Jump to content

Western Civilization’s Last Stand

The Art of The Argument

Available Now | artoftheargument.com

Freedomain Radio Amazon Affiliate Links: United States - Canada - United Kingdom

Sign up for the Freedomain Mailing List: fdrurl.com/newsletter

Donnadogsoth

Member
  • Content count

    1618
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    19

Donnadogsoth last won the day on September 23

Donnadogsoth had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

50 Excellent

1 Follower

About Donnadogsoth

Recent Profile Visitors

1014 profile views
  1. Eugenic

    Why couldn't sterilisation be part of heinous criminals' punishment? Do you want rapists and child molesters having children? If I state clearly that anyone caught committing a crime on my property will be sterilised, why would you as a libertarian have a problem with that? If I as a parent wish to sterilise my idiot child, who's going to stop me?
  2. Is Personal Happiness the Most Important Thing In Life?

    Schiller said that, "A soul, says one wise man of this century, enlightened to the degree, that it has the plan of divine providence as a whole before its eyes, is the happiest of souls. An eternal, grand, and beautiful law has bound perfection to delight, discontent to imperfection. That which brings a person closer to that atonement, be it directly or indirectly, will delight him. That which brings him away from it, will grieve him, and what grieves him, he will avoid, but what delights him, for that he will strive. He will seek perfection, because imperfection causes him pain; he will seek it because it delights him himself.... Thus it is as much whether I say: the person exists to be happy; or he exists to be perfect. He is only then perfect, when he is happy. He is only then happy, when he is perfect."
  3. Did God err in making Adam ruler over Eve?

    How is "God let Demiurge create an evil world to imprison humans in forever" better than “God created a world that rebelled against him and required saving”?
  4. Answering an Atheist Chestnut

    1.After, except that it represents a personal tradition of thought that has its roots in my attempts at being an atheist. In other words, the specific formulation of proof of God's necessity were the post-conversion attempts at justifying an hypothesis in my consciousness that I had already known but lacked the philosophical adeptness to explain. 2.n/a 3.No, because the justification I am giving here is for the philosopher's God, not the Christian God. 4.(a) Consider A=A, principle, population density. We are capable of consciously reflecting the fundamental nature of existence, the fact that existence exists necessarily (A=A). We are capable of discovering other principles, as well—every principle in fact is open to being discovered by us, in principle. Only antihuman pessimism blocks us on that count. And population density demonstrates the truth of our discoveries by allowing us to rise to a 600-fold increase of population density over a hunter-gatherer economy. So, there, we have the essence of the Logos, or ability of the human reason, combined with human communication/speech to change the world for the benefit of man. That puts us on the trail of the Greek and Christian Logos, which John said was incarnated as Christ. It doesn't prove Christ was Christ per say, but it puts us thinking in that tradition. (b) When in doubt, consider the cult with the strongest connection to the original, which would be the Apostolic succession of the Catholic and to a good but lesser extent the Orthodox Church. There is where we should locate “Christianity” as a source. The Protestant sects, including Mormonism and Jehovah's Witnesses, represent different spiritual disciplines which are disconnected from the Apostolic succession and are all premised on the failure of Christ. (c) The concept of God is already in kernal described above. It is not incompatible with deism, but I have reasons to believe that deism is wrong. (d) It is a miracle of insight, of course. I cannot claim credit for that, but would add that if such insight is given to me it behooves me to refine it and share it with others.
  5. Answering an Atheist Chestnut

    Have fun stroking your fallacy.
  6. Answering an Atheist Chestnut

    The aeternal Creator is not an assumption, it is a deduction from realising that the universe is flux, flux cannot be timeless, and therefore the universe cannot be timeless. Only something outside of the universe, namely something timeless and creative, could have generated the universe.
  7. Answering an Atheist Chestnut

    Stop lying. If you're going to lie and say that I believe God is "a human-shaped being with a white beard" then we're done. Presuming you've stopped lying, then no. The principled realm is aeternity and therefore God, or Truth if you prefer. You as a materialist have no choice but to locate the existence of "the universe" with the material, sensuous elements that make up the phenomenal world. And that's where I locate the universe as well as an idealist. The principles are shards of the Truth, imperfect human perspectives on Truth. We discover principles as if they are parts of the phenomenal universe, but ultimately they are facets of the divine jewel which exists timelessly.
  8. Answering an Atheist Chestnut

    You are confusing phenomena (temporality) with principle (aeternity). Phenomena come into existence and go out of existence. All that is constant is the existence of the principled realm. When you say "Of course, the universe has always existed" you are conflating these two realms. Of course, the phenomenal universe has NOT always existed, just as, of course, the principled realm HAS always existed.
  9. Answering an Atheist Chestnut

    How could something timeless have an ancestor?
  10. Answering an Atheist Chestnut

    No, the universe isn't a constant, the principle of change is a constant. "Creation of a timeless" contradicts. Creation is a creation of a temporal. The timeless already exists, as the Platonic ideas, principles, etc., existed in the mind of God timelessly and were only crafted into a universe during its creation.
  11. Answering an Atheist Chestnut

    I've already talked about the temporal lacking sufficient reason to exist, which means its existence flows from the aeternal. In other words, from an aeternal Creator. That's not an assumption, that's a deduction. A=A is a principle which does not strictly apply to God. It is not that God obeys A=A, it is that A=A expresses his nature. Consequently the universe he creates likewise conforms to his nature. That's not the last word on God and logic, or the universe and logic, but that's what's relevant here.
  12. Antifa Cheers Speech made by Hitler Quotes

    Comedy bronze.
  13. Answering an Atheist Chestnut

    The fact that the universe constantly changes is a constant that exists, like A=A, in aeternity.
  14. Answering an Atheist Chestnut

    No. You are falsely defining "exists" to imply "changes". The principle of A=A exists but does not change. Who says the universe will cease to change one day? But, if it did, who says God will not destroy it rather than make it timeless? That is to say, the souls of men will be made timeless but the rest of the universe does not need to be.
  15. Answering an Atheist Chestnut

    You're making the mistake of conceptualising God as being just another object inside space-time. He is outside of it all, existing in a single unchanging instant that acts as Prime Mover against all created things. Do not visualise God as a perfectly smooth circle against which creation impinges. Rather, view him as a jagged surface that we can wilfully change our approach to--approach one way, something bad happens, approach another, something good--sort of like with people. But the motion is ours, not God's.
×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.