|
sugar free jazz posted:What's wrong with metaphysics Too many people say "metaphysics" when they mean "supernatural" because they think using a sciencey-sounding word will make whatever bullshit they're spewing sound more credible.
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 06:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 12:33 |
|
|
vessbot posted:Why would you assume that? "God" has traditionally meant (and means today, in mainstream interpretations) a being that exists independently of humans; it created them (along with everything else, in some capacity) and is certainly not supposed to be a figment of our imagination. It has to do with the actual name of God. Which means I am. Which is the basic level of consciousness. So the opening of the evangelium according to John opens with this definition. In my interpretation at least. And I need not bother with the naive faith of others. I merely need to prove my own trough logic. This being a thread about whether or not God can exist, not one about the usefulness of neither faith nor stupid people. And according to the op, I'm an atheist. Are you Christian?
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 07:48
|
|
|
If you are trying to create a coherent definition of God, it is really better to stick with the synoptic gospels. Those jive better with Judaism, Islam and deism, which are normally the other abrahamic faiths we're talking about when we say "God" in English. Though new age movements do complicate this somewhat.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 08:57
|
|
|
Let's have this thread again, but without any attempts to redefine words on the fly or any other bullshit language games.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 13:42
|
|
|
sugar free jazz posted:What's wrong with metaphysics If you are applying metaphysics to modern science, plenty.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 13:45
|
|
|
"Metaphysical" tends to be a word that sets off alarms that the person speaking doesn't know what they're talking about
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 14:33
|
|
|
Dzhay posted:Let's have this thread again, but without any attempts to redefine words on the fly or any other bullshit language games. Like 99.999% of a discussion about the existence of gods is "bullshit language games". An undefined term is a meaningless placeholder. Can't have much of a discussion about that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 14:39
|
|
|
The slave faiths of Abraham have no redeeming qualities.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 14:42
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:Like 99.999% of FTFY
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 14:46
|
|
|
Quit this bitching about the existence of God and just accept Tengriism into your heart.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 15:51
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Did. Not impressed. Really, not with any of it? Even John the Baptist?
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 16:14
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Really, not with any of it? Even John the Baptist? "I dunked a guy and practiced forgiveness." Its all resume padding.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 16:16
|
|
|
Amergin posted:So who are the other agnostic goons and when should we gently caress? Uhhhhh poo poo.... Maybe the one thing I know is I don't want to be hosed by Amergin....
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 16:26
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:"I dunked a guy and practiced forgiveness." Well that and the whole "if you have two coats and another person has none, give them one you selfish fucks"
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 16:31
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:If you are applying metaphysics to modern science, plenty. I have no idea what that's supposed to mean.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 16:41
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:Like 99.999% of a discussion about the existence of gods is "bullshit language games". An undefined term is a meaningless placeholder. Can't have much of a discussion about that. But Capital-G God isn't "undefined"; in common parlance it refers to a (usually extra-dimensional) dude who created the universe, sends prophets around and maintains a couple of afterlives (and doesn't exist).
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 16:55
|
|
|
BlueBlazer posted:Uhhhhh poo poo.... How can you resist that face?
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 17:07
|
|
|
Dzhay posted:But Capital-G God isn't "undefined"; in common parlance it refers to a (usually extra-dimensional) dude who created the universe, sends prophets around and maintains a couple of afterlives (and doesn't exist). edit: This also seems to imply there is no wrong religion (which refers to a God), or that the rightness of a religion is based on the prophets you respect and not the entity you worship. twodot fucked around with this message at 17:17 on Sep 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 17:14
|
|
|
twodot posted:Do you sincerely think "extra-dimensional" is well defined in the context of a "dude"? Just because something isn't undefined doesn't mean it can't still be poorly defined.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 17:16
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Just because something isn't undefined doesn't mean it can't still be poorly defined. edit: Alternatively, I guess I could say "Your definition tautologically states God doesn't exist, so this seems like a bad definition for the purpose of discussing whether or not God does exist".
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 17:20
|
|
|
twodot posted:A definition which can't be understood is no different than the absence of a definition. If you would rather me claim "extra-dimensional" is undefined, and definitions which contain undefined words are invalid and therefore the term remains undefined I can do that, but it seems overly precise. My best understanding of "extra-dimensional" is "doesn't exist", which I assume people who are pro-definitions of God would be opposed to. A definition and no definition are pretty clearly different, even if the definition is nonsense. Also "extra-dimensional" and "doesn't exist" are pretty clearly different, that you can't interact with something doesn't mean it's nonexistent. Is tautology one of those words, like Heidegger, Sartre, or Hegelian, where if you see it outside of an actual philosophical context you can immediately go "aw gently caress this is gonna be bad" I think it is
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 17:58
|
|
|
sugar free jazz posted:A definition and no definition are pretty clearly different, even if the definition is nonsense. quote:Also "extra-dimensional" and "doesn't exist" are pretty clearly different, that you can't interact with something doesn't mean it's nonexistent.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 18:02
|
|
|
twodot posted:I don't want to put words in your mouth, but to be clear my understanding of this is that if I define God as "lsjd kj lsdj ljflskjf lkjf" then you would claim that God is not undefined, is that correct? (if you answer yes, your definition of "undefined" is stupid) Lol there's a big different between something not existing and something being bad. "lsjd kj lsdj ljflskjf lkjf" is a real bad definition of God, but if someone wants to define God that way I'm not gonna stop them. Are you some kind of posting portal back 60 years ago to the age of positivists or something Uhh if you're trying to do philosophy while cutting out stuff that appears in sci-fi novels you're doing philosophy wrong man. Anyways, if something exists extra dimensionally it obviously exists in some sense I don't really need to say anything more than that to make my point I think ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 18:38
|
|
|
twodot posted:I don't want to put words in your mouth, but to be clear my understanding of this is that if I define God as "lsjd kj lsdj ljflskjf lkjf" then you would claim that God is not undefined, is that correct? (if you answer yes, your definition of "undefined" is stupid) If you could define "lsjd", "kj", "lsdj", "ljklskjf", and "lkjf" then no, it wouldn't be undefined.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 18:42
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:If you could define "lsjd", "kj", "lsdj", "ljklskjf", and "lkjf" then no, it wouldn't be undefined. quote:if something exists extra dimensionally it obviously exists in some sense I don't really need to say anything more than that sugar free jazz posted:Lol there's a big different between something not existing and something being bad. "lsjd kj lsdj ljflskjf lkjf" is a real bad definition of God
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 18:47
|
|
|
twodot posted:I'm good with that, but our definition of "extra-dimensional" appears to be restricted to: It depends on what you mean by "existing whatsoever".
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 18:56
|
|
|
twodot posted:I'm good with that, but our definition of "extra-dimensional" appears to be restricted to: See, this post right here ^^^ is nonsense, but it still exists and is distinct and different from having never been posted
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 18:58
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:It depends on what you mean by "existing whatsoever". twodot fucked around with this message at 19:05 on Sep 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 19:00
|
|
|
twodot posted:I agree, which is why I'm waiting for a (edit: non-idiot) definition of "extra-dimensional" before accepting that God has been defined. I don't understand your contention at this point. That being given a definition you don't fully understand is not the same as being given no definition at all.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 19:09
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:That being given a definition you don't fully understand is not the same as being given no definition at all. Who What Now posted:If you could define "lsjd", "kj", "lsdj", "ljklskjf", and "lkjf" then no, it wouldn't be undefined. quote:If you would rather me claim "extra-dimensional" is undefined, and definitions which contain undefined words are invalid and therefore the term remains undefined I can do that, but it seems overly precise. It's a little weird to me that when I attack a definition on it using basically a non-word, the people who reply don't have explanations for what the non-word means. twodot fucked around with this message at 19:22 on Sep 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 19:16
|
|
|
twodot posted:You seem to have switched goal posts. I certainly agree someone's attempted to offer a definition, I contend that the string of words offered is no definition at all, on the basis that there's no definition for "extra-dimensional" that has any applicability outside of a sci-fi novel. I would assume you would agree on based on this post: Then let me clarify my previous post. A definition's validity, to me, is determine by whether or not it has meaning intended in its usage, regardless of whether or not that meaning is understood. So if you define God as "ljklskjf lkjf jkl" or whatever, and you actually meant something by using that then you have given me a valid definition whether or not you actually further explain to me what the definition means, again, so long as there is meaning behind it. If there is no meaning behind it then obviously it's meaningless and not a valid definition. I feel reasonable confident that when Dzhay described God as "extra-dimensional" that he does have some intended meaning behind the usage of that word, and so it is a valid definition whether or not you or I understand or accept it as one. Being giving a definition you don't understand is fundamentally different than not being given one at all, because at the very least a definition you don't understand let's you further pinpoint what your contention is, in this case the words "extra-dimensional". You're one step closer to understanding what the meaning is than had you been given no answer at all. quote:edit: I have no need to defend Dzhay's position to point out that your criticism is flawed. If someone tried to argue that the Holocaust was bad because Hitler loved to suck cocks and shove wine bottles up his rear end I don't need to defend Nazi Germany to point out that their attack isn't valid.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 20:16
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:I feel reasonable confident that when Dzhay described God as "extra-dimensional" that he does have some intended meaning behind the usage of that word, and so it is a valid definition whether or not you or I understand or accept it as one.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 20:30
|
|
|
twodot posted:I don't see how you can reasonably believe this without also possessing some sort of speculation of the meaning intended by "extra-dimensional". I've offered a speculation, but it was correctly pointed out my speculation didn't make any sense (which is in line with my belief that the words offered were word salad without a meaning). Absent even a single proposed non-idiot definition of "extra-dimensional" doesn't parsimony demand we treat the definition as not having meaning behind it? It's even worse than any of this, people will define God as "cats" and prove that he exists by pointing out a cat.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 20:49
|
|
|
twodot posted:I don't see how you can reasonably believe this without also possessing some sort of speculation of the meaning intended by "extra-dimensional". I've offered a speculation, but it was correctly pointed out my speculation didn't make any sense (which is in line with my belief that the words offered were word salad without a meaning). Absent even a single proposed non-idiot definition of "extra-dimensional" doesn't parsimony demand we treat the definition as not having meaning behind it? That's an argument from ignorance, "because I can't think of a valid definition there isn't one".
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 21:21
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:That's an argument from ignorance, "because I can't think of a valid definition there isn't one". edit: We have two competing affirmative ideas, why is yours preferred? I've given why we should prefer mine.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 21:32
|
|
|
twodot posted:I've also read dictionaries and other people making similar word salad claims, so I'm also making an argument from anecdotes, but regardless, your argument is based on what? Blind faith? Authority? Why do you believe it has a valid definition, when you are unable to supply one? So your default position is that anything anyone says to you is completely meaningless if you can't understand what they said? So literally all foreign languages you can't speak are nothing more than random gibberish? Because that's your argument right now.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 22:40
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:So your default position is that anything anyone says to you is completely meaningless if you can't understand what they said? So literally all foreign languages you can't speak are nothing more than random gibberish? Because that's your argument right now. twodot posted:I've also read dictionaries and other people making similar word salad claims
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 23:07
|
|
|
God is Dog backwards. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2015 01:26
|
|
|
Our Lady of Fatima is the best evidence I have seen for religious claims. A lot of people saw it, and it would take some serious evidence to label them all as not being credible witnesses.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2015 02:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 12:33 |
|
|
furiouskoala posted:Our Lady of Fatima is the best evidence I have seen for religious claims. A lot of people saw it, and it would take some serious evidence to label them all as not being credible witnesses. Three kids got carried away with a ghost story and everyone else followed suit.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2015 02:18
|
|