Zeno's "paradox," as interesting as it is, isn't really a true paradox at all because Zeno failed to take the physics of momentum and inertia into account. Once momentum and inertia are taken into consideration, Zeno's "paradox" is manifestly solved and is no longer a paradox. .
Rapunzel
JoinedPosts by Rapunzel
-
57
A New Theory of the Universe
by BurnTheShips inrobert lanza has literally written the book on stem cell science and delves into the issue of consciousness, reality, and a biocentric view of the universe.. .
while i was sitting one night with a poet friend watching a great opera performed in a tent under arc lights, the poet took my arm and pointed silently.
why does the universe exist?
-
-
-
86
On the sound use of mental suicide.
by Narkissos inthis topic is meant as a follow-up of my recent conversation with r. crusoe on different threads.. it seems to me that the current popularisation of eckhart tolle's philosophy, resurrecting what i think is the very core of age-old mystical traditions (to put it shortly: death of the culturally constructed "self"), without the collective mythological, institutional and social settings for such an experience, is potentially very liberating but also very dangerous.. i am sensitive to that because i went through a similar experience when i left jws -- i felt both its empowering and destructive force, and, although i certainly don't claim to have dealt with it optimally (is that an adverb?
), i'm hoping that experience, good or bad, may benefit others, to an extent.
and i'm sure that i'm not alone in that case.. so i'd like this thread to be primarily supportive, even though that may include some theoretical and practical criticism.. .
-
-
Rapunzel
Narkissos - You mention "the big narratives." Is that the English translation of Jean-Francois Lyotard's notion of "les grands recits"? To paraphrase the poet, Shelley, "Ha! Do I scent postmodernist thinking here?"
Joy Nichols, it's interestimng that you should mention the phrase - "the unbearable lightness of being." That's the title of a book by the Czech writer, Milan Kundera. It was orginally published in Czech. As I said, The Unbearable Lightness of Being is the title of his novel, but I'm not if he was the one who first coined that phrase. Kundera also wrote The Joke; Life IsElsewhere; ForgettIng; Immortality; Testaments Betrayed, as well as other novels. Just curious. Have you read Kundera?
-
16
what is there to find "beyond" reason? (inspired by BurnTheShips)
by inkling ini was struck by the honesty of a recent comment by burntheships,.
but i didn't want to hijack the thread.... [w]e see a lot of threads where atheists try to disprove that god exists.
atheism is a universal negative, how can one know for a certainty that something does not exist without infinite knowledge?
-
-
Rapunzel
"The crux of the cosmological proof [for the existence of God] is the principle of sufficient reason, which claims that all facts are brought into existence by some cause. Why the universe? Becuase God. This is the realm of causes. Why God? Because the universe. This is the realm of reasons. But how do we know there is an order? How do we know reason is right? What makes us think that there is no such thing as the absolutely inexplicable? Why should contingency [the fact that the universe could have not existed] not have the last word - or the final silence? Because it would be absurd? So what? Why shouldn't the truth be absurd? Actually, it would be not so much absurd as mysterious, and for any finite spirit, the truth of the universe must indeed be mysterious." Andre Comte-Sponville, The Little Book of Atheist Spirituality [L'esprit de l'atheisme], p. 82.
-
53
Without God - Questions?
by Blueblades inwithout god, what is left of morality?.
without god, what purpose is there in man's life?.
if we do not believe in god, how can we be certain of anything?
-
-
Rapunzel
Blueblades - Aren't you "begging the question," so to speak? Don't your questions presuppose an ["acceptable"] answer. In fact, your questions have really nothing to do with the existence or non-existence of God. Many people are under the erroneous assumption that ethcis and morality derive from religion, whereas, in fact, the reverse is true - religion derives from a pre-existing ethos or moral code. Rather than religion being the basis of morals, morals are the basis of religion. As Kant points out in his Critique of Practical Reason, to have a religion is "to acknowledge all of one's duties as sacred commandments." Kant taught that either morals are autonomous, or they do not exist at all.
Or maybe you should read an even earlier philosopher named Seneca. Seneca wrote: "When you have learned not to hope, I shall teach you how to want."
-
11
Is the JW religion slowly turning into 7th Day Adventist?
by White Dove ina friend of mine says they seem to be.
her sister sent a memorial invitation and said, "will you be going to the memorial of christ's death?
" she said that the use of "christ" was strange.
-
-
Rapunzel
Yes, I believe that a lot of Witness doctrine has its roots in Seventh-Day Adventism. I think that a lot of very early Witnesses [when they were still known as "Bible Students] were influenced by Adventist thinking. It all goes back to the mid and late nineteenth century.
-
28
Funniest Meeting Memories
by YoungAmerican inthere are always so many bad memories related here i thought it might be nice to change it up a bit.
what are some of your funniestmemories of the meetings, or even field service?
things that happened things said?
-
-
Rapunzel
Young American - Perhaps it is my lack of humor [and please excuse me if this is the case], but I really fail to see how an elderly woman's accidently humiliating herself could be construed as "hilarious." In my opinion, the snickering and giggles on the part of the "youths" in the congregation was an example of what the Germans call schadenfreude, or "malicious glee." The word refers to enjoyment at the expense of another's suffering or pain.
In my opinion, the witness who helped the elderly woman and escorted her back to the bathroom was the one who showed a modicum of human decency, compassion and honor. What if that elderly woman had been related to you, your grandmother or great-grandmother, perhaps? Would you have found it equally amusing if she had been one of your family members? What if she was suffering form Alzheimer's disease or some other mental impairment? Would you have found a wheelchair-bound person or a blind person equally amusing?
You call yourself "young american," but you won't be young forever. I just hope that you never find yourself in a situation similar to the "hilarious" one that you describe. May you never, as an eldely person, find yourself in a position where others get their enjoyment at the expense of your humiliation and pain. I'm no particular "fan" of the Bible, but, in my opinion, it does contain some words of wisdom. I particularly appreciate its admonishments to show respect for one's elders.
-
168
Athiest or Agnostic?
by real one inhow can one be considered an athiest?
athiest means you believe god does not exist.
agnostic means you don't know if god really exist.
-
-
Rapunzel
The term agnostic is derived from the Greek prefix, a [meaning "lacking" or "without"] and gnosis [meaning "knowledge']. So, an agnostic is anyone lacking knowledge [about the existence or non-existence of God]. If a person accepts Kant's definition of knowledge as a subjectively and objectively sufficient degree of assent, then everyone - whether theist or non-theist - is indeed an agnostic. As Kant could arguably be considered the greatest "modern" [post-Renaissance] philosopher of the Western world, I would tend to grant his ideas some legitimacy.
-
168
Athiest or Agnostic?
by real one inhow can one be considered an athiest?
athiest means you believe god does not exist.
agnostic means you don't know if god really exist.
-
-
Rapunzel
In his Critique of Pure Reason, Immanuel Kant distinguished between three different degrees of belief and consent -
1.) opinion, which admits that it is both subjectively and objectively insufficient
2.) faith [or conviction], which is subjectively sufficient, but not objectively sufficient
3.) knowledge, which is both subjectively and objectively sufficient.
On the question of God's existence, both believers and non-believers alike will fall into either category number one or number two. That is to say that their position or stance will range from an opinion to a strongly held conviction concerning the existence or the non-existence of God. However, no lucid, sane, rational person can claim to have knowledge - a subjectively and objectively sufficient credence - about the existence or non-existence of God. This is becuase it is impossible to have objectively sufficient credence in regard to the existence, or the non-existence, of God. The key word here is objective. People have a right to their subjectively and objectively insufficient opinions. Moreover, they have the right to profess subjectively sufficient, but objectively insufficient, convictions or "faith." However, a caveat should be extended when people start to proclaim a subjectively and objectively sufficient knowledge [as defined by Kant] of God.
Many believers in the "Almighty" will glady claim that they don't believe in Zeus, or Athena, or Isis, etc. Well, to them I offer the following definition of the word atheist - An atheist is simply someone who believes in one god less than you believe in.
-
9
Professor wins Templeton prize for maths link to God
by BurnTheShips infascinating!
i highlighted a couple of parts i agree with:.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article3540989.ece.
-
-
Rapunzel
The Templeton Prize is to the Nobel Prize what The Onion is to serious journalism. When I read that the person in question "specialises in mathematics and metaphysics," I really thought that the article was an exerpt from TheOnion. To say that someone specialises in mathematics and metaphysics is like saying that someone specialises in astronomy and astrology.
A big problem is with the term metaphysics itself. Its meaning is far from clear; or rather, people use the word to refer to highly divergent concepts. The word metaphysics goes back to Aristotle who wrote books on many subjects. The terrm literally refers to the books of Aristotle after those on physics. In these books [the books that Aristotle wrote after he considered the subject of physics], Aristotle deals with the concept of Being or Existence. As such, the word metaphysics is essentially the same as the word ontology. In his books following the ones on physics, Aristotle grapples with ontology, the "science" of being.
A problem occurs for the reason that, in popular usage, the word metaphysics/metaphysical is often confused with the word supernatural. It'sprecisely at this point that many problems occur. People use the word "God" when they encounter an insurmountable obstacle in comprehension. No one - no science - can define God. And while no one can disprove the existence of God, neither can anyone prove it. "God" is simply a name that people give to the unknown. Science deals with phenomena that are known [if at least relatively so] or knowable.
-
34
Remember the term: Heavy petting.
by odie67 ini guess that would include tongue kissing, touching etc....the things two people do when they dig each other.
heavy petting was a huge no no!.
i remember sitting in front of three elders as a teenager spilling my guts about how i kissed this boy.
-
-
Rapunzel
I googled it. It was defined as "caressing; affectionate play; or foreplay without contact with genitals." It's strange how it's a lot more fun doing it than defining it.I'm not sure how long the term has been in usage. I just know that it is most definitely not a term that the Witnesses concocted.