There is no such thing as an Atheists.

Author: Grugore

Posts

Total: 518
#361
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@secularmerlin
You really lack understanding.


There is no hope for you to learn anything in the state you are in. You are an epistemological black hole. You can't even admit The Ultimate Reality exists.

Until you can admit this, I have no good reason to address anything else you say, because you are arguing from the vantage point of insanity.




#362
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@secularmerlin
What is the difference between reality and the ultimate reality?
The same difference between a duck that you can see in your local lake or nearby pond and The Ultimate Duck which is the logical prerequisite to all possible concepts of Duck and of which the duck you can see is merely a pale reflection of one out of an infinite number of possible aspects of The Ultimate Duck.

- Plato

#363
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Mopac
That's ok because you cannot hope to teach anything in the state you are in. By that I mean accepting things on faith for which you have no sufficient evidence.
#364
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@3RU7AL
So the difference is that I have a drect observational experience of one and no reason to believe that the other exists (though I cannot rule out the possibility and would accept it if evidence could be procured)?
#365
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@secularmerlin
So the difference is that I have a drect observational experience of one and no reason to believe that the other exists (though I cannot rule out the possibility and would accept it if evidence could be procured)?
Well, no evidence except logical necessity and some clumsy ontology.

In other words,

Phenomenon - vs. - Noumenon
#366
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@3RU7AL
I can claim no knowledge of noumenon. I cannot be certain that ducks are even a part of it. In just the same way I have no way to know if anything eternal is part of the noumenon or even if time is a part of it. It's all well and good to say there must be a noumenon it is another thing entirely to say that it contains ultra mega mecha duck.
#367
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@secularmerlin
I can claim no knowledge of noumenon. I cannot be certain that ducks are even a part of it. In just the same way I have no way to know if anything eternal is part of the noumenon or even if time is a part of it. It's all well and good to say there must be a noumenon it is another thing entirely to say that it contains ultra mega mecha duck.
Well stated.

Once you declare, as Mopac has, that "knowledge" is not a necessary component or attribute of "The Ultimate Reality" then there really isn't anything else you can say, and there wasn't much you could have said in the first place.
#368
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@3RU7AL
I agree that without Mopac's cooperation this argument will be fruitless but I'm not ready to give up on him just yet. He doesn't seem unintelligent just indoctrinated.

#369
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@secularmerlin
@3RU7AL
Neither of you have any understanding.

We are talking about The Ultimate Reality.


If you can't accept fhat there is an ultimately real, how can we go any further?

This is absolutely integral. 

Secularmerlin can't even admit this, and 3ru7al, I seem to recall you admitting it's existence.


So 3ru7al, you see I'm not getting through. Instead of reverting back to foolishness, why don't you help secularmerlin come to realize that the ultimate reality exists? Obviously, I'm not clever enough to penetrate this wall of invincible ignorance.


#370
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
Pretentious retards
Topic's author
#371
Grugore
Grugore's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 167
0
1
3
Grugore's avatar
Grugore
0
1
3
You claimed that there was no evidence that anything non material  exists. You are wrong. Ever hear of the universal physical constants? They are non material. They are not made from matter or energy. In fact, they seem to be made from nothing. Yet they affect the material universe. The universe cannot even exist without them. Where did these physical constants come from? How can something that is non material affect our physical universe? And why do these physical constants exist in the first place? Without them, there would be no order in the universe, if it could exist at all. Think about that.
#372
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Mopac
I have never said that no reality could exist. That has nothing to do with the substance of my objection to your claims. I do not reject the idea of some reality or some truth. I reject any of the many specific claims you have made about that reality and that truth.
#373
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@secularmerlin
Say The Ultimate Reality exists.
#374
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
@Grugore 
Universal physics constants are s property of the physical universe. They are meaningless without the physical. They are in fact only the human explanation for why the physical universe behaves the way it does. Since they exist in our minds they are as physical as our minds are.

This is similar to the argument that the DNA code is a language which is technically true as the code of numbers is a human language for describing DNA but DNA itself is not a language it is nearly a collection of proteins that give rise to certain physical and behavioral characteristics in organisms.
#375
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
Definition of reject courtesy Merriam-webster 


to refuse to accept, consider, submit to, take for some purpose, or use


^
Why secularmerlin has backed himself into an inescapable cage of darkness, ignorance, and self righteousness stupidity.

The Truth sets you free from this cage.


#376
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Mopac
Fine what word do you suggest I use to convey my meaning then. If using the word reject makes my stance impossible for you to understand then please provide the word that you would like me to use go8ng forward. That the person you are having a discussion with understands you is far more important than what terms are actually being used so I don't mind cussing another. Would you prefer I simply say that I do not accept your claims? Would that help you to understand what I am actually trying to say?
#377
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@secularmerlin
"I don't know, maybe"

Is inherently more open than "I reject"


And as I have told you before, there is a great deal you reject on the basis of not understanding the claims to begin with. Why? Bad language.



The Ultimate Reality exists.


Still waiting for you to say it. 

Topic's author
#378
Grugore
Grugore's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 167
0
1
3
Grugore's avatar
Grugore
0
1
3
-->
@secularmerlin
So, you are claiming that something non physical is the result of the physical universe? This is an impossibility since the physical constants define the physical universe. If you could change one of those constants, you would change the reality of things. You've got it backwards. The universe is the result of the physical constants.
#379
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Mopac
We all agree on the facts.

Fact one, noumenon (a.k.a. Ultimate Reality/The Truth/[G]god/The Source) is a logical necessary prerequisite to phenomenon.

Fact two, noumenon (a.k.a. Ultimate Reality/The Truth/[G]god/The Source) is undetectable directly and phenomenon is an untrustworthy source of knowledge regarding the true nature and or fundamental characteristics of noumenon (a.k.a. Ultimate Reality/The Truth/[G]god/The Source).

The majority of quibbling seems to be about the ontological framework that each individual decides for themselves is subjectively "best".

Yes, noumenon (a.k.a. Ultimate Reality/The Truth/[G]god/The Source) "exists", but only as a logically necessary prerequisite to phenomenon.

The secondary problem appears to be the astronomical leap that some people seem to be unable to construct a rational bridge between this logical necessity and a specific religious belief.

There is no straight line between noumenon (a.k.a. Ultimate Reality/The Truth/[G]god/The Source) and "Orthodox Christianity" or any other specific belief system.  Noumenon (a.k.a. Ultimate Reality/The Truth/[G]god/The Source) simultaneously justifies and debunks all religions equally.

Noumenon (a.k.a. Ultimate Reality/The Truth/[G]god/The Source) = deism.  And that's it.  No inductively implied laws or rules or books or anything else.

If you deny that "knowledge" is necessary, then all bets are off because laws and rules and books and teachings and traditions axiomatically qualify as "knowledge".

I also have no problem stating that noumenon (a.k.a. Ultimate Reality/The Truth/[G]god/The Source) is a logical and necessary prerequisite to human consciousness.

But that still doesn't give us any hope of any sort of practical knowledge. 

In fact, it (NURTTGgTS) is knowledge-proof (anti-knowledge/unknown and or unknowable).
#380
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Mopac
By that rational would it not make you more open if you could say "I don't know if anything eternal exists maybe it doesnt"? You see it isn't reality I do not accept it is ypur specific claims about it.

#381
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@secularmerlin
Existence itself is eternal.

There is always SOME FORM OF EXISTENCE.

Literally nothing else makes sense. You really. think that there can be absolutely nothing? Total nonexistence?


Well, you don't have to believe tgis, but I certainly believe in the eternity of existence.

#382
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
@Grugore 

As an example let us take the speed of light (a generally accepted universal physical constant) the speed of light just describes a property of photons and other massless particles and it would have no meaning if no such particles existed. I'm sorry did you mean some other kind of universal physical constant? If so please be more specific and we can discuss in further detail.
#383
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@secularmerlin
And for the millionth time, my claims about reality are irrelevant.


The Ultimate Reality exists.

What do my claims have to do with that? Are you so base that you would deny all of reality because someone told you something that wasn't true?

You strive about the meaning of words, not to no profit, but to the subverting of those who listen.
#384
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Mopac
That something must be true because no other (equally untestable) possibility males sense to you is an argument from incredulity. 
#385
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@3RU7AL
I would not call The Ultimate Reality a noumenon because that implies it is contingent on thought.


Thought does not precede The Ultimate Reality, The Ultimate Reality precedes thought. The Uktimate Reality is not a contingent existence.


#386
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@secularmerlin
Everything that begins to exist has a cause.


As a wizard, even you know that you must at least say abracadabra first.

Topic's author
#387
Grugore
Grugore's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 167
0
1
3
Grugore's avatar
Grugore
0
1
3
-->
@secularmerlin
You would first have to educate yourself on the subject. I bet you don't even know how many physical constants there are or what they do. One of them is preventing the atoms in your body for flying apart and becoming a bunch of subatomic particles.
#388
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Mopac
Your claims are what I am discussing. How many times must I repeat that it is not reality but your specific claims about its nature that I do not believe you can be certain of? It is your claims of eternal transcendent specifically judeo christian reality that you have not supported. Is my meaning unclear somehow? Are we still not even having the same conversation?
#389
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Mopac
I would not call The Ultimate Reality a noumenon because that implies it is contingent on thought.
Noumenon is not contingent on consciousness because it is already unknown/unknowable (categorically beyond conscious experience).

Thought does not precede The Ultimate Reality, The Ultimate Reality precedes thought. The Uktimate Reality is not a contingent existence.
I agree.

I also have no problem stating that noumenon (a.k.a. Ultimate Reality/The Truth/[G]god/The Source) is a logical and necessary prerequisite to human consciousness.
#390
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
@Grugore 

Yes but that universal physical constant would be meaningless without any bodies of atoms to hold together. You are talking about the properties of the physical universe not something separate from the physical universe.