You are talking about mysticism and mention God without a point reference for your premise of God? Since you have not stated this reference, I deduced it – you-American, America is majority Christian, OP statement mentioning God - Conclusion Christian God.



My proof begins with the premise that you are speaking of the Christian God. If you put forth an argument comparing this God with man, it can be deduced that you hold a belief in the Christian God or there would be no point in your argument. Using that premise I established an inference in your original statement – you believe in the Christian God.

My arugument then proceeded that your very own belief is the “proof” which nullifies your argument, that being – the Christian God does know pain and fear because it was experienced through the human incarnation of Jesus. Therefore, your argument is no longer valid (given your inference and my deductive reasoning).

I do not accept Sky’s evaluations because his logic, like yours, is faulty for he has not made a connection between his logic and your beliefs (that you have inferred and I deduced them) as a Christian. For his argument to be valid he should have covered all the aspects of your inferred belief. My argument, on the other hand, has its basis in the very religion you have expected us to reference.

So would you like to make a clearer statement or adjust your argument giving your premise regarding the nature of the God whom you are comparing to man?

Perhaps Sky would like to expound on his own argument further connecting it to a philosophy of mysticism – specifically that of Christian beliefs.

One last point – where religious belief is a premise for an argument – there IS logic (though an atheist may say it is only circular logic) and that logic returns to the belief…… so I have made the logical conclusion.

Jason,

Redy is no amateur...

The problem is that 'God' is assumed to exist in religion. Where is the proof?

Frankly, Redy, your logic uses way too many words and ideas!

befor i respond,i have a few question
your saying that jesus was God in human form correct?

your acknowledging that God CAN feel fear and pain right?

so your saying because god can feel pain, he can feel fear, if he can be afraid he can be couragous just like i can correct?

i just want to make sur i understand your thesis right

ps, telling someone they are wrong is generaly not going to sit well with them. if you attack someone, they will always defend and whether your right or wrong becomes irrelivent. i would love to discuss this with you (DISCUSS) but lets keep it profesional eh?
i will not argue for the hell of it, its pointless and gets no where.
so please, lets not argue, but instead share ideas and perspective, and we both might end up learning something from all of it, ok

Well I guess, based on strict rules of logic, I'd havee to admit that Redy is right about my argument. I didn't directly connect my argument to a specific religious belief in god. However, I can say that I did use similar deduction to arrive at a specific attribute of god - "omnipotence" is pretty universally considered an attribute of god. And that was the only attribute I needed for my argument. Although it's true that my argument wasn't quite as concise and clear-cut as Redy's.

I think it was perfect. There was nothing superfluous and nothing missing. Very direct, concise and clear.

But that’s just my opinion.

Jasonp wrote:


Since the topic requires an argument from the premise that one believe in God and since the concept of God was not clearly defined I chose a definition (with logic).
As I stated, I have based my argument on the Christian conception of God.


In the Christian mythology Jesus and God are one and the same, Jesus was human thus God has a full compliment of human emotions and yes that must include fear and pain.



Let me connect the inference for you – God has a full complement of human emotions. Perhaps I was neglectful in assuming that we were in agreement over the definition of emotion. Why do we have any emotion at all? The answer is that we fear unknown not just pain. But I chose to discuss only half of your assertion (the God half) when in truth you have produced two debatable topics (comparison of man to God) & (comparison of man to emotion).
HINT – therein lies your true argument and quite possibly one which would be hard to dispel, but I wont make it for you…. I will give you the opportunity to make the proper connections. Actually I’m just curious to see if you can.


My thesis is one sided (as I just stated) arguing from the perspective of God as conceived by Christians. However, to properly and fully debate the philosophical perspectives of your ideas I would have to make a complete examination (thesis and arguments) regarding the nature of man and emotion as well. And it may get to that, but in an on line forum brevity is better.



You responded to ArtGurl

Sarcasm may be construed as an attack – even when hidden behind a seeming curtain of innocent interest.
In another response you made


Obviously upholding my assertion of your earlier sarcasm to ArtGurl (why didn’t you look it up? The information is there in abundance and much of it is another sort of mysticism – but what’s in a belief – truth?)



Yes – so I will continue because I have more to say, but at the moment I have class.
Be well – consider the information I have provided and take a serious look at both sides of your statements – God (and its attributes) is one side – humans (and its attributes) are the other. Explore both.

unfortunatly Redy, that does not qualify as discussion.
first, i really was impressesd with art girl. there was zero sarcasm there. dont ever assume to know anyones intentions, you should know that.


its all about your presentation and delievery Ready.

you have some great points, it would be so benificial for me to discuss this whith you, hell i be you could teach me some things, (NO SARCASM WHATSOEVER)
but, unfortunatly for me, you dont want to discuss, you want to be right. so ill just end this right now and say....your right



thanks for the imput guys it was really helpful.
(no ready, no sarcasm)

Jason saidIt seems to me like you've assumed to know Redy's intentions by labeling some comment of her's as sarcasm.

I didn't see any sarcasm in anything she wrote.

So which one of us is wrong?

Me because I didn't assume?

Or your you because you did?

Just a little recap,
Early in the posts Sky brought up the argument that rests on a paradox (I liked it but had to think about it)



Words can be important, for example ‘die’. When humans die our physical form ceases to function. In the generally accepted state of God, there is no physical form but can God cease to exist? As physical beings we have that option, we can commit suicide by damaging our physical body beyond repair. Many people are not sure that ends existence, it only ends the current physical existence. Since we have absolutely no frame of reference from which to draw conclusions about ethereal existence we can not assume there is an option to ending spiritual existence – which means we have no way of knowing if God has not already ceased to exist and as far as we know, without a God humans have automatically surpassed God – at least in existence. However, this isn’t a good resolution because no connection has been made between the emotional attributes of an existing God and that of humans.
Back to the drawing board.

ArtGurl makes a good point but changes the inferred premise of the OP from the Christian God (which is a separatist theory) to a Pantheistic one (God is all and everything is God). So again there is no resolution.

Jasonp responded in this way


Jasonp makes a formal fallacy error – he makes the assertion that all men are expected to be noble, brave, and give their life for their country from which he concludes that there is nothing courageous about these actions they are expected – and then proceeds to commit an informal fallacy by adding another factor which has not been previously presented and was not a part of the original argument—that of man’s nature. In this way a defensive posture was offered against arguments that had no justification without being recognized as fallacious as well. Still no resolution.

Jason also said


This last quote is ambiguous or it may have been made as an appeal to ignorance or it may simply have been a hasty conclusion. Most people who hold a belief in God make a distinction between the body and the soul/spirit. I say most as there are exceptions but choose to go with majority belief here. In the quote above Jasonp places an exaggerated value on the body (from a Christian perspective). While death is something to be avoided, to the Christian, it is not the end of their existence. This creates another argument AGAINST the idea that man can surpass God, in courage, by choosing to face probable death for some ethical purpose. But again, there has been a frame of reference error. We can not possibly determine how ‘life threatening’ a seemingly courageous act might have been to individual. We cannot know if any given individual proceeds on the basis that self- annihilation is at hand or simply a transitional state of being should their body cease to be.
So the idea that God can not be courageous because he cannot die must then be the same argument for people who believe they can only die in body but their essence/spirit/soul lives on.

I’m sorry, if you didn’t expect me to take the challenge you presented



I thought a reciprocal exchange to be fair and so I taken your challenge and have, likewise, pointed out a few of your own errors.

Sorry, I don’t have time for more fun at the moment – mid-terms next week, gotta study.

Don’t take offence Jasonp – we all like new ideas here and like you said we need to be civil to each other. Lots of great people here, a whole plethora of ideas and some of the most brilliant and creative people I’ve had the pleasure to correspond with. WELCOME!

(ps – you lose this round but, – you get to play again for free – we just keep it rolling) - wow I'm a referee now

loose according to who? if you think its about winning or loosing, than my part in this is over.
sky, when did i say she was being sarcastic? quote me please. and if i did, was she being srcastic? can you tell the difference between sarcastic and a compliment? i know i can.

ready i can argue every single point you bring up! but why? you and 99 % of people on this site are two close minded to ever even consider your wrong.
its rediculous, childish

this is not a contest. its not ment to see if you can prove someone wrong. if you guys have that mindset, than i promise you, you will not get very far.

did i not conceed my point when someone showed me a logical reason to do so? yes i did. why? BECAUSE I WANT TO LEARN, NOT TO SHOW YOU HOW SUPIRIOR I AM.

i am 20 years old, no formal education yet, and i feel like im in high scool. i wont play these games with any of you.
so bask in your victory, but what did you really win ready?

its disturbing, almost heartbreaking that someone with the knowledge you posess would use it to redicule and attempt dislodge someones beliefs or thinking, instead of discussing a subject and giving them a new perspective or even helping them understand why.

but youl justify it, right?

Easy. Through washing his/her face in cold water every morning and teaching his/her kids how to spit out cherry pits.

My bad. I got mixed up. My aplologies.

You are correct, there is no reason to argue every single point, but if you choose to debate the wrong ones instead of explaining why they don't relate (which also serves to broaden an understanding of your own perspective)then the discussion becomes overly broad and you end up arguing point that have nothing to do with your original discussion. So a closed mind, in a philosophical discussion, is not one that refuses to consider opposition rather a closed mind is focused on the central core of the issue at hand.



Yes, Jasonp, you did, however I hope I pointed out that your concession was based on a fallicious argument, although it was an interesting one to consider.



I am 54 and I'm a college student - and I cannot tell you how often I feel like I'm in high school. Ever hear of Cat Stevens? He wrote some great songs, this line comes to mind "you're young, that's your fault" - It took me years to understand the meaning behind that line. We are all young in some respect and though we are not to blame for our innocence - it represent what some consider a fault. (A highly correctible one).



Sometimes attaining knowledge means giving up old beliefs and sometimes having knowledge means you have strengthend those beliefs but either way knowledge is transformational and worth the effort.

You might consider the virture in patience. You have formed judgments about people here, myself included, which will hinder you enjoyment of this site and your ability to learn from the forums here. (I'm teaching here - you who want to learn - are you paying attention???



When you make statements that can argued, you are using persuasion, the point of both argument and persuasion is 'win'. When you came down on me, using philisophical points of logical error, it proved to me that you were interested in arguing in fairness, but it also showed me that you did not have a firm grasp of what that involves because you had not followed it yourself. I CEASED THE OPPORTUNITY TO TAKE THE INTEREST YOU HAD IN LEARNING - and fed back to you informtion (transformational knowledge). Who is being closed minded Jasonp. Patience! Your pre-judgement led to emotional blockage and knowledge must be accepted, it will not be forced upon you.



My original (first) post in this thread did have a tone of sarcasm, but I though I had made that clear.

However- you must have missed this one:
(ps – you lose this round but, – you get to play again for free – we just keep it rolling) - wow I'm a referee now

PURE SARCASM - but it's purpose was meant to releive the tension I knew had built inside you.

Knowledge is best served when our faults are known to us. Get to know yourself and recognize your faults so that you will see knowledge when it is presented to you.

KEEP POSTING - you have new ideas and future vision that people like me may find hard to grasp - but you are the future and you have much to teach about your visions.

Jason,

I suspect that, maybe, part of the reason you feel like you are in high school is because emotional immaturity and cliquishness knows no age limits. Not much value in discussing the elephant in the living room; nor is there any value in trying to convince someone of something when they have a huge emotional investment against it.

Welcome to the site, I do hope you continue to participate in the Science/Philosophy section.

all hail satan

A First person perspective is incompatible with omniscience. You could say a first person perspective must by its very nature have limited knowledge of the world.

Its apples and oranges.

Like Di mentioned you can argue that through Jesus this deity learned what it was like to have a mortal experience and thus was able to however briefly attain a first person perspective, but can you describe what it would be like to have an instant full knowledge of all things while walking down the road to Damascus?

The main problem with the OP's idea, is one of frame of reference. That is why I mentioned perspective. An omniscient perspective is 180 degrees from a first person perspective, and setting up a comparison of courage with these two disparate perspectives is incompatible.

I think it would have probably been better if instead of using the word paradox, I had instead used absurd.

This is the exact thing I believe the OP was pointing out. Its much like the idea of a all powerful being able to create an object it cannot lift.

If Jesus was truly gods avatar, yet mortal, a limited first person perspective yet omniscient, then the absurdities are evident.

In fact these are the very things Abra enjoys to point out. He does a much better job then I do, but it goes something like this.

God sent down himself to die, to appease himself, all the time knowing full well what would happen. He created us with the same knowledge we would fail to meet his expectations and knew he would need to kill himself to get over it . . . . but only if we believe he did that.

Abra, help me out bud!!! (ohh wait, I guess I should have read the thread more closely, Abra has already nailed the absurdities.)

You are absolutely correct. In fact this statement is an answer to a question posed to me on why 'spirit' divides into separate individual "souls."

Thanks.

I have had my 'beliefs' dislodged many times for the sake of knowledge. I remember when I was 20. I was certain I was right. More than once I was proved beyond any doubt that I had been very wrong. Hence, I changed my beliefs. I am 60 years old now. I know a lot more. I have different beliefs.

Beliefs change. You are not your beliefs. If you hold onto your beliefs as if you think they are you, then you will not learn much, and you will have what is called "a closed mind."

I have many 'beliefs."

and yet..

The only thing I am certain of is that I exist.

your right, but you missed my point