Total Posts:50|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Fundamentalism and Concrete-Abstractions

s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2016 10:42:15 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
As religious fundamentalism attempts to objectify abstract concepts, atheism likewise attempts to objectify these same concepts, yet, for the mere purpose of their negation.

There is an inherent contradiction in each philosophy; one objectifies those things which it poses as abstractions while the other says these abstractions do not exist because they are not concrete. The presence of inconsistencies in each philosophy pits one against the other. Religious fundamentalists are at odds with atheism because atheists do not believe in their concrete-abstractions, and atheists are at odds with religious fundamentalism because religious fundamentalists believe in certain abstractions which are not concrete.

Neither fundamentalists nor atheists believe all abstractions are concrete, but both believe or treat some as though they were.

The concretization of abstractions is arbitrary on the part of fundamentalism, and for atheism is contingent on the predilections of fundamentalism; therefore, atheism requires fundamentalism; for, without the objectification of religious content, atheism would be meaningless.
SpiritandTruth
Posts: 2,315
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2016 11:33:57 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
"The letter kills, but the spirit brings life."

Abstractions are necessary. Words are abstractions. We use the word "God" to describe what is fundamentally abstractionless, but that is because there is no other way to do it. Our very experience is built off of abstraction.

How many filters does information go through before it reaches consciousness? The senses all extract very specific information. The rest of it? Largely ignored. The ears do not perceive light, and the eyes do not perceive sound. These are abstractions in themselves. By the time all this information reaches the conscious mind, it has already gone through several filters. Our world is highly constructed. We live in a world of abstraction. God is that source, that which is fundamentally transcendent of abstraction. Why do I say transcendent? Because we use an abstraction to point to it.

God as a concept is not the end of it. Neither is the definition of the concept. The Name and concept are intended to be fingers pointing at what it is that is really being spoken of. This is the difference between God and The Word. What ties it all together? The Holy Spirit, that Spirit of Truth. Without that Spirit of Truth, you don't have a complete Trinity, and none of it makes sense. The Trinity is intended to reveal The Singularity, it is not truly a statement of God being divided into three, or worse yet, three Gods. It reveals God through relationship.

Recognizing God, The Ultimate Reality, Supreme Being, and Necessary Existence is not the end all be all. God is salvation, but we are still created beings living in a world of creation. So what is the faith? The Faith is in God. The Faith is about abiding in The Truth.

It is very easy to accept to anyone who is sincere about their love of the truth. The only way someone can knowingly reject this is if they have been bribed by the cares and pleasures of this world. In doing so, they have chosen to worship idols rather than The One True God, who is Lord over us all.

Conviction comes from The Spirit of Truth, and those who truly love the truth will repent and turn away from their wickedness when they have become aware of it. Condemnation comes from the deceiver, who only aims to kill, steal, and destroy. The Devil would have you believe that you are not worthy, that you are beyond the forgiveness of God, and that you are damned for your sins.

The Good News is that The Truth is what sets you free. It's about keeping it real. Superstitious people have trouble understanding this. It doesn't matter if you speak plainly, they will not understand. This being the case, scripture is fulfilled.

The Jews believed that by following the law perfectly they would be right before God. This leads to problems, because by making the law an idol before God, they no longer were being guided by the spirit of truth. They didn't understand the intent of the law. Jesus showed righteousness apart from the law, and in doing so revealed what established the law to begin with.

It's easy to see if you are paying attention and looking at the world how people will follow the rules even when in doing so they end up going against what the rule was established for to begin with. It's a real phenomena, and it's one of the major themes throughout The New Testament. Jesus fulfills the law and the prophets.

"The letter kills, but the spirit gives life."
And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. As many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of the will of God. The hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth,
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,110
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2016 2:01:10 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/21/2016 10:42:15 PM, s-anthony wrote:
As religious fundamentalism attempts to objectify abstract concepts, atheism likewise attempts to objectify these same concepts, yet, for the mere purpose of their negation.

There is an inherent contradiction in each philosophy; one objectifies those things which it poses as abstractions while the other says these abstractions do not exist because they are not concrete. The presence of inconsistencies in each philosophy pits one against the other. Religious fundamentalists are at odds with atheism because atheists do not believe in their concrete-abstractions, and atheists are at odds with religious fundamentalism because religious fundamentalists believe in certain abstractions which are not concrete.

Neither fundamentalists nor atheists believe all abstractions are concrete, but both believe or treat some as though they were.

The concretization of abstractions is arbitrary on the part of fundamentalism, and for atheism is contingent on the predilections of fundamentalism; therefore, atheism requires fundamentalism; for, without the objectification of religious content, atheism would be meaningless.

Atheism derives absolutely no meaning from any religious conjecture, so it doesn't really matter the flavor.

Secondly, I take it your position is one of agnosticism? If so, what meaning is derived from equating arbitrary claims with knowledge?
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2016 3:31:16 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
Atheism derives absolutely no meaning from any religious conjecture, so it doesn't really matter the flavor.

The very term, itself, "atheism", the belief in no god, betrays the fact it is a response to religion.

Secondly, I take it your position is one of agnosticism?

Then, you would be wrong.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2016 3:44:49 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/21/2016 11:33:57 PM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
"The letter kills, but the spirit brings life."

Abstractions are necessary. Words are abstractions. We use the word "God" to describe what is fundamentally abstractionless, but that is because there is no other way to do it. Our very experience is built off of abstraction.

How many filters does information go through before it reaches consciousness? The senses all extract very specific information. The rest of it? Largely ignored. The ears do not perceive light, and the eyes do not perceive sound. These are abstractions in themselves. By the time all this information reaches the conscious mind, it has already gone through several filters. Our world is highly constructed. We live in a world of abstraction. God is that source, that which is fundamentally transcendent of abstraction. Why do I say transcendent? Because we use an abstraction to point to it.

God as a concept is not the end of it. Neither is the definition of the concept. The Name and concept are intended to be fingers pointing at what it is that is really being spoken of. This is the difference between God and The Word. What ties it all together? The Holy Spirit, that Spirit of Truth. Without that Spirit of Truth, you don't have a complete Trinity, and none of it makes sense. The Trinity is intended to reveal The Singularity, it is not truly a statement of God being divided into three, or worse yet, three Gods. It reveals God through relationship.

Recognizing God, The Ultimate Reality, Supreme Being, and Necessary Existence is not the end all be all. God is salvation, but we are still created beings living in a world of creation. So what is the faith? The Faith is in God. The Faith is about abiding in The Truth.

It is very easy to accept to anyone who is sincere about their love of the truth. The only way someone can knowingly reject this is if they have been bribed by the cares and pleasures of this world. In doing so, they have chosen to worship idols rather than The One True God, who is Lord over us all.

Conviction comes from The Spirit of Truth, and those who truly love the truth will repent and turn away from their wickedness when they have become aware of it. Condemnation comes from the deceiver, who only aims to kill, steal, and destroy. The Devil would have you believe that you are not worthy, that you are beyond the forgiveness of God, and that you are damned for your sins.

The Good News is that The Truth is what sets you free. It's about keeping it real. Superstitious people have trouble understanding this. It doesn't matter if you speak plainly, they will not understand. This being the case, scripture is fulfilled.


The Jews believed that by following the law perfectly they would be right before God. This leads to problems, because by making the law an idol before God, they no longer were being guided by the spirit of truth. They didn't understand the intent of the law. Jesus showed righteousness apart from the law, and in doing so revealed what established the law to begin with.

It's easy to see if you are paying attention and looking at the world how people will follow the rules even when in doing so they end up going against what the rule was established for to begin with. It's a real phenomena, and it's one of the major themes throughout The New Testament. Jesus fulfills the law and the prophets.

"The letter kills, but the spirit gives life."

I believe God is an abstraction pointing to something greater.

For me, that something greater is beyond the concrete world and the abstract mind.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,110
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2016 3:47:04 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/22/2016 3:31:16 AM, s-anthony wrote:
Atheism derives absolutely no meaning from any religious conjecture, so it doesn't really matter the flavor.

The very term, itself, "atheism", the belief in no god, betrays the fact it is a response to religion.

If that is how you define atheism then I understand your point, but I don't define it that way (and neither do most atheists). Atheism is not a belief.

Secondly, I take it your position is one of agnosticism?

Then, you would be wrong.

I stand corrected.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
SpiritandTruth
Posts: 2,315
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2016 4:01:41 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/22/2016 3:44:49 AM, s-anthony wrote:
At 8/21/2016 11:33:57 PM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
"The letter kills, but the spirit brings life."

Abstractions are necessary. Words are abstractions. We use the word "God" to describe what is fundamentally abstractionless, but that is because there is no other way to do it. Our very experience is built off of abstraction.

How many filters does information go through before it reaches consciousness? The senses all extract very specific information. The rest of it? Largely ignored. The ears do not perceive light, and the eyes do not perceive sound. These are abstractions in themselves. By the time all this information reaches the conscious mind, it has already gone through several filters. Our world is highly constructed. We live in a world of abstraction. God is that source, that which is fundamentally transcendent of abstraction. Why do I say transcendent? Because we use an abstraction to point to it.

God as a concept is not the end of it. Neither is the definition of the concept. The Name and concept are intended to be fingers pointing at what it is that is really being spoken of. This is the difference between God and The Word. What ties it all together? The Holy Spirit, that Spirit of Truth. Without that Spirit of Truth, you don't have a complete Trinity, and none of it makes sense. The Trinity is intended to reveal The Singularity, it is not truly a statement of God being divided into three, or worse yet, three Gods. It reveals God through relationship.

Recognizing God, The Ultimate Reality, Supreme Being, and Necessary Existence is not the end all be all. God is salvation, but we are still created beings living in a world of creation. So what is the faith? The Faith is in God. The Faith is about abiding in The Truth.

It is very easy to accept to anyone who is sincere about their love of the truth. The only way someone can knowingly reject this is if they have been bribed by the cares and pleasures of this world. In doing so, they have chosen to worship idols rather than The One True God, who is Lord over us all.

Conviction comes from The Spirit of Truth, and those who truly love the truth will repent and turn away from their wickedness when they have become aware of it. Condemnation comes from the deceiver, who only aims to kill, steal, and destroy. The Devil would have you believe that you are not worthy, that you are beyond the forgiveness of God, and that you are damned for your sins.

The Good News is that The Truth is what sets you free. It's about keeping it real. Superstitious people have trouble understanding this. It doesn't matter if you speak plainly, they will not understand. This being the case, scripture is fulfilled.


The Jews believed that by following the law perfectly they would be right before God. This leads to problems, because by making the law an idol before God, they no longer were being guided by the spirit of truth. They didn't understand the intent of the law. Jesus showed righteousness apart from the law, and in doing so revealed what established the law to begin with.

It's easy to see if you are paying attention and looking at the world how people will follow the rules even when in doing so they end up going against what the rule was established for to begin with. It's a real phenomena, and it's one of the major themes throughout The New Testament. Jesus fulfills the law and the prophets.

"The letter kills, but the spirit gives life."

I believe God is an abstraction pointing to something greater.

For me, that something greater is beyond the concrete world and the abstract mind.

Correct, and this is the difference between God The Father and God The Son.

As it is written,

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."

The only way to see how the relationship between God and The Word sent by God is The Holy Spirit. Grasping the trinity, it can be understood how it is no blasphemy to recognize The Word, That Most Perfect Image, and how it is God through Creation. It is only through creation that one can recognize God, because we are created beings. That is why it is written,

"I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me. If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also; and from now on you know Him and have seen Him."

That is also why it is written,

He who has seen Me has seen the Father; so how can you say, "Show us the Father"? Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me? The words that I speak to you I do not speak on My own authority; but the Father who dwells in Me does the works. Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father in Me, or else believe Me for the sake of the works themselves.

Understand who is speaking! The Holy Spirit, that Spirit of Truth reveals.
And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. As many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of the will of God. The hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth,
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2016 4:36:49 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/22/2016 4:01:41 AM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
At 8/22/2016 3:44:49 AM, s-anthony wrote:
At 8/21/2016 11:33:57 PM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
"The letter kills, but the spirit brings life."

Abstractions are necessary. Words are abstractions. We use the word "God" to describe what is fundamentally abstractionless, but that is because there is no other way to do it. Our very experience is built off of abstraction.

How many filters does information go through before it reaches consciousness? The senses all extract very specific information. The rest of it? Largely ignored. The ears do not perceive light, and the eyes do not perceive sound. These are abstractions in themselves. By the time all this information reaches the conscious mind, it has already gone through several filters. Our world is highly constructed. We live in a world of abstraction. God is that source, that which is fundamentally transcendent of abstraction. Why do I say transcendent? Because we use an abstraction to point to it.

God as a concept is not the end of it. Neither is the definition of the concept. The Name and concept are intended to be fingers pointing at what it is that is really being spoken of. This is the difference between God and The Word. What ties it all together? The Holy Spirit, that Spirit of Truth. Without that Spirit of Truth, you don't have a complete Trinity, and none of it makes sense. The Trinity is intended to reveal The Singularity, it is not truly a statement of God being divided into three, or worse yet, three Gods. It reveals God through relationship.

Recognizing God, The Ultimate Reality, Supreme Being, and Necessary Existence is not the end all be all. God is salvation, but we are still created beings living in a world of creation. So what is the faith? The Faith is in God. The Faith is about abiding in The Truth.

It is very easy to accept to anyone who is sincere about their love of the truth. The only way someone can knowingly reject this is if they have been bribed by the cares and pleasures of this world. In doing so, they have chosen to worship idols rather than The One True God, who is Lord over us all.

Conviction comes from The Spirit of Truth, and those who truly love the truth will repent and turn away from their wickedness when they have become aware of it. Condemnation comes from the deceiver, who only aims to kill, steal, and destroy. The Devil would have you believe that you are not worthy, that you are beyond the forgiveness of God, and that you are damned for your sins.

The Good News is that The Truth is what sets you free. It's about keeping it real. Superstitious people have trouble understanding this. It doesn't matter if you speak plainly, they will not understand. This being the case, scripture is fulfilled.


The Jews believed that by following the law perfectly they would be right before God. This leads to problems, because by making the law an idol before God, they no longer were being guided by the spirit of truth. They didn't understand the intent of the law. Jesus showed righteousness apart from the law, and in doing so revealed what established the law to begin with.

It's easy to see if you are paying attention and looking at the world how people will follow the rules even when in doing so they end up going against what the rule was established for to begin with. It's a real phenomena, and it's one of the major themes throughout The New Testament. Jesus fulfills the law and the prophets.

"The letter kills, but the spirit gives life."

I believe God is an abstraction pointing to something greater.

For me, that something greater is beyond the concrete world and the abstract mind.

Correct, and this is the difference between God The Father and God The Son.

As it is written,

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."

The only way to see how the relationship between God and The Word sent by God is The Holy Spirit. Grasping the trinity, it can be understood how it is no blasphemy to recognize The Word, That Most Perfect Image, and how it is God through Creation. It is only through creation that one can recognize God, because we are created beings. That is why it is written,

"I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me. If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also; and from now on you know Him and have seen Him."

That is also why it is written,

He who has seen Me has seen the Father; so how can you say, "Show us the Father"? Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me? The words that I speak to you I do not speak on My own authority; but the Father who dwells in Me does the works. Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father in Me, or else believe Me for the sake of the works themselves.

Understand who is speaking! The Holy Spirit, that Spirit of Truth reveals.

No. I believe there is something greater than all of this, something greater than good and evil, something greater than light and darkness, something greater than being and nonbeing.

It is none of these things, yet, without it, none of these things would exist. It is the womb which gives birth to the world.
SpiritandTruth
Posts: 2,315
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2016 12:31:23 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/22/2016 4:36:49 AM, s-anthony wrote:
At 8/22/2016 4:01:41 AM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
At 8/22/2016 3:44:49 AM, s-anthony wrote:
At 8/21/2016 11:33:57 PM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
"The letter kills, but the spirit brings life."

Abstractions are necessary. Words are abstractions. We use the word "God" to describe what is fundamentally abstractionless, but that is because there is no other way to do it. Our very experience is built off of abstraction.

How many filters does information go through before it reaches consciousness? The senses all extract very specific information. The rest of it? Largely ignored. The ears do not perceive light, and the eyes do not perceive sound. These are abstractions in themselves. By the time all this information reaches the conscious mind, it has already gone through several filters. Our world is highly constructed. We live in a world of abstraction. God is that source, that which is fundamentally transcendent of abstraction. Why do I say transcendent? Because we use an abstraction to point to it.

God as a concept is not the end of it. Neither is the definition of the concept. The Name and concept are intended to be fingers pointing at what it is that is really being spoken of. This is the difference between God and The Word. What ties it all together? The Holy Spirit, that Spirit of Truth. Without that Spirit of Truth, you don't have a complete Trinity, and none of it makes sense. The Trinity is intended to reveal The Singularity, it is not truly a statement of God being divided into three, or worse yet, three Gods. It reveals God through relationship.

Recognizing God, The Ultimate Reality, Supreme Being, and Necessary Existence is not the end all be all. God is salvation, but we are still created beings living in a world of creation. So what is the faith? The Faith is in God. The Faith is about abiding in The Truth.

It is very easy to accept to anyone who is sincere about their love of the truth. The only way someone can knowingly reject this is if they have been bribed by the cares and pleasures of this world. In doing so, they have chosen to worship idols rather than The One True God, who is Lord over us all.

Conviction comes from The Spirit of Truth, and those who truly love the truth will repent and turn away from their wickedness when they have become aware of it. Condemnation comes from the deceiver, who only aims to kill, steal, and destroy. The Devil would have you believe that you are not worthy, that you are beyond the forgiveness of God, and that you are damned for your sins.

The Good News is that The Truth is what sets you free. It's about keeping it real. Superstitious people have trouble understanding this. It doesn't matter if you speak plainly, they will not understand. This being the case, scripture is fulfilled.


The Jews believed that by following the law perfectly they would be right before God. This leads to problems, because by making the law an idol before God, they no longer were being guided by the spirit of truth. They didn't understand the intent of the law. Jesus showed righteousness apart from the law, and in doing so revealed what established the law to begin with.

It's easy to see if you are paying attention and looking at the world how people will follow the rules even when in doing so they end up going against what the rule was established for to begin with. It's a real phenomena, and it's one of the major themes throughout The New Testament. Jesus fulfills the law and the prophets.

"The letter kills, but the spirit gives life."

I believe God is an abstraction pointing to something greater.

For me, that something greater is beyond the concrete world and the abstract mind.

Correct, and this is the difference between God The Father and God The Son.

As it is written,

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."

The only way to see how the relationship between God and The Word sent by God is The Holy Spirit. Grasping the trinity, it can be understood how it is no blasphemy to recognize The Word, That Most Perfect Image, and how it is God through Creation. It is only through creation that one can recognize God, because we are created beings. That is why it is written,

"I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me. If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also; and from now on you know Him and have seen Him."

That is also why it is written,

He who has seen Me has seen the Father; so how can you say, "Show us the Father"? Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me? The words that I speak to you I do not speak on My own authority; but the Father who dwells in Me does the works. Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father in Me, or else believe Me for the sake of the works themselves.

Understand who is speaking! The Holy Spirit, that Spirit of Truth reveals.

No. I believe there is something greater than all of this, something greater than good and evil, something greater than light and darkness, something greater than being and nonbeing.

It is none of these things, yet, without it, none of these things would exist. It is the womb which gives birth to the world.

There is a certain absurdity in communicating this effectively, after all, we are using the medium of creation to describe what is Uncreated. That said, I am not contradicting you. It sounds to me like we are on the same page.
And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. As many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of the will of God. The hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth,
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2016 2:00:02 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
There is a certain absurdity in communicating this effectively, after all, we are using the medium of creation to describe what is Uncreated. That said, I am not contradicting you. It sounds to me like we are on the same page.

I think if we are afraid to devolve our present rationales into absurdity we will inhibit the evolution of thought. Everything goes from order to disorder to order, again, from cosmos to chaos to cosmos, again, and from reason to absurdity to reason, again. This is the pathway of all things.

However, I believe there is something which transcends all things and is eternally at rest.

I agree. Most likely, we are saying much of the same thing, using different terminology.
Willows
Posts: 2,058
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2016 2:35:16 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/22/2016 2:00:02 PM, s-anthony wrote:
There is a certain absurdity in communicating this effectively, after all, we are using the medium of creation to describe what is Uncreated. That said, I am not contradicting you. It sounds to me like we are on the same page.

I think if we are afraid to devolve our present rationales into absurdity we will inhibit the evolution of thought. Everything goes from order to disorder to order, again, from cosmos to chaos to cosmos, again, and from reason to absurdity to reason, again. This is the pathway of all things.

However, I believe there is something which transcends all things and is eternally at rest.

I agree. Most likely, we are saying much of the same thing, using different terminology.

You are simply making things up.
Harikrish
Posts: 11,007
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2016 4:10:11 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/22/2016 3:44:49 AM, s-anthony wrote:
At 8/21/2016 11:33:57 PM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
"The letter kills, but the spirit brings life."

Abstractions are necessary. Words are abstractions. We use the word "God" to describe what is fundamentally abstractionless, but that is because there is no other way to do it. Our very experience is built off of abstraction.

How many filters does information go through before it reaches consciousness? The senses all extract very specific information. The rest of it? Largely ignored. The ears do not perceive light, and the eyes do not perceive sound. These are abstractions in themselves. By the time all this information reaches the conscious mind, it has already gone through several filters. Our world is highly constructed. We live in a world of abstraction. God is that source, that which is fundamentally transcendent of abstraction. Why do I say transcendent? Because we use an abstraction to point to it.

God as a concept is not the end of it. Neither is the definition of the concept. The Name and concept are intended to be fingers pointing at what it is that is really being spoken of. This is the difference between God and The Word. What ties it all together? The Holy Spirit, that Spirit of Truth. Without that Spirit of Truth, you don't have a complete Trinity, and none of it makes sense. The Trinity is intended to reveal The Singularity, it is not truly a statement of God being divided into three, or worse yet, three Gods. It reveals God through relationship.

Recognizing God, The Ultimate Reality, Supreme Being, and Necessary Existence is not the end all be all. God is salvation, but we are still created beings living in a world of creation. So what is the faith? The Faith is in God. The Faith is about abiding in The Truth.

It is very easy to accept to anyone who is sincere about their love of the truth. The only way someone can knowingly reject this is if they have been bribed by the cares and pleasures of this world. In doing so, they have chosen to worship idols rather than The One True God, who is Lord over us all.

Conviction comes from The Spirit of Truth, and those who truly love the truth will repent and turn away from their wickedness when they have become aware of it. Condemnation comes from the deceiver, who only aims to kill, steal, and destroy. The Devil would have you believe that you are not worthy, that you are beyond the forgiveness of God, and that you are damned for your sins.

The Good News is that The Truth is what sets you free. It's about keeping it real. Superstitious people have trouble understanding this. It doesn't matter if you speak plainly, they will not understand. This being the case, scripture is fulfilled.


The Jews believed that by following the law perfectly they would be right before God. This leads to problems, because by making the law an idol before God, they no longer were being guided by the spirit of truth. They didn't understand the intent of the law. Jesus showed righteousness apart from the law, and in doing so revealed what established the law to begin with.

It's easy to see if you are paying attention and looking at the world how people will follow the rules even when in doing so they end up going against what the rule was established for to begin with. It's a real phenomena, and it's one of the major themes throughout The New Testament. Jesus fulfills the law and the prophets.

"The letter kills, but the spirit gives life."

I believe God is an abstraction pointing to something greater.

How did you get past abstraction to find something greater? Only 'real' beats abstraction. If God isnt real it is just another abstraction. Only if God is real can one begin to describe it.

For me, that something greater is beyond the concrete world and the abstract mind.

The three important terms: omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence have already been used to describe God. What is that something greater that is beyond the concrete world and the abstract mind called?
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2016 6:23:17 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
How did you get past abstraction to find something greater? Only 'real' beats abstraction. If God isnt real it is just another abstraction. Only if God is real can one begin to describe it.

I do not believe reality is better than imaginary things. I believe reality is different than imaginary things. Some people put too little significance on the imagination. It is the imagination which allows us to experience time. In looking back at the past, we are not recounting things as they had actually occurred; but, we are in fact reimagining those things; in looking forward, we are using the power of our imaginations to predict the future.

Describing the products of our imaginations is very easy. We do it all the time; it's called art and invention.

The three important terms: omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence have already been used to describe God. What is that something greater that is beyond the concrete world and the abstract mind called?

The womb of the universe, the void in which all things exist.
SpiritandTruth
Posts: 2,315
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2016 7:29:48 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/22/2016 2:00:02 PM, s-anthony wrote:
There is a certain absurdity in communicating this effectively, after all, we are using the medium of creation to describe what is Uncreated. That said, I am not contradicting you. It sounds to me like we are on the same page.

I think if we are afraid to devolve our present rationales into absurdity we will inhibit the evolution of thought. Everything goes from order to disorder to order, again, from cosmos to chaos to cosmos, again, and from reason to absurdity to reason, again. This is the pathway of all things.

However, I believe there is something which transcends all things and is eternally at rest.

I agree. Most likely, we are saying much of the same thing, using different terminology.

Breath of fresh air.
And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. As many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of the will of God. The hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth,
SpiritandTruth
Posts: 2,315
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2016 7:33:29 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/22/2016 2:35:16 PM, Willows wrote:
At 8/22/2016 2:00:02 PM, s-anthony wrote:
There is a certain absurdity in communicating this effectively, after all, we are using the medium of creation to describe what is Uncreated. That said, I am not contradicting you. It sounds to me like we are on the same page.

I think if we are afraid to devolve our present rationales into absurdity we will inhibit the evolution of thought. Everything goes from order to disorder to order, again, from cosmos to chaos to cosmos, again, and from reason to absurdity to reason, again. This is the pathway of all things.

However, I believe there is something which transcends all things and is eternally at rest.

I agree. Most likely, we are saying much of the same thing, using different terminology.

You are simply making things up.

Well, I recognize what he is saying, and it certainly isn't made up.
And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. As many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of the will of God. The hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth,
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2016 8:02:08 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/21/2016 10:42:15 PM, s-anthony wrote:
As religious fundamentalism attempts to objectify abstract concepts, atheism likewise attempts to objectify these same concepts, yet, for the mere purpose of their negation.

Atheism doesn't have a single reason or rationale to refute theological claims, Anthony. It's simply the position that theology is invalid or false.

Regarding making sense of theological claims in a shared, empirical world though, that's an area of broad, secular interest. For example, numerous sciences -- anthropology, sociology and psychology for example -- have had long interest in religious thought. To describe it as a purely atheistic interest is both false and disingenuous.

Essentially here you've argued three fallacies combined:
1) Special pleading: religion is somehow different from other human activities, and therefore shouldn't be studied empirically;
2) Bare assertion: religion is somehow different from other human activities simply because you say it is; and
3) Shoot the messenger: if empirical study shows that religious belief looks indistinguishable from the systematisation of well-known cognitive biases, blame the study for a secret atheist agenda.

This thread seems a follow-up to your dishonest conflation of rational inquiry with fundamentalism in "Refuting the Irrefutable" [http://www.debate.org...]

With no case to make, you were arguing from petulance there, and you're simply pushing the same idea here in different language.

You are capable of better than that, Anthony, and I don't believe this thread deserves a more detailed response.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2016 8:03:41 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/22/2016 7:29:48 PM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
At 8/22/2016 2:00:02 PM, s-anthony wrote:
There is a certain absurdity in communicating this effectively, after all, we are using the medium of creation to describe what is Uncreated. That said, I am not contradicting you. It sounds to me like we are on the same page.

I think if we are afraid to devolve our present rationales into absurdity we will inhibit the evolution of thought. Everything goes from order to disorder to order, again, from cosmos to chaos to cosmos, again, and from reason to absurdity to reason, again. This is the pathway of all things.

However, I believe there is something which transcends all things and is eternally at rest.

I agree. Most likely, we are saying much of the same thing, using different terminology.

Breath of fresh air.

I know. That's rare with this forum.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2016 8:12:17 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/22/2016 8:02:08 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 8/21/2016 10:42:15 PM, s-anthony wrote:
As religious fundamentalism attempts to objectify abstract concepts, atheism likewise attempts to objectify these same concepts, yet, for the mere purpose of their negation.

Atheism doesn't have a single reason or rationale to refute theological claims, Anthony. It's simply the position that theology is invalid or false.

Regarding making sense of theological claims in a shared, empirical world though, that's an area of broad, secular interest. For example, numerous sciences -- anthropology, sociology and psychology for example -- have had long interest in religious thought. To describe it as a purely atheistic interest is both false and disingenuous.

Essentially here you've argued three fallacies combined:
1) Special pleading: religion is somehow different from other human activities, and therefore shouldn't be studied empirically;
2) Bare assertion: religion is somehow different from other human activities simply because you say it is; and
3) Shoot the messenger: if empirical study shows that religious belief looks indistinguishable from the systematisation of well-known cognitive biases, blame the study for a secret atheist agenda.

This thread seems a follow-up to your dishonest conflation of rational inquiry with fundamentalism in "Refuting the Irrefutable" [http://www.debate.org...]

With no case to make, you were arguing from petulance there, and you're simply pushing the same idea here in different language.

You are capable of better than that, Anthony, and I don't believe this thread deserves a more detailed response.

Do you believe imaginary things are real?
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2016 8:21:18 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/22/2016 8:12:17 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 8/22/2016 8:02:08 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 8/21/2016 10:42:15 PM, s-anthony wrote:
As religious fundamentalism attempts to objectify abstract concepts, atheism likewise attempts to objectify these same concepts, yet, for the mere purpose of their negation.

Atheism doesn't have a single reason or rationale to refute theological claims, Anthony. It's simply the position that theology is invalid or false.

Regarding making sense of theological claims in a shared, empirical world though, that's an area of broad, secular interest. For example, numerous sciences -- anthropology, sociology and psychology for example -- have had long interest in religious thought. To describe it as a purely atheistic interest is both false and disingenuous.

Essentially here you've argued three fallacies combined:
1) Special pleading: religion is somehow different from other human activities, and therefore shouldn't be studied empirically;
2) Bare assertion: religion is somehow different from other human activities simply because you say it is; and
3) Shoot the messenger: if empirical study shows that religious belief looks indistinguishable from the systematisation of well-known cognitive biases, blame the study for a secret atheist agenda.

This thread seems a follow-up to your dishonest conflation of rational inquiry with fundamentalism in "Refuting the Irrefutable" [http://www.debate.org...]

With no case to make, you were arguing from petulance there, and you're simply pushing the same idea here in different language.

You are capable of better than that, Anthony, and I don't believe this thread deserves a more detailed response.

Do you believe imaginary things are real?

I suspect we'll differ on definitions here.

Please define what real is, and explain how you recognise it.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2016 9:07:17 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/22/2016 8:21:18 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 8/22/2016 8:12:17 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 8/22/2016 8:02:08 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 8/21/2016 10:42:15 PM, s-anthony wrote:
As religious fundamentalism attempts to objectify abstract concepts, atheism likewise attempts to objectify these same concepts, yet, for the mere purpose of their negation.

Atheism doesn't have a single reason or rationale to refute theological claims, Anthony. It's simply the position that theology is invalid or false.

Regarding making sense of theological claims in a shared, empirical world though, that's an area of broad, secular interest. For example, numerous sciences -- anthropology, sociology and psychology for example -- have had long interest in religious thought. To describe it as a purely atheistic interest is both false and disingenuous.

Essentially here you've argued three fallacies combined:
1) Special pleading: religion is somehow different from other human activities, and therefore shouldn't be studied empirically;
2) Bare assertion: religion is somehow different from other human activities simply because you say it is; and
3) Shoot the messenger: if empirical study shows that religious belief looks indistinguishable from the systematisation of well-known cognitive biases, blame the study for a secret atheist agenda.

This thread seems a follow-up to your dishonest conflation of rational inquiry with fundamentalism in "Refuting the Irrefutable" [http://www.debate.org...]

With no case to make, you were arguing from petulance there, and you're simply pushing the same idea here in different language.

You are capable of better than that, Anthony, and I don't believe this thread deserves a more detailed response.

Do you believe imaginary things are real?

I suspect we'll differ on definitions here.

Please define what real is, and explain how you recognise it.

Objective, physical existence.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2016 9:10:36 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/22/2016 9:07:17 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 8/22/2016 8:21:18 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 8/22/2016 8:12:17 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 8/22/2016 8:02:08 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 8/21/2016 10:42:15 PM, s-anthony wrote:
As religious fundamentalism attempts to objectify abstract concepts, atheism likewise attempts to objectify these same concepts, yet, for the mere purpose of their negation.

Atheism doesn't have a single reason or rationale to refute theological claims, Anthony. It's simply the position that theology is invalid or false.

Regarding making sense of theological claims in a shared, empirical world though, that's an area of broad, secular interest. For example, numerous sciences -- anthropology, sociology and psychology for example -- have had long interest in religious thought. To describe it as a purely atheistic interest is both false and disingenuous.

Essentially here you've argued three fallacies combined:
1) Special pleading: religion is somehow different from other human activities, and therefore shouldn't be studied empirically;
2) Bare assertion: religion is somehow different from other human activities simply because you say it is; and
3) Shoot the messenger: if empirical study shows that religious belief looks indistinguishable from the systematisation of well-known cognitive biases, blame the study for a secret atheist agenda.

This thread seems a follow-up to your dishonest conflation of rational inquiry with fundamentalism in "Refuting the Irrefutable" [http://www.debate.org...]

With no case to make, you were arguing from petulance there, and you're simply pushing the same idea here in different language.

You are capable of better than that, Anthony, and I don't believe this thread deserves a more detailed response.

Do you believe imaginary things are real?

I suspect we'll differ on definitions here.

Please define what real is, and explain how you recognise it.

Objective, physical existence.

That's half the answer, Anthony. The other half is: Recognised how?
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2016 9:19:49 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/22/2016 9:10:36 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 8/22/2016 9:07:17 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 8/22/2016 8:21:18 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 8/22/2016 8:12:17 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 8/22/2016 8:02:08 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 8/21/2016 10:42:15 PM, s-anthony wrote:
As religious fundamentalism attempts to objectify abstract concepts, atheism likewise attempts to objectify these same concepts, yet, for the mere purpose of their negation.

Atheism doesn't have a single reason or rationale to refute theological claims, Anthony. It's simply the position that theology is invalid or false.

Regarding making sense of theological claims in a shared, empirical world though, that's an area of broad, secular interest. For example, numerous sciences -- anthropology, sociology and psychology for example -- have had long interest in religious thought. To describe it as a purely atheistic interest is both false and disingenuous.

Essentially here you've argued three fallacies combined:
1) Special pleading: religion is somehow different from other human activities, and therefore shouldn't be studied empirically;
2) Bare assertion: religion is somehow different from other human activities simply because you say it is; and
3) Shoot the messenger: if empirical study shows that religious belief looks indistinguishable from the systematisation of well-known cognitive biases, blame the study for a secret atheist agenda.

This thread seems a follow-up to your dishonest conflation of rational inquiry with fundamentalism in "Refuting the Irrefutable" [http://www.debate.org...]

With no case to make, you were arguing from petulance there, and you're simply pushing the same idea here in different language.

You are capable of better than that, Anthony, and I don't believe this thread deserves a more detailed response.

Do you believe imaginary things are real?

I suspect we'll differ on definitions here.

Please define what real is, and explain how you recognise it.

Objective, physical existence.

That's half the answer, Anthony. The other half is: Recognised how?

With the five senses.
Harikrish
Posts: 11,007
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2016 9:31:05 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/22/2016 6:23:17 PM, s-anthony wrote:
How did you get past abstraction to find something greater? Only 'real' beats abstraction. If God isnt real it is just another abstraction. Only if God is real can one begin to describe it.

I do not believe reality is better than imaginary things. I believe reality is different than imaginary things. Some people put too little significance on the imagination. It is the imagination which allows us to experience time. In looking back at the past, we are not recounting things as they had actually occurred; but, we are in fact reimagining those things; in looking forward, we are using the power of our imaginations to predict the future.

That is not experiencing time, it is the suspension of time where you can go back and forward and not be bound by time.

Describing the products of our imaginations is very easy. We do it all the time; it's called art and invention.

So you now believe God is a product of human imagination and not an abstraction.

The three important terms: omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence have already been used to describe God. What is that something greater that is beyond the concrete world and the abstract mind called?

The womb of the universe, the void in which all things exist.

Why call it a void if it is not void? A womb is bad anology of something abstract. It is very real. You BS has been exposed.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2016 9:34:25 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/22/2016 9:19:49 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 8/22/2016 9:10:36 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 8/22/2016 9:07:17 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 8/22/2016 8:21:18 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 8/22/2016 8:12:17 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 8/22/2016 8:02:08 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 8/21/2016 10:42:15 PM, s-anthony wrote:
As religious fundamentalism attempts to objectify abstract concepts, atheism likewise attempts to objectify these same concepts, yet, for the mere purpose of their negation.

Atheism doesn't have a single reason or rationale to refute theological claims, Anthony. It's simply the position that theology is invalid or false.

Regarding making sense of theological claims in a shared, empirical world though, that's an area of broad, secular interest. For example, numerous sciences -- anthropology, sociology and psychology for example -- have had long interest in religious thought. To describe it as a purely atheistic interest is both false and disingenuous.

Essentially here you've argued three fallacies combined:
1) Special pleading: religion is somehow different from other human activities, and therefore shouldn't be studied empirically;
2) Bare assertion: religion is somehow different from other human activities simply because you say it is; and
3) Shoot the messenger: if empirical study shows that religious belief looks indistinguishable from the systematisation of well-known cognitive biases, blame the study for a secret atheist agenda.

This thread seems a follow-up to your dishonest conflation of rational inquiry with fundamentalism in "Refuting the Irrefutable" [http://www.debate.org...]

With no case to make, you were arguing from petulance there, and you're simply pushing the same idea here in different language.

You are capable of better than that, Anthony, and I don't believe this thread deserves a more detailed response.

Do you believe imaginary things are real?

I suspect we'll differ on definitions here.

Please define what real is, and explain how you recognise it.

Objective, physical existence.

That's half the answer, Anthony. The other half is: Recognised how?

With the five senses.

That's not what I consider reality to be, Anthony. For example, what we 'see' isn't what's there, but the synthesis of electrical signals arising from a chemical reaction deriving from focused light of specific spectra falling on light-focusing organs. That light can in turn be reflected, refracted, emitted... it's the result of energetic reaction and we may not be interested in the reaction itself so much as the object around which the reaction occurred.

Moreover, we have more than five senses anyway. For example, your ability to maintain balance, know when you're hungry, discern when you're cold, or when your arm is stretched to full extension.

So if you define reality in that way, I think you cannot produce methods to discern the imaginary from the real. I think what you've described isn't modern empiricism so much as a sort of naive materialism.

Perhaps part of why you overcook subjectivity so much is just how much you undercook our methods for exploring reality.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2016 10:40:10 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
That's not what I consider reality to be, Anthony. For example, what we 'see' isn't what's there, but the synthesis of electrical signals arising from a chemical reaction deriving from focused light of specific spectra falling on light-focusing organs. That light can in turn be reflected, refracted, emitted... it's the result of energetic reaction and we may not be interested in the reaction itself so much as the object around which the reaction occurred.

So, synapses, are they objective and physical?

So if you define reality in that way, I think you cannot produce methods to discern the imaginary from the real. I think what you've described isn't modern empiricism so much as a sort of naive materialism.

Does this mean you believe imaginary things are real?
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2016 10:51:59 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/22/2016 10:40:10 PM, s-anthony wrote:
That's not what I consider reality to be, Anthony. For example, what we 'see' isn't what's there, but the synthesis of electrical signals arising from a chemical reaction deriving from focused light of specific spectra falling on light-focusing organs. That light can in turn be reflected, refracted, emitted... it's the result of energetic reaction and we may not be interested in the reaction itself so much as the object around which the reaction occurred.
So, synapses, are they objective and physical?
Since we don't agree on recognition criteria for reality, you won't understand or be able to validate my answer.

So if you define reality in that way, I think you cannot produce methods to discern the imaginary from the real. I think what you've described isn't modern empiricism so much as a sort of naive materialism.
Does this mean you believe imaginary things are real?
It means you can't ask closed ('a' or 'b') questions regarding a frame that you don't care to explore or understand. You have to ask open questions, Anthony, and not misrepresent other folks' thought.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2016 10:59:45 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/22/2016 10:51:59 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 8/22/2016 10:40:10 PM, s-anthony wrote:
That's not what I consider reality to be, Anthony. For example, what we 'see' isn't what's there, but the synthesis of electrical signals arising from a chemical reaction deriving from focused light of specific spectra falling on light-focusing organs. That light can in turn be reflected, refracted, emitted... it's the result of energetic reaction and we may not be interested in the reaction itself so much as the object around which the reaction occurred.
So, synapses, are they objective and physical?
Since we don't agree on recognition criteria for reality, you won't understand or be able to validate my answer.

In other words, you wish not to answer.


So if you define reality in that way, I think you cannot produce methods to discern the imaginary from the real. I think what you've described isn't modern empiricism so much as a sort of naive materialism.
Does this mean you believe imaginary things are real?
It means you can't ask closed ('a' or 'b') questions regarding a frame that you don't care to explore or understand. You have to ask open questions, Anthony, and not misrepresent other folks' thought.

In other words, you wish not to answer.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2016 11:25:44 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/22/2016 10:59:45 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 8/22/2016 10:51:59 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 8/22/2016 10:40:10 PM, s-anthony wrote:
That's not what I consider reality to be, Anthony. For example, what we 'see' isn't what's there, but the synthesis of electrical signals arising from a chemical reaction deriving from focused light of specific spectra falling on light-focusing organs. That light can in turn be reflected, refracted, emitted... it's the result of energetic reaction and we may not be interested in the reaction itself so much as the object around which the reaction occurred.
So, synapses, are they objective and physical?
Since we don't agree on recognition criteria for reality, you won't understand or be able to validate my answer.

In other words, you wish not to answer.

I want the answer to be kept in the context in which it's offered, which would require you to abandon a strawman regarding empiricism and the five senses.

So if you define reality in that way, I think you cannot produce methods to discern the imaginary from the real. I think what you've described isn't modern empiricism so much as a sort of naive materialism.
Does this mean you believe imaginary things are real?
It means you can't ask closed ('a' or 'b') questions regarding a frame that you don't care to explore or understand. You have to ask open questions, Anthony, and not misrepresent other folks' thought.
In other words, you wish not to answer.
I'll be happy to, once you stop strawmanning.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2016 11:42:27 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/22/2016 11:25:44 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 8/22/2016 10:59:45 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 8/22/2016 10:51:59 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 8/22/2016 10:40:10 PM, s-anthony wrote:
That's not what I consider reality to be, Anthony. For example, what we 'see' isn't what's there, but the synthesis of electrical signals arising from a chemical reaction deriving from focused light of specific spectra falling on light-focusing organs. That light can in turn be reflected, refracted, emitted... it's the result of energetic reaction and we may not be interested in the reaction itself so much as the object around which the reaction occurred.
So, synapses, are they objective and physical?
Since we don't agree on recognition criteria for reality, you won't understand or be able to validate my answer.

In other words, you wish not to answer.

I want the answer to be kept in the context in which it's offered, which would require you to abandon a strawman regarding empiricism and the five senses.

So if you define reality in that way, I think you cannot produce methods to discern the imaginary from the real. I think what you've described isn't modern empiricism so much as a sort of naive materialism.
Does this mean you believe imaginary things are real?
It means you can't ask closed ('a' or 'b') questions regarding a frame that you don't care to explore or understand. You have to ask open questions, Anthony, and not misrepresent other folks' thought.
In other words, you wish not to answer.
I'll be happy to, once you stop strawmanning.

It's a simply-worded straightforward question. You can answer it by saying: yes, no, both yes and no, maybe so, or I don't know. Then, you are free to explain the reason you chose your answer.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2016 12:07:39 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/22/2016 11:42:27 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 8/22/2016 11:25:44 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 8/22/2016 10:59:45 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 8/22/2016 10:51:59 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 8/22/2016 10:40:10 PM, s-anthony wrote:
That's not what I consider reality to be, Anthony.
You can't ask closed ('a' or 'b') questions regarding a frame that you don't care to explore or understand. You have to ask open questions, Anthony, and not misrepresent other folks' thought.
In other words, you wish not to answer.
I'll be happy to, once you stop strawmanning.
It's a simply-worded straightforward question.
Based on an ignorant, broken and outdated paradigm that nobody investigating reality professionally actually uses.

You can answer it by saying: yes, no, both yes and no, maybe so, or I don't know. Then, you are free to explain the reason you chose your answer.
Any of which would legitimise an ignorant, broken and outdated paradigm, which is why I haven't.

Since you're not interested in any paradigm but your own poorly-researched, falsely-dichotomised account of information, truth, knowledge and reality, all you can do is what you've done in two threads now, and misrepresent other thought from laziness, contempt and a desire to feel authoritative in your own beliefs.

Beyond me telling you that's silly and unproductive, there's nothing more productive that I can do unless and until you change how you engage.