|
|
|
Antie
Skeptic Friend
USA
101 Posts |
 Posted - 07/23/2002 : 05:32:21 [Permalink]
|
> Until it this negative existential is proven, however, there is
> always room to claim that something supernatural may be at work. It
> doesn't have to be, but it may be.
Until somebody proves that my monitor is not really a disguised purple monster with three hundred heads and comes from the 69th dimension, there is always room to claim that it really is. However, I can reject that claim because it is not probable. It is not even likely.
> the definition of truth means that truth, in some form, must exist.
Circular definition. You attempt to define "truth," but that same word is used in your definition.
We can come up with a word that presupposes the existence of this truth, but does that have any bearing on whether this truth really exists?
Edited by - antie on 07/23/2002 05:32:45 |
 |
|
|
Lars_H
SFN Regular
Germany
630 Posts |
Posted - 07/23/2002 : 06:07:47 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Until somebody proves that my monitor is not really a disguised purple monster with three hundred heads and comes from the 69th dimension, there is always room to claim that it really is. However, I can reject that claim because it is not probable. It is not even likely.
But you can never be 100% sure that it is not infact a disguised monster. That is one reason why I would hestiate to buy a LCD monitor. The fact that the owners manual of my current monitor contains section written in something that looks suspeciously like the runic script of the elder gods dos not instill me with much confidence either. And have you ever wondered why they heat up so much after running for some time? And what about this crackeling with eldritch energies when you turn it on, making the hair on the back of your neck stand up? And how some people sit infront of their computer monitors for hours, dead to the world and staring at it like they are hypnotized or something?
Don't trust any peripherals and remember the truth is out there...
|
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 07/23/2002 : 06:51:38 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Which religion/religious philosophy is closest to the truth?
Edited by - Satan on 07/21/2002 13:10:52
Religious truth is individual in nature. It is a type of spirituality. The poll assumes there is an universal truth for religion. There is no such thing.
Cthulu/Asmodeus, when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils. |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 07/23/2002 : 08:26:42 [Permalink]
|
I, myself eagerly await the prophecied return of Lord Quetxzcoatl.
The son-of-a-bitch is taking his own, sweet time, ain't he? Slower'n Christ, I do declare.
"All religions are confusing. It's what keeps priests in busines."
f
Evolution is such a simple idea, almost anyone can misunderstand it. -- Theodore Dobzhansky |
|
|
|
Satan
New Member
USA
27 Posts |
Posted - 07/24/2002 : 17:18:23 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Are you getting Platonic on me here?
No . . . let me explain. Whether or not anything physically exists, thought exists. "Cogito ergo sum" was an erroneous "proof" for the existence of Descartes' self, but it is ample to prove that a thought (namely, "Cogito . . .") exists. That I can think is not proof that I exist, but it is proof that thought exists.
quote:
I don't exactly follow your logic here. I believe a better analogy would be to compare the definitions and existence of truth and omnipotence. We can conceive of both, but they do not necessarily exist, eh?
No, not necessarily, although I would love to explain that to a lot of my friends who are fond of the Kantian proof of God's existence!!!
Think of it this way: Either this universe exists, or it doesn't. One of those two statments is true, given the definition of "existence." Ergo, truth exists.
quote:
Hmm.. would there have been other, more "skeptic-friendly" options to vote for, then?
Ok, I would leave Christianity (since many Christians claim to be up to par with the skeptics in terms of reasoning capacity). I would leave Buddhism (since it is an atheistic religion, and since many skeptics and so-called skeptics subscribe to it in some form). I would leave Other and None. We could, I guess, take out Judaism, Islam, and Hinduism, and expand the Other category some. But the choice of which to pick would likely be arbitrary and unfair to the others. General sub-categories (e.g., "earth-based," etc.) would be too broad and vague. And a poll whose choices are Christianity, Buddhism, Other, and None would be just a little odd. So I just left the major monotheisms, knowing that they'd be unpopular, then threw in Buddhism, Other, and None. Sorry if it's not "skeptical" enough for you -- any suggestions???
quote:
(I admittedly can't think of any right now, but this is a spur-of-the-moment post)
Oh, ok then.  Sorry, couldn't resist!
Satan,
a.k.a. the Talking Snake Whom Atheists, Witches, Muslims, and Puerto Ricans Worship (If You Ask Anyone In This State) |
|
|
|
PhDreamer
SFN Regular
USA
925 Posts |
Posted - 07/24/2002 : 20:14:02 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Whether or not anything physically exists, thought exists. "Cogito ergo sum" was an erroneous "proof" for the existence of Descartes' self, but it is ample to prove that a thought (namely, "Cogito . . .") exists. That I can think is not proof that I exist, but it is proof that thought exists.
Are you saying the act of thinking is not being demonstrated when one says, "cogito ergo sum"? You'll have to explain this because simply saying it is not convincing.
Generally speaking, the errors in religion are dangerous; those in philosophy only ridiculous.
-D. Hume |
|
|
|
Lars_H
SFN Regular
Germany
630 Posts |
Posted - 07/25/2002 : 07:53:52 [Permalink]
|
quote:
No . . . let me explain. Whether or not anything physically exists, thought exists. "Cogito ergo sum" was an erroneous "proof" for the existence of Descartes' self, but it is ample to prove that a thought (namely, "Cogito . . .") exists. That I can think is not proof that I exist, but it is proof that thought exists.
I think that this depends on your definition of 'self'. The existance of my physical body does not follow from the existance of my 'thought' but my existance does.
How other could you in this context minimally define an entities self, then as its thoughts?
|
|
|
|
PruplePanther
Skeptic Friend
USA
79 Posts |
Posted - 03/19/2004 : 07:29:30 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by PhDreamer
Naturalism is a method, pure and simple. Anyone who claims "metaphysical naturalism" is some immovable, a priori philosophical stance taken by "hardcore" skeptics is full of shit.
it's so nice to see The Truth written so plainly.  quote:
All skeptics can be described by the sentence, "Show me the evidence; until then, I'm not believing anything." All this talk about how "strongly" one disbelieves in supernaturalism, religion, UFOs, Bigfoot is just hot air.
i picked "other" since the way of The Tao wasn't listed.
think that "none" should read "none of above."
edited to fix my choice from "none" to "other" which is wat i picked.  Duh! |
"If I don't know where we are, I can't plot a course home." Major Carter, SG-1 |
| Edited by - PruplePanther on 03/19/2004 09:08:34 |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 03/19/2004 : 08:52:23 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by PruplePanther
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by PhDreamer
Naturalism is a method, pure and simple. Anyone who claims "metaphysical naturalism" is some immovable, a priori philosophical stance taken by "hardcore" skeptics is full of shit.
it's so nice to see The Truth written so plainly. <blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">All skeptics can be described by the sentence, "Show me the evidence; until then, I'm not believing anything." All this talk about how "strongly" one disbelieves in supernaturalism, religion, UFOs, Bigfoot is just hot air.
[/quote]i picked "none" since the way of The Tao wasn't listed.
think that "none" should read "none of above."
[/quote]
I thought he covered it under "other".
Also, this was worth resurrecting a 20 month old thread for? |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
PruplePanther
Skeptic Friend
USA
79 Posts |
Posted - 03/19/2004 : 08:54:27 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
Oh NO! So sorry but the original post seems to have mysteriously vanished. Maybe it just Danced Away.
Not meaning to quibble with the mysteriously vanished post by most honourable and Valiant Moderator but The Tao is even supremer than the "supreme being" that u assume exists. I mean that The Tao includes your "supreme being" and that your "supreme being" is a small part of The Tao.
Would rather not argue. Just my point of view. And A Truth within wat some call "The Truth."
quote:
]Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
Also, this was worth resurrecting a 20 month old thread for?
In my miserable opinon...Yes!
Besides, it was just sitting there under polls just beging to be answered.
quote:
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
I thought he covered it under "other".
Ur rite. Sorry. My stupid error. |
"If I don't know where we are, I can't plot a course home." Major Carter, SG-1 |
| Edited by - PruplePanther on 03/19/2004 09:12:57 |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 03/19/2004 : 09:47:31 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by PruplePanther
Not meaning to quibble most honourable and Valiant Moderator but The Tao is even supremer than the "supreme being" that u assume exists. I mean that The Tao includes your "supreme being" and that your "supreme being" is a small part of The Tao.
Would rather not argue. Just my point of view. And A Truth within wat some call "The Truth."
Isn't the Tao just the oneness of the Universe. While a supreme being is just a supposed part of the Tao, the single lifeforce energy which Taoism assumes exists and sparked the universe has the same truth value as any other religion. I.E. Assumes a higher power than oneself, in this case a single lifeforce energy. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
PruplePanther
Skeptic Friend
USA
79 Posts |
Posted - 03/19/2004 : 10:10:54 [Permalink]
|
Think that The Tao is much much vaster than u have said.
Think that "Taoists" know about as much about The Tao as "Christians" know about what Jesus taught. Very sad. But 2000 years since Jesus taught The Way. But 2500 years since The Tao was introduced to us.
Wat i think anyway. |
"If I don't know where we are, I can't plot a course home." Major Carter, SG-1 |
|
|
|
Robb
SFN Regular
USA
1223 Posts |
Posted - 03/19/2004 : 10:38:27 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Satan
Who voted for Christianity anyway? I would think that if that person were to come and join the discussion, we might get somewhere interesting! Especially since the anti-divinity of Christianity is present! 
Well my Christian input is that any religion will never be proved correct by science. The Christian religion is based on faith in God. Dictionary.com defines faith as:
“belief in, devotion to, or trust in somebody or something, especially without logical proof.”
If we can prove God exists scientifically, then faith is lost. I would be worried if we did prove that God exists scientifically. Nobody will be convinced unless you ask God to reveal himself to you. This is why skeptics will not be convinced by scientific data. I do enjoy reading these posts and debating these issues though.
|
Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. - George Washington |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 03/19/2004 : 22:48:43 [Permalink]
|
Robb wrote:quote:
This is why skeptics will not be convinced by scientific data.
But often, skeptics are convinced of things by scientific data. The problem with religion is that you can't measure anything about the basic assumptions (the existence of God, for example), and so you can't generate any scientific data - either for or against - the "God hypothesis" at all. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Robb
SFN Regular
USA
1223 Posts |
Posted - 03/22/2004 : 08:08:58 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
But often, skeptics are convinced of things by scientific data.
I meant that since there will be no scientific data to prove God exists, skeptics will not believe there is a God if they require this kind of proof. |
Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. - George Washington |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
