Existence is necessarily omnipotent and omniscient

@livinglava,

POV based on evidence is more reliable than believing in an omniscient thing without a physical identity.

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

POV based on evidence is more reliable than believing in an omniscient thing without a physical identity.

So you think that evidence is non-relative, universally valid, and even absolute? Well, here I was thinking you were a relativist!

1 Reply

@livinglava,

No. I understand that many humans on this planet believe in a religion be it Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, or the thousands of religions practiced in this world. For them, it's their reality. My reality just happens to be different. My first belief is in what scientists tell us about our environment. By their research, they believe this planet is over 4.5 billion years old, and that humans are the product of the evolution from the primate family of animals. Whatever happened and will happen on this planet is the result of our environment: Nature, and now human production of CO2. https://earthhero.com/carbon-emissions/

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

No. I understand that many humans on this planet believe in a religion be it Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, or the thousands of religions practiced in this world. For them, it's their reality. My reality just happens to be different. My first belief is in what scientists tell us about our environment. By their research, they believe this planet is over 4.5 billion years old, and that humans are the product of the evolution from the primate family of animals. Whatever happened and will happen on this planet is the result of our environment: Nature, and now human production of CO2. https://earthhero.com/carbon-emissions/

I thought you said that 'evidence' makes some beliefs more reliable that others. It sounds like you're trying to claim relativism superficially and on some deeper covert level actually maintain a hierarchy of truths.

Why don't you just come out of the closet for universal truth? If you really think theology is superstition, assert it as the truth and be open to the possibility that your truth might be wrong and theology right.

The problem with relativists is that they are afraid of being converted, and that's why they insist that truth is in the eye of the beholder and to each his own.

2 Replies

@livinglava,

That's nonsense. In practical terms 'truth' is what is agreed to be the case in a consensual context, and is subject to negotiation. There is a plethora of philosophical literature supporting this position from Kant to present day Pragmatism, whereas you appear to be relying on a layman's 'common sense'.

Mine is an 'informed pov'. Is yours ?

1 Reply

@livinglava,

BTW The trouble (sic) with Absolutist's is that they are afraid(sic) of Shakespeare's observation that:

Quote:

Life is a tale told by an idiot...full of sound and fury, signifying nothing

1 Reply

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

That's nonsense. In practical terms 'truth' is what is agreed to be the case in a consensual context, and is subject to negotiation. There is a plethora of philosophical literature supporting this position from Kant to present day Pragmatism, whereas you appear to be relying on a layman's 'common sense'.

Mine is an 'informed pov'. Is yours ?

That's incorrect. Truth doesn't require agreement. It doesn't even require the conscious awareness of the (non)knower. Truth is true independently of subjectivity, which is what makes it objectively true.

2 Replies

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

BTW The trouble (sic) with Absolutist's is that they are afraid(sic) of Shakespeare's observation that:

Quote:
Life is a tale told by an idiot...full of sound and fury, signifying nothing

Absolutism and universalism mean different things. If something is universally true, it is true regardless of contextual specificity. E.g. 'Humans eat food to live' is universally true for all humans regardless of cultural nuances.

Absolutism is false, on the other hand. It implies that there is absolutely no way to undermine a generalization, and that is rarely if ever true. E.g. 'some humans fast sometimes and it doesn't cause them death or harm' undermines the absolute statement, 'humans eat food to live.' So if you take it as an absolute statement, it isn't true; but if you just take it as a universal statement that isn't absolute, then it is universally true that humans eat to live.

0 Replies

@livinglava,

Your facile comment 'that's incorrect' merely confirms your ignorance of the literature on 'truth'.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth/

0 Replies

@livinglava,

It's obvious you don't know Fresco for long...his position on Truth is not negotiable. In fact, his degree of certainty that there is no truth is the only truism he believes in and speaks about in the forums for the last decade. You are wasting your time with a person that has no care for consistency in his statements. For him, it is absolutely true that there is no truth...no comments.

2 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

..it suffices to say against pragmatism that any experience if nothing else it is in the least a true experience! You cannot know anything with certainty about the subject itself which is perhaps an algorithm in a simulation, nor upon the world at large as an information machine without justification...but the Experience it's absolutely irrefutable! To refute it as an experience per se is to assert it immediately!

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

I love that word 'perhaps' !

I have no idea why your diatribe about 'experience' ( Husserl's phenomenology ?) is anti-pragmatist. Pragmatism was merely a development post Heidegger who rejected phenomenolgy as a valid description of 'what goes on in the head'.
You don't appear to be familiar with those developments. No 'experience' is normally ever cited outside communicative contexts involving social goals, including internal discussions of self with self. Heidegger argued that most of the time 'the experiencer' is absent, whilst life prooceeds automatically by way of 'seamless coping'.
Were you having 'the experience' of the chair you are now sitting in before I just mentioned it for my social purpose ? Smile

1 Reply

@fresco,

Raw experience is irrefutable and that was the point I was getting at when I said that to deny it is to assert it. As for "selves" and "social" contexts, those are languaging within a frame of reference to which you have no fundamental justification, no ground. You know nothing about the source of "self", what it really is, and how it works, but "you" (whatever it is you are) have the experience per se of it all. Such EXPERIENCE is the "World", the Set of things that are a priori given, phenomena is noumena after all!
The Experience itself, on the contrary of any other concept, can never be denied. No matter the context in which it is embedded.
Pragmatists, normally, are relativists that miss this very simple idea. They throw the baby out with the bathwater...

1 Reply

@livinglava,

I'm not afraid of "being converted." I'm not into any religion although all my siblings are. They pray for me; that's enough. My existence has been very satisfying having traveled to 128 countries and all 7 continents. Have friends in many countries including Russia, Mexico, Singapore, France, Germany, England, Canada, and Cuba. My needs are not great; have enough money to live out our retirement in comfort, and we live in Sunnyvale CA, considered the "safest city in the USA." My wife and I are doing the Columbia and Snake River cruise this month, and will travel to Hawaii with my sister and her husband soon. We stay at our nephew's condo on the 40th floor a few blocks from the beach in Honolulu. Our son lives in Austin, and works for UoT where he is doing just fine. All is well even though I have CKD which is now somewhat under control. I have no regrets except that we lost our younger son in October of 2013. It was really the worst time of my life, because he had so much potential having graduated college Magna Cum Laude. All my siblings (older brother: Attorney. younger brother: Doctor. sister: RN.) are doing well as well as my nephews and nieces. They are all in the professions.
Lastly, our investments have returned

Quote:

Rate of return 15.8% As of 09/30/2018

for the past 12 months.

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Define "raw experience". All we call "inputs" are processed relative to our changing perceptual state. Common perceptual apparatus in attuned states leads to agreement. Without discourse you are stuck with the futile question.."do you see green when I see green ?".
But questions of 'truth' never actually arise at that fundamental level. For a pragmatist they are indicative of "relative untuned states" whereas for a realist they are about "the absolute source of inputs ".

1 Reply

@fresco,

I am aware of that, our perceptual states vary, all very well and dandy, but you cannot place the subject at the centre of what is real when you don't have more than an experience of being a subject an "Avatar" in the experiecing itself. In fact, you can't even dismiss the possibility of being an algorithm in a simulated reality (I am sure you are by now familiarized with the ancestral simulation hypothesis) "Raw Experiencing" here places the subject deriving from Experience and not experience deriving from the subject. No experiencer is above experiencing as the experiencer is experience also. Again why? Because of Experience englobing all possible sets of activity without explicitly committing more than an X to what they really are...that is to say, before anything else one might utter about a given perceived phenomena, they are experience, and that is a brute true fact!

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

No to your last comment. There is NO 'experience' prior to verbalization. (See Maturana. There is no 'observation' without verbalization). The languaging subject IS at the centre of all considerations about 'truth', 'the universe' , 'algorithms' and every other concept.
We are never going to agree because you make cmputeresque maths your a priori wheras I make language mine ( as the currency of what we call 'conceptualization').
I might consider a counter claim that maths is a 'metalanguage' but I suggest that would involve a philosophical quagmire referencing such topics as 'Platonic forms' and Godels incompleteness theorem.

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

It's obvious you don't know Fresco for long...his position on Truth is not negotiable. In fact, his degree of certainty that there is no truth is the only truism he believes in and speaks about in the forums for the last decade. You are wasting your time with a person that has no care for consistency in his statements. For him, it is absolutely true that there is no truth...no comments.

Well, I do know from experience that some people will just lie more the more you urge them to honesty. For them, lying and dishonesty are privileges that no should question. They always insist that "truth is in the eye of the beholder," when they develop their intellects far enough to go beyond simply lying and aggressively reacting against anything that threatens to expose their dishonesty for what it is.

1 Reply

@livinglava,

Ah ...I see you've done no reading yet ! If you think that pointing out your lack of equipment is 'aggressive' you are not going to get far on this forum. Obviously there is always the alternative venue of the barber's shop to exercise your need for punditry.

1 Reply

@fresco,

What part the "subject" is itself an experience did you miss? You can't tell what the subject is, therefore, you cannot place it as the source of experience!
And yes, I rather put Maths as a meta-language for Information processing at the centre than a "subject".

1 Reply

Existence is necessarily omnipotent and omniscient

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know