U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 04-01-2010, 12:14 AM
 
Location: missouri
1,179 posts, read 1,176,473 times
Reputation: 151

Advertisements

I framed things as if one is "thoughtful"-that assumes an intelligent activity. Even in a mad man however, reason is present in that the mad man's mind constructs the reality that he "sees". If he relates what he "sees", he has to form this up in language-if the language follows rules of syntax, is understandable, it is rational to the shrink.

Thoughts are the same, I am assuming thoughts with words (pictures are perhaps the same). Again, to be intelligible to mind; reflective, these must be rational, even if these do not conform to "reality". A fictional story has to be rationally constructed to be plotted, character development, beginning, middle, end, etc. conforming to rules of writing literature and for understanding. A fiction in a book or in the mind is still a "story". A surreal story or art work may be rationally intelligible to a post modernist, but "irrational" to a realist.

Be that as it may, my point here is that generally one group claims rationality and that those they oppose do not have rationality. Thinking people (I leave "irrational" people to one side for this), on either side, have rationality on their side. Scientific leaning people sometimes think they are rational and artists, theologians, and such are not. Obviously, if Hegel wrote three volumes on aesthetics, he assumed a rationality there {for him reason and god are the same}, same with his 3 volumes of philosophy of religion. Obviously, in the 13 volumes of Barth's dogmatics, rationality is there-he even claimed he used reason. I can read all this, follow the sentences, and much of the arguments. These works, many on this forum, from a "scientific" point of view, would perhaps call irrational because these assume deity-very mistakenly, as the rationality of science is geared to only "see" the "scientific"; but that does not give it the corner on the rational.

The original post here seems to attempt to do something without rigor. For example, he assumes one needs proof that the world was created in 6 days, but one does not need any, to not believe this. He assumes the "believer" needs a rigorous structure for the proof and the non-believer gets a pass and doesn't have to think nearly at all. The assumption is that the 6 day theory is irrational, when in theology it has a rational basis. And not believing this, without proof, is rational-if I understand him correctly-his error here is that he is confusing different operations within different systems. I personally want proof from both systems. Absolute proof is not possible in either case however, but one would appreciate effort. Science is obligated to prove that the world came into being in some way because it develops theories and we spend billions on cyclotrons and such-it does not settle for a logic trick, but works hard to bring forth its evidence. Neither religion and science are interchangeable as each looks to different "things" and each uses its own form of rationality to construct their structures. The pro and con, structured with their rigor, are both rational "presumptions" but in different spheres.

It seems to me, and I used the size of the universe or cosmos to indicate just how small men's knowledge is of the "reality" that surrounds them (and I only used the macro-physical-not the micro or other possibilities), that claiming an absolute knowledge through a logic game, when one's knowledge is so small seems a bit fool hardy, except for the fum of a puzzle, even logic can't solve all this with out the interaction from the mind (like with aluminum) directly-and the "infinite" cosmos has barely been scratched by mind. One is tempted to be tricked by a logic construction to say "I know". The "I know" implies certainty, but one could say that one has really not been through the entire cosmos to give me that certainty. The 6 days would be similar. One could be tempted to say "I know" that is false by a logic trick. But then one was not there when it happened to have absolute certainty.

I wrote in response to you because you seemed to indicate that Fred314X abandoned reason-sorry if I was mistaken but your post was somewhat hard to follow. I don't think he said that-he can speak for himself, but he seemed to indicate that any side he is in opposition to, he may perhaps will take a moment to see that they too use reason. This is important for dialog, as if one thinks the other side is just irrational, then the conversation ends. Good breeding, as they used to call it, allows a man to think in more than one system. Such a person can move from one to another, within the rational structures of each. As our education becomes specialized, and people grow more into mentally isolated groups with a singular narrow view of "reality", well one can expect a dumber herd. But the saying I heard once was that, specialization is for insects.

The original post assumes the world will not end in 2012-but he does not know that for certain, as 2012 has not slipped into the past-its a hypothosis on his part and his logic game can not predict the future with absolute certainty-he can't know because the event is future and he could be wrong-as Kierkegaard wrote, life is not logic, perhaps he meant that there was more to it than that alone. With rigor, he should be able to develop a structure that is convincing that 2012 will be like any year-from that premise. The other group that is sure it will end, also operate with a hypothesis. To be rogorous, they too should provide a structure that confirms it. Both have to wait for certainty, both now have only probability.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-01-2010, 02:42 AM
 
3,448 posts, read 2,581,387 times
Reputation: 478
Hi Allen Antrim.....

I read your posting a few times in attempt to follow . Theres so many themes and
statements that you "jump" in and out of without forming even a suggested value that one wonders why.
Here its noted.....
Be that as it may, my point here is that generally one group claims rationality and that those they oppose do not have rationality. Thinking people (I leave "irrational" people to one side for this), on either side, have rationality on their side. Scientific leaning people sometimes think they are rational and artists, theologians, and such are not. Obviously, if Hegel wrote three volumes on aesthetics, he assumed a rationality there {for him reason and god are the same}, same with his 3 volumes of philosophy of religion. Obviously, in the 13 volumes of Barth's dogmatics, rationality is there-he even claimed he used reason. I can read all this, follow the sentences, and much of the arguments. These works, many on this forum, from a "scientific" point of view, would perhaps call irrational because these assume deity-very mistakenly, as the rationality of science is geared to only "see" the "scientific"; but that does not give it the corner on the rational
Stargazzer says...Theres "no point" as introduced in outset......other than the finishing point that
you read all this and can follow and understand.....is that your point ?
This relay is a huge disappointment.
Again...one cannot help but wonder why we see here an accumulation of quotes , unconnected suggestions , even whole
sentences that are incomplete in grammer and common foundation !
Most explore absolutely nothing other than the interest in repeating an assortment of
un-connected statements that you seem to think are impressive.
I "do not" entertain and will not read your posts as they are cluttered.
Your "forced" application of arranged sentences to utilize what you believe to be depth or impressive to general philosophy does not impress me . It is forced without direction as noted in above example.
Moreover...repeating quotes by various writers and making no point does not impress or add to anything accept perhaps a need on your part to feel intelligible...it really is noticeable.
Theres no way in the world I will go through like last time and dissect this form of dialog .I'm very disappointed......without simplicity, we would not have complexity , maybe thats what your missing....please think on that...I enjoy philosophy but this is clearly "not" professional or even
stimulating

Last edited by stargazzer; 04-01-2010 at 02:55 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-01-2010, 09:00 AM
 
Location: missouri
1,179 posts, read 1,176,473 times
Reputation: 151
HAHAHA, yeah, my mom was disappointed in me too. I got over that as well. If it is too difficult for you, by all means, do not waste your time, gentlemen have better things to do than to think.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-01-2010, 10:15 AM
 
3,448 posts, read 2,581,387 times
Reputation: 478
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fred314X View Post
The real problem, of course, begins when one person starts making pronouncements about what is rational and what isn't. The moment that happens, everything on the other side of the coin automatically becomes irrational, and the case has been decided, guilty as charged, no jury necessary.
Thats beautiful......Thats because one side of the coin is heads and the other tails.....go ahead and call I will flip
oh......you loose case closed no jury required....Ha ha ha
Your example is void of relativity
Simple deduction applicable to everything
Is this for real ?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-01-2010, 10:43 AM
 
3,448 posts, read 2,581,387 times
Reputation: 478
Quote:
Originally Posted by allen antrim View Post
HAHAHA, yeah, my mom was disappointed in me too. I got over that as well. If it is too difficult for you, by all means, do not waste your time, gentlemen have better things to do than to think.
You could of come up with a better reply void of a little embarrassment !

I could as well gather all my literature and grab quotes , say 10 of them
that have no connection to each other and throw out there.
As well ignore all your assertions, but I fought threw them and reply
You do not do this and comment that my postings are hard to follow. ( ma says check attention span) ha ha ha
Your postings are made before you even read others, like a person who doesn't listen because their working up what their going to say next

Its not my fault after reviewing my posts that your attention span is
something that I can see your Mother was concerned about Ha Ha Ha
Further if you note above reply to post it is Germain and dispels the
entirety of the nonsense in this thread.
Are you trying to head up a new hippy type movement ?
No wonder your Ma was worried......Ha Ha Ha
Hey try a flip....oh did you read above post...go read come back and
call heads or tails I will wait........

I just flipped....I will call Heads.....Tails you say.....
Uh Heads again... I win !!!
The "coins " station in space causes alternate perspectives yet.............all are relative to the coin and satisfy an ultimate pure reality in keeping with the fair application of undecided deductive reasoning
I know your going to give this a flip....I thought this might help you "pay attention"..........HA HA HA remember last post made by me that you did not consider......"without simplicity there is no complexity in all" I will add for help...A blade of grass is rather simplistic but "cannot" exist without the compleity of its root system. Good Luck....Did you get this far ? Ha Ha Ha

Last edited by stargazzer; 04-01-2010 at 11:00 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-01-2010, 11:09 AM
 
Location: missouri
1,179 posts, read 1,176,473 times
Reputation: 151
I think I shall try to lead a new movement-you have given me the idea by your devotion, and obviously, since you have to respond to my posts even though you wrote that you won't, well you must be addicted to my musings, and are one of my first devoted followers-most here just ignore me.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-01-2010, 11:19 AM
 
3,448 posts, read 2,581,387 times
Reputation: 478
Thanks for reply...I thought you might try a flip of the coin.....and offer rebutle

You didn't , so I will offer rebutle in light of others.........
The flip offers in its relative outcome two outcomes
Both outcomes are contradicting yet true
True to the balance required to "sustain "the universe and its pronounced "relative"
deductive assertions".....Balance, relativity and all is rational ...."Balance and we have motion attached to logic"......You concede missing that remember....?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-01-2010, 11:25 AM
 
433 posts, read 515,011 times
Reputation: 91
What is irrational? Isn't it what this thread is about?

Making specific claims without supporting evidence is irrational. You can try any examples you like, and that will always be true. But, let me give you an example:

"a woman can be made from a man's rib" -- show supporting evidence, or it is irrational to presume such. However, it is rational to presume (don't have to waste one's lifetime finding supporting evidence) "a woman can not be made from a man's rib".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-01-2010, 11:26 AM
 
3,448 posts, read 2,581,387 times
Reputation: 478
Got to go to work have a nice day its gorgeous out
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-01-2010, 11:43 AM
 
3,448 posts, read 2,581,387 times
Reputation: 478
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic235 View Post
What is irrational? Isn't it what this thread is about?

Making specific claims without supporting evidence is irrational. You can try any examples you like, and that will always be true. But, let me give you an example:

"a woman can be made from a man's rib" -- show supporting evidence, or it is irrational to presume such. However, it is rational to presume (don't have to waste one's lifetime finding supporting evidence) "a woman can not be made from a man's rib".
Very interesting but its impossible to expect to give supporting evidence
to virtually every concept you speak of.....you would be here all day long argueing about the credibility of the evidence.
The notion of what is irrational is not what this thread is about also would suggest that what is rational is not what this thread is about
I figured that out last night ! Discussions analyzing the subject in
motion are incomplete in a relative respect This is true.....oh is this an assertion without evidence......I would be here all day
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top