[PERMANENTLY CLOSED] A problem at the bottom of reason

[ScottA]

Reality is not how things actually are? What word would you use then for how things actually are?

Not really. Definitions are descriptive of how we use words, not prescriptive. You can debate with me the use of the word "gay", and convince me that its proper use would be as an equivalent to 'happy', but should you announce to the next group of strangers how gay you are, I suspect that their interpretation will be otherwise.

No, wrong again. I think you have some wires crossed on that fancy hat of yours.

1. Reality as we know it in this world, is like the pixelated unreality of cyberspace or an animated movie. The cartoon characters can all sit around and speculate, even do experiments, bleed real pixelated blood, everything....but it's not really real. The word is unreal, created, or contrived.
2. Reality, here in the world, is only debatable, among the characters here: Pixel reality in Pixelland. It's all just a close-circuit...or we could debate the existence of a Supergeek, the big "G" in the sky
3. If you only care to believe in what you see in Pixelland...carry on.

[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

 

[Davian]

History has already given good reasons, miracles, fire brought down from heaven, etc....and many believed.

I do not care how many believed.

They ARE recorded with all the specifics, if you care to go through the data.

Can you provide an example of a "miracle" that could not be more parsimoniously explained via illusion, coincidence, hoax, exaggeration, outright fabrication, or imagination?

 

[Davian]

I made no such agreement.

Post #633, you said "Yes, that would work for me."

 

[ScottA]

Then they are not 'facts', in the common vernacular.

Pretend that you are in a philosophy forum.

Please refer to my answer in post #638.

 

[ScottA]

Can you provide an example of a "miracle" that could not be more parsimoniously explained via illusion, coincidence, hoax, exaggeration, outright fabrication, or imagination?

...You mean, that someone like yourself would believe? No, because there have been examples that have not been believed and were rationalized away, all throughout history. But likewise, you could not provide an example of a "technological" advancement that could not be explained away either. It just takes a skeptic, and for every example you can think of...there are those who have a case against it. But that is not my fight. Take it up with them.

 

[Davian]

1. Reality as we know it <snip resulting word salad>

Then you are talking about perception, not reality. If you are going to redefine all of these words as you like, you won't get anywhere here.

Try again.

 

[Eudaimonist]

History has already given good reasons, miracles, fire brought down from heaven, etc....and many believed. They ARE recorded with all the specifics, if you care to go through the data.

Fire from heaven? Do you mean like this "miracle"?

eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Davian]

...You mean, that someone like yourself would believe?

What do you mean, like me? People that do not believe every wild tale trotted out in these forums? Is that not like you also? I just don't make those exceptions for your particular religious beliefs.

No, because there have been examples that have not been believed and were rationalized away, all throughout history.

Then they are off of the table.

But likewise, you could not provide an example of a "technological" advancement that could not be explained away either.

False dichotomy. It is your assertions that under scrutiny at this time.

It just takes a skeptic, and for every example you can think of...there are those who have a case against it.

Sure, but the flat-Earthers will have to come around, if they want to subscribe to satellite TV.

But that is not my fight.

Yet you are here.

Take it up with them.

Them who?

 

[ScottA]

Then you are talking about perception, not reality. If you are going to redefine all of these words as you like, you won't get anywhere here.

Try again.

Reality is not my word, but a word used here for something that is not true. And yes, it is only actually perception. But why would I not get anywhere to offer such a correction, when history, is FULL of corrections about previous beliefs? (No, really, man CAN fly!) Do you really believe people are so close-minded? (And, please, don't go on and on about how the Wright brothers could demonstrate their claims, so why don't you. Flying is an example of advancement, NOT spiritual reality).

 

[ScottA]

What do you mean, like me? People that do not believe every wild tale trotted out in these forums? Is that not like you also? I just don't make those exceptions for your particular religious beliefs.

Then they are off of the table.

False dichotomy. It is your assertions that under scrutiny at this time.

Sure, but the flat-Earthers will have to come around, if they want to subscribe to satellite TV.

Yet you are here.

Them who?

1. Every wild tale...fair enough.
2. Everything explained away cannot be assumed to be off the table. Skeptics get to vote, but they do NOT have the last say.
3. It is not a false dichotomy. Fair is fair. It is just such a double standard that indicates falsehood. Why do you not want what is good for the goose to also be good for the gander? I simply pointed out that you too could not produce a watertight defense of your position...meaning that your line of questioning and doubt, is what should be considered "off the table."
4. Flat-earth skeptics are exactly my point. But now it is science that thinks that we'll all fall off the edge of the world if we venture out into extranatural territory. "There be dragons?" Really?

 

[ScottA]

Fire from heaven? Do you mean like this "miracle"?

eudaimonia,

Mark

Where is the guy calling it down on queue in front of hundred of witnesses? (nice try) Nobody said nature wasn't used.

 

[ScottA]

Need an Arc?

• Davian
• Jul 26, 2015

...TOO funny!

 

[Davian]

Every wild tale...fair enough.

Why do you not believe every wild tale you hear about?

Everything explained away cannot be assumed to be off the table.

Yes they are, if they add no value to the discussion.

Skeptics get to vote, but they do NOT have the last say.

Reality, as used in the common vernacular, gets the last say. If you claim that you can fly without mechanical assistance, just by flapping your arms really fast, a quick jump off a tall building will resolve the veracity of your claims.

It is not a false dichotomy. Fair is fair. It is just such a double standard that indicates falsehood. Why do you not want what is good for the goose to also be good for the gander? I simply pointed out that you too could not produce a watertight defense of your position...meaning that your line of questioning and doubt, is what should be considered "off the table."

That is a false dichotomy. My position is not on the table here, and is irrelevant - we could both be wrong.

Don't make me come through this portal...

• Davian
• Jul 26, 2015

Flat-earth skeptics are exactly my point.

"All the hundreds of millions of people who, in their time, believed the Earth was flat never succeeded in unrounding it by an inch.”" - Isaac Asimov

But now it is science that thinks that we'll all fall off the edge of the world if we venture out into extranatural territory. "There be dragons?" Really?

Strawman

• Davian
• Jun 1, 2014

Got anything else?

 

[ScottA]

Yes, that would work for me. But only because the "world" and "state of things as they actually exist" are in what you gave, not defined. That leaves reality wide open to ones life experiences, just as reality actually operates.

For instance, I'm quite sure that for folks like the Shaman's who would "experience" the world AND state of things as they actually exist "to them" is quite different than for you. They live in a different reality. That's just one example.
.

This presents a great opportunity (thanks, and sorry for hijacking) to say...that ALL those would-be realities simply exist WITHIN the same illusion...and have simply made it there own. The proof, of course, is that if they were in their so called different reality and you knocked them off their prayer rug...they all would fall into the same reality, the one that we're actually in.

The only reality other than this one that we all make our own by our denominations, etc....is not only extra physical, but extra natural...supernatural.

 

[Freodin]

Not knowing just which "few hundred wackos" I might have been referring to, whether they be scientific or spiritual, I will go first and explain what I know of the spiritual (and if you actually wanted me to give an opinion of the other side...I would be happy to, just let me know).
The spiritual wackos, of which I am one, for lack of a better term, are those who have genuinely been struck by Lightening (by God). It is rare, and for everyone of them, there are ten million who only believe what they have heard. That is not necessarily a bad thing, but it absolutely has resulted in innumerable false claims, which gives the whole matter a bad name. Speaking out of term is simply a human reality. So is gullibility.

I was referring to this post:

But I would point out that just as there have been lots of people who have claimed things with no good reason to believe them, there have also been lots who had good reason to believe them, i.e. miracles and such, prophetic truth that cannot be explained away, etc.. And then there is the personal testimony (would be claims). A couple hundred wackos a year, does not justify turning a deaf ear to the millions of others like myself who are genuine. And while you all may have been waiting for hundreds of years for the supernatural to effectively show itself, millions upon millions of us have seen and witnessed that which you have missed.

From this post, I gathered you consider yourself one of millions who are genuine, in contrast to "a couple hundred wackos a year", who... well, who are giving justification for not listening to them.

I'd like to know who you would consider to be amongst the "wackos" in this regard.

 

[Davian]

Reality is not my word, but a word used here for something that is not true.

So reality is what is not true.

And yes, it is only actually perception.

What then do we call what is actually true?

But why would I not get anywhere to offer such a correction, when history, is FULL of corrections about previous beliefs? (No, really, man CAN fly!)

You won't get anywhere if you cannot communicate your ideas coherently. Redefining words on the fly to suit yourself does not help.

Do you really believe people are so close-minded?

I don't know. Are you open to the idea that your experiences are only imagined, hence the problem you have of convincing others that they were real?

(And, please, don't go on and on about how the Wright brothers could demonstrate their claims, so why don't you.

No free lunches here. Demonstrate your claims, or retract 'em.

Flying is an example of advancement, NOT spiritual reality).

I do not know what the word "spiritual" means, and you just said that "reality" is what is not true.

I think this pitch of yours needs some work.

 

[ScottA]

Why do you not believe every wild tale you hear about?

Yes they are, if they add no value to the discussion.

Reality, as used in the common vernacular, gets the last say. If you claim that you can fly without mechanical assistance, just by flapping your arms really fast, a quick jump off a tall building will resolve the veracity of your claims.

That is a false dichotomy. My position is not on the table here, and is irrelevant - we could both be wrong.

"All the hundreds of millions of people who, in their time, believed the Earth was flat never succeeded in unrounding it by an inch.”" - Isaac Asimov

Got anything else?

1. I do not believe every wild tale. In fact, it is all very frustrating, 'cause you end up with the crying wolf problem where the legitimate alarm goes unnoticed.
2. No, things that get explained away, often return to be proven correct. It is an undeniable pattern in human social dysfunction.
3. Common vernacular reality...in an advancing society is only the current reality.
   
4. As for false dichotomy, and your considering my not being able to give you and example of a miracle that cannot be explained away, it is a mute point...for there is absolutely NOTHING that cannot be explained away. But before you go off and list one (or 100), just google your example followed by true or false, and you will be able to save us the time.
5. Obviously, Isaac Asimov also experienced the dead weight of skepticism and close-circuit thinking that plagues the advancement of humanity.

 

[Davian]

I do not believe every wild tale. In fact, it is all very frustrating, 'cause you end up with the crying wolf problem where the legitimate alarm goes unnoticed.

I asked, why do you not believe every wild tale you hear about?

No, things that get explained away, often return to be proven correct. It is an undeniable pattern in human social dysfunction.

No, it is because they return with new, additional evidence, and it is a pattern of scientific methodology.

Common vernacular reality...in an advancing society is only the current reality.

In the common vernacular, there is only one reality.

As for false dichotomy, and your considering my not being able to give you and example of a miracle that cannot be explained away, it is a mute point...for there is absolutely NOTHING that cannot be explained away. But before you go off and list one (or 100), just google your example followed by true or false, and you will be able to save us the time.

You are misrepresenting what I said. I was referring to the false dichotomy of your claims here and any position I may have on the subject.

Obviously, Isaac Asimov also experienced the dead weight of skepticism and close-circuit thinking that plagues the advancement of humanity.

On the subject of "closed-circuit thinking", are you open to the idea that your experiences are only imagined, hence the problem you have of convincing others that they were real?

 

[ScottA]

I was referring to this post:

From this post, I gathered you consider yourself one of millions who are genuine, in contrast to "a couple hundred wackos a year", who... well, who are giving justification for not listening to them.

I'd like to know who you would consider to be amongst the "wackos" in this regard.

The wackos are not exclusive to Christianity, by any means, but I am happy to expose those who are. They do a grave disservice to the greatest news the world has ever heard. Without naming names, I would break it down as follows:

• There are those who do not "believe" in the witness recorded down through the ages by the Judeo-Christian patriarchs...but they should be considered outside the camp. Their conjecture often ends up within, where it really has no business being.
• There are those who "want" to "believe", because the alternative is picking up the newspaper and putting their hope in what the world has to say. And yet, they could not defend their faith...which should not be considered necessary, because it is not. They, if fact, are considered the most qualified to receive the great things of God, and they do, strictly by their faith.
• There are those who "believe" because they HAVE done the research. They have put God on trial and weighed the evidence on all sides, and are intellectually convinced. Their faith is first in themselves, for first having done their homework, and then, and only then, do they believe.
• There are those who actually don't "believe" but simply follow what they were born into, only to fall away, perhaps to come by the same belief on their own, or perhaps never to return.
• Then, there are those whom, in a variety of circumstances...actually come to "know" God, because he made himself known "to" them. Which in all fairness, and I am convinced that it is so, could and does happen to a certain amount from all of those other "believers" listed above...who then, no longer "believe" but "know" the truth directly from God.

...It is those who, before "knowing" the truth, but only "believe" who run the risk of false testimony and conjecture, resulting in a kind of false gospel. They're everywhere (unfortunately).

 

[ScottA]

I asked, why do you not believe every wild tale you hear about?

No, it is because they return with new, additional evidence, and it is a pattern of scientific methodology.

In the common vernacular, there is only one reality.

You are misrepresenting what I said. I was referring to the false dichotomy of your claims here and any position I may have on the subject.

On the subject of "closed-circuit thinking", are you open to the idea that your experiences are only imagined, hence the problem you have of convincing others that they were real?

1. Ah, why? Got it. Because only "one" thing is actually true, but there are many tales. As for how I might determine which is which? Well, I tried some, blew off some, crashed and burned, cried out...and now I believe the one who answered, the One who saved me.
2. Scientific methodology is great, nothing against it, all for it. It's just that it is limited to space, time, and matter...and life offers SO MUCH more.
3. If you are having trouble computing more than one reality, that is because you are considering only one [worldly] context. But, I must confess, though I speak of more than one reality...it isn't true. There is indeed only one...but it is the one in which the "common" one was created...and the common one is no more real than a Disney movie (it's just cyberspace, pixelation...it's contrived).
4. Not following your false dichotomy explanation.
5. As for the possibility of imagining what I have experienced, no, the experience showed greater falsehood existing in the world, while showing ultimate truth beyond the world. SEX is a good example you approach it as if it had cooties, then with stars in your eyes, then...what the hell was I thinking?