Hello & the "riddle" of Epicurus

Tell us a little about yourself.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

seeds
Posts: 389
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 9:31 pm

Re: Hello & the "riddle" of Epicurus

Post by seeds » Tue Dec 19, 2017 6:30 pm

Caleb wrote:
Fri Dec 15, 2017 10:24 am
Hello - I found this site by searching for a verifiable source for the so-called Riddle of Epicurus.

I did indeed find a mathematical / logical attempt at a solution to the conundrum in your forum.

I found the original argument and follow up comments to be at best amusing and at worst a complete waste of brainpower.

I would simply add an extension to the riddle.

If god will not, cannot and quite plainly does not, what is the point in a god who quite plainly has no effect on our lives?
Greta wrote:
Mon Dec 18, 2017 1:01 am
It depends on how "God/a god" is defined. In Seeds's case, the interventionist God is replaced by the pantheist "essence God". His handle is "Seeds" for a reason, always keen to highlight the fundamental patterns from which things emerge. He posits as "God" the very sense of being in much the same way as theoretical physicists work backwards to the posited beginning of the universe and come up with a seemingly mythical entity, the singularity, the seed.
Yes, Greta, and even though you mislabeled me as a “Pantheist,” when in truth I’m a “Panentheist,” you did fairly well in explaining my “seeds” moniker.

So cheers to you for the effort. :D

However, I think that my wild and crazy “flagship” illustration says it best...

Image
Greta wrote:
Mon Dec 18, 2017 1:01 am
So both physicists and pantheists like Seeds simply work backwards until they reach an infinity.
Not an infinity (what does that even mean, Greta?).

No, I work backwards in the hope of finding a philosophically decipherable nexus, or reason, or logical mode and means from-which/through-which the reality we are presently experiencing sprang-forth.

All of which has led me to the “seed” metaphor.

Again, what is this “infinity” you speak of?

(Your post was directed at Caleb, but I have a feeling that Caleb is just a “hit-and-run” thread starter who has no intention of participating in the discussion.)
_______

seeds
Posts: 389
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 9:31 pm

Re: Hello & the "riddle" of Epicurus

Post by seeds » Tue Dec 19, 2017 6:31 pm

seeds wrote: For one thing, -1-, if we are functioning at a level of being and consciousness relative to God that is comparable to that of an amoeba’s level of being relative to us, then it is quite possible that we wouldn’t have the slightest clue whether he is involved (interfering) in our lives or not.
-1- wrote:
Sun Dec 17, 2017 8:52 pm
This is well-reasoned. But it does not sway me from thinking god is imaginary. Whether we don't see how a (real) god influences us, or else we don't see how an (imaginary) god can't influence us, is equivalent in our perspective. You believe the first part; I believe the second part; both are valid as beliefs and opinions.
If both of our views seem valid as beliefs and opinions, then why are you “having a cow” over my applying my view to the OP?
seeds wrote: First of all, you have already proven to me that you are not interested in “logic” by insisting (in an alternate thread) that there would be absolutely no affect on atheists or atheism if God were to literally reveal himself to humanity.
-1- wrote:
Sun Dec 17, 2017 8:52 pm
I would like proof of that. Please refer me to the thread, because I am quite sure I did not say anything like that. I may have said it does not affect the belief of today's atheist in his belief tomorrow if god reveals himself tomorrow, because if he does, then god's existence is no longer belief, but knowledge. I stand by that. But you are twisting my words (possibly). Please refer us to the original statement.

Therefore I refute your argument that I am not interested in logic.
In the thread titled – “Nonbelief and Evil: Two Arguments for the Nonexistence of God by Theodore Drange,” I asked the following...
seeds wrote: Now just as a hypothetical, what affect do you think that absolute and irrefutable knowledge of the existence of God would have on humanity?...

...If everyone knew beyond any doubt that such a Being literally exists, then how do you imagine it would affect the way we think and act on earth?
And you answered with the following...
-1- wrote:
Sun Dec 17, 2017 8:52 pm
...The atheists would not be affected: they never followed a srcipture, as atheists for life, and they realize that this hypothetical god's relationship will not change just because we know about its existence.
(Here’s the link: viewtopic.php?f=23&t=23072&start=75#p340501)

Now of course you can (and no doubt will) try to clarify what you “really” meant.

However, there’s just no ignoring (or “twisting”) the utterly illogical nonsense of the first six words in the quote above where you clearly and unambiguously proclaimed that...
-1- wrote:
Sun Dec 17, 2017 8:52 pm
The atheists would not be affected
...if God was revealed to be a real and existing Entity.

The only question now is whether or not you are going to own your statements, or will you be the one doing the “twisting”?

(And just in case you’re going to do what I think you’re going to do, I’ve got Chubby Checker queued up for us on YouTube - https://youtu.be/xbK0C9AYMd8)
_______

seeds
Posts: 389
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 9:31 pm

Re: Hello & the "riddle" of Epicurus

Post by seeds » Tue Dec 19, 2017 6:32 pm

Greta wrote:
Mon Dec 18, 2017 2:32 am
Another thought (yeah, the red "crayon" and messy quotes are hard to read - I gave up after a while).

To quote Richard Feynman about how humans view themselves:
It doesn't seem to me that this fantastically marvellous universe, this tremendous range of time and space and different kinds of animals, and all the different planets, and all these atoms with all their motions, and so on, all this complicated thing can merely be a stage so that God can watch human beings struggle for good and evil — which is the view that religion has. The stage is too big for the drama.
Hence my never-ending and, no doubt, irritating insistence of the need for a “new spiritual paradigm” to supersede and replace the old religious nonsense referenced by Feynman.
_______

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 991
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Hello & the "riddle" of Epicurus

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Thu Dec 21, 2017 1:53 am

seeds wrote:
Tue Dec 19, 2017 6:32 pm
Greta wrote:
Mon Dec 18, 2017 2:32 am
Another thought (yeah, the red "crayon" and messy quotes are hard to read - I gave up after a while).

To quote Richard Feynman about how humans view themselves:
It doesn't seem to me that this fantastically marvellous universe, this tremendous range of time and space and different kinds of animals, and all the different planets, and all these atoms with all their motions, and so on, all this complicated thing can merely be a stage so that God can watch human beings struggle for good and evil — which is the view that religion has. The stage is too big for the drama.
Hence my never-ending and, no doubt, irritating insistence of the need for a “new spiritual paradigm” to supersede and replace the old religious nonsense referenced by Feynman.
_______
I don't know so much about replacing them, considering they did provide foundations for our modern views (catholics and big bang, innocence before being prove guilty, Islam and Algebra, Paganism and Astronomy), but rather extended.

seeds
Posts: 389
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 9:31 pm

Re: Hello & the "riddle" of Epicurus

Post by seeds » Thu Dec 21, 2017 6:13 am

seeds wrote: Hence my never-ending and, no doubt, irritating insistence of the need for a “new spiritual paradigm” to supersede and replace the old religious nonsense referenced by Feynman.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Thu Dec 21, 2017 1:53 am
I don't know so much about replacing them, considering they did provide foundations for our modern views (catholics and big bang, innocence before being prove guilty, Islam and Algebra, Paganism and Astronomy), but rather extended.
I said replace the “nonsense,” not the good stuff.

I’m talking about the nonsense that implies that if every human on earth were to die in the next five minutes and discover that life does indeed continue on for us in a higher context, that some humans would receive preferential treatment depending on what religion they belonged to.

Or the nonsense that in any way, shape, or form resembles that which is depicted in the following illustration...

Image

(For a clearer view of the dialogue, click on the following link and expand the image:
http://www.theultimateseeds.com/Images/ ... 20hell.jpg)


And that's just a couple of examples off the top of my head.

Can you think of some others?
_______

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 991
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Hello & the "riddle" of Epicurus

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Fri Dec 22, 2017 3:17 am

seeds wrote:
Thu Dec 21, 2017 6:13 am
seeds wrote: Hence my never-ending and, no doubt, irritating insistence of the need for a “new spiritual paradigm” to supersede and replace the old religious nonsense referenced by Feynman.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Thu Dec 21, 2017 1:53 am
I don't know so much about replacing them, considering they did provide foundations for our modern views (catholics and big bang, innocence before being prove guilty, Islam and Algebra, Paganism and Astronomy), but rather extended.
I said replace the “nonsense,” not the good stuff.

I’m talking about the nonsense that implies that if every human on earth were to die in the next five minutes and discover that life does indeed continue on for us in a higher context, that some humans would receive preferential treatment depending on what religion they belonged to.

Or the nonsense that in any way, shape, or form resembles that which is depicted in the following illustration...

Image

(For a clearer view of the dialogue, click on the following link and expand the image:
http://www.theultimateseeds.com/Images/ ... 20hell.jpg)


And that's just a couple of examples off the top of my head.

Can you think of some others?
_______
Maybe we should ask the dead:

https://www.bing.com/search?q=nde+resea ... B65C717867

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 543
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: Hello & the "riddle" of Epicurus

Post by -1- » Fri Dec 22, 2017 4:12 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Fri Dec 22, 2017 3:17 am
Maybe we should ask the dead:
And if the dead are reluctant or slow to answer, we could send them to Quantanimo Bay to expedite the responses. :-)

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 991
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Hello & the "riddle" of Epicurus

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Sat Dec 23, 2017 1:38 am

-1- wrote:
Fri Dec 22, 2017 4:12 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Fri Dec 22, 2017 3:17 am
Maybe we should ask the dead:
And if the dead are reluctant or slow to answer, we could send them to Quantanimo Bay to expedite the responses. :-)
Is shocking them back to life any different?

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 543
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: Hello & the "riddle" of Epicurus

Post by -1- » Sat Dec 23, 2017 2:18 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sat Dec 23, 2017 1:38 am

Is shocking them back to life any different?
We have to call Peter Gabriel.

("Shock the Monkey")

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest