But you ARE a theist. You simply can’t see that you are … perhaps due to that “zombie parasite”.
Once you propose that someone can be blinded and yet not know it, how can you claim to be knowingly otherwise?
That is what you boastfully claim. But I am seeing you in a different light, quite “zombied”.
Now how are you going to demonstrate otherwise?
It is merely your own “parasite” telling you that.
YOU are a theist. You just can’t see it.
When you start describing people who disagree with you as “ill”, then you know that you have a problem.
It seem particularly out of place in a philosophy forum where people come to discuss various ideas.
Yes, but as Satyr will insist, that all revolves around understanding “human nature” in precisely the same manner as he does. And that revolves in turn around certain “biological imperatives” relating to such things as race, ethnicity, gender and sexual orientation. And those who grapple with things like value judgments and religion [God] are only rational to the extent that they share his own narrative.
Why? Because he does not see it as just another subjective narrative at all. On the contrary, he construes himself as embodying the whole objective truth regarding every and all human behavior.
And there are many, many more just like him. Yes, they do share his judgment that there is but one whole objective truth here, but they assure him that it is not his. How could it be when it is theirs? And just as Satyr sees all the other objectivists [more or less derisively] as “one of them”, all the other objectivists see him [more or less derisively] as “one of them” too.
What I do is to explore the extent to which individual “goals” are rooted existentially in particular historical, cultural and experiential contexts derived from actual sets of experiences, relationships and sources of information/knowledge.
Then I invite folks like Satyr to examine their own value judgments by bringing them “down to earth” and exploring actual contexts in which their own value judgments precipitated conflicting behaviors with others.
I invite him to probe his own assessment of where genes stop and memes begin.
Yes, people are different genetically. And people have entirely unique interactions with others in the world of memes. How then are we to understand the interaction between nature and nurture pertaining to a particular context out in a particular world understood from a particular point of view? What can philosophers tell us definitively here? Are there entirely natural and entirely unnatural behaviors? Are there behaviors judged by God? Are there moral obligations derived rationally [deontologically] from categorical imperatives? Are there political ideologies rooted in Science [Marxism] or in Reason [Objectivism]?
Yes, this seems reasonable to me. But it still all comes down to the distinction that I make between those who “argue” or “define” God and absolute/objective value judgments into existence “in their head”, and those able to demonstrate empirically, scientifically, logically, epistemologically etc., that what they believe in their head is what all reasonable/rational men and women are obligated to believe in turn.
Whether that means demonstrating that God is an impossibility or demonstrating that, sans God, mere mortals are able to describe philosophically the difference between right and wrong, good and bad behaviors
Okay, but how is this assertion not just another example of a proposition said to be true because the manner in which you define the meaning of the words used in the proposition itself [in that particular order] is by default to be accepted as true by everyone reacting to it?
Instead, what we often find [on threads like this] are dueling “intellectual contraptions”, “intellectual concepts”. Nothing is ever really resolved because “truth” here revolves entirely around words defining and defending other words.
And you have demonstrated this — how? Instead you merely assert it given your own understanding of the words that encompass the assertion itself!
Clearly, if God is not an impossibility there are. But how would that be demonstrated?
So, how far out on the limb are you willing to go here? Mathematics, the scientific method, the laws of physics, chemical interactions, meteorology, geology, technology, engineering, logic etc. Nothing here [in the seeming either/or world] can be “proven” or “disproven”? In what sense — solipsism? Hume’s correlation/cause and effect disjunction? A Sim world? demonic dreams?
You argue both that there is plenty of evidence for “intelligence” but that nothing can either be “proven” or “disproven” using this intelligence. I must be misunderstanding you.
Again, though, when I note…
You note…
We are clearly stuck then. While insisting that “…my study of intelligence, contrary to what you’re trying to say here, is based on observations of how living organisms act…”, you project [to me] as but one more or less autodidactic insisting that only if others accept your own scholastic conclusions [encompassed in your own world of words] regarding how they act, are they really intelligent at all.
Which, by and large, is basically what they are saying about you. Then around and around [“conceptually”] you [and folks like James] go.
That’s doesn’t make sense because “perfection” doesn’t prevent people from experiencing a small aspect of God.
People are not able to hear all frequencies of sound, but we know sound exists because we experience some sounds.
“ill” ?? that is your rhetoric.
Within all humans there is a range of psychological problems and it is critical all humans recognized and accept they have these problems. Denial will hinder prevention and psychological progress.
Generally what is term ‘ill’ is recognized in the DSM-IV
Theism is not listed in the DSM-IV so I would not termed it “ill” but theism is nevertheless some sort of psychological problem suffered by the majority of humans.
There is no denial, throughout the history of mankind theism has caused untold sufferings to humans when SOME believers are inspired by their God to commit terrible violence and evils.
Therefore it is critical we research to find out the ultimate root causes that inspire such violence and all sorts of theistic related evils. A philosophy forum is one of the most appropriate place to discuss these ideas.
I believe once we have understood the origin, mechanics, operation and process of this “zombie parasite” in the human brain on a neural basis, humanity will be able to prevent much of theistic related evils and violence. [note all evils and violence must be addressed but this theistic related forum is not the place]
Now I understand why Magnus Anderson is using the ‘M’ word on you.
Based on your insistence of the above falsehood on me, I am tempted as well.
Come on, lets get back to common sense and reality!!
We can’t even discuss your syllogism without you going into your views on the psychology of theists. It taints all your threads.
I think what James was saying when he called you a theist is that you are a preacher on a soapbox and you are as blinded by your beliefs as a “true believer” theist preacher. In your case, the savior is Kant and the bible is the collection of his writings.
Ask yourself what the impact would be if Kant’s writings turned out to be wrong.
God is a mirror of our soul, a narcissistic tool to enable to see ourselves as a separate being , the author of the beginning of.the creation of our conscious awareness of our self.
God is not.only a possibility, he is a.necessity.
Exactly. A “theist” is merely a single minded theorist, stubbornly worshiping his own little theory, a thought too far above the OPer for his consideration.
A definition cannot be followed without first interpreting it. You need to “complete it” with necessary information that is not specified within it.
As I’ve said before, in order to determine whether any given shape is a circle or not you have to choose a finite number of points on the boundary of that shape.
You choose a finite number of points on the boundary and you check to see that every point is at an equal distance from the center of the shape.
If that’s the case, you declare the shape is a circle.
If it is not, you declare the shape is not a circle.
The definition DOES NOT specify how many points you should pick.
The definition says that “every point must be the same distance from the center”.
But what does “every point” mean?
It must be interpreted.
If you interpret it to mean “every point that can be identified at every viewing distance” then no test can be performed because the number of viewpoints is not specified.
You must choose a number of viewpoints. You don’t have to it do consciously though. You can, for example, say that you are not choosing a number of viewpoints. But if your actions consider only a finite number of viewpoints, which they have no choice but to do so, then it’s almost the same as if you consciously chose a number of viewpoints.
The number of points does not have to be determined by need.
It can be determined by anything else, such as, for example, a dice roll.
It does not matter because in both cases the missing information is defined by context.
And what is context but information that surrounds (i.e. it is outside of, it is external to) the information that you are focusing on?
In humans, the number of points is to a great extent determined by visual system.
The definition takes things . . . out of context.
It makes them simple.
It is a big mistake to put aside the psychological factor whenever it involves human thoughts and actions.
I have to take JSS literally, he did not put the term theist in ‘…’
I do not agree with Kant on a 100% basis. I have spent 3 years full time on Kant’s theories and have understood them sufficiently to be reliable and his theories complement with those of Buddhism.
When arguing for my thesis in this case, I refer other fields of knowledge, psychology, Buddhism, biology [e.g. zombie ants], neuroscience and others.
Yes, God is a critical psychological necessity due to an inherent existential crisis driven by "zombie parasites.’
It is like a child needing a security blanket to cling to and talking to imaginary friends for psychological comfort and other reasons.
But psychological necessity do not translate to possibility and reality.
If you insist God is a possibility [empirically] then prove it.
Phyllo,
In my book, there is only one ~~ that of total mystery.
The more characteristics we give to this god, the more imperfect it becomes since it is based on human assumption, projection and subjective thinking.
Yes, I am probably wrong.
Well here goes, understand no simple matter although they do say about the most complex , that found a mentally they are the most simple.
And Arc, here I am being rash and judge mental, but like a good marine, temper fidelis: As Always.
It starts with Narcissus with a small n, since at that point in his career, when he perceives his visage, he thinks it’s another person.
He falls in love with him, and doesent realize that reflection is mirror like, he thinks that the person is down below somewhere, below the surface of the pool of water, in an underworld of some sorts, and he doesent reflect on that much in both, the optical and cognitive sense.
So his thinking on the matter is not two fold, but he really cannot see himself. He knows not what he looks like, so in the sense of distinguishing himself from others is nil. He has no self awareness,no self consciousness,ergo no self.
What does he need to realize that it is himself he is seeing, knowing?
Or rather, what happens, between the time that he doesent , when he does get to know himself?
Is he setting the stage for a gradual Socratic quest?
Does he do it all by himself, without the use of a Deus ex Machina?
Or, is there an intermediary, a kind of nexus between a god, or a god idea, that comes to him, where suddenly he sees the light? Or, does he gradually learn to differentiate between himself and others like him?
In his physical evolution does a correlating capacity to distinguish surface from depth, the underlying objects which become evident upon reflection?
Re=flection, is implied in Sartre where he states flatly, that ‘The Other as a subject can’t help but treat Your Being as an Object. This is interesting from the point of view, that the 20 th century has brought about a reversal in thought regarding the subject and the object inasmuch, as the relation has come to a full circle, the perception of the other is no longer a given, it is relative to the consciousness of the other. It is no longer restricted to the idea that man has been positioned as the ruler of the jungle of beings beneath him, of those living in an underworld of beings more pertaining to the viewers above interpreting reflection as those above and below.
The man Narcissus sees from above to below, is one, who breaks up his apprension, he identifies with him, and longs for a return to his formidable but unformed terrain, it , he draws him, in a place where the centripetal forces of return appear to overwhelm the forces throwing him opposite, centrifugally, into where he is. There, he above, his reflection starts to bother him, for the underlying visage is so direct and personal, toward him as an existential referense looking exclusively at him, inordinately concerned about him and him alone, that the Other, seems reverentially tied to him and him alone.
He is absolutely concerned about Narcissus, and Narcissus absolutely identifies in that optical sense with him.
That identity, sustained, becomes the logical basis in his mind of the Absolute guarantor of identity. It’s in the look, a look Sartre does concern himself with in ‘Being and Nothingness’.
After Narcissus was punished by the godess out of jealousy, the complex erotic duplicity had incepted into the war of the sexes, based on multi form sets of rationale, idealization and progression.
The godess as an erotic medium, assured his continued being, by affecting his psyche to atone for his mistake, and as a consequence, he shifted his tenure toward less feminine more tolerant and wisdom filled Oedipal fracture, slicing off the feminine from the more authorative masculine identification. This was a basic shift, starting with the reflection moving from simple erotic, to more complex differentiating, authorship yearning basic representations.
The end result was a requirement to understand god as a Being , moving away from mere emotion filled, vanity inspired powers , toward more differentiated, less understood reflections, where the reflection became somehow both: a simultaneity of :visual and cognitive and participatory idea, whereby the platform was set to progress beyond mere participation mystique, in the words of Levy Strauss.
That this platform evolved slowly or suddenly spring out of the mind of a mythological creature, is irrelevant, because at this stage of human evolution, time as a transcendental idea was not understood, by way of experience. It was a timeless era, where the Idea for further evolution in reflection had to utilize, the mirroring ideas inherent in the fabric of the evolving consciousness.
It was immaterial therefore , at his point, to ask the question of the difference of believing in It, as a modus operans, as to the reality of the belief, vis. that is there a real god, or did he need to be invented, since it read as part and parcel of human development.
The anthropomorphic idea is a look backward through the annals of a very long time, therefore suspect in its presupposing idea.
God can’t be a total mystery because if He was, then there would be no reason to think that He exists. IOW, a “total mystery” God would be a total fabrication of the imagination.
There has to be some indication of God’s existence in the universe. Sure, it can be a tiny “tip of the iceberg” but you can draw some conclusions from it.
Theists tend to be too enthusiastic about God and they give Him all sorts of amazing characteristics. One has to examine those characteristics and decide which ones are supported by evidence.
Characteristics like omnipotence, omniscience and omnibenevolence are inherently contradictory and fundamentally incomprehensible to humans.
One can say that God is very powerful, knows a great deal and wants humans to thrive. I would say that’s the limit of what can be concluded from “looking around”.
Don’t beat yourself up. There is no reason to do so.
Pursue your inquiries with confidence but not arrogance. Confidence makes you flexible and strong. Arrogance makes you rigid and brittle.
And as we have told you before, “EVERY POINT” means that there cannot be ANY points that are NOT equidistant from the center. So you MAY NOT pick any less than EVERY point related to the shape.
I can’t grasp you points fully.
You used the example of ‘n’ and “N.” It this the small ‘self’ and the big “Self”
Many theistic philosophies trace from the small ‘self’ to the big ‘Self’ and identify the all-encompassing absolute “SELF” as God, e.g. Brahman, etc.
My point is, whatever the emerging idea of God, ultimately it has to be an absolutely perfect God, i.e. the ontological God and as I have demonstrated, such an absolutely perfect God is an impossibility.
Being an impossibility meant it is moot and a non-starter and the question of God’s existence cannot [it is impossible] be raised in terms of reality.
The only valid reason and usefulness of ‘God exists’ is for psychological reasons to soothe the terrible rising and pulsating angst.
What you’re doing is you are substituting one vague statement with another. You are substituting “every point must be equidistant from the center” with “there cannot be any points that are not equidistant from the center”. In both cases, the number of points that have to be tested remains unspecified.
In order to determine whether any shape is a circle or not you must pick a finite number of points on the boundary of the shape. When you pick a finite number of points on the boundary of the shape, what you have to do is you have to measure the distances between each one of these points and the center of the shape. Once you are done you compare the measured distances. If they are equal, the shape is a circle. If they are not, the shape is not a circle.
Your point in that other thread when you made this claim was merely that you could make the process shorter by declaring that the shape is not a circle the moment you measured a distance that is not the same as previously measured distances. That is true. However, it is irrelevant.
Yes, the above represent an ideal absolute perfect circle that can only exists in theory, thoughts and reason.
The fact is such an ideal absolute perfect circle [empirically based] cannot exists empirically in reality.
In empirical reality, there is no fixed grounds for one to fix every points [centered] to measure from the center of the circle.
One of the closest one can get to a ‘perfect’ circle is construct one by using single carbon atom[s] side by side to draw/mark along the circumference of the circle. But such a circle is at most relative, i.e. relative to carbon atoms, the scientific instruments used and the observer/measurer.
But the fact is carbon atoms are not stable in terms of its electron, proton, quarks, etc. What we have here are moving points in reality [merely one goes out of its intended position] and thus there is no constancy to sustain the concept of a perfect circle.
Therefore there is no such thing and impossible for an absolutely perfect circle to exists in reality.
Another point is a circle is empirically based and thus can be considered for empirical possibility. But ultimately under finer analysis an absolute perfect circle cannot be an empirical possibility in reality.
However note God has no empirical basis at all but is merely thought-based. Thus God has no empirical possibility in reality. An ideal of an absolutely perfect God is worse, it is absolutely an impossibility in reality.
The concept of “perfect circle” is a category of categories. In the same way that an infinite decimal is a category of numbers. In this sense, I do not deny, it is meaningful.