...or power, or influence or.... but you ARE choosing the wrong God, since claiming that choosing God in itself is "automatically" wrong - is a nonsensical claim!!! Yeah, start with this one... Phew - how are we to know ourselves if not by thinking?!? Feeling? Well, what's to stop a murderer or rapist from "feeling realising him/herself" or even "good" when s/he kills or rapes or...?!? Let me tell you: us thinking and then acting accordingly! You are really selling yourself short here - big time... What about "causing" solidarity between people, struggle for (mutual) recognition, striving for respect (in general), co-operation rather than conflict etc. etc. etc.??? Honestly, Yen - youo're gonna say that all of those "phenomena" are only based on "feeling"?!? I mean, come on...
Join the club.... (Sorry, could you say that for E. Philosophy, too, please? Fairness calls... ) OK, I'll pretend I understood the last one. The former few sentences speak loudly what I claimed earlier, so thanx for honesty... OK, first stop for you: elementary logic... (My word... You're high way too often, man - ease off, please... ) You wish this is the case... Oooo, a dangerous error you made here: you let in even a "limited" reasonability when thinking... Hmmmm... slippery slope, maaaaannn... Man, Hegel's logic is "advanced" stuff - elementary logic first, you know... Absolute can not be without its parts. It would be the "absolute" of what?!? Holly mother of do-lallies, where do you stop berating people who differ from you and claiming how at the same time there is no judgement here, while asking people not to be judgemental about your "ideas"?!? Oh, wait, you didn't ask for it... Cool, in that case, I take the right to answer equally strongly... I suppose you see that as fair conduct... You really think that you are the only person in Science who has "an idea" of "intuition"?!? 'Cause you're awfully dismissive of everyone else... Makes one wonder... Nonsense. Every bit of it. But... never mind... Literally! Oh, weeeeeellll....
I made a loud roaring, stinking "boom boom" moving very fast at he hills of nazareth, is'nt it a miracle? Would jesus say "ah .. yes! .. electronic injection .. racing fuel .. twin spark", and ask for a lift to jerusalem? Last week i saw a man with an awfull crippled, buckled feet, walking on short crutches, begging for money. I healed him , i kicked him in his a** and leaved the place. He throws the shoe from his crippled feet at me and starts running fast as hell after me. Maybe, he would thank me and praise my name? Sorry, i had no time to wait, job calls for presence. Confused me the blind, or the beggar?
Thanks. You left out the part about those who weren't so lucky going to Hell. Also, my whole point was God doesn't give all men an equal opportunity for salvation. Till then goodbye.
You can not compare a blind man with bombs and gunfire. It is not right to say that these things would happen to 2000 years ago. A sea is open and people are crossing miracle. A plane reach the sky is human intelligence.
This is not a fact. You do not live the same thing as me. So I learn different things. God shows another way of salvation for you and me.
No, omg, Gorski you misunderstand me and I have only a little clue of W. Phil. The last few posts makes that clear. Anyway there is some pleasure to me to debate with a Philosopher. The core of your misunderstanding is that you relativise the absolute. Here finally we have it. “Man, Hegel's logic is "advanced" stuff - elementary logic first, you know... Absolute cannot be without its parts. It would be the "absolute" of what?!? Is that meant seriously? The absolute of ‘what’ becomes relative! Lol. There is no relation to the absolute! Hegel thinks the absolute is realized in the linear progressive time. Means: Is not realized yet. I say it is eternally present at every now and it is accessible now. It's 'being' itself. The most simple 'thing' that needs no idea, no individual reason to 'exist'. (self-evident) I say absolute reason is now and becomes ‘reduced’ due to relation to an own idea of existence (individual reason). Since this idea changes in the time it SEEMS that reasoning has an evolution. I ask now (again): From where comes Hegel’s idea of the absolute when he thinks it is realized in the future? I mean he cannot ‘know’ of a higher grade of reason having a lower grade except the ‘absolute’ reasoning would be accessible through intuitional processes, now. Can you now get why I said: Realization is being itself. Unreasonable is the thinking intellect? I am not dismissive, it only seems so due to a little difference. To simplify it. One Philosophy abstracts from an absolute now, limited due to the limited idea of an identity, the other Philosophy realizes the absolute by a dialectical process with a progress in the time. The former uses an absolute source which is ever now, the latter realizes reality through a process in the future. The former pays respect to the fact that the reality / being is only now. The difference is that the former Philosophy says that it is possible to realize the absolute every now. The latter says sometime in the future. Prove the reality of the time!
...or power, or influence or.... but you ARE choosing the wrong God, since claiming that choosing God in itself is "automatically" wrong - is a nonsensical claim!!! Yes you are right, because you quoted out of context of sid's reply. The effect is the same-->wrong god, but not the cause. Sid presumed the existence of different gods to be chosen (already an idea). I have missed to make that clear. I referred my reply to: God offers the treat of Heaven for those who guess which God is the one, true God. All religions have Gods. All religions have holy books. Nothing God does or has done shows conclusively which God is the one, true God. I guess the God nearest me must be the one, true God. I got sent to Hell for guessing wrong. There are no wrong gods because there are more 'gods' and the right has to be guessed. If so there must be one god above these (of which you think you are identified with), this is endless and would put your-self above god. It is to chose itself (determine what god is / creating an idea of god) that is wrong.
Remember when you said you do not actually know all that much about it? Well, here it is. One needs to actually know a lot more about the topics in order to make a judgement, not come into it with one's own prejudices/issues/agenda and claim all sorts of things about it... What we call "immanent critique", as opposed to what you are doing... There... The rest is more of the same, based on not actually knowing the subject matter one is discussing at all... http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_idealism http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/help/mean06.htm http://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/mickelsen/texts/hegel glossary.htm http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked...rich-Hegel/41235/Emancipation-from-Kantianism http://www.hegel.org/links.html http://www.hegel.net/en/etexts.htm Cheers!
God ? Be spacific . There is only one God,I believe. Determine the 'Identity' of 'God. Then we can discuss the issue.
Please go with the dictionary definition or post your own definition to start a discussion after having a 'war' with all the 790 posts for about 6 months between theist, non-theist, agnostic and spiritualist.
I answered your question and replyed with respect.I was looking for a serious intellegent conversation.But 'Dictionary' 'War',etc. is not my interest.
And ye shall seek me, and find {me}, when ye shall search for me with all your heart. Jeremias 29:13 You do not know God because you limit yourself to that. God is not just about heaven and hell. It is a power that soothes the human being. Brings peace. Do you follow any religion?
That's an absolute scream! loool Since when is a personal value or opinion tolerated by you???? It concurs with what I said. But when I say it should be prejudice. Hegel should not utter the word 'absolute' not even one second! How many 'absolutes' are in Philosophy? Absolute IS regarding the fundamental nature of “being” or reality. But Yen seems not worthy to say it. ...the truth is not owned by the elite, sorry..... Hegel's absolute is not yet ready and he insists that Reality is a becoming. And... A complete knowledge of any part involves a knowledge of the whole, for the true essence of the part is in the whole. So it is impossible to have a real knowledge of anything in the universe without a knowledge of the Absolute. Hegel says reality is only known in thought, Reason. One who is not able to have enough subtlety can only experience it as reason. He denies Reality= pure being. He does not accept intuition as the integral realisation of the true essence of things...he does not know a super-rational means of knowing. He thinks any attempt for such an intuition of it would not give us anything more than this abstract being. This is not my Philosophy....I am with intuition and practice in meditation what else should I do than to say It'll be OK..... to thinkers-only....there is no manifest without the not-yet-manifest...
You answered me? But.... The "Outside of Time Argument" An obvious criticism of God being outside of time is that this does not seem to grant free will. Predestination, regardless of how God perceives time, still seems to mean a person's actions will be determined. A logical formulation of this criticism might go as follows: 1. God timelessly knows choice "C" that the human would say s/he "will make". 2. If C is in the timeless realm, then it is now-necessary that C. 3. If it is now-necessary that C, then C cannot be otherwise (this is the definition of “necessary”). That is, there are no actual "possibilities" due to predestination. 4. If you cannot do otherwise when you act, you do not act freely (Principle of Alternate Possibilities) 5. Therefore, when you do an act, you will not do it freely. Please check it here -Argument from free will . There would be no doubt that many people have pondered the paradox of omniscience versus free will. It is highly likely that there are more arguments than those presented here so far. However, the arguments I've posted in this thread over the past months represent the most known, if not the most thought out, versions of the arguments philosophers/freethinkers have come up with which supports my stance that omniscience and free will cannot co-exist. Allow me to go off on a brief tangent for a moment. It has nothing specific to do with the main topic but I'd like to voice some personal opinions. It concerns the fact that many concepts which are connected to gods are not concepts which can be applied to mortals. A Supernatural Universe vs a Natural Universe. A supernatural universe is the concept of a universe which doesn't actually exist. In this imaginary universe, the laws of Nature are replaced with the fickle whims of Magic. Where as a natural universe is the concept of the real universe. There are laws of Nature which never change. There is no intelligence pulling any magic switches in the natural universe. There are forces of Nature which naturally obey the laws of Nature. Omniscience vs Knowledge through Learning Omniscience is the concept of supernatural "automatic" knowledge achieved by a supernatural being. Because nothing supernatural exists in the Natural universe, therefore, omniscience doesn't exist. There is only one way to gain knowledge. Through learning. No knowledge is gained "automatically" in the Natural universe. Magical Time vs Real Time Magical Time is a concept in which a being can exist, move about and have a non-sequential relationship with real time. It is how supernatural beings are able to exist "outside of time". It defies the laws of nature and, therefore, doesn't exist. Real time is the natural order of time. It exists in the sequential order of past to present to future. It is so incorporated into the Natural universe that we cannot even make a statement without some reference to time. For instance, the simple statement "I am" has a reference to the present time. As said I listed these as my opinions but, as far as I am concerned, they are truth (in my opinion). Don't kid yourself into thinking I'm going to change my mind just because you /anybody else say so. If your intention is to convert me to your way of thinking then I'm afraid you're deluding yourself or trying to delude others.
Sid, why are you creating issues about god when you later complain about your own issues? Your most reasonable idea is not god. It is an individualized god. Absolute spirit is experienced as pure being. You can only experience absolute Reason if you would be able to stop thinking. If not, any statement about is deluded by your individual Reason and ends in a probability. Yoga and Vedanta have their tools to go after that. Hegel was a brilliant thinker. And 'has had access' to the absolute, because him(one)-self and the absolute are not different = self-realization. But by thinking he made reality to becoming. What is reality that has to become real? Reality is either real NOW or never. Thinking cannot be validated by thinking and remains ever as a relative tool with own reasoned realties.
Wisdom can not be taught because it comes from the heart, not from the mind. That's why a wise man acts without talking.