14 replies to this topic

[Pachomius]

I came here to learn from you people because this is a forum which I think is into sharing ideas.

I was here last January 2011 and now it is in my place April 8, 2011, Friday, 4:31 AM.



I remember the people here those who did not me like say that I talk down to them.


So, from that launch pad from their part I realized that it was impossible for me to effect a viable sharing of ideas and to learn from them.


Let me see whether I can do better this time, to get some sharing with them and come to some common insights into issues.


Okay, tell me what is wrong with my approach, as distinct from my ideas.


People who were interacting with me last January.


By the way I am an evangelical Christian in church attendance but a liberal Christian otherwise.


People in January did not like my definition of God as:

The necessary being creator of everything with a beginning.


They particularly don't like the word necessary.


Okay, I will take away that word, necessary.

Is that okay now with the atheists here? so that my definition of God from my part as a Christian is now:

Creator of everything with a beginning.



And I seem to remember that some people here don't like me to introduce issues which for them are already known to them and discussed by them and they have already known everything about them.

Just the same I hope to learn from them if they would be patient with me, for whatever I can learn from them, if they just keep to ideas instead of throwing words of anger on me.



By the way even though as they predict I did not become the most popular guy here even at this very early stage of my sojourn here, I am glad that the moderators and administrators did not expel me without any chance of return.


Thanks, mods and admins.


How long has this community been existing?

It is to my impression still small, pershaps... okay, never mind.




Pachomius

[Pachomius]

I think in retrospect why people get that impression that I talk down to them, it is because of my peculiar accent.

So, if you people just keep to ideas and pay no attention to accent, you will not feel that I am talking down to you.


Okay?




Pachomius

[soleo]

I really don't think you should worry about forum popularity, Pachomius. To the best of your patience, be polite and stay focused. I don't think anyone here has ever asked for more.

With that said, what’s really important at this site, Pachomius, is the advancement of arguments. Offering premises (reasons) and conclusions. As best as possible the conclusions one endorses should derive their support from the reasons put forward. Obviously, this isn’t going to happen all the time, what a bore life would be if it were always so, but it is an ideal we ought to strive towards.

So, why are arguments here so important? Well, the construction of arguments helps avoid making unfounded assertions, generalisations, and common, everday fallacies. This kind of strategy is important because it aids communication, strengthens understanding, enhances comprehension and creativity, and can help overcome the fetters of dubious traditions, customs, ideologies and dogmas. It's also quite a nice approach for others to deal with, because it saves them time when they are evaluating the ideas and reasons put forward and weeding out between them.

All this indicates that TGL and just about everyone here - if I may be so bold - really holds the critical method as one of the fundamental normatives of life. It also means that this method is not just another passive activity. It means we’re no longer dealing with the case of receiving and spewing out information. We become active participants in the process of doubt and wonder, we raise questions and objections, we reflect and once again object and question.

As you can appreciate, this attitude is radical. It denies the dogma of authority, of opinion, of prejudice, of custom and tradition, and being so beautifully radical, it is clearly not a game for all. As exhilarating as it may often be, it is also deadly, crippling.

In other words, critical thinking is not just about having mere opinion, instead it is trying to rigorously search, evaluate and give reasons for those opinions expressed. No one can avoid making fundamental asumptions, after all, language itself is an ideological structure which helps frame the world and the reality we make of it, but sloppy and dubious assumptions, wasteful generalisations, unfounded assertions should not be the possessors of truth.

I cannot stress enough to you, my loved ones or the colleagues of life that pass by like ships at night that we all ought to adobt a relentless pursuit of doubt, of wonder, of inquiry and question which itself should be plastic, flexible, experimental and open minded throughout our unique and singular life on earth.

The three most beautiful string of words outside of 'I Love You' is not, ‘I’ve the truth’ but, ‘I don’t know.’ Like love itself, it grounds humility, kindness, compassion, and so much more.

So, Pachomius, I really don't think your 'unpopularity' had much to do with any condescending attitude you may have, nor to do with your accent (¡¡you do realise, we cannot hear you talk!! Right?), but more to do with a failure of addressing some of the most basic issues raised above.

By way of smoking of the peace pipe, so to say, you could always go back to your old threads and really address the objections raised by the posters, in particular those made by Davidm and BBB. Or, you could start with that premise of yours and now work into it a few more premises before leaping to the felt desire of - God Exists. Perhaps, then, you will be engaged in fruitful debate, interrogation and critique.

Good luck with your god thing.

Edited by soleo, 07 April 2011 - 11:30 PM.

[Pachomius]

soleo, on 07 April 2011 - 11:25 PM, said:

[...]

So, why are arguments here so important? Well, the construction of arguments helps avoid making unfounded assertions, generalisations, and common, everyday fallacies. This kind of strategy is important because it aids communication, strengthens understanding, enhances comprehension and creativity, and can help overcome the fetters of dubious traditions, customs, ideologies and dogmas. It's also quite a nice approach for others to deal with, because it saves them time when they are evaluating the ideas and reasons put forward and weeding out between them.

[...]

Thanks, for your reaction to my thread.



About importance of arguments, I would just like to share with you the fact that arguments do not effect unity among people for the tasks in life.

Why not?

Because arguments are founded on manipulations of concepts and words according to the man-made or discovered rules of logic.

And man has not so far made and/or discovered all the rules of logic that should govern the exercise of argumentation and debate.

Besides, concepts and words, inventions of man, are not enough to contain in representation all the realities of the existing universe in all its intricacies and depths and heights and widths.

Since man does not know everything in reality and will never know everything in reality, ever, nothing will convince anyone to all adopt the same conclusion from argumentation and debate -- the proof is there for everyone with eyes to see, namely, that argumentation and debate does not bring people to unite for the task of getting things done which are crucially needed for the even survival of mankind.

The proof of that insight is the fact that even whether the material universe has a beginning or not, notwithstanding the Big Bang theory there are still people arguing that the universe has no beginning, that it has always been in existence like the God of Christians.


So, what is more important than argumentation and debate for bringing people to unity in the face of an agenda that is urgent for the survival say of a patient on the border of death, or the whole even of mankind?

Consensus building, and finally the rule of number from among the people entitled to cast their vote each on the adoption of a line of action.


That is what the leaders of the world in the United Nations have also adopted, and they call that agreement by convention.


There are all kinds of conventions agreed upon by the member states of the United Nations, all of them are in the advancement of human survival and dignity and nobility.

Is there a UN convention to the effect that adultery and murder are all right among the member states if no one is complaining?

Perhaps the UN should instead adopt the convention that marriage should be abolished, and taking life by anyone with superior capability to do so is all right.

So far, as to my stock knowledge, the UN never has come to any such conventions, but all the conventions to date have been directed to the safeguard of human life, dignity, and in advancement of human nobility.




Pachomius

[maddog]

Pachomius, on 08 April 2011 - 12:00 AM, said:

soleo, on 07 April 2011 - 11:25 PM, said:

[...]

So, why are arguments here so important? Well, the construction of arguments helps avoid making unfounded assertions, generalisations, and common, everyday fallacies. This kind of strategy is important because it aids communication, strengthens understanding, enhances comprehension and creativity, and can help overcome the fetters of dubious traditions, customs, ideologies and dogmas. It's also quite a nice approach for others to deal with, because it saves them time when they are evaluating the ideas and reasons put forward and weeding out between them.

[...]

Thanks, for your reaction to my thread.



About importance of arguments, I would just like to share with you the fact that arguments do not effect unity among people for the tasks in life.

Why not?

Because arguments are founded on manipulations of concepts and words according to the man-made or discovered rules of logic.

And man has not so far made and/or discovered all the rules of logic that should govern the exercise of argumentation and debate.

Besides, concepts and words, inventions of man, are not enough to contain in representation all the realities of the existing universe in all its intricacies and depths and heights and widths.

Since man does not know everything in reality and will never know everything in reality, ever, nothing will convince anyone to all adopt the same conclusion from argumentation and debate -- the proof is there for everyone with eyes to see, namely, that argumentation and debate does not bring people to unite for the task of getting things done which are crucially needed for the even survival of mankind.

The proof of that insight is the fact that even whether the material universe has a beginning or not, notwithstanding the Big Bang theory there are still people arguing that the universe has no beginning, that it has always been in existence like the God of Christians.


So, what is more important than argumentation and debate for bringing people to unity in the face of an agenda that is urgent for the survival say of a patient on the border of death, or the whole even of mankind?

Consensus building, and finally the rule of number from among the people entitled to cast their vote each on the adoption of a line of action.


That is what the leaders of the world in the United Nations have also adopted, and they call that agreement by convention.


There are all kinds of conventions agreed upon by the member states of the United Nations, all of them are in the advancement of human survival and dignity and nobility.

Is there a UN convention to the effect that adultery and murder are all right among the member states if no one is complaining?

Perhaps the UN should instead adopt the convention that marriage should be abolished, and taking life by anyone with superior capability to do so is all right.

So far, as to my stock knowledge, the UN never has come to any such conventions, but all the conventions to date have been directed to the safeguard of human life, dignity, and in advancement of human nobility.




Pachomius

But here you are using logic and argument trying to convince everyone that logic and argument don't work.

#490

Edited by maddog, 08 April 2011 - 12:17 AM.

[DaveT]

I disagree with two parts of your argument, namely that everything with a beginning has a cause, and that God exists as the creator of everything with a beginning. As regards the former, I think it necessary for you to define "cause," because under some possible definitions, it is debatable, even unlikely, whether or not everything does, indeed, have a cause. As regards the latter, you're drawing up a conclusion sans premises. What reasoning can you offer to convince a skeptic that God exists as the creator of everything with a beginning?

P.S. Please refrain from referring to us as, "You people." Such a form of address is impolite and, depending on the addressee, potentially offensive.

[davidm]

Pachomius, on 08 April 2011 - 12:00 AM, said:

Thanks, for your reaction to my thread.



About importance of arguments, I would just like to share with you the fact that arguments do not effect unity among people for the tasks in life.

Why not?

Because arguments are founded on manipulations of concepts and words according to the man-made or discovered rules of logic.

And man has not so far made and/or discovered all the rules of logic that should govern the exercise of argumentation and debate.

Besides, concepts and words, inventions of man, are not enough to contain in representation all the realities of the existing universe in all its intricacies and depths and heights and widths.

Since man does not know everything in reality and will never know everything in reality, ever, nothing will convince anyone to all adopt the same conclusion from argumentation and debate -- the proof is there for everyone with eyes to see, namely, that argumentation and debate does not bring people to unite for the task of getting things done which are crucially needed for the even survival of mankind.

The proof of that insight is the fact that even whether the material universe has a beginning or not, notwithstanding the Big Bang theory there are still people arguing that the universe has no beginning, that it has always been in existence like the God of Christians.


So, what is more important than argumentation and debate for bringing people to unity in the face of an agenda that is urgent for the survival say of a patient on the border of death, or the whole even of mankind?

Consensus building, and finally the rule of number from among the people entitled to cast their vote each on the adoption of a line of action.


That is what the leaders of the world in the United Nations have also adopted, and they call that agreement by convention.

So, what is your point? Because logic is flawed (another unsupported assertion on your part) and man can never "know" everything (true) we should drop all efforts to critical thinking and finding stuff out and everyone should adopt your definition of God by convention?

Because it sure sounds like you're saying that. If so, that won't fly here.

To pick up from the last time, your version of the cosmological argument is the Kallam Cosmological Argument. That argument is deeply vulnerable to attack. Do you want to discuss the argument, or do you want to return here and merely churn out unsupported assertions again? Because if the latter, you will have the same success here this time, as you did last time.

[Pachomius]

So, you see, everyone, why there is no end to argumentation and debate.



But it is an enticing game.


Provided there are no urgent agenda whereon the determination of which depends the life or death of a patient on the verge of ending his mortality, or the survival of mankind as with uncontrolled nuclear pollution.


Then we have to work toward consensus which cannot be said to stick to the logic as found and explained among logicians -- and the more and more their explanation the less and less logic is of any availment in arriving at consensus among responsible people who hold the fate of a man or a nation or mankind itself in their hands.

With each party trying his darn best and longest and most intricately that he has the greatest unchallengeable logic on his side.




Pachomius

[davidm]

Pachomius, on 08 April 2011 - 02:15 AM, said:

So, you see, everyone, why there is no end to argumentation and debate.



But it is an enticing game.


Provided there are no urgent agenda whereon the determination of which depends the life or death of a patient on the verge of ending his mortality, or the survival of mankind as with uncontrolled nuclear pollution.


Then we have to work toward consensus which cannot be said to stick to the logic as found and explained among logicians -- and the more and more their explanation the less and less logic is of any availment in arriving at consensus among responsible people who hold the fate of a man or a nation or mankind itself in their hands.

With each party trying his darn best and longest and most intricately that he has the greatest unchallengeable logic on his side.




Pachomius

Would you care to respond to my post? Are you saying that we should accept your argument for God by convention, because no one can figure anything out anyway? It sure seems that is what you are saying.

Of course, if no one can figure out anything anyway, then we could just as well reject God by convention, too. Fun, eh?

You need to start defending your arguments and responding to other posters; otherwise your posts will be deep-sixed with negative reputation.

[Pachomius]

davidm, on 08 April 2011 - 02:26 AM, said:

Pachomius, on 08 April 2011 - 02:15 AM, said:

So, you see, everyone, why there is no end to argumentation and debate.



But it is an enticing game.


Provided there are no urgent agenda whereon the determination of which depends the life or death of a patient on the verge of ending his mortality, or the survival of mankind as with uncontrolled nuclear pollution.


Then we have to work toward consensus which cannot be said to stick to the logic as found and explained among logicians -- and the more and more their explanation the less and less logic is of any availment in arriving at consensus among responsible people who hold the fate of a man or a nation or mankind itself in their hands.

With each party trying his darn best and longest and most intricately that he has the greatest unchallengeable logic on his side.




Pachomius

Would you care to respond to my post? Are you saying that we should accept your argument for God by convention, because no one can figure anything out anyway? It sure seems that is what you are saying.

Of course, if no one can figure out anything anyway, then we could just as well reject God by convention, too. Fun, eh?

You need to start defending your arguments and responding to other posters; otherwise your posts will be deep-sixed with negative reputation.

No need to engage in argumentation and debate.

If you want to argue to show readers that you have a lot of reasons on your side, then congratulate yourselves if you feel that readers are terribly impressed with your learning and your dexterity in manipulating concepts and words to squeeze out whatever conclusions you claim to have succeeded in squeezing out from your engagement in concepts and words.

You see, the world of logic which consists in as I said the manipulation of concepts and words is not the world or reality, even though they serve mankind to represent realities but with the utmost of infidelity and limitation and even deviation, distortion, retardation.

That is why no one ever wins in an argument unless you have judges who will nonetheless be accused by the losing party to have been dishonest or ignorant of the issue or the discipline involved.

That is what for example all the times atheists will insist on, that their rivals do not know what is evolution.


I prefer exposition to argumentation and or which is the manipulation of concepts and words.

For example, I expound on the concept of God as the creator (see? I do not bring in the phrase anymore of necessary being, since you will abuse that term in order to insist that I am defining God into existence -- which is silly because God cannot be defined into existence unless He is not God, but we are God and He is man (that is how now I see it God created everything with a beginning, by defining them into existence).

And I can see that my concept of God as creator of everything with a beginning brings up a vision of a system, an order, a world where everything starting with God Himself and then everything He has created and still creates have a place and a shall we say job?


Now, you want to insist that there is no God creator but you smuggle in nothingness which by chance or in the concrete freak accident brings about everything, and finally by the same nothingness through freak accidents man with intelligence and free choice who could and did invent a vehicle to bring man himself to the moon and back.

Can you call that namely your view without God a system, an order, a world where everything has a place and a job?

How can nothingness and freak accidents have a place and a job to insure that the nose in your face stays put -- when if freak accidents rule the world nothing stable will stay in place.



That is the shall I call it self-cursing of atheists: no system, no order, no genuine world i.e. cosmos as the Greeks call it, the beautiful universe of harmony and sublimity.

Still atheists long for system, order, genuine world, the cosmos, by labeling God with the word freak accident and endowing it with the capacity for stability.


It is all self-deception, and for what ends? to hide your shame or to parade your vanity of shadow and shallow learning ad magician's dexterity in manipulation of concepts and words.



Oh, should I worry about negative reputation?

All bark but no bite, unless the mods and admins here are bigots who will expel a member on the heaps of negative reputations from sour-graping dyspeptic fellow bigots.




Pachomius

[soleo]

Pachomius, evidently, you have an issue. And you are receiving a cacophony of boos for doing so. What does that demonstrate? That we should not care much about opinion, not yours, not mine, not anyone’s. What we should care about is how one reasons for it, and this we ought to care about very much. Having an opinion does not require philosophy. Everybody has an opinion. Few have reasons for their opinions, and fewer still can supply good reasons. I don’t think anyone here has any interest in what you believe, but only in the reasons you supply of how you have arrived and support that belief. If you fail to address other people's posts, ignore their objections when it suits you, continue to supply strings of contradictory and self satisfied certitudes, then you are not doing critical thinking, and you are certainly not doing philosophy. Do you understand that, Pachomius? You are at a philosophy forum, afterall. It is quite clear that you have no interest in what anyone else is saying, no interest in debating the issue, no desire to clarify your own ideas and beliefs, not an inkling of curiosity to investigate your ideas, nor to hold them up to self-exposure and self-critique. You come across as one of those terrifying ideologue types. If you had come here to pursue philosophically your idea, treated other people and their objections with sincerity, engaged yourself in earnest debate, you would have had a more fruitful time. Instead, once again, you have merely demonstrated your ability at intellectual dishonesty, condescension and trivial apologetics. Oh well, así es la vida.

- - - - - - - - - -

Post Script:

Pachomius, a few months ago I sniffed you out and if you recall I informed the site that you have been about on other boards for quiet a while with much the same banter. Now, as I said before, there's no problem with that, but there doesn't seem to be any sincere motive driving your posts. Not here, and not at those other forums which of some, to my knowledge, have actually banned you. I feel that TGL, which is evidently going out on the www, ought not to be cluttered up like this. You, Pachomius, have demonstrated not only here but on other boards your inability to converse, debate, inform, critically examin or learn from self or any other, and if TGL ever stood for anything, it was surely these characteristics which made it a cut above the rest. Why not give it break, Pachomius? I've never seen anyone with so many neg reps has you, it's shocking. Why not come back when you are a little more mature and ready for earnest debate?

Edited by soleo, 08 April 2011 - 10:59 AM.

[davidm]

Pachomius, on 08 April 2011 - 09:21 AM, said:

No need to engage in argumentation and debate.

Oh, OK. Then why are you here? I suggest you get lost.

BTW, this is not an atheist board, as you seem to think, and it is presumption on your part to suppose that you are addressing atheists. This is a philosophy board (see Soleo's post) which puts a premium on discussion, debate and on arguments. And "arguments," btw, do not mean "arguing" but rather constructing well-thought-out presentations consisting of justified premises and conclusions, in which one seeks to put forth arguments that are valid (the conclusions follow from the premises) and sound (the conclusions follow from the premises, and all the premises are true.)

Obviously all this is beyond you; you dismiss it as an "enticing game."

Then go away. This place is not for you. This place is for, not athiests or theists, but for philosophers, whether they be atheists or theists. You have been told repeatedly that your argument for God is the Kallam Cosmological Argument. You seem to think that this argument is self-evidently true. It's not. In fact, the Kallam argument, the strongest form of the cosmological argument, is unsound. It has at least one false premise. We now know that the premise "everything that begins to exist has a cause" is false owing to quantum mechanics, because in the real world, at the quantum level, things begin to exist without a cause all the time.

The last time you were here, I even started a thread on that argument where you could pursue discussion of it if you wished. You ignored that thread and went away. Now you are back with your same retarded posting style, posting in the exactly same way of offering empty and unsupported assertions and dodging all discussion of those assertions whereby we might seek to dissect them and see if they work or don't. Since you are not interested in discussion, go away. There is no reason for you to be here, and no one is going to take your rubbish seriously.

Have a nice day!

[Big Blooming Blighter]

See, this is why I like the neg rep option.

It allows members to express their disdain of a post without recourse to squabbling or expressing anger.

Just click that little minus sign and ignore the poster.

[Mathsteach2]

Welcome back, Pachomius, and this time it appears you have chosen to post in the Community Forum, rather than the Explore Forum. To me this makes some sense, as I did try to join in on your thread last January, and my post about that is here:

http://www.galilean-...ayground-forum/

Hugo Holbing gave a very helpful response to this, I thought. Now it appears your inter-play is taking place here, and as long as it remains playful (it was your suggestion that all of this was some sort of game, I think) long may it continue, I do not want to see you banned.

However, I am in nearly full agreement with other posters' responses to you in this thread so far. One thing which has not yet been mentioned, and I use these words quite frequently in website fora, are whether or not the exchanges are eristic or dialogic. I learnt their meaning here at TGL and I even used them in a recent Bible Study class which I attend. It was in my own presentation on Daniel 2, and I quote from it:

".... in keeping with our declared position as being a gathering of fervent believers in our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ, but we do not adhere strongly to any particular denomination, doctrine or theology, at least not amongst ourselves. On one of our earliest visits here, ....... (I asked our study leader, who is a bit of an evangelist) how we should approach other Christians who might hold a different interpretation (of Daniel) to the one being presented here...... . He replied that it might be a question of maturity.

"Well, yes and no, I think, but I am not going to pursue that one here and now! Suffice to say that if we attend here ..... , we are all brothers and sisters in Christ, and whilst we may amicably discuss our differences between us at appropriate moments, they will be of a dialectic nature, and not eristic as so many of these types of discussions turn out to be.

"Perhaps I ought to define my terms here. Very briefly, eristic is purely combative, even if it isn't aggressive, and the aim is "winning". Dialectic, on the other hand, is discussion for the sake of discovering the truth. And the truth we are all seeking is God's truth, as brought to us by the Holy Spirit, in the name of Jesus."

More recently there has been a discussion on a Christian website about how as Christians we should sojourn together, and I linked my comment there to this:

http://www.probe.org...Bell_Affair.htm

Rick Wade of Probe Ministries writes:

"First, don’t be hasty. If real heresy is afoot, a delay of a week or so in raising the alarm can’t hurt. On the other hand, having to apologize for getting something wrong can be rather painful.

"Second, beware of jumping on the bandwagon. When we were kids playing football, we loved nothing more than to pile on the guy who got tackled. It was lots of fun (until I was the one on the bottom!). Piling on in the present context can actually work to the benefit of the person being criticized, because the piling on can evoke sympathy in people, especially his own followers.

"Third, know the person’s position. Know the person’s position. May I say it yet again? Know the person’s position! Let me expand on this.

"Fourth, beware of reading in bad motives. .... (skip). It does absolutely nothing to advance the discussion of the ideas being propounded to engage in such speculation. Personal motivations can be discussed, but we’d better be very sure of ourselves before discussing them (and have very good reasons for doing so). To suggest bad motives before establishing one’s case very well on better grounds is to commit the logical fallacy called 'poisoning the well'."

His whole piece is a little longer, and it is well worth reading, I think. The topic is universalism, but Rick directs his comments more generally, hence my citation here in this thread, and applies equally well to philosophy as we try to do it here.

God bless.

[davidm]

Mathsteach2, on 09 April 2011 - 09:47 PM, said:

Welcome back, Pachomius.

I'm afraid it's too late for that. Pachomius has been banned, a ban he has richly earned.