reply to post by filosophia
Originally posted by filosophia
Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by filosophia
Premise 1 equates 'goodness' to 'power'...so apparently all powerful things are good. Apparently that means an atomic bomb is a lot better than a
kitten.
According to your governments it is.
Malta? Really? I didn't know that. I'll have to ask the Prime Minister myself.
Political power only leads to insecurity: America is the greatest nation but has the most problems, so obviously power is not Goodness, but the power
that creates everything has no equal. So it is good, as in "great, superior, outstanding, perfect."
So again you're simply stating that absolute power is good because it is unequaled. But that's not a logical progression, it's a non-sequitur. Your
conclusion doesn't come from anywhere.
Premises 2,3, and 4 are unsupported and merely stated as fact though there's no verification
Your entire premise is a brush off of my premise with no verification given
...so you just told me "no you"? I'm saying that you simply stated 3 incredibly extraordinary claims without any sort of extraordinary evidence.
Premise 5 is wrong on several levels...aside from the fact that 'wisdom' is not a thing in and of itself, there's no reason to separate the
mind from the body. The mind is a construct of the body through and through.
If consciousness were simply electrical impulses in your head you would be incapable of rational thought. All thoughts would be based on electrical
impulses and the only reason would be which way the blood would flow.
...ok, you clearly don't understand how a neuron works. Thoughts are based on electrical impulses, we understand that all too well. Those electrical
impulses are stored in neurons. We can even measure the activity with several devices. It has nothing to do with blood flow.
Once more, you make a statement that's a non-sequitur. Thoughts being electrical impulses doesn't lead to a lack of rational thought.
The idea of even contemplating a science becomes nonsensical under this mouse-maze type of view of the world.
No, it really doesn't.
Premise 6...how is a human inferior to a planet? How is a planet inferior to a star? They're different things. A planet cannot write a
symphony, a star cannot support life on its surface. The comparison is odd.
Planets contain humans.
Exactly one planet does.
Stars keep planets alive. I thought you would know that one.
Planets don't get 'kept alive'...life just sort of grows on them. Well, one of them at least.
How is a human superior to the earth? How is the earth superior to the sun?
I'm superior to the Earth in that I can think, I have a relative amount of choice over the direction I move in, I can (along with the efforts of
several other of my fellows) choose to leave the orbital path I'm on around my star, I'm capable of communication, I can produce offspring, etc.
The Earth is superior to the sun in that it's a much nicer place to live.
"Superior" is a relative term. It depends on what you're talking about specifically.
Premise 7 ignores what I'm talking about. I'm talking about applicability in a physical way. If all knowledge brings peace and awareness then
you've simply added another layer of utility to all scientific data, not something new to your unsupported ideas.
The practical application of yoga is peace and serenity, if you tried it and found it doesn't work, then that is your fate, but if you haven't even
tried it on what grounds are you speaking from?
Yoga provides...boredom and added flexibility. Frankly, I prefer self-reflection while stargazing, it's a lot more productive. ...but you're still
not addressing the point. What does that have to do with creationism?
I didn't say all knowledge brings peace, only spiritual knowledge of the absolute, not say, knowledge of bombs or guns, or even knowledge of
horticulture may bring happiness but not complete fulfillment.
Well, now you're assuming the existence of "complete fulfillment".
8 and 9 are straw men. Seriously, that's just dishonest.
Care to prove how it's dishonest or should I just take your word for it? I thought science was all about "explaining"
It's a straw man. You created a man of straw in my image and shoved words in its mouth. It was the most blatant straw man I've ever seen on ATS
because you actually phrased it as a dialog between the two of us while choosing the words I said.
...and the rest of the post I'm responding to seems to be the rest of the post you're replying to without alteration or quote formatting...might
want to edit that so that it's either presented in the appropriate quote format or just get rid of it.
