jonathan7 Posted June 23, 2008 Share Posted June 23, 2008 @mur'phon - I was actually only referring to my explanation, I didn't want to dominate the wall with me, by all means others should post their position Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arcesious Posted June 23, 2008 Author Share Posted June 23, 2008 Yes, perhaps, but I intend to see if J7 and I can come up with any interesting conclusions... After that, perhaps I'll talk about it here with everyone else... Not that J7 can't though... Details as to why I'm avoiding presenting any of my thoughts on this here are in my newest blog entry... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Achilles Posted June 23, 2008 Share Posted June 23, 2008 Arcesious, I apologize for taking up so much space with this, but I'm not sure if your parent's web guard would block Sam Harris' website. I hope you enjoy the article nonetheless: Religion as a Black Market for Irrationality Christopher Hitchens has written, with characteristic candor and eloquence, that "[r]eligion is violent, irrational, intolerant, allied to racism and tribalism and bigotry, invested in ignorance and hostile to free inquiry, contemptuous of women and coercive toward children." This ten-fold indictment needs little support from me, as evidence of its truth has been crashing down upon us for centuries. However, I’ve been asked to provide such superfluities by the editors of this page. There is nothing like racing to the aid of a man who needs none. Each of my essays for On Faith has highlighted one or another facet of Hitchens’ jewel of blasphemy. I recently argued that religion is “contemptuous of women” at some length. Here, I offer further thoughts on how religion is “irrational” and “invested in ignorance”. *** Reason is a compulsion, not a choice. Just as one cannot intentionally startle oneself, one cannot knowingly believe a proposition on bad evidence. If you doubt this, imagine hearing the following account of a failed New Year’s resolution: “This year, I vowed to be more rational, but by the end of January, I found that I had fallen back into my old ways, believing things for bad reasons. Currently, I believe that smoking is harmless, that my dead brother will return to life in the near future, and that I am destined to marry Angelina Jolie, just because these beliefs make me feel good and give my life meaning.” This is not how our minds work. To believe a proposition, we must also believe that we believe it because it is true. While lapses in rationality can often be detected in retrospect, they always occur in the dark, outside of consciousness. In every present moment, a belief entails the concurrent conviction that we are not just fooling ourselves. This constraint upon our thinking has always been a problem for religion. Being stocked stem to stern with incredible ideas, the world’s religions have had to find some way to circumvent reason, without repudiating it. The recommended maneuver is generally called “faith,” and it actually appears to work. Faith enables a person to fool himself into thinking that he is maintaining his standards of reasonableness, while forsaking them. There is a powerful incentive to not notice that one is engaged in this subterfuge, of course, because to notice it is to fail at it. As is well known, such cognitive gymnastics can be greatly facilitated by the presence of others, similarly engaged. Sometimes, it takes a village to lie to oneself. In support of this noble enterprise, every religion has created a black market for irrationality, where people of like minds can trade transparently bad reasons in support of their religious beliefs, without the threat of criticism. You, too, can enter this economy of false knowledge and self-deception. The following method has worked for billions, and it will work for you: How to Believe in God Six Easy Steps 1. First, you must want to believe in God. 2. Next, understand that believing in God in the absence of evidence is especially noble. 3. Then, realize that the human ability to believe in God in the absence of evidence might itself constitute evidence for the existence of God. 4. Now consider any need for further evidence (both in yourself and in others) to be a form of temptation, spiritually unhealthy, or a corruption of the intellect. 5. Refer to steps 2-4 as acts of “faith.” 6. Return to 2. As should be clear, this is a kind of perpetual motion machine of wishful thinking—and it leads, of necessity, to reduced self-awareness and diminished contact with reality. But it is reputed to have many benefits, and once you get it up and running you will be in fine company. In fact, from the looks of it, you will never be lonely again. Enjoy! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arcesious Posted June 23, 2008 Author Share Posted June 23, 2008 I have coem to a somewhat similar conclusion as of C.H's and S.H's. I've analyzed and thought as far as I can on it, and here it is (From my second, recent blog. Sorry for taking up so much space...): (I am attempting to use some reasonings and logics from Neitzche and Descartes, and others. In this, I am listing the thought process I went through in this, attempting to analyze it all in an experimental system.) 1: Starting assumption: The are no facts, absolute truths, or absolute moral interpretations. 2: Analysis: Assumption defeats statement due to the assumption taking position of an absolute truth, whereas it says there is none. 3: Analyze other possible assumptions: 4: I can’t deny my own existence. 5: How can I know I exist? 6: I think, therefore I am. 7: What if I ‘am’ not? What if I am merely an idea being bombarded with other ideas, as if an idea processing machine? 8: I feel, therefore I am. 9. What if feeling is an idea? (Edit: Also, I theorize that the mind requires a physical realm to interpret ideas. IE, the mind using the body to feel, and 'communicate with other minds' within an understandable physical realm. Further debate on this theory I've edited in would be interesting.) 10: This entire subcomplex of analysis assumes nothing and something. What if it is the other way around? 11: How can you know if it is, or not? 12: I cannot. But I cannot deny the possibility that something could be an absolute. I cannot deny that something may not be an absolute either. 13: Can I go any further in logic? 14: Attempting… No. All attempts at further logic return back to where they started. The conclusions are finite through the perception I am capable of, IE, going in circles. 15: This conclusion claims to be an absolute. Can any refutation of this absolute be made? 16. Theorizing. No. This absolute agrees with all possibilities and conclusions as ‘possible’, so no refutation is able to go against it, because it assumes everything and nothing. 17: Further possibilities? 18: What if there is something further than possibilities? 19: There is an absolute confirmed. What is the true absolute within this absolute? It is possible to advance the purpose of this absolute to a more purposeful absolute? 20: How can I ‘know’ this? This is merely skepticism. 21: I cannot. 22: Theory: Can absolute be defined by what is considered a non-absolute? 23: Yes or no to this question are both possible and impossible. 24: Idea- Can the ‘Who, What, When, Where, Why, How’ method be used. 25: Analysis: Who, what, when, and where are physical question construction options, why and how are metaphysical. ‘What’ however, could possibly work as a cross between both sides, being possible in both a physical and somewhat metaphysical sense. 26: Theory: Can why and how be used to analyze the currently known absolute further? 27: Yes, if the possibility of ‘no’ is revoked. 28: Experiment: Analyze with why and how without considering ‘no’. 29: Analyzing… Why refers to what the purpose of all this is. How refers to ‘how’ this purpose can be fulfilled when in conjunction with ‘why’ in this sense of Analyzation. 30: New absolute realized- the human mind can only analyze and perform processes in accordance to what it knows. 31: Conjoining this absolute with why, how, and the other absolute. 32: I analyze based on only what I know, and only what I am able to perceive- this is how. The question is, why? 33: Why could be for the purpose of a higher force, or for nothing, or for every and/or any other purpose, when adding the first absolute concluded. 34: Conclusion: I cannot yet come to any absolute conclusion as to ‘what’ exactly ‘why’, the purpose of ‘life’ or existence in whatever sense it might be, is. 35: Therefore, this conclusion requires that an absolute purpose or ‘what’ be found. This chain of thought cannot go any further until that purpose is confirmed in all possible ways. (Comments? Criticisms? Ideas? To be noted, this conclusion requires that it doesn't go back in a circle and contradict and confirm itself at the same time, which, in that situation, will prove nothing. This, if you're wondering, is the current structure of my reasoning when I attmept to reach absolute conclusions. Most of the other times I use reasoning, I use what I consider of the most likely fact or possibility. At the moment, the most I can do to reach an semi-solid conclusion is to use judgement to evaluate, within my limits, the value of a fact vrs another fact. That quick reasoning doesn't prove anything, but it is, currently the best I can do until I find the absolute I'm looking for, as mentioned in # 35.) Edit: I have updated this a bit. It isn't 'exactly' like my currently newest blog anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Achilles Posted June 23, 2008 Share Posted June 23, 2008 "6: I think, therefore I am." Rocks can't think, yet they exist. Our self-awareness is only evidence that we are self-aware. "32: I analyze based on only what I know, and only what I am able to perceive- this is how. The question is, why?" Consider that there may be no "why", only "how". Pondering why the sky is blue instead of purple won't provide us with anything useful, whereas pondering how the sky got its color can tell us much about the nature of light, our atmosphere, etc. "35: Therefore, this conclusion requires that an absolute purpose or ‘what’ be found. This chain of thought cannot go any further until that purpose is confirmed in all possible ways." Make sure that you include "there is no absolute purpose" in your list of things "all possible" things to test. If you find that it satisfies your question, you may want to consider that it is the answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonathan7 Posted June 23, 2008 Share Posted June 23, 2008 Arc... "1: Starting assumption: The are no facts, absolute truths, or absolute moral interpretations." Firstly why do you think this? How have you arrived at this conclusion? As I have pointed out before, the statement is in itself is an absolute truth and ego self defeating; while the latter on moral interpretations can be truth. G While the later is true under certain frame marks, as I have pointed out before the claim that there are no absolute truth is in fact an absolute truth so it self defeats itself If I say truth is an absolute how would you respond? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arcesious Posted June 23, 2008 Author Share Posted June 23, 2008 Achilles: What I'm saying is, what if rocks don't really exist? I want to think they do, and by judgement, as far as I can perceive things with my physical senses, they do, but there still is the possibility that they and everything else are only metaphysical ideas. And if they do really exist phyisically, why woudl they need to be able to think? What if they only exist as things to test our own thoughts and ideas, or add to them? As to why and how, I'm using how as to how everything works, and how we understand the way things work the way they seem to work. The why is the bigger question, which i must admit, may or may not really exist, but it is 'fun' (IE interesting to brainstorm about) to elaborate on the 'why'. The why I'm trying to explain, is kind of asking 'Why must the universe exist, why must the mind exist (If is does pysically), and why is does the nature of things seem to work a specific way? This seems to be asking for a supernatural answer, but I think there could be a better explanation that 'Goddonit' or 'there is no reason'. I'll elaborate on why I think there may be an absolute purpose now: I think that the conclusion 'there is no absolute purpose' is able to hide another, much more 'meaningful' absolute purpose, or at least I hope it does. In saying all things are possible, the problem with testign that is, how can we know just how many things really are possible. That's why I didnt try to analyze that in detail, because theoretically, such a statement and idea claims finite possibilites to test... So I only 'tested' the ones I could think of that I thought might be relevent. For example, the statement all things are possible requires testing of so many things that the purpose could indeed by for a single 'rubber bathtub duck' to exist for no particular reason or for 'God' to exist as a force of summing all things up into one huge conclusion, which we can't fully coprehend as of yet, or at least I can't. J7: I should change it slightly to 'There are no absolute facts', sorry. I do however, as I've explained, hold pretty strongly to beleif of the possibilities, theories, and facts of the 'physical' world, because whilst I exist in it, it seems that i require to maintain my health and existence, and besides that, I'll think of the complex philosophies, but not fully apply to everything. Thus, why I lean to the athiest side, because, IMO, at the moment, the athiest side seems more logical, to me at least. I've arrived at this conclusion because it seems to help me somewhat 'fully' interpret possible facts and theories from all sides of debate, and because such a position allows plenty of room for me to change my thoughts on what 'is most likely true' if an argument persuades me well. That, and, when 'beleiving' such a statement, that seems to be a 'strong' position due to how rapidly the world around me changes. How new ideas and changes come up are more easily processable for me with this system of thought. My reponse, is, I think 'truth' can be used in different ways. 'Facts' are physical 'truths', and absolutes are metaphyisical truths. This may sound a bit wierd, but, I'll try to explain the different. In court, you need to present 'evidence' for a case, correct? In such a situation, 'Facts' are used as physical 'truths', and are debated upon by judgement of relevence. A person can be convicted guilty, or assumed innocent, based on evidence. Conviction, however, is soemthing Neitzche has something to say about. "Any/all convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."-F.N Convictions are judgements of the facts, to attempt to evaluate value of the 'truths'. While I think a lot of court decisions are 'just' convictions attempt to put value on facts. But this is only on known facts. The unknown facts could very well make a person innocent or guilty, the opposite of their sentence without these 'other facts'. The thing is, you can't really positively know what the facts and truths are in a physical sense. A conviction claims to be an absolute, but it is easily debatable is new 'evidence' arrises. The absolutes I'm referring to are like metaphysical 'rules'. They have an effect on the 'physical', but they are not judgeable as evidence, because they are metaphysical. As you said 'The later is true under certain frame marks'. Well, if the absolute functions well under those 'certain frame marks', why bring it out of that certain area of judgement if it makes sense? The assumption I made, overall, all comes down to saying 'you can't really know', because it is easily possible for any 'truth' to be 'false', and visa versa. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Achilles Posted June 23, 2008 Share Posted June 23, 2008 Achilles: What I'm saying is, what if rocks don't really exist? What do you gain from the question? If you are unwilling to accept "physical reality" then the question serves no higher purpose. If you do accept "physical reality" then the question is easily answered. And if they do really exist phyisically, why woudl they need to be able to think? If the ability to think is the only evidence for existence, then the rocks would have to be able to think in order to exist, no? This seems to be asking for a supernatural answer, but I think there could be a better explanation that 'Goddonit' or 'there is no reason'. There are reasons and then there are explanations. Explanations would appear to be a worthy endeavors where reasons might not always be. "How did we get here" has an answer. "Why are we here" might not. For example, the statement all things are possible requires testing of so many things that the purpose could indeed by for a single 'rubber bathtub duck' to exist for no particular reason or for 'God' to exist as a force of summing all things up into one huge conclusion, which we can't fully coprehend as of yet, or at least I can't. Right. Lots of things are possible. Therefore, why spin your wheels worrying about the things that are possible, yet you have no way to test or evidence to support. The inescapable reality is that once you are born, you will eventually die. Whether or not there is an afterlife, you only have a limited number of days here. Do you want to waste them worrying about some cosmic rubber duck or would you rather focus on how live this life as best you can? Every moment you spend doing one is a moment that you give up the ability to do the other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arcesious Posted June 23, 2008 Author Share Posted June 23, 2008 Hmm... Good points... I don't have any arguement agaisnt the answers you've given me, but I do still find myself wanting something more to a meaning for existence itself, which may or may not exist.... But that will lead to wishful thinking if I do that... I think it is fear of losing the mind that leads to wishful thinking about a purpose after 'death'. The worst possible fate I can think of is for my mind to cease from existing. Descartes does make a good point that death is not the opposite of life, but life is a unique species of death... Still doesn't prove anything though, except make death not seem so much like a void of... well... death. Right now, for the moment, is seems that with all this thinking, it all ends, in withful thinking if we wish to go further in the realm of the mind. Whether or not it could go in a further direction without wishful thinking is another thing entirely, which when I think about it, I see no other 'relevent' or 'purposeful possibilities. For the moment, we humans with all the ideas we have, seem to ultimately end with either 'there is no purpose' or 'the purpose is God'. Those two conclusions, IMO, seem to be the most relevent, 'purposeful' conclusions I can think of. When or if mankind is able to coem up with anything better, I don't know. But I would very much like to live until that 'better' conclusion is made. I don't want to die without purpose. I don't think anyone does. But, yet again... That leads to wishful thinking... I guess it takes faith no matter what you beleive. Sucking it up and accepting the harshness of the 'reality' of existence takes faith too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Achilles Posted June 23, 2008 Share Posted June 23, 2008 Hmm... Good points... I don't have any arguement agaisnt the answers you've given me, but I do still find myself wanting something more to a meaning for existence itself, which may or may not exist.... But that will lead to wishful thinking if I do that... You're welcome to whatever personal sense of meaning you'd like. I'm only suggesting that trying to find an overarching, inherent meaning might be a waste of your time. If you're happy doing XYZ and think that XYZ is a noble and worthy purpose to life, why shouldn't that be enough? The worst possible fate I can think of is for my mind to cease from existing. You weren't aware of the billions of years that passed before you were born and your brain formed enough connections to allow self-awareness. Why do you think that things will be any different after that organ has failed? I don't fear death. I fear a prolonged and painful death, but I don't see why death itself should be scary at all. Unless you're religious. Then you have to worry every single day about whether or not the invisible man in the sky is pleased or displeased with every single thought that passes though the impure, sinful mind that he made for you in his perfection. Surely that lake of fire is a tad bit more daunting than ceasing to exist, no? Even religion recognizes the power in the politics of fear, eh? For the moment, we humans with all the ideas we have, seem to ultimately end with either 'there is no purpose' or 'the purpose is God'. Those two conclusions, IMO, seem to be the most relevent, 'purposeful' conclusions I can think of. When or if mankind is able to coem up with anything better, I don't know. We absolutely can. Think about it: all of those "good parts" of our various holy texts that we so love to cherry pick from had to come from somewhere. If god doesn't exist then they must have come from us (we must have been able to figure out those things all by ourselves). Now imagine how much better we could be if we stopped hoping for moral instruction to fall from the sky and instead set out intent on a sober discourse of moral philosophy. But I would very much like to live until that 'better' conclusion is made. I don't want to die without purpose. I don't think anyone does. That "purpose" will change. When I was a kid my "purpose" was to be an astronaut. There may have been firefighter or police man or scientist in there at some point to. When I got older, I knew that I didn't want my "purpose" to involve flipping burgers, so my "purpose" became being a student (and a waiter). At some point my "purpose" aquired a wife and some kids. I decided the wife thing was overrated, but I'm pretty happy about the kids part. The money thing has pretty much taken care of itself, so now my "purpose" seems to have something to do with leaving the world in a better condition than I found it, etc. Your "purpose" will change over time too. Not knowing what it is right this second should not a cause for crisis, however it's probably a good thing that you're at least thinking about it. Just don't fool yourself into thinking that once you have it won't change again a few years later. Sucking it up and accepting the harshness of the 'reality' of existence takes faith too. Faith: a belief for which there is little, no, or contraditory evidence. It has no place in what we're doing here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arcesious Posted June 23, 2008 Author Share Posted June 23, 2008 You're welcome to whatever personal sense of meaning you'd like. I'm only suggesting that trying to find an overarching, inherent meaning might be a waste of your time. If you're happy doing XYZ and think that XYZ is a noble and worthy purpose to life, why shouldn't that be enough? True, but i don't want to make a waste of my time doing something of which (IE, turning back to being religious) I'm not absolutely sure about the validity of truth accompanied with it. But, I do think I know how I could have a bit of fun in life... That's what friends are for, after all... You weren't aware of the billions of years that passed before you were born and your brain formed enough connections to allow self-awareness. Why do you think that things will be any different after that organ has failed? I don't fear death. I fear a prolonged and painful death, but I don't see why death itself should be scary at all. Unless you're religious. Then you have to worry every single day about whether or not the invisible man in the sky is pleased or displeased with every single thought that passes though the impure, sinful mind that he made for you in his perfection. Surely that lake of fire is a tad bit more daunting than ceasing to exist, no? Even religion recognizes the power in the politics of fear, eh? Well, pain is one thing, not existing is another... And yes, I have found it quite interesting how the Bible, and other beleifs, seem to almost always teach of damnation to unbeleivers... As Neitzche once said: "In heaven all the interestign people are missing." We absolutely can. Think about it: all of those "good parts" of our various holy texts that we so love to cherry pick from had to come from somewhere. If god doesn't exist then they must have come from us (we must have been able to figure out those things all by ourselves). Now imagine how much better we could be if we stopped hoping for moral instruction to fall from the sky and instead set out intent on a sober discourse of moral philosophy. I agree entirely... That "purpose" will change. When I was a kid my "purpose" was to be an astronaut. There may have been firefighter or police man or scientist in there at some point to. When I got older, I knew that I didn't want my "purpose" to involve flipping burgers, so my "purpose" became being a student (and a waiter). At some point my "purpose" aquired a wife and some kids. I decided the wife thing was overrated, but I'm pretty happy about the kids part. The money thing has pretty much taken care of itself, so now my "purpose" seems to have something to do with leaving the world in a better condition than I found it, etc. Your "purpose" will change over time too. Not knowing what it is right this second should not a cause for crisis, however it's probably a good thing that you're at least thinking about it. Just don't fool yourself into thinking that once you have it won't change again a few years later. Indeed... Who knows what will happen. All I hope is that I don't contract some disease that effects me mentally... (Alheimers, a tumor, or something else.) To live outt he rest of my life with a mind lacking reason... That's a nightmare. I mean, well, the quote of Voltaire pretty much wraps up what you're saying about this, so I agree. Faith: a belief for which there is little, no, or contraditory evidence. It has no place in what we're doing here Good point... I'm just saying, it takes 'faith' in a sense to not beleive something... In fact, I propose that judgement, morality and reason require a little bit of 'faith' at times... (Oi, I say 'good point' to much, methinks. ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Achilles Posted June 24, 2008 Share Posted June 24, 2008 True, but i don't want to make a waste of my time doing something of which (IE, turning back to being religious) I'm not absolutely sure about the validity of truth accompanied with it. But, I do think I know how I could have a bit of fun in life... That's what friends are for, after all... Truth is one thing but the discussion was purpose. In purpose you have absolute freedom. You even have the freedom to blindly adopt someone else's notions of purpose as your own The point is this: if your passion in life is delivering the mail, then be a mailman. No one is watching from above, disappointed that you aren't fulfilling your "higher purpose". I'm sure that we'd both agree however that everyone would benefit if all people endeavored to do good to themselves and one another, etc, etc but that's not quite the same thing. Indeed... Who knows what will happen. All I hope is that I don't contract some disease that effects me mentally... (Alheimers, a tumor, or something else.) To live outt he rest of my life with a mind lacking reason... I hear you. Good point... I'm just saying, it takes 'faith' in a sense to not beleive something... In fact, I propose that judgement, morality and reason require a little bit of 'faith' at times... I disagree. Skepticism and faith are polar opposites from one another therefore no faith is required for skepticism. Do you think that it takes some measure of faith to not believe that Elvis is still alive? Do you think that it requires faith to not believe that Prometheus fashioned the first humans out of clay? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arcesious Posted June 24, 2008 Author Share Posted June 24, 2008 I have no further arguement on that, then, Achilles... I wait eagerly for J7's response to all this... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonathan7 Posted June 24, 2008 Share Posted June 24, 2008 Having just watched RotJ, I thought I would quote old Obi-Wan: "you're going to find that many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view." Arc; what exactly would you like me to respond to, I disagree with a fair amount of it I will note that faith seems to be banded out as a bad word currently; I have faith in my best friend Paul - is that a bad thing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Achilles Posted June 24, 2008 Share Posted June 24, 2008 "I will note that faith seems to be banded out as a bad word currently" Indeed, one might think that accepting things as fact without evidence should be considered a bad thing. Especially when said thing plays such a significant role in how people view the world, etc. Having "faith" that Very Bad Thing X will resolve itself (or that "god" will step in and resolve it for us), could lead many people to "rationally" conclude that there is no reason for them to try to do anything to prevent it. "I have faith in my best friend Paul - is that a bad thing?" What does that mean? Are you playing fun games with context? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arcesious Posted June 25, 2008 Author Share Posted June 25, 2008 J7: I'd like to ask, are there things about Christianity that you don't totally agree with or understand? If so, I'd liek to debate a little bit on that first. But, if not though, then, and if it's not to much to ask... I'd like to hear your whole argument vrs all of this Achilles and I have brought forward... (Although, since it's so much to refute all at once, I suggest we take it all one or twos posts at a time, perhaps...) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Achilles Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 "I'd like to hear your whole argument vrs all of this Achilles and I have brought forward" No offense J7, but good luck Arcesious Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arcesious Posted June 25, 2008 Author Share Posted June 25, 2008 Huh? Do you mean I'm on my own here? :/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Achilles Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 No, just saying that J7 keeps a full schedule which sometimes interferes with his ability to fully participate in these conversations. Sacrificing leisure for study is the price one has to pay for academic success. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arcesious Posted June 25, 2008 Author Share Posted June 25, 2008 Ah... Well then, by all means, let him study and do whatever else he wishes. I'd put studying ahead of leisure also, if I was in college. (Which hopefully I'll make it to. My ending GPA this year was 3.52, and that's way under my minimum expectations for myself. Next year I'll try to focus even harder. College must be hard... But I've heard that it is very rewarding.) We can wait. No pressure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mur'phon Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 Just curious, is GPA your grades divided by your subjects, and what is the maximum score? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonathan7 Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 A: I've finished Uni; so that's not a problem Neither would I say I have a full schedule, especially when compared to some here; single working parents, I think have less time than students I'm affraid my inability to fully participate here is purely the "real-life" kind; I've been somewhat sidetracked by the fact my cousin is very ill (so in in truth I haven't much been in the mood of discussion/debating etc), that I have a job interview for the next 2 days and that I'm the treasurer for the youth camp I lead, on so have to figurer out budgets and what not - the credit crunch means things are a bit tight this year. Hopefully I will get a chance to post over the next 2 days, I can't promise... but will be back on friday; so will aim to have a response for then. GB J7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arcesious Posted June 25, 2008 Author Share Posted June 25, 2008 mur'phon: Yes, grades divided by subjects. Honor Roll 3.35, High honor roll is 3.85, and highest I can get, in my school, is 4.0. J7: Understnadable. The same thing has kind of happened with my dad. IE, my dad has to do the bills, and my brother calls, asking if he wants to go play some golf... (Ow. I have a eyelash stuck in my eye.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rev7 Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 "Just curious, is GPA your grades divided by your subjects, and what is the maximum score?" GPA= Grade Point Average Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Achilles Posted July 8, 2008 Share Posted July 8, 2008 Thomas Paine says: "If we are to suppose a miracle to be something so entirely out of the course of what is called nature, that she must go out of that course to accomplish it, and we see an account given of such a miracle by the person who said he saw it, it raises a question in the mind very easily decided, which is,--Is it more probable that nature should go out of her course, or that a man should tell a lie?" I would amend this passage to read, "or that a man should draw a incorrect conclusion from an observation" or something of that nature rather than flatly assert that a "witness" is lying. Regardless, I thought that this was one of the more elegant arguments against "miracles". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.