Age: The Perfect Empirical God Exists

Is there a God? If so, what is She like?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

surreptitious57
Posts: 4223
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Age: The Perfect Empirical God Exists

Post by surreptitious57 »

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
As I had stated yours is the Philosophical Realists position
However you dont seem to consider the philosophical anti realists position

The Philosophical Realists did not claim theirs is the absolute truth but merely an objective truth
The problem of their claim is that objective truth is only valid within one paradigm of mind independent existence
What the PR do not consider is the other paradigm of mind interdependent existence of things

The philosophical anti realists accept both paradigms mind independent things and mind interdependent things
I have no problem with the philosophical anti realist position
My own position is not an objective truth and very little of what I think could be classed as such anyway
I generally avoid making any claims to objective truth because it is always done so from a subjective perspective
I therefore restrict myself to mathematics and logic when making such claims so nothing beyond those disciplines
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 4877
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Age: The Perfect Empirical God Exists

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

surreptitious57 wrote: Fri Oct 11, 2019 6:16 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
As I had stated yours is the Philosophical Realists position
However you dont seem to consider the philosophical anti realists position

The Philosophical Realists did not claim theirs is the absolute truth but merely an objective truth
The problem of their claim is that objective truth is only valid within one paradigm of mind independent existence
What the PR do not consider is the other paradigm of mind interdependent existence of things

The philosophical anti realists accept both paradigms mind independent things and mind interdependent things
I have no problem with the philosophical anti realist position
My own position is not an objective truth and very little of what I think could be classed as such anyway
I generally avoid making any claims to objective truth because it is always done so from a subjective perspective
I therefore restrict myself to mathematics and logic when making such claims so nothing beyond those disciplines
There is a problem if you think the Philosophical Realists' position is the only objective position.

Objective = intersubjective consensus.
Scientific theories are considered the most objective knowledge of humanity, but fundamentally they are grounded on the intersubjective consensus of a group or peer of scientists via the scientific methods.

At a meta-philosophical-level, mathematics and logic are also fundamentally subjective, i.e. intersubjective via evolution.

Note;
The Evolution of Reason: Logic as a Branch of Biology (Cambridge Studies in Philosophy and Biology)
https://www.amazon.com/Evolution-Reason ... 0521791960

There are similar arguments for mathematics.
surreptitious57
Posts: 4223
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Age: The Perfect Empirical God Exists

Post by surreptitious57 »

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
surreptitious57 wrote:
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Whatever actually exists is meaningless from the philosophical perspective
Whatever actually exists is a statement about reality and so is therefore true regardless of any philosophical interpretation
Reality is objective and mind independent so is not conditional on human knowledge - most of it would not exist if it were
Where reality is concerned you have to be precise with the related empirical things
The term whatever is too loose because it could include non empirical things
The term whatever means everything that exists so there is no distinction between the empirical and non empirical
Also things that are non empirical now may become empirical in the future and so these categories are not absolute

If by non empirical you mean mental the mental is merely a sub set of the physical and the physical is empirical
These are arbitrary categories like all human categories so what is in each category is not a closed set of things

Things that were once non empirical are now empirical and this has always been true and will always be true
surreptitious57
Posts: 4223
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Age: The Perfect Empirical God Exists

Post by surreptitious57 »

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
There is a problem if you think the Philosophical Realists position is the only objective position
I dont even hold it to be an objective position since it is ultimately one of subjective interpretation
But I try to justify as much as possible any position I hold using evidence or proof or logic or reason

Any position I hold is only provisionally true so can be changed any time
I dont hold onto positions as if they were absolute as they could be false
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 4877
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Age: The Perfect Empirical God Exists

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

surreptitious57 wrote: Fri Oct 11, 2019 6:37 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
surreptitious57 wrote: Whatever actually exists is a statement about reality and so is therefore true regardless of any philosophical interpretation
Reality is objective and mind independent so is not conditional on human knowledge - most of it would not exist if it were
Where reality is concerned you have to be precise with the related empirical things
The term whatever is too loose because it could include non empirical things
The term whatever means everything that exists so there is no distinction between the empirical and non empirical
Also things that are non empirical now may become empirical in the future and so these categories are not absolute

If by non empirical you mean mental the mental is merely a sub set of the physical and the physical is empirical
These are arbitrary categories like all human categories so what is in each category is not a closed set of things

Things that were once non empirical are now empirical and this has always been true and will always be true
Whatever is non-empirically [not-p] cannot be empirical [p] in the future.
There is no way a non-empirical square-circle can be an empirical possibility ever.
If so that would defy logic which you respected.

What is possible is for anything that is not known yet but is empirically possible, to be proven to be empirical when the empirical evidences are produced for verification and confirmation via empirical tests.

Thus we may speculate bacteria-liked organisms may exist in Mars and that is an empirical possibility because bacteria-liked is empirical that is proven to exists at present.
If when human landed on Mars and discovered and confirmed [at least scientifically] then the possibility will be a truth.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 4877
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Age: The Perfect Empirical God Exists

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

surreptitious57 wrote: Fri Oct 11, 2019 6:47 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
There is a problem if you think the Philosophical Realists position is the only objective position
I dont even hold it to be an objective position since it is ultimately one of subjective interpretation
But I try to justify as much as possible any position I hold using evidence or proof or logic or reason

Any position I hold is only provisionally true so can be changed any time
I dont hold onto positions as if they were absolute as they could be false
Ok
surreptitious57
Posts: 4223
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Age: The Perfect Empirical God Exists

Post by surreptitious57 »

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Scientific theories are considered the most objective knowledge of humanity but fundamentally they are grounded on
the intersubjective consensus of a group or peer of scientists via the scientific method

At a meta philosophical level mathematics and logic are also fundamentally subjective ie intersubjective via evolution
This is true though I would still make a distinction between science and mathematics
Science is an inductive discipline that uses evidence to determine what is probably true
Mathematics is a deductive discipline that uses proof to determine what is definitely true
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 4877
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Age: The Perfect Empirical God Exists

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

surreptitious57 wrote: Fri Oct 11, 2019 6:58 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Scientific theories are considered the most objective knowledge of humanity but fundamentally they are grounded on
the intersubjective consensus of a group or peer of scientists via the scientific method

At a meta philosophical level mathematics and logic are also fundamentally subjective ie intersubjective via evolution
This is true though I would still make a distinction between science and mathematics
Science is an inductive discipline that uses evidence to determine what is probably true
Mathematics is a deductive discipline that uses proof to determine what is definitely true
OK.
Mathematics is used in Science but not vice-versa.
Age
Posts: 5280
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Age: The Perfect Empirical God Exists

Post by Age »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Oct 11, 2019 4:20 am
Age wrote: Thu Oct 10, 2019 10:40 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Oct 09, 2019 8:35 am
Where reality is concerned you have to be precise with the related empirical thing[s].
The term 'whatever' is too loose because it could include non-empirical things.
How could the WORD 'whatever' be "to loose" in relation to the term 'whatever ACTUALLY exists ...?

If a non-empirical thing does NOT exist, then OBVIOUSLY it is NOT included in the term, which starts off; 'whatever actually exists ...'. Therefore, the WORD 'whatever' obviously could NEVER include non-empirical things that do NOT exist. I do NOT see how you could see the exact opposite.

Do you purposely NOT see some things or ONLY see things that you WANT to see, on purpose? Or, do you really not notice that you do this?
Again you are very short-sighted.
To you, I am either short-sighted, ignorant, mentally ill, schizo, or any other thing other that just some one with different views than you.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Oct 11, 2019 4:20 amWhat you claim 'whatever ACTUALLY exists' is only relative to yourself or a person and may not be a a thing of being justified true belief.
But I did NOT make the claim.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Oct 11, 2019 4:20 amThe claim 'whatever ACTUALLY exists' by a schizo or anyone, is only real when justified as true belief under the various framework of knowledge.
And that "various framework of knowledge" MUST include only what you ALREADY BELIEVE is true, correct?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Oct 11, 2019 4:20 amIn this case "whatever ACTUALLY exists" may comprise of empirical and non-empirical things.
But you just said "non-empirical things" do NOT exist, so HOW could "whatever ACTUALLY exists" now include non-empirical things?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Oct 11, 2019 4:20 amA theist will surely claim 'whatever ACTUALLY exists' include empirical things and God [non-empirical]. God [illusory and non-empirical] in this case has never be proven to exists empirically.

The physical God is observed and experienced ALWAYS, empirically.

The Spiritual God has NEVER been proven to NOT exist, empirically.
Age
Posts: 5280
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Age: The Perfect Empirical God Exists

Post by Age »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:26 am
Age wrote: Thu Oct 10, 2019 12:23 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Oct 10, 2019 5:26 am
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.
Again you miss the point.
Empirical = grounded on observation + experience.

It is not the case of not knowing what can be defined as 'empirical'.
Point is whatever is unknown but imputed with empirical elements, then is possible to know them empirically upon the production of the evidences.
Talk about MISSING THE point or MARK.

IF it is UNKNOWN, then HOW do you KNOW what to 'impute' with it.

How can you logically and reasonably impute the UNKNOWN with empirical elements, or any thing?

'empirical' IS what is grounded on observation and experience. So, if some thing is UNKNOWN, then you obviously have NOT YET observed NOR experience it, and therefore you have NO comprehension of what it is comprised of. To 'impute' the UNKNOWN with absolutely ANY thing is absurd and ridiculous beyond any sensible comprehension.

By definition, the 'unknown' IS UNKNOWN, obviously.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:26 am
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?

I 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.
You miss the point again or merely lack the intelligence in this case.
In your whole life have you ever considered that people have different views than you, without ever seeing those as having some sort of mental illness or disability?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:26 am"Speculating on dogs existing on another planet" is empirically possible because all the elements therein are empirical.
So the speculation can be confirmed when dogs are brought back from another planet.
You really are beyond a joke.

Speculating God exists ANY WHERE is, to use the absolutely misused words, 'empirically possible' because all the elements therein are, again to use a completely wrongly misused word, 'empirical'.

So the speculation can be confirmed when God is observed or experienced for what God REALLY IS.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:26 amIt is the same with scientists speculating there is water in the planet Mars which is a possibility but subject to evidence and confirmation.
Yes and I have also made my point clear on the absolutely unnecessary and STUPID thing of ASSUMING and THEORIZING, or what some might call SPECULATING.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:26 amHowever if scientists were to speculate there are square-circle, perfect circles or God on the planet Mars, the speculation is a non-starter or moot because the elements mentioned are non-empirical.
HOW do you KNOW that these things are; non-empirical?

Have you observed or experience ABSOLUTELY EVERY thing in the WHOLE Universe?

If yes, then really?

If no, then you do NOT yet KNOW what actually exists and what does NOT.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:26 am
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?
A square-circle is merely a thought, a contradiction and thus non-empirical, i.e. cannot be observed and experienced.
I do NOT think I have ever met some one as CLOSED as you are.

You appear to not even have the ability to even to just starting to consider any thing other than what you already BELIEVE is true.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:26 am
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?
That God is an illusion is not based solely on my belief but grounded on giant shoulders of the greatest philosophers of all times.
Another PRIME EXAMPLE of coincidence here once again. When other people say things that one BELIEVES is true, then they are supposedly the "greatest philosophers of all times".

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:26 amKant had proven God is an transcendental illusion;
LOL
LOL
LOL

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:26 am
  • 1. All transcendental ideas are transcendental illusions.
    2. The idea of God is a transcendental idea
    3. God is a transcendental illusion.
LOL
LOL
LOL

This about one of the most idiotic and ridiculous attempts at an argument that I have observed and experienced.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:26 amYou will need to read the whole of the Critique of Reason to understand [not necessary agree with] to counter the above argument.
Here is a clue;
I have ALREADY countered. You will need to read the WHOLE of my writings to SEE and UNDERSTAND this.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:26 am
  • ALTHOUGH a purely Transcendental Idea is, in accordance with the Original Laws of Reason, a quite necessary product of Reason, its Object, it may yet be said, is something of which we have no Concept. A339
    For in respect of an Object which is adequate to the demands of Reason, it is not, in fact, possible that we should ever be able to Form a Concept of the Understanding, that is, a Concept that allows of being exhibited and intuited in a Possible Experience.
    But we should be better advised and less likely to be misunderstood if we said that although we cannot have any Knowledge of the Object which corresponds to an Idea, we yet have a Problematic Concept of it. B397

    The Transcendental (Subjective) Reality of the Pure Concepts of Reason depends on our having been led to such Ideas by a necessary Syllogism. 1

    There will therefore be Syllogisms which contain no Empirical premisses, and by means of which we conclude from something which we know to something else of which we have no Concept, and to which, owing to an inevitable Illusion, we yet ascribe Objective Reality.

    These conclusions [of transcendental ideas] are, then, rather to be called pseudo-Rational 2 than Rational, although in view of their Origin they may well lay claim to the latter title, since they are not fictitious and have not arisen fortuitously, but have sprung from the very Nature of Reason.

    They [transcendental ideas] are sophistications not of men but of Pure Reason itself. Even the wisest of men cannot free himself from them. After long effort he perhaps succeeds in guarding himself against actual error; but he will never be able to free himself from the Illusion, which unceasingly mocks and torments him.
I don't think you have sufficient philosophical intelligence to understand the above, but the point is in there. I challenge you to read the whole of the CPR to give a counter.[]
I challenge to read the whole of mine or any one "else's writings to give your counter.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:26 am
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.
Not to each their own in this case. I have stated many times, what count are justified argument.
Of which you are yet to provide one that I have seen so far.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:26 am
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'?
Re 'spiritual being' you have to define precisely what you mean by that.
Whether whatever being or things is claimed to be real, they must be proven empirically via science at the least.
This has ALREADY BEEN proven.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:26 am

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.
By definition an absolute perfect man or any ideal is an impossibility to be empirically real.
This is because whatever is 'perfect' is always conditional to humans setting the criteria, thus never absolute.
Thus the absolute perfect man is an impossibility.
Of which you are LIVING PROOF.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:26 am

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.
Your intelligence is going south.
Perfect female body like what? 36-24-36?
Whatever is termed 'perfect' the criteria is set by humans, thus cannot be absolutely perfect.
According to your logic any "argument" and any BELIEF is set by humans, thus can not be absolutely perfect, therefore, what you INSIST MUST actually be IMPERFECT.

Also, this is just another PRIME EXAMPLE of some one making us some ASSUMPTION, and then jumping straight to a CONCLUSION, based solely off of that ASSUMPTION, and then BELIEVING that the ASSUMPTION and CONCLUSION are absolutely TRUE. When the actual Truth IS the ASSUMPTION was ABSOLUTELY WRONG from the outset. Therefore, ABSOLUTELY EVERY thing you said was ABSOLUTELY WRONG as well.

I wonder how many times I have to tell 'people', like 'you', "veritas aequitas", If you STOP assuming and believing things, then you will STOP being SO CLEARLY WRONG, so OFTEN, and then the actual Truth of things can be CLEARLY recognized and SEEN.
surreptitious57
Posts: 4223
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Age: The Perfect Empirical God Exists

Post by surreptitious57 »

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Whatever is non empirically [ not p ] cannot be empirical [ p ] in the future
There is no way a non empirical square circle can be an empirical possibility

What is possible is for anything that is not known yet but is empirically possible to be proven to be empirical
when the empirical evidences are produced for verification and confirmation via empirical tests
Square circles are obviously impossible but this was not what was I actually referring to though I would say they
are more of a logical impossibility than an empirical one simply because they can be mathematically disproven

But what about things that are considered empirically impossible now but through evidence will be shown to be empirically possible in the future
Do you accept this is even hypothetically possible or do you think that our understanding of what is and is not empirical is definitive and absolute
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 4877
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Age: The Perfect Empirical God Exists

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Age wrote: Fri Oct 11, 2019 2:22 pm Talk about MISSING THE point or MARK.

IF it is UNKNOWN, then HOW do you KNOW what to 'impute' with it.

How can you logically and reasonably impute the UNKNOWN with empirical elements, or any thing?

'empirical' IS what is grounded on observation and experience. So, if some thing is UNKNOWN, then you obviously have NOT YET observed NOR experience it, and therefore you have NO comprehension of what it is comprised of. To 'impute' the UNKNOWN with absolutely ANY thing is absurd and ridiculous beyond any sensible comprehension.

By definition, the 'unknown' IS UNKNOWN, obviously.
How come you are so stupid?

'Unknown' does not mean 'unknowable'.
I believe this is the point you missed out.
Unknown means possible to be real.
Unknowable [in this case] mean impossible to be known as real.

If someone has a disease that is difficult to diagnose, it meant the cause is unknown.
In this case because there are empirical effects, there will be empirical causes but not yet known. Doctors can predict it is likely be due to bacteria, viruses, psychosomatic and whatever, but the cause will be fundamentally empirical yet unknown.
The possibility of the disease will not be non-empirical like evil spirits lurking around.

My point is, whatever is unknown wherever [here or 100 million light years away] and if it is imputed with empirical elements, then it can be proven empirically if the relevant empirical evidence are produced for verification.

Why not, I can speculate human-liked aliens exist as unknown [yet] entities in a planet 100 million light years away. Because the speculation is imputed with empirical elements then this yet unknown is knowable. Note of the elements in my speculation is empirically possible to be real.

But if some one speculate square-circles exist in a planet 1 light years away, then there is no question of unknowns, because square-circles are unknowable empirically.

God is not an unknown thing.
God is an unknowable because God do not have any empirical elements, thus impossible to be real.
Age
Posts: 5280
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Age: The Perfect Empirical God Exists

Post by Age »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Oct 12, 2019 7:14 am
Age wrote: Fri Oct 11, 2019 2:22 pm Talk about MISSING THE point or MARK.

IF it is UNKNOWN, then HOW do you KNOW what to 'impute' with it.

How can you logically and reasonably impute the UNKNOWN with empirical elements, or any thing?

'empirical' IS what is grounded on observation and experience. So, if some thing is UNKNOWN, then you obviously have NOT YET observed NOR experience it, and therefore you have NO comprehension of what it is comprised of. To 'impute' the UNKNOWN with absolutely ANY thing is absurd and ridiculous beyond any sensible comprehension.

By definition, the 'unknown' IS UNKNOWN, obviously.
How come you are so stupid?
Either because I just am, or because I am just what you view me as being, or because I like to portray some thing, in order to make you ASSUME and/or BELIEVE that thing.

Why do you think or believe that I am "so stupid"?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Oct 12, 2019 7:14 am'Unknown' does not mean 'unknowable'.
I KNOW. And I have already KNOWN this.

Nothing that I have said even suggests any thing like that. So, WHY did you write this?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Oct 12, 2019 7:14 amI believe this is the point you missed out.
Unknown means possible to be real.
I have NOT missed this point. I just do NOT agree with it.

To me, 'unknown' does NOT mean 'possible to be real'.

'unknown', to me, just means 'that' what is not yet known. And,

'possible to be real' just means 'that' what could exist.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Oct 12, 2019 7:14 amUnknowable [in this case] mean impossible to be known as real.
Has the word 'unknowable' been used previously in our discussions within this thread?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Oct 12, 2019 7:14 amIf someone has a disease that is difficult to diagnose, it meant the cause is unknown.
If some one has a disease that is difficult to diagnose, then, to me, that just means the disease, itself, is difficult to diagnose.

If the cause is not yet known is just a completely other matter.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Oct 12, 2019 7:14 amIn this case because there are empirical effects, there will be empirical causes but not yet known. Doctors can predict it is likely be due to bacteria, viruses, psychosomatic and whatever, but the cause will be fundamentally empirical yet unknown.
And, so to what is unknown, is the disease as well.

By the way, WHY do you use the word 'empirical' so often, especially considering using it serves absolutely NO purpose at all, to me.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Oct 12, 2019 7:14 amThe possibility of the disease will not be non-empirical like evil spirits lurking around.
What are 'evil spirits', to you? And, if 'evil spirits' do not cause the not yet diagnosed disease, then what do 'evil spirits' actually cause or do, exactly?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Oct 12, 2019 7:14 amMy point is, whatever is unknown wherever [here or 100 million light years away] and if it is imputed with empirical elements, then it can be proven empirically if the relevant empirical evidence are produced for verification.
Your point is noted.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Oct 12, 2019 7:14 amWhy not, I can speculate human-liked aliens exist as unknown [yet] entities in a planet 100 million light years away. Because the speculation is imputed with empirical elements then this yet unknown is knowable. Note of the elements in my speculation is empirically possible to be real.
You are just saying more or less the exact same with the dog example. Like you continually do, you are saying nothing new really.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Oct 12, 2019 7:14 amBut if some one speculate square-circles exist in a planet 1 light years away, then there is no question of unknowns, because square-circles are unknowable empirically.
If you say so and BELIEVE so, then it MUST BE true, correct?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Oct 12, 2019 7:14 amGod is not an unknown thing.
God is an unknowable because God do not have any empirical elements, thus impossible to be real.
But God is ALREADY KNOWN.

For example I ALREADY KNOW God is a possibility to be real. This is because I KNOW what 'God' is, exactly.

But what is impossible is you, at the moment of when this is written, being able to fathom this.
Age
Posts: 5280
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Age: The Perfect Empirical God Exists

Post by Age »

surreptitious57 wrote: Fri Oct 11, 2019 2:47 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Whatever is non empirically [ not p ] cannot be empirical [ p ] in the future
There is no way a non empirical square circle can be an empirical possibility

What is possible is for anything that is not known yet but is empirically possible to be proven to be empirical
when the empirical evidences are produced for verification and confirmation via empirical tests
Square circles are obviously impossible but this was not what was I actually referring to though I would say they
are more of a logical impossibility than an empirical one simply because they can be mathematically disproven

But what about things that are considered empirically impossible now but through evidence will be shown to be empirically possible in the future
Do you accept this is even hypothetically possible or do you think that our understanding of what is and is not empirical is definitive and absolute
To me, this is a great question.
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 8864
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm

Re: Age: The Perfect Empirical God Exists

Post by Dontaskme »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Oct 12, 2019 7:14 am
'Unknown' does not mean 'unknowable'.
I believe this is the point you missed out.
Unknown means possible to be real.
Unknowable [in this case] mean impossible to be known as real.

God is not an unknown thing.
God is an unknowable because God do not have any empirical elements, thus impossible to be real.
God is a KNOWN concept.

Man is a KNOWN concept.

Consciousness is a KNOWN concept.

That which is unknown will eventually become known as a conceptual KNOWN that cannot become unknown.

While that which is unknown can and will eventually become known, that which is UNKNOWABLE will NEVER be known.

There is nothing KNOWN outside of KNOWN concepts.

All concepts are known by the only knowing there is AVAILABLE and that is consciousness this immediate knowing one without a second.

Consciousness is REAL as is the nose on your empirical face ...what is the description of REAL is not real, because words cannot explain what IS consciousness and or every word describes IT...there is nothing outside of knowledge/concepts, for concepts are all that's KNOWN...and the KNOWN know nothing.

.
Post Reply