Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! grover: " 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 that the subjective experience of a difference 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) ". Re: So now, you think I'm a fundamentalist? Well, I'm flattered; and I only hope that fundamentalists everywhere will take your word for it and listen to me patiently as one of their own! In the meantime, I gonna punish you for it and call you 'everything-goes-muddle-headed mystic'; fair? But let's examine first your new 'weight-based' argument. Two colored cubes (red & blue) are 'made of the same material'. You lift the red cube and feel its weight. You do the same with the blue cube and feel its weight. Your brain compares the two feelings and tells you the two weights are different. To verify it, you bring the balance and weigh the two cubes. And voila, your brain is right; the two weights are different. That is very briefly your scenario; correct? Now, look at it closely! Weight is quantitative, measurable, tangible, real, verifiable, and objective. And the scales can prove it. But you have no way of making independent judgements about subjective experiences; otherwise they would be objective experiences and no longer classified as subjective. Your argument, therefore, is full of holes and would not cut it. Since quite simply, you're confusing objective categories with subjective categories and nothing more. Very briefly, weight is part of physics; but Denys' Indescribable God is not an objective part of anything. Scrap Him; grover; Denys' God is not good for sane minds! ================================================= grover: " They do have corresponding objects in reality. Only hallucinations don't have corresponding objects in reality. Subjective does not equal hallucination ". Re: If they have corresponding objects in reality, then they are no longer subjective experiences. By the way, the hallucinatory perceptions of the human senses are labels and pointers to real and imaginary things. That is their main function. Therefore, you should make the distinction very clear in your mind between the nature of these pointers and the nature of the things being pointed to by these mental pointers. And in any case, Denys' God is subjective, unreal, hallucinatory, illusory, and a mere empty label with nothing to label or point to in the real world. And so it's (to use your word) 'insane' to believe in the actual existence of such a phantom and silly fairy tale of the Middle Ages. Sober up and embrace modernity, grover! ================================================= grover: " Nop your just being simplistic and trying to reduce all subjective experience to hallucination ". Re: Simplicity is one of the strongest pointers to the truth. Or as the People of the New World say, "keep it simple, stupid"! However, Denys' God is certainly hallucinatory, indescribable, unverifiable, unreal, illusory, quite anthropomorphic and very subjective. Scrap Him, for goodness' sake! ================================================= grover: " 1) Hallucinations do not have corresponding objects in reality. Not all subjective experiences 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 anthropomorphic equals having no corresponding object in reality. That is also insane. Anthropomorphic 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 ". Re: Once again, whenever a mental experience has a real object, it's automatically classified as objective. Keep the subjective and the objective categories apart, for goodness' sake! Moreover, it's blatantly absurd and 'cockamamie' to deny or to try to deny the obvious and very simple fact that Denys' God (and the God of the mystics in general) ought to be the ultimate anthropomorphic; since such a mythical entity can never be realized or found anywhere, except inside the confused imagination of those mystics. This sort of God, therefore, is the sole creation of the hyperactive human imagination. ================================================= grover: " The presence of a neuralogic occurrence does not equal hallucination ". Re: But the occurrence of a mental image out of thin air must be classified as hallucinatory. Denys came up with the perception of his Indescribable God out of nothing at all. Therefore, (Denys' God = mental hallucination). ================================================= grover: " No, your entire argument hinges on two false beliefs; 1) All subjective experience is hallucination. 2) "Anthropomorphic" and "subjective" are synonymous terms, which can be used interchangeably. Of course, neither of these things are true ". Re: One more time, subjective experiences can have no corresponding objects in the real world. That is the reason for labeling them as subjective in the first place. Keep the subjective and the objective apart for Jove's sake! Why should Denys' God be labeled as anthropomorphic? Very simple! Denys created His God out of nothing. Denys was human. Therefore, Denys' God is anthropomorphic. The situation, here, is exactly the same as that of the 'Old Center' of the Universe. Humans live on Earth. Humans assume that Earth is at the Center of the Universe. Therefore, the earth-centered universe is an anthropomorphic notion of the Cosmos. Now, grover, I really want you to think very hard about this. The sun is the most import thing in the Solar System; and it makes its importance known to everybody everyday. The President of United States never gets tired of showing up on time. The Queen of the United Kingdom celebrates Her birthday with all pageantry every year. The Pope is all over Rome. Now consider very soberly this! Why does God make Himself indescribable to Denys and to you? Why is the Almighty nowhere to be seen? Why is the Supreme Ruler of the Universe hiding Himself and His presence fanatically and ruthlessly and meticulously from His devoted human worshipers? The answer to those questions is quite clear. God does not exist. That is the answer. Forget about Him, grover! He does not exist. Get over it and grew up! God, quite simply, can't possibly exist anywhere, even in your tender and loving heart. Sorry for spoiling your reassuring fantasies; but that is the truth. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!