Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 89 (8843 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-24-2018 8:20 PM
277 online now:
jar, Meddle (2 members, 275 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: MrTim
Post Volume:
Total: 834,288 Year: 9,111/29,783 Month: 1,358/1,977 Week: 51/445 Day: 51/110 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12
3
4567Next
Author Topic:   I know God exists & the court of highest appeal is me.
RickJB
Member (Idle past 2796 days)
Posts: 917
From: London, UK
Joined: 04-14-2006


Message 31 of 94 (459132)
03-04-2008 5:08 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by iano
03-03-2008 12:24 PM


Iano writes:

I know there is a pc screen on front of me just as much as I know that God exists and just as much as I know what I thought 5 seconds ago. I don't add "non-conclusively" to pc screens or thoughts. Nor do I to God.

But even if all reality is an illusion the existence of the PC can still be independently verified within the framework of that illusion. If everyone is experiencing the same illusion then that, for all intents an purposes is our default "external reality", since there is nothing else for anyone to work with.

If reality is an illusion then said illusion is our reality!

The problem with your "knowledge" of God is twofold.

i) If reality is an illusion then how can your "knowledge" of God get a "free pass" and attain a higher level of certainty? God may well be just as imaginary as everything else.

ii) How can we verify your "knowledge" of God? Even in an entirely imaginary reality there is no way for two individuals to agree on what constitutes even an imaginary God! Two individuals can agree on the existence of an imaginary PC. The same cannot be said of God.

So we have:

PC: Imaginary/Verifiable.
God: Imaginary/Unverifiable.

Now, if we were to accept that reality is an illusion then we may as well cancel out the first two fields. The just leaves us back where we started:-

PC. Verifiable.
God. Unverifiable.

Even in an imaginary world, you have no empirically verifiable knowledge of God.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by iano, posted 03-03-2008 12:24 PM iano has not yet responded

  
iano
Member (Idle past 989 days)
Posts: 6164
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 32 of 94 (459142)
03-04-2008 10:35 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by Stile
03-03-2008 2:48 PM


Re: Of Monitors and Gods
Stile writes:

I'm going to go through a few steps. Stop me where the disagreement starts with any of the assumptions made.

Okay.

-

1. We are...

Stop!

This is about the me making a statement born out of the position I find myself in. I'll modify "we are" to "I am" so as to highlight where the divergence in view might come from.

-

1. I am able to perceive a reality with my "senses".

True.

-

2. I perceive other people (to occupy this reality - iano) who I assume are also capable of perceiving this reality.

True. Note that I do not assume they will perceive reality as I will perceive it. It seems obvious they don't. And there are also times when I can't tell whether they perceive it as I do: how do they see 'red' for instance?

-

3. When people (I perceive) assume something is true on their own, the reality I perceive often proves them wrong.

Inserting "I" instead "we" results in me disagreeing. I perceive something and their perception differs from mine. They are 'wrong' only insofar as their perception differs from mine.

-

4. When people assume something is true because others agree with them, the reality I perceive agrees more often, but still often proves the whole group of people wrong.

This is a confusing statement. Remembering that we are approaching this from my perspective: I don't assume something is true because others agree with me. I assume something is true based primarily on my trusting my own perceptions. Sometimes others agree with my perception, sometimes they don't. What occurs after that can vary. Sometimes my perception comes into line with theirs, sometimes it doesn't.

-

5. When people assume something is true because others agree with them and the 'something' is reproducible with repeatable conclusions, the reality I perceive agrees every time I test again.

We might need to clarify the above confusion before progressing. To comment in the way I think I can though.

By inserting "I" instead of "we", we can see that reproducibility indicates that I perceive the same thing in the same way again and again.

-

1. Personal knowledge - can often disagree
2. Shared knowledge - can often disagree
3. Repeatable knowledge - always agrees (or else it wouldn't be repeatable and then it's not in this class)

Agreed. Knowledge interchangeable with perception.

-

However, when talking about the reality I do perceive. It's obvious that 'the God I know' is a part of my Personal Knowledge. While 'the monitor I know' is Repeatable Knowledge.

Inserting "I" for "we" again. Both God and monitor are personal perceptions. The monitor belongs to a class of my perception called perceptable by all others. God belongs to the category called perceptible to some others in not necessarily repeatable way.

Then there are the contents of my thoughts - which belong to the category perceptable only to me (and God - assuming my perception reflects reality correctly)

-

This puts 'the monitor I know' in a class of 'things 'we' perceive' that has a much better track-record for not disagreeing with the reality we perceive.

Seeing as the monitor is deemed to belong in that category by virtue of it's satisfying the categories entry criteria perfectly, this statement is kind of circular.

-

While 'the God I know' is currently in the class of 'things we know' that has the worst track-record for ending up in disagreement with the reality we perceive.

Similarily circular?

-

This says nothing about either 'thing we know' being a part of the true reality we may not be able to perceive. This only declares the monitor as being less likely to be in disagreement with the reality we can perceive.

Granted. But this is about the reality I perceive. Which includes the monitor and God. The fact "we" can perceive the one and not the other says only that in the totality of all my perceptions, some are shared by others at times and not shared by others at other times.

I am still left as the highest court in assuming my perceptions as accurately reflecting reality. What another perceives is not necessarily here or there. I submit that everyone is in the same boat as me regarding whatever it is that forms the totality of their perceptions.

Edited by iano, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Stile, posted 03-03-2008 2:48 PM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by RickJB, posted 03-04-2008 12:00 PM iano has not yet responded
 Message 39 by Stile, posted 03-04-2008 1:58 PM iano has not yet responded

  
iano
Member (Idle past 989 days)
Posts: 6164
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 33 of 94 (459144)
03-04-2008 10:44 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by New Cat's Eye
03-03-2008 3:34 PM


Catholic Scientist writes:

You're using the word "know" differently from how people typically use it. I wouldn't say that you know god exsts.

I use the word in much the same way as I use it in the sentence "I know what I thought 5 seconds ago" or "I know a bird flew past my window"


This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-03-2008 3:34 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

  
iano
Member (Idle past 989 days)
Posts: 6164
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 34 of 94 (459147)
03-04-2008 10:56 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by Straggler
03-03-2008 3:50 PM


Re: Jars and Brains
Straggler writes:

In the event of 2) being true conclusions that cannot be tested and which are not independently corroborated are inherently more prone to error and personal delusion than those that can be tested and corroborated.

I do not necessarily agree.

When you say "independantly corroborated" you mean by x number of similar individuals to the single individual whose individual perception is judged prone to error/delusion.

But if the single individuals perception is prone to error then the multitudes perceptions are rendered suspect. x number perceiving the same thing tells us that x number perceive the same thing. Not that what they perceive less likely to be error prone than one particular individuals.

I do claim that IF the objective reality scenario is true then some conclusions are more valid than others.

You have not assumed objective reality true. But you have assumed that if true then majority perception will reflect that reality more truly.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Straggler, posted 03-03-2008 3:50 PM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Straggler, posted 03-04-2008 12:24 PM iano has not yet responded
 Message 40 by PaulK, posted 03-04-2008 1:59 PM iano has not yet responded

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 35 of 94 (459157)
03-04-2008 11:51 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by iano
03-03-2008 8:49 AM


Methods/Discources
So what exists and what doesn't?

Obviously on one end of the spectrum is the Cartesian demon of solipsism:- nought exists but my brain and something sending experiences to it. The brain in the jar, the evil genius, the Matrix - whatever you want to call it. This is the radical conclusion of total scepticism.

The other end of the spectrum is to accept all experiences as accurate reflections of reality. This could be called naive empiricism.

The first choice to face is should we be total sceptics? If we are, we can stop discussing it - who do we think we are discussing it with?

Should we be naive empiricists? To do this requires believing that our senses never fool us. This leads to a strange contradiction. Our senses tell us that there are other creatures with senses which are sometimes fooled. Our senses tell us that we are very like some of those fallible sensory creatures. Therefore our perfect senses would indicate that our senses may be not be perfect. If we are to believe our senses, we must disbelieve all of our senses.

So we need to develop a method for knowing when our senses are fooling us and when they are not, but this means making a few assumptions.

1. We exist
2. one cannot say of something that it is and that it is not in the same respect and at the same time
3. That our mind can know the truth.

These are the primary three

Now we need to know what kinds of things might give us confidence that what we perceive is how things really are. Here are some ideas we've come up with:

Appeal to Authority:- We essentially outsource our thinking to another brain which specializes in thinking about a particular subject. If we know nothing about a subject, testing ideas against experts in the field is usually a good starting point - if what we believe to be true goes against what experts and authorities say it might be worth considering that what we perceive is not true. The trap here is that you should be sure that the Authorities aren't relying on older authorties etc etc (ie authorities take the time to test the truth of something against another criterion).

Coherency: If our impression of the world is coherent explains all available facts consistently then it is more likely to be true than any impression of the world that is less coherent.

Consensus: If everybody else agrees with your perception, then it is more likely to be true.

Correspondence: If our perceived knowledge corresponds to obtainable facts about the world, then it is more likely to be true. If it corresponds with facts as they are obtained even better. If the correspondence is such that future facts can be successfully predicted you've hit knowledge pay dirt.

Intuition: Sometimes the truth comes to us in some unexplainable fashion. Various ideas and concepts intuitively lead to a 'feeling' of the truth.

Pragmatism: If your idea can be practically applied and it works, that is a good sign that your idea might be true.

Revelation: If an entity we identify as God tells us it is true, it is true. If a person who we know has spoken with God tells us God tells us it is true, it is true. See the warning in Appeals to Authority.

You have a perception that God exists and has a relationship with you. That leads you to believe that God exists and has a relationship with you. Is it sane to suggest that knowledge is nothing more than strong belief? Obviously it is difficult to know whether or not we know something, because how would we know we know it, unless we know we know we know it?

Before we can classify something as knowledge rather than belief, we have to argue that the belief is true or very likely to be true. Your argument amounts to 'I perceive it so I believe it and since I perceive it the belief is true'. Which is not a good argument at all. So that can't be your argument.

The only argument you seem to have is to equivocate on the definitions of 'belief' and 'knowledge', which means I can only assume you ascribe to something akin to the intuition or revelation criterion of truth. This is why I listed the some other criteria of truth so that you might see what other people would demand to call something knowledge.

I suggest that most other people wouldn't call a belief true unless it met several of the above criteria. Correspondence is a good one, but that will prove difficult for modern theology to live up to. You might try for coherence, but that would obviously be subject to considerable dispute. Authority is one you could appeal to - but you seem to be intent on only appealing to one authority, yourself. Revelation doesn't really go very far, but you could try it.

The central problem with your 'I perceive God, therefore I know God exists' can be made rather clear by rewording it to be something I would agree with 'I perceive an entity that I believe is God, therefore an entity that I believe is God exists'.

Take this picture. I perceive it to move. This is due to brain that takes clues about movement and tells the brain that things are moving. Thus there is a startling perception of movement. So we have a belief that acorns are moving. We can see if that is a coherent belief. The belief is that the acorns are moving but there is another belief that the acorns don't change location. This is against the principle of noncontradiction and it renders it incoherent. Does it correspond to reality? We can test the motion, and we see that no motion occurs.

But my intuition tells me that the acorns are moving!

We are susceptable all to illusions of the mind, conceptual illusions, 'optical' illusions as well as fully blown hallucinations. We can help protect ourselves against such things by trying to apply other criteria of truth into the equation - it is not only incoherent but downright dangerous at times to believe everything our senses tell us. Nothing gets done if we disbelieve our senses. So we have to rely on discrimination techniques.

Finally, apologies for disjointed thoughts - I wrote all that over the course of 9 hours during some rare quiet times at work.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by iano, posted 03-03-2008 8:49 AM iano has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by iano, posted 03-04-2008 7:58 PM Modulous has responded
 Message 69 by iano, posted 03-07-2008 10:29 AM Modulous has responded

  
RickJB
Member (Idle past 2796 days)
Posts: 917
From: London, UK
Joined: 04-14-2006


Message 36 of 94 (459161)
03-04-2008 12:00 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by iano
03-04-2008 10:35 AM


Re: Of Monitors and Gods
Iano writes:

I am still left as the highest court in assuming my perceptions as accurately reflecting reality. What another perceives is not necessarily here or there. I submit that everyone is in the same boat as me regarding whatever it is that forms the totality of their perceptions.

You should look up the work of a certain Irish philosopher called George Berkeley. You may find you have some views in common with him...

George Berkeley

Anyway, I'm sure I asked this before in another thread but never had an answer - if you know God exists in your "reality" does He consequently cease to exist if you cease to think about him?

Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.

Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by iano, posted 03-04-2008 10:35 AM iano has not yet responded

  
Straggler
Member (Idle past 190 days)
Posts: 10198
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 37 of 94 (459163)
03-04-2008 12:24 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by iano
03-04-2008 10:56 AM


Re: Jars and Brains
You have not assumed objective reality true. But you have assumed that if true then majority perception will reflect that reality more truly.

Well this at least some progress in the debate. The question has now changed.

The question now becomes whether or not the perceptions and experiences shared by the many are more reliable and less prone to delusion than the experiences of the one (in the case of an objective reality existing)

Do you accept that this is now the question that needs to be explored to reach a conclusion in this debate?

NOTE: I am not discounting the possibility of the brain in the jar scenario. Nor am I claiming that it is possible for us to determine which scenario is true.

I am however concentraing on the objective reality scenario as this is where the difference of opinion regarding the reliability of evidence seems to exist.

When you say "independantly corroborated" you mean by x number of similar individuals to the single individual whose individual perception is judged prone to error/delusion.

Yes. This is not how I would have phrased it but essentially this is what I mean. I think it is this point that needs to be explored further.

I think we agree that the brain in the jar scenario leads to all conclusions being equally subjective.
I think we also agree that there is no way to determine which of the two possible scenarios we are actually in.
Let me know if you do disagree with either of these statements as I will assume you do not otherwise.

If you do agree with all of the above I will restrict further argument to attempting to demonstrate that the experiences of the many outweigh the experiences of the one in terms of reliablity in the case of a shared objective reality existing.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by iano, posted 03-04-2008 10:56 AM iano has not yet responded

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 504 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 38 of 94 (459172)
03-04-2008 1:38 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by New Cat's Eye
03-03-2008 10:26 PM


Re: All in the Same Boat
Catholic Scientist writes:

You seem to doing the same thing that you accuse iano of doing...
That is:

Not being able to tell the difference, yet assuming there is a difference.

Yes, in fact, I do: thank you for catching me on it. This first paragraph was part of an altogether different line of reasoning from the rest. In the interest of brevity, I erased a few paragraphs that would have bridged the gap. Crap!

I'll try to clarify my line of reasoning.

This quote...

Bluejay writes:

If you can't tell the difference, what is the point in assuming there is a difference?

...was aimed at the "brain in a jar" analogy. If there's no way to discern between your perception of reality and true reality, there's no reason to assume your perception isn't real. So, if your perception is that the universe is external and objective (which iano has stated as his belief), you should apply that logic (objectivity and externality) to describe it, which theism doesn't make a particular effort to do.

However, if reality really is subjective (regardless of our perception), then both of our interpretations are completely wrong. This would effectively be a "stalemate," which is iano's goal.

But, the stalemate only comes when everybody's wrong. If we're together in assuming an external, objective reality (even if it isn't objective or external), the one of us whose system of interpretation actually is objective and external is much more plausible (because subjectivity cannot have any bearing on an objective world).

Anyway, I have to go teach a lab. I may write more later.

Thanks for the critique, Catholic Scientist.


There was a point to this [post], but it has temporarily escaped the chronicler's mind. -modified from Life, the Universe and Everything, Douglas Adams
This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-03-2008 10:26 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-04-2008 5:04 PM Blue Jay has responded

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 3177
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 39 of 94 (459176)
03-04-2008 1:58 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by iano
03-04-2008 10:35 AM


Re: Of Monitors and Gods
iano writes:

This is about the me making a statement born out of the position I find myself in. I'll modify "we are" to "I am" so as to highlight where the divergence in view might come from.

Very good, it was an oversight on my part. I agree that this distinction needs to be clarified.

iano writes:

Stile writes:

2. I perceive other people (to occupy this reality - iano) who I assume are also capable of perceiving this reality.

True. Note that I do not assume they will perceive reality as I will perceive it. It seems obvious they don't. And there are also times when I can't tell whether they perceive it as I do: how do they see 'red' for instance?

I agree with your note. I agree because it is irrelevant. How others are able to perceive the same reality I perceive doesn't matter. It doesn't matter if I see 'red' by a computer inserting 'red' into my brain, and if other see 'red' by analysing the wavelength of light. The 'how' doesn't matter. What matters is the perception. What matters is that I perceive red equally as others perceive red. How that perception takes place is irrelevant.

iano writes:

Stile writes:

3. When people (I perceive) assume something is true on their own, the reality I perceive often proves them wrong.

Inserting "I" instead "we" results in me disagreeing. I perceive something and their perception differs from mine. They are 'wrong' only insofar as their perception differs from mine.

I don't understand your disagreement. We'll change the sentence around as you suggest:

3. When I assume something is true on my own, the reality I perceive often proves me wrong.

How do you disagree with this? 'Their' perception disagreeing with yours? Who are 'they'? This point is singular. It only deals (as the examples provided attempt to point out) with personal mistakes or forgetting. Are you saying you never make any mistakes? Are you saying you never forget anything?

iano writes:

Stile writes:

4. When people assume something is true because others agree with them, the reality I perceive agrees more often, but still often proves the whole group of people wrong.

This is a confusing statement. Remembering that we are approaching this from my perspective: I don't assume something is true because others agree with me. I assume something is true based primarily on my trusting my own perceptions. Sometimes others agree with my perception, sometimes they don't. What occurs after that can vary. Sometimes my perception comes into line with theirs, sometimes it doesn't.

Okay, I have no problems with that whatsoever. You'd like to get rid of this point? Sure, we'll just forget knowing something just because other people's perceptions agree with you or not.

iano writes:

Stile writes:

5. When people assume something is true because others agree with them and the 'something' is reproducible with repeatable conclusions, the reality I perceive agrees every time I test again.

We might need to clarify the above confusion before progressing. To comment in the way I think I can though.

By inserting "I" instead of "we", we can see that reproducibility indicates that I perceive the same thing in the same way again and again.

Sure, I'll attempt a re-write here:

5. When I assume something is true because other's perceptions agree with mine and the 'something' is also reproducible with repeatable conclusions (by my perception and the same with other's perceptions), the reality I perceive agrees every time I test again.

So now we only have two categories of Knowledge:

Category 1
Personal Knowledge - things I know based only on my personal perception
-is very often shown to be incorrect by my personal perception of reality
-eg. making a mistake, forgetting things

Category 2
Repeatable Knowledge - things I know based on my personal perception agreeing with my perception of other people's perceptions and is also reproducible and repeatable.
-has never been shown to be incorrect by my personal perception of reality (once shown to be incorrect, it no longer fits in this category)
-eg. how objects with mass attract each other (gravity), electronics

iano writes:

Both God and monitor are personal perceptions. The monitor belongs to a class of my perception called perceptable by all others. God belongs to the category called perceptible to some others in not necessarily repeatable way.

Correct. The monitor is perceived by you, you also perceive that 99%+ of others equally perceive the monitor, and your perception of the monitor is reproducible and repeatable. This makes it category 2 -> Repeatable Knoweldge.

Your God is perceived by you. This makes it category 1 -> Personal Knoweldge.

Again, we see that the monitor ends up in the category that only contains things that have never, ever been shown to be incorrect in your perception of reality. And your God ends up in the category that routinely has many things shown to be incorrect by your perception of reality. Granted, your God has yet to be shown to be incorrect, but you cannot move your God into category 2. Your God doesn't meet the criteria.

That's why people say we 'know' the monitor better than we 'know' your God. Because the monitor is in category 2, and your God is in category 1. If they mean to say your monitor is absolutely true in an external-reality sense when your God is not, they are over-stepping the bounds on their own knowledge (as far as I can tell, anyway). But the fact remains that the monitor is in category 2, and your God is in category 1.

Again, it's left for the reader to decide if an absolute-external-reality (that we may not even be able to detect) is worthwhile in giving any consideration, or even if it makes any sense at all.

iano writes:

Seeing as the monitor is deemed to belong in that category by virtue of it's satisfying the categories entry criteria perfectly, this statement is kind of circular.

Um... that isn't 'circular', that's 'straight-forward'. When we have categories, and those categories have criteria, and an item is placed into a category because it satisfies all the criteria... that's called 'straight-forward'. Like how a square peg going into a square hole isn't 'circular logic', it's 'straight-forward'.

Perhaps you're trying to mention my example of 'electronics'? We can remove that if you'd like. It has no bearing on how a monitor will always end up in Category 2. We can remove 'electronics' as the example and replace it with 'bridge engineering' or 'how germs cause disease' or 'counting' or 'shoveling snow from my driveway'. Please pick whatever example you prefer.

iano writes:

Stile writes:

While 'the God I know' is currently in the class of 'things we know' that has the worst track-record for ending up in disagreement with the reality we perceive.

Similarily circular?

No. Similarily straight-forward. God meets the criteria for Category 1, God does not meet the criteria for Category 2. So we put God in Category 1. The monitor meets the criteria for both categories, so we put the monitor in Category 2. I didn't really think this was a difficult point. If you'd like to argue over what those criteria are, then yes, that would be an interesting point. But, well, when an item meets the criteria for a category, yes, we put that item in that category. This is not 'circular', this is 'straight-forward'.

But this is about the reality I perceive. Which includes the monitor and God. The fact "we" can perceive the one and not the other says only that in the totality of all my perceptions, some are shared by others at times and not shared by others at other times.

Exactly. Some perception are yours alone. Some perceptions are shared by others. Some perceptions are shared by others and reproducible and repeatable.

Sometimes your perception of reality proves your personal knowledge wrong. Like when you think your car keys are in your pocket. That's personal knowledge. You can check your pocket and if your keys aren't there then your perception of reality has proven your assumption wrong. This is Category 1, this is the same category your God is in.

Sometimes your perception of reality never, ever (yet) proves your personal knoweldge wrong. Like when you deal with gravity. This is Category 2, this is the same category your monitor is in. Your God is not in Category 2.

I am still left as the highest court in assuming my perceptions as accurately reflecting reality. What another perceives is not necessarily here or there. I submit that everyone is in the same boat as me regarding whatever it is that forms the totality of their perceptions.

Agreed. This doesn't change the fact that we can tell the difference between Category 1 and Category 2 knoweldge. Your God is in Category 1. Your monitor is in Category 2. Although 'my knowlege about everything' and 'your knowledge about everything' is in the same boat, your knowledge about God and your knowledge about your monitor clearly is not. This is the distinction.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by iano, posted 03-04-2008 10:35 AM iano has not yet responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 14020
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 40 of 94 (459177)
03-04-2008 1:59 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by iano
03-04-2008 10:56 AM


Perception of God ?
Since you still haven't answered my Message 16 I want to raise the point again.

Your argument rests on the assumption that you have a "perception of God". But I haven't seen anything that supports that or even explains what you mean.

Now I'll point out that even when dealing with sensory perceptions we do a reasonable job of identifying false perceptions (like hallucinations and dreams) and erroneous perceptions (illusions). But I doubt that you are referring to a sensory perception. Which means we have to ask just what is it you are talking about - and if it really is the "basic perception" you claim.

I don't believe that it is.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by iano, posted 03-04-2008 10:56 AM iano has not yet responded

    
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 854 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 41 of 94 (459179)
03-04-2008 2:05 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by iano
03-03-2008 8:49 AM


God exists for me just like everything else exists for me: I perceive him to exist and assume that this perception, like all other root perceptions regarding reality, actually reflects reality.

If this were true you would not deny the observation of design in nature to correspond to the work of invisible Designer/God.

You are either bearing false witness or are horribly deluded. There is no way to tell which is actually true in your case.

Statements from evolutionists like this, who claim to be believers in God, show how illogical and senseless they are. Since Iano thinks what he wrote makes sense (for why else did he write it knowing that we know he is an evolutionist who denies design to indicate Designer/God?) is evidence that he is horribly deluded and not lying. Of course the Bible portrays Judas to be horribly deluded by Satan, which explains his betrayal of Christ.

Ray


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by iano, posted 03-03-2008 8:49 AM iano has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Rahvin, posted 03-04-2008 2:37 PM Cold Foreign Object has not yet responded
 Message 44 by bluegenes, posted 03-04-2008 5:33 PM Cold Foreign Object has not yet responded
 Message 47 by iano, posted 03-04-2008 6:48 PM Cold Foreign Object has responded

    
Rahvin
Member (Idle past 993 days)
Posts: 3964
Joined: 07-01-2005


Message 42 of 94 (459187)
03-04-2008 2:37 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by Cold Foreign Object
03-04-2008 2:05 PM


If this were true you would not deny the observation of design in nature to correspond to the work of invisible Designer/God.

You are either bearing false witness or are horribly deluded. There is no way to tell which is actually true in your case.

Statements from evolutionists like this, who claim to be believers in God, show how illogical and senseless they are. Since Iano thinks what he wrote makes sense (for why else did he write it knowing that we know he is an evolutionist who denies design to indicate Designer/God?) is evidence that he is horribly deluded and not lying. Of course the Bible portrays Judas to be horribly deluded by Satan, which explains his betrayal of Christ.

...since when is iano an evolutionist?

Once again, Ray, you prove to be a paranoid, delusional, ranting maniac, flinging accusations of Atheism and support of evolution (as if they were negatives) at anyone who disagrees with you, even if only in the details.

You're like Dana Carvey's Church Lady character, screaming "Satan" at every corner. Except less funny. A little.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 03-04-2008 2:05 PM Cold Foreign Object has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 43 of 94 (459201)
03-04-2008 5:04 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Blue Jay
03-04-2008 1:38 PM


Re: All in the Same Boat
But, the stalemate only comes when everybody's wrong. If we're together in assuming an external, objective reality (even if it isn't objective or external), the one of us whose system of interpretation actually is objective and external is much more plausible (because subjectivity cannot have any bearing on an objective world).

But couldn't RealityTM be some combination of the objective and subjective? Does it have to be all or nothing?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Blue Jay, posted 03-04-2008 1:38 PM Blue Jay has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Straggler, posted 03-04-2008 5:51 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded
 Message 51 by Blue Jay, posted 03-04-2008 10:58 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 283 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 44 of 94 (459203)
03-04-2008 5:33 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by Cold Foreign Object
03-04-2008 2:05 PM


CFO referring to fellow Christian iano writes:

You are either bearing false witness or are horribly deluded. There is no way to tell which is actually true in your case.

The trouble with all this subjective experience of God stuff is that Christians all end up believing in different Gods, as illustrated above.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 03-04-2008 2:05 PM Cold Foreign Object has not yet responded

  
Straggler
Member (Idle past 190 days)
Posts: 10198
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 45 of 94 (459206)
03-04-2008 5:51 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by New Cat's Eye
03-04-2008 5:04 PM


Re: All in the Same Boat
But couldn't RealityTM be some combination of the objective and subjective? Does it have to be all or nothing?

I don't think anyone is arguing that our personal perception of reality is not a mixture of both.

The question is whether or not there is an objective and common reality that we are all percieving in our own subjective ways or whether it is all just the wholly subjective imaginings of a 'brain in a jar' type situation.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-04-2008 5:04 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

  
Prev12
3
4567Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018