Such an affirmative reflect very intellectual immaturity.phyllo wrote:Yes.Do I have to specify every Framework and System I had used?
In general, the Framework and Systems used are very obvious, e.g. common sense, scientific, legal, political, economics, moral, logic, etc..
One only need to bring a Framework and System if the issue is contentious and there is a real need to do so as I had done in my discussions.
In any discussion where I discuss any syllogism then it is within the logic Framework. Matters involved the Scientific Framework [if you are informed of Science] is so obvious especially in a forum like this. If you are no sure then ask.Obvious when?Note the logical, rational, Scientific, philosophical are very obvious.
If you are well informed, for the obvious there is no need to ask all the time.It's just silly to have to ask all the time. And it shows a fundamental flaw in your concept.
Normally for any normal scientific theories, it is obvious that is from the scientific framework.
For any contentious issue, it is very common to understand the perspective [Framework] from which the other side is relying on. For example it is necessary to understand whether one is relying on the Philosophical Realist or Philosophical anti-Realist view.
The big issue is you do not even understand the criticalness of the necessity to look at the the Framework and System you are relying upon to assert your conclusions. This is why you are such a mess.
I don't give a damn with your claim 'almost everyone .. pointed flaw." What is critical is whether counters raised against my argument are soundly justified or not.Your OP is based on a set of assumptions/framework. Almost everyone has pointed out the flaws in those assumptions/framework yet you hold on to your conclusions. Why? Because the conclusions make sense within your assumptions/framework. If you look beyond the assumptions/framework it all falls apart. You have trapped yourself in this particular mental construct.Note the basis of my OP is this;
1. God is an impossibility - [frameworks referred are reason-logical, empirical]
2. God is driven by psychological factors - [most probable i.e. evidence from Psychological framework]
3. I had used philosophy as an overriding controller.
It is not MY framework.
As I had pointed out I relied on various recognized framework and system.
Tell me within each recognized framework, logic, philosophy, & psychology where did I go wrong?
My thoughts are different from yours because you are relying on the Philosophical Realism' framework, i.e.I see one reality which is independent of my thoughts. I have thoughts about that reality and I can test the validity of those thoughts because the external reality serves as an unbiased reference.You are in the mess.
I have not deny the fact, multiple realities dependent on a framework are fundamentally dependent on the thoughts and experiences of individuals, INTERSUBJECTIVELY.
All individuals have equal access to that external reality. If their thoughts about it are different from mine, then we can evaluate those thoughts by referring to the external reality. We can come to conclusions about the merits of our thoughts.
Wiki wrote:Realism (in philosophy) about a given object is the view that this object exists in reality independently of our conceptual scheme. In philosophical terms, these objects are ontologically independent of someone's conceptual scheme, perceptions, linguistic practices, beliefs, etc.
While I am relying on the Philosophical Anti-Realism Framework [of which there are many sub-systems].
Wiki wrote:In some contexts, realism is contrasted with idealism. Today it is more usually contrasted with anti-realism, for example in the philosophy of science.
My Philosophical Anti-Realism views are mostly based on the Kantian Framework.
The point is whose philosophical Framework, yours or mine is more philosophically sound.
That is what I have been doing.If their thoughts about it are different from mine, then we can evaluate those thoughts by referring to the external reality. We can come to conclusions about the merits of our thoughts.
I assert your basis, i.e. Philosophical Realism is not a tenable theory which ultimately lead to an illusory world and your favored so-called 'solipsism'.
I agree with "evaluate those thoughts". But you are not evaluating rather you are jumping to conclusion and condemning my views without rational justifications.