Of course, this is reality and we're talking about a political party which exists at the whims of its people (in theory, at least), which means there are people in it who disagree with one another, or let politics trump ideals sometimes, yadda yadda yadda. But it's mostly inline with conservative ideals. Or, at least, it is a reflection of the degree to which most of our society is willing to be conservative. There's a lot of debate about where to draw these lines, and the Republican party can't be much more economically conservative without ceasing to be viable right now.

I'm a Republican because the majority of Republicans are much closer to my views than other parties, and the issues they are similar to my views on are the issues I generally find most important.

that isn't a republican ideal though, no matter how u want to dress it up.
Find me one politician in all America who doesn't think serving others is good. Perhaps some of them think as much but would never say so, but I'm not sure how you could determine such a thing.

I'm not sure how it could be a "Republican ideal" anyway. The ideal is to stop interfering and let people make more of their own choices. It would be self-contradictory to add to this some specific guidelines about what people do once you get out of their way. You might as well say anything we do while we're free people isn't among any party's ideals because they only believe in giving us the freedom to begin with. Liberty -- be it economic or otherwise -- is not the lack of an ideal, it IS the ideal.

I honestly believe if Roe vs Wade and the Homosexual issues were solved, Christians would be liberal. Because Jesus said as much.
Jesus told us to do charitable things: He didn't force people to do them. The difference, as I've been harping on this entire time, is coercion. The voluntary nature of both faith and charity is crucial, because both are morally worthless if you force people into them.

A rich man has as much luck chance getten to heaven as a camel through an eye of a needle..or words to that effect.

that doesnt jive with the ridiculously wealthy power brokers of either the Democrats or the Republicans.
There are translation issues around this passage, but the short explanation is that "eye of the needle" refers to a type of gate in walled cities of the time. It is a narrow passage, not an actual needle. It involves unloading your camel and passing the supplies through separately. Some people take this to mean that you need to get your priorities in order. Some take it to mean that it's simply difficult or cumbersome, but not impossible. Which certainly fits what I think most of us see in reality: that wealth is a difficult temptation for many people, but that it's still possible to be wealthy and good. It's just harder.

This is a great example of what I was saying to Jason about studying the Bible, though. I'm sure lots of it sounds simplistic when heard second and third hand and just taken at face value. Digging a little deeper yields a lot more nuance than its often given credit for.

[Yoda]

I do like what Yoda and John McClane have written. I don't feel the need to say much about it yet or maybe even at all since I'm still taking it all within myself. But I just wanted to say that I do find them both spiritually uplifting no matter what.
Glad you got something out of it.

Reply or not -- no worries.

[Yoda]

Come at me, all of you! I've got all five senses and I slept last night!


>implying Social Darwinism has anything to do with Darwinism
I just omitted the word. I assumed everyone would know what I meant.

>implying there is coercion in communism
The fruits of your labor are distributed without your consent. That's all I mean by it.

>implying there is capital in communism
Nah, just implying that there's some work and some production, and thus some material benefit that can be distributed.

>implying charity is good
>implying this is political thread
Well, guilty on both counts.

[SammyJ88]

What if The Bible was rewritten by people now? Imagine what The Bible would be like now. Can you imagine it being vastly different? I can. I think it would totally incorporate so many things from the world we know live in. I think it might even be drastically altered in regards to stories and rules and beliefs. I'm not thinking if The Bible was rewritten to sound more modern and appeal to readers of this generation -- I'm thinking if The Bible never existed until the year 2011. How would it sound? What would its stories be? I think if someone came up with The Bible now and everyone took it seriously, Christianity would be totally different. I'm sure you find all of this silly, but I don't think it is. I think it makes a point if you believe it could be possible.

Pretty different, I couldn't help but click on the http://www.christianprayercenter.com/praise.html advertisment at the top of my screen, seems we will be praying for Lotto tickets.

"I went grocery shopping and I used most of my money to buy groceries. Prior to me leaving I saw and had the urge to buy a $7.00 lotto ticket and I won $100. I left with more money then I came with and has groceries."

[planet news]

>implying this is a reply to Yoda's last post

You're thinking too much in terms of Capital. Work doesn't have to be commodified into a "fruit". Work can just be done without compensation but directly for others. The important thing is that when you are doing the work, the work is in order to, in your words, "serve others" instead of in order to amass Capital in order to consume products... and ONLY THEN in order to give compensation for others.

Impossible you'll say, but if everyone was a perfect Christian, this would be easy, no? (going back to D. Riley's points, and so on)

But instead of replying to this, I'd rather hear your comments on my slightly different take on SC's original proposals.

[will.15]

I don't believe I have ever admired a person who lived for themselves. We usually call that "selfish," and selfishness is one of those things that no stable human society has ever admired.
Ayn Rand anyone?

[mark f]

I try to stay out of things in here, but I think I started this whole Magilla (with Sexy's enormous impetus just after), so I wanted to briefly add a coupla things for people to blow off.

I notice that Sexy is worried about people who suffer and are in pain, and let's face it, that means the entire human race to one extent or another. Now, I'm not preaching Pie in the Sky (don't believe in it), but I am saying that if there were some form of Afterlife, don't you believe that many of these "flaws" will be addressed and corrected? Think positively for a brief moment. If all we have is the here and now, then we have a lot of pain and suffering (albeit mixed in with some cool MoFos, movies, music, etc. :))

I also think that the Bible is wonderful reading. A major part of the reason I have faith is that I read the Bible and it spoke directly to me. Now, you can say that I selectively read it to find the humanistic, beautiful parts and ignored the parts which seemed to advocate intolerance, ignorance and violence, but that's not the case. It's a very complex book, and as I've said before, if you read it as history of Man's relationship to a God, you will see why this God seems to sometimes have to lower himself to man's level to communicate with us. We just were not ready to follow him on anything but a physical relationship, and despite what scientists and agnostics/atheists believe, a physical relationship will always fall short with God (at least this God of the Bible). That's where the New Covenant enters the picture and offers people a relationship beyond the physical. The exact things which turn people off to the concept of an anthropoidal God are the same things which make him attractive to people who believe. This is starting to sound like Elmer Gantry, so I'm backing down now.

The only thing I want to say to all of you here is that I DO NOT believe that I'm better than anybody here at all. If anything, I could very well be the biggest hypocrite in the history of the world. I just think I'm relatively honest, but as you've just read, I'm also delusional.

[Sexy Celebrity]

I had my own Bible for a couple of years. I think I've talked about it before in another thread -- a pink and black leather bound Bible that I found for free somewhere - I got it because I was going out with a church music director, who turned out to be a huge douchebag. I'm not trying to be mean, here - I loved him but please pray for his soul, Christians.

Anyway, I recently threw that Bible away. Now, I'm sure Christians don't like Bibles going into the garbage (granted, some of you think I'm going to Hell anyway for being gay, so I really wouldn't need a pink Bible to begin with, right?) but I just didn't think I needed it.

Even though I wondered if I might get any answers out of it. I should be ashamed of myself for admitting this, but I tried "Bible Dipping" with it a few times -- that's where you ask a question then open up The Bible to a random page and put your finger down on a word/passage to get a Divine answer. It's what Gwyneth Paltrow's crazy character in Running with Scissors does, which doesn't help my case at all. I will tell you, though, that when I first found this Bible, there was a marker in it and the marker was on a page that had a passage (with a description of what the passage was about before it) that dealt with something going on in my own life at the time. So, it was a little spooky. But then again, I've always been this way. I've always been the semi-spiritual type that looks for "signs" instead of relying fully on faith. I do often think that there's some kind of force or power that's beyond this physical world. I hate talking about it all now because I don't wanna be nuts and I truly do believe that a lot of people out there are nuts and silly with their beliefs. Even things like "Bible Dipping" are crazy to me if you do it all the time and take it seriously.

I am amazed by life. I am amazed that we're all here and we come in many different forms and that we live in this beautiful world. I have had deep meditative experiences where I have felt that we're all a part of this world and that it's this wonderful thing and we're all connected with everything in the universe on like an atomic level and it's given me great spiritual feelings and insights. I am fascinated by thinking of the world as this pretty powerful, exotic place that's more than what you think. I do think it's possible to change your perspective about everything around you and maybe that's how a lot of religious people feel so confidant and happy. I have done it. I have seen the majestic.

But then you can study it and think it's all an illusion.

[planet news]

But then you can study it and think it's all an illusion.>implying that studying reality makes you think its an illusion
>implying that studying reality doesn't allow to be amazed by it
>implying that studying reality is bad
>implying that religion is the only route to experiencing the "majestic"
>implying that the only new perspectives are in religion
>implying you will never read philosophy
>implying you are majorly missing out

[will.15]

Why do so many Christian Conservatives embrace the contradictory philosphy of Ayn Rand who despised Christianity?

[Sexy Celebrity]

>implying that studying reality makes you think its an illusion
>implying that studying reality doesn't allow to be amazed by it
>implying that studying reality is bad
>implying that religion is the only route to experiencing the "majestic"
>implying that the only new perspectives are in religion
>implying you will never read philosophy
>implying you are majorly missing out


http://furiousfanboys.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/DaveUnplugsHal.jpg

[planet news]

http://i756.photobucket.com/albums/xx205/planetnews/uma.png?t=1292639478

[will.15]

...bro?

[Yoda]

Why do so many Christian Conservatives embrace the contradictory philosphy of Ayn Rand who despised Christianity?
I dunno if "so many" do, because in my experience most Christians don't talk or think much about economics at all (unfortunately). But I do think the two are a bit at odds, yes. There's an important moral distinction between "self-interest is inevitable and must be acknowledged and accounted for in our economic system" and "greed is good."

Now, I think a lot of Christians tend to be more economically conservative, of course, but that's different.

[John McClane]

Oh my God, as soon as I left, the wheels came right off this thread! :D

[Yoda]

Usually it's the other way around.

[John McClane]

Ohhhhhh, someone put a roof over my head because I just got housed!

[Sexy Celebrity]

http://i756.photobucket.com/albums/xx205/planetnews/uma.png?t=1292639478

No, not really. I just don't always like words being put in my mouth that I never said. But I think you're totally free to interpret what I said.

Anyway, I just got back from a really awful movie called The Adjustment Bureau, which I quickly need to go review before it escapes my mind. It made me think of this thread, though.

[Sexy Celebrity]

This thread is fun so I might as well do some replying.

Well, if you're asking me if I think it's true, the answer is no. But logically speaking I have no strong reason to reject it as a possibility.

C.S. Lewis wrote about this very subject in his Space Trilogy. The first two books are about this very idea, and the second book, Perelandra, is one of my top five or ten favorite books of all time.

I had no idea he wrote a space trilogy.

Oh, I think the exact opposite is true. Science reduces everything to formula, to empiricism, to mere cataloging and observation. The idea that everything can be boiled down to the mere interaction of molecules and, with enough information, predicted and categorized and stripped of its mystery is far, far less fascinating than the idea that some things defy categorizing. Materialism is utterly boring when you get down to it, because it means that no type of matter is fundamentally different from any other and even the things we feel most deeply are random nonsense with no larger purpose.

I find scientific discovery fascinating, but I find it fascinating because I think it's part of a larger goal, and I think of it like a scavenger hunt left here for us to find and study, not a cosmic exercise in futility. Bor-ing.

Well, why are you bored? Is that why people have been turning to religion and ideas and beliefs that aren't true for everybody? Boredom?

I see what you're saying, but I honestly cannot see how religion is correct because it relieves boredom, turns life/science into a scavenger hunt and offers solutions other than categorization -- solutions that bring mystery and excitement into these things. Many scientists would say they find wonderful things out of science, and many more mysteries, too.

I'm not an expert on all of this and I really should read more than I do, but I just don't see how your view of the world and life makes it right. Makes it fact. Makes it permanent fact. Or, at least, very, very long term.

I think you could come up with all sorts of crazy ideas and beliefs out of things happening in life. Things outside of religion and God. They would not be true, but they could be taken as true. They could be felt as true.

I think our minds and our emotions/feelings might be flawed and often irrational and cause us to see things that might not be there.

But - I'm agnostic about this. I have my own theories about life and how it works. I have some uncommon ideas in my head about the way the world works and what's really going on -- how things could be understood better. I'm still working on some ideas in my head and it might take a long time to fully come to conclusions. I might never come to a conclusion. I could totally change my mind about things by next year. I'm excited by looking deep into things - always have been - and I'm always expanding and revising how I see the world. I don't lock myself down at church and believe in the same thing all the time. I wish I had the patience for that. I think it might be comfortable and neat to try that. But at the same time, I know it's not me.

I still think that most of my ideas about the world, as of right now, could be explained somehow through natural law. So I'm not totally supernatural about things. But I am fascinated by that stuff. I'm just not excited by ghost stories and Jesus apparitions and UFOs much anymore. Well, I dunno. I'm curious about all the reasons we're here and what we truly are, where we're going and what we're doing. I know I'm being vague, but I'm just saying I would rather think about humanity, the world, the sciences, the people, the ideas we have, the art we create, the complex world we've created and our abilities to manipulate it and feel it. I think something like a religion is a temporary thing. You might not be doing the wrong thing at all by being religious and being Christian, but I don't know for sure. I think it's good that you've been so serious about it and so dedicated and passionate. I was quite moved reading what you and John McClane wrote on here.

I dunno. I like Buddhism. Sit and meditate, listen to chants, live in the moment, think and ponder. We really do have all that we have now because of what every single person on this planet has contributed. At least, that's how it looks on this level of reality. I dunno if there's an adjustment bureau like in the movie The Adjustment Bureau where a team of guys in hats are trying to change people's fate because there is no free will.

What you are doing right now will affect the future. Humanity is like weather affecting the Earth, changing plans, causing quakes, advancing or disadvancing technology, saving or not saving lives. You will have some part in how the world is 1,000 years from now and beyond. You might not be known and it'll probably never be understood but you will have changed things somehow. That's more important than eternal life. Heaven and Hell are narcissistic domains, even Hell. Who cares where you go in the next life? You're just gonna be some soul sitting around in an afterlife. But you will have played a part in the future of this world -- that's a guarantee. You're a number in the equation and everything you do creates more numbers. Once you die, you lose a lot of numbers, unless you've set off a lot while alive. Those will bounce around and bounce around and change the world from here until eternity.

[planet news]

I have my own theories about life and how it works. I have some uncommon ideas in my head about the way the world works and what's really going on -- how things could be understood better. I'm still working on some ideas in my head and it might take a long time to fully come to conclusions. I might never come to a conclusion. I could totally change my mind about things by next year. I'm excited by looking deep into things - always have been - and I'm always expanding and revising how I see the world. I don't lock myself down at church and believe in the same thing all the time. I wish I had the patience for that. I think it might be comfortable and neat to try that. But at the same time, I know it's not me.>implying comfortable and near are at all good

Yeah, I like the attitude in this paragraph. I'd like to think I am one of these kinds of individuals as well. We'll see...

But yeah, Buddhism couldn't be less compatible with Christianity. Christianity is like the violent reaction against Buddhism. Everything that makes either "awesome" in their own right is not in the other.

[John McClane]

SC has the catchphrase right, but develops it in a rather random way, so I feel like you're all misunderstanding the main point---even if a lot of what either you said seems right. In short, this idea of living for oneself is not 1) to live without consulting others (what MattJohn responded to) or 2) to live without regard for others (what Yoda responded to)---rather, the point is to never blindly obey a set of rules without having any personal relationship or intellectual/emotional fidelity with that set of rules.Sure thing, but that's not why I took issue with what he said. The reason I took issue with it was that no matter how you develop that line of thinking, your end result will be subjective morality and selfish behavior. Not in everyone mind you but in enough people to cause some serious harm to our world. You just CAN'T talk like that if you really want a better world. No matter how good the intentions might be behind the carefulness of your elaboration.

The best example here might be Nietzsche's critique of Kant's categorical imperative (see DexterRiley post above). And here you see how Nietzsche was a true underminer of his opponents. He does not even play Kant's game. It is, in some sense, madness to deny the categorical imperative---this shaky Socratic game of asking "what is the one character of all good actions?" and Nietzsche does not necessarily deny the practical "truth" of it; he merely comments at how it is obscene to subordinate yourself to a larger ethical standard on the notion of Kantian duty alone.

So yes, it might be wrong to lie (in general, which is as much as Kant really asks for), but if you are in a situation where you believe it is wrong not to lie, you should never subordinate yourself to that duty against what you believe (in such a way that you could even blame that duty for making you do whatever you did). The same goes for utilitarianism---apparently Kant's opposite, though not on any meaningful sense, since both propose universal tests. This classic example of the man who must pull one of two levers to save one over many. This man should not obey the obvious mathematical duty of utilitarianism unless he himself feels a fidelity to it. And even then, he should only take pride in the act if he feels a full fidelity towards it---that, if he is ashamed or guilty afterwards, then he did wrong because he didn't really do what he believed should have been done.You just rewrote everything Yoda and I said in heavier language and concepts. Good job! :up:

And of course the key to all this is that, for everyone, the form of this necessity is different. This is not a moral law in the traditional sense. It is existentialism at its purest---fidelity to the self, fidelity to the event.Again, rewrote what I said. Not to mention most of the Bible (there are all these different people that are unable to see the truth because something is stopping them...themselves).

[planet news]

Hmmm... I was going off of Nietzsche's critique in ANTICHRIST mind you.

But I'm not going to say that Christianity doesn't have its mainstream and its "underground".

[will.15]

Where are are the Ayn Rand disciples to argue her selfish atheistic position?

And no one by the way in this revived thread is taking the atheist argument. True believers would rather debate atheists than agnostics.

[planet news]

What argument against what how where when? There is no argument. It's just Sexy Celebrity telling us that he's open to pretty much anything at any time (not that I'm opposed to it---I like his attitude a lot). I lost the will to argue for materialism when no one wanted to talk about math.

Why does no one get that THAT is where the debate lays---is math ours or God's, etc.? Its in ontology, not religion. Religion is just a social construct. Math is fundamental. Almost undeniable. Yoda had the right idea when he started this thread all those years ago.

[will.15]

I don't even understand the math controversy (?). If God created the universe he used scientific principals. The universe is ruled by laws of physics, not magic. So math which is part of science would be part of God's creation which scientists use to understand the creation of the universe. All that talk about colors and numbers is too abstract and just makes me dizzy.

[planet news]

UNLESS you can show that math is a contingent system... Currently, math are all these: 1) utterly unlike reality 2) used to interact with reality 3) a symbolic totality in itself.

I think that makes it very ambiguous in terms of its character. It is not a concept like chair or rock or table; it is more fundamental---the nature of One. And yet, it does not exist in reality---the reality has no One. One is a category that appears whenever things are delineated by language. And even in the case of One, such as One atom. Who's to say that One atom bears any resemblance to Two atom and so on. In truth, everything is different, so our capability to count is fundamentally an idealization.

So math is 1) in this "twilight zone" between physics and metaphysics---i.e. a symbolic system, while at the same time being both 2) below physics---that is, fundamental to physics AND 3) above metaphysics---that is, more abstract than ontological categories.

Carry about your business.

[John McClane]

Hey man, multiple levels of infinity is pretty damn convincing to me.

[Sexy Celebrity]

But how does all of this zany weirdness that seems beyond our own reality give rise to God and an afterlife?

I do hope that something happens to me somehow after death, I just don't know how psyched I am anymore about dropping dead horribly and then immediately hearing angels singing and church bells and having the biggest impromptu family reunion of my life. I mean, what if I was having sex with Jake Gyllenhaal and it all became too much that I had a major stroke, the last thing I see while alive is his sweaty, moaning face wearing a Santa Claus hat (well, unless the last thing I see is a pillow) and all of a sudden I'm dead and I'm going through this tunnel and all these relatives of mine are flying towards me and bringing angels and singing songs I hate and shining a massive bright light in my face. Can you imagine how pissed off I'd be?! And what if there's no food to even make me feel better (I would need to eat more than Kirstie Alley to get over that)? Why would you need food if you don't need a digestive system?

So, I can see reasons why going straight to the light or straight to the darkness of Hell would be irritating. Death sucks. Lord, what if you're reincarnated immediately after dying? Think about how scary of a thought that is. You've worked all day, you're tired, you're hungry, you're frustrated, you just wanna get home, take a nice, hot bath, eat a bag or three of Double Chocolate Milano cookies, fix some lasagna, drink some wine, settle down and watch Desperate Housewives -- BAM! -- massive heart attack. You die on your couch, cookie in your mouth. Next thing you know, you're being forced out of a vagina and you've got gook all over you. A doctor slaps your ass and you're crying. You're Britney Spears' new baby. Or worse, you're a siamese twin. Or you're born without arms. You worked all day, you just wanted some rest and relaxation, but instead you got reincarnation and who's gonna listen to you complain? It'll be years before you've mastered language.

[DexterRiley]

This thread makes me wanna give DMT a go.

[John McClane]

But how does all of this zany weirdness that seems beyond our own reality give rise to God and an afterlife?

I do hope that something happens to me somehow after death, I just don't know how psyched I am anymore about dropping dead horribly and then immediately hearing angels singing and church bells and having the biggest impromptu family reunion of my life. I mean, what if I was having sex with Jake Gyllenhaal and it all became too much that I had a major stroke, the last thing I see while alive is his sweaty, moaning face wearing a Santa Claus hat (well, unless the last thing I see is a pillow) and all of a sudden I'm dead and I'm going through this tunnel and all these relatives of mine are flying towards me and bringing angels and singing songs I hate and shining a massive bright light in my face. Can you imagine how pissed off I'd be?! And what if there's no food to even make me feel better (I would need to eat more than Kirstie Alley to get over that)? Why would you need food if you don't need a digestive system?

So, I can see reasons why going straight to the light or straight to the darkness of Hell would be irritating. Death sucks. Lord, what if you're reincarnated immediately after dying? Think about how scary of a thought that is. You've worked all day, you're tired, you're hungry, you're frustrated, you just wanna get home, take a nice, hot bath, eat a bag or three of Double Chocolate Milano cookies, fix some lasagna, drink some wine, settle down and watch Desperate Housewives -- BAM! -- massive heart attack. You die on your couch, cookie in your mouth. Next thing you know, you're being forced out of a vagina and you've got gook all over you. A doctor slaps your ass and you're crying. You're Britney Spears' new baby. Or worse, you're a siamese twin. Or you're born without arms. You worked all day, you just wanted some rest and relaxation, but instead you got reincarnation and who's gonna listen to you complain? It'll be years before you've mastered language.When you die you are dead.

[Sexy Celebrity]

When you die you are dead.

http://www.scarefx.com/images/coffin_project/corpse_in_coffin_1.jpg

Eeek. Okay, then let's change the subject.

[will.15]

When you die you are dead.
That is not Christian doctrine.

[DexterRiley]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3UH4UKFDFjs&feature=player_embedded

[John McClane]

That is not Christian doctrine.Wrong. In fact, this is the biggest problem with Christianity today (holding onto a flawed concept of the afterlife). If you do happen to be granted eternal life, it's gunna be right here on Earth and you're not going to recognize yourself.

[Sexy Celebrity]

Now I seriously hope this is just all in good fun but I've seen you use this type of language in other religious threads. However, there's a staggering difference between being your own guide and being a narcissist. I also believe that saying be your own guide is, at best, dangerous. This is the type of attitude that breeds subjective morality and apathy, and that's precisely what's tearing our culture apart—this huge spectacle of me.

What's the huge spectacle of me? Well, I think it's largely revealed in the motives of individuals. People who ascribe to what you're advocating for do not take others into account. Instead, you get this twisted "how can I get what I want" attitude that dismisses other people as inconveniences.

But aren't you being very limited in your thinking and assuming too much? I mean, you make it seem like we all are just out for ourselves and are playing a mean spirited game of "survival of the fittest." Yes, there are definitely people out there like that, but I wasn't speaking as one of those people. I am just saying that people need to have more control over their minds and beliefs and take more responsibility. I think a lot of people may be making mistakes by letting others make their mind for them. I don't mean to convey that everyone needs to be hostile and ME, ME, ME, but tolerable and ME, ME, ME.

However, and for example, when an individual buys organic food or environmentally responsible shipping materials there's typically a different motive behind said purchase versus their narcissistic counterparts (i.e. supporting local farmers and taking care of the environment). Of course, they could easily be thinking about themselves (I want safer food and being green is cool) but I don't believe that these individuals are commonplace because of two things: lack of options and higher price tags. People want their cake and want to eat it, too.

So what does this mean? It means that in being your own guide you must also evaluate the repercussions on others, whether it be your parents, kids, or some local farmer you don't know.

I don't really understand this. What lack of options? People want their cake and want to eat it, too? Are you saying people need to watch what they do because it affects other people? My mind can't get out of this organic grocery store scenario. If you want organic food, get organic food. If you can't afford organic food and you want it anyway, you have to think about what you can do. Maybe just buy a little or buy none at all. As far as the local farmers are concerned, depends on how much you care. If the local farmers go out of business because organic food just costs too much and nobody's buying their stuff -- tough. Go into another business and be smarter next time.

Last but not least, would you not look to a guide when traveling an unknown land? I certainly know there's no way I'd climb Mount Everest without one, nor would I traverse the Sahara without one. Why? Because guides are experts in their fields. They know how to safely lead you from beginning to end. So no, not all guides are bad.

I never said guides were bad at all. You take responsibiity in choosing your own guides. I'm saying don't go with Sarah the Sahara Desert Guidewoman just because all your friends went with her. Feel that bitch out. Or learn enough information. If she has lost several people she's guided to strange, unfortunate accidents (because she's a cannibal) then don't go with her. Find another guide. You make it seem like I'm saying guides are bad.

I'm not against God and I'm not against Christianity. If these things are truly right for you in your mind, you're free to embrace it. I'm just warning people who do it because they're told to or it's tradition or they've been brainwashed. That's why I say we're alone -- because you never know what situations might occur that'll bring you to places where you can feel or actually be alone. We're a single unit. If someone shoots a person next to you and they die but you don't get shot, you don't go with that person. They go alone. We die alone in most cases, too. Not all -- not all -- but on the inside, maybe.

You guys are telling me woo-woo stuff like, "If you feel alone, you'll be alone." That's powerful and philosophical and even spiritual, BUT -- but ultimately that's still your perception of things. It can sound a lot like hogwash. Many people feel alone but aren't alone. So I even wonder why you guys think like that in the first place.

But seriously, I tend to agree that we are alone and it's one of the most difficult things to handle. However, I tend to think that this is one of the saddest excuses made by people who disregard others. I also tend to think that if people ACTUALLY felt alone they would off themselves, rather than striving for old age. However, by and large, most people keep on living. Why is this the case? Well, I believe it's largely dependent on the fact that at some level, even deep down where you might reject the claim, people believe they are not alone. This is because shared experiences with friends, lovers, and family all create the grandest illusion in life—you are not alone.

Everybody's different. Everyone can have extraordinary differences. I think you're naive to think that we all have so much in common. We do have a lot in common, but ultimately, we're kinda like snowflakes -- our systems of thinking and living are all different. So, not everyone who feels alone keeps on living. Many people kill themselves or if they don't they do things to live horribly. Some don't. Some don't have a problem with it.

Not everyone feels shared experiences with people. Some people truly are alone. Even if they have options to not be alone, they might not take those options.

It's fundamental that everyone in life learn how to live responsibly. What does this mean? It means sometimes you have to rail against the system. Go against the grain, amigo. However, in going against the grain, you must also be careful to not turn into the very thing you're going against. Fascism breeds fascism.

Well, sure, if you don't wanna be a fascist.

Yes, this is all we have. This is the only thing that we can be sure of and it is this primary fact that drives our existence. There's only one Earth and the people after us have to use it, too. We cannot simply disregard this responsibility just so we can enjoy ourselves. There's a balance to life—in living life, you must also know how to live. In other words, do not be solely occupied with living life (eating whatever you want, when you want) or planning out how to live (exercising and worrying about every calorie). Instead, the two must be embraced together to where you can live life well.

Depends on how you want to live your life. Some people eat everything they can find and are alright with that.

You have good intentions and you're not wrong with the way you see the world, in my opinion, but you can't give the same instructions to everybody. People have different outlooks on life. Sometimes they last years, sometimes they last only days. Whatever fits. If you are happy with how you live your life, good for you.

I've already addressed aloneness and helping people, so I won't repeat myself again. The point I wish to address here is you can't control life by avoiding it. The only way that we can control life is by standing up and fighting evil. Only then will life truly be blessed for us all, regardless of religious beliefs. Pipe dream? Maybe, but I'm not willing to bet my life and the lives of my family on indifference and avoidance.

Lastly, you do not have the power to be perfect, even with God. We are humans and we are flawed. We're gunna screw up. However, this doesn't mean you just shouldn't care, nor does it mean that God requires you to debase yourself. This is why I was so fascinated by the word metanoia last night in the shoutbox. Repentance embraces guilt and harms us. Metanoia, on the other hand, embraces change and perseverance in said change. If you believe that positive trumps the negative, then I dare say that you should stop repenting and start changing.

Perfect is an interpretation, not a reality for anything. You could say that everything is perfect.

What are humans supposed to be flawed against? Animals? Nature?

God is not perfect. I thought God was supposed to have created man in his own image, right? To me, that seems like God should be flawed, too. You have an interpretation that God is perfect. I would say he's not. But I don't know what God really is.

[John McClane]

I appreciate the response and all but could you please do a better and more careful reading of my original post?

[Sexy Celebrity]

I appreciate the response and all but could you please do a better and more careful reading of my original post?

And then what? Which post exactly? What do you want me to see that I'm not getting?

[will.15]

Here, SC.

http://i756.photobucket.com/albums/xx205/planetnews/ijPU8O.jpg

Seeeeeeee? Nietzsche's not so bad.
That crossdresser likes Nietzsche because of the gay imagery connected with "supermen."

[Sexy Celebrity]

I've never really read much philosophy. I've never taken a philosophy course so I wasn't ever really exposed. I'm not keen on Foucault, though, because I've heard negative stuff about him and I think he looks frightening. But Nietzsche...

http://images.wikia.com/psychology/images/2/23/Nietzsche1882.jpg

Nietzsche is somebody I really should give serious attention to. He's actually kind of sexy for a philosopher -- I like that big, bushy mustache of his. :licklips: I've heard (from a serious Foucault follower, in fact) that I shouldn't even read him because it'll depress the hell out of me and make me hate life, but I dunno. I am curious. It's just I'm never really up to reading one of those long philosophy books -- and which one do I start with?

[will.15]

That looks like a clp-on moustache.

[planet news]

That crossdresser likes Nietzsche because of the gay imagery connected with "supermen."http://images1.memegenerator.net/ImageMacro/4861564/Ill-give-you-a-110-Thats-the-best-I-can-do.jpg?imageSize=Medium&generatorName=Pawn-Stars

I've heard (from a serious Foucault follower, in fact) that I shouldn't even read him because it'll depress the hell out of me and make me hate life, but I dunno.That's hard to believe coming from a Foucaultian. I think he's very much the opposite; and I mean probably one of the most life affirming philosophers ever except for maybe Deleuze, and all his work is directly tied to Nietzsche's project.

There is also the item that Nietzsche is not hard to read. He writes in an "aphoristic" style filled with emotion and poetry.

He's like Foucault in that he tears social constructs to pieces by exposing their humble origins, though he focuses on Christianity for the most part. Keep in mind, he doesn't attack Christ per se but rather the development of religion out of Christ. I remember having a big to-do with Yoda/MattJohn about how no one could take Jesus seriously without being religious, but the general idea is how Christianity as a religion added a lot of extraneous "slave morality" to Jesus's natural Ubermensch (superman) status as a reaction against their social oppression by Rome.

But he will tell you to live life now to its fullest and all that, and in that sense I can't see how he is depressing. His goal is to destroy nihilism in a world where God is dead---to be able to give your life a purpose when that purpose is not inherent to the universe.

A lot of people get confused when he says things like "human, all too human". He does not being that humans are flawed. He means that you don't have to even confine yourself to those limits---to the language of flaws---because you have an infinite power of creativity and imagination. You don't have to stay within the confines of what is generally seen as humanity. It is not like Christianity where humans are just the worst of the worst.

[Sexy Celebrity]

That actually sounds more like me. I shall investigate this man further and see where it takes me. I'm glad he's actually attractive, too -- the Universe must have understood that he'd be an awesome man and thus gave him a gift. I mean this -- that mustache is hot. I should have ignored the person who told me not to read Nietzsche (it was during a time when I was depressed -- sounds like it would have helped me!!)

[Sexy Celebrity]

I just realized this thread has had nothing to do with mathematics for awhile.

Oh, well. I've never been good at mathematics. I should go back and read what's been said.

[planet news]

That actually sounds more like me.Oh yeah. Maybe that's what your friend was referring to.

THERE IS NO YOU.

In a purely immanent, materialist universe, the subject is impossible; your consciousness is an illusion, etc. Nevertheless, saying that the subject does not exist doesn't change the fact that there is obviously a perceptual... focal point in all of us. I don't really see how this is "depressing" per se. It doesn't really change anything; it just provides the background from where we do our work. Any time religion or philosophy chooses to introduce a transcendent "soul", we get a whole slew of new associations of which Nietzsche is helplessly indifferent to. That's why he avoids the notion of "subject" and "free will", as does Deleuze and Foucault. The subject is built and accrued over time solely from her body's intake of the environment.

That really might be depressing at first, but I've gotten pretty used to it, since it doesn't change the fact that I am talking to you now. It's just a careful choice of language that proves very important when talking with people who are not materialists. I dunno. It's fairly depressing at times. Whatever.

inb4 NIN

[Sexy Celebrity]

I do understand that. I have thought that way about people a lot. It is not a nice, popular way of seeing the world and isn't even preferred, but I do think I know what you mean. It is totally un-Christian and demolishes the idea of a soul. It makes a lot of sense, though, to me. I find it liberating. It feels a lot more truthful than anything else. There's a slight edge to me, though, that isn't entirely convinced of its reality, but that could just be the old me and the way I used to see the world. But I'm still not sure why we exist at all. It is still possible to me that there's something else. That could be an area of my mind that's obsessed with answers and figuring out things. But it's amazing that I have these abilities and that I am who I am. Why I have them and why I've been alive and done all of this stuff and why we all do it is what's mysterious to me. Christianity just seems like a philosophy, a theory, a set of traditions to keep people from being bored and to be nice to each other and to have hope for something more.

I always say, if there's life on other planets - and why not? - there's billions and billions out there -- what are their religions like? What are their beliefs like? I would suspect that there's gotta be societies out there in space, if intelligent alien life does exist, that believes in things like us, but I'm sure it's not the same. If every planet out there had Christianity and had Jesus, I'd say, OK, time to really take that stuff seriously. But I don't know. And I think that's one of the things that's driving us all crazy in some way -- we still don't know the universe we live in. We haven't met people from other planets. We haven't experienced these other cultures and lifestyles. We don't know what others in the universe have gone through and learned. These things are very real possibilities and we have NO answers yet. I mean, this is possibly why people are obsessed with UFOs and aliens -- if they're not actually happening, human beings are fantasizing and creating myths to fill a void. We want to connect. We want to know what's going on. We want to be closer to the truth. We haven't explored space - we've only gone to the moon - there's still so much more to discover. We have a lot of history that we can still fill as a race. So, to be totally obsessed with our own human troubles and drama is irritating to me and I hope we're able to survive long enough to commune with our possibly existing space brothers and sisters. We might have stuff in common with these people. I don't know.

[Yoda]

I had no idea he wrote a space trilogy.
Aye. The first book is mostly genuine sci-fi with some interesting (and incredibly clever) mirroring of materialism at the end. The second is, too, but it's more self-contained and plays out an interesting "what if?" I can't even say what the what-if is, because it ruins some of the fun.

The third is crazy. I like it the least, but some of the other people in my family like it the most. It's also the book in the series that most closely mirrors one of his theological works, which is The Abolition of Man. At times it seems like one of that book's central ideas molded to fit a narrative form.

Anyway, I like the second, Perelandra, the best. I actually think there's a very good chance you'd like it, too. It's a little better if you know what happens in the first book, but it's not crucial.

Well, why are you bored? Is that why people have been turning to religion and ideas and beliefs that aren't true for everybody? Boredom?

I see what you're saying, but I honestly cannot see how religion is correct because it relieves boredom, turns life/science into a scavenger hunt and offers solutions other than categorization -- solutions that bring mystery and excitement into these things.
Religion isn't correct for relieving boredom. I wasn't trying to give a reason why religion is correct, I was just responding to the notion that The Bible seemed convenient or boring by pointing out that I think it's materialism/atheism that's boring, because it reduces everything to bland elements and strips away the difference between things -- which is exactly what makes the world interesting, to me.


Many scientists would say they find wonderful things out of science, and many more mysteries, too.
Absolutely. It's not that materialism robs us of mystery; it robs us of the value of solving a mystery. It won't stop people from asking questions, but it does ensure that the answer is pointless.


I'm not an expert on all of this and I really should read more than I do, but I just don't see how your view of the world and life makes it right. Makes it fact. Makes it permanent fact. Or, at least, very, very long term.
My view doesn't make it right or true. It's either right or true regardless of what I think.

A lot of people much smarter than me have already talked and written about all this. I really can't recommend C.S. Lewis enough to someone who's wrestling with these issues, not only because he's brilliant (he is), but because he's modern enough and broad enough that you can pick up almost anything he's done and just get it. I am absolutely stunned by his Mere Christianity and how incredibly clear and succinctly it makes the case for the Christian faith. It starts with basically no assumptions at all, and works piece by piece to build its case. It's a masterpiece of simplicity and syllogism.

If you genuinely want to learn more about this topic, I'd recommend that book before any other, to start. Heck, I'll buy you a copy.


But - I'm agnostic about this. I have my own theories about life and how it works. I have some uncommon ideas in my head about the way the world works and what's really going on -- how things could be understood better. I'm still working on some ideas in my head and it might take a long time to fully come to conclusions. I might never come to a conclusion. I could totally change my mind about things by next year. I'm excited by looking deep into things - always have been - and I'm always expanding and revising how I see the world. I don't lock myself down at church and believe in the same thing all the time. I wish I had the patience for that. I think it might be comfortable and neat to try that. But at the same time, I know it's not me.
Speaking as someone who does believe that, I do not find it comfortable or neat. There is still plenty to wrestle with, and any view of the world often raises as many questions as it answers.

I think, at this point, it's easy to conflate the kind of faith that just receives a sermon or a Bible verse passively, takes it at face value, and never really thinks about it. But there's nothing that says you have to experience Christianity in this way. It can be a gradual discovery, an active process. It's a journey to understand the mind of God, and it's one I will never complete.

At least, it can be this, if necessary. If some people want a faith that comforts them and do not want to doubt or ask or think about it, I guess I should be glad that Christianity can be that for them. But it's not how I can experience any belief, let alone one so momentous. Thankfully, Christianity can be as deep as I need for it to be. I can receive it as instructions, passively, or I can study its insight and wisdom actively. I happen to think the latter is better, both for me and in general, but I'm thankful that people of such different minds can both receive the faith for dramatically different reasons. I find that encouraging.


I still think that most of my ideas about the world, as of right now, could be explained somehow through natural law. So I'm not totally supernatural about things. But I am fascinated by that stuff. I'm just not excited by ghost stories and Jesus apparitions and UFOs much anymore. Well, I dunno. I'm curious about all the reasons we're here and what we truly are, where we're going and what we're doing. I know I'm being vague, but I'm just saying I would rather think about humanity, the world, the sciences, the people, the ideas we have, the art we create, the complex world we've created and our abilities to manipulate it and feel it. I think something like a religion is a temporary thing. You might not be doing the wrong thing at all by being religious and being Christian, but I don't know for sure. I think it's good that you've been so serious about it and so dedicated and passionate. I was quite moved reading what you and John McClane wrote on here.
Well, it's enough for me that you read it and thought about it. I appreciate that. It can be very personal.

[planet news]

I'm on a phone so isolating a quote is difficult. I merely ask Yoda how he defines "pointless"? Since when was significance not subjective EXCEPT when speaking of material matters.

[Yoda]

I define pointless in the way most people do: something which has no serious meaning or significance beyond itself.

When you drill down into any issue, you find that it's linked to others as part of a long chain of reasoning. Eating isn't really significant, except insofar that it allows me to stay alive, which allows me to do other things which can be significant. In terms of meaning, there's no way to separate the first thing you do from the goal at the end. Similarly, if the end result of all humanity does has no real meaning, the steps we take to occupy ourselves before getting there don't, either.

To actually answer you, though: significance is not really subjective. We treat it as subjective because we're not God, and can't reliably distinguish between the significant and the insignificant. The differences is that, for a theist, determining the meaning of things is a subjective process with an objective answer. For a materialist, it is a subjective process with a subjective answer. There is a difference, in other words, between knowing you won't necessarily find an answer, and saying there is none.

Anyway, answering the question you've just posed to me is exactly the aim of the clever conversation at the end of Out of the Silent Planet that I mentioned above. If you ask "what then?" long enough, any materialist must betray the pointlessness of whatever ambitions they have for humanity.

[planet news]

Redacted.

[earlsmoviepicks]

One of the best things I've ever seen on a bathroom wall...

Someone wrote: "God is dead -- Nietzsche"

Underneath someone replied: "Nietzsche is dead -- God"

[planet news]

Redacted.

[Sexy Celebrity]

1. There are many phenomenalogical "proofs" for the illusory nature of the subject. Probably the most important is the existence of the unconscious, which can be taken as a kind of materially immanent place where we disappear to so that even we cannot believe we are fully subjects. We disappear into our bodies, as it were.

But why do we do that? I like how you said that -- "We disappear into our bodies."

I am fascinated by the unconscious. There are some people who say it doesn't even exist. This is one of the things I find way more intriguing now than God and life-after-death, so if you've got more thoughts about the unconscious, I'd like to hear them. In fact, maybe we could even make a thread about it.

I think the unconscious is at work in the world. I think our inner life gives birth to our external life and vise versa. But this isn't something I've totally worked out in my mind completely yet. I'm just fascinated by the possibilities of this unconscious life.

2. In this way, we can at last begin our journey into the world---only when we free ourselves from our minds. It is now that we can exist as contingent machines IN the world---not transcendental souls peering in from behind a screen.

Hmm, I'm not sure I understand. What is our mind that we need to free ourselves from? Why? Please clarify. Give examples.

3. You keep asking for something more. But I would not mislead you in saying that there IS more in your sense. The material cosmos is all there is. But that is not exactly a limiting factor on our creativity. There are infinite combinations to be had from material at every level at which we perceive it. Humans, trapped inside self-normalizing symbolic systems like language and religion yearn for this infinity outside of the material plane when it is always already an immanent virtuality... untapped and unexplored. The "more", I claim, is the untapped imagination that creatures like us have. If you really want more, you should create it.

I think I understand this. Again - example? What more have you created out of your life? Have you experimented? Is this really real? What convinces you of this?

4. There is more to being post-human than being alien or animal. To be a Body without Organs is to flow freely with the material of the cosmos itself. To open your mind to the utmost possibilities of being. To not be tied down by axioms---to drift in the field of influences without self-limitation or reactionary attachment to conclusion or contentment. This attitude is death: in the literal sense even.

To come to conclusions is death? To put a limit on our experiences is death already? To say, "this is not an apple, I don't know what it is, it could be anything, so on and so on and so on" is death?

While I can appreciate and understand that, I think it might be going a bit too far.

What have these beliefs done to your life?

5. This is what I think the "more" is. Expressing yourself as an infinitely creative piece of the universe instead of an alienated sinner.

I see. Well, that's pretty bounce-all-over-the-place and make an ass out of yourself for the spirit of creating, but it sounds interesting. I dunno. I think there can be creativity in solid things, in naming things, in embracing solution. This infinite universe idea seems harder to get a grip on. It seems like it should be more of a tool than a world. A gauge. A compass.

6._________________?

Yes.

[planet news]

Redacted.

[Sexy Celebrity]

Aye. The first book is mostly genuine sci-fi with some interesting (and incredibly clever) mirroring of materialism at the end. The second is, too, but it's more self-contained and plays out an interesting "what if?" I can't even say what the what-if is, because it ruins some of the fun.

Aye, aye, captain!

The third is crazy. I like it the least, but some of the other people in my family like it the most. It's also the book in the series that most closely mirrors one of his theological works, which is The Abolition of Man. At times it seems like one of that book's central ideas molded to fit a narrative form.

*nods* I never knew much about them, except I knew you were heavily into them.

Anyway, I like the second, Perelandra, the best. I actually think there's a very good chance you'd like it, too. It's a little better if you know what happens in the first book, but it's not crucial.

*nods*

Religion isn't correct for relieving boredom. I wasn't trying to give a reason why religion is correct, I was just responding to the notion that The Bible seemed convenient or boring by pointing out that I think it's materialism/atheism that's boring, because it reduces everything to bland elements and strips away the difference between things -- which is exactly what makes the world interesting, to me.

I do I think I see your point.

Absolutely. It's not that materialism robs us of mystery; it robs us of the value of solving a mystery. It won't stop people from asking questions, but it does ensure that the answer is pointless.

Well, I don't like that idea either (the answers being pointless).

My view doesn't make it right or true. It's either right or true regardless of what I think.

Whatever's real makes it right or true -- though, if the atheist's beliefs are true, you'll die and never find out your answer. In that case, your view wasn't true but it doesn't matter anyway, you and your view are erased.

A lot of people much smarter than me have already talked and written about all this. I really can't recommend C.S. Lewis enough to someone who's wrestling with these issues, not only because he's brilliant (he is), but because he's modern enough and broad enough that you can pick up almost anything he's done and just get it. I am absolutely stunned by his Mere Christianity and how incredibly clear and succinctly it makes the case for the Christian faith. It starts with basically no assumptions at all, and works piece by piece to build its case. It's a masterpiece of simplicity and syllogism.

If you genuinely want to learn more about this topic, I'd recommend that book before any other, to start. Heck, I'll buy you a copy.

I think I had it once upon a time -- probably because you recommended it -- but it never got read by me, or maybe I read a page or two. I'll pick it up again shortly - I know a place where it's probably cheap. Thank you, though.

I think, at this point, it's easy to conflate the kind of faith that just receives a sermon or a Bible verse passively, takes it at face value, and never really thinks about it. But there's nothing that says you have to experience Christianity in this way. It can be a gradual discovery, an active process. It's a journey to understand the mind of God, and it's one I will never complete.

I'm sure you've mentioned it many times before, but tell me, what do you understand about the mind of God so far?

At least, it can be this, if necessary. If some people want a faith that comforts them and do not want to doubt or ask or think about it, I guess I should be glad that Christianity can be that for them. But it's not how I can experience any belief, let alone one so momentous. Thankfully, Christianity can be as deep as I need for it to be. I can receive it as instructions, passively, or I can study its insight and wisdom actively. I happen to think the latter is better, both for me and in general, but I'm thankful that people of such different minds can both receive the faith for dramatically different reasons. I find that encouraging.

All I can think to say is maybe there's a biological reason for why you like to study. Some people, biologically, are meant to search and study for answers while others aren't.

[Sexy Celebrity]

Oh, how I love being the propagandist for once. I think if it is possible we could safely do a split can call this part of the thread: everyone try to convince SC of their worldview.

Sounds fine to me.

The best way to understand it: you never think about the things you are really good at---they just happen automatically, e.g. walking, talking, typing, swimming, bicycling, any sport. Your body just takes over. We disappear into it.

Yeah, but that's all learned. That has to do with neurons and connections -- all brain stuff that deals with learning. We eventually get the hang of things. As for things we're talented in... I'm not sure. I think some of it may have to do with genetics. Probably so.

I am in some sense a Freudian, but I don't agree with his own assessment of his work as consistent with scientific rigor; not that this is some base qualification for me to find value in an idea. Without getting into more precise processes governing the unconscious, it is probably fairly important to get a general idea of what it is.

Well, it's good that you're a Freudian. I am too. Some scientists are trying to incorporate his ideas into science. A lot of people ignore him now.

Personally, I would feel comfortable with the definition that the unconscious is the sum total of all the processes occurring in our bodies---with some link to the nervous system (nearly all internal processes are so linked)---that are NOT symbolically conceived of through some sort of speech act.

To use my old example: when we type, we do not think about doing it. We conceive of the idea symbolically in our minds and it is transferred through our bodies into our fingers. Our fingers are acting unconsciously. Their articulations cannot be symbolized in terms of thought or language. You will also find in these situations of "skilled expertise" that once you DO think about what you are doing, you end up losing that skill, because it is ONLY possible through the machinery of bodies, not by calculation of our thought.

Okay.

Similarly for the dream---the proverbial "theater" of the unconscious---we find an analogous interpretation. Instead of the dream being our subjectivity at work in an infinitely creative way, we should understand the dream as the immanent expression of perceptions through our material minds UNHINDERED by subjectivity. In other words, a dream is a kind of skilled expertise in imagination. And in the same way that we cannot understand the workings of typing by applying the rules of subjectivity to it, we cannot understand the workings of the dream by assuming that it has a subjective-like logic. We can't explain how we are able to type---i.e. at least it is definitely not the case that I have a THOUGHT each time I move my fingers; my fingers become an expression of my thoughts as if the two were one. Similarly, the dream is---like is described in 'Inception'---the simultaneous act of imagination and creation as if the two were one.

Hmmm. This thread is really moving into areas I did not expect we'd venture into and I'm quite excited that we did. This is all interesting. So you're saying dreams are a form of creation that is a skill caused by our bodies... or something like that. It's a skill of the imagination.

I can see that. I have very intense dreams that seem to come out of nowhere. I find my dreams fascinating. Sometimes I even look forward to my dreams because I'm often amused. I've been known to have lucid dreams more than the average person.

Let me address some things here. If we want to conceive of a geometrical model, then your unconscious is not really on the inside. In fact, it is very much the opposite of inner life. As I said before, the unconscious is simply synonymous with the material body itself. Typically the location of subjectivity is situated inside the body in some undefined, dimensionless point---a point of perceptual focus. However, the unconscious should be taken to have a volume. It is the volume of our bodies through which both external stimuli and internal thoughts must travel through "both ways" in order to act on and react to the world outside our bodies.

The skill of my hands to type my thoughts at will is clearly an artifact of my arms and hands and everything in between my fingertips and my thoughts. That is the unconscious: all that flesh in between. We are aware of it in that it is part of US, but we cannot express it in terms of thought or consciousness. The dream occurs as an expression of the flesh of the mind, not as a by-product of subjectivity---all subjectivity is already a by-product of flesh.

I mean this in terms of analysis---breaking out of what is called phenomenology: the study of how we perceive things subjectively. Once we realize that our entire subjectivity is merely a product of our bodies taking in the outside world, we are no longer epistemically trapped into this state of Cartesian doubt.

In other words, there is no longer this postmodernist doubt of an "objective" reality or an "external world". The external world is ALREADY US. We are only able to reflect on things BECAUSE OF the external world. We are already a part of it. We are IN THE WORLD.

Well, I'm curious to see where you're going with this, but, frankly, so far I'm shocked by what you're saying because it seems like we're already on the same wavelength in regards to what I've been currently occupying my mind with. I didn't expect to be hearing this kind of stuff from you, Planet News, but maybe you somehow knew how to get in touch with my thoughts. If you had only shut up about Foucault before then maybe we could have got here earlier.

Here's how language or any other symbolic system works: by making generalizations. We all know what we mean when we say "cat", but there are and have never been two cats who were ever the same. And yet we represent all these cats to be essentially the same thing in order to talk about them. We do this with all things, generalizing them so we can refer to them with a limited number of words. We do this so we can interact with reality and communicate our intentions, and it is the only way we ever came out of animal-hood.

Yeah...

But look at us now: deeply saddened by our finitude. Always yearning for something more than cats.

Uh-huh.

But who among us has really looked into the cat? There is the infinite in the cat alone---in all the cats who ever lived or will live, in each of their differences in appearance, in each of their separate lives and experiences. People who study cats understand this. They understand how they will never quite understand all of the cat, because the cat is at base this infinite collection of infinitely diverse creatures. This same element of possibility exists for all aspects of reality. Even the most mundane: sand, dirt, rocks. No two have ever been the same or will be the same. The infinite is in everything, because everything that ever existed existed precisely because it was different.

Well, fine, but this isn't amazing me.

Relating it to religion now we find how this same language-game is akin to theophany or the practice of depicting God. When we see pictures of this white-haired, white-bearded God, we of course know that it is only an inadequate representation of his endless infinitely and grandeur. It is this infinity that we are always looking for. However, this same feeling, I claim, already applies to cats. When we use this word "cat", it is only ever an inadequate representation of the endless infinity and grandeur of cats. We just forget how endlessly creative the universe can be because we interact with generalizing language so much, which reduces everything to a very limited amount of categories.

So what are you saying? There's a lot of Gods out there? A lot of ways of seeing God?

Ah, you have come to the natural conclusion! First of all, you are absolutely, absolutely right. Deleuze, above all, warns of being suicidal, because his philosophy tends towards it in its extremity, but it is not meant to be taken this way. It is not meant to be pushed so far in a single direction.

Quite the contrary, Deleuze advises that we need to find a balance within the world. We need to maximize our creative potential without destroying ourselves in the process. In many ways, this requires being a normal, law-abiding, moral-abiding citizen. Graffiti, for example, is a very creative and deterritorial act, but it is illegal and could get you thrown in jail. So, IF you want to do it, you should either be very careful or decide not to at all since it is not worth curtailing your general power for creativity.

This is not to say that, with the right balance, one cannot find an equal amount of creativity while in jail. But it is not hard to imagine how it would be A LOT more difficult, since you are rarely allowed to decide things for yourself.

And by "conclusion", I meant the general feeling that a project is ever done. You should always try to improve it. I do not mean be a crazy skeptic.

Also, by avoiding contentment I do not mean avoid things that make you happy. I mean avoid settling into a steady-state comfort zone---to always have a thing around to challenge you in some way. People who are happy all the time have no real need to improve themselves. However, desire seems to be an integral part of human biology, so I doubt it is possible to ever be fully contented.

To answer your question, I believe all these things consistently AND avoid being a self-destructive madman.

Pretty much. You will never escape your symbolic system---kind of the argument against Capitalism a while back. Subjectivity exists solely through language, so unless you can somehow always be fully engaged in a physical act, you will always rely on it.

It is also the case, as I said before, that symbolic systems are the only things that make it possible for us to interact with each other above the level of animals.

So yes, you use these ideas to see the possibilities in the symbolic system where others do not. You could be like Deleuze and invent your own terms to describe completely new things never before imagined. You could be like geologists and meticulously study the infinite world of rocks (or whatever subject you prefer).

The infinite is not graspable with symbolic systems of representation in the same way as God is not graspable for religion. No, you will never understand the totality of cat-kind. But you can yearn for it and have a near religious experience considering sand.

But again, don't be a madman.


YEEEEEAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHH

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

You didn't quite go in the direction I was thinking about, but I found your post enjoyable, nonetheless.

Get back to the dreams, Freud, creative power and how it affects the world kind of stuff.

[planet news]

Well, I tried. WHAT'S THE POINT?!?!?!

[Sexy Celebrity]

Oh, come on now, Planet News. I was so excited to see there was a new post in here by you and all I got was that? Maybe you're tired. Hope you'll respond with more soon.

[will.15]

Planet News posts make me sleepy. Even Sexy Celebrity responding to PN makes me yawn.

[Yoda]

"The biggest bore is the person who is bored by everyone and everything."
-- Frank Tyger

I'll be replying soon; mostly done with my reply, just a little too busy the last couple of days to follow through on it.

[Sexy Celebrity]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8crNeMGd_l4

You guys are so slow.

[will.15]

We're damned.

I live so addicted just to you.
Underneath my damaged skin, it's true.

I don't want to hear the same opinion.
I don't want to heal the same condition.
I don't want to be like you, like you.
Cause I just want to be like me, like me.

God is only for the dead.
God is only in my head.
Is there anyone who cares to answer our prayers?
God is only for the damned.
God is only in my head.
Is there anyone who cares to answer our prayers?

My skins are encrypted, just like you.
But, underneath we're flesh and bone,it's true.

I don't want to hear the same opinion.
I don't want to heal the same condition.
I don't want to be like you, like you.
Cause I just want to be like me, like me.

God is only for the dead.
God is only in my head.
Is there anyone who cares to answer our prayers?
God is only for the damned.
God is only in my head.
Is there anyone who cares to answer our prayers?

Burning red right now,memories burning red.
Burning red, burns red.
Life is flashing red, burning red right now.

They say that God is for the dead.
But I won't let up to rest my head.
They say this world is for the damned.
Then let it go because we are them.
They say God is for the youth.
And they say that guns could cure the truth.
If God is only for the damned.
I'd never want to live again.


This is paste, but I concur.

[will.15]

Those song lyrics inspired me to compose my own verse.

What's the deal with God?
Is he real or fantasy?
How come theologists don't agree
Which is the proper deity?
Is he Christian or a Jew,
Buddhist Muslim, or Hindu?
Who the Hell is God?

[planet news]

Yeah, but that's all learned. That has to do with neurons and connections -- all brain stuff that deals with learning. We eventually get the hang of things. As for things we're talented in... I'm not sure. I think some of it may have to do with genetics. Probably so.Yeah, but... why is this a "yeah, but..."? I didn't claim anything otherwise. I'm just trying to situate the location of the unconscious in the flesh of the body; that includes all of it, not just the brain. Perhaps the "paradigm shift" I'm trying to produce here is for you to realize that our hands are as much a part of our unconscious as our brain. The unconscious doesn't have to remain in the realm of sexuality. It is simply every part of you that is not conscious---that is not currently being thought about. For example, I just scratched my face without thinking about it. That is part of the unconscious too.

Well, it's good that you're a Freudian. I am too. Some scientists are trying to incorporate his ideas into science. A lot of people ignore him now.I think perhaps you mean that science will ultimately reveal whether or not his ideas have descriptive, pragmatic power in the realm of the unconscious. I tend to absolutely agree with the notion of repression, and his mechanics of repression are very logical, but it might nevertheless be more simple/random/imprecise than his system lays out.

And of course, as you said, this all has to do with learning. Another word for it can be memorization. Another word for it can be repetition, which brings us to Deleuze. Freud said that we repeat what we are unable to memorize---it is so traumatic that we are unable to confront it, so it remains repressed (i.e. repressed memory) and continues to haunt us by returning again and again in different pathological forms. But look at this reversal when you allow the unconscious to simply take the form of the not-conscious material body. For Deleuze we memorize what we are unable to repeat. In other words, our subjective experience of memory is simply all the experiences that we've had that we have failed to repress---the idea being that repression is a rather GOOD THING. Take for instance the statement "you never forget how to ride a bicycle". Isn't that because it's not a part of your memory at all? You don't have to think about it; it's already repressed---it's in your body.

Hmmm. This thread is really moving into areas I did not expect we'd venture into and I'm quite excited that we did. This is all interesting. So you're saying dreams are a form of creation that is a skill caused by our bodies... or something like that. It's a skill of the imagination.Think about it. You cannot think will you are asleep. You are, of course, unconscious. It is in this moment alone that the flesh of your brain is allowed to operate without the logical restraint of the subject. It takes all your memories and all your experiences and simply expresses them because that's what the brain does. The important thing here is that memories are always an action. They are not stored in your brain (lol, what would that even mean? like, are there files or something?). They are newly expressed each and every time you remember.

I can see that. I have very intense dreams that seem to come out of nowhere. I find my dreams fascinating. Sometimes I even look forward to my dreams because I'm often amused. I've been known to have lucid dreams more than the average person. Lucid dreams are pretty mysterious but it would involve some sort of interposition of the subject through the unconscious. I'm not a brain scientist, so yeah.

Well, I'm curious to see where you're going with this, but, frankly, so far I'm shocked by what you're saying because it seems like we're already on the same wavelength in regards to what I've been currently occupying my mind with. I didn't expect to be hearing this kind of stuff from you, Planet News, but maybe you somehow knew how to get in touch with my thoughts. If you had only shut up about Foucault before then maybe we could have got here earlier.Well, this is what I usually think/post about, so I'm not sure why you're surprised. But Foucault is as much a part of this as anyone. The entire post-modern French-Nietzschian movement from Derrida to Foucault to Deleuze seeks the completion of this radical materialist---or at least anti-representationalist---project. These guys are the philosophers of difference---he endless creative capacity of material itself.

[Sexy Celebrity]

Yeah, but... why is this a "yeah, but..."? I didn't claim anything otherwise. I'm just trying to situate the location of the unconscious in the flesh of the body; that includes all of it, not just the brain. Perhaps the "paradigm shift" I'm trying to produce here is for you to realize that our hands are as much a part of our unconscious as our brain. The unconscious doesn't have to remain in the realm of sexuality. It is simply every part of you that is not conscious---that is not currently being thought about. For example, I just scratched my face without thinking about it. That is part of the unconscious too.

Oh, well, I totally agree with that. The unconscious is definitely, in my opinion, all over the body. I mean, I think it's more of a mental thing -- at least the fascinating parts are -- but I think it affects the body. It's definitely not just in the realm of sexuality.

I just took a sip of wine (this post might get interesting...) I didn't think about all the steps to take to drink the wine.

I think perhaps you mean that science will ultimately reveal whether or not his ideas have descriptive, pragmatic power in the realm of the unconscious. I tend to absolutely agree with the notion of repression, and his mechanics of repression are very logical, but it might nevertheless be more simple/random/imprecise than his system lays out

And of course, as you said, this all has to do with learning. Another word for it can be memorization. Another word for it can be repetition, which brings us to Deleuze. Freud said that we repeat what we are unable to memorize---it is so traumatic that we are unable to confront it, so it remains repressed (i.e. repressed memory) and continues to haunt us by returning again and again in different pathological forms. But look at this reversal when you allow the unconscious to simply take the form of the not-conscious material body. For Deleuze we memorize what we are unable to repeat. In other words, our subjective experience of memory is simply all the experiences that we've had that we have failed to repress---the idea being that repression is a rather GOOD THING. Take for instance the statement "you never forget how to ride a bicycle". Isn't that because it's not a part of your memory at all? You don't have to think about it; it's already repressed---it's in your body.

Yes, I see. Hmmm... I'm not exactly sure how this all works out if you become brain damaged, though. I rode a bike some months ago after not having rode one in years (well, maybe 5 years). It was like butter. Very easy and memorable. Yes.

Think about it. You cannot think will you are asleep. You are, of course, unconscious. It is in this moment alone that the flesh of your brain is allowed to operate without the logical restraint of the subject. It takes all your memories and all your experiences and simply expresses them because that's what the brain does. The important thing here is that memories are always an action. They are not stored in your brain (lol, what would that even mean? like, are there files or something?). They are newly expressed each and every time you remember.

Oh, yes. They are flickering on and off in there each time you think about them. I think the brain is amazing. You have so much stuff stored in there but you have to recall it to bring it up. Oh, but you say they're not stored. What do you mean they're always in action? Are they ever in action unconsciously? I would assume so.

I'm still not completely sure what's going on with this unconscious part of ourselves. I believe it exists but it's weird and bizarre how it all runs. Some people have told me they don't think it exists at all. But we'll ignore them for the moment.

What I don't get is how dreams form stories out of things in the unconscious that seems to make sense. I mean, I know people have weird dreams that don't make sense, but I always feel mine make sense to a degree. I had a very surreal experience earlier - I fell asleep and had what seemed almost like a lucid dream. I wouldn't call it a lucid dream because I didn't realize I was awake, but the dream was more real than most. This could have been because I had a frightening experience afterwards (actually, I think it was before). I had been sleeping and I woke up and I couldn't move or open my eyes. Now, this has happened to me before. I'm used to them. But today it was worse than ever. I felt like I was that way for a minute or more. I tried to open my eyes and move but I couldn't. I THOUGHT I HAD DIED. I thought I had died, for real. And there was nothing but darkness. I couldn't even visualize anything.

Lucid dreams are pretty mysterious but it would involve some sort of interposition of the subject through the unconscious. I'm not a brain scientist, so yeah.

Well, believe me, I am positioning myself in them, like today.

Well, this is what I usually think/post about, so I'm not sure why you're surprised. But Foucault is as much a part of this as anyone. The entire post-modern French-Nietzschian movement from Derrida to Foucault to Deleuze seeks the completion of this radical materialist---or at least anti-representationalist---project. These guys are the philosophers of difference---he endless creative capacity of material itself.

Oh, okay. Well, thank you for finally getting back to me. Do speak about this more.

[DexterRiley]

does this help or hurt the discussion?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0JvdmtnHiW0

[rufnek]

Reading over some of the posts below, I get the feeling some people "over-think" life to the point that they don't enjoy it enough. Now I enjoy life. I don't believe in heaven, hell, or the kind of god they teach in Sunday school, but that doesn't mean my life lacks meaning or purpose. There are things I wish I had done better, things I wish I hadn't done at all, and many times things haven't happened exactly as I expected or hoped. But that's part of the adventure of it all, not knowing what's around the next turn or where a particular trail will take you. I don't think it matters if your life has some special meaning at the end so that you'll be transported to paradise. I think just living the life is enough, all the fun, all your accomplishments, the people you've known, the places you've been, the things you've seen, even your failures and hard times because they too shape you into the person you are. Now some folks think there's got to be more to life than this, but it's enough for me just to run the course and see what happens. And if along the way you make someone smile or give someone a helping hand and somehow just left the world a little bit better than you found it. What more can you ask for?

[mark f]

What about all the times you made someone cry or intentionally didn't help someone and somehow left the world a little bit worse than you found it? Could you then honestly ask for more?

[Yoda]

It wouldn't be a philosophical thread without at least one post from rufnek suggesting that we're all wasting our time. ;)

I'll have a reply up to the earlier posts in this thread this afternoon, most likely, but for now:

Reading over some of the posts below, I get the feeling some people "over-think" life to the point that they don't enjoy it enough. Now I enjoy life. I don't believe in heaven, hell, or the kind of god they teach in Sunday school, but that doesn't mean my life lacks meaning or purpose.
But that's exactly what it means, unless you want to redefine those words to mean whatever you happen to want them to mean.

There's a famous quote that the "unexamined life is not worth living." I'm sure we all agree that it is all too easy to bury your nose in books and abstract theories and miss any number of the elements that consist of a well-rounded life. But the opposite is equally true -- that it is easy to roll through life taking things at face value and never stopping to reflect on the big questions our existence poses for us, and being lesser for it.

Or, put another way: I think we can discuss these issues without people accusing each other of not knowing how to "enjoy life." I think you've been around enough to recognize that not everyone finds the same sorts of things enjoyable, and there's no inherent contradiction between being thoughtful and thorough and living life to its fullest. To the contrary, I think it's an essential part of it.

There are things I wish I had done better, things I wish I hadn't done at all, and many times things haven't happened exactly as I expected or hoped. But that's part of the adventure of it all, not knowing what's around the next turn or where a particular trail will take you. I don't think it matters if your life has some special meaning at the end so that you'll be transported to paradise. I think just living the life is enough, all the fun, all your accomplishments, the people you've known, the places you've been, the things you've seen, even your failures and hard times because they too shape you into the person you are. Now some folks think there's got to be more to life than this, but it's enough for me just to run the course and see what happens. And if along the way you make someone smile or give someone a helping hand and somehow just left the world a little bit better than you found it. What more can you ask for?
Saying that we should leave the world a little bit better than we find it is a nice thought that most people would agree with, but it's circular, because the discussion is about how you define better, and about why you have any obligation to make things better. This whole post assumes the very thing under question and then dismisses the question.

Also, the idea of God is not about a "special meaning at the end" -- it's about meaning at all. If there's nothing at the end, it's not just the end that has no meaning, it's the whole thing. It's like a finish line: without a finish line you don't just not have a finish, you don't even have a race.

[earlsmoviepicks]

Free will sucks man-- too many choices....

[John McClane]

I've been spending 3-4 hours at a time in the library with my nose buried in essays on fatalism. The last place I need to be is in this thread, but I just wanted to say I miss "arguing" with you whackos. ;)

[planet news]

It wouldn't be a philosophical thread without at least one post from rufnek suggesting that we're all wasting our time. ;)There are not only wrong answers but also wrong questions.

But that's exactly what it means, unless you want to redefine those words to mean whatever you happen to want them to mean.I don't get why you do stuff like this. Who cares what words mean or are supposed to mean. We should use words to refer what we mean; not cater to their established meanings.

Saying that we should leave the world a little bit better than we find it is a nice thought that most people would agree with, but it's circular, because the discussion is about how you define better, and about why you have any obligation to make things better. This whole post assumes the very thing under question and then dismisses the question.I would disagree. The discussion is about whether or not there is a "better" in the linguistic sense of the word. It is an argument about the validity of logic itself and in that sense it cannot involve a logical fallacy as some sort of disproof. It is sometimes the case that circularity occurs when a master signifier renders all statements the result of a single line when they are in fact fully differentiated. It is also the case that being is precisely this kind of circular fact, and this should be what we are discussing, no?

Also, the idea of God is not about a "special meaning at the end" -- it's about meaning at all. If there's nothing at the end, it's not just the end that has no meaning, it's the whole thing. It's like a finish line: without a finish line you don't just not have a finish, you don't even have a race.I said this before but deleted my stuff.

You are constantly assuming teleology and using it to evaluate other people's lives as meaningless. The question should be why should there be a telos at all.

This might sound condescending, but you should really try to think about other kinds of meaning other than telos. For me telos is rather simplistic notion of meaning, which of course in this case means SIGNIFICANCE. The idea that something is for something else. Even if it is, that something else must be arbitrary in order for the thing itself to not also require a telos. This is what Chesterton was talking about in "The Flag of the World"; we need an arbitrary reference point which has to be empty of meaning so that we may fill it with our own---which brings us back to materialism and what rufnek said!

[will.15]

Don't free me. Free Willie.

[Yoda]

It sounds like you're saying a lot of the same stuff as in your previous post, so I'll just reply to that one and we'll see if there are any holes left, if that works for you.

[planet news]

I actually deleted my other stuff so you wouldn't reply, since I know you got stuff. Not sure why I wrote this one now except out of being incensed.

If you have stuff already for the other one, by all means post it. But if you have to go to new efforts, just forget about it. These would have been close to the points I wanted to bring up all those months ago in that Hotseat: God thread. I would absolutely not mind waiting to discuss these issues until whenever that fateful day comes when a thread like that is attempted again.

God help us all.

[will.15]

We are all our own God and to appease Him (or Her) we must must give him things that makes Him or Her happy like junk food, sex, and other pleasurable things. To satisfy God we must satisfy ourselves. Kneel down and pray to yourself.

[Yoda]

Nobody has ever been admired for worshipping themselves. I think the "live life for yourself" stuff is basically just giving people permission to be selfish and self-interested. No thanks.

[Sexy Celebrity]

Nobody has ever been admired for worshipping themselves. I think the "live life for yourself" stuff is basically just giving people permission to be selfish and self-interested. No thanks.

I actually think a lot of people have been admired for worshipping themselves. Such as big ego-driven celebrities and such. I don't know about people who go around calling themselves God -- certainly some do, whether it's serious or comical -- but I imagine there's a lot of people who have their own God complex with themselves and I think people respond and appreciate it.

[Yoda]

They're admired for their success or their looks, not for actually worshipping themselves, and even then the "admiration" is vapid, surface-level admiration.

If you want to quality the statement with "nobody has ever been admired by anyone whose admiration is worth anything," though, I wouldn't object. The main point is that preaching selfishness and self-interestedness as superior to serving others is terrible advice.

[planet news]

Yeah, it's bad. There is no better way to create than to help others create or inspire others to create. A novel written full of inside jokes that only you get will only be appreciated by yourself. A novel written for an audience will inspire that entire audience to any number of creatings.

Your own life should be novel written for others.

[Sexy Celebrity]

I don't know if there's people out who truly worship themselves and don't give a damn about others -- well, actually, I'm pretty sure there are people out there like it -- and I'm sure people do admire them.

The thing is, sometimes this is good for the people who admire people like that. I think there can be a lot of learning that can be gained from appreciating self-important narcissists. Look at people who admire certain movie characters and such -- bad guys and things like that. Is that wrong? People get something out of it. People can learn values and things out of it and even convert selfish qualities into qualities that sustain them and give them strength and courage. Just because someone's living a selfish life and believing they're God doesn't mean they're necessarily doing harm to everything and everybody. Some people learn life lessons out of it and apply it to their lives in a more positive way. I'm sorry for not coming up with concrete examples, but I do believe this and I believe these types of people can be admired for more than success and looks.

[will.15]

Yeah, it's bad. There is no better way to create than to help others create or inspire others to create. A novel written full of inside jokes that only you get will only be appreciated by yourself. A novel written for an audience will inspire that entire audience to any number of creatings.

Your own life should be novel written for others.
Ayn Rand wrote novels that inspired people to be selfish. Most novels are of the autobiographical sort, it's all about them, the best of those receive an audience because the author succeeds in making his narcissism interesting to others. That includes some major writers like much of Hemingway and Philip Roth.The rest and the vast majority are indulgent whiners. Most of the remaining novelists are by storytellers of varying ability out to make a buck by entertaining readers, not by enriching their lives or inspiring them. The visionaries you can stuff in your pocket and still have room for your wallet.

[planet news]

It's called a metaphor, Will.

Obviously Rand and those other supposedly narcissistic authors wrote for an audience because their works are widely accessible. In my metaphor, I was talking about a hypothetical novelist who wrote extremely personal novels that no one else could even understand and benefit no one but himself. This is pretty much a nonexistent extreme as is the purely selfless author.

Still, the metaphor is accurate because, of course, it demonstrates the prudence aspect that you cannot have too much either way.

All great art does have a personal element, and art created just for enjoyment of the masses is well Hollywood. Creation is a balance between the two.

If you want to perpetuate difference, you cannot just be schizophrenically different. You have to be different to the extent that it will be accessible enough to inspire others to be different. The great artists were those with the greatest influence. Not because they were the most different from the establishment but that they differed just enough to influence others to differ in their own way.

[will.15]

Actually back in the day when the Sunday sections of the better newspapers had extensive book reviews, it was pretty clear to me most first time novelists wrote bad semi-autobiographical novels where they failed to understand the central character based on themselves was unsympathetic and interesting to anyone but them, usually educated selfish, self-indulgent bores. Too many writers take "write what you know" literally and write what they know best, romanticized but still poorly presented versions of themselves and are unable to create interesting secondary characters, they are all sterotypes who don't understand their brilliant self protagonist.

[planet news]

How does that have anything to do with what I said?

Seriously, did you forget we were trying to talk about morality?