Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by Mandana, Oct 5, 2009.
you didn't answer my quote
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
I'm not sure what you mean here.
Do you mean that a constitutional great divide exists between god and the living entity in terms of quantity and potency?
I thought I did.
The only "game" from god's perspective is that we are in ignorance (namely accepting an identity that we are not) and he is seeking to remedy that via material existence
that god punishes those that don't follow his advice
Eve and Adam for example
Eve took the bite of the apple of knowledge and then god condemed all of Humanity for it , sounds like a Human reaction , an immature , controlling attitude , than a god
So its not so much that we have a god that punishes but that we have a god that is out to lunch on ethics (or the application of punishment)?
Personally I have never really accepted the adam and eve story on face value... and IMHO is exemplary of the plethora of text critical issues that surround the bible.
what identity are we not ?
this body and all its constituent properties (such as the mind) which are generated out of taking birth in an ephemeral geographical and social environment.
from the begining
of course not , no surprise
then it appears you have problems with christianity (and even then, only a particular interpretation of it) as opposed to some wider philosophical gripe with god
My point in that example was that values can (and do) arise when it could come into conflict with what one is attempting to accomplish.
Not at all.
From the beginning, when I made use of the term "value" I was always making use of it in the classical philosophical sense.
And I maintain that it is irrational.
To support anything beyond "we" is irrational, and has nothing whatsoever to do with any value set, regardless of what you'd like to think. While a non-atheist POV may not necessarily be incongruent with rationality in general, when faced with a more efficient POV lacking such an entity as a designer, Ockham's reigns.
I would agree with this.
Nonetheless, that's not the topic here either. We've gone too far astray.
I would completely disagree.
The relative value (in your hyper-extended sense of the term..) only becomes fixed once it has achieved consensus.
(Again, way offtopic here... but certainly an interesting line of thought in its own right..)
hence we choose different values in accordance with our objectives
there is no overarching classical philosophical sense of being active bereft of value (although you could spout a few mechanistic flavours that like to consider themselves there)
Given that the atheistic mindset prohibits such a venture, it only becomes irrational when one keeps such values to the fore.
I mean, do you suppose that an atheist could sincerely apply themselves to a theistic practice (a theistic practice capable of establishing something of god's nature) or do you think that it requires an ideological crisis to be surmounted?
Once again, the moment you start talking about a POV being more efficient (because it doesn't have a designer) is the moment, once again, when your values have taken the floor.
I always thought that competition was the process that established a consensus ...
trying to utilize the sharp edges of a microphone to cut a potato also poses problems
so your values dictate ...
IOW comfort in a universe perceived to be godless is probably not the best location for an investigation of the claim.
well yes, if you don't perceive any overarching direction of the universe it would be rational to interpret such reversals as arising from chance.
Its not so much beyond our realm of experience, but beyond the realm of experience of persons who neglect the requirements. Kind of like just because deep sea diving is beyond the realm of experience of persons who don't use deep sea diving suits says nothing about the experiences of persons who do.
And furthermore, the reason why some people take advantage of theistic processes and others don't is one of values.
as mentioned numerous times already, logic and reason are completely subservient to the values and experiences it departs from. Hence you can have two people offering rational viewpoints that are both diametrically opposed since they both have different experiences and values.
That's why the real topic of discussion is which values or experiences are more encompassing than others.
sure there is.
A mechanistic view point is underpinned by a host of values that make venturing into such an area extremely problematic and difficult.
Or, we do our best to eliminate them.
I never said there was. What I said was that there is a standard usage of the term "value" within philosophy (that differs vastly form yours..).
Sincerely? No. (though I would argue that even theists cannot "sincerely" apply themselves to such practice...)
However, anyone, regardless of ideology, can in principle entertain the idea, so as to explore it.
Nope; more equivocation.
I don't regard a methodology as being 'value-laden'.
It is. Within and amongst a context of constant competition.
I disagree. One need not dive to know what it is like.
As I've said, I agree with this. However, just because one begins from a value doesn't mean that this value 'cascades' through the process. More often than not, the value is used to establish the objective, and from there it is left inert.
I fail to see how this relates to the concept of purpose.
And yet, so much more fruitful than any competing POV....
This thread has become destabilized.
There have been a number of posters (myself included) who have gone off on tangents that have yet to return to the topic at hand. A number of these tangents in and of themselves are interesting, and worthy perhaps of threads in their own right.
For those of you who would like to pursue any of these investigations, please do feel free to start a new thread. With respect to this thread however, I kindly implore everyone to do your best to keep to the topic. Feel free to follow lines of thought that go askew, but do remember to bring it back on topic, or at the very least, note their relevance and/or significance to the topic at hand.
To give glory and praise to God in all that we do.
I think as far as I would stretch the OP is to say maybe some other intelligent beings have a purpose for us, and maybe they will show us one day (maybe 2012 :-O ) But I still won't give a **** because my own purpose is far more important.
I find this answer interesting.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
we are alive
we can choose
how that works and what it means is what 'understanding' is purely about
ie.... 'what makes me alive and why?" most everything else is practically irrelevant, when observing 'what knowledge is for'
think of 'your' purpose as 'to continue' (life; purposed to continue)
think of the evolution of knowledge and progressing towards understanding
think of the total of mankinds knowledge (learned ideas; recorded and transcending) as 'existence' could be 'defining itself'
like rocks trying to figure out how to make more rocks;
As has been pointed out every time you make this statement, it is incorrect.
Life is not "purposed" to continue.
tap the surface of a pond, does the wave continue?
can you stop it from existing once started?
does the instinct of most any life, in all history, share the same 'intent' (to continue)?
the problem is, you just using antiquated understanding to retain your bias within ignorance (and by choice; your own intent)
it seems you have nothing but others opinions to harass with, as you never since day one, have been able to discount that argument YET, with comprehensible debate.
i claim, life once started will continue by it's own intent (purposeD to continue)
mirror it to the idea of entropy (intent to equilibrate) but in reality the opposite is true:
life: purposed to continue
ie.... autonomous (the first breath)
D, your problem is you do not comprehend how life exists upon mass
been the same problem since i came here; you ignorant of life
so no wonder you have no idea of purpose, what purpose is, or why the heck you even wake up in the morning.
It sounds to me like you're confusing purpose with function. Purpose implies intent which implies intelligence, neither of which are required for life. What life does is propagate itself but this does not mean there is any intention or intelligence behind the function anymore than there is intent in a ripple moving across the surface of a pond or a fire burning across of field. Life is merely a complicated chemical reaction.
That being said, some forms of life have a lesser or greater ability for self determination. In which case these beings can have purpose.
Separate names with a comma.