Sorry I can't dumb it down for our great philosopher....

 

Repost so that at least somebody has the chance to recognize it inbetween this current chatting by the minute...

 

I can't have two ratings, but it's both a winner and a funny....

 

It is you who is heating the waters here. You often seem to do this and blame others for it. Well, not this time. This time the discussion clearly is respectful and you are not. I hope it will become obvious to the Audiosex community that you force many debates here to deift out of hand. Report to moderators things you see unfit, do not make them so.

 

"Right cool , thought you may have as much of what you have written appears to be rather similar in many ways
I guess that's partly the problem for myself in that what is written seems to offer very little if anything in terms of original thinking or new ideas
You can go all day and quote Hume\Russell and talk of "A virtual world" and quote empirical premises about Atheism and someone can then babble on about Copleston or Leibniz and how your ideas are not correct as you have misunderstood the true nature of God??
Will it really get us any further forward if it offers no new ideas
I'm willing to guess that they probably had a better chance back then at sorting out than any of us will have now
Anyway best of luck making sense of all those symbolic references & educating all us laymen about the true nature of the universe "






""Right cool , thought you may have as much of what you have written appears to be rather similar in many ways
I guess that's partly the problem for myself in that what is written seems to offer very little if anything in terms of original thinking or new ideas "


so , you just made connection to some other thing that actually is not connected, something reminded you of something else that is all that happened.







"I guess that's partly the problem for myself in that what is written seems to offer very little if anything in terms of original thinking or new ideas "

i dont know what you mean by "original thinking or new ideas"
i can invent brand new fictional characters no one has ever heard of that would be original thinking and new ideas what does that have to do with reality?



"You can go all day and quote Hume\Russell and talk of "A virtual world" and quote empirical premises about Atheism and someone can then babble on about Copleston or Leibniz and how your ideas are not correct as you have misunderstood the true nature of God??
Will it really get us any further forward if it offers no new ideas "


if you think that is what i did i feel very sorry for you , you have missed the information contained in it. maybe if you read the words I WROTE instead of trying to make these fake connections for which there are none. and simply see if the proposition is accurate or answer why it is not you would not get so confused and clouded and drifting off in imagination land of what everything reminds you of and the value of original thinking and ideas. here is the thing if my proposition is not original or new idea, who gives a shit when even in this thread 30 people are not considered the implications, or when billions of human beings on the planet are not living by it , and if you think it is flawed well you sure have a bizarre way of "showing" it. which is to entirely ignore it try to pretend it is something else and then still not demonstrate anything other than your own ability to get wished away b y your own thoughts.

 

I thought thoughts weren't real How can they wish me away and why does it matter if they are not real?

 

"
It's not a history lesson. I'm also not trying to derail the topic.

I'm postulating that science itself is nothing more than a langage,, the most precise langage at hand to describe the reality we perceive, but the reality we perceive is something always changing (because our look on it change, reality itself is still), and the langage used to describe this blury picture isn't perfect, and misses alot of words which makes it always not completely "true".
From that perspective the challenge should also question science itself in its pretention to perceive reality rightfully, while it obviously can't, and thus ask to us believer of the scientific perspective why we believe in this always moving fiction we hold dear.
Don't you think that in this process your faith too is involved ?
"



"It's not a history lesson. I'm also not trying to derail the topic."


then why not talk about the topic specifically ?






"I'm postulating that science itself is nothing more than a langage,, the most precise langage at hand to describe the reality we perceive, but the reality we perceive is something always changing (because our look on it change, reality itself is still), and the langage used to describe this blury picture isn't perfect, and misses alot of words which makes it always not completely "true"."


it is funny it takes you all this space and words to describe what i call "demonstrable evidence" and yes we all know it s tentative. you have not clarified just muddied the waters.





"it always not completely "true".""


is it the best we have at a given time or no?




"From that perspective the challenge should also question science itself in its pretention to perceive reality rightfully, while it obviously can't, and thus ask to us believer of the scientific perspective why we believe in this always moving fiction we hold dear.
Don't you think that in this process your faith too is involved ?"



okay now i know that you are attempting to seem intellectual when it is indeed you own misunderstanding of the topic and if you go back to the first page and see how clearly i explained the topic of discussion you are either making a strawman fallacy on purpose or on accident.



science has demonstrated it ability to differentiate between fiction and not fiction look at our world compared to how cavemen lived,

just because reality exists without absolute certainty , and that knowledge is always tentative , does not make my proposition false and does not make fiction identical to descriptions of how things actually work. there is a difference and you refuse to talk about that difference.




"and thus ask to us believer of the scientific perspective why we believe in this always moving fiction we hold dear.
Don't you think that in this process your faith too is involved ?"


you are trying to over-intellectualize, i made it clear we are deal with demonstrable evidence.

if this is faith to you you have a bastard version of faith.

you have demonstrated you are being intellectually dishonest

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/demonstrable

 

The thing is that you DO differentiate between fiction and non-fiction in your own life, so for the sake of the argument at hand you are simply just playing devils advocate. The question if science is a premise for the challenge is your statement. I see no reason to blur the line between storytelling and reality when you yourself make the very distinction in your own life everyday.

 

MMJ2017 said: ↑
"Right cool , thought you may have as much of what you have written appears to be rather similar in many ways

wished away b y your own thoughts.
I thought thoughts weren't real How can they wish me away and why does it matter if they are not real?

"



that is a quote someone else said i was responding to.

 

Actually my answer was my old post to your question. In case you missed:
https://audiosex.pro/threads/athesim-vs-theism.29933/page-6#post-259575

That's why I believe in a God. There's no rational reason when you say there's no God and everything comes by chance. Book thing comes after that and there's no circularity. It's always going forward. If it's God's book, it has to be different and we can prove it's not written by a human, right?. That's my logic. So I red some. Bible wasn't good enough for me and there is Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John gospels, so I thought God's book has to be a complete one. So I also read Quran.

Before reading this example, please think and try to give an example for the darkest place in the world.
A sentence is:
"Or [they are] like darknesses within an unfathomable sea which is covered by waves, upon which are waves, over which are clouds - darknesses, some of them upon others. When one puts out his hand [therein], he can hardly see it. And he to whom Allah has not granted light - for him there is no light."

There is an example here. Unfathomable sea. We usually don't think about a sea while giving an example about a dark place. Today as I know there's no sunlight when it's deeper than 200m in seas. Now consider that Mohammed wrote these by himself. He was an uneducated man. He was living in deserts in Arabia. Maybe somebody told him about and maybe he knew about Red Sea. Still, if he wrote a book, the example must be a cave or night in my opinion. So everybody can understand it's dark. But he choose a risky way.

Another sentence is like that:
"And the heaven We constructed with strength, and indeed, We are [its] expander."
English is not my native language, I guess you know better than me that heaven means also sky. Expander is a big word here. This was written 1400 years ago and probably nobody understand it. 1000 years later, we discovered telescope, then we did great at lens technology, in 20. century we build Hubble etc. and now we know that our universe is expanding. So that sentence is very interesting to me.

Another example:
"And it is He who created the night and the day and the sun and the moon; all [heavenly bodies] in an orbit are swimming."
Again, comes from an uneducated man while some people see the sun as their god, he says it's in an orbit. Imagine you decided to make your own religion and writing a book about it. You want people to follow you though you're saying something they don't understand. In previous posts, I think foster said science destroyed all religions. Yes it destroyed all the fake ones as we expect. And I understand the book better while we go further in science. Those are something I can't ignore.

 

I don't recognize myself in what you write, and I've already writen why.
I'll gladely elaborate, if of course you take the time to prove in what science isn't partly a fictional langage.
It's the necessary and minimum premisse for this whole debate to take place, I cannot be more on point, in a scientific perspective of course, we wouldn't want to be irational would we ?

 

science is the only tool, for which is so accurate we can transform reality with it, disease evil spirits? wrong modern medicine , living cells bacteria.
alchemy? wrong, chemistry atoms.
science has demonstrated that it is different from fiction. can fiction invent a new type of "electromagntism" for which i could build a new type of electronic parts then a motherboard then cpu and eventually a whole computer based on what is indeed fiction? no there is no bigger gap from science and fiction itself, all we need to be true is that there is "demonstrable evidence" that effects reality enough to show it is not fabrication of false thinking, and we do have that.

 

Sorry for being over intellectual, or intellectually dishonnest by proving your premisses are dead wrong.
My objections still stand since you're unable to rationaly go against my rational arguments.

 

Utilitarian arguments have nothing to do with this debate...Don't derail it, or be intellectually dishonnest please. Beside, polictical change for example can change reality and it's not at all something that falls under the scientific realm, what you say is boggus as usual, many things can change reality, even with the restricted definition you give of it.

 

You better believe it Talmi, in this specific discussion you are not the superior one. You are not even adressing the most basic simple question: if you Yourself make a distinction between fiction and non-fiction in your own life.

The reason you do not adress it is because that would make you lose the argument, because that very distinction IS the argument. You trying to make a philosophical arguement out if it that does not even apply to your own life is at best disingenuous.
I really, really thought more if your intellectual honesty bases on our previous encounters.

 

"
Actually my answer was my old post to your question. In case you missed:
https://audiosex.pro/threads/athesim-vs-theism.29933/page-6#post-259575

That's why I believe in a God. There's no rational reason when you say there's no God and everything comes by chance. Book thing comes after that and there's no circularity. It's always going forward. If it's God's book, it has to be different and we can prove it's not written by a human, right?. That's my logic. So I red some. Bible wasn't good enough for me and there is Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John gospels, so I thought God's book has to be a complete one. So I also read Quran.

Before reading this example, please think and try to give an example for the darkest place in the world.
A sentence is:
"Or [they are] like darknesses within an unfathomable sea which is covered by waves, upon which are waves, over which are clouds - darknesses, some of them upon others. When one puts out his hand [therein], he can hardly see it. And he to whom Allah has not granted light - for him there is no light."

There is an example here. Unfathomable sea. We usually don't think about a sea while giving an example about a dark place. Today as I know there's no sunlight when it's deeper than 200m in seas. Now consider that Mohammed wrote these by himself. He was an uneducated man. He was living in deserts in Arabia. Maybe somebody told him about and maybe he knew about Red Sea. Still, if he wrote a book, the example must be a cave or night in my opinion. So everybody can understand it's dark. But he choose a risky way.

Another sentence is like that:
"And the heaven We constructed with strength, and indeed, We are [its] expander."
English is not my native language, I guess you know better than me that heaven means also sky. Expander is a big word here. This was written 1400 years ago and probably nobody understand it. 1000 years later, we discovered telescope, then we did great at lens technology, in 20. century we build Hubble etc. and now we know that our universe is expanding. So that sentence is very interesting to me.

Another example:
"And it is He who created the night and the day and the sun and the moon; all [heavenly bodies] in an orbit are swimming."
Again, comes from an uneducated man while some people see the sun as their god, he says it's in an orbit. Imagine you decided to make your own religion and writing a book about it. You want people to follow you though you're saying something they don't understand. In previous posts, I think foster said science destroyed all religions. Yes it destroyed all the fake ones as we expect. And I understand the book better while we go further in science. Those are something I can't ignore.
"






"hat's why I believe in a God. There's no rational reason when you say there's no God and everything comes by chance."


there is every rational reason and no person ever said something came by chance they came by the laws of nature, if you try to trace back before the laws of nature we can find a before.

a god said to be a mind which requires no body or brain. lets apply this to our world if that is a "reasonable" concpet

so a tree could be a chess champion, an earthworm should have a phd. a man gets his head cut off but he gets up and walks home with it in his hands. the government issues driver licenses with no height and weight.

MOST importantly at crime scenes of murdered and raped children the police officer tells the victims parents ( ma'am , we think that it was a mind which requires no body or brain which did the crime)



when it comes to any other claim about god, there are zero facts about reality that support it whether the origin of people or earth or solar system or galaxy or universe god is nowhere. there are zero books on god with the same attention to detail as electromagnetism, biology or chemistry, no instead whatever claims about gods souls afterlives we DO get are identical to any other fiction such as the walking dead storytelling which is either told by mouth or written in a book that is ALL gods souls afterlives have is words just like any other fictional creation.REAL things have much more than that. hence the proposition i have clearly stated that many wantto ignore or run away from or create a false objection for which that make a distinction from fiction and reality in their supposed objection while never fully fathoming it.



i dare you to read 25 science textbooks then compare to reading books about gods then read comic books.

 

Well. I ain't nobodys baa baa. And speaking of sheep, when is Jesus's birthday?

 

"you take the time to prove in what science isn't partly a fictional langage."

science is based on tentative demonstrable evidence

the fruits of science the laptop or cell phone or computer you are right now messaging on proves "science isn't partly a fictional langage.""

reality is " the way things actually work"
a computer deals with the quantum level and the electromagnetic level the way it actually works so accurately that we can create a computer by the millions identically when it is a system composed of multiple trillions complex interacting parts for which if even one or two where put wrong the device could not function. this is demonstrably showing that


"prove in what science isn't partly a fictional language.""

we can take the entire history of human accomplishment b the fruits of science trillions upon trillions of instances that science is not a fictional language



http://www.dictionary.com/browse/evidence

 

I will begin my position by stating what I believe to be the most important information related to this topic, that is the distinction between fiction and reality or to be more precise fiction vs non-fiction. I want to be very clear there is a such thing as fiction. In this specific situation I am referring to fiction being any thought ,concept, idea, proposition or statement which cannot demonstrably be shown to be true in the context of reality. In fact fiction is the vast majority of thoughts, ideas, concepts, propositions, and statements and the tiny minority are ones that can be demonstrably shown to be true in reality,

Why is this important at all in any way?

Because there is a way human beings actually work regarding our thought process and our minds. our thoughts are made of words and symbols which are virtual not real , so for any meaning to be there, we have to be talking about those symbols representing something and reality is what the words are supposed to represent. next we human beings are stuck in a subjective experience of spending each moment inside of our mind, we are capable of misunderstanding and not accounting for all details of a situation which leads to fictional or false propositions ideas and thoughts statements. Reality is outside of us. In order for us to utter words strung together in a meaningful way those words have to accurately be describing that outside reality. in order for that to take place we have to have demonstrable evidence , meaning we have to test and probe reality to see what the answer is to a question then we can formulate a thought about how things actually work or what exists in reality.

This means when it comes to the topic of how can a thought, idea, concept or proposition EVER be true. It can only be true IF we have demonstrable evidence or data from reality itself that we form a proposition or thought based on in order to talk about how things actually work or what exists outside of our experience which is subjective.