The Creation

Discussion in 'Religion Archives' started by Buffalo Roam, Dec 19, 2009.

  1. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    Next time you have to shave try assuming that your electric bread knife is an electric razor and get back to us with your results.
    application is often appreciated for its ability to hone down the wide net that theory casts ..... but hey, if you think you are on a good thing with your bread knife, go for it.

    Actually you are doing a mighty fine job of giving a text book example of proactive interference,
    Keep up the fine work.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    well thats the point!
    Its your theory that god is incomprehensible ... namely because you work out of a means of application that doesn't have the scopee to approach him.
    If we want to assume that the sun is a contingent property of the sunlight, we also face a similar dilemma.

    The general idea is that certain things render certain things understood (or epistemology).
    The sun also becomes equally mysterious if we accept that it is a contingent property of the sunlight

    perhaps in the eyes of persons who don't have a hope in hell of approaching issues of application on the right foot.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    You mean silly assumptions about "contingent" and "potency" can create mystery where investigation would yield knowledge?

    Cool.

    We see a pattern with these analogies of yours (the neighbor's X-rayed head impressive among them): they all involve the "potency" or whatever of stuff we don't have to assume exists in the first place, and goals whose criteria of success we have no problem discussing, amending, throwing away if inadequate, etc.

    Which makes them - and this is not the first time - question begging. Irrelevant. And deceptive.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    actually investigation is all about issues of contingency and potency
    analogies illustrate a general principle by calling upon something that's known ... (If we didn't know about issues of contingency that surround the sun and sunlight an analogy that involves them would be just as bewildering for you as an analogy about god)
    :shrug:

    lol
    feel free to offer an example of an analogy (about anything) that calls upon something unknown so we can see what remarkable point you are trying to make.
     
  8. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    Hence the harm done by making silly assumptions to begin with - such as the existence of entities whose existence is the very matter under investigation.
    The general principle is not usually one completely irrelevant, at best, to the matter under discussion, though.

    Unless deception is the intent.
     
  9. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    On the contrary its how one (very often) begins investigation - namely by having a clue what one is looking for.


    It seems you have a problem with the use of analogies as a means of communication above anything else
    :shrug:
     
  10. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    Contrary? My own investigation experience is that having clues and making unsupported assumptions quite often exclude each other, and one or the other must be postponed.

    When the assumptions include the ostensible matter of the investigation, reason and logic also come into play - on the side of the clues.

    Your choice.
    The use of analogies and your use of analogies are not equally problematical.
     
  11. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    Oh sorry.

    I didn't realize that the topic suddenly changed to unsupported assumptions.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    feel free to explain how you can call upon reason and logic without premises first ....

    If there are no premises (ie assumptions) its hard to figure out what you would bring logic et al to bear on ...
    [/QUOTE]
    As far as I can fathom, the only problem you have with them is that operate out of a known basis (which is indeed what all analogies require to have a hope of conveying meaning)
    :shrug:
     
  12. PsychoticEpisode It is very dry in here today Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,452
    Why would I theorize about God's existence? Trying to think like a theist is torture enough.

    The thread is about creation and once again you have detracted away from my questions. Is God alive?.....I don't want to forget about that. Tell me if he is or isn't. Alive meaning, as in not dead.

    How do you know this universe is physical and not just another room in the spiritual mansion?
     
  13. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    If you have an opinion of it, you have a theory about it

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Guess that there are a few issues about being an adamant atheist that makes it a true challenge ....
    I can't understand (aside from going on a heady Nietzsche trip) why you are asking this. I means its kind of like asking a middle aged person whether they were alive when they were 6 years old .

    I guess few hints are there - birth, death, old age and disease, sufferings caused by one's body and mind, the bodies of others or the environment in general and the constant challenge to fulfilling desire in a medium geared up for (often quite nasty) conflict ..... are a few that just come off the top off my head
     
  14. PsychoticEpisode It is very dry in here today Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,452
    Fair enough. I guess the incomprehensible theory of God passes the test then.

    Why would I do that? I don't care, I want to know if God is alive. I have heard the description living God before and I wonder if it is true. Surely He's not dead or a zombie, is He?

    No bad stuff in a spiritual world then. Is the spiritual world the place one is most likely to bump into a spirit?
     
  15. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    Well yes of course. You seem to be calling upon it continually to challenge the comprehensible theory of god.


    whats the "description living god"? What other descriptions do you have under your belt?


    Inasmuch as bad stuff is a consequence of ignorance, no.


    Inasmuch as spirit is a vague indication of more specific terms like atma, yes.
     
  16. PsychoticEpisode It is very dry in here today Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,452
    A blue skinned 4 armed snake sitter maybe? Make one up, doesn't matter.

    Is God alive? A good question for you to avoid.

    I think God's existence is hanging by a thread. To be what He is makes Him the most astounding quantum fluctuation of all time. One that provided every omni known to man and then some. And then against all odds to have a simultaneous fluctuation provide a place to exist and maybe another to breathe life into Him. An incredible mind numbing rarity. A room full of monkeys could type Shakespeare's sonnets before events like that ever happen again.

    Unless God created Himself, unless He created a place to exist before He existed, unless He breathed life into Himself before He became alive, unless He learned everything before there was anything to know, etc. etc...... How is God even possible?
     
  17. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    well yeah, from an atheist's perspective the issue is moot.
    :shrug:

    The question is so screwed up. I mean if even the living entity has scope for eternal existence, what to speak of god.
    hmmm ..... its kind of mind boggling to also try and calculate how sunlight could combine to produce a sun

    Oh you mean unless everything operates out of the medium of linear time ..... how quaint.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  18. earth Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,241

    Your analogy is bizarre. Sunlight does not produce a sun.
    Sunlight, in the broad sense, is the total frequency spectrum of electromagnetic radiation given off by the Sun.
     
  19. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    Yes that's the point of the analogy. Mess up the relationship between the potency and the source and it starts to look weird.
     
  20. earth Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,241

    Then just as the sun is identifiable and recognizable as the source of sunlight one should be able to identify the source of creation. Where is the source that should be continuing to produce the potency thereby allowing for observation instead of speculation?
     
  21. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    well yeah , that's my point ... it is identifiable and recognizable ... but since it involves identifying and recognizing an entity who's powers of observation are vastly superior than ours the process entails something slightly different than the standard empirical bag of tricks (which is limited by the 5 blunt senses).
     
  22. earth Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,241
    The bag of tricks you're speaking of is theists explanation of a creator who must violate the laws of physics and nature just to exist.

    edit/add: By theists own admission God is the worst law breaker of all time.
     
    Last edited: Jan 5, 2010
  23. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    Actually in order to exist, the laws of physics must be contingent on god

    hehe

    much like jail inmates might see anyone who isn't forced to reside behind bars and mortar as defying some established norm ...
     

Share This Page