Contributions of theistic theory and ritual to theistic perfection

[Crunchy Cat]

Crunchy cat

I only raised it because you brought it up it dilineating the nature of "reality"

?

To what? Your subjective notions of reality?

Nope. Presence of information. If it's consistent, persistent, and non-contradictory then its real.

How does this tally with your statement at the end of this post

I might not have a piece of reality required to see the other pieces. Luminol, fingerprint dusters, hard light cameras. I might not be able to seperate the important information from the unimportant information.

If you are on the murder scene are you not a part of the structure?
Why can't you see the evidence then?

Yep, I am part of the structure. Visibility and inexperience might be the biggest reasons that I can't discover the evidence. An experienced and well tooled detective can probably collect the evidence and present it to me.

Then if there are ultimately no decision s to be made regarding reality an the variety of values it presents, why do you vehemently oppose theism?

I value truth. Theism contradicts truth and supresses its discovery.

Your first sentence doesn't correlate with the second - what to speak of the third - you will have to explain yourself a bit more clearly

It means there are thought processes, not default to humans, that are much more effective finding truth / what is real than how we're genetically programmed.

So if science is ultimately subjective (the only thing real about it is the evidence, not the guesses what the evidence indicates) and religion is ultimately subjective why do you choose one over the other?

I don't think science nor religion are subjective. They are both very real. Religion is a method of human relationship. Science is a method of asking reality questions.

I think the entire point is either being missed or you're arguing for the sake of it. I'll exemplify. If I wake up and there is a giant brightly glowing rose growing out of the ceiling and looking me right in the face then I am left with something I am really experiencing. 10 seconds later the rose fades away. I notice that the rose has no reflection off of anything. Now I put it to the test.

IS IT CONSISTENT?
* Roses of that size have never been found on earth.
* Roses don't grow out of ceilings.
* Roses don't grow overnight.
ANSWER: NO

IS IT PERSISTENT?
* The rose is gone.
* There are no leaves, dirt, pedals around.
* The ceiling remains untouched.
ANSWER: NO

IS IT NON-CONTRADICTORY?
* Roses don't glow.
* Roses don't fade away.
* Photons do reflect and the roses did not.
ANSWER: NO

It's a spectacular failure of the reality test... in other words an utterly subjective experience.

 

[lightgigantic]

Crunchy cat

The plurality of your definitions are a bit fatiguing to follow
But you've given enough here

IS IT CONSISTENT?
* Roses of that size have never been found on earth.
* Roses don't grow out of ceilings.
* Roses don't grow overnight.
ANSWER: NO

(so the general principle here is that it must be consistent with YOUR understanding of what people have and have not located)

IS IT PERSISTENT?
* The rose is gone.
* There are no leaves, dirt, pedals around.
* The ceiling remains untouched.
ANSWER: NO

(So the genral principle here is that it must persist according to YOUR current levels of perception - or to call back the detective analogy, consistent to YOUR faith (or YOUR faith in what generates the public consensus of an acceptable authority) in who constitutes an authority for establishing evidence

IS IT NON-CONTRADICTORY?
* Roses don't glow.
* Roses don't fade away.
* Photons do reflect and the roses did not.
ANSWER: NO

(So the general principle here is that it must be contradictory to YOUR understanding of how something works and doesn't work - or alternatively YOUR perception on who is an authority to determine how something does or doesn't work)

Of course choosing a glowing supernatural rose is a bit of a stawman - it would be more interesting to see how these general principles you apply would function in a more pactical example - for instance a highschool drop out could maintain his stance that the notion of an electron is not consistent, persistent and non -contradictory by using the exact same general principles you utilise to determine reality

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Crunchy cat

The plurality of your definitions are a bit fatiguing to follow
But you've given enough here

Drink coffe. T'will help.

(so the general principle here is that it must be consistent with YOUR understanding of what people have and have not located)

No. Is just consistent.

(So the genral principle here is that it must persist according to YOUR current levels of perception - or to call back the detective analogy, consistent to YOUR faith (or YOUR faith in what generates the public consensus of an acceptable authority) in who constitutes an authority for establishing evidence

Just persistent.

(So the general principle here is that it must be contradictory to YOUR understanding of how something works and doesn't work - or alternatively YOUR perception on who is an authority to determine how something does or doesn't work)

Just non-contradictory.

Of course choosing a glowing supernatural rose is a bit of a stawman - it would be more interesting to see how these general principles you apply would function in a more pactical example - for instance a highschool drop out could maintain his stance that the notion of an electron is not consistent, persistent and non -contradictory by using the exact same general principles you utilise to determine reality

The glowing rose was a hypnogogic hallucination I had a while back. It was quite cool consequently and an extreme example (a real one though). Of course I don't know how the high-school drop could declare electrons as non-consistent, non-persistent, and contradictory if he really performed a reality test.

 

[lightgigantic]

Crunchy Cat

The glowing rose was a hypnogogic hallucination I had a while back. It was quite cool consequently and an extreme example (a real one though). Of course I don't know how the high-school drop could declare electrons as non-consistent, non-persistent, and contradictory if he really performed a reality test

Thats the point - he really thinks he is

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Crunchy Cat





Thats the point - he really thinks he is

Then he should have evidence.

 

[lightgigantic]

Then he should have evidence.

He does - its all consistent, persistent and non-contradictory too.
Ask him and he will tell you there is no evidence that electrons exist.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

He does - its all consistent, persistent and non-contradictory too.
Ask him and he will tell you there is no evidence that electrons exist.

If he is turning the onus of evidence on a claimer of electrons existence then that is fine. That evidence can be shown. What this does is provides contradiction to his position (i.e. reality is contradicting him)... which means that his assertion never passed the reality test.

 

[lightgigantic]

Crunchy Cat

If he is turning the onus of evidence on a claimer of electrons existence then that is fine. That evidence can be shown.

The problem is that he has other authorities of evidence, so if you are thinking of calling upon egg head proffessors and their "full of crap" books it won't work

What this does is provides contradiction to his position (i.e. reality is contradicting him)... which means that his assertion never passed the reality test.

It passes his own reality test - whichis just as consistent, persistent and non-contradictory as yours.

He might say its only your "egghead" reality that is contradicting his reality

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Crunchy Cat

The problem is that he has other authorities of evidence, so if you are thinking of calling upon egg head proffessors and their "full of crap" books it won't work

That is a problem. He should be using reality.

It passes his own reality test - whichis just as consistent, persistent and non-contradictory as yours. He might say its only your "egghead" reality that is contradicting his reality

It sounds like he performed an authority test and not a reality test. Evidence would always speak for itself. He can ignore the evidence and that immediately means he's not interested in truth (or a learning disability).

 

[lightgigantic]

Crunchy Cat

That is a problem. He should be using reality.

He is - he says "show me where your so called electrons are"

It sounds like he performed an authority test and not a reality test.

Hey don't complain now - its the same reality test you carried out to determine there is no god

Evidence would always speak for itself.

He's got eyes in his head and they are speaking perfectly clear to him

He can ignore the evidence and that immediately means he's not interested in truth (or a learning disability).

This is the precise stance of an atheist

As far as coming to the point of understanding God, that will never happen by logic alone – but – if logical misconceptions are cleared about God it may enable a person to hear about the subject clearly, and that can awaken curiosity, or scientific enquiry. We have no responsibility to prove something to a person who refuses to participate in scientific enquiry (although we may give them a prasadam sweet ball). Logic is useful when dealing with a person who has a scientific mind and is willing to investigate and participate. To use logic with a person who is fundamentally irrational is useless.

There is so much testimony from great philosophers and scientists about a category (God) that explains all other categories, and if a person is not interested it seems to indicate that a person is non-philosophical – in other words if the category gets too big that it makes me small – well- that’s enough philosophy, that’s enough science, that’s enough investigation – they lose their nerve – their philosophical enquiry gets blunted by envy.

It’s just like buying a car – if you refuse to go for a test drive yet insist that the salesman logically prove to you that the car runs nicely he will say “Sorry we don’t do business that way”.