thats what religion is suppose to be about..but unfortunately man is in control of religion, so it ends up being a political motivation as you describe it.
Far be it for me to interrupt this arguement, but I think we are getting somewhere at last. This human 'politic capital' (to invent a phrase) has most certainly driven religeon for many thousands of years. This is more the anthropological basis for religeon I was looking for.
I think the atheistic arguments one encounters here fits the bill quite rightly kind of like asking "explain why apples are logical". The very question makes you wonder what issues the other person has going on in their toupee to ask it. :shrug: Geez, and to think that you accuse me of not getting around much ..... The primeval cause of all causes The original living entity Independent Infallible .... just a few off the top of my head
My original post(#39) , about the parallels and distinctions between the two (#39) was ... political is about the (pertinacious) power relationships between a group of people (usually to meet some temporal end) and religion is about one's relationship with god (usually to meet some eternal end). If we talk about the two not being mutually exclusive, its because the instances happen to stand outside the guidelines given in parentheses
You have an array of applications from an array of disciplines, all of which can strike up storms of contention, controversy and contradictions ... yet if a client is under the duress of acute need, they can manage to negotiate it since they are primarily concerned about the very thing that unites them all - namely improved personal health. There are others who might play the health field for other reasons - to make money, to socialize with the doctors, to deceive a certain authority (like having a sick day off from work), etc ... so even though there may be several acute needs to bring a person to the field, they can be analyzed in terms of their suitability IN the Bg its given the 4 types of people (with their acute needs) who come to KC and how they rate
Perhaps I am just not pious enough to qualify among those four. If anything, my experience of religion/spirituality is that the one thing one must give up is the concern for one's own welfare. That the important thing is to worship God, or "do the right thing", even if it costs one one's life. Like building a pyramid: the workers don't matter, what matters is that the pyramid gets built, even if countless workers suffer and die in the process. You haven't said anything to post 57.
I am sure countless religious people (and there are billions of them) perceive their own religiousness as "my anthropological basis for my religious convictions". :bugeye:
Don't forget, Signal, that science is a very new development in the history of mankind. Certainly it didn't exist before 1400 AD when gunpowder came along. Before this all knowledge came through spiritual teachers. In fact there is a long history of men of God doing breakthrough science, take Mendel for example, we still use his techniques to breed better crops and livestock. The two aren't mutually exclusive.
1. Cause of all causes explains what this undefined thing supposedly did, (caused all causes), not what it is. 2. The 'original living entity' tells us that whatever it is it existed before anything else. This does not tell us what it is. 3. 'Independent' doesn't tell us what it is, just how it lives. 4. 'Infallible' informs us of a secondary attribute, it doesn't tell us what it is. I wasn't asking for relational or secondary attributes. [Edit] As a helpful example, note that "Bill causes things, is dependant upon others and is fallible" does not tell us what Bill is. It could be a human, a dog or a fictional cartoon character.
all these things are necessarily singular (except perhaps for number4). IOW its only logically tenable that there be one original living entity, one cause of all causes etc etc .. so in this way the descriptions are quite specific (unlike Bill, who may be a dog, a gorilla or a gross materialist or whatever since there are a host of things that cause other things, that are dependent, are fallible etc)
This is a flawed, unsupported claim and the fallacy of 'begging the question'. There is in fact nothing in way of suggesting that any 'cause of all causes' need or can be "living", but even pretending that such thing is living does not - as already pointed out - tell us what it is. You cannot use relational or secondary attributes as explanation of what something is, (as the example showed). Furthermore, it would be interesting to attempt to find out what understanding of 'living' you are using. 'Living' things are: "Complex physico-chemical systems whose two main peculiarities are (1) storage and replication of molecular information in the form . of nucleic acid, and (2) the presence of (or in viruses perhaps merely the potential for) enzyme catalysis. Without enzyme catalysis a system is inert, not alive" [1] Explain what you mean precisely. Good day. [1] New Penguin Dictionary of Biology.
its the definition for a term .. .if you can't even get that right you are not really in a position to pontificate about if being flawed or un/supported or whatever wtf? If I told you obama is the current president of the united states ... hell, even if I told you mickey mouse is the current president of the united states, you don't think you could work out what it is? I mean if a category is so exclusive that it is necessarily singular, what further information are you looking for? What more information do you need tagged to "current president of the united states" do understand the category of "current president of the united states" (assuming that you are not such a doofus as to be ignorant of words like "president" and "the united states") the traits aren't secondary they are primary a secondary characteristic of god would be that he is conscious, has a personality and a host of other things that don't necessarily designate him as exclusive (since we also have those qualities)
It looks like SnakeLord is working out of the understanding that a definition is supposed to be formulated like this: genus + differentia specifica (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genus-differentia_definition). So, for example: God: genus: gods differentia specifica: original (=cause of all causes, independent) "God" (capitalized) is the original one of the gods.
Uhh, LG - making a claim that "its only logically tenable that there be one original living entity" is not a "definition for a term", but an unsupported claim which I have already argued against. Your question doesn't seem to be relevant to anything. If you'd care to support your assertion that an 'original cause' must be a 'living organism' then kindly so so. (Further, as already requested but - as is typical with you - unanswered, tell me what you precisely mean by 'living'). If you do not do so, the discussion will end here. Mostly relational actually. I would advise some time spent studying the difference between primary/secondary and relational along with negative definitions.
its relevant to a category that is necessarily singular. How many current presidents of the unites states (leaving aside the detail whether it is obama or mickey mouse for the moment because you seem to be really struggling) do you think there can be? two? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! compare to something dead get back to us with your conclusions Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! meh typical its not a difficult subject Primary attributes are designations that make it exclusive. Secondary attributes are designations which may be shared by several. So , in the case of obama (or mickey mouse, if you want to run with that), a primary characteristic is that he is the current president. A secondary characteristic is that he is black, an American, a male, etc (BTW mickey mouse also shares the same secondary characteristics ... ) And furthermore, in the case of god, a primary characteristic is that he is the cause of all causes. A secondary characteristic is that he has a personality, etc. comprendo?
Which - even if allowing this to be the case - does not make it living, (hence my demand that you support your assertion instead of continually waffling on with irrelevant matters). Kindly answer the question. If I compare what 'life' is against that which is dead I find something that doesn't metabolize versus something that does, something that doesn't excrete waste vs something that does etc. This clearly cannot be what you mean by 'living' - hence the question that you continually fail to answer but instead avoid. Consider this the last attempt to get an answer from you. Typical that people won't waste time discussing issues with people that do not want to answer questions? I should hope it's typical. Incorrect. Try again. Interesting, there are in fact quite a few 'current presidents'. Don't let that stop you. Again this is flawed. What is the 'cause of all causes'?: God: What is god? (The question still has not been answered. Saying that something is the 'cause of all causes does not tell us what it is. It could be an uncaused material non-living object, a pancake that farts out causes ad nauseum]. Saying it is the cause of all causes doesn't tell us what it is but what it has done, (relational). We are getting somewhere with regards to secondary and relational attributes. We see, for instance, that whatever this thing is it's apparently a man (you said 'he') - hence you must see it as a material, penis owning, entity.
once again, its kind of pointless to branch off on a topic of evidence for a term when the candidate can't even come to grips with the definition of it If the essence of life defies physics, it should be obvious you are barking up the wrong tree. I mean if you have to inspect your wife's shit to work out whether she is dead or not, you certainly are one for strange relationships .... I'm just asking you to switch on your brain. Most people don't require a host of scientific tools to work out who is alive I mean its typical that you don't want top play ball when the problem clearly takes one outside the parameters of a reductionist view. Asking for life to expressed in biological language for god is absurd since the very substance of biology (the corporeal body composed of matter) is a subsequent potency of his. In fact the very language of biology prohibits approaching anything independent or being the cause of all causes. Insisting that we discss god purely in biological terms is absurd from the onset Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! current presidents of the united states? please listthem ... The "what" question is answered in terms of function, not biology. If you can't get your head around how biology is not adequate to answer the question of what is god, its yet another problem you having at the point of theory. Hell, even if we were to ask "what is your wife", the best answers would also be along the same lines ... (as opposed to a run down on her biology, all of which would be secondary anyway since there are a host of candidates who could fit the bill). The answer would also be necessarily singular too (unless you are polygamist) even if you want to call it a pancake that farts, it would still be an exclusive category (ie necessarily singular), much like the category of "current president of the usa" is necessarily singular, much like the category of "your wife" is necessarily singular ... and furthermore, the best answers to such questions would be made in terms of function. assuming that you aren't dealing with masculinity purely in terms of your biological experience of it oops, another screw up from you at the point of theory. No wonder you are finding this complicated and difficult ...
