Perceptions of Reality

Ringo:I understand, and that is why I ask you on what ground you can do so?To deny one thing implies something else. You see, one of the tests for truth is undeniability (eg. I cannot deny my own existence without affirming it at the same time). There are many things we cannot prove, but as jar seems to understand in some regard, they cannot be denied without sacrificing logic at the alter of incredulity.I don't know how many times I have given this illustration. But it seems to go right over... It really pins the point I am attempting to communicate.I guess it is too subconscious for us to easily get a handle on. You said a simmilar thing yourself.Ringo:So, in light of the other thread in which we were talking about subordination and it's proper role. And in recognition of it's connection to the discussion here, please do, look and see what Gilbert is saying to us here: (Orthodoxy, Chapter title - The Suicide of Thought / 1908)Edited by Rob, : No reason given.

Ringo:Then you are not denying. You used the word deny not me.That is why jesus asked so many questions. To expose whether the question was legitimate, or simply denial disguised as a genuine question.Questioning as you are conflating it, is done by lawyers who seek not truth, but political advantage.This is also why I want to start a thread on whether words mean things objectively or not. I suspect it will not be promoted because it is so easily adapted to empower my worldview because words themselves find their power and reality in truth.Let me go long to illusrate this...Pilot asked Jesus, 'Are you the King of the Jews?' And Jesus asked, 'Is that your own question, or did someone tell you about me.?'In other words, Jesus was asking, 'do you really want to know, or are you asessing the situation so as to angle for your own political advantage?'You see?Pilot wasn't interested in the truth at the expense of his own position and power. This was so, even though he knew that the trial of Jesus was a sham.Truth and justice were crucified by alterior motives. And even the perpetrators of this travesty realized it. As is the case now...

Ringo:Because if it isn't, then all of us are wasting our time and none of us believe that.You fight for your own political freedom (I know that because of other threads in which I dragged it out of you. So it is you who have to answer your own question. I already assume justice to be a legitimate pursuit and an accurate reflection of reality. And I accept the moral grounds upon which we fight for it.You have lost the right to rebel against anything, by questioning the legitimacy of the very justice you fight for. that was Chesterton's point as is mine.I have explained this effectively. But you do not hear me because you are not asking the questions because you want to understand, but rather to defend your own turf. Turf that btw does not belong to Ringo, but all of us as a whole.All of this I have explained openly and as forthrightly as possible.

Ringo;Is there something unjust about it?I don't think it is a non sequitor. A non sequitor is when the inference does not folow from the premises.If justice is not absolute, then a non sequitor is meaningless.I am talking aobut the basis for logic itself. 'In the beginning was the Word'.Without inffering justice, we have no premise.Aristotle said, 'Justice is virtue entire' and 'injustice is vice entire'. (or something like that...)Edited by Rob, : No reason given.

This is getting well into the limits of my current understanding.Ringo:Other people's reality? People don't have other realities. They have illusions of such. That is why you argue with me; to challenge my supposed 'version' of reality.I hav e not assumed any conclusions. I have assumed my assumptions. That is why we call them assumptions.You do not assume anything far as I can tell. So by what means do you question me?I assume logic is valid. But I have an actual anchor for that belief. I believe it is actually real. In other words...the 'Word' is God. Logic is reality, to put it another way.Where is your ontic referent to legitimize your questions?

Ringo:The consensus in my home (predominantly children 3 to 2 ratio) is that candy and ice cream should be consumed for breakfast lunch and dinner.Who am I to tell them any different?

Ringo:Too small a sample in other words...But it is a concensus! Whether or not it reflects reality is not relevant to the sample size. But as you see below, I will compromise with you on this point.Ringo:The law of large numbers... yes. I learned it in the insurance industry as an agent a few years back.I don't buy the consensus argument as an extreme, but it is an indicator.You agree with Lewis then in that regard? (C. S. Lewis / 'Mere Christianity')So, do you have it in you to compromise as well... or is this just a game being played by a child who thinks too highly of himself?

Are you familliar with Nator's Admin avatar?What a waste...

RickJB:Because like you... I demand justice. I expect an account for your actions. I expect an explanation in truth for why you say what you say. I assume such justice to be an actual reflection of the nature of reality (God).And, I did explain this to Ringo... he waved it off as a non sequitor. he just wishes it away.But time is ticking...Let him wave off the justice that abides upon him on the day of his judgment. The same will apply to you if you don't start using the mind God gave you.That is what I believe. It is probably a laughable and empty threat to most here.But it is my perception of reality, and as Ringo said, 'Who has the right to tell me any different?'Listen to me... We have no rights under the assumptions of naturalism other than what we bestow upon each other. They are not intrinsic. A human life has no intrinsic value. We must fight tooth and claw for such things. My rights, at the expense of anothers..By what foundation based in reality do you demand the justice implied in your question? Survival of the fittest? If so, that's not justice... it is pure power, cause, and effect.So you have asked nothing. You're only positioning for control. You don't have the right to ask me anything because of what you believe.The reason I answer you is motivated by an entirely different worldview.I believe in the truth. And I believe I am speaking the truth. And I believe you should recognize it as such. And I concede to your intrinsic and God given right to choose whether or not to respect it as such.You can do as you wish. But Justice is default reality. It is absolute. As John Polkinghorne, the Quantum physics professor (and Christian) at Cambridge said, 'Somebody has to pay'.I for one am astounded.... that Reality would come in the flesh and pay my debt for me. I dare not wish justice upon myself...Only grace. Unearned and undeserved forgiveness.Edited by Rob, : No reason given.Edited by Rob, : No reason given.Edited by Rob, : No reason given.

Ringo:I didn't say they did. I said it is so, despite me. As you have implied, reality is absolute. I have no power to change it. I can only submit to what is right despite what I wish 'right' to be.Ringo:Another persons assumption that assumptions themselves are invalid. Such a person exalts and opposes himself...Edited by Rob, : No reason given.

Good grief!

[qs]Archer:Be more specific...It is this question that delivered me. It was a long journey from here to there. But you must answer it for yourself as I did. And as we would expect, reality only allows one ultimate answer.

Archer:You won't get an argument from me.

Razd:Beyond that which is amoral, what is not moral, is 'immoral'. And perversion of information is called 'lies'. Both denote a word that is lacking from your vocabulary because you claim not to believe in such doctrine; sin.I told you it was about morality.Did you not believe me?It is all about morality Razd. And morality is inseperable from what is most precious to you.What is your treasure?What you seek, reveals your real heart and exposes it's true motivations.As Jesus said, Jesus also said:Jer 17:9
The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure. Who can understand it?Ho 10:2
Their heart is deceitful, and now they must bear their guilt. The Lord will demolish their altars and destroy their sacred stones.Edited by Rob, : No reason given.

Razd:Well you just did draw a line with your convoluted statement because it implies that doing otherwise would be wrong. I agree! And I detest your insinuation that I advocate such things.It is I who argue for morality not you. So what exactly is your contention?You've said nothing... What you give with one hand, like some marvelous magician, you take away with the other.It is you sir who moralize incessantly, all for the sake of extinguishing the most important information of all... morality iself.Your sorcery is sophist at best...It's actually quite boring.Edited by Rob, : No reason given.Edited by Rob, : No reason given.