Or you could try reading Descartes. — Bartricks
I suppose if you've arrogantly allowed yourself the luxury of ignoring what he atctually said - — Bartricks
then you can get anything you jolly well like from it. — Bartricks
And which was the first one you understood? — Bartricks
That's not what I said. I said you wrote some nauseating things about love. You seem to have serious difficulty respecting what people actually say. Maybe you should stick to reading people's actual words and not deciding in advance that you understand them already. — Bartricks
Why on earth do you think God loves you? Odd. You live in ignorance in a dangerous world - you think someone who loves you would do that to you? What a remarkable but horribly self serving lack of insight you show. When someone gives you the bird, do you think they're telling you you're no. 1 or something? — Bartricks
How is that an explanation? How is it anything? It's just a kind of woolly nothing. Are you saying that there are three distinct people - three separate minds - who love each other? How are they all one mind, then? And how does simplicity have anything to do with this? — Bartricks
And just to recap:
You said (with that bizarre confidence that infects the ignorant) that Descartes published his Meditations in 1642.
It was 1641.
You then said you meant he wrote it in 1641 and published it the following year.
He didn't. He wrote it over many years and published it in 1641.
You then said you meant the French edition. — Bartricks
Yes and got a 1330 on the SAT — Gregory
False. A teacher can sense where a student is going without going by the students exact words for example — Gregory
And which was the first one you understood?
— Bartricks
Every word — Gregory
That's not what I said. I said you wrote some nauseating things about love. You seem to have serious difficulty respecting what people actually say. Maybe you should stick to reading people's actual words and not deciding in advance that you understand them already.
— Bartricks
And then you said in contradiction:
Why on earth do you think God loves you? Odd. You live in ignorance in a dangerous world - you think someone who loves you would do that to you? What a remarkable but horribly self serving lack of insight you show. When someone gives you the bird, do you think they're telling you you're no. 1 or something?
— Bartricks
And then:
How is that an explanation? How is it anything? It's just a kind of woolly nothing. Are you saying that there are three distinct people - three separate minds - who love each other? How are they all one mind, then? And how does simplicity have anything to do with this?
— Bartricks
You don't want to learn. That is why I asked if you were in high school — Gregory
And you still haven't provided me with any kind of explanation of how divine simplicity does anything whatsoever to dispel concerns about the coherence of the trinity. — Bartricks
perhaps don't understand God yet, so maybe your not at the place to discuss the Trinity. You think you know everything. — Gregory
I don't accept it as proof because I believe the senses are more reliable than intellect. — Gregory
Similarly, when Descartes says that God exists of necessity, he means that existence is essential to the idea of God, and can no more be separated from it than the idea of a lacking a wife can be taken away from the idea of a bachelor. — Bartricks
If you knew your Descartes, you'd know that held to my (and Jesus') view of omnipotence - namely that it involves being able to do absolutely anything at all, without any restriction from logic. And if you could reason in a straight line then you'd know that he cannot think that God is incapable of taking himself out of existence, for that would be a restriction. Thus God is, by virtue of being omnipotent, capable of destroying himself. — Bartricks
Either it is clear to you that there is reason to think that the senses are more reliable than the intellect, in which case you are relying on your intellect and demonstrate only that your intellect is not very great; or you think there is no reason whatsoever to think the senses are more reliable than the intellect, but believe it anyway. In which case you are just asserting things and not providing any evidence in support of them. — Bartricks
That is the argument in the 4th meditation. In the 3rd one who says the idea of God is so perfect that we can't have an idea of it without it existing. It goes from self-referencing thoughts to God. That is the foundation of the latter argument — Gregory
Why are you doing this? Is it not yet apparent to you that you're talking to someone who knows Descartes well and understands him far better than you do? You're like a parrot, just squawking things without understanding. — Bartricks
Prove that Descartes meant this then — Gregory
You misunderstood his third Meditation. He had two arguments for God — Gregory
How does the fact he had two arguments show that I was confused?? Only someone intellectually challenged could think such a thing. — Bartricks
What it demonstrates is that one and the same object can have radically different properties at different times. And this is as true of minds as it is of anything else. The clay, when it is cuboid, has the property of being cuboid. The clay, when it is spherical, has the property of being spherical. The clay, when it is pyramidical, has the property of being pyramidical. It's the same clay, it just had different properties. — Bartricks
The word 'concept' and the word 'idea' are synonyms. And God is not a concept (or idea, if you prefer). That's a category error. God is a person. A mind.
The idea of Bartricks is not Bartricks. I am Bartricks. A person. A mind. I am not an idea, even though you have an idea 'of' me. Ideas - concepts - are 'of' things. The things they are of are not themselves ideas unless, that is, we are talking about the idea of an idea. — Bartricks
What if [insert speculative gibberish] was blah? — emancipate
That 3-in-1 doctrine was a rationalization of a logical contradiction. It was thought necessary to resolve some arguments among early Christians from different streams of Jewish and Apostolic influence. Some interpreted Father & Son literally, as two beings. But the abstract Jewish doctrine of divine unity (Monotheism) would not allow God to share god-hood with anyone else. Ironically, Yawheh was originally a son of El, in Hebrew theology. So, the Trinity was an attempt to justify Polytheism within the larger context of Monotheism.So the trinity is the idea that somehow God, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost are separate, but one. — Pinprick
Yes. Physicsts must believe in a non-empirical invisible Field that is the essence of empirical Reality.Wave-Particle duality — Gnomon
Nor a wavicle, either, but a quantum field. — PoeticUniverse
The Trinity was an attempt to justify Polytheism within the larger context of Monotheism. — Gnomon
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.