No.
Not in mine. At least I don't think so.
No. What weird questions.
Anyway, as I said, I cannot define love, but that hardly means I have am unable to discuss the love I had for my wife.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I am wondering about the nature of those "discussions". Are there family members who doubt that you loved your wife?
Are there family members who don´t believe in love?
Are there family members who don´t believe your wife existed?
So what´s the nature of those discussions you are having? Are they anywhere close to the discussions we are having here?Anyway, as I said, I cannot define love, but that hardly means I have am unable to discuss the love I had for my wife.
The problem is rather: How could I (or someone else) possibly discuss your feelings?Anyway, as I said, I cannot define love, but that hardly means I have am unable to discuss the love I had for my wife.
I did not say 'equate'.I serously doubt if you found a defintion which equates it with "non-existent."
Let's see it.
Take it up with Kant.Who said the transcendent is unknowable? You?? I'm supposed to accept your unproven axioms and argue accordingly? No.
I find absolute statements such as that to be suspect. Are you confident that you are aware of all that neuroscience has to say on that subject, or may discover in the future?You can scientifically study it all you want, but no science will explain why, for example, the curvature of a woman's body attracts me. That is a completely irrational (or a-rational) phenomenon.
Attempting to shift the burden of proof? Next, will you ask for me to prove a negative?And yet I posited no such thing. I was speaking merely of how irrational it is to posit the contrary.
In the context of the discussion, and the terms you were using, ignosticism.So if something cannot be defined, it is therefore meaningless to discuss it? What do you base that on?
Perhaps you could relate some of those conversations to us as an example of how that would go.I cannot define the love I had for my wife, but I still sometimes discuss it with my family.
So what´s the nature of those discussions you are having?
Are they anywhere close to the discussions we are having here?
The problem is rather: How could I (or someone else) possibly discuss your feelings?
Your love for your wife is undisputed,
as is your belief that a God exists.
>In the context of the discussion, and the terms you were >using, ignosticism.
Perhaps you could relate some of those conversations to us as an example of how that would go.
Take it up with Kant.
.I find absolute statements such as that to be suspect. Are you confident that you are aware of all that neuroscience has to say on that subject, or may discover in the future?
Attempting to shift the burden of proof?
Next, will you ask for me to prove a negative?
Perhaps you could relate some of those conversations to us as an example of how that would go.
Correct. I've said that several times now.
To tell? No way to tell? Dang, I thought you had it there for a minute. Since when does considering the remote possibility that phenomena X can be real, tell us whether or not it is real?
If a juror hears two witnesses relay very unbelievable testimonies, they are INSTRUCTED to consider them, not use them "to tell" if they are true.
I'm not even being abstruse, much less obtuse. It was a simple question. What testimonies have you read from ancient Greek citizens which relay personal experiences with Zeus or Minerva?
Of course not. I never even implied it would.
Your analogy will work only if you can show me someone who claims to have had a personal experience with the Nigerain scheme actually working.
You can't, so I suggest you drop the analogy.
Originally Posted by stiggywiggy
So you base your belief that if something cannot be defined, it therefore cannot be discussed, on....... a word?? Then I suggest you DEFINE that word so you can DISCUSS it in regard to how that word negates the ability to discuss that which cannot be defined.
I am very sorry to hear of your loss. The point is, when you talk with your family, do you not have to use words that have agreed upon meanings?Originally Posted by stiggywiggy
[/INDENT]
I cannot define the love I had for my wife, but I still sometimes discuss it with my family.So you think that if I discuss here in detail the love I had for my wife to a guy who doesn't know me and never knew my wife, that that will somehow help you explain how the indefinability of a word or concept precludes its ever being discussed? How would that work?
Where did I post these axioms? I don't even agree with Kant.Kant's not here, so I'm taking it up with you. So I'll ask again:
Who said the transcendent is unknowable? You?? I'm supposed to accept your unproven axioms and argue accordingly?
Neuroscience is the study of brains. Are you positing that something other than your brain might be responsible for those feelings you have?You're the guy who thinks otherwise. So tell me. How does "neuroscience" explain my attraction to the curvature of a woman's body?
In post # 150 you claim: "They transcend the empirical realm".Huh? You make no sense. You had said that I posited the existence of the transcendent. You fail to show where I did that, since I never did and never have. I pointed out to you that on the contrary, it is YOU who posited the non-existence of the transcendent. What "burden of proof" are you talking about, and why do you see it shifting?
My indulgence in laughing emoticons is an indication that I find things funny. Don't take it personally.I'm beginning to think your overindulgence in laughing emoticons should be directed toward you. You continue to make no sense. You make comments and don't even attempt to explain them. Let's take that last one, for example. Please cut and paste whatever quote of mine leads you to believe that I might ask you to prove a negative.
link.You want me to relate conversations with you about my love for my wife? Sorry, I won't be doing that at least until I get to know you better.
Why do you want to know? Give me an example of how that discussion might go, which will bolster your case that that which cannot be defined therefore cannot be discussed.
I have no personal interest at all in that. You were the one who brought up those "discussions" as an analogy for the discussions here, and I am merely wondering to which extent the two are comparable.Well, my wife of 20 years died of breast cancer a few years ago and I loved her greatly. You can use your imagination about what any discussions about that love may entail. And if I ever get to know you better, maybe I'll share with you. But I'm puzzled as to why you want me to flesh out such personal details with you.
Not remotely.
The strangeness of my question merely reflects the strangeness of your comparison.You ask very strange questions and never explain why.
I don´t know. You were the one bringing up the discussion about your feelings, for whatever reason.Why would you or anyone else want to discuss my feelings?
I neither would nor could discuss your feelings, even if I knew you better.You don't even know me.
Exactly my point.How could you know that? It is to me.
Well, I don´t dispute it, and I haven´t seen anyone else here dispute it.How could you possibly know whether or not anyone disputes if I believe that God exists?
I don´t know. You were the one introducing your family discussions concerning your love for your wife - I am just trying to find out why you felt this was relevant for the topic at hand.How does that impact our discussion here as to whether or not that which cannot be defined therefore cannnot be discussed?
I think that one of the problems with atheism is that a lot of secular culture is pretty grim. That does not make it false, it just makes it impractical. I am not saying the faith based culture is necessarily superior, but in a junkyard aka "civilisation" anything that gives me a ride will do.
Yes, you've said that something which can't be proven should be given more weight if a lot of people believe in it,
despite examples like a lot of people believing Elvis is still alive and lots of people believing other belief systems, which don't seem to carry any weight with you at all, despite the numbers. It sounds like special pleading.
If we can't tell whether something is real or not, how can we know it is?
You weren't talking about unbelievable testimony, since lots of people do believe in Jesus Christ or other forms of God.
You were talking about testimony that can't be tested or proven, and how irrational it is to disbelieve it if a lot of people believe it.
If I recall my Greek Mythology, Leda and Alcmene, among others, had personal experiences with Zeus.
You said, or implied, that Christianity should be given more weight because of the number of people who believe in it.
Why, can you show me someone who claims to have a personal experience with Jesus Christ that can be similarly proven in the same way, such as money from a Nigerian prince?
I see you have had a little HTML struggle, but here goes...
[/indent]I already did that, but you didn't like "non-existant", so the ball is in your court.
I am very sorry to hear of your loss.
The point is, when you talk with your family, do you not have to use words that have agreed upon meanings?
Where did I post these axioms?
I don't even agree with Kant.
Neuroscience is the study of brains. Are you positing that something other than your brain might be responsible for those feelings you have?
In post # 150 you claim: "They transcend the empirical realm".
In post # 187 you state: "Give me an example of how that discussion might go, which will bolster your case..."
Your claim, *your* case.
My indulgence in laughing emoticons is an indication that I find things funny.
Don't take it personally.
I have no personal interest at all in that. You were the one who brought up those "discussions" as an analogy for the discussions here, and I am merely wondering to which extent the two are comparable.
I don´t know. You were the one bringing up the discussion about your feelings, for whatever reason.
Then why did you bring up my feelings then?I neither would nor could discuss your feelings, even if I knew you better.
I don´t know. You were the one introducing your family discussions concerning your love for your wife - I am just trying to find out why you felt this was relevant for the topic at hand.
So you need to already know about X before you can listen to someone else discuss X? So either (a). you've never learned anything or (b). you were born knowing what you now know.The reason why I cannot discuss based on undefined keyterms is simple: A definition would be required for me to even have an idea what you are actually trying to communicate.
Can Shakespeare NOT transcend his own works?
Ask a prosecuting attorney or a defense lawyer. He or she will explain to you why one should give greater consideration to the testimony of five, than one would to the testimony of two. I'll let you extrapolate the numbers outward, and then you can apply it to Buddhism, Christianity, abominable snowman claims, whatever.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?