God Is Self-contradictory. Hence, God Doesn’t Exist.

Discussion in 'Religion Archives' started by AAF, May 14, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Jan Ardena Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,221
    Sarkus,

    Again you display blatent dishonesty, as you well and know what is meant by "God".
    The truth of the matter is you have been checkmated, and are forced to resort to ad-hominem attacks.

    An honest attempt at an answer will reveal your true position.

    Jan.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,478
    There is no blatant dishonesty on my part, Jan - only on yours on implying you have read that which you clearly haven't.
    Now feel free to go and reread my earlier posts - and you will find what you seek.
    When you do, feel free come back with an apology.

    The truth of the matter is that you appear not be arsed to read people's posts, or fail to understand what they actually mean and are thus too prideful to ask.

    But please feel free to point out the ad hominem attacks - or at least what you obviously perceive as such.

    And exactly how have I been checkmated, Jan?

    Unfortunately in this game that you perceive, my move was quite a while back - which you claim to have seen but clearly have not. It is thus a matter of me awaiting your next move - if you have one?

    As stated - it has been given.
    An honest attempt by you to read previous posts (that you already imply you have read) will reveal it.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. AAF Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    501

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!





    And yet, it's true that the sensation of blue color can be described to a blind person through the use of artificial-vision techniques.
    http://www.seeingwithsound.com/etumble.htm


    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. AAF Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    501

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!






    Hello Diogenes'Dog:



    Obviously, our 'grover' loves quoting John Hick's passage on the 'Ineffable God of St Denys'. Is this a good thing to happen to Prof. Hick? Probably, it is, even though he might get caught in the crossfire!

    Can the so-called 'direct mystical experience of God' shock people to the core? Well, it's a kind of psychosis; isn't it? And psychosis can be a very shocking experience, indeed.

    However, the claim of the limitation of language and the inadequacy of the concepts of 'God' is usually made by people who have been subjected to so much direct criticism and for too long. This is what happened to Pseudo Dionysius and to Thomas Aquinas. They knew too much philosophy; and too much philosophy is detrimental to religious dogmas.

    In the beginning, Pseudo Dionysius and Thomas Aquinas had a conventional concept of 'God'. As their philosophical knowledge grew, both men uncovered more and more irreconcilable contradictory aspects of their idea of 'God'. They modified it, but after a little while, they uncovered more and more contradictory parts of their newly modified conception of 'God'. They modified it again; and once again they uncovered contradictions. This process of modifying and uncovering and re-modifying continued until Pseudo Dionysius and Thomas Aquinas stripped their 'God' of the last shred of any defining attribute. And so, in the end, Pseudo Dionysius and Thomas Aquinas gave up.

    Now, Diogenes'Dog; I suspect what happened to Pseudo Dionysius and Thomas Aquinas has happened in the same exact order to you and to grover as well. Both of you, like both of them, know too much philosophy of the sort detrimental to the contradictory concepts of 'God'. Am I right? You bet I'm; I know too much philosophy myself!


    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  8. AAF Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    501
    :bawl:




    grover: " Yes, you are right so far and Denys would agree with you since in Christianity the Kingdom of God is within you ".


    Re: I don't believe Denys would like it a bit! The analogy of blue color renders his 'indescribable God' illusory and subjective. In other words, his God exists only in the form of a very tiny chemical reaction inside his head. Is the ' Kingdom of God' within you? Well, that is just a nice way of saying this kind of kingdom does not exist at all; right?

    ===========================================


    grover: " This is where you lose the thread though. Seeing blue does not mean you are hallucinating ".


    Re: Actually, sensations of all kinds fit perfectly into the category of hallucinations. To hallucinate means to make up imaginary things out of thin air. That is exactly what the human brain is doing in the case of the blue color. And that is also what the brain of your 'Dynes' was doing in the case of his 'indescribable God'. You have no way out of this. Dynes' God is a hallucination; and that is what it is.


    ===========================================


    grover: " No, your logic is very fucked up here. All subjective experiences are not hallucination ".


    Re: You got it all wrong, grover!
    http://www.zeroboutique.com/grover/index.htm
    Dynes' brain, NOT my logic, was the 'fucked up' here. In fact, all conjuring-up experiences of 'God' are hallucinations. There can be no doubt about it.

    ===========================================


    grover: " No, what your argument actually hinges on at this point is saying that all subjective experiences are hallucination ".


    Re: Hallucination is defined as the perception of an external object that is not in fact present. To perceive an indescribable entity, as Dynes did, therefore, is a hallucination. Call it a 'subjective' experience. Call it a 'spiritual' experience. Or call it what you want; Dynes was quite simply hallucinating and nothing more. If you don't believe it, then just dial (911) and tell them you're in the presence of the 'Indescribable God' and see what will happen to you!


    ===========================================


    grover: " Your still missing the point. All subjective experiences of qualia are beyond language ".


    Re: That is a flimsy excuse! Language can go only as far as the person, who is using it, can go. And if the person, who is using it, is hallucinating and disoriented and bewildered, then his language can't help him very much.


    ===========================================


    grover: " This is a pretty ridiculous assertion to make since Denys didn't describe God in color or as a person ".


    Re: You're missing the point! The point is not whether or not Dynes saw his God in color. The point, here, is that the perception of blue color and Dynes' perception of his 'Indescribable God' are the same. And so, if Dynes' audio input was directed to the visual processing center in his brain, then Dynes would not be able to describe what he saw. Color needs geometrical extensions to make sense. But sounds have no extensions; as a result, the vision alphabet of (black, white, red, yellow, green, blue, etc.) must behave weirdly & indescribably in the absence of geometry just as your poor Dynes reported in his book.


    ===========================================


    grover: " There is nothing poor about Denys. You obviously still are totally incapable of seeing what he's actually saying without trying to make his statements fit into your preconceived ideas about God ".


    Re: Dynes said that his God is indescribable. He had nothing to be fit into mine or yours or the 'preconceived' ideas of anybody else. The 'poor' man was hallucinating about God. And that is the truth.


    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  9. grover Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    715
    No, what you're saying is that all subjective experience is an illusion. Somthing being indescibable does not mean it is an illusion, it means language is limited. You have yet to describe blue. Why are you saying all subjective experiences are illusions? Its a bizarre claim.

    ===========================================

    You are saying when someone is seeing blue they are hallucinating?


    ===========================================

    Hmm, well you seem to be saying that seeing blue is a conjuring-up experience too. If thats how you want to see it enjoy your solipsism/nihilism.

    ===========================================
    Right, are you saying when people are seeing blue they are hallucinating?
    NO, blue is indescribable yet most people would not call it a hallucination.
    All you are is a blind person that denies that sight is possible. If 99% ofthe population were blind they would regard the 1% talking about colors as insane people talking about the existence of things which couldn't be proven.


    ===========================================
    NO, the point is that just because something cant be described does not mean it is a hallucination. Language is limited. So Denys inability to describe God does not prove that the thing he referring to doesn't exist.


    ===========================================

    Gibberish.


    ===========================================
    No he wasn't. Your argument at this point boils down to saying that all subjective experiences which can't be described are hallucinations. If thats what you think, then you by your own definition are insane and it is pointless to listen to an insane person.
     
  10. AAF Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    501

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!






    grover: " No, what you're saying is that all subjective experience is an illusion. Something being indescribable does not mean it is an illusion, it means language is limited. You have yet to describe blue. Why are you saying all subjective experiences are illusions? It's a bizarre claim ".


    Re: Your baseless objection is the 'bizarre' one here! First of all, for something to be subjective, it must exist only in the brain or the mind of the perceiving entity. That is what 'subjective' is. Secondly, Dynes made the ludicrous claim that his 'God' is indescribable and can only be perceived by him and by people like him. This outrageous claim of his is an illusion at best and outright charlatanism at worst. Make your pick! The choice is yours. Finally, you've been given the methods of describing colors (including the blue) to the blind; and you just continue to ignore them. And this means you are not really interested in that vision 'thing'; and you're using it only to argue wrongly for Dynes' 'insane' vision; correct?

    =====================================================

    grover: " You are saying when someone is seeing blue they are hallucinating "?


    Re: Are you really unable to make sense of this? Do you believe the sky and the sea are intrinsically blue? External objects only emit or reflect electromagnetic radiation. Electromagnetic radiation doesn't carry the sensations of color. Colors do not exist in the external world. Real objects have no color. Upon interaction with electromagnetic radiation, the human brain generates the sensations of color on its own and uses them to label various objects. It's clear and very simple.

    =====================================================

    grover: " Hmm, well you seem to be saying that seeing blue is a conjuring-up experience too. If that's how you want to see it enjoy your solipsism/nihilism ".


    Re: You're making much ado about nothing! Your own brain makes the blue sensation. It does not exist in the outside world. Is this solipsism? Is this nihilism? No, it is not. Everyone who thinks about this subject seriously can recognize very clearly that sensations belong exclusively to the inner workings of the human brain. The sky is not painted with the color blue. The human brain paints it that way. The blood is not painted with the color red. The human brain paints it that way. And that is a simple fact. That is not solipsism. And that is not nihilism. If you want solipsism, talk to TruthSeeker. And if you want to see nihilism in action, ask godless! But if you want to know more about the blue color, then read this:
    http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/color/

    =====================================================

    grover: " Right, are you saying when people are seeing blue they are hallucinating "?


    Re: Don't be a 'simpleton'! The blue does not exist in the real world. The blue is an illusion. The blue is a hallucination; but it's a stable and very useful hallucination; since it can be used by the brain to label very useful objects.
    http://aardvark.ucsd.edu/color/ross_location.pdf

    =====================================================

    grover: " NO, blue is indescribable yet most people would not call it a hallucination ".


    Re: You don't like hallucinations; do you? What a loss; people spend a lot of money to buy them! Take a look at this:
    http://www.iep.utm.edu/c/color.htm

    =====================================================

    grover: " All you are is a blind person that denies that sight is possible. If 99% of the population were blind they would regard the 1% talking about colors as insane people talking about the existence of things which couldn't be proven ".


    Re: I'm afraid you're 'blind' to a very simple fact! Sensations of color are made & manufactured by the human brain. The large number of people who sense them would not change or affect this fact. If you think the existence of Dynes' God is the same as the existence of sensations, then you and your Dynes have lost! Since it's absolutely true that sensations of the colors and the like exist only in the form of very minute chemical reactions inside the heads of those sensing and non-blind people.


    =====================================================

    grover: " NO, the point is that just because something can't be described does not mean it is a hallucination. Language is limited. So Denys inability to describe God does not prove that the thing he referring to doesn't exist ".


    Re: That is the wrong point to make! Dynes could not describe his God, not because his language was limited, but because according to him his God has no attributes at all. And that simply means Dynes' God has no actual existence whatsoever, except in the form of a very tiny chemical interaction inside Dynes' haywire brain.

    =====================================================

    grover: " Gibberish ".


    Re: The 'Gibberish' is all yours! Dynes was either a charlatan, or he was simply hallucinating. Either way, his 'Indescribable' God does not exist. Get over it; he was a false 'prophet' out and out!

    =====================================================

    grover: " No he wasn't. Your argument at this point boils down to saying that all subjective experiences which can't be described are hallucinations. If that's what you think, then you by your own definition are insane and it is pointless to listen to an insane person ".


    Re: The 'insane' here is your Dynes' very 'crazy' idea! 'Subjective' always means it exists only inside the human brain and the human mind. If you believe the Dynes God is subjective, then you and your Dynes have lost. However, losing such an indescribable elfish 'entity' is no loss at all. You're so lucky that I've come just in the nick of time to rescue you from Dynes' insanity! You should thank me for it; shouldn't you?



    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  11. AAF Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    501
  12. AAF Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    501
  13. grover Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    715
    The fact that Denys can't describe a subjective experience is not ludicrous at all. You can't describe blue - yet you can see it right? SO just because something can't be described does not make it "ludicorus." Secondly, you and I both know blue when we see it right? ANd we can both look at the sky and agree it is blue right? So this suggests that it isn't simply a hallucination. It means we are having a subjective experience which can not be put inot language but we are capable of recognizing others as having the same experience. Denys does not claim that only he can perceive God, he claims all people could perceive God. Like I said before you're argument at this point boils done to calling all subjective expeiriences hallucinations. You are also the equivalent of a blind person that says sight is impossible.

    =====================================================
    Yes, but we can both look at the sky and agree it is blue. What we are talking about is subjective experience and language. Y9ou seem to think that just becuae Denys can't describe God that makes his claim completely preposterous. I'm just refuting this point. You have a serious case of "point drift" (i.e., your arguing against the case you want to be arguing against not against the actual case that is being made).

    =====================================================
    No, ou've made a very interesting point. But, we both can look at the sky and agree its blue right? So there is something about the interaction between sky and mind that creates blue indicating there is something objectively observable going on. Beyongd that though, you know seem to be arguing that only mind is real, that the outsideworld is unknowable. It's interesting to ponder this issue but besides the point.

    =====================================================
    Well, there is clearly some objective phenomenon occuring when we both look at the sky and agree it is blue. If your blue looks different than my blue is impossible to ever solve. Because even if we could somehow project the blue you are seeing onto a screen we have no idea if when I look at it I'm seeing my blue or your blue. Interesting to ponder.
    No, it isn't a hallucination. A hallucination is seeing something that isnt there at all. WIth the perception of blue it seems that some objective phenomenon is being observed. Experiment: show person A blue object X. Have him write down what color he saw. Then show person B same object and have him write down what they saw. Both will say "blue" which indicates an objectively observed phenomenon.

    =====================================================
    I'm just not going to buy into your bullshit and agree with you that blue is simply a hallucination. There is some objectively observed phenomenon.

    =====================================================
    There is still some objectively observed fact that people agree on when seeing blue. Something being the product of subjective experience does not mean it is hallucination.
    The point of all this is is that blue is subjectively observed, can't be described with language, two people who are seing blue agree that what they are seeing is blue, and that it isn't simply a hallucination. That is all true for Denys God as well.


    =====================================================
    What exact attributes does blue have again?
    Is your brain haywire because you see blue?

    =====================================================
    No, you're once again stating that blue is a hallucination. Blue is not simply a hallucination. Get over it.

    =====================================================
    That doesn't = hallucination.
    Denys never said God is elfish. He said you would have to perceive it yourself to know what he is talking about.
    No, I will not thank you for making tha insane claim that all subjective experiences are hallucinations. That's what you are saying.
    -------------------------------------------------------
    If a tree falls in the forest, and no one is there to hear it, does it make sound?
     
    Last edited: Jun 21, 2007
  14. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,478
    Just to add a comment here that may shed some light (no pun intended).

    There IS a difference between the objective phenomena of lightwaves/particles of a certain frequency, and the subjective interpretation by the brain as "blue".

    In most people one leads to the other - but not in everyone (colour blind etc).

    The OBJECTIVE is the lightwaves of the certain frequency.
    The SUBJECTIVE is the interpretation by the brain.

    However, because the subjective experience is caused by the objective phenomena, it is most certainly NOT an hallucination (in the classic sense of the term: subjective experience with no external cause).



    The analogy between "blue" and "God" as being subjective experiences that we can't describe is false.
    We know full well what causes the subjective experience of "blue".
    Can you say the same of "God"?

    If not - if there is no external cause for the subjective experience of "God" - then it is an hallucination.
     
  15. grover Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    715

    I'm not so sure about that. What is going on in the brain to create "blue"?
    No, but you know my whole thing about consciousness and immateriality.
    Why?
     
  16. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,478
    Think of "blue" as merely a word to describe certain interactions within our brain (whether material or immaterial - so as to avoid that whole debate again on this thread).
    We do know that "blue" is at least caused by light of certain wavelength hitting our eyes. What goes on from there is irrelevant. "Blue" has a cause.

    Yes - we can often imagine "blue" without the direct cause - but this is just the brain recreating the output without the same input (the light of the certain wavelength etc).

    But it is this unbridgeable gap between identifying the material and your "non-material" that you can use to explain away anything you want - and part of the reason why it has its detractors: it is a gap into which you can pour anything that is not yet understood. Until one day you might see it crawling out of the banks of this gap into "material" understanding.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Due to the definition of "Hallucination" - which is:
    "A sensory experience of something that does not exist outside the mind."

    i.e. any sensory experience not directly caused by an external factor is an hallucination.

    Wikipedia also offers details.
     
  17. grover Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    715
    You said "we know full well what causes the subjective experience of blue." Now you're saying what goes on from there is "irrelevant." It's the most revant part because a colr blind person is looking at the same objective phenomenon but does not see blue.
    So now we have color blind people that look at the objective phenomenon but don't see blue and other people who can see blue without looking at an objectivie phenomenon. Interesting.
    To me its a little funny that you say we know "full well what causes blue" but then gloss over the fact that we have no idea what causes the subjective experience.
    All I'm saying is that there are some very strange aspects of consciousness that leave the door open on mystical religion. The only thing I've ever been arguing against in this forum is the notion that all religion is merely blind faith.
    If that day comes I will accept it as much as I accept all other science. Right now there is no science and I'm sick and tired of people that think they are basing all there beliefs on science claiming its an open and shut case. As it stands right now its an article of faith to claim that consciousness is simply a material phenomenon like other phenomenon.
    So your self is a hallucination?

    Memories are hallucinations?
    ------------------------------
    Is the sky actually blue when its not being observed? Thats asking the same thing about a tree in the woods falling nd no one is there to hear it. Interesting how Buddhism revolves around this issue of subjective expereince.
     
  18. AAF Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    501

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!





    grover: " The fact that Denys can't describe a subjective experience is not ludicrous at all. You can't describe blue - yet you can see it right? SO just because something can't be described does not make it "ludicrous." Secondly, you and I both know blue when we see it right? AND we can both look at the sky and agree it is blue right? So this suggests that it isn't simply a hallucination. It means we are having a subjective experience which can not be put into language but we are capable of recognizing others as having the same experience. Denys does not claim that only he can perceive God, he claims all people could perceive God. Like I said before you're argument at this point boils down to calling all subjective experiences hallucinations. You are also the equivalent of a blind person that says sight is impossible ".


    Re: Subjective things can exist only inside the brain of the perceiving entity. There is no way around this simple fact. Therefore, if Dynes' God is subjective, then He has no actual existence, except in the form of a tiny electric current inside Dynes' head. You believe that Dynes' God is real because he couldn't describe Him for us! Why should we take his claim seriously? You don't have one single reason to justify this. The fact that there is a host of other subjective things beside Dynes' God would not make his supposed 'God' real. Furthermore, hallucinations are unique to the type of the perceiving entities. Consequently, people (i.e., Homo sapiens) can agree on perceiving unreal and non-existent things such as colors and tones and smells, even though this kind of perceptions is hallucinatory and with no actual existence at all. And so your perception of the blue color is equivalent to that of a drunken man who thinks every thing is really spinning just because his head and the heads of his friends are doing all the spinning; right?

    =================================================

    grover: " Yes, but we can both look at the sky and agree it is blue. What we are talking about is subjective experience and language. You seem to think that just because Denys can't describe God that makes his claim completely preposterous. I'm just refuting this point. You have a serious case of "point drift" (i.e., your arguing against the case you want to be arguing against not against the actual case that is being made) ".


    Re: There is no drift on my part! As I said earlier, hallucinations are unique only to the kind of the perceiving entities. The general consensus that the sky is blue, therefore, is no proof of the reality of the color blue.

    =================================================

    grover: " No, you've made a very interesting point. But, we both can look at the sky and agree it's blue right? So there is something about the interaction between sky and mind that creates blue indicating there is something objectively observable going on. Beyond that though, you know seem to be arguing that only mind is real, that the outside world is unknowable. It's interesting to ponder this issue but besides the point ".


    Re: Again, agreement does not exclude hallucination. We look at the sky and agree it's blue; why? It's because the gas molecules in the earth's atmosphere scatter light whose wavelength is (475 nm). As seen from the moon, for example, the sky is black. Now, all objects that emit or reflect light of (475 nm) must look blue to humans; why? It's because this type of light interacts with the human eye and causes a minute electric current, which is received and perceived by the human brain as a sensation we call 'blue'. And this sensation of the blue is the hallucination, because it has no actual existence outside the human brain. Light is real; emitting and reflecting objects are real; the human eye is real; and the human brain is real. But the sensation of the color blue (other sensations included) is hallucinatory, subjective, and unreal.

    =================================================

    grover: " Well, there is clearly some objective phenomenon occurring when we both look at the sky and agree it is blue. If your blue looks different than my blue is impossible to ever solve. Because even if we could somehow project the blue you are seeing onto a screen we have no idea if when I look at it I'm seeing my blue or your blue. Interesting to ponder ".


    Re: The test for seeing blue is really simple and can be done very quickly by any eye doctor.

    =================================================

    grover: " No, it isn't a hallucination. A hallucination is seeing something that isn't there at all. With the perception of blue it seems that some objective phenomenon is being observed. Experiment: show person A blue object X. Have him write down what color he saw. Then show person B the same object and have him write down what they saw. Both will say "blue" which indicates an objectively observed phenomenon ".


    Re: Their agreement indicates only that they both have a sensation, not necessarily the same sensation, but it's a sensation nonetheless. Notice that the word 'blue' can have a different meaning for both of them. That is why an eye exam is necessary for proving that their two sensations are the same.

    =================================================

    grover: " I'm just not going to buy into your bullshit and agree with you that blue is simply a hallucination. There is some objectively observed phenomenon ".


    Re: You have to buy it; you have no other option! The sensation of the blue is hallucinatory, subjective, and unreal. The same applies to all other forms of sensation, including (red, black, yellow, hot, cold, painful, lovely, delicious, adorable, and smelly).

    =================================================

    grover: " The point of all this is that blue is subjectively observed, can't be described with language, two people who are seeing blue agree that what they are seeing is blue, and that it isn't simply a hallucination. That is all true for Denys God as well ".


    Re: 'Subjectively observed' is an oxymoron! The right phrase is 'subjectively felt'. For Dynes, however, the chances that he felt or sensed his 'God', even as a hallucination, are very slim. All the available evidence points to the possibility that he made the whole thing up to fool the guys and impress the ladies!

    =================================================

    grover: " What exact attributes does blue have again "?


    Re: The sensation of blue is closer to the sensation of black than to the sensation of white; right?

    =================================================

    grover: " Is your brain haywire because you see blue "?


    Re: If your brain is telling you that the blue color is an actual attribute of real things, then it must have gone haywire!

    =================================================

    grover: " No, you're once again stating that blue is a hallucination. Blue is not simply a hallucination. Get over it ".


    Re: No; you have to get over it! This lousy sensation of the blue is hallucinatory, subjective, and unreal.

    =================================================

    grover: " That doesn't = hallucination ".


    Re: The (blue sensation = hallucination).

    =================================================

    grover: " Denys never said God is elfish. He said you would have to perceive it yourself to know what he is talking about ".


    Re: If Dynes' God hid and concealed all his attributes from the prying eyes of Dynes, then He must have been elfish, impish, mischievous, playful!

    =================================================

    grover: " No, I will not thank you for making the insane claim that all subjective experiences are hallucinations. That's what you are saying ".


    Re: I'm not asking you to thank me for pointing out that simple fact to you. I'm urging you to thank me for saving you just in the nick of time from the insane humbug of Dynes, the Mystic; okay?

    =================================================


    grover: " If a tree falls in the forest, and no one is there to hear it, does it make sound "?


    Re: Let's see! The falling tree must set the surrounding air into vibrating mode. Those vibrations must travel out as sound waves with frequencies in the audible-band range. Accordingly, the sound waves caused by the falling tree exist regardless of the observer. But, and this is very important, the sensations caused by these sound waves cannot exist in the absence of the human observer, because they can exist only in the form of very minute electric currents inside the human brain and the brains of similar entities. The sensations of sound, like the sensations of light, therefore, are hallucinatory, subjective, and unreal.



    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  19. grover Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    715
    So your saying all subjective experiences are hallucinations?

    =================================================



    Yes, there is drift. You said that Denys God is automatically to be dismissed because he couldn't describe it at which time I pointed out blue can't be described either to show that language is limited. Now your turning around and saying all subjective experience is hallucination. What is real? You've gotten a long way off from arguing your original point that God has to be personified. Denys doesn't have an anthropmorphic God. That's the point of all of this. There's no way around it.
     
  20. AAF Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    501

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!







    grover: " So you're saying all subjective experiences are hallucinations "?



    Re: Subjective experiences, by definition, are subjective. And this simply means they have no corresponding objects in the real world; otherwise they would have been classified as objective. Since perceptions of non-existent objects are hallucinations. Subjective experiences, therefore, must be classified as hallucinations as well. It's that simple.


    =================================================

    grover: " Yes, there is drift. You said that Denys God is automatically to be dismissed because he couldn't describe it at which time I pointed out blue can't be described either to show that language is limited. Now your turning around and saying all subjective experience is hallucination. What is real? You've gotten a long way off from arguing your original point that God has to be personified. Denys doesn't have an anthropomorphic God. That's the point of all of this. There's no way around it ".



    Re: Denys' God is not only anthropomorphic and personal, but also He cannot exist independently of Denys' brain. God can't get more anthropomorphic than that! Denys' definition of God, therefore, is the ultimate anthropomorphic conception of God. And hence, my original point is proven to be true in every respect. Having done away with your 'non-anthropomorphic-God' thesis, we should, now, look closely at your other persistent thesis! You've stated repeatedly that language is limited because it cannot be used to describe the sensations of color (e.g. the blue color). This is the pivotal point of your argument; correct? Well, let me first say that your definition of what constitutes a language is the limited one. What is language? Language is an arbitrary system of symbols (audio & visual) used by a specific group of people to label concrete and abstract and real and imaginary things. Since the number of those labeled things is potentially infinite, the number of the linguistic symbols for labeling them is potentially infinite as well. In this sense, therefore, language cannot be deemed limited. Let's turn now to the other part of your thesis, i.e. the blue color! Colors (the blue included) belong to the visual system of the human brain. As pointed out earlier, the human brain employs incredibly ingenious schemes for labeling and correctly identifying objects in the real world. And the visual system is one of those schemes. To build up the extensive libraries of its visual labeling system, the human brain skips completely the tedious measurements and the enormous calculations involved in identifying the various parts of the physical world quantitatively and objectively. And it uses, instead, the qualitative and very simple method of colors. Utilizing only a very narrow band of the electromagnetic spectrum, the human brain generates a limited number of colors (red, orange, green, yellow, blue, violet, etc.). The one-to-one correspondence between the subjective color and the objective electromagnetic frequency guarantees the stability and the efficiency of this labeling system at all times. In every sense of the term, this visual system of labeling is a language. And colors are the basic symbols of this highly efficient and universal language. Linguistic symbols, in general, are meaningless and hard to describe and analyze further, because they have no basic building blocks and no simple parts to be described and analyzed in the first place. And this applies to colors. Colors are simple. Colors have no basic building blocks. Colors are labels. Colors are incapable of independent existence. And colors make sense only in relation to each other and in relation to the labeled objects. To sum up, if Denys' God (this Spell Checker wants to replace 'Denys' with 'Dynes' again!) is just like the blue color as you said, then the brain of Denys and brains similar to the brain of Denys must be the only place for this imaginary entity to exist. No independent existence for this sort of deity, therefore, is possible; Q. E. D.




    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  21. grover Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    715
    What? When you are looking at a blue sky you are saying that is not a corresponding object in the real world?
    Yes, you are saying that everything we experience is hallucination.


    =================================================

    No, it isnt. I gave you a quote showing that it is neither personal or anthromorphic. You recognized this fact and is the reason why you went into this whole tangent about subjective experienece being hallucination. If Denys God was anthromorphic you wouldn't have had to go into this tangent.
    Yes, it can.


    You haven't done away with it at all. Here it is again for your reading pleasure: God is ‘indescribable’, ‘beyond all being and knowledge’. God, the ultimate One, is ‘not soul or mind, nor does it possess imagination, conviction, speech, or understanding. . . It cannot be spoken of and it cannot be grasped by understanding . . It does not live nor is it life. It is not a substance, nor is it eternity or time. It cannot be grasped by the understanding . . It is neither one nor oneness, divinity nor goodness . . It is not sonship or fatherhood . . There is no speaking of it, nor name nor knowledge of it . . It is beyond assertion and denial’.
     
  22. AAF Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    501
    :bawl:



    grover: " What? When you are looking at a blue sky you are saying that is not a corresponding object in the real world "?


    Re: The sky is a real object. The blue color of the sky is done by the human brain. Therefore, the blue color is not a real object; and it exists only in the form of a tiny electric current inside the human brain and inside brains similar to the human brain. It's really very clear and simple, grover. Get over it!


    =================================================

    grover: " Yes, you are saying that everything we experience is hallucination ".


    Re: I'm saying only that subjective experiences similar to those of the blue color and Denys' Indescribable God have no corresponding objects in reality; and so they cannot exist in any shape or form outside the human brain and other human-like brains. That is all.


    =================================================


    grover: " No, it isn't. I gave you a quote showing that it is neither personal or anthropomorphic. You recognized this fact and is the reason why you went into this whole tangent about subjective experience being hallucination. If Denys God was anthropomorphic you wouldn't have had to go into this tangent ".


    Re: Denys' God, who is also your God, is anthropomorphic because He has no corresponding object in reality, and can only exist as a neurological sensation in Denys' brain, in your brain, and in brains identical to Denys' brain and your brain. That is all. There is nothing else in it.


    =================================================


    grover: " Yes, it can ".


    Re: No it can't. This illusory image of your God can exist only inside few neurons of your brain. And it doesn't take a brain doctor or SnakeLord or swivel or godless to figure it out!


    =================================================


    grover: " You haven't done away with it at all. Here it is again for your reading pleasure: God is ‘indescribable’, ‘beyond all being and knowledge’. God, the ultimate One, is ‘not soul or mind, nor does it possess imagination, conviction, speech, or understanding. . . It cannot be spoken of and it cannot be grasped by understanding . . It does not live nor is it life. It is not a substance, nor is it eternity or time. It cannot be grasped by the understanding . . It is neither one nor oneness, divinity nor goodness . . It is not sonship or fatherhood . . There is no speaking of it, nor name nor knowledge of it . . It is beyond assertion and denial’ ".


    Re: I have done away with it, grover! You've stated right here and so many times that Denys' God (who is also your God I presume) is indescribable because He is subjective and the same as the blue color. And since the blue color is the creation of the human brain and can have no objective existence; Denys' God too is the sole creation of Denys' brain and Denys-like brains. As a result, this sort of God can have no real existence. Your blue-color analogy has, indeed, done away with Him for good.



    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  23. grover Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    715
    No, it isn't very clear and simple. Things are only clear and simple to simple-minded fundamentalists like yourself. Let's think about the weight of 2 different objects. A red cube, and a smaller blue cube, both made of the same material. If you hold them in your hand you can tell the relative weights of the cubes. This sensation of weight is, according to you, "nothing more than a tiny electric current inside the human brain." Which according to you is subjective and therefore does not reflect an objective reality. But, we can put the two different cubes on a scale and discover tha tthe subjective experience of a differnece in weight does in fact correspond to an objectively verifiable difference. Bottom line: the fact that something may be an electric current in the brain does not prove that there is no objective phenomenon. (i.e., subjective does not equal hallucination as you would like to have it.)


    =================================================
    They do have corresponding objects in reality. Only hallucinations dont have corresponding objects in reality. Subjective does not equal hallucination.
    Nop your just being simplistic and trying to reduce all subjectie experience to hallucination.


    =================================================

    1) Hallucinations do not have corresponding objects in reality. Not all subjective expereinces are hallucinations which means that some subjective experiences do have corresponding objects in reality. You have an indefensible position - you literally are arguing at this point that there is no meaningful distinction between a hallucination a subjective experience. It's absurd.
    2) You are also saying that anthropomorhic equals having no corresponding object in reality. That is also insane. Anthromorphic means "Having the characteristics of a human being. For example, an anthropomorphic robot has a head, arms and legs." Stop trying to change the definition. It's intellectually dishonest.
    The presence of a neurologic occurence does not equal hallucination.




    No, your entire argument hinges on two false beliefs;
    1) All subjective experience is hallucination.
    2) "Anthropmorphic" and "subjective" are synonymous terms which can be used interchangeably.

    Of course, neither of these things are true.
     
    Last edited: Jul 17, 2007
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page