God Is Self-contradictory. Hence, God Doesn’t Exist.

[AAF]

grover: " No, it isn't very clear and simple. Things are only clear and simple to simple-minded fundamentalists like yourself. Let's think about the weight of 2 different objects. A red cube, and a smaller blue cube, both made of the same material. If you hold them in your hand you can tell the relative weights of the cubes. This sensation of weight is, according to you, "nothing more than a tiny electric current inside the human brain." Which according to you is subjective and therefore does not reflect an objective reality. But, we can put the two different cubes on a scale and discover that the subjective experience of a difference in weight does in fact correspond to an objectively verifiable difference. Bottom line: the fact that something may be an electric current in the brain does not prove that there is no objective phenomenon. (i.e., subjective does not equal hallucination as you would like to have it) ".


Re: So now, you think I'm a fundamentalist? Well, I'm flattered; and I only hope that fundamentalists everywhere will take your word for it and listen to me patiently as one of their own! In the meantime, I gonna punish you for it and call you 'everything-goes-muddle-headed mystic'; fair? But let's examine first your new 'weight-based' argument. Two colored cubes (red & blue) are 'made of the same material'. You lift the red cube and feel its weight. You do the same with the blue cube and feel its weight. Your brain compares the two feelings and tells you the two weights are different. To verify it, you bring the balance and weigh the two cubes. And voila, your brain is right; the two weights are different. That is very briefly your scenario; correct? Now, look at it closely! Weight is quantitative, measurable, tangible, real, verifiable, and objective. And the scales can prove it. But you have no way of making independent judgements about subjective experiences; otherwise they would be objective experiences and no longer classified as subjective. Your argument, therefore, is full of holes and would not cut it. Since quite simply, you're confusing objective categories with subjective categories and nothing more. Very briefly, weight is part of physics; but Denys' Indescribable God is not an objective part of anything. Scrap Him; grover; Denys' God is not good for sane minds!

=================================================

grover: " They do have corresponding objects in reality. Only hallucinations don't have corresponding objects in reality. Subjective does not equal hallucination ".


Re: If they have corresponding objects in reality, then they are no longer subjective experiences. By the way, the hallucinatory perceptions of the human senses are labels and pointers to real and imaginary things. That is their main function. Therefore, you should make the distinction very clear in your mind between the nature of these pointers and the nature of the things being pointed to by these mental pointers. And in any case, Denys' God is subjective, unreal, hallucinatory, illusory, and a mere empty label with nothing to label or point to in the real world. And so it's (to use your word) 'insane' to believe in the actual existence of such a phantom and silly fairy tale of the Middle Ages. Sober up and embrace modernity, grover!


=================================================

grover: " Nop your just being simplistic and trying to reduce all subjective experience to hallucination ".


Re: Simplicity is one of the strongest pointers to the truth. Or as the People of the New World say, "keep it simple, stupid"! However, Denys' God is certainly hallucinatory, indescribable, unverifiable, unreal, illusory, quite anthropomorphic and very subjective. Scrap Him, for goodness' sake!


=================================================

grover: " 1) Hallucinations do not have corresponding objects in reality. Not all subjective experiences are hallucinations which means that some subjective experiences do have corresponding objects in reality. You have an indefensible position - you literally are arguing at this point that there is no meaningful distinction between a hallucination a subjective experience. It's absurd. 2) You are also saying that anthropomorphic equals having no corresponding object in reality. That is also insane. Anthropomorphic means "Having the characteristics of a human being. For example, an anthropomorphic robot has a head, arms and legs." Stop trying to change the definition. It's intellectually dishonest ".


Re: Once again, whenever a mental experience has a real object, it's automatically classified as objective. Keep the subjective and the objective categories apart, for goodness' sake! Moreover, it's blatantly absurd and 'cockamamie' to deny or to try to deny the obvious and very simple fact that Denys' God (and the God of the mystics in general) ought to be the ultimate anthropomorphic; since such a mythical entity can never be realized or found anywhere, except inside the confused imagination of those mystics. This sort of God, therefore, is the sole creation of the hyperactive human imagination.


=================================================

grover: " The presence of a neuralogic occurrence does not equal hallucination ".


Re: But the occurrence of a mental image out of thin air must be classified as hallucinatory. Denys came up with the perception of his Indescribable God out of nothing at all. Therefore, (Denys' God = mental hallucination).


=================================================

grover: " No, your entire argument hinges on two false beliefs;
1) All subjective experience is hallucination. 2) "Anthropomorphic" and "subjective" are synonymous terms, which can be used interchangeably. Of course, neither of these things are true ".


Re: One more time, subjective experiences can have no corresponding objects in the real world. That is the reason for labeling them as subjective in the first place. Keep the subjective and the objective apart for Jove's sake! Why should Denys' God be labeled as anthropomorphic? Very simple! Denys created His God out of nothing. Denys was human. Therefore, Denys' God is anthropomorphic. The situation, here, is exactly the same as that of the 'Old Center' of the Universe. Humans live on Earth. Humans assume that Earth is at the Center of the Universe. Therefore, the earth-centered universe is an anthropomorphic notion of the Cosmos. Now, grover, I really want you to think very hard about this. The sun is the most import thing in the Solar System; and it makes its importance known to everybody everyday. The President of United States never gets tired of showing up on time. The Queen of the United Kingdom celebrates Her birthday with all pageantry every year. The Pope is all over Rome. Now consider very soberly this! Why does God make Himself indescribable to Denys and to you? Why is the Almighty nowhere to be seen? Why is the Supreme Ruler of the Universe hiding Himself and His presence fanatically and ruthlessly and meticulously from His devoted human worshipers? The answer to those questions is quite clear. God does not exist. That is the answer. Forget about Him, grover! He does not exist. Get over it and grew up! God, quite simply, can't possibly exist anywhere, even in your tender and loving heart. Sorry for spoiling your reassuring fantasies; but that is the truth.

 

[grover]

grover: " No, it isn't very clear and simple. Things are only clear and simple to simple-minded fundamentalists like yourself. Let's think about the weight of 2 different objects. A red cube, and a smaller blue cube, both made of the same material. If you hold them in your hand you can tell the relative weights of the cubes. This sensation of weight is, according to you, "nothing more than a tiny electric current inside the human brain." Which according to you is subjective and therefore does not reflect an objective reality. But, we can put the two different cubes on a scale and discover that the subjective experience of a difference in weight does in fact correspond to an objectively verifiable difference. Bottom line: the fact that something may be an electric current in the brain does not prove that there is no objective phenomenon. (i.e., subjective does not equal hallucination as you would like to have it) ".


Re: So now, you think I'm a fundamentalist? Well, I'm flattered; and I only hope that fundamentalists everywhere will take your word for it and listen to me patiently as one of their own! In the meantime, I gonna punish you for it and call you 'everything-goes-muddle-headed mystic'; fair? But let's examine first your new 'weight-based' argument. Two colored cubes (red & blue) are 'made of the same material'. You lift the red cube and feel its weight. You do the same with the blue cube and feel its weight. Your brain compares the two feelings and tells you the two weights are different. To verify it, you bring the balance and weigh the two cubes. And voila, your brain is right; the two weights are different. That is very briefly your scenario; correct? Now, look at it closely! Weight is quantitative, measurable, tangible, real, verifiable, and objective. And the scales can prove it. But you have no way of making independent judgements about subjective experiences; otherwise they would be objective experiences and no longer classified as subjective. Your argument, therefore, is full of holes and would not cut it. Since quite simply, you're confusing objective categories with subjective categories and nothing more. Very briefly, weight is part of physics; but Denys' Indescribable God is not an objective part of anything. Scrap Him; grover; Denys' God is not good for sane minds!

=================================================

grover: " They do have corresponding objects in reality. Only hallucinations don't have corresponding objects in reality. Subjective does not equal hallucination ".


Re: If they have corresponding objects in reality, then they are no longer subjective experiences. By the way, the hallucinatory perceptions of the human senses are labels and pointers to real and imaginary things. That is their main function. Therefore, you should make the distinction very clear in your mind between the nature of these pointers and the nature of the things being pointed to by these mental pointers. And in any case, Denys' God is subjective, unreal, hallucinatory, illusory, and a mere empty label with nothing to label or point to in the real world. And so it's (to use your word) 'insane' to believe in the actual existence of such a phantom and silly fairy tale of the Middle Ages. Sober up and embrace modernity, grover!


=================================================

grover: " Nop your just being simplistic and trying to reduce all subjective experience to hallucination ".


Re: Simplicity is one of the strongest pointers to the truth. Or as the People of the New World say, "keep it simple, stupid"! However, Denys' God is certainly hallucinatory, indescribable, unverifiable, unreal, illusory, quite anthropomorphic and very subjective. Scrap Him, for goodness' sake!


=================================================

grover: " 1) Hallucinations do not have corresponding objects in reality. Not all subjective experiences are hallucinations which means that some subjective experiences do have corresponding objects in reality. You have an indefensible position - you literally are arguing at this point that there is no meaningful distinction between a hallucination a subjective experience. It's absurd. 2) You are also saying that anthropomorphic equals having no corresponding object in reality. That is also insane. Anthropomorphic means "Having the characteristics of a human being. For example, an anthropomorphic robot has a head, arms and legs." Stop trying to change the definition. It's intellectually dishonest ".


Re: Once again, whenever a mental experience has a real object, it's automatically classified as objective. Keep the subjective and the objective categories apart, for goodness' sake! Moreover, it's blatantly absurd and 'cockamamie' to deny or to try to deny the obvious and very simple fact that Denys' God (and the God of the mystics in general) ought to be the ultimate anthropomorphic; since such a mythical entity can never be realized or found anywhere, except inside the confused imagination of those mystics. This sort of God, therefore, is the sole creation of the hyperactive human imagination.


=================================================

grover: " The presence of a neuralogic occurrence does not equal hallucination ".


Re: But the occurrence of a mental image out of thin air must be classified as hallucinatory. Denys came up with the perception of his Indescribable God out of nothing at all. Therefore, (Denys' God = mental hallucination).


=================================================

grover: " No, your entire argument hinges on two false beliefs;
1) All subjective experience is hallucination. 2) "Anthropomorphic" and "subjective" are synonymous terms, which can be used interchangeably. Of course, neither of these things are true ".


Re: One more time, subjective experiences can have no corresponding objects in the real world. That is the reason for labeling them as subjective in the first place. Keep the subjective and the objective apart for Jove's sake! Why should Denys' God be labeled as anthropomorphic? Very simple! Denys created His God out of nothing. Denys was human. Therefore, Denys' God is anthropomorphic. The situation, here, is exactly the same as that of the 'Old Center' of the Universe. Humans live on Earth. Humans assume that Earth is at the Center of the Universe. Therefore, the earth-centered universe is an anthropomorphic notion of the Cosmos. Now, grover, I really want you to think very hard about this. The sun is the most import thing in the Solar System; and it makes its importance known to everybody everyday. The President of United States never gets tired of showing up on time. The Queen of the United Kingdom celebrates Her birthday with all pageantry every year. The Pope is all over Rome. Now consider very soberly this! Why does God make Himself indescribable to Denys and to you? Why is the Almighty nowhere to be seen? Why is the Supreme Ruler of the Universe hiding Himself and His presence fanatically and ruthlessly and meticulously from His devoted human worshipers? The answer to those questions is quite clear. God does not exist. That is the answer. Forget about Him, grover! He does not exist. Get over it and grew up! God, quite simply, can't possibly exist anywhere, even in your tender and loving heart. Sorry for spoiling your reassuring fantasies; but that is the truth.

No, your entire argument hinges on two false beliefs;
1) All subjective experience is hallucination.
2) "Anthropmorphic" and "subjective" are synonymous terms which can be used interchangeably.

Of course, neither of these things are true.

 

[grover]

grover: " No, it isn't very clear and simple. Things are only clear and simple to simple-minded fundamentalists like yourself. Let's think about the weight of 2 different objects. A red cube, and a smaller blue cube, both made of the same material. If you hold them in your hand you can tell the relative weights of the cubes. This sensation of weight is, according to you, "nothing more than a tiny electric current inside the human brain." Which according to you is subjective and therefore does not reflect an objective reality. But, we can put the two different cubes on a scale and discover that the subjective experience of a difference in weight does in fact correspond to an objectively verifiable difference. Bottom line: the fact that something may be an electric current in the brain does not prove that there is no objective phenomenon. (i.e., subjective does not equal hallucination as you would like to have it) ".


Re: So now, you think I'm a fundamentalist? Well, I'm flattered; and I only hope that fundamentalists everywhere will take your word for it and listen to me patiently as one of their own! In the meantime, I gonna punish you for it and call you 'everything-goes-muddle-headed mystic'; fair? But let's examine first your new 'weight-based' argument. Two colored cubes (red & blue) are 'made of the same material'. You lift the red cube and feel its weight. You do the same with the blue cube and feel its weight. Your brain compares the two feelings and tells you the two weights are different. To verify it, you bring the balance and weigh the two cubes. And voila, your brain is right; the two weights are different. That is very briefly your scenario; correct? Now, look at it closely! Weight is quantitative, measurable, tangible, real, verifiable, and objective. And the scales can prove it. But you have no way of making independent judgements about subjective experiences;

Exactly wrong. The subjective experience is correct. The red cube does in fact weigh more than the blue. All the scale has done is objectively proven that the subjective belief (that the red cube weighs more than the blue cube. The scale has merely provided objective evidence of the subjective. The subjective was never incorrect or hallucination. On the contrary, it was accurate and realistic. What we are talking about is whether or not all subjective experience is hallucination (which it clearly isn't). Not whether or not objective evidence can be provided in some instances of that which subjectively is known to be true.

otherwise they would be objective experiences and no longer classified as subjective. Your argument, therefore, is full of holes and would not cut it. Since quite simply, you're confusing objective categories with subjective categories and nothing more.

No, all I'm doing is proving you wrong in your belief that "subjective equals hallucination."

Very briefly, weight is part of physics; but Denys' Indescribable God is not an objective part of anything. Scrap Him; grover; Denys' God is not good for sane minds!

Yes, but what is under question here is whether or not subjective experience is hallucination. It isn't. Stop saying it is.

=================================================

grover: " They do have corresponding objects in reality. Only hallucinations don't have corresponding objects in reality. Subjective does not equal hallucination ".

Re: If they have corresponding objects in reality, then they are no longer subjective experiences.
By the way, the hallucinatory perceptions of the human senses are labels and pointers to real and imaginary things. That is their main function. Therefore, you should make the distinction very clear in your mind between the nature of these pointers and the nature of the things being pointed to by these mental pointers. And in any case, Denys' God is subjective, unreal, hallucinatory, illusory,

Stop treating these terms as if they are synonyms with subjective.



=================================================

grover: " Nop your just being simplistic and trying to reduce all subjective experience to hallucination ".


Re: Simplicity is one of the strongest pointers to the truth. Or as the People of the New World say, "keep it simple, stupid"! However, Denys' God is certainly hallucinatory, indescribable, unverifiable, unreal, illusory, quite anthropomorphic and very subjective. Scrap Him, for goodness' sake!

No ,it isn't anthropomorpic and subjective is not a synonym for hallucination.


=================================================

grover: " 1) Hallucinations do not have corresponding objects in reality. Not all subjective experiences are hallucinations which means that some subjective experiences do have corresponding objects in reality. You have an indefensible position - you literally are arguing at this point that there is no meaningful distinction between a hallucination a subjective experience. It's absurd. 2) You are also saying that anthropomorphic equals having no corresponding object in reality. That is also insane. Anthropomorphic means "Having the characteristics of a human being. For example, an anthropomorphic robot has a head, arms and legs." Stop trying to change the definition. It's intellectually dishonest ".

Re: Once again, whenever a mental experience has a real object, it's automatically classified as objective.

No, objective simply means capable of being verified by a third-person party. That's it. You seem to be claiming that if something can't be proven by a third person part it must auomatically be untrue. That's quite an assumption. You're a fanatical devotee of a cult of objectivity that has convinced you that your subjective experience, your very being, is of no concern and of no significance in the universe.

Keep the subjective and the objective categories apart, for goodness' sake! Moreover, it's blatantly absurd and 'cockamamie' to deny or to try to deny the obvious and very simple fact that Denys' God (and the God of the mystics in general) ought to be the ultimate anthropomorphic; since such a mythical entity can never be realized or found anywhere, except inside the confused imagination of those mystics. This sort of God, therefore, is the sole creation of the hyperactive human imagination.

No, it has nothing to do with imagination. In fact they say it cannot be imagined.


=================================================




=================================================

grover: " No, your entire argument hinges on two false beliefs;
1) All subjective experience is hallucination. 2) "Anthropomorphic" and "subjective" are synonymous terms, which can be used interchangeably. Of course, neither of these things are true ".


Re: One more time, subjective experiences can have no corresponding objects in the real world. That is the reason for labeling them as subjective in the first place. Keep the subjective and the objective apart for Jove's sake!

No, a person can have a subjective experience of an objective phenomenon. All that onjective means is something that can be verified by third person means. That's it. There are nothing anywhere that says only the objectively proavable can be true.

Why should Denys' God be labeled as anthropomorphic? Very simple! Denys created His God out of nothing. Denys was human. Therefore, Denys' God is anthropomorphic.

You're just being stupid. By this logic anything a human thinks of is anthropomophic. It completely destroys any meaning the word could have.

The situation, here, is exactly the same as that of the 'Old Center' of the Universe. Humans live on Earth. Humans assume that Earth is at the Center of the Universe. Therefore, the earth-centered universe is an anthropomorphic notion of the Cosmos.

Please explain how exaclty this is the same? This just shows that humans anthropmorhise things. It does not mean that humans are incapble of not anthropomorphising things. It does not change the fact that Denys God is not anthropomorphic. The fundamentalist view of God is an anthropomorphism of God.

Now, grover, I really want you to think very hard about this. The sun is the most import thing in the Solar System; and it makes its importance known to everybody everyday. The President of United States never gets tired of showing up on time. The Queen of the United Kingdom celebrates Her birthday with all pageantry every year. The Pope is all over Rome. Now consider very soberly this! Why does God make Himself indescribable to Denys and to you? Why is the Almighty nowhere to be seen? Why is the Supreme Ruler of the Universe hiding Himself and His presence fanatically and ruthlessly and meticulously from His devoted human worshipers? The answer to those questions is quite clear. God does not exist.

No dumbass, it's because God isn't anthropomorphic. If God were like a human he could show himself. Let me explain it to you - Fundamentalist Christians think that Jesus is God, and therefore they also believe that not only could God show himself but that someday very soon he will show himself. BUt remeber we are talking about Denys conception of God - Denys God is not anthropomorphic which is why it can't just show itself like the Fundamentalist God Jesus. If Jesus were real he could show himself because he is anthropomorphic. If Denys God is real it couldn't show itself becasue it isn't anthropomorphic. Get it?

That is the answer. Forget about Him, grover! He does not exist. Get over it and grew up! God, quite simply, can't possibly exist anywhere, even in your tender and loving heart. Sorry for spoiling your reassuring fantasies; but that is the truth.

You have accomplished nothing. You can't even get it through your thick skull that not all people think of God as being anthropomorphic. Christian Fundamentalists think that Jesus is God - Jesus is very clearly anthropomorphic. Denys God is not anthropomorhic. I agree with you that an anthropomorphic God probably does not exist. I disagree with your mistaken belief that all people think of God as being anthropomorphic and I disagree with your belief that a non-anthropomorhpic conception of God is easily dismissed.
------------------------------------------------------
Fundamentalsits are people that are incapable of taking in information that does not conform with their preconceived notions and have absolutely certainty that their beliefs are correct. To others their beliefs actually appear
overly-simplified and narrow. You are a fundamentalist.

 

[AAF]

:bawl:




grover: "Exactly wrong. The subjective experience is correct. The red cube does in fact weigh more than the blue. All the scale has done is objectively proven that the subjective belief (that the red cube weighs more than the blue cube. The scale has merely provided objective evidence of the subjective. The subjective was never incorrect or hallucination. On the contrary, it was accurate and realistic. What we are talking about is whether or not all subjective experience is hallucination (which it clearly isn't). Not whether or not objective evidence can be provided in some instances of that which subjectively is known to be true ".


Re: You have no chance whatsoever of making independent judgements about subjective experiences; otherwise they would be objective experiences and no longer classified as subjective. Furthermore, the hallucinatory perceptions of the human senses are labels and pointers to real and imaginary things. That is their job. Therefore, you should make the distinction very clear between the nature of these pointers and the nature of the things being pointed to by these mental pointers. Your argument is full of holes and would not hold water at all. Since quite simply, you're mixing up objective categories with subjective categories and nothing more.


=================================================

grover: " No, all I'm doing is proving you wrong in your belief that "subjective equals hallucination" ".


Re: You got it all wrong; grover! Denys' God is completely hallucinatory to the point of being indescribable. You can't use weights and red and blue cubes to justify such an unmitigated hallucination of your old Denys. That 'poor' guy was just hallucinating and delusional. That is all. There is nothing else in it.


=================================================

grover: "Yes, but what is under question here is whether or not subjective experience is hallucination. It isn't. Stop saying it is ".


Re: Does that make you happy? Good! Every sensation ever felt by the human brain is hallucinatory by its very nature. That is the final scientific verdict on this issue. Are all hallucinations bad? Not really! Most hallucinations are caused inside the human brain by direct and indirect interactions with actual objects in the surrounding environment. And hence, those normal hallucinations (so to speak) are very useful as indicators and labels and pointers to those surroundings, in order for the sensing entity (e.g. the human being) to find the way and navigate safely through the world. However, psychiatric hallucinations of the Denys type can be menacing and life-threatening, if they're accompanied by the strong belief in their reality and the complete absence of the critical faculties and left untreated for too long. In short, mysticism can kill you!


=================================================

grover: " Stop treating these terms as if they are synonyms with subjective ".


Re: Don't be 'wrong-headed'! The hallucinatory perceptions of the human senses are labels and pointers to real and imaginary things. That is their main function. Therefore, you have to make the distinction very clear between the nature of these sensations and the nature of the things being pointed to by these mental pointers.


=================================================

grover: " No ,it isn't anthropomorphic and subjective is not a synonym for hallucination ".


Re: Yes, they are; and you can do nothing about it! Denys' God is the ultimate anthropomorphic. That is because a mythical entity of this sort can never be realized or found anywhere, except inside the brain of Denys and the brains of the followers of Denys. This type of God, certainly, is the sole creation of Denys' hyperactive imagination. Scrap Him; grover; for the sake of logic and reason and your 'fabulous' mind!


=================================================

grover: " No, objective simply means capable of being verified by a third-person party. That's it. You seem to be claiming that if something can't be proven by a third person part it must automatically be untrue. That's quite an assumption. You're a fanatical devotee of a cult of objectivity that has convinced you that your subjective experience, your very being, is of no concern and of no significance in the universe ".


Re: Good one; I'm doing my best to free you from the irrational cult of Denys; and in return, you want me to go gaga and mystic and subjective! I have no cult. I have only grover to preach to and to straighten out. Cults are for Denys-minded people only. And once again, whenever a mental experience has a real object, it's automatically classified as objective. Keep the subjective and the objective categories apart, for goodness' sake!


=================================================

grover: "No, it has nothing to do with imagination. In fact they say it cannot be imagined ".


Re: Yes, it is! That is precisely the distinguishing characteristic of this sort of psychiatric hallucinations; they can be felt; but they can't be described, exactly as Denys' indescribable hallucination about the nature of his God.


=================================================

grover: "No, a person can have a subjective experience of an objective phenomenon. All that objective means is something that can be verified by third person means. That's it. There are nothing anywhere that says only the objectively provable can be true ".


Re: Denys is the first person. You're the second person. So now, in your view, it takes only one more person to testify that Denys' God is indescribable to make Him objective? Nice cooking; 'Juicy Head'! If it's impossible to verify something is real, then you can't say it's real. And you can never prove its reality and actual existence on mere ignorance. Stop it; the fallacy of arguing from ignorance would not make Denys' God real:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance


=================================================

grover: "You're just being stupid. By this logic anything a human thinks of is anthropomorphic. It completely destroys any meaning the word could have ".


Re: Don't blame it on me, 'sleepy head'! You're the one who is mixing up the objective and the subjective all the time. I guess you have no choice. Good arguments and Denys' silly fairy of the Middle Ages just can't go together; right? Why should Denys' God be labeled as anthropomorphic? Very easy! Denys created His God out of nothing at all. Denys was human. Therefore, Denys' God is anthropomorphic. The situation, here, is exactly the same as that of the 'Old Center' of the Universe. Humans live on Earth. Humans assume that Earth is at the Center of the Universe. Therefore, the earth-centered universe is an anthropomorphic notion of the Cosmos.


=================================================

grover: "Please explain how exactly this is the same? This just shows that humans anthropmorhise things. It does not mean that humans are incapable of not anthropomorphising things. It does not change the fact that Denys God is not anthropomorphic. The fundamentalist view of God is an anthropomorphism of God ".


Re: Do you think if I explain it one more time, it will set you free from Denys' cult? Well, it doesn't hurt; let's try it! The original point is this. No non-anthropomorphic notion of God is logically possible. And that is because God is not available as an external object for direct inspection and investigation. Accordingly, humans must make the notion of their God mentally and on their own and without any help of objective input of any kind. Such a notion of a non-present entity is necessarily subjective and anthropomorphic. It's subjective, because its object is not available. And it's anthropomorphic, because it's the sole creation of the human brain. And that is it; 'sleepy head'!


=================================================

grover: "No dumbass, it's because God isn't anthropomorphic. If God were like a human he could show himself. Let me explain it to you - Fundamentalist Christians think that Jesus is God, and therefore they also believe that not only could God show himself but that someday very soon he will show himself. But remember we are talking about Denys conception of God - Denys God is not anthropomorphic which is why it can't just show itself like the Fundamentalist God Jesus. If Jesus were real he could show himself because he is anthropomorphic. If Denys God is real it couldn't show itself because it isn't anthropomorphic. Get it "?


Re: Every notion of God is necessarily anthropomorphic 'dumbass'! There is no external entity for God to inspect and investigate. Humans must make their concept of 'who or what God is' freely and their own and without any assistance from objective reality. Now, is the 'God' of the Christian Fundamentalists more anthropomorphic than the 'God' of Denys and the Mystics? Not exactly! At least, the Fundamentalists can point to something external and outside of their heads. Denys' God, by comparison, is so subjective and so anthropomorphic that you can't even extract a notion of Him out of Denys' brain. Surely, you think being in a human body is the most anthropomorphic for God. But it is not. Theologically, God is free to take any shape or form He wants. He can appear as 'Jesus' to the Christians or the reigning 'Emperor' to the Japanese or completely indescribable 'entity' to the Mystics. It makes little or no difference at all. But the fact remains. Humans always make the concept of God mentally and freely on their own and with no external input whatsoever. The notion of God, therefore, is both subjective and anthropomorphic.
[A] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalist_Christianity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_mysticism


=================================================

grover: "You have accomplished nothing. You can't even get it through your thick skull that not all people think of God as being anthropomorphic. Christian Fundamentalists think that Jesus is God - Jesus is very clearly anthropomorphic. Denys God is not anthropomorphic. I agree with you that an anthropomorphic God probably does not exist. I disagree with your mistaken belief that all people think of God as being anthropomorphic and I disagree with your belief that a non-anthropomorphic conception of God is easily dismissed ".


Re: Actually, I'm the one who so far is unable to get it through your 'thick skull'! Humans have no choice but to make their concepts of God mentally and freely and on their own and with no external help whatsoever. The Christian concept of God is anthropomorphic, but so is Denys' concept of God.
[1] http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9035662/Christian-fundamentalism
[2] http://www.gloriana.nu/mystic.html


=================================================

grover: " Fundamentalists are people that are incapable of taking in information that does not conform with their preconceived notions and have absolutely certainty that their beliefs are correct. To others their beliefs actually appear overly-simplified and narrow. You are a fundamentalist ".


Re: If that is so, then 'grover' must be a Fundamentalist out and out; since it's very difficult to ram any simple fact through his unbelievably 'thick skull'! However, I prefer to call you 'everything-goes-muddle-headed mystic'; is that okay with you?
http://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-r...iewID=R2CNE69872DGU9&displayType=ReviewDetail

 

[grover]

Re: You have no chance whatsoever of making independent judgements about subjective experiences;
otherwise they would be objective experiences and no longer classified as subjective. Furthermore, the hallucinatory perceptions of the human senses are labels and pointers to real and imaginary things.

Yes, when they are pointers to imaginary things that is when they are called hallucinatory. Stop using the term hallucinatory as if it is synonymopus with subjective.

That is their job. Therefore, you should make the distinction very clear between the nature of these pointers and the nature of the things being pointed to by these mental pointers. Your argument is full of holes and would not hold water at all. Since quite simply, you're mixing up objective categories with subjective categories and nothing more.

No, I'm not. You are treating the term "subjective" as if it is it is a synonym with hallucination.

grover: " No, all I'm doing is proving you wrong in your belief that "subjective equals hallucination" ".


Re: You got it all wrong; grover! Denys' God is completely hallucinatory to the point of being indescribable.

The color blue is undescribable as are all other qualia (use wiki).

You can't use weights and red and blue cubes to justify such an unmitigated hallucination of your old Denys.

The red cube was to refute your claim that seeingthe color blue is a "hallucination." When one has a subjective experience of the red cube being heavier than blue cube a this is objectively provable. WHat I am demonstrating with this is that the subjective expereince is giving us real, truthful, information about the universe. It isn't hallucination. Therefore just because blue can not be described does not mean it is hallucination - it is accurate information about the universe.

That 'poor' guy was just hallucinating and delusional. That is all. There is nothing else in it.

You stating your opinion as if it were a fact does not make it a fact.

grover: "Yes, but what is under question here is whether or not subjective experience is hallucination. It isn't. Stop saying it is ".

Re: Does that make you happy? Good! Every sensation ever felt by the human brain is hallucinatory by its very nature.

That is just ridiculous.

That is the final scientific verdict on this issue.

Wow, you've really gone off the deep end haven't you. Where exactly is this "final scientific verdict" published. Give me a sicentific journal. In fact, give me a scientific journal that even supports the hypothesis that subjective experience+hallucination.

Are all hallucinations bad? Not really! Most hallucinations are caused inside the human brain by direct and indirect interactions with actual objects in the surrounding environment. And hence, those normal hallucinations (so to speak) are very useful as indicators and labels and pointers to those surroundings, in order for the sensing entity (e.g. the human being) to find the way and navigate safely through the world.

The liberty you take with redifing words destroys all intelligible meaning the words have. You are just trying to play a semantic game instead of admitting the obvious fact that Deny's God isn't anthropomorphic and that
"subjective" and "hallucinatory" are synonomous terms that can be used interchangeably. Your inability to conced these obvious points is no different than a Christian Fundamentalist that refuses to concede that the Earth is more than 6,000 years old.

However, psychiatric hallucinations of the Denys type can be menacing and life-threatening, if they're accompanied by the strong belief in their reality and the complete absence of the critical faculties and left untreated for too long. In short, mysticism can kill you!

I am literally laughing out loud now. Mysticism can kill you! hahahaha!!! Hey Kids, just say no to mysticism.

grover: " Stop treating these terms as if they are synonyms with subjective ".

Re: Don't be 'wrong-headed'! The hallucinatory perceptions of the human senses are labels and pointers to real and imaginary things. That is their main function. Therefore, you have to make the distinction very clear between the nature of these sensations and the nature of the things being pointed to by these mental pointers.

Yes, I know. The finger pointing is different than the thing pointed at. This is actually something zen buddhists (mystics) often point out. I'm very clear on this point, I'm not sure you are.

grover: " No ,it isn't anthropomorphic and subjective is not a synonym for hallucination ".


Re: Yes, they are; and you can do nothing about it!

Once again, you are stating your opinion as fact which requires no rational explanation. You are a true fundamentalist.

Denys' God is the ultimate anthropomorphic. That is because a mythical entity of this sort can never be realized or found anywhere, except inside the brain of Denys and the brains of the followers of Denys.

You can't be found anywhere except inside your brain.

This type of God, certainly, is the sole creation of Denys' hyperactive imagination. Scrap Him; grover; for the sake of logic and reason and your 'fabulous' mind!

Scrap yourself.

grover: " No, objective simply means capable of being verified by a third-person party. That's it. You seem to be claiming that if something can't be proven by a third person part it must automatically be untrue. That's quite an assumption. You're a fanatical devotee of a cult of objectivity that has convinced you that your subjective experience, your very being, is of no concern and of no significance in the universe ".


Re: Good one; I'm doing my best to free you from the irrational cult of Denys; and in return, you want me to go gaga and mystic and subjective!

No, I don't want you to do anything except to stop playing semantic games. Besides, where have I once said that I believe 100% in Deny's God? I am merely poiting out the obvious fact that his conception of God is not anthropomorphic. And you, like a true fundamentalist, have an inablitity to accept this simple and obvious fact becasue it goes against your preconceived notion. You, like all fundamentalists, need 100% certainty. Belief that all conceptions of God are eanthropomorphic provided you with this certainty becaue anthropomorphic conceptions of God are easily dismissed providing you with the existential security that a simplistic-black-and-white universe-that-you-have-complety-figured-out provides.

I have no cult. I have only grover to preach to and to straighten out. Cults are for Denys-minded people only. And once again, whenever a mental experience has a real object, it's automatically classified as objective. Keep the subjective and the objective categories apart, for goodness' sake!

No, you don't even know what these terms mean apparently. From wiki: "Thus, reconciliation of the objective with references to it involves not simply the object-subject relation, but at least one external observer and the possibility of discourse, even where communication is limited to ostensive definition (pointing)." Italics mine. What this means essentially is that the objective is capable of being verified by third-person means. (note: look up the term "third person" as you seem to be unclear on the meaning of this term as well.)

grover: "No, it has nothing to do with imagination. In fact they say it cannot be imagined ".


Re: Yes, it is! That is precisely the distinguishing characteristic of this sort of psychiatric hallucinations; they can be felt; but they can't be described, exactly as Denys' indescribable hallucination about the nature of his God.

You cannot describe any qualia.

Re: Denys is the first person. You're the second person. So now, in your view, it takes only one more person to testify that Denys' God is indescribable to make Him objective? Nice cooking; 'Juicy Head'!

No, look up the definition of "third-person." Seriously, is english your second language or are you jsut stupid juicy head?

If it's impossible to verify something is real, then you can't say it's real.

Of course you can just don't expect anyone else to believe you.

And you can never prove its reality and actual existence on mere ignorance. Stop it; the fallacy of arguing from ignorance would not make Denys' God real:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

I am not arguing that because Deny's God has not been proven false it must be true. I am arguing that Deny's God is not anthropomorphic. Not once have I said Denys God is real. I Hve just provide refuations that Denys God cant be real.


=================================================

grover: "You're just being stupid. By this logic anything a human thinks of is anthropomorphic. It completely destroys any meaning the word could have ".


Re: Don't blame it on me, 'sleepy head'! You're the one who is mixing up the objective and the subjective all the time. I guess you have no choice. Good arguments and Denys' silly fairy of the Middle Ages just can't go together; right? Why should Denys' God be labeled as anthropomorphic? Very easy! Denys created His God out of nothing at all.

Exacly, Anthropomorphic does not mean "created out of nothing."

Denys was human. Therefore, Denys' God is anthropomorphic.

All fish live in the ocean
Whales live in the ocean
Therefore whales must be fish.

The situation, here, is exactly the same as that of the 'Old Center' of the Universe. Humans live on Earth. Humans assume that Earth is at the Center of the Universe. Therefore, the earth-centered universe is an anthropomorphic notion of the Cosmos.

No, the definition of anthropomorphic from wiki is "Anthropormorphism is the attribution of uniquely human characteristics and qualities to nonhuman beings, inanimate objects, or natural or supernatural phenomena." I think the word you are looking for in regards to earth is "anthropocentric." Is english your second language? I'm increasingly starting to think that it is. Also from the wiki article: "The Greek philosopher Xenophanes (570–480 BCE) said that "the greatest god" resembles man "neither in form nor in mind." There is a whole section of "condemnation" of anthropomorphism in religion in the wiki article.


=================================================

Re: Do you think if I explain it one more time, it will set you free from Denys' cult? Well, it doesn't hurt; let's try it! The original point is this. No non-anthropomorphic notion of God is logically possible.

Well, see Deny's quote. Xenophanes, and section in Wiki article.

And that is because God is not available as an external object for direct inspection and investigation.

Well, it is a simple fact that many philosophers and people do not have an anthropomorphic conception of God. We are not discussing whether or not God can be proven to exist. We are discussing whether or not all conceptions of God are anthropomorphi. They're not -stop saying they are. Your denial of facts is as bad as any Christian Fundamantalist.

Accordingly, humans must make the notion of their God mentally and on their own and without any help of objective input of any kind. Such a notion of a non-present entity is necessarily subjective and anthropomorphic.

Subjective and anthropomorphic are not synonyms!

It's subjective, because its object is not available.

Well, I agree that there is not single object that is God.

And it's anthropomorphic, because it's the sole creation of the human brain. And that is it; 'sleepy head'!

THAT IS NOT THE DEFINITION OF ANTHROPOMORPHIC. PERIOD.


=================================================

Re: Every notion of God is necessarily anthropomorphic 'dumbass'!

No, it't not. You seem to be saying if a human thinks it it is anthropomorphic. THATS NOT THE DEFINTION. Fruthermore, E=MC2 has not object either, by your use of the word you would have to say that E=MC2 is anthropomorphic too.

There is no external entity for God to inspect and investigate.

That does not make it anthropomorphic.

Humans must make their concept of 'who or what God is' freely and their own and without any assistance from objective reality. Now, is the 'God' of the Christian Fundamentalists more anthropomorphic than the 'God' of Denys and the Mystics? Not exactly!

Yes, it is.

At least, the Fundamentalists can point to something external and outside of their heads.

BUT YOU JUST GOT DONE SAYING THAT GOD HAS TO BE ANTHROPOMORPHIC BECAUSE THERE IS NO ENTITY TO INSPECT AND INVESTIGATE.

Denys' God, by comparison, is so subjective and so anthropomorphic that you can't even extract a notion of Him out of Denys' brain.

That is not the definition of anthropomorphic.

Surely, you think being in a human body is the most anthropomorphic for God. But it is not.

Yes, by definition it is.

Theologically, God is free to take any shape or form He wants. He can appear as 'Jesus' to the Christians or the reigning 'Emperor' to the Japanese or completely indescribable 'entity' to the Mystics.

Yes, the first two are anthropomorphic. Mystics do not even call God an "entity."

It makes little or no difference at all.

And you have the audacity to accuse me of being muddle-headed. Anthropomorphic had a ery precise definition.

But the fact remains. Humans always make the concept of God mentally and freely on their own and with no external input whatsoever. The notion of God, therefore, is both subjective and anthropomorphic.

Anthropormpic does not mean subjective.


=================================================

Re: Actually, I'm the one who so far is unable to get it through your 'thick skull'! Humans have no choice but to make their concepts of God mentally and freely and on their own and with no external help whatsoever. The Christian concept of God is anthropomorphic, but so is Denys' concept of God.
[1] http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9035662/Christian-fundamentalism
[2] http://www.gloriana.nu/mystic.html

You are apparently completely clueless to the definition of anthropmorphic.


=================================================

grover: " Fundamentalists are people that are incapable of taking in information that does not conform with their preconceived notions and have absolutely certainty that their beliefs are correct. To others their beliefs actually appear overly-simplified and narrow. You are a fundamentalist ".


Re: If that is so, then 'grover' must be a Fundamentalist out and out; since it's very difficult to ram any simple fact through his unbelievably 'thick skull'! However, I prefer to call you 'everything-goes-muddle-headed mystic'; is that okay with you?

I find it comical that you think you can change the definitions of words to mean what ever you want(i.e. anything goes), and have the audacity to accuse me of being muddle-headed.

 

[AAF]

grover: " Yes, when they are pointers to imaginary things that is when they are called hallucinatory. Stop using the term hallucinatory as if it is synonymous with subjective ".


Re: But Denys' God is one of those imaginary things. 'Hallucinatory', therefore, is the right term; correct?


=================================================

grover: " No, I'm not. You are treating the term "subjective" as if it is it is a synonym with hallucination ".


Re: Yes, you are! You are treating the two terms as if they were a world apart. Obviously, the idea of 'intersecting circles' is alien to you!


=================================================

grover: " The color blue is indescribable as are all other qualia (use wiki) ".


Re: Not exactly correct! Since it's clear that primary qualities are describable and objective. Only secondary attributes (e.g. colors & odors) are subjective and indescribable.


=================================================

grover: " The red cube was to refute your claim that seeing the color blue is a "hallucination." When one has a subjective experience of the red cube being heavier than blue cube this is objectively provable. What I am demonstrating with this is that the subjective experience is giving us real, truthful, information about the universe. It isn't hallucination. Therefore just because blue can not be described does not mean it is hallucination - it is accurate information about the universe ".


Re: As usual, you're just confusing the color of the cube with the object of the cube. The color of the cube is in the brain, but the cube itself is in the real world. How many times I have to repeat this to you? The sensation of the color blue is only in the human brain. It has no objective existence outside of the human brain.


=================================================

grover: " You stating your opinion as if it were a fact does not make it a fact ".


Re: Denys was, simply, hallucinating about the nature of God. Any psychiatrist can tell you that.


=================================================

grover: " That is just ridiculous ".


Re: That is the truth!


=================================================

grover: " Wow, you've really gone off the deep end haven't you. Where exactly is this "final scientific verdict" published. Give me a scientific journal. In fact, give me a scientific journal that even supports the hypothesis that subjective experience + hallucination ".


Re: I gave them to you earlier; and you didn't even bother to click on them.


=================================================

grover: " The liberty you take with redefining words destroys all intelligible meaning the words have. You are just trying to play a semantic game instead of admitting the obvious fact that Denys' God isn't anthropomorphic and that "subjective" and "hallucinatory" are synonymous terms that can be used interchangeably. Your inability to concede these obvious points is no different than a Christian Fundamentalist that refuses to concede that the Earth is more than 6,000 years old ".


Re: The 'liberty you take'? The pot is calling the kettle 'sooty'; that is what is! By your own admission, Denys' God cannot even be described in words. It's, therefore, hallucinatory and subjective and anthropomorphic. That is all. There is nothing else in it. However, those 'Christian Fundamentalists' appear to have been a 'pain in the neck' for you. Is it only because of their 'sibling rivalry' with the Christian Mystics?


=================================================

grover: " I am literally laughing out loud now. Mysticism can kill you! hahahaha!!! Hey Kids, just say no to mysticism ".


Re: Of course, Mysticism can kill you. Just check out its history! So many Mystics have met untimely death, over the years, because of self-neglect, self-mutilation, fasting, political misjudgment, or sheer madness.


=================================================

grover: " Yes, I know. The finger pointing is different than the thing pointed at. This is actually something zen buddhists (mystics) often point out. I'm very clear on this point, I'm not sure you are ".


Re: It is not only the finger pointing, which is different from the thing pointed to; but it's also the finger itself.


=================================================

grover: " Once again, you are stating your opinion as fact which requires no rational explanation. You are a true fundamentalist ".


Re: Do you think so? Well, then I'm a 'hard-headed' Fundamentalist; and you're a 'muddle-headed' Mystic; right? I can live with that!


=================================================

grover: " You can't be found anywhere except inside your brain ".


Re: Don't be 'silly'! It is not you. It's your notion of God that cannot be found anywhere, except inside your brain.


=================================================

grover: " Scrap yourself ".


Re: What is that supposed to mean? Dump your critical faculty; and go mystic; go gaga? I guess not! The only thing, here, that you should scrap out of hand is Denys' ludicrous idea about the nature of God.


=================================================

grover: " No, I don't want you to do anything except to stop playing semantic games. Besides, where have I once said that I believe 100% in Denys' God? I am merely pointing out the obvious fact that his conception of God is not anthropomorphic. And you, like a true fundamentalist, have an inability to accept this simple and obvious fact because it goes against your preconceived notion. You, like all fundamentalists, need 100% certainty. Belief that all conceptions of God are eanthropomorphic provided you with this certainty because anthropomorphic conceptions of God are easily dismissed providing you with the existential security that a simplistic-black-and-white universe-that-you-have-complety-figured-out provides ".


Re: Are you saying, now, that you're making all this noise, for all this time, to defend Denys' God; and yet you don't really believe in Him? Okay; A "100% belief in Denys' God" is too much, even for a mystic; but that is not what I said. I said only that you appear to be a member of the Denys' Cult; and that is it. Also, the Mystic conception of God is much, much, much easier to dismiss than the Fundamentalist definition of God. Just ask SnakeLord about it! I'm, certainly, lucky to have you instead of his 'God Squad'; you're more open-minded and nice!


=================================================

grover: " No, you don't even know what these terms mean apparently. From wiki: "Thus, reconciliation of the objective with references to it involves not simply the object-subject relation, but at least one external observer and the possibility of discourse, even where communication is limited to ostensive definition (pointing)." Italics mine. What this means essentially is that the objective is capable of being verified by third-person means. (note: look up the term "third person" as you seem to be unclear on the meaning of this term as well.) ".


Re: You're just getting confused once again. The 'object-subject' relation is quite different from the 'objective-subjective' dichotomy, under discussion, here. No matter how badly you need it, you could never find the subjective matters of your 'conscious mind' in the objective world. The subjective categories and the objective categories are very different. Keep the two categories of those things apart, please!


=================================================

grover: " You cannot describe any qualia ".


Re: Do you mean the subjective ones, or the objective ones? Be more specific!


=================================================

grover: " No, look up the definition of "third-person." Seriously, is english your second language or are you just stupid juicy head "?


Re: I don't see any great 'Shakespeare' in you either, 'Juicy Head'! Now, what are you trying to say? Does the phrase 'third person', as used by you, in this context, mean the 'third member of a queue'? Or does it mean the grammatical term for (he, she, it, & they). Be more specific!


=================================================

grover: " Of course you can just don't expect anyone else to believe you ".


Re: I look forward to have all the 'Christian Fundamentalists' on my side and to leave only 'Denys', the Mystic, on your side!


=================================================

grover: " I am not arguing that because Denys' God has not been proven false it must be true. I am arguing that Denys' God is not anthropomorphic. Not once have I said Denys God is real. I have just provide refutations that Denys God can't be real ".


Re: But you said that the 'anthropomorphic God' is easy to dismiss. And that is why you're insisting that "Denys' God is non-anthropomorphic". But He is, really, anthropomorphic; and you can't even get a clear notion of Him out of Denys' brain. The two (i.e. his brain & his God) are inseparable. And it just can't get more anthropomorphic and subjective than that!


=================================================

grover: " Exactly, Anthropomorphic does not mean "created out of nothing" ".


Re: Why not? The main problem with many of your claims is that you're basing them upon incomplete definitions of the technical terms. You're picking and choosing some portions of them and omitting and deleting the other portions. For example, you happily accept the parts of the term 'anthropomorphic' related to the attributes of the 'human form and the human body'. And at the same time, you reject the portions of the same definition related to the mental attributes and the purposefulness of actions and the implicit human self-interest in making up freely the notions of gods.


=================================================

grover: " All fish live in the ocean
Whales live in the ocean
Therefore whales must be fish ".


Re: Yours is wrong! This is the right one:
· Every living species in the ocean is aquatic.
· Fish & whales live in the ocean.
· Therefore, all the fish and whales in the ocean must be classified as aquatic.
Likewise:
· Every definition made without reference to reality is subjective.
· Every definition of God is made without reference to reality.
· Therefore, every definition of God is subjective.


=================================================

grover: " No, the definition of anthropomorphic from wiki is "Anthropomorphism is the attribution of uniquely human characteristics and qualities to non-human beings, inanimate objects, or natural or supernatural phenomena." I think the word you are looking for in regards to earth is "anthropocentric." Is english your second language? I'm increasingly starting to think that it is. Also from the wiki article: "The Greek philosopher Xenophanes (570–480 BCE) said that "the greatest god" resembles man "neither in form nor in mind." There is a whole section of "condemnation" of anthropomorphism in religion in the wiki article ".


Re: You have to admit; if the English language were an Alzheimer-Stricken Old Lady, still she would have recognized me on sight! Unluckily for 'grover', the word 'anthropomorphic' is Greek. No wonder, you're having with it such a hard time! And yes, 'anthropocentric' is nice; but it is not a term of theology. That is because theology as a whole is anthropocentric anyway. And once again, you're picking only one portion of the definition. Raise your head; and widen your horizon for Denys' sake! Very briefly, humans make the imaginary entities called 'gods' without any reference to anything objective. Humans make those imaginary entities freely and from within, not for the sake of those entities per se, but for the glorification of themselves and to fulfil their needs and to serve their self-interest. Those imaginary entities, therefore, must be anthropomorphic in every respect.


=================================================

grover: " Well, see Denys' quote. Xenophanes, and section in Wiki article ".


Re: Xenophanes (570–480 BCE) claimed that "the greatest god" resembles man "neither in form nor in mind":
http://www.hypatia-lovers.com/AncientGreeks/Section07.html
So what? Suppose, for a moment, that he was right! Would that make his "greatest god" non-anthropomorphic, in your opinion? Open your eyes! His imaginary "greatest god" can still resemble man in so many other respects: behavior, soul, sense of purpose, freewill, sense of justice, sense of right and wrong, love, compassion, gratitude, imagination, consciousness, conscience, taste, love of beauty, taking notice of human beings, desire to live, and so.


=================================================

grover: " Well, it is a simple fact that many philosophers and people do not have an anthropomorphic conception of God. We are not discussing whether or not God can be proven to exist. We are discussing whether or not all conceptions of God are anthropomorphic. They're not -stop saying they are. Your denial of facts is as bad as any Christian Fundamentalist ".


Re: I think, now, I have a clear picture of what is going on inside the heads of your 'philosophers'! They are not opposing the anthropomorphism of God for logical or philosophical or theological reasons. They are only using anthropomorphism as a negative term in partisan and cultist propaganda against their chief rivals, the 'Christian Fundamentalists'. For them (you included), God is only anthropomorphic, if He resides in the body of a human being; right? Well, I agree that is anthropomorphic; but beside it, there are many ways for God to be anthropomorphic without being in a human body.


=================================================

grover: " Subjective and anthropomorphic are not synonyms "!


Re: It's also clear that 'subjective' is not a negative word in your case; and you just love it; correct? Good for you! They are not synonymous; I agree; but subjective and anthropomorphic entities can interact and have cause-effect relationships. For instance, the subjective part of the human mind has the responsibility of making up the subjective definitions of anthropomorphic entities.


=================================================

grover: " Well, I agree that there is not single object that is God ".


Re: That is right! There is not one single real object named 'God'.


=================================================

grover: " THAT IS NOT THE DEFINITION OF ANTHROPOMORPHIC. PERIOD ".


Re: Yes, it is! If 'anthropoids' come up with some entity without reference to nature, then that imaginary entity of theirs must be anthropomorphic.


=================================================

grover: " No, it's not. You seem to be saying if a human thinks it is anthropomorphic. THAT'S NOT THE DEFINTION. Furthermore, E=MC2 has not object either, by your use of the word you would have to say that E=MC2 is anthropomorphic too ".


Re: Clearly, that 'Energy' thing in the Equation of Albert Einstein has (Mass & Speed of Light) as its real objects. By contrast, the definition of God by Denys can have no actual references of this sort.


=================================================

grover: " That does not make it anthropomorphic ".


Re: Yes, it does! And this is how. Human beings always look at themselves, and rightly so, as the most noble thing in the natural world. Human beings, also, consider God the highest and the most noble anywhere. But they have no real object to use as a reference in this regard. It follows, therefore, that human beings must define every higher entity explicitly or implicitly in terms of their well-known noble character. And hence, that higher entity is anthropomorphic.


=================================================

grover: " Yes, it is ".


Re: Of course, it is!


=================================================

grover: " BUT YOU JUST GOT DONE SAYING THAT GOD HAS TO BE ANTHROPOMORPHIC BECAUSE THERE IS NO ENTITY TO INSPECT AND INVESTIGATE ".


Re: There are so many ways for expressing the same thing!


=================================================

grover: " That is not the definition of anthropomorphic ".


Re: If you can't get a definition of God out of Denys' brain, then his God must be anthropomorphic, regardless of how the writers of the 'wikipedia' choose to express it.


=================================================

grover: " Yes, by definition it is ".


Re: Of course, it is!


=================================================

grover: " Yes, the first two are anthropomorphic. Mystics do not even call God an "entity." ".


Re: Don't be selective! Mystics too, just like the Christians and the Japanese, have no choice but to make their God anthropomorphic.


=================================================

grover: " And you have the audacity to accuse me of being muddle-headed. Anthropomorphic had a very precise definition ".


Re: And you have the audacity to call me a 'Jesus-loving, God-fearing, so-compassionate, & very-nice' Fundamentalist! Of course, 'anthropomorphic' is very precise; the ancient Greeks were a bunch of geniuses!


=================================================

grover: " Anthropomorphic does not mean subjective ".


Re: 'anthropomorphic' itself is very subjective. And it can't be otherwise.


=================================================

grover: " You are apparently completely clueless to the definition of anthropomorphic ".


Re: You're just picky! The definition of anthropomorphism is a whole-integrated package. Take it all; or leave it all!


=================================================

grover: " I find it comical that you think you can change the definitions of words to mean what ever you want(i.e. anything goes), and have the audacity to accuse me of being muddle-headed ".


Re: It seems on the face of it, you find the anthropomorphism of Denys' God very aggravating; true? Okay; you are not 'muddle-headed'. You're, in fact, a 'hard-nosed, very-fussy, hard-to-please, & quite-tough' soldier of the Skeptical Crisis of Modernity:
http://www.artsci.lsu.edu/voegelin/EVS/Michael Gillespie.htm

 

[grover]

grover: " Yes, when they are pointers to imaginary things that is when they are called hallucinatory. Stop using the term hallucinatory as if it is synonymous with subjective ".

Re: But Denys' God is one of those imaginary things. 'Hallucinatory', therefore, is the right term; correct?

No, you have yet to demonstrate that Deny's God is imaginary. YO ustating your opinion as fact does not make it so. Second of all, what we are really discussing is whether or not it is anthropomorphic not whether a final philospohpical proof can be provided of whether or not it is real.

grover: " No, I'm not. You are treating the term "subjective" as if it is it is a synonym with hallucination ".


Re: Yes, you are! You are treating the two terms as if they were a world apart. Obviously, the idea of 'intersecting circles' is alien to you!

No, I am merely saying they are not synonyms because you have repeatedly tried to treat them as such.

grover: " The color blue is indescribable as are all other qualia (use wiki) ".


Re: Not exactly correct! Since it's clear that primary qualities are describable and objective. Only secondary attributes (e.g. colors & odors) are subjective and indescribable.

So, what does your comment have to do with what I said?

grover: " The red cube was to refute your claim that seeing the color blue is a "hallucination." When one has a subjective experience of the red cube being heavier than blue cube this is objectively provable. What I am demonstrating with this is that the subjective experience is giving us real, truthful, information about the universe. It isn't hallucination. Therefore just because blue can not be described does not mean it is hallucination - it is accurate information about the universe ".


Re: As usual, you're just confusing the color of the cube with the object of the cube. The color of the cube is in the brain, but the cube itself is in the real world.

But the only cube you have access to is the one created by your brain.

How many times I have to repeat this to you? The sensation of the color blue is only in the human brain.

The sensation of weight is only in the human brain as well. How many times do I have to repeat this to you?

It has no objective existence outside of the human brain.

How do you know?

grover: " You stating your opinion as if it were a fact does not make it a fact ".


Re: Denys was, simply, hallucinating about the nature of God. Any psychiatrist can tell you that.

So psychiatrists are suddenly the final authorities on whether or not God exists? And they all are in total agreement?

grover: " That is just ridiculous ".


Re: That is the truth!

It's really just your opinion.

grover: " Wow, you've really gone off the deep end haven't you. Where exactly is this "final scientific verdict" published. Give me a scientific journal. In fact, give me a scientific journal that even supports the hypothesis that subjective experience + hallucination ".


Re: I gave them to you earlier; and you didn't even bother to click on them.

You gave no such final scientific verdict because no such final scientific verdict exists. Again, you are making fale claims to absolute certainty that only findamentalists make.

grover: " The liberty you take with redefining words destroys all intelligible meaning the words have. You are just trying to play a semantic game instead of admitting the obvious fact that Denys' God isn't anthropomorphic and that "subjective" and "hallucinatory" are synonymous terms that can be used interchangeably. Your inability to concede these obvious points is no different than a Christian Fundamentalist that refuses to concede that the Earth is more than 6,000 years old ".


Re: The 'liberty you take'? The pot is calling the kettle 'sooty'; that is what is! By your own admission, Denys' God cannot even be described in words. It's, therefore, hallucinatory and subjective and anthropomorphic.

Not being able to describe something in words is not the definition of hallucinatory, subjective, and most certainly not anthropomorphic. You are apparently completely clueless as to the definitions of these words. Find me one source on the internet that includes "not being able to describe in words" as part of the definitions of those terms. You are not allowed to just redefine words.

That is all. There is nothing else in it.

Just your opinion.

However, those 'Christian Fundamentalists' appear to have been a 'pain in the neck' for you. Is it only because of their 'sibling rivalry' with the Christian Mystics?

And around what does this rivalry revolve? (hint: one group believes in an anthropomorphic God and the other does not).

grover: " I am literally laughing out loud now. Mysticism can kill you! hahahaha!!! Hey Kids, just say no to mysticism ".


Re: Of course, Mysticism can kill you. Just check out its history! So many Mystics have met untimely death, over the years, because of self-neglect, self-mutilation, fasting, political misjudgment, or sheer madness.

Give me some examples of actual mystics.

grover: " Once again, you are stating your opinion as fact which requires no rational explanation. You are a true fundamentalist ".


Re: Do you think so? Well, then I'm a 'hard-headed' Fundamentalist; and you're a 'muddle-headed' Mystic; right? I can live with that!

No, you're just a fundamentalist.

grover: " You can't be found anywhere except inside your brain ".


Re: Don't be 'silly'! It is not you. It's your notion of God that cannot be found anywhere, except inside your brain.

So, you can be found outside your brain?

grover: " Scrap yourself ".


Re: What is that supposed to mean? Dump your critical faculty; and go mystic; go gaga? I guess not! The only thing, here, that you should scrap out of hand is Denys' ludicrous idea about the nature of God.

That means that if you can't provide objective evidence of yourself you must be a hallucination in which case you should scrap yourself.

grover: " No, I don't want you to do anything except to stop playing semantic games. Besides, where have I once said that I believe 100% in Denys' God? I am merely pointing out the obvious fact that his conception of God is not anthropomorphic. And you, like a true fundamentalist, have an inability to accept this simple and obvious fact because it goes against your preconceived notion. You, like all fundamentalists, need 100% certainty. Belief that all conceptions of God are eanthropomorphic provided you with this certainty because anthropomorphic conceptions of God are easily dismissed providing you with the existential security that a simplistic-black-and-white universe-that-you-have-complety-figured-out provides ".


Re: Are you saying, now, that you're making all this noise, for all this time, to defend Denys' God;

No, stay on track. We are discussing whether or not Denys conception of God is anthropomorpic or not. Not whether or not it is real.

and yet you don't really believe in Him? Okay; A "100% belief in Denys' God" is too much, even for a mystic; but that is not what I said. I said only that you appear to be a member of the Denys' Cult; and that is it. Also, the Mystic conception of God is much, much, much easier to dismiss than the Fundamentalist definition of God. Just ask SnakeLord about it! I'm, certainly, lucky to have you instead of his 'God Squad'; you're more open-minded and nice!

Again, the issue under discussion is whether or not it is anthropomorphic.

grover: " No, you don't even know what these terms mean apparently. From wiki: "Thus, reconciliation of the objective with references to it involves not simply the object-subject relation, but at least one external observer and the possibility of discourse, even where communication is limited to ostensive definition (pointing)." Italics mine. What this means essentially is that the objective is capable of being verified by third-person means. (note: look up the term "third person" as you seem to be unclear on the meaning of this term as well.) ".


Re: You're just getting confused once again. The 'object-subject' relation is quite different from the 'objective-subjective' dichotomy, under discussion, here. No matter how badly you need it, you could never find the subjective matters of your 'conscious mind' in the objective world. The subjective categories and the objective categories are very different. Keep the two categories of those things apart, please!

Why do you think that objects dont actually have colors but do have weights?

grover: " You cannot describe any qualia ".


Re: Do you mean the subjective ones, or the objective ones? Be more specific!

=================================================

grover: " No, look up the definition of "third-person." Seriously, is english your second language or are you just stupid juicy head "?


Re: I don't see any great 'Shakespeare' in you either, 'Juicy Head'! Now, what are you trying to say? Does the phrase 'third person', as used by you, in this context, mean the 'third member of a queue'? Or does it mean the grammatical term for (he, she, it, & they). Be more specific! [/QUOTE]
No, I dont mean the third member of a line.

grover: " I am not arguing that because Denys' God has not been proven false it must be true. I am arguing that Denys' God is not anthropomorphic. Not once have I said Denys God is real. I have just provide refutations that Denys God can't be real ".


Re: But you said that the 'anthropomorphic God' is easy to dismiss. And that is why you're insisting that "Denys' God is non-anthropomorphic".

No, that's not why. I am saying Denys God is not anthropomoprhic because by defintion it is not anthropomorhic. The only way you can say it is anthropomorhpic is by making up your own bullshit definition which isnt the real definition.

But He is, really, anthropomorphic;

How so? You keep making this claim but can only back it up by trying to do s a sleight-of-hand trick and changing the def. of anthropomorphic.

and you can't even get a clear notion of Him out of Denys' brain.

So?

The two (i.e. his brain & his God) are inseparable. And it just can't get more anthropomorphic and subjective than that!

Sorry, that is not the definition of anthropomorphic. Mystics claim God is in all things, not just humans.

grover: " Exactly, Anthropomorphic does not mean "created out of nothing" ".


Re: Why not?

Why not? Because the definition of anthropomorphic is not "created out of nothing." That's why.

The main problem with many of your claims is that you're basing them upon incomplete definitions of the technical terms. You're picking and choosing some portions of them and omitting and deleting the other portions.

The problem with your claim is that you are completely distorting the defintions of words.

For example, you happily accept the parts of the term 'anthropomorphic' related to the attributes of the 'human form and the human body'. And at the same time, you reject the portions of the same definition related to the mental attributes and the purposefulness of actions and the implicit human self-interest in making up freely the notions of gods.

Case in point. That whole second part about "implicit blah blah" is not part of the defintion.

grover: " All fish live in the ocean
Whales live in the ocean
Therefore whales must be fish ".


Re: Yours is wrong! This is the right one:
· Every living species in the ocean is aquatic.
· Fish & whales live in the ocean.
· Therefore, all the fish and whales in the ocean must be classified as aquatic.
Likewise:
· Every definition made without reference to reality is subjective.

YOur opinion

· Every definition of God is made without reference to reality.

Your opinion

· Therefore, every definition of God is subjective.

Based upon premises that themselves are merely your opinion stated as fact.
Secondly, anthroporphic and subjective are still not synonyms, and never will be, no matter how much sleight-of-hand you attempt.

grover: " No, the definition of anthropomorphic from wiki is "Anthropomorphism is the attribution of uniquely human characteristics and qualities to non-human beings, inanimate objects, or natural or supernatural phenomena." I think the word you are looking for in regards to earth is "anthropocentric." Is english your second language? I'm increasingly starting to think that it is. Also from the wiki article: "The Greek philosopher Xenophanes (570–480 BCE) said that "the greatest god" resembles man "neither in form nor in mind." There is a whole section of "condemnation" of anthropomorphism in religion in the wiki article ".


Re: You have to admit; if the English language were an Alzheimer-Stricken Old Lady, still she would have recognized me on sight! Unluckily for 'grover', the word 'anthropomorphic' is Greek. No wonder, you're having with it such a hard time! And yes, 'anthropocentric' is nice; but it is not a term of theology. That is because theology as a whole is anthropocentric anyway.

Just your opinion.

And once again, you're picking only one portion of the definition. Raise your head; and widen your horizon for Denys' sake! Very briefly, humans make the imaginary entities called 'gods' without any reference to anything objective.

You keep stating your opinion as fact. "Humans make imaginary entities as gods" is not a given. Its just your opinion.

Humans make those imaginary entities freely and from within, not for the sake of those entities per se, but for the glorification of themselves and to fulfil their needs and to serve their self-interest. Those imaginary entities, therefore, must be anthropomorphic in every respect.

That is not the definition of anthropomorhic. That is really just something you are making up.

grover: " Well, see Denys' quote. Xenophanes, and section in Wiki article ".


Re: Xenophanes (570–480 BCE) claimed that "the greatest god" resembles man "neither in form nor in mind":
http://www.hypatia-lovers.com/AncientGreeks/Section07.html
So what? Suppose, for a moment, that he was right! Would that make his "greatest god" non-anthropomorphic,

YES! He just said so. Now your gonna do more sleight of hand and try and say xenophanes didnt actually just say what he said. Try some intellectual honesty.

in your opinion? Open your eyes! His imaginary "greatest god" can still resemble man in so many other respects: behavior, soul, sense of purpose, freewill, sense of justice, sense of right and wrong, love, compassion, gratitude, imagination, consciousness, conscience, taste, love of beauty, taking notice of human beings, desire to live, and so.

But he didnt say God has any of those qualities.

grover: " Well, it is a simple fact that many philosophers and people do not have an anthropomorphic conception of God. We are not discussing whether or not God can be proven to exist. We are discussing whether or not all conceptions of God are anthropomorphic. They're not -stop saying they are. Your denial of facts is as bad as any Christian Fundamentalist ".


Re: I think, now, I have a clear picture of what is going on inside the heads of your 'philosophers'! They are not opposing the anthropomorphism of God for logical or philosophical or theological reasons. They are only using anthropomorphism as a negative term in partisan and cultist propaganda against their chief rivals, the 'Christian Fundamentalists'. For them (you included), God is only anthropomorphic, if He resides in the body of a human being; right? Well, I agree that is anthropomorphic; but beside it, there are many ways for God to be anthropomorphic without being in a human body.

No, not really. You try and change the defintion of the word.

grover: " Subjective and anthropomorphic are not synonyms "!


Re: It's also clear that 'subjective' is not a negative word in your case; and you just love it; correct? Good for you! They are not synonymous;

Good, then don't treat them as synonyms anymore.

I agree; but subjective and anthropomorphic entities can interact and have cause-effect relationships. For instance, the subjective part of the human mind

All of the human mind is subjective.

has the responsibility of making up the subjective definitions of anthropomorphic entities.

DOesnt mean subjective and anthropomorphic are synonyms.

grover: " Well, I agree that there is not single object that is God ".


Re: That is right! There is not one single real object named 'God'.

No, I said there is no single object that is God.

grover: " THAT IS NOT THE DEFINITION OF ANTHROPOMORPHIC. PERIOD ".


Re: Yes, it is! If 'anthropoids' come up with some entity without reference to nature, then that imaginary entity of theirs must be anthropomorphic.

Sorry, thats not the defintion.

grover: " No, it's not. You seem to be saying if a human thinks it is anthropomorphic. THAT'S NOT THE DEFINTION. Furthermore, E=MC2 has not object either, by your use of the word you would have to say that E=MC2 is anthropomorphic too ".


Re: Clearly, that 'Energy' thing in the Equation of Albert Einstein has (Mass & Speed of Light) as its real objects. By contrast, the definition of God by Denys can have no actual references of this sort.

Does energy really exist?

grover: " That does not make it anthropomorphic ".


Re: Yes, it does! And this is how. Human beings always look at themselves, and rightly so, as the most noble thing in the natural world. Human beings, also, consider God the highest and the most noble anywhere. But they have no real object to use as a reference in this regard. It follows, therefore, that human beings must define every higher entity explicitly or implicitly in terms of their well-known noble character. And hence, that higher entity is anthropomorphic.

No, that doesn't follow.

grover: " BUT YOU JUST GOT DONE SAYING THAT GOD HAS TO BE ANTHROPOMORPHIC BECAUSE THERE IS NO ENTITY TO INSPECT AND INVESTIGATE ".


Re: There are so many ways for expressing the same thing!

Yes, its called intellectual dishonesty.

grover: " That is not the definition of anthropomorphic ".


Re: If you can't get a definition of God out of Denys' brain, then his God must be anthropomorphic,

Thats not true.

regardless of how the writers of the 'wikipedia' choose to express it.

So you admit that you think the definition is arbitrary and you can redefine the word however you want?

grover: " Yes, the first two are anthropomorphic. Mystics do not even call God an "entity." ".


Re: Don't be selective! Mystics too, just like the Christians and the Japanese, have no choice but to make their God anthropomorphic.

Just your opinion.

grover: " And you have the audacity to accuse me of being muddle-headed. Anthropomorphic had a very precise definition ".


Re: And you have the audacity to call me a 'Jesus-loving, God-fearing, so-compassionate, & very-nice' Fundamentalist! Of course, 'anthropomorphic' is very precise; the ancient Greeks were a bunch of geniuses!

No, youre a fundamentalist because you take you opinion to be a foregone conclusion.

grover: " Anthropomorphic does not mean subjective ".


Re: 'anthropomorphic' itself is very subjective. And it can't be otherwise.

How so? stop stating your opinion as fact.

grover: " You are apparently completely clueless to the definition of anthropomorphic ".


Re: You're just picky! The definition of anthropomorphism is a whole-integrated package. Take it all; or leave it all!

I am not going to take the part that your making up.

grover: " I find it comical that you think you can change the definitions of words to mean what ever you want(i.e. anything goes), and have the audacity to accuse me of being muddle-headed ".


Re: It seems on the face of it, you find the anthropomorphism of Denys' God very aggravating;

This is impossible since Denys does not have an anthropomorphic conception of God.

 

[AAF]

:bawl:





grover: " No, you have yet to demonstrate that Denys' God is imaginary. You're stating your opinion as fact does not make it so. Second of all, what we are really discussing is whether or not it is anthropomorphic not whether a final philosophical proof can be provided of whether or not it is real ".


Re: It has been amply demonstrated that Denys' God is imaginary and unreal. Recall the definition given by him in terms of negative attributes! Well, that definition has one and only one logical outcome: Denys' God and the Point of Absolute Nothingness are one.

=================================================

grover: " No, I am merely saying they are not synonyms because you have repeatedly tried to treat them as such ".


Re: Sorry; you're making that up; let me refresh your memory! Every anthropomorphic definition of God is subjective; but the reverse is not true.

=================================================

grover: " So, what does your comment have to do with what I said "?


Re: It has something to do with your assertion that all 'qualia' are indescribable. And that assertion is only half the truth, because primary qualities are describable.

=================================================

grover: " But the only cube you have access to is the one created by your brain ".


Re: That is not correct. Your brain can only create sensations of those objects. And those real objects are accessible to you through other means.

=================================================

grover: " The sensation of weight is only in the human brain as well. How many times do I have to repeat this to you "?


Re: That is right. The sensation of weight is only in the human brain. And you don't have to repeat this fact to me anymore!

=================================================

grover: " How do you know "?


Re: I know very well that sensations have no objective existence outside of the sensing brain. I am not a 'layman'; am I?

=================================================

grover: " So psychiatrists are suddenly the final authorities on whether or not God exists? And they all are in total agreement "?


Re: Psychiatrists are, certainly, the final authority on identifying and treating the psychiatric hallucinations of the Denys type about the nature of God. You don't disagree with this; do you?

=================================================

grover: " It's really just your opinion ".


Re: It is my opinion; and it is also a fact. Psychiatrists are, indeed, the experts, when it comes to the diagnosis and the treatment of that sort of hallucinations and mental disorders.

=================================================

grover: " You gave no such final scientific verdict because no such final scientific verdict exists. Again, you are making false claims to absolute certainty that only fundamentalists make ".


Re: Just go back and review our previous discussion on describing the sensation of the blue color to a blind person. Besides, if I'm a self-assured fundamentalist, then you must be a self-absorbed mystic; true?

=================================================

grover: " Not being able to describe something in words is not the definition of hallucinatory, subjective, and most certainly not anthropomorphic. You are apparently completely clueless as to the definitions of these words. Find me one source on the internet that includes "not being able to describe in words" as part of the definitions of those terms. You are not allowed to just redefine words ".


Re: So now, you want to play the role of the self-assured fundamentalist and deny my right to spell out and definite very clearly my words! And once again, every anthropomorphic notion is subjective and hallucinatory; but the reverse is not true.

=================================================

grover: " Just your opinion ".


Re: Is 'opinion' too a negative word to you? Well, for your information, opinion, unlike subjective and anthropomorphic, can be true and verifiable and very objective.

=================================================

grover: " And around what does this rivalry revolve? (hint: one group believes in an anthropomorphic God and the other does not) ".


Re: The rivalry between the Christian Fundamentalists and the Christian Mystics always revolve around who of the two group will, in the end, win over most of the Christian public and go home with the spoils.

=================================================

grover: " Give me some examples of actual mystics ".


Re: Define the 'actual mystic' first!
http://www.circleofprayer.com/mystics.html

=================================================

grover: " No, you're just a fundamentalist ".


Re: And you're just a mystic; but I can't say you're the 'actual one'!

=================================================

grover: " So, you can be found outside your brain "?


Re: Sure; you can be, always, found beside your brain; you don't deny this fact; do you?

=================================================

grover: " That means that if you can't provide objective evidence of yourself you must be a hallucination in which case you should scrap yourself ".


Re: You're right. That is why Rene Descartes came up with the self-evident axiom of "I think, then I exist".

=================================================

grover: " No, stay on track. We are discussing whether or not Denys conception of God is anthropomorphic or not. Not whether or not it is real ".


Re: We can discuss both; we are not 'laymen'; are we?

=================================================

grover: " Again, the issue under discussion is whether or not it is anthropomorphic ".


Re: I don't disagree with that. But we can discuss related topics; can't we?

=================================================

grover: " Why do you think that objects don't actually have colors but do have weights "?


Re: I explained that to you earlier. If we analyze the phenomenon of colors in detail, we must conclude that colors are produced in the human eye through interactions with the visible part of the electromagnetic spectrum. And no color can exist in the absence of the human eye. You don't disagree with this scientific fact; right? By contrast, if we analyze the phenomenon of weight, we must conclude that weights involve only the force of gravity and the mass of the objects in question. Weights, therefore, exist objectively and regardless of the presence or the absence of the human observer.

=================================================

grover: " No, I don't mean the third member of a line ".


Re: Therefore, you mean by the 'third person' the grammatical term for 'he, she, it, & they'; correct?

=================================================

grover: " No, that's not why. I am saying Denys God is not anthropomorphic because by definition it is not anthropomorphic. The only way you can say it is anthropomorphic is by making up your own bullshit definition which isn't the real definition ".


Re: Yes, it is. Denys made his own 'bullshit definition' of his deity by using negative human attributes endlessly. And since human attributes always come in pairs (one positive & one negative), Denys cannot avoid the anthropomorphic implications of his procedure for defining his God.

=================================================

grover: " How so? You keep making this claim but can only back it up by trying to do s a sleight-of-hand trick and changing the def. of anthropomorphic ".


Re: Sorry; the trick is only in your mind! Denys' brain and Denys' God, by his own 'bullshit' definition, are absolutely inseparable. And God just can't get more anthropomorphic than that.

=================================================

grover: " So "?


Re: Denys' God is the ultimate anthropomorphic.

=================================================

grover: " Sorry, that is not the definition of anthropomorphic. Mystics claim God is in all things, not just humans ".


Re: We don't buy their claim; we are not very naïve; are we?

=================================================

grover: " Why not? Because the definition of anthropomorphic is not "created out of nothing." That's why ".


Re: Well; if there was no real object named 'God' in the entire Cosmos, then human beings must have come up with their imaginary gods out of nothing. You can't disagree with this forgone conclusion; can you?

=================================================

grover: " The problem with your claim is that you are completely distorting the definitions of words ".


Re: That is your opinion. But forgone logical conclusions are forgone logical conclusions regardless of words and definitions.

=================================================

grover: " Case in point. That whole second part about "implicit blah blah" is not part of the definition ".


Re: Stroll to the nearest library to you and get some theology textbooks!

=================================================

grover: " Your opinion ".


Re: Of course, it's my opinion and my advice!

=================================================

grover: " Your opinion ".


Re: Yes, it's my provable and objective opinion.

=================================================

grover: " Based upon premises that themselves are merely your opinion stated as fact. Secondly, anthropomorphic and subjective are still not synonyms, and never will be, no matter how much sleight-of-hand you attempt ".


Re: Once again, the 'sleight of hand' is only in your imagination. This syllogism is logically true regardless of your personal feelings about it:

• Every definition made without reference to reality is subjective.
• Every definition of God is made without reference to reality.
• Therefore, every definition of God is subjective.


=================================================

grover: " Just your opinion ".


Re: But it's an objective and verifiable opinion; isn't it? The word 'anthropomorphic' is Greek. I can prove it.

=================================================

grover: " You keep stating your opinion as fact. "Humans make imaginary entities as gods" is not a given. Its just your opinion ".


Re: Humans do make imaginary entities called 'gods & angels & devils & demons' out of nothing. That is a fact.

=================================================

grover: " That is not the definition of anthropomorphic. That is really just something you are making up ".


Re: This is the actual process of how anthropomorphic definitions of (gods & angels & devils & demons) are always developed and cooked up. Humans make those imaginary entities freely and from within, not for the sake of those entities per se, but to glorify themselves and to serve their self-interest. Those imaginary entities, therefore, must be anthropomorphic in every respect.

=================================================

grover: " YES! He just said so. Now your gonna do more sleight of hand and try and say xenophanes didn't actually just say what he said. Try some intellectual honesty ".


Re: Follow your own advice and try it! Have you read this? http://www.hypatia-lovers.com/Ancien...Section07.html
Well, show some 'intellectual honesty' and tell me; is this Xenophanes closer to you or closer to me on the issue of anthropomorphism?


=================================================

grover: " But he didn't say God has any of those qualities ".


Re: He said that or not, Xenophanes' imaginary "greatest god" can still resemble man in so many other respects: behavior, soul, sense of purpose, freewill, sense of justice, sense of right and wrong, love, compassion, gratitude, imagination, consciousness, conscience, taste, love of beauty, taking notice of human beings, desire to live, and so.

=================================================

grover: " No, not really. You try and change the definition of the word ".


Re: Actually, as far as the Christian Mystics are concerned, God is only anthropomorphic, if He resides in the body of a human being.

=================================================

grover: " Good, then don't treat them as synonyms anymore ".


Re: Good; from now on, stop saying that 'anthropomorphic does not imply subjective'! Since the former implies the latter by logical necessity.

=================================================

grover: " All of the human mind is subjective ".


Re: The human brain is real and objective.

=================================================

grover: " Doesn't mean subjective and anthropomorphic are synonyms ".


Re: I've just told you to stop it! The anthropomorphic is subjective by logical necessity.

=================================================

grover: " No, I said there is no single object that is God ".


Re: And that necessarily means there is really no God; right?

=================================================

grover: " Sorry, that's not the definition ".


Re: But it's true that if 'anthropoids' come up with some entity without reference to nature, then that imaginary entity of theirs must be anthropomorphic.

=================================================

grover: " Does energy really exist "?


Re: Yes, it does; and don't try to unscrew that back cover of your PC, please!

=================================================

grover: " No, that doesn't follow ".


Re: Yes, it does! And this is how. Human beings always consider themselves on the top of the Solar System. Human beings, also, consider God on the top of every thing. But they have no real object to refer to as God. It follows, therefore, that human beings must define God explicitly or implicitly in terms of their top character. And hence, their top God is anthropomorphic, whether they know it or not.

=================================================

grover: " Yes, its called intellectual dishonesty ".


Re: That is intellectually incoherent remark! What does 'dishonesty' have to do with the real possibility of expressing the same thing in different ways and different words and even in different languages for that matter?

=================================================

grover: " That's not true ".


Re: Actually, that is true. If you can't get a definition of God out of Denys' brain, then his God must be anthropomorphic. Since, in this case, Denys (the Human) and God (the Deity) are completely inseparable.

=================================================

grover: " So you admit that you think the definition is arbitrary and you can redefine the word however you want "?


Re: Do you want me to call the above 'intellectual dishonesty'? I would not do it! 'Dishonesty' is for (lovers & sweethearts) to throw around. And it has no place in 'diametrically opposed' worldviews; right? So I call that claim of yours 'false inference'; that is what is.

=================================================

grover: " Just your opinion ".


Re: This is a fact. Mystics, just like the Christians and the Japanese and the Jews and the Muslims, have no choice but to define their God as anthropomorphic and in terms of their own attributes.

=================================================

grover: " No, you're a fundamentalist because you take you opinion to be a foregone conclusion ".


Re: But they are, in fact, foregone conclusions.

=================================================

grover: " How so? stop stating your opinion as fact ".


Re: Who is the fundamentalist now? You can't make me throw away my 'iron-clad' logical arguments by merely calling them 'opinions'! I'm sure you can do better than that.

=================================================

grover: " I am not going to take the part that your making up ".


Re: You're free to take it or to leave it! The choice is yours. But the fact remains. The definition of anthropomorphism is a whole-integrated package. Take it all; or leave it all!

=================================================

grover: " This is impossible since Denys does not have an anthropomorphic conception of God ".


Re: That is your opinion; and it's demonstrably wrong. Since Denys used nothing but the negative attributes of the human race to define his mystical God.

 

[grover]

grover: " No, you have yet to demonstrate that Denys' God is imaginary. You're stating your opinion as fact does not make it so. Second of all, what we are really discussing is whether or not it is anthropomorphic not whether a final philosophical proof can be provided of whether or not it is real ".


Re: It has been amply demonstrated that Denys' God is imaginary and unreal. Recall the definition given by him in terms of negative attributes! Well, that definition has one and only one logical outcome: Denys' God and the Point of Absolute Nothingness are one.

No, there is more than one logical outcome. Another possibility is that language is limited.
(Your arbitrary narrowing of logical outcomes is typical of fundamentalists).
Secondly, as I've repeatedly pointed out, what we are really discussing is whether or not Deny's God is anthropomporphic or not. I think you have finally conceded it is not unless you are now going to try some intellectually dishonest attempt at saying "Point of Absolute Nothingness" is anthropomorphic as well.

grover: " No, I am merely saying they are not synonyms because you have repeatedly tried to treat them as such ".


Re: Sorry; you're making that up; let me refresh your memory! Every anthropomorphic definition of God is subjective; but the reverse is not true.

Exactly.

grover: " Based upon premises that themselves are merely your opinion stated as fact. Secondly, anthropomorphic and subjective are still not synonyms, and never will be, no matter how much sleight-of-hand you attempt ".


Re: Once again, the 'sleight of hand' is only in your imagination. This syllogism is logically true regardless of your personal feelings about it:

• Every definition made without reference to reality is subjective.
• Every definition of God is made without reference to reality.
• Therefore, every definition of God is subjective.

Good. Now, take a close look above where you said "Every anthropomorphic definition of God is subjective; but the reverse is not true."

grover: " Doesn't mean subjective and anthropomorphic are synonyms ".


Re: I've just told you to stop it! The anthropomorphic is subjective by logical necessity.

Right, but in your own words "the reverse it not true."

grover: " No, I said there is no single object that is God ".

Re: And that necessarily means there is really no God; right?

Only, if you mean to imply that only material objects exist.

grover: " Does energy really exist "?


Re: Yes, it does; and don't try to unscrew that back cover of your PC, please!

Energy is not a material object. Which means is it exists then a God that is not an object could exist.

grover: " No, you're a fundamentalist because you take you opinion to be a foregone conclusion ".


Re: But they are, in fact, foregone conclusions.

Only to other fundamentalists.

grover: " How so? stop stating your opinion as fact ".


Re: Who is the fundamentalist now? You can't make me throw away my 'iron-clad' logical arguments by merely calling them 'opinions'! I'm sure you can do better than that.

Iron-clad? Iron-clad in the sense that the Bible is true because it says its true?

grover: " This is impossible since Denys does not have an anthropomorphic conception of God ".


Re: That is your opinion; and it's demonstrably wrong. Since Denys used nothing but the negative attributes of the human race to define his mystical God.

I will end where I began. I think you have finally conceded it is not (anthropomorphic) unless you are now going to try some intellectually dishonest attempt at saying "Point of Absolute Nothingness" is anthropomorphic as well.

 

[Tht1Gy!]

Simply stated, Ockham’s Razor is this: "Get rid of redundant entities".

No it isn't. It's more like 'the simplest explanation is the most likely'.

"... in explaining a thing no more assumptions should be made than are necessary..." '...attributed to William of Occam'
Apple Dictionary 1.0.1, 2005

 

[Tht1Gy!]

God Is Self-contradictory. Hence, God Doesn’t Exist.

Humans are self contradictory. Hence, Humans don't exist.:shrug:

 

[Enmos]

God Is Self-contradictory. Hence, God Doesn’t Exist.

Humans are self contradictory. Hence, Humans don't exist.:shrug:

Too good to be true Tht1Gy!

 

[AAF]

No it isn't. It's more like 'the simplest explanation is the most likely'.

"... in explaining a thing no more assumptions should be made than are necessary..." '...attributed to William of Occam'
Apple Dictionary 1.0.1, 2005

Hi Tht1Gy;

'Don't multiply them unnecessarily' simply means 'get rid of redundant entities'.
http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/OCCAMRAZ.html

 

[AAF]

grover: " No, there is more than one logical outcome. Another possibility is that language is limited. (Your arbitrary narrowing of logical outcomes is typical of fundamentalists). Secondly, as I've repeatedly pointed out, what we are really discussing is whether or not Denys' God is anthropomorphic or not. I think you have finally conceded it is not unless you are now going to try some intellectually dishonest attempt at saying "Point of Absolute Nothingness" is anthropomorphic as well ".


Re: Again, 'dishonesty' is only your imagination, which is obviously the imagination of a 'mystic in love'! It's crystal-clear that the endless negation of attributes in defining God, as Denys did, leads inevitably to one logical outcome and only one logical outcome; i.e. God and the Point of Absolute Nothingness are one. Now, clear your mind of any mystical confusion and consider seriously this. The human attributes that Denys set out to negate (one after one after one after one) are infinite. In other words, it would take an infinite period of time to reach the zero-attribute entity called the 'Point of Absolute Nothingness'. And this means that Denys' God is anthropomorphic (as a given), and Absolute Nothingness is His ultimate limit. Does this make sense to you? I certainly, hope so!

 

[AAF]

God Is Self-contradictory. Hence, God Doesn’t Exist.

Humans are self contradictory. Hence, Humans don't exist.:shrug:

:bawl:



Hello Tht1Gy;

It is me again!

You got it wrong!
This is the right argument:

• Every entity whose concept is contradictory does not exist.
• The concept of God is contradictory.
• Therefore, God does not exist.

 

[AAF]

Too good to be true Tht1Gy!

Hi Enmos;

You are absolutely right.

• Every entity whose concept is self-contradictory does not exist.
• The concept of God is self-contradictory.
• Therefore, God does not exist.

 

[Tht1Gy!]

Originally Posted by Tht1Gy!
"God Is Self-contradictory. Hence, God Doesn’t Exist."

Humans are self contradictory. Hence, Humans don't exist.

:bawl:



Hello Tht1Gy;

It is me again!

You got it wrong!
This is the right argument:

• Every entity whose concept is contradictory does not exist.
• The concept of God is contradictory.
• Therefore, God does not exist.

Doesn't change my posistion one iota. :roflmao:

 

[Tht1Gy!]

From your link: "one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything

"Occam's razor is a logical principle attributed to the mediaeval philosopher William of Occam (or Ockham). The principle states that one should not make more assumptions than the minimum needed. This principle is often called the principle of parsimony. It underlies all scientific modelling and theory building. It admonishes us to choose from a set of otherwise equivalent models of a given phenomenon the simplest one. In any given model, Occam's razor helps us to "shave off" those concepts, variables or constructs that are not really needed to explain the phenomenon. By doing that, developing the model will become much easier, and there is less chance of introducing inconsistencies, ambiguities and redundancies." All italics mine.

Thx for the link. Pretty cool. Try reading it.:roflmao:

Ps. AAL, grover- "brevity is the soul of wit"*. And solid posting.
*I think that's the quote.

 

[Enmos]

Hi Enmos;

You are absolutely right.

• Every entity whose concept is self-contradictory does not exist.
• The concept of God is self-contradictory.
• Therefore, God does not exist.

Hi AAF,
yes i agree. I was commenting on the entire post, not just the bold part. :shrug:

 

[Grantywanty]

In many respects, the idea of God is very similar to the idea of a little spot, which is completely black and completely white at the same time! Such a spot cannot exist as a real possibility, because it is self-contradictory.

Light is both a particle and a wave. Light even down to one photon acts like a separate particle AND a wave. This is self-contradictory. Light does not exist.