The fact that the immoral literal interpretation is held to be true by a great number of your fellow-travellers, despite your sophistic brilliance, remains. — Banno

Actually, the majority of modern translations of the Bible are flawed, at least in English and French. A literal translation of the Greek word 'aion', with respect to the passages concerning damnation, would be more appropriately rendered as 'age' and not 'eternity'. It is quite a severe error that drastically alters the meaning of the passages where it appears.

Therefore, for those who are aware of the original Greek meaning the concept of punishment is finite. Although admittedly, most Christians do indeed believe that hell is eternal.

If you have some free time and the inclination watch this video for further detail.

How can that be a model of, say, the weather? — Raymond

A model does not have to be the same as the thing it models... we dont need to make models out of clouds and vapour to accurately represent precipitation. It would make modelling impossible.

Mathematical models are another example.

This is really a nonsense conversation.

As I made pfirefry understand — Raymond

You tried to tell a programmer, @pfirefry , that he doesn't use models. That is just not the case. Programmers use models. Data is stored as a logical structure and thus databases/logical memory models the way information is represented and stored.

The computer program, by means of computer language, lets, on the mega rythm of the computer clock, structured voltages appear which pull structured collections of 1s and 0s through the circuit wires. — Raymond

There are actually no 1s and 0s. That's an abstraction. But yes this is roughly correct, in a fuzzy way.

How can this be a model of the real thing? — Raymond

Now you lost me. Data is the model. Nothing to do with flying btw.

I can't make sense of your post.

You don't create a model. You create a program operating on voltages and currents. Which is encoded in these currents and voltages also — Raymond

Nope. Programmers work at a high enough level of abstraction that they do indeed use models. That is true despite the fact that high level languages do get compiled all the way down to binary code, which is a symbolic representation for higher or lower voltage capacitor states. This is obviously far too complex for any human. Hence the need for higher abstractions and models.

Most people living in indigenous communities. The communities were simply wiped off from the face of the Earth. Children taken away from them to teach them the western way. — Raymond

Doubt this had much to do with science.

Don't forget the actual occurrence of hell on Earth for people who don't and didn't comply with the invented directives of science. — Raymond

For example?

Well OP? What's your response? — Agent Smith

yeah come on OP @Agent Smith has been waiting for 5 minutes already. :roll:

.

Trust is implicated here. There is too much for any single person to know about technology. I trust the vaccines work. I trust the brakes on my car work.

I haven't read the entire thread so forgive me if the following observation has already been mentioned.

There are passages in the Bible which indicate that God has predetermined each man to his particular fate. Indeed many Christians believe this to be the case and I have personally known believers who considered themselves "blessed" to have been chosen to be believers. Of course this line of thinking means that the non-believers were also predestined to be non-believers. Considered in this respect, it appears that God has created certain men specifically to burn in hell for eternity. It puts a strange twist on this question of the moral character of Christians. Conversion would be more akin to waking up to a predetermined fate.

Regardless, there is a perverse rationality at play for Christians who try to convert non-believers, because they genuinely believe said non-believers will suffer eternal punishment. At least there is a rationality there, but the Christians who believe in eternal damnation and yet don't bother trying to convert others would seem to be more morally reprehensible.

How dare you ban my sockpuppet (joke).

The fundamental defect of the female character is a lack of a sense of justice. This originates first and foremost in their want of rationality and capacity for reflexion but it is strengthened by the fact that, as the weaker sex, they are driven to rely not on force but on cunning: hence their instinctive subtlety and their ineradicable tendency to tell lies: for, as nature has equipped the lion with claws and teeth, the elephant with tusks, the wild boar with fangs, the bull with horns and the cuttlefish with ink, so it has equipped woman with the power of dissimulation as her means of attack and defence, and has transformed into this gift all the strength it has bestowed on man in the form of physical strength and the power of reasoning. Dissimulation is thus inborn in her and consequently to be found in the stupid woman almost as often as in the clever one. To make use of it at every opportunity is as natural to her as it is for an animal to employ its means of defence whenever it is attacked, and when she does so she feels that to some extent she is only exercising her rights. A completely truthful woman who does not practice dissimulation is perhaps an impossibility, which is why women see through the dissimulation of others so easily it is inadvisable to attempt it with them. – But this fundamental defect which I have said they possess, together with all that is associated with it, gives rise to falsity, unfaithfulness, treachery, ingratitude, etc. Women are guilty of perjury far more often than men. It is questionable whether they ought to be allowed to take an oath at all. — Schopenhauer

Test: I agree.

oh you got syntax highlighting and everything :)

.

.

Still waiting for help with that alleged Ancient Greek saying, anyone ? — Amity

I had a look around net and found plenty of references to the saying but they all trace back to Varoufakis and stop with him. I have also looked at his book but unfortunately Varoufakis mentions the saying without giving a source.

I think it's more than imaginary. It's metaphor and allegory used to provide comfort and guidance. At least that's what I've seen. And yes, imaginative power can guide or temper behavior in real life — Tom Storm

I agree.

What are the rules (or practice principles) for determining where science should be and where religion should be for instance? — Tom Storm

Yep it's tricky. Anyway, forget it. I was talking shit last night. I don't know anything.

Ok, but by extension couldn't the Marvel universe also provide much meaning to some people - millions possibly? What criteria is used to distinguish valid from invalid? — Tom Storm

I suppose the marvel universe is very effective at providing meaning within its particular domain (let's call that the realm of the imaginary). Like natural science is effective at providing meaning in its own domain (let's call that the physical). There doesn't need to be any criteria distinguishing validity or invalidity in this case because they each have their own respective, and different, domains. Choosing the valid/invalid modes would only be needed if science and the marvel universe covered the same domain. Obviously they do not, and no one seriously claims that they do.

What is it we know from theology and what counts as theology? — Tom Storm

I picked at random a few ways that man makes sense of existence and called them modes of knowing. The actual list would be very long. Those that are theologically inclined find much meaning in pursuing theology, and they are valid in this. The poet is equally valid in his perspective. As is the scientist. As is the phenomenologist. As is the advaita Vedantist. Etc.

Well you're right about that, but nevertheless I would still be careful calling His punishment unjust...
For really, how could we know? — john27

I infer that you mean we cannot know if god's punishment is just because we are finite beings. Yet the fact that we are finite beings strongly indicates the injustice. We do not even have the capacity to act contrary to our nature, which is the very thing the Bible demands of us. We are sinful creatures by birth and are powerless to redeem ourselves. God has created us one way but commanded us to be another way. So we are doomed to eternal suffering for our very finitude, for our lack of comprehension. Does it seem just?

How do we know that the punishment is unjust? — john27

It just seems a little disproportionate. Love and worship me or else I'll kill you... Forever.

Science is a valid mode of knowing.
Philosophy is a valid mode of knowing.
Art is a valid mode of knowing.
Theology is a valid mode of knowing.

The problem is when science is epistemologically privileged over the others as a mode of knowing. Unfortunately we are in an era where the materialist reductionist perspective is dominant.

The idea that man is not a rational animal (a la Aristotle) goes way, way back:

Concerning the first generation of the universe this is the account which we have received. But the first men to be born, he says, led an undisciplined and bestial life, setting out one by one to secure their sustenance and taking for their food both the tenderest herbs and the fruits of wild trees. Then, since they were attacked by the wild beasts, they came to each other’s aid, being instructed by expediency, and when gathered together in this way by reason of their fear, they gradually came to recognize their mutual characteristics. And though the sounds which they made were at first unintelligible and indistinct, yet gradually they came to give articulation to their speech, and by agreeing with one another upon symbols for each thing which presented itself to them, made known among themselves the significance which was to be attached to each term.
But since groups of this kind arose over every part of the inhabited world, not all men had the same language, inasmuch as every group organized the elements of its speech by mere chance. This is the explanation of the present existence of every conceivable kind of language, and, furthermore, out of these first groups to be formed came all the original nations of the world.
Now the first men, since none of the things useful for life had yet been discovered, led a wretched existence, having no clothing to cover them, knowing not the use of dwelling and fire, and also being totally ignorant of cultivated food. For since they also even neglected the harvesting of the wild food, they laid by no store of its fruits against their needs; consequently large numbers of them perished in the winters because of the cold and the lack of food. Little by little, however, experience taught them both to take to the caves in winter and to store such fruits as could be preserved. And when they had become acquainted with fire and other useful things, the arts also and whatever else is capable of furthering man’s social life were gradually discovered. Indeed, speaking generally, in all things it was necessity itself that became man’s teacher, supplying in appropriate fashion instruction in every matter to a creature which was well endowed by nature and had, as its assistants for every purpose, hands and speech and sagacity of mind — Diodorus Siculus

"Sameness is our real identity"

Tell that to Deleuze

Great. Another mystery solved. This calls for a hypothetical drink. *Hypothetical guzzle ensues*

Sorry. Let me clarify. Assume that is is established. Hypothetically, what then?

So anyway, what does it matter if metaphor can be a single word or not? So it's established that metaphor cannot be a single word. Great. What now?

We don't even know what heaven/hell is. Could be metaphors for a state of mind. Why do some Christians interpret eve and the talking snake as an allegory and then interpret lake of fire literally? The result is cherry picking as to what is literal or metaphorical. It's interpretation all the way down. There is no grounding, only different interpretations. Can't really discuss morality without specifying which interpretation and even then there is always wiggle room for further interpretation.

Take Geworfenheit (thrown-ness) for example. It doesn't mean that our bodies were literally 'thrown' into the world, slapping against the hard floor. But in a metaphorical sense it describes how we didn't choose this existence and just came to be somehow from apparent darkness. It's one word.

Recently I heard a philosopher speaking about a certain term Heidegger used as being a 'metaphor" — jancanc

Can you go into more detail? What term is being discussed? Perhaps the philosopher wanted to emphasize that the term is not to be taken literally.

Any examples of Infinity other than the suggestion that the universe may go on forever since we can't prove otherwise? — TiredThinker

You were already given some examples in this thread. How about the Successor function as another example?

Analytical philosophers talk a lot about science without having the slightest idea about it. If they were what they think they are, they would have made some scientific discovery. — Primperan

Why would philosophers make a scientific discovery? Does a musician make a mathematical discovery? Analytical philosophy is concerned mostly with logic and language analysis. Not natural science.

What if there's someone who can do a×b×ca×b×c, three in one go? Kill two birds with one go!? Some of us have leveled up! Time to play catch up! — Agent Smith

What would reduced computational steps provide other than faster computation?

while(true){
print("I am an infinite loop")}

If that is so, how will they be able in the first place to even think about conducting experiments? If you imagine there are no people you should imagine youself gone too, hence, no science about this objective world can be achieved. — AgentTangarine

Yes indeed it is a thought experiment which is lacking. Scientists don't think "let us conduct experiments which take subjectivity into account". That's why it is so effective.

I think it's at best no truth at all. A truth cannot exist without experience, neither a half truth. Science and journalists can find lots of truth though, and a philosopher must absorb them before he can even start philosophizing about them. — AgentTangarine

Empirical observation of physical phenomena has led to the formation of general principles about matter, technological advancements, and a general mastery of physical reality. Its domain is the physical. It oversteps its boundaries when it makes knowledge claims about consciousness, mind or experience.

The true philosopher wants to know the truth. So the real philosophers are journalists and scientists. So every student in philosophy should study science, journalism, and the truths they have found first. — AgentTangarine

The natural sciences begin from a position of eliminated subjectivity: Let us imagine there are no humans and conduct observations accordingly. Call this objectivity. A study of matter without experience is half-truth at best. If you want truth, science alone is not enough.

Is this a serious thread? Are you are genuinely suggesting that something is gibberish just because you don't understand it?

What if [insert speculative gibberish] was blah?

I disagree that human imagination is convergent with objective reality. Perhaps the word 'conception' is better than 'imagination' (providing that conception be continually improved by scientific progress). As to the rest, are you essentially asking about the limits of objectivity?