Subjective Evolution: Ego & Epistemology

[Chesterton]

Parker, you're not going to get anywhere with this. Atheists here are allergic to the word "belief". They'll rarely ever admit they believe there's no God (and all the philosophy which may come with that belief), they prefer to say they merely lack a belief. They abuse language as badly as politicians do.

 

[True Scotsman]

Parker, you're not going to get anywhere with this. Atheists here are allergic to the word "belief". They'll rarely ever admit they believe there's no God (and all the philosophy which may come with that belief), they prefer to say they merely lack a belief. They abuse language as badly as politicians do.

I'll say it. I believe there's no gods.

 

[quatona]

Parker, you're not going to get anywhere with this. Atheists here are allergic to the word "belief". They'll rarely ever admit they believe there's no God (and all the philosophy which may come with that belief), they prefer to say they merely lack a belief. They abuse language as badly as politicians do.

Yes, Parker, Chesterton is the expert on what I believe and don´t believe.

 

[Davian]

What is imaginary/unreal, and what is real, according to you?

"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." - Philip K. Dick

Your answer reveals your epistemological position and thus your degree of subjective evolution.

To elucidate the illusion of objective knowledge as absolute knowledge, consider the impossibility to fully know the physical dimensions of any object. The measurement could always be more precise if the measurement instrument would only permit it. In other words, reality is not an object that can be measured. To believe it is, is the position of empiricism, which culminates in solipsism or, 'I am the ultimate truth.'

If the "I" in the "I am the ultimate truth" is realized in truth, then one's conclusion is that of Brahman. However, the standard meaning is of course one of self-recursive egoism...

Evolution is subjective people. It's not objective, matter doesn't evolve on its own accord. Matter is a vessel of errant spirit. Matter is a decoherence of Brahman, the Universal Quantum Wave Function of QM. Evolution entails coming back into coherence with Brahman.

There is more of that "nonsense" that you were referring to earlier.

 

[Davian]

This goes to show how truly ignorant you are (sorry, just being frank) about the nature of God, as a concept.

Inform me then. Provide a positive ontology for this "God" that you allude to. Something testable, falsifiable.

If you can't see how atheism is a philosophy/worldview/understanding of life, then you don't belong in this particular forum.

I am not an atheist, in the manner that you are using the word. Yet, I do not believe in things imaginary.

 

[bhsmte]

Parker, you're not going to get anywhere with this. Atheists here are allergic to the word "belief". They'll rarely ever admit they believe there's no God (and all the philosophy which may come with that belief), they prefer to say they merely lack a belief. They abuse language as badly as politicians do.

I am willing to state I don't believe there is a personal God as described by christianity and why I am atheist towards personal Gods. In regards to a universal non personal God, I am agnostic. Could I be wrong? Sure, but I have no credible reason to think I am.

In regards to Parker, he appears to have some pent up frustrations he needs to vent and obviously doesn't do well with those that don't see things his way.

 

[Chesterton]

I'll say it. I believe there's no gods.

Then I can hold you to your standard and ask for evidence for your belief.

 

[Davian]

Parker, you're not going to get anywhere with this. Atheists here are allergic to the word "belief". They'll rarely ever admit they believe there's no God (and all the philosophy which may come with that belief), they prefer to say they merely lack a belief. They abuse language as badly as politicians do.

There are many gods. They are characters in books.

 

[bhsmte]

Then I can hold you to your standard and ask for evidence for your belief.

For some, believing in something requires a degree of evidence. Simple lack of belief is typically from lack of evidence.

Think of the reasons you don't believe in other Gods and you will understand.

 

[True Scotsman]

Then I can hold you to your standard and ask for evidence for your belief.

The axioms and the primacy of existence.

 

[Davian]

Then I can hold you to your standard and ask for evidence for your belief.

Absence of evidence as evidence for absence. Or, the continuing inability for theists to provide an evidenced, testable, and falsifiable hypothesis for what they mean by "god/God".

That is if I had that belief.

 

[parkerjwill]

"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." - Philip K. Dick

I can go with that.

"Inform me then. Provide a positive ontology for this "God" that you allude to. Something testable, falsifiable." - Davian

I have said previously that absolute reality cannot be objectively known because objectification of knowledge entails a false subject-object dichotomy.

 

[True Scotsman]

Parkerjwill,

In answer to your question "what is real?", Davian wrote: "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." - Philip K. Dick

You responded: I can go with that. Here you are explicitly affirming the primacy of existence over consciousness.

You told me that "everything exists within and by consciousness". This explicitly affirms the primacy of consciousness over existence. Which is it? It has to be one or the other. Or are you proposing that the universe has two contradictory natures?

 

[True Scotsman]

Parkerjwill,

I had asked you in post #20 what the concept of proof could possibly mean in a subjective universe. I never did get your answer to that. Also I had asked you in an earlier post what a concept was and how it was formed. I never did get your answer to those questions either.

 

[Paradoxum]

Paradoxum, Brahman is the Spirit, which includes all living beings.

And I wouldn't think that an empirical fundamentalist would believe in in spirit. So they don't believe in Brahman.

 

[Davian]

"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." - Philip K. Dick

I can go with that.

"Inform me then. Provide a positive ontology for this "God" that you allude to. Something testable, falsifiable." - Davian

I have said previously that absolute reality cannot be objectively known because objectification of knowledge entails a false subject-object dichotomy.

Nice dodge. Does that about wrap things up for your "God"?

 

[parkerjwill]

Parkerjwill,

I had asked you in post #20 what the concept of proof could possibly mean in a subjective universe. I never did get your answer to that. Also I had asked you in an earlier post what a concept was and how it was formed. I never did get your answer to those questions either.

Proof rests in authoritative opinion. That's the short answer.

As far as the concept question, I don't see how that's related to this thread.

 

[parkerjwill]

Nice dodge. Does that about wrap things up for your "God"?

Davian, I have no interest in egotistical arguing. If you'd like to engage in open minded dialogue I'm all about that.

In that connection, I'll say repeatedly that objective truth is always relative and is never absolute. Therefore, empiricism can never approach God. Everyone knows this. I cannot prove or disprove God to you or anyone else by comprehending God into a package for you to sniff, lick, touch, eyeball, or record.

Can we move on?

 

[parkerjwill]

And I wouldn't think that an empirical fundamentalist would believe in in spirit. So they don't believe in Brahman.

Paradoxum, you are right. They would not accept Brahman as substance. Empiricists essentially worship themselves and their self-concocted reality, which they call objective.

 

[bhsmte]

Paradoxum, you are right. They would not accept Brahman as substance. Empiricists essentially worship themselves and their self-concocted reality, which they call objective.

There we go. It was only a matter of time.