[quote]Scorched Soul wrote:
whats crazy is that the only reason i engage in these conversation is because im hoping i will gain an insight into something i simply cannot understand. my only hope is that people of faith are convinced and dont change their mind based on logic - so im hoping im missing something, because right now, i simply cannot believe in god, its not a question of open mind, desire or anything. i simply cannot believe it to be true with any conviction.[/quote]
Well there is the faith, having faith, virtue of faith, &c.
Faith is the theological virtue by which we believe in God and believe all that he has said and revealed to us, and that Holy Church proposes for our belief, because he is truth itself.
[quote]Scorched Soul wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Scorched Soul wrote:
truth IS a psychological thing = we think of it being the state of affairs, but there is no objective state of anything. rationality is simply the order we apply to our conceprs, it only means something in relation to human thought[/quote]
I never understood this leap. It cannot be consistently held. [/quote]
how can the opposite? [/quote]
Correct me if I am wrong, but this position is that nothing can be known?
[quote]Scorched Soul wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Scorched Soul wrote:
truth IS a psychological thing = we think of it being the state of affairs, but there is no objective state of anything. rationality is simply the order we apply to our conceprs, it only means something in relation to human thought[/quote]
I never understood this leap. It cannot be consistently held. [/quote]
are u saying religon must be true as it is the only belief that doesnt contradict logic and is the only logically consistent argument? cant u see how thats just part of the circular logic that all reasoning or belief is based on?[/quote]
No, there is a more basic answer.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Scorched Soul wrote:
whats crazy is that the only reason i engage in these conversation is because im hoping i will gain an insight into something i simply cannot understand. my only hope is that people of faith are convinced and dont change their mind based on logic - so im hoping im missing something, because right now, i simply cannot believe in god, its not a question of open mind, desire or anything. i simply cannot believe it to be true with any conviction.[/quote]
Well there is the faith, having faith, virtue of faith, &c.
Faith is the theological virtue by which we believe in God and believe all that he has said and revealed to us, and that Holy Church proposes for our belief, because he is truth itself.[/quote]
okay…i think that definition has already been given in this thread, im not sure what you’re trying to say?
[quote]Scorched Soul wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Scorched Soul wrote:
whats crazy is that the only reason i engage in these conversation is because im hoping i will gain an insight into something i simply cannot understand. my only hope is that people of faith are convinced and dont change their mind based on logic - so im hoping im missing something, because right now, i simply cannot believe in god, its not a question of open mind, desire or anything. i simply cannot believe it to be true with any conviction.[/quote]
Well there is the faith, having faith, virtue of faith, &c.
Faith is the theological virtue by which we believe in God and believe all that he has said and revealed to us, and that Holy Church proposes for our belief, because he is truth itself.[/quote]
okay…i think that definition has already been given in this thread, im not sure what you’re trying to say?
[/quote]
Well…I don’t know if it has been said in this thread. But, that is the definition of faith. At least of the word “faith” used in the Bible.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]kamui wrote:
A metaphysical challenge : define “thing” without using it (nor a synonym like “entity”).
(edit : i think i already made an allusion about this one in one of our discussion about the cosmological argument)[/quote]
A thing is the total of a moleculair framework.
Or is “moleculair framework” “using it”?[/quote]
For from Israel was it also: the workman made it; therefore it is not God: but the calf of Samaria shall be broken in pieces.
(Hos 8:6 KJV)
Ruminate on that.[/quote]
I do not follow. I don’t remember Hosea being quoted in a metaphysics book. [/quote]
It’s mainly because philosophers don’t like to talk about sin.
The point of my quoting this verse is to show the molecular world is only part of what exists.
More specific to what Hosea’s dealing with- Nothing that you make deserves to be bowed down to. Some might say this concern should be divorced from the study of metaphysics. But I would disagree, as the essence of your thinking is betrayed by your acting.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Scorched Soul wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Scorched Soul wrote:
truth IS a psychological thing = we think of it being the state of affairs, but there is no objective state of anything. rationality is simply the order we apply to our conceprs, it only means something in relation to human thought[/quote]
I never understood this leap. It cannot be consistently held. [/quote]
how can the opposite? [/quote]
Correct me if I am wrong, but this position is that nothing can be known?[/quote]
perhaps not in the way we are discussing. i wont assert nothing can be known, but i will assert that u dont have any grounds for KNOWING god exists, unless faith is sufficient for to believe in something, in which case, who am i to question, we just have different grounds for believing something to be true.
I just dont know how u can convince urself to believe? belief cannot be the evidence for belief can it?
[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]kamui wrote:
A metaphysical challenge : define “thing” without using it (nor a synonym like “entity”).
(edit : i think i already made an allusion about this one in one of our discussion about the cosmological argument)[/quote]
A thing is the total of a moleculair framework.
Or is “moleculair framework” “using it”?[/quote]
For from Israel was it also: the workman made it; therefore it is not God: but the calf of Samaria shall be broken in pieces.
(Hos 8:6 KJV)
Ruminate on that.[/quote]
I do not follow. I don’t remember Hosea being quoted in a metaphysics book. [/quote]
It’s mainly because philosophers don’t like to talk about sin.
The point of my quoting this verse is to show the molecular world is only part of what exists.
More specific to what Hosea’s dealing with- Nothing that you make deserves to be bowed down to. Some might say this concern should be divorced from the study of metaphysics. But I would disagree, as the essence of your thinking is betrayed by your acting.[/quote]
no, its not. acting does not have to be in line with one’s metaphyscial position. that is a requirement imposed by you.
[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]kamui wrote:
A metaphysical challenge : define “thing” without using it (nor a synonym like “entity”).
(edit : i think i already made an allusion about this one in one of our discussion about the cosmological argument)[/quote]
A thing is the total of a moleculair framework.
Or is “moleculair framework” “using it”?[/quote]
For from Israel was it also: the workman made it; therefore it is not God: but the calf of Samaria shall be broken in pieces.
(Hos 8:6 KJV)
Ruminate on that.[/quote]
I do not follow. I don’t remember Hosea being quoted in a metaphysics book. [/quote]
It’s mainly because philosophers don’t like to talk about sin.
The point of my quoting this verse is to show the molecular world is only part of what exists.
More specific to what Hosea’s dealing with- Nothing that you make deserves to be bowed down to. Some might say this concern should be divorced from the study of metaphysics. But I would disagree, as the essence of your thinking is betrayed by your acting.[/quote]
double post
[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
It’s mainly because philosophers don’t like to talk about sin.
The point of my quoting this verse is to show the molecular world is only part of what exists.
More specific to what Hosea’s dealing with- Nothing that you make deserves to be bowed down to. Some might say this concern should be divorced from the study of metaphysics. But I would disagree, as the essence of your thinking is betrayed by your acting.[/quote]
It matters what context you are talking, really.
By bowed down to, do you mean worshiped or do you mean literally bowed down to?
[quote]Scorched Soul wrote:
[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]kamui wrote:
A metaphysical challenge : define “thing” without using it (nor a synonym like “entity”).
(edit : i think i already made an allusion about this one in one of our discussion about the cosmological argument)[/quote]
A thing is the total of a moleculair framework.
Or is “moleculair framework” “using it”?[/quote]
For from Israel was it also: the workman made it; therefore it is not God: but the calf of Samaria shall be broken in pieces.
(Hos 8:6 KJV)
Ruminate on that.[/quote]
I do not follow. I don’t remember Hosea being quoted in a metaphysics book. [/quote]
It’s mainly because philosophers don’t like to talk about sin.
The point of my quoting this verse is to show the molecular world is only part of what exists.
More specific to what Hosea’s dealing with- Nothing that you make deserves to be bowed down to. Some might say this concern should be divorced from the study of metaphysics. But I would disagree, as the essence of your thinking is betrayed by your acting.[/quote]
no, its not. acting does not have to be in line with one’s metaphyscial position. that is a requirement imposed by you.
[/quote]
Then what is the point of even having a position?
[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
[quote]Scorched Soul wrote:
[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]kamui wrote:
A metaphysical challenge : define “thing” without using it (nor a synonym like “entity”).
(edit : i think i already made an allusion about this one in one of our discussion about the cosmological argument)[/quote]
A thing is the total of a moleculair framework.
Or is “moleculair framework” “using it”?[/quote]
For from Israel was it also: the workman made it; therefore it is not God: but the calf of Samaria shall be broken in pieces.
(Hos 8:6 KJV)
Ruminate on that.[/quote]
I do not follow. I don’t remember Hosea being quoted in a metaphysics book. [/quote]
It’s mainly because philosophers don’t like to talk about sin.
The point of my quoting this verse is to show the molecular world is only part of what exists.
More specific to what Hosea’s dealing with- Nothing that you make deserves to be bowed down to. Some might say this concern should be divorced from the study of metaphysics. But I would disagree, as the essence of your thinking is betrayed by your acting.[/quote]
no, its not. acting does not have to be in line with one’s metaphyscial position. that is a requirement imposed by you.
[/quote]
Then what is the point of even having a position?[/quote]
what do u mean? my ethics determine how i act. my metaphysical position isnt really relevant to my ethical or moral position. my ethics are rooted in my emotions and instincts, but i have no philosophical grounds for them.
[quote]Scorched Soul wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Correct me if I am wrong, but this position is that nothing can be known?[/quote]
perhaps not in the way we are discussing. i wont assert nothing can be known, but i will assert that u dont have any grounds for KNOWING god exists, unless faith is sufficient for to believe in something, in which case, who am i to question, we just have different grounds for believing something to be true.
I just dont know how u can convince urself to believe? belief cannot be the evidence for belief can it?
[/quote]
I feel like we’re going off track.
I’m not talking about knowing God exists. Though it could rather quickly go in that direction.
At this moment, we’re not talking metaphysics, this would be an epistemology issue. Now, I am talking about whether our senses fail us or not. Is there a bridge between our minds and reality? I mean we either answer in the affirmative or we ask no more questions and answer no more questions.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Scorched Soul wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Correct me if I am wrong, but this position is that nothing can be known?[/quote]
perhaps not in the way we are discussing. i wont assert nothing can be known, but i will assert that u dont have any grounds for KNOWING god exists, unless faith is sufficient for to believe in something, in which case, who am i to question, we just have different grounds for believing something to be true.
I just dont know how u can convince urself to believe? belief cannot be the evidence for belief can it?
[/quote]
I feel like we’re going off track.
I’m not talking about knowing God exists. Though it could rather quickly go in that direction.
At this moment, we’re not talking metaphysics, this would be an epistemology issue. Now, I am talking about whether our senses fail us or not. Is there a bridge between our minds and reality? I mean we either answer in the affirmative or we ask no more questions and answer no more questions.[/quote]
i dont think our mind is the full extent of being and so i thnk we should continue to ask questions. i think our current senses fail us in the sense that we want to have a relation to existence that is not possible.
[quote]Scorched Soul wrote:
what do u mean? my ethics determine how i act. my metaphysical position isnt really relevant to my ethical or moral position. my ethics are rooted in my emotions and instincts, but i have no philosophical grounds for them.
[/quote]
Lol. In my ethics, you have to have a grasp of my general metaphysics to properly understand my view of specific philosophical sub-disciplines such as the philosophy of religion and the philosophy of the mind. Though it is an issue with philosophers to try and remove themselves (in meaning studying ethics) from metaphysics.
[quote]Scorched Soul wrote:
i dont think our mind is the full extent of being and so i thnk we should continue to ask questions. i think our current senses fail us in the sense that we want to have a relation to existence that is not possible.
[/quote]
Glad you don’t think our mind is the full extent of being. But answer this:
Is the primary act of recognition of any reality, real? Affirmative or negative?
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Scorched Soul wrote:
what do u mean? my ethics determine how i act. my metaphysical position isnt really relevant to my ethical or moral position. my ethics are rooted in my emotions and instincts, but i have no philosophical grounds for them.
[/quote]
Lol. In my ethics, you have to have a grasp of my general metaphysics to properly understand my view of specific philosophical sub-disciplines such as the philosophy of religion and the philosophy of the mind. Though it is an issue with philosophers to try and remove themselves (in meaning studying ethics) from metaphysics.
[/quote]
well, in my ethics, u don’t. im not a “philosopher” and im not trying to remove anything, i simply don’t consider my metaphysical position relevant to my ethical position. why dont u explain to me ur metaphysical and ethical stance instead of accusing me of not grapsing a concept simply because i dont agree with you on it’s application.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Scorched Soul wrote:
i dont think our mind is the full extent of being and so i thnk we should continue to ask questions. i think our current senses fail us in the sense that we want to have a relation to existence that is not possible.
[/quote]
Glad you don’t think our mind is the full extent of being. But answer this:
Is the primary act of recognition of any reality, real? Affirmative or negative? [/quote]
what do u mean “any reality”? surely my own cognition is any reality?
[quote]Scorched Soul wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Scorched Soul wrote:
what do u mean? my ethics determine how i act. my metaphysical position isnt really relevant to my ethical or moral position. my ethics are rooted in my emotions and instincts, but i have no philosophical grounds for them.
[/quote]
Lol. In my ethics, you have to have a grasp of my general metaphysics to properly understand my view of specific philosophical sub-disciplines such as the philosophy of religion and the philosophy of the mind. Though it is an issue with philosophers to try and remove themselves (in meaning studying ethics) from metaphysics.
[/quote]
well, in my ethics, u don’t. im not a “philosopher” and im not trying to remove anything, i simply don’t consider my metaphysical position relevant to my ethical position. why dont u explain to me ur metaphysical and ethical stance instead of accusing me of not grapsing a concept simply because i dont agree with you on it’s application.
[/quote]
I am referring to metaphysics, as in Aristotle’s writings. Which include ethics because of Aristotle’s essentialist terms.
[quote]Scorched Soul wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Scorched Soul wrote:
i dont think our mind is the full extent of being and so i thnk we should continue to ask questions. i think our current senses fail us in the sense that we want to have a relation to existence that is not possible.
[/quote]
Glad you don’t think our mind is the full extent of being. But answer this:
Is the primary act of recognition of any reality, real? Affirmative or negative? [/quote]
what do u mean “any reality”? surely my own cognition is any reality? [/quote]
Sorry, I was being quite technical. Yes. Do the things that your senses sense match reality?