Nightingale-White Darkness Lyrical waste

[Kenneth R.]

Gar, I do not own nor watch any television.

Ilan, you missed my point that free will and determinism are not incompatible theories. I for one believe that in the karma theory, they must both be included. Free will is opposed to unfreedom. Determinism is opposed to indeterminism. Determinism says there is one timeline for each person and what happens in the future can be predicted completely with knowledge of all the past states and the laws of the universe. Indeterminism says there is at least one moment when you can't predict what will happen, even if you were omniscient of all the past data and the laws of the universe. Many argue for free will, and determinism, and in the case of karma, I believe you must do so.

 

[paradoxile]

ok I understand your point, I just disagree and it's really a matter of how you look at things.
you can look at determinism as I can see the entire time line, I have a choice and my choice is known, so I must have some reason for making that choice.
on the other hand you can look at it as I can see the entire timeline and I have a choice but since my choice is known, I don't really have a choice.

I tend to go with the second approach and you seem to go with the first
the second approach denies free will.

like I said it's all about deffinition...and you can argue in both ways.
perhaps that's the thing that essentilly brought to our disagreement...we look at/define things differently and it's only logical that your deffinitions don't fit and contredict in my universe and the other way around.

 

[Kenneth R.]

No, logic is not relativistic Ilan, you have to stop running away from that truth if you want to use it. We can have differing views, but not differing definitions. Definitions are inherently singular. If we are discussing "fish" and I say a fish is one thing and you say it is another, you cannot just say "oh well we see it differently" if we are to continue the discussion. We are talking about two different things. To deny that, and claim that your definition is relative, is to equivocate, yet another basic and common fallacy of logic.

You must not be familiar with the concept of determininstic free will. It argues that though the future is 'set in stone' as the saying goes, your choices matter anyway. They remain significant even though you really could not do the other option. Because, you see, you perceive that there is a choice, and though you are unaware or unwilling to make the other choice, the one you do make is one that you yourself chose. An example is that you are sitting in a room. You can sit there or get up and leave. If I lock the door and you did not know that I did, you would still consider meaningfully if you should stay or leave, even though technically there is no way you can leave.

In the case of karma, your choices MUST be meaningful for you to be responsible. However, your future is determined by the nature of your choices. Hence, if you believe in karma, you must necessarily credit free will and determinism. This is called "soft determinism" in philosophical circles.

 

[gar977]

Paradoxile, Im saying the scriptures have brought forth many things that have come to fruition. I think you misunderstood.
All scientific stuff aside, do you ever look around at nations without Jesus? They arent doing too good are they? India has existed forever. They are smart people. Yet, their country never seems to get off the ground.

Abhorsen, I do not see what is flawed in Hal Lindsey. He speaks of and interprets the scripture. I made a recommendation, please show some respect in here and not criticize with filthy remarks citing absolutely no details of why you feel this way.

 

[Kenneth R.]

Gar, I don't like that argument. A lot of nations have done bloody and evil things in the name of Jesus. The United States is no exception, and in fact makes a prime example, as do The United Kingdom, Italy and the Vatican.

 

[Efrahate]

What was this thread about really? Nightingale bashing God?
Come on peeps....

 

[Kenneth R.]

Metaphysics is more interesting than that base claim, so we ran it off topic

 

[Abhorsen]

Paradoxile, Im saying the scriptures have brought forth many things that have come to fruition. I think you misunderstood.
All scientific stuff aside, do you ever look around at nations without Jesus? They arent doing too good are they? India has existed forever. They are smart people. Yet, their country never seems to get off the ground.

Abhorsen, I do not see what is flawed in Hal Lindsey. He speaks of and interprets the scripture. I made a recommendation, please show some respect in here and not criticize with filthy remarks citing absolutely no details of why you feel this way.

Like I said I really do try to show respect for others and what they believe but I find Hal Lindsey to be a complete nutjob. Dispensationalism is way left of crazy to springboard off the Book of Revelation into these historical dispensations. Even among biblical literalists and a lot of American evangelicals are these days, Lindsey's bent is stretching it by a wide margin. It's not about proof, but more about reason. You can't take all of the Judeo-Christian Bible literally, but especially the books of prophecy. Revelation is a fever dream dude.

 

[Abhorsen]

What was this thread about really? Nightingale bashing God?
Come on peeps....

indeed. btw, I think dan's song gets it pretty right.

 

[paradoxile]

Paradoxile, Im saying the scriptures have brought forth many things that have come to fruition. I think you misunderstood.
All scientific stuff aside, do you ever look around at nations without Jesus? They arent doing too good are they? India has existed forever. They are smart people. Yet, their country never seems to get off the ground.

Abhorsen, I do not see what is flawed in Hal Lindsey. He speaks of and interprets the scripture. I made a recommendation, please show some respect in here and not criticize with filthy remarks citing absolutely no details of why you feel this way.

gar seriously no disrespect but what's that got to do with anything
look at my country, Israel, small, jewish ,surrounded by muslims from all directions(except the west...the med sea) yet we're a hi tech superpower and the only country in the middle east with free press. so yes we're so awesome(sorry åsome) because we believe in Jesus.



Pause





NOT!

 

[Kenneth R.]

To be fair, your 'superpower' status came from economic backing with our asshole country. Since you're friendly with the yankees, they give you guns cause everyone around you is their enemy.

 

[paradoxile]

No, logic is not relativistic Ilan, you have to stop running away from that truth if you want to use it. We can have differing views, but not differing definitions. Definitions are inherently singular. If we are discussing "fish" and I say a fish is one thing and you say it is another, you cannot just say "oh well we see it differently" if we are to continue the discussion. We are talking about two different things. To deny that, and claim that your definition is relative, is to equivocate, yet another basic and common fallacy of logic.

You must not be familiar with the concept of determininstic free will. It argues that though the future is 'set in stone' as the saying goes, your choices matter anyway. They remain significant even though you really could not do the other option. Because, you see, you perceive that there is a choice, and though you are unaware or unwilling to make the other choice, the one you do make is one that you yourself chose. An example is that you are sitting in a room. You can sit there or get up and leave. If I lock the door and you did not know that I did, you would still consider meaningfully if you should stay or leave, even though technically there is no way you can leave.

In the case of karma, your choices MUST be meaningful for you to be responsible. However, your future is determined by the nature of your choices. Hence, if you believe in karma, you must necessarily credit free will and determinism. This is called "soft determinism" in philosophical circles.

well fine have it your way...if you say deffinitions of karma and determinism are singular
so I'm defining new things called Ilan determinism and Ilan Karma(object oriented programmers' logic) which are different from the originals.
no doubt that choices matter...choices are after all action and reaction which is one of the principals according to which the universe works and besides they are crutial elements within "the tree", choices are the points in which the tree banches out.nothing to do with free will. so now that I know what deterministic free will is I still disagree.
under my deffinitions(which are singular and different than the regular ones in order not to piss you off) randomality and free will cannot exist. free will is denied by deffinition. and randomality is an illusion because if we're in a deterministic universe then everything can go only in one speciffic way...which has nothing random about it.
You should know something about me...I'm like a child, if there are rules I don't like I change them...it's a great way of thinking out of the box.
In "my universe" everything is air tight and interlaced...if you apply logic(yes the singular mathemattic logic) to my deffinitions and only my deffinitions you'll get no contredictions and everything is crystal clear.
so yes it's all about deffinitions...
but surely you cannot use stuff like deterministic free will when free will is denied by deffinition in my universe, nor can you use responsibility under the deffinition of karma as if there's no free will, how does that make us responsible.

 

[Kenneth R.]

We'll talk again about this when you're ready to give up make-believing your own universe and start trying to understand the one in which we live. 'uni' by the way is a prefix for 1. singular.

 

[Tumn]

This thread needs to die!!!!!!!!!!

 

[paradoxile]

We'll talk again about this when you're ready to give up make-believing your own universe and start trying to understand the one in which we live. 'uni' by the way is a prefix for 1. singular.

the great thing about philosophy is the structural logic if it
you say if free will this and that then this and this and that
I say if there's no free will then no this and no that etc...
you can't deny me making my own deffinitions...I say the universe is built in a whole different way and acts according to some different rules so new deffinitions are in order.at some point determinism and karma were defined and you are using their deffinitions...I'm using mine to redefine the universe.
sticking it to the man. Don't think there's anything wrong about it.
my universe is the åsomest universe ever...where time travel to the past does not create paradoxes...where there are parallel trajectories in which all beautiful girls walk around naked(kind of like german tourists around sources of water), where global warming is solved, and there's no pollution because everything is powered by solar power and a place where pink unicorns can roam freely in the wilderness.

 

[Kenneth R.]

but your universe is not real. that's the problem with this discussion. we can't be debating if we are both talking about different things. we must address the same thing from different viewpoints. instead, you are using the same terms as me (wrongly, i might add) to address something else.

 

[paradoxile]

I already stressed that the terms are not the same...i just don't like shoving my name in there every time...terms are different, logic is the same.

"my universe" is not real to you...just as the universe as you describe it is not real for me.
yes in a way we are talking about different things since in both cases we rely in different hypothesies. so we got different results

 

[Kenneth R.]

Then there's no point in talking about it since you went off topic and invented your own universe.

You really need to examine basic philosophy if we are to even discuss anything at all. It seems to me that you're running away into your own little world where everything is as you like it, while the rest of us exist in a world that has set, defined rules that are not breakable. It's as if you're dreaming. Gravity on Earth is 9.8m/s². You can convert that into feet per year if it pleases you, but the factual purpose of it remains the same. Instead, what you're doing is changing the number arbitrarily. I really doubt you are God Ilan, so you do not have omnipotence to change the laws of physics.

Seriously, you're just in denial. I'm waiting when you bring forward something substantial, until then I will reply only to others in this thread.

 

[Naglfar]

You really need to examine basic philosophy if we are to even discuss anything at all.

Why? This is pretentiousness on your part. Are you saying only those who have an understanding of philosophy have anything to contribute to what we know about the nature of the world?

Like I said before, I have no idea what Ilan's talking about, but your rejection of the logic of his beliefs on the basis of not meeting x and y standard of philosophical and logical rigor smacks of academic condescension.

It's his RELIGION. His ridiculous shit makes as little sense as your ridiculous shit. If he believes that Barney Rubble's place at the top of the universe can be proven by some distortion of quantum physics, that's his problem.

Most people's beliefs are limited by the contours of their imagination, not by well-thought out principles of logic and divinity. It's one thing for you say, "Ilan, it's hilarious that you believe quantum physics proves the existence of what you consider to be paradise". It's another thing to say, "THAT'S THE MOST RETARDED THING I'VE EVER HEARD! I'M NOT SPEAKING TO YOU ANYMORE ABOUT THIS!"

Just... think practically. You're arguing with this guy about religion, and you're getting miffed because he's not applying certain standards of reasoning in explaining experiences he cannot share with you, for the simple reason that they're entirely products of his imagination. If I asked you to explain to me what if feels like to be touched by god, I'd bet the second penis growing out of my forehead that you'd sound rational and articulate, and to me you'd sound every bit as ridiculous as Ilan for believing it, and trying to explain it to me.

 

[Kenneth R.]

I'm not arguing with him at all. We can't get past terms and definitions because every time I bring up any, he whines that he doesn't like them and changes them!

If we are to speak at all, like I am speaking with you right now, we must be in agreement as to the meaning of each of the words we use. You would not be able to read this at all if you and I did not agree on the correct basic usage of English, for example. That is why I cannot debate this with Ilan.

Yes, I am rejecting the logic of his beliefs because they are illogical! As I said in the previous paragraph, we must necessarily agree to certain logical rules (whatever they may be) if we are to use them at all. I do not object to his beliefs, but I myself remain unconvinced until he can show the reasons behind them in a clear logical manner to me. I require no proof, simply substantial and verifiable evidence.

For the past several pages all of my posts have been dedicated to laying out the framework of basic philosophy and logic. These are not my opinions. They are like the English language, an established standard by which things can be accomplished. If he wants to use some other means to explain himself, fine, but I will not accept the perversion of logic as substance. I have simply used my posts to explain logical fallacies (contradictions) that he has been making in his claims.