Since we were talking about believing what Science says … “science experiments” … concerning anything they have said that also you believe. And you can be assured that Prism hasn’t either. You believe what they say for the exact same reason so many people believed in Jesus in his day - faith in the them. And Science cannot prove or disprove God.
I heard that there was a couple of hundred on the shore, but either way you see my point, I’m sure.
Why would you think they have anything to do with science or what scientists believe? Scientists have probably never heard those questions either. They are serious philosophical questions concerning the nature of existence, ontology. Scientists are technicians, not philosophers.
It is a hypothetical. It isn’t asking what does or doesn’t exist. It is asking if there is anything that you believe does not exist, yet you also believe has affect. And you gave the standard reflex answer: “dream figures”.
Imaged or dreamt characters have no physical existence other than as dreamt images. The images in the mind exist as images. The dream exists, much as the story and film of the story exists, even though the characters are fiction.
No one has yet come up with anything that they believe exists and also has no affect upon anything. The reason is that inherently the idea of existing is synonymous with having affect (or potential affect).
Prism’s proclamation that the association is “Without qualification nonsense” openly displays his shallow egocentric willingness to deny anything for his religion, even if it is to his own favor.
But he hasn’t shown that a perfect sphere ‘can’t exist empirically’. It’s just a coincidence of the particular physical laws that we have that there are no perfect spheres. For all you know mankind will invent a technology to create them next week. And if you want to say such a technology can never be invented, I’m going to need an argument for that.
I could provide that argument, but such is actually irrelevant to his stance. God isn’t a sphere or circle. Who cares if perfect circles can exist? It is just one more of the list of logic fallacies this guy spews.
The most relevant concern is that he doesn’t understand the concept “perfect”, thus his arguments are meaningless. And he refuses to learn because he wants to give the impression of already knowing everything (the preacher at the pulpit).
Okay, I apologize for never having asked you this specifically, James.
Now, how about responding substantively to this part:
[b]Okay, note a particular context in which human value judgments clearly come into conflict. Note how the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein here is no more applicable to human beings than to cats.
Afterwards, we’ll bring the discussion back around to how a technical/existential understanding of this is intertwined in the manner in which you construe the definition/meaning of the Real God:
The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = “The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is”.
What on earth does this mean, James? How is it manifested in your day to day interactions with others? And, in particular, when those interactions precipitate a conflict of some sort.
[/b]
Thus my beef with you is not that you rant foolishly, but that you refuse to being your technical argument [definitional logic] out into the world of actual conflicting human behaviors.
How, for all practical putposes, is the Real God a factor here?
And isn’t the whole point of my argment that, with respect to such things as religion and value judgments, the nature of dasein is “for all practical purposes” embodied in presumption and bias?
In other words, how are your own value judgments and reflections on religion not an embodiment of them?
It means that God is the cause of change. Your Situation is your highest possible God. And your Situation is always changing (although perhaps much slower than you would like, thus “pray to” or rather “seek of” your Situation for help in making it change faster, if that is your desire).
Whatever you prefer or desire to be, humbly seek of (aka “pray to”) the actual, real Truth of your Situation.
In other words, carefully look around and actually pay attention to the details of what is going on around you and adjust what you can toward what you prefer. Often that involves others, sometimes not.
Now doesn’t that relate to your day to day dasein concerns and a relevant “real factor” in any conflicts going on?
But then according to Prism, your Situation is impossible and doesn’t exist.
You best bet is a scientific based technology.
Basically Science do not rely on absolute perfection.
According to Popper, scientific theories are at best polished conjectures.
You tell me at least in theory how can mankind prove an absolutely perfect circle, i.e. totally unconditional perfect circle. How?
Note I had argued a empirical perfect circle is possible when qualified [conditioned] to certain conditions, e.g. ordinary observations, physical measurements, etc. but all these so-claimed perfect circles are qualified, not unqualified.
As I had asked above, show me at least theoretically how can one verify an absolutely perfect circle empirically?
Btw, you are not a “God” who can monopolise the meaning of the word ‘perfect’. Who are you to dictate what ‘perfect’ must mean and that everyone on Earth must obey your meaning.
Note the meanings of Perfect [I have listed this many times], the ones relevant to the OP are in bold, with emphasis on absolute, complete; googledictionary.freecollocation … rd=perfect
Having all the required or desirable elements, qualities, or characteristics; as good as it is possible to be
she strove to be the perfect wife
life certainly isn’t perfect at the moment
Free from any flaw or defect in condition or quality; faultless
the equipment was in perfect condition
Precisely accurate; exact
a perfect circle
Highly suitable for someone or something; exactly right
Gary was perfect for her—ten years older and with his own career
Denoting a way of binding books in which pages are glued to the spine rather than sewn together
Thoroughly trained in or conversant with
she was perfect in French
Absolute; complete (used for emphasis)
a perfect stranger
all that Joseph said made perfect sense to me
(of a number) Equal to the sum of its positive divisors, e.g., the number 6, whose divisors (1, 2, 3) also add up to 6
(of a tense) Denoting a completed action or a state or habitual action that began in the past. The perfect tense is formed in English with have or has and the past participle, as in they have eaten and they have been eating (since dawn) (present perfect), they had eaten (past perfect), and they will have eaten (future perfect)
(of a flower) Having both stamens and carpels present and functional
Denoting the stage or state of a fungus in which the sexually produced spores are formed
(of an insect) Fully adult and (typically) winged
Obviously dictionary meanings are general, but note how perfect is used in the theological and philosophical settings;
‘Perfect’ is used in a theistic context like;
My meaning is ‘perfect’ as used in this OP is based on the above context.
My use of a perfect circle is to illustrate how theists rhetorical stretched [due to psychological compulsion] from the empirical, the empirical possible, to the transcendental illusion which is an impossibility.
Consensus is obviously necessary but most thesis and theories do not gain consensus immediately.
What is critical is do you have any convincing counters to my argument in the OP?
It is not likely I will get consensus perhaps none at all in such a forum with very limited room to explain my argument in more details to convince anyone. I do not expect any consensus via faith, but the fact is for anyone to understand my arguments fully, thoroughly and convincingly, they will have to spent years on Kant, Buddhism, the neurosciences, and others.
My main purpose for the OP is at most to gather as many counters as possible and knock them off as they come.
Nothing can be proven to those who don’t even understand the words.
Hahaha.
Last refuge; … “You’re not God. I don’t have to listen to you!”
No. You listed types … and screwed that up too. Try to learn the difference. I provided a definition for you. You just refuse to learn anything.
Which are the required and desired elements for this case?
What is the flawless condition in this case?
Accurate concerning what in this case?
Suitable for what purpose in this case?
You still haven’t defined what “perfect” actually means, especially in this case. Dictionaries don’t always tell.
And just to let you know once more: [list]The concept of “Perfect” is to exactly match a proposed standard or ideal.[/list:u]
The dictionaries have concurred. They were just a little less definitive. But you still have to state what standard or ideal God is to match in order to be “absolutely perfect”.
Haha. As your reference, you quote someone who is “poorly understood” and merely used the word once. Haha =D>
You have been provided with a dozen “counters”. You choosing to ignore what every person here has been telling you and merely repeating your errors is a sign of something seriously wrong with you, not merely your arguments. If this had been a masters or doctoral thesis, you would have been kicked out long ago. You seriously need to measure up to the bar and preach opinion a lot less. Try actually learning of your mistakes from others … preferably BEFORE you shoot off your mouth with nonsense.
Yet you have failed to “knock down” a single one of the refutations.
Your argument is completely useless.
Learn a little logic. And learn when you have made a mistake.
Your meaning of ‘Perfect’ has a semblance to the dictionary’s meaning, i.e.
but why do you ignore the additional meaning ‘absolute, complete.’ ?
In any case your idea of ‘perfect’ is an impossibility within an empirical-rational reality, i.e.
your “The concept of “Perfect” is to exactly match a proposed standard or ideal.” is not tenable because you cannot get a 100% exact match within empirical elements.
In addition, the term ‘ideal’ imply an empirical-rational impossibility.
Now when you apply your term ‘perfection’ to an absolutely perfect God, it is already an impossibility to start with.
The quality of God as I am claiming is God has an overall quality quality of absolute perfection. As I have shown your term ‘perfection’ is an impossibility within empirical-rational reality.
On top of the quality of absolute perfection, God is attributed as being omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscience and whatever ‘omni’ that a theist assign to his God. Another question how are you to prove these ‘omni’ traits of God within an empirical-rational reality?
Point is whatever traits and qualities are assigned to God, it cannot be lower than being in an absolutely perfect state which I have shown is an impossibility within an empirical rational reality.
As I had asked many times, what other basis of reality [other than on moral grounds, hallucinatory, illusory, psychiatric, theological faith,] can you show me that God is a possibility as real?
How can you be SO stupid?
Poorly understood by others do not mean poorly argued by Descartes.
Many of QM theories are poorly understood by many Physicists and non-Physicists.
You cannot be that ignorant, the term ‘perfect’ is commonly attributed directly and indirectly to God within the theistic community. Just do a google for ‘perfect God’.
I agree perfection is related to something, it need not be an ideal to start with.
Thus when I used the term ‘perfection’ is imply perfection in relation to X [whatever that is].
I had claimed a qualified ‘perfection’ within empirical rational reality is a possibility. e.g. if someone state 1 apple + 1 apple = 2 apples that is a ‘qualified’ perfect answer within an empirical-rational reality.
However if any one insist 1 apple + 1 apple = 2 apples is an ideal perfect answer within an empirical-rational reality, that is an impossibility, e.g. if the apples are of different species, the more accurate answer would be = 1 red apple + 1 green apple.
Now when you attempt to have perfect match to an ideal [which itself is a perfection] then you have double the problem, i.e.
An ideal perfection in relation of an ideal [perfect] X.
In above cases, those sort of perfection presented are impossibilities in an empirical-rational reality.
As I had stated your philosophical thinking it very shallow and narrow. To bring in any semantic justifications in this case is philosophically childish.
When you see two apples the following are true [facts] but qualified to the perspective and conditions;
1 apple + 1 apple = 2 apples - common sense and basic arithmetic.
Existence of 1 green apple + 1 red apple = by color
Existence of 1 granny smith apple + 1 Washington red apple = by variety
Existence of two bundles of molecules, atoms, quarks, etc. - by Science
Existence of X numbers of molecules, atoms, quarks, etc. in motion and in space.
Other valid perspectives …
The point is you cannot deny the truth of the above statements as qualified within the specified perspectives.
Point is these statements could be perfect description of the the qualified truth but they cannot be an absolute perfect truth that is true under all perspectives.
“ideal” = “what is declared” you got to be joking!!!
The rationality is a theist MUST claim absolute perfection for a God by default as I had argued, no theist will want their God to be dominated by another and thus ending up with that inferior God having to kiss the ass of another absolutely perfect God. This is why the term ‘absolutely’ is a necessity in this case to reflect the ontological quality of a perfect God, i.e. “a God than which no greater or more perfect can exists.” This is the super Ace Card all theists must hold.
With the generic ontological principle attributed to God, this state and quality is attributable to any claim for God by any theist.
Thus a theist may claim his God is “the absolutely perfect creator than which no greater nor more perfect creator can exists”.
Note such a claim is made by theists, not me.
What I am claiming is such a God is an impossibility within empirical rational reality.
As I had presented, perfection if any within empirical rationality is always relative thus an absolutely perfect God which MUST exists for a theist [as claimed by thought only] cannot be possible within an empirical-rational reality.
You are imagine your stance and understanding of ‘perfect’ is an Ace Card, but it is actual a dud.
Oh give it a break. You are one of the most shallow new-age drones I have run across at this site. And now, as is often attempted, you claim any concern for the meaning of your words is “just semantics”, because of course we all know that the meanings of your words are arbitrary anyway.
YOU JUST STATED, “When you see two apples”. Thus your (1) isn’t “common sense”, nor arithmetic. It was your hypothetical PREMISE.
Totally, 100% irrelevant to the logic that you saw TWO apples; “When you see two apples…” And whatever details there are concerning the apples are NOT “Perspectives”. They are category item details and irrelevant to the premise.
"Under all perspectives"??? What kind of excuse making bullshit is that?
“Oh if I choose to be a complete jackass idiot and ignore logic, then there might be more or less than two apples. I’m FREE!!! I’m FREE!!”.
The term “absolutely” is redundant. And you STILL haven’t related the word “perfect” to whichever standard or ideal you have in mind. And now you add, “greater”. GREATER THAN WHAT??? GREATER in WHAT WAY?? Greater at DOING WHAT???
Saying “whatever the theist is claiming” (sloughing blame onto the theist) does NOT answer the necessary question. But even worse, you can’t argue against that theist because he never answered it either.
That’s not my point though. There is also the gap between all that you experience from the cradle to the grave [in relationship to the existence of God] and all that you would need to experience in order to demonstrate definitively the impossibility of a God, the God existing.
You are basically in the same boat as the theist. What “I” thinks it knows here and now vs. whatever explanation there is for the existence of Existence itself.
It just seems more reasonable to me that, among mere mortals, there is a greater burden placed on those who make a claim for the existence of something; that, in other words, they are under a greater obligation to demonstrate how and why all rational humans ought to make the same claim.
But: “for all practical purposes” neither party is able to demonstrate that God or No God is the optimal frame of mind.
Yet it gets even trickier than that because such an actual demonstration may have in fact already been accomplished — it just hasn’t gotten around to either you or me.
Here though it seems reasonable to surmise that had God or No God been demonstrated definitively, that is all anyone would be talking about.
From my frame of mind, your own rendition of the “root” here is just one more existential contraption. A subjective leap of faith predicated on a particular set of scholastic assumptions that you make about the nature of human psychology vis a vis all that would need to be known in order to wholly synchronize it with an ontological understanding of Existence itself.
Not unlike the leap that Kant himself made:
And I would remind you that however it might be argued that Kant must be understood here, you either tell the murderer where the woman is hiding or you don’t. And you give us a reason why. Then others can argue the extent to which it is or it is not in sync with whatever reason they imagine that Kant would give, given whatever answer they imagine he would or would not provide to the murderer.
It’s what you do then that counts. And whether you can demonstrate that all rational and virtuous men and women are obligated to do the same.
From my frame of mind, any answer a mere mortal gives in a world sans God is a particular rationalization embedded/embodied in “I” as an existential contraption; and at any particular time and in any particular place out in any particular world historically, culturally and experientially.
From my vantage point, however, this is just an intellectual contraption describing another intellectual contraption.
It is only when one makes an actual attempt to demonstrate how for all practical purposes this would work out in the world of conflicting value judgments [precipitating conflicting behaviors that precipitate actually consequences perceived as either good or bad by any particular individuals] that it really becomes relevant in exploring the existential parameters of the “human condition”.
Thus…
Okay, but: discard Kant’s transcending font, and how are human behaviors not then judged by one or another rendition of humanism? Some from the left, some from the right. But all eventually taking an existential leap of faith to one or another set of political prejudices.
And, for the sociopaths and the nihilists, once the transcending font is dispensed with, everything revolves around one or another self-serving rationalization, or one or another rendition of “show me the money”.
Still, that does not bring you any closer to closing the gap between what you think you know about God/No God here and now and all that would need to be known in order to demonstrate that this is in sync with the optimal or the only rational understanding of Existence itself.
At best you can argue that you are in fact able to explain Existence qua Existence [Being qua Being] but that I am not able to grasp this.
Here I can only imagine you outside an abortion clinic noting the above to those on both sides of this at times ferocious debate/conflict. These folks are in the grip of any number of fierce emotional and psychological reactions. Which, technically, may or may not be described as “existential angst”. And, sure, for some, God settles it. For others one or another secular dogma. But, still, the bottom line remains: What would Kant tell them?
Imagine him broaching the idea of a “net-evil” to them. As though mere mortals in a world sans God can actually calculate that here with any precision. So he takes his own existential leap of faith in concocting his own intellectual contraption God.
Okay, so there is then a gap between rules not raised blindly and out of nowhere and rules that reflect the political prejudices of those in power at any particular historical, cultural and experiential juncture.
Yet Kant is really no better equipped than the rest of us in drawing the lines here. Not without his transcending font.
