I
IWantGod
Guest
Without God?I’m quite well and happy!
Without God?I’m quite well and happy!
By that you mean you have learn’t to live a life without believing in God (not entirely impossible, and it is not impossible to experience happiness and pleasure without believing in God, after-all there is good in the world regardless of whether we think God is the cause of the good or not.)I know it is hard for believers to accept this but I am happily retired,
I’m glad that at the very least you have a sense of the good, and you probably do better than most - atheist or christian, in that regard.contributing as best I can to society, my husband, children and grandchildren, and several charities I’m involved in.
This is what I meant! Sorry, I often ramble a bit in my posting and thus cause confusion.By that you mean you have learn’t to live a life without believing in God
There seems to be some mental block here. There aren’t two states of affairs summed up thus:Pattylt:
By that you mean you have learn’t to live a life without believing in God (not entirely impossible, and it is not impossible to experience happiness and pleasure without believing in God, after-all there is good in the world regardless of whether we think God is the cause of the good or not.)I know it is hard for believers to accept this but I am happily retired,
Or do you mean that you are happy to exist in a world where God does not exist, while perfectly understanding all that this logically entails. Because if this is true, not only does it contradict your testimony, it seems to fly in the face of what it is to be a human-being; and since you are a human being i wonder if you truly comprehend what it would mean if there was no God.
Look, I did that (enjoyable more or less). Now what do I do?enjoy your three score and ten.
I disagree, not with your definition, but with the implication that it does not imply change. In order for the universe to be structured as it is, with the size it currently hold, we know that certain apparent constants had to have been different. If these apparent constants are, in fact, variable, then that means that their state is contingent, meaning that they are influenced by some factor outside of themselves. However, I realize that is not your point, and you are examining the underlying laws that govern those constants and variables.This paragraph has an error in it. The “laws” of the universe are not ontologically existing phenomena, they are our explanations of the observed events. As our understanding grows the explanation will have to be modified. This has nothing to do with the concept of “change”.
It is not an incorrect generalization when all observed phenomena are adherent to it. Everything that we have observed in our studies is beholden to forces external to themselves. If we ever find something that is not then I would agree that this would be a generalization fallacy. However, given the preponderance of evidence in favor of the statement, and the complete lack of evidence to contradict it, it is not an improper, illogical, or fallacious generalization. You are improperly applying the generalization fallacy.This is the same incorrect generalization from the particular to the whole that Aquinas committed.
I was writing it at about 5 am after an hour drive into my office. Sorry for the confusing wording.This is a strange “double negative”.
There is no evidence to support the position that they cannot change. I agree that it’s reasonable to generalize that they have not and do not change, but that is vastly different from the assertion that they can not change. This is moving into the realm of discussing contingency and how it relates to the argument, and I’ll admit to not being in the frame of mind to be able to explain it properly. If you’d like to delve into the subject more, Trent Horn’s Answering Atheism has a chapter of two dedicated to the topic that do it far more justice than I could manage right now.The basic building blocks of the universe are what they are. They cannot change even if external forces act upon them.
I used time as a medium to discuss the nature of infinity. I am aware that it is an imperfect analogy, but since we’ve no real way of discussing the nature of infinity without a reference point we can comprehend, I figured it was the best option.This argument contains an incorrect understanding of the concept of “time” and the incorrect understanding of the mathematical concept of “convergent series”.
The error you commit comes from the incorrect understanding of “time”
I’ve not long to go before my allotted chronological time is up. At least from a biblical perspective… But there are four aspects to one’s age. There’s the chronological, the physical, the mental and (ahem) the sexual.Bradskii:
Look, I did that (enjoyable more or less). Now what do I do?enjoy your three score and ten.
So did the Rich man in the bible, we don’t know the nature of spirits in the spirit world.Annette seems very voluble for one undergoing continuous screaming pain,
Yeah. Sounds so convincing, Techno. It sounds more like a bad satire of a bodice-tearing BBC period drama than someone burning in hell. I can just picture a young, foppish and love-lost Hugh Grant wannabe emoting desperately as he reads those lines.“Would that I had never existed! Would that I could now annihilate myself! Escape these tortures! No pleasure would equal that with which I would abandon my existence, as a garment of ashes which is lost in nothingness. But I must continue to exist as I chose to make myself - as a ruined person.”
So you believe that my reasoning can be absurd, and I believe that your reasoning is flawed. You claim to be using various methods of reasoning, and you’re right, I don’t understand them. At least as you seem to be applying them. Which seems to be very haphazard and frankly unintelligible.I think you have a theory about things that makes sense to you, but not necessarily to everyone else. You have stated things that are clearly absurd in my mind, but they don’t seem to be absurd to you.
In my mind you are not being faithful to the principles of reason, or first principles, and it is my belief that you don’t think you have to, and it could also be true that you don’t really understand the method.