Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
isn't the derivation normally the other way round?phildwyer said:
The Rational Proof of God's Existence
- Thread starter phildwyer
- Start date
- Status
Fruitloop said:
"We" is "most people in the West." Most people in the West do indeed assume that the world they perceive with their senses is the "real" world. A silly, childish error, to mistake *appearance* for *reality,* but a very common one. Interestingly, this is the reverse of the situation of 300 or so years ago, when most Westerners believed that true reality was supersensory. Our society, I contend, deliberately *induces* the assumption that the sensual world is real. Now, why would it want to do that?
phildwyer said:
Unless that step depends only on those qualities of fv that we already knew before we decided fv was the devil (malign, non material 
, external to the mind etc.) then its an invalid argument. You may have proved that fv is the devil, but not that the devil is anything more than malign, non-material , and external to the mind. Do you see what I mean.
Crispy
The following psytrance is baṉned: All
phildwyer said:
Well fine, but seeing as it's the appearances of reality that actually affect us (I appear to have been hit by a falling apple), then surely constructing a framework to make sense of these appearances is a sensible thing? Just as a framework for understanding the contents of our minds (not brains, minds) is also neccessary. However, the two do not overlap - and you can't use words from one framework to describe the other.
It may well happen in the future, that we come to understand why we appear to have free will (for example) - and in the framework of understanding appearances (science), it will make perfect sense. We may even construct a theory of mind from this framework. However, it would take an non-human consciousness to confirm it - what with our science being a human invention.
redsquirrel
This Machine Kills Progressives
Because he's a deluded, ego-maniac?TeeJay said:
I still don't think that fv is either inherently malign (which would imply intentionality to me, I think it's more likely inherently amoral) or that it's non-material (since it represents primarily a social fact, IMO, and social facts can still be composed entirely of material things - whatever you take that to mean - without logical incoherence, as can economic ones).
phildwyer said:
if there truly is a satan, how can i be sure that these reasonings of yours aren't in fact the words of the dark one, put in your mind (and thus these boards) to lead us into evil by subtlety untruths and deceitful flatteries?
Badger Kitten
oof
phildwyer said:
comes to thread late sorry
Why on earth do you think most people think that *Satan* exists? Even the Vatican have been very cagey about that, and the doctrine of Hell since the 1960's and Vatican II. The idea of an *actual* evil entity isn't taught even at Theology college
Phildwyer
Congratulations! You are one of the most successful trolls I have seen on these boards. I, like many others doubtless thought that you were a self-deluded idiot who had read too much philosophy and other ideological writiing without understanding it and used a distorted view of it to conform to your pre-concieved Christian ideas.
Only now do I realise that you are slightly more intelligent than that and are in fact doing a parady of some of the more lunatic interpretations of Christianity to annoy and provoke both the opponents and the supporters of this archaic religion.
Well done and welcome to the rational world of the atheist. Knowing that when you die that is the end, is the only true freedom.
Hocus Eye
Congratulations! You are one of the most successful trolls I have seen on these boards. I, like many others doubtless thought that you were a self-deluded idiot who had read too much philosophy and other ideological writiing without understanding it and used a distorted view of it to conform to your pre-concieved Christian ideas.
Only now do I realise that you are slightly more intelligent than that and are in fact doing a parady of some of the more lunatic interpretations of Christianity to annoy and provoke both the opponents and the supporters of this archaic religion.
Well done and welcome to the rational world of the atheist. Knowing that when you die that is the end, is the only true freedom.
Hocus Eye
Badger Kitten
oof
Do you think the 'I can only do one post a day' stuff is because he goes round posting the same argument on hundreds of boards, all day long, v-e-r-y s-l-o-w-l-y? Like, it's his mission in life or something?
Badger Kitten said:
Hey, better late than never! Just to clarify: what I have proved is not, of course, the existence of a red man with horns, widow peak and goatee. That is the *symbol* of Satan, not the reality. What I *have* proved is the existence of a powerful, nonmaterial, malign and superhuman force that is the opposite, the contradiction, the enemy and the negation of human life, and which inculcates a stupid, selfish, greedy and blind materialism into human beings. I shall probably go into some more detail soon about the nature and qualities conventionally ascribed to Satan, and show that financial value also possesses these. However, I am posting from the Chicago Public Library, they only allow you an hour, and I have only 14 minutes remaining, so you will have to wait. But ask any questions you may have now, and I will get back to you--*if* I can be bothered.
Please reply to my post Prof118118 said:
Dwyer.merlin wood
mind traveller 3rd class
Hocus Eye. said:
Erm... that's if you could know such a thing, of course.
merlin wood
mind traveller 3rd class
Reckon this creature knows a thing or two, then?
merlin wood
mind traveller 3rd class
...well ok then - nuts.
118118 said:
Yes, I do. Its probably a bit premature to say that I've proved that "Satan" exists. What I *have* proved is that a nonmaterial, superhuman, all-powerful, malign force exists which is the negation (the enemy) of human life. I defy *anyone* to dispute *any* part of my proof of this. Now, you can call that force "Bert" or "Fred" if you want to. But I can show that its qualities correspond in the minutest detail to what the monotheist religions have called "Satan." (I should not need to say by now, but I suppose I do, that this does not mean it has horns and a tail--obviously it does not). So the only reason not to call it "Satan" is that this word is associated--by the kind of fools who continue to infest this thread--with a funny-looking red man with a goatee. Why should we adapt our terminology just to satisfy these nutters?
I still don't think that SNALT is malign, all-powerful or non-material. Not malign, because that would imply intention (to me at least), not all-powerful because it is still subject to rules that aren't encapsulated in economic theories (although neo-classical economists are also wont to forget this) and not non-material because I don't think you can see it as a fundamental - it has to be explained reductively as a property of other (material) things.
- Status
Similar threads
