23
   

Is Reality a Social Construction ?

 
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Jan, 2009 06:36 pm
@Chumly,
And why is that???
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Jan, 2009 08:07 pm
...because Every God has His Day !

Fra ! Fra!
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Jan, 2009 10:17 pm
@Frank Apisa,
You claim it's not knowable as to likelihoods thus by your assertion it follows "there is an infinitely likely chance my dog is in fact an all powerful god" (as I have discussed) as it also thus follows this must be the case for any and all options, including that my cat is in fact an all powerful god.

Any and/or all scenarios would have equal merit by your claim.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Jan, 2009 12:00 am
@Chumly,
Sometimes, I think dogs are more "god-like" than the god of the bible. Sometimes, the god of the bible has acted out like a pit bull.
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Jan, 2009 12:22 am
@cicerone imposter,
You got that right! Some religions deify animals as I am sure you know. Not the current Judeo-Christian crowd it would seem.

I suggest the Judeo-Christian crowd makes a big mistake by not giving animals their spiritual due.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Jan, 2009 07:44 am
@Chumly,
Chumly wrote:

Quote:
“You claim it's not knowable as to likelihoods thus by your assertion it follows "there is an infinitely likely chance my dog is in fact an all powerful god" (as I have discussed) as it also thus follows this must be the case for any and all options, including that my cat is in fact an all powerful god.

Any and/or all scenarios would have equal merit by your claim.”


Tell me, Chumly, do you make this stuff up by yourself…or do y0u have someone who who helps you?

I will start with just your first five words"“You claim it’s not knowable…”

Why did you make that up???

Cut and paste the comment that you have distorted here, Chumly…and then comment on the actual comment that I made.

Then I will respond.

By the way, your reasoning and logic in fighting your strawman were as pourous as a sieve. While you are making the “cut and paste” you might want to consider tightening up those two areas also.

Don’t make this any easier for me than necessary!
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Jan, 2009 12:41 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Hi Frank,
Given you claim you are an Agnostic:

http://arts.cuhk.edu.hk/humftp/E-text/Russell/agnostic.htm

What Is an agnostic?
An agnostic thinks it impossible to know the truth in matters such as God and the future life with which Christianity and other religions are concerned. Or, if not impossible, at least impossible at the present time.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Jan, 2009 12:56 pm
@Chumly,
No...any agnostic worth his salt would not claim that it is impossible to know if there is a GOD...because if there IS a GOD...that GOD could certainly make itself known if it chose to.

Although Bertrand Russell has made very valuable contribution in the area of philosophy, on this point he is full of ****.

Under any circumstances...I described MY agnsoticism.

I ask again: Cut and Paste from what I said...and then argue against that...rather than make up stuff or get Bertrand Russell to make it up for you.

If you have a point to make about what I said, Chumly, I truly am interested in discussing it with you. Really.

So go back and cut and paste whatever it is you have argument with...and we'll discuss. I would really enjoy that.
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Jan, 2009 01:27 pm
@Frank Apisa,
And just how would you know with any certainty that your god was not an illusion brought on by my dog?
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Jan, 2009 02:31 pm
@Chumly,
Chumly...if there is a GOD...the GOD could certainly reveal itself in a way that would leave no doubt.

Beats the **** out of me how the god would do it...but if the god could make a universe...filled with galaxies and enough space so that light takes millions of years to traverse it...

...surely the GOD could figure out a way to makes its existence known without any doubt.
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Jan, 2009 03:36 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Consider:
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." Arthur C. Clarke, "Profiles of The Future", 1961

Consider:
The only way a god could "reveal itself in a way that would leave no doubt" would be to alter the viewpoints of all humankind, because otherwise some would remain as skeptics, thus by your claim, brainwashing is next to godliness (so much for simply washing your hands before dinner).

Which brings us back to my initial point; your agnosticism lends itself to any and/or all scenarios having equal merit thus "there is an infinitely likely chance my dog is in fact an all powerful god" (as I have discussed) as it also thus follows this must be the case for any and all options, including that my cat is in fact an all powerful god.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Jan, 2009 03:40 pm
@Frank Apisa,
God "did" reveal "himself" through the christian bible. The only problem with the bible is the simple fact that nothing else confirms there ever was a jesus and all those miracles that were performed - including the world flood that supposedly killed everything except all those animals and insects that Noah and his family were able to "save." No dinosaurs need apply.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Jan, 2009 03:58 pm
@Chumly,
Chumly...when you decide to get serious...come back.

And come back with a quote from me...rather than this strawman nonsense...or the self-serving gratutious guesses about what can and cannot be.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Jan, 2009 04:01 pm
@cicerone imposter,
The Bible is horseshit. We agree on that. But if there is a GOD...and the GOD wanted to reveal itself in an unambiguous way...it could do so despite the fact that Chumly thinks he can spell out what a GOD could or could not do.
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Jan, 2009 05:52 pm
Of course, we have managed to sidetrack ourselves again. The original and very interesting PHILOSOPHICAL question of whether our human reality is socially constructed has become the purely THEOLOGICAL one of the existence of God.
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Jan, 2009 05:57 pm
@JLNobody,
Spot on ! I reiterate from page 1

Quote:
The implications of this thesis seem to be that much "debate" is about pseudo questions like "Does God exist". What is happening in such debate is that we ignore that "God" and "Exist" have meaning only in as much as that they impinge on social relationships. No more and no less ! the "debate" itself is an attempt to change aspects of the pecking order, i.e. to change the consensus.

Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Jan, 2009 06:00 pm
@JLNobody,
JL...there probably has never been a thread that has not sidetracked after page 5. This one is no exception. Frankly, I’ve always thought any indignation at it happening is futile.

If you really have other comments to add on the issue of "Reality as a Social Construction" (should that be "construct?) go for it.

If Chumly wants to pursue whatever the hell he is pursuing, I’ll tell him to start a new thread on the issue and I will discuss it there. I will not discuss it here further. Other than that, I will confine myself to whatever you and Fresco post here.

Sorry, truly, for the sidetrack.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Jan, 2009 06:01 pm
@fresco,
Sorry Fresco...I posted while you were posting.

I apologize to you also and will confine myself as mentioned in my comments to JL.
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Jan, 2009 06:14 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Frank,

Thanks for that last.

You have a major issue about "self integrity" but within the thesis that "concept"
implies the ideal of a harmonic relationship between different selves or aspects of self.

But are you honest enough to admit to observing that fragmentation is a natural phenomenon within " you"?
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Jan, 2009 06:24 pm
@fresco,
Fresco wrote:

Quote:
Thanks for that last.


You are welcome!

Quote:
You have a major issue about "self integrity" but within the thesis that "concept" implies the ideal of a harmonic relationship between different selves or aspects of self.


Translate that into understandable English and I will comment. Do not know what the hell your are talking about. Have not mentioned "self integrity" "harmonic relationships between different selves", or aspects of self."

Try for something understandable, Fresco. I already concede that you are intelligent; you do not have to constantly try to prove it.

Quote:
But are you honest enough...


I am almost compulsively honest.

Quote:
...to admit...


If you want to "admit" to things...go ahead and admit to them. If you are asking me to acknowledge something, use the word acknowledge.


Quote:
...to observing that fragmentation is a natural phenomenon within " you"?


Not sure of what in hell you consider to be fragmentation, Fresco, but no fragmentation that I can see in me.

What is it that you are trying to get me to say?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
Paradigm shifts - Question by Cyracuz
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.15 seconds on 11/24/2024 at 12:53:32