Sure. If you wanted a green apple and were brought a green one, a red one, a banana and a box of spark plugs, you would take the green one and, according to your ability to speak the local language, try to work out why some came closer to understanding your intentions than others.
I can see your IQ getting lower from here Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Unreliable information. Or unrealistic plans. "Authoritative" is your position, not mine. Accuracy depends on the goal. If you were trying to hit the Ace of Spades in the guy's hand, your shooting is inaccurate. If you were trying for a head shot, it's accurate. If you were aiming for the center of mass, it's inaccurate. The question of precision is a little more complicated. The shots could have been grouped a lot closer to each other. If the goal was to make a smiley face, the accuracy is commendable; the precision can also be determined in that case without replication of each shot. Did I say anything about "inferior" aspects of reality? I said that something is "more real" if we have "more confidence" that our perception is a good approximation of reality - and we usually have more confidence in our perception when it agrees with the consensus.
Precisely. Your passion for semantic wrangling aside, if you are trying to indicate something as distinct from anything else, you have an authoritative definition on hand. Even an icecream shaped like a panda is still an icecream, in the authoritative sense, even though we would all probably tend to agree on that authority (very few of us have had a traumatic experience as a result of licking a panda). So it becomes more puzzling that you now claim to wield a word that describes the force of an object proportional to its mass, without any authoritative basis. I am beginning to think you have some sort of etymological ptsd, so words like "authority" awake phonetic connotations of "autocracy" or something. I am just using words like "authority" to mean "legitimate". Seems I may have to keep a thesaurus on hand. So there you have it. You started out with what was a "true" statement, and upon reflection, qualified it with another statement to move closer to its essential quality. Welcome to the wide world of ontology, of higher and lower truths. Its not as scary as it first appears. I promise. Does something here strike your fancy? Main Entry: inferior Part of Speech: adjective Definition: less in rank, importance Synonyms: back seat, bottom, bottom-rung, entry-level, junior, less, lesser, lower, menial, minor, minus, nether, peon, second, second-banana, second-fiddle, second-string, secondary, smaller, subjacent, subordinate, subsidiary, under, underneath And "more real" things are qualitatively what? Better? First class? Superior? Effective? Central?
Now I am thoroughly confused. What was the OP question again? http://www.dictionary.com/browse/rational Which of these synonyms applies to God? Looks like a Mathematical Entity to me....Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
If this was a multi choice exam and the choice of answers were as per I would cry foul. You need to add "None of the above" Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
No, that's avoiding the definitions of the the term "rational", unless you can provide another acceptable definition or synonym to the dictionary.....Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! The OP title asks "Is God Rational". Therefore we must use one of the accepted definitions of Rational in all its lexical forms, no?
OK so your saying the question "Is god Rational MUST have a "positive" definition which rules out a "NO" answer? Or not even a "maybe" or "possible" as a answer? Anyway from my burn in hell when I die atheist stance NO because a non existent anything has no properties/abilities or real stuff to which the label rational can be tagged onto Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
But is it a panda? Walk into an ice cream store and ask for a panda. If they have panda ice cream your "authoritative" definitions are worthless. It would be simpler if you used words like "legitimate" to mean "legitimate". I started out with a statement and then elaborated on it to clarify my meaning. Cough up that thesaurus that you swallowed and just read what I write. "More real" means more real. As I elaborated, more real means you have more confidence that it corresponds to somebody else's perception of reality instead of just being a figment of your imagination. You don't have to assign any "quality" to it. Maybe it's "better" if you can communicate with your fellow man without him thinking you're a raving lunatic. Maybe it's "effective" if you can apply your collective perspective to the solution of a problem. Otherwise, what does "first class" even mean? What does "superior" even mean? What does "central" even mean? They're just you putting your own ideas above somebody else's - i.e they're "less real". Come to think of it, maybe "confidence" wasn't the best word above. People who have their heads up their asses tend to be supremely confident that their perception is "correct". Having confidence doesn't mean you should have confidence.
If one had the intelligence to walk into an icecream store as opposed to a zoo to make the request, you prove my point. It would be simpler if you could clarify the problems you have with adjectives. In what was is legitimate acceptible? In what way is authoratative not? Why would you do that? Was the opening statement incorrect? Partially correct? Did you feel a more refined statement was required to get to the essence? The problem is that you are trying to write about philosophical ideas bereft of a philosophical language or framework. Case in point with your previous statement about revisiting a point for the sake of clarifying something. And case in point with your following paragraph. So the question remains, how can a "real" thing be rendered "more real" without applying some sort of hierarchy? And furthermore, what is the standard of that hierarchy? You seem to be saying that a requirement for something to be real, is that it be perceivable to the greatest majority. So if there are 10 people in a room, if 9 of them perceive something, that is more real than if only 1 person perceives it? On the contrary, its the inability to appropriately qualify reality that grants a raving lunatic their status. If one cannot, at least verbally, acknowledge why reality is better than illusion in a philosophical discussion, it comes across as extremely facetious. You just put one of your own revised ideas (namely the idea of shooting accuracy) above the previous one you offered. I hope you are not beating yourself up too severely over it. If you want to talk about reality as a homogenous field of ideas, there won't be much discussion or even internal dialogue. You will have nothing to question or raise protest with. Nothing illustrates that better than a fanatic, whether it be a religious zealot or a dedicated woo-basher, both equally ignorant and adverse to philosophy.
Yes indeed. It is by common agreement that we create our world, from the inside out. Anil Seth. Suppose that one person is color blind? Does that make all other 9 persons perceive the color the same way?
Sorry, see edit of post #316 Did you watch the clip by Anil Seth? Really, you should in order to uderstand how we perceive things as experiential cognition. https://www.ted.com/talks/anil_seth_how_your_brain_hallucinates_your_conscious_reality
Insight and understanding of how the brain works. It is his area of expertise. Instead of a verbatim narrative by me, why not watch the (short) clip, which offers compelling illustrative evidence, in addition to a well constructed and logical narrative.