Home Gothic Gothic II Gothic 3 Gothic 4 Downloads Forums

 
 
 

Seite 1 von 21 12345812 ... Letzte »
Ergebnis 1 bis 20 von 404
  1. Beiträge anzeigen #1
    Skinhead  Avatar von Hellbilly
    Registriert seit
    Jun 2006
    Ort
    The land of gold and poison
    Beiträge
    11.667
     
    Hellbilly ist offline

    Peanuts #118 - Universe lapsing into dementia (I mean, Peanuts #119)

    The new one.

    Have fun.

    But not too much fun.

    Because that's not good for you.

    Previous one here.

  2. Homepage besuchen Beiträge anzeigen #2
    Demigod Avatar von Bastardo
    Registriert seit
    Aug 2007
    Ort
    {I} {T}rust {A}nd {L}ove {Y}ou
    Beiträge
    9.412
     
    Bastardo ist offline
    Zitat Zitat von quote
    So erm... what happened to making new threads when we hit the 400 posts?
    There is no point to that anyway, other than our German overlords telling us to do that.

  3. Beiträge anzeigen #3
    General Avatar von KGS
    Registriert seit
    May 2006
    Beiträge
    3.230
     
    KGS ist offline
    time and space cannot be accepted as predicates to substance itself, they are the ways in which we perceive the manifold of substance i.e. reality is our perception of things in themselves, and since we are all the same kind of animal this subjective necessity is an objective validity
    god, however, when inserted into reality - our world of phenomena - causes such paradoxes (like the one of causality that I talked about earlier) that we can see that regardless of his existence, his place is in relation with substance itself; whether he exists or not, and what that relation would be we are unable to say

  4. Beiträge anzeigen #4
    Skinhead  Avatar von Hellbilly
    Registriert seit
    Jun 2006
    Ort
    The land of gold and poison
    Beiträge
    11.667
     
    Hellbilly ist offline
    Again, you are talking of an external actor - and a very specific form of one. What of a pantheistic/panentheistic divinity?

    Zitat Zitat von Bastardo Beitrag anzeigen
    There is no point to that anyway, other than our German overlords telling us to do that.
    Apparently too big threads have an adverse effect on performance and can even lead to problems with DB integrity. I've seen other forums that have suffered from these problems, and the problems disappeared when admins & mods started splitting threads into shorter ones.

  5. Homepage besuchen Beiträge anzeigen #5
    Demigod Avatar von Bastardo
    Registriert seit
    Aug 2007
    Ort
    {I} {T}rust {A}nd {L}ove {Y}ou
    Beiträge
    9.412
     
    Bastardo ist offline
    Maybe it was a prehistoric version of vBulletin.

  6. Beiträge anzeigen #6
    Fighter
    Registriert seit
    Dec 2012
    Beiträge
    323
     
    MikeLitoris ist offline
    Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
    Then he is not omnipotent.
    Is he able, but not willing?
    Then he is malevolent.
    Is he both able and willing?
    Then whence cometh evil?
    Is he neither able nor willing?
    Then why call him God?

    Epicurus
    I don't remember who did it, but somebody dared to disapprove this without elaborating. I demand an explanation.

  7. Beiträge anzeigen #7
    Dragonslayer Avatar von Omid-
    Registriert seit
    Mar 2007
    Ort
    The Netherlands
    Beiträge
    4.556
     
    Omid- ist offline
    No, I think all HB said was that it was silly to say that that proved anything. It's a compelling argument against the case of a theistic god, and certainly one I consider important when contemplating the existence of such a deity, but in the end it doesn't really prove anything. Simple logic does not suffice in complicated matters such as these. I think that's what HB was saying. Anyway, that's my take on it; maybe HB'll explain to you what he meant if he disagrees with me.

  8. Beiträge anzeigen #8
    Fighter
    Registriert seit
    Dec 2012
    Beiträge
    323
     
    MikeLitoris ist offline
    Yes, but you can get to the root of all problems with that quote. You guys were all thinking too abstract. If god really is as omniscient, omnibenevolent and omnipotent why would he do nothing at all? You can't be omnibenevolent and at the same time do absolutely nothing. Also, if he is so omnibenevolent why did he make the world unperfect. If he is omnipotent he could make earth perfect, no diseases, no wars, no handicapped people. Just people living in mutual peace and harmony. So why wouldn't he do that? Is he unable to? Then he isn't omnipotent. Is he not willing to? Then he isn't omnibenevolent.

    Strongest argument I've heard against this quote so far is that he gave humans free will. Which still doesn't explain why he didn't make some other things better. And yeah, if everybody deserves free will then why don't we let all the serial killers, rapers etc out of prisons cause its their will to do harm to others! And then we get to another problem. Some people are born with an urge to kill, destroy and do harm to others. If we all have such free will why are those kind of people genetically made in such way?

    Let's be real, if god was real, omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent and the way most theists believe him to be he wouldn't let that kind of things happen.

    I'm not as educated as some of you(cause I haven't finished my education yet) nor do I have such a vast vocabulary but at least I can come to a reasonable conclusion faster, stay on subject and not wander off too much.

  9. Beiträge anzeigen #9
    Apprentice
    Registriert seit
    Feb 2013
    Beiträge
    45
     
    asddsa ist offline
    Zitat Zitat von Hellbilly Beitrag anzeigen
    Again, you are talking of an external actor - and a very specific form of one. What of a pantheistic/panentheistic divinity?
    It was an extension of the previously presented thought that such debates on existence of an omnipotent being are doomed to failure, result-wise at least, as omnipotence itself breaks the principles of present human logic.

    God as an external actor doesn't apply here in such scenario, because his omnipotence, paradoxically as almightiness is, forces him to belong both to the world of our logic which automatically excludes him from this realm, and to whatever other realm is, whose logic allows omnipotence. Such situation makes him - by our standards at least - an impossible being, and like everything that is impossible, he can't be deemed existent or non-existent. An omnipotent god, in such interpretation, is just a concept that can't be proven or disproved.

    nao, amirite or aminorite, KGS?
    Geändert von asddsa (18.03.2013 um 01:09 Uhr) Grund: wrong quote

  10. Beiträge anzeigen #10
    General Avatar von KGS
    Registriert seit
    May 2006
    Beiträge
    3.230
     
    KGS ist offline
    Zitat Zitat von Hellbilly Beitrag anzeigen
    Again, you are talking of an external actor - and a very specific form of one. What of a pantheistic/panentheistic divinity?
    I am not talking about an external actor; again I am rephrasing what I said earlier, because you don't understand it as I intended;
    talking about a pantheistic/panentheistic divinity is like saying "what if the invisible horse is red";
    this positive description of god can only be applied to his relationship to the things in themselves while we can only be aware of phenomena (it the broadest sense of the word)

    Zitat Zitat von asddsa Beitrag anzeigen
    It was an extension of the previously presented thought that such debates on existence of an omnipotent being are doomed to failure, result-wise at least, as omnipotence itself breaks the principles of present human logic.

    God as an external actor doesn't apply here in such scenario, because his omnipotence, paradoxically as almightiness is, forces him to belong both to the world of our logic which automatically excludes him from this realm, and to whatever other realm is, whose logic allows omnipotence. Such situation makes him - by our standards at least - an impossible being, and like everything that is impossible, he can't be deemed existent or non-existent. An omnipotent god, in such interpretation, is just a concept that can't be proven or disproved.

    nao, amirite or aminorite, KGS?
    well, I am not talking about omnipotence really, if you are bent on talking about different realms I would say an eventual god belongs to another realm of perception because he is in conflict with logic that arises from the way we perceive (an example for logic that arises from the way we perceive is: two different objects cannot be at the same place in the same time)
    so god might very well exist and be whatever he is, or not

  11. Beiträge anzeigen #11
    Skinhead  Avatar von Hellbilly
    Registriert seit
    Jun 2006
    Ort
    The land of gold and poison
    Beiträge
    11.667
     
    Hellbilly ist offline
    Zitat Zitat von MikeLitoris Beitrag anzeigen
    Yes, but you can get to the root of all problems with that quote. You guys were all thinking too abstract. If god really is as omniscient, omnibenevolent and omnipotent why would he do nothing at all? You can't be omnibenevolent and at the same time do absolutely nothing. Also, if he is so omnibenevolent why did he make the world unperfect. If he is omnipotent he could make earth perfect, no diseases, no wars, no handicapped people. Just people living in mutual peace and harmony. So why wouldn't he do that? Is he unable to? Then he isn't omnipotent. Is he not willing to? Then he isn't omnibenevolent.

    Strongest argument I've heard against this quote so far is that he gave humans free will. Which still doesn't explain why he didn't make some other things better. And yeah, if everybody deserves free will then why don't we let all the serial killers, rapers etc out of prisons cause its their will to do harm to others! And then we get to another problem. Some people are born with an urge to kill, destroy and do harm to others. If we all have such free will why are those kind of people genetically made in such way?

    Let's be real, if god was real, omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent and the way most theists believe him to be he wouldn't let that kind of things happen.

    I'm not as educated as some of you(cause I haven't finished my education yet) nor do I have such a vast vocabulary but at least I can come to a reasonable conclusion faster, stay on subject and not wander off too much.
    No, you can't get to the root of the "problem" of theism vs. atheism with that little ditty. Omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent describe only a small fraction of gods; mostly, they aren't benevolent towards all, just a small fraction of people - if even that. Even Yahweh in the old testament is far from omnibenevolent... in fact, he's a pretty vicious dude who smites to the left and smites to the right and sometimes smites right down the middle lane too. If you really consider this to be a valid argument for atheism, you obviously consider a christian-type view on god the only form of theism, which is - in a nutshell - plain wrong. Not even Islam considers Allah to be really omnibenevolent, obviously, and AFAIK neither does Judaism.

    As such, the lack of understanding considering that ditty to be a valid argument reveals... well, I stand by my previous words about it.

    Also, about freedom of will and freedom to do anything, even the old jewish and christian scriptures do make a clear distinction between divine law and human law. I don't really see much of a contradiction there, as the laws of a society only apply within that society, and people are obviously free to leave that society if they don't fancy those laws. Seems like a rather fundamentally flawed argument against theism to me.

    Zitat Zitat von asddsa Beitrag anzeigen
    It was an extension of the previously presented thought that such debates on existence of an omnipotent being are doomed to failure, result-wise at least, as omnipotence itself breaks the principles of present human logic.

    God as an external actor doesn't apply here in such scenario, because his omnipotence, paradoxically as almightiness is, forces him to belong both to the world of our logic which automatically excludes him from this realm, and to whatever other realm is, whose logic allows omnipotence. Such situation makes him - by our standards at least - an impossible being, and like everything that is impossible, he can't be deemed existent or non-existent. An omnipotent god, in such interpretation, is just a concept that can't be proven or disproved.

    nao, amirite or aminorite, KGS?
    It is still a very narrow definition of god/divinity that leaves a lot out, and as such is far from an umbrella dismissal of the possibility to read real conclusions through observance, logic and analysis. Making the assumption that a god would have to be completely omnipotent is also a rather strange notion, considering most if not all religious texts and traditions do hint and divine powers having some limitations - which, in my opinion, does in some ways reduce it to philosophical juggling with concepts.

    It also seems to assume that human logic cannot evolve. Which sounds pretty fishy to me.

    Zitat Zitat von KGS Beitrag anzeigen
    this positive description of god can only be applied to his relationship to the things in themselves while we can only be aware of phenomena (it the broadest sense of the word)
    You do realize that human knowledge is not limited to what we can be aware of, or experience? To me it would seem that we are reaching a point where we can more and more free ourselves from such restraints and thus better grasp concepts that would have been absolutely impossible just decades ago.

    Zitat Zitat von KGS Beitrag anzeigen
    (an example for logic that arises from the way we perceive is: two different objects cannot be at the same place in the same time)
    If that is the logic you employ, then I suppose the logic is a bit outdated because, as far as I've understood, quantum physics does already tell us that an object can be in two places at one time, and two objects can be in one place at the same time.

    I don't really see why current limitations of human logic should be seen as absolute boundaries; that why, with time, they too wouldn't expand to embrace concepts we cannot even begin to imagine yet. I would say that history proves such assumptions wrong. And as such, I don't really accept reasoning based on "our current logic" as conclusive evidence for a topic being impossible for all eternity - or freeing one or the other party from the burden of proof, as was the original topic.
    Geändert von Hellbilly (18.03.2013 um 10:39 Uhr)

  12. Beiträge anzeigen #12
    Fighter
    Registriert seit
    Dec 2012
    Beiträge
    323
     
    MikeLitoris ist offline
    Admittedly, I did talk mostly about Christian god as Christians make him out to be so I still think my argument is valid against that kind of god. But since I've been around Christians all my life and been fed that senseless shit since I was a little boy I only care about disapproving the existence of a Christian god so that's enough for me

    I don't even deny the existence of some sort of higher being.
    Geändert von MikeLitoris (18.03.2013 um 10:45 Uhr)

  13. Beiträge anzeigen #13
    Apprentice
    Registriert seit
    Feb 2013
    Beiträge
    45
     
    asddsa ist offline
    Zitat Zitat von Hellbilly Beitrag anzeigen
    It is still a very narrow definition of god/divinity that leaves a lot out, and as such is far from an umbrella dismissal of the possibility to read real conclusions through observance, logic and analysis. Making the assumption that a god would have to be completely omnipotent is also a rather strange notion, considering most if not all religious texts and traditions do hint and divine powers having some limitations - which, in my opinion, does in some ways reduce it to philosophical juggling with concepts.
    I might be wrong here, but it seems to me that this part of the discussion has been so far mostly about monotheistic deities, and they all are always omnipotent, same for pantheism. Panentheism was only mentioned, so I really just skipped it, so we wouldn't stray away too far from the original topic. But I don't mind a couple of posts on it, too, if you like.

    Anyway, omnipotence, by definition, is always unlimited, and as one might argue whether or not Yahwe/Allah is omnipotent, it would be a theological argument, as it would eventually come down to quoting passages and excerpts from the Old Testament or the Quran. Since most Christian, Jewish and Islamic dogmas describe their god as almighty, I believe we could skip estimating his power for now.
    Zitat Zitat von Hellbilly Beitrag anzeigen
    It also seems to assume that human logic cannot evolve. Which sounds pretty fishy to me.
    Sorry, I thought I didn't need to restate here what I said earlier, when I agreed with you, that humans' understanding of the universe is always connected with their current state of civilisation, which can also be estimated by evolution of their logic. So, no, logic does evolve, as consecutive known paradoxes are proven to be perfectly logical, if some additional assumptions that show errors in previous thinking are made.
    Zitat Zitat von Hellbilly Beitrag anzeigen
    I don't really see why current limitations of human logic should be seen as absolute boundaries; that why, with time, they too wouldn't expand to embrace concepts we cannot even begin to imagine yet. I would say that history proves such assumptions wrong. And as such, I don't really accept reasoning based on "our current logic" as conclusive evidence for a topic being impossible for all eternity - or freeing one or the other party from the burden of proof, as was the original topic.
    I agree that "current limitations of human logic shouldn't be seen as absolute boundaries", tautologically speaking, it's only logical that logic applies even to itself. However, one cannot really use reasoning based on their "future logic", as one hasn't achieved it yet. It would be wise to leave some space for hypothetical "future logics", I agree, but if we are to define anything, be it finite or infinite, "our current logic" is the best tool we can use for now.

    Also, I think we still are following the original topic, as despite the differences in our reasoning, we all seem to be coming to the same, or at least similar, conclusion: we cannot (so far, currently, ever) prove the existence of god(s). And as such, only "the burden of proof" remains, which is just as heavy for either side, and just as un-removable.

  14. Beiträge anzeigen #14
    Skinhead  Avatar von Hellbilly
    Registriert seit
    Jun 2006
    Ort
    The land of gold and poison
    Beiträge
    11.667
     
    Hellbilly ist offline
    Zitat Zitat von asddsa Beitrag anzeigen
    However, one cannot really use reasoning based on their "future logic", as one hasn't achieved it yet.
    Generally speaking, I agree, but I do think it's a valid response to, direct quote, "no, that will never be possible,"; we have so little or even no understanding of what man's understanding of reality, the universe and everything will be in the future that it seems to me a bit rash to summarily deny things.

    Zitat Zitat von asddsa Beitrag anzeigen
    And as such, only "the burden of proof" remains, which is just as heavy for either side, and just as un-removable.
    Exactly, and that's actually the framework I've been discussing the nature of divinity in for the time being, as the nature of the thing being discussed is inseparably tied to the burden of proof (IMO); if there is already strong evidence suggesting one side, the others do have a bigger burden of proof... but that goes, or should go, without saying. But when it comes to divinity, I don't think either side have very strong proof. What atheism and atheist philosophy has achieved, and this is no mean feat if you ask me, is undoing the centuries-old idea of that the existence of a god is more likely than the non-existence of a god, embedded in our western culture through centuries of strong religious influence.

    Also, what atheists and non-believers have going for them is that whatever gods might be out there don't either seem to meddle much in our lives, or at least we don't understand how to affect their behavior in any predictable way, so we might just as well live our lives without paying much heed to said gods. Or live by Pascal's advice - although as Pratchett put it, nobody likes a smart ass, and being faithful just in case might make things worse for us...
    Geändert von Hellbilly (18.03.2013 um 13:19 Uhr)

  15. Beiträge anzeigen #15
    General Avatar von KGS
    Registriert seit
    May 2006
    Beiträge
    3.230
     
    KGS ist offline
    i am not discussing logic at all, what is important is whether we will ever the data to feed into that logic that would give us the answer of whether god exists and what his nature is;

    you are saying that if god exists, and the world is his creation, that the connection between the world and god should give us enough information to just infer his being a posteriori at some stage of human development

    i am saying that the world we perceive is not the same thing as the world in itself (with us not acting as a subject) i.e. it is our perception of the world to which any possible experience is bound (and that includes any possible knowledge); thus the relationship between an eventual god and the world itself would not be observable in all cases

    another option would be to deduce the existence of god a priori in reference to experience but totally independently of any (possible) experience, but such observations, i think, are only applicable to how our mind works because only it is created in such a way that facilitates experience (i.e. created itself in reference to experience)

  16. Beiträge anzeigen #16
    Skinhead  Avatar von Hellbilly
    Registriert seit
    Jun 2006
    Ort
    The land of gold and poison
    Beiträge
    11.667
     
    Hellbilly ist offline
    Yes, and you were saying it will never be possible - which seems like quite a bold remark to be made not knowing in what direction human logic and science will evolve, and as a result our perception of the world, and our ability to extend beyond mere perception and experience.

    I never said we perceive the world "as is"; I contest that we cannot transcend the subjective distortions.

  17. Beiträge anzeigen #17
    General Avatar von KGS
    Registriert seit
    May 2006
    Beiträge
    3.230
     
    KGS ist offline
    our life, including any and all knowledge we require is our experience (i am using it in its broadest sense as you can see); to transcend our experience and receive an answer would mean that we are no longer human, and that might be possible so i'll make this adjustment to my statement: as long as we are human we cannot say anything about whether god exists or something positive about his nature

  18. Beiträge anzeigen #18
    Skinhead  Avatar von Hellbilly
    Registriert seit
    Jun 2006
    Ort
    The land of gold and poison
    Beiträge
    11.667
     
    Hellbilly ist offline
    I dunno. Seems to me like this is pretty much what already Plato (IIRC) was talking about; that humans can through their intellect transcend limitations of mere experience. And collective intelligence, which is what science in a way represents, minimizes (or strives to) the impact of individual bias.

    If what we view as reality is subjective, then it does not seem to me it is unreasonable to assume that there are variations in the perceptions of individuals (and widely accepted psychology would seem to support me here), and therefore by identifying these discrepancies, it might be possible to understand where and what the discrepancies are, and maybe even to learn something of what the actual, non-subjective reality beneath it is.

    Of course, if we go for the "reality is in its entirety subjective"-argument, then there's really no basis for discussion of the veracity of anything at all, so I think we need to assume that there is an objective foundation to reality to have any sort of meaningful discussion at all.
    Geändert von Hellbilly (18.03.2013 um 14:16 Uhr)

  19. Beiträge anzeigen #19
    General Avatar von KGS
    Registriert seit
    May 2006
    Beiträge
    3.230
     
    KGS ist offline
    however, what I am talking about is a collective bias which arises from the way we all perceive (the way our minds work) the world (through space and time)

    quantum physics indeed does seem like an attempt to transcend this bias, but I cannot say anything about it since I have read nothing of what it presents

    the problem with science acting as a collective intelligence is that a true collective intelligence would have the total of all acquired knowledge at its disposal, in its entirety at all times, and thus be able to draw parallels/conclusions with an incomparable ease to what we have now
    that might be achievable with some kind of a very advanced AI but to me it sounds like science fiction, and again I have not read anything about AI and don't really know what to say about that

  20. Beiträge anzeigen #20
    Skinhead  Avatar von Hellbilly
    Registriert seit
    Jun 2006
    Ort
    The land of gold and poison
    Beiträge
    11.667
     
    Hellbilly ist offline
    Well, ultimately, I think that science will enable us to transcend species-wide limitations by very comprehensively understanding to the most minute detail how other species perceive and understand the world. And if it turns out all species perceive the world the same way at some bottom line, and the reasons for any discrepancies are well understood, as is the actual reality beneath these things - well, then the existence of anything beneath this can be called into question, I think.

    If there is a collective bias. I am not so sure that there is such a common lowest denominator that makes us humans, on some low level, experience everything exactly the same as every other human being.

Seite 1 von 21 12345812 ... Letzte »

Berechtigungen

  • Neue Themen erstellen: Nein
  • Themen beantworten: Nein
  • Anhänge hochladen: Nein
  • Beiträge bearbeiten: Nein
Impressum | Link Us | intern
World of Gothic © by World of Gothic Team
Gothic, Gothic 2 & Gothic 3 are © by Piranha Bytes & Egmont Interactive & JoWooD Productions AG, all rights reserved worldwide