Welcome, Guest: Register On Nairaland / LOGIN! / Trending / Recent / NewStats: 3,160,537 members, 7,843,665 topics. Date: Wednesday, 29 May 2024 at 09:33 AM |
Nairaland Forum / Nairaland / General / Religion / The Philosophy Of Truth Through Pictorial Arguments (9683 Views)
Three Arguments For God's Existence / The Philosophy Of Reality / A Library Of The Best 40 Atheist Arguments Against God/religion (NOW WITH PICS) (2) (3) (4)
(1) (2) (3) ... (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (Reply) (Go Down)
Re: The Philosophy Of Truth Through Pictorial Arguments by Joshthefirst(m): 7:18pm On Oct 31, 2013 |
Logicboy03:question for lb: If you see your terrible and hateful neighbour, who is human, and see your pet dog trapped in a burning building, who would you save? |
Re: The Philosophy Of Truth Through Pictorial Arguments by Nobody: 7:21pm On Oct 31, 2013 |
Joshthefirst: question for lb: The human. Why? 1) I am a humanist- humans first 2) Unlike the old testament God, I believe people can change. He might become useful to human society. I wont smite him 3) A human can contribute to mankind, a dog can not improve the situation of mankind 4) I will become his hero 5) Dog meat is tasty, according to the food connoisseurs |
Re: The Philosophy Of Truth Through Pictorial Arguments by Joshthefirst(m): 7:26pm On Oct 31, 2013 |
Logicboy03:all I see in your post is mankind, mankind, mankind, myself and dogmeat. God has been giving you a chance to change all this while. Do not insult his patience and love for you. |
Re: The Philosophy Of Truth Through Pictorial Arguments by Nobody: 7:33pm On Oct 31, 2013 |
Joshthefirst: all I see in your post is mankind, mankind, mankind, myself and dogmeat. I gave you sensible, well thought out reasons and yet you push them aside....do you hate reason n logic? |
Re: The Philosophy Of Truth Through Pictorial Arguments by Joshthefirst(m): 7:35pm On Oct 31, 2013 |
Logicboy03:which kind of bad belle is this? How did I push aside your reasons? Smh. Okay. A question from your answer: Why are you humanist? |
Re: The Philosophy Of Truth Through Pictorial Arguments by Nobody: 7:38pm On Oct 31, 2013 |
Joshthefirst: which kind of bad belle is this? Cos humanism makes sense. Simple Unlike you- you re a christian because of faith and not because christianity is sensible. You either were born into christianity or you were converted by a skilled l |
Re: The Philosophy Of Truth Through Pictorial Arguments by Joshthefirst(m): 7:43pm On Oct 31, 2013 |
Logicboy03:humanism makes more sense? And yet we're all animals? I did not become a christian just because of faith. The faith made sense to me. When I realized that I was a sinner heading for hell, it made sense to accept Gods way of salvation. When people have faith that doesn't make sense, its religion. Just like atheism. You're no different from religious people, you just think you're smarter because you've broken away from ritualistic nonsense that doesn't change men. |
Re: The Philosophy Of Truth Through Pictorial Arguments by Nobody: 8:05pm On Oct 31, 2013 |
Joshthefirst: humanism makes more sense? And yet we're all animals? There are many forms of bullsheit in the world. Theistic religion is one of them. Atheism just cures you of one form of bullsheit. Being an atheist doesnt necessarily make any one smarter. Faith and sense should not be put together in the same sentence. You have faith in an unprovable God and an incomplete holy book- sir, that is the opposite of sense |
Re: The Philosophy Of Truth Through Pictorial Arguments by Kay17: 8:14pm On Oct 31, 2013 |
Logicboy03: Too far off, what is intuition? |
Re: The Philosophy Of Truth Through Pictorial Arguments by Nobody: 8:18pm On Oct 31, 2013 |
Kay 17: intuition ɪntjʊˈɪʃ(ə)n/Submit noun 1. the ability to understand something instinctively, without the need for conscious reasoning ======================================== DeepSight claims that we know God by intuition. This even makes God less real |
Re: The Philosophy Of Truth Through Pictorial Arguments by Kay17: 8:22pm On Oct 31, 2013 |
Logicboy03: It appears to be the opposite of deep thought/consideration. |
Re: The Philosophy Of Truth Through Pictorial Arguments by Nobody: 8:22pm On Oct 31, 2013 |
Kay 17: Gbam |
Re: The Philosophy Of Truth Through Pictorial Arguments by Kay17: 8:33pm On Oct 31, 2013 |
Deep Sight: I always believe the builder's vision and mind complexity reflects on his work, the greater a genius he is, the greater his work. And I understand this example most theists readily make. However a bias appears, a confirmation bias -- producing the builder's example when there are many others ie a tree. Why can't we make an allusion of the Universe a tree?! The next question is over 3 centuries old, how complex is the mind in which the Universe was designed? Note: that all complexities are deliberate constructs (theists' view), and as a matter of necessity complexities are designed, thus triggering a natural question who created such a mind. I believe the theist must approach a degree of complexity he must believe is uncaused. |
Re: The Philosophy Of Truth Through Pictorial Arguments by Kay17: 8:35pm On Oct 31, 2013 |
Also everyone assumes the human sight/mind is perfect to capture the message from the pictures. Why shouldn't we believe our perception could be impaired, by bias for example. |
Re: The Philosophy Of Truth Through Pictorial Arguments by MrTroll(m): 6:31am On Nov 01, 2013 |
Joshthefirst: you don't believe you're special? You're no different from the animal? Its a wonder your life is in direct difference to your thoughts.don't assume you know my life bros. That being said, do you have any idea how big the earth is in relation to our solar system let alone the observable universe? |
Re: The Philosophy Of Truth Through Pictorial Arguments by MrTroll(m): 6:37am On Nov 01, 2013 |
Kay 17: Also everyone assumes the human sight/mind is perfect to capture the message from the pictures. Why shouldn't we believe our perception could be impaired, by bias for example.this is the argument plaetton was making and which DS was spitting upon. |
Re: The Philosophy Of Truth Through Pictorial Arguments by DeepSight(m): 11:12am On Nov 01, 2013 |
Mr Troll: this is the argument plaetton was making and which DS was spitting upon. Spitting on? ? ? ? His Argument - - - - - - > plaetton: May I be permitted to say that unlike modern computer hardware, the mind did not evolve a firewall to protect it from outside interference, influence or access. MY VERY FIRST RESPONSE - - - > Deep Sight: Did you miss my very first five words ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? GET THE POINT NOW? ? ? ? ? ? ? |
Re: The Philosophy Of Truth Through Pictorial Arguments by MyJoe: 11:26am On Nov 01, 2013 |
truthislight: If the atheist we have on this forum is half as opened minded as you, then the effort being expended on them would have been worth it. Bravo. I see your writing has improved a great deal. It appears that what the Theocratic Ministry School could not do in years Nairaland has done in months. Seun must hear this! If I had the ears of those concerned (the governing elders), I would ask them to include writing exercises in the TMS, instead of just talk, talk and talk. Writing may not have been of much apparent use to “kingdom interests” in the past but nowadays with these Internet forums and the need for you young Kingdom soldiers to go online and fly the flag, change is inevitable. It’s too early yet for me to say whether you are now able to follow structured arguments or not. But, most importantly, it appears that while your writing has improved your mind has not. As you can be seen doing against me here, you still pluck lies out of your bottom to defend Jehovah. |
Re: The Philosophy Of Truth Through Pictorial Arguments by truthislight: 5:43pm On Nov 01, 2013 |
MyJoe: ooh Sharrap ! |
Re: The Philosophy Of Truth Through Pictorial Arguments by MrTroll(m): 9:14pm On Nov 01, 2013 |
Deep Sight:While i saw your first 5 lines, it did not necessarily translate to the second paragraph. THAT is what i was trying to explain to you, we both agreed that what he said was true and correct but where we differed was on whether it was an escapist response and therefore meaningless. You seemed bent on insisting it was so even after several explanations by the poster himself. No matter how he explained it, you kept insisting it was an escapist response and could be used for any and every subject on earth. The thing come tire me. The point is that even if Plaetton agreed to discuss on the significance of the pictures and their arrangement, whatever we finally deduce from them should not be taken as objective truths. I took them on as a form of mental exercise, if the thread had not been derailed so i would have continued further. . . 1 Like |
Re: The Philosophy Of Truth Through Pictorial Arguments by plaetton: 11:05pm On Nov 01, 2013 |
Mr Troll: While i saw your first 5 lines, it did not necessarily translate to the second paragraph. THAT is what i was trying to explain to you, we both agreed that what he said was true and correct but where we differed was on whether it was an escapist response and therefore meaningless. You seemed bent on insisting it was so even after several explanations by the poster himself. Here is what I think happened. Deepsight, like most us usually do, opened the thread to elicit certain types of responses in order that he me may direct and tele-guide the thread towards some certain of his own truths and conclusions. When I interjected in the manner that I did, He felt threatened of loosing control of the thread, so he violently lashed out with strong provocative words as a means of driving me away, or at the least, to discredit my viewpoint so that he could steer the thread to his intended conclusions. That was why no matter how many times I repeated and tried to clarify, he just kept going like a broken record. lol. I think that is what is called being "Dogmatic". 1 Like |
Re: The Philosophy Of Truth Through Pictorial Arguments by DeepSight(m): 11:26am On Nov 02, 2013 |
plaetton: What an emotional response. I have laboriously and logically explained my point but you have consistently turned sadly emotional over and over again. You first said animosity, then you said lies against you, now you talk about violent lashing out, provocative words and feeling threatened. All these are in your imagination. And might I add, honestly shamefully childish emotionality, which I would never have thought you capable of. My points are lucid, logical and clear, and when I pointed out damning contradictions in yours, such as with the leaf, you simply ignored them. I think you need to look at the man in the mirror, and not at me. |
Re: The Philosophy Of Truth Through Pictorial Arguments by DeepSight(m): 12:11pm On Nov 02, 2013 |
Mr Troll: While i saw your first 5 lines, it did not necessarily translate to the second paragraph. THAT is what i was trying to explain to you, we both agreed that what he said was true and correct but where we differed was on whether it was an escapist response and therefore meaningless. You seemed bent on insisting it was so even after several explanations by the poster himself. You are not being objective or rational. Did you not see the apocalypse of his argument in the instance of the example of the leaf? Did you not see the world-ending contrsdiction therein which just showed once and finally that he was spewing empty nonsensical escapist gibberish? To use his eyes to find objective truth about the leaf and say at the same time that what is seen cannot disclose objective truth? Nor can he escape with appeal to culture and memory for even in the instance of the leaf, it is a plate for one man, food for another and decoration for a third. And yet he still deigned to use his eyes to state some fundamental objective truths about it. This says it all. If after that, you dont see the point, I can only smile. |
Re: The Philosophy Of Truth Through Pictorial Arguments by Nobody: 12:27pm On Nov 02, 2013 |
Deep Sight: If you like, put all the big words in the dictionary in your arguments, your sophistry wont change the facts. The fact is that the pictures are there but our descriptions will always be subjective. We cant test the rock nor ask the man what exactly he was doing. What if he wasnt thinking but just posing for the camera? Guy, siddon |
Re: The Philosophy Of Truth Through Pictorial Arguments by DeepSight(m): 12:32pm On Nov 02, 2013 |
Logicboy03: Even posing for the camera involves a thought. The simple point that you make clowns of yourselves on. Plaetton laughably even said what if he is not thinking but wishing, or something as assinely s.illy as that. Wishes, of whatever nature, are thoughts. Such profoundly thick headed desperation to evade the spectre of a thinking being and its philosophical and ontological ramifications. And, of course, you also, would ignore the tradedy of the example of the leaf. An example given by plaetton which is a whole sale concession of my point, and rips his argument to shreds. This is of course the same way you ignored the damning point on whether science itself relies on images seen or not. Hurrah. Good morning. 2 Likes |
Re: The Philosophy Of Truth Through Pictorial Arguments by Nobody: 1:09pm On Nov 02, 2013 |
Deep Sight: Nice try. If he was only posing for the camera, he would have finish thinking before the shot was taken. All he had to do was pose then snap. The pic wouldn't be of a man thinking. It would be of a man posing Sophistry will always fail u |
Re: The Philosophy Of Truth Through Pictorial Arguments by MrTroll(m): 1:21pm On Nov 02, 2013 |
Deep Sight:This is funny. Anyway, i don't think what you keep saying is what Plaetton meant. Maybe i read it wrong. I'm tired of holding forte for him sef. The point is, whatever we deduce from here should not be taken as objective truths, they can hardly pass as conclusive evidence in any case. That is my position in this. |
Re: The Philosophy Of Truth Through Pictorial Arguments by DeepSight(m): 1:34pm On Nov 02, 2013 |
Mr Troll: This is funny. Anyway, i don't think what you keep saying is what Plaetton meant. Maybe i read it wrong. I'm tired of holding forte for him sef. *Sigh* And what about his leaf? Why did he then discern objective truths about his leaf? |
Re: The Philosophy Of Truth Through Pictorial Arguments by DeepSight(m): 1:35pm On Nov 02, 2013 |
Logicboy03: Even the act of posing denotes a thought. While doing it, you are in the thought of carrying on a pose. My friend, you cannot escape thought. A simple truism you would have become enlightened to if you had undertook the kindergarten exercise set out in my OP. |
Re: The Philosophy Of Truth Through Pictorial Arguments by Nobody: 2:04pm On Nov 02, 2013 |
Deep Sight: Sharrap. If I held a camera and told you to pose like a thinking man how many seconds would it take you to strike the pose. Wouldn't you have to finish the pose before I took the picture? Even at that, do you consciously think before putting your hand on the chin? It is almost an involuntary action. |
Re: The Philosophy Of Truth Through Pictorial Arguments by DeepSight(m): 2:12pm On Nov 02, 2013 |
Logicboy03: Even maintaining a pose involves a thought of what you are doing, and continuing to do. Look, you don't need to accept the simple idea that you are a thinking being you know. It is possible, in fact, likely, that you are not. 1 Like |
Re: The Philosophy Of Truth Through Pictorial Arguments by DeepSight(m): 2:21pm On Nov 02, 2013 |
Well, too much has been said on the question of subjectivity and what can be known. Anyone interested in that debate can read the posts above. Let us now focus on the tendergarten excercise set out in the OP, with those who are interested in where it might lead. Okay, Kay17, let's take your thoughts on the images first. Kay 17: The words in bold are indeed what the image evokes to anyone, and of course is exactly what it is intended to evoke. Thought. Man. Man and thought. What is man. And what is thought. Secondly, most interesting that you said - "The strenuous effort of reasoning -- gift from the Greeks" I like "strenuous effort of reasoning" - For this calls up the understanding that a being could deliberately exert itself to place its thoughts through a logical process: and that in itself calls up the fundamental existence of logic as a pillar, perhaps the pillar of reality. One thing moving to the next as a cause or consequence: this would be cardinal in discussing existential reality. Please give me your thoughts on the above and lets take it further. We will go to your thoughts on the other images after this - - - if that's cool by you. |
(1) (2) (3) ... (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (Reply)
What Is The Unforgivable Sin? - Paul Ellis / Please Tell Us,how You Got The Thought "There Is No God Almighty / Who Should We Direct Our Praises To? God Or Jesus?
(Go Up)
Sections: politics (1) business autos (1) jobs (1) career education (1) romance computers phones travel sports fashion health religion celebs tv-movies music-radio literature webmasters programming techmarket Links: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) Nairaland - Copyright © 2005 - 2024 Oluwaseun Osewa. All rights reserved. See How To Advertise. 101 |