Quote from cooldude:
What is a God-hater?
i.e. :
The devil
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
traders who are deeply religious
- Thread starter hermit_trader
- Start date
The devil
Heh heh... the christian boogeyman has been exceptionally successful in keeping the church coffers filled... but strange that not a single christian has stopped to contemplate the ridiculous paradox of an infinitely powerful being having an adversary... because if you are actually all powerful then an enemy is not really an enemy but obviously a human construct... I mean please, the pagan god Pan was transformed into the devil because christians were trying to stamp out that religion... that tells you how contrived the entire thing isQuote from nononsense:
The devil
If I may offer my opinion, there is no substantive evidence, that's what's wrong with your "evidence".Quote from trainr:
What's wrong with the evidence just presented?
You wouldn't happen to have a substantive thought on the subject.
Or were you just passing by and thought you'd throw another rotten egg out the window?
Not true.Quote from trainr:
We know by observation that all non-eternal things are caused.
Observing positron pairs demonstrates their spontaneous appearance (uncaused) for very brief periods (non-eternal.).
That 50 year observation from the principles of Quantum mechanics, could soon make it possible for your computer to work at unimaginable speed with awesome processing powers...
So we have non-etrnal things observed to exist uncaused, which can cause something else to come into existence.
In the mind can be conceived, all kinds of incredible things of so called truths.Quote from trainr:
In the mind, we can conceive truths that are eternal and unchanging.
God cannot do that? An "all powerful" God cannot exist and not exist simultaneously? Won't that truth be a serious disapointment and problem for God believers?.Quote from trainr:
For example, a thing cannot be both existent and non-existent simultaneously.
That's that then, damning proof!. God is not all powerful or all knowing otherwise It would know how to overcome that eternal truth of yours.Quote from trainr:
That is an eternal truth upon which other truths may depend, but itself depends on no other truth to be known.
Hang on you said.... "a thing cannot be both existent and non-existent simultaneously.",,,well sorry to spoil this but, there is your cause for that "self-evident truth" .Quote from trainr:
The existence of these other truths depends on a self-evident truth; they have a cause that is self-evident or cause-less.
Obviously not.Quote from trainr:
Therefore, the statement, âAll effects have a cause except an ultimate causeâ is true and not tautological.
Whoa there... God now needs a cause, or is it two causes. The non-abstract and eternal it seems are now the causes for God.Quote from trainr:
In the non-abstract, we can conceive of something called God. In order for this to be true of God, God must be eternal.
The universe too is the "ultimate cause" then. It needs to just be eternal. Only by a previous demonstration of yours, the universe has the added onus of existence, which you say is required.Quote from trainr:
Or, if God is eternal, he meets the requirement of being an ultimate cause.
Your are the one ruling in a causeless cause, nowhere have I proposed all things are caused.Quote from trainr:
When you propose that all things are caused, and that therefore God doesnât exist as a First Cause (because he violates the rule of causality, needing himself to be caused), you are proposing an infinite series of causes, which is meaningless; like a bunch of mailmen delivering an infinite series of letters, but no one wrote a letter.
vehn is right....for no real reason and for no purpose other than something abstract conceived in the mind, you are babbling,, ..no offense intended..
Believing in a super fairy is fine within limits, but your trying to "rule one in" is, babblingly and childishly silly.
Quote from trainr:
I hadnât, but now will.
We know by observation that all non-eternal things are caused. In the mind, we can conceive truths that are eternal and unchanging. For example, a thing cannot be both existent and non-existent simultaneously. That is an eternal truth upon which other truths may depend, but itself depends on no other truth to be known. The existence of these other truths depends on a self-evident truth; they have a cause that is self-evident or cause-less.
Therefore, the statement, âAll effects have a cause except an ultimate causeâ is true and not tautological.
In the non-abstract, we can conceive of something called God. In order for this to be true of God, God must be eternal. Or, if God is eternal, he meets the requirement of being an ultimate cause.
When you propose that all things are caused, and that therefore God doesnât exist as a First Cause (because he violates the rule of causality, needing himself to be caused), you are proposing an infinite series of causes, which is meaningless; like a bunch of mailmen delivering an infinite series of letters, but no one wrote a letter.
First this:
First you conclude that God cannot be defined or conceived, and then you proceed to do just that. Cheeky.
And then this:Quote from trainr:
...What youâve done is define God by your own beliefs...
...Any God of which you can conceive isnât a God who is big enough to create the universe...
And all in the same post!Quote from trainr:
...In other words, knowing Godâs character is conditional upon first accepting him; thinking that it is rational to reject God is a delusion.
I see this life as a test. If you pass the test you find God, salvation, and eternal life with him...
First you conclude that God cannot be defined or conceived, and then you proceed to do just that. Cheeky.
Quote from trader28:
Jeez even the church states that god is unknowable... that trainr must be some kind of genius
Thats probably because the church states that not all is god. But if all is god, then all we would need to do is look around and ask what is knowable. If the only knowable thing about god was love, it might be just enough to work in our favor to resolve some problems.
We have to consider whether schismatic thought processes eminating from the church(s) is productive enough to solve any problems...let alone reference in any way to add weight to an argument.
JohnnyK
Hate to tell you Johnny but occult science also states that nothing may be known of the great unmanifest... the absolute simply is... the most common metaphor an adept will use is darkness, or space... or pure living mind... none convey the true meaning because the answer is formless and we exist in a plane of form... this is why Hermes Trismegistus when asked this question by his students pressed his fingers to his lipsQuote from JohnnyK:
Thats probably because the church states that not all is god. But if all is god, then all we would need to do is look around and ask what is knowable. If the only knowable thing about god was love, it might be just enough to work in our favor to resolve some problems.
We have to consider whether schismatic thought processes eminating from the church(s) is productive enough to solve any problems...let alone reference in any way to add weight to an argument.
JohnnyK
Quote from trader28:
Hate to tell you Johnny but occult science also states that nothing may be known of the great unmanifest... the absolute simply is... the most common metaphor an adept will use is darkness, or space... or pure living mind... none convey the true meaning because the answer is formless and we exist in a plane of form... this is why Hermes Trismegistus when asked this question by his students pressed his fingers to his lips
Maybe I'm not understanding this approach to science...to shush us up even before we ever get started.
Should we stop looking then? Or, should we look only far enough to prove this to be true?
This is a legacy of Plato, a pillar of influence in formulating the logics of separation. This was accomplished by postulating the "idea" to be archetypal and reality to be a frail, imperfect substitute. The problem with idealistic philosophy is that it considers truth to be an archetypal idea, from which reality, in a somewhat imperfect form, is derived. According to that viewpoint, reality matches the ideal only randomly, approximately and imperfetly. Intellectual idealism postulates truth to be primal and perfect, reality to be derivative and imperfect.
From a scientific viewpoint, such an approach to the universe has two fatal flaws. First, it will nullify objectivity by preconceptions of the universe. Second, the expected imperfections in reality become an excuse for careless observations, dishonest reports, and self-serving justifications. This especially becomes apparent when discrepancies can be disregarded as predictable margins of error concerning the "fixed idea" being upheld.
The purpose of science is to verify reality, not to prove theory. Its not really science to go out and postulate a truth or theory as an idealized concept and then go out and extract from reality patterns of evidence suitable to substantiating the theory....because you can always find a match to theory if you leave out enough evidence and tolerate a wide enough margin for error.
Reality is where you start. Truth is what we distill through observing patterns of constancy. Though truth is a constant, it's constancy must be confirmed though experience. So, everone's path to transcendent awareness will be unique. Truth has it's roots in a common reality, but it is not archetypal. Truth is the consummation of understanding which has proven to be workable, useful and progressive toward life.
Science is a dialogue between truth and reality. We have the whole universe in front of us, but until we understand the crucial relationship between truth and reality, we don't have science.
JohnnyK
Quote from trainr:
Interesting you should bring that up.
Anyone reading that thread has to notice how you were shot down there, as well.
Thanks.
________________________________________
Number two, you couldnât offer the same aberrant belief regarding the fact that his daughter won the same contest ten years later, using the same methods.
I'm still waiting for you to explain numbers one and two above. Failing that, I have to ignore the rest of your equally meaningful posts as too much wasted time.
Should you get around to substance I'll be happy to reply.
Interesting you should bring that up.
Anyone reading that thread has to notice how you were shot down there, as well.
Thanks.
________________________________________
How you got shot down was when you quoted some off the wall study about Larry Williams having been in collusion with the futures broker who operated the contest he won. You forgot the degree to which these brokerages are regulated â that sort of thing would be investigated rigorously and found out eventually were it true, number one.Quote from Thunderdog:
I think you refer to the 3rd post on the following page of that particular thread:
http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=62386&perpage=6&pagenumber=10
Anyone who cared to take a moment to see how you took quotes of mine entirely out of context for your own purposes could see that you are entirely lacking in intellectual honesty and personal integrity. Interested persons needed only to see my posts in their full context to see how your subsequent interpretation came from a parallel universe. You were a fraud in that thread and you are no different here.
Number two, you couldnât offer the same aberrant belief regarding the fact that his daughter won the same contest ten years later, using the same methods.
I'm still waiting for you to explain numbers one and two above. Failing that, I have to ignore the rest of your equally meaningful posts as too much wasted time.
Should you get around to substance I'll be happy to reply.