Comments on: Anselm’s Ontological Argument – What Ought To Be, Isn’t

By: inquisitor62

inquisitor62 — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 05:17:27 +0000

and I know that for sure….

By: inquisitor62

inquisitor62 — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 05:15:32 +0000

I didnt mean to say that you had insisted dogmatically, only that since beliefs about the nature existence are ultimately unprovable and that alot of horrible acts might go undone if this were inwardly acknowledged by more people. I’ve been from crackhead to calvinism, from privilege to rescue-mission-poverty, but I dont know of many things more destructive than the inner certainty that ‘I know for sure’ and those who think something else are dumb-asses.

By: KA

KA — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 07:05:47 +0000

inquisitor, I agree in most part w/what you’ve said, except for:

Given that, a dogmatic insistence on the existence or non existence of god would at the very least have to be tempered by the inner admission that it is simply a belief I prefer

This isn’t a ‘dogmatic insistence’ on my part – I’d honestly prefer otherwise. But what I prefer has no bearing on reality. Or, to paraphrase Twain: “If one is to look around the world, one would judge that God is a malign thug.”
Plus the teleological argument comes apart under close scrutiny.

By: inquisitor62

inquisitor62 — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 06:15:03 +0000

Sorry for the delay, long hours at work. I think man is best served by a sort of epistomological humility, but not the relativistic kind and not the sort where one wears one’s deference for other ideas like a laurel wreath, but one that acknowledges our common plight as contingent beings, as well as our inability to be sure of the exact nature of that contingency. I contend that it seems unlikely based on our material experience that this universe is uncaused, but without perfect knowledge of all things I how can one know whether there are uncaused phenomena or not. Given that, a dogmatic insistence on the existence or non existence of god would at the very least have to be tempered by the inner admission that it is simply a belief I prefer, and though I like to think I have chosen it, I would not know it if it were determined either mechanistically by nature or ultimately by god. By the way, I think your Korean Philosopher called it fairly closely, I myself can account for a generous portion of stupid actions.

By: KA

KA — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 05:16:39 +0000

That’s some pretty interesting info, inquisitor.

but ignorance is the human condition and as far as philosophical systems will get us.

Holy crap, & people say I’m a cynic?
An ancient Korean philosopher once said, “Ignorance is the beginning of wisdom, wisdom the knowledge of ignorance, and stupidity the function of mankind.”
But how do you reconcile the fact that you’re on the side of civilization, but ignorance is the human condition?

By: inquisitor62

inquisitor62 — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 04:58:11 +0000

Another Friedrich, Engels, wrote:
“Then came Feuerbach’s Essence of Christianity. With one blow it pulverised the contradiction, in that without circumlocutions it placed materialism on the throne again. Nature exists independently of all philosophy. It is the foundation upon which we human beings, ourselves products of nature, have grown up. Nothing exists outside nature and man, and the higher beings our religious fantasies have created are only the fantastic reflection of our own essence.

“The spell was broken; the “system” was exploded and cast aside, and the contradiction, shown to exist only in out imagination, was dissolved. One must oneself have experienced the liberating effect of this book to get an idea of it. Enthusiasm was general; we all became at once Feuerbachians.”
The future of many millions was doomed to marxist hell thereafter, Feuerbach having given an alternative to the idea “thou shalt not steal” (the basis of private property).

“

By: inquisitor62

inquisitor62 — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 03:53:27 +0000

I have been a Calvinist, a Christian, but am now an agnostic. I began with Clark because of his tremendous grasp of logic and the history of philosophy. He is a pariah to mainstream Christians and even other Calvinists because of his strict insistance on logical consistancy. (eg: belief in an omnipotent, omniscient god means if a man gets drunk and murders his family, it is necessarily god’s will….from ‘God and Evil, Problem Solved’) However Bertrand Russell is another good one: ‘The Problems of Philosophy’, or ‘The History Of Western Philosophy’ (the latter being somewhat more advanced than a starting point). As for sides, I’m on the side of civilization. The Christianity extant in the U.S. today fails to provide the fantastic benifits to civilization that Historical Protestantism did (see Max Weber, and even Ludwig Nietsche….or Fred… even though he didnt see it that way, he saw what the decay of those ‘values’ would mean.) The connections are there to see. Ultimately I think we all simply believe what we believe, and can prove nothing. I believe I’ll read some Joseph Conrad and go to bed. He’s much more enjoyable than the Bible or Darwin, and more lucid than either.

By: KA

KA — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 02:57:32 +0000

So…Gordon Clark is who you recommend, or is that the starting point of the path you took? I’m not a big fan of Nietzsche, but I admit I’m somewhat fond of Feuerbach (even if I never get his 1st name right).
That your 1st recommendation is a Calvinist theologian, tells me you’re someone on the other side of this, yes?