Recent Comments
 | Sergio on Malum quidem nullum esse sine … |
 | john on Obama -The End of Progres… |
 | DB Reese on Obama -The End of Progres… |
| john on Obama and Tyranny |
 | betwixt1 on Obama and Tyranny |
A Verbis ad Verbera
From Words to Blows
From Words to Blows
| Sergio on Malum quidem nullum esse sine … |
| john on Obama -The End of Progres… |
| DB Reese on Obama -The End of Progres… |
| john on Obama and Tyranny |
| betwixt1 on Obama and Tyranny |
19 comments
Comments feed for this article
March 10, 2007 at 10:31 pm
Jan Saarela
I refer to my message which was intended to you personally.
It might come to the wrong place as I first didn`t notice this casual place. Nevertheless may God`s will be done, also within our mistakes.
I do not have a website of my own, but an e-mail address.
Jan
March 12, 2007 at 2:16 am
john
Dear Saarela,
I recived your message. I must admitt I dont quite know what you are trying to ask me. Could you please re-state and clarify?
Sincerly,
John
March 22, 2007 at 4:39 am
john
Here is a response to the Cosmological argument that :
1. If an uncased cause is the result of itself, then nothing else could have existed to cause its existence. (premise)
2. If there was nothing in existence, then it is implausible to have the occurrence of a cause.(1)
3. An uncaused cause is a cause. (premise)
4. Therefore, an uncaused cause cannot exist. 1-3
-john
I dont know if it works but it seem to make sence.
April 2, 2007 at 4:36 pm
Megan
I have one question and one statement for you to possibly consider. .
1) “To fall in love is to create a religion with a fallible God”
2) Is religion logical?
Tell me what you think
Megan
April 4, 2007 at 4:52 am
john
Megan,
Nice to have you here on my blog. I am having difficulty in understanding (1). If I were to answer that I would have to say that my thoughts on it are:
1. I don’t think God is fallible
2. How dose love–> Religion? And what are you falling in love with?
The reason why I think God is not fallible is because of the following proof:
1. If God is omnipotent and omniscient, then God has the power and knowledge that would not be require him to be mutable.
2. God is omnipotent and omniscient.
3. Therefore, God is not required to be mutable
Moreover, in response to (2). I don’t think that religion is purely logical when it comes down to a spiritual level. However, doctrine and certain practices should be logical. Logic consists of reasoning that is valid. I don’t thing a loving God would create provide religion to be that is composed of false statements, contradictions, or other logical errors.
Thank you,
John
April 4, 2007 at 2:41 pm
Megan
John,
I am under the impression that the author of those statements puts together love and religion because he considers both to be illogical. Getting carried away with love is the same as getting carried away with religion. The statement was not to say that God IS fallible but merely that being in love can be so uncertain that it is equal to creating a religion with a fallible God-which likewise is uncertain. He also goes on to state that one can fall too much in love ie: stalkers etc. I personally disagree with this because that, in my opinion, is not love. Love is patient, kind, and “Christ-like”. It is impossible to be too much in love. Once love goes too far in any direction, then it becomes something else. Stalking is based on infatuation and lust, not love.
Does that make more sense?
Megan
April 4, 2007 at 4:37 pm
john
Megan,
“Being in love can be so uncertain that it is equal to creating a religion with a fallible God-which likewise is uncertain”
-That statement seems quite unsupported and very speculative. Do men create religion because of their ‘love’ (his usage for love here seems misused) or is religion created out of fear? (He is obviously playing semantics.)
Furthermore, the author seems to be considering religion as illogical. I think that this idea is quite true when we come to the level of self-interpretation and causes. Men create religion illogically to fulfill voids! Truths, and true religion, prove ways to avoid voids and fulfill loss. The reason love is uncertain is because people let their own emotions manipulate and blind their reasoning. If one could only look at the situation or the entity that is causing one to feel emotion and evaluate it from a logical standpoint, we would be a better and happier people! This statement, even though it is idiosyncratic, it provides support of the idea that emotion is uncertain.
Thank you,
John
Ps.
How has emotion benefited men when not accompanied by logic?
(and how is weber state?)
April 4, 2007 at 4:40 pm
john
Furthermore, I don’t quite understand where your argument is going…are you trying to prove that my zeal is emotionally based, or are you attempting to explain some abstract idea of love and religion?
John
April 4, 2007 at 8:39 pm
Megan
John,
The statement “to fall in love is to create a religion with a fallible God” was made by Jorge Luis Borges who was an argentine writer. I think it’s important to understand what was meant by the word “religion” in regard to this quote. One can make watching tv a religion, or the NFL, or shopping, or money.
Love is merely an emotion and can become out of control just as anger can. Love, by itself, is therefore unstable unless it is balanced with logic and reason. “I don’t think that religion is purely logical when it comes down to a spiritual level.” If religion cannot be purely logical, then it likewise has an element of instability.
One can state that eventhough their partner has a shady past and probably wouldn’t make a suitable mate, that does not change the fact that they are “in love”. Likewise one can be “in love” with someone who would be a good mate.
So, “to fall in love is to create a religion with a fallible God”. You can just only hope that it is balanced well with logic and that it works out.
Megan
April 4, 2007 at 9:36 pm
john
Semitics, semantics…
Furthermore, I hope you consider that logic and metaphysical situations are completely different!
El Senor Luis Borges is obviously providing his own definition for religion, which is why I say that his quote is semantically based.
Thus, this quote seems somwhat unavailing as a serious topic of discussion.
John
April 5, 2007 at 12:26 am
Megan
I must have misunderstood “casual and nonspecific” actually stands for “serious topics of discussion”. I am sorry that I have wasted your time with my novical understanding of logic.
megan
April 5, 2007 at 1:09 am
john
Megan,
That is true; it is casual and nonspecific. However, it doesn’t say “confusing and without purpose.” You have not wasted my time; I enjoy conversation. However, I don’t like conversations that provide no purpose and merely result in loops of confusion.
Thank you,
John
Ps. If you would like to answer my previous questions that I posed in my other comments the perhaps we could carry on a duel conversation and not a one sided discussion of the antecedent.
April 6, 2007 at 6:34 pm
Megan
John,
You will need to be more specific in regard to which questions you would like me to address.
Megan
April 6, 2007 at 7:20 pm
john
How has emotion benefited men when not accompanied by logic? Oh, and if you could examin and comment on my new post, that would be excellent.
thank you
john
April 7, 2007 at 1:36 am
Megan
John,
We would need to first define what “emotion” is. Many would state that making a decision based on emotion is equal to a “gut feeling. They state that their gut feeling alone is ample enough to make a decision. This “gut feeling” is also commonly known by others as the whisperings of God. They justify their emotional decisions stating that it was by their “faith” and when making a decision based solely on this “faith” or “gut feeling” or “emotion”, logic may not always be present.
So if we were to state that making decisions based on emotion could be the same as making decisions that follow gut feelings or faith then it follows that: if God commands you to do something by faith, He may or may not explain why, but because He is assumed to know best, one is obedient and the outcome is beneficial. Adam demonstrated “emotional” decision making when he decided to follow God’s commandment to offer burnt offerings without being told why he was doing so beforehand.
As far as the “gut feeling” or possibly “instincts” is concerned, many decisions have been made on this wise especially in potentially harmful environments. Military personel are even taught specifically to think and make quick decisions this way. Following these “emotions” has saved many lives and proved to be quite beneficial.
So whether the emotions are justified by faith in God, or instinct alone there have been situations of benefit, even when “logic” was not present.
How was that?
Megan
April 7, 2007 at 2:44 am
john
Meagan,
Lets examine a certain suppresses premise in your argument. You are making a covert connection between the following: Faith–> emotion–> and instinct. First, it is important to establish the fact that there are ample differences between the antecedents. 1. Faith resulting in inspiration from an omniscient being is not able to be held as emotion, since an omniscient being (i.e. God) has provide such ”physiological feelings.” 2. Instinct: A natural response from animals in response to cretin stimuli. These responses are usually based off on genetic based programming, or infinite experience via examples of predecessors and/or natural involvement.
3.Emotion: A natural state of mind according to one’s circumstances, mood, or relationships with others. (Oxford 2005)
We have now established the obvious differences between the previous factuals. We can now address you example provided about commandment from God (line 10-13). First, to be obedient to an omnipotent being is not a matter of emotion alone, but rather pure logic (would you resist an omnipotent being?). To specify, I am not eliminating emotion from God or religion, I do think that they are a I call a “necessary dichotomy.” However, it follows that Adam was logical in knowing that he dose not know anything at all, and for that reason he was obedient to the will and command of God. Socrates said something very similar “I know that I know nothing at all” to be obedient and passive in submitting yourself is not a necessary demonstration of emotion, but rather, realization and awareness of your state.
Now, military personal are trained to react to a plethora of events. This training usually prepares them to make the best possible decision. I would have to agree that instinct and emotions such as courage are important, but with out the company of logic these emotions would be inherently dangerous. Lets review the following analogy: soldiers S is walking down a spy trail, to spy on a shipment from Russia to Afghanistan, he notices that a group of his fellow solders are in that convoy as prisoners. He feels a great amount of anger, and sadness that his fellow solders are headed to their doom, so he takes his rifle and prepares to fire on the convoy –attacking it aggressively. The end result is that the soldiers S is dead along with his fellow servicemen. If he would have notified central command and gathered information, he would have possibly preserved his own life and those of his comrades.
Thus, you can see that there are a few problems with the idea that emotions alone provide for benefits without the presence of logic.
Thank you,
John
I enjoyed your comment nice job.
April 7, 2007 at 4:03 am
Megan
John,
I concede to the more proficient opponent. Bravo good sir
Megan
May 10, 2007 at 11:45 pm
John
Bolivia is amazing o bolivia es chalinga
May 4, 2008 at 2:34 am
john
Work work work work….that is life