Freethought & Rationalism ArchiveThe archives are read only. |
03-14-2002, 04:00 PM | #171 | |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Quote:
Here was the question in which I understood the "existence of Existence" to mean that things are as they are because they are meant to be that way which is after their essence of Existence: <strong> Why should the existence of Existence necessitate the existence of Being?</strong> My answer was that if the existence of Existance only necessitates the existence of Being no change will come about but just a replication of the present existing Being will be generated. If the existence of Being changes the essence of Existence must change prior to the existence of Being can change. In the case of involution there will be a decrease and so the essence of Existence for the existence of Being will be less than the existence of Existence we started with. If this was not true the Prime Mover would not be in charge of our destiny. It may seem irrelevant but it is true that if the Prime Mover is indeed the Prime Mover we are not in charge of our own destiny which explains why wisdom can increase and decrease and in the end is why civilizations do rise and fall (yet Truth will always stand). |
|
03-14-2002, 04:06 PM | #172 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Cole Valley, CA
Posts: 665
|
Albert,
Aye Carimba! This is getting confusing! From what I understand of your preliminary definitions, God, if he exists, cannot be a thing. For to be a thing is to be contingent. Correct? Can you also provide a couple more definitions before we proceed? What do you mean by the terms "essence" and "being." I apologise if you have stated the definitions elsewhere. I did a quick look and couldn't find anything. Also, if a cube of ice melts, does it become a new thing? Or is it the same thing in another form? Which convention do you prefer? |
03-14-2002, 04:07 PM | #173 | |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Quote:
I like the "trainer image" and it seems that Jaliet is waiting for exposure so he can go for the kill. Don't hold your breath. [ March 14, 2002: Message edited by: Amos ]</p> |
|
03-14-2002, 06:24 PM | #174 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: secularcafe.org
Posts: 9,525
|
Pity poor Albert. Jaliet, John Page, Ender, and all the rest come at him from the rational, logical, and materialistic angle- and if he retreats too far, he finds me, poking him with my mystical-pantheistic pitchfork.
And I don't think there is any tenable middle ground for him to stand on. I want to address some of Albert's statements taken from the past couple of pages, and a few from Amos too. Bold are Albert's words, unless I specify it is Amos I'm quoting. Ergo, if there is a God, and He is worthy of His name, He is not reachable, but outreaching. Practice all the yoga you want; eat all the yogurt you can stand; be as mystical or smart, or have a tribe of gurus showing you the way; none of this should get you one inch closer to Him. Gurus and mystics are elitists. I don't care if they don't mean to be. They are. If they are the genuine articles, then they are poster children for an arrogant god that disgusts me. This is why I find the concept of myself being a mystic or anyone being a guru (and all means and methods of seeking God) repugnant. It is arrogant to imagine that God can be sought experientially. He is the seeker. It's enough if we allow ourselves to be found. Albert, I agree that anyone who uses the idea of God for one-upsmanship or financial gain is a despicable fraud. This includes all stripes of priests, shamen, witch doctors, and theologians. However, if you are condemning "all means and methods of seeking God" are you not condemning yourself (and incidentally all us honestly questioning unbelievers) thereby? Are you a fideist, one who simply has faith in Faith, with no connections to the material world, no 'signs and wonders'? I thought that was a Catholic heresy. And please expound on the "poster children for an arrogant God that disgusts me." I find myself fascinated by that statement. Existence cannot be self-substantiating. Something beyond existence is required as an explanation, as a raison d'entre for existence. That something is Being. Being is another word for Yahweh God. "SomeTHING beyond existence"? Can't you see that this is nonsensical? "Thing" is an existent entity. If we can speak of it, it exists (even if only as a concept within our minds.) To the above, add your response to me saying "I think you must prove that there is a Prime Mover that always acts, and is never acted upon." What you assert here is precisely what the Catholic Church asserts about the nature of God. Welcome to the fold of the Catholic intellectual tradition that says God is Pure Act without any admixture of potentiality (actus purus sine omni permixtione potentiae). However, you are wrong to say I need to prove that God "always acts." I need only assert it as a logical necessity derived definitively from the concept of God. In other words, if God exists, it rationally follows that His nature is actus purus. Let me get this straight. God is Being. He is also 'pure action'- Doing. And both of these are completely 'other' than Existence. Right? The problem with contingency, philosophically, is that it leads to an infinite regression, which is logically impossible. Philosophy and logic both require words. Without words, neither would exist- either as concepts or as (of course) words. Now, by all the theology and philosophy I know, the most central nature of God is infinity. His power, knowledge, and benevolence are all supposedly infinite. (Do you disagree? Wait, you can't. It's doctrine.) Yet your above statement indicates that infinite *regression* is logically impossible. I think that anytime we try to talk about infinity, we find it is 'logically impossible'. Not countable- not measurable- not comprehensible- not speakable. Indeed, you agree with me. We can’t speak of such things. He is absolutely undetectable by Creation. "The Tao which can be spoken of is not the true Tao." Another quote, made popular by a seventies TV show- "Looked for, it cannot be seen. Listened for, it cannot be heard. Felt for, it cannot be touched." And remember Eckhart- "Even if I say, 'Thou! Oh Thou!' I say too much." Albert, admit it. You're a mystic, or else you are just confused. And speaking of confused- Amos: Just as Jesus told Peter to tell noone that he was a Christian, so should we tell noone that we are Christians . . . for the test of a mystic is how well he can keep it a secret. OK, I'm confused. (But not surprised- this is, after all, Amos.) "...so should we tell noone that we are Christians...?" How Eristic! Yet, how un-mystical! Zen masters everywhere are laughing fit to bust. And, just to prove that I can also sow a bit of discord- Amos: It may seem irrelevant but it is true that if the Prime Mover is indeed the Prime Mover we are not in charge of our own destiny Albert, having seen some of your voluminous output defending free will- what do you think of this? [ March 14, 2002: Message edited by: Jobar ]</p> |
03-14-2002, 07:05 PM | #175 | ||||||||||
Banned
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Southern California
Posts: 3,018
|
Dear Jaliet,
Quote:
Let's see if I can figure this out syllogistically. 1) YOU SAID you don't like my humor. 2) YOU SAID I don't like people who don't like my humor. 3) Ergo, I don't like you. YOU SAID IT; not me! Why are you so intent on putting yourself down? Quote:
Now is that the kind of attitude conducive to being trained? You said you are a trainer, and it shows. Your job is to get those in your charge to do what you tell them to do, but, by god, you're not going to take what you dish out. If wombats could speak, and they laid on you the rebellious little snit you just laid on me, wouldn't you be crushed? So let's compromise. I promise you that I won't tell you what to do, and you promise me that you will try to think. Deal? Quote:
Special! Just cuz you just misrepresented the thousands of words I've expended on the subject, here's the Reader’s Digest version of how I believe in God: 1) My sensory inputs allows me to, in good conscience, infer that the things I experience really exists. 2) Conversely, things that exist allow me to likewise infer that their existence is really my experience. 3) Ergo, what I can't experience that exists is necessarily being experienced. 4) What I can experience, I can only experience indirectly as information. 5) Ergo, everything must be experienced directly by being and I call God the Being Who does this. I promised not to drift into metaphysics, but what the hell. Without experiencing something, I am nothing. Experience is existence, not the other way around. Experience is the charmed particle of my metaphysics. So whatever exists is being experienced. 99.9999% of what exists as Albert, cannot be even indirectly experienced by Albert. Ergo, Albert's existence (and all things in existence) is necessarily being experienced by something other than what is in existence, that is, by something outside of existence, something that IS BEING. The common term for It is God. For the literary-impaired who stumble logically over the following illustration: Quote:
I resubmit my thought in a more pedestrian format: Quote:
You assert: Quote:
So when you're unconscious, I'm free to do whatever I want to you? Don't you realize that virtually all that you are doing at this very moment and every moment of your life, you are doing unconsciously? Yet you claim you don't experience it? You're not conscience of breathing or regulating your heartbeat, yet you experience these things. I'm formulating my defense now: Quote:
You assert: Quote:
Really!? If you’re so willing to accept that groundless solipsism, why do I suspect that you will hypocritically deny this equally groundless solipsism? "God is everywhere, whether there is someone there to detect Him or not." Quote:
We can conclude from this exchange one of two things: 1) The Bible is not a book. 2) Juliet's non-Christian existence blinds him to the existence of books that are Christian. Then, in your very next sentence, you have the gall to say: Quote:
Some of us can. But you, who can't even detect that the Bible is a book, would do better to keep silent about the possibility that you can. -- Sincerely, Albert the Traditional Catholic [ March 14, 2002: Message edited by: Albert Cipriani ]</p> |
||||||||||
03-14-2002, 07:34 PM | #176 | |
Regular Member
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Fremont, CA
Posts: 163
|
Quote:
|
|
03-14-2002, 08:26 PM | #177 | |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Quote:
When we arrive there we are set free from religion and the bondage of slavery and sin ("son of man has no place to lie his head," Mt.8:20) and ("he who is in Christ cannot sin" 1Jn.3:9), and if, in fact, if we seek our justificatin in the law after we have been set free from the bondage of slavery and sin we will have already fallen from Gods favor, etc. (Gal.5:4 paraphrased). We become the Prime Mover when we are in charge of our own destiny as in "my Lord and my God" after faith has been annihilated with the removal of doubt*** 'who' was the twin of Jesus-the-mystic now become Jesus the Christ (gnostic). Notice here that Jesus did not become [fully] Christ until after resurrection. *** since a pair of opposites cannot be conceived to exist without the other, when Thomas-the- doubter was removed also Peter-the-faither was left naked. The difference between "Free Will" and "free will" is not more than a matter of perspective . . . wherefore, as I argue, the Free Will argument belongs to the Freeman -- who himself is a Determinist (to put the icing on the cake). Amos |
|
03-15-2002, 06:40 AM | #178 | |||||||||||||||||
Veteran Member
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: ""
Posts: 3,863
|
Albert, I will respond to your recent post, which does not remotely constitute a comprehensive comprehension to my responses to you.
I will resist the thought that mental lassitude is setting in for you. If that is the case, just ask for a break. You mentioned you needed drugs to keep adrift earlier I hope you are ok? First, I am disapointed that you can be so dishonest in an openly-shameless manner Albert. This in itself is not so bad except I expected a traditional Catholic to hold honesty as an important virtue. How have you been dishonest? earlier You said this: Quote:
Quote:
later You claimed that I said: Quote:
Have you sunk this low Albert? Frankly, the idea is not for you to convince us, but just for you to defend your concept of Gods existence. Whats the big deal, You dont have to sacrifice your self-respect to make a point. Ultimately, I dont care whether you sacrifice your dignity or not, and its not for me to tell you what to sacrifice, but what you have done is a dishonest tactic and is not good for an honest debate. I hope you shall desist from such cheap and low-down tactics in future. They destroy your credibility and give the idea that you have run out of ammo and cant get yourself out of the corner you have painted yourself into. Quote:
Another tired case of irrelevant conclusion from Albert the Traditional Catholic. Thank you very much. Quote:
Without experiencing something, you remain lacking the experience of experiencing that something. You can't be nothing because YOU implies you are something already. Quote:
Experience could be existence, but as it is, you have not demonstrated that it is. Put in a little effort Albert. Quote:
This is not a poetry class. I am not impressed and I doubt anyone else is. Quote:
I am not experiencing American Terrorism . That does not mean that American terrorism does not exist. Existence or non existence of things IS not based solely on experience. There is reason too, which can help us know of the existence of that which we have not experienced. Where did you learn English Albert? Perhaps you have too much knowledge and very little ability to structure that knowledge and gain some understanding? You sound very confused. Quote:
If you are incapable of providing a sensible answer to the question above, then your statement remains doubtful and invalid. Quote:
Do we experience this something? If so how? Does this something experience us? What evidence show that this something exists? Quote:
Rocks can be moved by little boys, gravity, little girls, little hens, little pigs, little snails, big wings, big birds, drunk people etc etc . Little boys can be moved by ice cream cones, bicycles, cars, video games, pictures, clothes, games etc. Support your statements please. Quote:
But I might whoop your ass if I dont like what you do to me. Whether I am unconscious or Not. Quote:
I meet all definitions of consciousness. Therefore I am conscious as I do what I am doing. Quote:
Fallacy of missing arguments. Quote:
And who are you to decide for me what I am conscious of? Quote:
Sorry for digressing. Back to the matter at hand. Quote:
Albert, argue your case. Please. I am confident that you can do so using English. You are either too lazy to do that. Or ... (dare I say it? Nah, I dare not. I could spoil the fun. And we dont want that now do we? Nope) [Edited for additional theatric effects like curdled milk at the corners of Alberts mouth and dim lights for the courtroom] [ March 15, 2002: Message edited by: jaliet ]</p> |
|||||||||||||||||
03-15-2002, 09:02 AM | #179 | ||||
Veteran Member
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: ""
Posts: 3,863
|
Quote:
more Quote:
Aren't you simply saying a statement like "If an existing computer changes then the essence of the computers' existence must change prior to the existing computers' change"? You have not created a clear dichotomy between "existence of being" and "the essence of existence" yet you are using them to make a single statement. This is a complex question and may be a form of sophistry or just a logical fallacy(failure to elucidate). You need to address the meanings of the two phrases before you can use them to compose a single proposition if you mean to make a point. Otherwise the meaning of your statement remains obscure. More Quote:
Confounding us may appear as a smoke-and-mirror tactic on your part. Please be clear Quote:
By the way, Where is the Prime Mover? In Japan? These questions should indicate to you that you have subverted your efforts: In the process of explaining something, you have introduced a phenomena that doesn't exist as part of your explanation. Thus in a manner of speaking, you have dug a hole to stop another hole. Furthermore... You are begging the question. For us to admit to your statement, we must first agree on whether: 1. A prime Mover exists. 2. We have a destiny. 3. The prime Mover is in charge of our destiny. Until then, you have no valid point or answer as far as Draygombs' question is concerned. [Edited to correct typos resulting from distraction by mating gazelles and a mosquito bite - ah, the Savannah. Nothing like it to distract a man engaged in serious discourse!] [ March 15, 2002: Message edited by: jaliet ]</p> |
||||
03-15-2002, 09:31 AM | #180 | |
Banned
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Southern California
Posts: 3,018
|
Dear Draygomb,
Quote:
A most excellent question: the pivot point to my case, the answer to which I fear must be somewhat intuitive. But I'll attempt to be as logical as I can be by first dutifully taking my medication. There! I feel all that poetry rinsing out of my brain like dirty socks being rung out. But soft, o're russet mantled hill the rosy fingered dawn doth creep... and even Jaliet seems to be warming up to me. Yeah for drugs! 1) If no thing can be touched directly, only indirectly... 2) If getting indirectly touched is what we call experience... 3) If experience is how we infer our existence and the existence of what touches us... 4) Then existence and experience are synonymous terms for activity, not for anything in a state of being. 5) But the prerequisite of activity is a thing in a state of being. 6) Ergo, something must simply Be upon which activity is predicated. 7) Whatever simply Is (by definition and contrast to all else that merely exists), experiences touch directly, that is, without any means, without time or space or even knowledge. 8) What Is, is what Traditional Catholicism calls the Subsistent Being (ipsum esse subsistens) or Pure Act (actus purus), the theological expression of the Biblical Yahweh (I Am Who Am) God. (With his meds wearing off, he begins to wax poetic as his audience drifts away...) Look at it this way: Being or God or the state of being that must necessarily precede activity, is analogous to air being the medium whereby sound waves can travel. For example, in outer space you cannot scream even if you do scream. That's because without air there is no matrix for sound to travel across. Likewise, Being is the medium of exchange and the matrix of existence whereby any and all activity is transacted. Hey! I'm talking to you! Come back! I'll scream if you don't and there's plenty of air around to enable me to do just that. All right, you asked for it: aaaaahhhhhhhh... -- Sincerely, Albert the (fumbling with the child proof lids on his medication) Traditional Catholic |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|