Total Posts:45|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

A World of Potential

s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2016 2:06:42 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
Do things have objectivity in and of themselves, apart from observation, or is observation relative to objectivity?

To answer this, we must consider the mechanics of observation. The means by which we perceive the material world is the physical senses, and the spectrum for each of these senses varies from one sentient being to the next. Therefore, a thing may be perceived in an infinite number of ways.

However, being thingness is indeterminate, apart from observation, does this implicate the observer as the sole source of objectivity? In other words, are there indeterminate things in and of themselves?

If so, what does indeterminate objectivity apart from the objectifying observer even mean?

Indeterminate objectivity may indicate potentiality. From the ancient philosophy of indeterminism to the modern scientific theory of quantum indeterminacy, a theory has survived the test of time which supposes the universe is in a resting state, which Kant called noumenal, until sentience interprets it as phenomenal. Being each sentient being is unique or subjective in one's capacity to perceive, the multiplicity of forces, which on a universal scale neutralize each other, are experienced as variables. It is our finiteness, our inability to observe all things at once, which gives us the capacity for objectivity.

If we consider the universe, literally, as all things turned into one, from our perspective, we see the universe as a collection of spatiotemporal phenomena. However, the universe, itself, is unbroken. It has, as it were, a metaphysical nature to it.

For us, the universe is absolute power, omnipotent in its capacity. Yet, overall, the universe is eternally at rest.

The very division religionists see between themselves and God, scientists see between themselves and Nature. With time and the use of semantics, we have taken the science of God and have refashioned it into a science of the world. We have taken that which was once sacred and have made it common. The scientist with all one's learning has denounced the religions of the past as nothing more than myth and superstitions, while failing to realize those myths and superstitions are the very groundwork on which his, or her, profession rests.
bulproof
Posts: 25,240
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2016 2:18:45 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
Without reading your OP.
I see "A World of Potential" if the influence of religions is drastically reduced, otherwise humanity doesn't have long to prosper.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Fatihah
Posts: 7,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2016 2:41:22 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 9/7/2016 2:06:42 PM, s-anthony wrote:
Do things have objectivity in and of themselves, apart from observation, or is observation relative to objectivity?

To answer this, we must consider the mechanics of observation. The means by which we perceive the material world is the physical senses, and the spectrum for each of these senses varies from one sentient being to the next. Therefore, a thing may be perceived in an infinite number of ways.

However, being thingness is indeterminate, apart from observation, does this implicate the observer as the sole source of objectivity? In other words, are there indeterminate things in and of themselves?

If so, what does indeterminate objectivity apart from the objectifying observer even mean?

Indeterminate objectivity may indicate potentiality. From the ancient philosophy of indeterminism to the modern scientific theory of quantum indeterminacy, a theory has survived the test of time which supposes the universe is in a resting state, which Kant called noumenal, until sentience interprets it as phenomenal. Being each sentient being is unique or subjective in one's capacity to perceive, the multiplicity of forces, which on a universal scale neutralize each other, are experienced as variables. It is our finiteness, our inability to observe all things at once, which gives us the capacity for objectivity.

If we consider the universe, literally, as all things turned into one, from our perspective, we see the universe as a collection of spatiotemporal phenomena. However, the universe, itself, is unbroken. It has, as it were, a metaphysical nature to it.

For us, the universe is absolute power, omnipotent in its capacity. Yet, overall, the universe is eternally at rest.

The very division religionists see between themselves and God, scientists see between themselves and Nature. With time and the use of semantics, we have taken the science of God and have refashioned it into a science of the world. We have taken that which was once sacred and have made it common. The scientist with all one's learning has denounced the religions of the past as nothing more than myth and superstitions, while failing to realize those myths and superstitions are the very groundwork on which his, or her, profession rests.

Response: Yes. The foundation of science as we know it and use it as experimentation and proof was set by those who are religious. This is another example of how the claims that the world is better without religion is severely flawed because wherever you find advancement in science and civilization, you will always find a religious person behind it. We cannot trace back to a non-religious society and from that society came advancement that surpasses or is even up to par with the advancements of a society where there are religious people.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,622
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2016 3:35:15 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 9/7/2016 2:06:42 PM, s-anthony wrote:
Do things have objectivity in and of themselves, apart from observation, or is observation relative to objectivity?

To answer this, we must consider the mechanics of observation. The means by which we perceive the material world is the physical senses, and the spectrum for each of these senses varies from one sentient being to the next. Therefore, a thing may be perceived in an infinite number of ways.

However, being thingness is indeterminate, apart from observation, does this implicate the observer as the sole source of objectivity? In other words, are there indeterminate things in and of themselves?

If so, what does indeterminate objectivity apart from the objectifying observer even mean?

Indeterminate objectivity may indicate potentiality. From the ancient philosophy of indeterminism to the modern scientific theory of quantum indeterminacy, a theory has survived the test of time which supposes the universe is in a resting state, which Kant called noumenal, until sentience interprets it as phenomenal. Being each sentient being is unique or subjective in one's capacity to perceive, the multiplicity of forces, which on a universal scale neutralize each other, are experienced as variables. It is our finiteness, our inability to observe all things at once, which gives us the capacity for objectivity.

If we consider the universe, literally, as all things turned into one, from our perspective, we see the universe as a collection of spatiotemporal phenomena. However, the universe, itself, is unbroken. It has, as it were, a metaphysical nature to it.

For us, the universe is absolute power, omnipotent in its capacity. Yet, overall, the universe is eternally at rest.

The very division religionists see between themselves and God, scientists see between themselves and Nature. With time and the use of semantics, we have taken the science of God and have refashioned it into a science of the world. We have taken that which was once sacred and have made it common. The scientist with all one's learning has denounced the religions of the past as nothing more than myth and superstitions, while failing to realize those myths and superstitions are the very groundwork on which his, or her, profession rests.

Groundwork? Hardly. They are considered myths and superstitions because they don't align with reality. We have evolved from the ignorance of religion to the understanding of the world around us. The groundwork was laid when we moved away from believing to thinking, reasoning and applying logic to observations, testing and predicting. None of these things were groundwork from religions.

Ignorance is not sacred.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
PureX
Posts: 1,528
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2016 3:44:16 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 9/7/2016 2:06:42 PM, s-anthony wrote:
Do things have objectivity in and of themselves, apart from observation, or is observation relative to objectivity?

To answer this, we must consider the mechanics of observation. The means by which we perceive the material world is the physical senses, and the spectrum for each of these senses varies from one sentient being to the next. Therefore, a thing may be perceived in an infinite number of ways.

However, being thingness is indeterminate, apart from observation, does this implicate the observer as the sole source of objectivity? In other words, are there indeterminate things in and of themselves?

If so, what does indeterminate objectivity apart from the objectifying observer even mean?

Indeterminate objectivity may indicate potentiality. From the ancient philosophy of indeterminism to the modern scientific theory of quantum indeterminacy, a theory has survived the test of time which supposes the universe is in a resting state, which Kant called noumenal, until sentience interprets it as phenomenal. Being each sentient being is unique or subjective in one's capacity to perceive, the multiplicity of forces, which on a universal scale neutralize each other, are experienced as variables. It is our finiteness, our inability to observe all things at once, which gives us the capacity for objectivity.

If we consider the universe, literally, as all things turned into one, from our perspective, we see the universe as a collection of spatiotemporal phenomena. However, the universe, itself, is unbroken. It has, as it were, a metaphysical nature to it.

For us, the universe is absolute power, omnipotent in its capacity. Yet, overall, the universe is eternally at rest.

The very division religionists see between themselves and God, scientists see between themselves and Nature. With time and the use of semantics, we have taken the science of God and have refashioned it into a science of the world. We have taken that which was once sacred and have made it common. The scientist with all one's learning has denounced the religions of the past as nothing more than myth and superstitions, while failing to realize those myths and superstitions are the very groundwork on which his, or her, profession rests.

Hopefully, not 'all' scientists have done this. Hopefully not even most of them have. Because science is only one method of exploring our experience of reality. And it is a limited one.

There are other methods of investigation, and they can explore aspects of reality that science cannot.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2016 4:02:30 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
Response: Yes. The foundation of science as we know it and use it as experimentation and proof was set by those who are religious. This is another example of how the claims that the world is better without religion is severely flawed because wherever you find advancement in science and civilization, you will always find a religious person behind it. We cannot trace back to a non-religious society and from that society came advancement that surpasses or is even up to par with the advancements of a society where there are religious people.

I agree. That which was, once, a matter of the imagination is, now, a matter of conviction.

The scientist who refuses to admit this is so far removed from the source of one's understanding, it is foreign and unknown to him, or her.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2016 4:30:04 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
Groundwork? Hardly. They are considered myths and superstitions because they don't align with reality. We have evolved from the ignorance of religion to the understanding of the world around us. The groundwork was laid when we moved away from believing to thinking, reasoning and applying logic to observations, testing and predicting. None of these things were groundwork from religions.

Ignorance is not sacred.

Without imagination, reality does not exist. How can you know those things which are real, if you didn't know those things which weren't?

Without ignorance, there is nothing to know. How can you know something without the capacity for not knowing it? In other words, how can you see the light if you have never experienced darkness?

How can you know something is true without believing it to be true?
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2016 4:32:22 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 9/7/2016 3:44:16 PM, PureX wrote:
At 9/7/2016 2:06:42 PM, s-anthony wrote:
Do things have objectivity in and of themselves, apart from observation, or is observation relative to objectivity?

To answer this, we must consider the mechanics of observation. The means by which we perceive the material world is the physical senses, and the spectrum for each of these senses varies from one sentient being to the next. Therefore, a thing may be perceived in an infinite number of ways.

However, being thingness is indeterminate, apart from observation, does this implicate the observer as the sole source of objectivity? In other words, are there indeterminate things in and of themselves?

If so, what does indeterminate objectivity apart from the objectifying observer even mean?

Indeterminate objectivity may indicate potentiality. From the ancient philosophy of indeterminism to the modern scientific theory of quantum indeterminacy, a theory has survived the test of time which supposes the universe is in a resting state, which Kant called noumenal, until sentience interprets it as phenomenal. Being each sentient being is unique or subjective in one's capacity to perceive, the multiplicity of forces, which on a universal scale neutralize each other, are experienced as variables. It is our finiteness, our inability to observe all things at once, which gives us the capacity for objectivity.

If we consider the universe, literally, as all things turned into one, from our perspective, we see the universe as a collection of spatiotemporal phenomena. However, the universe, itself, is unbroken. It has, as it were, a metaphysical nature to it.

For us, the universe is absolute power, omnipotent in its capacity. Yet, overall, the universe is eternally at rest.

The very division religionists see between themselves and God, scientists see between themselves and Nature. With time and the use of semantics, we have taken the science of God and have refashioned it into a science of the world. We have taken that which was once sacred and have made it common. The scientist with all one's learning has denounced the religions of the past as nothing more than myth and superstitions, while failing to realize those myths and superstitions are the very groundwork on which his, or her, profession rests.

Hopefully, not 'all' scientists have done this. Hopefully not even most of them have. Because science is only one method of exploring our experience of reality. And it is a limited one.

There are other methods of investigation, and they can explore aspects of reality that science cannot.

I could not have said it better myself.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,622
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2016 4:35:58 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 9/7/2016 4:30:04 PM, s-anthony wrote:
Groundwork? Hardly. They are considered myths and superstitions because they don't align with reality. We have evolved from the ignorance of religion to the understanding of the world around us. The groundwork was laid when we moved away from believing to thinking, reasoning and applying logic to observations, testing and predicting. None of these things were groundwork from religions.

Ignorance is not sacred.

Without imagination, reality does not exist.

That's just childishly silly.

How can you know those things which are real, if you didn't know those things which weren't?

Quite simple, actually. It's called logic, of which that statement is completely void.

Without ignorance, there is nothing to know. How can you know something without the capacity for not knowing it? In other words, how can you see the light if you have never experienced darkness?

Quite simple, actually. It's called observation.

How can you know something is true without believing it to be true?

Quite simple, actually. It's called understanding, which precludes believing.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Looncall
Posts: 454
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2016 4:36:04 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 9/7/2016 3:44:16 PM, PureX wrote:
At 9/7/2016 2:06:42 PM, s-anthony wrote:
Do things have objectivity in and of themselves, apart from observation, or is observation relative to objectivity?

To answer this, we must consider the mechanics of observation. The means by which we perceive the material world is the physical senses, and the spectrum for each of these senses varies from one sentient being to the next. Therefore, a thing may be perceived in an infinite number of ways.

However, being thingness is indeterminate, apart from observation, does this implicate the observer as the sole source of objectivity? In other words, are there indeterminate things in and of themselves?

If so, what does indeterminate objectivity apart from the objectifying observer even mean?

Indeterminate objectivity may indicate potentiality. From the ancient philosophy of indeterminism to the modern scientific theory of quantum indeterminacy, a theory has survived the test of time which supposes the universe is in a resting state, which Kant called noumenal, until sentience interprets it as phenomenal. Being each sentient being is unique or subjective in one's capacity to perceive, the multiplicity of forces, which on a universal scale neutralize each other, are experienced as variables. It is our finiteness, our inability to observe all things at once, which gives us the capacity for objectivity.

If we consider the universe, literally, as all things turned into one, from our perspective, we see the universe as a collection of spatiotemporal phenomena. However, the universe, itself, is unbroken. It has, as it were, a metaphysical nature to it.

For us, the universe is absolute power, omnipotent in its capacity. Yet, overall, the universe is eternally at rest.

The very division religionists see between themselves and God, scientists see between themselves and Nature. With time and the use of semantics, we have taken the science of God and have refashioned it into a science of the world. We have taken that which was once sacred and have made it common. The scientist with all one's learning has denounced the religions of the past as nothing more than myth and superstitions, while failing to realize those myths and superstitions are the very groundwork on which his, or her, profession rests.

Hopefully, not 'all' scientists have done this. Hopefully not even most of them have. Because science is only one method of exploring our experience of reality. And it is a limited one.

There are other methods of investigation, and they can explore aspects of reality that science cannot.

Please provide concrete examples of these other ways and concrete examples of knowledge that they have produced.
The metaphysicist has no laboratory.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,622
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2016 4:41:26 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 9/7/2016 3:44:16 PM, PureX wrote:
At 9/7/2016 2:06:42 PM, s-anthony wrote:
Do things have objectivity in and of themselves, apart from observation, or is observation relative to objectivity?

To answer this, we must consider the mechanics of observation. The means by which we perceive the material world is the physical senses, and the spectrum for each of these senses varies from one sentient being to the next. Therefore, a thing may be perceived in an infinite number of ways.

However, being thingness is indeterminate, apart from observation, does this implicate the observer as the sole source of objectivity? In other words, are there indeterminate things in and of themselves?

If so, what does indeterminate objectivity apart from the objectifying observer even mean?

Indeterminate objectivity may indicate potentiality. From the ancient philosophy of indeterminism to the modern scientific theory of quantum indeterminacy, a theory has survived the test of time which supposes the universe is in a resting state, which Kant called noumenal, until sentience interprets it as phenomenal. Being each sentient being is unique or subjective in one's capacity to perceive, the multiplicity of forces, which on a universal scale neutralize each other, are experienced as variables. It is our finiteness, our inability to observe all things at once, which gives us the capacity for objectivity.

If we consider the universe, literally, as all things turned into one, from our perspective, we see the universe as a collection of spatiotemporal phenomena. However, the universe, itself, is unbroken. It has, as it were, a metaphysical nature to it.

For us, the universe is absolute power, omnipotent in its capacity. Yet, overall, the universe is eternally at rest.

The very division religionists see between themselves and God, scientists see between themselves and Nature. With time and the use of semantics, we have taken the science of God and have refashioned it into a science of the world. We have taken that which was once sacred and have made it common. The scientist with all one's learning has denounced the religions of the past as nothing more than myth and superstitions, while failing to realize those myths and superstitions are the very groundwork on which his, or her, profession rests.

Hopefully, not 'all' scientists have done this. Hopefully not even most of them have. Because science is only one method of exploring our experience of reality. And it is a limited one.

There are other methods of investigation, and they can explore aspects of reality that science cannot.

Please reveal to the world this new method of investigation that no one other than yourself appears to have any knowledge?
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2016 6:06:27 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
How can you know those things which are real, if you didn't know those things which weren't?

Quite simple, actually. It's called logic, of which that statement is completely void.

How can you know something is logical if you weren't able to know something which is illogical?

Without ignorance, there is nothing to know. How can you know something without the capacity for not knowing it? In other words, how can you see the light if you have never experienced darkness?

Quite simple, actually. It's called observation.

Can you detect a white spot against a white backdrop?

How can you know something is true without believing it to be true?

Quite simple, actually. It's called understanding, which precludes believing.

Are those things which you understand true or false?
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,622
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2016 6:26:32 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 9/7/2016 6:06:27 PM, s-anthony wrote:
How can you know those things which are real, if you didn't know those things which weren't?

Quite simple, actually. It's called logic, of which that statement is completely void.

How can you know something is logical if you weren't able to know something which is illogical?

Simple, that which is logical does not require that which is illogical to show it to be logical.

Without ignorance, there is nothing to know. How can you know something without the capacity for not knowing it? In other words, how can you see the light if you have never experienced darkness?

Quite simple, actually. It's called observation.

Can you detect a white spot against a white backdrop?

Sure, why not?

How can you know something is true without believing it to be true?

Quite simple, actually. It's called understanding, which precludes believing.

Are those things which you understand true or false?

Yes.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2016 8:42:05 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
Simple, that which is logical does not require that which is illogical to show it to be logical.

So, does this mean you have never needed correction?

Are those things which you understand true or false?

Yes.

Why do you believe they are true or false?
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,622
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2016 8:45:00 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 9/7/2016 8:42:05 PM, s-anthony wrote:
Simple, that which is logical does not require that which is illogical to show it to be logical.

So, does this mean you have never needed correction?

It doesn't mean that at all.

Are those things which you understand true or false?

Yes.

Why do you believe they are true or false?

I don't "believe" they are true or false. Believing in things does not make them true or false.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2016 9:24:50 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
Simple, that which is logical does not require that which is illogical to show it to be logical.

So, does this mean you have never needed correction?

It doesn't mean that at all.

If knowing things were not logical wasn't needed, why were you corrected?

Are those things which you understand true or false?

Yes.

Why do you believe they are true or false?

I don't "believe" they are true or false. Believing in things does not make them true or false.

Believing in things might not make them true, in reality, but it does make them true to you.

If you do not believe your understanding is true, why do you have that understanding in the first place?
bulproof
Posts: 25,240
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2016 11:42:15 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 9/7/2016 6:06:27 PM, s-anthony wrote:
How can you know those things which are real, if you didn't know those things which weren't?

Quite simple, actually. It's called logic, of which that statement is completely void.

How can you know something is logical if you weren't able to know something which is illogical?

How can you know something is designed if you don't know anything that is not designed?
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2016 12:37:29 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
How can you know something is designed if you don't know anything that is not designed?

I don't know. I don't believe you can. Tell me, in which way that's possible.
bulproof
Posts: 25,240
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2016 12:40:29 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 9/8/2016 12:37:29 PM, s-anthony wrote:
How can you know something is designed if you don't know anything that is not designed?

I don't know. I don't believe you can. Tell me, in which way that's possible.

Is our existence designed?
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2016 12:49:38 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 9/8/2016 12:40:29 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 9/8/2016 12:37:29 PM, s-anthony wrote:
How can you know something is designed if you don't know anything that is not designed?

I don't know. I don't believe you can. Tell me, in which way that's possible.

Is our existence designed?

For me, meaning is relative. So, that would be yes and no.
bulproof
Posts: 25,240
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2016 1:25:24 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 9/8/2016 12:49:38 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 9/8/2016 12:40:29 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 9/8/2016 12:37:29 PM, s-anthony wrote:
How can you know something is designed if you don't know anything that is not designed?

I don't know. I don't believe you can. Tell me, in which way that's possible.

Is our existence designed?

For me, meaning is relative. So, that would be yes and no.
That is quite simply evasion and therefore meaningless. You have nothing to contribute to this discussion, that's unfortunate but bye for now.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,622
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2016 3:29:21 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/7/2016 9:24:50 PM, s-anthony wrote:
Simple, that which is logical does not require that which is illogical to show it to be logical.

So, does this mean you have never needed correction?

It doesn't mean that at all.

If knowing things were not logical wasn't needed, why were you corrected?

Again, that's not what it means. If something is logical, it can be recognized as such without the need for showing something else is illogical.

Are those things which you understand true or false?

Yes.

Why do you believe they are true or false?

I don't "believe" they are true or false. Believing in things does not make them true or false.

Believing in things might not make them true, in reality, but it does make them true to you.

Why would anyone want to believe something is true when it's not? Isn't that lying to or deluding oneself?

If you do not believe your understanding is true, why do you have that understanding in the first place?

The understanding is self-evident if it is logical, there's no reason to believe.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
PureX
Posts: 1,528
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2016 3:46:35 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/7/2016 4:36:04 PM, Looncall wrote:
At 9/7/2016 3:44:16 PM, PureX wrote:
At 9/7/2016 2:06:42 PM, s-anthony wrote:
Do things have objectivity in and of themselves, apart from observation, or is observation relative to objectivity?

To answer this, we must consider the mechanics of observation. The means by which we perceive the material world is the physical senses, and the spectrum for each of these senses varies from one sentient being to the next. Therefore, a thing may be perceived in an infinite number of ways.

However, being thingness is indeterminate, apart from observation, does this implicate the observer as the sole source of objectivity? In other words, are there indeterminate things in and of themselves?

If so, what does indeterminate objectivity apart from the objectifying observer even mean?

Indeterminate objectivity may indicate potentiality. From the ancient philosophy of indeterminism to the modern scientific theory of quantum indeterminacy, a theory has survived the test of time which supposes the universe is in a resting state, which Kant called noumenal, until sentience interprets it as phenomenal. Being each sentient being is unique or subjective in one's capacity to perceive, the multiplicity of forces, which on a universal scale neutralize each other, are experienced as variables. It is our finiteness, our inability to observe all things at once, which gives us the capacity for objectivity.

If we consider the universe, literally, as all things turned into one, from our perspective, we see the universe as a collection of spatiotemporal phenomena. However, the universe, itself, is unbroken. It has, as it were, a metaphysical nature to it.

For us, the universe is absolute power, omnipotent in its capacity. Yet, overall, the universe is eternally at rest.

The very division religionists see between themselves and God, scientists see between themselves and Nature. With time and the use of semantics, we have taken the science of God and have refashioned it into a science of the world. We have taken that which was once sacred and have made it common. The scientist with all one's learning has denounced the religions of the past as nothing more than myth and superstitions, while failing to realize those myths and superstitions are the very groundwork on which his, or her, profession rests.

Hopefully, not 'all' scientists have done this. Hopefully not even most of them have. Because science is only one method of exploring our experience of reality. And it is a limited one.

There are other methods of investigation, and they can explore aspects of reality that science cannot.

Please provide concrete examples of these other ways and concrete examples of knowledge that they have produced.

Other means of exploring our experience and understanding of existence are art, and philosophy, and religion. We can learn a lot about how we think and feel, both individually and collectively, and how we valuate our experiences with these that we cannot learn using science. Even the scientific process requires some degree of imagination and intuition to help formulate the hypothesis to be tested.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2016 4:52:10 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
For me, meaning is relative. So, that would be yes and no.

That is quite simply evasion and therefore meaningless. You have nothing to contribute to this discussion, that's unfortunate but bye for now.

My point exactly.
bulproof
Posts: 25,240
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2016 4:57:45 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/8/2016 4:52:10 PM, s-anthony wrote:
For me, meaning is relative. So, that would be yes and no.

That is quite simply evasion and therefore meaningless. You have nothing to contribute to this discussion, that's unfortunate but bye for now.

My point exactly.

Wait, wait, fcking wait.
A liberal in Texas, man you've gotta be armed to the teeth. Just jokin' from down under. punch
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2016 5:23:41 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
If knowing things were not logical wasn't needed, why were you corrected?

Again, that's not what it means. If something is logical, it can be recognized as such without the need for showing something else is illogical.

Ok. So, you're telling me you can know those things which are logical even if you don't know those things which aren't?

Then, why are you disagreeing with me?

Why would anyone want to believe something is true when it's not? Isn't that lying to or deluding oneself?

Do you believe everyone knows the truth?

If you do not believe your understanding is true, why do you have that understanding in the first place?

The understanding is self-evident if it is logical, there's no reason to believe.

So, you believe if something is obviously true it requires no belief?
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2016 5:35:19 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/8/2016 4:57:45 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 9/8/2016 4:52:10 PM, s-anthony wrote:
For me, meaning is relative. So, that would be yes and no.

That is quite simply evasion and therefore meaningless. You have nothing to contribute to this discussion, that's unfortunate but bye for now.

My point exactly.

Wait, wait, fcking wait.
A liberal in Texas, man you've gotta be armed to the teeth. Just jokin' from down under. punch

Texas overall may be very conservative but its large cities like Houston, Dallas, Austin, and San Antonio tend to be relatively progressive. I live in Houston. Not everyone in Houston is as progressive as I am, but with a growing minority population, it's getting there.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,622
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2016 5:39:33 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/8/2016 5:23:41 PM, s-anthony wrote:
If knowing things were not logical wasn't needed, why were you corrected?

Again, that's not what it means. If something is logical, it can be recognized as such without the need for showing something else is illogical.

Ok. So, you're telling me you can know those things which are logical even if you don't know those things which aren't?

No, I'm not saying that. I am saying that illogical things do not support the understanding of logical things.

Then, why are you disagreeing with me?

You appear to be claiming that illogical things do indeed support the understanding of logical things, which isn't true.

Why would anyone want to believe something is true when it's not? Isn't that lying to or deluding oneself?

Do you believe everyone knows the truth?

All we have to do is look at the number of religions and ideologies that proclaim truth, yet they don't agree with each other nor can show they are valid in any way.

If you do not believe your understanding is true, why do you have that understanding in the first place?

The understanding is self-evident if it is logical, there's no reason to believe.

So, you believe if something is obviously true it requires no belief?

No, I don't believe in things, I understand that when something is obvious, it does not require a belief simply because understanding precludes belief.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth