I've heard from some people, not all atheists, that he's a gigantic white man, with all-white long hair and a long, white, beard. And with an olde worlde english accent.
He's said to live in the sky and is supposed to know quite a few tricks, and generally tends to favour whoever has most the cash and biggest military machine on earth at any given time.
Well, whoever he is, He's NOT God - the quintessence of existence! **************************************************** 12-26-06, 12:16 PM babthrower He may not be everybody's god but he's lots of people's god. To every man his own quintessence.
12-26-06, 02:08 PM newnickname I've heard from some people that God is the quintessence of existence.
It's said to be related to glass bottles somehow, and you can prove its reality by typing in bold and CAPITALS.
Well, whatever he is, the quintessence of existence is not God.
What about the sextessence of existence!?
How can you have a quintessence without first having a sextessence! The idea is ridiculous!
Lok around you; things prove the existence of things. Without things there can be no things! Therefore, without a sextessence there can be no quintessence!
12-26-06, 02:12 PM GarColga
quote: Originally posted by ZIK: Well, whoever he is, He's NOT God - the quintessence of existence!
'god' is something conjured up by pre-scientific people to help explain the natural world.
12-26-06, 02:19 PM ZIK
quote: Originally posted by GarColga:
quote: Originally posted by ZIK: Well, whoever he is, He's NOT God - the quintessence of existence!
'god' is something conjured up by pre-scientific people to help explain the natural world.
This is your definition of the word of-course, eh?
12-26-06, 02:33 PM babthrower Sometimes when things get just a bit too surreal, it's a good idea to define some terms.
A "god" is the subject of veneration and reverence of those people whom we call 'theists'. A theist is merely someone who respects, venerates, adores, believes in the existence, of some being who may or may not exist.
But not all theists believe in all gods. In fact often a theist will believe in one particular god, or one set of related gods, while being an atheist concerning all other gods.
Zik's preoccupation with 'quint'essentiality suggests to me that his pantheon consists of five gods, not the three of the Christian trinity or even the one of Judaism.
Anyway, whatever he believes in, Zik will insist we all believe as he does. To my suggestion that tolerance is 'a good thing',
"To every man his own quintessence",
Zik replied, "Sorry, choice doesn't come into it here."
Zik, I have to inform you that you do not have superpowers and cannot command us. It's good that you are just an imaginary being, because otherwise we might take your grandiosity seriously.
12-26-06, 02:38 PM ZIK
quote: Originally posted by babthrower: Sometimes when things get just a bit too surreal, it's a good idea to define some terms.
A "god" is the subject of veneration and reverence of those people whom we call 'theists'. A theist is merely someone who respects, venerates, adores, believes in the existence, of some being who may or may not exist.
But not all theists believe in all gods. In fact often a theist will believe in one particular god, or one set of related gods, while being an atheist concerning all other gods.
Zik's preoccupation with 'quint'essentiality suggests to me that his pantheon consists of five gods, not the three of the Christian trinity or even the one of Judaism.
Anyway, whatever he believes in, Zik will insist we all believe as he does. To my suggestion that tolerance is 'a good thing',
"To every man his own quintessence",
Zik replied, "Sorry, choice doesn't come into it here."
Zik, I have to inform you that you do not have superpowers and cannot command us. It's good that you are just an imaginary being, because otherwise we might take your grandiosity seriously.
You're entitled to your definition of "god". I do not share it.
And, I'm not commanding anyone. Just pointing out immovable facts with irresistible logic. That's all. NO ONE can eat Xmas turkey before they even exist. That's just an absurd flight of fancy, isn't it?
12-26-06, 04:40 PM newnickname It's kind of annoying that you guys have hi-jacked my serious discussion of the sextessence of existence for such a poultry topic.
12-26-06, 05:01 PM Insaf
quote: Originally posted by newnickname: It's kind of annoying that you guys have hi-jacked my serious discussion of the sextessence of existence for such a poultry topic.
What is sextessence?
12-26-06, 06:18 PM newnickname
quote: What is sextessence?
Zik talks of 'the quintessence of existence', and basically demands that this 'quintessence' must exist because (in his opinion) existence must have a precursor.
'Quintessence' actually means the 'fifth essence'. 'Sextessence' is a made-up word, meaning 'sixth essence'. If Zik can demand that existence have a precursor, which he calls a 'quintessence', then why shouldn't there also be a 'sextessence', a precursor to the precursor? (This is actually yet another very old and well-worn argument.)
However, it's also true that if we started to market our respective ideas as colognes (Zik would say "Aftershaves, Gorblimey, Mary Poppins!"), I think mine would have a head start.
12-26-06, 06:39 PM ZIK
quote: Originally posted by newnickname:
quote: What is sextessence?
Zik talks of 'the quintessence of existence', and basically demands that this 'quintessence' must exist because (in his opinion) existence must have a precursor.
'Quintessence' actually means the 'fifth essence'. 'Sextessence' is a made-up word, meaning 'sixth essence'. If Zik can demand that existence have a precursor, which he calls a 'quintessence', then why shouldn't there also be a 'sextessence', a precursor to the precursor? (This is actually yet another very old and well-worn argument.)
However, it's also true that if we started to market our respective ideas as colognes (Zik would say "Aftershaves, Gorblimey, Mary Poppins!"), I think mine would have a head start.
You're beginning to sound a little desperate. I've already presented this definition of "quintessence" - and pointed out that I'm referring to 2 & 3 in particular:
quintessence One entry found for quintessence.
Main Entry: quin·tes·sence Pronunciation: kwin-'te-s&n(t)s Function: noun Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French quinte essence, from Medieval Latin quinta essentia, literally, fifth essence 1 : the fifth and highest element in ancient and medieval philosophy that permeates all nature and is the substance composing the celestial bodies 2 : the essence of a thing in its purest and most concentrated form 3 : the most typical example or representative - quin·tes·sen·tial /"kwin-t&-'sen(t)-sh&l/ adjective - quin·tes·sen·tial·ly adverb
12-26-06, 07:03 PM babthrower Yeah, the Christian Scholastics, in the middle ages, babbled on and on about such airy nothings to justify the philosophy of the pagan, Aristotle, which they hoped to integrate somehow. They thought it would give Christian philosophy a little more class.
The 'quintessence' was theorized to be latent in all things; for example the sun, moon, planets and stars were supposed to be made of it. It was called 'aether', and was believed by Aristotle to be somehow divine.
(The first four elements, the 'earthly' elements, were earth, air, fire and water.)
The scholastics made their efforts at integration a time when all of metaphysics (the precursor of physics and in fact of all modern science) was based on these assumptions.
Now we know that there are many more than five elements.
Earth is not one element, but many: iron, silicon, etc.
Water is a molecule made up of two elements, hydrogen and oxygen.
Air is a mixture of mostly two elements: nitrogen and oxygen.
Fire is not an element at all, but is a state of matter in which energy is emitted in the form of heat and light.
The heavenly bodies are not made of 'aether', the quintessence, but of varying substances. The sun is mostly hydrogen, comets may be mostly ice, but with some heavier solids (elements and mixtures). Even cosmic rays, which seem to pervade the universe, are made up of ionized particles.
The moon is mostly mixtures of elements and compounds, called 'rock' and 'dust' depending on the size of the lunar object.
In short, in the intervening centuries we have opted for science instead of metaphysics. It is science that we teach our children in school. Touch wood. There is a strong movement afoot to teach biology as metaphysics in the public schools.
But some of us would prefer to believe in only five elements. They prefer to cling to quaint ancient and mediaeval notions. It's a lot simpler than memorizing the periodic table. And the terms are so vague that you can use them to prove whatever you like. If you happen to be talking to idiots.
12-26-06, 07:30 PM newnickname
quote: ...and pointed out that I'm referring to 2 & 3 in particular
God is "the most typical example or representative" of existence? What other examples or representatives of existence are there? God, in this sense, must be to existence as Coca-Cola is to fizzy drinks. 12-26-06, 08:01 PM ZIK
quote: Originally posted by newnickname:
quote: ...and pointed out that I'm referring to 2 & 3 in particular
God is "the most typical example or representative" of existence? What other examples or representatives of existence are there? God, in this sense, must be to existence as Coca-Cola is to fizzy drinks.
God alone exists UNCONDITIONALLY! - AUTONOMOUSLY! What else is more representative of existence than that? Indeed, is there even ANYTHING as representative of existence as that? Of-course not!
12-26-06, 08:08 PM ZIK
quote: Originally posted by babthrower: Yeah, the Christian Scholastics, in the middle ages, babbled on and on about such airy nothings to justify the philosophy of the pagan, Aristotle, which they hoped to integrate somehow. They thought it would give Christian philosophy a little more class.
The 'quintessence' was theorized to be latent in all things; for example the sun, moon, planets and stars were supposed to be made of it. It was called 'aether', and was believed by Aristotle to be somehow divine.
(The first four elements, the 'earthly' elements, were earth, air, fire and water.)
The scholastics made their efforts at integration a time when all of metaphysics (the precursor of physics and in fact of all modern science) was based on these assumptions.
Now we know that there are many more than five elements.
Earth is not one element, but many: iron, silicon, etc.
Water is a molecule made up of two elements, hydrogen and oxygen.
Air is a mixture of mostly two elements: nitrogen and oxygen.
Fire is not an element at all, but is a state of matter in which energy is emitted in the form of heat and light.
The heavenly bodies are not made of 'aether', the quintessence, but of varying substances. The sun is mostly hydrogen, comets may be mostly ice, but with some heavier solids (elements and mixtures). Even cosmic rays, which seem to pervade the universe, are made up of ionized particles.
The moon is mostly mixtures of elements and compounds, called 'rock' and 'dust' depending on the size of the lunar object.
In short, in the intervening centuries we have opted for science instead of metaphysics. It is science that we teach our children in school. Touch wood. There is a strong movement afoot to teach biology as metaphysics in the public schools.
But some of us would prefer to believe in only five elements. They prefer to cling to quaint ancient and mediaeval notions. It's a lot simpler than memorizing the periodic table. And the terms are so vague that you can use them to prove whatever you like. If you happen to be talking to idiots.
What's all this in aid of? The archaic definition of "quintessence" doesn't come into this AT ALL!
By the way, do you know what the archaic definition of "atheist" is? Would you opt to use it also?
12-26-06, 09:08 PM babthrower Yes I know what the oldest definition of atheist is, in English. It's the same now as when it was coined in 1571 (in English). When it was used by the Greeks, it meant what it does now, in English.
So, sure, use it all you like.
Now tell us, once more, please, Zik, about your advanced knowledge of physics.
12-26-06, 10:29 PM newnickname
quote: God alone exists UNCONDITIONALLY! - AUTONOMOUSLY!
Alone? But, according to your favoured definition (#3), God is the most typical example or representative of something (existence, or the essence of it, or whatever).
In any case, it's impossible for anything to be 'the most typical example or representative' of something unless there are at least a handful of other examples or representatives, not so typical. If he's alone, God would be the only example or representative. How many Gods are you proposing?
Maybe you shouldn't have picked a fancy word like 'quintessential', with all its history and nuances. What's wrong with clarity and simplicity?
It's all so confused that I'm beginning to wonder if we haven't been picking you up wrongly from the start. Have you maybe been saying that God is a glass bottle? That his love is the pop that fills the bottle, or some such? Are you sure Hallmark Cards hasn't beaten you to that idea?
Just trying to help. Smile
Anyway, how do you know that the sextessence of existence isn't the thing that exists alone and autonomously? How can you have a quintessence without a sextessence?
12-26-06, 11:27 PM newnickname Actually this maybe makes things clearer:
'We tend to think of God as a big man with a beard, or some sort of powerful "person" like a human being, although one who can do amazing things. This is just the childish version, it is conditioned in our thinking by a pedestrian approach to religion...
...One of the sophisticated concepts used by great Christian theologians is that of "The Ground of Being." This concept indicates, not that God is the fact of things existing, but that God is the basis for the existence of all things. God is more fundamental to existing things than anything else. So fundamental to the existence of all things is God, that God can be thought of as the basis upon which things exist, the ground their being. To say that God is The ground of being or being itself, is to say that there is something we can sense that is so special about the nature of being that it hints at this fundamental reality upon which all else is based.'The Ground of all Being
'...Tillich concludes that radically finite beings (which are, at least potentially, infinite in variation) cannot be sustained or caused by another finite or existing being. What can sustain finite beings is being itself, or the "ground of being". This Tillich identifies as God. Much of Tillich's phenomenological language with regard to being can be traced back to Martin Heidegger, with whom Tillich was in contact prior to 1933. Tillich also utilized some of the basic framework of Heidegger's fundamental ontology in the discussion on Being and God in the Systematic Theology.
Another name for the ground of being is essence. Essence is thought of as the power of being, and is forever unassailable by the conscious mind. As such it remains beyond the realm of thought, preserving the need for revelation in the Christian tradition.
Contrasted to essence but dependent upon it is existence. Existence is that which is finite. Essence is the infinite. Since existence is being and essence is the ground of being, then essence is the ground or source of existence...'
Hey, I mentioned the ground of all being way back at the beginning of Zik's blizzard of posts. I claim a cigar or coconut for being the first to work out what he's on about.
And, Zik, you can relax; your big idea is already out there.
12-27-06, 03:13 AM ZIK
quote: Originally posted by newnickname:
quote: God alone exists UNCONDITIONALLY! - AUTONOMOUSLY!
Alone? But, according to your favoured definition (#3), God is the most typical example or representative of something (existence, or the essence of it, or whatever).
In any case, it's impossible for anything to be 'the most typical example or representative' of something unless there are at least a handful of other examples or representatives, not so typical. If he's alone, God would be the only example or representative. How many Gods are you proposing?
Maybe you shouldn't have picked a fancy word like 'quintessential', with all its history and nuances. What's wrong with clarity and simplicity?
It's all so confused that I'm beginning to wonder if we haven't been picking you up wrongly from the start. Have you maybe been saying that God is a glass bottle? That his love is the pop that fills the bottle, or some such? Are you sure Hallmark Cards hasn't beaten you to that idea?
Just trying to help. Smile
Anyway, how do you know that the sextessence of existence isn't the thing that exists alone and autonomously? How can you have a quintessence without a sextessence?
Hahahahhaahha! I'm sure you understand what I'm saying now. You're just looking for chinks in the armour which don't exist. Enjoy. But I'm CERTAIN you've grasped my point.
12-27-06, 03:26 AM ZIK
quote: Originally posted by newnickname: Actually this maybe makes things clearer:
'We tend to think of God as a big man with a beard, or some sort of powerful "person" like a human being, although one who can do amazing things. This is just the childish version, it is conditioned in our thinking by a pedestrian approach to religion...
...One of the sophisticated concepts used by great Christian theologians is that of "The Ground of Being." This concept indicates, not that God is the fact of things existing, but that God is the basis for the existence of all things. God is more fundamental to existing things than anything else. So fundamental to the existence of all things is God, that God can be thought of as the basis upon which things exist, the ground their being. To say that God is The ground of being or being itself, is to say that there is something we can sense that is so special about the nature of being that it hints at this fundamental reality upon which all else is based.' The Ground of all Being
And so on. No mention of glass bottles, though.
There's more at wikipedia:
'...Tillich concludes that radically finite beings (which are, at least potentially, infinite in variation) cannot be sustained or caused by another finite or existing being. What can sustain finite beings is being itself, or the "ground of being". This Tillich identifies as God. Much of Tillich's phenomenological language with regard to being can be traced back to Martin Heidegger, with whom Tillich was in contact prior to 1933. Tillich also utilized some of the basic framework of Heidegger's fundamental ontology in the discussion on Being and God in the Systematic Theology.
Another name for the ground of being is essence. Essence is thought of as the power of being, and is forever unassailable by the conscious mind. As such it remains beyond the realm of thought, preserving the need for revelation in the Christian tradition.
Contrasted to essence but dependent upon it is existence. Existence is that which is finite. Essence is the infinite. Since existence is being and essence is the ground of being, then essence is the ground or source of existence...'
Hey, I mentioned the ground of all being way back at the beginning of Zik's blizzard of posts. I claim a cigar or coconut for being the first to work out what he's on about.
And, Zik, you can relax; your big idea is already out there.
Hahhahahaah! As I said, you've grasped it! And, no, its not MY idea. It's older than time! I just grew anxious it was being suppressed and distorted in the concepts of humanity today. If I wanted to claim it as my idea, would I talk about it here, on the Internet, anonymously? I'd put it all in a book like Dawkins and sell it, wouldn't I?
No, I claim no ownership of the idea at all! I merely serve it! And, I'm content with serving it - and proud to do so - because by so doing, I can help bring about genuine peace and understanding around me. And put an end to the disquiet which is unavoidable with ignorance about the truth.
12-27-06, 03:36 AM ZIK
quote: Originally posted by babthrower: Yes I know what the oldest definition of atheist is, in English. It's the same now as when it was coined in 1571 (in English). When it was used by the Greeks, it meant what it does now, in English.
So, sure, use it all you like.
Now tell us, once more, please, Zik, about your advanced knowledge of physics.
So you accept the archaic definition of "atheism" here? You think atheists are wicked?
atheism
One entry found for atheism.
Main Entry: athe·ism Pronunciation: 'A-thE-"i-z&m Function: noun Etymology: Middle French athéisme, from athée atheist, from Greek atheos godless, from a- + theos god 1 archaic : UNGODLINESS, WICKEDNESS 2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity
12-27-06, 08:56 AM babthrower I accept that some mediaeval Frenchmen thought atheists were wicked, of course. In those days a person could be publicly executed in France for believing in Jehovah as the one god as opposed to believing in the trinity.
I can't recall reading of any atheists executed for their atheism, though. Probably they had the sense to lie about their beliefs, or quickly recant once their feet were to the fire. Only a theist would maintain his beliefs publicly to the death.
I also accept that many people today think that atheists are wicked. That is because we ground our ethics based on human values, rather than the supposed wishes of a supposed deity or deities.
But I also know that these same people consider many other kinds of theists to be wicked, because their 'model' of what the god is, is different, if even slightly.
So? What does that have to do with the fact that the male god-figure you mock and deny in your initial post is precisely the god that many religious people in the world revere, adore, and fear?
12-27-06, 09:35 AM newnickname
quote: No, I claim no ownership of the idea at all! I merely serve it!
And yet you can't resist talking about "my point" in the directly preceding post. (Your glee there is a little late. Like millions of others, I had grasped Tillich's point long ago.)
How do you serve Tillich's idea by obscuring it with fancy words grubbed from the dictionary, and adding illogical analogies about glass bottles and the like? Couldn't you just have provided us with a link to Tillich's ideas, with maybe just a little introduction of your own? In all your recent posts I haven't seen one acknowledgment of Tillich. Not very gentlemanly, eh?
'I prefer to hear directly from the horses mouth as it were.' Zik. Maybe we do, too.
12-27-06, 09:50 AM ZIK
quote: Originally posted by newnickname:
quote: No, I claim no ownership of the idea at all! I merely serve it!
And yet you can't resist talking about "my point" in the directly preceding post. (Your glee there is a little late. Like millions of others, I had grasped Tillich's point long ago.)
How do you serve Tillich's idea by obscuring it with fancy words grubbed from the dictionary, and adding illogical analogies about glass bottles and the like? Couldn't you just have provided us with a link to Tillich's ideas, with maybe just a little introduction of your own? In all your recent posts I haven't seen one acknowledgment of Tillich. Not very gentlemanly, eh?
'I prefer to hear directly from the horses mouth as it were.' Zik. Maybe we do, too.
With respect, it's NOT Tillich's idea! It's as old as time! I merely found it - NOT with Tillich. Just by exercising my ability to think. I don't even know who the fellow is.
12-27-06, 09:56 AM ZIK
quote: Originally posted by babthrower: I accept that some mediaeval Frenchmen thought atheists were wicked, of course. In those days a person could be publicly executed in France for believing in Jehovah as the one god as opposed to believing in the trinity.
I can't recall reading of any atheists executed for their atheism, though. Probably they had the sense to lie about their beliefs, or quickly recant once their feet were to the fire. Only a theist would maintain his beliefs publicly to the death.
I also accept that many people today think that atheists are wicked. That is because we ground our ethics based on human values, rather than the supposed wishes of a supposed deity or deities.
But I also know that these same people consider many other kinds of theists to be wicked, because their 'model' of what the god is, is different, if even slightly.
So? What does that have to do with the fact that the male god-figure you mock and deny in your initial post is precisely the god that many religious people in the world revere, adore, and fear?
I'm just asking for consistency. If you prefer archaic meanings then stick to them. If you prefer modern ones, stick to them.
12-27-06, 10:31 AM babthrower NNN, I honestly think that Zik did not plagiarize Tillich. (I think you are foxily making this point! Wink) But just to clarify...
The notions in Tillich and others who have done post-classical and post-Scholastic metaphysics are all re-worked Aristotle.
The idea of the Prime Mover:
- Everything we see in nature has a cause, so we must posit a prime cause, or else we have infinite regress, which is absurd;
The idea of matter and spirit as distinct:
(This also has some roots in Gnosticism, of course) and that matter is inferior, essentially, to spirit because spirit is 'aetherial', more refined (as in alchemy, more sublimated) therefore the superior gives rise to the inferior because the obverse, that matter gives rise to spirit, would be absurd;
and so forth.
These notions sort of drift around, unaware of their pagan and 'heretical' (in the case of Gnosticism) roots, and have done since the Reformation. So there's sort of a Catholic hangover in modern Christianity of all stripes, and we see this in such notions as those which Zik is attempting to introduce here as if it is his own intuition. "I merely found it ... by exercising my ability to think."
This metaphysical analysis of the phenomena of human experience takes us all far, far beyond the original Jehovah, where it all began.
Jehovah was a sweaty kind of god, he had tantrums, he absolutely did not foresee the results of his own actions, he was a shepherd-king, he was just your typical tribal god who walked the earth and smote the enemy (if you pleased him) and smote you (if you didn't).
Then Paul (Are you listening, JR?) went to Corinth and had his eyes opened. Jehovah was tidied up, barbered, his scratchy flea-ridden woolen tunic traded for a linen toga, and taught table manners.
This process continued until after many centuries we have a god who is pure spirit, essential, clean. The late medieval church authorities did not allow the hoi polloi to read the bible because there were too many incongruities!
The notion of the trinity, patched together to overcome the incongruousness of Jehovah who insists he is the only god, and then a son who if he is not divine is merely a Jewish freedom-fighter, etc., etc.
And from the point of view of Christian unity they were right! Because from the minute the bible was in print, the Great Interpretation Wars began, and so now there are so many Christian sects it is a problem to count and differentiate them all.
Because mixed up way, way beyond the ability of anyone to unravel, with the scriptures and apostles' creeds and other early documents themselves (many of which have been tampered with to bring them into line with post-Jewish thought, for example the filioque amendment) are notions from all sorts of pagan origins.
12-27-06, 10:36 AM ZIK
quote: Originally posted by babthrower: NNN, I honestly think that Zik did not plagiarize Tillich. (I think you are foxily making this point! Wink) But just to clarify...
The notions in Tillich and others who have done post-classical and post-Scholastic metaphysics are all re-worked Aristotle.
The idea of the Prime Mover:
- Everything we see in nature has a cause, so we must posit a prime cause, or else we have infinite regress, which is absurd;
The idea of matter and spirit as distinct:
(This also has some roots in Gnosticism, of course) and that matter is inferior, essentially, to spirit because spirit is 'aetherial', more refined (as in alchemy, more sublimated) therefore the superior gives rise to the inferior because the obverse, that matter gives rise to spirit, would be absurd;
and so forth.
These notions sort of drift around, unaware of their pagan and 'heretical' (in the case of Gnosticism) roots, and have done since the Reformation. So there's sort of a Catholic hangover in modern Christianity of all stripes, and we see this in such notions as those which Zik is attempting to introduce here as if it is his own intuition. "I merely found it ... by exercising my ability to think."
This metaphysical analysis of the phenomena of human experience takes us all far, far beyond the original Jehovah, where it all began.
Jehovah was a sweaty kind of god, he had tantrums, he absolutely did not foresee the results of his own actions, he was a shepherd-king, he was just your typical tribal god who walked the earth and smote the enemy (if you pleased him) and smote you if you didn't.
Then Paul (Are you listening, JR?) went to Corinth and had his eyes opened. Jehovah was tidied up, barbered, dressed in a linen toga, and taught table manners.
This process continued until after many centuries we have a god who is pure spirit, essential, clean. The late medieval church authorities did not allow the hoi polloi to read the bible because there were too many incongruities!
The notion of the trinity, patched together to overcome the incongruousness of Jehovah who insists he is the only god, and then a son who if he is not divine is merely a Jewish freedom-fighter, etc., etc.
And from the point of view of Christian unity they were right! Because from the minute the bible was in print, the Great Interpretation Wars began, and so now there are so many Christian sects it is a problem to count and differentiate them all.
Because mixed up way, way beyond the ability of anyone to unravel, with the scriptures and apostles' creeds and other early documents themselves (many of which have been tampered with to bring them into line with post-Jewish thought, for example the filioque )amendment) are notions from all sorts of pagan origins.
It's NOT Aristotle's idea either! Why do some of you fellows think that great concepts can only come from white people - just as some of you think God is white? These concepts have been known since there were human beings! And even BEFORE! - But that's another issue.
12-27-06, 10:42 AM babthrower There, there, Zik, take six or seven deep breaths. Maybe god is a woman! An oriental woman!
But I mistook you. I thought you were meaning that your god is a spirit: an essense of some sort.
But you're right that Aristotle perhaps did not originate, but merely codified some of the metaphysical ideas we can find in his tradition. But he is the oldest source we know, at any rate.
12-27-06, 10:42 AM newnickname
quote: NNN, I honestly think that Zik did not plagiarize Tillich.
Yes, I agree. One thing about Mahal, his ideas are always home grown and original; quintessential cracker-barrel philosophy.
Tillich puts the idea a lot better though, and did it first.
12-27-06, 11:05 AM ZIK
quote: Originally posted by babthrower: There, there, Zik, take six or seven deep breaths. Maybe god is a woman! An oriental woman!
But I mistook you. I thought you were meaning that your god is a spirit: an essense of some sort.
But you're right that Aristotle perhaps did not originate, but merely codified some of the metaphysical ideas we can find in his tradition. But he is the oldest source we know, at any rate.
Ok. He's the oldest source YOU and your friends know. Others know older sources.
12-27-06, 11:23 AM babthrower "Others know older sources."
Ooooh, spooky! And do they inform you through disembodied voices? Is that how you know? You're sooooooooo lucky! The rest of us have to rely of tiresome old study! 12-27-06, 11:25 AM ZIK
quote: Originally posted by babthrower: "Others know older sources."
Ooooh, spooky! And do they inform you through disembodied voices? Is that how you know? You're sooooooooo lucky! The rest of us have to rely of tiresome old study!
You mean you can't think for yourselves? What makes an idea more reliable because it's in a book?
12-27-06, 12:06 PM babthrower Zik wonders,
quote: What makes an idea more reliable because it's in a book?
When I say Aristotle said something, I have a source to refer to that shows that he actually did say it, to the best of our knowledge.
When you say that some vague entity said it before Aristotle, but can make no attribution, all we have is your bare word for it. So we can conclude that you just made it up. Or hallucinated it, since I don't want to impugn your sincerity.
Hint: In any adult discussion it is considered good form to back up your statements. Unless the statements are original to yourself. But in that case you would be older than Aristotle. Somehow I doubt that. But then I'm a skeptic.
12-27-06, 12:09 PM ZIK
quote: Originally posted by babthrower: Zik wonders,
quote: What makes an idea more reliable because it's in a book?
When I say Aristotle said something, I have a source to refer to that shows that he actually did say it, to the best of our knowledge.
When you say that some vague entity said it before Aristotle, but can make no attribution, all we have is your bare word for it. So we can conclude that you just made it up. Or hallucinated it, since I don't want to impugn your sincerity.
Hint: In any adult discussion it is considered good form to back up your statements. Unless the statements are original to yourself. But in that case you would be older than Aristotle. Somehow I doubt that. But then I'm a skeptic.
I actually, prefer to think for myself than ride on the barely understood ideas of others. I'm quite capable of discovering ideas for myself - independently of Aristotle or ANYONE ELSE! Aren't you?
12-27-06, 12:51 PM ZIK
quote: Originally posted by babthrower: Zik asks: "So are you saying you're incapable of thinking for yourself?"
Well hardly. With the excellent examples of independent thought I have just demonstrated in my last post. Get real, will you?
I hardly call incessantly quoting the works of others, without demonstrating any understanding of them, "independent thought".
12-27-06, 01:27 PM newnickname Zik, you seem to be a little confused. On the one hand, you claim to be a humble vessel in the service of ancient ideas which are floating around in the ether, merely passing them on to us.
On the other hand, you're a mighty and independent thinker who can dazzle us all, without ever having cracked open a book or recognised any previous thinkers.
Which is it?
12-27-06, 01:36 PM ZIK
quote: Originally posted by newnickname: Zik, you seem to be a little confused. On the one hand, you claim to be a humble vessel in the service of ancient ideas which are floating around in the ether, merely passing them on to us.
On the other hand, you're a mighty and independent thinker who can dazzle us all, without ever having cracked open a book or recognised any previous thinkers.
Which is it?
Both. The concepts are there. But you must reach out for them yourself with the power of thought. They won't just drop in your lap you know.
12-27-06, 02:01 PM newnickname Care to point out the differences, o mighty thinker?
12-27-06, 02:05 PM ZIK
quote: Originally posted by newnickname: Care to point out the differences, o mighty thinker?
For one thing, they all confuse Existence with Manifestation. Manifestation is only a part of Existence - and has issued from out of the Quintessence of Existence.
12-27-06, 02:13 PM newnickname Really? I don't think so. Where does Tillich confuse 'existence' with 'manifestation'?
12-27-06, 02:19 PM ZIK
quote: Originally posted by newnickname: Really? I don't think so. Where does Tillich confuse 'existence' with 'manifestation'?
Read your own posts about Tillich et al. Don't just quote links without knowing what they point to.
12-27-06, 03:42 PM newnickname Smile I'll take that as a "don't know". Actually Tillich does not confuse 'existence' with 'manifestation'. Why on earth would he?
'He's a lazy thinker for taking a firm position before he's obtained conclusive evidence to support it.' Zik
In this case, it's obvious you said something about Tillich - who you didn't even know this morning - without having anything to back it up.
Bluster your way out of it if you must. Roll Eyes
12-27-06, 04:00 PM ZIK
quote: Originally posted by newnickname: Smile I'll take that as a "don't know". Actually Tillich does not confuse 'existence' with 'manifestation'. Why on earth would he?
'He's a lazy thinker for taking a firm position before he's obtained conclusive evidence to support it.' Zik
In this case, it's obvious you said something about Tillich - who you didn't even know this morning - without having anything to back it up.
Bluster your way out of it if you must. Roll Eyes
You really are scraping the barrel now trying to find faults in my logic that don't exist, aren't you?
12-27-06, 04:35 PM newnickname What logic? You've only made assertions, illustrated by shaky analogies.
12-27-06, 04:40 PM ZIK
quote: Originally posted by newnickname: What logic? You've only made assertions, illustrated by shaky analogies.
Not at all. Your attempts to refute my arguments led you into absurdities like claiming you could eat turkey even before you existed, didn't they? That shows just how immovable and irresistible my logic is.
12-27-06, 06:04 PM newnickname
quote: That shows just how immovable and irresistible my logic is.
Actually I thought that that episode mostly showed your unwillingess to think outside the box. Smile
You haven't made logical arguments - just assertions. If you think you have actually strung together a logical sequence of ideas, let's see it.
(Yes, yes, I know - it's up to us to find it somehwere in your last hundred posts. The search will be good for us...)
12-27-06, 06:17 PM FredPuli
quote: Originally posted by ZIK:
It's NOT Aristotle's idea either! Why do some of you fellows think that great concepts can only come from white people - just as some of you think God is white? These concepts have been known since there were human beings! And even BEFORE! - But that's another issue.
"You fellows"? Please don't go accusing us of racist , white supremacist tendencies, without some evidence. Which of us has suggested that we think that God is white (granted that everyone knows that God is an Englishman, but he could be a black Englishman) or that great concepts only come from white people ?
Any more of that and I shall point out that anyone who says " you fellows" must be someone whose ancestry is from outside the British Isles: the phrase belongs nowadays only with people whose ancestry is from the old British Empire, particularly the Indian sub-continent and East Africa. So ex hypothesi God is not of their nation and they can't speak with authority Big Grin So there!
12-28-06, 01:48 AM Toni B Oh guys, you've made my morning! I don't often read long threads all the way through, but this one had me howling with laughter.
Zik, I'll fight to the death for everyone's right to their own beliefs as long as they hurt no-one in the process, but it riles me when people have such a vocal certainty of their own "truth" over everyone else's. I think you are dealing with a lot of very bright people here and mere personal, evangelical feelings about your brand of belief are not going to get you through.
I don't profess to any certainties, merely travel hopefully.
12-28-06, 02:34 AM ZIK I agree. If one believes they can eat turkey without existing first, nothing they have to say can be trusted.
If they don't know either way, what can they possibly know?
12-29-06, 01:45 AM Toni B Zik, "If they don't know either way, what can they possibly know?"
There lies the difference friend. I would rather the unsure person, traveling hopefully, thinking deeply and wondering than the fanatic, certain of his 'rightness', not just in religion, but in pretty well everything. The only certainty I profess to is that of my love for my children and a few dear friends (one of them a very committed Christian).
The Christian "God the loving father" is a beautiful idea, but, if true, has been swamped by the millions who can only see the "God of retribution and punishment". Sure, there are sadly many parents who punish their children with great cruelty, but to make a god in that image is, to me, horrifying.
12-29-06, 03:55 PM Silja
quote: Originally posted by Toni B: Sure, there are sadly many parents who punish their children with great cruelty, but to make a god in that image is, to me, horrifying.
Toni, I don't think that is the image the Old Testament portrays- the strict father figure aspect of G_d represented there is stern, and will punish harshyly, but because He loves us, not because he is cruel. But that is a discussion for the Western Religion forum
This message has been edited. Last edited by: DorianGreyed,
AnswerPool.com 
