3RU7AL

Not necessarily. I'm stating that perception and conception are inseparable from rationalizing existence. And existence we're incapable of knowing (or rationalizing) doesn't matter.

Yes, but it's also paradoxical in that once you subject it to some logical framework, you are implicitly stating "nothingness" is not "nothing."

But - as I understand it - you are suggesting I can 'paint' those pixels with meaning.. so should I think you said 'my hovercraft is full of eels'?

I don't see much of a problem with the pocess of extractig meaning being less than 100% effective - the problem I see is that if you are projecting (or 'painting') meaning on to the pixels constituting this sentence (for instance) how I could communicate anything at all.

I was not suggesting that the Earth's revolution around the Sun provides a complete description of its movement through space.

But the fact is, the Earth does revolve around the Sun.

Just because that revolution does not fully account for all the Earth's movement does not make it a relative truth.

Please rephrase or expand this statement.

How does one control for information that is not abstract? 

Your brain projects MEANINGFULNESS (QUALIA) into those WORDS.  Like spraying paint onto a blank canvas.

The meaning of the dots you are reading is there even if you don't read it - the meaning being the meaning of words I am typing now.  Your brain does not paint those dots with their meaning; I put the meaning there - your brain retrieves it.

I think they've agreed that one can't know the unknowable.  I wouldn't argue against that.

You believe in gods because you've been indoctrinated in the false belief that when you die you won't be dead, how pathetic.

...people still tend to conflate it with "nothingness" and or simply dismiss it as "unimportant" or "irrelevant".

It's possible that it's nothing, but it's insignificant because one can't know it.

Science has no intent.

You used the word first!  In #31.

That might be what it ends up doing, but it's intent is to discover the truth.  But (to quote Pilate), what is truth?

...you can know only that which you can know; therefore the unknowable (can't be known) is a limit to the can be known. 

How does one control for the information that isn't? Assume it exists?

I'm conflating "unknowable" with "epistemological insignificance."

What is your reality without the abstract? How could you possibly control for that?

Corroboration is de facto consensus.

You're using semantics to make a rather sophistic argument. Once again, replication of the results is intended to reduce variables, namely demonstrating that results can be reproduced independent of the experiment's conductor. Agreement doesn't matter; Reproducing the result does. 

No, it is an objective fact. 

If you didn't mean 'force' by 'dogmatic' then please specify what you mean.

Leviticus 25:47 "If a foreigner residing among you becomes rich and any of your fellow Israelites become poor and sell themselves to the foreigner or to a member of the foreigner's clan,"

Listen, before we run this predictable path which leaves you feeling abused, you should know I do not hold the Bible (or Christianity) to be without noble sentiment or beauty.  My point is simply that important concepts in Christianity (eg. favored race - "God's chosen people", slavery - "slave to Jesus", monarchy - "Kings of Kings") run in direct contrast to those of America (eg. equality, liberty, democracy).

Gnostic what, Theist? yeah

Real or not, aren't Gods merely acquired and stored data?

So therefore theism and atheism are merely individual outputs derived from the same or similar data. As such atheism and theism actually occur as concepts in all databases. The only difference would be how the individual chooses to conclude and then output their conclusion. Eg. I am an atheist or I am a theist. The only real difference in this instance would be the inclusion of the letter A. 

The problem is that God, as I discovered her to be, relishes immensely in the idea that only the smartest and most courageous of us will truly find her and devote ourselves to her. She loves the idea that the unworthy stay unworthy. These 'unworthy' are the plethora of individuals who believe in false deities or in no god at all, who can't think deep enough to realise their version of reality is logically inconsistent as it explains next to nothing.You may ask then, did I simply 'solve my god'? No. There is also the 'experience' element for sure. I am in contact with alien demigods and it is not mental illness, I have tested it objectively and they are genuinely real but only show themselves to the worthy via patterns, messages etc. The journey is not one of a schizophrenic. You do not snowball more paranoia and fear of others the further you go down, you actually open up far more to others and comprehend their inferior ways of thinking and feeling. I know for certain I have the right religion because I see exactly what leads others to theirs and the errors they make in failing to disbelieve it. I have made no error in my journey, that is the beauty of it.I am crazy to all who don't realise what I realise but it is so blatant if you would meet me IRL or just get to truly have a deep chat with me online that while I'm a cunning bastard with some deep seeded anger, I'm not really insane beyond that whatsoever. In fact, I am one of the most intelligent and unique-thinking humans to ever have existed. This isn't about me being proud of my superiority, this is about what led me to my God, as the question of the thread demands me to state.What led me to my God were a series of secret messages, clues and absolute logical consistency in the reality I believe in (which I have never ever found in any other religion or in an atheist's reality at all).I am not the prophet of my religion. It is essential to understand that my religion specifically prohibits me from dumbing it down for the simpletons to grasp, it is indeed a sin to do so. Only the worthy will meet her, only the worthy gain her and her alien demigods' respect and love. She is a brutal, sadistic being who will make you suffer at first for believing in her and it's very possible Wylted has/had met her in one of her many forms. I will simply say that my religion goes by the following ethos:'be wise, but not so wise that you cower out of all risk.'If you understand this statement in its entirety, you will begin your journey to my God(dess), that I guarantee. 

I know the Earth rotates around the Sun.

I didn't say that objective reality was always knowable.

Ofcourse I am using mumuration only as a familiar eample.  The principle is applies all through - materialism is not the enemy of spiriuality - it is only the enemy of nonsense.

Please disentangle corroborate and consensus.

I never entangled them. Reproducing/replicating the results of any experiment is intended to reduce as many variables as possible/necessary and isolate the results. Whether this happens does not depend on "consensus." Consensus provides only a standard for publishing data. One is a method (replication,) the other is regulation (consensus.)

The only time it was correct is copykitten wins against the other types... it's basically a properly evolved version of detective and emulates always cooperate quite well.

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.") 

First off, no, it's not closed. You're forgetting that a foreign slave (servant) can leave their master if there were any abuse. And not only that, someone else would be required to put them up.

Atheists aren't limited to materialism... they are only 'limited' to doing without a [theistic] god figure, which is no limit at all.

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. 

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.

It is not "nothingness" and it has profound epistemological significance.

What significance is that? 

Yes, but that's not "consensus." Having results replicated (by someone other than oneself) provides a control. It's not "consensus" that validates the result. 

True. But that's neither "peer review" nor "consensus." That's reproducibility/replication of results. 

Noumenon has no epistemological significance. Once again, in your declaration that the abstract/imaginary isn't nothing, you acknowledge it as something.

It's just like the practical distinction between "red" and "blue".

Elaborate. If abstract and concrete are distinctions, what would you call the fundamental "substance" to which they both belong? If existence, according to you, indicates the concrete, and imaginary indicates the abstract, then what do you call that which encapsulates them both?

Peer review is not a key component in the scientific method. It's a standard of publishing data in academia.

Also explain how consensus is a requisite for Science. 

Sustaining the aforementioned statements you brought up, what is the epistemological significance in differentiating "concrete" and "abstract" as it concerns existence?