Search results

Logical move. There is only stalemate, since what is self evidently reality to you is the basis for your reality. Me too.

This is, in the context of our discussion thus far, somewhat gobbledygook. As if ships passing in the night. What "objective, real evidence" are you talking of? Or, more importantly, how do you figure it objective and real to begin with? Does reality as you perceive it get a free pass (in...

Against what measure unreasonable? I mean, if the misery bestowed on earth was 100 times what it has been, what would make that unreasonable? "Nothing is worth it" is not an answer. You, in that statement would be making an emotional statement. But what if its an accounting statement? The...

Exactly. I Googled "good circularity" in order to see the argument for it. Nothing. Seemingly, we don't all trust or have in common the idea of "good circularity". Rendering it just good old fashioned circular reasoning. And not very good circular reasoning at that. I trust empirical method...

God turned up. That's the reason I know how God exists. How do you know any aspect of reality exists? If Rationalism, then prove it.

So long as we are clear that the decision to submit yourself to another authority (e.g. empirical method) doesn't alter you being the highest authority. It's subjective all the way down - with only the decision that it is not, avoiding solipsism It is rational and logical to refer yourself to...

I'm predicting it will, like empiricism, be faith based. Time will tell. The reason is that I find my conclusions about reality (e.g. God exists) prove the most satisfactory to me of the options available. Since empiricism (and rationalism) are ultimately grounded on what is satisfactory to...

Well the claims of empiricism ARE faith based and empiricism is very commonly expressed so that's why I focus on it. When you say 'no rational foundation' presumably you mean there are certain rules that I fail to adhere to? I'm quite happy to hear what is irrational about what I know to be...

That's fair enough. I'm just saying that other perspectives exist and there is no absolute need to find suffering problematic. As for heaven/hell the product of your own heart (decisions like words , being the overflow of the heart)? Bar for Calvinism (which sees God save aside from any...

That witnessed reality needs be as you (or those you chose to align with) witness it is the circular bit. You need to stay away from circular, full stop, not special plead your own brand. Real world being the product of subjective decision P1 which is still rotating in a circle. Real means...

It was more analogy. And more to indicate how it looks from my perspective. The mess isn't an impediment. And the nice meal is merely indicative of the elegant outcome. Hell is as elegant as is heaven, being as they are destinations reflective of the hearts desire of the I habitants. You get...

I'm not sure what on earth "a bias of what you value" means. Hopefully it won't be circular? P2a. It need not be either/or. You can submit to the collective if you conclude it necessary to whatever extent you deem appropriate. And submit to self similarly C. Not shown by the points above. Best?

Elegance over and above the chaos. When I cook I create a right mess, I move really fast, having worked as a chef in my youth. When the lovely meal is on the neatly laid table, the kitchen is a bombsite. And was a hive of chaos and noise and smoke along the way God makes us children of God...

I focus on empiricism because of its commonality amongst atheists. It doesn't really matter what the philosophy is, the same fault / circular argument exists. When you insist that my knowledge need necessarily be communicable to others in order for it to be knowledge, you are making a claim...

This is strange. An empiricist holds the view he does precisely because he supposes himself capable of unconscious and unintended bias! He decries the subjective truth because it may be biased (and so not truth) Bias isn't inevitable. But in the empiricist view, the only way to demonstrate bias...

I meant 'there was no sarcasm'. ?? was there to represent my confusion at you thinking I was being Reality is what it is. We share it. In that sense we share a common reality. If God then you share a common reality: one in which God exists despite your view. Ditto for me if he does not...

There was no sarcasm?? You (correctly) said that someone's conclusion as to what encompasses reality doesn't mean that's what reality is. I gave the exams from The Matrix by way of amen s'all. All this means is that both you and I face the prospect that our conclusions about reality are...

Agreed, absolutely. Like, Neo had no idea that his idea of reality wasn't actually the reality that was.

Of course they do. That others share that same view only adds concrete to the mix because the individual decides their sharing does so. We share where we share (my have decided that you sharing my view adds concrete to the mix: what is reality) And don't where we don't. You seem to think that...

There is no need for it to be shared. Simply put: if God decides to reveal himself to some, there is not a darn argument against it. The Christians are as entitled to talk about it, not having to feel themselves confined by your blindness, as you are to suppose them deluded. What you get is...