Prince's Evangelical Obsession

[Nick]

Logic seems to be in need of updating criteria.

Why does it seem this way?

[Kunga]

Logic seems to be in need of updating criteria.

Why does it seem this way?

Simply because science is using logic...and scientists are being baffled by their discoveries in the Universe....even life canno't be reproduced from nothing....can it ??

[Nick]

It's not about how logic is used, it's about what it's applied to. Scientists use it to form theories about finite systems, philosophers use it to arrive at absolutes. Either way, we're always using the same logic, but we're not always connecting the same dots.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

so there is no room for creative thinking & hypothetical situations ?

There is room for these things, but the further one puts it from reason, the more one has to back it up. With some minor tweaking, we can still use your hypothetical.

What if you had a near death experience...and met God...and he spoke to you...and you knew it was God....would you still obey the rules of logic ?

and met God...and he spoke to you...and you knew it was God

How do you propose that the case was "knowing" it was God rather than just feeling sure that it was God? Especially in a hypothetical, it is important to differentiate these things.

Or are you positing that God exists (and here, you would have to define what you mean by God) and then asking "Would you still obey the rules of logic?"

If God definitely exists, then it would be logical to believe in God - but are you positing that there is a God who wants us to be illogical and will punish us for all of eternity if we do not behave illogically for him? That would be a personal question.

Who can think for themselves without following a set pattern of thinking ?

What tree can be a tree without fitting into the pattern of trees?

Maybe i am saying that being intuitive is more advanced than conditioned thinking.?

There is a place for intuitiveness, and a good intuition can pick up on subtle cues and process them more quickly than the conscious mind, but it is always possible for an intuition to be wrong. It is not possible for sound logic to ever be wrong. That is the operant definition of sound logic. If the results are wrong, by definition, the logic was not sound.

Please try to understand that I don't take these discussions quite as seriously as you do.

That is unfortunate, but commonplace.

Most of the topics presented here exist outside of this forum

No kidding. The eternal truths have been around awhile.

many of the posters and administrators here present them in a way that I stimulating, enlightening or amusing. That's why I'm here. If that's not good enough a reason, then feel free to add me to your list of "weeds" that you want to send to the admins. It wouldn't bother me in the least.

Stimulating or enlightening are good, and the occasional amusing moment is fine. I do wish that you would take this at least seriously enough that you could make the most out of your interactions here, and enough respect for the main forum to make sure that what you put out here are your best thoughts, not just henids to distract those actually here to improve their thinking skills.

Just because GF does not charge for entry does not mean that it can't be at least as beneficial as a Harvard doctorate in philosophy, minus the paper and credential. In order to accomplish this though, we must take this as serious work, not just as entertainment.

[Carmel]

Carmel:
Please try to understand that I don't take these discussions quite as seriously as you do.

Elizabeth:
That is unfortunate, but commonplace.

Carmel:
No, It's very fortunate from my perspective. You seem stuck in a place that is devoid of levity, humour, enLIGHTenment and sometimes life itself. I think this is unfortunate yet, "commonplace".

Elizabeth:
No kidding. The eternal truths have been around awhile.

Carmel:
This is correct. :)

[Kunga]

"knowing" it was God rather than just feeling sure that it was God?

When i was a Christian i was sure i knew God...it was more than a feeling....but i had no concept of what God was....but i belived Jesus was the way, the Truth and The Life.....i can identify with Prince...but now i see things differntly....more like God is everything...The Universe is everything....we are a part of everything and everything is a part of us....all is one...God is not separate...we are "God"....no duality...but speaking this destroys the profundity ...the logic......because no words can really explain it....and i do not know it...only intellectualize it....

[Kunga]

If God definitely exists, then it would be logical to believe in God -

In Prince's mind God defintiely exists...so it is logical in his mind.

[Kunga]

What tree can be a tree without fitting into the pattern of trees?

what i ment to convey was that we are conditioned in our thinking...logic is a conditioned pattern of thinking...a tree canno't think...humans think...but we pattern our thinking based on what others think...instead of thinking in a unconditioned state....we are all brainwashed into a thinking pattern....thinking "outside the box" is not an accepted view to a logician.

To have no view is the correct view to a few :)

[Carl G]

If God definitely exists, then it would be logical to believe in God -

In Prince's mind God defintiely exists...so it is logical in his mind.

True logic points only to what is true in all minds.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

more like God is everything...The Universe is everything....we are a part of everything and everything is a part of us....all is one...God is not separate...we are "God"....no duality...but speaking this destroys the profundity ...

That is also the way that I define God. That makes your previous question a bit strange though, as one does not need to have a near death experience to know God in this way.

In Prince's mind God defintiely exists...so it is logical in his mind.

The way that he is presenting it though does not evidence sound logic.

It's Interesting that prince of the sidelines, who has been so active lately, has not even bothered to sign in since this thread has gone up.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

What tree can be a tree without fitting into the pattern of trees?

what i ment to convey was that we are conditioned in our thinking...logic is a conditioned pattern of thinking...a tree canno't think...humans think...but we pattern our thinking based on what others think...instead of thinking in a unconditioned state....we are all brainwashed into a thinking pattern

There are memes, but logic is eternal where trends are not. I understand about brainwashing, but when a person is able to sit back away from outside influences, see things in a detached manner from different angles, and "choose" * what seems right to them, that is not brainwashing.


*that I use the word "choose" here is not meant to imply that I believe in free will.

thinking "outside the box" is not an accepted view to a logician.

That depends on what box you are referring to. The logic of quantum physics is in and out of the box at the same time. It is true that logical thought may not be illogical though.

To have no view is the correct view to a few :)

Agnosticism is a very honest position.

True logic points only to what is true in all minds.

That would be true if all minds were logical.

[Kunga]

True logic points only to what is true in all minds.

But is the truth known only by logical deduction ?

What's logical about no beginning and no ending to existence ?

It seems illogical to think one even knows anything without knowing everything.

[Kunga]

That makes your previous question a bit strange though, as one does not need to have a near death experience to know God in this way.

i just used that as an example of how some people experience things...experienceing gives one an advantage over someone that just belives blindly...i've never had a near-death experience myself...but i've read a few books where people explain their experiences....and nothing would be able to convience them that what they experienced wasn't real...even though the experience can be explained (scientifically)as a chemical induced hallucination produced by the brain....

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

I think that it's very honest to say "okay, there's some stuff that's not provable, it claims to not be provable, and without proof, I don't know that it exists; but it's in the realm of possibility that stuff exists that we can't prove exists, so I don't know for sure whether it exists or not."

For a long time, germs couldn't be proven. I understand that at first, many people got laughed at while trying to convince other people of the germ theory. People nodded and smiled at aspects of quantum physics that are only now being proven. It is possible that the Old Man in the Sky Christian Fundamentalist God exists, or the Invisible Pink Unicorn, or both - it's just seriously unlikely.

It's even easier to be agnostic if you fail to define God at all. If you don't really know what something is, how can you either believe or not believe in it?

It's very honest to claim that you don't know when you don't know. I believe that "Christians" who say that they believe in God but don't know that He exists are actually agnostic. Especially in America, it's a whole lot easier to just believe or say you believe because saying that you are agnostic can get you ostracised from your family and your community, so they sacrifice some honesty, probably even justifying that there is a difference between "belief" and "knowledge" and all they were asked to do was believe (actually, didn't Peter Pan make the same request? anyway-) so they say that they believe when really, they don't know. That isn't honest.

There's a fine line between an atheist and an agnostic, and it could be reasonably said that since an atheist is someone who does not believe in God, there is no such thing as an agnostic because you either believe in God or you don't - but I consider that an atheist is someone who is basically sure that there isn't a God.

[Kunga]

when i think about the horrific atrocities that happen to people in this world....i think it's not possible for there to be a Creator God. And if there was a Creator God that allowed a baby to be raped i would hate that God for having the power to stop it...but let it happen.....why the hell do we need to worship a God that has no mercy on us....that can see and know everything...and just watches....the gods in this Universe are beings that have been around for a long time...and they probebley know a thing or two about manipulating energy and can create things....like we are learning through our scientific research how to cure disease, stem cell research, etc. Eventually we will be doing more, and we will be creating/experimenting as Gods do.

If we are products of a Creator God...he is more like a scientist experimenting with us....like the alien agenda....(hypothetically speaking) lol

i acually don't know the Ultimate Truth...logical reasoning to me dosn't fit into the equation of truth. But paradoxically it seems logical that we are all connected to whatever this is...and this is what we are...conditioned thinking wants to separate everything into conceptual fragments...when we stop conceptualizing...what is there ? THAT'S IT. My thinking is fuzzy...i know...i have a lot to unlearn/learn

Thankyou for being patient/tolerant of my ignorance.

_/\_

[Kunga]

i've never studied logic...when i read the rules of logic i couldn't quite understand it...lol...you guys have been at it for a long time...i can't imagine how stupid i sound to you....but i can learn...and i want to learn...

http://www.simplyquality.org/Logic.htm

Oy Vey !!!!! Can't i just focus on my intuition ?

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

If we are products of a Creator God...he is more like a scientist experimenting with us....like the alien agenda....(hypothetically speaking) lol

Either that or He was interested in His project when it was new, and got bored and abandoned us. Or - the Bible does make references to other gods, maybe He's a being with a really long lifespan, and we're only His off-duty hobby. His work day is thousands of our years long, and He's off at some cosmic McDonalds, getting browbeaten by His god-supervisor, and made fun of by His god-coworkers - which is why He wanted a bunch of beings to worship Him when He got home. Wow is He going to be mad if He comes home from a bad day at work to find that His hobby beings don't believe in him anymore because He was gone for too long, and we realized that His story that He tried to feed us was just as illogical as His coworkers think that He is. Maybe He should have just gotten a god-dog.

i've never studied logic...when i read the rules of logic i couldn't quite understand it

I took a course in logic at college, and the professor managed to turn it into the most illogical presentation possible. His concept was that we should learn the formulas so well that it shouldn't matter what was plugged into the formulas. He started off with nonsense words, like "If all cligs are clorts..." but then moved into placing obviously false premises into the formulas to make sure that we were still following the formulas - but he failed to teach about the false premise. Of course the logic course didn't make any sense to me.

It was decades later when I came here that I was re-introduced to logic, and I developed an especially good interest in recognizing fallacies.

i can't imagine how stupid i sound to you....but i can learn...and i want to learn...

You don't sound stupid; you sound new. There is a big difference. I could see when you first came here that you could catch on.

The founders of this board had the theory that the only way for anyone to possibly become enlightened is for that person to be a young man when he first gets on the path. Their theory went further that if a person does not get into philosophy until later in life, it will drive them mad.

They also had an interesting theory that only men could become enlightened, and the only way for a female to become enlightened would be for her to become a man. I don't agree with that one.

I do think that they had merit in revisiting the differences between the genders. Where they think that it is only possible for men to become enlightened if they get on the path young (like 17-18 years old or so), and it is dangerous for an adult male to start on the road to philosophy (I'll leave the men theories to them), I believe that it is unlikely for a female to be able to fully understand philosophy until she is over 30. Where female children tend to mature faster than male children, it has also been shown that female returning adult students make the best students. I think that transfers over to philosophy, meaning that the female brain has to continue to develop in order to catch all of the nuances. She may be able to think impressively well before that (or maybe not, depending on the individual), but at the ages that QRS posit that a man is too old to get into philosophy, that is the age that the female mind is finally ripe for the subject.

Kunga, this place can make it easier to learn, and your mind may be more ready to absorb it this time around. I believe that you'll get there.

edit to capitalize a few more H's

[Robert]

i've never studied logic...when i read the rules of logic i couldn't quite understand it...lol

Have a read at this Kunga, it's pretty straightforward: http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/E ... Logic.html

(No doubt Carl will find something to bitch about in that link... ;) )

[Carmel]

Carl G:
True logic points only to what is true in all minds.

Carmel:
...but it doesn't point to all Truth.

[Blair]

I am not seeing any reason being applied by prince on his evangelical statements. Is there any reason to consider prince's contributions of late to be anything other than Christian spam?

Do you think I give a rat's ass?

I'm a lot smarter than you, and most all people on the planet.

So how about fuck off and get a life, you silly girl.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Many of us have probably noticed that after years of primarily sitting on the sidelines and slinging one-liner insults, prince has not only come out as a Christian (which may explain all the insults)

Do you think I give a rat's ass?

I'm a lot smarter than you, and most all people on the planet.

So how about fuck off and get a life, you silly girl.

Ooh, three one-liners in a row. Still no logic - care to try again, prince?

Carmel:
Have you ever stopped and considered why prince has so many supporters? (I'm in that camp too, btw.)

So this is what you support Carmel?

[Blair]

Ooh, three one-liners in a row. Still no logic - care to try again, prince?

Logic is not the final solution to ultimate truth. It's a stepping-stone. The higher artifice is a personal cerebral aesthetic.

That's all and everything I can be bothered telling the likes of you.

[Carmel]

Carmel:
Have you ever stopped and considered why prince has so many supporters? (I'm in that camp too, btw.)

Elizabeth:
So this is what you support Carmel?

Carmel:
Perhaps, you overlooked the word "many" and failed to notice the second "s" in the word "supporters"?

There's really no logical reason for you to address your question to solely me.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Do you think that you can drop the mud-slinging? It does not add to your credibility.

Logic is not the final solution to ultimate truth. It's a stepping-stone. The higher artifice is a personal cerebral aesthetic.

A logical mind is a beautiful mind. What does that have to do with your evangelizing the Christian God, as you did here with "God probably has no interest in the likes of a twit like you" and here with "To think that this is it, that there is no superior designer behind it is just being ridiculously obtuse" and here with "Since you are using a logically (endowed) mind to deduce this, and can't see ultimately the logic of it all, it means you are missing something at a higher level than that which is currently apparent...I'd expand, but if I start referring to "G", Dan is gonna come along and call me a 'dolt'." and here with "There are three types of people in the world, one is that which believes in God (low IQ), the second is that which does not believe in God (above average IQ) , the third is that which knows God. (The highest IQ)" and here with "Right... and this disproves God, how?" - I could go on, but you get the point.

Each of these links are to different threads where you proselytized the Christian God without giving anything more than brief advertisements without any kind of in-depth discussion nor rational approach. Repeating a brief advertisement on many threads over a short period of time is a clear example of spam.

My question on this thread is if you have anything in you other than spam (and insults). Perhaps it could be considered amusing once or twice to say "Believe in God because I said so (insert expletive here), since aggression does seem to be the way that some Christians proselytize, but there comes a limit before it becomes too much on any board, much less a board on "Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment."

As a final opening point, I wish to direct you back to Board Conduct and Usage where it says right at the beginning:

Genius Forum has very few rules. We do, however, strive to maintain a high level of rationality. Genius does not necessarily discourage or denounce ideas and beliefs, only the false reasoning that underpins them. This is the essence of what serious philosophical inquiry ought be. Overt attempts at spamming or disrupting the board for malicious purposes or continual gratuitous abuse of members will not be tolerated.

This thread is your opportunity to explain your reasoning about your new perception of God. In yet another thread, in response to Dan's inquiry about your new-found belief, you said

It didn't happen overnight, but over a few days.

It just clicked, Dan.

It's so obvious when you can see clearly.

Maybe you would like to start here? Can you break "It just clicked" down into a rational position? Surely you can see how developing a set of unprovable beliefs and defending your position by declaring yourself the most intelligent person in the world is an example of appeal to misleading authority?

Now, would you like to give a try at presenting a rational case for the Christian God?

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Carmel:
Perhaps, you overlooked the word "many" and failed to notice the second "s" in the word "supporters"?

There's really no logical reason for you to address your question to solely me.

I did intentionally overlook the word "many" because since I did not see anyone else claiming to be a prince supporter, I considered that to be a false premise. You were the one to overtly claim to be a prince supporter, so you were the one that I addressed.