I’m in a strange place: very conservative, but not Christian

[Mantis]

If God can do anything he wants to, then he can choose to not be God. He can choose to be you and me. He can choose to be the devil himself. He can give himself a birth and a death. No? How dare you limit God.

What? How can I be limiting God when I said he can do whatever he wants to?

 

[Wrangler]

 

[Romanov2488]

What? How can I be limiting God when I said he can do whatever he wants to?

I’m being sarcastic. I said if god can do whatever he wants, he can choose to not be god and if you said no, then you would be limiting him.

 

[Romanov2488]

Is that absolutely true?



Rejected out of hand. The recorder does not create WHAT is being recorded.



I don't understand your implied premise that only something that is unlimited could be an epistemological guardian of falsehood.

1. Is contradicting yourself absolutely true?
2. How can you admit contradicting yourself, if you don't know anything?
3. How could your contradicting yourself be for a good reason UNLESS you know it is a good reason?

"Ultimate" reality is the buzzword of mystics, who I contemptuously condemn, both religonists and secular post modernist mystics. That is, there is no difference reality and "ultimate" reality.

It’s an alternative word to ‘God’ since god is an extremely loaded word and there’s thousands of gods invented by mankind. Ultimate refers to the impersonal version of god, the absolute, the real, the unchanging.

By not knowing anything at all, I come to know. What do I know? That I don’t know. I have all of this knowledge which helps me survive, but none of it tells me anything about ultimate reality-it is purely utilitarian. Calling a tree a tree does not make it a tree. The tree was already there before you called it a tree. This large rock in space which we call Earth was here before any humans came along to call it Earth. Do you really think a tree is going to tell itself that it is a tree just because you come along and decide to call it that? This is why conceptual reality and ultimate reality are distinct from one another. Conceptual reality is second order,

Now you also said the recorder does not create what is being recorded. It’s not that it necessarily creates what is being recorded, but that the recorder and what is being recorded are inseparable. For example, you as a physical being came out of a physical universe, out of another human being. However, this entire universe appears to you, in you, the subject.

Does your entire experience not appear within something? The reason objectivity fails when it comes to existential discussions is because there is no objectivity without someone being there to witness it. You may say that if you die, the world will still be there without you but that is also according to the same subjectivity that others have. If you completely eliminated all subjectivity from all of reality, there would be no way to know of a reality which in turn would still require a subject in order to make that assessment-that all subjectivity is seemingly gone.

I’ll use a more pragmatic example. Individualism vs. collectivism. Conservatives are for individual liberty and liberals are for collectivism. But these two opposites are inseparable. There is no collective without individuals and there is no individualism without the collective. It is through the collective that we haveEven if you were stranded on an island all by yourself, you would still depend on the food sources there, the trees for shelter. Take breathing for example. You need oxygen to survive, and you exhale co2 which plants convert into oxygen for you. Subjectivity and objectivity are so intertwined, they are one.

All of science (which prides itself as being objective) depends on subjectivity. Where there is science, there is a scientist.

Everything around me including myself is real and exists, and at the same time is not real and doesn’t exist. There is no confusion about it whatsoever, it just is that way.

 

[Wrangler]

You are a hopeless mystic, contradicting yourself at every turn.

It’s an alternative word to ‘God’ since god is an extremely loaded word and there’s thousands of gods invented by mankind. Ultimate refers to the impersonal version of god, the absolute, the real, the unchanging

No. 'Ultimate' is not an alternative to 'God,' in concept formation or reality.

By not knowing anything at all, I come to know.

Contradiction. You deny "I think, therefore, I am."

It’s not that it necessarily creates what is being recorded, but that the recorder and what is being recorded are inseparable.

Wrong. In the genus, all things that exist are inseperable. However, in the Differentia, all things are seperable. It is a function of the frame of reference. This 'frame of reference' is the mystics playground of word play.

The reason objectivity fails when it comes to existential discussions is because there is no objectivity without someone being there to witness it.

Wrong. Another mystical assertion. Objectivity does not fail - but it does have limits, as all things have limits.

You may say that if you die, the world will still be there without you but that is also according to the same subjectivity that others have.

Not at all. Reality does not depend on a subjective viewer.

There is no collective without individuals and there is no individualism without the collective.

No. The 1st part is correct but not the last part. Adam existed without the collective of mankind.

Subjectivity and objectivity are so intertwined, they are one.

Contradiction. Out and in are not one, not synonyms but antonyms. Subjectivity is looking in. Objectivity is looking out.

All of science (which prides itself as being objective) depends on subjectivity.

Amazing how someone can be so consistently wrong. Too bad you cannot overcome your fear in honestly answering my A or B question.

 

[Wrangler]

Again, for your conveinence.

Which of these statements is inherently self-contradictory:
A. There are absolutes.
B. There are no absolutes.

 

[Romanov2488]

You are a hopeless mystic, contradicting yourself at every turn.



No. 'Ultimate' is not an alternative to 'God,' in concept formation or reality.



Contradiction. You deny "I think, therefore, I am."



Wrong. In the genus, all things that exist are inseperable. However, in the Differentia, all things are seperable. It is a function of the frame of reference. This 'frame of reference' is the mystics playground of word play.



Wrong. Another mystical assertion. Objectivity does not fail - but it does have limits, as all things have limits.



Not at all. Reality does not depend on a subjective viewer.



No. The 1st part is correct but not the last part. Adam existed without the collective of mankind.



Contradiction. Out and in are not one, not synonyms but antonyms. Subjectivity is looking in. Objectivity is looking out.



Amazing how someone can be so consistently wrong. Too bad you cannot overcome your fear in honestly answering my A or B question.

Like all view points, everything you said is an opinion just like mine. No one has the absolute truth. You can say I’m wrong and I can say you’re wrong all day long, they are opinions. Right and wrong are two sides of the same coin.

No matter how much you try to discount and deny subjectivity, subjectivity and objectivity are one.

Adam existing still depended on the collective as far as the environment goes. Collective is not limited to mankind only. So, you are easily wrong here.

Mysticism is the only thing that brings subjectivity and objectivity together. It is the only reconciliation between religion and science. This is why the religious such as yourself and scientists included, both have contempt for mystics.

Without a subjective viewer, there is no reality. And without reality, there is no subjective viewer. You are confused and split internally attaching yourself to one side only whilst the other side comes in through the back door.

 

[Romanov2488]

Again, for your conveinence.

I have answered this before. B is a paradox. And if you say there are absolutes, good luck trying to prove it.

I contradict myself at every turn because that is the nature of reality. It’s all a paradox, I know that I don’t know. You on the other hand, lack the humility to admit that you don’t know and are afraid of not knowing. You think you know, but in the end you’re only conforming to what someone else has taught you. The Christians, the Muslims, the scientists, they are all the same-conforming to what someone else has told them. And you don’t like hearing it because you want to believe you are special by conforming to a certain set of beliefs but in that very conforming, you are actually losing your individuality.

I’d rather be a hopeless mystic than someone trapped in a conceptual fortress who postures that they ‘know’.

 

[Wrangler]

And I should add:

Which of these statements is inherently self-contradictory:
X. I know nothing.
Y. I know that there are some things I don't know.

Which of these statements is inherently self-contradictory:
A. There are absolutes.
B. There are no absolutes.

 

[Romanov2488]

Contradiction. You deny "I think, therefore, I am."

I am, therefore I think. When I’m asleep, I’m not thinking about anything at all. Yet I am. I do not exist because I think.

 

[Romanov2488]

And I should add:

Which of these statements is inherently self-contradictory:
X. I know nothing.
Y. I know that there are some things I don't know.

Which of these statements is inherently self-contradictory:
A. There are absolutes.
B. There are no absolutes.

Prove there are absolutes. Show me how you calling a tree a tree, makes it a tree. Show me where it is written in the stars what proper use of language and proper definitions are.

 

[Wrangler]

Like all view points, everything you said is an opinion just like mine.

Untrue. Axioms are not opinions.

 

[Wrangler]

No one has the absolute truth.

Is this absolutely true?

 

[Wrangler]

Right and wrong are two sides of the same coin.

True but I'm not sure what your point is.

Some concepts exist as primary, which is to say, they don't depend on other concepts. One example of primary is existence or reality of truth, e.g., a bird singing. Most concepts are secondary, which is to say, they depend on a reference to something else, e.g., the bird singing in tune or out of tune.

 

[Wrangler]

Mysticism is the only thing that brings subjectivity and objectivity together.

Contradictions bring things together also - improperly.

 

[Romanov2488]

Contradictions bring things together also - improperly.

Improperly according to who?

 

[Wrangler]

Adam existing still depended on the collective as far as the environment goes.

There you go! Changing your frame of reference again!

What you are saying is an epistemological joke, changing the very meaning or words as you go to support your mysticism of asserting we live in an unknowable universe. A collection is a group of like individuals, not as far as the environment goes. Be brave! Come to terms with reality!

 

[Romanov2488]

Is this absolutely true?

Yes and no.

 

[Wrangler]

Improperly according to who?

Definition.

 

[Wrangler]

It’s absolutely true and not absolutely true.

Yes and no.

I leave you to your mystical contradictions.