Go Back   Socionics Forums > Ramble Mumble

Ramble Mumble Anything goes, but please make an effort to stay positive and keep it socionics related.


View Poll Results: If you are a INTJ of a INTP what do you think about God's existence?
God is real... 2 33.33%
There is no God... 2 33.33%
Who Knows? Im still trying to understand the question! 0 0%
God is an abstract tought! There is no way to find the answer... 2 33.33%
Voters: 6. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #1  
Old 21/10/2008, 12:40 AM
darkspirit1978's Avatar
darkspirit1978 darkspirit1978 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 55
Default INTJ or INTP: Understanding emptiness...

I am ( emptiness ) therefore I think ( identity )!
By understanding that who I really am is 'emptiness' and not 'identity' I can understand consciousness and I can understand God...
God is consciousness aware of itself, consciouness aware of its own existence!
( Genesis 1:27 ) 'And God proceeded to create the man in his image, in God's image he created him...


The greatest quest of all is the quest of the spirit...



What do you think about emptiness and about nothingness? What is your personal view?
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 21/10/2008, 12:50 PM
Prometheus's Avatar
Prometheus Prometheus is offline
House Robot
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,040
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by darkspirit1978 View Post
I am ( emptiness ) therefore I think ( identity )!
By understanding that who I really am is 'emptiness' and not 'identity' I can understand consciousness and I can understand God...
God is consciousness aware of itself, consciouness aware of its own existence!
( Genesis 1:27 ) 'And God proceeded to create the man in his image, in God's image he created him...


The greatest quest of all is the quest of the spirit...



What do you think about emptiness and about nothingness? What is your personal view?
If I am, then I have identity. Every existing "entity" -- whether that entity is an object, a person, a subject, a god, or whatever -- is alwasy identical to itself. Maybe for example a hole can correctly be said to consist of emptiness, but certainly not a person. If you think that you are emptiness, then you don't understand what you are. You have an identity, even though you are not aware of it.

And of course there is no god. God does not exist.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 21/10/2008, 02:24 PM
Cyclops Cyclops is offline
Gone on holiday...
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,284
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by darkspirit1978
I am ( emptiness ) therefore I think ( identity )!
By understanding that who I really am is 'emptiness' and not 'identity' I can understand consciousness and I can understand God...
God is consciousness aware of itself, consciouness aware of its own existence!
( Genesis 1:27 ) 'And God proceeded to create the man in his image, in God's image he created him...


The greatest quest of all is the quest of the spirit...



What do you think about emptiness and about nothingness? What is your personal view?
It doesn't really matter.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Prometheus View Post
If I am, then I have identity. Every existing "entity" -- whether that entity is an object, a person, a subject, a god, or whatever -- is alwasy identical to itself. Maybe for example a hole can correctly be said to consist of emptiness, but certainly not a person. If you think that you are emptiness, then you don't understand what you are. You have an identity, even though you are not aware of it.


And of course there is no god. God does not exist.
It is likely God doesn't exist, but what is there to say God does not exist?
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 21/10/2008, 02:30 PM
Prometheus's Avatar
Prometheus Prometheus is offline
House Robot
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,040
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclops View Post
It is likely God doesn't exist, but what is there to say God does not exist?
The arguments for God's non-existence are overwhelmingly strong, and they have been so for centuries. I recommend Richard Dawkins's The God Delusion as a good recent compilation of why you must be an atheist.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 21/10/2008, 04:04 PM
darkspirit1978's Avatar
darkspirit1978 darkspirit1978 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 55
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Prometheus View Post
The arguments for God's non-existence are overwhelmingly strong, and they have been so for centuries. I recommend Richard Dawkins's The God Delusion as a good recent compilation of why you must be an atheist.
I think we could discuss the evidence and this so called 'overwhelming' arguments indefinetely and still find out flaws in it and that the evidence and arguments proving the existence of an inteligent cause are equally strong! There is no way to stop questioning! An atheist is someone who closed is mind and stoped questioning the collected evidence!
In the end the way he iterprets the evidence is with a closed mind not a open one!
He is always looking for prove that there is no existence of an inteligent cause...he is always trying to prove it to himself and to others.
I think we should never stop questioning it.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 21/10/2008, 04:21 PM
SG's Avatar
SG SG is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 2,521
Default

So how do you explain dinosaur fossils?
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 21/10/2008, 04:54 PM
darkspirit1978's Avatar
darkspirit1978 darkspirit1978 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 55
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SG View Post
So how do you explain dinosaur fossils?
Im afraid I dont understand the question...what's there to explain? Aren't dinosaur fossils the last remains of long dead creatures?

Last edited by darkspirit1978; 21/10/2008 at 04:59 PM. Reason: wrong quote
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 21/10/2008, 08:39 PM
Vibration Vibration is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 452
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by darkspirit1978 View Post
............. There is no way to stop questioning! ....................
I think we should never stop questioning it.............
I agree 100% with this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Prometheus View Post
The arguments for God's non-existence are overwhelmingly strong, and they have been so for centuries. I recommend Richard Dawkins's The God Delusion as a good recent compilation of why you must be an atheist.
On the other hand:

The arguments for God's existence are overwhelmingly strong, at least they have been said to be so for centuries. I recommend Richard Dawkins's The God Delusion as a good recent complement of why you could be an atheist.


Hey Prom, long time no see. Did you read up on This Gulenko guy, (he seems to be really clever but I don't understand him)? Can you explain why you are 100% sure he is INTj, cause I must doubt it (check the fresh INTj/INTp link). Anyway, the absolute simplest explanation could be that I am INTp simply? What do you think?

Last edited by Vibration; 21/10/2008 at 08:39 PM. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 21/10/2008, 10:26 PM
Prometheus's Avatar
Prometheus Prometheus is offline
House Robot
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,040
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vibration View Post
The arguments for God's existence are overwhelmingly strong,
There is not a single strong argument for God's existence, and there has never been.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vibration
at least they have been said to be so for centuries.
Only according to those who are incapable of evaluating such arguments properly.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vibration
I recommend Richard Dawkins's The God Delusion as a good recent complement of why you could be an atheist.
If you actually read that book some day, if you understand its content and remember its main arguments, you will not even for a second for the rest of your life seriously considering anything else than atheism as the only correct stance here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vibration
Hey Prom, long time no see. Did you read up on This Gulenko guy, (he seems to be really clever but I don't understand him)? Can you explain why you are 100% sure he is INTj, cause I must doubt it (check the fresh INTj/INTp link).
I am not 100 % sure that Gulenko is an INTj and I might never be. But I am 100 % sure that I have no legitimate objective reason whatsoever to question the correctness of Gulenko's self-typing. If he says that he is an INTj, then I have to assume that he is an INTj, and I have no right to question that typing -- unless I can prove that he is contradicting himself and/or is describing himself in a way that is logically inconsistent with being an INTj. But the likelihood of that ever happen is very low.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vibration
Anyway, the absolute simplest explanation could be that I am INTp simply? What do you think?
Totally out of the question. You are an ENTp. Accept the fact that you are an ENTp and, instead of wasting your time doubting it, try to learn more about the ENTp and other types.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 21/10/2008, 10:34 PM
king king is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 336
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Prometheus View Post
The arguments for God's non-existence are overwhelmingly strong, and they have been so for centuries. I recommend Richard Dawkins's The God Delusion as a good recent compilation of why you must be an atheist.
The God delusion is pooly argued and emotive, his arguements against organised religion is sound howver, the book is seriously prejudiced by the traditonal conflict between western rationalism and spiritual dogma of the western faiths. He was succesful at ridiculing the idea of God but only in the western sense.
I need to find my copy, so I can give some examples of his sloppy reasoning.
I thought the selfish gene was an excellent book by the way and I'm also an atheist, Dawkins is a poor philosopher though.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 21/10/2008, 10:40 PM
Vibration Vibration is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 452
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Prometheus View Post
There is not a single strong argument for God's existence, and there has never been.


Only according to those who are incapable of evaluating such arguments properly.


If you actually read that book some day, if you understand its content and remember its main arguments, you will not even for a second for the rest of your life seriously considering anything else than atheism as the only correct stance here.


I am not 100 % sure that Gulenko is an INTj and I might never be. But I am 100 % sure that I have no legitimate objective reason whatsoever to question the correctness of Gulenko's self-typing. If he says that he is an INTj, then I have to assume that he is an INTj, and I have no right to question that typing -- unless I can prove that he is contradicting himself and/or is describing himself in a way that is logically inconsistent with being an INTj. But the likelihood of that ever happen is very low.


Totally out of the question. You are an ENTp. Accept the fact that you are an ENTp and, instead of wasting your time doubting it, try to learn more about the ENTp and other types.
Wonderful.
I can hear the voice and see the facial expressions of Ayn Rand when I read your lines. Anyone who reads this should look at a video with Ayn Rand and remember the tone of the voice and the facial expressions of her and then immediately afterwards read Prom's text here. I am really curious which type Ayn Rand is. You are the same. I think you are INTp's.

A link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FzGFytGBDN8
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 21/10/2008, 11:24 PM
darkspirit1978's Avatar
darkspirit1978 darkspirit1978 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 55
Talking

Quote:
Originally Posted by Prometheus View Post
There is not a single strong argument for God's existence, and there has never been.
.


Only according to those who are incapable of evaluating such arguments properly.

Last edited by darkspirit1978; 21/10/2008 at 11:30 PM. Reason: Forgot to quote...
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 21/10/2008, 11:40 PM
Vibration Vibration is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 452
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by darkspirit1978 View Post
.


Only according to those who are incapable of evaluating such arguments properly.
If you're one of the capable types then Prom is not Ti in leading or second as many people think.

Hey prom you might be SiTe ot NiTe after all!!!!!!!
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 21/10/2008, 11:44 PM
SG's Avatar
SG SG is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 2,521
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by darkspirit1978 View Post
Im afraid I dont understand the question...what's there to explain? Aren't dinosaur fossils the last remains of long dead creatures?
As far as I know dinosaurs don't quite fit into religion, but fit perfectly into theory of evolution.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 22/10/2008, 12:01 AM
Kanerou's Avatar
Kanerou Kanerou is offline
Omnomnom
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,371
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SG View Post
As far as I know dinosaurs don't quite fit into religion, but fit perfectly into theory of evolution.
Depends on who you ask. There are Christians who think dinosaurs and humans co-existed.
__________________
http://www.formspring.me/ryeneastraelis Ask away. Naturally, I reserve the right to ignore or delete questions.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 22/10/2008, 12:49 AM
darkspirit1978's Avatar
darkspirit1978 darkspirit1978 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 55
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SG View Post
As far as I know dinosaurs don't quite fit into religion, but fit perfectly into theory of evolution.
It could be that they were created but their Creator changed his purpose and they ceased to exist...Who knows...they could even be mentioned in the scriptures in a subtle way and included in (Genesis 1:21): 'And God proceeded to create the great sea monsters and every living soul that moves about...acording to their kinds, and every winged flying creature acording to its kind. And God got to see that it was good.'
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 22/10/2008, 01:56 AM
Prometheus's Avatar
Prometheus Prometheus is offline
House Robot
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,040
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vibration View Post
Wonderful.
I can hear the voice and see the facial expressions of Ayn Rand when I read your lines. Anyone who reads this should look at a video with Ayn Rand and remember the tone of the voice and the facial expressions of her and then immediately afterwards read Prom's text here. I am really curious which type Ayn Rand is. You are the same. I think you are INTp's.
Your observation about our similarity in tone and arguing style is basically correct, and it is quite possible that Rand was also an INTp. If she was not an INTp, then she was most likely an ENTj. It is hard to tell with definite certainty what type she was, because there are signs pointing in slightly different directions. Although Rand's thinking fits very well into the dialectical-algorithmic thinking style that Gulenko (the mysterious "INTj" guy, remember?) has described in an article, which would suggest INTp rather than ENTj. On the other hand there are some arguments for ENTj rather than INTp in Rand's case, such as her strong evaluation of labour and her opposition against determinism.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vibration View Post
Hey prom you might be SiTe ot NiTe after all!!!!!!!
Don't be silly.

Last edited by Prometheus; 22/10/2008 at 01:56 AM. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 22/10/2008, 02:25 PM
Cyclops Cyclops is offline
Gone on holiday...
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,284
Default

Is this related? Neandertals and early humans were probably more clever than us.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 24/10/2008, 05:01 AM
darkspirit1978's Avatar
darkspirit1978 darkspirit1978 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 55
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclops View Post
Is this related? Neandertals and early humans were probably more clever than us.
On what basis do you make such assumption?
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 24/10/2008, 11:13 AM
Cyclops Cyclops is offline
Gone on holiday...
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,284
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by darkspirit1978 View Post
On what basis do you make such assumption?
Not really an assumption, there brains were about 20% larger than ours, and nothing to suggest their wiring was essentially different.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:36 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2007 SOCIONICS.COM