RE: A good argument for God's existence (long but worth it)
September 1, 2017 at 5:35 pm
(This post was last modified: September 1, 2017 at 5:44 pm by Mystic.)
1. You said we do have degrees for what we value (ie. somethings we value more than others).
2. You even conceded we ought to value some things more than others.
3. You then said there is no connection between the "name" of "what ought to be valued the most" to the "what ought to be valued the most".
I don't mean letters, I mean that reference we have in us to that which we ought to value the most.
Clarification:
1. Is that we have no reference to what we ought to value the most, then on basis do you believe in 1 and 2 (see above what you conceded)?
Remember here so far, we are discussing in theory, we haven't argued what that being is.
It does, I would argue because the term is known already to refer to a reality. What I mean by the name, is the true name.
So whatever is the true connecting concept (ie. I don't mean letters) to that which ought to be valued most, it makes us know to some degree what ought to be valued most.
The opposite is really hard to argue on the other hand. That we have no degree of knowledge of what ought to be valued most despite a connecting concept that we recall by the words "Ought to be valued most".
What I mean by name is the image we recall through words and connect through and the connection, not the letters themselves.
Remember at this point, we aren't concluding a Creator Spirit or anything. Just that something ought to be valued the most, and that the words themselves make us recall what that is, and the name is that connection to that.
Just like the word "red", you have a concept of "red" colors or "red" things, and we aren't talking about "r e d" letters, but rather the reference to it. I mean by value, we have a concept of value, and that we need a measuring reality by which we see.
I argue once you conceded we need to see objectively by truth and measure by truth, it becomes obvious, that, we the true thing ought to be valued the most is the source of that perception by which we need to see and get clarification from.
There is a close affinity with the "value" and the "perception of value" such that they are interlinked. That is because the perception of value is love eyes and we value love.
2. You even conceded we ought to value some things more than others.
3. You then said there is no connection between the "name" of "what ought to be valued the most" to the "what ought to be valued the most".
I don't mean letters, I mean that reference we have in us to that which we ought to value the most.
Clarification:
1. Is that we have no reference to what we ought to value the most, then on basis do you believe in 1 and 2 (see above what you conceded)?
Remember here so far, we are discussing in theory, we haven't argued what that being is.
Quote:MysticKnight Wrote: Wrote:The name of “that which ought to be valued the most” in possibility worlds speaking, has to be a connection that makes us know what ought to be valued the most.
No, it doesn't.
It does, I would argue because the term is known already to refer to a reality. What I mean by the name, is the true name.
So whatever is the true connecting concept (ie. I don't mean letters) to that which ought to be valued most, it makes us know to some degree what ought to be valued most.
The opposite is really hard to argue on the other hand. That we have no degree of knowledge of what ought to be valued most despite a connecting concept that we recall by the words "Ought to be valued most".
What I mean by name is the image we recall through words and connect through and the connection, not the letters themselves.
Remember at this point, we aren't concluding a Creator Spirit or anything. Just that something ought to be valued the most, and that the words themselves make us recall what that is, and the name is that connection to that.
Just like the word "red", you have a concept of "red" colors or "red" things, and we aren't talking about "r e d" letters, but rather the reference to it. I mean by value, we have a concept of value, and that we need a measuring reality by which we see.
I argue once you conceded we need to see objectively by truth and measure by truth, it becomes obvious, that, we the true thing ought to be valued the most is the source of that perception by which we need to see and get clarification from.
There is a close affinity with the "value" and the "perception of value" such that they are interlinked. That is because the perception of value is love eyes and we value love.
