Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Oct 10, 2019 5:26 am
Age wrote: ↑Wed Oct 09, 2019 2:47 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Oct 09, 2019 2:09 am
It is possible for a unicorn [if define as horse with a single horn] to exists because the variables concern are empirically possible.
What do you mean by, 'empirically possible'?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Oct 09, 2019 2:09 am
This is a matter of awaiting for the empirical evidence to justify it.
To me, you appear to be using the word 'empirical' in two opposing ways.
I have already provided you a definition of what is empirical.
- EMPIRICAL:
: originating in or based on observation or experience.
-empirical data
2: relying on experience or observation alone often without due regard for system and theory.
-an empirical basis for the theory
3: capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment
-empirical laws
4: of or relating to empiricism
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/empirical
- Empirical evidence is the information received by means of the senses, particularly by observation and documentation of patterns and behavior through experimentation.
In philosophy, empiricism is a theory that states that knowledge comes only or primarily from sensory experience.
wiki
If you do not agree with the above, what is your definition, else we can deliberate on others.
Empirically possible means whatever that is unknown that can be defined as empirical.
Well that does not make any sense to me, considering what you have written above about how you define the word 'empirical'.
If 'empirical' is something/information, which originated, was based, or relied ON or FROM observation or experience, then absolutely any thing could be 'empirical', with enough time. Therefore, 'empirically possible' would just mean absolutely any thing/information that could be POSSIBLY gained ON or FROM 'observation' or 'experience'.
'you', "veritas aequitas", obviously do NOT know what things/information could be gained or verified ON or FROM what WILL BE observed or experienced IN THE FUTURE. Therefore, you have NO way of knowing what can be defined as 'empirical' from what is 'unknown' to 'you' now.
OBVIOUSLY 'you' have NO way of knowing what things/information will be obtained from what is observed or experienced IN THE FUTURE.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Oct 10, 2019 5:26 amThe issue is, if a thing is unknown, the question is whether it is empirically possible or not?
That is a question but if it is an issue or not, is another matter. But, if a thing is unknown to 'you' now, then how would you KNOW what is possible or not, in the future, forever more?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Oct 10, 2019 5:26 amI can speculate dogs exist in a planet 100 million light years away because all the variables here are empirical elements.
Just because you can 'speculate' does in NO way mean that you KNOW what is possible or not, in the future.
ALL adult human beings can speculate on things. In fact, ALL adult human beings most likely do speculate on, many, things. But, sadly, those human beings usually speculate on things, or ASSUME things, based solely upon their own previous experiences. Worse still adult human beings make speculations based from their OWN BELIEFS, of which some of them are Truly distorted, from 'reality'.
Speculating on dogs existing on another planet is just that; a speculation, which has NO bearing at all on what is possible or not.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Oct 10, 2019 5:26 amBut if I were to speculate a square-circle exists anywhere, it is not empirically possible at all, i.e. being a contradiction. This is a non-starter for any empirical possibility.
How do you KNOW that a square-circle exists anywhere?
The Universe is a little bit bigger than where most human beings have traversed.
Have you traveled EVERY where? Do you KNOW square-circles do NOT exist EVERY where.
Is it possible that there is a planet SOME where, where dogs exist who have the intelligence of the human animal, but are far more advance and have some things called 'square-circles'?
If it is possible for the dog animal to exist on a planet 100 million light years away from that planet where the human animal exists, then what I said above could also be possible, correct?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Oct 10, 2019 5:26 amThe IDEA of God is not empirically possible because it is merely a thought arising from a transcendental illusion.
And the evidence that God is only an illusion is based on 'what', besides your BELIEFS, exactly?
You keep saying things as though you have proven some thing, but you NEVER actually prove any thing.
If human beings are NEVER perfect, as you say they are, then 'you', being a human being, could be absolutely WRONG about 'God is not empirically possible', correct?
Or, is it only "other" human beings who are NOT perfect, but 'you' ARE perfect, and that that is HOW you KNOW, 100% for sure, that what you say you have "proved" IS True, Right, and Correct?
Why is, what is conditioned upon 'you', "veritas aequitas", and your experiences meant to be PERFECTLY True, but what is conditioned by other human experiences can not be perfect?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Oct 10, 2019 5:26 amPoint is while there are empirical evidence of dogs, thus an empirical element, there are no empirical grounding for the thought of God.
Some one could just now say; What planet do you live on?
And, some would get it and some would not. But each to their own.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Oct 10, 2019 5:26 amVeritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Oct 09, 2019 2:09 am
However to insist an
absolutely perfect unicorn as real exists would be impossible because 'absolutely perfect' it not applicable to empirical things.
Now, to you, what are 'empirical things'?
You really do seem somewhat very confused about the word 'empirical'.
How do you define the word 'empirical'?
But what it boils down to now is it appears you start a thread with the title above, but then just claim that there can not be any perfect thing forever more EVER anyway. Is this correct?
If, to you, there can not be any perfect thing EVER, then that is PERFECTLY okay and fine, with me.
Note my definition of empirical above and what are empirically things.
What are 'empirically things' ARE just 'what you say are', from YOUR perspective.
And, if any one SEES absurdly differently, then they are "mentally ill", to you, correct?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Oct 10, 2019 5:26 amMan is an empirical being because man can be empirically justified.
That is, AFTER the observation or experience then this it true.
By the way the same applies to the woman of that animal species also.
'you', human beings, can be observed AND experienced.
Now, what about "other" Spiritual Beings? Have you EVER observed or experienced any "other" Spiritual Being, or ONLY the 'empirical man being'?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Oct 10, 2019 5:26 amHowever the absolutely perfect man is only an ideal, there is no way an absolutely perfect man can be empirical.
Well, I for one, have CERTAINLY NEVER observed NOR experienced a 'perfect man' nor even a 'perfect woman'. But that is NO way means that, FOREVER MORE, a 'perfect man or perfect woman' could never be a possibility.
Even IF a 'perfect man, or woman' is only an ideal, OBVIOUSLY ideals CAN and DO come to be a reality. Therefore, ALL ideals COULD be a POSSIBILITY, some time in the future, obviously.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Oct 10, 2019 5:26 amIt is only an ideal like Plato's forms, ideas and universals.
Can you prove an empirically absolute perfect man exists?
When this is written, are you joking?
If no, then my answer is NO I can not prove a 'perfect man, nor a perfect woman' exists. However, and if we want to delve deeper into philosophy, then ALL female bodies, like ALL male bodies are PERFECT, exactly how they ARE.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Oct 10, 2019 5:26 amIf the above is not possible, it would worst and impossible to prove,
"the absolutely perfect non-empirical God is possible."
But to prove The Perfect Empirical God Exists IS VERY, VERY EASY indeed.
Just LOOK AT the Universe, Itself.
Or, in other words, just observe or experience the Life you HAVE ,and the Existence that 'you' are IN, HERE NOW.
Then, if you are LOOKING FROM the Truly OPEN Mind perspective, then you will SEE the ABSOLUTE PERFECTION of ALL-THERE-IS. 'you', being HERE, is living proof of this PERFECTION.
However, if you are LOOKING FROM the CLOSED brain perspective, then you will see only 'that' what you want to SEE. 'your' BELIEFS will make sure of this.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Oct 10, 2019 5:26 amI mentioned elsewhere, relative and condition perfection is possible. For example, a 100/100 score in an objective test is a perfect score but that is subject to some predetermined answers. The term 'perfect' is often used very loosely.
To me, a score of 100 out of 100 of a human made up and constructed test is NOT a perfect score. To me, those tests are just done to subdue and make "other" human beings follow a particular path in Life. 'you', human beings, are NOT perfect, so, even as you say, Humans are never perfect, and, whatever is conditioned upon human experience cannot be perfect. Therefore, those tests, which are conditioned upon human experience can NOT be perfect also. So, a score of 100 out of 100 of some human being made up test could be argued to be LESS than perfect.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Oct 10, 2019 5:26 amIf, to you, there can not be any perfect thing EVER, then that is PERFECTLY okay and fine, with me.
Then why are you insisting on an absolute perfect God as real?
Because IF an absolute perfect God could be real, THEN an absolute perfect God existing, as real, IS POSSIBLE.
You say this is NOT possible. I just like to remain OPEN ALWAYS, and to do so is to NOT say some thing is IMPOSSIBLE.
Only the CLOSED ones insist some thing is an IMPOSSIBILITY to be real.
Also, the absolute perfect God IS real. What It just IS, is just NOT consciously KNOWN yet by most human beings.
The actual Truth is to be able to say IF some thing is POSSIBLE to be real or not, then one would have to first KNOW what that thing actually IS. Otherwise, what are they saying is NOT possible. For example, I could say an 'ogd' is NOT an impossibility to be real, or, I could say an 'ogd' is possible to be real. But either way, what IS 'it' that I am saying is or is not possible to be real? IF you have absolutely NO idea, then WHY join in the discussion?
I do not accept 'absolute perfection' i.e. totally unconditional, as possible to be real [empirical + philosophical].
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Oct 10, 2019 5:26 amREALLY? I would have NEVER have guessed that. (That was complete and utter SARCASM, in case any one was NOT sure).
As I have been stating for a while now; All you have really doing here is just expressing YOUR own BELIEFS.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Oct 10, 2019 5:26 amThe ultimate God is always ontological, i.e. of absolute, totally unconditional perfection, thus such a God is impossible to be real and realizable [empirical + philosophical].
If you say and BELIEVE so, then it MUST BE TRUE, correct?
For surely YOUR own BELIEFS would NOT lie to you, also correct?