Ted Hoffman

A. C.
I can't see any direct question that Jobar posted. I believe I am to be referred to as jaliet. I will dismiss that as a false start (mistaken identity? misreading?) on your part Albert and move on.

Jobar seems to think highly of you. So does D. Gould. and others. Of course kwigibo doesn't seem to like your religion or denomination of choice very much.

And with words like eristic refutation, how can we go wrong?

kwigibo Hey, take it easy, we dont want to scare away Albert before he has spoken do we?

As to Amos (Alberts poetic flair seems to have rubbed off on you), we havent debated much before, I hope we'll both enjoy this topic.

And oh, Albert, take your time, when U post again here, I will be looking for your answers.

On second thoughts Albert why would you dread the question?
You say your answer is overwhelmingly weak. Just bring it on. Whether it is weak or not is not yet an issue because I we dont know the answer. Maybe it looks weak because you are perched aloft your philosophical tower?. Yours is just to enlighten us. We mortals here below will look with awe at your reasons o ye great poet, and oh, we wouldn't mind if you cloaked them in some of your garish poetic garbs. Let your resplendent wisdom scorch our eyes o ye great philosophical poet.

Ted Hoffman

doubly posted...sorry

[ January 29, 2002: Message edited by: jaliet ]</p>

Ted Hoffman

Jobar
I read the link you included in your post. Thank you.
It gave me some insight into what kind of man I have asked the question "Why believe in God?".

Frankly, going through your debate, from my perspective was like watching two mellowed men in their twilight years share their musings, rambling and engaging in a philosophical palaver. Poetic aphorisms based on nothing other than a worldview of choice. Dictionary definitions of words are shunned as obstacles (of course its Albert who did this) and everything means nothing and nothing is everything. Words are forged together in the fire of poetry and philosophy to create new rosy meanings.

In a way, it was like a world where nothing mattered. No demands for hard evidence to support viewpoints. Just meaningless talk. The poetry and philosophical allusions came out strongly and from what I saw, your discussion was fraught with parallogisms. You just spurned new worlds. You were both willing to drift away from this world of rules, you entertained your musings and constructed your worlds. Generally, you were comparing your worlds of fancy. No rigorous debate, just abstract words to describe affective purely imagined concepts.

Sincerely Jobar, we all can create "worlds" we can create new meanings for concepts. We all desire that some concepts had a meaning that appealed to us.

But there is also a real world where gravity pulls things down and where people die when deprived of air. That is the world I would be interested in.

I dread that Albert will spurn all my attempts at clarity and specificity and prefer abstruse philosophical approach to issues.

But I am being very presumptuous in thinking so. Let me wait.

[ January 23, 2002: Message edited by: jaliet ]</p>

HelenM

[ January 23, 2002: Message edited by: HelenSL ]</p>

Ted Hoffman

Helen, I gotta tell ya I love this:
Thanks. I remain humble and waiting.

Amos

Jaliet, I honestly have not read the tread but was interested by your question.

For some reason I love the word eristic (new word) and maybe I should have just called myself a heckler trying to stay warm this winter.

Jamie_L

Considering that this thread started with a question to Albert, and he hasn't answered that question, this thread sure has a lot of posts.

I just didn't want to be left out.

And I'm anxiously awaiting Albert's response as well.

Jamie

HelenM

jaliet it's actually a direct quote from 1 Peter 3:15 in the New International Version of the Bible, in case you didn't know. I forgot to put the reference at the end of the quote.

love
Helen

Jobar

To Albert-

Please take all the time you feel you need. I really and truly *hope* you can find an answer which would satisfy me- because I think such an answer would be a philosophical breakthrough as momentous as anything since language began. I do admit, however, that I am not holding my breath!

To Amos-

Eris was the goddess of discord and confusion. Golden apple, "To the fairest," etc. And I am not in the least surprised that you enjoy sowing confusion.

To jaliet-

Now you have me confused with Albert! Far from lacking precision, I am straining mightily to be precise with my language. In that other thread I wrote

"Albert, until medicine and information science come up with some way to directly link our minds, words are the instruments we must use to communicate. If we do not try to be precise in our mutual definitions of words, they become useless- whether as a shouted warning of an approaching tiger, or to demonstrate the subtlest nuances of philosophy, theology, or science. Deploring the dictionary definitions of words leads directly to misunderstanding, incomprehension, and finally down to silence. We simply cannot talk if we do not agree on the meanings of the words we use!"

The trouble is that when attempting to address ultimate meaning reality itself blurs. I have a degree in physics from Ga. Tech, and have long pursued a fascination with things quantum mechanical. I am aware that some think the analogy between the problems of interpreting the experimental results from QM, and the problems involved in expressing the nature of 'God', 'reality', or 'Brahma' is a false one. For myself though, I think that it is correct, and so for that matter did Erwin Schroedinger. Different terminologies, different methods, different goals- but physics and eastern philosophy lead to some of the same philosophical conclusions.

I am willing to discuss this in a thread of its own, in Science & Skepticism or Philosophy, if you'd like.

Albert Cipriani

Dear Jobar and Jaliet,
My brain cross-wired your posts, so I thought Jobar started this thread. Hence, my compliment regarding your seriousness, was meant for you, Jobar. No verdict can yet be reached regarding Jaliet, the animal/insect/human (?) trainer. It depends on just what's being trained. If it's atheists, then seriousness would only exacerbate the problem, and a sense of humor would be in order.

Seriously, you can't imagine how serious I am regarding this question. I know you think I hide my lack of meaning behind rhetoric and poetic language. But that, to me, would be sinful.

It was that arch-heretic Luther who said that the saved were snow covered dung heaps. Covering up reality is the art of the magician, not the salvific job of God or task of a philosopher. Colorful language is no substitute for nonsense. I mean to make sense to you or I have failed by my own standards.

This thread has waxed confessional. Sort of the verbal equivalent of a group hug at an AAA meeting. Well, I for one find it refreshing. It's nice to address the person now and then and not just their intellect. But we better cut it out or the moderators will stitch this thread into the Secular Support forum.

To that end, Kwigibo said:


Kwigibo's assertion reminds me of someone I forget in the 19th century. He was a Catholic who informed his friend that he had lost his Faith. His friend wrote him back, asking if he'd converted to Protestantism. And the ex-Catholic acidly replied: "I told you that I lost my Faith, not my mind."

Catholics are generally dreary, unmotivated, theologically illiterate AND THEY CAN'T SING. So if Catholicism were a social club, Kwigibo's view would hold sway. But Catholicism as the religion that it is, grounded in philosophy and legalism, appeals to the cortex, not the charismatic. That's why the mad ones are the ones who left Catholicism to found the Protestant denominations. It's why Catholicism appeals to and retains only the most sane and sober souls.

How untimely that my job has blown up on me at a time when time is required here. It frustrates me more than you, I am sure. Thank you for your patience.

It's not so much that I don't have an answer, but how to make it make sense. There are many answers as to why God exists. But there's only one best answer. It is that one that I want to express. Maybe the best way is to chip away at it little by little, and not try to answer it in one fail swoop.

To that end, can we agree that everything is information? This is the bedrock on which I've built my cathedral.

For example, the idea that God is material or immaterial becomes meaningless if we see material as a kind of information to which immaterial information is related. Ergo, the artificial distinction between material and immaterial is bridged by information.

For another example, to the degree that the universe is rational, and so far it is, everything that happens expresses information. If what we sloppily think of as things are expressing information about their thing-ness, why not get rid of the middleman and just consider the information and not the thing?

Can we not invoke Occam's razor and drop the thing-ness out of things, and the natural out of SUPERrnatural? Then there'd just be various artificial categories of information and they'd ALL be SUPER. At least you, Jobar, should be inclined to accept this oneness of being as being information. No? -- Later, Albert the Traditional Catholic