So the winkle eyed slurpers of Ragil 4 exist because there is no evidence of nonexistence, now I understand.
No, they don't necessarily exist, but neither do they necessarily not exist. As there is no planet (to my knowledge) called Ragil 4, I'd go with nonexistent, but the bounds of modern science are unknown. In a quantum system, it is entirely possible that the winkle-eyed slurpers of Ragil 4 exist in a parallel membrane or string to ours.
Have a chat with a doctor or a psychiatrist and hear what they have to say on the subject.
My old psychotherapist was quite lovely. We discussed Jungian archetypes and yoga. She was quite helpful. Similarly, my old psychiatrist was interested in many of the same concepts. Next?
Not the words 'unicorns and dragons' the animals.
Answer me whether or not you can locate the thing that is "you" and attest to its existence, and I'll consider answering this.
Do Gods exist in the literal sense?
Mu.
But only in our imaginations.
As do such notions as a manned flight to mars, extraterrestrial intelligences, and works of fiction. Doesn't prevent people from pursuing them (see the engraving on Voyager II for the E.T. connection).
So you're really open to anything that's going, that's nice.
Not at all. The map is not the territory, and if something conflicts with the territory (i.e. "The world was created 6,000 years ago"), then that is dismissed. As you haven't a clue what I believe, nor have any indication of making an effort to understand, you're in no place to make statements.
Again, understanding does not mean agreement.
So it allows you to make sense of the physical world by dreaming about it, that is also nice.
No, by analyzing it according to a metaphysical framework that allows for connections and categorizations according to archetypal ideas. You, for instance, are rather depressingly tied to
malkuth in
assiah, and not even in any kind of interesting, hedonistic
qliphothic sense, but in a way that reeks of a kind of reverse dualism - that which is "physical" is good, and that which is "spiritual" is bad.
No your not wrong I'm just lucky I can see things for what they are without the need to use my imagination.
I don't find that lucky. I find a lack of imagination to be rather sad.
If I think I'm right why shouldn't I say I'm right? after all, you just keep repeating that you believe because no one can prove that what you believe is false, the only difference between us is, I go in through the front door and you sneak in through the back,
with that old nutmeg, 'Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence', what a way to run a life.
1) I haven't stated a thing concerning my actual framework of beliefs, so you cannot make a statement on that except from ignorance. In fact, I haven't even stated that what I believe is true, only that I believe it. I make no claims that it is necessary that you agree with me, which would be difficult to do, as I've made no positive claims concerning what I - in fact - do believe. I have claimed that you behave in a way more like religious fundamentalists than anyone else, and that you are rude and immature in conversation. That, see, can be shown in an objective manner.
2) "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" is not a nutmeg, it is a logical paradigm - something cannot be dismissed as nonexistent due to lack of evidence. Rather, one requires positive evidence of nonexistence. In metaphysics (which is what we're discussing here, regardless of your insistence that you're not), it means that things cannot be dismissed out of hand merely due to a lack of evidence. Again, to refer to creationism, there is evidence that the universe is at least 4.7 billion years old, thus refuting the claim that the universe is 6000 years old. However, one can also read Genesis as a parable of the place of humanity - that is, the sole part of creation that directly reflect the divine - and that claim would fall under the "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence rule."
