This actually hurts my brain a little bit.

[TomAz]

Hey look everybody!! Blinken's smarter than Descartes!

[thelastgreatman]

Descartes used circular reasoning to prove god exists. fuck descartes.

That's not entirely accurate. He got into circular reasoning further on in the section of Meditations where he proved that the idea of God must be true on some level, but then his logic devolved as he segued into Christian bullshit. The basic precepts of his argument for God's existence being self-evident because man conceived of God and man cannot conceive of anything which he does not have prior knowledge, though, is solid.

[TomAz]

Look we got us a couple of Descartes scholars here. Cogito ergo sum indeed.

[hypervera]

[TomAz]

is that what passes for wit these days?

[hypervera]

Look we got us a couple of Descartes scholars here. Cogito ergo sum indeed.

yeah the sons of Einstein are in this thread

aliens rule!!

[Blinken]

That's not entirely accurate. He got into circular reasoning further on in the section of Meditations where he proved that the idea of God must be true on some level, but then his logic devolved as he segued into Christian bullshit. The basic precepts of his argument for God's existence being self-evident because man conceived of God and man cannot conceive of anything which he does not have prior knowledge, though, is solid.

But man can conceive things with out prior knowledge, this is how we invent things and gain new perspective on society. We had no prior knowledge about computers, until someone came up with the idea.

[TomAz]

yeah the sons of Einstein are in this thread

aliens rule!!

brokendoll rules!

QED

[TomAz]

But man can conceive things with out prior knowledge, this is how we invent things and gain new perspective on society. We had no prior knowledge about computers, until someone came up with the idea.

ooooooooooo! deep thoughts!

[thelastgreatman]

But man can conceive things with out prior knowledge, this is how we invent things and gain new perspective on society. We had no prior knowledge about computers, until someone came up with the idea.

Computers were not completely original thoughts though, they were just a combination of things which the human brain already had prior knowledge of. Trust me, there is no truly original thought you can come up with. The philosophical community has been trying for centuries. No matter what, in the end it's all just imagining a unicorn--we know horses, and we know of horns, an we imagined how they could be used together. But we can't conceive of something unless we've already perceived it--we can only assmble the perceptions into a sum greater than the parts.

[Mr.Nipples]

[TomAz]

i love these late night dorm room chats.

[Blinken]

Fine then, what makes god an original thought? we have prior knowledge of creation because we can create, it is just a larger scale.

[thelastgreatman]

Tom's like the Henny Youngman of the board: always there with a one-liner. They never inspire laughter, but it's consistent, and that's worth something.

Anyway, I already had this Descartes/God discussion for like five pages in some other thread once and I don't want to do it again. Tom, get me out of this.

[TomAz]

Just Say No..



.. to pseudo-intellectual bullshit discussions, randy.

[thelastgreatman]

Fine then, what makes god an original thought? we have prior knowledge of creation because we can create, it is just a larger scale.

Okay, since you actually played along rather than fight I'll wrap up Descartes spiel real quick: in his case he was talking about the Christian God, so the qualities he used as illustration were omnipotence, omnipresence, ubiquity (all of which are not technically valid as that's only one faith's higher power--and it's incorrect, btw). Shit like that in conjuction with just the non-corporeal nature of the concept. His precept was that man cannot conceive without having perceived--remember from cogito ergo sum he was big on perception defining/limiting our existence--and that therefore man must have perceived the supernatural entity of God because if the natural world is all there is we wouldn't have perceived and couldn't have conceived as a result. Dig?

[thelastgreatman]

Just Say No..



.. to pseudo-intellectual bullshit discussions, randy.

After spending half my youth studying philosophy for FUN believe it or not (no, I didn't have any friends, naturally, before someone comments) there's only one piece I ever get into anymore and it's this one. Dude proved God exists. It's impressive.

[kreutz2112]

That's not entirely accurate. He got into circular reasoning further on in the section of Meditations where he proved that the idea of God must be true on some level, but then his logic devolved as he segued into Christian bullshit. The basic precepts of his argument for God's existence being self-evident because man conceived of God and man cannot conceive of anything which he does not have prior knowledge, though, is solid.

I don't think that's solid, man can conceive what he does not have prior knowledge of...let me think of an example.

Edit: Just read the rest of the thread. i am still thinking.

and tom, what is pseudo-intellectual about this conversation?

[TomAz]

After spending half my youth studying philosophy for FUN believe it or not (no, I didn't have any friends, naturally, before someone comments) there's only one piece I ever get into anymore and it's this one. Dude proved God exists. It's impressive.

well then certainly you already know, and I don't have to tell you, that the whole notion of an omnipotent god traces to Aristotle. christians didn't pick it up til later through Augustine. God's omnipotence is not central to, nor really necessary for, the core tenents of christian theology.

[Blinken]

I get what your saying, and Descartes is saying. It was the christian aspects of his writing that really got under my skin the same goes for Kierkegaard, they seemed to me to try stuff Christian ideas into their works. Like they couldn't detach from the Christian belief structure to begin with.

[thestripe]

I just read this whole thread. I'm going out for a smoke now.


Tom, I think your one liner's are entertaining.

[TomAz]

and tom, what is pseudo-intellectual about this conversation?

there should be some internet law. in fact I'm gonna make it up now, call it Tom's Corollary to Godwin's Law: "In any internet message board discussion, the degree of pseudo-intellectual bullshit is directly proportional to the probability that someone will claim to refute a famous philosopher."

[TomAz]

I get what your saying, and Descartes is saying. It was the christian aspects of his writing that really got under my skin the same goes for Kierkegaard, they seemed to me to try stuff Christian ideas into their works. Like they couldn't detach from the Christian belief structure to begin with.

I agree. I have the same problem when I read the Buddha, I'm like, dude, you're really smart and all, but why can't you detach yourself from the Buddhist belief structure.

[kreutz2112]

so it's not intellectual to question someone else's philosophy?

[Blinken]

The differance is, it has been a long while since i read any Descartes, but he started by saying he was starting from nothing. And worked his philosphy from the ground up. But he didn't start with nothing because of his christian beliefs.

[TomAz]

so it's not intellectual to question someone else's philosophy?

where did i say that?

[kreutz2112]

pseudo = fake

fake = not real

this is not a real intellectual conversation.

[TomAz]

The differance is, it has been a long while since i read any Descartes, but he started by saying he was starting from nothing. And worked his philosphy from the ground up. But he didn't start with nothing because of his christian beliefs.

I'm no good with names. remind me here. Are you brokendoll's boyfriend?

[TomAz]

pseudo = fake

fake = not real

this is not a real intellectual conversation.

right.

but 'question' is not the same as 'refute'.

[kreutz2112]

It may have sounded like I was refuting it, but that was just an artifact of my writing.