|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Oct 8, 2017 21:39:31 GMT
But in your view there is no real, right? So what the heck is "real" referring to? How would we even know what we're talking about with that term? I know! Isn't it awesome, or do you prefer "unreal"?  Okay, so what would "real" even be referring to? In other words, what are some of the properties that a "real" thing would have? |
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Oct 8, 2017 21:42:04 GMT
I know! Isn't it awesome, or do you prefer "unreal"? Okay, so what would "real" even be referring to? What is "unreal". Simple ain't it!  Replied before your edit addition. Good question. The properties pretty much come down to the 5 elements, which comprise the WHOLE universe, including us. Even those are "unreal". |
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Oct 8, 2017 21:43:25 GMT
Okay, so what would "real" even be referring to? What is "unreal". Simple ain't it! "Real" is referring to "what is 'unreal'"? |
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Oct 8, 2017 21:46:25 GMT
What is "unreal". Simple ain't it! "Real" is referring to "what is 'unreal'"? A dream, trapped within a dream. Time to wake up! |
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Oct 8, 2017 21:48:04 GMT
"Real" is referring to "what is 'unreal'"? A dream, trapped within a dream. Time to wake up! Wait. "'Real' is referring to 'what is 'unreal''?" is a yes or no question. I'm trying to confirm that that's what you're saying. So yes or no? |
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Oct 8, 2017 21:56:39 GMT
A dream, trapped within a dream. Time to wake up! Wait. "'Real' is referring to 'what is 'unreal''?" is a yes or no question. I'm trying to confirm that that's what you're saying. So yes or no? By your fragmented question, yes, real is really what is "unreal". What is real to you, is not going to be perceived as real to others, unless they are sharing in your illusion or dream. Even then, it is only a concept or perception of what is real. |
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Oct 8, 2017 21:58:17 GMT
Wait. "'Real' is referring to 'what is 'unreal''?" is a yes or no question. I'm trying to confirm that that's what you're saying. So yes or no? By your fragmented question, yes, real is really what is "unreal". What is real to you, is not going to be perceived as real to others, unless they are sharing in your illusion or dream. Even then, it is only a concept or perception of what is real. If "real" refers to "(what is) unreal," then what is "real to me" is what is "unreal to me," right? |
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Oct 8, 2017 22:02:57 GMT
Are you not using the "un" prefix to denote negation by the way? So that x and un-x are opposites or complements? |
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Oct 8, 2017 22:08:49 GMT
Are you not using the "un" prefix to denote negation by the way? So that x and un-x are opposites or complements? What is it you are desperate to prove here? It is your dream you are only denying. |
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Oct 8, 2017 22:20:00 GMT
Are you not using the "un" prefix to denote negation by the way? So that x and un-x are opposites or complements? What is it you are desperate to prove here? It is your dream you are only denying. All I'm doing is attempting to make some sense of your views. |
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Oct 8, 2017 22:32:42 GMT
What is it you are desperate to prove here? It is your dream you are only denying. All I'm doing is attempting to make some sense of your views. No need to make sense of them. You will either connect with them or you won't. It is my illusion or journey. I can see what you are attempting to do, but you can't deconstruct what can't be taken apart. |
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Oct 8, 2017 22:34:36 GMT
All I'm doing is attempting to make some sense of your views. No need to make sense of them. You will either connect with them or you won't. It is my illusion or journey. I can see what you are attempting to do, but you can't deconstruct what can't be taken apart. It's a bit difficult to connect with them if I can't make out what you're even saying. Hence the questions. If you don't care to clarify anything, why are you proceeding as if we're having a conversation? |
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Oct 8, 2017 22:44:01 GMT
No need to make sense of them. You will either connect with them or you won't. It is my illusion or journey. I can see what you are attempting to do, but you can't deconstruct what can't be taken apart. It's a bit difficult to connect with them if I can't make out what you're even saying. Hence the questions. If you don't care to clarify anything, why are you proceeding as if we're having a conversation? I am not finding it difficult to hear what you are saying, I am just not connecting with it, or don't need too. The clarity, comes from within you. I suppose I could say it is more esoteric, and I believe I have kept it as easy as possible. I can't show you something, when you have to see or know it for yourself. I like your intelligence and you are also for the most part level-headed in your approach, even though I may find you posturing a bit. You are responding to me, so I am obliging you. |
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Oct 8, 2017 23:07:06 GMT
It's a bit difficult to connect with them if I can't make out what you're even saying. Hence the questions. If you don't care to clarify anything, why are you proceeding as if we're having a conversation? You are responding to me, so I am obliging you. But you won't answer simple questions in a straightforward way. I wouldn't characterize that as obliging. |
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Oct 9, 2017 7:17:00 GMT
You are responding to me, so I am obliging you. But you won't answer simple questions in a straightforward way. I wouldn't characterize that as obliging. Your simpleminded questions can't be answered in a straight forward way and no matter what I answer, you will refute what is said. And The Nile is a river in Egypt. Get connected!  |
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Oct 9, 2017 7:53:03 GMT
But you won't answer simple questions in a straightforward way. I wouldn't characterize that as obliging. Your simple questions can't be answered in a straight forward way and no matter what I answer, you will refute what is said. And the Nile is a river in Egypt. Get connected! Reminds me of a line of dialogue from a movie I saw once. "You're more advanced than a cockroach. Did you ever try making yourself 'clear' to one of them?" |
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Oct 9, 2017 8:26:19 GMT
Your simple questions can't be answered in a straight forward way and no matter what I answer, you will refute what is said. And the Nile is a river in Egypt. Get connected! Reminds me of a line of dialogue from a movie I saw once. "You're more advanced than a cockroach. Did you ever try making yourself 'clear' to one of them?" I wouldn't compare Terrapin to an insect, far from it. He is just not flexible or open to what exists beyond his notion of what is perceived as the physical realm. He is working from what he would consider a logical pov, within his own limitations and belief thinking that he is an atheist. No matter which way he looks at it, the thought still contains a notion of God, which has an understanding about a belief in God, in order to refute God. |
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Oct 9, 2017 8:32:25 GMT
Reminds me of a line of dialogue from a movie I saw once. "You're more advanced than a cockroach. Did you ever try making yourself 'clear' to one of them?" I wouldn't compare Terrapin to an insect, far from it. He is just not flexible or open to what exists beyond his notion of what is perceived as the physical realm. He is working from what he would consider a logical pov, within his own limitations and belief thinking that he is an atheist. No matter which way he looks at it, the thought still contains a notion of God, which has an understanding about a belief in God, in order to refute God. That's the choice he made. It isn't as if the ability were denied to him. It's just that existence beyond the material is too big a lump to go down his prideful throat. |
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Oct 9, 2017 10:04:07 GMT
I wouldn't compare Terrapin to an insect, far from it. He is just not flexible or open to what exists beyond his notion of what is perceived as the physical realm. He is working from what he would consider a logical pov, within his own limitations and belief thinking that he is an atheist. No matter which way he looks at it, the thought still contains a notion of God, which has an understanding about a belief in God, in order to refute God. That's the choice he made. It isn't as if the ability were denied to him. It's just that existence beyond the material is too big a lump to go down his prideful throat. I guess each to their own, and one can't force an understanding down someone's throat. I don't condemn other's beliefs regarding what God is, or isn't, but it they want to bury their head in the sand and then expect others to buy or follow along with their own limitations and lack of self-awareness, then perhaps yes, they do need to keep their egoistic pride in check. |
|
|
|
Post by Hairynosedwombat on Oct 9, 2017 10:10:24 GMT
The problem with that argument is that it leaves open the next question which is, "Where did the Creator come from?" Interestingly enough I actually do not agree. Just to be clear the watchmaker argument is flawed, I am not defending it. What I am saying is that the source of the source is irrelevant in a number of ways, as it is something that we can never know of (at least according to some theory) and it becomes similar to the existential question of are we real. If you accept that a thinking being was responsible for the creation of the universe, that does not require us to know the source of that thinking being, much like if you believe that the world is fake this will not change how you have to act with the world. I think at a certain point we have to accept we do not know what happens next, and of course I admit that 'knowing' there is a God or not is among those things that is conjecture in a lot of ways, but that just further adds to my point, if we do not know if God exists then how much more hubris is it to demand the question where does he come from? Agreed, the watchmaker argument stands on its own without having a potentially infinite regression. More to the point, the argument fails at the first step. Show me evidence of God. Any evidence that is stronger than evidence for no God. I am not in the mood to use faith as evidence. We do not know and however far we drill down, we get the same answer. We do not know and probably never will. |
|
