Philosophy Now Forum

Look, I appreciate the good things in Christianity, It doesn't seem to me that you even know what these things are. I hate to guess, but I think you must have a very poor acquaintance indeed with this subject. And though I can't say what this acquaintance is, I'm absolutely certain my own is far mo...

Sorry, no: political ideology is mankind's most dangerous institution. Science has caused no wars; and while it is the *instrument* of environmental destruction, it does not determine it's own use -- humans with ideologies do that. Religion has killed no more than 7% of all the people who have died ...

From whence do we derive a moral imperative for "tolerance"? Is there an aspect of the natural world that informs us why it is necessary? Should we tolerate evil? Should we tolerate stupidity? Should we tolerate disease and defect? What is the "object" of this talk of tolerance? ...

Depends on your definition of determinism. I, for one, would disagree. Materialism is true and yet I'm a compatibilist, not a determinist. You seem unsettled over the fact that we are not, so far, putting much weight on Compatibilitism or treating it as a live option. I can't speak for others, but ...

The Christ appellation was used during his lifetime in a different way than it was used by Christendom. It was like calling Elvis the King. It just basically meant that the man had found great gifts in himself and used them to his best ability. Christians exaggerate this to the point of making Jesu...

Hell if I know exactly what I am (not exactly 'free', not exactly 'determined, not exactly the initiator of causal chains, not entirely mired in causal chains). What I do know: it's not as simple (black and white) as "choice or determinism". Well, not "Hell," I hope. :) I would ...

Not seein' how you can it both ways, Manny. If god is perfect (in all ways) then God has no need (to create). I agree. God has no *need* to create. But "need" is not one of the categories I attributed to Him. On the other hand, if He *wants* to create, who's going to stop a Supreme Being ...

There's only one infinity you can use or manipulate in any reliable way, the universe which is infinite but finite in size. In a way, this comes close to my point. Infinity is not calculable, and thus probability calculations cannot be performed upon it. Only if a problem is bounded and finite in a...

Bernard:

you'll will probably never get that.

I "get" it...I know the view very well.

I just think it's wrong.

That's a different thing.

Do you see how out of kilter that reply is to the one you just made above?

Not at all. Perhaps you should explain.

"A Supreme Being" with no need for distractions, with perfect intent, who never fails. You've described the perfect computer (which is what some suggest the universe 'is'). Not at all. I've merely listed three attributes which people might (wrongly) associate with a computer, but which ar...

Why is it a given that such a being incorporated 'meaning' into the mix (*or, that such a being give a rat's ass about you or me?). In the case of a Supreme Being, Henry, it seems highly unlikely he would need to "doodle." :) After all, doodling is what we do when we can't think of someth...

May I intrude? Given my chosen pseudonym, I can hardly be expected to forebear. The Christ is just the spirit in all of us. It's the same as the Buddha. Well, Bernard, this certainly isn't what He has said He is. So you must not be thinking of the "Christ" of the Bible, but rather of some ...

And a fun thing I once heard This sort of thing I usually ignore entirely. However, in this case I will make this exception, since so much is at stake. Do you know that you are mentioned in the Bible? Yes, it's true: Jesus Christ Himself said: "I tell you that every careless word that people s...

Our choices are determined by our DNA and the chemical reactions in our brain. Ah. Causal fallacy. Coincidence is not causality. The fact that we "have" DNA, or even the fact that when we have a particular thought certain chemicals are detectible, does not show that DNA or chemicals "...

Well, aiddon, I think it's a funny exercise we're involved in here! We're philosophizing, but the (Determinist) truth of the matter is that we cannot change our minds anyway! In fact, if we think further we realize that we can't even contribute anything to the delusion that we are changing our minds...