AnimeSuki Forums

Register Forum Rules FAQ Members List Social Groups Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Go Back   AnimeSuki Forum > General > General Chat

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2011-02-19, 01:37   Link #3041
idiffer
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Russia, Moscow
Age: 25
Send a message via ICQ to idiffer
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vexx View Post
wow.. .utterly missed or ignored what I said. You keep using "before" ... and no, that's not how the theory works or is described. Might want to look it up before trying that again.
so u say that time and space didn't exist before big bang? i read some info on wikipedia...and it says that big bang theory covers what happened AFTER said bang. so why does it make no sense to talk about, yes, BEFORE the big bang?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ascaloth View Post
In other words, you subscribe to a God of the gaps perspective, which basically amounts to a form of argumentum ad ignorantium. Noted.
not quite. i think that its impossible to go in an endless asention of causality, that would be a paradox. so there has to be an origin point - god. i'm not saying its the loving christian god, just a metaphysical thing. and no, i'm not saying that its true because it can't be proven wrong. i'm saying it because that is what i deduced with my shitty logic. *puts cap on, smokes pipe*
but nice to know that ppl are noting me, lol)
__________________
My posts seem retarted? I invoke the freedomof choice upon thee to choose one of the below.
a) Iím batshit insane or mentally challenged. Nyan!
b) Wasu~p?! *brofist*
c) Your mind is too narrow to embrace my genius, de geso.
d) I was accidentally dropped into a barrel of whiskey, so now I am constantly drunk.
e) Go home and die! Dattebayo!

Last edited by idiffer; 2011-02-19 at 01:47.
idiffer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-02-19, 01:49   Link #3042
Ascaloth
I don't give a damn, dude
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: In Despair
Age: 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by idiffer View Post
not quite. i think that its impossible to go in an endless asention of causality, that would be a paradox. so there has to be an origin point - god. i'm not saying its the loving christian god, just a metaphysical thing.
but nice to know that ppl are noting me, lol)
In other words, your perception is that of Baruch Spinoza's God, which is simply a "placeholder" name for nature itself?
Ascaloth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-02-19, 02:21   Link #3043
idiffer
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Russia, Moscow
Age: 25
Send a message via ICQ to idiffer
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ascaloth View Post
In other words, your perception is that of Baruch Spinoza's God, which is simply a "placeholder" name for nature itself?
so basically u like to link, i get it. but i'm drunk and i have'nt slept in ages. i'm gonna get back to u soon...just after i write a poem and get some sleep.
but still try to describe things in your own words, it helps ... uhh ...something.
and also...zzzzzz....uh, what where, what was it again? okay, nighty night...
__________________
My posts seem retarted? I invoke the freedomof choice upon thee to choose one of the below.
a) Iím batshit insane or mentally challenged. Nyan!
b) Wasu~p?! *brofist*
c) Your mind is too narrow to embrace my genius, de geso.
d) I was accidentally dropped into a barrel of whiskey, so now I am constantly drunk.
e) Go home and die! Dattebayo!
idiffer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-02-19, 03:34   Link #3044
GundamFan0083
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: classified
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ascaloth View Post
In other words, your perception is that of Baruch Spinoza's God, which is simply a "placeholder" name for nature itself?
In the interest of accuracy I would like to make a comment with regard to Spinoza.
There seems to be a general misunderstanding of this man's theistic view of Ain Sof (the infinite being/God).

Mr. James Craig Green is not correct about Spinoza when he says:

Quote:
Spinoza asserted that for a concept of god to make any sense at all, it must simply be nature. That is, god cannot be something outside nature that controls it, but must necessarily be part of it. According to Spinoza, God IS nature.
Henry Walter Brann points out in Spinoza: Context, sources, and the early writings By Genevieve Lloyd that Spinoza was heavily influenced by Kabbalah, in particular a book called The Door to Heaven.

This explains Spinoza's view of God as Ain/En Sof or the Infinite being who does not directly effect the world but uses the ten sephirot (spheres of creation) to influence and alter the world.
To a lay person not familiar with Kabbalah it is very easy to confuse this concept (Ain/En Sof) with God being the same as nature.
However, that is not the case.
The concept of Ain/En Sof is the belief that God exists outside of nature/the universe and is infinitely powerful, thus incapable of direct interaction with the natural world lest it/God destroy it.

Therefore, God is not nature per se, but rather both "Nature Naturata, and Nature Naturans."
Put simply, Nature is a mechanism created by Ain/En Sof for the universe to operate and can only be effected by him/it via the ten emanations of power (sephirot).
__________________
GundamFan0083 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-02-19, 03:55   Link #3045
SaintessHeart
Ehh? EEEEHHHHHH?
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Age: 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ascaloth View Post
In other words, your perception is that of Baruch Spinoza's God, which is simply a "placeholder" name for nature itself?
Wouldn't it be more accurate to add an "a" and make it "palaceholder"?

Come to think of it, most attempted iterations of "god" usually put it as, well, "godly". Overpowered, unrealistic, and fantastical. Like how the general population of ancient times perceive a king of the ancient times that held absolute rule and right of "mercy, justice and equality", when the person is nothing but a very lucky or charismatic human being like the rest.

This isn't progress. This is a backward mentality and giving too much credit.
__________________

When three puppygirls named after pastries are on top of each other, it is called Eclair a'la menthe et Biscotti aux fraises avec beaucoup de Ricotta sur le dessus.
Most of all, you have to be disciplined and you have to save, even if you hate our current financial system. Because if you don't save, then you're guaranteed to end up with nothing.
SaintessHeart is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-02-19, 06:34   Link #3046
monster
Junior Member
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by SaintessHeart View Post
Come to think of it, most attempted iterations of "god" usually put it as, well, "godly". Overpowered, unrealistic, and fantastical. Like how the general population of ancient times perceive a king of the ancient times that held absolute rule and right of "mercy, justice and equality", when the person is nothing but a very lucky or charismatic human being like the rest.
You might say that a king is just a man, but a deity would still be a deity.
Quote:
This isn't progress. This is a backward mentality and giving too much credit.
That's a very subjective view.
monster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-02-19, 06:39   Link #3047
FlavorOfLife
Uncaring
 
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by idiffer View Post
so u say that time and space didn't exist before big bang? i read some info on wikipedia...and it says that big bang theory covers what happened AFTER said bang. so why does it make no sense to talk about, yes, BEFORE the big bang?
Not interested in the religion talk but this requires some explaination

Because at the point of the big bang, infinite values appear and cannot be calculated as yet. Same ith a black hole's infinite gravity.

The big bang actually has several successors because everyone who knows the big bang theory knows its full of flaws that do not gel with data collected in the last 30 years. Its very successful in capturing the public imagination and explaining basic principles but it is 60 years old.

Most of these successors await more information and data. Some are mathematically sound but unprovable as of now such, as the multiverse theory. For more information about the successors such as the universal brane concept

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categor...ical_cosmology
FlavorOfLife is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-02-19, 06:50   Link #3048
Irenicus
Le fou, c'est moi
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Las Vegas, NV, USA
Age: 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by monster View Post
You can say that a king is just a man, but a deity would still be a deity.
I imagine what Saintess means is that "traditional" religious treatment of the divine is often similar to treatment of royalty.

Which is not surprising. In many cultures royalty and divinity are understood to overlap. The Yamato line of Japan claims divine descent and through it the divine origin of the Japanese people; Roman Emperors are regularly deified upon their deaths, their cults serving to enhance the prestige of the state; God-kings ruled ancient cities of Sumeria, one written into history as the half-divine hero of the world's first great epic; Medieval Christian monarchs, through the Church, claim their right to rule "By Grace of God"; the entire Imperial system of China functions through the ritual glorification of the Son of Heaven; hell, a certain Jonathan Edwards of colonial America, the Puritan preacher who introduces "hellfire and brimstone" into common usage, made in his infamous sermon a direct reference to God's arbitrary sovereignty.

And of course, in a sufficiently large kingdom a king might as well be a god, since many of his subjects never ever get to see him. So how do you make people you never ever get to see in person be loyal to you? You create a whole system of rituals and beliefs surrounding your entity. Like a god.

Equate yourself with omnipotence, with holiness and supernatural authority and you have a good show going.


Ergo, when the Enlightenment philosophers rise, they minimize their Christian God into Nature, into Mathematics, to Reason -- Deism. And when the socialists rise, they kill God. For in their worldview a sovereign is to be guillotined, not worshiped, and power to be held by the common peoples of the world.
Irenicus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-02-19, 06:58   Link #3049
monster
Junior Member
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irenicus View Post
I imagine what Saintess means is that "traditional" religious treatment of the divine is often similar to treatment of royalty.
Sure, I'm not disputing that. But even with similar treatments, there are still differences with respect to the nature of a king and a deity. That's why I said that SaintessHeart's last two sentences express a purely subjective view.
monster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-02-19, 09:29   Link #3050
LeoXiao
提倡自我工業化
 
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Vereinigte Staaten
Age: 22
Quote:
For in their worldview a sovereign is to be guillotined, not worshiped, and power to be held by the common peoples of the world.
It's then ironic that there were, in all of history, no emperors with power more absolute than that wielded by Mao or Stalin.
LeoXiao is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-02-19, 11:46   Link #3051
Ascaloth
I don't give a damn, dude
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: In Despair
Age: 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by LeoXiao View Post
It's then ironic that there were, in all of history, no emperors with power more absolute than that wielded by Mao or Stalin.
It is worth noting that both of the Communist dictators came by their absolute power through the creation of personality cults centered around themselves; in other words, replacing traditional religions with their own form of dogma, based on unquestioning obedience to the will of a central authority figure, themselves. In short, elevating themselves to the position of god-kings, using the same kind of rhetoric that have been perfected by generations of religious god-kings before them.
Ascaloth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-02-19, 12:51   Link #3052
Leo Keichi
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Gaijinland
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlavorOfLife View Post
Not interested in the religion talk but this requires some explaination

Because at the point of the big bang, infinite values appear and cannot be calculated as yet. Same ith a black hole's infinite gravity.
Infinite? Is that even possible? Unless by infinite you mean extremely huge values. Or do you mean the formulas being used aren't comprehensive enough?
Leo Keichi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-02-19, 13:25   Link #3053
Vexx
Obey the Darkly Cute ...
*Author
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: On the whole, I'd rather be in Kyoto ...
Age: 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leo Keichi View Post
Infinite? Is that even possible? Unless by infinite you mean extremely huge values. Or do you mean the formulas being used aren't comprehensive enough?
The calculations keep spitting out infinities for reasons as simple as values in the denominator drive to zero while numerators expand ----> 1/0->infinity.
The model works great except at the margins... which is what drives most overhauls of a model (Copernicus->Newton->Einstein->Hawkings et al)

Most people whining about the "Big Bang theory" are about 20 years or more behind current thinking... they might as well still be whining about Einstein's changes or the loss of the earth-centered solar system model.
Vexx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-02-19, 15:06   Link #3054
LeoXiao
提倡自我工業化
 
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Vereinigte Staaten
Age: 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ascaloth View Post
It is worth noting that both of the Communist dictators came by their absolute power through the creation of personality cults centered around themselves; in other words, replacing traditional religions with their own form of dogma, based on unquestioning obedience to the will of a central authority figure, themselves. In short, elevating themselves to the position of god-kings, using the same kind of rhetoric that have been perfected by generations of religious god-kings before them.
I think this just shows a trait in human nature; we need rulers. To deny the need to be ruled just leaves room for people like Mao or Stalin. Now of course it's not that simple but this is a general observation.
LeoXiao is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-02-19, 15:55   Link #3055
Asuras
Dictadere~!
 
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: On the front lines, fighting for inderpendence.
Personally, I believe half these religions are meant to control those who cannot compose themselves appropriately without some authority figure to guide them.
__________________
Asuras is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-02-19, 17:28   Link #3056
Anh_Minh
I disagree with you all.
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Personally, I believe no religion is meant for any one thing.
Anh_Minh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-02-19, 18:40   Link #3057
ChainLegacy
廉頗
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Massachusetts, US
Age: 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by LeoXiao View Post
It's then ironic that there were, in all of history, no emperors with power more absolute than that wielded by Mao or Stalin.
In what sense? I'm not disputing their power but I don't quite follow your logic. Surely there were rulers with similar levels of influence in the past? Or do you mean their influence over such a large group of people, combined with their dictatorial power (ie they're the most powerful due to higher populations in modern times, not because of their actual abilities as leader)?
ChainLegacy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-02-19, 21:59   Link #3058
Ascaloth
I don't give a damn, dude
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: In Despair
Age: 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by LeoXiao View Post
I think this just shows a trait in human nature; we need rulers. To deny the need to be ruled just leaves room for people like Mao or Stalin. Now of course it's not that simple but this is a general observation.
Hoho. It does go to show that charismatic dictators like the aforementioned couple (as well as several others in history) draw the source of their power from the general population's tendency towards blind, unquestioning faith of authority figures; the exact same kind of faith that religious institutions draw their staying power from. History has demonstrated all too many times that the favouring of blind faith over critical thinking tends to lead to bad things.
Ascaloth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-02-20, 05:37   Link #3059
LeoXiao
提倡自我工業化
 
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Vereinigte Staaten
Age: 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ascaloth View Post
Hoho. It does go to show that charismatic dictators like the aforementioned couple (as well as several others in history) draw the source of their power from the general population's tendency towards blind, unquestioning faith of authority figures; the exact same kind of faith that religious institutions draw their staying power from. History has demonstrated all too many times that the favouring of blind faith over critical thinking tends to lead to bad things.
This is all true. But what I'm saying is that it's practically inevitable for people to follow and yearn for authority, or at least some sense of it.

Spoiler for Long rant on social dynamics:


For those who managed to slog through all that, the moral of the story is that society, people, and the whole world have their own patterns and truths that may or may not be verifiable, and that claiming that the whole truth can only be obtained through empirical analysis (even though, like I said in an earlier post, human beings are imperfect in their perceptions) only leads to a more long-term, underlying blindness and the rise of tragedy.

In my opinion, religion in its ideal form does not claim to know or preach in the same way that science and engineering do, but rather to temper and remind people of what we do not know as tiny beings in the vast existence of the cosmos. Empirical science is but an extension of man's natural physical existence, and we should not be boxed in by its limited scope.

Quote:
In what sense? I'm not disputing their power but I don't quite follow your logic. Surely there were rulers with similar levels of influence in the past?
It's not actually important to my point, but what I'm saying is that despite the new, supposedly improved ideologies surrounding them, those rulers were able to despite this, or perhaps because of this, reach the top and attain such great power. A king of old had to place himself under Heaven, but to those people ruled by Stalin and Mao, Heaven was on earth and ruled through human gods.
LeoXiao is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-02-20, 06:12   Link #3060
Ascaloth
I don't give a damn, dude
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: In Despair
Age: 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by LeoXiao View Post
This is all true. But what I'm saying is that it's practically inevitable for people to follow and yearn for authority, or at least some sense of it.

Spoiler for Long rant on social dynamics:


For those who managed to slog through all that, the moral of the story is that society, people, and the whole world have their own patterns and truths that may or may not be verifiable, and that claiming that the whole truth can only be obtained through empirical analysis (even though, like I said in an earlier post, human beings are imperfect in their perceptions) only leads to a more long-term, underlying blindness and the rise of tragedy.

In my opinion, religion in its ideal form does not claim to know or preach in the same way that science and engineering do, but rather to temper and remind people of what we do not know as tiny beings in the vast existence of the cosmos. Empirical science is but an extension of man's natural physical existence, and we should not be boxed in by its limited scope.
Non sequitur. Marxism was a philosophy, and the empirical method is the collection of data on which to to base a theory or derive a conclusion in scientific inquiry. Therefore, how does the failure of the application of Marxist ideology in real life lead to a demonstrated weakness in the empirical method?

Additionally, Straw Man. Nobody's making the argument that empirical analysis is sufficient to lead to the whole "truth" (whatever it may be), but it is by far our best possible toolbox for the purpose....or to be more accurate, if ever we find a better alternative, it will be incorporated into that same toolbox. So, since you're trying to invoke the "other ways of knowing" argument, why don't you give a few examples?

Try again.
Ascaloth is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
not a debate, philosophy, religion

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:30.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
We use Silk.