|
|
Post by Kyrisch on Jan 19, 2010 16:47:44 GMT
God=Objective reality personified. Then of course it exists, people personify objective reality all the time. You still haven't given a definition for any entity called God, because in admitting that it is just a personification you have conceded that it is not a separate entity. I'm not following.... Maybe an example would help? Which, in my opinion, is nothing. That's much more like intelligence. But is it really fathomable? The idea may be valid, but if it is unimaginable it still lacks cognitive significance. The problem with these being that, like eternity, they all rely on the concept of infinity which does not seem properly fathomable to me. Our consciousnesses will be non-existent after we die (considering death means brain death). These are interesting colloquial interpretations, but I'm speaking more about the contemporary Christian and/or other religious views which speak of Heaven and Hell as places, but never say where they are. These, however, I admit, can be cognitively significant in many contexts. If you wish, I will strike them from the list. If there were no way for it to happen, then it would not have happened. Since it happened, there must have been some way for it to have happened. Your definition dictates that a miracle can never occur. Same problem as above. Your use of the word know implies certainty. If we were certain about something's non-existence, then it can't exist. That's why we're certain. However, a thinking person would admit that certainty on our parts is impossible. Even the definition "something that exists that we think does not" does not count as supernatural, though, either, because I can think of plenty of things that fall under that definition that would not be considered so. Same problem as miracle. That's just the memory of someone. And perhaps a psychological predisposition to believe strong memories to be present realities. -facepalm- And what is that supposed to mean? I'm adding essence to the list. How is that energy? So how can we fathom it? The context in which this was used implied progress of some sort. Since these were taken out of context, I may take them off the list. My previous points about them still stand though. Maybe a better undertaking would be to translate the paragraph I quoted describing Buddhism into more empirical language. Coincidence? The universe is not fractal by nature. What about masochists? Good and Evil are very rarely used solely in these simple hedonistic manners. Obviously based on the definitions of Good and Evil. I'm glad you actually attempted this undertaking. I hope it helped illuminate my point, as I'm sure it was very difficult to pinpoint the definitions of such elusive concepts. As you can see, you either produced a definition with an inherent contradiction (miracle, paranormal) or became so specific as to define a completely different word. In other cases you provided a definition which can be used in some contexts, but is not the one generally used when the word is used religiously. And lastly, you often simply replaced one nonsense word for another (spirit/essence). Also, I concede; I have not been precise with my own language. My challenge was indeed to define the words on the list, but my point was that none of them were truly cognitively significant. Sometimes you can define words that aren't fathomable, such as infinity and indescribable. But the reason I challenged on definitions is because the precision of the definition most often correlates to comprehensibility. Here I will provide a revised list. Another attempt, or quibbles about my rebuttals are more than welcome: god spirituality soul mind eternity omnipotence omniscience ubiquity infinity* afterlife miracle supernatural paranormal ghost spirit energy (non-science) indescribable* balanced and ordered (universe) good evil essence |
|
tar
Junior Member
Posts: 94
|
Post by tar on Jan 20, 2010 11:58:08 GMT
Kyrisch,
I have quibbles for your quibbles. But they are too numerous to detail. I rather talk about them all at once. I thought the challenge was to define God in a cognitively appropriate way, without using any of a list of cognitively ambiguous terms. I attempted to do that, and also attempted a cognitively appropriate defintion for the other terms.
You can not fault me defining terms having to do with cognition, with expressing the level of their cognitability. It is exactly what the terms are referring to.
As for supernatural and miracles being not possible, that was my point.
As for your rejecting my God=objective reality personified, on the grounds that it therefore proved god did not exist, is an ignoring of the definition. The personification of something real does not make the real thing not exist. The personification is occuring in ones imagination, in ones mind, and has to do with the way the thing is being addressed or interpreted.
My point being, that objective reality is the thing being referred to, when an atheist says reality just is, or when a theist refers to God. The fact that theists overtly personify this reality, and atheists don't, does not mean the "it" is not the same "it" in both cases.
Atheists and Theists, both believe in "it".
Regards, TAR
|
|
tar
Junior Member
Posts: 94
|
Post by tar on Jan 20, 2010 12:07:16 GMT
And Atheists and Theists both have their own ways of imagining they have some association with, knowledge of, and handle on, "it".
|
|
tar
Junior Member
Posts: 94
|
Post by tar on Jan 20, 2010 12:19:04 GMT
I parse it in this fashion, because I think it important to note that atheists believe the personification is inaccurate, and disbelieve in the personification, not disbelieve in the "it".
|
|
|
|
Post by Kyrisch on Jan 21, 2010 20:48:46 GMT
I have quibbles for your quibbles. But they are too numerous to detail. I rather talk about them all at once. I would prefer if you stated specifically what your quibbles are, and to what they are directed. It lends to a more structured discussion and helps reduce the amount that we may begin 'talking past each other'. I have invested the time to, entry by entry, further defend my points and I would appreciate it if you took the same time to expound your stance. But if the terms are referring to something that cannot truly be fathomed, then they are useless as descriptive words. And while we might imagine that they have meaning, they have no cognitive significance. For instance, while the concept of infinity exists in mathematical science, it is avoided as much as possible because of its 'indescribable' nature. An interesting illustration of why I present myself as an atheist, while actually a noncognitivist. It's not that they are not possible, it's that they are meaningless because of inherent contradiction in their definitions. Because of this, I dismiss them the same way I dismiss God. I can tell that your own religious opinions are coming into play. If you take this kind of thing to be God, then you admit that it is all in the believers' heads. In other words, while the personification of something real does not render the real thing nonexistent, it does concede that the personification is an interpretation and not a viable entity. Your religion is interesting, and we can speak about it in a separate thread. (I sort of derailed the one in which you intended to speak to me about it, I apologize; an interesting topic of itself, however, arose so I don't completely regret it.) I, however, am speaking towards more mainstream religions which treat God as an entity separate though related to the universe. Your definition fails because it does not describe that kind of entity, it describes a sort of imaginary friend (if the god is personal), a simple equivocation of the natural laws, or even a delusion. While I agree with these, too, no religious person would. But why is the personification necessary? Whatever was in the beginning that caused the Big Bang must have been. But why call it God? I'm sure it was a simple aspect of physics and natural laws, why equivocate so? Since you are not a theist, you probably cannot really answer. But my point stands. To unnecessarily characterize aspects of the universe as personifications of some character God is just calling six eggs a half dozen. It is completely unnecessary and renders the word "god" meaningless, since its meaning depends entirely on whatever the user thereof decides on whatever whim to label with it. And by it you must only be referring to the universe, because that is all I really 'believe in'. |
|
tar
Junior Member
Posts: 94
|
Post by tar on Jan 22, 2010 8:10:12 GMT
Kyrisch, I would prefer if you stated specifically what your quibbles are, and to what they are directed. It lends to a more structured discussion and helps reduce the amount that we may begin 'talking past each other'. I have invested the time to, entry by entry, further defend my points and I would appreciate it if you took the same time to expound your stance. Well I'll try, but two objections. One, I don't have this quote thing down. And two, I am not really a detail guy, I prefer to talk on as many levels, and about as many things at one time, as I can muster. No, three objections, it is distressing to me to envision the daunting doubling, tripling and quadrupling that goes on if you respond to each of the several ideas in each of my responses to the several ideas that you expressed in each detailed reponse to.... I would rather just converse, and try to get the general drift, of where agreement and disagreement lies, come to new insights provided, and lead the other to insights I have had. But if the terms are referring to something that cannot truly be fathomed, then they are useless as descriptive words. And while we might imagine that they have meaning, they have no cognitive significance. Useless? Not decriptive? If I know what concept you are referring to, then it is useful in communication. And it is descriptive, as in the case of let's say "essence" in that we think in analogies, and if you can look for the meat of a paragraph, or ascertain the central ideas in a political campaign, or the standout charactertics of a rose, or the important components of a computer that make it a computer, when you boil it down, take away all the extra fluff, and consider it, you will know in essence what the other is refering to. For instance, while the concept of infinity exists in mathematical science, it is avoided as much as possible because of its 'indescribable' nature. Well I think the concept is fine and precise and completely descriptive. It is not used in math, because you can't operate on it. I sometimes think it is used, however, where it may not apply. For instance "infinitely small" may not be valid, if you can not get any smaller than Planck, or "infinitely large may not apply", if the universe is finite in size. An interesting illustration of why I present myself as an atheist, while actually a noncognitivist. It's not that they are not possible, it's that they are meaningless because of inherent contradiction in their definitions. Because of this, I dismiss them the same way I dismiss God. Well here I have to stop you, and point out that meaningless to you and me, does not mean meaningless to someone else. AND there is a good chance we are wrong, to consider our worldview complete. Take "supernatural". To me and you, anything and everything is natural, is real, exists, and since all of reality is contained in our definition, then nothing "other" exists. But then, when you think about it, who do we think we are? We know we are limited. We know we are fairly young as a race. We may, with all of our combined knowledge, only have scratched the surface of what there is to know. In this light, from this perspective, one could easily imagine "nature" and all that we currently know as reality, as being only an aspect of the reality that CAN be known. Then the word supernatural would have some possible meaning. It is my intention, (along with NAZ) to explain and apologize for both the atheistic scientific naturalist humanist evolutionist type, and the theistic, religious, god fearing, ghost seeing, creationist, karma type, because Naz and I see ourselves in both camps. I speak for Naz, because I think I can, even though I have no right. In the same manner, as I assign thoughts to my image of Naz, which Naz may or may not have, creationists assign thoughts to evolutionists, that they may or may not have, theists assign thoughts to God that it may or may not have, and scientists assign thoughts to the universe, that it may or may not have. So "having no meaning" to you. Does not mean something is devoid of meaning to me. On whose authority would you claim a "no meaning" status? The scientific community? Is that a "real" entity that has a godlike perspective on the universe? No. Just a bunch of smart people that have really good mathematical models of stuff, that help us manipulate and organize the world around us, to our benefit. There still is another realm in which we exist. We all are conscious, we all die, and we each belong to something we cannot fully describe. All of us know what the words spirit and essence are refering to. Even if they lack a Kyrisch approved definition. I can tell that your own religious opinions are coming into play. If you take this kind of thing to be God, then you admit that it is all in the believers' heads. In other words, while the personification of something real does not render the real thing nonexistent, it does concede that the personification is an interpretation and not a viable entity. Um, its all in our heads. We have the ability to internalize the external world in high fidelity. And we have the mechanisms whereby we can build models of unseen others. It is not a very far stretch to build a model of an unseen other that is dead, or that never existed, or that existed or exists but one has never seen. Imaginary friends, imagined talks with Plato, images of fictional characters, story heros, images of Jesus telling a parable, images of angels protecting you, images of Santa and his reindeer. None of us have an "actual" view, other than our own view. And there is no better model in our head, than the model we take as reality. Scientific Method helps us sort out those things that are in everybodies model from those things that do not fit everybodies model, but there still is a human bias put on our collective model of reality. It is seen from an Earthly perspective, on a human size and timescale. Any other perspective taken, is an imagined one. If one takes a Godlike perspective, and indeed such an imagined perspective is possible, then it is just as unrealistic to imagine YOU actually have that perspective, as it is to imagine an unseen other, who actually does have that perspective. This is why I think we are all as guilty as the other and all as correct as the other, when it comes to the atheist/theist, debate. We are using the same mechanisms to acheive the same results, just approaching it, in different ways. Sort of the "blind men and the elephant story." Your religion is interesting, and we can speak about it in a separate thread. (I sort of derailed the one in which you intended to speak to me about it, I apologize; an interesting topic of itself, however, arose so I don't completely regret it.) I, however, am speaking towards more mainstream religions which treat God as an entity separate though related to the universe. Your definition fails because it does not describe that kind of entity, it describes a sort of imaginary friend (if the god is personal), a simple equivocation of the natural laws, or even a delusion. While I agree with these, too, no religious person would. I would say I have more of a world view, than a religion. Unless the two are the same. But why is the personification necessary? Whatever was in the beginning that caused the Big Bang must have been. But why call it God? I'm sure it was a simple aspect of physics and natural laws, why equivocate so? Since you are not a theist, you probably cannot really answer. But my point stands. To unnecessarily characterize aspects of the universe as personifications of some character God is just calling six eggs a half dozen. It is completely unnecessary and renders the word "god" meaningless, since its meaning depends entirely on whatever the user thereof decides on whatever whim to label with it. See above. And by it you must only be referring to the universe, because that is all I really 'believe in'. Different names for the same thing. You take an objective view and say its your view. Others take an objective view and say its God's. Regards, TAR |
|
|
|
Post by Kyrisch on Feb 3, 2010 9:24:37 GMT
I am not really a detail guy, I prefer to talk on as many levels, and about as many things at one time, as I can muster. This is disadvantageous, especially in this environment. It lends to us speaking to completely different ends and accomplishing nothing. Often, we each just repeat our points and stomp our feet and nothing gets seriously addressed, so if it isn't too much to ask for (and I notice you did do some of it in this very post) continue to address my specific points for the sake of productivity. Thank you. But in each of those cases, you clarified. And often the clarification is understood implicitly based on context. But just as often it is not and since people are used to the context being implicit, they accept the word as descriptive when it really is just meaningless. For instance, the definition of soul and spirit as the 'essence' of a thing. Say, a person, for example: Do you mean the meat of a person, like a paragraph? The body, or the meaning? Doesn't quite fit. The central idea of a person? The outstanding characteristics? The important components? None of the clarifications your provided work in this context. It remains ambiguous and until proper clarification is applied, meaningless. And you can't operate on it because it isn't a valid conjecture. It has no properties because it is undefined. But it still would not be something out of physical reach. It would simply be something to elude our reach as of yet. There is a very important distinction between these two definitions. I'm not some person who wants to decide what things should mean to people, or some advocate for strict and precise language. I think language is beautiful and very flexible because of its ambiguity. Nor am I saying that something that is meaningless to me cannot be significant to any other person. The key here is cognitive significance. Many people use words which they think have meaning, but which are actual devoid thereof. This is not an argument of semantics where I disagree with someone about what something means. This is more that when I read religious text it reminds me of Jabberwocky. |
|
tar
Junior Member
Posts: 94
|
Post by tar on Feb 7, 2010 7:57:11 GMT
Kyrish,
But cognitive significance is indeed in the mind of the beholder. We can only comprehend what we sense, what we percieve and the way we put it all together in our brains. We use symbols and language to think, and we communicate the same way. It is difficult to think about anything without using language. So what comes in directly is an analog representation of the world around us. There is meaning we can gleen from the patterns that come to us. Some are from nature, some are from other humans. Sometimes we don't get the meaning, don't understand something, don't see how someone else can find the meaning they say they are finding, but that is not necessarily because there is not cognitive sense to be made of somethings, it might be because we don't have the information or equipment or set of symbols and language, and background and purposes and wills that someone else might have. Calculus is rather Jabberwocky to me, sometimes. And sometimes I get it. String theory and dark matter, are cognitively impossible for me, but to some it makes perfect sense.
You keep saying my statements are circular. To me, they are straightfoward and meaningful.
You might find that I actually answer your questions, with good answers, if you look for the meaning, rather than assume there is none there.
Same with religion. Parse it out. See what fits reality and what does not, see what is figurative and see what is literal. See on what level the other person is operating. It doesn't have to be right or wrong, and for sure, it is not going to be your way of looking at it, but cognitively sensible, given the other's frame of reference.
Regards, TAR
|
|
|
|
Post by Kyrisch on Feb 7, 2010 20:10:14 GMT
Cognitive significance is not in the eye of the beholder. It is the empirical action of whether or not a word or idea causes the brain to actual conjure up a tangible idea as opposed to simply reacting emotionally. For instance, when people pray, a different part of their brain 'lights up' than the normal analytical section. They think differently. There is no cognitive significance, just primitive reaction.
Calculus and such are not 'significant' to you because you don't understand the notation. It's similar to a foreign language... The words in a foreign language have cognitive significance attributed to them, but you simply do not have the knowledge of what that significance is. Whereas with Jabberwocky, the words simply have no real meaning (although many of them seem to obviously mean something, based on linguistic 'hunches' that we have, which makes them a strikingly good example of a thing that seems to resonate with you but which really does not have any true cognitive appeal).
I do keep saying that your arguments are circular because you tend to repeat yourself over and over as if it makes your statements more true. I have taken the time to painstakingly reply to each of your points and you continue to talk over me. Your repetition for want of argument leads me to believe that you take the presence of your points to be evidence thereof which is decidedly circular.
Further, while you do answer my questions I in no way assume there is no meaning there. More often than not I analyze and dissect your response and demonstrate why I believe your responses to be inadequate. I disagree that I approach your stance with any such presumptuousness.
Finally, religion is not cognitively sensible. It activates a completely different part of the brain than normal thought patterns. In my opinion, it's a very, very evolutionarily fit meme. A social virus, if you may. Parsing it results in more nonsense. Can you parse out Jabberwocky?
|
|
tar
Junior Member
Posts: 94
|
Post by tar on Feb 11, 2010 7:13:36 GMT
Kyrisch,
I don't think your view is consistent.
Regards, TAR
|
|
|
|
Post by Kyrisch on Feb 11, 2010 8:17:08 GMT
In what ways is it inconsistent?
|
|
tar
Junior Member
Posts: 94
|
Post by tar on Feb 17, 2010 6:47:07 GMT
Kyrisch,
You speak of a human, as a flawed, limited persona, that does not exist, from the reference point of a flawed, limited persona, that does exist, and don't notice that any objective view you take of yourself, is a subjective human view, from an obviously existing "you".
You speak as if you have arrived at a perspective which is outside yourself.
You cannot be anything other than you.
Inconsistent to rail against a "primitive" part of you, as if you have found some way to exist, without the primitive part of you, which allows you to be, in the first place.
Regards, TAR
|
|
|
|
Post by Kyrisch on Feb 17, 2010 10:24:12 GMT
I could say the exact same things about yourself. Just because I am human and therefore fallible does not mean my statements are definitely in err. And to say that the claims are inconsistent with 'a primitive part of me' is a tu quoque* argument.
* ...from wikipedia
|
|
tar
Junior Member
Posts: 94
|
Post by tar on Feb 18, 2010 3:47:52 GMT
No, you misunderstood.
"It activates a completely different part of the brain than normal thought patterns."
Was the idea that I am calling inconsistent. That you are claiming the type of thoughts you feel are most valuable as normal, and discounting the other types of thoughts and activities going on in your mind and body as "primitive" and worthy only of "overcoming".
I am in complete acceptance of my falibility, and selfishness, and accept it as a reality for myself and everybody else. It is a fact of life. I, in absolutely no way was blaming you of something and holding myself immune.
The pot calling the kettle black, shows only the pot's inabilty to notice he is guilty of the same offense that he is accusing the other of.
In a debate, where a position is taken for the fun of showing skill in arguing for or against it, my claiming your inconsistency to your position might be an ad hominum attack, improperly attacking the party rather than the position. But in this case, I was attacking you directly, in reference to your inconsistent view of yourself. Your view of yourself, is the position I am attacking.
If you would like to defend your position, do so. But the attack is valid.
You cannot hold a position, if there is no you to hold it, now can you?
|
|
|
|
Post by Kyrisch on Feb 18, 2010 6:57:06 GMT
"It activates a completely different part of the brain than normal thought patterns." Was the idea that I am calling inconsistent. That you are claiming the type of thoughts you feel are most valuable as normal, and discounting the other types of thoughts and activities going on in your mind and body as "primitive" and worthy only of "overcoming". I said nothing about importance because I thought it could be assumed that rational thoughts which actually reflected reality and which could be used to better the human condition would be considered more important. What is more important to you, the ravings of a madman or the sense of an intellect? The ravings of a madman are meaningless, and even if they stir something in you they do so for the wrong reason. There is a reason propaganda is looked down upon; it is because, like religion and meaningless drivel that you might find importance in, it only speaks to your primitive emotional reactive brain and could easily lead you astray. This is patently untrue. The pot could very well call the kettle black with full awareness of guiltiness of the same thing. The kicker, however, is that his statement would still be true. This the the point of the 'tu quoque' fallacy; just because you think my position is inconsistent with myself, I am still presenting something which I think is valid and cannot be so easily written off. This makes no sense. Obviously not. God can't do anything if God doesn't exist. The way you phrased this is self-defeating. My position on the matter is that the word 'you' and the concept of 'self' are ambiguous to the point of meaninglessness, but a position could be presented from one intellect to another regardless of the question of identity. Using arguments like this, while they may be significant, do not actually deal with the validity of the position presented. |
|
