Defining what is God.

[lightgigantic]

LightGigantic:

You give a good example where a mental consideration did not recall the property of the object.

therefore mental consideration is rationalism and the object is empiricism

Two drops of water will merge together and thus become inseperable, even if their total volume will be equal to the sum of both drops.

thus defining something ultimately depends on whether one favours empiricism or rationalism (they have a tendency to contradict one another)

This is all fine and good and can occur. The idea of "water" should have been clarified, including the placement of the drops and the nature of water when met with another drop of water.

your query in bold indicates that rationalism is your preferred mode of perception

On the other hand, your "two bank notes but 11 dollars" is a matter of two different things being confused, namely, the physical reality of the bank notes and the value of the money together.

bold = empiricism
italics = rationalism

In one case, one does in fact have two separate bank notes. On the other, the combined value of these bank notes is 11 dollars when judged together, 10 and 1 when judged apart. Accordingly, the answer is: The value of the money taken together is 11 dollars, separated physically into two bills.

1+1=11


here is another one that exhibits the limits of rationalism and explains why computers require constant debugging - what do you make of this?

A - Statement B is wrong
B - Statement A is correct

 

[Prince_James]

Lightgigantic:

thus defining something ultimately depends on whether one favours empiricism or rationalism (they have a tendency to contradict one another)

your query in bold indicates that rationalism is your preferred mode of perception

Yes.

But the two are only semi-exclusive. Generally speaking, I favour a dualistic approach.

1+1=11

Clever!

here is another one that exhibits the limits of rationalism and explains why computers require constant debugging - what do you make of this?

A - Statement B is wrong
B - Statement A is correct

You Cretan bastard, you!

I actually deal with this in the General Philosophy section. Check it out if you're inclined. I'd be interested in your viewpoints if you wish to share them, although the thread is itself rather dead:

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=58789

 

[draqon]

You Cretan bastard

foul language.

 

[lightgigantic]

Prince_James

But the two are only semi-exclusive. Generally speaking, I favour a dualistic approach.

how do you resolve the mutually exclusiveness/contradictions of duality?

You Cretan bastard, you!

Thats somewhat mild compared to the standard response of instances of logical contradictions (such as a computer error)

 

[redarmy11]

Isn't a faggot also a word for a small bundle of sticks or something.?.

You're thinking of a fasces. "Strength through unity"; "ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Führer!", etc.

 

[Prince_James]

LightGigantic:

how do you resolve the mutually exclusiveness/contradictions of duality?

Generally speaking, rationalism and empiricism rarely interact. Rationalism is devoted to a priori truths. Epiricism to a posteriori truths.

Water having a quality of "forming one big drop" is an a posteriori truth, and thus something only empirical analysis could give us.

"A = A" is an a priori truth, and only rationalism can give it to us.

 

[grover]

Redarmy,
Actually faggot and fascist both mean bundle of sticks. Look it up. Its kind of interesting.

 

[Satyr]

Defining what is God is an intellectually disingenuous trap.

It asks for a definition for a hypothetical which becomes more possible through the definition or the taking of the question seriously.

This [Deleted], lightgigantic, has allowed his mind, or is genetically inclined, to fall into the dark abyss of superstition and supernatural absurdity.

He asks for a definition of the indefinable nonexistent.

Let us practice this strategy in other areas:

Define Goblins.
Define Leprechauns.
Define the Spaghetti monster.
Define Big Foot.

This is how children wallow away their time.

“Okay…if there were a monster under my bed, then how would it look?”
“If my asshole was a gateway into another dimension how would you enter it and where would it lead?”

Let us indulge our wanting imaginations and find reasons to believe in the absurd.

If this religious twit wants to understand the depths of his stupidity he should ask himself:
“Why am I an atheist in relation to Allah or to Zeus? Why am I not convinced by these deities? Why am I skeptical towards their existence?”

The answer he gives himself will be the answer an atheist or agnostic gives him in relation to his belief in the absurd hypothesis he needs to feel safe and special.

 

[redarmy11]

Redarmy,
Actually faggot and fascist both mean bundle of sticks. Look it up. Its kind of interesting.

Well.. it's fasces, not fascist. Sorry to be picky. But, yes, I knew that. I just wanted to cast aspersions on the state of Colorado.

 

[lightgigantic]

LightGigantic:



Generally speaking, rationalism and empiricism rarely interact. Rationalism is devoted to a priori truths. Epiricism to a posteriori truths.

Water having a quality of "forming one big drop" is an a posteriori truth, and thus something only empirical analysis could give us.

"A = A" is an a priori truth, and only rationalism can give it to us.

then it seems that when push comes to shove you jump in with the rationalists - in other words, you resolve duality by saying that empiricism is necessary but rationalism is both necessary and sufficient ..... or is it something else?

 

[Prince_James]

LightGigantic:

You are quite right that, in the end, I am more rationally inclined than empirically inclined. This can be explained by the fact that I am a philosopher and not a scientist, that is, I deal mostly with matters of the mind and the a priori, rather than the world and the a posteriori (although I do not neglect it).

However, I am afraid I do not understand the precise meaning of your question? You claim that I believe rationalism is both necessary and sufficient, but make the claim that only empiricism is necessary. In what way do you affirm that I am claiming something more for rationalism? Or rather, wha lends you to this belief? For as far as I am aware, I put them on equal levels in different domains. However, it is often that we must merge the approches.