Logic and God
Today was a mixture of weird things.
Early in the morning I was in a rush to leave for class when I realized, 'Hey, that light that usually blinks on an off is staying on this time!' and checked the engine in time to find that it was in need of oil, or it would have overheated.
Then I fergot the videos, so I ran back and grabbed those and took off in the opposite direction of which I was originally going. Dropped those off, sped to the university. Made pretty damn good time for my being somewhat late on the usual time.
Logic was actually interesting today. We learned some new rules for a system called SD+, which is just an extention of SD. It basically introduced some new short cuts. I'll probably go over it in another post to make sure of my understanding. Speaking of understanding, I need to review SD rules, 'cause I still don't have them all down packed.
After class I came home. Almost rammed some guy in the rear. Would have been a shame, 'cause I liked his car, but I managed to be a smooth operator, and swurved just in time. Some old lady ahead of him had slowed to a halt in the middle of the road. I've begun to think that old people really should die, or get off the road.
Then, after a bit of messing around online, I took a much needed nap. Woke up, and watched Proof Positive. I like it, because usually shows talking about paranormal never really investigate investigate, rather they just say look at this case--woo, spooky! Proof Positive actually gets professionals on the case to observe. Not that this helps at all, because there are perhaps tons of factors involved in the case, and even when it's positive it's only a possibility, but it's better than being left with some stupid tale. And when they prove a falsehood, it's soooo good, though there's always a possibility for it to be true, too. Heh.
After Proof Positive, I got online, again, and talked to some friends. Gah, I talked to one of the most gorgeous chicks I've met. Met her at the Cruiser Weight show. Oy, I'm definitely forming some form of attraction. Blah.
After talking to her for a long period of time I caught South Park on comedy central. The newest one was funny as hell. All about the news broadcasting in school.
Um, and I got into some debate with a friend's ex-boyfriend about the perfect-ness-necity of god despite my own lack of beliefs in one. I had to support the perfection of god side, too! Oy, talk about a pain in the brain. One thing I learned though is that I think it's perhaps wise to learn the arguments of both sides really well in this case, and then to explore them to their fullest.
What a day, what a day. I hope that chick calls me. (Gave her my cell and home phone in case she needed a lift to a show Friday. :) )
For any who want to see the argument, (that was via. AIM) I've pasted it below.
is it possible for god to be all powerful AND perfect at the same time due to limitations placed on him by the term perfect
Clash of Vision: How does perfection limit his ability to be all powerful. Just because he's perfect doesn't mean he's any less powerful. Perfection is the idealized thing--it is power! It is the essence of us without our weaknesses.
Clash of Vision: God like us, but without our limitations and ugliness--he is the picture of power.
but if god can do anything, like even bad things, would he still be the all powerful god if he did something bad
Clash of Vision: That's the thing. Those that theorize about god believe he does nothing, that god is simply the starting point of everything. He is that which does nothing but thinks thoughts. This is a Descartesian approach, of course, but it has something to it. He is the unmoved mover, the source of everything (the beginning) and the end of everything. He is from which all begins and which all goes.
Clash of Vision: To place ethics on a godly figure is to limit the understanding!
Clash of Vision: :P
Clash of Vision: Well, morals, not ethics.
Clash of Vision: But you know, this could go on forever.
Clash of Vision: There's arguments for and against in philosophy. It's almost ends nowhere.
Clash of Vision: Just to let you know, I don't believe in the Christian God. :P
Clash of Vision: Gad.
Clash of Vision: Tell him to just go read into metaphysical philosophy if he's debating the existence of god so much. :P
Clash of Vision: Maybe he'll find some answer there.
but descartes repeatedly changed his theories over the years and later implicitly stated his own doubt in all things about god except that he exists, that even god could possibly be decieving humans
Clash of Vision: No, it was through his proof of a perfect and non-decieving God that Descartes could even go from Cogito Ergo Sum (or whatever) to proving there was a reality, and then to proving that mathmatics could be used as a way of measuring things, and science as a way of understanding things.
perfection implies rationality, but god gave humans emotions that he also contains, i.e. our god is a jealous god, and these emotions imply irrationality
Clash of Vision: :P
Clash of Vision: That's a whole other shbang. Gah, I shouldn't be doing this. I don't even believe in that crap.
Clash of Vision: Gr, emotions are subjective. They are something percieved by the individual. God was the start of all thing, he gave forth to thinking matter and the physical matter. He was a rational thing in Descartes's sense of the word, and the irrational is a product of one's own. I dunno. Gad, I don't study god.
Clash of Vision: Though I should, I guess, for in case there are pointless discussions like this.
Clash of Vision: Well, not to say it is totally fruitless, but just that we can never prove or disprove anything that we cannot possibly know about.
Clash of Vision: Or something like that.
Clash of Vision: That was badly stated.
Clash of Vision: Gah.
Clash of Vision: Okay. To even say that God gave us anything is to lack the complete understanding of what Descartes's concept of a perfect God was in the first place. It was the unmoved mover, it was the thought of thoughts. It gave the start, and is the actuality. It didn't birth humans and their irrationality, that's a product of biology perhaps.
Clash of Vision: And Descartes wouldn't deny that, 'cause he was trying to prove that there was a reality in which sciences explored. But going past here would be speculation I guess seeing as I haven't read much of his work.
Clash of Vision: I dunno if he ever really got past the proving of a god and reality as separate from the self.
Clash of Vision: From what I know, he died before he progressed beyond that.
Clash of Vision: It can be explained with biology that emotions are products of chemistry, and if the perfect god exists, then Descartes's proof of reality would be valid, and sciences and mathematics would be valid, and would be able to go into those areas. :P
Clash of Vision: Of emotions, sexual interest, and crap.
Clash of Vision: I already see that I need to read more into these theories of gods.
Clash of Vision: Psh, metaphysics.
Needless to say, I really, really sucked.
Early in the morning I was in a rush to leave for class when I realized, 'Hey, that light that usually blinks on an off is staying on this time!' and checked the engine in time to find that it was in need of oil, or it would have overheated.
Then I fergot the videos, so I ran back and grabbed those and took off in the opposite direction of which I was originally going. Dropped those off, sped to the university. Made pretty damn good time for my being somewhat late on the usual time.
Logic was actually interesting today. We learned some new rules for a system called SD+, which is just an extention of SD. It basically introduced some new short cuts. I'll probably go over it in another post to make sure of my understanding. Speaking of understanding, I need to review SD rules, 'cause I still don't have them all down packed.
After class I came home. Almost rammed some guy in the rear. Would have been a shame, 'cause I liked his car, but I managed to be a smooth operator, and swurved just in time. Some old lady ahead of him had slowed to a halt in the middle of the road. I've begun to think that old people really should die, or get off the road.
Then, after a bit of messing around online, I took a much needed nap. Woke up, and watched Proof Positive. I like it, because usually shows talking about paranormal never really investigate investigate, rather they just say look at this case--woo, spooky! Proof Positive actually gets professionals on the case to observe. Not that this helps at all, because there are perhaps tons of factors involved in the case, and even when it's positive it's only a possibility, but it's better than being left with some stupid tale. And when they prove a falsehood, it's soooo good, though there's always a possibility for it to be true, too. Heh.
After Proof Positive, I got online, again, and talked to some friends. Gah, I talked to one of the most gorgeous chicks I've met. Met her at the Cruiser Weight show. Oy, I'm definitely forming some form of attraction. Blah.
After talking to her for a long period of time I caught South Park on comedy central. The newest one was funny as hell. All about the news broadcasting in school.
Um, and I got into some debate with a friend's ex-boyfriend about the perfect-ness-necity of god despite my own lack of beliefs in one. I had to support the perfection of god side, too! Oy, talk about a pain in the brain. One thing I learned though is that I think it's perhaps wise to learn the arguments of both sides really well in this case, and then to explore them to their fullest.
What a day, what a day. I hope that chick calls me. (Gave her my cell and home phone in case she needed a lift to a show Friday. :) )
For any who want to see the argument, (that was via. AIM) I've pasted it below.
is it possible for god to be all powerful AND perfect at the same time due to limitations placed on him by the term perfect
Clash of Vision: How does perfection limit his ability to be all powerful. Just because he's perfect doesn't mean he's any less powerful. Perfection is the idealized thing--it is power! It is the essence of us without our weaknesses.
Clash of Vision: God like us, but without our limitations and ugliness--he is the picture of power.
but if god can do anything, like even bad things, would he still be the all powerful god if he did something bad
Clash of Vision: That's the thing. Those that theorize about god believe he does nothing, that god is simply the starting point of everything. He is that which does nothing but thinks thoughts. This is a Descartesian approach, of course, but it has something to it. He is the unmoved mover, the source of everything (the beginning) and the end of everything. He is from which all begins and which all goes.
Clash of Vision: To place ethics on a godly figure is to limit the understanding!
Clash of Vision: :P
Clash of Vision: Well, morals, not ethics.
Clash of Vision: But you know, this could go on forever.
Clash of Vision: There's arguments for and against in philosophy. It's almost ends nowhere.
Clash of Vision: Just to let you know, I don't believe in the Christian God. :P
Clash of Vision: Gad.
Clash of Vision: Tell him to just go read into metaphysical philosophy if he's debating the existence of god so much. :P
Clash of Vision: Maybe he'll find some answer there.
but descartes repeatedly changed his theories over the years and later implicitly stated his own doubt in all things about god except that he exists, that even god could possibly be decieving humans
Clash of Vision: No, it was through his proof of a perfect and non-decieving God that Descartes could even go from Cogito Ergo Sum (or whatever) to proving there was a reality, and then to proving that mathmatics could be used as a way of measuring things, and science as a way of understanding things.
perfection implies rationality, but god gave humans emotions that he also contains, i.e. our god is a jealous god, and these emotions imply irrationality
Clash of Vision: :P
Clash of Vision: That's a whole other shbang. Gah, I shouldn't be doing this. I don't even believe in that crap.
Clash of Vision: Gr, emotions are subjective. They are something percieved by the individual. God was the start of all thing, he gave forth to thinking matter and the physical matter. He was a rational thing in Descartes's sense of the word, and the irrational is a product of one's own. I dunno. Gad, I don't study god.
Clash of Vision: Though I should, I guess, for in case there are pointless discussions like this.
Clash of Vision: Well, not to say it is totally fruitless, but just that we can never prove or disprove anything that we cannot possibly know about.
Clash of Vision: Or something like that.
Clash of Vision: That was badly stated.
Clash of Vision: Gah.
Clash of Vision: Okay. To even say that God gave us anything is to lack the complete understanding of what Descartes's concept of a perfect God was in the first place. It was the unmoved mover, it was the thought of thoughts. It gave the start, and is the actuality. It didn't birth humans and their irrationality, that's a product of biology perhaps.
Clash of Vision: And Descartes wouldn't deny that, 'cause he was trying to prove that there was a reality in which sciences explored. But going past here would be speculation I guess seeing as I haven't read much of his work.
Clash of Vision: I dunno if he ever really got past the proving of a god and reality as separate from the self.
Clash of Vision: From what I know, he died before he progressed beyond that.
Clash of Vision: It can be explained with biology that emotions are products of chemistry, and if the perfect god exists, then Descartes's proof of reality would be valid, and sciences and mathematics would be valid, and would be able to go into those areas. :P
Clash of Vision: Of emotions, sexual interest, and crap.
Clash of Vision: I already see that I need to read more into these theories of gods.
Clash of Vision: Psh, metaphysics.
Needless to say, I really, really sucked.