Total posts: 331
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
(IFF) OOC (THEN) everything that exists is part of OOC
Ok, now you have changed your syllogism.
And what do you mean by "part of" there are different ways to be a part of something.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
what is the point of distinguishing TERMINOLOGY if the two are functionally identical ?
Because a thing is not what it does.
Unless you care to prove to me that a thing is what it does, This principle stands.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
energy cannot be created or destroyedit is a fundamental principle known as the law of conservation of energy
Ok. Explain what you mean here.
Because you still ultimately have not answered the contradiction that a thing as a whole is causing itself, which is impossible.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
you've made unsupported assertions using undefined terms
No I have not. Try reading what I have said again.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
ok, greatis your soul influenced by circumstances ?does your soul respond to emergencies for example ?does your soul birth motives that are based on your childhood experiences and perhaps some training or education you've inculcated ?
Yes, but once again, a thing is different from what it does.
I am not the sum total of my influences.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
try presenting the logic
I have. With examples. I am sorry if you can not see it.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
or are you intentionally confusing the conversation by using the words "life" and "soul" interchangeably ?
I am not using them interchangably.
Life: self-Movement of some sort.
Soul: Principle of that movement. Or if you want: the thing that causes the movement.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
a deist is functionally indistinguishable from an atheist
We are not talking about what they do. We are talking about what they are.
i could say "i worship NANABOZHO, the native american creation god" - and christians would still call me an atheist...
I dont think so. I certainly would not call you an atheist.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
it's pretty simpleeverything taken all together = ooceach individual thing = part of ooc
So then the universe is god.
So all that exists comes from the universe.
So the universe had what exists before it caused what exists
So things exist and do not exist at the same time and the same way.
A blatant contradiction. I am not buying it. You will have to do better than that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Atheism, in the broadest sense, is an absence of belief in the existence of deities.atheism is the psychological state of lacking the belief that God exists.ATHEISM is a lack of belief or a strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods.Atheism is one thing: A lack of belief in gods. It is not an affirmative belief that there is no god nor does it answer any other question about a person.Theism is the belief in a god or gods. The prefix 'a' [in front of theism] means; 'without' or 'lack of'. Therefore, atheism means 'without a belief in a god
All of these definitions of atheism say "a lack of belief in any god"
Deist: One who believes in God based on reason. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/deism
everyone who identifies as something OTHER than a THEIST qualifies
How does that definition of an atheist fit to a deist?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
every extant thing must logically be part of OOCbut each part is not the wholein the same way that your finger is part of your body, but your finger is not your whole body
And how does this not contradict you if then syllogism?
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
it is a bad philosophy to choose colloquial explanations over logical explanations
These "colloquial explanations" are examples that show the realism of my philosophy, because philosophy is about real things. It is not high minded gymnastics for the sake of high minded gymnastics. It is an explanation from reason about what is real.
Maybe try seeing the logic behind it, instead of looking at them so superficially.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
The prefontal cortex does not produce reason, nor is it the spot in the brain that causes reason. It produces an image in your mind. We call that a phantasm in philosophy.
Scientifically speaking it is the chemical mixture in your brain organized by whatever sensation you just had.
Philisophically it is the part of the brain which produces the image from which your soul produces a concept.
We have an axiom in Philosophy: All knowledge starts in the senses.
After the senses the brain makes an "image" or a chemical mixture, whichever you want and the soul from that produces its concepts.
Science has never been able to see concepts when scanning brains. They have been able to see the chemical mixtures, but not what comes after.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
so now souls require food ?
You remember what I said above what the soul is? My soul, the principle of my life. Comment number 19.
That means any activity of my life, including nutrition of my body, is actuated by my soul.
So no. I am clearly not talking about souls needing food.
Remember what I said about the soul? The principle of life. That also means that how we live is determined by our soul. Does a dog live? Yes, so it has a soul.Do I live the same way as a dog? No, but am I living? Yes. So I have a soul that is different from the dog.how do you know this ?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
right, but this means that NOthing can exist that is not OOC, part of OOC, and animated by the will of OOCit is impossible to "make a copy" of OOCbecause you can't have two things that are both omnipotent and omniscient and the creator of all thingsbutOOC can manipulate variations within itselfand each of these "things" is a small portion of OOC without being the whole
Your part that says "NOthing can exist that is not OOC" contradicts your next point of "You cannot have two things that are both OOC."
How do your other points above correspond witht the fact that your initial if-then syllogysm clearly indicates that everything is god?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
every argument is a semantic argument if you don't rigorously define your terms
Ok then! Give me your definition of atheism and a justification for the definition.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
the only logical way for your will to be free from the universal causal chainis for it to be randomly generateddo you believe your motives are randomly generated ?
It is not the only logical way. Your argument comes from a poor understanding of the nature of free will.
When you produce a concept in your soul, you have an appetite that tends toward this concept. This appetite is free as regards whether or not it tends towards the concept. It is not determined until the subject of the appetite (namely the person, you ,me, Joe Biden, Trump, whomever) determines whether or not this appetite tends to the concept (thus producing action) or not (in which case there is no action). This explanation of free will gives rise tot he definition of free will as: The Intellectual appetite.
Intellectual: implying it tends towards the concept.
Appetite: implying there is a tendency.
Common sense shows us the appetite is free.
If it is not free, what is the point of judicial systems, court rooms, laws, punishment, prison? Why do we imply we have responsebilities? Why do we have law enforcement?
It is a bad philosophy to deny common sense. You are setting yourself up for failure.
My choices are not randomly generated. They are chosen freely.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
would be forced to make everything out of itself
Out of itself... completely, as He can only make a whole copy of Himself always??? Absolutely not! That is defying common sense and the principle of non-contradiction.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
my car and my dog also have a soulprove me wrong if you can
Your car does not have a soul. Is your car living by itself? Does your car feed itself?
Your dog does, but it is not the same type of soul as mine.
I have an intellectual soul that virtually contains a sensitive and vegitative soul.
A dog only has the sensitive soul which virtually contains the vegitative soul.
plants only have a vegitative soul.
What distinguishes me from your dog is that I can reason and have a deeper understanding of things and choose freely whether to love them or not. Your dog cannot do that. It only acts on its instincts.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
therefore MONISM
No that is not Monism.
Monism says there is no distinction whatsoever. In any way. It is all the same. There is no such thing as duality.
That is not what I am saying.
I am still positing that there is a common substrate while at the same there is something else that is different and distinguishes Him from us.
For example: The commonality between God and man is our intellect and will (they are not the same Intellect and will, but have the ability to be united as one. Remember "one" does not mean the same as "as one".) But we are different because we are created, He is not. We have an animal nature, he does not. We are finite He is not, etc.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
but that's not the "whole point"many people who call themselves "atheists" are deists and or pantheists or monists (like myself)many people who call themselves "atheists" are apatheists (who simply don't care if any sort of gods exist or not)theists love to oversimplify "atheism" into a single rare form of anti-theism which purports to make a claim that "there is no definition of god(s) that can qualify for any definition of exists"i'd call this a very convenient straw-man argument
That is not the mainstream idea of atheism. At least not from what I have seen. I am willing to say I am wrong about that if you can show me that that is what atheists are.
Either way, this particular part of the argument has no bearing on the main points I am making and it is also very quickly falling into useless semantics.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
without this omnipotent omniscient creatorNOthing has ever or will ever or can ever "exist" (in all conceivable senses of the word)
Yes, I agree. This does not contradict what I am saying.
It still does not mean that we all exist in the same way.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
the word itself literally means "without theism"
I am not talking about what the word means literally. I am talking about your logic. And if it means "not theist" because the theist believes in God then they also are "non deists" if the whole point of the word is to say "no God"
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
please be slightly more specific
There is a branch of Theology called Fundamental Theology (which is also known as Apologetics) which deals with the "How would we know if God did reveal himself and not some quackjob?" question.
The principle that it starts with is the following:
"If God created us then He can interact with us."
There is absolutely no reason to think He is incapable of doing that.
They have other principles as well.
"An all good God will not allow good willed men to be deceived"
"His revelation must be something that is exclusively of Him and not of anything in nature"
Among others...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
(IFF) omniscient omnipotent creator = exist (THEN) everything that exists = omniscient omnipotent creator
Yes! Exactly! I coul not have given a better example to prove what I am saying about Spinosa.
He posits here that "exists" is a univocal word that means only one thing without any different senses. Like a number in math. You even put it in a mathematical formula for me!
I do not exist the same way the color green does. I do not exist as a dog, or as an abstract thought. Which according to the logic above I would have to be.
God does not exist the same way we do. This is why people call Spinosa a pantheist. He thinks everything is God.
Quite false. Quite obviously wrong. My point stands. He is too box minded. His meaning of Being is univocal.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
I mean the single entirety, or total, or whole, of that which the reader has in their conscious and unconscious mind and body in any sense.
So basically...
Am I that which consists wholly of my conscience and unconscience mind and body regardless of which sense we are speaking?
Here is the problem with that: It excludes the fundamental aspect that makes us human, namely the soul.
Let me make my philosophy clear:
I am a rational animal. By rational I mean I have the ability to reason coming from my power to know something intellectually. My soul, the principle of my life, is the thing by which I know (and also love). By animal I mean I have a body with sensation, respiration, digestion, sensitive cognition, reproduction, etc.
I am body and soul
I have a free will.
To gain knowledge I start with my senses, literally, and then use my reason from there. My memory and imagination have their parts to play. My brain is an organ, It is only a step to understanding knowledge.
So no, I am not the sum total of my influences. Unless you want to change your definition of influences to the principle causes of all being. Namely: Formal material, efficient, and final.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Define "influences"
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
by far the strongest argument for DEISM is spinozaETHICA ORDINE GEOMETRICO DEMONSTRATA
I have not read it. But just based on the latin title, it seems to me he looks at the concept of Being very mathematically, which in the other works I have read of him is definitely true of him and He is wrong in that regard. Being is not mathematical. Even the very method of mathematics has as a principle a construct of the mind that, while we use to measure reality, is of itself not real, namely numbers. When you study Being, you need to study it according to something real, not numbers. I disagree with Spinosa for this reason.
there is absolutely no path to any particular flavor of THEISM
That is not true. If you know God exists, then you can reason to those things by which a God could, would, should, etc reveal Himself. There are things we call "trademarks" of God, namely prophecies and miracles. This is the whole point of the study of Fundamental Theology, namely how would we know it is actually God.
and since a DEIST is NOT a THEISTyou could reasonably define ATHEIST as simply "not a theist"
This does not follow logically nor make sense. You might as well define an atheist then as "not an avacado" or "not a mountain" or "not a deist" as well.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
how can you not be simply the product of your biology and environment ?
Are you saying I am the same as was what is not me? What are you trying to ask here?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
I have not actually found any solid atheistic arguments.
Of course the BoP is on theists and deists. Their arguments are solid, but the problem really comes down to this "principle of experiance" that Hume came up with against the older (and frankly wiser than Hume) philosophies.
Modern philosophy from the "enlightenment" period basically says that all certitude of knowledge must be verifiable with evidence that can be experianced. So how they know they were born on a "this particuler day", I have no idea.
Their problem as I see it is a shallow take on knowledge that ends up denying reason while trying to use it.
Atheism is based on this philosophy. It is no wonder an old friend of mine said: "Atheists say that the only thing that unites them is a lack of belief in any god. It would be more true to say they are united in being intellectually lazy."
Why a perfectly logical and reasonable conclusion begotten from reasoning that started with an experiance, also needs evidence that can be experianced, They have never answered that except that experiance is the only way to know with certitude. Where is the evidence that says "evidence is the only way to know with certitude?" They have never answered that. The very principle that Hume comes up, he comes up with by (fallacious) reason and then uses it to deny reason. And all the "enlightenment" philosophers jump of this cliff with him into the abyss of absurdity.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
I simply see this:
There is me and there is what is not me.
I try to focus on what is not me.
Created: