It is the feature of the ignorant to talk nonsense and try to spin it off as wisdom. You have been caught talking nonsense and making unsupported and incoherent assertions again and again. Say whatever that helps assuage your ego. I care not.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Classical Theism
- Thread starter Agondonter
- Start date
- Status
As many times as you refuse to acknowledge the fact that it has nothing whatsoever to do with any idiotic superman in any shape way or form. It deals with the ontological status of nature, and that's it. It is also the denial of the God of classical theism or any and every possible conception of God.Sentences do not mean what you want it to mean, child. Is God matter-energy-space-time and its inter-relationships? If not then naturalism denies it. If yes then its identical with nature and the term is superfluous. Nothing can be clearer.
Agondonter
Active Member
You haven't answered anything. You describe but don't answer why lawfulness is necessary. Why structure, why not chaos? And you do realize, don't you, that because mathematical relations have no beginning, you are effectively saying consciousness, because it exists at all, does not have a beginning and agreeing with Laughlin (even though he doesn't realize it) that the said consciousness is hierarchical in nature? That self-conscious relations today entail self-conscious relations without beginning?
The problem with most scientists, especially nowadays, is they are so specialized that they can't see beyond their own field of interest. As Malcoln Muggridge bemoaned, "We have educated ourselves into imbecility."
Last edited:
Chaos exists. Only a person who is scientifically illiterate believes that chaos and order are opposites of each other. Anyone who has studied nature and the math knows that chaos and order are necessary components of the same mathematical structure. Order and chaos will necessarily coexist. And it does. Quantum mechanics is a great, but not the only example.
Consciousness is not a substance. Its a property of certain configurations of space-time-matter-energy. Properties of configurations, like solidity, crystallinity, hardness..all the way to consciousness comes and goes as the configurations come and go. So no, I am saying nothing of that sort.
The problem with most theologians and wannabe amateur philosophers and apologists is that they are so deeply confused about what science is saying, basing their understanding on half-baked understanding from websites and popular books, that they seem happy to mangle poorly understood concepts into imbecilic specious arguments to falsely bolster their pet worldviews.
Agondonter
Active Member
Without realizing it, Sayak, you have effectively admitted that the God of classical theism does exist. 
It's just not the "entity" or kind of God you expected.
It's just not the "entity" or kind of God you expected.
Last edited:
McBell
Unbound
Thats it?
That is the best you got in reply to all his links?
Do you even realize that you merely further demonstrated his point?
McBell
Unbound
Why don't you just admit you don't know what classic theism is since you obviously do not?Without realizing it, Sayak, you have effectively admitted that the God of classical theism does exist.
ThePainefulTruth
Romantic-Cynic
Thank you. I was beginning to wonder if I'd died and gone to hell and could only view the world through a one way mirror.
I think you realize that you have no understanding at all about either classical theism, or science or any philosophically, theologically or scientifically interesting idea thoughtful people think about. So you hide behind that famous "I know it all but you are too simple for me to share all that great wisdom I have" attitude that has been the bread and butter of charlatans in all these branches.Without realizing it, Sayak, you have effectively admitted that the God of classical theism does exist.
I don't think you are, not really. So I entreat you come off your high horse and talk with people and not talk at them. Stop putting on such absurd airs that make you look ridiculous and have a discussion.
ThePainefulTruth
Romantic-Cynic
Well said. "Charlantans" eh, haven't heard that in a while. Not that I'm making any specific connections here, that would be offensive, but I can't help thinking of so many liberal arts college professors who wind their way through their careers propped up with faux egos and psycho-babble. Like I say, not sure why that springs to mind--those charlatans I guess.
Agondonter
Active Member
Religion is very much a felt response to the world around us and many scientists work very hard to dispel that feeling. But the harder they try, the pronounced their failure. Religion won't go away; it will NEVER go away because religious experience knows no theology or scientific theory. The fundamental laws of physics, expressed in mathematics, are ultimately and increasingly wholly compatible with the God of salvation however much the materialist scientist might dispute it.
Science succeeds because the the power of any idea lies, not in its certainty or truth, but rather in the vividness of its human appeal and the universality of its ready and simple application. But in spite of its unparalleled materialistic achievement, science is slowly losing its appeal and scientists resent it; the pendulum has moved. Classical theism and Neoplatonism are among the religious philosophies that can serve to effectively unify science and religion, though some modifications may be necessary.
Science succeeds because the the power of any idea lies, not in its certainty or truth, but rather in the vividness of its human appeal and the universality of its ready and simple application. But in spite of its unparalleled materialistic achievement, science is slowly losing its appeal and scientists resent it; the pendulum has moved. Classical theism and Neoplatonism are among the religious philosophies that can serve to effectively unify science and religion, though some modifications may be necessary.
ThePainefulTruth
Romantic-Cynic
Yes, because blind faith rejects rational thought.
Yes, again because religion reject science in favor of blind faith.
Religion knows no theology??? Maybe you ought to rethink that.
Wait a minute, you're completely changing your classical theist tune.
Neoplatonism. Oh God. . From Wikipedia: "In defining the term "Neoplatonism", it is difficult to reduce the school of thought to a concise set of ideas that all Neoplatonic philosophers shared in common." No s**t! IOW, "difficult to reduce the school of thought", is psycho-babble trying to defend psycho-babble. We're better off with Nurse Ratched (whose name, btw, is a combination of ratchet and retched.)
So basically you have nothing of substance left to say. Good.
Agondonter
Active Member
LOL! Behind the barricades of pre-established structures, the foxes of the intellect may engage in clever reasoning, but the lion of Being continues to roar outside the gate. 'Free thinkers,' real free thinkers, open the gate: they know common sense, rational inquiry and logic can all be a accepted it as valid ways of exercising knowledge without rejecting the insights of the great mystical and religious traditions.
ThePainefulTruth
Romantic-Cynic
Yeah, until it can't, which is why knowledge, common sense, rational inquiry and logic leads 98% of free thinkers away from mysticism, religious tradition and mind numbing ritual. And the rest, well......there's always that 2%.
Agondonter
Active Member
Correct, But you have to open the gate to lion of Being in order see the veracity of that statement.
I never did have something of substance to say to materialists. You and your fellow skeptics just wanted to do some evangelizing -- as in sticking your noses in places where they are not invited and do not belong.
LOL.
You started the OP asking for objections against classical theism and not in the Same Faith debate section with title Christians only. Next time label and place your OPs properly to screen them off from unwanted opinions. There you can proclaim how ignorant and nosy we atheists are in absolute peace.
It would be doubly hilarious as I am a Hindu and while am definitely more on the analytical/secular side of the tradition, am truly interested in discussion of these topics of theology with someone who is actually knowledgeable and is not simply pretending. The last thing you would get from a Hindu like me is proselytizing. That's the bad habit of your faith and culture, not ours.
I cannot reject what is yet to be articulated.
Roaring of the lion of Being is negated by the counter-roar of the tigress of impersonal phenomenal Thatness.
She will maul the illusion of Being with the sharp claws of reason and the incisors of math and structure and the boundless energy of chaotic malleability.
Now what?
ThePainefulTruth
Romantic-Cynic
I don't argue against those who can't use rational thought to try to convince them of their error or convert them to mine. I only do it to expose them to onlookers, and as a continual check on my own positions. Missions accomplished.
Agondonter
Active Member
This has been an interesting study is the arrogance and ignorance infecting the atheist community in this forum. It began with a simple question and the first response was an attempt to correct my wording with "more properly termed classical monotheism." That should have been my first clue that I'd be dealing with people who have no interest in the subject matter. The second clue was the insistence that the subject matter is dealing with a being alongside other beings, even to the point of declaring that nature and the God of religion are one and the same while denying the latter on the grounds that it's an "other."
Strange, very strange. When I read book like Love of Knowledge, The Psychic Grid and The Book of Not Knowing and then watch atheist minds here carrying memory-beliefs like chunks of concrete and calling it "wisdom," I wonder if they are even sane. Even as antitheists claim to be a happy and satisfied lot, there is something sad in those claims, as though they are trying to convince themselves that their lives are worth living. It's "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness" all over again.
Strange, very strange. When I read book like Love of Knowledge, The Psychic Grid and The Book of Not Knowing and then watch atheist minds here carrying memory-beliefs like chunks of concrete and calling it "wisdom," I wonder if they are even sane. Even as antitheists claim to be a happy and satisfied lot, there is something sad in those claims, as though they are trying to convince themselves that their lives are worth living. It's "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness" all over again.
- Status