What does God want?

Write4U said:
I can agree with that. But one cannot discuss philosophy while ignoring reality.
IOW, you cannot assign physical abilities to metaphysical concepts.
Click to expand...
There are entire troves of philosophical means to navigate the relationships between physical and metaphysical concepts.

If you think such things automatically transgress the realms of reality, you are talking less about reality and more about your beliefs.
 
Write4U said:
I can agree with that. OTOH, one cannot discuss philosophy while ignoring reality.
IOW, you cannot assign physical properties and abilities to metaphysical concepts.
Click to expand...
///
You cannot answer the question yet you pretended to answer it.

<>
Accident. This was meant to reply to Musika's latest.
 
Musika said:
There are entire troves of philosophical means to navigate the relationships between physical and metaphysical concepts.

If you think such things automatically transgress the realms of reality, you are talking less about reality and more about your beliefs.
Click to expand...
I am talking about sentience and motivated actions philosophically assigned to a metaphysical being named God.

Pray tell how one can come to a philosophy of metaphysical sentience and motivated action, when the only sentience and motivated action we know of is an exclusive property of physical attributes, such as micro-tubules and neurons.

Smacks of woo, IMO
 
Last edited:
Write4U said:
I am talking about sentience and motivated actions assigned to a metaphysical being named God.

Pray tell how one can come to a philosophy of metaphysical sentience and motivated action, when the only sentience we know is a property of physical attributes.
Click to expand...

Bold is begging the question.
The very question of "knowing the sentience of God" is the precise problem under debate.
 
Musika said:
What?
Your "eureka" moment when it was suggested tools of discrimination are the precursor for any philosophical conclusion?
Click to expand...
///
It is like answering how to go to Chicago with start walking then saying to use discrimination to figure which direction to walk. It does not answer anything.

<>
 
StrangerInAStrangeLand said:
///
It is like answering how to go to Chicago with start walking then saying to use discrimination to figure which direction to walk. It does not answer anything.

<>
Click to expand...
Yet, to go back to your "eureka moment", iirc, you mentioned 3 possible avenues of discrimination.
 
W4U said,
Pray tell how one can come to a philosophy of metaphysical sentience and motivated action, when the only sentience we know is a property of physical attributes.
Click to expand...
Musika said:
Bold is begging the question.
The very question of "knowing the sentience of God" is the precise problem under debate.
Click to expand...
Ok, then I'll defer to George Carlin who IMO closed this ridiculous debate once and for all time.
 
Last edited:
StrangerInAStrangeLand said:
///
What the heck are you talking about with eureka moment???

<>
Click to expand...
The whole "scary" thing which you somehow interpreted as a question of yours, too difficult to answer (as opposed to arriving at a conclusion that is merely preliminary information to a question being posed )
 
Last edited:
Musika said:
The whole "scary" thing which you somehow interpreted as a question of yours too difficult to answer (as opposed to simply stating the obvious)
Click to expand...
///
It was a silly childish thing to say, the best I could tell. Initially, I asked you why it is scary but you would not answer. Perhaps if you answered that, I would have thought otherwise.
It was not a matter of answering my question but explaining your supposed answer to James' question.

<>
 
Musika said:
Then its safe to say that if you rely on stand up comedians for your philosophy, its a joke.
Click to expand...
And you rely on men dressed in black frocks for your philosophy, it's a power scheme. The ball remains in your court.

But note we are not discussing the actual mechanism by which God could arrive at sentient and motivated choices and physical creation.
Don't you see, this debate is doomed to always remain at the fringes of woo.
 
Last edited:
Write4U said:
And you rely on men dressed in black frocks for your philosophy, it's a power scheme.
Click to expand...
Well actually I rely on philosophy. Pretty sure that anyone who tried to make jokes about Stephen Hawking's appearance to discredit anything he said would also come across as a doofus.
 
StrangerInAStrangeLand said:
///
It was a silly childish thing to say, the best I could tell. Initially, I asked you why it is scary but you would not answer. Perhaps if you answered that, I would have thought otherwise.
It was not a matter of answering my question but explaining your supposed answer to James' question.

<>
Click to expand...
As I said, its preliminary to the question, not a problem to the question.
 
Musika said:
Well actually I rely on philosophy. Pretty sure that anyone who tried to make jokes about Stephen Hawking's appearance to discredit anything he said would also come across as a doofus.
Click to expand...
Completely irrelevant.

Carlin's words cannot be discredited, just because he framed them as jokes. The audience's response clearly showed their acknowledgement of the truths contained in his observations.
 
Write4U said:
Completely irrelevant.

Carlin's words cannot be discredited, just because he framed them as jokes. The audience's response clearly showed their acknowledgement of the truths contained in his observations.
Click to expand...
So if someone can make large numbers of a particular audience laugh, that indicates they are speaking truthfully?
Interesting grounds for establishing philosophy as irrelevant ...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top