trubble76 wrote:

amkerman wrote:

trubble76 wrote:

How does a belief in your god inject the difference then? I cannot see any difference whatsoever.
Your argument seems to be that we all live with subjective morals, except the morals of the religious only become subjective upon application. Every way I try to look at it, your idea seems without merit.

I understand your take on god, and as I repeatedly told you in a different thread, it seems entirely useless to me.
If it is reality that you believe in, then why change the name to god? You could just leave it at reality and be done with it.

You aren't arguing from your conclusions? From what are you arguing then? It seems to me that your conclusion is that you desperately want to believe in a god, and so you pick the first thing that you could crowbar into the god-shaped holed vacated by your dwindling catholic faith, and called it God. Am I wrong?

It's not a belief in "my" God. it is not different from anything. it is everything.

Oh good grief. Firstly, It is your god, I don't think anyone else is staking claim to it, certainly not me.
Secondly, your response about difference seems to be a response to something entirely different to the words I wrote.
I wrote this "How does a belief in your god inject the difference then?" You must have misread it.

The morals of the religious are ALWAYS subjective. Just like everyone else's. The religious have adopted a set of subjective morals they believe to be correct, and simply call them objective. It is irrelevant what their morals, or anyones morals are. Morality is objective. We can believe whatever we want about the nature of it. Some of us may be closer to the truth than others. Just like when people thought planets had circular orbits. Not correct, close maybe, definitely closer than those who thought everything revolved around the earth, but obviously not as close as elliptical orbits proposed by Newton, which still isn't as close as actually plotting the orbits of each particular planet accounting for all other gravitational pulls other in the solar system other than the sun, which could probably be even better understood if accounting for all gravity in the universe.

You have just repeated yourself; morals = subjective, morality = objective and it is just as much nonsense this time around.
How is morality objective?

Yes. You are wrong.

Maybe, maybe not.
Either way, you didn't tell me what you do argue from if not your conclusions.

It is not "my" God. I did not create it.

I argue from the same axiom I ultimately argue everything from.

"I perceive".

I do not argue from, "reality exists", something I think we ultimately cannot know. "reality exists" is the logical conclusion to "I perceive". NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND. You cannot go from "reality exists" to THEREFORE, "I perceive." it is illogical. You must perceive reality before you can claim "reality exists"

amkerman wrote:

trubble76 wrote:

amkerman wrote:

trubble76 wrote:

How does a belief in your god inject the difference then? I cannot see any difference whatsoever.
Your argument seems to be that we all live with subjective morals, except the morals of the religious only become subjective upon application. Every way I try to look at it, your idea seems without merit.

I understand your take on god, and as I repeatedly told you in a different thread, it seems entirely useless to me.
If it is reality that you believe in, then why change the name to god? You could just leave it at reality and be done with it.

You aren't arguing from your conclusions? From what are you arguing then? It seems to me that your conclusion is that you desperately want to believe in a god, and so you pick the first thing that you could crowbar into the god-shaped holed vacated by your dwindling catholic faith, and called it God. Am I wrong?

It's not a belief in "my" God. it is not different from anything. it is everything.

Oh good grief. Firstly, It is your god, I don't think anyone else is staking claim to it, certainly not me.
Secondly, your response about difference seems to be a response to something entirely different to the words I wrote.
I wrote this "How does a belief in your god inject the difference then?" You must have misread it.

The morals of the religious are ALWAYS subjective. Just like everyone else's. The religious have adopted a set of subjective morals they believe to be correct, and simply call them objective. It is irrelevant what their morals, or anyones morals are. Morality is objective. We can believe whatever we want about the nature of it. Some of us may be closer to the truth than others. Just like when people thought planets had circular orbits. Not correct, close maybe, definitely closer than those who thought everything revolved around the earth, but obviously not as close as elliptical orbits proposed by Newton, which still isn't as close as actually plotting the orbits of each particular planet accounting for all other gravitational pulls other in the solar system other than the sun, which could probably be even better understood if accounting for all gravity in the universe.

You have just repeated yourself; morals = subjective, morality = objective and it is just as much nonsense this time around.
How is morality objective?

Yes. You are wrong.

Maybe, maybe not.
Either way, you didn't tell me what you do argue from if not your conclusions.

It is not "my" God. I did not create it.

You appear to have defined it into existence. Whose god is it if not yours then? So far you are the only person I know that believes this god exists.

I argue from the same axiom I ultimately argue everything from.

"I perceive".

I do not argue from, "reality exists", something I think we ultimately cannot know. "reality exists" is the logical conclusion to "I perceive". NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND. You cannot go from "reality exists" to THEREFORE, "I perceive." it is illogical. You must perceive reality before you can claim "reality exists"

But you go further, you claim the reality you perceive is your god.
I don't have a problem with "I think therefore I am." but I do have a problem with "I think therefore I am therefore god."

trubble76 wrote:

amkerman wrote:

trubble76 wrote:

amkerman wrote:

It's not a belief in "my" God. it is not different from anything. it is everything.

Oh good grief. Firstly, It is your god, I don't think anyone else is staking claim to it, certainly not me.
Secondly, your response about difference seems to be a response to something entirely different to the words I wrote.
I wrote this "How does a belief in your god inject the difference then?" You must have misread it.

The morals of the religious are ALWAYS subjective. Just like everyone else's. The religious have adopted a set of subjective morals they believe to be correct, and simply call them objective. It is irrelevant what their morals, or anyones morals are. Morality is objective. We can believe whatever we want about the nature of it. Some of us may be closer to the truth than others. Just like when people thought planets had circular orbits. Not correct, close maybe, definitely closer than those who thought everything revolved around the earth, but obviously not as close as elliptical orbits proposed by Newton, which still isn't as close as actually plotting the orbits of each particular planet accounting for all other gravitational pulls other in the solar system other than the sun, which could probably be even better understood if accounting for all gravity in the universe.

You have just repeated yourself; morals = subjective, morality = objective and it is just as much nonsense this time around.
How is morality objective?

Yes. You are wrong.

Maybe, maybe not.
Either way, you didn't tell me what you do argue from if not your conclusions.

It is not "my" God. I did not create it.

You appear to have defined it into existence. Whose god is it if not yours then? So far you are the only person I know that believes this god exists.

I argue from the same axiom I ultimately argue everything from.

"I perceive".

I do not argue from, "reality exists", something I think we ultimately cannot know. "reality exists" is the logical conclusion to "I perceive". NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND. You cannot go from "reality exists" to THEREFORE, "I perceive." it is illogical. You must perceive reality before you can claim "reality exists"

But you go further, you claim the reality you perceive is your god.
I don't have a problem with "I think therefore I am." but I do have a problem with "I think therefore I am therefore god."

No. I am claiming it is God. Not my God. We don't even have to call it "God". It's just a lable. I am claiming "that which is neither derivative nor dependent, but that which exists necessarily" exists.

"I perceive, therefore reality" (axiom)

"I believe my perceptions of reality are a real depiction of reality, therefore I believe my perceptions are real"

"I perceive through consciousness"

"I believe perceptions are real, therefore I believe consciousness is real."

"I believe consciousness is real, therefore I believe it exists independently of my ideas about what it is; as a quality of reality"

"Consciousness= awareness"

"Reality, therefore I believe in "that which is neither derivative nor dependent but exists necessarily."

"Reality, therefore I believe a quality of "that which is neither derivative nor dependent but exists necessarily" is awareness."
* Not that things in reality are aware (which I also believe), but that awareness is an actual quality of reality.

-- I defined "my" God into existence the same way Newton defined gravity into existence... I didn't. It's always been there.

amkerman wrote: I defined "my" God into existence the same way Newton defined gravity into existence... I didn't. It's always been there.

You're just a dollar short and a day late telling us how it is necessary (or even convenient) to do this, to use the word 'god' at all. Especially when the word 'reality' isn't charged with any weird connotations. Do you like saying 'god'? Is it embarrassing to say "god" at the moment of orgasm? It's an expletive, not a noun.

amkerman wrote:

trubble76 wrote:

amkerman wrote:

trubble76 wrote:

Oh good grief. Firstly, It is your god, I don't think anyone else is staking claim to it, certainly not me.
Secondly, your response about difference seems to be a response to something entirely different to the words I wrote.
I wrote this "How does a belief in your god inject the difference then?" You must have misread it.




You have just repeated yourself; morals = subjective, morality = objective and it is just as much nonsense this time around.
How is morality objective?


Maybe, maybe not.
Either way, you didn't tell me what you do argue from if not your conclusions.

It is not "my" God. I did not create it.

You appear to have defined it into existence. Whose god is it if not yours then? So far you are the only person I know that believes this god exists.

I argue from the same axiom I ultimately argue everything from.

"I perceive".

I do not argue from, "reality exists", something I think we ultimately cannot know. "reality exists" is the logical conclusion to "I perceive". NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND. You cannot go from "reality exists" to THEREFORE, "I perceive." it is illogical. You must perceive reality before you can claim "reality exists"

But you go further, you claim the reality you perceive is your god.
I don't have a problem with "I think therefore I am." but I do have a problem with "I think therefore I am therefore god."

No. I am claiming it is God. Not my God. We don't even have to call it "God". It's just a lable. I am claiming "that which is neither derivative nor dependent, but that which exists necessarily" exists.

That is a definition that is personal to you, therefore your god. I do not share your opinion therefore not my god.

"I perceive, therefore reality" (axiom)

"I believe my perceptions of reality are a real depiction of reality, therefore I believe my perceptions are real"

"I perceive through consciousness"

"I believe perceptions are real, therefore I believe consciousness is real."

"I believe consciousness is real, therefore I believe it exists independently of my ideas about what it is; as a quality of reality"

"Consciousness= awareness"

"Reality, therefore I believe in "that which is neither derivative nor dependent but exists necessarily."

"Reality, therefore I believe a quality of "that which is neither derivative nor dependent but exists necessarily" is awareness."
* Not that things in reality are aware (which I also believe), but that awareness is an actual quality of reality.

You have demonstrated that awareness is a part of reality, but not that it is a quality of reality. The rest is mostly waffle.

-- I defined "my" God into existence the same way Newton defined gravity into existence... I didn't. It's always been there.

Not quite. Newton did quite a lot of work to show that his idea of gravity was correct (or at least approximately correct).
He supported his definition, you have just asserted yours.

trubble76 wrote:

amkerman wrote:

trubble76 wrote:

amkerman wrote:

It is not "my" God. I did not create it.

You appear to have defined it into existence. Whose god is it if not yours then? So far you are the only person I know that believes this god exists.

I argue from the same axiom I ultimately argue everything from.

"I perceive".

I do not argue from, "reality exists", something I think we ultimately cannot know. "reality exists" is the logical conclusion to "I perceive". NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND. You cannot go from "reality exists" to THEREFORE, "I perceive." it is illogical. You must perceive reality before you can claim "reality exists"

But you go further, you claim the reality you perceive is your god.
I don't have a problem with "I think therefore I am." but I do have a problem with "I think therefore I am therefore god."

No. I am claiming it is God. Not my God. We don't even have to call it "God". It's just a lable. I am claiming "that which is neither derivative nor dependent, but that which exists necessarily" exists.

That is a definition that is personal to you, therefore your god. I do not share your opinion therefore not my god.

"I perceive, therefore reality" (axiom)

"I believe my perceptions of reality are a real depiction of reality, therefore I believe my perceptions are real"

"I perceive through consciousness"

"I believe perceptions are real, therefore I believe consciousness is real."

"I believe consciousness is real, therefore I believe it exists independently of my ideas about what it is; as a quality of reality"

"Consciousness= awareness"

"Reality, therefore I believe in "that which is neither derivative nor dependent but exists necessarily."

"Reality, therefore I believe a quality of "that which is neither derivative nor dependent but exists necessarily" is awareness."
* Not that things in reality are aware (which I also believe), but that awareness is an actual quality of reality.

You have demonstrated that awareness is a part of reality, but not that it is a quality of reality. The rest is mostly waffle.

-- I defined "my" God into existence the same way Newton defined gravity into existence... I didn't. It's always been there.

Not quite. Newton did quite a lot of work to show that his idea of gravity was correct (or at least approximately correct).
He supported his definition, you have just asserted yours.

Classic aversion to the word "God". Forget "God". "God" is nowhere to be found in the argument I just presented. Do you feel the need to keep using a term I have already obviously abandoned for any particular reason? where is "my" "God" in the argument I just presented?

The rest of your argument (as to whether people are defining things into reality) is irrelevant to anything besides your possible desire to be contradictory to anything I state. The definitions I use can be found in dictionaries should you further desire to claim that I am making up definitions.

amkerman wrote:

Classic aversion to the word "God". Forget "God". "God" is nowhere to be found in the argument I just presented. Do you feel the need to keep using a term I have already obviously abandoned for any particular reason? where is "my" "God" in the argument I just presented?

The rest of your argument (as to whether people are defining things into reality) is irrelevant to anything besides your possible desire to be contradictory to anything I state. The definitions I use can be found in dictionaries should you further desire to claim that I am making up definitions.

Keep using it? You started, I replied about it, then you replied to my reply about it and so on. I didn't seek you out to force you to talk about your god. Nor did I say that "god" was in the argument you just presented, I was simply replying to your post.

I do not seek to be contradictory to everything you state, just the stupid things. Interesting that it seems to be all.
I already told you where I think you went wrong, in this particular section I disagree with your abuse of logic as I have already pointed out.

trubble76 wrote:

amkerman wrote:

Classic aversion to the word "God". Forget "God". "God" is nowhere to be found in the argument I just presented. Do you feel the need to keep using a term I have already obviously abandoned for any particular reason? where is "my" "God" in the argument I just presented?

The rest of your argument (as to whether people are defining things into reality) is irrelevant to anything besides your possible desire to be contradictory to anything I state. The definitions I use can be found in dictionaries should you further desire to claim that I am making up definitions.

Keep using it? You started, I replied about it, then you replied to my reply about it and so on. I didn't seek you out to force you to talk about your god. Nor did I say that "god" was in the argument you just presented, I was simply replying to your post.

I do not seek to be contradictory to everything you state, just the stupid things. Interesting that it seems to be all.
I already told you where I think you went wrong, in this particular section I disagree with your abuse of logic as I have already pointed out.

You like to point things out it seems; to nay-say, but I've yet to see you logically contradict anything I have stated without resorting to the tired tactics of re-definition, deflection, and downright dismissal.

-alliteration is a fact.'

amkerman wrote:

trubble76 wrote:

amkerman wrote:

Classic aversion to the word "God". Forget "God". "God" is nowhere to be found in the argument I just presented. Do you feel the need to keep using a term I have already obviously abandoned for any particular reason? where is "my" "God" in the argument I just presented?

The rest of your argument (as to whether people are defining things into reality) is irrelevant to anything besides your possible desire to be contradictory to anything I state. The definitions I use can be found in dictionaries should you further desire to claim that I am making up definitions.

Keep using it? You started, I replied about it, then you replied to my reply about it and so on. I didn't seek you out to force you to talk about your god. Nor did I say that "god" was in the argument you just presented, I was simply replying to your post.

I do not seek to be contradictory to everything you state, just the stupid things. Interesting that it seems to be all.
I already told you where I think you went wrong, in this particular section I disagree with your abuse of logic as I have already pointed out.

You like to point things out it seems; to nay-say, but I've yet to see you logically contradict anything I have stated without resorting to the tired tactics of re-definition, deflection, and downright dismissal.

-alliteration is a fact.'

You mean disagree? Yes, I disagree with much of what you write. I and others here have spent a great deal of time and effort trying to explain what and why, and all we get for our labours is mindnumbing repetition and lies.
Plus you have the cheek to accuse me of redefinition, the very essence of your contribution here.

You have had your logical contradictions (other posters did a much better job of it than I) and ignored them like a fucking champion, I don't imagine you're about to change anytime soon.