Theology Question

"If I had more time I would have written less."

The earliest recorded use of the quote "If I Had More Time, I Would Have Written a Shorter Letter" comes from French mathematician and philosopher Blaise Pascal's work "Lettres Provinciales" in 1657.[1] Written in French the quote says, "Je n’ai fait celle-ci plus longue que parce que je n’ai pas eu le loisir de la faire plus courte." This translates to "I have made this longer than usual because I have not had time to make it shorter."

https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/if-i-had-more-time-i-would-have-written-a-shorter-letter
 
Cypress said:
We have several dozen art galleries here of the works of local artists. For the most part the paintings, while pretty, are actually mundane, boring, conventional, something you won't remember ten minutes after seeing it.

Great art has some kind of power and truth in it we intuitively recognize. That's what makes paintings by Picasso and Van Gogh so arresting. We remember them, and they make an impression on us
Click to expand...

I saw an El Greco in a gallery , was amazing.
 
Damocles said:
No, it isn't like that at all. Pretending that the belief in Santa or Tinkerbell is the same as a belief in god/s is a logical fallacy called 'reductio ad absurdum'. Much like Christians sometimes do to the Theory of Evolution.

This is what you do when you have no valid argument. Do better.
Click to expand...

How is it any different?
 
Damocles said:
Nah, Yeti is a better analogy than Tinkerbell is as there is equal evidence of Yeti, that of questionable eyewitness testimony.
Click to expand...
I think you miss the point. Unfalsifiable is unfalsifiable. There are no shades of grey. All unfalsifiable predicates are equivalently impossible to be shown to be false. You can no more confirm the existence of Tinkerbell without direct observation than you can confirm the existence of Yeti or of Allah. The sheer number of believers is totally irrelevant; reality is not determined by consensus.

Damocles said:
However, since you do mention it, I'm willing to go there... saying you are certain that unicorns do not exist would be about the same as a certainty that god/s do not, faeries too.
Click to expand...
I think you are confusing me with someone else. I don't claim to be certain of any non-existence. I was not the one who "went there." I share your view.
 
Frank Apisa said:
No, you are not. I certainly am not.

Now...answer the question.

Either you "believe" there are no gods...or you "believe" it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one.

Do you deny that to be the case?
Click to expand...

There is a difference between between "believing in no gods" versus "not believing in gods." One is descriptive and the other is prescriptive.
 
Damocles said:
Atheism is a belief, a certainty of something where the information given does not "prove" what they are certain of... That's not just a belief, it is faith.

Personally I believe that it doesn't matter if there is/are a god/s or not. What you say or do would not matter. This idea that this tiny place is the focus of all these beings, or a singular being, is absurd when you consider the size and depth of the universe.

When asked if God exists I would answer: I don't think it matters if I believe that God exists, it would not change whether or not this being or beings existed.
Click to expand...

Atheism is non-belief.
 
Damocles said:
Both sides of Reductio ad absurdum are taught in a logic class in colleges around the world today.
Click to expand...
Reductio ad Absurdum is a standard approach in math proofs (and in the scientific method). It is how you show that someone made/incorporated an error. You assume the error is true and you show how it leads to a contradiction.

It is exceedingly common. Reductio ad Absurdum will cease to be as commonplace when people stop making errors.
 
America said:
There is a difference between between "believing in no gods" versus "not believing in gods." One is descriptive and the other is prescriptive.
Click to expand...
You are awarded bonus points for trying. Nonetheless, Frank Apisa is not honest. He would rather enter absurd contradictions than to admit to something that requires him to learn and to grow and to ultimately change his previously stated position.

If Frank Apisa happens to not be around, write an absurd contradiction onto a piece of paper, tape it to a stone and begin to argue with it. You'll have better luck with the stone.
 
America said:
There is a difference between between "believing in no gods" versus "not believing in gods." One is descriptive and the other is prescriptive.
Click to expand...

Yeah...and there is a difference between a giraffe and a bulldozer. But that is not what was being asked.

Try answering the question. It is an important question.
 
America said:
Atheism is non-belief.
Click to expand...

Bullshit.

I am saying that anyone who uses the descriptor "atheist" does so because of a "belief."

Either they "believe" there are no gods...or they "believe" it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one.

I've asked you about that.

You have dodged the question.

Gotta wonder why you continue to dodge it.
 
IBDaMann said:
Reductio ad Absurdum is a standard approach in math proofs (and in the scientific method). It is how you show that someone made/incorporated an error. You assume the error is true and you show how it leads to a contradiction.

It is exceedingly common. Reductio ad Absurdum will cease to be as commonplace when people stop making errors.
Click to expand...

And again, it is also the name of a fallacious argument. If you are not contradicting with the opposite statement (in this case it doesn't work because the opposite statement is equally valid thus proving that the argument is valid) you are not using the math proof, you are instead using reductio ad ridiculum which is also known and taught as "reductio ad absurdum fallacy".

In the future, so that you won't get confused I will use reductio ad ridiculum, so there will be no more of this inane pretense of misunderstanding.
 
America said:
Atheism is non-belief.
Click to expand...

Agnosticism is a non-belief, it states so... "I don't believe there is enough evidence to show that god/s exist or contrariwise don't exist", that is a "non-belief". Atheism, however, is based in faith. In order to believe anything with certainty that you do not have direct evidence of you must have a "belief"... an atheist "believes" that there is no god/s.
 
America said:
How is it any different?
Click to expand...

Because the folks who created the fictional characters never said they were real. I know you sat at Peter Pan when you were three clapping away, but your folks sat in the background chuckling knowing the story was fiction.

Now, saying that faeries do not exist (not specifically one named fictional character) that is the same. We do not know what kind of life exists on other planets, you cannot be certain that they do not exist, that would be the same. Just because someone imagined a life form does not mean that somewhere we have yet to discover might have a lifeform exactly like their imagination...
 
Damocles said:
Agnosticism is a non-belief, it states so... "I don't believe there is enough evidence to show that god/s exist or contrariwise don't exist", that is a "non-belief". Atheism, however, is based in faith. In order to believe anything with certainty that you do not have direct evidence of you must have a "belief"... an atheist "believes" that there is no god/s.
Click to expand...

All depends on the idea of God or god. My idea of God comes from the Christian teaching of an ancient Jew who was God. If I was Hindu I may have idea of God as Shiva. Or God as Zeus. It is essentially a cultural concept and historically determined.
 
BidenPresident said:
All depends on the idea of God or god. My idea of God comes from the Christian teaching of an ancient Jew who was God. If I was Hindu I may have idea of God as Shiva. Or God as Zeus. It is essentially a cultural concept and historically determined.
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter which god/s. That would only matter to someone who thinks "that one" is the "real one"... Stating we are talking about "this" god or "that" pantheon of gods doesn't change my statement, nor its validity, at all.
 
So Zeus who did not create the universe is the same God as the Christian God who created the physical universe. Is that your position?

Or Shiva which is Creator and Destroyer? Shiva is Jesus? Trying to understand your point.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top