Happenstance being augmented to substantiate metaphysics? :juggle:
There will always be :juggle: where two, diametrically apposing perspectives are in discussion, if positive conversation is to occur.
Dostoevsky, Tolstoy and Nietzsche... Neutral ground for Atheist and Theist Discussion
- Thread starter Evil.Eye.<(I)>
- Start date
There will always be :juggle: where two, diametrically apposing perspectives are in discussion, if positive conversation is to occur.
I'm just relieved you didn't say that punching a "blind and deaf" person is funny. Although, it does sound like something out of a spoof movie.
Spoiler
1Mind1Spirit
Literal lunatic
I edited that last post before I saw your last two.
Gotta admit the upside down dude in yer spoiler was a little funny.
Last edited:
1Mind1Spirit
Literal lunatic
Learned a new word, thanks for expanding my vocabulary.
ap·pose
[əˈpōz]
VERB
place (something) in proximity to or juxtaposition with something else:
"the specimen was apposed to X-ray film"
Some say we "stop learning" when we die, but I'm the crazy sort that believes that death is the doorway to knowledge we cannot fathom.
And... you've taught me a thing or two as well.
:e4e:
1Mind1Spirit
Literal lunatic
Some say we "stop learning" when we die, but I'm the crazy sort that believes that death is the doorway to knowledge we cannot fathom.
:cheers:
Thread update...
This is a simple discussion. Silent Hunter asked two enormously relevant questions about the possibility of God dying and His character. Initially, I offered to answer these questions with a debate response, but Silent Hunter rejected this and reminded me that we are having a conversation.
Since that makes things simpler for both of us and allows for diverse communication, I have decided to communicate at length with Silent Hunter before I answer his excellent questions.
I have responded in suit to Silent Hunter's excellent response and currently, at Silent Hunter's absolute leisure and without timeframe, he has my response to process and respond to.
Link Here
This is a simple discussion. Silent Hunter asked two enormously relevant questions about the possibility of God dying and His character. Initially, I offered to answer these questions with a debate response, but Silent Hunter rejected this and reminded me that we are having a conversation.
Since that makes things simpler for both of us and allows for diverse communication, I have decided to communicate at length with Silent Hunter before I answer his excellent questions.
I have responded in suit to Silent Hunter's excellent response and currently, at Silent Hunter's absolute leisure and without timeframe, he has my response to process and respond to.
Link Here
Last edited:
SH: If the reader cannot accept "truth IS "relative" in the matter of personal "honesty" they should find another thread to follow.
EE: Truth is never "relative" in the staunchest definition of the final mechanics of all that exists, but in discussion, every person expresses from their heart and mind in sincerity, though one person's sincerity may be perceived as another person's lie.
Fortunately…
Do you believe “Dark matter” exists? What do the “chemicals” that make up your “physical” response lean towards… yes or no?
What a “metaphysical” type, like me, considers “the soul” is then recognized as human chemical composition and response by yourself?
Along these lines, what is the difference between “Brain Death” of a person who has been dead for an abundant amount of “time”, and a person who codes and reads “clinically dead” for a short time, then comes back to life and has fully restored “existence”?
Could I “reanimate” a corpse, medically that has been dead for longer than 5 hours in warm conditions and expect to go out for a steak dinner with that person, while enjoying a conversation with them that defines who their “chemical composition and response” is?
Also, can we say that these “chemical compositions” and “responses” as they occur from “life” to “death” within a single person, are as unique as “finger prints”?
On this note, would you agree that (on a very crude level) I could factually say that there are three elements that make up a life? I know that you have much better explanations, but I am seeking your affirmation on a common ground of discussion.
1) Physical uniformity of biological structure (Single Cell or Multi-Cellular)
2) Chemical Response to Environment that is unique to an “individual human being” in the way I suggested in the previous paragraph, that is as unique as a “finger print”.
3) Electrical Impulse that perpetuates function/existence
I am glad that you agree that the “angle” of perception is an integral part of perceiving the existence of all things within “reality”.
Indeed, can we agree that Galileo Galilei hadn’t seen the “”Dark Side of the Moon” in his lifetime, and although the “Flat Earth” theory was predominant at the time, he had evidence of things “unseen”?
I’m so glad we agree on this single matter, thus far.
I appreciate that this idea is more “tangible”, in relationship to the “intangible”. As far as the “idea” being “put into action”, ergo, existing in reality… I fear an “existential” crisis in this “idea”. Ergo, are you suggesting that the idea wasn’t “real” until it was “put into action”?
Wouldn’t the “idea” of “chemicals and electrical impulses” that form the “idea” make it very real according to the wise man that wrote this?
In fact, philosophically speaking, an idea is formed in very unseen ways. What electrical impulses and chemicals that carry this “idea” in a mind, are somewhat negated by the fact that two people in two completely different hemispheres of the “globe” can claim the identical “idea”, from completely different stimuli. This seems to establish that the “idea” is very “real” before it is even “chemically” conceived. It existed before it was conceived or perceived and only is fully tangible when it is “put into action”. Is this logic sound, or do you “see” it as “square circles”?
I fully agree with your logic here. Proof, or "intellectual DNA (Metaphorically speaking)" can be established for the “unseen” by “actions”, “reactions” and “results”. Along these lines, would you say that the “existence” of Cuneiform writing establishes proof that a person existed that had that “idea” and “put it into action”?
At this point, I have to say no. You yourself agree that a blind man’s lack of perception, doesn’t negate what can’t be perceived. This was what I was “looking” for in our discussion to come from your mind. You have now acknowledged something that is a scientific fact.
“A” cannot be negated as “non-existent” if “B” “Perception, Sensory Requirement” is unavailable. In other words, what can’t be “quantified” isn’t “non-existent”, but merely un-quantifiable, due to a lack of available “Data” or “Sensory Tools”.
Now, now, I can’t take all the credit. Your “blind man” example is exactly what I needed to take this point to the next level. What is “quantifiable” in “imagination” is far from “non-existent”. If there is “quantifiable evidence” that is perceived as a “lack of data”, surrounded by “data” that points to the “lack of data”, then there is no doubt that there is most likely a “Dark Matter” of sorts to be found there. Savvy?
I would like to make one more tie in to this. If I try to assess the Athletic prowess of an Olympic Swimmer with a 10 K run, or the Intellect of a genius with a bench press competition, I will fail to find a “Truth” that is “evident”, but “possibly unproven”. Can I assess the beauty of a painting by measuring the canvases tensile strength?
Bear with me on this, to find difficult answers, sometimes unorthodox measures must be asserted towards the traditionally “orthodox”. No?
So in parallel words, in reference to “time”, the Result, though sometimes… the origin is “intangible”, can be quantified by the evidentiary presence of quantifiable data that points towards an origin?
Touché. And then again, I would say that playing with “facts” isn’t helping you either. Not that I am misusing “words”, or that you are misusing “facts”, but that the direction of the conversation seems to be coming along quite beautifully. Yes?
I will only say this. The “biblical record” is rejected by you, thus it is a fruitless issue to discuss here and it would be a waste of our time. I can say that the “Great Isaiah Scroll” pre-dates the historical presence of the man that is historically recorded as Jesus and binds to much speculation about "who he was"... from the "anthropological" perspective. You are aware that despite the nay saying, that the "man" known as Jesus is Anthropologically provable by so many scholars that are unbelievers that it is irrefutable that "the man existed", aren’t you? What I am saying is that it is completely fallacious and deceptive to say that the man that is “known as Jesus” didn’t exist. This is a side track that is somewhat related to our discussion, but outside of the direction and flow that we are collectively headed towards.
What is especially wonderful about your words here are that they have deep “Spiritual”, “Philosophical” and “MetaPhysical” implications, once they are coupled with the fact that you don’t have to be present, or your wife present for you either, for you to illicit those “subjectively quantifiable” chemical cascades. No?
SH: If the reader cannot accept "truth IS "relative" in the matter of personal "honesty" they should find another thread to follow.
EE: Truth is never "relative" in the staunchest definition of the final mechanics of all that exists, but in discussion, every person expresses from their heart and mind in sincerity, though one person's sincerity may be perceived as another person's lie.
Just re dropping this post. Hope all is well.
EE: Truth is never "relative" in the staunchest definition of the final mechanics of all that exists, but in discussion, every person expresses from their heart and mind in sincerity, though one person's sincerity may be perceived as another person's lie.
Fortunately…
and I would count nothing as a rebuttal, but merely a failed communication on my part, and an educational reply towards me on your part that assists our discussion further.
Do you believe “Dark matter” exists? What do the “chemicals” that make up your “physical” response lean towards… yes or no?
What a “metaphysical” type, like me, considers “the soul” is then recognized as human chemical composition and response by yourself?
Along these lines, what is the difference between “Brain Death” of a person who has been dead for an abundant amount of “time”, and a person who codes and reads “clinically dead” for a short time, then comes back to life and has fully restored “existence”?
Could I “reanimate” a corpse, medically that has been dead for longer than 5 hours in warm conditions and expect to go out for a steak dinner with that person, while enjoying a conversation with them that defines who their “chemical composition and response” is?
Also, can we say that these “chemical compositions” and “responses” as they occur from “life” to “death” within a single person, are as unique as “finger prints”?
On this note, would you agree that (on a very crude level) I could factually say that there are three elements that make up a life? I know that you have much better explanations, but I am seeking your affirmation on a common ground of discussion.
1) Physical uniformity of biological structure (Single Cell or Multi-Cellular)
2) Chemical Response to Environment that is unique to an “individual human being” in the way I suggested in the previous paragraph, that is as unique as a “finger print”.
3) Electrical Impulse that perpetuates function/existence
I am glad that you agree that the “angle” of perception is an integral part of perceiving the existence of all things within “reality”.
Indeed, can we agree that Galileo Galilei hadn’t seen the “”Dark Side of the Moon” in his lifetime, and although the “Flat Earth” theory was predominant at the time, he had evidence of things “unseen”?
I’m so glad we agree on this single matter, thus far.
I appreciate that this idea is more “tangible”, in relationship to the “intangible”. As far as the “idea” being “put into action”, ergo, existing in reality… I fear an “existential” crisis in this “idea”. Ergo, are you suggesting that the idea wasn’t “real” until it was “put into action”?
Wouldn’t the “idea” of “chemicals and electrical impulses” that form the “idea” make it very real according to the wise man that wrote this?
In fact, philosophically speaking, an idea is formed in very unseen ways. What electrical impulses and chemicals that carry this “idea” in a mind, are somewhat negated by the fact that two people in two completely different hemispheres of the “globe” can claim the identical “idea”, from completely different stimuli. This seems to establish that the “idea” is very “real” before it is even “chemically” conceived. It existed before it was conceived or perceived and only is fully tangible when it is “put into action”. Is this logic sound, or do you “see” it as “square circles”?
I fully agree with your logic here. Proof, or "intellectual DNA (Metaphorically speaking)" can be established for the “unseen” by “actions”, “reactions” and “results”. Along these lines, would you say that the “existence” of Cuneiform writing establishes proof that a person existed that had that “idea” and “put it into action”?
At this point, I have to say no. You yourself agree that a blind man’s lack of perception, doesn’t negate what can’t be perceived. This was what I was “looking” for in our discussion to come from your mind. You have now acknowledged something that is a scientific fact.
“A” cannot be negated as “non-existent” if “B” “Perception, Sensory Requirement” is unavailable. In other words, what can’t be “quantified” isn’t “non-existent”, but merely un-quantifiable, due to a lack of available “Data” or “Sensory Tools”.
Now, now, I can’t take all the credit. Your “blind man” example is exactly what I needed to take this point to the next level. What is “quantifiable” in “imagination” is far from “non-existent”. If there is “quantifiable evidence” that is perceived as a “lack of data”, surrounded by “data” that points to the “lack of data”, then there is no doubt that there is most likely a “Dark Matter” of sorts to be found there. Savvy?
I would like to make one more tie in to this. If I try to assess the Athletic prowess of an Olympic Swimmer with a 10 K run, or the Intellect of a genius with a bench press competition, I will fail to find a “Truth” that is “evident”, but “possibly unproven”. Can I assess the beauty of a painting by measuring the canvases tensile strength?
Bear with me on this, to find difficult answers, sometimes unorthodox measures must be asserted towards the traditionally “orthodox”. No?
So in parallel words, in reference to “time”, the Result, though sometimes… the origin is “intangible”, can be quantified by the evidentiary presence of quantifiable data that points towards an origin?
Touché. And then again, I would say that playing with “facts” isn’t helping you either. Not that I am misusing “words”, or that you are misusing “facts”, but that the direction of the conversation seems to be coming along quite beautifully. Yes?
I will only say this. The “biblical record” is rejected by you, thus it is a fruitless issue to discuss here and it would be a waste of our time. I can say that the “Great Isaiah Scroll” pre-dates the historical presence of the man that is historically recorded as Jesus and binds to much speculation about "who he was"... from the "anthropological" perspective. You are aware that despite the nay saying, that the "man" known as Jesus is Anthropologically provable by so many scholars that are unbelievers that it is irrefutable that "the man existed", aren’t you? What I am saying is that it is completely fallacious and deceptive to say that the man that is “known as Jesus” didn’t exist. This is a side track that is somewhat related to our discussion, but outside of the direction and flow that we are collectively headed towards.
What is especially wonderful about your words here are that they have deep “Spiritual”, “Philosophical” and “MetaPhysical” implications, once they are coupled with the fact that you don’t have to be present, or your wife present for you either, for you to illicit those “subjectively quantifiable” chemical cascades. No?
SH: If the reader cannot accept "truth IS "relative" in the matter of personal "honesty" they should find another thread to follow.
EE: Truth is never "relative" in the staunchest definition of the final mechanics of all that exists, but in discussion, every person expresses from their heart and mind in sincerity, though one person's sincerity may be perceived as another person's lie.
Just re dropping this post. Hope all is well.