not necessarily. we still can't see God.

hahahahaha!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jh ... world.html

i'm just marking my spot to see how far i've read.


carry on.

He admitted that he had an ulterior motive as a driver himself. "I cannot but be angry when people just throw themselves under my car," he said.



Oh man that's great.

Congratulations. You've all managed to post "arguments" that are normally discussed and refuted in a freshman-level philosophy class. Whooptie-fuckin doo. How about you all STFU until you take an epistemology class or two?

i'm reading descartes, berkeley, leibniz, spinoza and kant for class.... so .

college is for the uneducated.

oh, and thanks for you input on the subject. it's easy to sit back and say 'stfu' when you don't have anything to contribute yourself


you wanna help? why don't you answer this question for me.

thanks.

Catholics and Protestants..

thats all fine and dandy.. just don't shove it in my face when i really don't want to hear about it. Keep in the home, or in the church.. not in public..

Regardless.. god can give a shit about foot ball.. he or she has more important shit to worry about...

Freedom of speech..

This is not an attack, so please don't take it that way.. But I think its totally OK to belive in what you want.. You want to belive that goats fly and that the color red is really green? Cool, fine. Just don't force it on me.

(man this will sound really plur and gay but).. I think in the end all that really matters is how good we treat each other.. It doesnt mater what you belive just as long as you are a good person down to the heart.

Not everyone belives in what you belive either..

Oh gawd, is that funny!

I find it funny how when we look at most religions today, they are all pretty much based on the same thing..love, compassion, tolerance or pretty much just about being a good person..

But when you bring it up, everyone gets up in arms, and most people would love to punch someone in the mouth over it.. Strange..

In the end, it doesn't mater who's right, or who's wrong.. Its more about how good we treat the people around us regardless of what someone might believe in. I could careless what you people believe in, just as much as you could careless about what I believe in.. (and yes, I grew up hardcore New England gloom and doom catholic, but I keep my mouth shut about it) It just doesn't mater.

If there is a 'god' or what not.. I think he or she might not care either about who is right or wrong.. I just hope that when my time ends here, I will get to see all my friends and family that I love with all my heart who are Jewish, Islamic, Protestant, or Buddha in the end anyway.

I jumped into this thread a bit late.. Sorry. =)

im all about being a good human being, im just not worried about a lightning bolt from the sky if i do something "sinful"

it doesn't matter, you can try using any symbollic language you like. my point was that first order predicate logic isn't expansive or specific enough to be able to 'prove' such a grandiose and ambitious proposition.

Right, but I'm not telling them that they're ignorant for believing what they do.

All I was trying to prove is that statistics favors the idea that what you perceive is not all there is. I was trying to keep it simple because I know that everyone on the board is not a philosophy major or a logician.
I think monotheism is pretty fucked up, but I would agree w/ them before I'd agree w/ an athiest.
I'm not trying to convert anyone. Just splainin' maself.

M@, I apologize... you're one of the few exceptions, and it's obvious from your statements.

Cheebah: You can spout pseudointellectual bromides like "college is for the uneducated" all freaking day, but you're not fooling anyone who has above an undergraduate philosophy education. I understand that you think epistemological subjectivism makes you hot shit, but don't pat yourself on the back too hard. Establishing that as a starting point isn't as impressive as you seem to think... it's more like "welcome to first grade".

Do yourself a favor, and take a look at M@'s reading list. Maybe then you won't offer up simplistic platitudes like "not necessarily. we still can't see God" in response to one of the only intelligent statements in this entire discussion. My problem with your statements lies not necessarily in that I disagree with them, but that they're so incredibly obvious, and that you seem to think you're so damn clever when making them. It annoys the grownups.

As far as your lame attempt at a challenge: why would I want to bother, when your response clearly indicates that I'd be wasting my time? If I wanted have conversations on that level, I'd go teach a special education class.

hey kiddo, you're the one who's acting educated, not me. my conclusions come from myself, not from 'graduating' with a 'philosophy' degree.

for your information i've read most of the books on M@'s list and found the ones that i have read boring and primitive, but even though they were all written ages ago they still pose questions that have yet to be answered.


i don't claim to be educated when it comes to philosophy standards or definitions. but when you can write a dissertation about how 'uneducated' i am and STILL not even address a simple, one sentence question it becomes apparent that you are the one who is the pseudointellectual.


it's obvious i can't find "knowledge" from you, whatever "knowledge" means. I'll go find out for myself and get back to you.

perhaps you can suggest a 'symbolic language' that will be acceptable (really just an explaination of the original question).

i've yet to reach that height in logic, the furthest i ever got was induction.

depeding on who you talk to.. *everything* is sinful..