Okay, thank you for your kind words in this particular response as opposed to the above. I have found your prior response to be rather unattached and showing the problem of emotional content. Perhaps you might be kinder next time?
Spelllbound Loves God
- Thread starter Spellbound
- Start date
Okay, thank you for your kind words in this particular response as opposed to the above. I have found your prior response to be rather unattached and showing the problem of emotional content. Perhaps you might be kinder next time?
No, it does not. However, it does allow us to access Its (refraining from using "He" this time) divine nature when we access ultimate reality. So, we are physical specimens yes, we touch ourselves, yes, but this does in no way make us mutually excluded from the divine. To access the divine requires either something of equivalent worth, or just pure dumb luck and chance.
Or it's something else that you are misinterpreting as God. Most likely your own brain.
No sir it is not.
There's certainly an element of "dumb" involved, but it's not luck.
You persist in making assertions that you can't support.
Another meaningless piece of drivel from you.
Such is your presumption. I do not think you are one of the open minded. So all attempts at proof will be seen as just that, assertions. There's a difference between false and true belief.
My so-called "proof": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cognitive-Theoretic_Model_of_the_Universe
Yazata
Valued Senior Member
What does "reality" being "closed" have to do with your conviction that TV advertisements are messages from God directed at you? Is there a plausible connection?
Spellbound said:
yazata said:
Spellbound said:
My words were intended as a hint to you that you need to produce some arguments in support of the sometimes rather bizarre things you say.
I don't think that convincing one's self of the truth of metaphysical or religious beliefs is necessarily a sign of mental illness. (It can be when the beliefs cross the line into being bizarre and unshakable delusions.)
My point was that just because you've convinced yourself of the truth of some belief, doesn't mean that the belief is necessarily true. If you want me to join you in sharing your beliefs, you will have to give me some convincing reason why I should. You need to produce some coherent arguments, reasons and justifications for the things you believe.
Then you turned your attention to what you believe is the closed-mindedness of Sciforums' atheists.
Spellbound said:
yazata said:
Spellbound said:
You've been preaching the same revelation on Sciforums for ten years now. Your views don't seem to evolve very much with time. You don't seem to have any interest in exploring philosophical or religious questions with any thought that different answers than your own might be possible, including the possibility that there may be no answer to some questions at all.
That seems closed-minded to me.
You don't seem to have very much appreciation for the fact that philosophy is a practice, something that philosophers do, it doesn't just consist of conclusions, no matter how cosmic they seem. The heart of philosophy is in making our concepts clear and figuring out how different sorts of questions might be answered. Philosophy is maintaining a child-like curiosity and continuing to ask 'Why?' and 'How do people know that?' about every belief.
So from my perspective, many of your posts leave out precisely what's most important, namely good convincing reasons to think that what you say provides us with a valuable insight into the nature of reality.
yazata said:
Spellbound said:
I'm not sure that you do.
Last edited:
Yazata,
The advertisements and communications sourced in the television (making use of electromagnetic waves transmission) is a reality, and since reality is closed, it has nothing but itself of which to consist (everything real is reality), and so nothing, including the sum total of information, can come from outside nor escape from it.
Also...
I was once the world's second greatest pro "atheist" that rebelled fully against the idea of God, second only to the anti-Christ. I would insult and ridicule believers. I would argue that God is all a product or figment of an over-active imagination between the years of 2007 to early 2011. Then, in 2012 I had a number of incredible (I refrain from using the word "supernatural") experiences that changed and turned my life around 100% completely.
The advertisements and communications sourced in the television (making use of electromagnetic waves transmission) is a reality, and since reality is closed, it has nothing but itself of which to consist (everything real is reality), and so nothing, including the sum total of information, can come from outside nor escape from it.
Also...
I was once the world's second greatest pro "atheist" that rebelled fully against the idea of God, second only to the anti-Christ. I would insult and ridicule believers. I would argue that God is all a product or figment of an over-active imagination between the years of 2007 to early 2011. Then, in 2012 I had a number of incredible (I refrain from using the word "supernatural") experiences that changed and turned my life around 100% completely.
You are.
Which is not even close to being a proof.
As you have been told before (with supporting link), it starts with an a priori assumption and then gets worse.
Langan is not (severely) deluded himself he's trying (and, apparently in your case, succeeding) to suck other people into his delusion.
I just have one question: Do you assume your intellect and reasoning abilities to be superior to Langan's?
W
As for "intellect" - if the garbage in the CTMU is an example of the best Langan can do then I've also probably got him beaten there too.
Well given that I don't publish and publicly promote theses that depend on a priori assumptions to (circularly) "prove" my initial assumption then I can at least claim to have superior reasoning.
As for "intellect" - if the garbage in the CTMU is an example of the best Langan can do then I've also probably got him beaten there too.
Thank you.
Edit: I hope you recognize the irony in your words, and although you're intelligent, can learn humility. Please.
Last edited:
How do you know?
Yazata
Valued Senior Member
Do you understand Langan's intentionally opaque rhetoric, Spellbound?
If you understand it, then you should be able to explain it. If you don't understand it, then why are you so convinced that Langan is right about everything and how do you know that he is anything more than a skillful bullshitter?
He may or may not be extremely good at taking IQ tests, depending on whether the tales he tells about the scores he's gotten are really true. But he doesn't seem to be very skilled or accomplished in any other area of real life.
He certainly doesn't appear to be what I'd consider to be a good philosopher.
Last edited:
Yazata
Valued Senior Member
Says the guy who believes that he communicates directly with God and possesses all the secrets of the universe.