It's always the same. Every Easter the Redditors come out with their snarky maymays and one-line quips quoting black science man or whatever and it's like if one line is all it takes to convince you of something then you're not as smart or witty as you think you are.
I mean god isn't going to do shit when the Mexican cartel comes for you to chop your head off after raping you. But it may help in the day to day to have something to believe in
@Owl@Dicey All I know is my faith has cost me nothing brought me comfort and peace at hard times aided my moral compass and eh if I'm wrong and my religion is wrong it cost me nothing but if my religion is correct all these fedora tippers are going to hell
Natural numbers are supernatural. If you believe otherwise, please show me the number 123 in nature, and I don't mean 123 things, I mean the number itself. A writing won't establish that it's not supernatural anymore than writing God would in your ontology.
Everyone reddit tier atheist is all about what existence means until you start applying their criteria to numbers. Then they get all uppity like a retard.
In order to address the question of whether God "exists," we first have to determine the ontological structure, and how we order the things within the world. I will assume that Dicey hasn't really thought this through. He should before attacking people with poor arguments. I'm not going to take any position in the ultimate question, but Dicey's position is shit tier, including his hypothetical which presumed his conclusion, and therefore, somehow proved him correct.
@Humpleupagus@Dicey@Owl@Dan_Hulson I didn't think the point of religious faith was that it required air tight logical proofs to make people feel better. :shrugge:
It really depends on what you mean by logic. Logos had a very different meaning to the Greeks than logic does to the mathematician. Nature is by necessity within logos, formal logic may not be, at least on its face. Formal logic of course being within nature, within the logos, would have to be somehow "logos-ical" of course. How we deal with this is part of the riddle.
@Humpleupagus@Dicey@Owl@Dan_Hulson Nature has some backend code sure. But man can overwrite it sometimes. Consciousness ultimately outweighs static law.
@Humpleupagus@Dicey@Owl@Dan_Hulson I didn't say it wasn't nature though, this is just a semantics word game. You can distinguish between conscious force and non-conscious force without needing to define either side as being unnatural. They're different layers.
Language is another abstraction, so accusations of semantic games don't really move me. Perhaps a misunderstanding would be a better explanation. Perhaps one created by language or the medium of communication. If you understood me, there could be no game.
A very intelligent person once told me "to know the name is to forget the thing." It's always stuck with me.
I've always wondered what it was like for those early philosophers who had to look into the world itself to figure things out.
There is only one reality. A game requires at least a duplicity. There are no games here.
And honestly, abortion doesn't trigger me. I do find it a bizarre behavior though.
I have an easier time understanding why a healthy animal would commit infanticide where the offspring was unhealthy or genetically defective than I can understanding why a healthy animal would abort without knowledge of such factors.
To put it another way, the proliferation of abortion services in the manner they're generally used is really a reflection of a sick population.
Add comment