A valid proof of reason vs. faith

[ShatterSphere]

Man is purely reflective in nature, he can only judge and compare of what he has already imagined; and in knowing, man becomes perceptible (according to his own understanding). So it is what he perceives that results in his understanding, through the interpretation of what he judges and compares.

And in knowledge of this, which no one can deny (as it is a naturally occuring process within the human consciousness) faith becomes only imaginative; as no one can imagine what they have not yet imagined. Faith, as in all institutions, becomes iniquity; as the perceptions of the few become the perceptions of the many, mostly due to ignorance and fear of the conscious mind.

Faith is only imagined and everything that can be imagined becomes an image of truth. But what the "truth" lacks is the concept that ideas have reason, or were meant to have reason, to build upon.

If words cannot be interpretted through the imaginative force that reason permits then truly I can say, due to your lack of logical proof, the one who is within me is stronger than the one who is within you.

 

[NavyGuy7]

Man is purely reflective in nature, he can only judge and compare of what he has already imagined; and in knowing, man becomes perceptible (according to his own understanding). So it is what he perceives that results in his understanding, through the interpretation of what he judges and compares.

And in knowledge of this, which no one can deny (as it is a naturally occuring process within the human consciousness) faith becomes only imaginative; as no one can imagine what they have not yet imagined. Faith, as in all institutions, becomes iniquity; as the perceptions of the few become the perceptions of the many, mostly due to ignorance and fear of the conscious mind.

Faith is only imagined and everything that can be imagined becomes an image of truth. But what the "truth" lacks is the concept that ideas have reason, or were meant to have reason, to build upon.

If words cannot be interpretted through the imaginative force that reason permits then truly I can say, due to your lack of logical proof, the one who is within me is stronger than the one who is within you.

Use... simpler language. I wasn't sure who's side you were on until the end.
But I sort of agree. "Perception is reality" and reason is a part of that perception, lol.

 

[The Nihilist]

no

 

[ShatterSphere]

no

What a feeble attempt at argument. LOL. I'm sorry that is just pathetic.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Man is purely reflective in nature, he can only judge and compare of what he has already imagined; and in knowing, man becomes perceptible (according to his own understanding). So it is what he perceives that results in his understanding, through the interpretation of what he judges and compares.

And in knowledge of this, which no one can deny (as it is a naturally occuring process within the human consciousness) faith becomes only imaginative; as no one can imagine what they have not yet imagined. Faith, as in all institutions, becomes iniquity; as the perceptions of the few become the perceptions of the many, mostly due to ignorance and fear of the conscious mind.

Faith is only imagined and everything that can be imagined becomes an image of truth. But what the "truth" lacks is the concept that ideas have reason, or were meant to have reason, to build upon.

If words cannot be interpretted through the imaginative force that reason permits then truly I can say, due to your lack of logical proof, the one who is within me is stronger than the one who is within you.

This strikes me as an argument through obfuscation.

Please reword this argument in plain English.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[ShatterSphere]

This strikes me as an argument through obfuscation.

Please reword this argument in plain English.


eudaimonia,

Mark

It's not that dark. It is clear and perceptible. What I can do is diffuse the argument by rewording it.

Cognitive Activity:

(Man is purely reflective in nature) Confronted with words, symbols and imagery, man can only (in interpretation) reflect upon the words of a sentence, in only the way that he percieves--that in experience, (we) only see ourselves within the words (symbols, images)--in that, our perception is our understanding.

Basiclly, in interpretation, man only sees his reflection, by and only by, what he sees in himself, through his connection of experience upon concept, in the way that man interprets information--is only in the way that he sees himself, his reflection.

Or we can put this in metaphor and say that within information, man stares out of eyes made of glass but only sees himself, his reflection, in the mirrors within. Man is purely reflective in that what he sees is the image of his reflection.

To simplify, one's interpretation of this argument will be different than another man's, through sole experience--in which, he connects through the judgement and comparison between words and symbols.

As he percieves, he begins to understand. So the interpretation of this argument will merely become one's own reflection.

We are merely limited by our perceptions; and what we see and understand is what we are limited to. Your interpretation of this argument is your reflection. You can only see and understand through your connectivity of the words within this text. If you have no experience with the words that formulate this text then you are limited by your perception (as we all are). What you see is yourself, through your own experience, in the potential energy that is stored up in your judgement and comparison of words. Therefore, reflection becomes purely imaginative.

Now, in faith, as faith contains scripture (symbols, words), one can only imagine the interpretation of scripture as being, merely, one's owns reflection. Hence, all the protestants and heresies that have arisen over the ages due to scripture; as each protestant and heretic began to interpret scripture, purely through the imaginative force (of which is reason)--is that which compelled one to see his own reflection, within the words that he sees.

Words can only be interpretted by the imaginative force that reason permits. Any interpretation, whatever book it may be, is only what one sees in one's self.

Ideas were meant to have reason to build upon. If reason is not permitted then there is only a 'limited will' behind the interpretation of words. Words are concepts in which experience provides the potentiality or "release of energy" in thoughts.

As ideas were meant to have reason to build upon, so do thoughts need reason (imagination) to build upon (otherwise we stagnate in our perception).

(Arguments do get complicated you know. It is a cognitive activity)

To understand this argument, to understand perception, you must be willing and able to change your perspective to an(y) "object of sense" to realize it. A prime example of this would be Plato's dialectics.

The most simplified version of this argument is, you only see what you want to see, only what is within yourself to see. Does that diffuse the argument enough?

 

[The Nihilist]

What a feeble attempt at argument. LOL. I'm sorry that is just pathetic.

Your position is silly. It doesn't merit a thoughtful refutation, so I'm rejecting it out of hand. Hurray!

 

[Washington]

This strikes me as an argument through obfuscation.

Please reword this argument in plain English.


eudaimonia,

Mark

I think ShatterSphere is more taken with the sound of his own voice than in making a cogent argument. I've seen it happen before with others.

 

[True_Blue]

I do not accept your argument that people only see what they want to see, and learn only what they have imagined. People are partially defined by their environment. For example, we all have names, and in almost every case, our names were given to use by others and fuse with our identity. Exposure to information is very powerful. The difference is that some people are unwilling to accept what they see, despite what others believe to be clear evidence to the contrary. In such cases, I believe spiritual beings can cloud our minds and place their hands over people's eyes so that they are unable to think reasonably and are unable to accept the truth. This is an important aspect of Christian theology, and it explains why people cannot be "convinced" to accept Christianity, young earth creationism, etc. God must massage their spirit and bring them to a place in life where they might willingly accept his holy spirit.

 

[ShatterSphere]

I think ShatterSphere is more taken with the sound of his own voice than in making a cogent argument. I've seen it happen before with others.

No I only went to a good college, that's all. I'm able to have more complex thoughts than yourselves and put them onto paper in structured (and perhaps complex arguments).

What you lack, in all, is the experience to relate to the very words that I structure in my argument. (I know that ahead of time and that is why I labeled it a cognitve activity). It is a very coherent argument, just unseen by man for his/her lack of experience in complicating sentences through logic and reason.

 

[Washington]

No I only went to a good college, that's all.

That's very nice; however, as we both know---I went to a good college as well---going to college and even graduating is absolutely no guarantee of an ability to think straight and express oneself well. In fact, that you would even bring up your academic background smacks of a desperate attempt of justification through an appeal to authority. But whatever! You're obviously doing what you think is necessary.

I'm able to have more complex thoughts than yourselves and put them onto paper in structured (and perhaps complex arguments).

Oh, I don't dispute their complexity, but complex does not necessarily mean logical or even rational. And, I notice again your attempt to make your case through an appeal to individual superiority. Amusing to be sure, but just that much more damaging to your position---appealing to personal abilities is kind of a last gasp measure of the desperate.

What you lack, in all, is the experience to relate to the very words that I structure in my argument.

No, what I lack is the ability---actually, the desire---to wade through your prolixity to figure out what you're talking about.

(I know that ahead of time and that is why I labeled it a cognitve activity). It is a very coherent argument, just unseen by man for his/her lack of experience in complicating sentences through logic and reason.

Ah, now this is something I've never seen before---and please excuse me for laughing---someone setting himself up as being above all mankind. However, I do grant that it's very likely that most of mankind does not have experience in "complicating" sentences through logic and reason. Most often we use logic and reason to make them uncomplicated.

 

[ReverendDG]

No I only went to a good college, that's all. I'm able to have more complex thoughts than yourselves and put them onto paper in structured (and perhaps complex arguments).

What you lack, in all, is the experience to relate to the very words that I structure in my argument. (I know that ahead of time and that is why I labeled it a cognitve activity). It is a very coherent argument, just unseen by man for his/her lack of experience in complicating sentences through logic and reason.

no i think mainly that if it was a good coherent argument, you wouldn't have to use 5 dollar words to get your idea across.

on the other hand if you do use 5 dollar words, i can safely say you don't even believe that it is a good argument

 

[JonF]

Man is purely reflective in nature, he can only judge and compare of what he has already imagined; and in knowing, man becomes perceptible (according to his own understanding). So it is what he perceives that results in his understanding, through the interpretation of what he judges and compares.

less Russell, more Kant please

 

[JonF]

(Man is purely reflective in nature) Confronted with words, symbols and imagery, man can only (in interpretation) reflect upon the words of a sentence, in only the way that he percieves--that in experience, (we) only see ourselves within the words (symbols, images)--in that, our perception is our understanding.

I disagree with this. What exactly do you mean by "purely reflective in nature"? Is this more than hollow rhetoric? Are you claiming we have no sensory input? All apriori knowledge is analytic? Are you claiming idealism?

Since words are symbols, and symbols necessary link images, why exactly does it follow that those images can only be a postori? Why can't it be a priori synthetic knowledge?

Basiclly, in interpretation, man only sees his reflection, by and only by, what he sees in himself, through his connection of experience upon concept, in the way that man interprets information--is only in the way that he sees himself, his reflection.

Okay, you claim you've been to college, but maybe your background wasn't in philosophy - so let me help you out here. Pretty much anyone can come up with a theory that explains some epistemological/metaphysical question, the trick is to support your answer, which you didn't do in this case. Like in science it isn't enough for a theory to explain phenomena, it must also be support by reason and observation.

We are merely limited by our perceptions

Have you perceived hyperbolic geometry? Or second order axiomatic logic? What about the universality of cause?

Now, in faith, as faith contains scripture (symbols, words), one can only imagine the interpretation of scripture as being, merely, one's owns reflection. Hence, all the protestants and heresies that have arisen over the ages due to scripture; as each protestant and heretic began to interpret scripture, purely through the imaginative force (of which is reason)--is that which compelled one to see his own reflection, within the words that he sees.

Even if everything you said thus far was true and well supported your argument falls apart here. This isn't logically sound. First you are committing a composition fallacy. Secondly just because one interprets scripture in a subjective way it doesn't follow that scripture is subjective. When we interpret scripture we are apealing to a objective object.

Your whole argument is about perception of symbols, i fail to see why you are treating any different than perception of physical objects.
Do you believe the computer you are typing on exist? Is it possible that your perception is false? Is your perception subjective? Is it based in an objective object?

the rest of your argument is just rhetoric, so i will stop here...

 

[phsyxx]

What a feeble attempt at argument. LOL. I'm sorry that is just pathetic.

It's not an argument - it's a refutation. You stated quite confidently in your premise that no-one could deny what you were saying, and quite clearly someone HAS denied it, therefore falsifying your claim.

 

[fated]

Man is purely reflective in nature, he can only judge and compare of what he has already imagined; and in knowing, man becomes perceptible (according to his own understanding). So it is what he perceives that results in his understanding, through the interpretation of what he judges and compares.

And in knowledge of this, which no one can deny (as it is a naturally occuring process within the human consciousness) faith becomes only imaginative; as no one can imagine what they have not yet imagined. Faith, as in all institutions, becomes iniquity; as the perceptions of the few become the perceptions of the many, mostly due to ignorance and fear of the conscious mind.

Faith is only imagined and everything that can be imagined becomes an image of truth. But what the "truth" lacks is the concept that ideas have reason, or were meant to have reason, to build upon.

If words cannot be interpretted through the imaginative force that reason permits then truly I can say, due to your lack of logical proof, the one who is within me is stronger than the one who is within you.

""as no one can imagine what they have not yet imagined" is a rather ignorant, or, at best, misleading diagnosis...

Then of course, there is the various historical evidence... for instance there has been discussion as to what side of the Jordan Jesus was baptized on, that is, which side of the river John the Baptist was operating on. What occurs, then, is that "logical proof" is used to deny the existence of "logical reason" in a vain attempt to draw a logical conclusion that religions cannot be true, or are only imagined. This makes the perspective of "no logical proof" to be more speculative than those who accept apparent historical realities, such as the existence of Jesus, Mohammad, and the persistent existence of the Holy See.

This also can lead to a kind of mental arrogance, in which person reject the traditions, and historical lessons, which these institutions use to create peace and harmony both with there own members and with non-members.

Rejecting history, which includes various pieces of evidence, like writing and pottery and so forth, based on the assertion that they evidence is imaginary is not logical. And so I find your assertion, at best, deeply flawed.

 

[peterrobin]

Man is purely reflective in nature, he can only judge and compare of what he has already imagined; and in knowing, man becomes perceptible (according to his own understanding). So it is what he perceives that results in his understanding, through the interpretation of what he judges and compares.

And in knowledge of this, which no one can deny (as it is a naturally occuring process within the human consciousness) faith becomes only imaginative; as no one can imagine what they have not yet imagined. Faith, as in all institutions, becomes iniquity; as the perceptions of the few become the perceptions of the many, mostly due to ignorance and fear of the conscious mind.

Faith is only imagined and everything that can be imagined becomes an image of truth. But what the "truth" lacks is the concept that ideas have reason, or were meant to have reason, to build upon.

If words cannot be interpretted through the imaginative force that reason permits then truly I can say, due to your lack of logical proof, the one who is within me is stronger than the one who is within you.

What you seem to be saying is that God is a delusion, no?

 

[Triad]

(Man is purely reflective in nature) Confronted with words, symbols and imagery, man can only (in interpretation) reflect upon the words of a sentence, in only the way that he percieves--that in experience, (we) only see ourselves within the words (symbols, images)--in that, our perception is our understanding.

This sounds reasonable for the most part, although we need to explore whether or not there are exceptions, so I'm not sure that we've established this as universal yet. On the one hand, I would agree that all we have cognitively is our individual perception, and that we can't effectively corroborate our perception with someone else's to where our confidence level in the veracity of their perception would be complete from our perspective. Indeed, much of what we alone perceive is likely shrouded in illusion. The more we think we learn, the more we realize what we don't know. Knowledge is a backward progression.

What you see is yourself, through your own experience, in the potential energy that is stored up in your judgement and comparison of words. Therefore, reflection becomes purely imaginative.

This makes sense. I'm with you so far...

Now, in faith, as faith contains scripture (symbols, words), one can only imagine the interpretation of scripture as being, merely, one's owns reflection.

What about spiritual revelation? This would involve another agent other than the self. So I think we need to include this in the equation.

In what way would you classify intuition and emotions? True, they are unique to us, but via other processes.

Words can only be interpretted by the imaginative force that reason permits. Any interpretation, whatever book it may be, is only what one sees in one's self.

Words and concepts are one thing, but emotions such as love (which cannot be effectively put into words) appear to operate differently. In other words, you don't need to interpret your own emotions because you experience them firsthand. It can be said that your emotions are you, in the purest form. Trying to distill one's own emotions takes you further from the original manifestation. They are what they are, and any attempt to describe them becomes an act in futility.

Ideas were meant to have reason to build upon. If reason is not permitted then there is only a 'limited will' behind the interpretation of words. Words are concepts in which experience provides the potentiality or "release of energy" in thoughts.

This is deep stuff. I'd like you to expound on this at some point.

As ideas were meant to have reason to build upon, so do thoughts need reason (imagination) to build upon (otherwise we stagnate in our perception).

Here again, love seems to have no reason, but it just is. And that's just one example. Thus, it appears to behave differently than the model you propose.

To understand this argument, to understand perception, you must be willing and able to change your perspective to an(y) "object of sense" to realize it. A prime example of this would be Plato's dialectics.

Ready, willing, and able, for sure... One must think outside the box and consider a myriad of possibilities other than that which appears most obvious.

 

[Im_A]

Man is purely reflective in nature, he can only judge and compare of what he has already imagined; and in knowing, man becomes perceptible (according to his own understanding). So it is what he perceives that results in his understanding, through the interpretation of what he judges and compares.

And in knowledge of this, which no one can deny (as it is a naturally occuring process within the human consciousness) faith becomes only imaginative; as no one can imagine what they have not yet imagined. Faith, as in all institutions, becomes iniquity; as the perceptions of the few become the perceptions of the many, mostly due to ignorance and fear of the conscious mind.

Faith is only imagined and everything that can be imagined becomes an image of truth. But what the "truth" lacks is the concept that ideas have reason, or were meant to have reason, to build upon.

If words cannot be interpretted through the imaginative force that reason permits then truly I can say, due to your lack of logical proof, the one who is within me is stronger than the one who is within you.

let me see if i can understand this with how i feel about the topic at hand of reason vs. faith.

people image what they want, thus it is there. you have a text, an enviroment that instills these things, thus these things become real.

the problem comes when reality is seen. there is no difference between me, an agnostic or the believer in whatever religion, or the atheist. we see the same things. we live on the same planet. so since we live in essentially in the same enviroment, we essentially see the same things, why are we differing on what we believe?

so in essence, the agnostic, the believer of whatever religion, the atheist, creates their truth based on the ideas, their wants. is this what your meaning?

 

[DuckPhup]

I do not accept your argument that people only see what they want to see, and learn only what they have imagined. People are partially defined by their environment. For example, we all have names, and in almost every case, our names were given to use by others and fuse with our identity. Exposure to information is very powerful. The difference is that some people are unwilling to accept what they see, despite what others believe to be clear evidence to the contrary. In such cases, I believe spiritual beings can cloud our minds and place their hands over people's eyes so that they are unable to think reasonably and are unable to accept the truth. This is an important aspect of Christian theology, and it explains why people cannot be "convinced" to accept Christianity, young earth creationism, etc. God must massage their spirit and bring them to a place in life where they might willingly accept his holy spirit.

It is more interesting to flip this and ask WHY some people (MOST people) are so gullible that they can be tricked and bamboozled into accepting a world-view that is rooted in the myths, superstitions, fairy tales and fantastical delusions that arose from the sun-baked brains of an ignorant gaggle of Bronze Age fishermen and peripatetic, militant, marauding, genocidal goat herders.

In the context of religion, 'faith' is a lame and pathetic substitute for 'evidence'... and 'belief' is a lame and pathetic substitute for 'knowledge'. In fact, it is the ILLUSION of knowledge.... the stock-in-trade of the christ-cult.

Having been manipulated into thinking that you 'know' things that are (essentially) unknowable, you now perceive yourself as 'special', in an 'us-vs.-them' sort of way. But what you don't realize is that you have been victimized by a 1,700 year-old criminal business enterprise, in the form of the world's longest running and most successful MLM scam.... sort of a supernatural 'protection racket'. The products are the false promise of 'salvation' (salvation from WHAT?) and the false hope of 'eternal life'. The 'pay plan' doesn't even kick-in until after you're dead... and there's nobody there with whom you can register your complaint about having been scammed... which doesn't really matter, anyway... because you're DEAD... and you CAN'T complain... because you don't even KNOW you're dead... you're just DEAD.

Meanwhile the VICTIMS (having been deceived into believing that it is their God-given duty) are out there busily recruiting MORE victims. What a racket! The 'Divine Commission' is a key element of the Christian MLM MARKETING PLAN, which REALLY went into full swing after Christianity LOST the political power that had previously allowed them to simply torture and kill anybody who did not submit.

This is a good news/bad news sort of thing. The GOOD news is that this scam (... and the associated Christian mind-manipulation techniques, perfected and refined over the past 1,700 years) only works on people who lack the critical-thinking skills and reasoning power to penetrate the logical fallacies, lies, misrepresentations and deceit upon which this fraud is constructed. The BAD news (and it's REALLY bad news) is that this seems to account for over 85% of the adult population of the USA.

That's REALLY depressing.

Sane, rational, well-educated, logical, critical-thinking people agree that your ilk are 'special'... although it's not in the us-vs.-them sense... it is more like in the 'short bus' sense.