Greatest Evil of Today?

Aggressor Prime · Post by **Aggressor Prime** » Wed Jun 11, 2008 1:16 pm

For me, it is truth relativism, the belief that truth is defined differently by each individual and not by a God.

Krom · Post by **Krom** » Wed Jun 11, 2008 1:34 pm

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

Foil · Post by **Foil** » Wed Jun 11, 2008 1:42 pm

No need to even mention God as the source of truth. Even without a belief in the divine, just the idea that absolute truth can vary by individual is scary.

----------------

For me, the greatest evil that I see is the increasingly pervasive \"me-centric\" moral structure:

\"Looking out for number one\" at the expense of another
A belief that loyalty to a group outweighs even the greatest of needs outside the group
A set of beliefs which marginalizes everyone except one's own race/culture/religion/etc. as devoid of value or worth

I see this all the time, from the smallest example of personal apathy (e.g. people completely ignoring others in favor of their own comfort) to elements of huge social movements (e.g. \"It's our money, %&*$ the rest of the world, just nuke 'em and be done with it.\").

It's one of the root causes of things I see as specific evils, such as convenience abortions and ethnic cleansing.

Nightshade · Post by **Nightshade** » Wed Jun 11, 2008 2:50 pm

A set of beliefs which marginalizes everyone except one's own race/culture/religion/etc. as devoid of value or worth

You just described islam, Foil.

Dedman · Post by **Dedman** » Wed Jun 11, 2008 3:10 pm

ThunderBunny wrote:
A set of beliefs which marginalizes everyone except one's own race/culture/religion/etc. as devoid of value or worth
You just described islam, Foil.

He just described just about every organized religion.

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Wed Jun 11, 2008 4:14 pm

LOL, there is no such thing as Absolute Truth.

Jeff250 · Post by **Jeff250** » Wed Jun 11, 2008 5:12 pm

Since you have indicated familiarity with Greek Philosophy in the past, consider a modified Euthyphro dilemma:

1. Is what's true believed by the gods because it is true, or...
2. Is it true because it is believed by the gods?

If you embrace 1, then you can excise the gods from your explanation of truth. Something is true because of a reason outside of the gods.

If you embrace 2, then what's true becomes whatever the gods arbitrarily believe to be true. If the gods believed that the earth was flat, then that would be true, and if you thought that the earth was round, then you would have no argument, since you are clearly wrong, since this is not what the gods believe. And now it especially becomes unclear why believing something other than the arbitrary belief of the gods is evil, especially the greatest evil!

What do you think of this.

Cuda68 · Post by **Cuda68** » Wed Jun 11, 2008 6:30 pm

Jeff250 wrote:Since you have indicated familiarity with Greek Philosophy in the past, consider a modified Euthyphro dilemma:

1. Is what's true believed by the gods because it is true, or...
2. Is it true because it is believed by the gods?

If you embrace 1, then you can excise the gods from your explanation of truth. Something is true because of a reason outside of the gods.

If you embrace 2, then what's true becomes whatever the gods arbitrarily believe to be true. If the gods believed that the earth was flat, then that would be true, and if you thought that the earth was round, then you would have no argument, since you are clearly wrong, since this is not what the gods believe. And now it especially becomes unclear why believing something other than the arbitrary belief of the gods is evil, especially the greatest evil!

What do you think of this.

It's not nice to make a 50 year old toothless fat man think this hard!

Grendel · Post by **Grendel** » Wed Jun 11, 2008 6:46 pm

Define \"evil\".

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Wed Jun 11, 2008 7:27 pm

Grendel wrote:Define "evil".

But, don’t use the dictionary, Jeff is in the room…J/K

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Wed Jun 11, 2008 8:05 pm

Aggressor Prime wrote:For me, it is truth relativism, the belief that truth is defined differently by each individual and not by a God.

But what if God doesn't want to provide the definition of truth?

Dakatsu · Post by **Dakatsu** » Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:21 pm

You mean the greatest evil besides bears?

Changing your views to fit someone elses views, such as being in favor of gay marriage and gun ownership, but change your views on one of those topics because the Democrat or Republican on TV. I happen to be a liberal who thinks accessible guns (and spears, don't forget about the tried and true methods of self-defense) is supported by the idea of liberalism (the belief that liberty comes before anything else). This is not common in the conservative gun-toting Republicans or liberal gun-banning Democrats.

Black and white view of the world, where either you are screaming \"AMERIKA MOTHR F**KAR!\" at the top of your lungs, or your an \"Islamofascist godless French commie\", because you think in shades of grey. Relates to the above majorly.

SOCIAL CONSERVATIVES, who like to state bigotry and call it \"values\" to restrict civil liberties, such as claiming gays are the cause of the decline of moral values.

Just to name a few...

TIGERassault · Post by **TIGERassault** » Thu Jun 12, 2008 3:03 am

Isn't evil just the opposite of holy, which is relative to a religion?
And considering the huge amount of religions, doesn't that mean that everything is pretty much evil?

Dedman · Post by **Dedman** » Thu Jun 12, 2008 4:53 am

I feel the biggest evil in our society today is the lack of critical thought. A lot of people (maybe most) seem to sound bite logic in their reasoning. A great example of this is my bother. I love him to death and he is one of my best friends but damn is he screwed up when it comes to gun ownership. He thinks that all guns should be banned. Period. They should be banned because they are bad. he can't even tell me why; just that they are bad/. That lack of critical thought bothers the hell out of me.

TIGERassault · Post by **TIGERassault** » Thu Jun 12, 2008 5:19 am

Dedman wrote:I feel the biggest evil in our society today is the lack of critical thought. A lot of people (maybe most) seem to sound bite logic in their reasoning.

Well, just about everyone lacks critical thought in a lot of their thoughts, mostly because they just don't/can't dedicate enough brainpower to the matter to figure it out. In most cases, the person just won't realise when they lack critical thought on a matter until it's highlighted.

Examples of a common matter nearly everyone lacks critical thought on would be this:
If you don't believe in a Christian-like god(s), then why do you believe human life is sacred?
If you do believe in a Christian-like god(s), then why do you believe that they're telling the truth?

If you're in any way normal, you'll probably think over this a little before giving up and continue treating human life/your religion the same as you used to.
And while yes, there's a difference between the small things you're thinking of and the big things like religion, but ask yourself: why should you complain about when people don't bother forming critical thought on the small things when you don't bother forming critical thought on the big things?

Of course, if you're in any way normal, you'll also give up and ignore that question too.
...
Hm, I think I just showed how this entire post isn't going to make any sort of impact. Crap.

Dedman wrote:A great example of this is my bother. I love him to death and he is one of my best friends but damn is he screwed up when it comes to gun ownership. He thinks that all guns should be banned. Period. They should be banned because they are bad. he can't even tell me why; just that they are bad/. That lack of critical thought bothers the hell out of me.

Just because he doesn't give you a reason doesn't mean he doesn't know of one. You don't actually believe that your brother doesn't think guns are dangerous just because he didn't tell you he does, do you?

Dedman · Post by **Dedman** » Thu Jun 12, 2008 5:25 am

TIGERassault wrote:You don't actually believe that your brother doesn't think guns are dangerous just because he didn't tell you he does, do you?

I absolutely do; because I've asked him why he feels that way, and he has told me that he doesn't know. He just feels that they are bad. That was why I used it as an example as a lack of critical thought.

TIGERassault · Post by **TIGERassault** » Thu Jun 12, 2008 5:33 am

Dedman wrote:
TIGERassault wrote:You don't actually believe that your brother doesn't think guns are dangerous just because he didn't tell you he does, do you?
I absolutely do; because I've asked him why he feels that way, and he has told me that he doesn't know. He just feels that they are bad. That was why I used it as an example as a lack of critical thought.

Right, do me a favour and call up your brother right now and ask him just this simple question: "Do you think guns are dangerous?". If he says yes, then it means you're an idiot.

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Thu Jun 12, 2008 7:46 am

TIGER…always good for a laugh.

Dedman: Do you think guns are dangerous?
Brother: Yes.
Dedman: But a lot of things are dangerous.
Brother: Well ban them all!

TIGERassault · Post by **TIGERassault** » Thu Jun 12, 2008 10:16 am

Spidey wrote:TIGER…always good for a laugh.

Dedman: Do you think guns are dangerous?
Brother: Yes.
Dedman: But a lot of things are dangerous.
Brother: Well ban them all!

O...kay?

Dedman · Post by **Dedman** » Thu Jun 12, 2008 10:49 am

TIGERassault wrote:Right, do me a favour and call up your brother right now and ask him just this simple question: "Do you think guns are dangerous?". If he says yes, then it means you're an idiot.

What is with the hostility and name calling? He and I have had several conversations about guns and gun ownership over the years. He freely admits that he doesn't like guns, doesn't know why, and they should be banned because they're bad. That is an emotional argument that lacks critical thought; which is why I used it as an example.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Thu Jun 12, 2008 1:07 pm

TIGERassault is apparently demonstrating the effect of not using critical thinking.

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Thu Jun 12, 2008 1:44 pm

Greatest Evil of Today?

Ignorance.

Foil · Post by **Foil** » Thu Jun 12, 2008 1:48 pm

\"Greatest Evil of the DBB: lack of common courtesy\"?

Come on, folks. I know it's an election year, the partisan lines have been drawn, and the ridiculous political debates are raging. But can't we at least have a valid discussion about a topic like this without throwing politics in, or taking pot-shots at each other?

[Sigh...]

TIGERassault · Post by **TIGERassault** » Thu Jun 12, 2008 4:30 pm

Dedman wrote:What is with the hostility and name calling?

Actually, I was serious. The thought that people think they know what they really do know is a ridiculously stupid notion: mostly because it would deny that people have sub-concious(sp?) thoughts that they don't realise. And if you don't have said stupid notion, it instead suggests that you didn't realise that a person could really only know that guns are dangerous if they were oblivious to what guns were.
That is, of course, if he does (note: 'does', not 'would') say that yes, he does think guns are dangerous. If he were to say no, then I'd be the idiot in this situation.

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Thu Jun 12, 2008 5:57 pm

Everyone knows guns are dangerous, that’s a moot point. The point is to justify why guns should be banned, and not everything else that is also dangerous. (and some things that are far more dangerous)

Dedman · Post by **Dedman** » Thu Jun 12, 2008 7:00 pm

TIGERassault wrote:
Dedman wrote:What is with the hostility and name calling?
Actually, I was serious. The thought that people think they know what they really do know is a ridiculously stupid notion: mostly because it would deny that people have sub-concious(sp?) thoughts that they don't realise. And if you don't have said stupid notion, it instead suggests that you didn't realise that a person could really only know that guns are dangerous if they were oblivious to what guns were.
That is, of course, if he does (note: 'does', not 'would') say that yes, he does think guns are dangerous. If he were to say no, then I'd be the idiot in this situation.

★■◆● it. You win. I'm really not in the mood tonight for this .net bull★■◆●.

Bet51987 · Post by **Bet51987** » Thu Jun 12, 2008 8:18 pm

Islam, and all it's militants.

Bee

Aggressor Prime · Post by **Aggressor Prime** » Thu Jun 12, 2008 11:05 pm

Jeff250 wrote:Since you have indicated familiarity with Greek Philosophy in the past, consider a modified Euthyphro dilemma:

1. Is what's true believed by the gods because it is true, or...
2. Is it true because it is believed by the gods?

If you embrace 1, then you can excise the gods from your explanation of truth. Something is true because of a reason outside of the gods.

If you embrace 2, then what's true becomes whatever the gods arbitrarily believe to be true. If the gods believed that the earth was flat, then that would be true, and if you thought that the earth was round, then you would have no argument, since you are clearly wrong, since this is not what the gods believe. And now it especially becomes unclear why believing something other than the arbitrary belief of the gods is evil, especially the greatest evil!

What do you think of this.

I believe neither. Instead, I see God as the truth. Instead of seeing him as a being living in a universe with other beings, I see him as the only being of existence, the source of all things. Everything else is not an independent being, but merely a reflection of the logic that is God. Simply, God is being, being is logic, logic is everything. Evil is a lack of being, a lack of being involves the lack of logic, lack of logic points to nothingness.

Relating to what I believe to be the greatest evil. If one believes that there is no absolute truth, such a person must also believe by my definition of God that there is no God, at least no God like mine. But Descartes proves them wrong with his proof of God. I am sure I exist. I am not sure about other things which I may see. Therefore, I possess doubt. Perfection cannot possess doubt. Therefore I am imperfect. I know I am imperfect and am sure of it [in so much as I also believe my logic is following true order in this process of thinking]. (In brackets is my addition to Descartes, for he does not address the possibility of corrupt thinking as well as I think it needs to be addressed.) In order to recognize that I am imperfect, I must have an idea of perfection. That idea cannot find its source in nothingness. That source of the idea of perfection is God. That sums up Descartes. As for my philosophy, I believe we can recognize God, or perfection, because we were made from God. We are the reflections of God's perfection, not perfect reflections (due to our free choice to sin), but reflections nevertheless, bounding us to only be (or be perfect) in so much as God is (is perfect).

Also Descartes can put down the idea of more than one God by his reasoning that such would mean two perfect beings. But if that was so, both beings would have to be the source of everything (to be complete). Two completes would rule the same universe (universe being all things). You can't have two completes ruling the same universe, being the source of the same universe, as such would automatically force two completes into one. Two would mean not only two sources, but two differences, since we are defined by location, time, and makeup. They must occupy all space and time (to be everything's source), but if they want to remain seperate, they must have different makeups, forcing them to be imperfect, not containing all things. Where there is a difference in perfections, there is a lack of perfection in the sources. Therefore, there cannot be two, only one, no more, no less.

This is really the backbone of God. Ideas like those found in most of today's religions could be added on.

Sergeant Thorne · Post by **Sergeant Thorne** » Fri Jun 13, 2008 1:57 am

Why do I always get the impression that you hard-core Catholics are teetering on the brink of insanity? It's like the devil gave you a very complex puzzle to keep you occupied, and at the same time it drives you mad. All the while you believe you have secret knowledge.

Put the puzzle down and go puzzle over your King James Bible, or your New King James.

If you claim God is the only being, that God is all there is. That's just not what the Bible portrays at all. What about rebellion? Or Evil? If these things are nothing then nothingness is at war with God who is what is? Which would have to mean that God is subject to decay.

I would argue that it is not for us to think we can understand God in His entirety (or concepts such as Evil), and to try is to court delusion. To have your life wasted with the deception of secret knowledge about the nature of everything, when we are given so much to discover right in the word of God--the Bible. Things which are far more profitable in this life.

Deuteronomy 29:29 wrote:The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but those things which are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law.

The Bible's explanations are good enough for me. Beyond that I don't want to think I know how it all works.

The Bible says that iniquity was found in Satan, it was pride and rebellion in wanting to be greater than God, and so he was cast out of heaven.

The Bible says that God created time itself (by implication), the universe, and everything in it. These are not God, but the spoken word of God. The Bible says that he spoke it into existence. Interestingly enough the most advanced science finds everything to be made up of vibrations. I've done a little bit of looking into the subject of super-cooling, and the idea of absolute zero, a temperature that has been unable to be reached, despite coming very close. It would be the totally cessation of atomic activity, or vibration.

You and I are finite beings, AP. Do you suppose we can comprehend what is infinite?

TIGERassault · Post by **TIGERassault** » Fri Jun 13, 2008 2:29 am

Spidey wrote:Everyone knows guns are dangerous, that’s a moot point. The point is to justify why guns should be banned, and not everything else that is also dangerous. (and some things that are far more dangerous)

Well, guns aren't just as dangerous as regular things, they are very very dangerous, to the point where it's very easy, and all to common, to have someone severely injured or killed by them accidentally, or by a madman/men. But the big thing is that they don't have many redeeming qualities other that they can be used to kill agressive people/animals and wild animals (which really depends on the person whether that's a good thing or not). If I were to explain why guns should be banned yet certain equally dangerous things shouldn't, I'd have to be explaining why said things have too many redeeming qualities / general control to be banned.

Aggressor Prime wrote:I must have an idea of perfection. That idea cannot find its source in nothingness. That source of the idea of perfection is God.

...and what about those that share a different view of what qualities a person must have to be perfect? How would you explain that, if there's only one real God?
If you were to ask me, I would say that the source of that idea of perfection is the person's culture. People of the same area generally share the same idea of human perfection, but differs from that of different areas with different customs.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:The Bible says that God created time itself (by implication), the universe, and everything in it. These are not God, but the spoken word of God. The Bible says that he spoke it into existence. Interestingly enough the most advanced science finds everything to be made up of vibrations. I've done a little bit of looking into the subject of super-cooling, and the idea of absolute zero, a temperature that has been unable to be reached, despite coming very close. It would be the totally cessation of atomic activity, or vibration.

That's... a very literal interpretation, actually. Not saying that I have anything against it, but I just never saw a serious belief so literal. Especially considering it was written by human hands, not by God himself.

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Fri Jun 13, 2008 7:53 am

Yes TIGER, you are correct, guns have only one redeeming quality. That being a tool which can help you protect yourself and your loved ones from mortal danger.

**********************

I also love the debate between the people that use their own minds to define god, and those who are told what god is. (I believe something “similar” to Aggressor Prime, but without all the gobbledygook)

Please note “similar”.

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Fri Jun 13, 2008 8:21 am

guns dont kill people.... heh you know the rest

you can not define God. when you try to define God you end up greating him in your image, and not you in his image as the Bible states

TIGERassault · Post by **TIGERassault** » Fri Jun 13, 2008 11:35 am

Spidey wrote:I also love the debate between the people that use their own minds to define god, and those who are told what god is. (I believe something “similar” to Aggressor Prime, but without all the gobbledygook)

Well that is because it's debating between two different religions.

Ooh ooh, a debate between Bet and one of those muslims she hates so much! Now that'd be entertaining!

Aggressor Prime · Post by **Aggressor Prime** » Fri Jun 13, 2008 12:15 pm

@Tiger

Perfection means complete. That is the definition for all languages, if a language were to have such a word. It finds itself to be universal because it is mathematical. A whole pie, 6/6 slices, is complete. It is a perfect pie in so much as the percent of pieces available are considered the basis of perfection.

In terms of the source of perfection, since everything requires a source, well, Descartes' proof has been given. Hopefully you don't need me to repeat it.

And to attack your argument that the idea of perfection finds its source in a person's culture, such an assumption would also assume that each culture is perfect, at least each culture that \"provides an idea of perfection.\" You can't hold an idea of perfection from something that is imperfect, otherwise the idea of perfection is really an idea of imperfection, or really, the idea of nothingness comes from the imperfect source, therefore, the idea perfection must find another source, since one can recognize that one is imperfect, allowing one to point to an idea of perfection. The problem with that is that each culture would have to take the role of God as I have outlined, being the source of all logic, as perfection requires completeness. You can't hold perfection in one thing and not another, it is like a garment that is seemless.

Let me give you an example. Let us assume your idea was correct, and we had different cultures possess different shares of perfection. One culture is perfect at defining where life begins, and that is it. The problem is, that culture can't be perfect in this attribute if it is also not perfect in defining what life is. It will only be talking abouting nothingness, not understanding what it is talking about, therefore lacking any ability to talk about when life begins. And even if it had this lacking attribute, there is the problem of all the complexities of life which really fill up all the areas of the universe. The culturue would have to be perfect at understanding the purpose of life, the purpose of the physical world, how life worked, how the physical world work. It is like a web of knowledge, that can only be called perfect knowledge once all knowledge is obtained. Everything must be there since everything is connected, otherwise something is lacking making the entire web imperfect.

@Sergeant Thorne

We don't use the King James Bible. I use the New American Bible. Anyway, I'm not saying that evil does not exist. I am merely saying that evil is not a being. It is a quality, a lacking. The devil is not 100% evil. He is just evil, lacking. Considering he is the most intelligent of angels, consider his intelligence and his existence the parts of him that reflect God correctly, in so much as his intelligence is correct, since I doubt the devil knows all things. His free will also in a sense reflects God, in so much that he still has free will, since evil acts limit one's ability to choose.

In all fairness, let me give my definition of the devil. At the root of our choices, we choose to be or not to be, really to strive to being or non-being, since we can't will ourselves out of existence, but can will ourselves to perfection. The sense of right and wrong comes from this choice, to be or not to be, to put it simply. You can form a whole basis of logic to be, you can form a whole basis of logic to not be, but there is no logic that says being or non-being is better. Your logic can be perfect and drive you to non-being, aka the devil. Your logic can also be perfect and drive you to being, aka Mary (as believed by Catholics).

But while there might be no logic that dictates whether you should strive for good or evil, there is the source of being within you that has the desire to continue live and moreso to live with the fullness of life. By following evil, you may still live, but your life grows shallow. You become almost like a machine, lacking free will. But of course, you can always turn back.

Now onto the biblical source as to why God must be all things. I assume you believe God is the source of all things, seeing that you believe he created all things. But he is more than a creator. If God disappears, wouldn't that make everything else disappear, by your belief. Therefore, there is a stronger link than just creator. That link can only be described like a person standing in front of a mirror. God is like a man with a mirror, and we are like the image he creates. We are bound by God, like the image is bound by the man. So we can only be as good as God, no better. I believe you do not believe we can be better than God, a being of perfection. Moreso, we are dependent on God to allow us to exist, something I believe you also believe. If you want to see the universe as the breath of God, you can do so, but also see the breath of God as God, since if God disappeared, I believe you would also believe that that breath would disappear at the same time. And please don't get into the argument that God can't disappear. I'm merely making a point that only requires an bit of logic to understand.

And one note of clarification before I end this post:
When I talk about human perfection, I am not saying that a human can become perfect like God. I am saying that the human can become as close to perfection as possible by using his/her will to come to God. God fills in the gaps to allow the human to share in God's perfection. The human is never the source, as can be also seen since humans themselves find their source of being in God.

TIGERassault · Post by **TIGERassault** » Fri Jun 13, 2008 12:34 pm

Actually Agressor, I wasn't arguing against that a singular definite perfection was impossible, I was arguing that, if the idea of perfection was given to all men by God, then all men would have a somewhat similar idea of perfection, which isn't the case.

Jeff250 · Post by **Jeff250** » Fri Jun 13, 2008 1:34 pm

Aggressor Prime wrote:I believe neither. Instead, I see God as the truth. Instead of seeing him as a being living in a universe with other beings, I see him as the only being of existence, the source of all things. Everything else is not an independent being, but merely a reflection of the logic that is God. Simply, God is being, being is logic, logic is everything. Evil is a lack of being, a lack of being involves the lack of logic, lack of logic points to nothingness.

There is nothing wrong with saying things like "God is love" or "God is truth." You're defining God as a synonym for love or truth. But if you're like others, then other things about God start creeping in, like "God said X" or "God did Y," and now we are again talking about a personal being, which is inconsistent with what love or truth is. Perhaps we permit statements of the form, "God is truth," because it sounds romantic? I don't know, but I can't make any sense of them otherwise.

Prime wrote:I am sure I exist.

You shouldn't be though if you're subscribing to Descartes' categorical doubt. You might not be able to doubt that there is thinking, but how do you go from this to that there is a thinking being? This seems to require some sort of induction that could be doubted. Hume's argument against induction formalizes this skepticism of induction in the most general sense.

Prime wrote:In order to recognize that I am imperfect, I must have an idea of perfection.

Well, I suppose you can't spell "imperfect" without "perfect."

But I don't see any other reason to think this. I think that we have a lot of experience with flawed things, and then we just define perfection as the negation of being flawed.

Foil · Post by **Foil** » Fri Jun 13, 2008 2:24 pm

Geez, threads are going wildly off-topic nowadays.

I have a lot I'd like to say, and not much time, but allow me to respond to the 'logic' in this one:

Aggressor Prime wrote:...why God must be all things. I assume you believe God is the source of all things, seeing that you believe he created all things. But he is more than a creator. If God disappears, wouldn't that make everything else disappear, by your belief. Therefore, there is a stronger link than just creator. That link can only be described like a person standing in front of a mirror. God is like a man with a mirror, and we are like the image he creates. We are bound by God, like the image is bound by the man. So we can only be as good as God, no better. I believe you do not believe we can be better than God, a being of perfection. Moreso, we are dependent on God to allow us to exist, something I believe you also believe. If you want to see the universe as the breath of God, you can do so, but also see the breath of God as God, since if God disappeared, I believe you would also believe that that breath would disappear at the same time. And please don't get into the argument that God can't disappear. I'm merely making a point that only requires an bit of logic to understand.

Okay, you've made the point that the existence of everything is dependent on God, that it could not exist if God did not exist. (The 'person in the mirror' analogy fits, but only in the sense of one's existence depending on the other.)

The problem is that there's nothing in the above argument which finishes your 'logic' to conclude with your original premise: that all things, including man and the universe, are God.

Dependency (which you argued, and I agree with) does not imply same-ness (which you have yet to show).

So, as you mentioned a Biblical source, I'd like to see how you scripturally make the logical jump from "all things are dependent on God" to "all things are God".

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Fri Jun 13, 2008 4:07 pm

Foil, the word “Proof” and “God” should never be used in the same sentence…

Foil · Post by **Foil** » Fri Jun 13, 2008 4:26 pm

1. I never used the word, \"Proof\". (I'm a mathematician, I know very well the difference in rigor between proving the triangulization of a 2-manifold and making a philosophical argument like the above.)

2. I'm simply making the point that there is an unfounded (or at least, un-clarified) 'jump' in his argument, and I want to know where he gets it.

3. I'm well-aware there are people here who don't hold the same beliefs about God I do... but I don't take side-topic shots at their arguments in the middle of discussions.

[If you want to discuss beliefs about the relationship of logic and religion, then we can certainly do so. Post a new thread for it.]

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Fri Jun 13, 2008 5:07 pm

Your right, I was taking licence.

Greatest Evil of Today?

Greatest Evil of Today?

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re: Greatest Evil of Today?

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re: