Age: The Perfect Empirical God Exists

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

Moderators: AMod, iMod

surreptitious57
Posts: 4225
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Age: The Perfect Empirical God Exists

Post by surreptitious57 »

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

Things that are discovered do not come into existence upon point of discovery - they were already in existence as mind independent objects
Things that are known to exist are a sub set [ a very very infinitesimal sub set ] of every thing that exists because human knowledge is finite

The Universe existed before human beings and will carry on existing after human beings - so its mind independent objective existence is
not conditional on human knowledge - there is therefore zero requirement for something to exist beyond the actual fact of its existence

Something which is known by something else to exist must exist but something which exists does not have to be known to exist by something else
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 5806
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Age: The Perfect Empirical God Exists

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

surreptitious57 wrote: Wed Oct 09, 2019 7:47 am
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 thing[s].
The term 'whatever' is too loose because it could include non-empirical things.
Things that are discovered do not come into existence upon point of discovery - they were already in existence as mind independent objects
Things that are known to exist are a sub set [ a very very infinitesimal sub set ] of every thing that exists because human knowledge is finite
I agree it is common sense, i.e. empirical realism, that there are mind-independent object out there. The oncoming train on the track I am standing on is independent of my mind out there, thus I will jump of the train.

But to the philosophical anti-realist whatever is independent of one mind at one level is co-dependent at another level.

Note Philosophical Realism;
  • In metaphysics, [Philosophical] realism about a given object is the view that this object exists in reality independently of our conceptual scheme. In philosophical terms, these objects are ontologically independent of someone's conceptual scheme, perceptions, linguistic practices, beliefs, etc.

    Realism can be applied to many philosophically interesting objects and phenomena: other minds, the past or the future, universals, mathematical entities (such as natural numbers), moral categories, the physical world, and thought.

    Realism can also be a view about the nature of reality in general, where it claims that the world exists independent of the mind, as opposed to non-realist views.
    -wiki
Your view is that of the philosophical realist as above.
However there is the opposing non-realist view.

You keep repeating your Philosophical Realist stance, but note there a very strong opposing view to your stance, i.e. the philosophical anti-realist views where there are many variations.

Rather than repeating your Philosophical Realist stance, you should understand [not necessary agree] the philosophical anti-realists views [mine is as Kant's] and counter why their views are not tenable and your is.
If you get familiar with Kant, you will understand how reality emerged as external & independent to the human mind but yet at a meta-level is conditioned upon the human conditions at the same time.

The Universe existed before human beings and will carry on existing after human beings - so its mind independent objective existence is
not conditional on human knowledge - there is therefore zero requirement for something to exist beyond the actual fact of its existence

Something which is known by something else to exist must exist but something which exists does not have to be known to exist by something else
As mentioned the above is the common sense philosophical realist views all humans are evolved with at the fundamental level.
But there are higher philosophical views to what-is-reality you need to familiar with [whether agree or not] .

In a very deeper philosophical reflection, Bertrand Russell encountered the following dilemma,
- perhaps there is no real table out there at all!

Russell concluded with the following resignation;
  • Thus, to sum up our discussion of the value of philosophy; Philosophy is to be studied, not for the sake of any definite answers to its questions since no definite answers can, as a rule, be known to be true, but rather for the sake of the questions themselves;
Do you think you are better than Russell in insisting in your stance above without qualifications?
surreptitious57
Posts: 4225
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Age: The Perfect Empirical God Exists

Post by surreptitious57 »

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
You keep repeating your Philosophical Realist stance but note there a very strong opposing view to your stance
i e the philosophical anti realist views where there are many variations

Rather than repeating your Philosophical Realist stance you should understand [ not necessarily agree ] the
philosophical anti realist views [ mine is as Kants ] and counter why their views are not tenable and yours is
The Philosophical Realist position is subjective opinion not absolute truth
So other positions on the nature of reality should therefore be considered
surreptitious57
Posts: 4225
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Age: The Perfect Empirical God Exists

Post by surreptitious57 »

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
In a very deeper philosophical reflection Bertrand Russell encountered the following dilemma - perhaps there is no real table out there at all

Russell concluded with the following resignation
  • Thus to sum up our discussion of the value of philosophy - Philosophy is to be studied not for the sake of any definite answers
    to its questions since no definite answers can as a rule be known to be true but rather for the sake of the questions themselves
Russell is absolutely right in that philosophy cannot provide definite answers only questions
But the right kinds of question can lead to a greater understanding of the nature of reality
Age
Posts: 6218
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Age: The Perfect Empirical God Exists

Post by Age »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Oct 09, 2019 2:09 am
Age wrote: Tue Oct 08, 2019 4:36 am Are you joking?

By your, so called, "logic" here; That the unicorn is impossible to exist are real is one example representing all empirical things. This is beyond logic. This is just plain ridiculousness. Unless of course you mean some other thing?
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.
Veritas 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.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Oct 09, 2019 2:09 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Oct 08, 2019 3:19 amI ask you to show me one empirical thing that can be absolutely perfect.
And I have SHOWN you one thing. But you will NOT LOOK AT It.

That is; Thee Universe.

How many times do I have to tell you.
You have mentioned that many times but that is your assertion without any justification.
I do NOT have to 'justify' the Universe, Itself. The Universe IS justified by Its own Self. By just being HERE NOW in ALL of Its ABSOLUTE beauty and PERFECTION the Universe, to me anyway, IS ALREADY JUSTIFIED.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Oct 09, 2019 2:09 am Kant had demonstrated God, The Soul, The Whole Universe are the ultimate ideas [thing-in-themselves] that are impossible to be real [empirically + philosophically].
HOW could it even be possible that The Whole Universe is impossible to be real?

You existing MEANS that the Universe IS existing, OBVIOUSLY.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Oct 09, 2019 2:09 am Kant argument is very complex, I will not go into it until you have read his argument.
Okay, so IF I say I have read whatever a "kant" argument is, then you will go into it? This seems a rather strange thing to do. But you are free to do whatever you want to do.

If you think you have some sort of evidence that proves that some thing can not, forever more, be a POSSIBILITY to exist and be real, then why not just SHOW it instead of waiting for me to read one thing or another?

Also, if an argument is very complex, to you, then just maybe you, or the writer, do not really understand the so called "argument" FULLY yourselves.

ALL the sound AND valid arguments I have SEEN are very simple and easy to understand. What I have also observed is if an argument appears complex, then this is a sign that the so called "argument" could NOT be sound or valid, which means it is not even an argument really worth LOOKING AT.

To me, there is NOTHING complex in Life. If some thing can not be explained simply, then maybe it is not, simply, understood, in the beginning.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Oct 09, 2019 2:09 am But one point is, parts [space, stars, planets, blackholes, etc.] of the Universe are empirical possible, but The-Whole-Universe that is absolutely perfect cannot be an empirical concept.
But I am NOT talking about a concept, let alone an "empirical concept".

Now, what does an 'empirical' concept actually mean, to you?

You like to use the 'empirical' word with a lot of other words. Do you do this so that it appears that by doing so you have more weight to your BELIEFS?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Oct 09, 2019 2:09 am Therefore The-Whole-Universe is impossible to be real.
Wait a minute. BEFORE you JUMP to such a conclusion, let us LOOK AT your "argument" first.

P1. Parts of the Universe are 'empirical possible'. (I still do NOT know what you mean by 'empirically possible'.)
P2. The Whole Universe that 'IS' absolutely perfect can not be an 'empirical concept'. (I still do NOT know what you mean by 'an empirical concept')
C. Therefore, The-Whole-Universe is impossible to be real.

WHY is The Whole Universe written with Capitals?

WHY can parts of the whole Universe be 'empirically possible', but the whole Universe, Itself, can NOT be 'empirically possible' (whatever 'empirically possible' means)?

WHY do you say; "The Whole Universe (in Capitals) that 'IS' absolutely perfect"? Either the Universe IS 'absolutely perfect' or It is NOT.

And now, WHY do you say The Whole 'absolutely perfect' Universe can not be an 'empirical concept'? Are you 'trying to' suggest that human beings can not conceive of an absolutely perfect Universe?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Oct 09, 2019 2:09 am One can think of an absolutely perfect Whole-Universe but it is impossible to real and realizable.
What evidence OR proof do you have to justify this claim you make here?

Also, If one can conceive of an absolutely perfect, so called, Whole-Universe, then WHY could that Whole-Universe NOT be an 'empirical concept'?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Oct 09, 2019 2:09 am One limitation is there is no way to verify a Whole-Universe because humans cannot stand out of the Whole-Universe to take an independent view to justify its existence.
If a Universe exists, which It OBVIOUSLY does, then one does NOT have to "stand outside" of the Universe to take an "independent view" to KNOW that the whole Universe exists. If 'you' exist, then the whole Universe also obviously exists.

What is also obvious is:
A part of some thing can not exist while the rest of it does not exist.

If a part of the Universe is existing, then so is the rest of the whole of the Universe.

Whatever IS existing is the WHOLE of It. Unless, of course, you can SHOW otherwise?

If some thing IS existing, then that, in and of itself, VERIFIES its existence.

Therefore, IF the Universe IS existing, which It IS, then, that by itself, verifies that the whole of the Universe is existing.

Could it get anymore simple and straightforward than that?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Oct 09, 2019 2:09 amIt is worst if anyone were to try to justify whether the Whole-Universe is absolute perfect or not.
In your attempt to 'try to' "justify" your own ALREADY (very strongly held) BELIEFS you are fooling yourself ONLY.

If the Universe, Itself, is NOT absolutely perfect, to you, then what is It?

To you;

WHY is the whole of the Universe NOT absolute? And,

WHY is the whole Universe NOT perfect?

Are you starting to NOTICE that you have NOT yet SHOWN any actual evidence NOR proof for this, and all you have REALLY SHOWN is just your ALREADY held BELIEFS?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Oct 09, 2019 2:09 am

This is invalid, unsound, irrational, illogical, and is also probably close to being perfectly circular. That is; "No empirical thing can be absolutely perfect BECAUSE and SO whatever is empirical as real can not be absolutely perfect".

I would say that if that is NOT a perfect circle, then it is close enough to being one. Now, that we have finished with the absolutely absurd, let us LOOK AT this even further. "No empirical thing can be absolutely perfect" is ONLY your view and BELIEF. It is NOT an actual unambiguous, irrefutable fact.
Yes it is based on my belief.
I KNOW.

This is what I have been SAYING.

Also, you BELIEVE that; "There is NO existing thing could be absolutely perfect" is an actual unambiguous, irrefutable fact, correct?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Oct 09, 2019 2:09 am However my belief is based on the confidence in Scientific truths as the most objective knowledge of reality available and this is enforced by philosophical proper plus critical thinking.
In what "Universe", as they say;

Do "scientific truths" state: "The Universe is NOT absolute and NOT perfect"?And,

That this is the "most objective knowledge of reality available" and this is enforced by so called "philosophical proper plus critical thinking", which supports and state: "The Universe is NOT absolute and NOT perfect"?

Do you have ANY links to where these, so called, "scientific truths", which are the "most objective knowledge of reality available", and which is enforced by, some ones so called, "philosophical proper plus critical thinking" has taken place and states; "The Universe is NOT absolute and NOT perfect"?

Or, are these, so called, "truths" and "most objective knowledge", which is enforced by your OWN "philosophical and critical thinking" ONLY within your OWN head?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Oct 09, 2019 2:09 am If you ever bring arguments and evidence to claim an absolutely perfect God/Universe exists, I will rely on reputable scientists to test your claims for its empirical foundation, then I will apply philosophical and critical thinking to verify those findings.
Okay. I have ALREADY provided the arguments AND the evidence, so now go and rely on YOUR "reputable scientists" to test my claims, and then YOU can apply YOUR OWN "philosophical and critical thinking" to verify those findings.

But, I think you will find that you would NEVER verify those findings at all if, and when, the "tests" and "findings" came back the same as I am saying.

I am pretty sure you will keep FINDING that your OWN already held BELIEFS are the actual truth of things, for you.

Also, what do you mean by 'reputable scientists'?

How do you define and class who is 'reputable' and who is 'not reputable'?

Has it even occurred to you or have you ever NOTICED just how coincidental it is that to EVERY one the 'reputable scientist' is ALWAYS that "scientist" who just HAPPENS to view and see the same way as the one claiming that a "scientist" is a 'reputable' one.

For EVERY "climate change denier" OR "climate change believer" who call some one a 'reputable scientist', which EVERY one should listen to, ALWAYS just happens to be the "scientist" who is 'coincidentally' seeing things the same way that they, themselves, do.

By the way, now what does 'empirical foundation' actually mean, to you?

So far you have spoke of:
'empirical'
'empirical evidence'
'empirically possible'
'empirical things'
'empirically'
'empirical concept', and now
'empirical foundation'.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Oct 09, 2019 2:09 am On the other hand, what you are relying on is merely subjective beliefs based on your own personal experiences which is not justified at all.
However I am very familiar with your claims which is claimed by many others who are mentally ill and others [drug addicts, meditators, the brain damage, etc.].
LOL

Just like it is always "coincidentally" the 'reputable scientists' who are the ones with the same views as the one who is just proposing that their BELIEFS are true, it is always "coincidentally" the 'mentally ill' who are the ones with the opposing views as the one proposing their BELIEFS are true.

Also, if you are NOT relying on your (subjective) BELIEFS, which are based on your own personal experiences, then what are your OWN (subjective) BELIEFS based on EXACTLY?

By the way I do NOT have any BELIEFS, so I can NOT be relying on my subjective BELIEFS. Therefore, what you say here is just moot.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Oct 09, 2019 2:09 am
If you do NOT see the Universe, Itself, as being absolute AND perfect, then so be it. But just because you do not see It that way, then that does NOT mean that it is not absolute AND perfect.
I have explained above why The-Universe-in-itself as absolute and perfect is impossible to be real.
No you have NOT.

However, what you have done is express your OWN (subjective) BELIEFS, and said some thing, about some "kant".

You have NEVER 'explained' WHY the EXISTING Universe, Itself, is NOT absolute and NOT perfect at all.

What you have SHOWN and what you are 'TRYING TO' explain are two different things.

You are just SHOWING your own BELIEFS, which you BELIEVE wholeheartedly are absolutely true. But, so far, you have certainly NOT explained WHY what you 'BELIEVE is true' IS true.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Oct 09, 2019 2:09 am
Also, what do you mean by; 'empirical thing'? Do you just mean a 'physical thing'?
I have already provided the definition of 'empirical.'
The definition you provided was NOT of 'empirical' at all. But, rather, of 'empirical evidence' ONLY. Two very DIFFERENT things.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Oct 09, 2019 2:09 amEmpirical things are things [physical or otherwise] which can be justified as scientifically real.
This could go on forever. What do you now mean by 'empirical things' are things 'physical or otherwise'? 'otherwise' does NOT really say much at all in regards to what I am asking you to explain.

Why do you not just say; 'Empirical things' are ANY thing, which can be justified as scientifically real?

Is this what you mean?

If yes, then can pain and/or emotions be justified as scientifically real?

If yes, then how?

If no, then does that mean those things are NOT 'empirical things'?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Oct 09, 2019 2:09 am Since Science is the best objective basis for reality but not 100% reliable, it need to be reinforced with critical thinking and philosophy proper.
Some might argue here that just observation AND experience is the BEST objective basis for what is real.

THEN 'critical thinking' AND forming arguments help in working out what is True and/or Right.

Also, does 'critical thinking' and this, so called, "philosophical proper", then make things, like reality, 100% reliable?

Remember some people, just like you, use so called "critical thinking" and "philosophical proper" just to 'try to' "justify" their own already held BELIEFS and ASSUMPTIONS.

By the way, does 'science', 'critical thinking' AND 'philosophical proper' have a UNIFORMLY absolutely undeniable, unambiguous, AND irrefutable definition for the word 'reality' anyway?

If yes, then what is that definition?

If no, then what is 'science', 'critical thinking', and 'philosophical proper' using this so called "best objective basis" on EXACTLY?

Also, what does 'philosophical proper' actually mean, to you?

While you are at it, (that is; IF you are answering my clarifying questions here now), What does 'reality' mean, to you?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Oct 09, 2019 2:09 am

I am getting VERY SICK AND TIRED of "noting your argument", AND also getting very sick and tired of THEN having to explain to you, once again, that it is NOT a 'sound AND valid argument'.

Note when you formulate a 'sound AND valid argument', then I want to SEE it, okay?

Until then all you are doing is expressing your views and BELIEFS only, and just calling them 'arguments'.
Who cares whether you are VERY SICK AND TIRED in this case.
Besides me, I do NOT really KNOW.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Oct 09, 2019 2:09 am What counts in this forum is proper and sound argument.
Well when those type of arguments are provided, then I will NOT be getting sick and tired of your same improper and unsound "arguments", which you re repeat over and over again.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Oct 09, 2019 2:09 am You cannot dispute my above argument is not a proper syllogism.
What does 'syllogism' even mean, to you?

Your syllogism has two premises, and a conclusion.
What you wrote is a proper syllogism.
Therefore, I can not dispute that your "argument" is not a proper syllogism.

BUT, just because you wrote a 'syllogism' does that, to you, mean that it is NOT at all flawed?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Oct 09, 2019 2:09 am I believe the premises above are sound, it you think they are not, then give your proper counter arguments?
And what you BELIEVE is true, can not be any thing else, but true, correct?

So, you will NOT see how your premises above are NOT sound. Here I will SHOW the readers the Truth of this.

Now, let us LOOK AT just how sound your premises are or are not.
P1. Whatever is empirical as real cannot be absolutely perfect.

You say that 'empirical' is any thing that can be justified as 'scientifically real'. (Now you will have to explain what is 'scientifically real').

But, so far, your premise here is stating that 'whatever can be justified as 'scientifically real' can not be absolutely perfect.

You first HAVE TO explain WHY any thing that is 'real' (or 'scientifically real') can not be 'absolutely perfect'. You have so far stated that there is NO such thing as a 'perfect circle', and then used that ASSUMPTION, to then jump to the conclusion that that then means that there can NOT be any thing else that is perfect.

1. You do NOT even know IF a 'perfect circle' exists or not. Yet you ASSUME it can NOT.
2. Even IF, in the whole Universe, there is not a 'perfect circle', then that does NOT mean that there could not be some thing else that IS 'perfect'. Yet you still BELIEVE this is TRUE.

Therefore, your P1, to me, is NOT sound.

P2. God is an absolute perfect entity.

If that is how 'you', "veritas aequitas", want to define God, in YOUR "argument", to which you then want to conclusively "prove" that God does NOT exist, then so be it.

If people can 'find' a premise that suits and works with another premise they have, to then conclude what they already previously BELIEVED is true, then they will use those specially and specifically defined words and premises to form the "argument" that fits PERFECTLY with their OWN already held BELIEFS.

1. That is just YOUR definition of the word 'God'.
2. I can not dispute what definitions that you WANT to use, but if your definition is NOT agreed with and accepted by EVERY one, then your definitions are only in relation to some people, and NOT ALL.

Therefore, your P2, to me, is NOT necessarily sound.

By the way, my purpose for being, here is this forum, is more to SHOW how the brain is unable to SEE things, which are OBVIOUSLY crystal CLEAR, than it is to prove any thing in particular. I really do not care if God exists or not.

But, I said above that I will SHOW the readers the Truth of how you are NOT able to SEE some things.

Your responses now are SHOWING the readers just how you are NOT able to see that your premises above are NOT sound.

Or, will you now prove me WRONG, by admitting that your premises are NOT sound?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Oct 09, 2019 2:09 am

Yet some "other" people instantly SEE and also say that the Universe is absolute AND perfect.

But as I have ALREADY explained to you ENOUGH TIMES now. You are NOT capable of SEEING the justifications supported by evidence AND proof BECAUSE your OWN BELIEFS will NOT allow you to SEE the actual Truth of things.

Your OWN BELIEFS will only allow you to SEE those things that CONFIRM your already BIASES.
Yes, there are 'other' people who instantly SEE and also say that the Universe is absolute AND perfect, BUT they are mentally ill ranging from serious to mild, they have consumed hallucinogens, had brain damage, took drugs, meditated, etc.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qIiIsDIkDtg
LOL

You really are STUCK and WITHHELD FULLY in your own head.

You are completely and utterly CLOSED to any thing else other than what you ALREADY BELIEVE is true.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Oct 09, 2019 2:09 am While there are 'other' people who believe as you do, their experiences are confined to only their brain and body. All of them are unable to justify what they claim is empirically real nor possible.
ALL of them?

But are you able to justify that the Universe, Itself, is NOT absolute NOR perfect?

If yes, then, 'just do it'.

If no, then WHY BELIEVE you can?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Oct 09, 2019 2:09 am Kant had explained those who claimed a real absolute perfect God are deluded by pseudo logic. I have extended to explain the fundamental basis for the theists insistence God exists as real is due to psychology.
Okay, because 'you', "veritas aequitas", and some "kant" say some thing, then it MUST BE absolutely perfectly True, correct?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Oct 09, 2019 2:09 am As explained above, it is not my own beliefs but I relied heavily on Scientific beliefs and philosophy-proper plus critical thinking.
I KNOW you have SAID you "relied" on those things. I will, once again, ask you for links to where those things have concluded 100% for sure with justified evidence AND proof that what you are saying here is absolutely perfectly True.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Oct 09, 2019 2:09 am

LOL

The EXACT SAME thing is being said about 'YOU', veritas aequitas, are you at all AWARE OF THIS FACT?

The very thing that you accuse me of doing is the very thing that 'you' ARE DOING.
Nope!
Okay, that would explain WHY you keep saying the same things over and over again.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Oct 09, 2019 2:09 am As explained I am not making any personal subjective claims but rather relied on Scientific truths and philosophical-proper and critical thinking [notable from Kant].
And this is a very common thing with 'you', adult human beings, you will drop names and/or use the names of "other" people, as though somehow what they BELIEVED is true, is then therefore True.

A sound and valid argument, formulated by ANY human being, speaks for its own self. And, if any, so called, "argument" is NOT sound and/or NOT valid, then it is really NOT worth showing it, LOOKING AT it, and discussing it.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Oct 09, 2019 2:09 am
By the way 'personal subjective' claims CAN BE credible, IF, and WHEN, they are backed up with evidence AND proofs.
Yes, that was happened to, for example, Einstein theory and other scientific theory.
So, 'now' you agree with this, YET it was 'you' who wrote:

All you do is making a personal subjective claim which is similar to what the mentally ills are claiming.
How can such a claim be credible at all?


Are you now aware that ALL claims are made from personal subjective views AND that just about ALL personal subjective claims that are flat out disagreed are seen as being what the "mentally ill" claim?

You then went on to ask; How can such a claim be credible at all? I explained HOW, that is; with evidence AND proof.

Now are you also aware that some of the most important discoveries that have come to light, were, at the time, also supposed to be the most outrageous and most severely mentally ill claims ever, claims like: the earth is flat, the sun revolves the earth, being able to move faster than a horse, a horse-less vehicle, flying, flying to the moon, the four minute mile, living in a Truly peaceful and pollution-free world, and well as some other things also?

Just because you do NOT believe some thing AND see it is a mentally ill claim AND BELIEVE it is so, does NOT make it so.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Oct 09, 2019 2:09 am However the criteria is for whatever the personal subjective beliefs to be credible, they must first be empirically possible and testable fundamentally by the scientific method.
Is that what you BELIEVE?

If yes, then does that BELIEF help in supporting your other BELIEFS?

Also, how do you KNOW, forever more, what could or could NOT be POSSIBLE, in the future, IF a thing has NOT yet been tested fundamentally by the scientific method?

If, as you say, things MUST FIRST be tested fundamentally by the scientific method, then things first NEED to be given a chance to see if they can be tested. The purpose of wanting to use 'scientific truths' or 'scientific methods' as evidence AND proof for what you BELIEVE could NEVER be POSSIBLE, in the future forever more, then your purpose would be defeated if NO test has actually been performed. Remember to arrive at a 'scientific truth', then 'fundamental tests' through a 'scientific method' MUST FIRST be performed.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Oct 09, 2019 2:09 am The idea of God as absolute perfect is merely a thought and is without any empirical element, thus impossible to be real as a starter.
We already KNOW that this is what you BELIEVE is true.

You have just NOT yet shown ANY evidence NOR proof to justify this BELIEF of yours.

You, obviously, would first HAVE TO KNOW what 'God' actually IS, before 'scientific tests' could be conducted.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Oct 09, 2019 2:09 am I have quoted this many time, read it carefully and noting each critical term therein;
  • There will therefore be Syllogisms which contain no Empirical premisses, and
    by means of which [those syllogisms] 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.
    B397
The above imply, you have a personal subjective beliefs,
If you BELIEVE so.

But considering you are the one here with BELIEFS, whereas I have NONE, then this appears very humorous indeed.

And, if your BELIEFS are NOT your OWN 'personal and subjective' ones, then what are they EXACTLY?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Oct 09, 2019 2:09 am but your mind relied on certain syllogism [pseudo] to conclude a thought of no empirical basis and no concept,
I do NOT have a 'mind', so rest is moot.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Oct 09, 2019 2:09 am by deception of an illusion to something real of objective reality.
If you SAY and BELIEVE so.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Oct 09, 2019 2:09 am
The PERFECT physical Universe/God exists. The evidence AND proof is right HERE right NOW.
But if you can NOT see It and/or keep MISSING It, then there is NOTHING else I can do.
If the Universe, Itself, is NOT big and ABSOLUTE enough for you to notice It AND accept It, then there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING else that would suffice.
Also, If you do NOT see the PERFECTNESS of the Universe, Itself, then that is fine.

Obviously you are NEVER going to SEE some thing, which you BELIEVE does NOT exist.
Age: But if you can NOT see It and/or keep MISSING It, then there is NOTHING else I can do.


This one of the most philosophically and scientifically stupid statement one can make in a philosophical statement.
If it is such a stupid statement, as you say, then that implies you KNOW what else I can do.

Do you KNOW what I can do?

If yes, then just tell me/us.

Also, it was NOT a "philosophical" statement. It is just one of my many views.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Oct 09, 2019 2:09 am If you have such a belief and keep it to yourself, there is no issue.
It is NOT a BELIEF, therefore the rest is, once again, moot.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Oct 09, 2019 2:09 am But the most terrible consequence of the above belief is when such as "The PERFECT physical Universe/God exist" is taken to be "real" in terms of a real God [will answer prayers] send down a book that command believers to war against and kill non-believers for the reason they are disbelievers.
There is NO BELIEF above, so as I stated: The rest WAS moot, and, coincidentally, even more moot than I was expecting.

WHY did this [answering prayers], 'books', 'wars', and 'non-believers' come into a discussion about the Universe, Itself?

You asked for evidence and proof. I gave you the Universe.

So, WHY NOT just STAY with what I gave you, and LOOK AT that, instead of LOOKING AT completely off topic and obviously unrealistic things?

What I stated above has been been happening for thousands of years and millions had been killed in the past, still going on in the present and will continue in the future.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Oct 09, 2019 2:09 am When you insist on your personal subjective beliefs of a PERFECT physical Universe/God exist"
LOOK, I do NOT 'believe' any thing, so what you are saying here is completely moot.

You have, once again, completely MISSED THE MARK. I have just said when I LOOK AT the Universe, Itself, I SEE absolute PERFECTION.

If you do NOT see absolute PERFECTION when the Universe is laid out in front of you, then that is absolutely PERFECTLY fine with me.

I SEE absolute PERFECTION. You do NOT.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Oct 09, 2019 2:09 am you are indirectly providing moral support to those evil and violent theists, thus you are indirectly complicit their evil and violent acts.
If you BELIEVE and SAY so.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Oct 09, 2019 2:09 am All these is because you are selfish is comforting the subliminal pains arising out the inherent existential crisis.
Again, If you BELIEVE so.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Oct 09, 2019 2:09 am You are selfish is caring only for your existential and emotional need but don't give a damn [insufficient empathy] to the evil and violent consequences you and the likes that is dumped on humanity.
You appear to be drifting further and further away from what we WERE discussing.

It seems like you are running out of ideas of how you could "justify" your BELIEFS anymore, and so are just grasping at any thing at all, which you think will help you.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 10795
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Age: The Perfect Empirical God Exists

Post by Immanuel Can »

Age wrote: Mon Oct 07, 2019 7:00 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Oct 06, 2019 6:03 am
Age wrote: Sat Oct 05, 2019 11:26 amAlso, NOTE that I have ALREADY provided the EVIDENCE for the PERFECT empirical GOD ALREADY.
Show your evidence and proof in this thread.

Others can contribute their views.
As I have said previously; The Universe, Itself.

How much more empirical evidence do you NEED?
This is a good point.

To add to it, we could look at what the Bible actually says on this question. It's pretty much what you say, Age.

"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools..." (Romans 1:18-22)
User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 4914
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: Age: The Perfect Empirical God Exists

Post by attofishpi »

...well that just fucked me up.
User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 4914
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: Age: The Perfect Empirical God Exists

Post by attofishpi »

18. For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
19. Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath showed [it] unto them.
20. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
21. Because that, when they knew God, they glorified [him] not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23. And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

...he's still a c@nt

Unless, it\'he' did form from the chaos it made me endure - oh bless 'him'!
HereToDiscuss
Posts: 24
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2019 5:25 pm

Re: Age: The Perfect Empirical God Exists

Post by HereToDiscuss »

Age wrote: Thee Universe no matter how imperfect It IS claimed to be, is in REALITY PERFECT, which can easily be shown when the Universe, Itself, is just viewed and observed from the Truly OPEN Mind.
What makes a perfect universe perfect? Or, in other words: By what standard is the universe perfect? Untill you lay out the criteria, the term seems meaningless to me.
surreptitious57
Posts: 4225
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Age: The Perfect Empirical God Exists

Post by surreptitious57 »

The Universe is perfect in the sense that it is ALL THAT EXISTS and so it is complete and absolute
A single eternal and infinite entity with everything working in perfect harmony to everything else
Nothing within it operates entirely independently of anything else because it is all interconnected

There is chaos within it but it is not spontaneous but simply a consequences of how phenomena operates
The Universe simply is and by virtue of this is as perfect as anything can be because there is nothing else
surreptitious57
Posts: 4225
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Age: The Perfect Empirical God Exists

Post by surreptitious57 »

surreptitious57 wrote:
There is chaos within it but it is not spontaneous but simply a consequences of how phenomena operates
What is actually called chaos is not really chaos as such as that is simply a description of human minds
Chaos is actually very ordered but to the human eye it does not appear ordered at all hence the name
HereToDiscuss
Posts: 24
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2019 5:25 pm

Re: Age: The Perfect Empirical God Exists

Post by HereToDiscuss »

surreptitious57 wrote: Wed Oct 09, 2019 7:09 pm The Universe is perfect in the sense that it is ALL THAT EXISTS and so it is complete and absolute
A single eternal and infinite entity with everything working in perfect harmony to everything else
Nothing within it operates entirely independently of anything else because it is all interconnected

There is chaos within it but it is not spontaneous but simply a consequences of how phenomena operates
The Universe simply is and by virtue of this is as perfect as anything can be because there is nothing else
I do not get you. You seem to suggest that the Universe has to be perfect by saying that the reason it is perfect is because it is all that exists and therefore complete/absolute-which means that Universe, if it exists, is always perfect. But then you go on to mention it being harmonious, which seem to conflict with your previous statement because; if it is perfect a priori, what reason is there to even infer that it is perfect by using a posteriori argument?

Then, at last, you say that "The universe is as perfect as anything can be because there is nothing else." After thinking what you said for an hour, i think that you're just confusing things with each other. The statement "The universe is as perfect as anything can be." seems to concern harmony: A bear can be perfect in it's own right, music and humans can be perfect in their own right too. It is simply the harmony that makes the Universe perfect. But that doesn't follow from "There is nothing else.", which seem to suggest that you mean that the Universe's perfectness can't be lower than that of it's components since anything that increases the perfectness of a thing inside the Universe also increases the perfectness of the Universe. But that, even if true, doesn't justify your statement and also holds true for an imperfect Universe. Can you please, by using clear and well-written sentences, explain it?

Also, in order to understand you better, please tell me which of the following statements you agree with:

"'Universe is perfect.' is an a priori statement."

"A non-harmonious universe is not perfect."


Maybe i'm just reading too much into a post that is simply meant to be an emotional assertion -"I feel that it is perfect."- instead of a philosophical statement, especially since the writing is very unclear and seems to be emotion-driven.
surreptitious57
Posts: 4225
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Age: The Perfect Empirical God Exists

Post by surreptitious57 »

You are analysing this way too much so I will try and simplify it as much as possible
The Universe is ALL THAT EXISTS is a simple non emotional statement about reality
I only mentioned perfection because that is what you asked about in your question
Age
Posts: 6218
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Age: The Perfect Empirical God Exists

Post by Age »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Oct 09, 2019 6:13 am
surreptitious57 wrote: Wed Oct 09, 2019 5:30 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
The most you can is to THINK of an absolute perfect Universe as an idea which cannot be empirically based
Since an absolute perfect Universe cannot be empirically based it cannot be real or possibly real
The Universe is defined as ALL THAT EXISTS whether or not such existence can be empirically demonstrated
To define it any other way would invalidate the meaning of the word because it cannot mean anything else

An absolute perfect Universe is just the Universe - nothing more nothing less
So absolute and perfect here are simply referring to the totality of existence
As I had stated above one can THINK and DEFINE the Universe as absolutely perfect.
But if this is the case, then such an absolute perfect Universe cannot be real.

However to describe the universe is ALL THAT EXIST would imply all that [things] are empirical. If they are empirical, they cannot be absolutely perfect. Note the meaning of exist.
As such one cannot conflate an absolutely perfect universe [non-empirical] with the universe of all-that-exist [empirical].

Similarly, one cannot conflate an absolute perfect God [non-empirical] with an empirical based God.

The absolute perfect God which is the ontological God is the preferred ultimate God and such a God is impossible to be real because it does not have any empirical elements.

An empirical-based God, e.g. monkey-God, bearded-man-in-sky-God. brain-in-VAT-God, Neptune-Sea-God, etc. are possible as long as they are empirically-based.
If a god is an empirically-based God, then, it should be able to be tested empirically.
So the question is for the claimant to bring the empirical evidence to prove whatever the empirical God exists as real.
However, philosophically, one knows whilst such empirical gods are not impossible, the point of possibility is merely a token [0.0000000------01%] because there is no certainty and perfection within the empirical world.
The 'empirical' God (which is verified by observation or experience) is just the physical Universe. This God EXISTS, obviously.

Now, if you SEE this God as being PERFECT or NOT is completely up to you.

But what is also obvious is no matter what size or shape thee physical Universe is, this God is whole, and thus ABSOLUTE.

Therefore, to me, this God is ABSOLUTE and PERFECT.
Age
Posts: 6218
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Age: The Perfect Empirical God Exists

Post by Age »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Oct 09, 2019 6:28 am
surreptitious57 wrote: Wed Oct 09, 2019 5:42 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Science is the best objective basis for reality but not I00 per cent reliable it need to be reinforced with critical thinking and philosophy
Science is unreliable because it is inductive and relies on evidence that is incomplete or partial
But reinforcing it with critical thinking and philosophy is not going to make it any more reliable
The only two things that will do that are either more evidence or disproof through falsification
According to Popper [which I agree], scientific theories are at best polished conjectures subject to various assumptions, limitations and the scientific method.

Critical thinking and philosophy will not make it more truthful but both will definitely strengthen the reliability.

With critical thinking and philosophy;
  • 1. We can prevent Scientism
    2. We can differentiate science-proper from pseudo-science
    3. Scientists do not differentiate deduction from induction, but philosophy does.
    4. Note the consideration between Science as philosophical realism versus P. anti-realism.
    5. There are many other philosophical tools to ensure whatever is the scientific theory, one do not get entangled in dogmatism.
    6. There is also the moral and ethical consideration for scientific theories.
    7. Others
So critical thinking and philosophy can reinforce and strengthen the reliability of scientific theories.

By noting the underlying assumptions, limitations and principles based on critical thinking and philosophy, we should be able to understand the limit of the various scientific theories and ensure they do not get abused into the theological.

Note the common approach of theologians who used scientific theories to prove the existence of God which is based on the fallacy of equivocating the empirical with the non-empirical.
Will you provide us with a define of what 'empirical' means and what 'non-empirical' means, to you?

And will you also provide examples of both?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Oct 09, 2019 6:28 amThis why Kant had to introduce the idea of the noumenon as a limit to the empirical to prevent the empirical being abused and conflated with the transcendental to generate the idea of the illusory God.
Post Reply