What is your 'idea of GOD'?

Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by hansda, Oct 12, 2013.

  1. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,553
    Yes, QQ, the sentence you gave as an equivalent example of the original sentence. I could have used either - but you choose to throw further insults instead.
    Fully explained - which you again fail to acknowledge here with the sole purpose to denigrate.

    What are you struggling with, QQ, that you no longer seem to be able to conduct a reasonable conversation?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,553
    You do have to support this assumption: from where does the pulley, for example, originate for us to have imitated it? What are we imitating?

    I raised this example as a counter to your assumption, but you conveniently brushed over it at the time.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,984
    not at all.. hardly worth the effort that's all...and beside I am attempting to prevent you from getting too humiliated by your own writing.

    your statement
    The above is contradictory in itself... one absolute then followed by an exception to an absolute.

    why not take it all the way to the wheel instead of a pulley?
    what do you think man imitated to "discover" the wheel?
    or the use of fire?
    or raft /boat building or use of sail or you name it...
    etc etc... go on guess?
    What inspired Darwin to construct his theories on evolution? What was he imitating?
    What and who was A. Einstein imitating with E=-mc^2?
    The idea of imitation is not mine I might add. I am only imitating others who in turn were imitating other etc etc...
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,984
    An interesting omission displayed in most religions is when they define their particular God(s) they often mention things like :
    omnipotent
    omniscience
    omni this and omni that .. but rarely do they discuss or mention anything about the incredible intelligence that their respective God(s) must have...

    ~wiki

    no mention of intelligence... and I wonder why?
    as far as I know there are no "God's" of intelligence in Greek mythology either...
    So religious Gods must have all this knowledge, all this power etc yet they must also be fundamentally stupid...

    hee hee I wonder what the Christian God's IQ rating would be...? any one?
     
  8. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,553
    There is nothing contradictory in what I wrote.
    The material (matter, energy etc) already exists... there is no creating of this... everything within the universe is simply a reforming - a changing of one pattern into another. i.e. it is a closed system.

    But that does not stop unique patterns from forming within that material... and when we conceive new ideas we conceive of such a pattern.
    There is no imitation of what already exists, there is the recognition of a new pattern.
    And from that pattern we form other matter/energy to make a physical item.

    So there is no contradiction at all.

    And you previously accused me of poor comprehension.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    So are you actually going to answer the question I asked, or are you just going to try and drown it amid others of your own?

    Your entire argument seems to hinge on your assumption: we human can only imitate that which influences us.
    And further you need to support the notion that intelligence is an imitation, rather than being the very act of imitation itself, or something else other than being an imitation.

    Care to support these?
     
  9. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,984
    and what of the context of your sentence or is context not of importance to you?
     
  10. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,984
    Nah...I see no point, do you?
    If you wish to read an expressed opinion, as a fact then that's your issue not mine.
    what do you hope to achieve ?
    What do you want Sarkus?
    then go back and read the OP
    maybe do a little reading and open a thread on the topic:
    snip from one article wiki
     
    Last edited: Oct 19, 2013
  11. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,984
    deleted as trivial
     
    Last edited: Oct 19, 2013
  12. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,984
  13. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,553
    I am not reading your opinion as fact, but if you express an opinion on which you wish to base an argument then you should have the decency to support it - or it should be confined to the pile of all other things that have no support - such as unicorns, fairies, celestial teapots and the ilk.
    If you wish your opinion to be taken seriously then it needs to be supported.

    If all you can come back with is "well, it's only an opinion", all you're doing is implying that you have no support for it.
    To discuss peoples' ideas of God - to analyse them, toss them around, and see where it leads, and to hold them up to scrutiny - which includes asking people to support their notions.

    And nowhere in the extract that you posted is there any statement of, or support for, the idea that humans are only capable of imitation.
    What you have provided is part of a discussion whether only humans are capable of imitation.
    Do you not see the difference between the two.
    It is of the form: Only X can do Y / X can only do Y
    In the first it is a statement that limits who can do Y (to X) but does not limit what else X can do.
    The second is a statement that limits what X can do (it can only do Y) but does not limit who else can do Y.

    So please tell me how this is in any way support for your notion that "we human can only imitate that which influences us."

    Note how this is an entirely different statement to "only we human can imitate that which influences us".
     
  14. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,984
    Take it to the other thread Sarkus...
    "We human can only imitate that which influences us." ~QQ 2013
    Word has it, on the grape vine, that the above sentence has legs man!!

    Thanks for highlighting a rather freakish imitation of that which influence me...
     
  15. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,553
    I'll take it to whatever thread you raise it in and continue not to support it.
    You raised it here so I'm addressing it here.
    I may get round to responding in your other thread on the matter if and when you actually bother to post something to support it, which you haven't yet.
    Besides, the issues with your argument have already been highlighted in that thread, and your attitude toward anyone who disagrees with you merely turns the whole thing in to a farce.
     
  16. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,984
    hee hee
    what's the key difference between the following two sentences:
    1] And nowhere in the extract that you posted is there any statement of, or support for, the idea that humans are only capable of imitation.
    2] What you have provided is part of a discussion whether only humans are capable of imitation.
    which one
    only humans are capable of
    or
    humans are only capable of...
    you choose then I tell you which one is a correct imitation of what I wrote...

    here it is again:
    "We humans can only imitate that which influences us." ~QQ 2013
    it is an absolute statement and one yet to be tested properly...and that test wont happen here at sciforums ...due to serious religio-phobic reactions...as exampled in the other thread and in this one.
     
  17. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,984
    Religiophobia:

    Definition:
    http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/religiophobia
    English
    Etymology

    From Latin religiō (“moral obligation, worship”) and Ancient Greek φόβος (phobos, “fear”).
    Noun

    religiophobia (uncountable)

    An irrational or obsessive fear or anxiety of religion, religious faith, religious people or religious organisations.

    Antonyms

    atheophobia

    Related terms

    religiophobic
    religiophobe
     
  18. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,553
    False dichotomy - since you are claiming that the only thing humans can imitate is that which influences us... and nothing whatsoever to do with the purpose of my raising the distinction: to highlight that the wiki snippet that you posted was merely part of a discussion that imitation may be something that only humans can do, and nothing to do with what might be imitated.

    As I clarified at the end of that post, there is a difference between "we human can only imitate that which influences us." and, what the wiki article was in reference to: "only we human can imitate that which influences us".

    However, previous posts of yours have stated that you consider humans only to be capable of imitation, not of creation of anything:
    post #284: "Also it must be realized that we humans do not actually create anything but merely imitate what we observe and manipulate accordingly"
    The implication, through the comparison, is that we do not create but merely imitate (irrespective of what we imitate).
    So apologies if I have continued to assume this to be your stance in the way I have responded. Maybe you have changed view in the meantime?

    Actually it's true by definition - even within the wiki article you quoted: "the copying of a novel or otherwise improbable act or utterance, or some act for which there is clearly no instinctive tendency." One can not copy unless one has observed (sight, sound etc) - i.e. unless it influences (through such observation).
    But don't let that stop you testing it.

    So your next task would be, as also previously mentioned, to show that our intelligence is mere imitation, and that it is something that IS imitated, and is not the actual act of imitation.
    You do understand the distinction here, I presume?


    As to your concerns over perceived "religio-phobia" - this is nothing but you crying foul because people disagree with your ideas.
    You'll have to do better than just throwing out such accusations, like actually support them: perhaps show how I/others are being irationally or obsessively fearful or anxious, rather than just disagreeing with you?
     
  19. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,984
    Unfortunately it appears that you are either 1] reluctanct to accept the context of what is written or 2] I am not stating context properly.

    Regarding religiophobia.

    When posters wish to insinuate a religious agenda when none is demonstrated nor even wished, this indicates religiophobia quite clearly.
    Seattle for example has continuously accused me of such an agenda, as to has Magic Realist and a number of other posters. Either you are blind to it due to your own blinkers or you choose to deliberately conflate it a s a non issue when it is in fact an valid issue. [Note the way the term conflate is used deliberately inverse in application...]
    One Example:
    when he didn't like his refutation falling on it's face.

    Regarding the testing of the statement.
    Over the next few years I am sure it will be tested quite well. The semantics may need to be addressed to improve it's precision and clarity of course. It already well known in the right circles any way...

    Because evolution by natural selection can be seen as a process of "imitation"[cloning] and mutation [adaptation/manipulation] of that imitation it is quite sequitur to state that evolved intelligence in humans has occurred and is continuing to occur by way of imitation.
    A number of white papers where released and a small documentary was published about 20 odd years ago if I recall correctly.
    However discussing this topic "on the fly" on an internet forum does it no justice what so ever.

    According to you perhaps, but then again "who are you?" other than an anonymous, faceless poster who can post what he likes with impunity.
     
    Last edited: Oct 20, 2013
  20. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,984
    There was a lot of study done on Infant reflexes [human] Primitive Reflexes and no doubt these reflexes and how they are associated with learning and how they are a part of innate evolved intelligence will play a big part in any serious testing of the statement.

    One in particular that stands out to me as being most relevant is the

    which I believe is associated with how a baby is able to "hold" on to a stimuli and then think about it... obviously this could be very relevant to the fundamental of intelligence as the baby matures into an adult and the reflex submerges into a non-conscious activity , that being the ability to hold an idea and act upon it.
    However this belief may be entirely premature as not a lot of research is currently focused on infantile reflexes and how this relates to normal brain functioning regarding adult intelligence and associated activities. First 30 day Morbidity is high if these reflexes are not present or seriously diminished and test subjects who survive are rare.
    The question though that is relevant to the topic at hand is how these essential reflexes could have evolved over millions of years by way of imitation [cloning] and mutation [ adaptation/manipulation] [natural selection ]
     
  21. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,553
    It is simply that you are not listening to arguments, choosing not to follow implications from your previous posts, avoiding questions you don't wish to answer and otherwise merely looking to score points to the detriment of any actual discussion.
    The ball is in your court.

    You have also accused me of it - yet I have not accused you of any religious agenda.
    Nor can I see evidence that the others have.
    What they have done is disagree with your concept of God.
    You do know what the title of this thread is, I assume?
    And you then roll out this accusation of religiophobe in response.
    Disputing your idea of God is nothing to do with religion.

    Even your example from MR: "Nevermind..I'm not wasting my time with another disingenuous theist trying to palm off his God concept as sound science." is nothing to do with religion, but everything to do with his disagreement of your concept of God.
    False dichotomy: another alternative is that there is no religiophobic attitude on display, and you are merely using the word to belittle their disagreement with you.
    You are now redefining terms to fit your argument: since when can mutation be considered manipulation?
    Who are any of us other than anonymous, faceless posters.
    But perhaps you should look to what is written rather than worry about who any of us are.
     
  22. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,984
    The record shows for all to see...and will do so for many years to come..we shall let history be the judge as you obviously have issues in this regard...
    as to the rest of your post it is not worth reading...
    Sarkus this thread is not about me.. or is it?
    You wish to make this thread about me and it is titled "ideas of God" Why?
    Do you think I am God?
    Oh no the big secret has been revealed....!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    oh I know who all of you are... don't worry your petty little head(s) about that...
    and I might add being reasonable and sympathetic and empathetic and caring is a choice... not an obligation...
    I might forgive but I neeeevvvvveeeeer forget.... [imagines standing on a pulpit somewhere (chuckle)]

    nah forget it... you think I am God...well
    your not wrong and your not quite right either....go figure...
    "I had a dream, had an awesome dream
    People in the park, playing games in the dark"

    go on guess : song title...?
    [video=youtube;cHxTFeReT-g]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cHxTFeReT-g[/video]
     
    Last edited: Oct 20, 2013
  23. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,984
    Lyrics:

    Say you, say me
    Say it for always
    That's the way it should be

    Say you, say me
    Say it together
    Naturally

    I had a dream,
    I had an awesome dream
    People in the park
    Playing games in the dark
    And what they played,
    Was a masquerade,
    From behind the walls of doubt
    A voice was crying out

    Say you, say me
    Say it for always
    That's the way it should be

    Say you, say me
    Say it together
    Naturally

    As we go down life's lonesome highway,
    Seems the hardest thing to do
    is to find a friend or two
    That helping hand,
    Someone who understands
    when you feel you lost your way
    You've got someone there to say:
    I'll show you :imitation

    Say you, say me
    Say it for always
    That's the way it should be

    Say you, say me
    Say it together
    Naturally

    So you think you know the answers,
    Oh, no
    Well, the whole world's got you dancing, that's right, I'm telling you.
    It's time to start believe,
    oh yes,
    Believe in who you are, you are a shining star.

    Say you, say me
    Say it for always
    That's the way it should be

    Say you, say me
    Say it together
    Naturally

    Say it together
    Naturally

    Yep you think I Am God....well as I said
    you ain't wrong and you ain't quite right either....
    maybe one day I will explain but then again maybe not.
     

Share This Page