The first portion of this post prior to my response to bricoleur is not directed to anybody specifically. It is directed particularly to psychoblast and bricoleur or anybody that has posed similar questions as them regarding my beliefs of god, or beliefs of god in general.
The second portion is a reply to bricoleur, everybody elses thread will be addressed in my later replies because it takes me a while to write a reply which addresses everything if not nearly everything mentioned in a long post. It is an attempt to save time, and get things out of the way quickly so that people can read my responses in smaller portions specifically to whom they're directed to as opposed to in one gigantic thread.
(Mods, if this is a problem, let me know. If i took the time to write one reply which responds to everybody, it would take too long, and some people might not even read it because of its length and the amount of time that it took me to reply, or they might miss the part that is responding to their post.)
This post is going to try to clear up the majority of prior miscommunication. I'm going to attempt to restate what i have been saying in terms that I think might be more clearer and/or easier to understand.
Q: Do you (me, tr6ai0ls4) believe reality is god?
A: Yes
Q: What is your reasoning for believing god is reality?
A: Religion is trying to describe reality and laws of reality. Science is a rational description of reality that has been established and known to be true. Do you not see that god and reality is really the same thing based on that? Religion is another explanation of reality which hasn't been established to be true because of lack of evidence or misunderstanding. (I'm not saying that everything in religion is definetely real.)
Q: Is there anything that is accomplished by calling reality god? What do you gain out of that?
A: Nothing
Q: If you dont gain anything by it, why do you call reality, "god"?
A: The reason I say god and not reality is simple. Here is what is commonly thought by people when one person sais either word.
1. Reality -- Everything that is real as we know it today.
2. God - Everything that is real, whether we know about it or not.
(dont misunderstand #2, it means what it sais in the most literal sense possible. An example of something being real and us not knowing about it is atoms before they were even imagined, gravity before it was named and explained, the milky way galaxy before there was a word galaxy or anything that needs to be called that, etc..)
There are certain things and laws in reality that I do not think have been established by science yet. These rules and laws are things that are not considered part of reality by many people as there is no evidence to show that they are. These rules are considered to be gods or religious rules as they are extremely far-fetched and we have no better explanation or they are just totally wong and allready have been exposed. Some examples of the far fetched rules could be what people used to say the sun was thousands of years ago, before we knew what it was. They were all talking about the same thing (reality and aspects + laws of it) and trying to describe its properties and what effect it has. Science is just a whole shit load more accurate then religious belief.
Thats why I say god. If I just said reality, most people quickly assume that something isn't part of reality until theres evidence to show that its actually real. This is false. Why is it false? Because 1000 years ago people believed the earth to be flat as psychoblast said and that was considered reality as there was no evidence to show otherwise.
There are things that happen that are a doing of god, and not reality in the way that whatever is doing it, isn't considered a part of reality yet by science. Because of this, I form my theories or beliefs to test these things that occur within reality, and attempt to prove that it is actually not god (god meaning what is not considered a part of how reality works, as there is no evidence to show that it is for watever reason) doing these things, but that these things are just laws in reality, or that they are just completely wrong.
Until there is evidence to show that these things are in fact real, i cannot call it reality, so I say god because people who believe in god(not a man, figure, some kind of higher being which is not reality or outside of existance) know what i'm talking about, and people who dont believe in god will perhaps see that god is extremely simple, and that god is just made out to be something more then what god really is a lot of the time.
Does this make it clearer why I call god reality? Do you see how easy it is to confuse what i'm saying, as it is just hard to explain? I hope it does, because i think i'm going to have trouble making it any clearer then that.
When I am talking about god or attempting to explain certain aspects of god from my perspective, I am doing a couple of things.
1. Stating my perspective on what god (reality) is, by suggesting a theory such as that your thoughts manifest themselves into reality, (not that reality is god, or that pervasiveness through history is actual evidence that god exists) so that people can pick it apart and perhaps enlighten me.
(My theory, is multiple theories that I consider all to be one theory as most of them have relevance to each other in the way that they are all aspects of reality(god). It is not that reality is god literally. It is that certain aspects of god are just simply aspects of reality.)
2. For people who believe in a god that is not reality and/or some other thing which i do not believe in, to perhaps be enlightened by my post and consider that perhaps all god is (from my perspective and perspectives of many other religions (at least what I think other religions are trying to convey god as they are just trying to explain reality)), is reality and nothing more (god is not something proven to be true, it is just all the things which we do not know + know as a whole and an attempt to explain the unknown things).
3. For people who do not believe in any god or do not believe in god because they think that its something that hasn't been proven, to perhaps realize that god doesn't have to be proven, that is what he is, all the not yet proven things, and the proven things(not just some kind of thing or person or other living being). Perhaps that thought will enlighten them and make them consider the possibility that all god (the most common view of god) is made out to be by religion and most views of god once the bullshit is cut out is just reality and nothing more. You do not even have to believe in god(all the not proved things + proved things). God just exists, and its not irrational. It is very obvious. If you still think it is, you have not understood what god is. God(all unexplained things + explained things as a whole + an attempt at an explanation for the unknown things) simply just hasn't been fully explained yet. Once god is totally explained, there is no longer any need to say god. You can just say reality.
Q: It seems like you're just trying to avoid being an atheist by calling reality god. Is this what you're trying to do?
A: I believe reality(everything, not just things that have been proven) is god(everything) and I believe some of my explanation for things are possibly correct, therefore I believe in god. If i believe in god, i'm not an atheist. If you still think I am, and want to refer to me as that, go right ahead, it doesn't bother me that some people might or might not consider me that. As far as i know by definition of atheist, it is not what I am because I believe in god(all the things not yet known to be true and all things known to be true as aspects of reality). If by definition I am an atheist. Then so be it. I'm an atheist then. An atheist who believes in god. heh.. one of a kind
Now that, that has been said.
bricoleur,
In response to what I wrote,
" The point for my explanation of god is to seek anwsers to unanswered questions. "
you wrote,
"And what unanswered question(s) has ‘god’ thus far answered? "
If you look again, you will see that it is not god that is anwsering the questions, but me trying to explain god.
The more proper question to ask was,
"What unanwsered question(s) has an explantion of 'god' thus far answered? "
Since my view is that reality is god, the anwser is simple. An explanation of god anwsers the same questions, as an explanation of reality does.
You said,
"What I now understand is that for you reality can only be called ‘god’ if we are unable to explain the cause and effect nature of that ‘reality’. Rather convenient for your ‘theory’... but we end up at square one – replacing one mystery with another and in the process we end up chasing our tails... YAWN!"
It is not reality can only be called god. It is god can only be called reality.
See the difference?
Also, which theory of mine are you refering to? Is it the theory that reality is god? If it is, I do not have such a theory. "Reality is god" is what i call my theory because of a lack for a better name. The theory itself is a collection of other multiple theories as a whole. "Reality is god" is not what my theory is, it is what i call it, if you read everything above this, you by now should understand why.
If you want to get all technical and politically correct on me, and go on saying shit like that cannot be called a theory. Even a set of other theories cannot be called one theory. You are wrong, blah blah blah..
Even if its not a theory. I dont really care. I'm Sorry that you misunderstood what I was saying because of me not accurately using the same definition of the words in question that you use.
Do you understand that i'm trying to explain and rationalize god? Do you realize how hard it is to do that? You do not even think its possible... If you confuse what i'm saying, I'm sorry. Put yourself on my side of the debate, do you not see how easy it is to confuse everything i'm saying?
If you misunderstand something i say, or take some different meaning from it due to me not being exactly clear because of the amount of time it takes to write such a thread especially with the length that my threads have been, let me know. I will be happy to show you what definition of the word I actually meant when I said it. If that definition of the word is not in any dictionary that you could find, I'm sorry that I used the wrong word because of not knowing a better word for what i'm trying to say. It is my fault.
If you do not believe this is the case and think i'm trying to just further defend myself by changing everything around. Very well, think that if you want. Doesn't really matter to me. I know what happened on my side of this better then you do.
Lets move on,
You said, "Which is why I asked you to give me the attributes that make something ‘god’."
In your head, list all the attributes that make something reality. According to my view of god, those are the same attributes that make something god. You can say, there are no attributes. God just is reality, according to my view of god. You are living it. It is not something outside. You are in it, and it is not any actual thing. There are beliefs which are in question past the point of what reality is known to be. When I say reality, I dont mean what science knows reality to be at this current point in time. I mean everything that exists, whether we know about it or not.
As a response to the reasoning as to why i believe that the most common view of god is that god is reality, you stated, "Nice of you to construct the context in such a way as to be all-inclusive!
So no matter what I say you can always pull point b. out... but let’s not forget that metaphor can swing both ways... ".
In what way is it all inclusive? Are you suggesting that any metaphor can be used to mean anything?
First lets make it very very very clear as to what a metaphor is.
Here is a metaphor, "a sea of troubles", this metaphor has been taken from dictionary.com, as an example for the definition of a metaphor purposely so that you can't say its not a metaphor.
Why don't you go ahead and try to take it literally. Think that it means what it actually sais. "A sea of troubles." Does it make any sense to you when taken literally?
A metaphor is created for one sole purpose. This purpose is to make a comparison to something that is actual and literal but cannot be describe through language. Things such as emotions are described in metaphor because in language there are no words that could describe it literally. All the words that describe this something literally all mean the same thing. If you tried to describe this something, love for example(or any feeling including physical ones), to somebody that has never felt it before. You wont be able to without using words that mean the exact same thing. The only way to do it, is through metaphor.
Now that that is made clear(hopefully).
It seem like you're saying that every metaphor could mean anything, making my reasoning to believe that the most common view of god is reality all-inclusive, because some views of god are expressed through metaphor.
Explain to me then how you could use the metaphor, "a sea of troubles" to mean that god is reality.
If you pull this off and it makes sense, i will accept that my reasoning is in-fact all inclusive. Until then, your argument seems invalid and inconclusive.
Next issue...Godels theorem
In an earlier reply by you, you said
"Nothing is true – Are you familiar with Godel’s Incompleteness Theorem"..
I replied,
"Yes, i am ... the theorem states that there can never be a universal procedure by which people can determine all mathematical truths.
-- It does not in any way suggest that nothing is true.
-- It does not state, there is no way at all that you can determine the truth of any statements.
-- It does not say, if you use different methods to determine whether or not different things are true, you will never find the truth.
-- Since then I have many times revised my view of god due to further observation of reality and what it is, and the pursuit of truth. It now is simply that god is simply everything that exists which is real, whether we know about it now, or do not YET know about it.
All it sais, is that there is no ONE universal way to determine the truth of EVERY statement."
This showed that I was familiar with the fact that there are exceptions to the theorem. I started providing what I KNEW TO BE EXCEPTIONS, for YOU. because you said...
"nothing is true"
and yet, you respond with,
"(other than a trivial definitionally complete system (e.g. A=A – and including your examples above (I thought you said you were familiar with this theorem and yet you break the rule!!!))"
i dont understand where you get this from at all,
i made it very clear that my examples are exceptions to the rule. The reason i said them was to SHOW YOU that there are exceptions.
It is YOU who broke the rule by saying
"nothing is true"
NOT ME!!
My post was trying to explain that you broke the rule, and yet you reply saying that I broke the rule? WTF!!!!
Next issue, me confusing possibility with probability.
Your giant reply as to how I'm doing this, does not actually say how I'm doing this. What am I supposed to think after that?
What would you think if I said you were doing something but then in my explanation of how you are doing it, I didn't explain at all how?
Since you didn't explain, i'm now assuming that you couldn't. Since you couldn't i'm going to even further assume that i'm not doing it.
What you went on to explain was not how i'm confusing possibility with probability. It was an attempt to explain why something unreal cannot become real, which is a totally pointless.
I do not know why you would go to such great lengths to explain something so obvious. I was never trying to make something unreal real. I was trying to make something that was real allready, clearly seen.
Your whole explanation seems like nothing more then an attempt to intimidate me by making yourself out to be more intelligent then you really are.
Well, i'm not intimidated, and I would appreciate it if you would stop explaining things which do not even need to be explained while not explaining things which do.
Here are some of the huge mistakes in your explanation which i will make really clear to you right now.
1. In your explanation here are your four categories. 1 through 4
1 (Unreal and not yet imagined things)
2 (Unreal and qualified (imagined and described) things)
3 (Real (identified through the senses) but not yet qualified (described) things)
4 (Real (identified through the senses) and qualified (described) things)
Do you not see something missing here? Wheres category 5 (Real (not YET identified through the senses due to lack of technological advancement and not yet imagined things).
If your argument is that there is no such category. Where would atoms be classified 1,000 years ago? In category number 1? If so, wouldn't this mean they moved from 1 to 4? If they did, How did they manage to do that? Isn't it impossible to move between 2 and 3?
2. Before i move on with this, let me just say what i have said many times before but am just saying now to make things extra clear: I dont know whether god(all aspects of reality not yet known to be true + all aspects of reality now known to be true as a whole) is real(the unproven part of reality, at least) or nor do I claim to know that god(the unproven part of reality, this is also called god) is real for a fact. It is a belief.
this is what you said,
"You fallaciously think that your ‘god’ moves from 2 to 3/4 by merely utilising metaphor."
You are claiming all kinds of things here. Here is a list of them and a response to each of them individually.
your claim
1. God (or my god, whatever) is categorized as something that is not real and imagined.
my reply
LMFAO!!!!!
so god (or my god) isn't real eh? really? I ALLREADY KNOW THAT. Thats what god is, all things not yet shown as part of reality + all things showns to be a part of reality as a whole.
Also, even if it wasn't that, why don't you go ahead and prove that whatever you thought i meant by god isn't real. Lets see you rationalize what you were saying, which basically is, god isn't real.
your claim
2. I am false in thinking that god can move from being categorized as unreal and imagined, to real and not described by utilizing metaphor.
my reply
I am not thinking god can become real or become categorized as real. Instead, I am believing that god is real and always have been.
Also, if you were suggesting that I am falliciously thinking that god is real. How is that possible? How could you just say, "hey if you think god is real, thinking that is wrong."
3. Its not always metaphor in the text, only sometimes.
4. you say,
"David E. Leary puts it “metaphor consists in giving to one thing a name or description that belongs by convention to something else, on the grounds of some similarity between the two”, and what this implies is that YOU conveniently find the similarities between YOUR definition of ‘god’ and ‘reality’"
No, this is what you're doing. Let me explain how.
What you're doing is, is taking a statement which isn't even a metaphor (the quote by david leary) and drawing a conclusion from it to conveniently suit YOUR argument.
This conclusion being that I am comparing similarities between my definition of god and my definition of reality.
In fact, that isn't what i'm doing and you completely misinterpreted the quote by david.
Heres how you misinterpreted the statement.
What the statement actually means (not just to my convenience) is the following.
You start with wanting to describe something that isn't describable literally through language (NOT both the description and something that to you conveniently means the same thing).
You then seek out something that is conveniently similar to it(not just anything as there has to be grounds of some similarity (which also proves metaphors aren't all-inclusive)).
After having found something that is conveniently similar to what you're trying to assign a name or description to, you assign meaning to this conveniently similar thing, this meaning being the thing that you are trying to describe.
THAT is how a metaphor is created.
Now the way you interpret a metaphor is by doing the following: (practically same shit as above, except backwards)
You start out with nothing but a metaphor, (not 2 definitions of something)
After examining it, you seek something that is similar to it by convenience(not to YOUR OWN convenience, just convenience in general).
After having found the convenient thing, you then draw a conclusion that the metaphor your trying to interpret is likely to mean what you have found to be conveniently similar to it based upon the fact that that is how it was created in the first place.
Here is how you are wrong in assuming that i'm conveniently finding the similarities between MY definition of ‘god’ and ‘reality’.
Here is the procedure I followed:
-- I started out being an atheist and disbelieving that god exists. All i believed in was that reality was some sort of higher being, but not god. (it took me a while to believe that too, i used to just not believe anything) I did not have my own definition of reality. Reality means what reality means in the dictionary.
-- I heard and read about what god is made out to be in some of the most common religions.
-- I came to understand that most religious views of god make no sense when taken literally.
-- I considered perhaps they're metaphors.
-- I sought out something which is similar to a description of god from a specific text.
-- The result i got was all of existance (reality).
-- I did this with another text or view of god.
-- Same result.
-- I started thinking, "hmm, perhaps it could be made to fit all religious views of god."
-- I found out I was wrong, but it fit a lot of them, especially the most common views of god.
-- Based on the fact that it seemed suitable to apply reality to metaphors describing god. I formed my belief system and my definition of god as it was then.
As you can see, i did not form my beliefs by comparing my own definition of god to my own definition of reality and then changing them to conveniently suit each other.
Next issue, some more word games...
you stated,
"You have no conclusion, yet you are arguing that you have a theory... ? I rest my case."
The word theory could be used to mean speculation or conjegation. And if my theory isn't a theory, but just a belief..
Whatever... it doesn't change what it is. It just changes what its called. I do not even know why i bothered to argue you it with you, or why i'm doing it right now. Its over, no more word games.
As for falsfying gods existance. You are absolutely right, the experiments that i had listed would not do it, as its kind of hard to construct an experiment which determines whether or not god is reality or not. The experiments i listed were not experiments that would falsify god existance. They were experiments that would falsify other theories of mine. Since I call the collection of all my theories "reality is god" and consider them all to be one big theory since most of them are related to each other, it is just one big misunderstanding.
Next issue, belief as a part of science
to my comment,
"...there is nothing in science that states that belief cannot be part of a scientifical experiment. Many scientifical experiments that pertain to belief have been performed, I have allready given you an example of one of them. "
you said,
"I have addressed this directly in a paper I posted to another forum: Faith in Science it will show your comments to be empty and unjustified."
Ok, I read the paper. I didn't see anything that shows why belief cannot be part of an experiment. It shows some reasons as to why you cannot believe in what you're experimenting as that hinders the experiment. Those reasons are a matter of your opinion. Your basically saying, if a person believes that they're right even the slightest bit about something, then the test they perform to determine the chances of them being right, is inaccurate. This is 0simply your belief, just like my belief. You cannot prove that a person will be innacurate in testing something, just because they believe something might be right. If you can, I would like to see the proof.
next issue, me not knowing scientific method or godels theorem.
Whatever, I didn't claim that I know exactly what it is. Everything that I stated was based upon what I know of it. It knew it well enough, as nothing you said shows that I didn't.
you said,
"You still do NOT have pertinent evidence... all you have is your use of metaphor – see my comments on metaphor above."
I have reason to believe, i never claimed i had any kind of evidence. As for use of metaphor, see my comments above.
you said,
"You still want to make this statement before I tear it down and expose its sloppy logic?"
Yes...
you said,
"It should be noted that I am rather annoyed at your dishonesty. Initially you told me you were familiar with the scientific method yet you continue to show that you haven’t a clue, and then you told me you were familiar with Godel’s theorem yet you make the novice mistake that anyone with the faintest idea of the theorem would be aware of."
I didn't lie, i am familiar with the scientific method, I knew and know what it is. As for me making a mistake with godels theorem. It was you who made the mistake, not me. So I could say, that you were lying about knowing what it was. Yet I do not do that because it would just be pointless.
you said,
"lol You really do not have a clue on how to perform research do you lol
It should be noted that when such variables are controlled for in these studies, the formerly significant results drop off to insignificance!!!"
Ok, you might be right and these variables you speak of might actually matter. But it is possible for them to be controlled in those studies. I'm pretty confident in saying that there has been controlled experiments, although I do not know for sure. The reason i'm confident is because since its possible to control those variables, i'm pretty sure you're not the only person who thought of that.
Also, you seem to be really confident that these variables, if they were controlled for, the experiments in which they are controlled for would then show a different outcome from the non-controlled experiment. You could be correct, in saying that. However, unless you have reason to believe that, which I dont think you do as you have not provided any, it is irrational.
You seem to dodge a whole lot of my statements, seemingly the ones to which the anwser would be agreeing with what I'm saying.
Here is a few of them, dont avoid them.
Show me a metaphor from a common religion that could not be conveniently used to mean, reality, or all of existance. (you have failed to do so)
Show me at least 3 scientifical experiments that would falsify theory of relativity in its whole.
1000 years ago there was no known evidence to show that the earth is round. Back then would the belief that the earth is round be irrational as there would be no known evidence to show otherwise?
you wrote,
"2) Failure to control for multiple comparisons."
i wrote,
"That is an assumption...."
you wrote,
"Is that the best you could do? How would you know whether it was an assumption or not when I made no reference to a specific study?"
I do not claim to know that, i'm assuming that it is an assumption because as you said, you made no reference to a specific study. However I do not claim that i'm not assuming that, like you. You seem to be saying that you're not assuming anything.
now for some more word games,
you said,
"The term “non-blind faith” is an oxymoron. Faith by definition is blind or it would not be faith."
Watever, just keep looking up definitions in the dictionary.... I'm sure i could find a definition of faith, that doesn't mean just accepting something to be true without evidence, if I tried. The word faith has many definitions, as most other words. When i say faith in my posting, or when i say belief, I DO NOT MEAN, that I accepted something is true. If i shouldn't be using those words, then tell me, which word should I use? I'll use that one when i'm talking to you from now on? OK???
As for my experiment, i withdraw it, as i have realized that it is in fact innaccurate due to your postings and i will eventually devise an experiment that will draw accurate results as it is possible to do so. Until then, I continue to believe what I believe.
you said,
"I would much prefer you supplied the ones you had in mind so as to avoid your now predictable response that is along the lines of, that not what I meant, you misunderstood etc."
Whatever, if you dont think you misunderstood. That doesn't matter to me. I know when you misunderstand what I'm saying. If you dont think you did. I couldn't care less.
I thought perhaps that you actually wanted to understand what I had actually meant. How could you properly address or attack my beliefs if you do not even understand what they are in some cases?
you said,
"“spawned spontaneously in different locations..”? You need to do some research! Lets see, Hinduism, Buddhism, Christianity and Islam ALL began at DIFFERENT times."
Ok, i dont know why I said that, and I was wrong in saying so. Just take the word spontaneously out. There I corrected myself.
you wrote,
"Are you suggesting that you formulated a belief system before being exposed to other belief systems? "
No, i am suggesting that I formed my belief system, according to what I observe. Not according to other belief systems. Also I am suggesting that somehow, other people managed to almost exactly form the same belief system, yet it is also not based upon other belief systems. These people had no knowledge of me or my beliefs, and they had no knowledge of other people with the same beliefs. This to me supports my beliefs. It doesn't prove them right, but it makes them more likely to be. If not, explain how.
You asked for me to further explain what i meant by thoughts manifesting themselves,
My thoughts often manifest myself. For example, I'll think of somebody whom i haven't been in contact with and haven't been thinking of at all for a long period of time. 1 year, 2 years, 3 years, 4 years, whatever. Somehow, i get a phone call from them 5 minutes later.
Another example, i'll sit here and think life sucks I wish there was more people with who shared my views, almost immediatly people start popping up who share my views.
A third example, is that I keep a positive outlook on life and the events that occur in it. As a result of this, less negative events occur. I think it might just be because I do not think of negative events as all events are positive to me in some ways.
I stated,
"It is quite frequent that I know almost exactly what another person is thinking when I am looking at them, or that i think of something right before somebody sais it. Much more often the other people. Yes, it is a coincidence. But the amount of times that it happens, leads me to belive that it is unlikely for it to happen as it does without there being some sort of reason or explanation for it other then, its just a coincidence. (I do not claim its definitely 100% not coincidence. All im doing is just considering the possibility that it might not be, and that something might be responsible for it.)"
you replied,
"Me too – but I have an explanation for this phenomena that does not require a ‘god’ in order to illustrate its applicability. So what is your point? "
My explanation for this phenomena is one thing of many. These many things make up a whole, the whole is my belief system. I call the belief in my belief system, the belief in god as that is what my belief system is attempting to explain. You just misunderstood because I wasn't totally clear (its kind of hard to be, with this topic). It is my fault, i guess, for not being totally clear.
i said,
"I've had dreams about future events that happened after I had dreamed them."
you replied,
"So your life is completely determined. Sounds like hell..."
I do not in any way believe that my life is determined. I believe that these events occur because i dreamed them, not that I dreamed because they will occur.
you said,
"Sadly you were not brain dead though... so your merely making assumptions to bolster your beliefs... "
first of all what do you mean sadly ? do you wish i was dead? are you sad that i'm not? do you mean sad for me, because it doesn't prove anything? if you mean that, i never said it did. Am i just misunderstanding what you meant?
Secondly,
how long is it before a person becomes brain dead? I was out for longer then 30 minutes....
you said,
"Sufficient evidence is an observation that is repeatable. The observations are repeatable by anyone... not just by you. "
So according to this if i see something and somebody else sees it too, and i see it again and again and so does another person then its real?
I once saw a blue ball of light while tripping on mushrooms. The person that I was tripping with saw it too in the same exact spot. We both saw it leave the room at the same time headed in the same direction. Since then i've seen it again, and so has he. Does this mean that this blue ball of light is something real according to what you said? Are you saying we couldn't have just imagined it together? Since I had said, look over there, do you see something, after having seen a blue ball of light, he replied, "Yes, i see a glowing blue ball." Couldn't it have just been something else that triggered the hallucination that was in that spot and then moved, and the reason that we keep seeing it is simply because we think of it somewhere in our minds sometimes, or that something else similar occurs to trigger a similar hallucination? According to what you said, it is impossible and this blue ball of light, must be real no matter what.
Also, there has been many times where i saw something somewhere that wasn't just eyesight, it was astral. Other people see this something there as well.
Many people have had obe, and some experiences of it are nearly identical to others. Does that mean obe is real according to what you said?
I said,
"As far as i know, anthropomorphisizing would mean to ascribe specifically human characteristics to something. Living is not specifically a human characteristic. There are many other forms of life like plant life for example."
you replied with,
"Yes but who decides what ‘alive’ is...? Humans. Besides in your earlier post you call god ‘him’..."
So if you ascribe the characteristic of being alive to something then you are ascribing a human characterestics because humans decide what alive means? Seriously? I do not see how or why alive becomes a human characteristic just because we decide what it means. For example, we(humans) decide what everything means. Every single name for every single characteristic of anything is decided by us. So if ascribe the characteristic of being yellow to something, then that characteristic is a characteristics of a human life form simply because a human life form decided what it means? Thats dumb...
Also, i apologize for referring to god, as 'him' or 'he'. I try to avoid this at all costs. Sometimes i slip and it happens, as god is commonly referred to as 'him' in order to avoid saying god more then once or twice in the same sentence.
"All you have done is illustrate your complete ignorance of the scientific method. The very scientific method you claimed you knew... more lies. Please refer to the link to ‘Faith in Science’ I supplied above as it will make it very clear to you... "
What i had said was based on your statements, not the scientific method. I was trying to illustrate that you can be as easily misunderstood in trying to describe something as i can be. Call me a liar, say i'm covering up, watever.... as you have seen in this post, when i make a mistake i acknowledge it, admit it, and learn from it. Also, if i think i might not be understanding something, i make it clear that perhaps i didn't understand what you were saying.
You on the other hand, seem to think that you understand everything, and that if i say you misunderstood i'm just trying to cover my tracks.. this to me means your mind is closed and you're not open to suggestions that you might be wrong. Notice the word seems when i'm not sure of something. I always make it clear, that it is just what it looks like and not 100% what it is. If i fail to do so somewhere, my apologies.
Also, your paper didn't clarify anything further then it allready was.
i wrote,
"A fact is distinguishable from a strong theory. Otherwise, it would just be called a strong theory. The reason its called a fact, is because its 100% true. For example...(once again) 2+2=4... that is a fact... as opposed to hmmm.. i think 2+2 can be 4 because of this and this and that, which is theory."
you replied,
"Your ignorance of Godels Incompleteness Theorem is showing - you know the theorem you claimed to be familiar with? Again more lies. "
You're just playing more word games with me, i'm sorry my definitions of certain words are not the same as yours.
In what way am I being ignorant of godels theorem? by stating there are things that are 100% true? so you still insist on saying things that are 100% true do not exist and there is nothing that is absolutely true?
you said,
"No. But again if you were familiar with Godels Incompleteness Theorem (which you said you were, more lies) and Popperian Falsifiability, you would realise that its implications are that while nothing can be considered absolutely true, something CAN be falsified absolutely. "
ok, from what i know of the theorem it is you who is making the mistake here, again. Some things could be considered absolutely true, i have allready explained how and the theorem doesn't state that nothing can be absolutely true.
you said,
"I know that all you are doing is playing a metaphor game... Addressed above. "
watever you say... if you do not understand my posts, just go right ahead and assume that you do and i'm just playing a metaphor game. That is perfectly open-minded and rational. Right?
you say,
"This is such a portmanteau of debating fallacy and error that I am hard pressed to categorise it, except to suggest that the error of the "Complex Question" (Two otherwise unrelated points are conjoined and treated as a single proposition. The reader is expected to accept or reject both together, when in reality one is acceptable while the other is not. A complex question is an illegitimate use of the "and" operator.) and ad hominem is undoubtedly present."
what???????????
what complex question?
what 2 things joined together?
which is one is acceptable while the other is not?
what "and" operator?
how is ad hominem undoubtedly present?
In what way are implying happiness to be based upon truth?
Are you saying that a person who doesn't know the truth about something he sees cannot be happy?
For example: Your friend wins the lottery. That could be both good and bad. Explain to me how you would determine the truth in whether that is good or bad?
I'm suggesting that happiness is based upon perception rather then truth, as there is no truth as to whether that situation is bad or good because good and bad are a matter of perception. Good is what good is considered to be, bad is what bad is considered to be.
Seems like you're just trying to be right, in any way possible, just to avoid admitting that you might not be.
you say,
"You are representing the pursuit of happiness as contrasted and opposed to the pursuit of truth. The illogic of this takes my breath away. How can any rational person claim that these are opposite? The answer is that they cannot. I believe it fair to say that any person making this kind of claim is not only irrational but makes a mockery of whatever that person professes to believe. I for one would not accept anything which said that I should ignore "truth" in preference to "happiness", as any "happiness" that may be found in accepting lies (the opposite of the "truth" posited) will eventually come up against the reality of the universe, and this will invariably create more unhappiness or irrationality than an initial acceptance of reality ("truth").
"
what? how did you manage to come to that conclusion? Where did I say that if you know the truth about something or pursue truth you're not happy?
How am i claiming truth is opposite to happiness, or that you should ignore truth in order to be happy?
based on what you said, you just keep thinking that there is no way you could have misunderstood my statement and draw your own conclusions from what i said, that is something totally different from what i had stated originally. Just keep doing this with everybody, see how far it gets you.
All i'm saying is that happiness is not dependant on the pursuit of truth because of a statement you made which was,
"I see your idea of happiness has no place for truth – interesting."
I replied explaining to you that happiness doesn't have anything to do with the truth of anything.
That is all, no where in there did i say you can't be happy if you pursuit truth, or that if you pursuit truth, you will be unhappy, that is all you just putting words in my mouth.
you say,
"I am a (long term) atheist and always seek truth."
You seek truth? Is this why you repeatedly consider yourself to be right and close yourself of to any possibility that you're wrong? You did this many times in your reply to my post, and I clearly showed how. You didn't even take into consideration that you were misunderstanding me To you me saying "you misunderstand" is just a way to defend myself and my views. Some pursuit of truth, that is.
you say,
"I am a happy person and I always seek happiness."
Really? By pursuing truth? If you pursue the truth, you're not seeking happiness, you're seeking truth. Those are 2 different things, they are not related in any way, as far as I can see.
you say,
"(Major) The pursuit of truth and the pursuit of happiness are not opposed."
yea, no shit, they have nothing to do with each other whatsoever. They do not support each other, nor oppose each other.
you write,
"(Minor) Atheists can achieve happiness."
who said they couldn't?
as for your definition of truth,
"‘truth’: Gödelian incompleteness and Popperian Falsifiability together necessitate that outside of a formal system of limited application, a "truth", to have any measure of rational support, must by necessity, always be provisional, incomplete and falsifiable, in other words, there must always, at least hypothetically, exist some evidence which would permit that supposed truth to be rejected. This implies that outside of formal systems, the truth of a thing is not an absolute, but encompasses a range of probabilities which will have varying truth values (i.e. from "false" through "insufficient evidence to adduce a truth value" to "true") depending on the evidence for or against such a thing."
How nice of you to make up your own definition for a word that has allready been defined.
The most common use of the word truth, means reality, or actuality.
I do not think your definition of truth can even be found in any dictionary. If I'm wrong, which i could be, prove it. I will glady accept that i am.
Also, you didn't bother to explain how the statement "You, bricoleur, at this current moment in time, cannot survive or breathe in space without the aid of technology." belongs to any formal system.
What formal system does it belong to?
If it doesn't belong to any formal system, why is it not definitely true if godels theorem states that nothing outside of a formal system is 100% accurate? In what way is that statement falsifiable hypothetically or in any way?
If i'm making some sort of mistake here, point it out to me. I'm open to suggestions and to the possibility that i could be wrong in saying a lot of things that i say. That is one of the reasons why i'm posting all this. So that perhaps you could show how i'm wrong. Until you do so, i cannot see how I am.
peace and much love to you and everybody else,
- tr6 -
[ 02 March 2003: Message edited by: Tr6ai0ls4 ]
)
i very much appreciate the time you took out of your day to reply to this thread, especially since it was partially to support some of the things which i had said, i was starting to feel alone in here.. heh.. 