Love me or I'll torture you forever!!

NAT · #31 (**permalink**) 05-30-2008, 01:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smart makes a comeback

.... Let me guess...whats next, the big bang was God passing gas ???

I Knew It!

The "Creation" painting is their God asking David to pull his finger!!!!!

Suburbanite · #32 (**permalink**) 05-30-2008, 01:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Politicon

I would like to point out that your statement is self-contradictory or at best meaningless. To claim that truth is not real and is contingent and contextual is to remove any basis of your statements truth value. Unless some truth is not relevant your statement is pointless.

Its perfectly reconcilable. There is no truth. Do not take that statement as an ultimate truth, but a mere metaphor, a new mechanism through which you can better cope with your environment.
For it to be irreconcilable, it would require your assertion to be more than merely metaphysical, which it is not. My statement works in the following way. There is no ultimate essence, no Truth, no intrinsic elements at work, instead only idiosyncratic personal truths or truisms (notice the difference between a inter-subjective lower-case truth and an objective capitol "T" Truth). Of them, I recommend you adopt my perspective. I believe, counter to your current perspective that there are ultimate truths, my perspective will better serve you to cope with your environment, but in and of itself is inessential and not an ultimate Truth.
See, something not being an ultimate Truth, and what I mean by that is a necessary and sufficient condition, does not make it "false". When I say there is no Truth, that does include itself-- what I am saying is not a necessary nor sufficient condition for interpreting existence, simply a better one.

NAT · #33 (**permalink**) 05-30-2008, 01:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bluedog

No of course not...The Big Bang was a product of "Magic", as the materials (mass/matter) that produced such an event were, according to the naturalist, self gestated. Therefore Naturalism begins with the paradox of Mass/Matter existing before it was created as it induced its own BIRTH, therefore breaking the first in a long line of laws that must be breeched to allow for the theory of a self induced NATURAL UNIVERSE. Just like the theory that explains the universe being some 93 billion light years across from one polar extreme to the other, but, the declared age of the universe being only 13.7 billion years old...according to the so called evidence of A BIG BANG. http://en.wikipedia.org/Universe

Does it not seem strange that the Universe is actually further across in measured light years than its physical age can allow? Just how could an expanding universe EXPAND faster then the speed of light? Why of course this breech of physical law can be justified in another chalk board theory of relativity as the number's are juggled and another theory, produced between the ears of man, explains "exactly" how expansion can occur faster than any physical law will allow....and it is the religious that base their belief upon unprovable sky magic, NO? When not ONE STAR has NEVER actually been witnessed being born out of the 100 billion galaxies multiplied by the 300 billion stars in each and divided by the age (13.7 billion) of the universe which declares that one star must have been created every 7 min. from the time of the Big Bang forward....that is if one is to believe and accept the voodo science offered as factual and NATURAL(as the naturalist declare that it just to time consuming witnessing the event of a stars birth according to their theory on star birth).....the numbers just do not add up, unless you go into the extrapolated mind of the Naturalist who preaches the formula....Nobody + Nothing = EVERYTHING (Natural Evolution).

The "only" other valid conclusion would be that the universe was a product of CREATION.....completely unacceptable, because this leaves out the ever popular cult of DARWINISM AND THE DARWINIAN CULTISTS, which also exists only in the mind of its followers....because it sure as hell can not be proven, as again ANOTHER LAW OF PHYSICS leaves short the speculations of the SECULAR NATURALIST, for indeed there is no NATURAL LAW OF EVOLUTION to be found anywhere in the journals of ALL NATURAL SCIENCE. BD

Um, bluedog, please don't be offended too much when I state that the above is horseshit.

Thank you.

I am certainly no Creationist, but I do not hold with the BB Theory either. I beleive it simply always was, and always will be.

Suburbanite · #34 (**permalink**) 05-30-2008, 01:57 AM

bluedog is too smart for a theist, he must be struggling to come up with a coherent tao or methodology for his perspectives. smarter than Aquinas or other shit heads, at least, while his own assertions fall on their ass, his critiques are pretty thought out and merit your time.

Politicon · #35 (**permalink**) 05-30-2008, 01:58 AM

Someone has had some formal philosophy training. ;-)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Suburbanite

Of them, I recommend you adopt my perspective. I believe, counter to your current perspective that there are ultimate truths, my perspective will better serve you to cope with your environment,

Would this be implying that not all possible truths are equal? Would this in itself not be a truth?

I believe that one’s perspective on truth should be the one that most closely portrays and explains reality. The simple fact of the matter is if I jump off a cliff I will die absolutely despite whatever I believe.

I’m probably missing something, not fully grasping your argument, and doing a poor job of presenting my own. I’m sorry for this. I’m rather tired and probably should put off responding to your post until I have more rest. As matter of clarification are you talking purely moral truth because that would completely invalidate my argument and I would need to reconstruct it...which I probably will not attempt to do until I get some sleep.

NAT · #36 (**permalink**) 05-30-2008, 01:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Suburbanite

bluedog is too smart for a theist, he must be struggling to come up with a coherent tao or methodology for his perspectives. smarter than Aquinas or other shit heads, at least, while his own assertions fall on their ass, his critiques are pretty thought out and merit your time.

Most definitly, BD and I have butted heads already.

Suburbanite · #37 (**permalink**) 05-30-2008, 02:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Politicon

Would this be implying that not all possible truths are equal? Would this in itself not be a truth?

Interesting question. Since there is no essence, similarly there is no ultimate truth in which to weigh these things up against. Comparisons of the sort are all equally inter-subjective, but not equally useful.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Politicon

I believe that one’s perspective on truth should be the one that most closely portrays and explains reality. The simple fact of the matter is if I jump off a cliff I will die absolutely despite whatever I believe.

It is important to use the right tools at the right time. For example, using religion to design a motorcycle won't be as effective as using science. But simply because you've used these vocabularies to interpret and predict behavior again doesn't necessitate an ultimate truth. So, when trying to "explain reality" as you put it, for any real metaphysician, the best tool is clearly science. But, while science might be able to demonstrate things like consistent statistical correlations, it doesn't "discover" truth, it isn't finding it where it lies dormant. It is being created, it requires we invent (not discover) new metaphors for describing our world.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Politicon

I’m probably missing something, not fully grasping your argument, and doing a poor job of presenting my own. I’m sorry for this. I’m rather tired and probably should put off responding to your post until I have more rest. As matter of clarification are you talking purely moral truth because that would completely invalidate my argument and I would need to reconstruct it...which I probably will not attempt to do until I get some sleep.

I'm talking about objective truth. Metaphysical claims, claims about the TRUE nature of reality. Its a wide list, but for example, "the sky is blue" or "you're a bad boy" or "humans have souls".

Suburbanite · #38 (**permalink**) 05-30-2008, 02:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NAT

Most definitly, BD and I have butted heads already.

likewise, i find him to usually be a tolerable poster, when he doesnt post bible quotes.. which for the life of me i can't read and understand anyways.

George O Well · #39 (**permalink**) 05-30-2008, 08:20 AM

Doggy buddy, as a religionist, you have no leg to stand on whatsoever when talking about unproven theories.

NAT · #40 (**permalink**) 05-30-2008, 11:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Suburbanite

likewise, i find him to usually be a tolerable poster, when he doesnt post bible quotes.. which for the life of me i can't read and understand anyways.

And when you ask them to prove their scriptures, we get more quotes.