EFFICIENCY=DEATH

[Brandon]

Originally Posted by The One and Only...

You don't know much about natural theology, do you? Read up on the Cosmological Argument (which I found out about after I posted my one proof for the supernatural. The two are very similar, though not the same). I think it should be sufficient for my purpose.

The reason that it's absurd to mix logic and the supernatural is the following problem: if you say that everything logically must have a cause, then what caused God? Obviously, a theologian escapes from this by saying "God is not bound by the rules of logic," but then what the hell is the point of bringing logic into the issue in the first place? If you say that God conforms with logic, then you've removed any ability for him to be an uncaused cause, because you've violated one of the axioms the argument employs.

You can't "prove" or "disprove" a concept like God, since we've removed it from the scientific and rational rules that apply to us. Either you believe or you don't.

[mesobe]

Originally Posted by ArtificialBrandon

The reason that it's absurd to mix logic and the supernatural is the following problem: if you say that everything logically must have a cause, then what caused God? Obviously, a theologian escapes from this by saying "God is not bound by the rules of logic," but then what the hell is the point of bringing logic into the issue in the first place? If you say that God conforms with logic, then you've removed any ability for him to be an uncaused cause, because you've violated one of the axioms the argument employs.

You can't "prove" or "disprove" a concept like God, since we've removed it from the scientific and rational rules that apply to us. Either you believe or you don't.

a-fucking-men!

[Vibecrewangel]

Sense experience does not provide any knowledge on it's own

I don't think anyone here "misused" the word experience. I believe you were using a narrow (though valid) interpretation of the word. You can not expect other people to use a term that has a broader meaning in a such a narrow context. Unless of course you make it clear that you are using the word in a particular way.

[Dole]

'experience' is not a word the lad can use authoritatively.

[theapportioner]

Yeah the cosmological argument is mad weak.

[The One and Only...]

Originally Posted by ArtificialBrandon

The reason that it's absurd to mix logic and the supernatural is the following problem: if you say that everything logically must have a cause, then what caused God? Obviously, a theologian escapes from this by saying "God is not bound by the rules of logic," but then what the hell is the point of bringing logic into the issue in the first place? If you say that God conforms with logic, then you've removed any ability for him to be an uncaused cause, because you've violated one of the axioms the argument employs.

Flawed argument. The assumption that everything must have a cause only applies to the natural world - as the supernatural is not bound to the laws of the natural, it does not require a cause. As logic is the process of correct reasoning, this is a logical argument.

You can't "prove" or "disprove" a concept like God, since we've removed it from the scientific and rational rules that apply to us. Either you believe or you don't.

Scientific? Yes. Rational? No. Examination whether the natural world could follow its own laws without the supernatural can point to whether the supernatural is or is not real.

Besides, I am not arguing for religion. My point is merely that 1) we cannot be certain that religion is based on nothing and 2) that the supernatural must be real if we accept certain premises that have been hardwired into our minds.

[theapportioner]

The assumption that everything must have a cause only applies to the natural world - as the supernatural is not bound to the laws of the natural, it does not require a cause.

You've only offered a definition of the supernatural - you have not at all advanced the idea of the possibility of the supernatural's existence.

And, I don't really understand why you are pursuing the cosmological argument so strongly, given your disgust towards a posteriori arguments.

[The One and Only...]

I don't have a complete disgust of a posteriori arguments; I just feel that they are inappriopriate within economics and cannot provide absolute knowledge - but then, very little if anything can provide absolute knowledge to begin with.

You remember my proof of the supernatural that I posted, right? Well, a few days ago I saw the cosmological argument, and I realized that the two are so similar that I might as well just accept the latter one.

Personally, I prefer the version that relies on time - if the natural world has always existed, then a logical contradiction takes place; the point in which we exist would never be reached.

Also remember that I only use the argument for the supernatural, rather than for God.

[mburbank]

whatever

[mesobe]

yes, OAO... and last week I read all about the Voodoo Spell Theorum.

It implies every human is a god and that "god" is just a human. It also proves without a doubt that donuts are the key to cold fusion.

This is a philosophy/religion/politics/news thread... not a retard/psychobabble/bullshit thread.

[Brandon]

Originally Posted by Miss Laissez-Faire 2004

Flawed argument. The assumption that everything must have a cause only applies to the natural world - as the supernatural is not bound to the laws of the natural, it does not require a cause. As logic is the process of correct reasoning, this is a logical argument.

Well, answer one question for me then, poopy. Causing something or deciding to cause something imply the existence of temporality. If "the supernatural" is immune to rules of temporality (since it supposedly caused time itself), then how can it make a move to cause anything?

[The One and Only...]

The better question would be why couldn't it? The concept of all "moves" occuring in time only applies to the natural world - there is no inherent law which states that things must happen within time in the supernatural realm. Is something occuring outside of time beyond human comprehension? Yes. But that does not mean that it is logically impossible.

[Command Prompt]

1. This forum is like flypaper, but for idiots and not flies.

2. The one and only is referred to as the "OAO" now. Rap stars are referred to by acronyms. Rapstars are usually black. Therefore in the philisophical a+b+c=d sense, I conclude that OAO is a ****** and I don't like him

[mesobe]

OAO, you should try to answer Artificials question instead of expressing more of your rerted physcho babble and avoiding the question.

your jumping from one view point to the next calling the supernatural "logical" then saying that it is not bound to any laws at all, which is quite the opposite of "logically, a god could exisit"

make up your goddamn mind

[kellychaos]

Originally Posted by The One and Only...

Personally, I prefer the version that relies on time - if the natural world has always existed, then a logical contradiction takes place; the point in which we exist would never be reached.

You agree that time/tempoirality is a human construct, right? It, more or less, fixes our place based on what became before and after ... i.e. cause and effect. No one can say with any certaintly that the natural world has always existed. What we can say; however, is that from the point that we have recognized ourselves as beings (i.e. self-consciousness), we have needed a way to fix ourselves in the general scheme of "cause and effect". It's more or less a grounding point. Who's to say whether our brains were advanced enough prior to the discovery of self-consciousness to even recognize temporality. Chances are that nature existed before this and has always seemed like it was here because at the point at which we gained this awareness, it was. From this point, we had to assign, due to logic, a starting point ... only the starting point was, and always will be theoretical. You are aware that a corollary to the "Big Bang" theory is "The Big Smash" in which many scientiests still theorize that the expansion of the universe will, at some time in the future, reach a critical state and begin to contract upon itself until it reaches maximum density and again foster another "Big Bang" in an endless cycle ... ad infitum ... so where does that put your starting point and the idea of any real temporality?

[kellychaos]

Originally Posted by The One and Only...

[. Even in the unlikely event that a cluster of problems will happen at once, we would simply have to return to our primitive state to survive - that does not mean that we destroyed ourselves. Quite the contrary - we advanced ourselves, and after time, can advance ourselves again as we possess knowledge of our previous advancements. .

And how many people that you know will survive well in this primitive state? My guess is that those surviving well won't come from the advanced societies but, more likely, from the third world countries since they are those that are closest to minimal survival.

[The One and Only...]

Something does not have to be bound by rules to be logical. I don't see your point.

Kelly, time exists outside of the mind. It is merely named time. If the mind ceased operating, time would still exist. Also, the number of humans who would survive would probably still be greater than the number who would be alive had we never advanced as a species. Not only that, but it has little to do with the concept of efficiency, as efficiency would tell you that we would only create what would allow us to survive better in the long run.

[Vibecrewangel]

time is a human construct

[Perndog]

human is a time construct

[theapportioner]

I suppose we must construct space, too.

[camacazio]

I know I did.

[Anonymous]

We also trade it. They made a television show about such.

[Brandon]

Originally Posted by The One and Only...

The better question would be why couldn't it? The concept of all "moves" occuring in time only applies to the natural world - there is no inherent law which states that things must happen within time in the supernatural realm. Is something occuring outside of time beyond human comprehension? Yes. But that does not mean that it is logically impossible.

You should really hear yourself.

Temporality and causality are inseparable. Temporality and action of any kind are inseparable. If any event occurs, time has passed. If you're claiming that these "supernatural" beings are making decisions and starting things, then there is no possible way in which time could not have passed, even in their realm. If you claim that these beings can act, then they must be temporal.

Either come up with a complete explanation for how a being can act without time passing or shut the fuck up, because the burden of proof is on you. I'm not just going to accept the rationalization that "oh gee, well, they're above temporality and logic."

[ArrowX]

Back to the point Humans Stive for efficiency i.e. Chernobyl. that is why the only thing that makes us part of the ecosystem is Breathing and Feces

in a dictionary its either organism or animal that is described as any living creature that can adapt to it's specific environment humans are quite the opposite we Change the Environment to suit us and in the process manage to kill almost everything we touch as a species, then blame it on something else that we caused, did you know that the human race erradicates over 70 species per day?


WOW i don't know where i'm going with this....HUMANS ARE FUCKED AND STUIPD and THE SCEURGE OF THE UNIVERSE!!!!!!!!!!!

[Helm]

we had this duscussion a while ago and it ended with a locked thread and kellychaos getting the last word...