Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So when you look out of your window and through your sight perceive Earth to be nice and flat, it meas the Earth is objectively nice and flat, right?
Not the issue.
I asked if ANY perceptions through sight were objective. You said they were always subjective.
This kind of answer informs me about how to proceed with the debate.
I decided long ago that Gldn had nothing of substance to offer any discussion.
Every few months, instead of overlooking his posts completely, I'll skim one or two just to make sure I didn't miss anything, in case some growth happened since the last peek.
It hasn't.
But I'll check again sometime in 2016.
Unlike your pearls of wizzdum I've noted recently, right?
Not the issue.
I asked if ANY perceptions through sight were objective. You said they were always subjective.
This kind of answer informs me about how to proceed with the debate.
Be honest now!
Here what you just said.
Quote:
I'm not even sure if that has ever actually occurred with anyone...where they don't believe they can objectively validate anything they have ever looked at.
I right away gave you an example of what you "are not even sure ever occurred with anyone..." to show how wrong you are. And as soon as I did you called it "Not the issue"?
Be honest now. Or you need more examples as for how notoriously subjective and unreliable our senses are?
Especially when it comes to assessing presence of "creator and ruler of the universe" in a form of "The supreme or ultimate reality"
I right away gave you an example of what you "are not even sure ever occurred with anyone..." to show how wrong you are. And as soon as I did you called it "Not the issue"?
Be honest now. Or you need more examples as for how notoriously subjective and unreliable our senses are?
Especially when it comes to assessing presence of "creator and ruler of the universe" in a form of "The supreme or ultimate reality"
God back to post 338.
I asked if visual perceptions were always subjective, or if they could also be objective.
You answered that they were ALWAYS subjective. I said I don't believe that ever occurs...that one never has a objective visual perception.
Intrinsic to my question was that they were subjective at times. I asked if they could be objective as well.
You said no, they were only subjective. Which, as I said, tells me something about what's up.
Is the one example of a subjective visual perception you gave supposed to support your contention they can NEVER be objectively validated?
You won't be able to play me. I don't debate off-the-wall preposterous stuff ...though I will point it out.
God back to post 338.
I asked if visual perceptions were always subjective, or if they could also be objective.
You answered that they were ALWAYS subjective. I said I don't believe that ever occurs...that one never has a objective visual perception.;
Intrinsic to my question was that they were subjective at times. I asked if they could be objective as well.
You said no, they were only subjective. Which, as I said, tells me something about what's up.
Is the one example of a subjective visual perception you gave supposed to support your contention they can NEVER be objectively validated?
You won't be able to play me. I don't debate off-the-wall preposterous stuff ...though I will point it out.
Oh, you are talking about this kind of perceptions...
Like if I look a the tree do I objectively see the tree or I subjectively see the tree but objectively it is a moon...
Is that it? Is this what you were talking about?
Oh I'm sorry. I got confused. Somehow, I was thinking you were talking about this kind of perception
Quote:
"I DO HAVE A PERCEPTION relative to God(s). I even explain my perception as, "GOD is ALL THAT EXISTS"."
If my perception serves me objectively, those are your words correct?
Are you saying, that because when you look at the tree and most of the time what you are looking at is, objectively, a tree, it gives you a right to look around you, call everything you see, know, don't see, don't know, everything there is God, and expect to be ultimately right just because you correctly call tree a tree although not always, but most of the time?
Is this where your confidence in your perception relative to God coming from?
GOD does not then manifest through your perception. GOD does then manifest through my perception. What I perceive through the perceptive ability I possess that you obviously lack...is not nullified by your lack of ability to perceive it yourself.
Just as, my ability to perceive things through my sense of sight, is not rendered null and void by someone else that is blind and doesn't possess the ability to perceive things through sight like I can.
In that analogy: I am the person that can see and perceive things through my visual abilities...and you are the blind person that can't.
You being blind does not change my ability to see. Even if you thought it did...on the basis that you had never seen anything.
Just as, most can see and few are blind...Most, and that would be MOST, that have ever lived can perceive God...few can't. Unfortunately, you are one of those few.
Proof that you just keep trolling along. You are not interested in any actual real conversation, only to try and stir people up and "have fun".
So, I am going to stop feeding the troll now. I suggest others do the same.
Proof that you just keep trolling along. You are not interested in any actual real conversation, only to try and stir people up and "have fun".
So, I am going to stop feeding the troll now. I suggest others do the same.
Gldnrule is not a Troll. He is arguing his case as best he can, using his particular needling method (that was there from the start) allied with the usual evasive techniques of theist argument.
Gldnrule is just doing what almost all theist apologists do.
P.s mind you I do find his arguments often pointless and irrelevant to the debate and so I do skip over a lot of his posts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule
God back to post 338.
I asked if visual perceptions were always subjective, or if they could also be objective.
You answered that they were ALWAYS subjective. I said I don't believe that ever occurs...that one never has a objective visual perception.
Intrinsic to my question was that they were subjective at times. I asked if they could be objective as well.
You said no, they were only subjective. Which, as I said, tells me something about what's up.
Is the one example of a subjective visual perception you gave supposed to support your contention they can NEVER be objectively validated?
You won't be able to play me. I don't debate off-the-wall preposterous stuff ...though I will point it out.
He got you bang to rights and you are now being evasive. If human senses are subject to erroneous interpretation of data (because subjective) then how much more subject to doubt than is subjective information that is scientifically (1) verified are god -claims that for all we can tell in the head.
Anser, don't wriggle and evade. becasue everyone can see it is wriggling and evasion, especially when it is pointed out.
(1) empirically is also suspect in subjective matters - it can be an evolved common human experience.
This is exactly what I was thinking when I read the incoherent post. Guy just said that the truth doesn't matter, because he believes something, so therefore it is true, even if it isn't.
OTOH, all claims that differ from his, are bogus and illogical, because he says so. I have realized the Gldn is only here for one reason, and it isn't conversation or discussion.
This morning I was listening to a podcast where one of the people who called into the show, it is also a live TV show, called himself a univerisal pantheist or something similar, had the same belief system that everything is God and was unable to explain to the hosts why he should believe it. He could only explain that it felt good or right but not why it should be believed. But at least the caller was polite enough to explain that he did not expect everyone to believe what he does.
Yes. This Pantheist or Panentheist argument is either mere tree -hugging turned into a religion or another crafty ploy to try to wangle the God -claim into credibility of ANY terms - after which (as we saw with Vizio, recently), the apparent acceptance of any sorta god will be grabbed with both hands and the attaching of all manner of faith -baggage can be done at protracted leisure.
Theists know that the a priori acceptance of anything that can be labelled 'God' changes the whole nature of debate and achieves the holy grail oif Theist apologetics - shifting the burden of proof.
That would be fine if the god in any meaningful sense was proved. But it is done with all sorts of flawed and craft arguments, like Kalam, argument from Morality, Nature= God, atheist are evil therefore god exists and argument from numbers, etc.etc.etc...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
and argument from numbers, etc.etc.etc...