We are not special

[elman]

No. An example is a particular case, while a definition is a general case. My definition, no particular case can simultaneously be the general case. An example can give an idea, but it can never be a definition. I am tired of arguing with you, because I'm not sure whether you're being obstinate or just don't know any better, and honestly, either one would be pretty miserable.

I don't like either choice but an example can better define things sometimes than general statments and while you sidetracked to this issue you did not deal with what I said. I wonder if you were able to and resorted to the side tract to avoid that becoming apparent.

 

[The Nihilist]

Elman, you don't understand the difference between a definition and an example. This in itself is not disastrous, but the problem is systematic. Your use of language is wishy-washy, and it appears that your understanding of concepts is equally without foundation. We cannot have a discussion; all we can do is talk past each other, and I will not participate.

 

[Kaelestis721]

Elman, you don't understand the difference between a definition and an example. This in itself is not disastrous, but the problem is systematic. Your use of language is wishy-washy, and it appears that your understanding of concepts is equally without foundation. We cannot have a discussion; all we can do is talk past each other, and I will not participate.

You are participating by responding.... *bonk*

Anyways, I've only halfway read your convo/debate, but "love" in and of itself is not really definable. It isn't like an equation where 1+1=2... it is more like x + y = z where z is the definition. What I mean is that the definition of "love" changes from person to person b/c they define it in their own way based off of their experiences, feelings, personality, values, etc. While you may search for a 'general definition', the true definition differs from case to case.

So, IMO you are just asserting both of your opinions on what you define love as and disagreeing while trying to make the other person believe you are right. Something that has deteriorated into arguing about what 'definition' actually means...which isn't really an important topic to be honest.

 

[The Nihilist]

You are participating by responding.... *bonk*

Anyways, I've only halfway read your convo/debate, but "love" in and of itself is not really definable. It isn't like an equation where 1+1=2... it is more like x + y = z where z is the definition. What I mean is that the definition of "love" changes from person to person b/c they define it in their own way based off of their experiences, feelings, personality, values, etc. While you may search for a 'general definition', the true definition differs from case to case.

So, IMO you are just asserting both of your opinions on what you define love as and disagreeing while trying to make the other person believe you are right. Something that has deteriorated into arguing about what 'definition' actually means...which isn't really an important topic to be honest.

That's cute to say, but I think you're wrong. I think we could make headway if elman would stick to his terms and have a serious conversation. Otherwise, there's nothing to be done.

 

[Electron]

Nope... We are completely insignificant in relation to the entire universe. Almost uncomprehensively insignificant. This is why I find the idea of a personal God pretty much ridiculous. One galaxy to the universe is like one grain of sand to the earth. One atom in that grain of sand is like one star to one galaxy. One electron orbiting that grain of sand is like one planet orbiting that star. And every person is like one six billionth of that electron.

I would say the chances of life NOT existing outside of Earth are 1 in 10^9999999999999999999^9999999999999999^999999^
9999999999999999^9999999999999999999^999999...

Well, I'm sure you get the picture.

 

[elman]

You are participating by responding.... *bonk*

Anyways, I've only halfway read your convo/debate, but "love" in and of itself is not really definable. It isn't like an equation where 1+1=2... it is more like x + y = z where z is the definition. What I mean is that the definition of "love" changes from person to person b/c they define it in their own way based off of their experiences, feelings, personality, values, etc. While you may search for a 'general definition', the true definition differs from case to case.

So, IMO you are just asserting both of your opinions on what you define love as and disagreeing while trying to make the other person believe you are right. Something that has deteriorated into arguing about what 'definition' actually means...which isn't really an important topic to be honest.

The issue of love your neighbor originates with the teaching of Jesus. He answered the question of who is my neighbor with the parable of the Good Samaritan. He also defined love in the story of the last Judgment in Matt 25:31 and following. We all know love when we see it and we know hate when we see it and we all know love is good and hate is bad. It is not that difficult of an issue. Love is a very important topic and defining it is also an important discussion.

 

[elman]

That's cute to say, but I think you're wrong. I think we could make headway if elman would stick to his terms and have a serious conversation. Otherwise, there's nothing to be done.

You want to define love in such a way that we are not discussing what Jesus was really talking about? That is avoiding a serious conversation on what He was talking about; and this silly little mental thing of yours about I have to play by your rules or you will take your toys and go home is not convincing.

 

[Kaelestis721]

The issue of love your neighbor originates with the teaching of Jesus. He answered the question of who is my neighbor with the parable of the Good Samaritan. He also defined love in the story of the last Judgment in Matt 25:31 and following. We all know love when we see it and we know hate when we see it and we all know love is good and hate is bad. It is not that difficult of an issue. Love is a very important topic and defining it is also an important discussion.

I am not saying that love or its definition isn't an important topic...but it seemed as if ur discussion deteriorated into a discussion on what a definition is...which isn't an important topic.

However, as I stated before the definition of love is free flowing and changes from person to person from experience to experience from time to time. A broad description such as 'love is good' does not even benefit from having everybody assert their agreement...I've heard many friends say from time to time that 'love is bad'...I've felt that way myself from time to time...even tho that isn't true 100% of the time...I sure do feel that way on a rare occasion.

 

[Theogonia]

Why do we have to be alone to be special? I suppose there is a saying "If everyone's special, then no one is special." It's not really true, everything in the universe is special, because each thing in the universe is unique. We are not special because we are alive, but because we are who we are. There will never be another you in the universe, you are special. Snowflakes will never be repeated, each one of them is special-even though there are a gazillion snowflakes.



Does anyone really think that God isn't everywhere? God's not wasting time anywhere, God is everywhere, and there is no time to God.



Yes, there is something more out there! Why is One being simplistic? It must be amazing for one being to span the universe, and to span the multi-universe and to span the parallel universes...In my beliefs, God is the universe, the multi-universe, and the parallel universes. God is everything. He has to spend so much time among us because He is us. He spends just as much "time" among the other planets.

Pantheists always seem to understand the basic idea of what God is.

 

[jeff992]

Nope... We are completely insignificant in relation to the entire universe. Almost uncomprehensively insignificant. This is why I find the idea of a personal God pretty much ridiculous. One galaxy to the universe is like one grain of sand to the earth. One atom in that grain of sand is like one star to one galaxy. One electron orbiting that grain of sand is like one planet orbiting that star. And every person is like one six billionth of that electron.

I would say the chances of life NOT existing outside of Earth are 1 in 10^9999999999999999999^9999999999999999^999999^
9999999999999999^9999999999999999999^999999...

Well, I'm sure you get the picture.

It seems to me that you are basing your conclusion on your assumption that God does not exist. The simple anithesis is that if the Christian God does exist, then we are incredibly significant. I don't think one can judge his own significance. If God wants us to be significant, we are significant. If the Christian God does exist, whose to say that he didn't make all the hundreds of billions of galaxies to show how all-powerful he really is? He could do whatever he wants.

It is obvious that we are significatly different from the rest of other matter and life. From my perspective, this fact and the massiveness and complexity of the universe I think it is very reasonable to assume that a God does exist.

 

[elman]

I am not saying that love or its definition isn't an important topic...but it seemed as if ur discussion deteriorated into a discussion on what a definition is...which isn't an important topic.

However, as I stated before the definition of love is free flowing and changes from person to person from experience to experience from time to time. A broad description such as 'love is good' does not even benefit from having everybody assert their agreement...I've heard many friends say from time to time that 'love is bad'...I've felt that way myself from time to time...even tho that isn't true 100% of the time...I sure do feel that way on a rare occasion.

That is why we must know what we are talking about when we say love is good or love is bad. Before we can discuss the teaching to love your neighbor, we have to agree on who our neighbor is and what it would look like to show love to him or her. I agree that circumstances effect what is loving and what is not in a particular situation, still in most cases most of us will agree that killing someone is not loving them. Also most of us would agree that if we find someone in trouble and given them assistence to relieve their pain and problems, that is a loving action.

 

[Electron]

It seems to me that you are basing your conclusion on your assumption that God does not exist. The simple anithesis is that if the Christian God does exist, then we are incredibly significant. I don't think one can judge his own significance. If God wants us to be significant, we are significant. If the Christian God does exist, whose to say that he didn't make all the hundreds of billions of galaxies to show how all-powerful he really is? He could do whatever he wants.

It is obvious that we are significatly different from the rest of other matter and life. From my perspective, this fact and the massiveness and complexity of the universe I think it is very reasonable to assume that a God does exist.

If something that is complex needs a designer, something as intelligent as a god would also need a designer. And something intelligent to create a god would need a designer. And something intelligent enough to create a god creator would need a designer. There would need to be an infinite string of creators for this to happen. However, if you acknowledge that something complex doesn't need to be designed, then the question of the existance of God becomes irrelevant. If this is the case, then there is no proof of God either existing or not.

 

[jeff992]

If something that is complex needs a designer, something as intelligent as a god would also need a designer. And something intelligent to create a god would need a designer. And something intelligent enough to create a god creator would need a designer. There would need to be an infinite string of creators for this to happen. However, if you acknowledge that something complex doesn't need to be designed, then the question of the existance of God becomes irrelevant. If this is the case, then there is no proof of God either existing or not.

What if the God we are talking about here is the "ultimate" complex being? Everything else then would be less complex?

All I am saying is that it is REASONABLE to assume that something as complex as this universe would have been created by some sort of intelligent, powerful being. This would make sense and consistent with what we see in nature. I am not saying it's an end all proof by any means, only that it makes a lot more sense than alot of other things (All other explanations I would say).

 

[OrestesMantra]

What if the God we are talking about here is the "ultimate" complex being? Everything else then would be less complex?

This still doesn't escape from the problem of infinite regress. How can you arbitrarily "stop" at some form of complexity and assume that in this case, a designer is not needed?

All I am saying is that it is REASONABLE to assume that something as complex as this universe would have been created by some sort of intelligent, powerful being. This would make sense and consistent with what we see in nature. I am not saying it's an end all proof by any means, only that it makes a lot more sense than alot of other things (All other explanations I would say).

Human reason is fallible. If you didn't know any better, it would seam reasonable that the earth is flat or the sun revolved around the earth.

 

[Electron]

Check out this excellent video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcBV-cXVWFw