The Winding Path – 027

For the context of the following comments please click on the hyperlinks above them.

19 August 2013 10:36 AM

brmckay – Emergent and potential. The Entirety.

Now, where does this leave “Empirical reality”? That depends on sincere and unbiased observation of the phenomena. The question of “sentience” must be addressed. As in: Self knowing; Absolute and relative instances of the phenomena.

GdB – Sorry brmckay, these are all just words to me. And I think on preciser investigation they are for you too.

“Precise investigation”, just digs a deep hole. Though holes can have many uses, the Entirety does not reside in one. (pun avoided)

Sorry back at you but, this is beginning to seem as futile as teaching Zombies to sing.

19 August 2013 11:28 AM

PLaClair – The difference between the barber and me is that I’m not going to bother trying to cut through this mess in its present state.

I like this answer.

19 August 2013 08:53 AM

brmckay – Tell me about this “whatever”. I’ve been laying out my version of it and get nothing but grief.

GdB – All I wrote was pointing at the fact that an atheist has not much to explain. She must first ask what the person calling her an atheist believes, and then she can say “oh, that is what you believe. No, I don’t believe in that, never even heard of it before”. So in what sense then is atheism a belief?

brmckay – Are dreams then “abstractions” as well? (I am assuming some level of sincere and unbiased observation of the phenomena on your part here.)

I suppose that I can grant you that metaphors may be a subset of this phenomena of abstraction?

And,…God an abstraction of Infinite Potential.

GdB –

No.

No.

No idea what ‘Infinite Potential’ is. Any empirical hint or clue that something like that exists? Any prospect of some observation that might lead to its empirical proof? Do abstractions exist empirically? Metaphors?

Well alright then. I’m wondering how PlaClair will sort this out(?)

19 August 2013 08:04 AM

brmckay – For a “non-hobby” you all are certainly devoted to it.

GdB – No, not at all. It just strikes me that atheists are asked again and again to prove non-existence of God/Zeus/Jupiter/Krishna, whatever somebody happens to believe. The correct answer is just: I find no reason to believe in God/Zeus/Jupiter/Krishna. So make your point why you think God/Zeus/Jupiter/Krishna exists. What follows then is never based on science, reason, or whatever; what follows is just dialectical sophistry.

Tell me about this “whatever”. I’ve been laying out my version of it and get nothing but grief.

brmckay – Hint: mathematics is a metaphor used to describe certain aspects of the reality experienced as our universe.

GdB – It is not a metaphor. It is an abstraction, but abstractions can be fully valid, can be correct or wrong, and if correct have something to say about aspects of empirical reality.

Are dreams then “abstractions” as well? (I am assuming some level of sincere and unbiased observation of the phenomena on your part here.)

I suppose that I can grant you that metaphors may be a subset of this phenomena of abstraction?

And,…God an abstraction of Infinite Potential.

Emergent and potential. The Entirety.

Now, where does this leave “Empirical reality”? That depends on sincere and unbiased observation of the phenomena. The question of “sentience” must be addressed. As in: Self knowing; Absolute and relative instances of the phenomena.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in logs and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.