RevTom Posted July 13, 2015 Report Share Posted July 13, 2015 what is is, regardless of our perceptions of them. God is, for whatever we perceive God to be, whether we understand it or perceive it. All the rationale, all the philosophical debates or meanderings, will not change this truth. It is only our quest for understanding that fuels these discussions, and through them, hopefully our understanding increases. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cuchulain Posted July 13, 2015 Report Share Posted July 13, 2015 I can appreciate that you clearly believe that "God is" but this is not established fact. What exists, exists. This is something I can agree with. But for someone to make a positive claim that God exists, regardless of all our understanding, is the opening for someone else, I suppose me in this instance, to ask for the proof. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mererdog Posted July 13, 2015 Report Share Posted July 13, 2015 (edited) I almost understood that.You know what a car is. It has four wheels and an engine. You know what a bicycle is. It has two wheels and no engine. Then you see something with two wheels and an engine. Is it a car? Is it a bicycle? Is it both?In the end, I don't think that laws in physics, or logic, are actually "laws." They are laws the same way gravity is a theory. They explain the data. They create useful predictions. They have stood up to loads of testing. You wont get a ticket for breaking them. Edited July 13, 2015 by mererdog Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan H. B. Lobl Posted July 14, 2015 Report Share Posted July 14, 2015 You know what a car is. It has four wheels and an engine. You know what a bicycle is. It has two wheels and no engine. Then you see something with two wheels and an engine. Is it a car? Is it a bicycle? Is it both?They are laws the same way gravity is a theory. They explain the data. They create useful predictions. They have stood up to loads of testing. You wont get a ticket for breaking them.Yes. I get that. Neither are the "laws" of physics something out of space/time -- like a god -- forcing things to behave. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coolhand Posted July 14, 2015 Author Report Share Posted July 14, 2015 I'm not necessarily trying to "re-invent the wheel" here but there is a definition of a chair, and something else called the internet, with a semi accurate other thing called wikipedia that has a definition of a chair.......just sayin....https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chair Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mererdog Posted July 14, 2015 Report Share Posted July 14, 2015 (edited) I'm not necessarily trying to "re-invent the wheel" here but there is a definition of a chair, and something else called the internet, with a semi accurate other thing called wikipedia that has a definition of a chair.......just sayin....https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ChairI found three slightly, but significantly, different definitions of "chair" on the internet. An item could easily qualify under one or more while not qualifying under one or more. Now, we could all agree, for the sake of argument, to stick to the wiki definition, but there are still parts of that definition open to enough interpretation to extend the semantic argument, thereby stealing focus from the logical argument and/or confusing the issue. Edited July 14, 2015 by mererdog Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Key Posted July 14, 2015 Report Share Posted July 14, 2015 I found three slightly, but significantly, different definitions of "chair" on the internet. An item could easily qualify under one or more while not qualifying under one or more. Now, we could all agree, for the sake of argument, to stick to the wiki definition, but there are still parts of that definition open to enough interpretation to extend the semantic argument, thereby stealing focus from the logical argument and/or confusing the issue.That's okay, a lot of us are already confused anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cuchulain Posted July 15, 2015 Report Share Posted July 15, 2015 two ideas can both be wrong, or right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seeker Posted July 19, 2015 Report Share Posted July 19, 2015 But the question is: can one idea be both, or neither? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan H. B. Lobl Posted July 19, 2015 Report Share Posted July 19, 2015 But the question is: can one idea be both, or neither?I think, yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cuchulain Posted July 19, 2015 Report Share Posted July 19, 2015 An idea can be right for one person while being wrong for another, I believe. Take medical treatment of all sorts for example. Some people respond well to sulfas, I however am allergic. If my wife has a sinus infection, perhaps bactrim is the way to go. If I have a sinus infection, not so much a good idea after all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brother Kaman Posted July 19, 2015 Report Share Posted July 19, 2015 I think, therefore, you are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mererdog Posted July 20, 2015 Report Share Posted July 20, 2015 (edited) I think, therefore, you are. While I don't fault your logic, and your conclusion is valid, I find myself distrusting your premise.... Edited July 20, 2015 by mererdog Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts