I think faith is human need, a way to protect one's self esteem!
We, as humans, are social animals. And as such we need something that regulates our society(ies):
We invented the Law, but it has flaws;
We invented ethics, but it also has flaws;
We invented religion, but it's not tangible.
Descartes, with his "Cogito ergo sum" theory, said that God was something "a priori", which means that is something embedded in us, in an irrational way!
Others, like Hume, discarded this. But I think that he had a point, because we need to believe in something that fills the gaps left by rationality. But is error was considering that it had to be God, it doesn't!
I rather believe in Mankind. Although sometimes it's hard, because of our leaders actions. But I believe in my friends and family, I believe that in a time of need, they will be there for me, as I will be there for them. Because this is the right thing to do.
The reason I have for not discarding religion is lonelyness: lonely people need something that helps them hold on to life. For these people, religion may be a healthy way to live life.
Either one chooses to believe in Man or God, the result is the same: dependence. Which is something that is part of us and makes us sociable.
PS: I'm a western,catholic-raised guy, from a deeply catholic country. So it's possible that some bias is at work in my views. I don't believe in the absolute truth.
"Death alone from death can save"
(George McDonald)
That's explanation enough, if you ever bother to figure it out.
Where is the math?
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
I think faith is human need, a way to protect one's self esteem!
I just see this as an appeal to emotion.
I don't think Descartes' Cogito Ergo Sum means "God exists". I think it means "I exist" "I think therefor I am" or as one of my favorite T-shirts reads "I think therefor I'm single".
Within the context of Descartes' era it's difficult to conclude his beliefs on God. Perhaps I haven't read enough of him. But he went against the grain in saying that the soul was seated in the brain and not the heart. He was a materialist of sorts.
My thoughts are that Hume and others see things differently because the knowledge is not a priori. For example, if I say "Aliens exist, you just have to ask yourself." anyone who already believes in aliens will think "He's right, I can feel it." anyone who doesn't will just think "Another quack, I'm outta here." Science is a posteriori fixing this problem.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
are you familiar with pascal? are familiar with his contention that one can not approach the existence and a belief of God the same way in which scientific conclusions are approached. this is what i was getting at. this is why i asked the questions i did. not because im some uneducated dullard. next time you take offense at something, have the commonsense to ask for clarification, don't assume someone is having a go at you just because they do not share your views. and especially not when theyve just acknowledged you politely for correcting them.
hey look ahnimus... she used common sense. give her that lesson you gave me about common sense.
This isn't the land of opportunity, it's the land of competition.
I don't think Descartes' Cogito Ergo Sum means "God exists". I think it means "I exist" "I think therefor I am" or as one of my favorite T-shirts reads "I think therefor I'm single"..
It does mean "I think therefore I am". It is in reference to his search for absolute certainty; he at least could be sure of his own existence, for not even an evil genius could make him doubt that.
Within the context of Descartes' era it's difficult to conclude his beliefs on God. Perhaps I haven't read enough of him. But he went against the grain in saying that the soul was seated in the brain and not the heart. He was a materialist of sorts..
Descartes definently believed in God. In fact, he had his own version of the ontological argument, and further used God's existence as proof he was not living in an illusory world created by an evil genius (like the matrix). Read his Meditations, which also contain his discussions about the mind/body.
My thoughts are that Hume and others see things differently because the knowledge is not a priori. For example, if I say "Aliens exist, you just have to ask yourself." anyone who already believes in aliens will think "He's right, I can feel it." anyone who doesn't will just think "Another quack, I'm outta here." Science is a posteriori fixing this problem.
Hume was an empiricist, but I doubt he would say we can't obtain any knowledge a priori (like math truths, perhaps). Furthermore, he was skeptical of the notion "the future will be like the past". Science, it seems, relies on that principle...
Anyway, hope this was informative
It does mean "I think therefore I am". It is in reference to his search for absolute certainty; he at least could be sure of his own existence, for not even an evil genius could make him doubt that.
Descartes definently believed in God. In fact, he had his own version of the ontological argument, and further used God's existence as proof he was not living in an illusory world created by an evil genius (like the matrix). Read his Meditations, which also contain his discussions about the mind/body.
Hume was an empiricist, but I doubt he would say we can't obtain any knowledge a priori (like math truths, perhaps). Furthermore, he was skeptical of the notion "the future will be like the past". Science, it seems, relies on that principle...
Anyway, hope this was informative
I'm not knocking your education, but where do you suppose some may believe themselves to be arriving in this (studied) evolution of philosophy?
If you think of God the way you've shared your interpretation on the first page of this post, then the mathematics of man plays a part in there somewhere.
Am I missing something here? Was there something in my post that was way off? I just stated (part of) what Descartes and Hume believed, that was all...
Am I missing something here? Was there something in my post that was way off? I just stated (part of) what Descartes and Hume believed, that was all...
These religious cults have a monopoly on prayer like getting down on your ritualistic knees to put your ritualistic hands together to say your ritualistic 'dear god' to the ceiling next to your bed, but the truth is is that hope is the fundament of all that nonsense.
I think it's better to know yourself in order to understand hope/prayer. You don't need a church or a preacher or a god for that.
So, are you going to answer about your disagreements to the thinkers?
You mean my disagreement with Hume? I, like many people, would like to think the future will be like the past, and causes do have effects (thus a solid foundation for science), but that doesn't prove Hume wrong...
Kant has a way of showing that causes can have effects, I think through his distinction between the noumenal and phenomenal worlds (things in themselves and how we experience them). That's a starting point if you want to check it out further; it's 2:45, and I don't feel like digging up my old notebooks. Anyway, hope this helped.
You mean my disagreement with Hume? I, like many people, would like to think the future will be like the past, and causes do have effects (thus a solid foundation for science), but that doesn't prove Hume wrong...
Kant has a way of showing that causes can have effects, I think through his distinction between the noumenal and phenomenal worlds (things in themselves and how we experience them). That's a starting point if you want to check it out further; it's 2:45, and I don't feel like digging up my old notebooks. Anyway, hope this helped.
Hmm. Not really. I wanted to know what you think.
About anything. Or about he whole kit 'n kaboodle. What's your philosophy?
These religious cults have a monopoly on prayer like getting down on your ritualistic knees to put your ritualistic hands together to say your ritualistic 'dear god' to the ceiling next to your bed, but the truth is is that hope is the fundament of all that nonsense.
I think it's better to know yourself in order to understand hope/prayer. You don't need a church or a preacher or a god for that.
really? hope is synonymous to prayer?
This isn't the land of opportunity, it's the land of competition.
I wanted to know what you think. About anything. Or about he whole kit 'n kaboodle. What's your philosophy?
I did say why I don't agree with Hume, at least on that one point, and used Kant to show why I might be justified in my disagreement. As for the whole kit 'n kaboodle, well, can you narrow it down some? That's a big question.
By the way, thanks for taking an interest! What about you? What's your philosophy? Just curious
I did say why I don't agree with Hume, at least on that one point, and used Kant to show why I might be justified in my disagreement. As for the whole kit 'n kaboodle, well, can you narrow it down some? That's a big question.
By the way, thanks for taking an interest! What about you? What's your philosophy? Just curious
There are no answers...only more questions in an endless loop. Mainly because religion uses an unknown factor to explain everything. I mean let's face it, the bible says nothing on what God is. It's all just a bunch of ideas and concepts. Nothing more. There's no tangible evidence of anything.
To use a complete unknown as the ultimate answer to every possible question you can think of seems extremely unusual to say the least.
You might as well just say I have no idea instead of God...it's the exact same thing.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
There are no answers...only more questions in an endless loop. Mainly because religion uses an unknown factor to explain everything. I mean let's face it, the bible says nothing on what God is. It's all just a bunch of ideas and concepts. Nothing more. There's no tangible evidence of anything.
To use a complete unknown as the ultimate answer to every possible question you can think of seems extremely unusual to say the least.
You might as well just say I have no idea instead of God...it's the exact same thing.
On paper which refers back to superstitious ideas handed down from thin air.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
RolandTD20Kdrummer is about as close as you can get to not being a mathematical certainty.
So what you're saying is god created the guys who created calculus.
There can't be a point of creation. It defies the very meaning of infinity.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
Because you can't create something out of nothing. There is no such reality. There is also no such thing as nothing. The condition of nothing does not, nor has it ever existed. Everything was already something else before what it is (and before that, and before that etc...and so on forever). You can't lose energy because there is nowhere for it to go. It only breaks down and recombines to become something else. This process is infinite and everywhere.
It's an impossibility for some entity to create absolutely everything that is to be out of thin air. What space was he/she occupying when he/she did it? It's a catch 22. A simple construct devised by simple people living in simple times.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
Comments
We, as humans, are social animals. And as such we need something that regulates our society(ies):
We invented the Law, but it has flaws;
We invented ethics, but it also has flaws;
We invented religion, but it's not tangible.
Descartes, with his "Cogito ergo sum" theory, said that God was something "a priori", which means that is something embedded in us, in an irrational way!
Others, like Hume, discarded this. But I think that he had a point, because we need to believe in something that fills the gaps left by rationality. But is error was considering that it had to be God, it doesn't!
I rather believe in Mankind. Although sometimes it's hard, because of our leaders actions. But I believe in my friends and family, I believe that in a time of need, they will be there for me, as I will be there for them. Because this is the right thing to do.
The reason I have for not discarding religion is lonelyness: lonely people need something that helps them hold on to life. For these people, religion may be a healthy way to live life.
Either one chooses to believe in Man or God, the result is the same: dependence. Which is something that is part of us and makes us sociable.
PS: I'm a western,catholic-raised guy, from a deeply catholic country. So it's possible that some bias is at work in my views. I don't believe in the absolute truth.
(George McDonald)
Where is the math?
I just see this as an appeal to emotion.
I don't think Descartes' Cogito Ergo Sum means "God exists". I think it means "I exist" "I think therefor I am" or as one of my favorite T-shirts reads "I think therefor I'm single".
Within the context of Descartes' era it's difficult to conclude his beliefs on God. Perhaps I haven't read enough of him. But he went against the grain in saying that the soul was seated in the brain and not the heart. He was a materialist of sorts.
My thoughts are that Hume and others see things differently because the knowledge is not a priori. For example, if I say "Aliens exist, you just have to ask yourself." anyone who already believes in aliens will think "He's right, I can feel it." anyone who doesn't will just think "Another quack, I'm outta here." Science is a posteriori fixing this problem.
It does mean "I think therefore I am". It is in reference to his search for absolute certainty; he at least could be sure of his own existence, for not even an evil genius could make him doubt that.
Descartes definently believed in God. In fact, he had his own version of the ontological argument, and further used God's existence as proof he was not living in an illusory world created by an evil genius (like the matrix). Read his Meditations, which also contain his discussions about the mind/body.
Hume was an empiricist, but I doubt he would say we can't obtain any knowledge a priori (like math truths, perhaps). Furthermore, he was skeptical of the notion "the future will be like the past". Science, it seems, relies on that principle...
Anyway, hope this was informative
I'm not knocking your education, but where do you suppose some may believe themselves to be arriving in this (studied) evolution of philosophy?
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
Haven't you thought about this one?
It's fun.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
Why would you? I think everything I said was pretty accurate...
What do you mean? I don't agree with Hume, nor do many thinkers after him.
Of course you don't.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
If you think of God the way you've shared your interpretation on the first page of this post, then the mathematics of man plays a part in there somewhere.
Follow the white rabbit.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
So what's the disagreement?
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
Am I missing something here? Was there something in my post that was way off? I just stated (part of) what Descartes and Hume believed, that was all...
I understand that you were being informative...
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
To think I even put a
These religious cults have a monopoly on prayer like getting down on your ritualistic knees to put your ritualistic hands together to say your ritualistic 'dear god' to the ceiling next to your bed, but the truth is is that hope is the fundament of all that nonsense.
I think it's better to know yourself in order to understand hope/prayer. You don't need a church or a preacher or a god for that.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
So, are you going to answer about your disagreements to the thinkers?
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
You mean my disagreement with Hume? I, like many people, would like to think the future will be like the past, and causes do have effects (thus a solid foundation for science), but that doesn't prove Hume wrong...
Kant has a way of showing that causes can have effects, I think through his distinction between the noumenal and phenomenal worlds (things in themselves and how we experience them). That's a starting point if you want to check it out further; it's 2:45, and I don't feel like digging up my old notebooks. Anyway, hope this helped.
Hmm. Not really. I wanted to know what you think.
About anything. Or about he whole kit 'n kaboodle. What's your philosophy?
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
Hope is the root of ritualistic prayer is what I'm saying, yes. Hope is a prayer.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
Sorry, I guess...
I did say why I don't agree with Hume, at least on that one point, and used Kant to show why I might be justified in my disagreement. As for the whole kit 'n kaboodle, well, can you narrow it down some? That's a big question.
By the way, thanks for taking an interest! What about you? What's your philosophy? Just curious
Live and let live.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
There are no answers...only more questions in an endless loop. Mainly because religion uses an unknown factor to explain everything. I mean let's face it, the bible says nothing on what God is. It's all just a bunch of ideas and concepts. Nothing more. There's no tangible evidence of anything.
To use a complete unknown as the ultimate answer to every possible question you can think of seems extremely unusual to say the least.
You might as well just say I have no idea instead of God...it's the exact same thing.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Allah is a mathematical certainty.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
On paper which refers back to superstitious ideas handed down from thin air.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Pearl Jam is a mathematical certainty.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
So what you're saying is god created the guys who created calculus.
There can't be a point of creation. It defies the very meaning of infinity.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Sure, there can be a point of creation. Why not?
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
Because you can't create something out of nothing. There is no such reality. There is also no such thing as nothing. The condition of nothing does not, nor has it ever existed. Everything was already something else before what it is (and before that, and before that etc...and so on forever). You can't lose energy because there is nowhere for it to go. It only breaks down and recombines to become something else. This process is infinite and everywhere.
It's an impossibility for some entity to create absolutely everything that is to be out of thin air. What space was he/she occupying when he/she did it? It's a catch 22. A simple construct devised by simple people living in simple times.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")