axel Posted February 13, 2004 Report Share Posted February 13, 2004 You're right. But, why did you mention it then? I was hoping it would make you more humble. But I was wrong. you do not have a clue about what my Knowledge is. Knowledge? with a capital K? It seems you haven't benefited from Socrates' wisdom. Legalistic concern is foreign to the spirit of Christian Orthodoxy. Study orthodox philosophy before spitting out nonsense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
axel Posted February 13, 2004 Report Share Posted February 13, 2004 God should not be used to prove anything Did I try to use God to prove anything??!! What is this obsession you have with proofs? truly sickening... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
den_wolf Posted February 13, 2004 Author Report Share Posted February 13, 2004 I was hoping it would make you more humble. But I was wrong. Humble? I am not being arrogant. I am simply debating. Having confidence in one's point of view or assertion does not imply that one is arrogant. You are, again, using an argumentum ad hominem fallacy. Knowledge? with a capital K? Relax. It was a parody. Faith? with a capital F? It's as bad as Holocaust with a capital H. Study orthodox philosophy before spitting out nonsense. Excuse me? You clearly have no idea who I am and what my career is all about. So to save yourself the embarassment of making another set of assumptions, I suggest that you gracefully bow out of this thread, especially that you are converting this, slowly yet surely, into yet another thread of irrelevant phrases that attack the person rather than the argument. You were O.K. without attacking me. But it seems like you are getting angrier and angrier with each post that I make in reply to your "assumptions." You are not here to convince me, are you? Because I am not here to convince YOU. I am simply having a discussion. Why do people think that the point of a discussion is to convince people of your view? I have my views and you have yours. We are simply exchanging views and debating what the fallacies in each view are. Go ahead and point out the fallacies in mine, and I will try to reply as to why I don't think they are fallacies or even admit that I did use a fallacious statement. Anything but personal attacks, please. I am not a believer in that sort of thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
den_wolf Posted February 13, 2004 Author Report Share Posted February 13, 2004 Did I try to use God to prove anything??!! What is this obsession you have with proofs? truly sickening... I am not arguing with you. You jumped into this thread halfway through. I was already having a discussion about it with Sasun. So don't take everything personally. I'd say relax, but it seems like you're now beyond that. It's not an obsession with proofs. It's objectivism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasun Posted February 13, 2004 Report Share Posted February 13, 2004 How is it superficial? Just because you said so does not mean that it really is superficial. Please tell me what fallacy it used, and/or what is it in the argument that assumes that God is superficial or represents "him" as such. It is superficial because it assumes that something can exist independently of God. God is not an old man with grey beard who is sitting in the clouds and giving commands. All that exists is part of God, nothing can exist without God - this is an AXIOM Anything that contradicts to this is wrong. The argument obviously contradicts to this axiom because it is assuming that God can be separated from good - it is a nonsense because good (in the sense of right action, righousness) is an aspect of God. God's commandment (which is actually a kind advice at least and not a command) is by definition right. Right means God's word and God's word means right. It is not arbitrary because there is no other choice. It is like A=A. It is not more arbitrary than the creation of the world. In fact the use of the word 'arbitrary' referring to God is a fallacy with the same roots as the whole argument. The confusion comes from lack of spiritual knowledge. Socrates' argument is using 'gods' and is valid in conclusion ( b ) while this argument foolishly replaces 'gods' with 'God'. That is a big mistake coming from superficial understanding of God. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasun Posted February 13, 2004 Report Share Posted February 13, 2004 Axioms are observable truths. Suppose there is something I can observe and you cannot. Since at least one person can observe we can call it observable. Is this thing truth? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THOTH Posted February 13, 2004 Report Share Posted February 13, 2004 All that exists is part of God, nothing can exist without God - this is an AXIOM Anything that contradicts to this is wrong. LOL - well yeah - because you said so Oh & BTW - #6 - your actually making a bit of sense in this thread...good for you...guess graduating Uni as a teenager means something after all eh? (yeah I'm impressed...LOL) Peace Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasun Posted February 13, 2004 Report Share Posted February 13, 2004 Yes, I will tell you. I disagree. See above for explanations. Well I brought new points but you didn't address but are only saying that you disagree. BTW, why was this new argument of yours on divine commandment relevant? I would appreciate if you instead focused on my questions rather than deviate from the subject and overlook my replies Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
den_wolf Posted February 13, 2004 Author Report Share Posted February 13, 2004 (edited) It is superficial because it assumes that something can exist independently of God. And nothing can exist independently of God? How do you know? Back to the "point 0 argument" - something doesn't exist until it exists. Something cannot be observed until it is observable. It's simple, really. God is not an old man with grey beard who is sitting in the clouds and giving commands. He's not? How do you know? So now not only do you know that God exists, you also know what/who he is and what he does and does not? All that exists is part of God, nothing can exist without God this is an AXIOM No it is not an axiom. ax·i·om n. 1. A self-evident or universally recognized truth 2. An established rule, principle, or law. 3. A self-evident principle or one that is accepted as true without proof as the basis for argument Now, God may be an axiom himself, but that nothing can exist without God is not an axiom, it is an assumption that does not even follow from the axiom of God's existence. Moreover, God's existence is not self-evident, nor is it universally recognized, or a rule, or law, or principle that everyone must follow. The argument obviously contradicts to this axiom because it is assuming that God can be separated from good - it is a nonsense because good (in the sense of right action, righousness) is an aspect of God. You just contradicted yourself. And using your word and the "assumption" that God created us in his image, here we go: 1. If God exists and he is omnipotent, omniscient, and benevolent, then the world would not contain evil (us being in his image). 2. The world contains evil. Therefore: 3. It is not the case that God exists. God's commandment is by definition right And who defines that? God? How do you know he exists? How do you know the commandments comes from him? Surely you don't take the assumptions that the Bible was inspired by God for facts and base an entire universal philosophy on it? Right means God's word and God's word means right Whoa, you're getting wayyy ahead of yourself there.. you are making huge assumptions. How do you know all these? I've been asking this all along, but you haven't answered it YET. In fact the use of the word 'arbitrary' referring to God is a fallacy with the same roots as the whole argument. You are defining the fallacy in terms of the argument. That's begging the question. Point out the fallacies of the argument, instead of telling me that referring to God as arbitrary is fallacious just like the whole argument is. Moreover, you are misreading what was written - never was God referred to as arbitrary. The commands were referred to as arbitrary. It's not the same thing. Moreover, it does not base the argument on what Socrates said. It simply replaces "gods" with "God" and argues about it in the same way. Socrates is skeptical and asks: Is conduct right because the gods command it, or do the gods command it because it is right? Now change that to, People are skeptical and ask: Is conduct right because God commands it, or does God command it because it is right? The above is not a statement. It is a question. I don't know what you're talking about when you say "Socrates' argument is using 'gods' and is valid in conclusion ( b ) while this argument foolishly replaces 'gods' with 'God'." Where in the conclusion did he say that Socrates was right? I think you're confused. That's not meant to be offensive, and I hope you don't take it as such. But I am afraid that is a pretty good proof. Edited February 14, 2004 by den_wolf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
den_wolf Posted February 13, 2004 Author Report Share Posted February 13, 2004 Well I brought new points but you didn't address but are only saying that you disagree. BTW, why was this new argument of yours on divine commandment relevant? I would appreciate if you instead focused on my questions rather than deviate from the subject and overlook my replies Again, you are assuming. I did not overlook any of your replies, or at least not intentionally. Instead, I tried to bring proofs and make my point through arguments instead of point-by-point refutations. If you want, I could do that, but that would prove to be a waste of time and indeed develop into personal attacks eventually, which is what happened with axel. The divine command argument is relevant because we were talking about using the existence of God as a premise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
den_wolf Posted February 13, 2004 Author Report Share Posted February 13, 2004 (edited) Suppose there is something I can observe and you cannot. Since at least one person can observe we can call it observable. Is this thing truth? Such as? It is my understanding that in order for something to be universally observable, it should be observable by everyone. It should be self-evident. That is what axioms are all about. God's existence is not universally self-evident. Therefore, it is not an axiom, by definition. Edited February 13, 2004 by den_wolf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasun Posted February 14, 2004 Report Share Posted February 14, 2004 I took you more seriously than I should have. At least I expect you to read carefully and think before you answer. Instead you are trying to impress with your 'knowledge' and typing irrelevant things. You think I am confused??? Is that your argument? Well I think you don't understand things that are not simple. But in such a case you should ask instead of arrogantly claiming that I am confused. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
den_wolf Posted February 14, 2004 Author Report Share Posted February 14, 2004 I took you more seriously than I should have. At least I expect you to read carefully and think before you answer. Oh, I do read. But what you are typing is a repetition/regurgitation of what you think. I do know what you are trying to say. I am not that dumb. What's with the attack? Relax. Instead you are trying to impress with your 'knowledge' and typing irrelevant things. LOL, trying to impress you? No, I only try to impress my supervisors, because then and only then do I get the rewards. It's all about psychological egoism. Why would I try to impress someone who is either on the same level as I am or perhaps lower (not that I am saying that you are)? I have far better things to do than spend 20 minutes typing something just so that I could impress you. With all due respect to your imagination, you are not a king (unless your assumptions tell you otherwise, in which case, it would be the truth - note the irony), so I would not attempt to impress you. You think I am confused??? Is that your argument? No, that is my observation. My argument is that God cannot be used as a premise to get to a universal philosophy. I don't care if you're Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist, or a self-identified believer in spirituality, that is not the point. The point is, you are trying to bring your beliefs into the equation, the beliefs not even being axioms. Well I think you don't understand things that are not simple. That is what YOU think. Just because you think so does not mean it's the truth. So as an example, my supervisors think otherwise! And they might be wrong too, but at least they don't use that to arrive to the conclusion that I am arrogant or humble. You are being a hypocrite by getting all angry about me "claiming" that you're confused, while you're CLAIMING that I'm arrogant. No offense, as I said! I do not take joy in personal attacks. And indeed, I did not make a claim about your moral character. Simply about the reality of the situation (which had nothing to do with your character - I never claimed you were a confused individual in general). And I've been confused all too many times. And I've admitted that I didn't understand your points if I really did not, and asked for clarification. Where's the arrogance in that? Now if you'll excuse me, I want to go back to Spinoza and whatever we were discussing, and if you don't want to continue with the discussion, then I apologise for causing such distress. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasun Posted February 14, 2004 Report Share Posted February 14, 2004 Look Den_wolf, I like to discuss philosophy but I don't want to deal with somebody's ego and personal insinuations. If I have spent so much time discussing things with you obviously I don't consider you dumb. But I came to realize that you don't understand subtle points and are unwilling to think outside of the box. Perhaps I am not clear, perhaps you are not used to un-bookish thoughts, or perhaps something else. I have a lot of patience to clarify things but I can't say that I am enjoying debating with you, so no thanks I will pass on your offer to discuss Spinoza and instead relax. Oh and don't be silly, I didn't attack you, you were the one who got personal and aggressive. P.S. and no hard feelings, this is not a matter of life and death Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
den_wolf Posted February 14, 2004 Author Report Share Posted February 14, 2004 So just because I don't agree and am trying to refute your points, that means that I don't understand your "subtle" points and am unwilling to think outside of the box? How about I said the same about you? Who would be right then? I am not being bookish. So far, I didn't even bring any of Kant or any of Plato or Socrates. I am simply discussing ideas, not books or documents. So who are you calling bookish? For your information, I am in postgraduate school in philosophy, that doesn't really mean that I cannot think otuside the box. It means that I back up my arguments quite well, and if you have a problem with that and the fact that I say "I disagree," then I think you DID do the wise thing in backing away from this discussion. As I said before, I am not here to convince anyone. That is not the point of a discussion. That is why so many of you start attacking others and changing the direction of a thread from discussion to war-like hate mongering. A discussion is for exchange of opinions, not an attempt to force one's view upon another. You are assuming a morally higher position and claiming that your position is better tha mine. You are claiming that God's existence is universal and that because I do not use that as a premise, there is something wrong with my arguments, and that I (or Rachels) is referring to God in a superficial manner. If you choose to take things to personally, then by any means, back away. But there really wasn't anything personal in this, I assure you. You can't expect your "opponent" in a debate to not attack your arguments. You want to attack my arguments, but get all hot and bothered when I attack yours, and you claim yours is backed by God and the truth that I cannot see. I'm sorry, but I really can't follow your logic. I didn't get personal until you did. Where on earth, in this thread, did I get personal and aggressive (before your post that starts with "I took you more seriously than I should have.") And even then, I tried to be as nice as possible. I don't believe in personal attacks. Call me arrogant, call me egoistic, because at the end of the day, it will be YOU who is making judgements and attacks on my moral values and character. And this will be my final reply to you with regards to this. I will continue to post my observations in this thread unless it distresses you and you choose to lock it. Anyone who would like to throw some thoughts in is welcome to do so. I like hearing peoples' views, contrary to what you or others might think. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasun Posted February 15, 2004 Report Share Posted February 15, 2004 Now now... this is too dishonest... have I ever locked a thread because I was 'distressed' ??? Be careful with your accusations, I won't accept false accusations... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
den_wolf Posted February 15, 2004 Author Report Share Posted February 15, 2004 Now now... this is too dishonest... have I ever locked a thread because I was 'distressed' ??? Be careful with your accusations, I won't accept false accusations... O.K., calm down. Frankly, I don't know you and how you act with regards to threads. That is why I used the word "unless", which meant that I didn't think you would be distressed by it, unless you were an exception. peace Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.