The Strength of Faith

[tar]

John and Iggy,

 

You misunderstood my intent. I was trying to imply that he had faith in his family and his friends and his country. I said nothing about God. I told the story to say he exactly did NOT need an imaginary God to believe in. There is plenty of real stuff to believe in that trumps even your own life. I was saying exactly what you guys are saying in your responses.

 

Regards, TAR2

[Iggy]

John and Iggy,

 

You misunderstood my intent. I was trying to imply that he had faith in his family and his friends and his country.

 

Well... he realized his family, friends, and country couldn't help him so he took matters into his own hands. I don't see how that translates into what you're saying. Maybe you're not quite carrying your point.

 

 

I said nothing about God. I told the story to say he exactly did NOT need an imaginary God to believe in.

 

Sure, but earlier you equated faith in God to faith in "personal resilience, patience and fortitude". This person sure had plenty of resilience and fortitude.

 

You also earlier said you don't believe in an anthropomorphic God. Now you say a person doesn't need an imaginary God.

 

Let's just lose the qualifiers.

 

Does anyone need a god (or anything like a god) to accomplish something of value? It's a very simple question that could, perhaps, deserve a yes / no answer.

[tar]

The reason the 600 rode into the valley of death was not a favor they were doing for an imaginary God. It was duty to their countrymen. My intent was to show that our faith in each other, and our duty to those that survive us, is a real thing. Looks a little like God, but I didn't think it looked enough like God for you to think I was arguing for the existence of God, much less that I thought Jeremy Glick was praying. I do not even know Jeremy Glick's religious affilliation or lack there of. I have been, and still am arguing for the real people and the real principles and the real associations of people, to be the "actual" components of our consciences and our faith in an afterlife. NOT OUR PERSONNAL life, but the life of that which we are now, while alive, a part.

 

Allegorically God, but in realtity, everybody else, life on Earth, the Planet itself, the Sun that warms us. This all is real stuff. I am not talking about any sky pixies. Just saying that its easy to mistake one for the other, reality itself being so awesome and godlike.

 

I am completely with the atheist camp in suggesting that if a voice in your head is telling you to do something, you best check with a friend or relative or a doctor or a bartender or someone, before you listen to the voice. If its a sensible thing the voice is telling you to do, then do the sensible thing anything and ignore the voice. If it sounds like a crazy thing, check with the rest of us, before you proceed.

 

But there IS the rest of us to consider. There are the flowers and the trees and the little bunnies to care about. There IS dance and song and poetry, beauty and wonder to enjoy. There IS pain and suffering, illness and destruction to guard against, from other men and from natural forces. Nature doesn't care one way or the other about us. We will suffice as the judge and guide for each other.

 

Regards, TAR2

Iggy,

 

Yes I think I have figured out, that we need something like a God.

 

Regards, TAR2

But with that, I have also figured out, that we actually have objective reality to judge us, in the person of each other, along the lines of a humanist thought.

 

And that we actually have nature built into us, that we can also count on, and have faith in. (Metabolism, the beating of our heart, healing, reproduction and the like, that we can do very well without knowing the details, or thinking about it.)

 

And when you put the two things together, it covers a lot of the things God is supposed to be in charge of. So either those things are what people are attributing to God consciously, or those things are what people are attributing to God unconsciously.

 

If it is true that an anthropomorphic God is impossible, which it is, then the only things we can put our faith in, are those real things that are left. Like each other. Like the rising of the Sun. Like birth and renewal. Like love and trust and fortitude. Like the smile of a child.

 

Regards, TAR2

[Iggy]

The reason the 600 rode into the valley of death was not a favor they were doing for an imaginary God. It was duty to their countrymen.

 

Yeah, Yeah, forward the light brigade... their's is not the reason why, but to do and die. I know the poem, and I notice you didn't lose the qualifier "imaginary".

 

 

My intent was to show that our faith in each other, and our duty to those that survive us, is a real thing. Looks a little like God, but I didn't think it looked enough like God for you to think I was arguing for the existence of God, much less that I thought Jeremy Glick was praying. I do not even know Jeremy Glick's religious affilliation or lack there of. I have been, and still am arguing for the real people and the real principles and the real associations of people, to be the "actual" components of our consciences and our faith in an afterlife.

 

Right. I'm pretty sure you just said "I am arguing for the real "actual" components of our conscience in an afterlife"

 

Maybe you don't see how that can be confusing, but it can be. Just do me the favor of saying "when a person dies they have no more consciousness, and I believe there is no God of any kind". You've already called yourself an atheist in this thread a number of times, but I don't think you can say that. I don't think you can clear up the muddied waters you've made. But I welcome you to do it. I'd be no more pleased than if you just repeated what I just said followed by an exclamation point and a grin. Brothers in arms we would then be.

 

 

Allegorically God, but in realtity, everybody else, life on Earth, the Planet itself, the Sun that warms us. This all is real stuff. I am not talking about any sky pixies. Just saying that its easy to mistake one for the other, reality itself being so awesome and godlike.

 

Sky pixies. Anthropomorphic gods. I see where you're going. I'm going to stop reading. You aren't losing the qualifiers.

 

You're denying sky pixies! Any religious person can do that!

[tar]

Iggy,

 

I can not repeat the no god of any kind part. Because there are to many things I believe in, that I have faith in, that existed before I was born, and will exist after I die. This, from an objective point of view, makes me similar to a cell, in an organism. A cell that can perform its function, as a crucial part of the living organism, die, be replaced by another like cell, and the organism still lives.

 

Stars are born, live and die, another takes its place and the galaxy lives on.

 

I am not a completely different kind of thing than a star, or an ameoba. 'Cept for this consciousness thing. And this language thing, and this intelligence thing.

 

That is why its called "the hard problem of consciousness". Because people have this feeling that there is something different about us, that neither an ameoba nor a Sun has.

 

How would this be scientifically feasible? Where would this magic come from? How could we be other than universe? How could we be separate from it? Why do we bother pretending that we are something different, when its so obvious we are a part of it?

 

So no. I can not say that I believe in no kind of God whatsoever. I consider this my universe, as I have no other to consider. I consider this my world because its where everybody I ever knew of, and everybody I know is from.

 

While an antropomorphic god and literal heaven and hell make no sense to me. While having faith in an invisible hand reaching down and pulling you out of danger is stupid. There is nothing whatsoever suspect about recognizing ones attachment to that which came before, and that which will be after. There is nothing whatsoever suspect about recognizing you are tiny to the universe and immense to the quark. That you are something in the middle, and belong to the same reality that the quark and the universe do.

 

Consciousness is not supernatural. It is a scientifically recognized true thing. This means that somewhere between quarks and universes, consciousness can exist. With no magic required.

 

What ever we did, however we managed it, we grabbed life and consciousness from a universe, otherwise tending toward entropy. Silly to think that we did it by ourselves, and somehow ourselves are supernatural in kind. Silly to think anything other than the universe had anything to do with it.

 

Which leaves only reality to be in and of, with nowhere else to come from, and nowhere else to go. Why that does not smell like God to you. Why that does not feel like God to you is what you need to explain to me.

 

No sky pixies? Sure. No sky pixies. Nothing like God? Give me a break.

 

Regards, TAR2

[Iggy]

Iggy,

 

I can not repeat the no god of any kind part.

 

Yeah, I know. You can't say "I have faith in god" and you can't say "i have no faith in any god". As mutually exclusive as those two propositions are, something about your makeup precludes you from claiming either. Your indecisiveness i guess.

 

Let's just agree that while you can't say "I believe in no kind of god" you will *STOP* calling yourself an atheist. Please, please, oh, dear god, please, STOP doing that!!!

 

If you can't say that you don't believe in God then you damn well better stop calling yourself atheist. OK?

Stop it!

[tar]

dear who?

Iggy,

 

Well if I was a theist I would believe in God. I do not, believe in God. Therefore I am an atheist.

 

I call myself one, because I fit the definition.

 

What are you telling me. Why are you telling me I must believe in God? And that I must stop not believing in God.

 

How can I be not believing in God, improperly?

 

Are you saying that there is a God to not believe in?

 

Or are you accusing me of pretending that there is a god, and then pretending to not believe in the pretend thing?

 

Hum. A false atheist. How is that logicallly doable?

 

Regards, TAR2

to a believer in Allah, I am an unbeliever.

to a believer in the God of the Bible, I am an unbeliever.

to a believer in the secrets of the Vedas I am an unbeliever.

to an atheist I am an ununbeliever.

 

On the other hand. If there is ANYTHING to believe in, and I believe in that thing, I MUST be believing in something that someone else, somewhere, somehow, believes in.

In the Venn diagram way of looking at things, something I have faith in, must overlap something someone else has faith in, somehow.

[Phi for All]

OK.

 

 

 

So I conclude that faith is either trumped up hope, or it's the feelings people tell themselves are strong in order to shore up beliefs with no real substance. If one "sort of" believes in the supernatural, that can't be faith, not in the abiding, unwavering sense some people claim to have. I don't think there's anything wrong with hope, but true faith seems like a sham to me, a way to take hope beyond where it should go and ignore trust altogether.

 

I trust that all the people who say they have faith in their respective gods have either picked the wrong one (since there are so many) or they're all wrong, and I trust that because I see no evidence to the contrary. Faith pretends to be a strong house on a good foundation but is really just made of cards with a brick design on the back.

[Iggy]

dear who?

 

 

Iggy,

 

Well if I was a theist I would believe in God. I do not, believe in God. Therefore I am an atheist.

 

I call myself one, because I fit the definition.

 

What are you telling me. Why are you telling me I must believe in God? And that I must stop not believing in God.

 

How can I be not believing in God, improperly?

 

Are you saying that there is a God to not believe in?

 

Or are you accusing me of pretending that there is a god, and then pretending to not believe in the pretend thing?

 

Hum. A false atheist. How is that logicallly doable?

 

Regards, TAR2

 

 

to a believer in Allah, I am an unbeliever.

to a believer in the God of the Bible, I am an unbeliever.

to a believer in the secrets of the Vedas I am an unbeliever.

to an atheist I am an ununbeliever.

 

On the other hand. If there is ANYTHING to believe in, and I believe in that thing, I MUST be believing in something that someone else, somewhere, somehow, believes in.

 

 

In the Venn diagram way of looking at things, something I have faith in, must overlap something someone else has faith in, somehow.

 

Oooh, I liked that

 

Short. Sweet. Had a point. Brilliant.

 

How can I be not believing in God, improperly?

 

Good question. I think it probably has something to do with your constant argument for the benefits of faith and god. Makes the denials seems somewhat less than ingenuous. But, I'm happy to be proven wrong and I think that post may have done it.

 

Let me get back to the question then. I jumped ahead. You say some people do need God to accomplish things of value. That was the question I asked. So, can you give me an example of "something of value" that *could not be done* by a particular person, or a type of person, unless they believed in God.

 

I don't think such a thing exists. If God isn't real (and I think we just very strongly agreed on that point) then I highly doubt that any real beneficial action should, or could, depend on having faith in that unreal thing.

Edited April 9, 2013 by Iggy

[Villain]

Feelings is my word, not theirs. Since there is nothing empirical about supernatural explanations, what is faith based on? It seems to me like it's based solely on the feelings of the believer, supported only by the feelings of other believers, who get together to express their feelings about what they believe in. They have their books, handed down for centuries, translated and re-translated, full of flaws but also full of stories that reinforce the feelings each religion wants followers to have.

 

I hear the reasoning behind such feelings and it seems like religion is all about making people feel confident in hoping they will be blessed or allowed to live eternally or be healed of a malady. Religious leaders know the more confident people are about something that has nothing tangible to support it, the harder they will defend it and the more they will feel good about it. Religious leaders have become artists in the area of confidence, imo.

 

Sensory interaction with the world around us is one thing, but concluding that sensory interaction is a.) the only interaction available and b.) capable of identifying all that can and does exist, is unfounded.

 

I can't help but think that the difference between those that have faith and those that don't is irreconcilable through the medium of language. It's like trying to explain sight to someone that was born blind.

[imatfaal]

Sensory interaction with the world around us is one thing, but concluding that sensory interaction is a.) the only interaction available and b.) capable of identifying all that can and does exist, is unfounded.

 

I can't help but think that the difference between those that have faith and those that don't is irreconcilable through the medium of language. It's like trying to explain sight to someone that was born blind.

 

 

If I were blind from birth and sceptical about this sense that I was told about - this so called sight - I could devise empirical tests that would allow me to investigate the phenomenon. We poor benighted souls without extra-sensory perception can test those who claim that they can perceive reality in alternative manners - I am sure you agree that at present none have managed to pass any well formed investigation into ESP. So how can you, as someone who claims extra knowledge/sensitivity/interaction with the world around us, provide any form of investigation the result of which would be objectively (read intersubjectively verifiable) agreed.

[Phi for All]

Sensory interaction with the world around us is one thing, but concluding that sensory interaction is a.) the only interaction available and b.) capable of identifying all that can and does exist, is unfounded.

 

I can't help but think that the difference between those that have faith and those that don't is irreconcilable through the medium of language. It's like trying to explain sight to someone that was born blind.

 

I see no difference between explaining faith and explaining psychic predictions. Both thrive on mystery, chance happenings and confirmation bias. And it's not language that fails to explain it, it's credibility.

 

I do find it interesting that people of faith describe it the way you do, like it's some kind of sense that unbelievers lack, like a poor blind man who can't see the light. I couldn't script a better swindle. It's the perfect setup for persuasion by deception. And when the mark starts to suspect something is wrong, people of faith get to shake their heads at the ignorant unbeliever who can't see the light. Or the invisible clothes. Or the magic sky fairy who's plan will somehow turn out best for everyone.

[Villain]

If I were blind from birth and sceptical about this sense that I was told about - this so called sight - I could devise empirical tests that would allow me to investigate the phenomenon. We poor benighted souls without extra-sensory perception can test those who claim that they can perceive reality in alternative manners - I am sure you agree that at present none have managed to pass any well formed investigation into ESP. So how can you, as someone who claims extra knowledge/sensitivity/interaction with the world around us, provide any form of investigation the result of which would be objectively (read intersubjectively verifiable) agreed.

 

This claim is amazing, you honestly think that you could investigate an extra sensory experience by using the senses that you both have in common?

 

I see no difference between explaining faith and explaining psychic predictions. Both thrive on mystery, chance happenings and confirmation bias. And it's not language that fails to explain it, it's credibility.

 

I do find it interesting that people of faith describe it the way you do, like it's some kind of sense that unbelievers lack, like a poor blind man who can't see the light. I couldn't script a better swindle. It's the perfect setup for persuasion by deception. And when the mark starts to suspect something is wrong, people of faith get to shake their heads at the ignorant unbeliever who can't see the light. Or the invisible clothes. Or the magic sky fairy who's plan will somehow turn out best for everyone.

 

Sometimes we become so intent on being right that being right becomes more important than what is right.

[Phi for All]

Sometimes we become so intent on being right that being right becomes more important than what is right.

 

Thank you, I couldn't have said it better. That's exactly how I view those who claim to 100% believe in the supernatural.

[tar]

"Let me get back to the question then. I jumped ahead. You say some people do need God to accomplish things of value. That was the question I asked. So, can you give me an example of "something of value" that *could not be done* by a particular person, or a type of person, unless they believed in God."

 

Iggy,

 

I think it important, in answering the query to differenciate between the God that is impossible, and the God that is possible.

I say that, because there are areas of life and search for truth, in my muses and insights were I catch myself believing in something that oversteps the bounds of provable, real stuff we can all agree all. I do not always completely discount something, just because it appears to be outside the bounds. We have been wrong about such things before.

 

It is difficult to tell another, just how far it is you mean to reach over the bounds. How much you are "suggesting" a possibility, and how much you appear to be claiming a truth. So I think it easy to discount a believer that I know has stepped over the bounds, and that seems to be "believing" a truth, that cannot be. But mingled in amoungst such a believers beliefs are portions and peices of real provable stuff, that the believer has attributed to a magical, pretend, over the bounds thing, that must have been caused by something more reasonable and understandable and true. That, on the one hand. On the other hand is that in amongst the real provable stuff we all agree on, there are little portions of magical wonderful, impossible seeming things, that although we know they have to be true, because they are there, we have no for sure explanation for them, and they have to sit in a "to be figured out later" area of our "understanding".

 

So to answer your question, as to when something cannot be done, without requiring a belief in God, or to suggest an example of such a thing, you have to allow for a sane, rational person to have belief in this "to be figured out later" area of reality. This area that one knows MUST be true, but does not have a grasp of the details involved. And realize, that in my way of thinking, in my equivocation mode, I let my "to be figured out later" area, stand for the "god" that someone else might be believing in.

 

From this perspective any example of one having faith in reality acting in a certain understandable fashion, for an unknown reason, can be conflated with God. And the things we do, any thing we do, shows a certain belief we have in the things we do not know for sure, but we still know MUST be the case.

 

From this perspective, I can give you no examples of belief in impossible things giving one the ability to affect reality, but can give you a million examples of belief in unknown unsure, but true things giving one the strength and ability to proceed.

 

One would not buy life insurance, if they did not believe in life after death.

One would not plant grass seed, if they did not believe it would grow.

One would not give money to earthquake victims, if they did not believe it mattered to someone and it would make a difference.

 

Consider the growth of brain cells and neurons in an infant in the womb. How do the little growing things know exactly which way to grow? How do they know which way to go? We all have faith in their ability to do what they do and wind up building a brain that can think, and feel and dream. Its a little more than hope.

 

Regards, TAR2

[Iggy]

I think it important, in answering the query to differenciate between the God that is impossible, and the God that is possible.

 

Ah, that's disappointing. Your last post was so good. We agreed so strongly (I thought) that God wasn't possible. Now you say the exact opposite. And, I can see already that your post below is so superfluously worded. This isn't gonna be good. This is gonna be a struggle at best...

 

 

So to answer your question, as to when something cannot be done, without requiring a belief in God, or to suggest an example of such a thing, you have to allow for a sane, rational person to have belief in this "to be figured out later" area of reality. This area that one knows MUST be true, but does not have a grasp of the details involved. And realize, that in my way of thinking, in my equivocation mode, I let my "to be figured out later" area, stand for the "god" that someone else might be believing in.

 

Right. It appears you know you are wrong. It appears you know you are equivocating (that you are equivocating, by the way, means that you are wrong). An atheist can leave things to be figured out later. An atheist can understand that the full and complete picture is yet to be solved. That isn't God, and you only degrade yourself and the honestly devoutly religious by trying to equate that with God. You offend everyone on all sides of the argument by even trying that.

 

So, without equivocating... without redefining God... do you still believe that good acts can't be done by people without their belief in God?

 

Are you sure on this?

[tar]

Often, when I am about to retire for the night, I ask myself the question "What is it?"

 

If I knew what I was asking, I would know the answer.

[Iggy]

Often, when I am about to retire for the night, I ask myself the question "What is it?"

 

If I knew what I was asking, I would know the answer.

 

If i knew what you were asking I might have an answer too.

[tar]

Iggy,

 

Well sorry to disappoint.

 

Anyway, you do not have to believe in God to be good. You just have to be good.

 

My theory is that 95% of people are good, and half believe in God and half don't. So there is your answer to that. Yes you can be good without believing in God.

 

And the 5% are probably split 50 50 as well. So believing in God is neither automatically good or automatically bad.

 

One party need not convert the other party to their reasons for being good. One should just use their best judgement, and be good, because its the right thing to do.

 

Whether you know why something happens, or you think you might know, or you hope it might happen, or you trust that it might happen or you have faith in it happening, doesn't quite matter as much as whether it actually happens or not.

 

Regards, TAR2

Edited April 10, 2013 by tar

[Iggy]

Iggy,

 

Well sorry to disappoint.

 

Anyway, you do not have to believe in God to be good. You just have to be good.

 

My theory is that 95% of people are good, and half believe in God and half don't. So there is your answer to that. Yes you can be good without believing in God.

 

And the 5% are probably split 50 50 as well. So believing in God is neither automatically good or automatically bad.

 

One party need not convert the other party to their reasons for being good. One should just use their best judgement, and be good, because its the right thing to do.

 

Whether you know why something happens, or you think you might know, or you hope it might happen, or you trust that it might happen or you have faith in it happening, doesn't quite matter as much as whether it actually happens or not.

 

Regards, TAR2

 

Nothing disappointing about that. I can agree with all that. It doesn't exactly answer my question nor negate what you said earlier, but all around well appointed and agreeable.

[tar]

Iggy,

 

Equivocate might be what I do, but it is not with the intent to mislead, it is an attempt to not commit to only one way of looking at a thing. It is an attempt to say true things that can be taken two ways.

 

Regards, TAR2

 

Attempts to say things that would be true to a believer, and a non-believer.

Edited April 10, 2013 by tar

[Iggy]

Iggy,

 

Equivocate might be what I do, but it is not with the intent to mislead, it is an attempt to not commit to only one way of looking at a thing.

 

I don't mean to make this all about you, and it probably is off topic, but it is true you do equivocate a lot. When you do it to prevent yourself from looking at a thing straight you're just misleading yourself. You appear to be the only one misled by it, but, yeah, it is misleading to that extent.

 

 

 

It is an attempt to say true things that can be taken two ways.

 

yeah, being ambiguous... that's about the definition of equivocating. yeah.

[tar]

Iggy,

 

 

Well here is my rational. The world itself, reality, fits together perfectly, and alway takes account of itself. Our analog representations of it are very close to fitting together perfectly, except they are representations of the thing that always keeps perfect account, and the representations do not have to actually fit together as perfectly as the real thing must.

 

We can make false assumptions, sense things incompletely, see things that are not there, and miss things that are. We can take shortcuts, in fact HAVE to take short cuts to internalize the world. Pattern matching, generalizations, seeing what we want to see, and the like. Our eyes can be bigger than our stomachs, so to speak. We can think about eating an amount that will not actually fit in our stomachs. Or we can dream about telling our boss off, but once we are in a position to do it, we find the impulse will not workably fit with reality. Think of how many "plans" there are that just don't work, and have not taken all of the aspects of reality into account. Jumping off of tall stuff with giant wings attached to your arms, imagining you can fly like a bird.

It worked in theory, but did not fit with reality. Think how many dreams you have had, that do not translate well into reality. Things fit together perfectly in the dream, but the rules were different there. Everything did not have to fit, as it does in reality.

 

With this thesis, that reality must fit perfectly with itself, every action having a reaction, conservation of mass and energy and all that, I readily assume that the world is more perfect than my internalization of it. I can make mistakes, forget, overestimate, underestimate, leave important considerations out of a judgement and so on. The world does not have these limitations. It always fits. Its the thing I am trying to match up with, to determine what is true or not true. Its not the other way around.

 

So I have faith in this thing. This real world that we have our very close matches with. All our images are of this thing. The images cannot be "truer" than the thing the images are of. The model can not work better than that which the model is of. The model usually doesn't even come close to working as well and completely fitting together as the thing does.

 

So something is true to me, and exists if I can see how it fits with reality in more than one way. If it appears to be the same thing, whether you look at it from the right or the left, from the bottom or the top, from the back or the front, or from the inside or the outside. Such is my feeling about subjectivity and objectivity. The true things are the things that exist from both perspectives.

Such is my feeling about figurative meaning and literal meaning. If something has both a figurative and a literal meaning, it is a good candidate to have gone through the internalization process before, and therefore actually exists, At least enough for another human to agree with the judgements about it, I might have.

 

So something is true, by my defintion, if it fits the world, if you know it matches with your idea of it AND it fits in some other way, as well. Especially true if others can repeat your experiments and get the same results. Then the thing, really is the case.

 

Images are not so reliable and fitting as reality is. Symbols do not actually perform as truely as the thing that the symbol means.

 

You cannot make an equation for a peanut butter cup. And even if you did, you couldn't eat it. And even if you ate it, it would not taste sweet and chocolatey. Peanut butter cups are true things.

 

So whether I am a pantheist of the diest variety or a pantheist of the athiestic variety makes no difference to the truth of the world. Its still huge beyond our understanding. Its still longlived beyond our grasp of time. Its still more intricate and layered and interconnected than we have the ability to comprehend.

 

Whatever is true about it is bound to be the case, regardless of whether or not, you or I notice or agree.

 

If I have faith in this being the case...do you think I am incorrect in my judgement?

 

Regards, TAR2

[SplitInfinity]

 

Again...the TRUTH of the World is very different from the FACTS of the World.

 

Split Infinity

[Iggy]

Iggy,

 

 

Well here is my rational. The world itself, reality, fits together perfectly, and alway takes account of itself. Our analog representations of it are very close to fitting together perfectly, except they are representations of the thing that always keeps perfect account, and the representations do not have to actually fit together as perfectly as the real thing must.

 

We can make false assumptions, sense things incompletely, see things that are not there, and miss things that are. We can take shortcuts, in fact HAVE to take short cuts to internalize the world. Pattern matching, generalizations, seeing what we want to see, and the like. Our eyes can be bigger than our stomachs, so to speak. We can think about eating an amount that will not actually fit in our stomachs. Or we can dream about telling our boss off, but once we are in a position to do it, we find the impulse will not workably fit with reality. Think of how many "plans" there are that just don't work, and have not taken all of the aspects of reality into account. Jumping off of tall stuff with giant wings attached to your arms, imagining you can fly like a bird.

It worked in theory, but did not fit with reality. Think how many dreams you have had, that do not translate well into reality. Things fit together perfectly in the dream, but the rules were different there. Everything did not have to fit, as it does in reality.

 

With this thesis, that reality must fit perfectly with itself, every action having a reaction, conservation of mass and energy and all that, I readily assume that the world is more perfect than my internalization of it. I can make mistakes, forget, overestimate, underestimate, leave important considerations out of a judgement and so on. The world does not have these limitations. It always fits. Its the thing I am trying to match up with, to determine what is true or not true. Its not the other way around.

 

So I have faith in this thing. This real world that we have our very close matches with. All our images are of this thing. The images cannot be "truer" than the thing the images are of. The model can not work better than that which the model is of. The model usually doesn't even come close to working as well and completely fitting together as the thing does.

 

So something is true to me, and exists if I can see how it fits with reality in more than one way. If it appears to be the same thing, whether you look at it from the right or the left, from the bottom or the top, from the back or the front, or from the inside or the outside. Such is my feeling about subjectivity and objectivity. The true things are the things that exist from both perspectives.

Such is my feeling about figurative meaning and literal meaning. If something has both a figurative and a literal meaning, it is a good candidate to have gone through the internalization process before, and therefore actually exists, At least enough for another human to agree with the judgements about it, I might have.

 

So something is true, by my defintion, if it fits the world, if you know it matches with your idea of it AND it fits in some other way, as well. Especially true if others can repeat your experiments and get the same results. Then the thing, really is the case.

 

Images are not so reliable and fitting as reality is. Symbols do not actually perform as truely as the thing that the symbol means.

 

You cannot make an equation for a peanut butter cup. And even if you did, you couldn't eat it. And even if you ate it, it would not taste sweet and chocolatey. Peanut butter cups are true things.

 

So whether I am a pantheist of the diest variety or a pantheist of the athiestic variety makes no difference to the truth of the world. Its still huge beyond our understanding. Its still longlived beyond our grasp of time. Its still more intricate and layered and interconnected than we have the ability to comprehend.

 

Whatever is true about it is bound to be the case, regardless of whether or not, you or I notice or agree.

 

If I have faith in this being the case...do you think I am incorrect in my judgement?

 

Regards, TAR2

 

I can't deal with that. There is probably about a paragraph's worth of meaning in all that mess. If you could condense it down to that and tell it to me then I could respond intelligently, but as it is your posts get longer and greater worded by the further you get from the truth, and I just don't feel like dealing with it.

 

What, really, are you trying to say? A paragraph's worth of meaning. What is it?