Existence is necessarily omnipotent and omniscient

@fresco,

You should repeat those comments while looking in a mirror. You have never been able to address this criticism,and I don't expect that you ever will.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

More twaddle. I have answered your so -called criticisms once again giving chapter and verse. That 'hole' in the thesis is merely the one created by a tail chasing hyena (hehehe) running in 'logical' circles after its own naive demand for 'origin axioms.

I couldn't care less if you agree with my references or not. You belligerent rejection of them merely brands you as an intellectual 'lightweight' who has probably lost the ability to understand them

1 Reply

@fresco,

I don't, of course, care how you characterize in terms of intellectuals. You have not answered the criticism, because you are the one chasing his figurative tail, by hammering on your silly mantra. I will, of course, report your name-calling.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

...that's a bit pathetic , even for you ! Smile

1 Reply

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

No. You obviously don't understand the nonrepresentalist view of language, or the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis that language is the essence of 'thought'. Both of these point 'reality' as a social construction. What is 'actually happening' is always open to negotiation.

I never heard of Sapir-Whorf, but Lakhoff and Johnson say something similar in their cognitive metaphor linguistics. If you want to talk about social constructivism, you should start a different thread. It is a complex topic.

1 Reply

@livinglava,

I rarely start threads these days after many years on the forum. If you investigate my posting history you will find several involved with language.
Here's an earlier one as an example.
https://able2know.org/topic/1119-1

1 Reply

@fresco,

You should know about pathetic, as your entire narrative is pathetic. I will once again point out that rather than address the valid criticism advanced against your silly word game, you resort to playground taunts and insults. Clearly, you can't answer the criticism without referring to your premise, which is what is being criticized. So you run up some puerile insults and even stoop to using "emoticons." Yes, you really should be expert on the subject of pathetic replies.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Your repetitive claptrap indicates I must have really got to you this time !
Take a deep breath and try to stop making a fool of yourself ! Laughing

0 Replies

The only one(s) here making a fool of himself (themselves) is (are) insisting that there is no concrete reality independent of human cognition. I see you continue to offer no reply to the criticism of the fundamental premise of your narrative. You just offer more sneers and puerile insults.

0 Replies

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

I rarely start threads these days after many years on the forum. If you investigate my posting history you will find several involved with language.
Here's an earlier one as an example.
https://able2know.org/topic/1119-1

The OP is interesting, but I don't think I will read through 27 pages of posts to join in, since I assume there's no unified topic to follow throughout the thread. Saying that 'reality is a social construction' generally doesn't add much if anything to a specific argument, though. Unless you are narrowing your point to some specifically social-construction regarding the issue at hand, it doesn't add anything to what you're saying.

In that thread OP, you made the point that the words, ""God" and "Exist" have meaning only in as much as that they impinge on social relationships," but everything in the universe interacts, not just humans with humans. So there are more forms of "social construction" than just human social constructions.

2 Replies

@livinglava,

Quote:

So there are more forms of "social construction" than just human social constructions.
Quote:
Especially today compared to 50 years ago. We can communicate with people half way around the world almost instantaneously. We can speak/post to complete strangers.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

Quote:
So there are more forms of "social construction" than just human social constructions.
Especially today compared to 50 years ago. We can communicate with people half way around the world almost instantaneously. We can speak/post to complete strangers.

What do those two quotes have to do with each other? I said there are more forms of social construction than human social constructions and the other quote says that there is more communication between humans across further distances. Why would you post that?

1 Reply

@livinglava,

"Existence" necessarily includes the power of communication today vs 50 years ago. I speak from personal experience. I have friends in France, Germany, England, Mexico, Singapore, and all across the US. I also have friends in Russia and Cuba, but the opportunities are very limited.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

"Existence" necessarily includes the power of communication today vs 50 years ago.

Existence also includes the blue sky and Pluto and dangling participles. So what's your point?

1 Reply

@livinglava,

You are free to define words however you wish. I'm not here to play word games.

0 Replies

@livinglava,

You miss the point that 'everyhing' and 'universe' are themselves human constructions.

1 Reply

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

You miss the point that 'everyhing' and 'universe' are themselves human constructions.

Social construction of reality (see Berger and Luckmann and others) notes that humans know by representing things, so they effectively construct knowledge and interact with it, but that doesn't mean that Pluto didn't exist before it was discovered with a telescope.

Pluto also 'socially constructs' the sun as a source of energy and light regardless of whether humans interact with it. If a tree falls in the forest and no person is there to hear it, it still does make a sound; i.e. because the sound waves reach the ears of animals, leaves, etc. Humans are not the only things that exist in the universe.

2 Replies

@livinglava,

Reality is in the eye of the beholder. That's the reason why there are so many religions around the world.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

Reality is in the eye of the beholder. That's the reason why there are so many religions around the world.

Subjective reality is different from objective reality, but they both exist; and there are multiple subjective realities - though only one true objective reality, though humans are not fully capable of knowing it because we are ultimately incapable of eliminating our subjectivity.

1 Reply

@livinglava,

We are still talking about "reality," and both fit the bill. The subjective reality is that gods exist. The objective reality is that no one can prove it. And that's only if we're using the same definition of god.

Quote:

God
ɡäd/Submit
noun
1.
(in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.
synonyms: the Lord, the Almighty, the Creator, the Maker, the Godhead; More
2.
(in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity.
"a moon god"

1 Reply

Existence is necessarily omnipotent and omniscient

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know