RE: Hypocrisy or Obsession

RE: Hypocrisy or Obsession (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

BenevolentM -> RE: Hypocrisy or Obsession (3/3/2012 6:31:06 PM)
For what it is worth I went to confession today and it was a good thing. As you may know the Ancient Greeks had a tradition of skepticism which would on occasion cause them to wonder if their Pagan faith was legitimate. A conclusion that there was one God and this one God had certain properties came later. This was not during the time of Socrates or Plato that I am aware of. It seems reasonable to say that what the Greeks finally concluded in the aggregate was there was either no god or exactly one God. God appears to me to have two natures. One is a mechanical law of nature which explains why there is a legalistic Divine Law that not even God is willing to forego. The second is God the conscious being that has intentions, that loves, etc. I feel that if computer scientists were to ever succeed for example in creating true artificial intelligence that such an achievement would serve as proof of God's existence. How could a machine ever achieve consciousness unless the universe itself was in some sense conscious. Either way you enter into a paradox. One of the effects of paradox is that it limits your capacity to make inferences. In mathematics for example since its foundations are consistent there is no limit to the recursion depth of your proof. Paradox is like a fault in a computer program. That the program is inconsistent does not imply that the machine will necessarily crash immediately though it may. The machine may have to take a few steps before the machine crashes. This is a problem that we encounter in attempting to resolve moral and ethical problems. Since the underlying theory is inconsistent, you can proceed forward along a line of reasoning only so far. Assurances that the concepts employed are stable is important much like computer code that has been debugged over a period of years. The underlying code base that substantiates the existence of God is stable and has been worked on by monks to debug it for a period now going on centuries and that work was in turn based on work that was carried out centuries before that. The code base of the Roman Catholic Church is extremely stable. Regardless of whether or not anyone has been able to prove or disprove the existence of God is partially irrelevant. It is significant that the code base is stable. It is easy to show that a puritanical pursuit to reject hypocrisy is an assault on morals. Regardless of how many people subscribe to the concept the notion is fundamentally flawed. It crashes the computer almost immediately.

xssve -> RE: Hypocrisy or Obsession (3/3/2012 9:02:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BenevolentM quote: ORIGINAL: xssve You're bumping into a lot of walls in the process. It is called a miracle for a reason. Ancient Greek philosophy and Christianity merged. This is especially evident in the teachings of the Catholic Church. The Greeks came to a conclusion that there was only one God, then came Christianity which fit what the Greek philosophers at the time reasoned must be true for the one God. A lot more was attained through reason than is generally thought. The emphasis on faith, faith, faith obscures this fact. The quest for truth can prepare you. It is not entirely a road in the opposite direction. If you accept reason, then you have to accept that man is governed by the laws of nature, which are both mechanical and paradoxical - that's the paradox of reason.

BenevolentM -> RE: Hypocrisy or Obsession (3/3/2012 9:42:31 PM)
I hope to be saying more concerning some of the points that were raised by MrBukani. He, for example, wrote "Is that hypocritical or realistic?" in post 216 http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=4048443. I've responded to it partially already. Because all known theories that are powerful enough to encompass basic notions of right and wrong are inconsistent there is a premium on simplicity that is not seen in mathematics. In mathematics arguments can be arbitrarily complex. Their complexity do not influence their water tightness. In ethics complex arguments are like a ship that is taking on water. You have to keep it simple in order to keep the ship from sinking. Ethics favors simple arguments. Interestingly enough, this is precisely what the Catholic Church delivers. There is more I need to say on the matter put forth by MrBukani. quote: ORIGINAL: xssve If you accept reason, then you have to accept that man is governed by the laws of nature, which are both mechanical and paradoxical - that's the paradox of reason. I don't understand what you are getting at. My guess is mechanical paradox where the significance of paradox is unexplored. That is the paradigm used by the physics community. They intentionally avoid philosophy to the greatest extent possible. Avoidance is not proof of illegitimacy. What science did in part was say, for the time being a great deal of progress can be made by just ignoring the larger philosophical problems. As was pointed out earlier by Politesub53 work has been done to attempt to explain right and wrong using consistent theories. You, xssve, also attempted to do this. All known consistent theories are woefully and dangerously inadequate. They are powerful enough to be suggestive. They are like a man who knows enough to be dangerous, but not enough to be right.

Politesub53 -> RE: Hypocrisy or Obsession (3/4/2012 4:17:10 AM)
quote: As was pointed out earlier by Politesub53 work has been done to attempt to explain right and wrong using consistent theories. You, xssve, also attempted to do this. All known consistent theories are woefully and dangerously inadequate. They are powerful enough to be suggestive. They are like a man who knows enough to be dangerous, but not enough to be right. Read this over and over until the irony sinks in. I am sure xssve and others have already spotted it.

BenevolentM -> RE: Hypocrisy or Obsession (3/4/2012 4:48:31 AM)
"Though at the time Augustus had been passing legislation to promote family values, he likely knew of her intrigues with other men ..." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julia_the_Elder

BenevolentM -> RE: Hypocrisy or Obsession (3/4/2012 5:16:21 AM)
Should I prove it beyond all doubt? If I do, what would it say concerning the condition of your soul that you could not receive the truth sooner.

BenevolentM -> RE: Hypocrisy or Obsession (3/4/2012 5:33:20 AM)
Thank God that I am to you like a Grey Alien.

Politesub53 -> RE: Hypocrisy or Obsession (3/4/2012 9:45:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BenevolentM Thank God that I am to you like a Grey Alien. Thank who you like. I think you are more a troll than an alien.

BenevolentM -> RE: Hypocrisy or Obsession (3/4/2012 1:16:03 PM)
Perhaps an appeal to Socrates may be helpful here. quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 I think you are more a troll than an alien. Why?

BenevolentM -> RE: Hypocrisy or Obsession (3/4/2012 1:53:55 PM)
"Is that hypocritical or realistic?" Either way it is vague. There is no precision. In the absence of precision what justifies broad action? Is a lumber jack qualified to be a surgeon?

BenevolentM -> RE: Hypocrisy or Obsession (3/4/2012 2:06:50 PM)
If you attempt to expand the argument in order to achieve sufficient precision to justify broad action, the argument will take on water due to its complexity.

BenevolentM -> RE: Hypocrisy or Obsession (3/4/2012 2:16:18 PM)
In other words, the argument must have a solid footing from the outset. Proof that the initial footing of the argument is weak is sufficient to topple the argument in its entirety.

BenevolentM -> RE: Hypocrisy or Obsession (3/4/2012 2:58:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BenevolentM ... is sufficient to topple the argument in its entirety. What am I talking about here? I am saying that you cannot revisit the argument to make ad hoc additions. The door is closed. The argument cannot be repaired.

BenevolentM -> RE: Hypocrisy or Obsession (3/4/2012 4:02:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BenevolentM Should I prove it beyond all doubt? If I do, what would it say concerning the condition of your soul that you could not receive the truth sooner. But what does this say about me? It says that I am a Brahman.

BenevolentM -> RE: Hypocrisy or Obsession (3/4/2012 4:10:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BenevolentM Perhaps an appeal to Socrates may be helpful here. quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 I think you are more a troll than an alien. Why? If you seek to degrade a Brahman, what may I ask are you?

dcnovice -> RE: Hypocrisy or Obsession (3/4/2012 4:51:06 PM)
quote: The underlying code base that substantiates the existence of God is stable and has been worked on by monks to debug it for a period now going on centuries and that work was in turn based on work that was carried out centuries before that. The code base of the Roman Catholic Church is extremely stable. Regardless of whether or not anyone has been able to prove or disprove the existence of God is partially irrelevant. It is significant that the code base is stable. I have no earthly idea what this means. Code base? And I went to Catholic school for 15 years.

BenevolentM -> RE: Hypocrisy or Obsession (3/4/2012 5:55:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice I have no earthly idea what this means. Code base? And I went to Catholic school for 15 years. Surely, you haven't been to mass lately. It's the new lingo!

dcnovice -> RE: Hypocrisy or Obsession (3/4/2012 6:10:20 PM)
quote: Surely, you haven't been to mass lately. No, I outgrew Catholicism some time ago.

BenevolentM -> RE: Hypocrisy or Obsession (3/4/2012 7:25:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice quote: Surely, you haven't been to mass lately. No, I outgrew Catholicism some time ago. The priests now were sunglasses and dress like Nero in the Matrix.

BenevolentM -> RE: Hypocrisy or Obsession (3/5/2012 5:05:37 AM)
Nietzsche As I've pointed out a puritanical assault on hypocrisy is an assault on morality. What becomes clear is the views that were taken by Nietzsche are plausible only in an environment where you stick your head in the sand much as the physics community does. The idea is from an evil thing a good may come. I suppose Nietzsche might argue, What does it matter if industry causes us to labor without morals if the outcome of industry is a paradise. The problem with this reasoning is that it may be possible to do this for a brief period, but it cannot endure a sustained effort since with each wrong a crack is formed. To use an example from physics. Bounce a ball. Suppose in order for you to achieve your goal you must bounce the ball a hundred times. One could realistically take such a sprint where you dribble the ball a hundred times, but what if the ball needed to be dribbled a hundred million times? The ball would likely not survive. A different, less abusive approach is needed. What Nietzsche argued is that the path ahead is directly before us and all we need do is steam shovel ourselves forward. What nonsense. Now we get to what the mystery concerning the perceived need for radical empiricism as opposed to just plain empiricism is. The idea is that paradise is within our grasp and all we need do is make an all out sprint, but isn't this irresponsible? If paradise is close at hand, why throw caution to the wind? It will be ours soon enough. It is evident that without God, people grow desperate and cannot stay the course. IN THE ABSENCE OF GOD THEY HAVE NO WILL TO POWER. They instead act foolishly like a man who is dehydrated in the desert chasing after a mirage.

Page: << < prev 10 11 [12] 13 14 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625