Howdy folks, I go by reality, because I try to embrace what's real, and practical (for the most part), rather than an ideal. I'm a fiscally conservative, socially "its none of my damn business or yours", I believe in as small a government as can get the job done. I'm entering law school in the fall hopefully (aps are out I hear back soon. ) and right now I work in title insurance. I'm 25, male, and from Texas. I'm engaged to a woman that's way too good to me, and have a spoiled lab coonhound. I was raised methodist, hold a degree in philosophy from Texas State, I am a christian but not in an organized religion sort of sense. I don't force my beliefs on others and I expect the same treatment in kind. In personal interaction as a matter of manners, and from my government as a matter of liberty. I'm pro choice as a matter of law (practicality) but pro life as a matter of personal preference. I think viability is the most practical compromise that could've been made, and will eventually solve the problem itself as technology makes viability approach conception. Let's get this out of the way: I support legalization (taxed and regulated), and in fact the taxation and regulation of most vice (drugs gambling prostitution) as a matter of liberty, smaller government, and practicality. I'm very pro 2nd amendment. It means just what it says and its in plain english. If someone has a problem with that well there are ways to amend the constitution as well. I'm very pro 1st amendment, and heck 4th and 5th and.... well let's just say I'm very pro constitution, shall we? I'm a bit of a constitutional law and history buff (I did humanities not STEM, what else would I be good for? ), and I do enjoy debating it. I'm not into political parties as a rule, and I'll vote for any candidate regardless of letter next to their name if I think they aren't a jackass. I will note that I haven't found too many of those in either dominant party and tend to vote 3rd party. I'm on the Jimbutcher forums under a different name (also like to read for fun I do ), and have recently moved off of USpoliticsonline since its probably going to be sold. Anybody who I might have met before:
Reality is as perception dictates. Perhaps I'm a brain in a jar or otherwise being decieved and I could step in front of a bus and no matter the sensory input I receive when it strikes me, it might not be "real". But it'll sure as (*)(*)(*)(*) feel real, ergo I treat it as such. To paraphrase Descartes
Pssst... It was HP :Lovecraft who first came up with the concept of a brain in a jar in his short story The Whisperer In Darkness. So you might want to rethink that.
And it was Descartes who first advanced the idea (*in western philosophy. The buddhists and hindus have a similar concept dating back far far longer*) of "perhaps what I perceive is an illusion provided by an outside force" in descartes case an "evil demon", but which functions effectively the same whether its a brain in a jar, an evil demon/scientist/magician/mentalist/psychic/brain worm/star trekesque gaseous godlike entity/Q/star wars weird force cave illusion etc. Like I said to paraphrase. He also didn't use a bus as an example but a carriage, and came to the "conclusion" (wink wink nudge nudge please don't declare me a heretic mr. pope sir) that all of that had to be BS because God existed as a matter of logical certainty and God would never (*)(*)(*)(*) with a human being like that... except for Job. (he didn't mention the job thing... I'm being sarcastic )
Hmmmm... you should pop in to my thread "Logical People" in which I ask logical people to use logic to support the existence of God you claim that God is a logical certainty.
whoa there hoss. Go back and read that again DESCARTES intimated that, and he did so so as not to be charged as a heretic IE so as not to face excommunication and possibly serious consequences. Its sort of ironic really, he talks about being able to sit in your armchair and deny what you perceive on basis of logic and be completely correct in your logic, but when you step into the street you must do business with the carriages of the world, and illustrates that by paying lip service to the giant carriage that was the catholic church back when they had real temporal power. Its really rather funny That being said, if you are looking for a "logical" proof for god you may want to lookup Ansolm's proof. Here: http://www.princeton.edu/~grosen/puc/phi203/ontological.html < That's a pretty good write up all things considered. Me personally? I BELIEVE in God, and freely admit that I have no proof of such beyond anecdotes that may be explained by other things. Hence its BELIEF, not KNOWLEDGE. Its not a FACT, I have no proof. I have belief, my FAITH, and that's it. That's enough for me and honestly at some point everyone is doing business with Faith (Descartes Cogito can lead you to that stream, though whether you choose to drink from it is up to you) so much so that one claim tends to wrap around another if one is subtle and flexible enough to admit that they don't have all the answers and some of the things they've come up with might be incorrect. I've been called all sorts of bad names by both sides of that argument (theists and non-theists), as none of them can accept a winner that doesn't wear their colors And I DO win that argument (what can we KNOW? Me: Pretty much nothing and everything else is belief of some sort. Theists: You wicked evil person! How could you not believe everything in this old book written by humans and compiled by politicians of various sorts and put into various languages over 5000+ years!!! You're going to hell! Non-Theists: You believe in something?!!!!! You're stupid! I don't believe in anything! Except for all of these things I take as fact that I have no proof of! Lemming!), every time.
Good for you. I am not being sarcastic or trolling when I say that. Thanks for the link, I'll check out and see what transpires. Here's a link for you: http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm
Ansolms proof is numbers 3 and really specifically 4. God is perfect as conceived of. Perfection entails existence as conceived of. ERGO God exists. I hate metaphysics. I spent 3 years studying it along with political philosophy and the only thing I ever learned is that we can't really know anything without assumptions but none of that matters because perceived pain hurts and perceived pleasure feels good no matter if its logically real or not. BAH. It was a useless waste of time.
Well, to me, perfection is the sign of delusion. I don't believe in God's perfection. Because if God can't sin then he has no free will. Secondly, there are several arguments that can be argued in support of God being a sinner, based on the sev en deadly sins. And this "God can do no wrong no matter what" attitude really bothers me.
I believe in God's existence and perfection. Its not logical though. Its belief. Eh can't and won't are two different things. Its not that he can't, it's that he won't. The difference being that a being such as god, omnipotent and omniscient and ostensibly omnibenevolent, would have standing to judge and render punishments upon the wicked. If he truly exists and truly created everything etc. what he says DOES go. That would be the difference. Comparing him to a human would be like comparing a bacteriam to a human. Not can, won't. Its an important distinction I think. I also know as a matter of fact, that the Bible has been twisted and turned and outright altered multiple times. It was compiled by a roman emperor FFS. We've got free will, which entails freedom to (*)(*)(*)(*) up, such as by buying the bull(*)(*)(*)(*) someone peddles. I don't push my beliefs or faith on others, nor do I call it knowledge or logical. If everyone would do that the world would be a much better place.
