-->
@3RU7AL
Noumenon has no epistemological significance. Once again, in your declaration that the abstract/imaginary isn't nothing, you acknowledge it as something.Noumenon.
Why do you believe in God?
Posts
Total:
393
-->
@Athias
Noumenon is a logical necessity. It is not "nothingness" and it has profound epistemological significance.Noumenon has no epistemological significance. Once again, in your declaration that the abstract/imaginary isn't nothing, you acknowledge it as something.
-->
@3RU7AL
What significance is that?It is not "nothingness" and it has profound epistemological significance.
-->
@Athias
It is not "nothingness" and it has profound epistemological significance.What significance is that?
It is an acknowledgement of the unknown which renders our sample-biased, provisional conclusions, little more than mere guesses.
-->
@3RU7AL
Except the "unknown" can be partitioned into "that which is yet to be known," and "that which can't be known." Noumenon relates to the latter as it posits existence of events independent of the senses and/or perception, making it epistemologically insignificant. Your statement relates to the former given that you characterize our sample-biased, "more than guesses" conclusions as provisional. It may be that one is incidentally "accurate," but that's clearly ontological not epistemological.It is an acknowledgement of the unknown which renders our sample-biased, provisional conclusions, little more than mere guesses.
-->
@Athias
The concepts of "that which is not currently known" and "that which can't be known" are specifically relevant to epistemological limits.
-->
@3RU7AL
The concepts of "that which is not currently known" and "that which can't be known" are specifically relevant to epistemological limits.
I don't deny it's relevance in understanding the limits of an epistemological argument or statement; I deny it's significance to the argument itself which is epistemological in nature.
-->
@Athias
I don't deny it's relevance in understanding the limits of an epistemological argument or statement; I deny it's significance to the argument itself which is epistemological in nature.
Like the blind men observing the elephant, we are prone to different interpretations of the "whole" because none of us can see the entirety. [LINK]
-->
@TheAtheist
things that look like miracles happen to theists, particularly after they pray. like someone who is blind getting a healed retina, something irreversible being reversed. i never see that sort of thing happen to an atheist.
near death experiences. they are consistent. they are thought by the experiencer to be more real than our life, and definitely more than just dream like. to think the brain is just telling us a story, or that there is a story embedded in our brain, is far fetched. there are lots of credible people who verify things that happen during out of body experiences. the AWARE study showed two examples in their study that were verified. i heard of one study that showed someone reading numbers on a piece of paper that they shouldn't have been able to read.
there are ghost visions from credible people. credible people say possessed people can make inanimate objects move without touching them. that sort of thing.
there are lots of circumstantial evidences and even things that are not debunked that look pretty compelling, such has this...
i think there are good arguments from causality and design, at least as evidence even if it's not exhaustive proof.
there's too much evidence to just write off the supernatural, unless you just have a deep seated need to not believe.
-->
@n8nrgmi
there's too much evidence to just write off the supernatural,
Exactly. It's basically so obvious it's weird that atheists won't consider it, even more strange they keep parroting there's no evidence for spirituality or Theism (or an afterlife). For a group to be so persuaded by evidence it's almost as if they don't even know what evidence means or what it consists of.
unless you just have a deep seated need to not believe.
The worst aspect of accepting an atheist mentality. Mostly that it's so limiting for the individual, it also forces them to not accept anything outside materialism.
-->
@n8nrgmi
There is no EVIDENCE of the supernatural, there are stories though. There are stories of Leprechauns and alien abductions too. Stories aren't evidence.
ET tell us about god planets. That's always good evidence <sarcasm>
-->
@EtrnlVw
The worst aspect of accepting an atheist mentality. Mostly that it's so limiting for the individual, it also forces them to not accept anything outside materialism.
What is an "atheist mentality"? Atheism is the lack of belief in God because of absence of evidence. How does it have a "mentality"?
-->
@TheRealNihilist
No, I don't believe in solipsism.
-->
@keithprosser
Significance is in mind of the beholder.
My comment was alluding to the possibility of things of great universal importance.
Though, is it ever possible to truly distinguish between internal data processing and a greater reality?
How honest is our perception?
-->
@EtrnlVw
The worst aspect of accepting an atheist mentality. Mostly that it's so limiting for the individual, it also forces them to not accept anything outside materialism.
Utterly wrong. The only thing atheism does is stop people from imagining a non-existent super-being is involved or responsible. Spirituality doesn't have to involve a god.
Atheism requires one to explain and understand things in terms of the real, not the imaginary. If spirituality can only be understood and explained in terms of the imaginary, that could only mean spirituality itself was imaginary.
Atheism means you can't get your spirituality and meta-ethics 'off the shelf' - you have to work at it. Atheism is not the easy option - theism is for those who like things on a plate - theists just have to learn the rules of their church.
Atheists aren't limited to materialism... they are only 'limited' to doing without a god figure, which is no limit at all.
-->
@EtrnlVw
Theism and Atheism are merely labels we attach to alternative conclusions.
The relative data or "evidence" is all very similar if not the same.
The difference between the so called theist's and atheist's conclusions, is all down to a slight variation in how we process the same data or "evidence".
We have imputed and processed the same data as each other and have concluded that:
I do believe in a god.
I do not believe in a god.
The only real difference is the inclusion or exclusion of the word not.
Though I personally conclude that I neither believe nor disbelieve in a god.
So what will you label me?
-->
@TheAtheist
Why not?No, I don't believe in solipsism.
-->
@n8nrgmi
things that look like miracles happen to theists, particularly after they pray. like someone who is blind getting a healed retina, something irreversible being reversed. i never see that sort of thing happen to an atheist. near death experiences. they are consistent. they are thought by the experiencer to be more real than our life, and definitely more than just dream like. to think the brain is just telling us a story, or that there is a story embedded in our brain, is far fetched. there are lots of credible people who verify things that happen during out of body experiences. the AWARE study showed two examples in their study that were verified. i heard of one study that showed someone reading numbers on a piece of paper that they shouldn't have been able to read. there are ghost visions from credible people. credible people say possessed people can make inanimate objects move without touching them. that sort of thing. there are lots of circumstantial evidences and even things that are not debunked that look pretty compelling, such has this...i think there are good arguments from causality and design, at least as evidence even if it's not exhaustive proof. there's too much evidence to just write off the supernatural, unless you just have a deep seated need to not believe.
Don't forget about the cross-cultural hyper-intelligent psychedelic clockwork elves!!
-->
@zedvictor4
We have imputed and processed (not exactly) the same data as each other and have concluded that:
I do believe in a (theistic model of a) god.
I do not believe in a (theistic model of a) god.
The only real difference is a simple ontological choice in terminology.
-->
@keithprosser
Atheists aren't limited to materialism... they are only 'limited' to doing without a [theistic] god figure, which is no limit at all.
Well stated.
Oh please. Atheists hate the supernatural but are better at it than theists. keith is more shallow then a drop of spit and wants us to believe he is the spiritual guru of debateart.com. No wonder he loves the Muslims.
-->
@3RU7AL
Like the blind men observing the elephant, we are prone to different interpretations of the "whole" because none of us can see the entirety.
Except, I'm not outright rejecting your notions. I'm rejecting your pigeonholing. If we were to use the analogy, it'd be akin to my saying that the whole elephant represents existence, and your saying that "no, only the trunk represents existence, given that it's the only part of the elephant which has a verifiable function." And then when I press on to ask about its other body parts (e.g. brain, ears, tail, etc.) you go onto say that it's abstract and that the elephant in its entirety represents "Noumenon," which hasn't given you pause to refrain from positing "practical distinctions." I'm not one of the men arguing with you over different body parts; I'm the one stating that these parts are apart of the elephant, and making these distinctions doesn't change that it's an elephant. (I'd even go as far as to say that some if not all of these parts are intertwined, e.g. "brain" and "trunk.")
-->
@Athias
Like the blind men observing the elephant, we are prone to different interpretations of the "whole" because none of us can see the entirety.Except, I'm not outright rejecting your notions. I'm rejecting your pigeonholing. If we were to use the analogy, it'd be akin to my saying that the whole elephant represents existence, and your saying that "no, only the trunk represents existence, given that it's the only part of the elephant which has a verifiable function." And then when I press on to ask about its other body parts (e.g. brain, ears, tail, etc.) you go onto say that it's abstract and that the elephant in its entirety represents "Noumenon," which hasn't given you pause to refrain from positing "practical distinctions." I'm not one of the men arguing with you over different body parts; I'm the one stating that these parts are apart of the elephant, and making these distinctions doesn't change that it's an elephant. (I'd even go as far as to say that some if not all of these parts are intertwined, e.g. "brain" and "trunk.")
I'm starting to suspect we agree more than we disagree.
Let me try this again.
The parts of the elephant the blind men can detect are real, factual, scientifically verifiable, Quanta.
The parts of the elephant the blind men can (not necessarily accurately) infer are abstract, imaginary, hypothetical, metaphysical, Qualia.
The parts of the elephant the blind men NEVER detect is noumenon.
Let's expand the elephant to the size of a galaxy. One blind man may spend their entire life wandering around exploring one of the eyes of the elephant, and although they may learn quite a bit about that eye, and might even (quite naturally) imagine that eye is either the entire elephant or "the only important part" or "the most significant part" of the elephant, the blind man exploring one of the nostrils will very likely be unconvinced.
But back to the point of contention. There is a very important distinction between Reality and Imagination. [LINK]
most atheists who have a near death experience come back believing in God. that should count for something.
-->
@TheAtheist
What is an "atheist mentality"? Atheism is the lack of belief in God because of absence of evidence. How does it have a "mentality"?
Mentality- "the characteristic attitude of mind or way of thinking of a person or group."
The type of "mentality" that arises every time I have a discussion with an atheist. Not really an insult just an observation. Perhaps this could only be noticed from an outside perspective.
-->
@keithprosser
Utterly wrong. The only thing atheism does is stop people from imagining a non-existent super-being is involved or responsible.
Thanks for the opinion. But great example of what I was saying lol.
Spirituality doesn't have to involve a god.
While I think that is an ignorant statement let's say it's true....it still involves a transcendent reality (more than materialism or naturalism). The catch is that how can you have a transcendent reality without a Creator??
Atheism requires one to explain and understand things in terms of the real, not the imaginary. If spirituality can only be understood and explained in terms of the imaginary, that could only mean spirituality itself was imaginary.
Again, pure opinion and mindset from what you have accepted, none of that is a fact Keith but thanks for that opinion. If you didn't carry an atheist mentality perhaps you could consider this isn't imaginary but an objective reality. What you term "imaginary" is only based on your false conclusions from an atheist belief system. This of course controls all your paradigms which controls what you accept or discard.
Atheism means you can't get your spirituality and meta-ethics 'off the shelf' - you have to work at it. Atheism is not the easy option - theism is for those who like things on a plate - theists just have to learn the rules of their church.
You act like you don't know me, get real. Nice try though.
Atheists aren't limited to materialism... they are only 'limited' to doing without a god figure, which is no limit at all.
They are limited to materialism, get real. They are also controlled by it.
-->
@n8nrgmi
most atheists who have a near death experience come back believing in God. that should count for something.
And they should come back believing in Satan and Hell, that should count for a lot more.
The catch is that how can you have a transcendent reality without a Creator??
Well there is no creator ergo there is no transcendent reality, there is only the reality you deny.
-->
@zedvictor4
Theism and Atheism are merely labels we attach to alternative conclusions.
Okay, but it also symbolizes the direction of your thought patterns....of course which is why you label yourself that. A mentality is just basically a way of thinking, an attitude about or toward something. If what you think controls your experience atheism is indeed very limiting for the individual. Especially in light of the reality that spirituality is a cultivation, as well as observation from experience. If I were to believe or accept atheism I would never be able to experience what transcends that.
The relative data or "evidence" is all very similar if not the same.The difference between the so called theist's and atheist's conclusions, is all down to a slight variation in how we process the same data or "evidence".
Agreed, I call it perception or perspectives. This is irrelevant though to an atheist or even a Theistic mentality. Yal can deny you don't have a mentality but I don't see why.
We have imputed and processed the same data as each other and have concluded that:I do believe in a god.I do not believe in a god.The only real difference is the inclusion or exclusion of the word not.
Not really, this of course controls your output or what you can experience. Your atheism is your worldview is it not?
Though I personally conclude that I neither believe nor disbelieve in a god.So what will you label me?
Did I label you? did I label anyone other than what they consider themselves? Atheism isn't just a denial of God or gods, it's a way you view the world. Is it not?