Total Posts:59|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Gestalt As A Support For Theism

PureX
Posts: 1,523
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2013 10:00:23 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Gestalt: A physical, biological, psychological, or symbolic configuration or pattern of elements that, when unified as a whole, its properties cannot be derived from a simple summation of its parts.

As an example: We may arrange and configure two discs and a stick in relation to each other in an endless number of ways, but when they are arranged and configured in one certain way, with the stick transecting the discs in their center, one on each end, they become two wheels on an axle, and can literally then be used to move mountains. Thus, the result of that one specific arrangement of elements far exceeds in meaning, import, and possibility the mere sum of the parts, as revealed by all the other possible arrangements.

This phenomena is evident throughout the universe and is a principal of existence as we know it. And it is a spectacular example of the 'reality' of transcendence. Arrange atomic particles in just a certain way, and they become a molecule. Arrange molecules in just a certain way, and they become living matter. Configure living mater in just as certain way and it becomes sentient. Each arrangement transcending the possibilities and expectations evident by the sum of the parts involved. So that these spectacular and unexpected leaps in variety and complexity and otherwise unimaginable possibilities have become commonplace in our world.

And yet the anti-theists among us continually proclaim that there cannot be any transcendent condition, being, or state relative to the universe and existence as we know it, because there is absolutely no evidence of even the possibility of such a condition, existing.

And yet the evidence is all around us. Matter springs from energy, life springs from mater, consciousness springs from life; each of them spectacularly surpassing the possibilities and expectations of the mere sum of their "objective" parts. Clearly, the relationships between the parts have as much if not more to do with reality and truth than do the parts, themselves. And yet the anti-theists still preach that the parts are all that's "real". And nothing beyond that objective reality is possible, probable, or evident. When in fact, the evidence and probability can be seen everywhere, if we're willing to see it for what it is.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2013 10:19:39 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Disregarding the erroneous assertion that anti-theists deny the emergent properties described, I saw no support for theism or, even, any description of what relevance this has to theism, other than the aforementioned and shoehorned erroneous assertion.

Can you elaborate?

inb4 god is an emergent property and, since emergent properties exist, therefore god does
PureX
Posts: 1,523
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2013 10:47:13 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/1/2013 10:19:39 AM, drafterman wrote:
Can you elaborate?

Sure, transcendence is a property of existence as we experience it. It is therefor logical to assume that it is a property of existence beyond that which we can or have experienced.

Yet it is the rejection of this logical possibility of such existential transcendence that the anti-theists site as their reason for being anti-theists.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2013 11:07:00 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/1/2013 10:47:13 AM, PureX wrote:
At 5/1/2013 10:19:39 AM, drafterman wrote:
Can you elaborate?

Sure, transcendence is a property of existence as we experience it. It is therefor logical to assume that it is a property of existence beyond that which we can or have experienced.

And how does that support theism?


Yet it is the rejection of this logical possibility of such existential transcendence that the anti-theists site as their reason for being anti-theists.

Reference?
PureX
Posts: 1,523
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2013 11:29:26 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/1/2013 11:07:00 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 5/1/2013 10:47:13 AM, PureX wrote:
At 5/1/2013 10:19:39 AM, drafterman wrote:
Can you elaborate?

Sure, transcendence is a property of existence as we experience it. It is therefor logical to assume that it is a property of existence beyond that which we can or have experienced.

And how does that support theism?

Transcendence is a property of existence as we experience it.

It is therefor logical to assume that it is a property of existence beyond that which we can or have experienced.

"God" is generally defined as being a state transcendent of existence as we know it.

Therefor it is logical to assume that "God" is a property of existence beyond that which we can or have experienced.


Yet it is the rejection of this logical possibility of such existential transcendence that the anti-theists site as their reason for being anti-theists.

Reference?

Not necessary, as many atheists here have claimed many times that they do not accept that there can be any property transcendent of existence as they know and experience it.
Radar
Posts: 424
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2013 11:30:36 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/1/2013 11:07:00 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 5/1/2013 10:47:13 AM, PureX wrote:
At 5/1/2013 10:19:39 AM, drafterman wrote:
Can you elaborate?

Sure, transcendence is a property of existence as we experience it. It is therefor logical to assume that it is a property of existence beyond that which we can or have experienced.

And how does that support theism?


Yet it is the rejection of this logical possibility of such existential transcendence that the anti-theists site as their reason for being anti-theists.

Reference?

As Galileo said: "We cannot teach people anything; we can only help them discover it within themselves." -- Galilei
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2013 11:50:18 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/1/2013 11:29:26 AM, PureX wrote:
At 5/1/2013 11:07:00 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 5/1/2013 10:47:13 AM, PureX wrote:
At 5/1/2013 10:19:39 AM, drafterman wrote:
Can you elaborate?

Sure, transcendence is a property of existence as we experience it. It is therefor logical to assume that it is a property of existence beyond that which we can or have experienced.

And how does that support theism?

Transcendence is a property of existence as we experience it.

It is therefor logical to assume that it is a property of existence beyond that which we can or have experienced.

"God" is generally defined as being a state transcendent of existence as we know it.

Therefor it is logical to assume that "God" is a property of existence beyond that which we can or have experienced.

No it isn't. Simply demonstrating that a class of entities exists doesn't, itself, demonstrate the existence of any specific members of that class. It's much like saying unicorns exist because mammals exist and a unicorn is a type of mammal.



Yet it is the rejection of this logical possibility of such existential transcendence that the anti-theists site as their reason for being anti-theists.

Reference?

Not necessary, as many atheists here have claimed many times that they do not accept that there can be any property transcendent of existence as they know and experience it.

If many atheists have done this many times then it should be of little effort for you to point out an instance of this.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2013 11:50:51 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/1/2013 11:30:36 AM, Radar wrote:
At 5/1/2013 11:07:00 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 5/1/2013 10:47:13 AM, PureX wrote:
At 5/1/2013 10:19:39 AM, drafterman wrote:
Can you elaborate?

Sure, transcendence is a property of existence as we experience it. It is therefor logical to assume that it is a property of existence beyond that which we can or have experienced.

And how does that support theism?


Yet it is the rejection of this logical possibility of such existential transcendence that the anti-theists site as their reason for being anti-theists.

Reference?

As Galileo said: "We cannot teach people anything; we can only help them discover it within themselves." -- Galilei

As Religion said: "Fvck you, Galileo."
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2013 12:04:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/1/2013 11:50:18 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 5/1/2013 11:29:26 AM, PureX wrote:
At 5/1/2013 11:07:00 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 5/1/2013 10:47:13 AM, PureX wrote:
At 5/1/2013 10:19:39 AM, drafterman wrote:
Can you elaborate?

Sure, transcendence is a property of existence as we experience it. It is therefor logical to assume that it is a property of existence beyond that which we can or have experienced.

And how does that support theism?

Transcendence is a property of existence as we experience it.

It is therefor logical to assume that it is a property of existence beyond that which we can or have experienced.

"God" is generally defined as being a state transcendent of existence as we know it.

Therefor it is logical to assume that "God" is a property of existence beyond that which we can or have experienced.

No it isn't. Simply demonstrating that a class of entities exists doesn't, itself, demonstrate the existence of any specific members of that class. It's much like saying unicorns exist because mammals exist and a unicorn is a type of mammal.



Yet it is the rejection of this logical possibility of such existential transcendence that the anti-theists site as their reason for being anti-theists.

Reference?

Not necessary, as many atheists here have claimed many times that they do not accept that there can be any property transcendent of existence as they know and experience it.

If many atheists have done this many times then it should be of little effort for you to point out an instance of this.

"No it isn't. Simply demonstrating that a class of entities exists doesn't, itself, demonstrate the existence of any specific members of that class."

This is a fallacy I see theists spewing all the time. We know "x" is transcendent, and God is transcendent, so "x" must be God. That's like saying we know "x" is edible, a doughnut is edible, therefore "x" must be a doughnut lol
Radar
Posts: 424
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2013 3:00:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Gestalt does indeed support theism.

If an atheist describes to me the kind of God whose existence he or she denies, chances are pretty good I'd also deny that god. But atheists never do, except to occasionally liken God to some kind of "skyman." That few theists ascribe to that conception doesn't seem to matter as the atheist will argue quite incessantly that their disbelief is because there is no evidence for any skyman.

That assumption immediately makes anything an atheist says on the matter irrelevant, but, of course, they don't see it that way. They insist on logical argument supported by evidence notwithstanding that, logically, knowledge of a universal agent, principle or undifferentiated ground -- a gestalt -- cannot be known as anything other than a profoundly deep experience of influences already resident in the human mind.

Insofar God-as-experience is definable in terms of psychology, it is simply the experience of experiencing the reality of believing that "God," however conceived, is the reality of such a purely personal experience. We can argue over opinions about God, but "experience with him and in him exists above and beyond all human controversy and mere intellectual logic." But that doesn't matter, either. Atheists still insist on a concrete and objective description of something that cannot be concretized or objectified by definition.

Their "arguments" would be amusing if they weren't so tiresome, repetitive and blatantly irrational.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2013 3:40:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/1/2013 3:00:08 PM, Radar wrote:
Gestalt does indeed support theism.

Other than what you've presented, how?


If an atheist describes to me the kind of God whose existence he or she denies, chances are pretty good I'd also deny that god. But atheists never do, except to occasionally liken God to some kind of "skyman." That few theists ascribe to that conception doesn't seem to matter as the atheist will argue quite incessantly that their disbelief is because there is no evidence for any skyman.

That assumption immediately makes anything an atheist says on the matter irrelevant, but, of course, they don't see it that way. They insist on logical argument supported by evidence notwithstanding that, logically, knowledge of a universal agent, principle or undifferentiated ground -- a gestalt -- cannot be known as anything other than a profoundly deep experience of influences already resident in the human mind.

Insofar God-as-experience is definable in terms of psychology, it is simply the experience of experiencing the reality of believing that "God," however conceived, is the reality of such a purely personal experience. We can argue over opinions about God, but "experience with him and in him exists above and beyond all human controversy and mere intellectual logic." But that doesn't matter, either. Atheists still insist on a concrete and objective description of something that cannot be concretized or objectified by definition.

Their "arguments" would be amusing if they weren't so tiresome, repetitive and blatantly irrational.

And you don't see any parallels between atheists arguing against a god you agree doesn't exist and you arguing against atheists everyone else agrees don't exist?
Radar
Posts: 424
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2013 3:46:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/1/2013 3:16:09 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
This is similar to the "irreducibly complex" argument. Ken Miller already showed why this reasoning is flawed.

Not at all. Irreducibility has to do with evolution. It has more to do with questions asked elsewhere: Is the experience of "being you" made complete by what you "know"? What if the idea of being and the experience of being are mutually exclusive?
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2013 4:02:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/1/2013 3:50:23 PM, Radar wrote:
BTW, Ken Miller's argument is philosophical, not scientific and not conclusive.

And your statement above is?
PureX
Posts: 1,523
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2013 7:11:35 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/1/2013 12:04:31 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:

This is a fallacy I see theists spewing all the time. We know "x" is transcendent, and God is transcendent, so "x" must be God. That's like saying we know "x" is edible, a doughnut is edible, therefore "x" must be a doughnut lol

That would be a reasonable response if I had in fact asserted that God exists, or that God was a doughnut. But no such assertion was made.

If you would have read more closely, and considered it more carefully, you would see that it says:

1. Transcendence is a property of existence as we experience it. (true)

2. It is therefor logical to assume that it is a property of existence beyond that which we can or have experienced, ourselves. (that would be a logical assumption, though it would be unproven)

3. "God" is generally defined as being a state transcendent of existence as we know it. (true)

4. Therefor it is logical to assume that "God" is a property of existence beyond that which we can or have experienced.

You will note that all that has been asserted, here, is that the theist's definition of "God" mirrors that reasoned assumption we made regarding the transcendent property of existence as we know it. Nothing more.

But once again, the term "God" has thrown you atheists into a tizzy of resentment from which you imagined assertions that weren't there.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2013 8:26:04 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/1/2013 7:11:35 PM, PureX wrote:
At 5/1/2013 12:04:31 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:

This is a fallacy I see theists spewing all the time. We know "x" is transcendent, and God is transcendent, so "x" must be God. That's like saying we know "x" is edible, a doughnut is edible, therefore "x" must be a doughnut lol

That would be a reasonable response if I had in fact asserted that God exists, or that God was a doughnut. But no such assertion was made.

If you would have read more closely, and considered it more carefully, you would see that it says:

1. Transcendence is a property of existence as we experience it. (true)

2. It is therefor logical to assume that it is a property of existence beyond that which we can or have experienced, ourselves. (that would be a logical assumption, though it would be unproven)

3. "God" is generally defined as being a state transcendent of existence as we know it. (true)

4. Therefor it is logical to assume that "God" is a property of existence beyond that which we can or have experienced.

You will note that all that has been asserted, here, is that the theist's definition of "God" mirrors that reasoned assumption we made regarding the transcendent property of existence as we know it. Nothing more.

But once again, the term "God" has thrown you atheists into a tizzy of resentment from which you imagined assertions that weren't there.

Simply demonstrating that a class of entities exists doesn't, itself, demonstrate the existence of any specific members of that class. It's much like saying unicorns exist because mammals exist and a unicorn is a type of mammal.
PureX
Posts: 1,523
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2013 9:31:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/1/2013 8:26:04 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 5/1/2013 7:11:35 PM, PureX wrote:
At 5/1/2013 12:04:31 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:

This is a fallacy I see theists spewing all the time. We know "x" is transcendent, and God is transcendent, so "x" must be God. That's like saying we know "x" is edible, a doughnut is edible, therefore "x" must be a doughnut lol

That would be a reasonable response if I had in fact asserted that God exists, or that God was a doughnut. But no such assertion was made.

If you would have read more closely, and considered it more carefully, you would see that it says:

1. Transcendence is a property of existence as we experience it. (true)

2. It is therefor logical to assume that it is a property of existence beyond that which we can or have experienced, ourselves. (that would be a logical assumption, though it would be unproven)

3. "God" is generally defined as being a state transcendent of existence as we know it. (true)

4. Therefor it is logical to assume that "God" is a property of existence beyond that which we can or have experienced.

You will note that all that has been asserted, here, is that the theist's definition of "God" mirrors that reasoned assumption we made regarding the transcendent property of existence as we know it. Nothing more.

But once again, the term "God" has thrown you atheists into a tizzy of resentment from which you imagined assertions that weren't there.

Simply demonstrating that a class of entities exists doesn't, itself, demonstrate the existence of any specific members of that class. It's much like saying unicorns exist because mammals exist and a unicorn is a type of mammal.

Who said anything about a "class of entities"?
Radar
Posts: 424
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2013 1:40:08 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/1/2013 8:26:04 PM, drafterman wrote:

Simply demonstrating that a class of entities exists doesn't, itself, demonstrate the existence of any specific members of that class. It's much like saying unicorns exist because mammals exist and a unicorn is a type of mammal.

Considering what was what was said earlier, this is a good example of why anything an atheist says on the matter irrelevant,a tiresome, repetitive and blatantly irrational.
PureX
Posts: 1,523
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2013 8:42:42 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/2/2013 1:40:08 AM, Radar wrote:
At 5/1/2013 8:26:04 PM, drafterman wrote:

Simply demonstrating that a class of entities exists doesn't, itself, demonstrate the existence of any specific members of that class. It's much like saying unicorns exist because mammals exist and a unicorn is a type of mammal.

Considering what was just said earlier, this is a good example of why anything an atheist says on the matter is irrelevant, tiresome, repetitive and blatantly irrational.

The overwhelming aspect of these interactions to me is how similar this is to debating a religious fundamentalist. I see the exact same obsession with binary ultimatums, the same insistence on blaming the "evil (straw man) enemy" they invent to represent the other side, and the same irrational idolization of their own ideological totems.

I'm new to this particular site and find this a little surprising, and very interesting.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2013 9:05:33 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/2/2013 1:40:08 AM, Radar wrote:
At 5/1/2013 8:26:04 PM, drafterman wrote:

Simply demonstrating that a class of entities exists doesn't, itself, demonstrate the existence of any specific members of that class. It's much like saying unicorns exist because mammals exist and a unicorn is a type of mammal.

Considering what was what was said earlier, this is a good example of why anything an atheist says on the matter irrelevant,a tiresome, repetitive and blatantly irrational.

Yes, and if you bothered to move your head up the half-inch required to see what I was responding to, you'd see that it was pretty much the same thing, repeated when I made my statement initially. If the argument isn't going to change, neither is the rebuttal.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2013 9:12:29 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/1/2013 9:31:20 PM, PureX wrote:
At 5/1/2013 8:26:04 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 5/1/2013 7:11:35 PM, PureX wrote:
At 5/1/2013 12:04:31 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:

This is a fallacy I see theists spewing all the time. We know "x" is transcendent, and God is transcendent, so "x" must be God. That's like saying we know "x" is edible, a doughnut is edible, therefore "x" must be a doughnut lol

That would be a reasonable response if I had in fact asserted that God exists, or that God was a doughnut. But no such assertion was made.

If you would have read more closely, and considered it more carefully, you would see that it says:

1. Transcendence is a property of existence as we experience it. (true)

2. It is therefor logical to assume that it is a property of existence beyond that which we can or have experienced, ourselves. (that would be a logical assumption, though it would be unproven)

3. "God" is generally defined as being a state transcendent of existence as we know it. (true)

4. Therefor it is logical to assume that "God" is a property of existence beyond that which we can or have experienced.

You will note that all that has been asserted, here, is that the theist's definition of "God" mirrors that reasoned assumption we made regarding the transcendent property of existence as we know it. Nothing more.

But once again, the term "God" has thrown you atheists into a tizzy of resentment from which you imagined assertions that weren't there.

Simply demonstrating that a class of entities exists doesn't, itself, demonstrate the existence of any specific members of that class. It's much like saying unicorns exist because mammals exist and a unicorn is a type of mammal.

Who said anything about a "class of entities"?

You, though not explicitly using that terminology. In your OP you give a list of examples of "transcendence." Thus, implicitly, you have defined a property of "transcendence" that can be associated with a variety of concepts. For example, the essence of a wheel and axle is more than the sum of the essences of the two discs and the stick that compose it. Because of this, the wheel and axle displays the property of transcendence. You go on to provide additional examples. Thus, we can define a set, or class, of all entities that display transcendence.

Your argument, as you have presented it (and this cannot be a straw man, as you falsely accuse), is that: transcendent things exist; God is defined as being transcendent; therefore God exists.

To which my rebuttal remains the same. I'd repeat it again, but Radar's mind doesn't seem to be capable of handling it.
PureX
Posts: 1,523
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2013 9:51:11 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/2/2013 9:12:29 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 5/1/2013 9:31:20 PM, PureX wrote:

Who said anything about a "class of entities"?

You, though not explicitly using that terminology. In your OP you give a list of examples of "transcendence." Thus, implicitly, you have defined a property of "transcendence" that can be associated with a variety of concepts. For example, the essence of a wheel and axle is more than the sum of the essences of the two discs and the stick that compose it. Because of this, the wheel and axle displays the property of transcendence. You go on to provide additional examples. Thus, we can define a set, or class, of all entities that display transcendence.

No "entities" were stated nor implied. I referred to transcendent phenomena, only. It's YOU who is insisting on interjecting "entities" into the discussion because you are seeing your boogeyman/beardy-god hiding behind every rock and tree, I think.

Your argument, as you have presented it (and this cannot be a straw man, as you falsely accuse), is that: transcendent things exist; God is defined as being transcendent; therefore God exists.

As has been stated many times, now, "God" is just a word. It's a word that refers to something, but that something has been difficult to define because it is inherently a mystery to us. Yet it can't be a total mystery or we wouldn't have perceived or conceptualized it in the first place. So I am attempting, here, to illuminate the pathway by which we humans come to perceive/conceive of this mystery we refer to as "God". And the phenomenological concept we call "gestalt" is a good way of doing this because it's something that you non-theists can relate to.

In fact, I think it's such an effective way of illuminating and rationalizing the God-concept that it's freaking you out, because you ARE seeing the connection and you're desperate for some way of dismissing the implication that there are aspects of "God" that may in fact be based on both reason and collective (objective) experience.

To which my rebuttal remains the same. I'd repeat it again, but Radar's mind doesn't seem to be capable of handling it.

That's because your rebuttal is foolish. No one has proposed any "entities" because they are not necessary nor relevant to the phenomenological concept of gestalt, or how gestalt is related to the theological concept referred to in the English language as "God".

Your "entities" are basically just a 'red herring' rebuttal, not a relevant argument.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2013 9:56:29 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/2/2013 9:51:11 AM, PureX wrote:
At 5/2/2013 9:12:29 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 5/1/2013 9:31:20 PM, PureX wrote:

Who said anything about a "class of entities"?

You, though not explicitly using that terminology. In your OP you give a list of examples of "transcendence." Thus, implicitly, you have defined a property of "transcendence" that can be associated with a variety of concepts. For example, the essence of a wheel and axle is more than the sum of the essences of the two discs and the stick that compose it. Because of this, the wheel and axle displays the property of transcendence. You go on to provide additional examples. Thus, we can define a set, or class, of all entities that display transcendence.

No "entities" were stated nor implied. I referred to transcendent phenomena, only. It's YOU who is insisting on interjecting "entities" into the discussion because you are seeing your boogeyman/beardy-god hiding behind every rock and tree, I think.

Yes, I said "entity" instead of "phenomena." I'm not sure why that's significant. It's a shorter, easier to type, word. The meaning is not significantly altered by the substitution.


Your argument, as you have presented it (and this cannot be a straw man, as you falsely accuse), is that: transcendent things exist; God is defined as being transcendent; therefore God exists.

As has been stated many times, now, "God" is just a word. It's a word that refers to something, but that something has been difficult to define because it is inherently a mystery to us. Yet it can't be a total mystery or we wouldn't have perceived or conceptualized it in the first place. So I am attempting, here, to illuminate the pathway by which we humans come to perceive/conceive of this mystery we refer to as "God". And the phenomenological concept we call "gestalt" is a good way of doing this because it's something that you non-theists can relate to.

In fact, I think it's such an effective way of illuminating and rationalizing the God-concept that it's freaking you out, because you ARE seeing the connection and you're desperate for some way of dismissing the implication that there are aspects of "God" that may in fact be based on both reason and collective (objective) experience.

Perhaps I may be freaked out, if you were the least bit successful in actually illuminating and rationalizing the concept. As it is, your explanation hasn't really don't that, hence my response. All I see is that you have claimed that God is transcendent, there are transcendent phenomena, therefore God exists. I have noted my objection to this, and, thus far, the objection stands unrefuted.


To which my rebuttal remains the same. I'd repeat it again, but Radar's mind doesn't seem to be capable of handling it.

That's because your rebuttal is foolish.

How so?

No one has proposed any "entities" because they are not necessary nor relevant to the phenomenological concept of gestalt, or how gestalt is related to the theological concept referred to in the English language as "God".

You proposed them. I even mentioned specific ones you talked about.


Your "entities" are basically just a 'red herring' rebuttal, not a relevant argument.

They aren't mine, they're yours.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2013 10:10:25 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Also, I think this is clear evidence that you aren't really interested in illuminating any sort of god-concept. Rather you seem only interested in putting forth your half-developed arguments and then condescending to anyone that doesn't respond with unconditional approval.

For instance, you have rather irrationally balked at my use of the word "entity." I can scarcely count the number of twists the use of this word has put your panties in.

I get it, you see the word "entity" and think "being." Indeed, "entity" is synonymous with "being" and one definition of "being" includes "living things" and "conscious entities." Then, apparently, you have hallucinatory flashbacks to some traumatic event in your history where some atheist you argued with invoked the word entity in this specific manner.

So then you go off on this rant which is entirely unjustified as I simply used the word "entity" merely to refer to something that has the property of existence. That is the essence of what a being (noun) is: it has the property of being (verb)!

I highlight this because, in attempting to accuse me of inserting atheistic prejudices regarding god into this conversation through my completely innocent use of the word "entity," you have instead revealed your own prejudices against atheists. Your narrow interpretation of the word "entity" is yours and yours alone. I reject and deny it. Furthermore, I assert that any confusion over the word's use is entirely unprompted and irrational. Nothing in my text suggests I intended the use of the word in that way and there is no reason to have assumed that I was referring to anything above and beyond the concepts you have already introduced into the conversation.

Accusing me of bringing in irrelevant external concepts in such a manner is little more than poisoning the well, which is only beneficial do you if you aren't really interested in illuminating concepts and/or actually have no follow-up to my objections.
PureX
Posts: 1,523
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2013 10:42:13 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/2/2013 9:56:29 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 5/2/2013 9:51:11 AM, PureX wrote:
At 5/2/2013 9:12:29 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 5/1/2013 9:31:20 PM, PureX wrote:

Who said anything about a "class of entities"?

You, though not explicitly using that terminology. In your OP you give a list of examples of "transcendence." Thus, implicitly, you have defined a property of "transcendence" that can be associated with a variety of concepts. For example, the essence of a wheel and axle is more than the sum of the essences of the two discs and the stick that compose it. Because of this, the wheel and axle displays the property of transcendence. You go on to provide additional examples. Thus, we can define a set, or class, of all entities that display transcendence.

No "entities" were stated nor implied. I referred to transcendent phenomena, only. It's YOU who is insisting on interjecting "entities" into the discussion because you are seeing your boogeyman/beardy-god hiding behind every rock and tree, I think.

Yes, I said "entity" instead of "phenomena." I'm not sure why that's significant. It's a shorter, easier to type, word. The meaning is not significantly altered by the substitution.

The reason you used the term "entities" instead of phenomena is because you couldn't argue with the logic of the proposal that was before you. So you had to change it's content. And by using the term "entities", you could interject anthropomorphism and your preferred anti-theist straw man; god-the-beardy-guy-in-the-sky. And the supportive evidence for this was your immediate jump to 'reductio ad absurdum' via doughnuts and unicorns.

You aren't fooling anyone but yourself, here.

Perhaps I may be freaked out, if you were the least bit successful in actually illuminating and rationalizing the concept. As it is, your explanation hasn't really done that, hence my response. All I see is that you have claimed that God is transcendent, there are transcendent phenomena, therefore God exists.

What you can and cannot see is not my fault. If you were really interested in understanding the concept being discussed you would be asking questions instead of posting disingenuous comments about doughnuts and unicorns. By these methods it's pretty clear to anyone but yourself that you are actually trying NOT to understand, but to deny in advance of understanding so as to remain ignorant. It's a tactic I see used by religious fundamentalists all the time.

I have noted my objection to this, and, thus far, the objection stands un-refuted.

I can't "refute" a red herring. It simply is what it is. All I can do is point out that this is what it is. You can man-up and own it, or keep throwing it around and insisting it's philosophy. That's up to you.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2013 11:12:03 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/2/2013 10:42:13 AM, PureX wrote:
At 5/2/2013 9:56:29 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 5/2/2013 9:51:11 AM, PureX wrote:
At 5/2/2013 9:12:29 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 5/1/2013 9:31:20 PM, PureX wrote:

Who said anything about a "class of entities"?

You, though not explicitly using that terminology. In your OP you give a list of examples of "transcendence." Thus, implicitly, you have defined a property of "transcendence" that can be associated with a variety of concepts. For example, the essence of a wheel and axle is more than the sum of the essences of the two discs and the stick that compose it. Because of this, the wheel and axle displays the property of transcendence. You go on to provide additional examples. Thus, we can define a set, or class, of all entities that display transcendence.

No "entities" were stated nor implied. I referred to transcendent phenomena, only. It's YOU who is insisting on interjecting "entities" into the discussion because you are seeing your boogeyman/beardy-god hiding behind every rock and tree, I think.

Yes, I said "entity" instead of "phenomena." I'm not sure why that's significant. It's a shorter, easier to type, word. The meaning is not significantly altered by the substitution.

The reason you used the term "entities" instead of phenomena is because you couldn't argue with the logic of the proposal that was before you. So you had to change it's content. And by using the term "entities", you could interject anthropomorphism and your preferred anti-theist straw man; god-the-beardy-guy-in-the-sky. And the supportive evidence for this was your immediate jump to 'reductio ad absurdum' via doughnuts and unicorns.

There was no change in content. Any introduction of anthropomorphism is imagined.


You aren't fooling anyone but yourself, here.

Perhaps I may be freaked out, if you were the least bit successful in actually illuminating and rationalizing the concept. As it is, your explanation hasn't really done that, hence my response. All I see is that you have claimed that God is transcendent, there are transcendent phenomena, therefore God exists.

What you can and cannot see is not my fault. If you were really interested in understanding the concept being discussed you would be asking questions instead of posting disingenuous comments about doughnuts and unicorns. By these methods it's pretty clear to anyone but yourself that you are actually trying NOT to understand, but to deny in advance of understanding so as to remain ignorant. It's a tactic I see used by religious fundamentalists all the time.

If you are trying to illuminate something, and have failed to illuminate it. Then yes, it is your fault.


I have noted my objection to this, and, thus far, the objection stands un-refuted.

I can't "refute" a red herring. It simply is what it is. All I can do is point out that this is what it is. You can man-up and own it, or keep throwing it around and insisting it's philosophy. That's up to you.

It's only a red-herring if it means what you claim it does. It doesn't. So either address what I've said, under the constraints of what it actually means, or give up the pretense that you're here to do anything other than bluster.
Radar
Posts: 424
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2013 3:40:37 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/2/2013 11:12:03 AM, drafterman wrote:

It's only a red-herring if it means what you claim it does. It doesn't. So either address what I've said, under the constraints of what it actually means, or give up the pretense that you're here to do anything other than bluster.

I said: "If an atheist describes to me the kind of God whose existence he or she denies, chances are pretty good I'd also deny that god. But atheists never do, except to occasionally liken God to some kind of "skyman." That few theists ascribe to that conception doesn't seem to matter as the atheist will argue quite incessantly that their disbelief is because there is no evidence for any skyman."

In other words, all you have is a red herring: you want theists to chase after your line of thought to throw them off theirs.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2013 5:39:36 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/4/2013 3:40:37 AM, Radar wrote:
At 5/2/2013 11:12:03 AM, drafterman wrote:

It's only a red-herring if it means what you claim it does. It doesn't. So either address what I've said, under the constraints of what it actually means, or give up the pretense that you're here to do anything other than bluster.

I said: "If an atheist describes to me the kind of God whose existence he or she denies, chances are pretty good I'd also deny that god. But atheists never do, except to occasionally liken God to some kind of "skyman." That few theists ascribe to that conception doesn't seem to matter as the atheist will argue quite incessantly that their disbelief is because there is no evidence for any skyman."

In other words, all you have is a red herring: you want theists to chase after your line of thought to throw them off theirs.

I never invoke any sky man.
PureX
Posts: 1,523
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2013 6:34:08 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/4/2013 5:39:36 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 5/4/2013 3:40:37 AM, Radar wrote:
At 5/2/2013 11:12:03 AM, drafterman wrote:

It's only a red-herring if it means what you claim it does. It doesn't. So either address what I've said, under the constraints of what it actually means, or give up the pretense that you're here to do anything other than bluster.

I said: "If an atheist describes to me the kind of God whose existence he or she denies, chances are pretty good I'd also deny that god. But atheists never do, except to occasionally liken God to some kind of "skyman." That few theists ascribe to that conception doesn't seem to matter as the atheist will argue quite incessantly that their disbelief is because there is no evidence for any skyman."

In other words, all you have is a red herring: you want theists to chase after your line of thought to throw them off theirs.

I never invoke any sky man.

Skyman, unicorns, doughnuts, it's all the same tactic: reductio ad absurdum.