Hmm out of interest, What about if a person's irrational belief (fictional according to yourself?) in GOD caused him to work harder in this life as a byproduct of faith.
As a result he invents the mobile phone?
Whose accomplishment?

 

if is said " i dont accept "electromagnetism, im going to create a fictional version of how I think it SHOULD work and then reality MUST conform to MY version" then i proceed to try and build electronics with my fictional account of my own version, will i be able to produce "fruit"?

 

"
Hmm out of interest, What about if a person's irrational belief (fictional according to yourself?) in GOD caused him to work harder in this life as a byproduct of faith.
As a result he invents the mobile phone?
Whose accomplishment?"


the answer is obvious reality defines what "work" is what "invents" is what "accomplishment" is
which means you question is a misunderstanding that situation could not occur, the person HAS to meet specific criteria to do any of those words whether "work" or "invent" or "accomplish" reality dictates what that means and how to go about it and what knowledge is required to do them, this means for the man to succeed he must literally have a faith in god for which he divorces from his mind when he switches over to a different way of thinking when dealing with reality this is called special pleading,


Special pleading is a form of fallacious argument that involves an attempt to cite something as an exception to a generally accepted rule, principle, etc. without justifying the exception.[1][2


so when he deals with reality he differentiates between fiction and not fiction ( oh, things work this way as opposed to some way which i am inventing in thought) then he can "invent" or "work" or accomplish" but when it comes to his faith or belief in god he uses special pleading to say " oh, well for god it works the way i think it does i dont need to differentiate between fiction and not fiction here it is a special situation"

 

Thay's a tautological argument, scientists discover things thanks to science at a moment in time which in no way means that science is a flawless langage. It's a for ever work in progress langage, it abolishes partly what it holds for true as it makes new discoveries and render yesterday truth false..
Which obiously doesn't keep it from making discoveries, I'm not saying it's a delusionnal langage, it's just a mean to to an end, a perfectible tool to analyse our surrounding. Its conclusions are always true untill they are replaced, which they always are or will be, and in the end make them always false.
Can the human spirit gasps the laws of nature in there totallity anyway, is our brain equiped to apprehend that fully?

Anyway as written earlier, just food for thought. But I'm happy those obections - by showing clearly that the religious reasoning certainly isn't based on a scientific claim, just as much the scientific value of the scientific language itself can be questionned - bring another perspective in a matter that is really shortsighted in its ambitions the way it was originally formulated. Happy to see every one thinking in that direction too, the problem becomes then less philosophical and more practical, as it relates to reality, not a restricted idea of reality.

 

Last edited: Apr 21, 2017

"
Thay's a tautological argument, scientists discover things thanks to science at a moment in time which in no way means that science is a flawless langage. It's a for ever work in progress langage, it abolishes partly what it holds for true as it makes new discoveries and render yesterday truth false..
Which obiously doesn't keep it from making discoveries, I'm not saying it's a delusionnal langage, it's just a mean to to an end, a perfectible tool to analyse our surrounding. Its conclusions are always true untill they are replaced, which they always are or will be, and in the end make them always false.
Can the human spirit gasps the laws of nature in there totallity anyway, is our brain equiped to apprehend that fully?"




whether on accident or on purpose you just admitted the process of "science" does actually differentiate between fiction and not fiction.



"Can the human spirit gasps the laws of nature in there totallity anyway, is our brain equiped to apprehend that fully?""


that is a question for GOD psssshahaha

 

Kloud
,

if i sit here and in my thought process, form what i believe to be a picture of your that perfectly matches the actual you that exists in your entirety in reality, is that possible?

if you say no i dont have enough information , do you mean data for which informs me on what you are actually like? (demonstrable evidence)

how is GOD any different than this situation?

if i cannot for a accurate complete picture of the actual you in my thoughts , how can i do it with god?


what if i said that i had revelation from you telling me what you are like and then you say " wait that wasn't me the told you that"

and i say well it was you because it came directly in my mind as absolute certainty so i must have a perfect picture of what you actually are.

 

I really didn't.
And no it's an onthological question that actually conditions the rest of this discussion, and the pertinence of it.

 

"
MMJ2017 said: ↑
"
Thay's a tautological argument, scientists discover things thanks to science at a moment in time which in no way means that science is a flawless langage. It's a for ever work in progress langage, it abolishes partly what it holds for true as it makes new discoveries and render yesterday truth false..
Which obiously doesn't keep it from making discoveries, I'm not saying it's a delusionnal langage, it's just a mean to to an end, a perfectible tool to analyse our surrounding. Its conclusions are always true untill they are replaced, which they always are or will be, and in the end make them always false.
Can the human spirit gasps the laws of nature in there totallity anyway, is our brain equiped to apprehend that fully?"




whether on accident or on purpose you just admitted the process of "science" does actually differentiate between fiction and not fiction.



"Can the human spirit gasps the laws of nature in there totallity anyway, is our brain equiped to apprehend that fully?""


that is a question for GOD psssshahaha
I really didn't.
And no it's an onthological question that actually conditions the rest of this discussion, and the pertinence of it."








how are you able to use a device to comment right now whether a cell phone or laptop or computer to text across the world on this thread?

because science was able to differentiate between fiction and not regarding how electromagnetism and quantum mechanics works accurate enough to build such a complex device and duplicate millions of the same exact device so accurate with the way electromagnetism works the device stays on longer than one second before burning out! it actually succeeds! all million of the same identical device now multiply that times all electronics , that is demonstrable evidence of the differentiation between a fiction version of electromagnetism and the version that exists in reality science accomplished that!

 

how are you able to use a device to comment right now whether a cell phone or laptop or computer to text across the world on this thread?

because science was able to differentiate between fiction and not regarding how electromagnetism and quantum mechanics works accurate enough to build such a complex device and duplicate millions of the same exact device so accurate with the way electromagnetism works the device stays on longer than one second before burning out! it actually succeeds! all million of the same identical device now multiply that times all electronics , that is demonstrable evidence of the differentiation between a fiction version of electromagnetism and the version that exists in reality science accomplished that!







why people do not account for this in their thoughts or arguments is beyond me!

 

Probably because it isn't convincing.

 

That's what ? Your strategy when you don't like a conversation ? You think people are going to fall for that ?
You have your matrix/not matrix going on as a philosophical debate...No one stands in the way of that. Although it's a religion too.

 

Talmi,

my proposition is simple

do you care for fictional characters in the same way as your friends and family?

the point is there is a difference between real people that exists and fictional characters

we dont need to even get into science itself because my proposition is about the human thought process itself and we all DO differentiate when not special pleading
i know with absolute certainty that you love your family and friends and dont feel that same way about fictional characters like the pilsbury doughboy, superman or walking dead's rick grimes.

this should have been obvious to you the entire time.

 

Its an open discussion.You have trashed several threads of mine, throwing fuel on fire like a paid antifa troll.

 

hey Von steyr what s your take on the topic at hand sir?

 

Talmi

either i can form an image of you in my mind that perfectly matches the actual you or i cannot which is it?

 

I don't claim to fully understand Quantum Mechanics nor do I feel the need.
Scientists themselves openly admit that there is NO experimentally confirmed quantum theory of gravity?
String theory however speculates about such.
As I said earlier if that means something to you that helps you in some way then cool

 

At this point no matter how simple i make and explain the proposition some people have demonstrated they cannot fathom it
to them i can only say it is the most important proposition you will ever hear about that applies to each moment you find yourself in forever, for you to dismiss it without critical thought is your own choice ( is it?) BUT to your own detriment.

 

Well actually what we love in every day life in a way is fiction. We don't love our father, our brothers for what and who they really are (biological being with hereditary relations to us, nothing more or less in a cold straight forward perspective that you cherrish), we can't fully know them, we love a representation of them, an idealisation, a idea we have in our mind regarding who they are, impacted by the story, its happy moments, traumatisms, that we share.
Our relation to others is like our relation to public figures with more or less intensity, a more or less dense story, between us. People who love Trump for example (or any political figure really, just the perfect example) love a representation of the real trump in all its "complexity", through the story Trump which is incomplete and boggus and makes the Trump people love in fact a fictionnal character. Are we all crazy ?

 

"
Well actually what we love in every day life in a way is fiction. We don't love our father, our brothers for what and who they really are (biological being with hereditary relations to us, nothing more or less in a cold straight forward perspective that you cherrish), we can't fully know them, we love a representation of them, an idealisation, a idea we have in our mind regarding who they are, impacted by the story, its happy moments, traumatisms, that we share.
Our relation to others is like our relation to public figures with more or less intensity, a more or less dense story, between us. People who love Trump for example (or any political figure really, just the perfect example) love a representation of the real trump in all its "complexity", through the story Trump which is incomplete and boggus and makes the Trump people love in fact a fictionnal character. Are we all crazy ?"





your starting to fathom it now