| Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Scherezad
Perkone
Caldari State
123
   |
Posted - 2012.08.07 14:29:00 -
[61] - Quote
This is in reply to several people and more of a general point than anything. I hope my interjection isn't rude!
Just an observation. Most explanations I've gotten of the God of Amarr include the term "timeless". This would specifically remove the causal properties from the entity as we understand them, so I don't think the comparison to fire or other forces of nature are appropriate. All of those things are causal, but God is not.
Further, also due to this property, we aren't able to construct a formal proof of the existence of God: formal proofs require material conditional statements, which are causal. If you're looking to make a formal proof of Gods' existence, you have to first construct a logical system that is invariant with respect to time. I have no idea where to even begin. |
Benjamin Eastwood
Air
The Unthinkables
77
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 15:23:00 -
[62] - Quote
Start a thread with any hint of religion in it and every Amarran windbag with a religious opinion rushes comment. Having a conversation with them is like trying to describe a painting to a blind man.
"Endless ISK, the sinews of war" |
Anslo
The Scope
Gallente Federation
15
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 15:27:00 -
[63] - Quote
Having a conversation with ANYONE on IGS turns into a pseudo-convention of pompous windbags. |
Jev North
Anshar Incorporated
69
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 15:58:00 -
[64] - Quote
Scherezad wrote: I have no idea where to even begin.
That's funny. I have no idea where to start. Of course, I'm interpreting the good old material implication (GåÆ) as an expression of the relationship between binary truth values. Truth values that are not intrinsically linked to the time domain, even. We may be talking about different things. |
Uraniae Fehrnah
VokoV
136
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 16:02:00 -
[65] - Quote
I'm not sure where the pompous windbags are, could someone point them out? I look around and all I see are people having conversations, exchanging ideas, and the occasional jab at one group or another. I see no overt displays of ostentatious dignity and importance.
Scherezad, as to your point regarding the "timelessness" of God; You yourself say a timeless god would be removed from any sort of causal system as we know it. It seems to me that that alone could be the argued as the point where faith comes into play now and for as long as we don't grasp how to construct a logical system that is invariant with respect to time. |
Nicoletta Mithra
Anoyia's Exhortation
104
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 16:32:00 -
[66] - Quote
Cpt. Sherezad,
it's only efficient causes that presuppose time. Thus, compairsions of God to fire or other forces of nature might be appropriate, though certainly only as analogies. Just because God is eternal and transcends time doesn't mean he is a-causal in all respects.
Material conditionals are usually not understood as indicating any causality as they're logical connectives. There needs not be a temporal or even any other causal order to the antecedent and the consequent of a conditional. For example:
"If Roden is president of the Federation now, then Domain lies within the Empire and did so for years prior to the election."
The material implication is true, as Roden is president of the Federation and Domain lies within the Empire and did so for centuries. Still, one would not be saying that because the material contional is true that Roden being the president of the Federation is causally responsible for Domain lying within the Empire. Another example:
"If Roden is Emperor of the Amarr in YC111, then --arbitrary statement--."
This conditional is always true, as the antecedent is false. Here, no one would say that the false statement has any causal power, especially since even when the consequent is false, the implication will be true. The material conditional is thus, not mapping to causal relations, especially not of the effective kind.
It is thus neither the timlessness of god, nor a problem of formal logic with God's timelessness that causes us to be unable to prove God formally.
The problem of proving God is another: Formal, that is logical proof presupposes a statement of greater universality from which to deduce that which is to be proven. Stating God, though, is making the statement of highest universality - by definition. Thus, there can't be a statement of greater universality from which to deduce - and thus formally prove - God's existence.
The problem with disputing God's existence here - or a 'godlike' principle doing the same work - is that deduction will falter and proof will stop being accessible in any reasonable way. One needs such a principle as deduction can't be circular and needs a starting point for it to work.
Faithfully,
N. Mithra |
Benjamin Eastwood
78
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 16:34:00 -
[67] - Quote
Uraniae Fehrnah wrote:I'm not sure where the pompous windbags are, could someone point them out? I look around and all I see are people having conversations, exchanging ideas, and the occasional jab at one group or another. I see no overt displays of ostentatious dignity and importance.
Because you are blind. Next question?
"Endless ISK, the sinews of war" |
Azdan Amith
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
92
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 17:14:00 -
[68] - Quote
Benjamin Eastwood wrote:Start a thread with any hint of religion in it and every Amarran windbag with a religious opinion rushes comment. Having a conversation with them is like trying to describe a painting to a blind man.
What tangible irony. |
Tiberious Thessalonia
True Slave Foundations
Shaktipat Revelators
363
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 17:53:00 -
[69] - Quote
Benjamin Eastwood wrote:Uraniae Fehrnah wrote:I'm not sure where the pompous windbags are, could someone point them out? I look around and all I see are people having conversations, exchanging ideas, and the occasional jab at one group or another. I see no overt displays of ostentatious dignity and importance. Because you are blind. Next question?
Oh, there is the pompous windbag.
Anyways, carry on! |
Lyn Farel
Kitzless
341
|
Posted - 2012.08.08 10:50:00 -
[70] - Quote
I think Ms Mithra already provided the answer.
If one refers to the standard figure of an omnipotent being embodied by God and ruling over the universe - which is quite an old and naive concept - then of course it becomes a matter of proof, and a matter of proof impossible to provide.
However, if one refers to the concept of God, the prime mover, the force behind the Creation or the universe, or just more generally the Truth of everything, it is what it is : a concept. Then it is merely a matter of definition, and you can not prove a definition. A definition simply is. Then, this God, simply is. It is mostly a matter of semantics. I am pretty sure a lot of religions have their own variant with its own name. |
Azdan Amith
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
92
|
Posted - 2012.08.08 12:11:00 -
[71] - Quote
I count myself fortunate that I already place zero value on your opinions, Miss Farel.
May God have mercy on your soul when you face judgment. |
Gwen Ikiryo
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
4
|
Posted - 2012.08.08 12:31:00 -
[72] - Quote
Lyn Farel wrote:I think Ms Mithra already provided the answer.
If one refers to the standard figure of an omnipotent being embodied by God and ruling over the universe - which is quite an old and naive concept - then of course it becomes a matter of proof, and a matter of proof impossible to provide.
However, if one refers to the concept of God, the prime mover, the force behind the Creation or the universe, or just more generally the Truth of everything, it is what it is : a concept. Then it is merely a matter of definition, and you can not prove a definition. A definition simply is. Then, this God, simply is. It is mostly a matter of semantics. I am pretty sure a lot of religions have their own variant with its own name.
Hmm.
Miss Farel, I hope it is not rude or insulting of me to say so... But your interpreation of the creator-god as an abtract entity of "movement" and "truth" as opposed to a literal one is, to my eyes, far closer to the Achuran interpretation of the figure then the Amarrian one. (If still not utterly the same.)
You don't happen to identify yourself as such, do you? |
Lyn Farel
Kitzless
341
|
Posted - 2012.08.08 15:53:00 -
[73] - Quote
Azdan Amith wrote:I count myself fortunate that I already place zero value on your opinions, Miss Farel.
May God have mercy on your soul when you face judgment.
You will not be the first one, and probably one of the less significant either if I may say so. The feeling is reciprocal on the matter.
The simple fact that you still judged important to tell me that for the only sake of listening to your own voice, is more telling than everything else about the sin of your own arrogance.
May God have mercy on your narrow-minded soul as well. I wait to see how you will serve the Empire now that you are in the capsule.
Gwen Ikiryo wrote:
Hmm.
Miss Farel, I hope it is not rude or insulting of me to say so... But your interpretation of the creator-god as an abtract entity of "movement" and "truth" as opposed to a literal one is, to my eyes, far closer to the Achuran interpretation of the figure then the Amarrian one. (If still not utterly the same.)
You don't happen to identify yourself as such, do you?
I may. The only reason that I do not is that I am not one of them, but their views on the Truths are similar and tend to the same ideal. The Amarrian one is one of them, too, but many Amarrians just seem to have forgotten it. They are too much obsessed by their own moral servitude (this, said without any offense, since I, too, am obsessed by my own) to look deeper at the essence of things. |
Azdan Amith
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
92
|
Posted - 2012.08.08 16:49:00 -
[74] - Quote
Lyn Farel wrote:
The simple fact that you still judged important to tell me that for the only sake of listening to your own voice, is more telling than everything else about the sin of your own arrogance.
You are right, perhaps I have displayed a measure of arrogance in the brief time of our interaction. That is something I will reflect upon.
Lyn Farel wrote:May God have mercy on your narrow-minded soul as well.
The Path of Righteousness is narrow and must be tread carefully. If this was meant as an insult, it was not received that way. |
Nicoletta Mithra
Anoyia's Exhortation
106
|
Posted - 2012.08.08 17:00:00 -
[75] - Quote
Lyn Farel wrote:However, if one refers to the concept of God, the prime mover, the force behind the Creation or the universe, or just more generally the Truth of everything, it is what it is : a concept. Then it is merely a matter of definition, and you can not prove a definition. A definition simply is. Then, this God, simply is. It is mostly a matter of semantics. I am pretty sure a lot of religions have their own variant with its own name.
That's not quite my point. God is by necessity. Definitions and concepts are contingent. Therefore God is neither a concept nor a definition. If one refers to God as the prime mover, the force behind creation or just more generally Truth (with capital T), it is not merely a concept or definition one refers to. If we say "God" we don't refer to a concept or definition. If we define God, we don't define a definition, but in fact some kind of entity, that exists independent of any definition.
True, definitions can be used as starting points of deduction. Follows from that, that God is a definition? Not quite. A definition can only serve as a starting point of deduction if we accept it and it guarantees the truth of the deduction only in so far as it is itself conforming to truth - which a definition doesn't have to do. God on the other hand is to be understood as the first starting point of all deductions that are possible and true, thus that which assures definitions to be useful and that which we have to assume for deduction to work at all.
God is therefore prior to definitions and concepts alike.
Faithfully,
N. Mithra |
Nicoletta Mithra
Anoyia's Exhortation
107
|
Posted - 2012.08.08 17:20:00 -
[76] - Quote
Gwen Ikiryo wrote:Hmm.
Miss Farel, I hope it is not rude or insulting of me to say so... But your interpretation of the creator-god as an abtract entity of "movement" and "truth" as opposed to a literal one is, to my eyes, far closer to the Achuran interpretation of the figure then the Amarrian one. (If still not utterly the same.)
You don't happen to identify yourself as such, do you?
Cpt. Ikiryo, I hope you don't think one would be able to get a better picture of God if one stays with a 'literal' concept of God. Yex, I agree that Cpt. Farel's kind of abstraction leads no closer to understanding God. But the idea that He might be expressed and described in human terms without the need to resort to abstraction, analogy and metaphors does as well hamper the understanding of a being that transcends human categories.
Many a devout Achuran might be closer to understanding God than those Amarrians that cling to a folkloristic depiction of God as a fatherly figure with a long white beard sitting on some cloud ready to throw lightning bolts when he gets angry. Yes, those naive depictions might have their place, especially in helping us realize that all our concepts of God are in some respect naive. But there's a time when they outrun their usefulness and should be replaced by more refined and useful concepts. Amarrian theology has no lack of those, after all.
Faithfully,
N. Mithra |
Gwen Ikiryo
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
4
|
Posted - 2012.08.08 20:15:00 -
[77] - Quote
Nicoletta Mithra wrote:Gwen Ikiryo wrote:Hmm.
Miss Farel, I hope it is not rude or insulting of me to say so... But your interpretation of the creator-god as an abtract entity of "movement" and "truth" as opposed to a literal one is, to my eyes, far closer to the Achuran interpretation of the figure then the Amarrian one. (If still not utterly the same.)
You don't happen to identify yourself as such, do you? Cpt. Ikiryo, I hope you don't think one would be able to get a better picture of God if one stays with a 'literal' concept of God. Yex, I agree that Cpt. Farel's kind of abstraction leads no closer to understanding God. But the idea that He might be expressed and described in human terms without the need to resort to abstraction, analogy and metaphors does as well hamper the understanding of a being that transcends human categories. Many a devout Achuran might be closer to understanding God than those Amarrians that cling to a folkloristic depiction of God as a fatherly figure with a long white beard sitting on some cloud ready to throw lightning bolts when he gets angry. Yes, those naive depictions might have their place, especially in helping us realize that all our concepts of God are in some respect naive. But there's a time when they outrun their usefulness and should be replaced by more refined and useful concepts. Amarrian theology has no lack of those, after all. Faithfully, N. Mithra
|
Lyn Farel
Kitzless
341
|
Posted - 2012.08.09 10:36:00 -
[78] - Quote
But, passive, is only a relative term. Supernovae, tremors, or even a pilot failing to hit his target, may be considered as a more active form of divine action either. Captain Merdaneth for example, was a fervent supporter of such beliefs.
The barrier between passive and active here, is not as clear as it may seem.
Nicoletta Mithra wrote:
That's not quite my point. God is by necessity. Definitions and concepts are contingent. Therefore God is neither a concept nor a definition. If one refers to God as the prime mover, the force behind creation or just more generally Truth (with capital T), it is not merely a concept or definition one refers to. If we say "God" we don't refer to a concept or definition. If we define God, we don't define a definition, but in fact some kind of entity, that exists independent of any definition.
True, definitions can be used as starting points of deduction. Follows from that, that God is a definition? Not quite. A definition can only serve as a starting point of deduction if we accept it and it guarantees the truth of the deduction only in so far as it is itself conforming to truth - which a definition doesn't have to do. God on the other hand is to be understood as the first starting point of all deductions that are possible and true, thus that which assures definitions to be useful and that which we have to assume for deduction to work at all.
God is therefore prior to definitions and concepts alike.
Faithfully,
N. Mithra
Yet, it still is a defintion in your... definition.
Also, it was not in my intention to repeat your point, I only wrote that I agree with it and then added my own view, which I find complementary, nothing more.
Azdan Amith wrote:Lyn Farel wrote:
The simple fact that you still judged important to tell me that for the only sake of listening to your own voice, is more telling than everything else about the sin of your own arrogance.
You are right, perhaps I have displayed a measure of arrogance in the brief time of our interaction. That is something I will reflect upon. Lyn Farel wrote:May God have mercy on your narrow-minded soul as well. The Path of Righteousness is narrow and must be tread carefully. If this was meant as an insult, it was not received that way.
My apologies for such an analogy, but this discussion reminds me a lot of the discussions between amarrian priests and scientists I had to witness in the past. |
ChipMo
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
13
|
Posted - 2012.08.11 12:17:00 -
[79] - Quote
Why is a Giraffe's neck so long?
... Because it's head is so far from it's shoulders. |
Rodj Blake
PIE Inc.
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
1066
|
Posted - 2012.08.11 18:02:00 -
[80] - Quote
ChipMo wrote:Why is a Giraffe's neck so long?
... Because it's head is so far from it's shoulders.
Good to see you agree with me
Dulce et decorum est pro imperium mori. |
Makkal Hanaya
Hanaya Deferment Co
268
|
Posted - 2012.08.14 23:38:00 -
[81] - Quote
Ssakaa wrote:...not a one of you scripture-thumping villains can provide One. Single. Proof of existence of this Amarr God after all this time.
Can you give me proof you exist?
Scherezad wrote:This is in reply to several people and more of a general point than anything. I hope my interjection isn't rude!
Just an observation. Most explanations I've gotten of the God of Amarr include the term "timeless". This would specifically remove the causal properties from the entity as we understand them, so I don't think the comparison to fire or other forces of nature are appropriate. All of those things are causal, but God is not.
Further, also due to this property, we aren't able to construct a formal proof of the existence of God: formal proofs require material conditional statements, which are causal. If you're looking to make a formal proof of Gods' existence, you have to first construct a logical system that is invariant with respect to time. I have no idea where to even begin.
Dearest Scherezad,
I have no idea what you just said.
although my eyes were open
they might have just as well've been closed
|
Scherezad
Lai Dai Research Spacelane Security
126
|
Posted - 2012.08.15 03:37:00 -
[82] - Quote
Makkal Hanaya wrote:
Dearest Scherezad,
I have no idea what you just said.
Dearest Lady Hanaya;
I spoke poorly, which is no surprise. I'm frankly more surprised that I'm cogent at all. The only thing I meant to say is that logic systems which allow for "timeless" entities require a different logical intuition than we possess. This would make discussion of such a timeless entity extremely difficult. It was only an aside. |
Diana Kim
Wolfsbrigade
Lost Obsession
84
|
Posted - 2012.08.15 06:56:00 -
[83] - Quote
Different logic is not required, if you climb down from heavenly metaphysics to mundane physics.
Timeless entities would be frozen systems without any kind of evolution or motion.
And invariant of any given system with respect to time is called an 'energy'.
Ssakaa wrote:All of this debate and the episodic regurgitation of grey, nauseous, religious texts and still not a one of you scripture-thumping villains can provide One. Single. Proof of existence of this Amarr God after all this time. You're all bonker.
You are calling people bonkers because they believe in God without one single proof?
Yet you don't provide One. Single. Proof of absence of this God. This makes you believe in absence of God.
My point is, you have efficiently called yourself a bonker.
|
Halete
Echoes of Korgoth Initiative
380
|
Posted - 2012.08.15 09:26:00 -
[84] - Quote
These arguments that all loosely flirt around 'Is there a God?' and the ever-loved use of that term 'Can you provide evidence for your belief?' (which inevitably comes up once or several dozen times per discussion) have all gotten rather trite.
A more pressing subject would be 'Is the Amarrian faith a force for good in the cluster?'
And for as long as the concept of Reclaiming remains alive among many of the believers, I would argue that no, it is not.
Dirty heretical mud-child, reporting in. |
Eric Riso
Wildly Inappropriate
Goonswarm Federation
0
|
Posted - 2012.08.15 09:50:00 -
[85] - Quote
Giraffes don't exist |
Jev North
Anshar Incorporated
69
|
Posted - 2012.08.15 09:54:00 -
[86] - Quote
Diana Kim wrote:You are calling people bonkers because they believe in God without one single proof?
Yet you don't provide One. Single. Proof of absence of this God. This makes you believe in absence of God.
So what was the evidence you're not some kind of deep-cover Gallente fifth columnist, again?
|
Mardon Hashur
PIE Inc.
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
23
|
Posted - 2012.08.15 10:39:00 -
[87] - Quote
Proving that God exist to those who have shut their minds and harts is like trying to paint a picture of the most glorious thing possible and then asking a blind man to say what the subject of the picture is. God is not something that can be proven by logic and test of know events and reactions because God is the source of all things and his will is shown to those who do not believe every day, with or without tests.
Sincerly
Mardon Hashur |
Halete
Echoes of Korgoth Initiative
380
|
Posted - 2012.08.15 10:57:00 -
[88] - Quote
Eric Riso wrote:Giraffes don't exist
Prove that giraffes don't exist.
Dirty heretical mud-child, reporting in. |
Azdan Amith
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
119
|
Posted - 2012.08.15 11:40:00 -
[89] - Quote
Halete wrote:And for as long as the concept of Reclaiming remains alive among many of the believers, I would argue that no, it is not.
An understandable perspective but an unfortunate one.
I would suggest instead that as long as the Reclaiming continues to be misused and misrepresented to justify personal vendettas and racial hostility, as long as the forces responsible for regulating the treatment of those enslaved and ensuring the spiritual development and instruction of those enslaved are negligent or forcibly impotent, as long as capsuleers continue to bastardize the Amarr faith and pay lip service to righteousness while filling their coffers with blood money then the Amarr faith will continue to be painted as a destructive and negative aspect in the cluster.
It is a testimony to the damage done by those who wield power selfishly and faith ignorantly. |
Halete
Echoes of Korgoth Initiative
380
|
Posted - 2012.08.15 12:03:00 -
[90] - Quote
An understandable perspective also, Azdan.
The Reclaiming's misuse is an unfortunate fact of human imperfection. I fear that I speak out of turn for bringing it up on this forum, but my own self-proclaimed 'Holder' took my clan - and I believe unlawfully, although I do not understand the exact intricacies at play - to fulfill the vendetta of a previous generation. This said, I do not believe that people with such motives are the sole problem, but a catalyst to an already raging catastrophe. If anything, keep such individuals in mind as another reason that it is imperative that the attitude of Reclaiming across the whole faith must be transformed.
What I say is, to return that which is of God back to God's light, the Empire can not and I beseech must not use force - and in turn force the hands of the heathens. My Brothers and their allies will return that force three-fold and burn God's creation to the ground. Of this I am sure.
Dirty heretical mud-child, reporting in. |
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |