R
reggieM
Guest
I’m glad you didn’t mind a restatement of points that were already fully convincing on their own.Thanks for supplementing my points, Reggie! It’s always good to know some one agrees.
- Status
T
tonyrey
Guest
I disagree! Not that they weren’t convincing but that they weren’t developed, e.g.I’m glad you didn’t mind a restatement of points that were already fully convincing on their own.
I like the moment of suspense:
I don’t know whether you intended “(none)” to be on a new line but it was extremely
effective.
It also correspond to the materialists’ belief that we exist as the result of mindless processes which are valueless, purposeless and meaningless - which doesn’t leave them much to play with! The Designer is replaced with a vast multitude of designers some of whom reject the existence of Design even though they spend their lives designing something or other…
G
Gaber
Guest
If you experienced what you say you did, you have at least a taste. If you have even taken a slight look at how you interpret the world and what your mid does to it, yours or anyone’s, you must also surely know from that. You must know that you are always dealing with interpretations, not objectives. If you don’t see that, well,…it explains a lot.
G
Gaber
Guest
I’m glad you didn’t mind a restatement of points that were already fully convincing on their own.
Reggie, you have a great sense of humor!
T
tonyrey
Guest
T
tonyrey
Guest
Sarcasm is an inadequate substitute for insight.
G
Gaber
Guest
Tonyey, for heaven’s sake, that is the whole point of a spiritual life–to discover that mortal mind isn’t about Reality, only about appearance. Surely you look at yourself, yes? And notice that the mind is replete with shenanigans? Is that why you are so emphatically reason oriented? Even if you are in a cell and have access to a computer, you must have come to some conclusions about illusion and the mind. Heck, Penn and Teller did the three cups trick (shell game) with clear water glasses, and it still worked! And you are going to rely on reason???
And by the way, humor is insight, for the most part.
Please tell me that when you practiced self hypnosis you followed the protocol for coming out of it! Was ReggieM with you?
R
reggieM
Guest
Irrefutable. No coherent denial of that point is possible – and none has even been attempted.
G
Gaber
Guest
Of course it is irrefutable. That’s the point. the mind is irrefutably a liar, and that therefore includes each one’s mind. that is why problems are never solved at the level they are gotten into. And why to see the mind as it is, one has to go beyond it.
T
tonyrey
Guest
He who rejects reason should avoid the philosophy forum like the plague!Tonyey, for heaven’s sake, that is the whole point of a spiritual life–to discover that mortal mind isn’t about Reality, only about appearance. Surely you look at yourself, yes? And notice that the mind is replete with shenanigans? Is that why you are so emphatically reason oriented? Even if you are in a cell and have access to a computer, you must have come to some conclusions about illusion and the mind. Heck, Penn and Teller did the three cups trick (shell game) with clear water glasses, and it still worked! And you are going to rely on reason???
And by the way, humor is insight, for the most part.
Please tell me that when you practiced self hypnosis you followed the protocol for coming out of it! Was ReggieM with you?
G
Gaber
Guest
I agree. So let’s continue then about the proper place of reason relative to human faculties as a whole, which has been my point all along. So my next question is, why do you seem to insist on taking the part for the whole, or postulating that the whole can be predicated from adding parts of parts together? Is that reasonable? or is it rationalization? Especially when we know that the presentations of mind are incomplete, partial, illusory, ill informed, untrained, proceed from false or questionable premises and information, or considering that human awareness is exceedingly limited in bandwidth compared to Universe? etc, etc, etc, unless yours is somehow (Wow!) perfect as God’s? Mine isn’t, but at least I’ve looked into it to some depth, an activity that seems sort of anathema on here, call it meditation, contemplation, philosophy, or whatever especially the useful sorts.
T
tonyrey
Guest
P
prodigalson2011
Guest
This is going to sound quite uncharitable, but I’m seriously beginning to wonder if you just love posturing over everyone else. Your constant sarcasm and condescension suggests not a desire to help others but a desire to feel superior. As I said before, for someone who claims to be so in tune with God, you are quite inhospitable and your manner of dialogue counterproductive. Why, pray tell, do you feel a need to constantly insult and belittle others while adding little more to the conversation. The entire gist of your philosophy seems to be, “Everyone should be silent,” but you are the loudest one here!
“Love is patient. Love is kind. Love is not jealous. Love does not show off; it is** not arrogant. **Love is not rude, and it is not selfish. Love is not easily angered, and it does not keep score of wrongs. Love doesn’t take pleasure in doing wrong; but rejoices always in the truth. Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, and endures all things. Love never fails.”
Maybe think about that before mocking the honest efforts of others? If you wish anyone to consider what you have to say, a change in attitude would be most beneficial to you. It is hard not to think that your manner diminishes your credibility.
V
Viewscreen
Guest
What utter inanity and wishful-thinking.The most convincing evidence for Design is the richness of personal existence with all its opportunities for exploration, creativity, appreciation and enjoyment - like art, music, drama, literature, history, science, technology and - of course - philosophy.
T
tonyrey
Guest
Utter inanity and wishful thinking in making totally unsubstantiated assertions - particularly on a philosophy forum where one is expected to produce reasons…The most convincing evidence for Design is the richness of personal existence with all its opportunities for exploration, creativity, appreciation and enjoyment - like art, music, drama, literature, history, science, technology and - of course - philosophy.
G
Gaber
Guest
If I rejected reason, maybe I would. But since you propone what you do one here, it’s just courteous to you and others to keep what’s basic in mind, in order to show how you misuse it. Yes?
G
Gaber
Guest
Hi Viewscreen,
Welcome to the Fora. Don’t mind too much, it’s what this thread is about. The production of reason is kinda sparse on here.
R
reggieM
Guest
Thanks, Tony.
Exactly. The anti-Design view destroys the possibility of value – as you explained already – and therefore judgement or evaluation is impossible.It also correspond to the materialists’ belief that we exist as the result of mindless processes which are valueless, purposeless and meaningless - which doesn’t leave them much to play with! The Designer is replaced with a vast multitude of designers some of whom reject the existence of Design even though they spend their lives designing something or other…
In order to judge or evaluate something, a hierarchy of values must be in place – no matter how simple. Even just to determine the simplest idea as either true or false, places things on a scale of value.
People who argue against the validity of reason are obviously self-contradictory.
Materialism posits that the universe is reducible to particles of matter and physical forces alone. If there is an irrational, unintelligent, accidental origin to everything then there really can be no hierarchy of value – and no reason why we determine truth from falsehood.
R
reggieM
Guest
Along with reasons, one is expected to produce coherent, comprehensible and logically consistent responses.
Posts failing that standard should just be ignored – although there’s a grace-period for newcomers as we just witnessed with your reply above.
T
tonyrey
Guest
Due to the fact that some contributors denigrate reason!
- Status