The question game

Hindu rites of passage.

What is the "Problem of Evil"?

 

The problem of evil is this: "The existance of evil in this world proves that there is no (perfect/ly good) God of unlimited power, since any perfect and good God of unlimited power would disallow the existance of evil."

What is the name of the prophet (also known as Ras Tafari) sent to us by Jah, according to the Rasta religion?

 

Actually, the samskaras are the karmic tendencies with which a person is born.

 

Marcus Garvey. Or do you mean Haile Selasie?

Does a dog have the Buddha nature?

 

Well, you see... ::has realization:: I've attained enlightenment!

Seriously tho, no fair asking a question with no answer, that's cheating But if it must be answered, I suppose all living beings have Buddha nature, so yes.

What is the holiest day of the year in Judaism?

 

Shabbat. The most important Shabbat is Yom Kippur.

What happened in Andalusia (Al-Andalus) that is worth mention on a board with interfaith dialogue as well as philosophy?

 

I think my question was too specific. When the Muslims conquered Spain there was a period of peace and interfaith dialogue. Everyone influenced everybody else. And the Muslims were translating the philosophers of old into Arabic, which made them available to everybody. There was a flowering of poetry, philosophy, and openness among the Abrahamic religions that doesn't get spoken of enough.

This is less specific: What element[classical] is associated with deity in Zoroastrianism?

 

I've read in some places that it wasn't all THAT idyllic, but definitely better than most times.

Fire.

What does the Yin/Yang symbol signify?

 

Balance and harmony between all things. Ultimately, the yin-yang symbol's origin seems to me to be shrouded in mystery or lost in time, as I have seen many, many definitions, from "good vs. evil" to graphs of the sun's exposure year-round, attributing the points to the summer and winter solstice. But ultimately, it stands for balance and harmony between all things.

What is the philosophical "tool" known as Ockham's Razor? (sound familiar? )

 

"If there are two equally convincing arguments, the simpler one is more likely to be true."

Do you think the argument from Occam's Razor is a sufficient refutation of dualism?

 

Wrong. Ockham's Razor translates to "do not multiply entities unnecessarily." Basically, what it's saying is this ... consider two arguments that state that there is a force between planets and celestial bodies that causes them to attract eachother. But one of the arguments states that the force is generated by aliens, the other one doesn't. Ockham's Razor would immediately allow you to reject the second statement, because it tacks on an extra supposition. Ultimately, it is used on a theory / scientific conclusion, in order to shift out entities that aren't necessary to make the conclusion. It also offers priority among unsimilar arguments, stating that the simplest argument should be investigated before the others. It doesn't state that the simpler one is more likely to be true, but rather that it should be check out first.

 

Thanks for enlightening me. Weird how I put my "wrong" answer in, and the question still got graded as "correct" last semester...

BTW, you forgot to answer my question.

 

Aye ... schools have a tendency to do that, like how I was marked wrong when I answered the question, "What did Levi make the first pair of jeans from?" and I answered "hemp." As true as it is, the correct answer was, "canvas," even though technically, it was made from a material called "canvass" (note the additional s), which was in turn made from hemp. Oh well.

And sorry ... my answer is, no. I don't think Ockham's Razor can be properly used to refute or prove dualism.

What is this a picture of:

 

???

Why is ( ∞ ) wrong?

By whose standards is one wrong and one not?

If I say that you also are wrong and offer you my opinion on why I say you are wrong, then all I am offering you is "MY" opinion.

( ∞ ) offered his opinion. You offered your opinion. I offered my opinion. We all offered our own perspectives on the world as we see it.

No one's perspective is wrong unless it involves the perpetuation of suffering and the taking of ones happiness. All beings strive to be happy and free from suffering. To take ones happiness is to impose suffering.

Your perspective on your world is just that ... your world.

( ∞ )'s perspective on his world is his world.

My perspective on my world is my world.

Yet ... none of these actually have any intrinsic existence anyway. We only impute existence by our attachments to appearances. Conventionally, yes they exist. Ultimately, no they don't.

( ∞ ) could have easily have said e=mc^2 is the equation for relativity. You could have easily said, no it isn't, it is a mathamatical equation stating that as mass approaches the speed of light it has a tendency to transform into energy with momentum. Both answers are correct, two different perspectives.

I like reading your posts, Hikaru, as I like reading everyone elses. But, what we know does not negate what others know, nor does it make what they know wrong unless they see another truth in what you, I or others say. Then they make the decision for themselves that what they knew was right or wrong.

All we can do is offer logical suggestions. It's ultimately up to the one listening to apply it to their own perceptions and accept or reject.

Darrell

 

is that a fleur de lis?

 

Yes, that is a fleur de lys. =D Can you post a question to go with that to keep it going? =)

Darrell:

I agree that if the definition of Ockham's Razor were an opinion or interpretation, that I could not have said that ( ∞ ) was wrong. However, we are all speaking in English here, and the English language provides definitions that are to be accepted among all speakers of that language for lack of confusion.

Thus, ( ∞ )'s definition did not match the definition of Ockham's Razor (whether it be the English translation, the original text, or an interpretation of the concepts presented by either), which means it was incorrect. I certainly don't hold anything against ( ∞ ), considering that there are not many people who involve themselves in discussions of the nature that we have on these boards, let alone CAN involve themselves.

But regardless, ( ∞ ) did not offer an opinion, he offered a definition, which doesn't match either the original or accepted definitions. Certainly, one could say that the sun is an organ in each of our bodies, but if they were speaking in English, that would clearly be wrong, as it is not an opinion by any means.

 

k, what the religious symbology of the fleur de lis?