Stoicism vs. Materialism

Yakuda said:
Completely irrelevant.

No one but you had even hinted that anyone knows 100% about anything. What's illogical is to observe the extreme complexity and precision of the universe and suggest it just happened or wasn't designed. If we found a pencil on the ground and had no idea what it was or how it was used we couldn't conclude it just appeared. Maybe we could conclude that but wed be wrong and we are smarter then that even though we understand very little of what is.
Click to expand...

The Infinite Monkey Theorem vs design theory. https://www.justplainpolitics.com/s...Stoicism-vs-Materialism&p=5913123#post5913123
 
LiAlSi2O6 said:
How does anyone know this?
Click to expand...
No worries, Perry. You're free to believe orangutans can do integral calculus. I don't, but I could be wrong. :thup:

8h5nq0.jpg
 
Doc Dutch said:
No worries, Perry. You're free to believe orangutans can do integral calculus. I don't, but I could be wrong. :thup:

8h5nq0.jpg
Click to expand...

In a quarter century of internet forum posting I never would have predicted someone wanted to debate whether orangutans know calculus.
 
Cypress said:
In a quarter century of internet forum posting I never would have predicted someone wanted to debate whether orangutans know calculus.
Click to expand...

You need to hang out in the mentally ill forums more and stay away from those intellectual ones to find people like Perry. :thup:
 
Cypress said:
I've never said I favor the idea that the lawfulness and organization of the universe happened to blink into existence by random chance.

That seems highly unlikely to me.

An underlying rational organizing principle is one type of reasonable approach to the question.

I also think there might be other possibilities for the origin of reality our chimpanzee brains can't concieve of. Orangutans can't do integral calculus, and there may also be some upper bound on the human brain to concieve and formulate abstract or transcendental concepts.
Click to expand...

What our brains can conceive is that everything is too complex and precious to not have been designed and everything we can conceive of validates that fact.
 
Yakuda said:
What our brains can conceive is that everything is too complex and precious to not have been designed and everything we can conceive of validates that fact.
Click to expand...

Thunder, lightening, and earthquakes used to be too complex for humans to understand so we ascribed it to the gods.

An underlying organizing principle of the universe might just as well be explained by the Chinese concepts of the Tao or Li, just as well or better than invoking the god of Abraham.
 
Cypress said:
Yakuda said:
What our brains can conceive is that everything is too complex and precious to not have been designed and everything we can conceive of validates that fact.
Click to expand...
Thunder, lightening, and earthquakes used to be too complex for humans to understand so we ascribed it to the gods.

An underlying organizing principle of the universe might just as well be explained by the Chinese concepts of the Tao or Li, just as well or better than invoking the god of Abraham.
Click to expand...
Agreed that unknown forces were thought to be the work of gods. I think Yak was pushing the Intelligent Design theory.

More holistic models of the Universe seem more reasonable than Angry God model.
 
Cypress said:
Thunder, lightening, and earthquakes used to be too complex for humans to understand so we ascribed it to the gods.

An underlying organizing principle of the universe might just as well be explained by the Chinese concepts of the Tao or Li, just as well or better than invoking the god of Abraham.
Click to expand...

Then show how the Chinese concepts of Tao and Li better explain the clear and obvious "underlying organizing principle" of the universe. I'm listening.
 
Doc Dutch said:
Agreed that unknown forces were thought to be the work of gods. I think Yak was pushing the Intelligent Design theory.

More holistic models of the Universe seem more reasonable than Angry God model.
Click to expand...

The courts determined that intelligent design was a way to get the creation of the god of Abraham into school through the backdrop.

A purposeful organizing principle in the universe doesn't require or prove w god of Abraham.

Human language is extremely limited, and I tend to think we don't have either the words or the physics to explain the creation and lawfulness of the universe.


I agree that things like the Tao seem more reasonable than en angry god
 
Yakuda said:
Then show how the Chinese concepts of Tao and Li better explain the clear and obvious "underlying organizing principle" of the universe. I'm listening.
Click to expand...

Tao and Li don't presuppose a deity with providential designs specifically focused on and dedicated to homo sapiens.

That seems more reasonable to me. I'm not convinced humans have been accorded a particularly special, unique, and privileged place in the scheme of the cosmos
 
Cypress said:
Tao and Li don't presuppose a deity with providential designs specifically focused on and dedicated to homo sapiens.

That seems more reasonable to me. I'm not convinced humans have been accorded a particularly special, unique, and privileged place in the scheme of the cosmos
Click to expand...

So then neither is better at explaining the "underlying organizing principle" of the universe. I'm not sure why you even mentioned them then.

Well that's just blind adherence to a nonsensical "theology" and seems to explain why you can look at something as complex as the universe and human beings and conclude there is nothing unique about either. It all just seems like an absolute refusal to even entertain the presence of a creator. It's completely ridiculous to Iook at the differences between humans and anything else on the planet and say humans arent unique.
 
Yakuda said:
So then neither is better at explaining the "underlying organizing principle" of the universe. I'm not sure why you even mentioned them then.

Well that's just blind adherence to a nonsensical "theology" and seems to explain why you can look at something as complex as the universe and human beings and conclude there is nothing unique about either. It all just seems like an absolute refusal to even entertain the presence of a creator. It's completely ridiculous to Iook at the differences between humans and anything else on the planet and say humans arent unique.
Click to expand...

If their is a purposeful organizing principle in the universe, your belief is that there was a providential design specifically dedicated to privileging humans.

That doesn't neccesarily make sense to me. That's why more pantheistic or Eastern concepts of ultimate reality seem a little more reasonable to me, at first blush.

I have dozens of posts stating that human conciousness and ethical systems are unique on this planet.

I'm even prepared to believe it is unique in the galaxy.

I don't have enough information to be able to say the reason and rationality we are imbued with is due to providential design, or not
 
Cypress said:
If their is a purposeful organizing principle in the universe, your belief is that there was a providential design specifically dedicated to privileging humans.

That doesn't neccesarily make sense to me. That's why more pantheistic or Eastern concepts of ultimate reality seem a little more reasonable to me, at first blush.

I have dozens of posts stating that human conciousness and ethical systems are unique on this planet.

I'm even prepared to believe it is unique in the galaxy.

I don't have enough information to be able to say the reason and rationality we are imbued with is due to providential design, or not
Click to expand...

Yes because humans have a particularly unique place above all things in earth. That's patently obvious to everyone except those who refuse to acknowledge the evidence of a creator.

Why does t it make sense. The evidence is clear that the structure of humans down to the cellular level is highly structured and organized. It's either the result of a mind or pure chance. To deny the obvious is to border in insanity.
 
Yakuda said:
Yes because humans have a particularly unique place above all things in earth. That's patently obvious to everyone except those who refuse to acknowledge the evidence of a creator.

Why does t it make sense. The evidence is clear that the structure of humans down to the cellular level is highly structured and organized. It's either the result of a mind or pure chance. To deny the obvious is to border in insanity.
Click to expand...

Abiogenesis is either a miracle, or it's the result of a very rare and complex sequence of physical and chemical reactions. I'm prepared to wait and see if science can show a pathway to abiogenesis.

The two creation stories in Genesis are contradictory and filled with magical events like Adam being created from mud and Eve being created from a rib.

The reason the creation story in the Daodejing seems more reasonable to me is that it is more economical, less anthropomorphized, less mystical, and less contradictory.
 
Yakuda said:
Yes because humans have a particularly unique place above all things in earth. That's patently obvious to everyone except those who refuse to acknowledge the evidence of a creator.

Why does t it make sense. The evidence is clear that the structure of humans down to the cellular level is highly structured and organized. It's either the result of a mind or pure chance. To deny the obvious is to border in insanity.
Click to expand...

Results count. While the Universe is full of rules and those rules seem to geared toward creating more complex systems the infinite monkey theorem coupled with the multiverse theory means we could have just been lucky.

While I believe there is more to existence than the physical reality we are experiencing, that doesn't mean I believe in a god that looks like an old man on a golden throne.
 
Doc Dutch said:
No worries, Perry. You're free to believe orangutans can do integral calculus. I don't, but I could be wrong. :thup:
Click to expand...

It's an honest question. You don't know what is going on in an orangutan's brain, nor do you know the capabilities of it. So why do you accept Cypress's CLAIM (without evidence)?
 
Cypress said:
In a quarter century of internet forum posting I never would have predicted someone wanted to debate whether orangutans know calculus.
Click to expand...

Well, then you didn't understand what I said. You said they were INCAPABLE of it. I am curious how you know this. Unless you think you are PSYCHIC and can read orangutan minds. Is that literally what you think you are capable of? Wow. And you think i'm being weird.

I am fascinated how no one has ever challenged your claims. Funny but you are incapable of defending them.

Now you think you know what is the capabilities of minds you've never communicated with.

Funny.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top