Well, linking free markets to ‘protestantism’ is perhaps the kind of thing a social democrat like weber would do. Weber saying something doesn’t make it true, you know…
So I guess you’re saying Weber might be right after all?
I probably didn’t make myself clear ? I don’t think that commies and the like (weber for instance) are the kind of people one should pay attention to if one wants to learn the theory and history of libertarianism.
How does it not follow? If you can’t imagine the infinite, you can’t imagine or understand the Lord. If you can’t do that, you cannot refute him. Seems to follow quite logically to me.
I don’t see how I need to use reason to define something as being beyond reason. Nor do I need length to define something as being “beyond length”.
Ok, that’s nice. Which only makes me believe more strongly that it is you that has an emotional investment, not only the theists.
Yes, but notice. I’m not making a logical case for the Lord, it is one based on evidence and faith.
I assert it based on faith, not reason. If that is arrogance, then so be it, but I don’t see how my faith can be construed as such.
Giles, im curious are you a deist in the founding father style, or do you go the length of the Sinai and believe in the virgin birth and a boat that sailed out with lots of animals during a great flood etc?
You haven’t taken higher-level math, so you’re probably blissfully unaware that “infinite” solely and ONLY relates to mathematical sets. As beings cannot be infinite (an infinite being is a contradiction-in-terms), it then logically follows that there can be no such thing as an infinite being, and “infinite beings” are just “my dick is biggest”–and there’s no way you can get around that. Further, the universe isn’t infinite in the first place: it’s finite and non-bounded.
How do you know that it’s beyond reason? Faith? Sorry, but you need a valid epistemology, not wishes.
Yeah, you do.
Not in the manner which you’d like it to be, no.
So now you’re trying math, instead of logic. This is going round in circles.
Because it’s defined as such.
No, I’m doing both. And notice that you haven’t got any sort of actual response. What do you think that might indicate, Giles?
And Anselm defined god as the being greater than which none can be conceived, but neither he nor you nor anyone else gets to define something into existence.
And why should the state tax us? Because it says so and it’s defined as an entity which can tax. So there you go! Perfect reasoning for the statist.
Weber, while not a full libertarian, shared many views with the austrian school of thought, the austrian view on money was the one he considered the closest to reality and his definition of state is very libertarian.
Ah, OK. But in that case, why make a comment about reason ? If you assert X based on faith, then anybody can deny X…also invoking faith.
Faith or personal revelation may very well work for you, but it can’t be used effectively when talking with people who are not you…
How about bothering to learn theories, and then critiquing them based upon reason rather than a distaste for the author that wrote them. Sorry if that’s too un-libertarian for you.
Did you take a look at weber’s book ? Definitely anti-catholic…
Well, Im brazilian, I have seen enough of iberian/catholic based work ethics on my everyday and had some experience with countries of protestant majority (“British” Canada, USA and specially Norway) to agree with Weber on a lot of things. Of course things have changed, competition and globalization forces people to try harder no matter the creed.
My criticism on Weber is that he didn’t give enough attention to the ethics of judaism, that we know it was also vital to development of many aspects of capitalism like banking. But just the fact that protestant countries were in general much more tolerant towards jews compared to catholic ones (compare Holland to Portugal or Spain) already gave the first ones a big advantage.
Saddly you have not enough philosophical, and theological teaching to know that infinitude is generally a trait given to a monotheistic deity, as argued by Gilles. Ergo, your arguments it does not apply does not display his woeful ignorence, but yours for any discussion about said deity must take infinity into account; reject the idea or affirm it, but do not argue that it does not apply.
Just because you deny to existence of an infinitely perfect deity, per St. Anslem’s ontological argument, does not mean that the argument “defines something into existence.” Instead, it seeks to both describe, and defend the existence of said deity, not conjure something into existence. How about actually trying to refute the argument rather than strawman it? By the way, if you have the schooling that you’re summoning to your defense, it ought to be very easy to refute as a good method of apologetics.
I have yet to figure out how this even applies to the situation other than the usual demagaugery you indulge in…
Sadly, you have neither enough education of any sort nor intellectual integrity to grasp that doing such is misapplying the concept. Infinity is the idea of a set without a limit, period. Any other use is a misapplication of the concept, and no amount of whining will ever change that fact.
Infinitely perfect is meaningless dick-measuring to the nth. Further, Kant obliterated Anselm’s nonsense by noting that treating existence as a predicate, rather than the raw fact it is, is bogus. Anselm tried to define god into existence–that’s the idea of existence as a predicate. That you do not understand that makes me laugh in light of your earlier statement about me not having enough philosophical or theological teaching. Rather, it’s quite apparent that you haven’t got the first clue. So please: don’t be a poseur, ok?
You still have yet to display how defining a deity with a couple infinitude traits (e.g. omnipotent being God’s unbound capabilies) as being an abuse of the concept of infinity other than asserting it is a merely mathematical concept. I have yet to see the whining in my assertion.
Meaningless to man’s understanding, yes. Still a useful theological definition of God, yes.
Finally, you speak sensibly on this matter. However, the assertion “Anslem tried to define god into existence” is still utterly meaningless.
The demagaugery is cute.
Except that I have. Lying won’t help you. Further, shifting the burden of proof won’t help, either. You are the one claiming infinity can apply to something other than mathematical sets. I await the evidence. I also await the evidence that omni-attributes have actual meaning, rather than some post-modernist-esque shoving of words together regardless of the logical outcome.
Ad hominem fallacy: attacking humans qua humans in an attempt to disparage the ability of humans to understand, rather than addressing the point.
Except that it’s not, as Kant showed.
I’m getting rather bored of your posing, to be quite blunt. Should you again fail to show any bit of understanding in your reply I shall simply end this.
Are you saying that concept X is meaningless yet useful ?
They have plenty of meaning; again, God is omnipotent, ergo his capabilities are unbound. Surely, I, as man, cannot truly fathom the what the entails for the horizon of my knowledge is limited, but to deny that the term has any meaning is ridiculous.
The point is that there may very well be things beyond our the horizon of our knowledge, and the entire concept of God lies in that cateogy, but to not even speak of God, whether to approve or disprove it matters not, because of the limits of man’s reason is a disgrace to the human mind. Attack me all you like, that fact remains, and to speak of God in terms of infinities is the only manner given to theology, and philosophy to do so.