@Frank Apisa,
On the question of comprehensibility. Let me try to comprehend your latest post:
Frank Apisa wrote:On the question of “What Is The REALITY of existence?”…I unequivocally state that I do not know.
You have repeated this question many times but what does it mean?
The word ‘reality’ is synonymous with the word ‘existence’ so ironically given what you’ve said about the comprehensibility of my post
you are effectively saying: ‘What is the reality of reality?’ or ‘What is the existence of existence?’. This is incomprehensible! Philosophically it would be better if you said something like: ‘What is the true nature of reality’ or ‘What is the nature of existence’. I hope I’m not sounding to pedantic. So can you rephrase and redefine your agnosticism so that I can better understand what you, ‘do not know’. My guess is you don’t understand the true nature of reality or put another way the true nature of existence. How would you phrase it?
Frank Apisa wrote: Specifically, to the issue of whether there are gods involved or if there are no gods involved, I unequivocally state that I do not know. To that specific, I often add that I do not see enough unambiguous evidence in either direction to make a meaningful guess in either direction. (Nothing wrong with guesses, providing the guesses are based on something rather than mere blind guesses.)
Here you’ve started a new paragraph and you state that gods are involved or not, in something? I’m left having to guess what you mean. Can you explain what the gods are, or are not, involved in? My guess is the creation of the universe or the laws of physics or some such thing am I correct?
Frank Apisa wrote: Gods, as you mentioned, are invisible entities (we can’t see, hear or detect in any way) that may or may not influence events in the universe.
I have never mentioned (please quote me) that gods are invisible entities. I said that
they are ‘imagined’. No wonder you can’t comprehend my post because you haven’t be able to read my post without imagining words I haven’t written.
If you read my post understanding the significance of ‘gods’ as imagined and not invisible then you may understand the point I was making.
Much of the rest of what you say is about ‘invisible entities’ which is not what I posted. My post is about imaginary things.
There lack of visibility is not the point. The fact that they are ‘imaginary’ is what is important because all imaginary things are equal.
Frank Apisa wrote:If you are going to propose some…and acknowledge that you are simply making them up for the sake of this discussion…I would more than likely say that in this instance I do have enough unambiguous evidence upon which to make a meaningful guess about the entities that you propose.
What do you see as inconsistent about that?
I am not making up anything I’m defining a human quality that of imagination. One imagined thing is equal to another i.e. gods and also all absurd imagined things.
You have moved the goal posts if this is what I think it is: in the past you have said that an absurd imagined thing e.g. (
add your on absurd imagined thing here) is different to the ‘gods’ which the human mind also imagines. If this is true
get ready for the derision of having to take all the ‘flying spaghetti monster’ jibes coming your way.
Your position in order to avoid this is to defend why imaginary gods are superior to other imagined things?
This is the simple question you asked for. I await your reply knowing that
you’re not one to avoid a simple question.
Also, please
don’t forget that you need to make your agnosticism comprehensible as I mentioned in my opening paragraphs.
