Something from the NS thinker's cult

Posts: 12155 - Karma: 6,147

Karma: 6,147

Posts: 12155

Crazy Fool

agreed.

also, an opinion is still an opinion regardless of whether there are other people to argue those opinions with.

invite please

Mar 23 2007 12:30AM

0 0

Posts: 7790 - Karma: 23,519

Karma: 23,519

Posts: 7790

Crazy Fool

way to rip off descartes.

Mar 23 2007 12:32AM

0 0

cofreeskier

Posts: 3189 - Karma: 15

Karma: 15

Posts: 3189

Addict

No...hes saying that there is no God. Descartes proved God exists.

Mar 23 2007 12:35AM

0 0

sack

Posts: 4881 - Karma: 147

Karma: 147

Posts: 4881

No Life

interesting.

Mar 23 2007 12:35AM

0 0

cofreeskier

Posts: 3189 - Karma: 15

Karma: 15

Posts: 3189

Addict

Oh, sorry about the double post, but i invited snobunny and ski2dominate so other ns thinkers leaders dont invite them again

Mar 23 2007 12:36AM

0 0

Posts: 7790 - Karma: 23,519

Karma: 23,519

Posts: 7790

Crazy Fool

yeah, i know but with the idea of perfection and all that... the point is there was JUST a descartes thread in ns thinkers, and this is a weird, poorly thought out spin off to prove the contrary.

Mar 23 2007 12:37AM

0 0

Posts: 12155 - Karma: 6,147

Karma: 6,147

Posts: 12155

Crazy Fool

Calan says:
yeah and to use that
Calan says:
thought process
Calan says:
to determine there is no god
Calan says:
is the stupidest thing ive ever heard
Calan says:
i dont even realize what he's saying actually
Calan says:
he's basically saying
Calan says:
because the world isnt perfect
Calan says:
there is no god?
Calan says:
how do we know god was striving for perfection?
Casey says:
how do we know the world isnt perfect in the first place?
Casey says:
because those buildings aren't all alike or something?
Calan says:
yeah way to use a horrendous picture to prove your point also
Calan says:
imma post this conversation
Casey says:
k

Mar 23 2007 12:39AM

0 0

Posts: 1611 - Karma: 10

Karma: 10

Posts: 1611

Insane

The flow of time could be argued to be purely conceptual though. In which case there is no time,(as all proof of time is in astro-physics, which is really all vague theory) but merely a long passage of intances. In each instance being every action occuring in this universe at that given point.

As far as pefection, I do agree that it is purely how we percieve what is perfect to ourselves. But in that sense perfection does not exist, but this is impossible if what we think is therefore right. If there is no pure state of perfection, than our thoughts are imperfect, thusly spoiling our minds.

Mar 23 2007 12:43AM

0 0

Posts: 12155 - Karma: 6,147

Karma: 6,147

Posts: 12155

Crazy Fool

But we (as humans)realize that our own ideas of perfection are just that, our own ideas. we understand the fact that perfection is subjective, and we accept that. therefore changing the definition of perfection to incorporate opinion of the subject or group inflicting judgement.

Mar 23 2007 12:51AM

0 0

Posts: 1611 - Karma: 10

Karma: 10

Posts: 1611

Insane

Yeah but wouldn't that be more ideals, rather than perfection. I mean perfection in definition hails from something beyoned what is feasable to desire or think possible. I mean that idea of perfection being something we create is flawed, what were people like jaspers or hesse looking for?

Autheniticty(ie human perfection of the self[in a sense]). A good case for this is in both Siddartha and Demian (cough i love hesse). Even in Nietszche(sp?, god i hate him). He failed to find the ubermunchs and this was clearly a cause of self pain for himself.

I mean perfection hails beyoned rationality.

PS i need an invite to this cult

Mar 23 2007 1:05AM

0 0

Posts: 12155 - Karma: 6,147

Karma: 6,147

Posts: 12155

Crazy Fool

agreed. i was talking less in the philisophical sense of the definition and more-so in just the general human perception of perfection. Basically just saying that we've allowed the definition of perfection to settle on the opinion of the majority or each individual (mans pompous natural instinct to feel they have the right to identify flaws).

Mar 23 2007 1:12AM

0 0

Posts: 1611 - Karma: 10

Karma: 10

Posts: 1611

Insane

And we are definitly flawed (how ironic) in the acceptance of the majority's ideals, but is this necessarily better than a completely individual idea of what is ideal.

Mar 23 2007 1:14AM

0 0

CooksCorner

Posts: 3939 - Karma: 22

Karma: 22

Posts: 3939

Addict

Your position assumes that perfection is an abstraction of human thought rather than a concept extrapolated from, or given by, a more capable mode of understanding.

I'm not positing a 'God' character, I'm simply highlighting your assumption that 'perfection' is a construct of man.

Technically, for the purposes of refining your position, perfection under your definition would require an inversion of the negative coupled with the concept of infinity. Infinity could, in the same sense, be posited as an inversion of its negative (the finite), but we best leave that rabbit hole alone for now.

Lastly, I'm not entirely sure whether you've based your position on "an instant" in a temporal or causal sense. The technical notation in a temporal view of time, as you claim, has no merit. A causal position however, is subject to a host of logical and emotional implications in which the power of "an instant" can be both real and profound.

I'm glad to see you're thinking, but don't cheapen your position with a photo that fishes for an emotional response.

Mar 23 2007 1:15AM

0 0

CooksCorner

Posts: 3939 - Karma: 22

Karma: 22

Posts: 3939

Addict

I dont like Liebniz's dismissal of the problem by lowering our expectations of God...non the less, he's the fucking man.

Mar 23 2007 1:17AM

0 0

ajax

Posts: 2851 - Karma: 1,241

Karma: 1,241

Posts: 2851

Addict

On a sidenote, could I get an invite as well?

Mar 23 2007 1:22AM

0 0

Posts: 12155 - Karma: 6,147

Karma: 6,147

Posts: 12155

Crazy Fool

okay so in the first part, you state that time does exist. and that instances are just frozen fragments of an uninterupted flow of time.

the second part you state that only God can judge perfection.

in the third part you say that perfection is like an instance, a placeholder...(but you dont say what it is a milemarker/place holder of?)

like, are you putting not that much thought into what you wrote? or are you putting so much thought into it that you're incorporating quantum physics and are stating that perfection is an instance in which strings align perfectly, and perfection is obtained in flash instances of time. And because our brains cannot slow down enough (or rather think fast enough) to computer exact moments of time. then perfection is a theory we're unable to capture?

Am i putting too much thought into this, i don't really understand what you're saying.

so here's what I was thinking: if only one being is alive, then whatever he/she thinks is perfect is actually perfect because there is no question about it (and perfect is an opinion only).

but you just said that only God can perceive perfection. therefore no, if only one being is alive, according to your theory what they think is NOT perfection, only God can determine that.

So the quality of perfection is limited to the quality of the individual imagining it. Therefore, the world we live in would be a reflection of a higher being’s idea of perfection.

so you're basically saying that the quality of the world is a product of the limits of God's capability to imagine something better. and your example of God's shortcomings is a picture of an impoverished village.

and this somehow proves that God doesn't exist because he should have come up with better? Well you're really taking the weight off of our shoulders as humans for the problems in the world, and taking all credit away from God (if he exists).

Mar 23 2007 1:50AM

0 0

Posts: 12155 - Karma: 6,147

Karma: 6,147

Posts: 12155

Crazy Fool

^*he/she/it/whatever

Mar 23 2007 1:51AM

0 0

BFFset.

Posts: 2210 - Karma: 12

Karma: 12

Posts: 2210

Addict

cool story hansel

Mar 23 2007 1:51AM

0 0

Posts: 7790 - Karma: 23,519

Karma: 23,519

Posts: 7790

Crazy Fool

if cookscorner and drew aren't in the thinkers cult yet... then god dammit.

Mar 23 2007 1:52AM

0 0

BFFset.

Posts: 2210 - Karma: 12

Karma: 12

Posts: 2210

Addict

but really, if an instant is just this horribly tiny amont of time, then is that being still alive? and since perfection is subject to interpretation, then it can be so many different things. your interpreation my this of that the only being, etc. but not others' who knows?
i love thinker's cult

Mar 23 2007 1:54AM

0 0

Posts: 12155 - Karma: 6,147

Karma: 6,147

Posts: 12155

Crazy Fool

im not willing to think THAT hard.

Mar 23 2007 2:06AM

0 0

Posts: 7790 - Karma: 23,519

Karma: 23,519

Posts: 7790

Crazy Fool

hahahahahaha are you kidding me

Mar 23 2007 2:07AM

0 0

CooksCorner

Posts: 3939 - Karma: 22

Karma: 22

Posts: 3939

Addict

The more I think about it I really don't like Liebniz's reply here to the problem of evil. His perspective requires that God be subject to his own mechanism, i.e. the rules of the existence which he supposedly created. Thus in an analogous sense he falls victim to the same vice as man; subservience to an alienated concept. If God were to make method supreme, that is, above himself, the core of what constitutes God are (namely infallibility, infinite capability) in serious jeopardy.

Succinctly speaking; a God with limited ability is not a God. God must be a pure expression of essence: perfect, infinite, and complete.

Mar 23 2007 2:29AM

0 0

Posts: 12155 - Karma: 6,147

Karma: 6,147

Posts: 12155

Crazy Fool

I whole-heartedly agree.

Mar 23 2007 2:35AM

0 0

CMF

Posts: 1918 - Karma: 16

Karma: 16

Posts: 1918

Insane

but are conveniences always for the best?

Mar 23 2007 11:12AM

0 0

da-bling

Posts: 1145 - Karma: 11

Karma: 11

Posts: 1145

Insane

can i get an invite to the NS thinkers cult?

Mar 23 2007 12:16PM

0 0

pns513

Posts: 1966 - Karma: 12

Karma: 12

Posts: 1966

Insane

i never gave that much thought but it sounds very convincing
i want to be in the cult, may i have an invite?

Mar 23 2007 11:07PM

0 0

shagalabagala

Posts: 2101 - Karma: 10

Karma: 10

Posts: 2101

Addict

I got ya brah

Mar 24 2007 12:57AM

0 0

babujib

Posts: 5039 - Karma: 104

Karma: 104

Posts: 5039

No Life

wow wtf that was too deep for NS

Mar 24 2007 1:06AM

0 0

Rowdy5000

Posts: 28 - Karma: 10

Karma: 10

Posts: 28

Lame

can i get an invite

Mar 24 2007 1:06AM

0 0

HHB

Posts: 683 - Karma: 14

Karma: 14

Posts: 683

Ridiculous

thank you Socrates, for making me realize im retarded

Mar 24 2007 1:08AM

0 0

Posts: 1611 - Karma: 10

Karma: 10

Posts: 1611

Insane

seriously invite me

Mar 24 2007 3:50AM

0 0

Schmitz

Posts: 4272 - Karma: 103

Karma: 103

Posts: 4272

No Life

Invite me too. In english we are going over Rousseau and Nitschke right now

Mar 24 2007 4:26AM

0 0

Posts: 12155 - Karma: 6,147

Karma: 6,147

Posts: 12155

Crazy Fool

while you're reading Rousseau, read Locke as well.

Mar 24 2007 4:57AM

0 0

MitchPee

Posts: 8871 - Karma: 1,510

Karma: 1,510

Posts: 8871

Crazy Fool

I agree with the first part completely.

Your basing your argument off of something that is entirely conceptual. Time.

Mar 24 2007 9:58AM

0 0

Mod

Posts: 3179 - Karma: 11

Karma: 11

Posts: 3179

Addict

Of course perfection is an opinion, nothing can ever be perfect simply because we have no idea what perfect is/looks like.

And if there is no time, only instances, we would have to say over x number of instances is a year, instead of 365 days (time), which would be impossible to calculate. Therefore, if there is no flow of time or instances it wouldn't matter because instances are impossible to calculate. "Oh honey I'll be home in 1,500 instances", when we could say "I'll be home in 5 minutes" because we know how much time it takes to get from point A to point B.

Mar 24 2007 10:21AM

0 0

Posts: 1611 - Karma: 10

Karma: 10

Posts: 1611

Insane

That is a different time, "human" time, as i like to call it for this sake, is a measurment of times we rotate the sun, used for measuring crop rotation mainly.

This is time as in relation to astro physics, I'm not trained or versed in it enough to explain (since I'm a student of ethics.).

As a tip for ALL OF YOU WHO DRINK WHEY PROTEIN.

Don;t run out of milk, and mix it with soy. Grossest drink ever.

Mar 24 2007 1:46PM

0 0

Mod

Posts: 3179 - Karma: 11

Karma: 11

Posts: 3179

Addict

Whey protein with regular milk is pretty gross so I can only imagine what it tastes like with soy.

Mar 24 2007 1:48PM

0 0

Posts: 1611 - Karma: 10

Karma: 10

Posts: 1611

Insane

Dymatize on whey, GNC pro performance ISO burst, EAS pro performance series, I have all tried to vouch as tasting REALLY good.

Mar 24 2007 2:08PM

0 0

sack

Posts: 4881 - Karma: 147

Karma: 147

Posts: 4881

No Life

wow where'd that come from...
all I have to say is any milk other than cow's milk I have had tastes disgusting, including soy milk. Tofu, on the other hand, is wonderful.

Mar 25 2007 2:07AM

0 0

Riley.

Posts: 2214 - Karma: 259

Karma: 259

Posts: 2214

Addict

wtf

Mar 25 2007 11:57AM

0 0