Fixed Cross wrote:surreptitious75 wrote:I will watch your first video on Kabbalism and if it is of any interest then I will probably watch all of them
Ill be honoured.
Oh sure, turn up now all the dust has cleared.![]()
Arc, who tempted poor Tab into a damn theist thread,"]Belief has to be based on "something".
Ok, so you believe in something. The number 1 say. Subtract 1 from that number. Do you believe in the result..?
If you do, then you believe in the absence of something.
surreptitious75 wrote:Arcturus Descending wrote:
Would you not say that there are some things which require no thought at all ?
As that is not physically possible and it also makes no sense logically
You cannot have a thought that requires absolutely no thinking at all
Obviously there can be no belief if there is not first some kind of knowledge.
So knowledge is the foundation of belief ? Are you absolutely certain about this
[/quote][/quote]Is it not possible to have belief that is just emotional reasoning and nothing else
Hmm, in addition to the last post - this 'whole atheism is a lack of belief' thing bothers me.
Lack implies absence of some kind. I lack the ability to play the violin etc. Lol, I also lack the violin.
However I believe in violins, because I've seen them.
Atheists have obviously heard of god, otherwise why would they say they're an atheist..? And not an A?whatnow?ist.![]()
So atheists do have beliefs about god, just not the same ones as a theist. They do not "lack belief".
Tab wrote:Perhaps our disconnect is that to me, knowing something and believeing something are exactly the same thing - neurologically anyway.
To me 'knowing' and 'believeing' are more like expressions of certainty.
I frequently lose my glasses. I know right, when did glasses become a thing in my life..?Getting old sucks. Anyway. Right now, my netflix-watching glasses are sitting on the table in plain view, next to my coffee cup. I just prodded them with my finger. They're real alright.
I'm gonna go out on a limb. I'm gonna say "I know my glasses are on the table."
Now, I've tossed a cloth over them, can't see them directly, but I can see the hump.
"I still know my glasses are on the table." Now, I left the room, and told kid#1 to go in, and flip a coin, and if it's heads, they have to steal my glasses, and bunch up the cloth a bit to make it look the same. Now my kid is coming out. I look at their hands, they're empty. I fix them with my best dad-stare. "Did you steal my glasses..?" They say no. My dad-radar shows a green light. However, my kids, having my some of my genes, are horribly perfidious.
I'm about 60-75% sure my glasses are still on the table. But do I know..?
Nope, now I just believe they are on the table.
But I'm pretty sure that this didn't involve a whole different part of my brain, when I switched from knowing to believeing.
Now imagine I reverse this experiment. Glasses initially not on the table, and I know that. My kid has them. They go in. They come out, they look like they just stuck something in the back of their pants.
Now I believe my glasses are not on the table. A negative belief.
Just then I hear the blender click on and a horrible whirring, crunching, glasses-destroying sound. Perfidious kid#1 passed my glasses off to even more perfidious kid#2, who just played "does it blend" with my glasses.
I now believe my glasses don't exist.
I rush into the kitchen. And look in the blender. It's full of whizzed-up shards of uncooked pasta. Evil kid#2 hands me my glasses. All smiles. I pat them on the head, though secretly I vow revenge next pocket money day. Oh yeah.
Pezer once pointed this Leibnitzean wisdom out to me; God exists by (His) definition.
Arc wrote:And you have "heard" of fairies and goblins and witches flying on blooms. Do you believe in them?
But god is not a strictly empirical certainty. He, blah blah stuff subject object verb words etc.
promethean75 wrote:Pezer once pointed this Leibnitzean wisdom out to me; God exists by (His) definition.
a fatal flaw of the pezernian ontological proof is that it infers the existence of god from the claim that our idea of god involves existence... which is the same thing anslem and descartes did.
so because existence is not a 'property', and properties are contingent features of modes and attributes of a single necessary substance, substance itself cannot be defined by its properties because it must be prior to its modes. ergo; substance, i.e., 'god', is not proven to exist by the definition of the things said to be the modes and attributes of it. so while the essence of a substance must involve its existence, we do not infer from the existing things which do not share that essence that god must exist. we only infer the existence of god through the reasoning that a self-caused substance must exist prior to the causal relationships we observe between existing properties in the world that cannot be defined through themselves alone.
and btw 'god' is only 'nature', not some watchmaker outside space and time who gives a shit about what's happenin. so 'god' cain't 'be in your life'. nothing changes about/in your life if you are able to conceive of what 'god' is. i know, that's some cold shit, but all mountains are cold at the highest altitudes.
Tab wrote:Hey Arc,Arc wrote:And you have "heard" of fairies and goblins and witches flying on blooms. Do you believe in them?
I believe they are not real. However, the point is, I believe something about them. The content of the belief maybe a negation, but the belief itself, is a positive thing, ie. I hold it. I do not lack a belief about goblins and fairies, I have one. It's the same for atheists. They have a belief about god. The content of that belief is a negation or some form of negation, but it is a belief all the same.
Theist believes unprovable X + Atheist believes unprovable Y = waste of braincells.
I can't put it any plainer than that tbh.
Hey Fixed,But god is not a strictly empirical certainty. He, blah blah stuff subject object verb words etc.
Thanks, that was all very obscure, obfusticatory, and knowing you, occult.
And quite frankly, in practical terms, a giant pile of steaming bollocks.
I say quite openly, "we cannot know". With a subtext of "debates of this type are a massive waste of time - move along." Which is a practical statement. Life is short, and there are other more tractable things to think about.
Look at the lengths you and karpel have had to go to preserve your vainglorious state of 'being able to know everything'. Karpel with his - 'well it's impossible to know anything for sure, and yet we do anyway.' Sophist hand-washing. And your - 'well if you bend your mind in strange enough ways it's maybe possible to divine some inkling of god's nature.'
How does any of that help fix the sink..? What's the point..?
Never claimed that. Never. So, straw man ad hom bs. Hope it's comforting to sum up stuff you clearly did not understand and did not interact with.Tab wrote:Look at the lengths you and karpel have had to go to preserve your vainglorious state of 'being able to know everything'.
And I never argued that. You didn't understand what I wrote or never cared to. Strawman shit again. And in citation marks no less. What an ass you are.Karpel with his - 'well it's impossible to know anything for sure, and yet we do anyway.'
Arcturus Descending wrote:
But what is involved in absolutely no thinking to you ?
And nature does not per its definition exist?
surreptitious75 wrote:
I will watch your first video on Kabbalism and if it is of any interest then I will probably watch all of them
I know absolutely nothing about it other than it is derived from Judaism and Madonna was once interested
And you have "heard" of fairies and goblins and witches flying on blooms. Do you believe in them?
I believe they are not real.
However, the point is, I believe something about them. The content of the belief maybe a negation, but the belief itself, is a positive thing, ie. I hold it.
I do not lack a belief about goblins and fairies, I have one. It's the same for atheists. They have a belief about god. The content of that belief is a negation or some form of negation, but it is a belief all the same.
I can't put it any plainer than that tbh.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users