TheMadFool

But neither did he affirm the divine. Plus, he didn't he say he was agnostic. The question of his silence remains unanswered. One way to make sense of...

Your main point is God's inexpressible in words. This you offer as a reason for Buddha's silence. But it's easy to say ''God is beyond words''. I just...

You're sidestepping the obvious fact that my statement asserts. Either Abrahamic religions got it wrong or Buddha is wrong in being silent. Is this a ...

May be @"Wayfarer" will have something to say about that. However, it seems all the possibilities for why the Buddha remained silent can be eliminated...

If I remove God from these religions, what remains? Nothing! This could be a reason why the Buddha was silent. But...he could've said that. There's mo...

What then of Christianity, Judaism and Islam - their core assertion is ''God exists''. Why didn't they remain silent, as the Buddha did, if God is ine...

So, you think Buddha was silent because God is ineffable. Why didn't he say that? It's quite simple. You just said it. @"Agustino" said it. I think th...

Thanks for the compliment :P Anyway, one thing's clear. You've avoided answering the question, like the Buddha, I must say. Give me a possibility that...

Perhaps I should've restricted my domain of discourse to macroscopic physical objects. The end of our statement is interesting "...we can't see someth...

An acceptable answer but why? What was/is it that made him decide the truth about God wasn't/isn't something to be shared? Given my assumption that Bu...

He could have said that. I don't see any clear and present danger in admitting agnosticism. Yet, he didn't. Why? Then why did the Buddha remain silent...

Either God exists or he doesn't. Either you believe or you don't. Dichotomy is unavoidable except, of course, in trivial or irrelevant ways. Believe G...

Well, your version of God is in stark opposition to what people think of when they hear ''God''. My argument is about the latter.

So far as this thread is concerned, God is a being who promises heaven if you believe in him and hell if you don't. Nothing else matters. In fact, I t...

Me too. I like the sense of duty you see in creating AI. I feel that too but I wonder what would be the consequences for biological life.

God, by definition, doesn't do that. If you're going to change the definitions then it's pointless to argue. But, that doesn't solve the problem. Reph...

I like that thought. Biological evolution, despite it producing so much complexity and variety, is limited to planets and the local environment. In cr...

Yes rationality contributes to religion but does religion return the favor? No! On the other hand, rationalization in science has produced undubitable...

Good point. That is a contradiction IF you hold that both are false at the same time. However, the normal process is to evaluate one proposition at a ...

But the feedback loop is missing. We rationalize religion but the converse isn't the case. Isn't religion about faith, the suspension of rationality?

Well, the way I see it, I think the universe, like us, has two aspects: 1. Non-life: The cold nonliving aspect - the burning stars, the planets moving...

Nothing is perfect, except may be God. So, both logic and emotion, in isolation, have harmful effects. Anger, jealousy, hate are destructive. Logic is...

How do you think geniuses feel? Some of them, e.g. Archimedes, Netwon, Euler, Turing were advanced beyond their time. It was like they time-traveled b...

The only way I can make sense of that is you a difference between an agnostic and an atheist. Yes, this is true. However, the similarity, which my arg...

So, you see a difference between God and a dog. I should've been clearer in my post. Got carried away by the thought. Anyway... I don't want to get in...

So, the solution differs between (1) and (2). That's sensible.

You have a point. The pendulum swings both ways. However... There's a major difference between, as you call it, super-rationlists and religious fanati...

It's a positive feedback loop or a vicious cycle depending on what one's attitude is. Rationalization leads to science and science leads to rationaliz...

Yes, apparently, we can. You're the proof. Anyway... Science is the world's official purveyor of truth and with good reason. It explains well and pred...

Belief is a choice, correct. Truth is not a choice - either something is or is not. It's dangerous to not believe truths. So, choosing not to believe ...

I see. So, looking down on someone is a lesser evil than malicious intent. So, don't they deserve separate solutions? Your solution doesn't seem to ma...

Yes, that's a possibility and, more to my point, it doesn't definitely rule out the existence of God.

:D Isn't being completely non-superstitious better than being moderately superstitious (avoiding extremes). The latter is susceptible to a slippery sl...

But... Don't you think such a view puts the cart before the horse? We don't, rather shouldn't, dictate what can or cannot happen. To the contrary, we ...

As you've rightly pointed out, we have to be cautious. Extremism of any kind is folly. However, I sense a great danger in the full import of the secon...

I must disagree. With God, we have 2, what Occam calls entities: 1. God 2. The mechanism of how 1 interacts with us With determinism we have only one ...

But wouldn't that be complexifying the matter. We'd have to give up the perfectly good concept of causation that underpins determinism. Opting for God...

To the extent that I know, logic doesn't allow the flexibility your argument seems dependent on. Why don't you use propositions like we normally do? P...

What do you mean by marginal? Anyway... When someone steals he must have some reason for doing it - a kind of cost-benefit arithmetic - unless he's a ...

Logic is just a tool. Just as a hammer can be used to create an awesome sculpture and also to kill someone, logic can be used to serve the good and th...

But the difference, if I understood correctly, is as @"Bitter Crank" said "Fate has an author", which, to me, means God. If this is the case, by what ...

If you'll allow me to make a guess, I think the we're still not out of the woods yet. The obvious proliferation of weapons from AK-47's to Hydrogen bo...

A cost-benefit analysis of theft seems to me an immoral approach to the problem. By your logic, we stand to gain by not stealing and I think being a g...

Why are these things so complicated? Fine nuances in meaning make a huge differene. I mean there's a subtle shade of difference between honesty and bl...

I don't understand how p can be equated to something or how ~p can be nothing. As far as I know, p are statement variables in logic. To have an argume...

Well, since you asked permission, I'd say yes, of course.

:D I'm not feeling too well

A good analysis. Learned. Thanks. What I want to say is... Malicious intent and looking down on someone seem too similar to deserve a distinction. Per...

What are they?

Yes. 1. In a murder case, the weapon is simply the means to achieve an objective (death) and it isn't judged. The person, his objective to kill, is ju...