Do you believe in God?
Tell me people do you believe in God?
Potential realities exist, which is why you can aim at them. Therefore, potential realities are realities. Unless you want to argue something can exist and be desired but not be real?.
This is an example of an irrational assertion. “Therefore potential realities are realities”, nope, that’s a claim that on its face seems absurd, so you need to show your work on how to get from one to the other.
Your desires are feelings, the future reality you desire is a concept held by your mind. Future desires never a reality until they are instantiated.
You can desire something which doesn’t exist? Desire aims. What is desire aiming at when it desires nonexistence?
Using your example, I’m not a millionaire. You are claiming the reality where I’m a millionaire doesn’t exist, so then how can I desire it if it doesn’t exist?
Potential realities exist, which is why you can aim at them. Therefore, potential realities are realities. Unless you want to argue something can exist and be desired but not be real?
Ok let’s try this .
Don’t u think measurements in reality is far more accurate than measurements on a future reality ?
Do you see both are not equivalent for obvious reason ?
It’s an accurate summation of what you wrote. Whether you believe something this absurd is for you to answer.
You have to think of yourself as two people to understand my position. Perhaps you are incapable of that.
Again this is a meaningless absurd assertion. Demonstrate it if it accurately reflects what you think, or learn to communicate better.
Your desires are feelings, the future reality you desire is a concept held by your mind. Future desires never a reality until they are instantiated.
This !
I can only acknowledge reality where everyone can acknowledge it .
I can’t measure the future reality of someone else since I have no bias to make measurement form it .
The reality is in the mind of someone else that I can’t measure or see , it’s not existent in my reality hence it’s not a reality .
This is an example of an irrational assertion. “Therefore potential realities are realities”, nope, that’s a claim that on its face seems absurd, so you need to show your work on how to get from one to the other.
Your desires are feelings, the future reality you desire is a concept held by your mind. Future desires never a reality until they are instantiated.
I agree future realities are held in the mind. That doesn’t mean they don’t exist. Again, if they don’t exist, how can they be aimed at? How do you aim at nonexistence?
This is an issue of identity. If you have disowned the *dreamer — which is more common than not — then you won’t grasp what I’m saying. You can’t, it’s not a matter of explaining better.
I speak as someone who has integrated the dreamer.
*in anticipation of rebuttal, the dreamer doesn’t dream about ice cream sandwiches
This is an issue of identity. If you have disowned the *dreamer — which is more common than not — then you won’t grasp what I’m saying. You can’t, it’s not a matter of explaining better.
I speak as someone who has integrated the dreamer.
*in anticipation of rebuttal, the dreamer doesn’t dream about ice cream sandwiches
We all have dreams, we just aren’t pretentious enough to call them “the dreamer”.
It’s a cop out to say “you just can’t understand what I’m saying” when what you’ve been saying has been clearly shown to be absurd. If you can understand it we can understand it, write more clearly and define your terms more carefully. If you do you’ll likely realize where your thought process is incorrect.
Look, this isn’t going anywhere. Trust me. Good luck to you.
Where specifically are you seeing me say this? You are quoting something which explains that potential realities are realities..
And I explained that “potential” doesn’t make anything anything. Again if you are going to assert that a potential reality is the same as reality, show your work, because it clearly ain’t.
It’s not going anywhere because you misuse terms and don’t clearly define them, and make assertions you don’t back up. Think about how we can kniw true things before posting more, and define your terms clearly and offer evidential support for assertions when you do.
I would agree that there is much that is inexplicable, but that is hardly license to just believe things into reality.
It’s not going anywhere because you misuse terms and don’t clearly define them, and make assertions you don’t back up. Think about how we can kniw true things before posting more, and define your terms clearly and offer evidential support for assertions when you do.
Is ‘what is good’ true?
Is the number three sad?
“What is good” isn’t a logical statement. Can you reform your question into one?
Truth is a moral discussion. There is no discussion to be had, like I said, if you’re unwilling to step out of strict rationality.
Are moral goods not true? Eg: the idea that murder is wrong.
Truth is a moral discussion. There is no discussion to be had, like I said, if you’re unwilling to step out of strict rationality.
The common definition of rationality is that which comports to reality. What purpose is there to discussing things that aren’t real?
Are moral goods not true? Eg: the idea that murder is wrong.
Depends upon your moral framework. In a humanist moral framework of course murder is wrong. In Christianity murder is wrong, unless God commands it, such as killing homosexuals. In Islam murder of apostates is blessed by God.
The common definition of rationality is that which comports to reality. What purpose is there to discussing things that aren’t real?
Rationality is associated with known reality. As you approach the edge of your comfort zone, you rationalize (mostly false) reasons why you shouldn’t proceed.
Depends upon your moral framework. In a humanist moral framework of course murder is wrong. In Christianity murder is wrong, unless God commands it, such as killing homosexuals. In Islam murder of apostates is blessed by God.
Person A says “We shouldn’t murder people”.
Person B says “That is true”.
In your mind, B committed an error?
Rationality is associated with known reality. As you approach the edge of your comfort zone, you rationalize (mostly false) reasons why you shouldn’t proceed.
That’s just your copium making assertions you can’t back up. You know your beliefs are irrational, so you strive to convince others that rationality isn’t necessary or important so you can believe in a magic man in the sky who will give you eternal life.
Person A says “We shouldn’t murder people”.
Person B says “That is true”.
In your mind, B committed an error?
Not if they are humanists. But if they are Christians, person B should say “Unless God commands it, like for gays, unruly children, worshipping false gods, or Canaanite/Amalekite women, children and infants.”
Here you are agreeing that an action (not murdering people) can be true. Through our actions (morality), we can act more (or less) in accordance with reality. Do we still agree?
Nope, you are confusing truth with morality. True is the value of a logical statement that evaluates as true or not false. Actions on their own cannot be true or false, they just are. You can correctly say it’s true someone did or did not murder, but you cannot say not murdering is a logical statement that evaluates to true.
Actions are not morality, morality is how we define them to be good (moral), bad (immoral) or neutral (amoral).
You are misusing words, which is probably why you have trouble making rational statements that others can understand.
Nope, you are confusing truth with morality. True is the value of a logical statement that evaluates as true or not false. Actions on their own cannot be true or false, they just are. You can correctly say it’s true someone did or did not murder, but you cannot say not murdering is a logical statement that evaluates to true.
Actions are not morality, morality is how we define them to be good (moral), bad (immoral) or neutral (amoral).
You are misusing words, which is probably why you have trouble
Let’s revisit:
Person A says “We shouldn’t murder people”.
Person B says “That is true”.
In your mind, B committed an error?
When I asked you earlier if B committed an error when associating truth with action (not murdering), you said:
Not if they are humanists.
Implying that for humanists not murdering is a truth.
I will ask again..
Person A says “We shouldn’t murder people”.
Person B says “That is true”.
In your mind, B committed an error?
Let’s revisit:
When I asked you earlier if B committed an error when associating truth with action (not murdering), you said:
Implying that for humanists not murdering is a truth.
Again you are misusing or misunderstanding words. An error is not a truth, it’s a thing. When I say not murdering is not an error I’m saying it is moral under a humanistic moral framework.
If you had asked, is it true that not murdering is moral under a humanistic moral framework? You would have asked a logical question that evaluates to true.
Errors aren’t true or false. Neither are actions. Logical statements are. You need to learn this.
I will ask again..
Person A says “We shouldn’t murder people”.
Person B says “That is true”.
In your mind, B committed an error?
Same answer, nothing has changed. And again it’s a yes/no question, not a true/false question.
At this point I must ask if English is your second language? Because you consistently demonstrate an inability to clearly understand or communicate in it. Not judging, but all my attempts to correct you seem to go unaknowledged.
