{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
6/22/2015 6:12:13 AM
1
[quote]Unless you're arguing that God isn't a god in the traditional sense, his work has nothing to do with a god. [/quote] His arguments has everything to do with an infinite Creator. Idk why the cognitive dissonance in you is so strong in that regard.
[quote]You're taking a term and using it as a synonym for something its not meant to be. What he describes sounds more like dark matter, which is only theoretical at this point. [/quote] if you think Aristotle is describing something that exists within the physical universe, you need read more of his work.
[spoiler]also, teenage angst? Hahaha, breaking news, just because someone can see through your convoluted poorly argued bullshit, doesn't mean they're a teenager.[/spoiler][/quote] More angsty teenage behavior.. i expect better from a self-proclaimed intellectual.
English
-
Enjoy your confirmation bias.
-
Logic is not bias, that's the funny part.
-
Edited by Britton: 6/22/2015 6:34:29 AMYou can use logic from a biased perspective. Logic doesn't guarantee you are correct.
-
That's like saying math is bias, and that adding 2+2 correctly won't guarantee that i'm correct.
-
No its like saying if you begin from an incorrect or biased point, everything after that will also be incorrect and biased. This isn't a difficult concept.
-
Aristotle didn't start from an incorrect or bias standpoint. Mind pointing out where he did?
-
I'm not talking about him, I'm talking about you. Also, until his idea that there is a immoveable mover is substantiated, it will remain an idea.
-
And i've said nothing that Aristotle hasn't. If you're talking about me, you're talking about him. Also, you must provide an argument against his logical deductions, not merely say it's not substantiated. That's not how it works. That's like saying e=/=mc^2 when the math adds up. Likewise Aristotle's math adds up. If there is a flaw in his deductions, I would like to see it.
-
Edited by Britton: 6/22/2015 7:11:12 AMThe flaw is a lack of anything being discovered to date that would lend credit to his idea that an immoveable mover exists. It's like the idea that black holes themselves contain entire universes, or that worm holes can be manipulated, or that the universe is actually eternal, with no beginning at all. These ideas work well on paper but until they can be shown to be true, they will remain ideas that work on paper. I don't know why this is flying so far over your head. Your need to verify your own obviously flawed theology is blinding you.
-
Edited by cxkxr: 6/22/2015 7:32:35 AM[quote]The flaw is a lack of anything being discovered to date that would lend credit to his idea that an immoveable mover exists. It's like the idea that black holes themselves contain entire universes, or that worm holes can be manipulated, or that the universe is actually eternal, with no beginning at all. [/quote] The correct term is Unmoved Mover. All the things you've sighted are scientific theories which is separate from logic and philosophy. The last one in particular is logically and scientifically unfounded. This is what Aristotle talked about, he knew the Universe had a beginning far before anyone else did thru the use of objective logical deductions. [quote]These ideas work well on paper but until they can be shown to be true, they will remain ideas that work on paper. [/quote] uhm no, what Aristotle described is true. The same way a mathematician doing 2+2=4 is true. Numbers, like logic, don't exist in the physical universe, they are concepts within the mind. That doesn't deprive the truth from the fact that 2+2=4, via logical understanding. The unmoved mover is true, whether there is physical evidence or not. The same way an intensely long unrealistically inapplicable math equation is true, even tho there's nothing to physically show for it. [quote]I don't know why this is flying so far over your head. Your need to verify your own obviously flawed theology is blinding you.[/quote] i suggest you study The Pure Act and the Form of the Good of Aristotle. You're failing comprehension of Aristotle's philosophy. Read it and claim again he isn't talking about God.
-
And you're failing comprehension of reality. Nothing is proven until it can be tested to be true.
-
again, a really long math equation that is inapplicable to the physical world is still true regardless. Aristotle's Unmoved Mover, is true. Unless you find a logical hole in his argument, it's true. When you're truing to prove 2+2 does not logically equal 4, it's ip to you to show where the mathematician went wrong. Merely dismissing logical truth bc it doesn't match your world-view is not intellectual.
-
You really don't get it done you? Shame.
-
apparently you don't.
-
I do. 2+2=4 doesnt mean God exists.
-
mathematics requires an objective logical deduction, in the same way the argument made for the Uncreated Creator is. Show me where the logic is flawed in Aristotle's presentation.
-
I'm not saying its flawed, I'm saying it isn't proven. You can logically deduct all day, you still have to prove your deductions.
-
I'm not saying its flawed, I'm saying it isn't proven. You can logically deduct all day, you still have to prove your deductions.
-
Edited by cxkxr: 6/22/2015 2:04:54 PMWhen we use logic to deduce that 2+2=4, we have proven that 2+2=4. When we use logic to deduce that an Uncreated Creator exists [i]necessarily[/i] for anything to exist at all, it has been proven. To deny the latter propositional truth claim, you must deny the former as well. For the same objective logical deductions are applied.
-
No it hasn't. You can demonstrate that 2+2=4. You can't demonstrate that a creator exists, and to postulate one is necessary is unfounded and based only on the individual's perception.
-
Edited by cxkxr: 6/22/2015 2:27:55 PM2+2=4 is demonstrated via logical deduction and reasoning. The same logical deduction and reasoning is applied to the argument made for the Unmoved Mover. It is logically necessary for there to be a Pure Act. It is not logical to postulate existence without one, anymore than it is to postulate that 4 cannot be comprised of 2 2's. It is true because it is true. 2+2=4 was true before the 1st human even realized it did. We don't invent logical truths, we discover them.
-
But just because it's logical doesn't mean it's a truth. The Pure act and unmoved mover don't indicate a god, they indicate a cause, a cause which we have not yet discovered. So until it is discovered what they are, they aren't proven, they are simply reasoned to exist. Also 2+2=4 is proven by the act of counting it out.
-
Logical deductions are true, in the same way mathematics are true via logical deductions. The Pure Act and the infinite Uncreated Creator is describing God. I understand your definition of God is a bearded man in the sky, but that's not mine, nor Aristotle's.
-
Then your definition of God isn't God, its a force, and a force is not a deity.
-
Edited by cxkxr: 6/23/2015 3:26:22 AMI believe it has a mind. I believe the Uncreated Creator consciously willed creation. i can provide logical arguments that the Unmoved Mover is not merely a blind impersonal force. It's not logically sound to suppose The Pure Act is a mere force with no intention. If you're familiar with Aristotle's arguments, and the persuasions he uses, he doesn't believe it's a "force" either. He uses examples, such as conscious human beings, lifting a lever and creating a cause of events. It takes a conscious decision to begin the events.
