Theory number 3.

[Mystic]

Heh, Apophenia, as for smell, the issue is my mental illness experiences give me a different perception of that. "Evil" to me has a certain bad taste but my mind brought that taste to over drive. Tree of Zaquum I understood as mystical, and I had a taste of it (well my idea of it was brought to life), but my idea of that was it was a manifestation of evil. Like wise, goodness feels like it has good scent. And that was brought to life.

I guess loosing my mind gave me a different perception of what people take to be mundane.

Unfortunately, we probably can't see eye to eye on this, because I see everything through a mystical lense. I have mystical interpretation of everything. To me food taste are manifestations of Ultimate Pleasure, which is complete state of peace.

Everything we praise from my understandings has a ultimate source basis that it's a descent from and takes root from, and every opposite to praise, is in God's knowledge (negative polar opposite).

Since scent of good smell is a praise, and all praise for me needs a basis, I disagree.

It's just that the greatest manifestation that is most easiest to see link to the divine, is honour/goodness. That is of a higher nature then other praise. But all praise ultimately is found in the ultimate praised being.

But I wasn't even arguing on that point. I wasn't saying how is it possible we know praise but not ultimate praiseworthy being.

I was simply stating, how do you rationally argue we have knowledge of praise, but we can not possibly have knowledge of Ultimate Praise existing. Stating that well praise is a quality of living beings or things or concepts, while God is a living being, doesn't really solve the issue.

To me, our knowledge of praise exists because we constantly need to apply it. If we didn't constantly use it, we wouldn't have a strong belief in it.

This perhaps where the Theist and Atheist diverged if you assume God is knowable. The Theist feels time to time, they must remember God, and feel an attachment to knowing him.

The Atheist felt perhaps no need to know her/it/him, and just like much knowledge you don't apply, you forget.

If we didn't have tests in school who would study and remember

We need motivation to hold on to knowledge, at least most of us do.

The case of morality is that we constantly need to apply it. However a human who was locked up in a room and never learned language, never interacted with culture and society, and was just given food, perhaps would not have a sense of morality.

[The Grand Nudger]

What "soul" Mystic? What "knowledge"? Is there anything in your criticisms of christianity and islam that cannot be applied to your own thoughts on the matter?

(I can lay the shroud of attribution and personality over any concept of praise, goodness, fate, what have you - as well as the most ardent fundy.....that doesn't mean that any of that shit actually has some existence as an entity. This is not knowledge, even if we want to consider it a skill or ability. You might want to take a hard look at the glitches that occur between our ears.)

[Mystic]

Is there anything in your criticisms of christianity and islam that cannot be applied to your own thoughts on the matter?

Which of my criticism would apply?

[Angrboda]

Biological beings are motivated by ideals as a side effect of the nature of evolution with respect to computational devices with severely limited capacities. I don't just "lay it on" the nature of the biological, I see it as a direct consequence of the properties of the biological. But I've had enough insult from you for one day.

peace.

[The Grand Nudger]

LOL...Mystic..."anecdotal experience that is based on false reasoning"......for starters.

Your tendency to talk about praise, good, or evil, as though they were anything other than "Hey, I feel [insert any of them here]....ergo god."

I could keep going....

[Mystic]

LOL...Mystic..."anecdotal experience that is based on false reasoning"......for starters.

False reasoning as in invalid arguments.

Your tendency to talk about praise, good, or evil, as though they were anything other than "Hey, I feel [insert any of them here]....ergo god."

These were intuitions, albeit, deluded, but they weren't based on invalid arguments. The arguments were valid, albeit, not sound.

The premises seemed to be true in properly basic way.

In fact these delusions are very strong in humans in general. Many Theists will say, if there is no God, where do you get your morals from?

Also many Atheists agree upon this type of reasoning, and assert that we don't know objective good exists.

There is a huge difference, in that, these intuitions seem strong in themselves, and to be honest, I don't know what to me of them still.

It stills seems to be the case, that there needs to be a eternal standard of good, praise, beauty, and value, for them to be objective and not delusions.

This isn't derived from an invalid argument, but it's a properly basic feeling.

Therefore there is no comparison between such a delusion and relying on invalid arguments in forms of anecdotal experience.

---

But I've had enough insult from you for one day.

How did I insult you? I'm sorry if I did.

[Angrboda]

LOL...Mystic..."anecdotal experience that is based on false reasoning"......for starters.

False reasoning as in invalid arguments.

....

These were intuitions, albeit, deluded, but they weren't based on invalid arguments. The arguments were valid, albeit, not sound.

The premises seemed to be true in properly basic way.

Even words of great nourishment become as sawdust in your mouth.

[Whateverist]

Mystic's my boy because he is obviously still in the grip of beliefs of a sort that many of us held at one time. Anyone who can admit to agnosticism is being pretty straight with himself. I respect his process whatever it is he ultimately ends up believing.

[Mystic]

Mystic's my boy because he is obviously still in the grip of beliefs of a sort that many of us held at one time. Anyone who can admit to agnosticism is being pretty straight with himself. I respect his process whatever it is he ultimately ends up believing.

Thanks Whateverist. Right now I don't believe either way. I mean agnostic not in the sense of not knowing, but without belief either way. I'm allergic to the other word, so I prefer not using it.

I have an inclination to a higher power and soul, but it's emotional more then intellectual.

Also one thing that makes it seem a higher power highly plausible to me, is that it seems to be that it's impossible that consciousness developed out non-consciousness from process of evolution. I'm going to email some scientists about this, but, the essential problem is that at one point there needs to be a step between non-consciousness and concsiouness no matter how weak it is. But such a step is obviously so complex it can never happen by one mutation or several mutations at the same time, but takes a very high number that can't just be random. Therefore it's like an educated argument from semi-ignorance.

The cosmological argument although is an argument from ignorance, still seems to me, to make the case of a higher power highly plausible.

I would say these reasonings have to be debunked completely for me to lose total inclination to a higher power.

An eternal knower of all praise, good, value at whatever level, seems to be necessary by intuition still.

But right now, I don't have confidence in these reasoning. So I don't believe in them. Just they gave me a strong hope that a higher power exists.

[The Grand Nudger]

Oh christ...now we're on to the magical gift of consciousness and how evolution just couldn't have done it, eh? What, to you, would qualify as such a step? "Perception" of your exterior environment and reaction to it, perhaps? Self regulatory systems in complex organisms sans "mind"? The ability to store "information" and later retrieve it due to external (or internal) stimuli?
(also, how would this qualify as anything other than an argument from ignorance whether real or perceived?)