Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

---

At 6/1/11 12:35 PM, CacheHelper wrote:

At 5/31/11 06:59 PM, Bacchanalian wrote: It's a matter of identifying what has happened that you deem it necessary to correct a notion or claim that was apparently never held nor claimed.

What? Dude, I'm just telling you that I'm not an expert... that's it.

Nope. You're using it to convey that 1) [ you ] don't know everything and [ you're ] making no claim that [ you ] do, 2) just because [ you ] don't know the answer doesn't mean that the answer doesn't exist, 3) the things that [ you ] say may or may not be correct, and 4) if [ you're ] incorrect it's not because the religion itself is incorrect.

Though if your argument is that you're really "just" saying those things, then how are they relevant? Before you answer, remember: give any reason, and further implication, and you won't be "just" saying it.

Or you could drop the passive evasive junk all together.

See, this is why I keep saying I'm not an expert. What does any of this have to do with anything

You set up the construct: In order for there to be a choice to disobey God, God must forbid something.

You've used both "complete free will" and "free will".

You've argued that the choice of original sin must have been fair.

All seems pretty relevant. But if all I have to actually satisfy is that my questions have something to with anything, well, they do intrinsically ( by virtue of their being questions of sound syntax and semantics ) ... or you could drop the emphatics.

I don't think God ever commanded Adam and Eve not to murder. [...]

So then murder isn't an available sin. There are a few 'commandments' given to Adam and Eve before they're banished though... but...

If I don't toil the fields, is that a sin?
If I don't eat plants grown on a field, is that a sin?
If I don't rule over my wife, is that a sin?

[...] God knows what's going to happen

If God had not spoken to Cain, and Cain still killed his brother, would Abel's murder be a good thing?

Nothing possesses your body and makes you do things you don't want to do.

Have any of my arguments presupposed, required, or begged for possession?

I don't know... as I understand free will it's basically the ability to make your own choices.

[...] You're free to make your own choices and do as you please.

But that doesn't mean that I can suddenly decide to fly and expect to grow wings.

So what you can do is limited - i.e. you cannot do as you please - i.e. you can only do as you please within a limited field of options.

Where does this new information on the tree fit into your fairness argument?

It doesn't change anything... the tree was still a subjective and moral choice.

The tree is still a subjective and moral choice if it's stuck behind a 100' high stone wall. Focus. We're talking about fairness, not subjectivity.

The only reason Adam and Eve had not to eat from the tree was because God told them they shouldn't. There was nothing else leading them to believe that it was bad.

Yeah well... I would think making the tree more attractive than the rest would lead them to believe the opposite - along with the word of the serpent.

By the way, God told them they'd die. So it wasn't just instruction that they shouldn't, it was a threat to their mortality - which, being as they were - probably didn't mean much.

---

At 5/31/11 06:15 PM, CacheHelper wrote:

At 5/31/11 05:37 PM, Bacchanalian wrote: Was I? About you? About me?

Huh? I'm not using it out of spite or anger... I'm just telling you that I'm not an expert on the story of Adam and Eve. You shouldn't take it personal.

It's not a matter of me taking it personally. I'm not sure how I could. It's a matter of identifying what has happened that you deem it necessary to correct a notion or claim that was apparently never held nor claimed.

So what have you been incorrect about so far? (Keep it in context)

Well, I said that I didn't think there was anything special about the tree... it was just a regular tree and the only thing that made it special was that it was the one God picked.

But in some of my research somebody mentioned that the tree was special... it looked better and the fruit looked like it tasted nicer.

I didn't look into it any further... to this day I don't know if there was anything physically special about the tree or not. There's a good chance there was though, and that I was wrong in saying there wasn't. Honestly, I don't know...

That's it? Ok then...

When did God command Adam and Eve to not murder?

What's the distinction between free will and complete free will? Is there one?

Where does this new information on the tree fit into your fairness argument?

---

At 5/31/11 03:45 PM, CacheHelper wrote:

At 5/28/11 10:55 AM, Bacchanalian wrote:

I'm not an expert...

So what?

So, I don't know everything and I'm making no claim that I do.

Was I? About you? About me?

That just because I don't know the answer doesn't mean that the answer doesn't exist. The things that I say may or may not be correct and if I'm incorrect it's not because the religion itself is incorrect, it's because I, personally, am incorrect due to a lack of knowledge about the subject.

So what have you been incorrect about so far? (Keep it in context)

That just because I don't know the answer doesn't mean that the answer doesn't exist. [...] The things that I say may or may not be correct and if I'm incorrect it's not because the religion itself is incorrect,

You must have one massive chip on your shoulder to think I'm taking what you say as the end-all-be-all of Christian philosophy - as if I'm walking away from this conversation thinking I've disagreed with anyone but you - after I'd already expressed exactly the opposite.

---

At 5/30/11 11:23 PM, bobomajo wrote: hahaha whats your problem man?

Yup. Pick up solely on the least topical element of my post. Aren't you the genuine article.

---

At 5/30/11 10:49 PM, bobomajo wrote: Considering the alternative that everyone always does the right thing guided by direct control from God

Yeah like, say, you don't want fries with your burger. Considering the alternative that you'd have a pile of stale deer shits, well, it's so wonder you'd want fries with your burger!

The response I received from some friends who are Christian to this argument is. Faith in God is not a one way deal, God wants to have faith in you. Everyone has a dark nature and God wants to believe that you can rise above it.

If only God weren't also alleged not only to be omniscient, but that his righteousness is in part justified by his supposedly acting on it.

Convince you that God/heaven/hell etc exist? No one can do that, otherwise there wouldn't be any atheists and only one faith in the world.

People convince and become convinced of things all the time.

But personally I don't agree with the idea of mainstream Christian afterlife. Its so unfair that you can receive the same punishment/reward with no consideration of your environment and the severity of your actions.

What other truths to you believe because the alternative is unfair? What other things don't you believe in because they're unfair?

Uuarrgh

---

At 5/29/11 12:51 PM, Heretic-Anchorite wrote:

At 5/29/11 12:37 AM, Bacchanalian wrote:
Fucking hell. Ok. Just get it over with. Tell me all about your belief system and get it over with. I'm not into this, "let me slip it in like it's relevant" bullshit.

But what I posted was relevant, it's just not that clear cut and not really that simple, it's not what you are used to.

No. What you've been doing is answering my questions with relevant things, then running with it and giving me something like a chunk of some best hits compilation about your belief system.

I'm saying, get your advertisement out there and be done with it already, rather than parading it around like some deeper exploration of my inquiries - that I'm apparently too simple minded to understand.

... despite most of my questions being efforts to introduce ambiguity to your arguments - or ideally, clarify them.

Plus you view if my explanations as irrelevant bullshit why should I even care to try to farther explain?

Read into Sun Tzu, Bruce Lee, watch this and maybe it will explain better,

or is that also irrelevant?

Without looking at any of that I'd say it's a safe bet to assume a good portion of it is. Like for instance... on the SATs, in the reading comprehension section, when answering a given question about a given passage, it's usually not necessary to know the entirety of the given passage.

---

Yeah... this kind of thing certainly takes no creativity at all...

Spend one second at his firm and you can tell, from nearly everything being white, and clean, and the lack of labels on doors cause they're just so cluttery - that this man has no creativity.

---

At 5/29/11 01:04 AM, J-Cobyz wrote: WTF are you talking about

Everyone else was posting pictures.

---

At 5/28/11 10:37 PM, Gobblemeister wrote: I also really like Celine Dion, Alanis Morissette, Fiona Apple, Utada Hikaru, Lady Gaga, and Sarah McLachlan

You might like Annie Clark of St Vincent.

Since everyone else is doing it.... (she looks like a Disney cartoon to me)...

---

At 5/28/11 08:35 PM, GhilliemanEnt wrote: I AM open minded.

Unlike those atheists *shutter*.

---

At 5/25/11 02:23 PM, Heretic-Anchorite wrote: No, but one is fulfilled upon transcending all limitation, once one does this, emptiness is overcame as a side effect If one becomes omniscient, they are all knowing, absolute. that will enable to create a purpose, an order that isn't limited, an order that is absolute. you become a superman

At 5/28/11 11:30 AM, Heretic-Anchorite wrote: There is no true absolute objective purpose, or morality so one must be created, but in order for it to be absolute it must be created by an absolute being, a entity beyond all limits, a superman.

Fucking hell. Ok. Just get it over with. Tell me all about your belief system and get it over with. I'm not into this, "let me slip it in like it's relevant" bullshit.

---

Debating the meaning of that line doesn't much matter considering that, according to most any sect of Christianity and certainly popular Christian consensus, everything God does is righteous - which would include creating, or at the very least defining, evil.

---

At 5/25/11 02:23 PM, Heretic-Anchorite wrote: Does that clarify why I don't see a contradiction?

I'll just come out and say it. Something that implicates nothing but itself is superfluous. And that's not an if-then, it's more of a truism.

I feel like this tangent is mostly to blame for my vague phrasing about this implication business.

But I did attempt, however it was implied, not that clear. I admit I could have clarified a few parts.

I meant empty as in not absolute.

Is that really all that's meant by it?

Did that clarify me point?

Aye cap'n, so... by fulfilled do you merely mean absolute?

---

Intermission:

At 5/27/11 06:39 PM, CacheHelper wrote: I'm not an expert...

So what?

I never claimed any of this as a fact...

So what?

---

At 5/27/11 02:07 PM, CacheHelper wrote:

At 5/26/11 11:24 PM, Bacchanalian wrote: Complete free will?

They would be lacking the ability to choose to disobey God.

To choose to disobey God or to disobey God?

Regarding the "born again" issue, let's leave semantic games out of it.

Just covering the bases... it might be necessary to specify an impossible task if that same task could be accomplished metaphorically.

Being born again isn't alleged to be a metaphor for being born last I checked.

So pick one from the implicit laundry list and tell it to me.

[...] murder [...] "don't murder" [...] murder [...] "do i murder eve" [...] take murder[...] murder [...] murder [...] So what sins could Adam commit after eating from the tree... any sin he wanted.

So.... you're going with murder then?

Is choosing to leave hell the same as leaving hell?

I don't know... I don't know anything about heaven or hell...

Do I really have to quote mine you or will you just admit this is a bullshit excuse to not answer the question?

---

At 5/26/11 06:32 PM, CacheHelper wrote: Like I said... I'm no expert... but I believe the answer is no... if God hadn't denied them from eating from the tree then Adam and Eve wouldn't have had complete free will as they would have been lacking the ability to be able to choose to disobey God.

Complete free will?

None... but I guess it depends on the specific issue. I mean, if it's a sin to be born twice should you tell everyone? It's impossible to be physically born twice... but what about being 'born again' in the religious sense? Does that count as being born twice? And what about the future of technology? Right now it's impossible to walk on the sun... but maybe one day in the future this will become possible. So maybe you should clarify that it's still a sin because maybe one day it will be possible to do. It's a debatable question... you want me to commit a definitive answer to an incredibly open ended question.

Allow me to tighten it up.

Regarding the "born again" issue, let's leave semantic games out of it.

Regarding the future potential issue, let's revise: if we can't ever do [x] [...]

Ideally, if the task is really impossible it doesn't matter either way. Tell 'em or not... they still can't do it. I don't see how knowledge of the impossible task, or a lack of knowledge about the impossible task, makes it any less impossible.

You're very eager to knock down arguments I'm not making.

Anyway they wanted...

So pick one from the implicit laundry list and tell it to me.

It's free will... you're free to walk on the sun... go ahead and do it... and this point... even I won't stop you. In fact, I encourage it... go walk on the sun. See for yourself that you're free to do such a thing... go visit the center of the universe... grind yourself up in a wood chipper... do what you want, you're free... if you want to be a bitch and act like you're not free because something was difficult or you didn't get your way immediately, you're free to do that as well.

If you don't believe in free will... fine, you're free to choose to not believe it.

Once again, really eager to knock down arguments I'm not making.

Nope, there could have been lots of ways to disobey God

So you've answered your own question.

And isn't a commandment in itself providing knowledge of sin?

It sure is... which is why God tells us this himself.
Romans 3:20 " by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin."

So then Adam and Eve knew of sin prior to eating from the tree.

And... do you find it at all odd that inclination is completely disregarded in a religion that basically centereed around accepting someone into your heart - i.e. spychologically and emotionally, not necessarily materialy?

No... I mean, maybe I don't fully understand what you're getting at... but not really. What's so crazy about it?

When you cherish sin in your heart, you put a wedge between yourself and God.

Except, in order for there to be a choice to disobey God, God must forbid something.

Originally, yes.... but once man learned of good and evil they just naturally knew of evil things. Man was different before eating from the tree. Man was good... like all of Gods creations. We learned to be bad.

Perhaps you should define sin.

I assumed that you were no longer "man" in death... but I'm not sure if that's the official stance on the matter. A quick Google search leads me to believe that you retain your free will but in heaven gain the pure, innocent obedience to God that Adam and Eve originally had and thus, just don't sin as a consequence... but it puts you back to the argument of "can you actually sin in heaven?". Is there a "tree of knowledge" in heaven? It's the same for hell... can you choose to leave hell?

Is choosing to leave hell the same as leaving hell?

---

At 5/25/11 06:21 PM, CacheHelper wrote:

At 5/23/11 07:14 PM, Bacchanalian wrote: If God had not forbid eating from the Tree, would the choice to eat from it not exist?

There was never, ever, a single moment in time, where man did not have the choice to eat from the tree. Even after God said not too, we still had the choice to eat from it.

Ok. Now try answering the question according to the hypothetical premise I provided for it.

In the case of Adam and Eve, yes it would.

I'm speaking more generally. In other words, if we can't do [x], what purpose does prohibition of [x] serve?

...in what ways could Adam and Eve disobey God following their banishment?

Any way they want... they now know of sin.

You're about to tell me that God issued the ten commandments so that we'd know what we shouldn't do (i.e. what we could disobey; i.e. what constitutes sin).

You've already told me that in order to be able to disobey God, one necesary variable is a command from God.

You've established that the tree wasn't actually magical, but that by eating from it one becomes aware that sin, disobeying God, is an option - and in this way sin is known.

So... you say they could sin any way they want... for instance?

But we can still want to or try to, which you've presented as free will.

Because we can do those other things... I can't walk on the surface of the sun but I can walk... and i can walk wherever I want whenever I want. If I can figure out how to walk on the surface of the sun then I can.

{ If I can figure out how to walk on the surface of the sun then I can. } is hardly a ringing declaration of { i can walk wherever I want whenever I want }.

How were Adam and Eve suppose to disobey God if the tree is impossible to reach?

Is there any reason other than narrative impact that there be only one way to disobey God?

And isn't a commandment in itself providing knowledge of sin?

And... do you find it at all odd that inclination is completely disregarded in a religion that basically centereed around accepting someone into your heart - i.e. spychologically and emotionally, not necessarily materialy?

and if God hadn't given us 600 commandments we wouldn't have free will?
(my bad, i deleted the quote by accident... but it was something like that)

The tree is special because, at that point in time, it was the only way to disobey God.

After eating from the tree Adam and Eve gained the knowledge of Good and Evil and now there were lots of ways to sin.

After man could sin in a bajillion ways God issued upon us the Commandments... so we would know what we shouldn't do.

Except, in order for there to be a choice to disobey God, God must forbid something.

Remember, God can't do shit while we're alive because we have free will. But when we die... which we all do because that is our punishment for eating from the tree... we go back to God... were he can once again, do whatever he wants with us.

Revoking free will isn't a contradiction of free will as long as it happens after death?

---

At 5/25/11 11:20 AM, Heretic-Anchorite wrote: what I meant was that it being perceptual doesn't make it anything but just that, perceptual. it doesn't make it nonexistent, or unreal, it is very real, but to a limited extent.

Way to restate the views that prompted my question in the first place, as if it's an answer. Try again.

I was trying to explain why I see what is limited as empty, that because it is limited, it's not absolute. and devoid of true meaning, or purpose.

No see. Now you're trying to explain why you see what is limited as empty. Before you just shoehorned the word in and ran with it - there was no attempt to describe or clarify the relationship between limitation and emptiness. You were making a completely different point regarding the infinity and transcendence (which included references to limitation and emptiness).

Are you implying that transcendence is fulfilling or merely a nullification of sensation?

Transcendence is evolution, growing.

That doesn't answer the question, again.

You said, "the only way to transcend this emptiness is to be omniscient"

So I ask, is that to imply that one is fulfilled upon transcending emptiness?

you are misunderstanding me, you seem to be trying to turn my post far more black and white then it is.

Do you stick by what you say or not?

And no sorry. Being explicit is not necessarily the same as being black and white. I'm asking for the former, not the latter.

---

At 5/25/11 02:45 AM, Heretic-Anchorite wrote: It's real, but in a limited sense.

And you see no contradiction between { [ x ] is real } and { [ x ] implicates nothing but itself }?

Any number, when compared to infinity, is infinity small. therefore the value of what is limited in nature, is infinity small, or empty, and the only way to transcend this emptiness is to be omniscient.

Bridging logical gaps with "or [ insert the word you really want to use ]" doesn't cut it. Sure sounds elegant though doesn't it?

Are you implying that transcendence is fulfilling or merely a nullification of sensation?

---

At 5/24/11 09:57 PM, Heretic-Anchorite wrote: the only value it has is that of a sensation

Does sensation implicate nothing but itself?

thus, it's perceived love that is a lie, and in order truly overcome this lie is to grow infinity, to lust for the "philosophers stone", the "forbidden fruit" , to evolve.

Try this again with proper sentence structure.

---

At 5/24/11 03:49 AM, Michaelas10 wrote: Basically, what makes an action "right" and what makes it "wrong"? Isn't it simply our evolutionary psychology, as well as nurture, that brought about this distinction? If so, then morals truly have no meaning. If we had evolved differently or raised in a different environment, our concept of morals would be totally different (e.g. wolf spiders eat their kids, people who are abused can become psychopaths).

Your evidence that morals have no "true" meaning is that they are derivative of nature and nurture - that they can differ across culture? Cause it strikes me as though you're establishing exactly the opposite.

.... maybe there's a better word you could use for "true."

If not, then how do morals exist independently of us?

Is this question solely to those who believe morals exist independently of us? Or is this a rhetorical question implying both 1) that for morals to have meaning they must exist independently of us and 2) that they do not exist independently of us?

In what medium? What purpose do they serve? It seems to regardless of what we do here on earth, the overall outcome would be the same. We are insignificant, and we will perish. Eventually.

Overall outcome of what? Insignificance to what?

---

At 5/23/11 01:57 PM, CacheHelper wrote:

At 5/20/11 11:34 PM, Bacchanalian wrote: Did the choice to eat from the tree not exist before God forbade it?

I don't think you understand that Genesis is the beginning... there is no 'before'. The very first thing God says to man is "don't eat from the tree...". He says this, right after giving man life.

Fair. If God had not forbid eating from the Tree, would the choice to eat from it not exist?

In order for there to be a choice to disobey God, God must forbid something.

Yes... as long as that something is a breakable order. If Gods only order was "don't walk on the sun" then we can't choose to disobey God... because it's impossible for us to walk on the sun. Even if we wanted to walk on the sun just to spite God, we couldn't actually do so.... thus, we're obeying against our will... contradiction. We have to actually be able to disobey God... not just "want to".

But commanding something impossible to disobey would also be pointless, would it not?

Free Will - Noun - The ability or discretion to choose; free choice:
Eden is just a place... eating from the tree is choosing to disobey God.

Hmmm...

Only in the case of the Tree of Knowledge because eating from the tree is the only way to disobey God. They have to be able to actually eat from the tree.

...in what ways could Adam and Eve disobey God following their banishment?

TRYING to eat from the tree of knowledge does not disobey Gods order. God didn't say "don't TRY to eat from the tree..." he said "Don't EAT from the tree...". Man has to be able to actually EAT from the tree in order to actually DISOBEY.

If man can't reach the tree then man can't EAT from the tree. If man can't EAT from the tree then man can't DISOBEY God. Even if we WANT to...

But we can still want to or try to, which you've presented as free will.

You don't understand how removing the ability to disobey god is a contradiction of free will?

I don't understand how it's any more or less a restriction on free will than any other lack of ability.

Yes.

And... if God had never given us the opproximately 600 commandments, we wouldn't have free will?

---

At 5/22/11 03:40 AM, PhoenixGodwin wrote: I feel like you've specifically taken the 'no more, no less' out of context. Because it's referencing to the fact that it's an idea up for discussion, and that it's not supposed to be any more or less than that.

A discussion you characterize as you simply sharing ideas, and people telling you how interesting they are. It is that with which you followed "That's it. No more. No less."

From what I understand, you seem to be arguing with me what my own intentions are despite anything I've said throughout the entire thread (including in the original article itself).

I think I've been pretty good about drawing explicitly from the things you say.

Sure, I believe what I'm saying- but as you can clearly see throughout the thread I've accepted people's differing views and answered questions that respectfully or reasonably challenged it. You're calling me out on manipulating semantics when from my perspective, and I think you're telling me that my word choice isn't good enough for you to think I'm not a liar- which honestly I just can't even understand. Why would I lie about that?- Don't answer- it's irrelevant.

Then don't think of this as me answering the question - think of this as me responding to the statement implied by your rhetorical question.

If you've got something to defend, you've got something to lie about. There are reasons you came here to say what you have as oppose to espousing a belief system based on penicorns or something else supernatural. And some of those reasons are the same reasons you believe this stuff in the first place.

The fact is I'm not lying, and I really hope you can believe me when I say that. Perhaps I didn't word everything well enough for you to get that I didn't mean the idea as incontrovertible

It's never been an argument or charge against you, of mine, that you are saying your ideas are incontrovertible.

But other people did realize that I meant to present it as a suggestion, theory, philosophy, or idea- so I don't think my word choice could be that wrong. Does only one of those words work for you?

None as you are using them.

There's an old joke about italians, about how they preface blatant disrespect with the disclaimer, "with all due respect."

"With all due respect, your sister's a whore."

I'm trying to make the words fit around the ideas and general philosophy as best as i could

So demonstrate it: So you don't actually believe in a god, but rather god is just a metaphor for the universe. What explicit parallels are you drawing such that the metaphor is relevant or even meaningful without muddying the distinctions?

and in fact that was the whole reason I wrote the article to begin with. I'm taking ideas that are pretty much purely abstract and trying to express them through the use of language- and for me at least, that's not a particularly easy thing to do.

That neither precludes nor guarantees that your semantics are valid. It's here for another reason.

I promise you if you inferred any intention besides that, it's projected. And that's part of what bothers me. I can't really tell how willing you are to accept when I say that I'm not trying to force the idea onto people- most likely it's the 'coming off as barbed' that you mentioned before (I'm certainly noticing it- but I say that out of honesty, not as an insult) that makes it hard for me to tell what exactly you're saying with some of the points you've expressed.

It is.... so deliciously ironic... that you should talk about me projecting, and then interpret my roughness as an abstract accusation or reaction to a sentiment that you're forcing your beliefs on people.

But if you're going to tell me what I mean, then how are we supposed to get anywhere in the conversation? It's not like you made me try to explicitly avoid appearing dogmatic. From the article itself, to the responses afterward- I put conscious effort into both implicitly and explicitly avoiding dogma. Using phrases like "I think", and "I believe" to show that they were personal speculation. Even the things I feel sure of, I still said "fairly certain".

With all due respect.

I don't believe in the supernatural because I associate Nature, Existence, Reality, and Universe as pretty much interchangeable nouns. Therefore I think of 'Nature' as absolute, whereas 'Supernatural' would be arbitrary. I feel that the 'soul' is generally thought of by people as incorporeal. 'Individuality' however, is specifically based on the unique physical properties of individual brains, making it a corporeal function based in nature. This is why I made the point. I don't believe that the Universe/nature has superfluous functions, and with Physiomonistic Pantheism as I'm defining it- an incorporeal soul would be superfluous.

Well, it's a major relief to see you say that the supernatural is superfluous. But superfluous in what way? Because I've known no one who believes in God to claim that God is superfluous.

And if incorporeality is superfluous, what of reincarnation?

Of course, the opening statement of my concluding paragraph was "Again: Who knows?". I was trying to convey more elaborately that my idea of the Universe isn't definite fact, and to encourage people to invest their minds into considering things on a similar existential level

But what about epistemologically?

Could you elaborate on this for me, please?

If we are to say that belief is a matter of conviction or opinion [a position apart from fact, empiricism, objectivity, or intrinsically effective (as oppose to absolute) consequences] does it not then follow that belief is in a sense unconditional: an assuredness of conditions that are not classically* knowable, or an assuredness that does not, by nature of what it is, intrinsically reflect the conditions it alleges of known reality?

And if this is the case, does it not then follow that the motivation to believe is essentially disconnected, in the aforementioned sense, from what is believed?

Yet, if we are to say that belief is also a matter of laying claim to {what is}, does it not then follow that a belief betrays itself, in acknowledging that that which it posits is not necessarily what is - but what is wished to be?

Why not call it a wish? Or are the two words not synonymous after all?

* By classically knowable I mean to specify that 'to know' refers to knowledge as oppose to the colloquial notion of added certainty.

I'll make your Venn diagram if you want

No need. Didn't intend for the homework thing to be condescending, but it was nonetheless.

Also, dude- If you want to understand what I mean about how there's really probably not a time continuum, PM me. I would dig discussing it with you, as the subject is a bit less abstract. I think I could get you to understand where I'm coming from on that pretty easily- and you wouldn't be the first.

If you've got any prepared passages on the matter, pm them to me. I don't really have any kick-off questions.

---

Here's some homework. Make a Soul - Individuality venn diagram. Show what's shared between and unique among the two. And don't just write 'supernatural' on the soul side and 'natural' on the individuality side. Identify the specific attributes from which we would derive such a label.

---

At 5/21/11 04:00 PM, PhoenixGodwin wrote:

At 5/21/11 12:08 PM, Bacchanalian wrote:

Do you understand that what you just said is immensely evasive and dishonest? You're an intelligent person, so when you pull something like this I feel as though the respect has gone right out the window.

First off, sorry for addressing that the way I did. Somehow I mistook the quote I was replying to as coming from DarkWizard. Nonetheless, I'm not sure how my response was elusive or dishonest. Maybe I misunderstood the question?

[ I think you're still missing the point. ] There may be one main point, but there's more than one point being made.

[ This is a presentation of concepts for ways of thought. ] Yeah. That's what an argument is.

[ I'm not aiming to change the dictionary, here. ] That doesn't mean you're not abusing it.

[ I'm just offering ideas that you may take or leave as you wish. ] Nothing says "I'm more than open to discussion on the subject- in fact I prefer it" like "take it or leave it."

Every single sentence of your reply was a side step of no substantial import. My not sticking solely to an abstract notion of your overall point about 'ways of thought' doesn't change the fact that you've made other arguments (like the semantic one) that you feel support it. The fact that your argument is an argument doesn't change anything. It's a truism. The defense that you're not trying to change the dictionary is a straw man. And the last bit was a passively worded, "if you don't like it, go away."

You're entire belief system toys with semantics, whether or not you or I think it's done fairly. And when I hit the point where it's time for you to be explicit I get the grossest abstraction yet - so abstract it no longer even bares enough resemblance to be able to associate it in a line up.

Also if necessary I can admit that yes, these are the beliefs that I personally adhere to- but I'm still not trying to force them on anybody...

If these are the beliefs that you personally adhere to, then characterizing what you're doing as 'just offering ideas' is dishonest. These are truths to you. And it's been no mystery.

And what did I say that you thought it necessary to make note that you're not forcing your beliefs on anyone?

So as long as you allege that it's corporeal, you're immune to scrutiny?

I never claimed to be immune to scrutiny.

Fair enough. Bad phrasing on my part - really bad phrasing.

Why don't you believe in the supernatural?

What specifically renders a soul supernatural, where individuality is not. What is the specific distinction to be made here by which we can qualify one as supernatural and the other not?

Is it more valid to allege something natural than it is to allege something supernatural?

despite the fact that nothing here is really disprovable

Epistemology doesn't break down when something isn't disprovable.

At 5/21/11 02:34 PM, Bacchanalian wrote:

The definition of opinion (idea) as { a position on grounds insufficient to produce factual certainty or in other words (classically defined) knowledge } is not an excuse - it is a shortcoming. To treat such things as the former, i.e. to brush the matter aside as you did, is in essence a tautological fallacy.
But here's the kicker: This is the same tautological fallacy employed, in response to criticism of an empirical or objective vein, to excuse religious beliefs or statements regarding the supernatural.
It's a belief, not fact - don't bother me about evidence.
It's an opinion, not fact - don't bother me about evidence.
It's supernatural, not natural - don't bother me about evidence.
It's just an idea, not fact - don't bother me about evidence.

I'm sorry, I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at...

What I'm getting at are the distinctions (and in some cases lack there of) between fact, opinion, idea, belief, conviction, wish, and position.

Are you trying to say I should either prove my ideas or not bother sharing them at all?

Nope. Rather, it is the way in which you share them that's got me up in arms.

I'm trying to say that it's dishonest to react as you did, to characterize what you're doing in such a way as to make it seem reasonable to believe some alleged phenomenon with no reason inherent to it, or likewise make it seem as though such an alleged phenomenon is substantial in any way inherent to it. Because that's what you're saying when you say they're just ideas, not facts. You've just found a nicer way to say it.

This is a hot button issue with me, one of the reasons I'm atheist, and one of the reasons I'm having so much trouble with the incredibly blurry lines you're outlining this discussion with.

Because I totally understand that there are all sorts of things about Existence that I may be totally oblivious too, and that potentially those things could make me completely wrong. I'm only a 3-Dimensional being [...] making my perception potentially critically limited. Not only that, but we just don't have any sort of perception of anything in the Universe beyond a certain point in space, so anyone acting like they can define everything beyond that point with certainty is being a fool.

Step out of your box for a moment. This isn't about you not being able to see into the nth dimension.

I'm only a 3-Dimensional being (I really hope no one tries to argue the dimensions here, because I feel like it would take us terribly off subject) existing in a Universe that quite possibly has more than 3 dimensions (because I think someone might mention it, I'm going to point out that I don't think that 'time' exists as a dimensional force- rather, I think the closest thing would be the equivalent of 'Reaction'- but I digress)

You can't drop that bomb and then pretend like no one should take notice. If you're going to talk science, talk science. It's a mathematical construct of which time is a necessary axis to evaluate certain vectors. Dimension = mathematical axis.

Dimensional forces? The hell are those? Come on.

That's why I'm saying that this is a presentation of my thoughts and ideas open for discussion and free to be adopted by those who would choose to.

I'd hardly describe people fawning over your ideas - "that's it, no more, no less" - as open discussion.

---

On a side note... regarding: I've barely stated anything in my article as fact, merely an expression of ideas.

The definition of opinion (idea) as { a position on grounds insufficient to produce factual certainty or in other words (classically defined) knowledge } is not an excuse - it is a shortcoming. To treat such things as the former, i.e. to brush the matter aside as you did, is in essence a tautological fallacy.

But here's the kicker: This is the same tautological fallacy employed, in response to criticism of an empirical or objective vein, to excuse religious beliefs or statements regarding the supernatural.

It's a belief, not fact - don't bother me about evidence.
It's an opinion, not fact - don't bother me about evidence.
It's supernatural, not natural - don't bother me about evidence.
It's just an idea, not fact - don't bother me about evidence.

---

At 5/21/11 11:43 AM, PhoenixGodwin wrote:

At 5/20/11 06:24 PM, Bacchanalian wrote:

So you don't actually believe in a god, but rather god is just a metaphor for the universe. What explicit parallels are you drawing such that the metaphor is relevant or even meaningful without muddying the distinctions?

I think you're still missing the point. This is a presentation of concepts for ways of thought. I'm not aiming to change the dictionary, here. I'm just offering ideas that you may take or leave as you wish.

Do you understand that what you just said is immensely evasive and dishonest? You're an intelligent person, so when you pull something like this I feel as though the respect has gone right out the window.

So then the spiritual are mistaken. This begs the question, what exactly are they mistaken about?

According to Physiomonistic Pantheism: Supernatural (specifically incorporeal) entity.

So as long as you allege that it's corporeal, you're immune to scrutiny?

---

At 5/20/11 06:39 PM, CacheHelper wrote: Depends, does God issue another rule in the absence of the tree? I mean, he could get rid of the tree, if he replaced it with something else... like a pond you can't drink from or a word you can't say. If there is no rule issued by God, or no way to break the rule, then no... free will does not exist... as you can't disobey God.
[...]
To be truly free I have to be able to disobey. I have to be able to not jump.

Did the choice to eat from the tree not exist before God forbade it?

Is not the existence of a choice to disobey God dependent on both the circumstance that provides the means, as well as the corresponding commandment from God?

I don't know... I don't understand the question

Sometimes I don't communicate well... well.. often. But you know what you can always bet on? That I'm not psychic. If you don't understand something, let me know, the first time around, please.

In order for there to be a choice to disobey God, God must forbid something.

Agreed?

The Ten Commandments might be in the front of some Bibles for reference, but the Ten Commandments were issued after God had created the universe. He gives them to Moses... but that happens after God creates the universe. There is no before Genesis.

You know, you should probably read the Bible... even if you don't believe what it says... it still has some really good stories in it.

Ok. Seriously. Are you messing with me or are you really that committed to the idea that I'm arguing that God handed Moses the Ten Commandments before Genesis?

Either way, the chronological relationship between the Ten Commandments and Genesis is irrelevant to the point that I'm making. Did you think you were refuting something?

Is the choice to stay out of the Garden after banishment a forced decision due to a lack of options?

No, because they can still choose to go wherever they want...

Except the Garden, to eat from the Tree of Life.

there are some places you just can't reach because of our physical limitations... but that doesn't mean that we can't try to go there... or if we can figure out how to get there... actually go.

You just recently got done explaining to me that coercing action through unequally accessible alternatives would be a contradiction of free will.

I can't currently walk on the sun... but there is nothing stopping me from trying. And if I can come up with a way to walk on the sun, I can actually walk on the sun. Just, right now, I can't because I'd melt. Same with Eden... feel free to go back if you can figure out how. There's nothing stopping you from trying.

And there would be nothing stopping them from trying to eat from the Tree of Knowledge if it were guarded by a flaming sword (as became of the Tree of Life). You've already implicitly established that the matter of 'trying' as oppose to 'doing' is a non issue for this particular analogy (given the whole symbol vs non-symbol distinction), so why do you keep going back to it as if it matters? Does it or does it not?

Not being able to disobey God is a contradiction of free will.

How? In that it's one less option?

One is a place... the other represents the ability to disobey God

So, since "one" is a place, and does not represent the ability to disobey God, it is not a contradiction of free will to make it impossible or unfairly accessible?

One what exactly?

---

At 5/20/11 05:17 PM, PhoenixGodwin wrote: Well I definitely don't think I'm redefining 'Universe' here. I think that in a sense you could say that I am redefining 'God', but it is as you said mostly for the purpose of allegory and accessibility.

So you don't actually believe in a god, but rather god is just a metaphor for the universe. What explicit parallels are you drawing such that the metaphor is relevant or even meaningful without muddying the distinctions?

You claim you don't think of God as a being. Well... then you're not talking about a god. Gods are beings. Are you saying you believe in what is mistakenly taken to be God?

If I'm understanding you correctly, I'd say that's a fair assessment of my ideas.

So then the spiritual are mistaken.

This begs the question, what exactly are they mistaken about?

---

At 5/19/11 02:21 AM, PhoenixGodwin wrote: In Pantheism, God is the Universe, but it can be viewed as either sentient or non-sentient. In Physiomonistic Pantheism, the Universe is not considered sentient, and instead creates/changes as a natural function as opposed to an omnipotent consciousness. So no, the point is that I'm not personifying Existence.

Is it then merely for the purpose of allegory (and accessibility) that you refer to the Universe as God? Or are you redefining the word God so that it is synonymous with Universe? Are you redefining Universe?

I realize you may have answered these questions, but for clarification it'd help me to see them answered according to the contexts supplied by the questions (if the context being set up by the question is unfair or a nonstarter let me know).

What I see is a series of word games whereby you profess theists and the spiritual to be mistaken, and then go on to express equivalent thoughts/feelings but with less explicitly spiritual terminology.

It would be redundant to create a theory or belief without some sort of support.

This is splitting hairs... maybe... but I'd refer to allegory as illustrative before I'd refer to it as corroborative.

What you see as 'word games' is just me drawing parallels to commonly identifiable concepts, and then addressing them as they would apply to my presented way of thought.

Which implicitly makes the case that the commonly identifiable concepts are being mistakenly interpreted - that is - if there is any difference other than their respective names.

If they're different, someone is mistaken (ignorance included). If they're the same, using a different word serves either no purpose, a poetic one, or a dishonest one (whereby something different is implied).

Nonetheless, I respect the manner in which you responded. Let me know if you have any other thoughts or questions!

It's hard to find civil people these days, especially on the internet, especially concerning beliefs. I have a habit of getting snarky and .. barbed... but I'll make an honest effort to show you the same respect you've given me.