Spirituality
15 May 11
18 May 11
5 edits
Originally posted by robbie carrobie“...Secondly others persons derive great benefit and strength, even being able to accomplish what they could not possibly to have hoped to accomplish upon their own strength from developing a relationship with a perceived element, which we term God, others Christ. ...”
They may not be real to you, but that does not mean they are not real to other people. Is the tooth fairy real to the little child who puts his tooth underneath his pillow? Yes indeed, I even heard of one kid that put popcorn under his pillow in order to trick the tooth fairy. Does it matter to the little child that you do not profess belief in th ...[text shortened]... and interest are there, if we are willing to look, even in a clod of grass?
everything holy😵
so is the implied general principle you are using here above that that we should believe in the existence of something X if that belief in the existence of X causes some emotional benefit (and/or other benefits) even if X is false and a belief in X is delusional?
If there is no 'God', would you say we still should believe there is a 'God' for the emotional benefits of having such a delusion?
If so, I (and many others) see having a delusional belief as being intrinsically bad even if there are benefits of having such a delusion.
Thanks but I for one would rather be unhappy but with the real world rather than be happily deluded in a fantasy land with absurd beliefs.
18 May 11
6 edits
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonYou are confusing emotional benefit (your words) with practical benefit. The reference was given of
“...Secondly others persons derive great benefit and strength, even being able to accomplish what they could not possibly to have hoped to accomplish upon their own strength from developing a relationship with a perceived element, which we term God, others Christ. ...”
so is the implied general principle you are using here above that that we shoul still should believe there is a 'God' for the emotional benefits of having such a delusion?
recovering alcoholics who are counselled, to think of a higher source (it need not be
God), whom they can appeal to, in order to aid recovery. Whether x is false or
delusional or can be proven to exist or not to exist is not important, i thought that was
clear. All arguments based on existence/non existence are utterly futile, they cannot
be proven or not proven, it is time to move on.
18 May 11
Originally posted by robbie carrobie“...You are confusing emotional benefit (your words) with practical benefit. ...”
You are confusing emotional benefit (your words) with practical benefit. The reference was given of
recovering alcoholics who are counselled, to think of a higher source (it need not be
God), whom they can appeal to, in order to aid recovery. Whether x is false or
delusional or can be proven to exist or not to exist is not important, i thought ...[text shortened]... /non existence are utterly futile, they cannot
be proven or not proven, it is time to move on.
reminder of what I just said: “if that belief in the existence of X causes some emotional benefit (and/or OTHER benefits) “ (my emphasis)
besides, what kind of benefit you are referring to here is irrelevant to my question; let me rephrase the question but replacing the word “emotional” with “practical” then:
“so is the implied general principle you are using here above that that we should believe in the existence of something X if that belief in the existence of X causes some practical benefit even if X is false and a belief in X is delusional?
If there is no 'God', would you say we still should believe there is a 'God' for the practical benefits of having such a delusion? “
“...Whether x is false or
delusional or can be proven to exist or not to exist is not important, ...”
so I take it that is a “yes” to both my questions. Well, I disagree with you for it IS important to me (and to anyone else that wants the truth rather than believe optimistic lies) that I am not deluded and it IS important to me (and many others) that I don't go to a pure fantasy land -EVEN if there are practical benefits in not being with the real world. So, sorry, I rather not be deluded thank you very much.
18 May 11
Originally posted by robbie carrobie“...You are confusing emotional benefit (your words) with practical benefit. ...”
You are confusing emotional benefit (your words) with practical benefit. The reference was given of
recovering alcoholics who are counselled, to think of a higher source (it need not be
God), whom they can appeal to, in order to aid recovery. Whether x is false or
delusional or can be proven to exist or not to exist is not important, i thought ...[text shortened]... /non existence are utterly futile, they cannot
be proven or not proven, it is time to move on.
reminder of what I just said: “if that belief in the existence of X causes some emotional benefit (and/or OTHER benefits) “ (my emphasis)
besides, what kind of benefit you are referring to here is irrelevant to my question; let me rephrase the question but replacing the word “emotional” with “practical” then:
“so is the implied general principle you are using here above that that we should believe in the existence of something X if that belief in the existence of X causes some practical benefit even if X is false and a belief in X is delusional?
If there is no 'God', would you say we still should believe there is a 'God' for the practical benefits of having such a delusion? “
“...Whether x is false or
delusional or can be proven to exist or not to exist is not important, ...”
so I take it that is a “yes” to both my questions. Well, I disagree with you for it IS important to me (and to anyone else that wants the truth rather than believe optimistic lies) that I am not deluded and it IS important to me (and many others) that I don't go to a pure fantasy land -EVEN if there are practical benefits in not being with the real world. So, sorry, I rather not be deluded thank you very much.
18 May 11
One cannot count backwards form infinity to zero, just as one cannot count from zero to infinity. It is impossible to traverse an infinite series. So that being true: The past cannot therefore be infinite. If the past is not infinite then it must have a begining.
Nothing that exists can exist without cause. If the past is finite, then existance is finite as well. Something has caused existance, the "what" seems to be the question.The fact that the universe began to exist therefore implies that something brought it into existence. This is the crux of Prima Causa. Things don't simply "just happen". If it was a cataclysmic event, then waht caused it? etc... More on this later.
18 May 11
1 edit
Originally posted by DowardIt is impossible to traverse an infinite series.
One cannot count backwards form infinity to zero, just as one cannot count from zero to infinity. It is impossible to traverse an infinite series. So that being true: The past cannot therefore be infinite. If the past is not infinite then it must have a begining.
Nothing that exists can exist without cause. If the past is finite, then existance is finite ust happen". If it was a cataclysmic event, then waht caused it? etc... More on this later.
Yeah but you can often find its limit. ;]
Nothing that exists can exist without cause.
If you're willing to posit that some god is an exception to this rule then equally, the existence of the universe has as much claim to be in the same camp
18 May 11
1 edit
Originally posted by AgergIf you're willing to posit that some god is an exception to this rule then equally, the existence of the universe has as much claim to be in the same camp
[b] It is impossible to traverse an infinite series.
Yeah but you can often find its limit. ;]
Nothing that exists can exist without cause.
If you're willing to posit that some god is an exception to this rule then equally, the existence of the universe has as much claim to be in the same camp[/b]
The first cause argument is the argument that everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause, that the universe has a beginning of its existence, and that the universe therefore has a cause of its existence. It is my contention that a God defined as "perfection" has no begining to his/her existance, For what could be more perfect than a God that has always existed? Therefore your argument does not apply.
18 May 11
2 edits
Originally posted by DowardWell you arbitrarily defining God to be perfect, and defining a perfect attribute as being eternally existent is somewhat dubious. Indeed I could play the same game and define some multiverse which spawned this universe to be perfect (how many better multiverses do you know of?), and so in the same way argue *it* doesn't need a cause. No gods required ;]
[b]If you're willing to posit that some god is an exception to this rule then equally, the existence of the universe has as much claim to be in the same camp
The first cause argument is the argument that everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause, that the universe has a beginning of its existence, and that the universe therefore has be more perfect than a god that has always existwed? Therefore your argument does not apply.[/b]
18 May 11
Originally posted by AgergIts not arbitrary, I firmly established this point of view a number of times in these forums.
Well you arbitrarily defining God to be perfect, and defining a perfect attribute as being eternally existent is somewhat dubious. Indeed I could play the same game and define some multiverse which spawned this universe to be perfect (how many better multiverses do you know of?), and so in the same way argue *it* doesn't need a cause. No gods required ;]
18 May 11
1 edit
Originally posted by Doward“...One cannot count backwards form infinity to zero, just as one cannot count from zero to infinity. It is impossible to traverse an infinite series. So that being true: The past cannot therefore be infinite. If the past is not infinite then it must have a begining. ...”
One cannot count backwards form infinity to zero, just as one cannot count from zero to infinity. It is impossible to traverse an infinite series. So that being true: The past cannot therefore be infinite. If the past is not infinite then it must have a begining.
Nothing that exists can exist without cause. If the past is finite, then existance is finite ust happen". If it was a cataclysmic event, then waht caused it? etc... More on this later.
using the same type of reasoning, you could say “One cannot count forwards form now to infinity. It is impossible to traverse an infinite series. So that being true: The future cannot therefore be infinite. If the future is not infinite then it must have an end” -right?
“...Nothing that exists can exist without cause. ….”
that may be or may not be true so don't get me wrong, I am not saying is is necessarily false because I don't know either way, but; how do you know that everything that exists has a cause?
"...If it was a cataclysmic event, then waht caused it?..."
the above question assumes a cause.
18 May 11
Originally posted by Andrew Hamiltonwe know the universe has not always existed. Again, one cannot traverse an infinite series, so at some point there is an origin. What was the cause of the origin?
“...One cannot count backwards form infinity to zero, just as one cannot count from zero to infinity. It is impossible to traverse an infinite series. So that being true: The past cannot therefore be infinite. If the past is not infinite then it must have a begining. ...”
using the same type of reasoning, you could say “One cannot count forwards f ...[text shortened]... it was a cataclysmic event, then waht caused it?..."
the above question assumes a cause.
18 May 11
1 edit
Originally posted by DowardWell you *think* it's non-arbitraryness has been established; but your reliance on classical "proof"s of God is not a burden I have to carry. Indeed I recall that for all your efforts, you failed to defend Anselm's proof of God,
Its not arbitrary, I firmly established this point of view a number of times in these forums.
(not your fault per-se since it is a flawed argument to begin with - though there is fault for championing it)
and Aquinas' "proof" of God is just as shaky.18 May 11
4 edits
Originally posted by Doward“...one cannot traverse an infinite series, so at some point there is an origin. ...”
we know the universe has not always existed. Again, one cannot traverse an infinite series, so at some point there is an origin. What was the cause of the origin?
Using the same logic, would you say that “...one cannot traverse an infinite series, so at some point there is an end. ...” is also a logically valid deduction?
“...What was the cause of the origin? ...”
if the start of the big bang was the start of time (and I am not saying it is; that hypothesis may or may not be correct) then there was no “before” the universe and therefore there was no “cause” to its origin (else WHEN did that cause exist!? ). So, IF that is the case (and I don't know if it is) then to ask “...What was the cause of the origin? ...” (of the universe) would be like asking “ what land is further south than the south pole”.
In other words, the question assumes something that could, for all we know, be true, BUT may not be so.
18 May 11
2 edits
Originally posted by Andrew Hamiltonthis post of yours is reflective of the absurdity of the base materialist, first of all you term something which is a reality to another person, delusional, simply because it is not real to you, secondly you yourself give credence to unobserved phenomena, the creation of life from non living matter, just by way of example, and here you are hypocritically terming it a lie when others do the same, lastly, you have based your evaluations an an assumption, the assumption that there really is no God for which you have no evidence, thus your post is reflective of the closed mindedness and prejudiced attitude which marrs the base materialist, its simply fundamentally flawed at best and hypocritical at worst. Once you are able to see past the existence and non existence arguments you may make some progress, but as it stands, i dont hold out much hope for you.
“...You are confusing emotional benefit (your words) with practical benefit. ...”
reminder of what I just said: “if that belief in the existence of X causes some emotional benefit (and/or OTHER benefits) “ (my emphasis)
besides, what kind of benefit you are referring to here is irrelevant to my question; let me rephrase the question but repla s in not being with the real world. So, sorry, I rather not be deluded thank you very much.
19 May 11
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonIt is recorded in the Holy Bible what God has revealed to us
“...one cannot traverse an infinite series, so at some point there is an origin. ...”
Using the same logic, would you say that “...one cannot traverse an infinite series, so at some point there is an [b]end. ...” is also a logically valid deduction?
“...What was the cause of the origin? ...”
if the start of the big bang was the start o ...[text shortened]... words, the question assumes something that could, for all we know, be true, BUT may not be so.[/b]
about the origin of the universe and that He has always existed
so He needs no cause.