Vlad,
Are you starting off with philosophy in your piece or not.
Yes because of your talk of centres and ultimate reality.
None of which is proved. We don't know..............ok but that is dogmatic agnosticism.
Desperate, desperate idiocy. Here’s what I actually said:
“Think of reality as an epistemic onion. At the centre is an “ultimate” reality – the be all and end all final explanation for everything. Whether there is such a thing, let alone how you, I or even a god would know we’ve found it is another matter but go with it.”
Perhaps you missed the, “Whether there is such a thing, let alone how you, I or even a god would know we’ve found it is another matter but go with it”?
I merely posited the
possibility of the centre of the onion to distinguisah the epistemology of materialism
from it. Whether it exists at all or whether we’d know it even if we found it is neither here nor there – it’s there only to make the point that the materialistic model does not rely on it for its force.
Could you at lest try to keep up from now on?
How does that lead to "we don't know but we know it isn't God"
Straw man noted. Why are you so dishonest do you think?
So we are to ignore the ultimate reality. But somehow the next layer is matter and forces.
You don’t have to ignore the possibility of it, but that’s all it can be – a possibility.
And we have a pragmatic view........not so. You are as dogmatic a physicalist as it comes.
As I’ve only ever said pretty much the opposite of that, why lie about it again?
More than that how do you demonstrate your contention that matter and force are a model of reality?...reality.........which you dispensed with at the first layer.
More lies? Really?
Which part of the words “model of” are confusing you here?
It is of course a model of matter and forces. If it is as you say a model of reality a philosophical decision has to be made to say that.
Oh dear. “Matter and forces” are labels we give to observable and investigable phenomena. They allow us to create a model of reality – and to do that they need make no appeal to a supposed ultimate reality.
All you are saying or asserting is forget reality.
He lied.
Again.
My experiences are more superior than yours.
You’ve set the crass idiocy bar here pretty high in the past, but you really seem to have exceeded it this time. “More superior” (sic) eh? The cry of the delusional through the ages.
And why is that?
Because you’re delusional as well as dishonest?
You can't avoid putting your philosophy higher since you have nothing to raise your model of matter/forces above being a model of matter/forces.
NURSE! NURSE! He’s been at the random word generator again!
Your problem here is of course is your use of the word experience and your use of the word reality as equating matter/force.
Actually it’s
your problem, and that problem is that you don’t understand the meaning of the term “model of”. Thanks for trying at least though.
With the former your invalidation of religious experience draws on the very philosophical position you deny you hold.
And another nice juicy big lie to finish with. The “invalidation of the religious experience” as you put it is that neither you nor anyone else can make an argument for it that isn’t hopeless. Could still be true of course just as my “experience” of leprechauns could be true, but you offer nothing to suggest that it is.
