How would a person separate any interpretation of their own state of being from self delusion? Why should others believe somebody else's assertions about their interpretations of their own states of being?
Atheists please answer this
- Thread starter Joe K.
- Start date
How would a person separate any interpretation of their own state of being from self delusion? Why should others believe somebody else's assertions about their interpretations of their own states of being?
If a state of being is characterized by certain qualities its quite obvious.
For instance lower states of being are characterized by an inability to control one's senses.
Let's say science is a car and you want to go abroad to another country.
Once at the coastline do you proceed to drive the car into the ocean, or do you look for alternative forms of transport?
jan.
Or how about we pay the toll, and use the bridge, that scientists and engineers built?
We could add a new variable to each and every formula;
$$ G_{0} $$.
It would have to equal zero, so it didn't change any of the results.
Adding God literally adds no value!
If you want to pay money to drive your car into the shores of the pacific ocean that's fine with me
hmm..sounds like this may be a mental,emotional,physical,spiritual thing..
our senses are not just tied to physical (see,hear,smell,taste,touch)
definatley not just to our emotional (love,hate,fear,etc)
spiritual..(faith,trust,compassion)
mental..(the mind,thoughts,..)
what happens when we focus our state of being on just one of those things..
that means the others can have a lower state of being while our attention is on the other..does this come with an inability to control?..if we don't have our attention on it,it is very suceptable to loss of control.
or
How can i control my senses if i can't find them?
If you want to pay money to drive your car into the shores of the pacific ocean that's fine with me
Er, there's a bridge. Missed that, did you?
empiricism = incomplete by definition ... unless you have some wonderful philosophy how a metonymic discipline grants access to something holistic ... hence you are driving your car into the ocean
even if that's a fact, it doesn't change anything ... much like if it is required that a professional scientist not be a moron, your being a moron wouldn't change the parameters of scientific professionalism
empiricism = incomplete by definition ... unless you have some wonderful philosophy how a metonymic discipline grants access to something holistic ... hence you are driving your car into the ocean
let me make it simple for you : science is limited
It pays to remember that - it becomes easier when one remembers exactly what it is that limits the said issue (for a car, usually a road ... granted that stunt car drivers can do a few tricky things .... and for science, the senses, which brings in the whole problem of moving outside of anything metonymic )
it only looks bad when one tries to encompass a world view within those limits - like for instance relegating all issues of transport to cars
We could add a new variable to each and every formula;
$$ G_{0} $$.
It would have to equal zero, so it didn't change any of the results.
Adding God literally adds no value!
but aren't all values expressed in some aspect what we perceive as god making our scientific judgments unlimited...
wouldn't that add value even if it were equal to 0?
Dude, drop the car analogy. You are starting to look hopeless by continuing with it.
just don't try crossing the pacific anytime soon, k?
Like I said. Give up.