The Winding Path – 195

For the context of the following comments and to reply, please click on the DATE/TIME above them.

2015-10-31 10:48

Nofun brmckay – “Anything can be true or have the potential to exist but only things with evidence are real. If it isn’t real it doesn’t matter.

Man with 50 heads – no evidence – doesn’t matter.
Flying dog with lasers for eyes – no evidence – doesn’t matter.
Gods – no evidence – doesn’t matter.

Navel gazing will give you a sore neck. The only beginning is that you accept you exist and can perceive things. The rest flows from there.

If you can’t make that initial leap then you are hopelessly lost, running in circles, chasing existential ghosts.

I’m not sure if it is necessary to agree or disagree with your statement.

There are a few tripping points though.

– Not sure if you assume that I am a Navel gazer, or even what exactly that is.

– What is the scope, and or nature, of this “I” that I should accept exists? (This is actually the subject of most of my commentary.)

– Who is it, that “perceives”. Has this been examined? What does the evidence indicate?

– You have made “Gods”, plural in your example of things that don’t matter for lack of evidence. That works for me simply because, by my definition, there is only God, for which there is NO END of evidence.

Nofun brmckay – “You are playing philosophical games with reality and not applying the same to your faith construct.

Where is the real world evidence of your god? Again, not his creation …him. Why do you believe?

You’ve postponed responding to these questions?

I suppose I’ll have to get you to explain what is “real world” and what is not.

What is this faith construct that I am blind too? I’ve explained my reasoning but you’ve dismissed it as “philosophical games”.

You refer to “your god”, “him” and “his creation”. All of these constructs have been dismissed by me already. Reason being that they obstruct a direct perception of “reality”.

“Reality” being undivided-entirety. Absolute infinitude. The most elegant simplicity.

The part that you should be contesting is my assertion that it is the source of your own self awareness. In fact, identical to it. The very same.

Shouldn’t I be the one to ask you, about the limitations of your anti-faith construct?

2015-11-01 09:22

Nofun – “Random thoughts versus real world evidence = real world.

Your god is a faith construct … you faith is as real as any human behavior but the object of that faith is not real.

‘a direct perception of ‘reality’.’ Are you not saying your god is real? Or are trying to reduce reality to a belief and make out it is all about a belief choice and not fantasy versus reality.

You don’t have to perceive every reality to say you perceive any reality. My foot is a reality. If my foot kick something and it hurts I can probably say that is a reality too.

I don’t have a[n] anti-faith construct that makes no sense. I accept things with evidence and ignore things that don’t. At no time am I required to believe anything.

Your other odd questions:

I is you. Lets not spiral into a philosophic whirlpool about that notion,

You perceive. Others might also.

Where is never ending evidence of a god or gods?

What about my comments don’t make sense? So far, what I mostly detect in your responses are projections and lack of objectivity.

Yes, your foot can be experienced as “real”, also the sidewalk underneath it, and and ground beneath that. The gravity that holds it all in place.

Point being, that the entire spectrum of dependencies is also “real”. As far as we desire to understand it.

You have been adding layers of another category of dependency onto my statements.

I do my best to perceive the reality inherent in that as well.

This is my “real world” application of the viewpoint under discussion. That is the practice inspired by what you are calling a “belief”.

2015-11-02 09:56

Nofun – “An opinion is real. The object of that opinion has no requirement to be real. What you have done is try and reduce reality (reality that stubbornly refuses show any sign of any god) through a philosophical malaise so that you can reduce everything to a belief.

It is only when things are reduced to the level of belief can god be an option. I have seen it before but your method is the most original yet. Congrats.

“…phylosophical malise…”

Indeed! (not sure how that statement is not the symptom of a belief system, but we have run out of time for debating these nuances.)

This has been one of the more pleasant and, in it’s way, more fruitful exchanges I’ve had of this type. So I’ll thank you for your input and whatever extra effort that you may have expended.

——-

Alms and Patronage

Advertisements
This entry was posted in logs. Bookmark the permalink.