PDA

View Full Version : Al Gore and Atheists



klaatu
08-21-2006, 12:41 PM
I stumbled upon this during a search ....its old but I thought it was interesting .... considering all the talk of religion today


If the message boards are not yet crawling with the news they soon will be: U.S. Vice President and Presidential candidate Al Gore admitted that he was a born-again Christian. During a 60 Minutes interview, broadcast on Dec. 5, he also attacked nonbelievers--or what Gore referred to as the "anti-religious view"-- calling them "arrogant" and "intimidating . . . making people who do believe in God feel like they're being put down and I don't like that. I've never liked that."
Nonbelievers are arrogant? For shame! Al Gore is sure to fall under the wrath of every online freethought editor for his comments. By the end of the week, it will be the conventional wisdom of outraged atheists, humanists, and agnostics everywhere that Gore is one more in a long line of religious... as a good gimmick for political gain among the religious right... let's stop and examine the context of Gore's remarks. He made them during a moment in which his personal life was under the microscope. As the cameras roll, Gore is seen strolling on the campus of Vanderbilt University while the voice over tells us that just after his tour of duty in Vietnam, Gore enrolled in the Divinity School. "Did you want to be a minister?" the interviewer asks. "I was open to the call," he replies. Gore admitted that he was searching for the meaning of life. "What duty do we owe to our Creator?" he had asked himself at the time. Gore went on to express frustration that born-again Christians are often lampooned by nonbelievers but he admitted that he is uncomfortable when politicians talk about religion all of the time, especially when they use it as a wedge to drive between the separation of church and state. Even so, Gore said that religion was the "foundation of his life" and he stated that he will continue to be "personally guided by religion in his professional life."

Rather than join the bandwagon of outrage over Gore's remarks, I'd rather spend a moment to reflect and to defend him. Many of us nonbelievers are arrogant, incredibly arrogant, and in our single-minded attempt to engage in spiritual cleansing, we often forget that we have no more a monopoly on the truth than anyone else. Yet this reality does not seem to prevent some nonbelievers from howling their indignation loudly, bolstering their own sense of superiority by ridiculing those who believe in God. It is this rigid attitude that unites fundamentalist atheists with their religious cousins in that fundamentalist atheists are not content to revel in their own perfect worldview, but rather they must also prove others wrong in order for them to be right. It is this intellectual elitism that religious believers see when they glance behind them at those atheists who nip at their heels. In the end, this had led to a serious image problem for the rest of us for whom our atheism is not challenged by the coexistence of religious belief.

It is important to notice that Gore never once says that arrogant atheists are wrong for proclaiming their beliefs or even for proclaiming them passionately. Gore says that they are wrong for putting down others who do believe, and in that remark lies the rub. The result of denigrating the beliefs of others, no matter how silly they seem to us, is bigotry and intolerance. Gore attended a divinity school because he was searching for meaning in his life. That search led him to public service and regardless of what one thinks of his political views, no one should look down upon him for honestly searching for answers in his life...

http://tinyurl.com/lrw2y

uscitizen
08-21-2006, 12:53 PM
The same argument applies to the Christian believers trashing Atheists or those who do not worship God as they do even though they worship the same god. ie Christians vs Isalm....

Sir Evil
08-21-2006, 12:55 PM
Yep, old news for sure.....Who cares?:cof1:

uscitizen
08-21-2006, 12:59 PM
One big difference between Christians and Atheists. Christians have to have an evil ourside influence threatening them to justify their existance. Devil, Satan, Atheist, Islamofascist, etc. Atheists do not want or need these outside evils to decide for themselves.

bob
08-21-2006, 01:04 PM
One big difference between Christians and Atheists. Christians have to have an evil ourside influence threatening them to justify their existance. Devil, Satan, Atheist, Islamofascist, etc. Atheists do not want or need these outside evils to decide for themselves.

alot of em think that religion is evil... where did you get that idea ?

Sir Evil
08-21-2006, 01:12 PM
:nolovejesus:
.
.
.
.
.
.
:gives:

uscitizen
08-21-2006, 01:24 PM
alot of em think that religion is evil... where did you get that idea ?

HUH ? Did I say religion is evil ? It has been misused for evil purposes throught the centuries though.

How long would christianity last if not for the threat of hell , Satan, etc ?

klaatu
08-21-2006, 01:40 PM
The same argument applies to the Christian believers trashing Atheists or those who do not worship God as they do even though they worship the same god. ie Christians vs Isalm....

The gist of this article USC is respect for anothers belief... and by the way ... you are a perfect example of what the author is talking about. Thread after thread..whenever religion is jousted about (particularily Christianity) your contributions amount nothing more than ridicule. I.E. see the examples set forth in the thread about Sciptures.

Islamofascist? You dont seem to have an ability to distinguish political rhetoric from religion ....

Good Evil .. Yin Yang ... its been around for eons USC .....

klaatu
08-21-2006, 01:41 PM
:nolovejesus:
.
.
.
.
.
.
:gives:


You seem to .. you've responded twice to this thread. ...

uscitizen
08-21-2006, 01:51 PM
Good Evil .. Yin Yang ... its been around for eons USC .....
//

Yes mankind has a need to be able to explain thru religion and superstition the unknown.

klaatu
08-21-2006, 02:09 PM
Good Evil .. Yin Yang ... its been around for eons USC .....
//

Yes mankind has a need to be able to explain thru religion and superstition the unknown.

You forgot Science .....

uscitizen
08-21-2006, 02:17 PM
You forgot Science .....

No not at all it is an arch enemy of religion and superstition.
You forget ID ?

uscitizen
08-21-2006, 02:20 PM
Thread after thread..whenever religion is jousted about (particularily Christianity) your contributions amount nothing more than ridicule. I.E. see the examples set forth in the thread about Sciptures.

//

I admire and support true christians, those who follow the lifestyle taught by Christ. The ones that use religion for their own purposes is an entirely different matter and I only feel scorn and pity for them.

FUCK THE POLICE
08-21-2006, 03:49 PM
We do have a monopoly on the belief of truth. It IS truth. You have a right to whatever religion you desire and I have the right to call you a fucking idiot.

klaatu
08-21-2006, 04:12 PM
We do have a monopoly on the belief of truth. It IS truth. You have a right to whatever religion you desire and I have the right to call you a fucking idiot.

Oooh ... thems fightin words sonny. You are right though.... you can call me an idiot if you want ... I'll let you and while you are searching for your sexuality and discovered the meaning of life .... I'll get out of your way ...

By the way... since you have found the truth ... what is it..? Im curious ...

FUCK THE POLICE
08-21-2006, 08:47 PM
Sorry, Klatt, I have a rather blunt sense of humor. I rarely mean to offend, and I wasn't very serious about the statement.

AnyOldIron
08-22-2006, 03:04 AM
Yet this reality does not seem to prevent some nonbelievers from howling their indignation loudly, bolstering their own sense of superiority by ridiculing those who believe in God.

There is a reason for this. The merits of both arguments. Religion is based on pathos, atheism logos....

uscitizen
08-22-2006, 08:24 AM
And religious believers express their superiority because they believe in God, what is your point ?

klaatu
08-22-2006, 08:57 AM
Sorry, Klatt, I have a rather blunt sense of humor. I rarely mean to offend, and I wasn't very serious about the statement.

;)

klaatu
08-22-2006, 09:12 AM
And religious believers express their superiority because they believe in God, what is your point ?

There is a big difference ... and I think thats where Gore is coming from ...
As I have stated before .. you are a classic example of what he is talking about. Whenever the subject of God or faith pops up ... you are quick to snipe in with ridicule.. as if you have overriding proof of your personal take.
I cannot prove the existance of God ... just as you cannot prove why we exist.. yet you and many who think the way you do attempt to use Science as the overriding factor to support yours as definitive proof.... when all you have is theory. Now dont get me wrong .. I am not in anyway, shape or form anti-Science. ..... I just have a wide open mind ..... and Im not sure we will ever have definitive proof as to the reason why we exist ... until our term here expires .. and then either we will know ..or it wont matter.. will it?

uscitizen
08-22-2006, 09:19 AM
So I do not believe in something that cannot be proven, but according to most in this country I am wrong because they do believe in something that cannot be proven. Logically illogical ?
Deriding and teaching fear of those who do not believe as they do is a fundamental basic operating concept of most all churches.

It all depends on your point of view.

klaatu
08-22-2006, 09:34 AM
So I do not believe in something that cannot be proven, but according to most in this country I am wrong because they do believe in something that cannot be proven. Logically illogical ?
Deriding and teaching fear of those who do not believe as they do is a fundamental basic operating concept of most all churches.

It all depends on your point of view.


I didnt say you are wrong for your non-belief ... and personally I wont ridicule it either ... and I dont think I have ever ridiculed anyone in this forum for beng an atheist. I have argued against those who ridicule or bring up outragous news articles designed to paint a picture with a broad sweeping brush .... but I have never attacked their atheism.

I will stand by your right to not believe as much as I will stand up for the right to worship. But unfortunately I dont beleive this is a two way street ...

Now... if I start a thread about Scripture, God or anything in terms of faith.. and you, robdawg or whomever pop in and start with the fairy tales, spaghetti monster crap ... thats called ridicule. Thats the difference...

uscitizen
08-22-2006, 09:38 AM
So a pastor preaching against the souless lost sinners being the cause of all the worlds problems is not ridicule ? Yes I guess you are right it is not ridicule, it is slander, which is worse ?

klaatu
08-22-2006, 09:48 AM
So a pastor preaching against the souless lost sinners being the cause of all the worlds problems is not ridicule ? Yes I guess you are right it is not ridicule, it is slander, which is worse ?


Why didnt you bring up Islam teaching Imam/Jihad? Why is it always the Pastor(Christian)..wouldnt have anything to do with politics would it? just a point of reference ...

As far as a pastor teaching his congregation about sin ... thats called Religious Instruction... teaching a doctrine ... I will agree ...some take it too far ..i.e. televangelism..... but Sin is a part of most religous doctrines .. and people in this Country are free to choose whether or not they want to take part in it..... and they should be free to do that without the ridicule of those who worship King Kong ... (how does it feel?)

uscitizen
08-22-2006, 09:50 AM
Agreed Klaatu, And those who wish to not believe should be able to do that without being hammered by the church as well.
They hammer me I hammer back.

klaatu
08-22-2006, 10:26 AM
Agreed Klaatu, And those who wish to not believe should be able to do that without being hammered by the church as well.
They hammer me I hammer back.


Hammer back! It is your right... Just dont be the first to use the hammer .. :cof1:

uscitizen
08-22-2006, 10:28 AM
The early hammer gets the nail :)

AnyOldIron
08-23-2006, 03:24 AM
I tend to find that with the religious, when you attempt to dig a little deeper into the nature of their beliefs their arguments slip further into the obscurius per obscurum, circular, pathos-laden notions.

None can provide an explanation beyond that they 'feel' it is correct, yet all tend to argue that their faith has substance....

From bishops to the laity this occurs, the only difference being the articulation of their arguments....

Does this make me arrogant?

klaatu
08-23-2006, 06:09 AM
I tend to find that with the religious, when you attempt to dig a little deeper into the nature of their beliefs their arguments slip further into the obscurius per obscurum, circular, pathos-laden notions.

None can provide an explanation beyond that they 'feel' it is correct, yet all tend to argue that their faith has substance....

From bishops to the laity this occurs, the only difference being the articulation of their arguments....

Does this make me arrogant?


never really thought you were arrogant anyold .. you just like to discuss the nature of religion from a sociological point of view and I can respect that ... until of course you start using the speghetti monster/elf analogies ... thats when arrogance..if ever so slightly... creeps in ... :cool:

klaatu
08-23-2006, 06:16 AM
I tend to find that with the religious, when you attempt to dig a little deeper into the nature of their beliefs their arguments slip further into the obscurius per obscurum, circular, pathos-laden notions.

None can provide an explanation beyond that they 'feel' it is correct, yet all tend to argue that their faith has substance....


You can say the same for people who subscribe to the ever changing big bang theory ... that out of nothing came something ...

We are only taught what people teach us ... it all boils down to who's agenda do you want to side with ...

Im of the ilk that there is something bigger going on than we can ever imagine ... I think people like Jesus, Buddha and the like had a special insight to that knowledge .... forgive me for being naive ....

My problem with you and your ilk ... you underestimate the reason for being.

AnyOldIron
08-23-2006, 06:21 AM
never really thought you were arrogant anyold .. you just like to discuss the nature of religion from a sociological point of view and I can respect that ... until of course you start using the speghetti monster/elf analogies ... thats when arrogance..if ever so slightly... creeps in ...

LOL! All part of mythology....

I've moved away from my sociological side, am currently studying for another degree, this time on the OU (correspondence university) in philosophy and it is philosophy that is the prism through which I see things...

Sociology/anthropology/mythology is more of a side-hobby now, although of course they all intertwine....

I think the arrogance thing comes when religious arguments are simply dismissed. That isn't something I would do simply because it is poor philosophy. If a religious argument is poor, I will attempt to explain why....

AnyOldIron
08-23-2006, 06:31 AM
You can say the same for people who subscribe to the ever changing big bang theory ... that out of nothing came something ...

But the arguments used for big bang and origins are based on logos, logic deduction.

Talk to people like Brent and Dixie about their religious notions and it usually resolves down to what they describe as 'faith', ie that they feel it is right.

We are only taught what people teach us ... it all boils down to who's agenda do you want to side with ...

Only if you accept on face value what you are told.

The strength of science and humanity's Apollonian side are that, if you don't trust the teacher, you can verify yourself.

With the Dionysian side, the appeal of the transcendental, there is no method for verification and you must accept the teacher's word on face value.

Im of the ilk that there is something bigger going on than we can ever imagine ...

And it is why you believe this that needs discussion. What makes you believe this? (this is epistemology - the study of how we know)

I think people like Jesus, Buddha and the like had a special insight to that knowledge .... forgive me for being naive ....

Jesus et al were IMO great philosophers whose teachings have been 'corrupted' by their deification.

Does the belief in a transcendental great entity make you niaive? Depends on why you believe that...

My problem with you and your ilk ... you underestimate the reason for being.

Or challenge the assumption that there is a reason?

When people hear that I am studying philosophy, the first question most ask is 'so, what is the meaning of life then'.

My answer is that the question itself is wrong. Meaning is a human concept and only found in human interaction. The universe, life etc have no innate meaning.

Care4all
08-23-2006, 06:39 AM
So a pastor preaching against the souless lost sinners being the cause of all the worlds problems is not ridicule ? Yes I guess you are right it is not ridicule, it is slander, which is worse ?

now granted, I have not gone to church regularly in 10 years, BUT never in all the years I did regularly go to church, did a Priest or Pastor say that nonbelievers or sinners are going to hell and that they are the cause of all the evil in the world! NEVER!!!!

What kind of Church did you go to? And remind me not to ever go there! ;)lol

good morning uscit!

Damocles
08-23-2006, 06:44 AM
Absense of evidence is not evidence of absense. Because people believe in something they "feel" rather than have strong outside evidence of also does not prove them wrong. You may disbelieve and be cynical even satirical and sardonic... it still doesn't prove them wrong. Science was never designed to prove/disprove the existence of God, it can't. The tool you attempt to wield is entirely ill equipped for the job at hand.

You attempt to seal a crack with just a shovel... It ain't going to work AOI.

AnyOldIron
08-23-2006, 07:01 AM
Absense of evidence is not evidence of absense. Because people believe in something they "feel" rather than have strong outside evidence of also does not prove them wrong.

Of course not. It is an impossibility to disprove the transcendental. That is because those that support the notion of the transcendental can produce neither a definition nor description. Ambigiuity is vital to the transcendental.

So we must adjudicate the veracity of the arguments used. (Epistemology)

An argument that is based on deduction deriving from empirical evidence is by far the more solid when compared to arguments based on pathos-led feelings.

You may disbelieve and be cynical even satirical and sardonic... it still doesn't prove them wrong.

Never claimed it did. Me, sardonic? lol

Science was never designed to prove/disprove the existence of God, it can't.

Science was never designed. It is an evolution of sound epistemological methods that have demonstrated themselves highly effective in our understanding of the world.

Science cannot demonstrate the non-existence of god, simply because 'god' is an ambigious concept rather than an entity. See my above ref the transcendental.

You attempt to seal a crack with just a shovel... It ain't going to work AOI.

Ooooh Damo. 'Strawman alert'!

Damocles
08-23-2006, 07:10 AM
Ooooh Damo. 'Strawman alert'!


Rubbish, you state above how "wrong" they are and use absense of epistemological evidence as your "proof". I present the case that such an absense and their belief in "pathos" over "logos" doesn't prove them wrong or you right. Your answer is, "OF course not." and "I never did that." even though you are contradicted by your previous posts in this thread.

AnyOldIron
08-23-2006, 07:18 AM
Rubbish, you state above how "wrong" they are and use absense of epistemological evidence as your "proof". I present the case that such an absense and their belief in "pathos" over "logos" doesn't prove them wrong or you right. Your answer is, "OF course not." and "I never did that." even though you are contradicted by your previous posts in this thread.

Still strawman, Damo.

I've stated that the arguments that those who endorse the notion of the transcendental use are inordinately weak.

I haven't said epistemologically sound knowledge demonstrates 'proof', I don't use the term.

I bang on more than most about the impossibility of absolute knowledge...

Damocles
08-23-2006, 07:22 AM
You argue that their argument based on Pathos is weaker than one on the same subject based in Logos. That argument is rubbish Logos cannot prove/disprove is not equipped to even begin to study the question. It is pathos where the question lies. That you think it is "weak" because it is based in the side you dismiss as relative to the world doesn't make it any weaker or stronger than an argument using a tool that is not equipped to deal with the question.

uscitizen
08-23-2006, 07:32 AM
now granted, I have not gone to church regularly in 10 years, BUT never in all the years I did regularly go to church, did a Priest or Pastor say that nonbelievers or sinners are going to hell and that they are the cause of all the evil in the world! NEVER!!!!

What kind of Church did you go to? And remind me not to ever go there! ;)lol

good morning uscit!
Care I was raised in Pentescostal type of church. Methodist has been what the wife has been dragging me into for the past 6 yrs. However I have also noticed that it is not necessarially the denomination but the makeup of the individual church. Some people quit the local methodist church when they had a female guest preacher :o
As someone on here wisely stated a church is the sum of it's members.
Watch a bit of the preachers on CBN or whatever they call it now.
Preaching salvation thru fear and intimidation is still alive and well in churches.

AnyOldIron
08-23-2006, 07:40 AM
You argue that their argumet based on Pathos is weaker than one on the same subject based in Logos. That argument is rubbish Logos cannot prove/disprove is not equipped to even begin to study the question.

Nothing can prove anything. Proof is absolute knowledge, which is a fantasy.

Logos is equipped to deal with any question, it is the method by which we evaluate the quality of an argument.

Relying on pathos is weak because it is ambigious. It creates obscurum per obscurius arguments only, explaining the obscure by the even more obscure.

Emotional argument doesn't provide us with an insight into the world but an insight into the person making the argument.

An argument that is supported by logic and empiricism is far strong than one based on ambigious feelings, merely saying 'I feel this is so'.

The history of man demonstrates this. Mankind once attributed phenomenon according to how they felt. They saw the complexity of the seas and anthropomorphically attributed it to the action of Posieden. Something as complex as that must be under the control of something.

Logos rolled this back, by presenting a structure by which we can evaluate the claims, and it is in this point that the strength of logos and weakness of pathos-based arguments lies.

Logos based claims can be verified. Pathos cannot. We must merely accept.

Immanuel
08-23-2006, 07:43 AM
No not at all it is an arch enemy of religion and superstition.
You forget ID ?


Science is not an arch-enemy of religion. Although there are some "religious" people that view it as such and some "scientists" that think they must prove all religion or faith false.

Science in its most basic form is the search for answers. That does not make it an enemy of religion.

Immie

Damocles
08-23-2006, 07:44 AM
Regardless of that Logos is not equipped to answer these questions... Completely oblivious of this type of thing, it is equally weak argument to say that becuase Logos cannot prove its existence must mean that you are stupid to believe in it as it is to say "I feel it so you are stupid for not believing!"....

In other words, AOI.... Your argument is equally weak.

Damocles
08-23-2006, 07:52 AM
You argue that their argumet based on Pathos is weaker than one on the same subject based in Logos. That argument is rubbish Logos cannot prove/disprove is not equipped to even begin to study the question.

Nothing can prove anything. Proof is absolute knowledge, which is a fantasy.


I agree.




Logos is equipped to deal with any question, it is the method by which we evaluate the quality of an argument.


Rubbish, Logos uses only physical means to "prove/disprove" or argue a claim. It is not equipped to deal with that which is unnatural and therfore will not fit into this type of "evidence". All of the "evidence" for this lies within Pathos...

You use a shovel when you need a rocket, you aren't going to get to space using the shovel.




Relying on pathos is weak because it is ambigious. It creates obscurum per obscurius arguments only, explaining the obscure by the even more obscure.

Emotional argument doesn't provide us with an insight into the world but an insight into the person making the argument.

An argument that is supported by logic and empiricism is far strong than one based on ambigious feelings, merely saying 'I feel this is so'.


Except when you use it wrongly. In this case, the subject itself lies outside normal empiricism being a supernatural thing. Attempting to apply the natural to the supernatural is, once again, attempting to apply the wrong tool to get the job done...

Your crowbar will not seal the window... It is ill equipped to do so.




The history of man demonstrates this. Mankind once attributed phenomenon according to how they felt. They saw the complexity of the seas and anthropomorphically attributed it to the action of Posieden. Something as complex as that must be under the control of something.

Logos rolled this back, by presenting a structure by which we can evaluate the claims, and it is in this point that the strength of logos and weakness of pathos-based arguments lies.


Rubbish. There could still be people that believed in Poseidon, that we understand how tides work doesn't mean that it isn't controlled by a supernatural being... This did nothing of the sort. People simply chose other religions along the way and this one fell from popularity.




Logos based claims can be verified. Pathos cannot. We must merely accept.

This claim cannot be verified by Logos any more than you can make it to space using that shovel of yours.

AnyOldIron
08-23-2006, 07:53 AM
Regardless of that Logos is not equipped to answer these questions...

Logos wouldn't really answer the question but provide a framework by which the solution can be found.

Completely oblivious of this type of thing, it is equally weak argument to say that becuase Logos cannot prove its existence must mean that you are stupid to believe in it as it is to say "I feel it so you are stupid for not believing!"....

I haven't called anyone stupid for believing in things, I have just asked them to challenge WHY they believe things and what makes them believe.

If the reasons are based on pathos, for eg because belief provided comfort or it is mere feeling, I have challenged them about the strength of that argument.

Demonstrating the fallacy of religion goes much further, into helping people understand how and why they adopted such beliefs, where the beliefs originated....

AnyOldIron
08-23-2006, 08:00 AM
Rubbish, Logos uses only physical means to "prove/disprove" or argue a claim.

No it doesn't. It is used primarily to resolve metaphysical questions. Logic is used in mathematics and that is not a physical mean.

It is not equipped to deal with that which is unnatural and therfore will not fit into this type of "evidence". All of the "evidence" for this lies within Pathos...

What is 'unnatural'? Whatever exists is natural by definition, it is part of nature. Even if a deity existed it wouldn't be unnatural. Unnatural is a term we use to describe things that run against conventional norms.

Pathos is the use of, or appeal to, emotions.

You use a shovel when you need a rocket, you aren't going to get to space using the shovel.

If you use pathos without logos, you wouldn't even create a shovel.

Damocles
08-23-2006, 08:01 AM
Regardless of that Logos is not equipped to answer these questions...

Logos wouldn't really answer the question but provide a framework by which the solution can be found.

Completely oblivious of this type of thing, it is equally weak argument to say that becuase Logos cannot prove its existence must mean that you are stupid to believe in it as it is to say "I feel it so you are stupid for not believing!"....

I haven't called anyone stupid for believing in things, I have just asked them to challenge WHY they believe things and what makes them believe.

If the reasons are based on pathos, for eg because belief provided comfort or it is mere feeling, I have challenged them about the strength of that argument.

Demonstrating the fallacy of religion goes much further, into helping people understand how and why they adopted such beliefs, where the beliefs originated....


The problem is there is no way to demonstrate the fallacy of the supernatural using the argument of the natural. It is a weak argument to say, "This is natural therefore that Supernatural thing cannot be!"

It isn't just a "challenge" it often is directly insulting to their intelligence. You do dismiss all Pathos, even though you know that just because their argument is based there doesn't mean that they are wrong. Or that because you attempt to stretch the natural over the supernatural that you are right in the assumption that their argument is weak.

You cannot subjectively judge their personal experience, therefore you just appear to be a fanatic objecting to their beliefs because their supernatural being cannot fit into your miniscule natural definition. To them you are just Plankton assuming superiority when you cannot understand.

klaatu
08-23-2006, 08:06 AM
Anytime a person - of whatever convictions - indicates that he’s unquestioningly certain of the reason for being or how and why the universe began, I know I’ve found someone else to question.

Damocles
08-23-2006, 08:10 AM
Rubbish, Logos uses only physical means to "prove/disprove" or argue a claim.

No it doesn't. It is used primarily to resolve metaphysical questions. Logic is used in mathematics and that is not a physical mean.

It is not equipped to deal with that which is unnatural and therfore will not fit into this type of "evidence". All of the "evidence" for this lies within Pathos...

What is 'unnatural'? Whatever exists is natural by definition, it is part of nature. Even if a deity existed it wouldn't be unnatural. Unnatural is a term we use to describe things that run against conventional norms.

Pathos is the use of, or appeal to, emotions.

You use a shovel when you need a rocket, you aren't going to get to space using the shovel.

If you use pathos without logos, you wouldn't even create a shovel.
I said "supernatural" not unnatural. There is a difference and the term is well-used as well as well-defined.

AnyOldIron
08-23-2006, 08:23 AM
The problem is there is no way to demonstrate the fallacy of the supernatural using the argument of the natural. It is a weak argument to say, "This is natural therefore that Supernatural thing cannot be!"

There is no way to prove a negative on this scale but that doesn't mean that we should therefore accept an argument as valid.

You can't prove that there isn't a teapot in orbit around a planet outside our universe but that doesn't therefore make it a valid statement to assert there is.

We must then look at how the argument came about. If the argument is based in pathos, that you feel it must be right, then that is weak. Boil the arguments for the existence of the transcendental down by Socratic questioning and you are left entirely with pathos-based arguments.

You do dismiss all Pathos, even though you know that just because their argument is based there doesn't mean that they are wrong.

Dismissing pathos in argument isn't wrong. It is unsubstantiated argument. If an argument is based on pathos then it is incredibly weak. That doesn't mean I am claiming absolute knowledge and it is therefore wrong, just that the argument is extremely weak. It is based entirely in the emotions.

You cannot subjectively judge their personal experience, therefore you just appear to be a fanatic objecting to their beliefs because their supernatural being cannot fit into your miniscule natural definition. To them you are just Plankton assuming superiority when you cannot understand.

I can judge the arguments that they present. If those arguments are based on subjective personal experience, which could derive from a variety of sources, then they are weak.

I could claim to you that fairies exist because I have seen them in my mind, but if I cannot verify the claim then it is incredibly weak. It is based entirely in my own emotions.

As for your pop-psychology, thanks but not really true. I don't need to feel superior to anyone, I don't invest emotions into philosophical discussions, and quite frankly this appears to be merely chaff deflecting from the argument.

AnyOldIron
08-23-2006, 08:30 AM
I said "supernatural" not unnatural. There is a difference and the term is well-used as well as well-defined.

No you didn't....

"It is not equipped to deal with that which is unnatural and therfore will not fit into this type of "evidence". All of the "evidence" for this lies within Pathos... "

Damocles
08-23-2006, 08:30 AM
The "prove a teapot" thing is once again an attempt to limit the supernatural to the natural laws... The analogy is worthless.

They give personal experience, stronger argument than "Your Supernatural being doesn't follow my Natural Law and therefore you have to prove he exists!" argument. It doesn't fly. When one of the conditions of belief is specifically Faith then arguing that having Faith isn't "logical" is a weak argument indeed. It is, in point of fact, exactly as weak as saying the opposite.

I do not say their argument is particularly strong, only that yours is equally weak. Particularly when you keep attempting to use the wrong tool for the wrong job.

Damocles
08-23-2006, 08:31 AM
I said "supernatural" not unnatural. There is a difference and the term is well-used as well as well-defined.

No you didn't....

"It is not equipped to deal with that which is unnatural and therfore will not fit into this type of "evidence". All of the "evidence" for this lies within Pathos... "
Excuse me. I meant Supernatural. In every other post I stated Supernatural in one I erred. I can live with that. It doesn't really undermine my argument.

AnyOldIron
08-23-2006, 08:32 AM
Anytime a person - of whatever convictions - indicates that he’s unquestioningly certain of the reason for being or how and why the universe began, I know I’ve found someone else to question.

I agree. But that doesn't mean that all claims are equally valid.

evince
08-23-2006, 08:43 AM
Gore isnt talking all athiests hes talking the ones who like to pretend it makes them better than others.

I will fully admitt I perfer fact over myth.

All religion that bases its self on stories with are unprovable such flying people ,horned guys livivng under the earths surface and people burning for enternity are based on myth.

This is truth.

I know others will see that as an insult but its really not its just how I seek truth.

You see everything I believe has to have some provability to it.

BTW science has found proof of black matter recently, I now believe in black matter.

AnyOldIron
08-23-2006, 08:48 AM
They give personal experience, stronger argument than "Your Supernatural being doesn't follow my Natural Law and therefore you have to prove he exists!" argument. It doesn't fly. When one of the conditions of belief is specifically Faith then arguing that having Faith isn't "logical" is a weak argument indeed. It is, in point of fact, exactly as weak as saying the opposite.

Logic isn't a material entity. It deals with the metaphysical equally as well as the material.

Because people claim 'faith' doesn't mean that that faith, or the nature of faith itself, isn't open to question.

Stating that an explanation is provided by creating ambigious entities 'outside of our possible understanding' is not even an explanation, it is essentially a statement of agnosticism. It is stating 'I don't know but I feel it must be.'

It is based on pathos.

I do not say their argument is particularly strong, only that yours is equally weak. Particularly when you keep attempting to use the wrong tool for the wrong job.

Stating that logic (which isn't a natural law, it is a metaphysical tool) provides a structure for validating arguments that is stronger than the use of pathos isn't a weak argument.

This is simply because logic provides us with a method of verification, pathos only provides us with the ultimatum that we take someone's word for it or not.

AnyOldIron
08-23-2006, 08:50 AM
Gore isnt talking all athiests hes talking the ones who like to pretend it makes them better than others.

Of course it doesn't. They have the better arguments in the case of religion, that is all....

evince
08-23-2006, 08:56 AM
They have the better arguement as far as provable truth.

AnyOldIron
08-23-2006, 08:57 AM
Excuse me. I meant Supernatural. In every other post I stated Supernatural in one I erred. I can live with that. It doesn't really undermine my argument.

If something exists, then it is natural.

Supernatural is a term used to describe ambigious notions that cannot be substantiated. It is 'the other'.

If a deity existed, it wouldn't be supernatural but natural. It may be a powerful entity but would exist and thus be natural.

Damocles
08-23-2006, 08:58 AM
Stating that logic (which isn't a natural law, it is a metaphysical tool) provides a structure for validating arguments that is stronger than the use of pathos isn't a weak argument.

This is simply because logic provides us with a method of verification, pathos only provides us with the ultimatum that we take someone's word for it or not.

Once again, not taking their word for it isn't something that I am arguing against. I am arguing against the whole "My argument is better because Logos says this..." idea. One argument is not better than the other. Pathos is ill-equipped to give a substantive argument, Logos is ill-equipped to deal with the supernatural. Both arguments are weakened by the fact their positions begin from a weakened foundation.

Attempting to say that because a Supernatural being doesn't fit nicely within the rules you attempt to make it fit is equally weak as saying that because this being cannot be defined within those rules that means you must accept their personal experience. The whole reason to "question their belief" is to get them to see things your way, and you do it from a foundationless argument based in natural law against Faith based in personal experience.

Both arguments are weak, neither especially so.

evince
08-23-2006, 08:59 AM
understood

AnyOldIron
08-23-2006, 08:59 AM
They have the better arguement as far as provable truth.

No such thing as absolute (ie provable) truth.

They just have a better structure to test the arguments...

evince
08-23-2006, 09:02 AM
I think there is provable truth.

I think therefore I am.
Truth is the earth exsists and water exsists and on this earth water behaves in a consistant matter when heated or chilledl

I have skin,blood and flesh.

These are provable truths.

AnyOldIron
08-23-2006, 09:16 AM
I am arguing against the whole "My argument is better because Logos says this..." idea.

I state that my argument is better because it USES logos, not because of what logos states.

Pathos is ill equipped to provide any argument, it creates on obscurum per obscurius argument. It doesn't create clarity, it clouds. It creates ambigious understanding.

To claim that pathos deals with the supernatural is a fallacy, without logos how would we comprehend those notions we deem supernatural?

Attempting to say that because a Supernatural being doesn't fit nicely within the rules you attempt to make it fit is equally weak as saying that because this being cannot be defined within those rules that means you must accept their personal experience.

You are making a huge assumption here. That is that the supernatural exists and thus logos cannot explain it.

If you want to establish the existence of something, which is the more valid...

a. I feel something exists...
b. Something exists and these are the deductions that this statement is based upon...



The whole reason to "question their belief" is to get them to see things your way (obviously), and you do it from a foundationless argument based in natural law against Faith based in personal experience.


Damo, Logic isn't natural law!!!! It deals with the metaphysical AND the physical.

Logic is predominant in mathematics, which is not physical....

Logic is a method by which we judge the quality of arguments. Logos based arguments are arguments based on logical deduction, pathos based arguments appeal only to the emotions....

AnyOldIron
08-23-2006, 09:18 AM
I think there is provable truth.

I think therefore I am.

Cogito ergo sum?

Descartes' fallacy. Cogito ergo cogito, maybe. Cogito ergo sum... nah.. It is non sequiter. It is based on the notion that thought equates to existence....

IHateGovernment
08-23-2006, 09:19 AM
AOI tell your telecom company to hurry the fuck up.

AnyOldIron
08-23-2006, 09:22 AM
Truth is the earth exsists and water exsists and on this earth water behaves in a consistant matter when heated or chilledl

I have skin,blood and flesh.

How do you know that they exist? You only have your senses to go by. We can verify them by asking others to use their senses to confirm this but again this doesn't produce absolute knowledge (ie proof)....

You cannot rule out deception, by your senses, by others, by other's senses....

AnyOldIron
08-23-2006, 09:25 AM
AOI tell your telecom company to hurry the fuck up.

Probably be out until I move house at the beginning of October. Fallen out with the company and am refusing to pay my bill (well for a while anyway)...

I will arrange with my mate to use his connection this weekend... Will U2U you...

uscitizen
08-23-2006, 09:26 AM
Oh the old my entire universe might be someone elses dream and I will go away when they wake up ? Anything is possible, keep an open mind.

Damocles
08-23-2006, 09:33 AM
Damo, Logic isn't natural law!!!! It deals with the metaphysical AND the physical.

Logic is predominant in mathematics, which is not physical....

Logic is a method by which we judge the quality of arguments. Logos based arguments are arguments based on logical deduction, pathos based arguments appeal only to the emotions....

However it is illogical to assume that a Supernatural being is subject to natural law and that is the whole of your argument. Whether or not a Natural being exists is easily proven by pulling out the being and putting it on parade. A Supernatural being that exists "within us all" cannot be proven/disproven using this type of logic.

Logos does not have the tools to argue for or against this type of belief. It is plainly ill-equipped, as equally as Pathos is to argue science.

Your Logos is simply not the tool to argue for or against the Supernatural. Unless one is using devices like the "Ghost Hunters" on the SCI Fi Channel to measure energy... I guess, but then we are looking at natural law.... I'm digressing.

Just saying it doesn't fit neatly into a Logos argument thus your argument has no merit is simply silly when dealing with the Supernatural. Just saying "You can't prove it!" isn't going to change somebody's personal experience. For whatever reason they believe that this Supernatural Being is a certainty, more often than not a personal experience is what brought them to that belief.

Telling people they should ignore their own experience because it doesn't fit within Logos is like telling water in a river to stop running South to North because usually water runs north to south... Totally ineffective.

evince
08-23-2006, 09:36 AM
I am self aware Dreams are NOT self aware

Damocles
08-23-2006, 09:37 AM
I fully support the "your personal experience is not enough to get me to believe" stance. I just laugh at the "your personal experience isn't enough for YOU to believe" stance.

uscitizen
08-23-2006, 09:45 AM
I am self aware Dreams are NOT self aware

I am not as convinced of that as you are Desh.
I am doubtful but however do not completely dismiss the possibility.
I make no claims to understand everything as Dixie does.

evince
08-23-2006, 09:45 AM
There are cases in which a person fully belives something unprovable.

That does not give reality to that in which they believe.

I believe only in things which have fact based proof of exsistance.

I dont believe in fairies just as I dont believe in angels.

I dont believe in the lockness monster and I dont believe in god.

AnyOldIron
08-23-2006, 09:47 AM
However it is illogical to assume that a Supernatural being is subject to natural law and that is the whole of your argument.

Logic is not a natural law, it deals with the metaphysical AND the physical.

This is a classic obscurum per obscurius argument used by the religious.

"God exists outside in a plane outside of our possible understanding"

Logos dictates the reply to this to be..

"If it is outside of our possible understanding then how do you know of it's existence?"

Just saying "You can't prove it!" isn't going to change somebody's personal experience.

Strawman warning. I haven't said 'you can't prove it' as evidence of the non-existence of the transcendental. The religious use the argument 'you can't prove me wrong' to substantiate their claims, and I believe, you have used a similar argument here today.

I have said that the arguments used are weak, that they are unsubstantiated and unverified because they are based on pathos. They are weak because they claim understanding of the existence of the transcendental and yet claim the transcendental is in the emotional plane that cannot be substantiated or comprehended.

Telling people they should ignore their own experience because it doesn't fit within Logos is like telling water in a river to stop running South to North because usually water runs north to south... Totally ineffective.

Again, strawman... I haven't informed people to ignore their experience, but to question it, to hold the assumptions they make under scrutiny, rather than merely accept them for pathos reasons...

I have asked them to explain the logical gaps and fallacies in their arguments, to question the origins of the knowledge that caused such emotions, to provide substantiation other than obscurum per obscurius arguments that create nothing but ambiguity.

evince
08-23-2006, 09:48 AM
I dont believe Im a dream because their is no prooveable evidence Im a dream.

If one day someone brings me proof Ill believe Im a dream.

If someday someone brings me proof Ill believe in god.

If someday someone brings me proof Ill believe in the lockness monster.

AnyOldIron
08-23-2006, 09:49 AM
I fully support the "your personal experience is not enough to get me to believe" stance. I just laugh at the "your personal experience isn't enough for YOU to believe" stance.

The slightest thing is enough for people to believe in the transcendental.

My argument is that mere belief isn't enough...

Damocles
08-23-2006, 09:51 AM
I dont believe Im a dream because their is no prooveable evidence Im a dream.

If one day someone brings me proof Ill believe Im a dream.

If someday someone brings me proof Ill believe in god.

If someday someone brings me proof Ill believe in the lockness monster.
If someday somebody proves your existence, I'll believe with a certainty that you exist.

Damocles
08-23-2006, 09:52 AM
I fully support the "your personal experience is not enough to get me to believe" stance. I just laugh at the "your personal experience isn't enough for YOU to believe" stance.

The slightest thing is enough for people to believe in the transcendental.

My argument is that mere belief isn't enough...
LOL. Like I said, I laugh at the "Your personal experience isn't enough for YOU to believe!" argument. They decide what is enough for them, not you. And their personal experience, had it happened to you, might have caused even you to believe, you may never know...

uscitizen
08-23-2006, 09:59 AM
Our entire known universe might be as a molecule to the larger scheme of things :)

Damocles
08-23-2006, 10:00 AM
Our entire known universe might be as a molecule to the larger scheme of things :)
Ever read the Gunslinger series by Stephen King?

evince
08-23-2006, 10:00 AM
But I still exsist in that realm

uscitizen
08-23-2006, 10:21 AM
Ever read the Gunslinger series by Stephen King?

Nope, I came up with that before King started writing.

I don't care much for Kings works. not read any of them, tried a couple but folded them up. I did watch one movie of his though, where the pacman type of creatures were weting up time, airplanes and such.

uscitizen
08-23-2006, 10:23 AM
Yes, desh we all exist or at least think we do, which amounts to the same thing.

AnyOldIron
08-24-2006, 04:33 AM
LOL. Like I said, I laugh at the "Your personal experience isn't enough for YOU to believe!" argument. They decide what is enough for them, not you.

They can believe whatever they like, that the world is supported by turtles for all I care.

But when they insist that their beliefs are reality, or put them into the realm of philosophical debate, simply believing something is not enough.

Also beliefs aren't necessarily an experience. Psychosomatic symptoms attributed as 'actions of the supernatural'....

AnyOldIron
08-24-2006, 04:51 AM
And their personal experience, had it happened to you, might have caused even you to believe, you may never know...

I am unlikely to attribute psychosomatic emotions to be the work of some transcendental entity on the basis of the emotions alone.

This would be what I call 'attribution syndrome' and is an ancient affliction amongst humanity.

Man has constantly attributed that that is complex or difficult to understand to the work of the transcendental. From the actions of the seas in ancient Greek times to the mechanisms of the mind and origins of life today.

Attribution is simpler than attempting to work out such complex things.

AnyOldIron
08-24-2006, 04:57 AM
If someday somebody proves your existence, I'll believe with a certainty that you exist.

How would anyone prove her existence?

Nothing is proved. Not even gravity. I could drop a ball a thousand times and its mass be attracted to the mass of the Earth and this would be pretty convincing but I will never know what happens the next time.

A million people could agree that she exists, but we never will know if they are lying or being decieved etc etc

At the base of all deductive reason is induction....

Hume did a lot of good work on this subject....

AnyOldIron
08-24-2006, 05:02 AM
Yes, desh we all exist or at least think we do, which amounts to the same thing.

Cogito ergo sum again....

Very dodgy philosophising by Descartes. Works from the premise that that that thinks, exists.

Cogito ergo cogito is more realistic.

Not a massive fan of Descartes, his mind/body dualism still permeates modern thinking like a bad stench.....

Damocles
08-24-2006, 06:07 AM
If someday somebody proves your existence, I'll believe with a certainty that you exist.

How would anyone prove her existence?

Nothing is proved. Not even gravity. I could drop a ball a thousand times and its mass be attracted to the mass of the Earth and this would be pretty convincing but I will never know what happens the next time.

A million people could agree that she exists, but we never will know if they are lying or being decieved etc etc

At the base of all deductive reason is induction....

Hume did a lot of good work on this subject....
That was my point, AOI. She's been up talking about proving one thing or another...

Damocles
08-24-2006, 06:08 AM
LOL. Like I said, I laugh at the "Your personal experience isn't enough for YOU to believe!" argument. They decide what is enough for them, not you.

They can believe whatever they like, that the world is supported by turtles for all I care.

But when they insist that their beliefs are reality, or put them into the realm of philosophical debate, simply believing something is not enough.

Also beliefs aren't necessarily an experience. Psychosomatic symptoms attributed as 'actions of the supernatural'....
Once again you set your limits on others. Their beliefs are enough for them. They are not enough for you. This doesn't mean that they are wrong and that you are right, especially in a realm where evidence is a rarity in either direction.

AnyOldIron
08-24-2006, 06:37 AM
#89 Today, 08:08 AM
Damocles
WTF??? Join Date: Jul 2006
Userid: 2
Location: Colorado
My location
Posts: 1,389



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Originally Posted by AnyOldIron
LOL. Like I said, I laugh at the "Your personal experience isn't enough for YOU to believe!" argument. They decide what is enough for them, not you.

They can believe whatever they like, that the world is supported by turtles for all I care.

But when they insist that their beliefs are reality, or put them into the realm of philosophical debate, simply believing something is not enough.

Also beliefs aren't necessarily an experience. Psychosomatic symptoms attributed as 'actions of the supernatural'....

Once again you set your limits on others. Their beliefs are enough for them. They are not enough for you. This doesn't mean that they are wrong and that you are right, especially in a realm where evidence is a rarity in either direction.

It is enough for them (though IMO that is a cop-out...intellectual laziness)

But if they wish to claim some element of reality in their assertions, if they enter in philosophical debate, simply giving an emotional feeling does suffice...

Damocles
08-24-2006, 06:44 AM
It is enough for them (though IMO that is a cop-out...intellectual laziness)


And they would believe that not listening to your Pathos at all is a cop-out... They view the world differently than do you.



But if they wish to claim some element of reality in their assertions, if they enter in philosophical debate, simply giving an emotional feeling does suffice...
Does? Asserting personal experience in a statement of belief is a simple statement. The whole is it enough argument is baseless. It has already been shown that "enough" is subjective as well as ill defined. Pretending that Logos explains away such a creature is equally subjective and based in fallacy.

AnyOldIron
08-24-2006, 07:20 AM
And they would believe that not listening to your Pathos at all is a cop-out... They view the world differently than do you.

Stating that something is intellectual laziness isn't pathos, it bears no emotional content, nor does it appeal to the emotions.

Does? Asserting personal experience in a statement of belief is a simple statement. The whole is it enough argument is baseless. It has already been shown that "enough" is subjective as well as ill defined. Pretending that Logos explains away such a creature is equally subjective and based in fallacy.

'Enough'?

If someone enters a philosophical debate with an assertion, and then backs that up with little more than 'I feel it is so', then that is a considerably weaker argument than one backed up with deduction.

Logic isn't a physical or material construct, it deals with the metaphysical as well as it deals with the physical.

Simply stating 'I don't need to support my argument, I simply feel it is true!' doesn't suffice.

Even discussions on the transcendental (part of the metaphysical) can be tested by logic.

Stating that the transcendental is beyond our comprehension'is a cop-out, if it was beyond our comprehension how would it's advocates know about it?

Damocles
08-24-2006, 07:38 AM
And they would believe that not listening to your Pathos at all is a cop-out... They view the world differently than do you.

Stating that something is intellectual laziness isn't pathos, it bears no emotional content, nor does it appeal to the emotions.


I didn't say that your statement was pathos, I said that they would think less of you for ignoring Pathos because they view the world differently than do you.



Does? Asserting personal experience in a statement of belief is a simple statement. The whole is it enough argument is baseless. It has already been shown that "enough" is subjective as well as ill defined. Pretending that Logos explains away such a creature is equally subjective and based in fallacy.

'Enough'?

If someone enters a philosophical debate with an assertion, and then backs that up with little more than 'I feel it is so', then that is a considerably weaker argument than one backed up with deduction.


Unless specifically speaking on a particularly subjective subject such as a Supernatural being. Logos and Pathos have equal stance in such a discussion as you are speaking of the "magical" or that which is beyond Logic and Natural Law... It is ridiculous to deny that such a being could not fit within such strictures and attempt to take a stance that your view is "better" than another on such a subject. You give personal weight to one or the other, but to dismiss what they say as "less" than what you say is baseless and logical fallacy.




Logic isn't a physical or material construct, it deals with the metaphysical as well as it deals with the physical.


Except when the subject does not follow the rules of either... The subject is a Supernatural being that can do what they will without regard to the stricture of logic. It is simplistic to attempt to make them fit within your required framework.... That is the whole of it, each side of that coin is equally subjective and has an equal bearing on "proof" of a subject that specifically can never be proven or even substantiated other than on a personal level. One can choose to believe or not, for whatever reasons they have. Stating that one is "better" than the other because you are more comfortable with it doesn't make it so.



Simply stating 'I don't need to support my argument, I simply feel it is true!' doesn't suffice.


Nor does saying, "I can't support the existence of something, therefore it doesn't"....



Even discussions on the transcendental (part of the metaphysical) can be tested by logic.


Which is what we are doing here. Testing the "magical" though is singularly foolish. Is it logical a Supernatural being of unlimited power could hide from you and want you to believe in it on Faith alone? Of course it is. Stating that their belief isn't "enough" in a discussion where the being can be defines specifically by that belief is logical fallacy.




Stating that the transcendental is beyond our comprehension'is a cop-out, if it was beyond our comprehension how would it's advocates know about it?

Stating that it could not be beyond our comprehension is a cop-out. It is a weakness in your argument. Attempting to say that it must fit within a framework you are comfortable with, that you can hold, is simply logical fallacy when the Being you discuss can actually be defined by the statements you wish to dismiss.

AnyOldIron
08-24-2006, 08:26 AM
I didn't say that your statement was pathos, I said that they would think less of you for ignoring Pathos because they view the world differently than do you.

That they think less of me is irrelevant.

What is is that pathos and emotions have demonstrated themselves poor and misleading throughout the history of epistemology. It is also unverifiable.

Unless specifically speaking on a particularly subjective subject such as a Supernatural being. Logos and Pathos have equal stance in such a discussion as you are speaking of the "magical" or that which is beyond Logic and Natural Law... It is ridiculous to deny that such a being could not fit within such strictures and attempt to take a stance that your view is "better" than another on such a subject. You give personal weight to one or the other, but to dismiss what they say as "less" than what you say is baseless and logical fallacy.

Nothing is beyond logic, as I stated logic can deal with the metaphysical as well as it does the physical.

Logic and pathos don't have equal stances. If someone is claiming something is reality it isn't a valid argument to base that simply on an emotional feeling.

That isn't saying that the possibility isn't there or that it negates the existence, just that the argument they are using is unsubstantiated and weak.

My initial argument was that, with many who claim that the transcendental exists, when you Socratically boil their arguments down, they are based on nothing more substantial than an emotional feeling.

If someone said to you that they believed that characters on TV were actually little people inside the TV box, the first question you would ask is 'Why do you think that'. If they substantiate that claim, then it is strong. It doesn't mean they are absolutely right, but that their argument is strong. If they simply say that that is what they feel, then their argument is weak. This doesn't negate the possibility that it is true, but that their argument is weak.

Except when the subject does not follow the rules of either... The subject is a Supernatural being that can do what they will without regard to the stricture of logic. It is simplistic to attempt to make them fit within your required framework.... That is the whole of it, each side of that coin is equally subjective and has an equal bearing on "proof" of a subject that specifically can never be proven or even substantiated other than on a personal level. One can choose to believe or not, for whatever reasons they have. Stating that one is "better" than the other because you are more comfortable with it doesn't make it so.

This is a different argument. The argument that an entity (that we claim knowledge of) is beyond human comprehension is weak because it leads to the question 'If we claim to have knowledge of that that is unknowable...how do we have the knowledge?'

Stating that it could not be beyond our comprehension is a cop-out. It is a weakness in your argument. Attempting to say that it must fit within a framework you are comfortable with, that you can hold, is simply logical fallacy when the Being you discuss can actually be defined by the statements you wish to dismiss.

See my above....

Damocles
08-24-2006, 08:44 AM
This is a different argument. The argument that an entity (that we claim knowledge of) is beyond human comprehension is weak because it leads to the question 'If we claim to have knowledge of that that is unknowable...how do we have the knowledge?'

See my above....

Not it isn't, it is the argument I have been making from the jump here...

First, we do not claim knowledge of this entity. The idea is presented, "Could this Entity exist? And if it did what are the limitations?"

There is no claim of knowledge, this is a discussion of possibility not of certainty.

AnyOldIron
08-24-2006, 08:50 AM
There is no claim of knowledge, this is a discussion of possibility not of certainty.

If there is discussion of possibility then we have some knowledge of the entity.

If the entity is unknowable, how did the notion come into human knowledge?

Damocles
08-24-2006, 08:54 AM
There is no claim of knowledge, this is a discussion of possibility not of certainty.

If there is discussion of possibility then we have some knowledge of the entity.

If the entity is unknowable, how did the notion come into human knowledge?
Rubbish. There is no "knowledge" when speaking of something on only the level of possibility.

We ask questions, "Could it be possible if...?" then answer the question. "IF this Entity had this then..." None of that claims knowledge, all it ever claims is possibility.

The notion comes into human interest because of curiosity.

Now, when speaking of specific ones, you still work inside the realm of possibility...

Such as...

Damocles
08-24-2006, 08:57 AM
Such as:

1. If God were All Powerful (Omnipotent) and Omniscient as it states in this text here... Would it be possible for him to spend 7 days but make it seem like billions of years in the creation of this place?

Or other questions of such. The limit is imagination, not of knowledge.

Damocles
08-24-2006, 08:59 AM
The idea that because we can discuss the possibility of a thing means we have "knowledge" of it is not a logical assertion.

We may discuss such things as the Great Green Arkleseizure who created the Universe by a sneeze and whether we should fear the Coming of the Handkerchief... But that doesn't mean we have "knowledge" of such.

AnyOldIron
08-24-2006, 09:28 AM
Rubbish. There is no "knowledge" when speaking of something on only the level of possibility.

Of course there is. There has to be points of reference.

People talk about deities being 'unknowable', yet we have knowledge of them...

We ask questions, "Could it be possible if...?" then answer the question. "IF this Entity had this then..." None of that claims knowledge, all it ever claims is possibility.

But we must have points of reference. If a deity, for example, is outside the sphere of human understanding or perception....where did the knowledge of the diety come from?

In most cases, it is nothing more than anthropomorphic attribution of natural phenomenon......


The notion comes into human interest because of curiosity.

But you must have points of reference to be curious of...

Now, when speaking of specific ones, you still work inside the realm of possibility...

Such as...

1. If God were All Powerful (Omnipotent) and Omniscient as it states in this text here... Would it be possible for him to spend 7 days but make it seem like billions of years in the creation of this place?

Or other questions of such. The limit is imagination, not of knowledge.

Aprioiri metaphysics. We could sit and discuss how many angels can dance on the head of the pin, but that is irrelevant.

What we are discussing is.. If something that we claim to have knowledge of (god/angels etc) is unknowable by human capabilities the question still stands... how did we obtain that knowledge?

We may discuss such things as the Great Green Arkleseizure who created the Universe by a sneeze and whether we should fear the Coming of the Handkerchief... But that doesn't mean we have "knowledge" of such.

Our knowledge of these things holds that they are fictional, that they are creations reflecting the human imagination. The characters are reflections of ourselves...anthropomorphising...

Are you claiming that this transposes to the transcendental, that the transcendental is a figment of the human imagination, mere anthropomorphising? If so, I agree.

But to claim that something actually exists, to then claim that that entity is beyond all human reference, the question lies... what makes you think it exists. If it is beyond all human reference how does the believer know?

Damocles
08-24-2006, 09:44 AM
Rubbish. There is no "knowledge" when speaking of something on only the level of possibility.

Of course there is. There has to be points of reference.

People talk about deities being 'unknowable', yet we have knowledge of them...

We ask questions, "Could it be possible if...?" then answer the question. "IF this Entity had this then..." None of that claims knowledge, all it ever claims is possibility.

But we must have points of reference. If a deity, for example, is outside the sphere of human understanding or perception....where did the knowledge of the diety come from?


From the imagination.... I can discuss what I imagine with asserting knowledge of it. I don't "know" that this Entity exists, just that I can discuss it based on what questions I can ask without such knowledge.

I can ask questions and begin logical conversations based solely on what posssibilities I can imagine.

I think what your problem is, you are still stuck in the whole Bible says so, therefore I have knowledge stuff. I am speaking far more of possibility than of Biblical reference... I have been from the beginning. One can believe in something and still discuss it at such a level. In fact it is the only level where Logos and such an Entity can meet.

The whole idea of "knowledge" when your assertion that you can prove nothing is ridiculous to begin with. One can never know ANYTHING if nothing can be proven to a certainty.... You assert knowledge where none exists because you want to redefine something to fit within a framework of your construction, not that of the conversation.



In most cases, it is nothing more than anthropomorphic attribution of natural phenomenon......


The notion comes into human interest because of curiosity.

But you must have points of reference to be curious of...


No, you don't. What if there realy is a Great Green Arkleseizure... doesn't need to have any point of reference other than the Universe exists and even that is debatable.




Now, when speaking of specific ones, you still work inside the realm of possibility...

Such as...

1. If God were All Powerful (Omnipotent) and Omniscient as it states in this text here... Would it be possible for him to spend 7 days but make it seem like billions of years in the creation of this place?

Or other questions of such. The limit is imagination, not of knowledge.

Aprioiri metaphysics. We could sit and discuss how many angels can dance on the head of the pin, but that is irrelevant.


No, it is not. During the discussion one would define what an angel is, what their size is, what powers they have, etc. One doesn't even have to have pre-knowledge of the creature to have such a discussion.



What we are discussing is.. If something that we claim to have knowledge of (god/angels etc) is unknowable by human capabilities the question still stands... how did we obtain that knowledge?


By being given it. But that is not what I have been discussing. I have been discussing how such an Entity could fit within the specific framework you try to force it in. Something like this, if it exists, could by definition easily define itself outside your pre-framed argument. That is the point I have been making.

I can discuss within Logos nearly anything that I can imagine. To say that what I can imagine must fit within your own prejudged group of set principles is patently ridiculous.




We may discuss such things as the Great Green Arkleseizure who created the Universe by a sneeze and whether we should fear the Coming of the Handkerchief... But that doesn't mean we have "knowledge" of such.

Our knowledge of these things holds that they are fictional that they are creations reflecting the human imagination. The characters are reflections of ourselves...anthropomorphising...


No, they are a discussion of possibility. We can also discuss a God who cares nothing for its "creation", doesn't need nor want worship, and that we can't even define the emotions of... All without pre-knowledge.



Are you claiming that this transposes to the transcendental, that the transcendental is a figment of the human imagination, mere anthropomorphising? If so, I agree.


No, I am stating that such arguments cannot find actual knowledge. To be able to say that they are "merely anthropomorphizing" is making a certainty from what cannot be known. It makes a positive statement you have no evidence of. Prove to me that they are merely anthropomorphizing... It is your assertion, back it up. Merely stating that their argument isn't within a certain framework doesn't prove what they state isn't truth and therefore not "anthropmorphizing"...




But to claim that something actually exists, to then claim that that entity is beyond all human reference, the question lies... what makes you think it exists. If it is beyond all human reference how does the believer know?

I haven't made any such assertions, only that such an argument has exactly the same merit as saying "They are all anthropomorphizing" and has exactly the same amount of evidence to back it up. None.

AnyOldIron
08-24-2006, 09:48 AM
Damo, I have to go home in the next ten minutes and this is too long for me to reply to in that time.

Shall we rejoin the fight tomorrow?

Damocles
08-24-2006, 09:49 AM
If it is still interesting... :D

Yeah, I'll be here.

uscitizen
08-24-2006, 10:07 AM
We may discuss such things as the Great Green Arkleseizure who created the Universe by a sneeze and whether we should fear the Coming of the Handkerchief... But that doesn't mean we have "knowledge" of such.
//

Hmm, the groundwork for a new religion, maybe I can get tax exempt status :)
This will be all written down by the prophet snork, while on a pilgrimage to Vegas, his hand guided by the Great Green Arkleseizure. hmm possibilities.....

AnyOldIron
08-25-2006, 03:14 AM
There seems to be two arguments here...

1. Is pathos weaker than logos in debate?

&

2. Is it possible for an entity to exist outside our sphere of reference?

In answer to part one:

The sheer fact that pathos-based argument is entirely unverifiable demonstrates that it is significantly weaker than logos.

There are no areas that pathos deals with better than logos. Pathos doesn't deal with the metaphysical (of which the transcendental is part) any better than the physical. Emotions are misleading and complicated, and our poor knowledge of their workings often results in us attributing to them things other than what they are.

In answer to part two:

Yes, of course it is possible for an entity to exist outside our sphere of reference. But if a notion is within our knowledge (such as the concept of the transcendental) you have to ask how that arrived there, when you consider that the subject of that notion is beyond our comprehension. You have to question the source of the knowledge.

You have to ask if the knowledge is derived from that that you mentioned... the imagination.
A prioiri knowledge. Knowledge derived from a posteriori knowledge, but then transformed into a prioiri by the imagination, creating the concepts of the 'unknowable'. You have to ask if we are anthropomorphising. Are we creating a realm in our imagination transposing humanesque qualities to phenomenon that is difficult to understand? Are we creating a realm from our own points of reference? It is not for no reason that most concepts of transcendental forces are exaggerated human forms or variations of human 'essence'.

How can so many people share the same concept, derived from imagination? The same way any information is transmitted through culture - memetics.

As I said, this phenomenon doesn't negate there being entities outside our sphere of reference, but if we have knowledge that contains notions of things outside our possible comprehension you cannot just accept that knowledge on face-value. You have to question their origins.

AnyOldIron
08-25-2006, 03:18 AM
But you must have points of reference to be curious of...

No, you don't. What if there realy is a Great Green Arkleseizure... doesn't need to have any point of reference other than the Universe exists and even that is debatable.

Even the Great Green Arkleseizure has points of reference from which Adam's imagination derives it from. The imagination cannot operate in isolation, without reference to external stimuli.

The GGA is anthropomorphisation. The notion of a sneeze from it's nose identifies it as such....

Brent
08-25-2006, 03:31 AM
I admire and support true christians, those who follow the lifestyle taught by Christ.

Hmm, I think not. Christ, for example, condemned fornication; yet you claim I am insane because I wish to save intimacy for marriage. Christ also commanded repentence. If you honestly admire this lifestyle, then I suggest you repent now and follow it. Jesus Christ atoned for your sins and rose from the grave so that you can have a personal relationship with God, just as Adam did, and so that you can have eternal life. The life of Christ is not over, nor will it ever end; Christ LIVES and He can live in YOU if you welcome Him into your life. :)

AnyOldIron
08-25-2006, 05:23 AM
Brent, are you aware that Jesus was a moral relativist?

'Do unto others' is an example of this, demonstrating Jesus' understanding of transference of perception, seeing the world through others eyes.

AnyOldIron
08-25-2006, 05:24 AM
Christ LIVES and He can live in YOU if you welcome Him into your life.

He died 2000 years ago, executed for his radical teachings.

He isn't Elvis you know.....

Damocles
08-25-2006, 06:10 AM
Christ LIVES and He can live in YOU if you welcome Him into your life.

He died 2000 years ago, executed for his radical teachings.

He isn't Elvis you know.....
Ah, but there are eyewitnesses to his return from that grave. Much like Elvis.

Damocles
08-25-2006, 06:14 AM
But you must have points of reference to be curious of...

No, you don't. What if there realy is a Great Green Arkleseizure... doesn't need to have any point of reference other than the Universe exists and even that is debatable.

Even the Great Green Arkleseizure has points of reference from which Adam's imagination derives it from. The imagination cannot operate in isolation, without reference to external stimuli.

The GGA is anthropomorphisation. The notion of a sneeze from it's nose identifies it as such....


Once again, just because this is anthropomorphizing doesn't mean that the only reference for such an Entity is. There are different expressed theories in both philosophy (God's Debris) and fiction (The Gunslinger Series) that have no anthropmorphizing...

The notion of a sneeze was only to bring in the handkercheif... Should we fear it?

Imagination can come up with more than hust humanlike Entities, your self-imposed limitation notwithstanding. And all one needs to discuss it with another is language, something that each and every culture has a piece of. This idea that it is "knowledge" is rubbish. It is speculation.

AnyOldIron
08-25-2006, 06:14 AM
Ah, but there are eyewitnesses to his return from that grave. Much like Elvis.

Ha! Ha! Exactly....

AnyOldIron
08-25-2006, 06:29 AM
Once again, just because this is anthropomorphizing doesn't mean that the only reference for such an Entity is. There are different expressed theories in both philosophy (God's Debris) and fiction (The Gunslinger Series) that have no anthropmorphizing...

The notion of a sneeze was only to bring in the handkercheif... Should we fear it?

If something is created in the imagination then its entire references come from human experience. Imagination cannot operate in isolation.

If we claim that something is beyond human observation, such as we do with the transcendental, and yet we can imagine the notion, then it must comes from some reference. If there is a reference then the entity can't be then beyond human observation.

If it isn't beyond human observation we can test the notion....

Damocles
08-25-2006, 06:34 AM
We can imagine things that are beyond our test reference. Point being, we can imagine things that are beyond any testable references. This idea that because we can imagine it, it can be tested is ridiculous. A preposterous notion related to an insistence that speaking of an entity that is specifically defined beyond those parameters in terms of those parameters is "logical". It is rubbish. It specifically takes a defined idea outside its own definition and attempts to fit that square peg into a round hole. The idea that such a notion MUST fit here is where you get into fallacy. We can speculate about such an entity, but fitting it into a framework such as that is simply beyond the very definition given to the Entity.

Saying, "It's not good enough to say that it doesn't fit!" when part of the very definition of the thing is that it doesn't fit is FALLACY...

AnyOldIron
08-25-2006, 06:46 AM
We can imagine things that are beyond our test reference.

How? All imagination takes references from experience. No imagining is done in isolation. The culmination of the imaginings may be something that doesn't exist (a priori knowledge) but it originated from contributory references from experience (a posteriori knowledge).

For example, Jabba the Hutt is an entity that doesn't exist outside of imagination, but it took it's references from experience. They might have been anthropomorphised slugs (ie slug with humanesque characteristics).

If we can imagine something, even something that doesn't exist, it's references must come from experience.

For example the notion of the Abrahamic god. It may be an original creation from the imagination but its contributory references (ME despot etc) exist in reality.

Damocles
08-25-2006, 06:49 AM
Imagining something that we cannot test only takes a tiny step of the mind.

"Is it possible that such an Entity could be beyond our test measures?"

"Well, yes, Bob, it is!"

"Well then how do we test for it?"

"Well, Bob, It would be beyond our test reference so we couldn't..."

"Um, well I INSIST it must be in our test reference!"

"Um, well part of the definition is that it is OUTSIDE that reference! I can't just make that go away!"

"You have to!"

Which of these people are simply outside of LOGOS?

AnyOldIron
08-25-2006, 06:54 AM
"Is it possible that such an Entity could be beyond our test measures?"

The entity might be an original entity that doesn't exist and cannot be tested in itself, but no imagination is done in isolation and so the contributory references from a posteriori knowledge exist and are testable.

You can imagine a creation of your own, but the references you use to create this imagination exist...

Damocles
08-25-2006, 06:56 AM
Right, I can reference the fact that something could exist outside the framework of "knowledge" insisting that it fit within that framework afterward would be a fallacy. The same fallacy you have been wallowing in throughout... The one that takes the Entity outside of its very definition in an attempt to logic it away magically.

AnyOldIron
08-25-2006, 07:16 AM
Right, I can reference the fact that something could exist outside the framework of "knowledge" insisting that it fit within that framework afterward would be a fallacy. The same fallacy you have been wallowing in throughout... The one that takes the Entity outside of its very definition in an attempt to logic it away magically.

Not at all. It is the nature of imagination.

You can create an entity in the imagination, an entirely new entity that doesn't exist.

The non-existence of this entity ensures it cannot be tested.

But no entity created in the imagination comes from nothing, not imagination is done in isolation.

All entities created in the imagination are derived from sources.

These sources that contribute to the creation of the non-existent entity being imagined come from experience, a posteriori knowledge.

All a posteriori knowledge is based on entities that do exist.

If the contributary factors to the non-existent imagined entity exist, the contributory factors can be tested.

That isn't attempting to fit an imagined non-existent entity into some 'framework', it isn't magicking it away???

It is explaining the testable origins of imagined non-existent entities....

Damocles
08-25-2006, 07:21 AM
That doesn't mean that such an Entity would be associated to anthropmorhizing... Once can imagine the Entity to be outside our reference on that level too.

"What would it look like?"

"Well, anything it wanted to."

"Would it want?"

"I don't know, it is outside our ken..."

"Hey wait! That would mean we aren't referencing it to anything and that is impossible!"

"No, it isn't we are talking about it right now."

"Yes it is, because everything we can imagine must have come from something we have seen."

"Well, this didn't..."

The conversation would be impossible if what you suggest is true. Things we imagine are not always associated to things that ARE... That is total rubbish and a false limitation on the mind.

uscitizen
08-25-2006, 07:27 AM
Hmm, I think not. Christ, for example, condemned fornication; yet you claim I am insane because I wish to save intimacy for marriage. Christ also commanded repentence. If you honestly admire this lifestyle, then I suggest you repent now and follow it. Jesus Christ atoned for your sins and rose from the grave so that you can have a personal relationship with God, just as Adam did, and so that you can have eternal life. The life of Christ is not over, nor will it ever end; Christ LIVES and He can live in YOU if you welcome Him into your life. :)
Perhaops Brent , perhaps.
Paul wrote most of what jesus "said". And a lot of words attributed to Jesus were not spoken by him according to biblical scholors.
Why did not jesus turn away the tainted lady and such people as her.
Try to learn and be a true Christian Brent. Not one of the lawfollowers that poul spoke against in ephesians and other places.

uscitizen
08-25-2006, 07:32 AM
Brent fyi I voted on your other thread that Jesus was a wise teacher, that is what I believe he was. He taught people a discount way to heaven, bypassing the temple, which sort of got him executed.
But his biggest achievemnet in my opinion was teaching peaceful loving ways of life in a very violent world. He was a bleeding heart liberal :)

AnyOldIron
08-25-2006, 07:45 AM
That doesn't mean that such an Entity would be associated to anthropmorhizing... Once can imagine the Entity to be outside our reference on that level too.

You are claiming that we can imagine an entity without contributory references? How?

"What would it look like?"

"Well, anything it wanted to."


Whatever the person decided it looks like, it's description would take its references from existence.

Try to imagine something that isn't derived from external sources...

Damocles
08-25-2006, 07:53 AM
That doesn't mean that such an Entity would be associated to anthropmorhizing... Once can imagine the Entity to be outside our reference on that level too.

You are claiming that we can imagine an entity without contributory references? How?

"What would it look like?"

"Well, anything it wanted to."


Whatever the person decided it looks like, it's description would take its references from existence.

Try to imagine something that isn't derived from external sources...
Then you could only imagine yourself. However imagining what isn't is what brings progress. To say that we cannot imagine something that has no external reference plays false in a world where new things are created consistently that have never been.

We can play this game forever... If the Entity was beyond our ken the conversation begins to fail in Logos...

"Does it want?" - Bob

"How would we know?" - Fred

"Well, does it need our worship?" - Bob

"There is no way for us to know, we can't understand the motivation of such an entity." - Fred

"Um,... does it <insert another question here>..." - Bob

"<give same answer here>" - Fred

Hence my assertion from the beginning that a being specifically defined beyond our ken cannot properly be discussed using such reference. You insist that it MUST fit within this because if we can imagine it then we "know" something about it. I cry FALLACY...

The conversation fails because such an Entity is defined outside the paramaters of the tool you wish to use for the discussion, it isn't the failure of the Entity it is the failure of the tool. It was not made for this type of discussion.

AnyOldIron
08-25-2006, 08:03 AM
Then you could only imagine yourself.

??? What??? I can imagine a carrot with George Bush's face.

I am neither a carrot nor George Bush.

The carrot with Bush's face is a new entity that I imagined, but it's references...carrot and George Bush exist.

I couldn't however, imagine a new entity without external references.

Damocles
08-25-2006, 08:09 AM
Right, but that is outside of yourself. You stated we could only imagine things that are internal... I'm digressing. That particular part was a joke...

You can imagine a character that cannot be seen, even one that cannot fit within our understanding and therefore if seen is changed to a reference that we can understand by our limited minds... ( I know people can imagine these things, because I can..) You can imagine many things that are not within your scope of experience. It is a false limitation on the mind to insist that we cannot imagine something that is a step beyond what we understand or know.

AnyOldIron
08-25-2006, 08:18 AM
Right, but that is outside of yourself. You stated we could only imagine things that are internal...

When? I've always stated that you can only imagine from external sources...

You can imagine a character that cannot be seen, even one that cannot fit within our understanding and therefore if seen is changed to a reference that we can understand by our limited minds... ( I know people can imagine these things, because I can..) You can imagine many things that are not within your scope of experience. It is a false limitation on the mind to insist that we cannot imagine something that is a step beyond what we understand or know.

You can imagine an entity beyond our experience (the Bush-Carrot) but you cannot do that without contributory references (Bush and the carrot)...

Damocles
08-25-2006, 08:31 AM
Right, but that is outside of yourself. You stated we could only imagine things that are internal...

When? I've always stated that you can only imagine from external sources...

You can imagine a character that cannot be seen, even one that cannot fit within our understanding and therefore if seen is changed to a reference that we can understand by our limited minds... ( I know people can imagine these things, because I can..) You can imagine many things that are not within your scope of experience. It is a false limitation on the mind to insist that we cannot imagine something that is a step beyond what we understand or know.

You can imagine an entity beyond our experience (the Bush-Carrot) but you cannot do that without contributory references (Bush and the carrot)...
Once again, I could then not state that this Entity was outside our understanding and thus couldn't fit in the framework of our understanding if such were true. You place an artificial limitation on imagination that has been proven in this very thread to be incorrect.

I have no experience with an invisible entity yet can imagine it. I have no experience with an entity that cannot fit in the framework of my understanding so that upon viewing it my own limitations would change its "appearance" into something translatable to my limited mind... Yet I can imagine such a thing. Would I know what it looked like? Of course not.

This artificial limitation is only placed on the imagination because you need it in order to fit an Entity that is defined outside that reference into such a box. It doesn't really exist except in your insistence so that you can use a tool that doesn't fit for a job it is ill-equipped to handle.

This particular Entity cannot fit nicely where you want it so you deny that I can even imagine it.

uscitizen
08-25-2006, 08:38 AM
Good Stuff Damo and Any. I would like to ask how can I imagine what I cannot imagine. I seem to need reference points to to derive my imagination from. But then there is the odd spark of inspiration ? that can generate a new possibility. Is that just a derivitive of other things that I have known or imagined from what I know ?

Damocles
08-25-2006, 08:52 AM
Any, we should have done this in the Battle Zone...

AnyOldIron
08-25-2006, 08:58 AM
I am leaving the office early today (in fact now) as it is bank holiday on monday and I have loads to do about the house....(ie hiding from the missus and getting stoned)

We'll continue this on Tuesday Damo...

Could you move this thread into the battlezone with your magic administrator powers?

AnyOldIron
08-25-2006, 09:00 AM
I seem to need reference points to to derive my imagination from. But then there is the odd spark of inspiration ? that can generate a new possibility. Is that just a derivitive of other things that I have known or imagined from what I know ?

Inspiration is the creative linking of the reference points in a new manner.

You cannot imagine anything new without reference points in reality.

See my Bush-carrot analogy....

Damocles
08-25-2006, 09:04 AM
I seem to need reference points to to derive my imagination from. But then there is the odd spark of inspiration ? that can generate a new possibility. Is that just a derivitive of other things that I have known or imagined from what I know ?

Inspiration is the creative linking of the reference points in a new manner.

You cannot imagine anything new without reference points in reality.

See my Bush-carrot analogy....
I can see my Entity beyond our knowledge or understanding analogy... You know the one where I stated, If I saw it, my own limitations would change it to fit it in my own framework? Or even the invisible entity or one that pervades all things... Each of these are outside external reference and easily imagined by the creative mind.

Damocles
08-25-2006, 09:12 AM
I am leaving the office early today (in fact now) as it is bank holiday on monday and I have loads to do about the house....(ie hiding from the missus and getting stoned)

We'll continue this on Tuesday Damo...

Could you move this thread into the battlezone with your magic administrator powers?

I'll see what I can do. I might Create a new one then merge this one in...

Damocles
08-27-2006, 10:57 AM
There, AOI... Per your request I have moved this thread on in to the Battle Zone and you and I are the Warriors... Sorry to the rest of y'all... You'll just have to make a new one. :D

Damocles
08-27-2006, 07:56 PM
I've decided that Klaatu is right. This is going on back to where it started. AOI and I can start a new thread in there if we wish to bring it there... So if AOI wants to bring it to the Battle Zone... I'll happily create a thread for it.

AnyOldIron
08-29-2006, 02:40 AM
Damo, for some reason I am unable to create a thread in the battlezone...

We should continue from the point we left off,

"The possibility (or not) of being capable of imagining entities without reference to outside contributory factors...."

Sounds like the title of very dull book..... lol

Damocles
08-29-2006, 06:10 AM
It does. No you wouldn't be able to create one. You can only respond to one if you are a Warrior and assigned to the thread... At least in that area that is how it works...

Damocles
08-29-2006, 06:12 AM
How 'bout we make one that links back to this thread and just states "A continuation of the discussion that began in this thread..." leaving it open for more than just a discussion of what I might imagine.

;)

AnyOldIron
08-29-2006, 06:18 AM
Okey dokey. It will be a slow forming thread, due to my 'posting at work only' situation at the minute....

Damocles
08-29-2006, 06:22 AM
M'eh... So far the threads there have been slow anyway.... I can't see how this will be any different.