WTF

[nictan]

its all good man, I know matters of religion and such can get testy sometimes, but not with me, so no need to apologize, all i'm simply saying is it wasn't a statement of faith, and if it was, that wouldn't necessarily make it less valid

i know you're a reasonable man zam, and what im about to say is not a question or jab at your beliefs or faiths, but one purely about the statement quoted and its literal meaning.

a matter of validity is subjective no? its validity is unaffected only to a person of faith. i for one do not believe in religion nor any related 'faith' of that sort. so an opinion or argument made on the basis of such faith holds no ground to me.

whether you are a Christian, Atheist, Buddhist or whatever we can all agree that the origins of mankind is not self generated, and that is what i mean by we did not give life to ourselves

im of no religion, and i also do agree that we are not self generated. with regards to suicide, i'd say that ending my own life, will be letting my parents down.

[stemcell]

I might do porn though. Softcore only. I wonder if Rick would shoot me for his next lookbook. I have these stretchmarks that match his blistered leather perfectly.

I love this.

[Rei]

this is a statement made by ignorant people of which there are many, both who profess faith and deny it.

All true faith is based on reasonable premises from which the believer must project his hope. if there is no reasonable premise, then there is no basis for faith.

Also, on another note, why do we moderns need proof for anything.....this is why I loved the ancients, because the accepted that life was a mixture of the rational and the irrational, the natural and the supernatural, the reasonable and the absurd. the lived knowing this was a part of all reality. it is only us moderns who lack passion and need to control everything that is always required "proof" for everything, only in the end to be deceived by our senses........

"True faith", you adding words does not change the meaning tho. Reasonable premises is exactly what faith(assume it's referring to religious contexts in this case) lacks.

We strive to know, that is all and it surely doesn't lack passion. Ancients were the ones that were ignorant, they simply did not understand reality(nature) like we do today. Trying to explain things they knew nothing of, that's where these beliefs sprout from. This "can't explain so I will make up something"-mentality is much of the cause of suffering even in the modern world. Why anyone would admire this kinda thinking is beyond me.

Also there's no such thing as supernatural part of reality(apart from philosophical terms).

[zamb]

Dude

i really dont have the time to get into the depths of this with you in part because I got a collection to finish and is living off of six accrued increments of six hours sleep in the last 48 hours and I got a collection to finish,

but lets touch a few things you have raised here..
your general definition of faith (as one who does not believe?) so as to make faith looks like it has no reasonable and sound premise is nonsense.

as I said before, all credible faith is based on having at least enough evidence to believe that the object of ones faith is worth investing trust in. If this doesn't exist then there is no faith to have, but yes nothing more than an irrational belief akin to what your definition is. the modern view/ definition of faith is hogwash, any serious study of faith historically will show that faith requires at least some evidence of a potential return before making such an investment

"True faith", you adding words does not change the meaning tho. Reasonable premises is exactly what faith(assume it's referring to religious contexts in this case) lacks.

We strive to know, that is all and it surely doesn't lack passion. Ancients were the ones that were ignorant, they simply did not understand reality(nature) like we do today. Trying to explain things they knew nothing of, that's where these beliefs sprout from. This "can't explain so I will make up something"-mentality is much of the cause of suffering even in the modern world. Why anyone would admire this kinda thinking is beyond me.

Also there's no such thing as supernatural part of reality(apart from philosophical terms).

if the ancients were ignorant (and you are partly right here) then modern man's fatal flaw is his arrogance. The conviction that his kind of knowledge is superior to that of the ancients. Knowledge is evolutionary my friend, and what we have simply done is to take what our predecessors gave to us and built on it throughout the course of human history, and in some ways we have yet to surpass, and is even regressing in our knowledge compared to them.
As Much as i hate Nietzsche's ideas, he is one of the last great philosophical minds, and since then many of these pseudo intellectuals educating people like you are nothing more than wimps "corrupting the youths"

So if I were you, I would at least appreciate the fact that without them, there would be no us, and appreciate that they gave us seminal ideas upon which we have build our knowledge and systems of thought and humbly appreciate them for that instead of calling them ignorant.
I think 2-3 centuries from now humans existing might want to to call us ignorant too, and laugh at how absurd and foolish many of the things we are so convicted today as being true turned out to be hogwash borne out of faulty inquiries into nature...........in the same manner we look at the ancients

Also there's no such thing as supernatural part of reality

this here sums it up for me. if you argue that there is no proof of faith, isn't this essentially demolishing your own argument because you have absolutely no proof that the supernatural doesn't exist?

Logically speaking there has to be a supernatural realm to all existence, because the universe does (scientifically accepted) have a beginning, and since all nature and natural laws is based on an ordered cosmos, whatever brought the universe into existence, and resulted in an ordered cosmos must necessarily be super (transcend) natural. any denial of the supernatural then is essentially a denial of the existence of nature.........

[endorphinz]

. I can say with certaintly, that no one, absolutely no one in thier right state of might and with positive circumstances around them desire to die..........no one.
Death is mankind's greatest enemy, and the entire history of human civilization can be summed up as mankind's collective effort to overcome death

just wanna say this and be done:

zamb, with all due respect, people and circumstances exist where there is absolutely no positivity. despite our best efforts, not everything can be "fixed"

death is not the enemy. it is an inevitable, unavoidable conclusion

if I were to believe that I didn't possess the freedom/right (they are synonymous to me) to commit suicide i would feel that I possessed no free will at all.

[avout]

We're in Unmoved Mover territory - I think we've gone full WTF now.

[Shucks]

Logically speaking there has to be a supernatural realm to all existence, because the universe does (scientifically accepted) have a beginning, and since all nature and natural laws is based on an ordered cosmos, whatever brought the universe into existence, and resulted in an ordered cosmos must necessarily be super (transcend) natural. any denial of the supernatural then is essentially a denial of the existence of nature.........

SO? WHO SAYS NATURE IS REAL...

[zamb]

We're in Unmoved Mover territory - I think we've gone full WTF now.

Sig material right here


I just had one of those Merz coffee oozing moments

[Verdandi]

Meanwhile in London

[Rei]

Dude
but lets touch a few things you have raised here..
your general definition of faith (as one who does not believe?) so as to make faith looks like it has no reasonable and sound premise is nonsense.

as I said before, all credible faith is based on having at least enough evidence to believe that the object of ones faith is worth investing trust in. If this doesn't exist then there is no faith to have, but yes nothing more than an irrational belief akin to what your definition is. the modern view/ definition of faith is hogwash, any serious study of faith historically will show that faith requires at least some evidence of a potential return before making such an investment

Dude. All I did was looked in the merriam-webster dictionary which to me defines the word quite well. Beliefs are a different matter what I think you're after here. But what's the point of even using words to prove a point if one doesn't know what they mean.

The conviction that his kind of knowledge is superior to that of the ancients.

We just simply know more today, the knowledge itself is not superior in any way. Lacking knowledge means that you are ignorant(hello ancients), about reality in this case.

Logically speaking there has to be a supernatural realm to all existence, because the universe does (scientifically accepted) have a beginning, and since all nature and natural laws is based on an ordered cosmos, whatever brought the universe into existence, and resulted in an ordered cosmos must necessarily be super (transcend) natural. any denial of the supernatural then is essentially a denial of the existence of nature........

This isn't logically speaking but ignorance speaking as you have no knowledge of what you speak of. Can you give me an example of something supernatural? And this "has to be" is just a load of bull. Why would there have to be? Yes our universe had a beginning(finite in time/space), of which we do not yet know everything. But would you call quantum fluctuations supernatural for example? I don't think so. What comes to the order just thank gravity.

[zamb]

Dude.
This isn't logically speaking but ignorance speaking as you have no knowledge of what you speak of. Can you give me an example of something supernatural? And this "has to be" is just a load of bull. Why would there have to be? Yes our universe had a beginning(finite in time/space), of which we do not yet know everything. But would you call quantum fluctuations supernatural for example? I don't think so. What comes to the order just thank gravity.

Rei,

I honestly wish I had time to engage you more on this but i really have too much to do,
if circumstances allow again i will be sure to do so.

but two things.

you were the one who claimed that the supernatural does not exist, and now you ask me to prove that it does?
by your argument it should be you who have to demonstrate a proof to your claim of the absence of the supernatural. I am sure you cant, because you wouldn't even know where to start with that one. A more reasonable approach would be for you to say you have come across no evidence of its existence rather than speaking so authoritatively.
as Bill Craig once said "absence of evidence cannot be used as evidence of absence"

second.
If you read my argument well you would see I gave you proof of the supernatural, at least a proof from deductive reasoning, you may choose to reject such a proof, but its proof nonetheless.

Again, the universe has a beginning, a beginning that was not self generated, nature being a part of the universe began with it. Before the ordering of the cosmos there were no laws of nature to speak of, whatever brought the universe into being and ordered the cosmos much necessarily be supernatural ............all contemplation about the origins of reality can only come to this unavoidable conclusion, this inescapable reality. we may disagree as to what is the source/ cause of the universe, but there is no denying it had a cause, and the cause has to be supernatural.

you can ponder that while I go cut leather.............

[eleven crows]

you were the one who claimed that the supernatural does not exist, and now you ask me to prove that it does?
by your argument it should be you who have to demonstrate a proof to your claim of the absence of the supernatural. I am sure you cant, because you wouldn't even know where to start with that one. A more reasonable approach would be for you to say you have come across no evidence of its existence rather than speaking so authoritatively.
as Bill Craig once said "absence of evidence cannot be used as evidence of absence"

Whoever makes the claim, in this casethat supernatural phenomenon exists, has to provide proof. This is like me telling you that I can speak to and understand the secret language of dogs; then asking you to prove otherwise.

[zamb]

Whoever makes the claim, in this casethat supernatural phenomenon exists, has to provide proof. This is like me telling you that I can speak to and understand the secret language of dogs; then asking you to prove otherwise.

captain
i am not a reductionist/ materialist or any variations of such.........i adhere to a philosophical system that makes room for the absurd and for occurrences outside of the general laws of nature to which moderns seem to want to reduce all reality.
There is more to reality than observable phenomenon......and after all, who said anything about phenomenon?

you need to prove that, because you are the one injecting that into the discussion now. but then........you dont need to, because we dont need proof of anything, do we?

can we demonstrably prove that the universe began? or that napoleon existed?
no we cant, because these are once in a lifetime historical occurrences, and require a different kind of thought/ proof system than what you ask.

and I think its time to move this from the WTF thread but I cannot get too deep into this until after next week cause i'm too busy now

[Rei]

you were the one who claimed that the supernatural does not exist, and now you ask me to prove that it does?
by your argument it should be you who have to demonstrate a proof to your claim of the absence of the supernatural. I am sure you cant, because you wouldn't even know where to start with that one. A more reasonable approach would be for you to say you have come across no evidence of its existence rather than speaking so authoritatively.
as Bill Craig once said "absence of evidence cannot be used as evidence of absence"

What I'm going after here is that people tend to use the term supernatural to describe things they have no knowledge of. Once this thing or phenomena is discovered/explained it just "becomes" natural. If you just want to call the pre-universe state supernatural that's fine by me(but if the universe sprouted from this "state" wouldn't it be called natural too or where do you draw the line?). Comes down to definitions again, I just understand it as it is most commonly used. But note that there's not necessarily any outside or before, nor has there to be a cause. With these things you can throw these every day intuitions out of the window, as shown in quantum mechanics.

It's the default position pretty much, I just have no reason to think something like that exists so will stick to that until shown otherwise. Might be a bit too aggressive but you brought the term up, I'm just disagreeing and asking you for an example of something supernatural. Like say someone mentions unicorns and I say they don't exist, and ask to show me one. The same thing really.

can we demonstrably prove that the universe began? or that napoleon existed?
no we cant

Sure we can. If what you mean is to create a universe to show, that we can't do yet. But there are other ways to demonstrate things, which is why the scientific method is the most reliable method in deciphering the world.

[zamb]

1.
What I'm going after here is that people tend to use the term supernatural to describe things they have no knowledge of. Once this thing or phenomena is discovered/explained it just "becomes" natural. If you just want to call the pre-universe state supernatural that's fine by me(but if the universe sprouted from this "state" wouldn't it be called natural too or where do you draw the line?). Comes down to definitions again, I just understand it as it is most commonly used.

2.
But note that there's not necessarily any outside or before, nor has there to be a cause. With these things you can throw these every day intuitions out of the window, as shown in quantum mechanics.

3.
It's the default position pretty much, I just have no reason to think something like that exists so will stick to that until shown otherwise. Might be a bit too aggressive but you brought the term up, I'm just disagreeing and asking you for an example of something supernatural. Like say someone mentions unicorns and I say they don't exist, and ask to show me one. The same thing really.




Sure we can. If what you mean is to create a universe to show, that we can't do yet. But there are other ways to demonstrate things, which is why the scientific method is the most reliable method in deciphering the world.

1. an unintelligible assumption, because any description something would require at least partial knowledge to give a description at all.

There is more to reality than observable and scientifically testable phenomena, and our materialist reductionist approach to the world is a rather ridiculous one if you ask me. its interesting to me how you raise something like quantum mechanics, (of course I am limited in this regard) but isnt this just theoretical and mathematical claims by people like Stephen Hawkins that fall outside of the realm of any demonstrable scientific inquiry?


2. All inquiry with respect to reality must come to a full investigation of what is. I find it sheer cowardice on the part of scientist or philosophers who are so invested in finding out the origins of the universe when they would say, like you are, that there isnt necessarily an outside, a before or a cause. How can we know this to be true, to even dare may such statements?...............is it that we are afraid if what we might find out, so we limited ourselves or rule out certain possibilities because of the fear they may be true?

This is why I can respect a man like Antony Flew, who as he said, his commitment is to to the Socratic maxim of following the evidence wherever it leads..............

3.
there can be no default position, any seeker of truth must investigate all possibilities until their validity is demolished by enough evidence to show them to be untrue.
Again only intellectually dishonest cowards take this stance, in part because many have a pre-comittment to a particular view, so instead of seeking truth we seek to oppose a view that differs from our position regardless of whether it may be valid or not