Is the world in which we live exactly as it really is independent of our understanding, or observational perspective? If it is exactly as it is, is the way it is right?
I think that reality is perfect. Not from a humanist perspective, but from an objective one.
Our perspective, including any misunderstandings each of us has, is not irrelevant, but is only a part of reality, and does not change reality except by our actions. Even though reality may be a 'trick of the senses' and thus our perception completely wrong those senses exist in some underlying reality that is, as it is, and no other way.
Saying that reality is NOT as it should be is a subjective statement which requires that an opinion be inserted. Saying that things are exactly right as they are, while not pretending to know how that is, is the basis of objectivity. Being objective requires that you accept things as they are, while judging reality to be less than perfect is always a subjective judgment.
Once you accept that reality is real by faith, or suspension (temporary at least) of disbelief then ask if reality is right. For something to be wrong there must be a correct alternative. The alternative to reality is fantasy which is right?
i dig what the film the matrix has to say about our choice to percieve or accept or (etc.)
Cypher: All I do is what he tells me to do. If I had to choose between that and the Matrix, I'd choose the Matrix.
Trinity: The Matrix isn't real.
Cypher: I disagree, Trinity. I think that the Matrix can be more real than this world. All I do is pull a plug here, but there... you have to watch Apoc die
Sustainably yers, http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/green-underbelly
You have a good point. People only tend to look at their reality sometimes and use that judgement to say reality is not what they want it to be.
Reality is an opportunity that is in reach for all to access and experience, never before has reality been manifesting itself the way it does now.
http://www.progressiveu.org/222526-perceptions-and-reality
http://www.progressiveu.org/170904-your-perception-your-reality
We as a humanity are heading towards a major shift in awareness, quite amazing things will come out of that.
;-)
....I have to note that your argument above is missing a great deal of its original context. I would suggest that your readers review the parent discussion, here before going any further.
Basically, this is just a "cleaned up" version of an argument based on a logically fallacy known as begging the question, or more commonly referred to as circular logic. In that argument, you attempted to assign the property of "perfection" to a supernatural being (i.e. "god"), as a definitional premise. You then also attempted to assto define "reality" in the same way, i.e. by suggesting that "reality" was also "perfect," and then you concluded that because your defintions were the same (i.e. that "god" = "perfect" = "reality"), "god" must be real.
The essence of your logical fallacy is revealed, however, in this statement...
In the original argument, you were the one who suggested that reality is as it "should" be, and the converse argument was also of your invention (and which you attempted to project onto your opponent in an attempt to insert an illogical element into the responding argument). Used in this way, both of these adjectives (i.e. "should" and "shouldn't") imply that "reality" was created by an intelligent entity capable of making value-judgements during that activity. This entire argument subtly begs the question of "god's" existence, and thus fails to pass logical muster.
percivale
-------------------------
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
"In that argument, you attempted to assign the property of "perfection" to a supernatural being (i.e. "god"), as a definitional premise."
You are inserting the assumption of 'supernatural' Which is an assumption that Magic or some other imaginary thing is involved. That is not an uncommon misconception, but not one I would subscribe to.
---
"Used in this way, both of these adjectives (i.e. "should" and "shouldn't") imply that "reality" was created by an intelligent entity capable of making value-judgements during that activity."
Personification of the laws of nature is skipping a few steps. I am not ready to go that far, but respecting your desire to cut to the chase here is the next blog in this progression:
http://www.progressiveu.org/160522-who-god
Truth is a demure lady, much too ladylike to knock you on your head and drag you to her cave. She is there, but people must want her, and seek her out.
William F. Buckley, Jr.
Actually, I would maintain that your entire argument is wrapped up in an "imaginary" premise, which by all commonly used definitions is accurately described as "supernatural." You have in the past demonstrated a difficulty accepting the fact that certain words have meanings that apply to you and your arguments, abut the fact is that you are referring to a being that you have referred many times to as "god," and specifically in the context of christian religious worship. To suggest otherwise would be remarkably dishonest on your part (and easy to disprove, considering the wealth of postings to that effect which you have left here and there on this website).
Horseapples. You have already personified your imaginary premise. You did so when you referenced that premise with the term "God" (capitalized to denote a name or title), and did so again when you referred to the human quality of intelligence upon which your "should's" and "shouldn'ts" rely.
percivale
-------------------------
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
"the fact is that you are referring to a being"
Are YOU saying reality is a being? This is a blog about the perfection of reality. I've enjoyed many other conversations with you, but they do not all apply directly to this question. When and if I connect them will be a more apropriate time to address those connections.
---
"Horseapples. You have already personified your imaginary premise. You did so when you referenced that premise with the term "God" (capitalized to denote a name or title), and did so again when you referred to the human quality of intelligence upon which your "should's" and "shouldn'ts" rely."
I am sure I have, just not here. The point of posting this as a separate blog is to make this argument without the confusion of other context. Trying to reach agreement, or at least establish the parameters of disagreement, is not encouraged by arguing dozens of related, but independant concepts at the same time. Are you familiar with encapsulation?
Truth is a demure lady, much too ladylike to knock you on your head and drag you to her cave. She is there, but people must want her, and seek her out.
William F. Buckley, Jr.
Your evasion is disingenous, though not unexpected. That is why I linked above to the parent discussion above, and again, here. This discussion developed very specifically from a discussion of the christian religion, which you defended via a series of logical fallacies (the same fallacies which remain unrebutted in our current discussion).
As a professional computer programmer working with an object-oriented system, the concept of encapsulation is well known to me...as is the related concept of inheritance. The use of these concepts in OOP is actually a good metaphor for what you are trying to do. Encapsulation is a technique in the broad category of information hiding (often, the terms are used interchangeably). It is a method of isolating certain design elements in a program, thereby protecting those blocs of code from potential changes in the overall design of the system. Your argument is similar in that you are trying to encapsulate the definition of "god" in order to fix that meaning and protect it from being challenged in your subsequent arguments. In OOP, however, your attempt to define "god" would be a specific object derived from a "class" that you defined in the parent discussion to this exchange. As such, that "object" inherets the attributes of the "class" on which it was based...which in this case includes the logical fallacy that I have repeatedly pointed out to you.
TTFN,
percivale
-------------------------
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
This looks more like progress.
The scope of this blog is merely a validation of Realism.
I am Somewhat fascinated by expanding the use of object oriented methodology to define the variety of philosophical/religious beliefs, but I really only see the realistic objective as defining the landscape. Object oriented logic, to me, would imply that proof is the goal. Even the base class which might hold universal acceptance would not be proven. It seems that you agree since you claim that the burden of proof does not fall on your beliefs, and I hold mine through Faith rather than proof.
These sub-Classes would all share the atributes of a class:
The universe
Nature
God (monotheism)
God (Pantheism)
...
Suppose we name that class Views_of_Reality
Under the God sub-class:
Islam
Christianity
Bahá'í
Hinduism
...
Under the universe sub-class:
Science
Positivism
Rationalism
Objectivism
...
Under the nature sub-class:
Naturalism
Pagan
Native American nature worship
Gaia
Naturalistic spirituality
...
Each religion or philosophy would be a class, and individuals would be the objects that inherited the traits. That inheritence would have to be selective and from multiple classes to mirror the way people actually hold their beliefs. All in all a supercomplex system.
Truth is a demure lady, much too ladylike to knock you on your head and drag you to her cave. She is there, but people must want her, and seek her out.
William F. Buckley, Jr.
...is that Object Oriented logic is a computer programming technique, and not a method of examining and exploring the real world. In a programming environment, the programmer is the "creator." He (or she) sets the rules and definitions of the system. In the real world, however, the classes and definitions are already set. Your idea continues to avoid the first necessary step in determining the properties an object that exists in the real world, which of course is to actually locate and observe that object.
percivale
-------------------------
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
The object you feel I have failed to locate and observe would be God? The object model I roughed out would be of human religious beliefs, not God. As defined a model of God would have to include the entire universe, and thus itself, as well as many unobseved and unobservable things from a human perspective.
Object oriented modeling, not programing, is all we could manage of the real world, unless we were God. Think of an Entity Relationship Diagram, not a program.
Looking back at the past couple of posts it seems to me that I was very specific about intent and scope. Where does your repetitive reference to 'Proof" or 'actually locate and observe' come from? If you feel it does not apply to your lack of belief why would you keep bringing it up? Is there some part of what I've said here you think I'm avoiding follow-up on?
I'm of the opinion that your "first necessary step" would be the last step which would end this type discussion, not start it.
Truth is a demure lady, much too ladylike to knock you on your head and drag you to her cave. She is there, but people must want her, and seek her out.
William F. Buckley, Jr.
Correct.
Ah, but it seems rather obvious that "god" would be a necessary parent class for the "human religious beliefs" your model uses to have meaning. Again, you are failing to produce the underlying work needed to support your ideas. It is also rather poor programming to add undefined elements (which you refer to as "unobserved and unobservable") to your process flow. Such errors lead to bugs and crashes, such as the conceptual ones that we see in your argument.
Object oriented modeling is also a technique for computer programming. Things like the "Entity Relationship Diagram" you linked to are used to help plan the design of computer systems, and while they may be applied to other sorts of systems, the same basic rules of data structuring still apply.
As I have not made any referece to "proof" in my responses to this blog, could you perhaps be more specific about the "repetitive reference" you allege. Normally, I refer to the need for evidence rather than "proof," and those are two very different things. I do quite often criticize your arguments of shifting the burden of proof in an illogical manner, but that is in reference to one of the formally defined logical fallacies to which you seem to be prone.
TTFN,
percivale
-------------------------
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
"Ah, but it seems rather obvious that "god" would be a necessary parent class for the "human religious beliefs" your model uses to have meaning."
Wrong again, the concept of god maybe, but there are many, and they would be lower sub-classes, or a complex variable with widely different values. Beliefs are just thought. Thought can be right or wrong. I would have thought that would be obvious to you, considering your opinion on religion, but I was wrong.
---
"It is also rather poor programming to add undefined elements (which you refer to as "unobserved and unobservable") to your process flow. Such errors lead to bugs and crashes, such as the conceptual ones that we see in your argument."
Fuzzy Logic is used for degrees of correctness. A person with absolute certainty, or most computer programs, would have no need for it, so I understand why you disregard it's existence. I have defined a God in the next blog, and am willing to be flexible with that definition to account for partial truth, and uncertainty. That definition is god = creator and controller of the universe whether that is a being or everything including natural laws. An object class that includes everything would be too much for me to presume to design. Wouldn't all other objects just exist within it?
A certain inflexibility is actually helpful with computers, while it is not for reality. Beliefs exist, you do not think god does. Why not propose a way to model it your way? Harder than insults? Or is insulting others your purpose, and being conversational, or helpful would run counter to your purpose?
This thread is as far from the subject here as I care to go. Reality is right.
Truth is a demure lady, much too ladylike to knock you on your head and drag you to her cave. She is there, but people must want her, and seek her out.
William F. Buckley, Jr.
...and so I will respond below, instead.
percivale
-------------------------
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
Duh??
No, you think it is perfect from a semantic one.
Duh!
Saying reality IS as it should be is a subjective statement which requires that an opinion be inserted
No, if you say something is exactly as how it shoud be without knowing how it is, is ignorance.
So then when a student makes an F he has done perfect? I would suggest that you are quite wrong here.
or how about accepting it by DEFINITION.
or how about the alternative to THIS reality is ANOTHER reality. In other words, you can recognize that things or not as they should be .... some people would call that imperfection .... and WORK to make them as they should be.
Here is a quote from a person who seems to recognize that just that type of thing has happened:
This person is saying that reality now is not the same as reality was at the time of Jesus. He is saying that it is better now. If it is better now then reality wasn't perfect then, now was it?
And exactly who is this person who seems to be calling you a fool? Why its YOU!!
Cheers,
DB
===
If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing. - Anatole France
"Duh??"
Close your mouth and wipe up that spittle. Yes this is a very simple definition, yet it is a premise behind things you will most likely have even more difficulty accepting, so I'm trying to take it step by step. I want you to have every chance to succeed
---
"No, if you say something is exactly as how it shoud be without knowing how it is, is ignorance."
Actually that is just horrible grammar, but I'm sure you could fix it if you would just calm down.
---
" 'Being objective requires that you accept things as they are, while judging reality to be less than perfect is always a subjective judgment.'
So then when a student makes an F he has done perfect? I would suggest that you are quite wrong here."
I may need a slow learner’s version of this. In your example reality is not wrong, the student is not wrong, the answers are wrong.
---
" 'Once you accept that reality is real by faith,' ...
or how about accepting it by DEFINITION."
Yes that is a bit circular, I should have given you a better definition as we see by your next misconception.
---
" '... or suspension (temporary at least) of disbelief then ask if reality is right. For something to be wrong there must be a correct alternative. The alternative to reality is fantasy which is right?'
or how about the alternative to THIS reality is ANOTHER reality. In other words, you can recognize that things or not as they should be .... some people would call that imperfection .... and WORK to make them as they should be."
Reality for purposes of this discussion is not an instantaneous snapshot or some small part of existence, it is everything. That includes actions by all things, energy, intelligence, and even a time component. I am not disincluding judgments made by intelligent beings which can obviously be diametrically opposed; they are wrapped up in a much larger totality of existence.
So you can heat up that hotdog in the microwave if it is too cold, but that has nothing to do with what we are discussing here.
Truth is a demure lady, much too ladylike to knock you on your head and drag you to her cave. She is there, but people must want her, and seek her out.
William F. Buckley, Jr.
Your terminology sucks ... big time! If and when you respond please include the conversation in context from now on.
(Here is what you said that caused my reply:
(1) Your attempt at ad hominem is neither funny nor pertinent.
(2) What you said was NOT a definition. It was a tautology --- things can not possibly anything other than what they really are. Tautologies tell us nothing. Hence, my "Duh" response.
(3) Tautologies are not premises, A premise can be symbolically represented by "If A then B"; a tautology is "If A then A". Do you see the difference?
I am never anything other than calm. However, I am often rushed. I'm not now. So let's go over it slowly since you seem to have had a problem figuring it out.
Here is what you said that triggered that response:
That is a ridiculous statement. If you do not know how things are then how can you possibly know that things are exactly right? Making statements based on what you don't know is NOT the basis of objectivity. It is the basis of ignorance.
I'm not sure how you came up with that. So let me be explicit. NO, judging reality to be less than perfect is NOT always a subjective judgement. In my example the student flunked, that would be the reality and that would be OBJECTIVELY less than perfect.
So far the misconceptions have been high on your part.
Are you pleased with this gobbledygook? Reality is what it is at the time you access it. For instance the reality is that as I write this I am sitting in front of my computer. However, in about an hour that will no longer be reality. I will be fast asleep. Reality is what it is. It cannot change.
What you are trying to talk about is the UNIVERSE. The universe is real but it is not the same thing as REALITY. REALITY is the way the universe is now. The universe can and has changed over time.
If we accept this then your question that you are trying to address is ... "Is the universe perfect?" Perfect means being without flaws. There are certainly flawed things within the universe ... just look at your argument.
DB
===
If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing. - Anatole France
“(1) Your attempt at ad hominem is neither funny nor pertinent."
Funny is subjective, and since you started and I responded in kind pertinent is exactly what I was aiming for, in response to your tone. Is "Duh??" an objective, respectful, or anything but insulting remark? Treat others as you wish to be treated, or is that too Christian for you? I'll try civil on the rest, but; "Pearls before pigs"
---
Tautologies tell us nothing.
Then you agree?
---
"If A then B"
That is a conclusion, here I am trying to simply place the statement "Reality is right" into the context intended to avoid confusion with tiny pieces of our subjective reality. I get an 'F' in your case. Try this simplification: If reality is the only option then reality is necessarily right.
---
If you do not know how things are then how can you possibly know that things are exactly right?
Because you accept that they are how they are, and you accept that your understanding or perspective does not alter them, and you accept that there is no other way that they are. If you must know how they are you are introducing the possibility that your perception of them or judgment of 'rightness' may not be accurate. Things that you do not see still exist, and things that we all 'know' are wrong.
---
"Making statements based on what you don't know is NOT the basis of objectivity. It is the basis of ignorance."
Ignorance is where we all start, and even the best of us only erase a small part of it in absolute terms. Admitting that is a requirement of being objective, most humans seem to be incapable of objectivity.
---
"Reality is what it is at the time you access it."
Time is one component of the total reality being discussed. All reality.
---
"What you are trying to talk about is the UNIVERSE. The universe is real but it is not the same thing as REALITY. REALITY is the way the universe is now. The universe can and has changed over time."
I don't mind using Universe in place of reality, but the constant change, forces and laws that cause that change, and all times past and future are included in the term I'm seeking to discuss. Perhaps 'space time continuum' is more clear since all things at all times is the sought after meaning.
Truth is a demure lady, much too ladylike to knock you on your head and drag you to her cave. She is there, but people must want her, and seek her out.
William F. Buckley, Jr.
[sarcasm]Thank you for quoting me in context like I asked[/sarcasm]
By not quoting me in context you are being dishonest. Here is your comment that I was replying to:
That is not a response in kind to anything I have said. It is a remark that does not apply to anything I said. My "Duh" remark was in reply to exactly what you said, and its intent was to point out that you were using a tautology. It DIRECTLY applies to your argument.
I don't think there is any secret here that you and I are not the fondest of friends, ... go ahead attack what I say with all the venom that you may want. That is fine, I have no problem with that. But if you are going to attack my spittle ... then at least be funny about it.
Here is your statement that caused my response:
What you said is a tautology. Tautologies are true by definition. But tautologies tell us nothing
I agree that IF it was your intent to tell us nothing then you have done a masterful job of it.
But reality isn't the only option because reality isn't a constant. Reality at one point in time is not what it is at another point in time. Therefore, reality can be different things. If it can be different things then it cannot be the ONLY option.
Here is your statement that I originally responded to:
Saying that things are EXACTLY RIGHT means that they are EXACTLY AS HOW THEY SHOULD BE. You have tried to mask sloppy argument by claiming that your REALITY allows for a time dimension. But you constantly use the term as though it was a single discreet thing. Things change. Reality at one point is not the same thing as reality is at another point. So you cannot use the term in a meaningful way the way you want to use it.
And this has meaning to anything we have talked about how?
We may start out in ignorance but we are not destined to stay there. Read what I said again. "MAKING STATEMENTS based on ignorance ..." You are ADMITTEDLY making a statement based on ignorance ... You are saying that even though you don't know what reality is (a confession of ignorance) it is perfect (the way things should be).
Your response above indicates that you don't have a clue as to the real problem inherent in your argument despite this being the third time that it has been painfully pointed out.
Reality as a single discreet thing that one can actually use to make a coherent argument is what it is AT THE TIME you assess it.
Use whatever terminology you want. All you need to do is define it and then use in a way that is consistent with that definition. One problem I have with you is that you use common terms, claim to give them special meanings, but still use the term as though it has its common meaning.
While it is always possible that I am mistaken, I think you like doing that because it allows you to claim that what you said is not what was meant. I think it is a form of dishonest argument. Since I doubt your honesty, I again request that you quote me in context as I do you.
Cheers,
DB
===
If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing. - Anatole France
I'm afraid quoting any of that would be more harm than help. So I will not. Are you aware that the full context is just a few inches above any excerpt?
Is there a term that you prefer to refer to all things past, present, and future? Since words are just symbols I would be happy to please you by using your choice. How do you like omniverse? It seemed a bit metaphysical for my purposes, and I do prefer more common terms to jargon when possible.
This thread is begining to remind me of one of my coffee cups:
"If the law is against you argue the facts,
If the facts are against you argue the law,
If both are against you YELL and pound the table."
Truth is a demure lady, much too ladylike to knock you on your head and drag you to her cave. She is there, but people must want her, and seek her out.
William F. Buckley, Jr.
The problem is not with your terminology, the problem is with your USE of the terminology.
Using common terms is fine. But you can't claim to give them a technical meaning and then still use them as though they had their common meaning like you do.
DB
===
If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing. - Anatole France
This works when only you and the computer have to understand, and one of the two remembers EXACTLY how you defined your terms. English is a huge language because so many new terms are invented to express subtle nuances. Both techniques hinder communication. Specify a context for a common term, and you still see the many alternate meanings crop up, create a technical term and obfuscate your way into a language of jargon that most people will not bother to read.
The difficult part of this argument that I expected to see is the implied predestination of a causal universe.
Truth is a demure lady, much too ladylike to knock you on your head and drag you to her cave. She is there, but people must want her, and seek her out.
William F. Buckley, Jr.
This is irrelevant and meaningless gobbledygook.
DB
===
If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing. - Anatole France
I am sorry, but it is a definitional element of "religious beliefs" that they rely upon "the service and worship of God or the supernatural." (LINK). It is true that "beliefs" are just thoughts, but religious beliefs are based specifically on the presumption that the object of that belief actually exists. Different religious beliefs might point back to different supernatural assumptions, but all of them share this presumption on at least some significant level. If you really want to paste religion into an object oriented logic model, "god" would be an object, and "religion" would be a proceedure (or a function, depending on how it is implemented).
Fuzzy Logic (which again, is an technique that I work with on a professional basis...we use it to recreate data lost when a paper document is scanned into a .pdf or similar format) is not a substitute for proerly defining the objects in your programming. In practice, this technique uses "degress of truth" to estimate probable values. But, it still relies on the same basic defintions in your system, and fails (crashes) when it encounters an undefined error.
Based on your Fuzzy Logic example, your "uncertainty" in this case would be 100%, since you cannot if fact establish even ONE verifiable component of your object that is "data invariant."
" "Right" is a subjective value judgement that has absolutely nothing to do with understanding the natural world. You can think it is "right" or you can think that it is "wrong," but neither belief will effect the nature of actual reality."
Right means correct, which is only subjective if it is based on opinion not when the basis is a factual and objective standard.. All that the title of this blog "reality is right" says is that there is a true underlying reality. Do you have any reason to doubt that there is in fact reality that is true with out you knowing about it, or judging it?
"If you are 20 and not a liberal, you have no heart.
If you are 40 and not conservative you have no brain."
Actually, the most common definitions of right (according to Webster) are "1: righteous, upright" and "2: being in accordance with what is just, good, or proper ." And, when one considers the intrinsically religious nature of the arguments you have presented, these seem to be the most appropriate definitions to use. Your attribution of "correctness" comes in third, but notice its context: "3: conforming to facts or truth : correct " "Facts" and "truth" are two things which are in very short supply in your responses, though there seems to be no shortage of "baseless opinion," which you attempt to use instead.
None at all...but then, your presentation included a great deal more than this. You attempted to take a very non-specific point-of-view (such as you express here), and to make a HUGE AND ILLOGICAL LEAP to further conclude that certain beliefs are true, simply because the nebulous reaches of the unknown do not automatically exclude the possibility of their existence.
TTFN
percivale
-------------------------
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
1: righteous, upright (partial)
2: being in accordance with what is just, good, or proper (partial)
3: conforming to facts or truth : correct (exactly)
4: suitable, appropriate (Exactly)
5: straight < a right line>(partial)
6: genuine, real(exactly)
7 a: of, relating to, situated on, or being the side of the body which is away from the side on which the heart is mostly located...(Not)
8: having the axis perpendicular to the base (not)
9: of, relating to, or constituting the principal or more prominent side of an object (exact)
10: acting or judging in accordance with truth or fact (exact)
11 a: being in good physical or mental health or order b: being in a correct or proper state (exact)
12: most favorable or desired : preferable; also : socially acceptable (partial)
13often capitalized : of, adhering to, or constituted by the Right especially in politics(not)
10 of 13 definitions are atleast partially pertinate to this meaning, and 6 are exactly the intended meaning intended.
I'm glad we agree on the first; Reality is real. Next, if it is not right is there any alternative? Or do you also accept that how things actually are is also right in a secular context?
"If you are 20 and not a liberal, you have no heart.
If you are 40 and not conservative you have no brain."
Let's look at the six you say are "exactly" the intended meaning you wish to convey...
3: conforming to facts or truth : correct (exactly)
Can you provide us with even ONE verifiable "fact" that would indicate the "truth" of your implied assertion that the athropomorphic entity you refer to as "god" actually exists?
4: suitable, appropriate (Exactly)
This defintion clearly implies a value judgement behind the order of the universe...which seems wholly inappropriate unless you can provide at least some evidence that such an intelligence exists.
6: genuine, real(exactly)
Do you have any acutal, objective evidence that your beliefs are "genuine" or "real?" Just because you think something is true doesn't mean that is is "genuine" or "real." That's why rational people tend to be skeptical of claims for which there is no actual evidence.
9: of, relating to, or constituting the principal or more prominent side of an object (exact)
If you consider the "god" you keep referring to as an "object," then it seems reasonable to expect that entity to conform to the normal sorts of tests and qualities associated with objectivism. If you cannot produce the "object" in question, or at least some sort of objective evidence that would support a belief in its existence, then your use of this definition seems inappropriate
10: acting or judging in accordance with truth or fact (exact)
Again, can you provide us with even ONE verifiable "fact" that would indicate the "truth" of your implied assertion that the athropomorphic entity you refer to as "god" actually exists?
11 a: being in good physical or mental health or order b: being in a correct or proper state (exact)
What does mental and physical health have to do with observing and/or assigning qualities to the universe?
You contine to make repeated assertions of the factual and truthful nature of your beliefs, as indicated by the defintiions above. But, you STILL haven't provided us with even ONE shred of actual, objective evidence...the sort that might actually convince a rational person to give serious consideration to your ideas.
TTFN,
percivale
-------------------------
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
...had anything to do with the definition of the word 'right' with respect to reality.
"If you are 20 and not a liberal, you have no heart.
If you are 40 and not conservative you have no brain."
The definitons that you pointed to as being "exactly" what you meant consistently rely on objective concepts...i.e. "facts," "truth," "genuine," "real," "object." Your position, however, contains NONE of these things, and fails to align with the context of the actual definitions in question. It is perfectly reasonable to expect someone who comes to you asserting a "fact" to be able to back that claim up with some sort of substantial, objective evidence. Because you cannot do this, your application of the term "right" in this case fails to meet the definitions you cited.
percivale
-------------------------
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
"The definitons that you pointed to as being "exactly" what you meant consistently rely on objective concepts...i.e. "facts," "truth," "genuine," "real," "object." Your position, however, contains NONE of these things, and fails to align with the context of the actual definitions in question."
My position is based only on "facts," "truth," "genuine," "real," "object." and does not even pretend to judge any of those whether known or unknown.
---
What is your position?
Is reality wrong?
Is it right and wrong?
Is it just_______?
Having no position, except oposing something not being discussed is a bit odd. I really can't see why you bother. You have no clue as to my position, or simply think you can bully me into one you choose. Does that mean you have no position of your own either? I could make up a position for you as you have for me, but that is far too impolite to do unless you invite me to. How about it?
"If you are 20 and not a liberal, you have no heart.
If you are 40 and not conservative you have no brain."
That is simply not true, my friend. Your position is based on a series of speculations and assumptions about what you think reality might be. At best, your position is the statement of a hypothesis, though even as far as that goes it is a poorly supported one. As you have demonstrated beyond any shadow of doubt that you lack utterly the ability to acutally demonstrate the truth-value of the underlying premises of your argument, your conclusions about "reality" are ultimately unsound.
Simply put, my position is that I am unwilling to suspend the normal process of logical thought in order to entertain the spurious argument that "reality" can be rationally assumed to include the existence of a supernatural being such as the "god" that you posit.
Reality is what it is. It is neither "right" nor "wrong." The study of reality is an objective exercise, but those terms are inherently subjective, and thus simply do not apply.
There are a couple of reasons. The more elevated one is that in order to promote the potential of actually having a rational discussion on this subject, it seems first necessary to instruct you as to the glaring flaws in the construtions of your arguments that make that level of exchange currently impossible. The less laudable reason is that I personally find it quite entertaining to expose the illogical flaws in the arguments of theism, and to observe the frustration and pique to which theists are prone when so confronted.
I can only judge your position based on what you have offered in your comments, extrapolated to include the such concepts as are necessarily implied. As far as that goes, I think I have a pretty good handle on your argument. On the surface, your ideas are relatively innocuous. But when closely examined, there are underlying premises which you have failed to even consider, and much less to address.
Feel free to invent whatever you wish. You certainly have never demonstrated any unwillingness to do so in the past. I am however quite comfortable in my abilities to clearly express what I think, and to defend those thoughts against whatever form of attack you can come up with. In other words, take your best shot.
TTFN,
percivale
-------------------------
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
"Your position is based on a series of speculations and assumptions about what you think reality might be. At best, your position is the statement of a hypothesis, though even as far as that goes it is a poorly supported one."
My position here is an attitude, nothing more.
---
"Reality is what it is. It is neither "right" nor "wrong." The study of reality is an objective exercise, but those terms are inherently subjective, and thus simply do not apply."
Due to the extensive portion of reality that is unknown proof of the concept is elusive. If you consider the preponderance of available evidence, as science is generally forced to, the conclusion that reality is right can be easily tested for every know circumstance with consistent results. Consider the two statements:
1+1=2
1+1=3
Only one of these two represent reality, and the same one is the only RIGHT statement. Repeat this simple test with every part of reality you can grasp fully, regardless of complexity, and you will find it always is so. On this simplest level the inherent obviousness is absurd. Yet add a persons subjective preference into only moderately more complex questions and 'reality is wrong' becomes a pathetically common theme. Amoral nihilist philosophy is based on the indefensible argument you appear to be championing, but refuse to defend. I suppose that is the best you can do because of the very nature of your position.
"A faith that cannot survive collision with the truth is not worth many regrets."
-Arthur C. Clarke
I would suggest that it IS something more, since you have used that attitude to postuate the redefintion of several words, including "reality" and "supernatural" even "god."
That the evidence is "elusive" doesn't excuse you from providing said evidence before trying to make assertions that are inextricably reliant on the assumed premise of your argument.
True enough. However, the reason that it seems "absurd" is due to the fact that this simple equation demonstrates a reality that is easily confirmed. Take one apple and put it into an empty box. Now, take another apple and put in into the same box. Now, count the apples in the box, and you will find two apples. Simple indeed. Your argument, however, is not so simple. Take one "god" and put "him" in an empty box. Now, take another...wait, what's that you say? You can't put "god" into a box? What's that? You can't even show me "god" in such a way that we can actually count him? Oh, you want me to just IMAGINE that "god" is in the box, and count that? Ah, I see it now. Its so plain. If we IMAGINE that "god" is real, that automatically means that "god" is just as real as apples? Right?
REDICULOUS.
The ad homenem of suggesting that I represent an "amoral, nihilist philosophy" is incorrect, but it is also irrelevant (and thus I feel no need to counter it, here). No matter how much you cry and whine about it, the burden of proof still lies with you to show us how your argument is more like 1+1=2 than it is to 1+1=3. I would suggest that in fact your beleifs more closely resembles the latter, and you have continually insisted on adding something more than the reality we can actually count into the basic equation of your argument.
TTFN,
percivale
-------------------------
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
Or, as it appears, just jerking me arround?
You have avoided the only question here quite enough.
Do you have a SINGLE example of reality being NOT right? It seems the lack of any reasonable counter to this is why you are desperately trying to change the subject.
"A faith that cannot survive collision with the truth is not worth many regrets."
-Arthur C. Clarke
The only one avoiding things here is you.
The question really isn't whether or not "reality is right." Reality is what it is. I have said this repeatedly. However, you have specifically attempted to define "reality" for the purposes of your blog to include concepts which are in my opinion NOT right. Those concepts are purely religious in nature, and rely on a premise which you have proved yourself unable to demonstrate to be "right" at all. I know it is a difficult concept for you, but in a rational discussion, one simply doesn't jump to conclusions without first establishing a supportable basis for that end result.
My objection to your idea remains very simple. You wish to include "god" in your version of "reality." I have merely asked you to prove to us that your "god" exists in the same way that I would ask you to prove anything esle that could be proposed to actual exist in "reality." Your unwillingness to do so in disingenuous, and your inability to do so has left you, and your argument on very shaky ground.
TTFN,
percivale
-------------------------
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
'You wish to include "god" in your version of "reality." '
That has nothing to do with any part of this blog.
YOU keep insisting on it.
Paranoia?
or
Misdirection?
"Believe those who are seeking the truth; doubt those who find it."
--Andre Gide
Let me quote one of your comments from above...
The object model I roughed out would be of human religious beliefs, not God. As defined a model of God would have to include the entire universe, and thus itself, as well as many unobseved and unobservable things from a human perspective.
You most certainly have included your weird and completely speculative and unproved concepts of "god" in this blog. Perhaps if you had taken a little less time to craft your response, you might have remembered what it was we were talking about.
TTFN,
Blackout
---
A question of love.
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
Saying things are perfect as they are is just as subjective as saying they are not. I don't know if I get your logical basis on that one.
And there are alternative theories to reality, contrary to your final paragraph: conservatism, capitalism, liberalism, socialism, communism, fascism, etc. There is no universally correct alternative. People can have their opinions. And since there is no way to logically or physically prove the nature of the universe as a whole, reality is very subjective.
-----
Do read my post fully. Not only does it help you understand my point instead of making rash statements, but it also gives me some semblance of faith that people can read and understand an argument.
There is no logic to be found when accessing universal truths, those truths are not bound to the laws most people cling too.
Those who access the fourth dimension understand that bliss...
http://www.wowzone.com/monkey.htm
I understand dimensional mathematics, so I can say that if there is a god, it exists in the fourth dimension. Think about it this way: we, as three dimensional beings, can manipulate objects in the second, and to a lesser degree in the third, dimension. Therefore, something in the fourth dimension would be able to manipulate everything within the third dimension. An interesting book on it is called "Flat Land," which tells the story of a two-dimensional shape meeting a sphere.
It is impossible for anyone of us to reach the fourth dimension by nature. We don't even know what the fourth dimension looks like, though it is commonly theorized to be time. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_dimension
There is definitely no way to logically propose universal truths, which is what I was saying. There cannot be one true, perfect way to look at anything.
-----
Do read my post fully. Not only does it help you understand my point instead of making rash statements, but it also gives me some semblance of faith that people can read and understand an argument.
It is impossible for anyone of us to reach the fourth dimension by nature.
Been there, its accessible for all that seek within.
We don't even know what the fourth dimension looks like, it doesn’t look like anything,
it just is...everything all together in the same experience.
Absolute truth!
A truth to make one realize, there is no such thing as a God!
God is a concept lingering within another concept, that other being nothing more than one’s own poor vision caused by that first concept!
http://www.wowzone.com/monkey.htm
Really? I'd like to see anyone get to the fourth dimension.
As for it being universal truth, I'd like a decent citation on that count, as well. I don't believe in a god, either, but I don't get what you're trying to argue here. There's either a universal truth or their isn't; there either is a god or there isn't. This is something where there is no middle ground other than "I don't know."
-----
Do read my post fully. Not only does it help you understand my point instead of making rash statements, but it also gives me some semblance of faith that people can read and understand an argument.
I understand your reasoning, I’m not arguing anything and its normal you just like many others don’t know.
In order to reach understanding of what I brought up before, one needs to rewire it’s brain, this is not exactly the easiest thing to do, lol.
Some individuals practice a lifelong severe discipline in order to make this a reality, still only few achieve in obtaining results.
The main reason is the fact that throughout education and media, we are literally programmed to think and remain limited in understanding. We are all being dumb down to a level in which most lose any interest in asking the bigger questions in life, while to question what is being pushed down our throats is not even worth an effort for most amongst.
In order to understand a truth or reality, one needs to grow some understanding in order to trigger the brain to work properly.
So to have your left and right part of the brain to function as one is the one and only way to gain access to truths which are not understood amongst.
What people refer to as God, is an illusion which has been created for them to remain looking towards the wrong direction, which is outside of their own self.
All answers are to be found within, the good part, there is nothing to fear.
We and everything which is, are part of the very same source of energy.
Regardless if we are alive in the physical or dead, we go and return back and forth, the importance lies into creating some progress in order to recall who we are.
This allows us to reach an understanding of why we are here.
Within a reasonable amount of time, enough amongst will find/gain access and knowledge needed in order to get us all to shift in common understanding.
It’s only a matter of patience, if more would focus upon the amazing amount of beauty which surrounds us, this would already be words from a passed once lived.
http://www.wowzone.com/monkey.htm
"Saying things are perfect as they are is just as subjective as saying they are not."
In the case of any SINGLE detail that is true, and in fact you would be implying that all other possibilities would NOT be perfect if you expressed such an opinion.
For example a temperature of 80 (or any other actual temperature) is perfect for the moment that it actually exists because it is the temperature created by the interaction of all actual influences collectively. "It is what it is." If I said that 80 was the perfect temperature for a day at the beach I would be expressing a subjective opinion, and implying that any other temp. would be less or more than perfect.
The point is accepting reality as it is rather than ANY subjective preference.
---
"There is no universally correct alternative. People can have their opinions. And since there is no way to logically or physically prove the nature of the universe as a whole, reality is very subjective."
Do you know that perception is not the same as reality? Do you know that understanding is not the same as reality? If you do you will probably laugh at that sentence I quoted. If you don't I wouldn't know where to start explaining the difference since you probably think your opinion IS reality.
"Believe those who are seeking the truth; doubt those who find it."
--Andre Gide
Perhaps it is just an inability to use words in accordance with their normal definitions and connotations that prevents you from expressing your ideas in a generally understandable fashion. What you are describing is not "accepting reality as it is," but rather an attempt to apply a subjective emotional judgment onto what you perceive reality to be.
By the way, I love the Andre Gide quote you chose. The funny thing is that you probably don't see the application of that quip to the opinion of your own opinion. After all, YOU are the one asserting to know the truth, here...i.e. "reality is right."
TTFN,
Blackout
P.S. After nine months of silence in this discussion, I would have hoped you would have come up with something more interesting in your response. Oh, well...
---
A question of love.
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
"What you are describing is not "accepting reality as it is," but rather an attempt to apply a subjective emotional judgment onto what you perceive reality to be."
It does not matter in the least what I or anyone else thinks about reality for this to apply. All of our perceptions of reality are flawed. The reality itself is perfect, though oft inscrutable. In this objective context absent judgment and in most cases even specific knowledge, reality is never wrong simply because it is in fact the yardstick of any such measurement, or judgment. Anything not wrong is right there is no middle ground.
We beat this to death up and down this page a while back, unless you have some evidence that reality is wrong, your insistence is getting a bit dogmatic, and frankly boring to me.
---
Re: Gide
Thanks, but from my perspective the quote merely underscores my point. Seeking the truth is a crucial part of loving the truth. You should love the truth because it is right, not because you are. Thinking you have found the truth makes it harder to accept it as it is, especially when you have to let go one of your previous misunderstandings.
Gide was a big influence on Oscar Wilde, who's books and plays I devoured for a while. At about the same time I was reading a lot of Hemingway which was a stark contrast in style. Both fabulously insightful, with viewpoints that had almost no overlap.
---
"I would have hoped you would have come up with something more interesting in your response."
It is such a simple concept...
"Believe those who are seeking the truth; doubt those who find it."
--Andre Gide
All of our perceptions of reality are flawed.
To quote perhaps the most famous philosopher ever to wax on regarding the nature of perception...
This quip is often misinterpreted to suggest (as you do) that it is impossible to make reasonable determinations about the nature of "reality," but people often miss the part where it says, " I too can hope for great things if I manage to find just one thing, however slight, that is certain and unshakeable." Because I know that "I am" and that "I exist," I can use that knowledge as the basis for further discovery, and by comparing what I find to what is found by others who assert themselves in a similar fashion, we can find common similarities that represent reasonable truths within our shared reality.
The reality itself is perfect, though oft inscrutable. In this objective context absent judgment and in most cases even specific knowledge, reality is never wrong simply because it is in fact the yardstick of any such measurement, or judgment. Anything not wrong is right there is no middle ground.
The problem is that you cannot arrive at an understanding of "perfection" which is objective, because the term "perfect" represents an inherently subjective process that is based on judement that compares a thing to the abstract concept of an ideal. Reality isn't "perfect" in any normal sense of the term. An objective view of reality would be that reality is what it is. Suggesting that it is also "perfect" overextends the comparison in an objective sense, and crosses over into the realm of subjectivity.
We beat this to death up and down this page a while back, unless you have some evidence that reality is wrong, your insistence is getting a bit dogmatic, and frankly boring to me.
Thanks, but from my perspective the quote merely underscores my point. Seeking the truth is a crucial part of loving the truth. You should love the truth because it is right, not because you are. Thinking you have found the truth makes it harder to accept it as it is, especially when you have to let go one of your previous misunderstandings.
Ah, but here's the rub...YOU'RE the one claiming to know the truth, and who has abandoned any reasonable search for it. YOU'RE the one asserting a belief in the existence of an intelligent being for which there is no actual, objective evidence. YOU'RE the one who is rejecting the search for what is, and putting in its place an ambiguous concept which is designed to excuse you from having to face "reality" without the comform of an easy answer.
It is such a simple concept...
You say "simple." I say over-simplified. A simple idea is not always the correct one, and appealing to simplicity as an excuse to keep from having to examine reality too closely is not a reliably way to arrive at the truth. THAT'S what you are doing, or at least it appears to be based on your presentation thus far.
TTFN,
Blackout
---
A question of love.
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
"Is your reasoning simple, or merely lazy?"
Where do you hook the outboard motor on a rake? And BTW why would you?
---
"The problem is that you cannot arrive at an understanding of "perfection" which is objective, because the term "perfect" represents an inherently subjective process that is based on judement that compares a thing to the abstract concept of an ideal."
You just quoted A few lines above:
'reality is never wrong simply because it is in fact the yardstick of any such measurement, or judgment.'
Or another one I like:
"A fact is always better than an ideal."
--Unknown
Perfection is not abstract when Reality is the one and only thing being called perfect. You work very hard to avoid the obvious.
---
"An objective view of reality would be that reality is what it is. "
I agree.
---
"Suggesting that it is also "perfect" overextends the comparison in an objective sense, and crosses over into the realm of subjectivity."
Only if you wanted to pick and choose what to define as perfection. The word is sometimes used in the way you are falsely trying to insist is its only, or 'common' definition, but why not stick to the first definition?
"being entirely without fault or defect"
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/perfect
Any defect in reality occurs ONLY in a subjective observers imagination.
---
"YOU'RE the one claiming to know the truth, and who has abandoned any reasonable search for it."
I don't recall doing that.
---
"YOU'RE the one asserting a belief in the existence of an intelligent being for which there is no actual, objective evidence."
Try to focus. I said reality is right. Maybe you should reread this blog.
The question of whether of not God is intelligent is an interesting one, but the ability to settle several independent concepts as we approach that question would be helpful. This is one of the easy steps. The next blog "who is God" is another. Trying to discuss this when you assume to know my position without listening and staying on topic seems unlikely to progress beyond the tiny circles we have been making. The funny thing is that I agree with you on almost everything.
---
"putting in its place an ambiguous concept"
It is an ambiguous world in many ways. The simple steps I am trying to get through are intended to SEPARATE some of the more discrete easy to understand parts of this. I assure you that "Anything which admits of the slightest doubt I will set aside just as if I had found it to be wholly false." The use of reality as it is as THE ONLY standard for perfection is not something in which I have any doubt. Perhaps you imagine an unreal perfection, not I.
---
"A simple idea is not always the correct one, and appealing to simplicity as an excuse to keep from having to examine reality too closely is not a reliably way to arrive at the truth."
If you 'examine reality too closely' you are attaching your subjective judgment to it. I have NO INTENTION of examining reality at all in this blog. Simply defining it as the ONLY thing that is right.
"Believe those who are seeking the truth; doubt those who find it."
--Andre Gide
...then maybe your "simple solution" really isn't the "right" one, after all. Try tying the outboard motor to a boat, and you'll get across the lake much faster, and stay dryer in the process.
Perfection is not abstract when Reality is the one and only thing being called perfect. You work very hard to avoid the obvious.
As I have pointed out to you more than once, the problem with your characterization of "reality" as "perfect" continues to confuse the difference between subjective and objective ideas. You are trying to define reality as a subjective construct, whereas I refer to the term in its objective sense. I cannot fathom why this counter-point seems so arcane to you, other than to recognize your desperate (and frankly laughable) need to score a zinger with the misapplied terminology which you inexplicably seem to view as clever.
Only if you wanted to pick and choose what to define as perfection. The word is sometimes used in the way you are falsely trying to insist is its only, or 'common' definition, but why not stick to the first definition?
"being entirely without fault or defect"
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/perfect
Any defect in reality occurs ONLY in a subjective observers imagination.
This comment only goes to show your lack of command with the English language. The FULL defintion that you partly cite is actually...
1. a: being entirely without fault or defect : flawless < a perfect diamond >
The contextual example included with the definition is intended to give the sense of the term being defined. In this case, the definition you chose refers to "a perfect diamond," indicating (obviously) that ALL diamonds must not be perfect. That of course implies that one must differentiate through a subjective judgment the perfect diamonds from the not perfect ones. This definition is clearly referring to a subjective concept, juat as you do when you speak of your imagined version of "reality."
"YOU'RE the one claiming to know the truth, and who has abandoned any reasonable search for it."
I don't recall doing that.
Then you aren't paying attention.
Try to focus. I said reality is right. Maybe you should reread this blog.
Oh, chillbill...you really aren't subtle enough to pull off this kind of intellectual shell game. This blog came about directly in response to one of your equally ill-framed tirades in which you tried to define "god" as "reality." Trying to hide from that fact only demonstrates a basic disingenuity and damages your credibility.
It is an ambiguous world in many ways.
Horsepuckey. I would suggest that the ambiguity you imagine is in fact caused by a simple lack of education about the world around you, no doubt caused at least in part by the time that you have wasted in search of the imaginary friend you call "god," and which had it been spent paying attention in science class would likely have led you to a far clearer understanding of the "reality" around you.
The simple steps I am trying to get through are intended to SEPARATE some of the more discrete easy to understand parts of this. I assure you that "Anything which admits of the slightest doubt I will set aside just as if I had found it to be wholly false."
If you respected this concept at all, you would set aside your silly "god"-obsession and turn your attention to a study of the REAL world.
The use of reality as it is as THE ONLY standard for perfection is not something in which I have any doubt. Perhaps you imagine an unreal perfection, not I.
ANY "perfection" that you propose IS "imaginary" insofar as it exists ONLY as a mental judgment, i.e. a subjective idea that only comes into play when you COMPARE the reality around you to some imagined standard. What YOU see as "perfect," the next person could just as easily view as imperfect. THAT'S the nature of subjective judgments.
If you 'examine reality too closely' you are attaching your subjective judgment to it. I have NO INTENTION of examining reality at all in this blog. Simply defining it as the ONLY thing that is right.
In other words, since your position LACKS the necessary objective basis which would allow you to defend it though reason and evidence, you are attempting to win our on-going debate by fiat. In order for your argument to work, you have to change the definition of commonly used terms (like "reality" and "perfection"). Unfortunately (for you), you do not possess the authority to make that kind of change to the English language. In English, words are defined by common usage, and your usage has a looooooong way to go before being accepted into the common vernacular. Until that happens, your arguments will continue to fail in the confusion which you cause with the disingenuous misapplication of terms upon which your ideas rely.
TTFN,
Blackout
---
A question of love.
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
"you are attempting to win our on-going debate by fiat."
OK, you win by obstinacy. I win too, by that same measure.
Keep arguing against imaginary people that you don't even allow to be defined. Keep calling prejudice logic. Keep insisting that the God you disbelieve is the only one that can be referred to by anyone. Keep imagining a reality more perfect than what actually is.
PS I don't believe in your God either.
"Believe those who are seeking the truth; doubt those who find it."
--Andre Gide
...then by all means continue to do so. But I think it is plain to our readers that your reasoning is vacant of any rational basis.
Keep arguing against imaginary people that you don't even allow to be defined.
This illustrates another problem with your arguments, since rational people don't just arbitrarily defines real objects. If the things you believe in are real, then their definition is matter of describing their observed characteristics. Your method is backwards. You start with what you WANT those characteristics to be, and they try to fit the things that you see (or in this case, what you IMAGINE) into that defintion...emphasizing the parts that you THINK (usually without any real basis) fit with your pre-decided defintion, and ignoring the preponderance of the evidence which does not.
Keep calling prejudice logic.
Logic has rules with which you are obviously unfamiliar. Pointing out your many failures in that regard isn't "prejudice," but rather just a statement of fact.
Keep insisting that the God you disbelieve is the only one that can be referred to by anyone. Keep imagining a reality more perfect than what actually is.
If you wish to be understood to mean something other than the fictional "god" of the Abrahamic religions, then you probably shouldn't use the appellation "God," which is for all practical purposes unique to that family of religious belief. You might also want to consider changing your avatar from one of "Jesus with a thorny crown" if the judaeo-christian "god" is not the subject of your theism. Of course, I have read several of your attempts to describe your particular "god" as some sort of non-denominational pseudo-pantheistic intelligence, but frankly those explanations are even more unintelligible than your usual psychobabble.
PS I don't believe in your God either.
As I am an atheist, that's not a particularly impressive accomplishment.
TTFN,
Blackout
---
A question of love.
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.