Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
FREE E-BOOKS
Get the book "Why There Is No God" and one more book for FREE!
Sign up below for the Atheist Republic Newsletter to get the books.
Record Your Message!
Record your voice here for it to be aired on the Atheist Republic Voicemails Podcast.
Send us your views and opinions, your personal stories, messages of support, comments on recent news, or any comments you would like to share about your part of the world.
Note : By clicking record you are allowing us to broadcast your message on any of our platforms.
Affiliate Disclaimer
Links to atheist related books, shirts and movies and other atheism related products are affiliate links.
All proceeds will go to keeping the Atheist Republic website up and running; providing resources, advocacy, community tools and encouragement to atheists all over the world.
This is a perfectly reasonable statement. What is not reasonable is using this statement as proof of your God's creation of existence. Inasmuchas quasi-absolutes can be perceived, it is absolute nonsense to pose this as a premise in the argument for theism.
Now that you have a better understanding of what I believe, take a look at this graphic again.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/1buj01993fs332x/Concept-of-the-Existence-of-Ab...
Interesting. Although, the drop box seems to operate on the unverifiable presumtion of an 'out there' - the only purpose of which seems to be to contain absolute truth. Ironic, because this would make 'out there' another extension of our conciousness.
Rather, I would suggest conciouness is the summation of the entire square: theisim divided into circle and box, and atheisim all one box of conciousness.
"Rather, I would suggest conciouness is the summation of the entire square: theisim divided into circle and box, and atheisim all one box of conciousness."
I thought about doing this, but I needed to show how atheists believe nothing exists outside of consciousness even though this belief is not testable or verifiable by our subjective minds. The same can be said for believing in absolutes outside of consciousness, it's not testable or verifiable by our subjective minds, but when we consider the implications of absolutes, life makes much more sense. My mind is required to realize my subjective truth/reality and so it makes perfect sense for an absolute mind to realize absolute truth/reality.
Except that even your realization of an 'absolute mind' is a product of your subjective truth/reality. Really, at the core of what you're doing, is assuming. Or in other words, believing.
The 'absolute mind' could simply be an extension of your own mind. Would you concede this possibility?
Yes, this is very possible, but my belief is based on the belief that my mind is realizing everything I see and everything I realize was actually there before I realized it. In other words my beliefs are based on the idea that objective reality exists whether or not my mind is there to realize it. This is not testable or verifiable which is why I can't prove it, but must believe it.
The same can be said for your belief that nothing exists outside of your own mind. You can't test or verify that anything exists outside of your consciousness because you must be conscious first to realize anything. If you say you believe objective reality can exist even though your mind isn't realizing it then that objective reality must be an absolute, unchanging reality.
Couldn't reality be finite, and dynamic? There's evidence supporting that theory.
Reality can exist despite our inability to conciously experience it, and that is indeed testable. Not only is it testable, it can be corroborated by another observer - or many. Like when you are put under anethetic for surgery, and recover.
You're assuming that, without you, there would be nothing. There need not be a super-you to realize all things, all of the time, while individual you cannot. Or even that after you are gone, realizing could continue, somehow.
You're discounting the void. The unkown from which we hurdled, and into to which we ultimately, will return. Atheisim - for me - is in part acknowledgeding that void. Alongside it, my excuses are meaningless. So would yours be.
"Couldn't reality be finite, and dynamic? There's evidence supporting that theory."
Can you provide a link to this evidence?
"Reality can exist despite our inability to conciously experience it, and that is indeed testable. Not only is it testable, it can be corroborated by another observer - or many. Like when you are put under anethetic for surgery, and recover."
I believe this too. My beliefs are based on reality existing despite my inability to consciously experience it.
"You're assuming that, without you, there would be nothing."
I've never claimed this. I'm saying if you don't believe in absolutes then you are claiming this.
"There need not be a super-you to realize all things, all of the time, while individual you cannot. Or even that after you are gone, realizing could continue, somehow."
I believe there could be a "super" consciousness that does realize all things, that isn't confined to time and space.
"You're discounting the void. The unkown from which we hurdled, and into to which we ultimately, will return."
I believe we can know the unknown because the unknown is God we just need to believe.
"Atheisim - for me - is in part acknowledgeding that void. Alongside it, my excuses are meaningless. So would yours be."
So your acknowledging a void that is untestable and unverifiable? How can you acknowledge something that is untestable and unverifiable? That would be like me saying I acknowledge the existence of God. I've never said I acknowledge the existence of God, I've always said I believe in the existence of God, simply because God is untestable and unverifiable. So what you should say is that you believe in a void, which to me just sounds utterly hopeless and devoid of life. Actually sounds a lot like hell, just making an observation.
http://burro.astr.cwru.edu/stu/advanced/cosmos_death.html
Here's a link with some interesting hypothesis on the end of reality, as we know it, where the universe would effectively "end", for all reasonable purposes.
So, when I said "Without you to percieve it, there would be nothing", consider that I consider your god and you to be the same person; what your saying is, for the universe to continue beyond your personal death, there must be a super-Chiriliman. So, yes, to me you are claiming exactly that - without super/normal Chriliman, there could be nothing. Not so. Rather, you would be 'nothing' - effectively.
When you say the "unknown is god", however, I think that is perfectly reasonable; you're saying your life is already dominated - which is to say, that nearly your every conceivable action centres around - your need to manage the unkown in your life. "Unknown", of course, being a by-word for fear - or what you might call "hell" or (interestingly) "god". You likely do a lot of praying to that very end: avoiding the fires of hell and/or appeasing god - aka - managing your fear of the unknown.
The void is your "god" - the "void" is your terror; there is no heaven, there is no hell. What I'm suggesting - actually, what I have done myself - is proven that being afraid does not mean you will die. You can continue to live. You will live. And, there can be an opportunity to take an honest account of how you have spent your time so far, and how you choose to spend the next - possibly short - years/months/days/minutes/second. And there is no judge more scrupulous than yourself. Your chance to reckon is now, and it has always been this way; judgement day is today, and you - only - are the judge.
You can continue to hide from this, but never in ignorance again, if you ever really were ignorant to begin with.
Holy shit - no pun intended - I think belief is could actually just be an ego defense mechanism of the most classic variety: denial.
"Denial is simply refusing to acknowledge that an event has occurred (the trauma of realizing mortality!). The person affected simply acts as if nothing has happened, behaving in ways that others may see as bizarre."
http://changingminds.org/explanations/behaviors/coping/denial.htm
I think this conversation with Chriliman might have been one of the most insightful I've had yet on the atheist republic forums. Thank you for coming, Chiriliman!
http://www.atheistrepublic.com/forums/debate-room/rant-religions-mytholo...
"Here's a link with some interesting hypothesis on the end of reality, as we know it, where the universe would effectively "end", for all reasonable purposes."
What do you mean by "end". Do you mean cease to exist or go back to a singularity? If absolutes beyond yourself DO exist then the universe would first absolutely not exist then it would absolutely exist then it would go back to absolutely not existing and the same with the singularity. Seems like a lot of absolutes contradicting, which the very definition of absolute is that it is unchanging or can't contradict. If you believe absolutes beyond yourself DO NOT exist then your mind is creating the universe because the universe doesn't absolutely exist, it simply exists only because it relies on your subjective mind to exist. In other words if you become unconscious the universe ceases to exist. Do you see how this seems irrational?
"The void is your "god" - the "void" is your terror; there is no heaven, there is no hell. What I'm suggesting - actually, what I have done myself - is proven that being afraid does not mean you will die. You can continue to live. You will live."
It's natural to fear death. Why do we even have to die? Why can't we be immortal? How are we even capable of having fear, or any emotion for that matter? If you don't believe in God then you believe that our emotions came from nothing. How can my emotions and my experience come from nothing? The reason I'm asking these questions is because I really want you to think. Your current beliefs preventing you from being able to answer these questions. My beliefs allow me to answer these questions, but not because I'm making up some god, but because I'm actually using reason to realize that it all comes down to believing in absolutes or not believing in absolutes.
"And, there can be an opportunity to take an honest account of how you have spent your time so far, and how you choose to spend the next - possibly short"
Again, where do you think this desire to be honest with one's self comes from? According to your belief in atheism, this desire comes from nothing. How can anything come from nothing? (Yes atheism is a belief because you choose to believe absolutes do not exist beyond yourself, which I've shown many times now leads to irrational thinking.)
"You can continue to hide from this, but never in ignorance again, if you ever really were ignorant to begin with."
We're all ignorant of truth unless we honestly seek it. If you can't understand the "absolute" truth about life, it's because you're still believing the ultimate lie.
How can we ever hope to expose the truth among lies? If we are lied to, we don't know in that moment that we are being lied to, unless we can compare the lie to the truth. However, the reason a lie is a lie is because it hides the truth, however a lie cannot hide the truth forever. Eventually the truth will be revealed and the lie will cease to exist, but the one who uttered the lie will be punished.
Now, let me be as open minded as possible and take the point of view of an atheist in regards to this concept of absolute consciousness. Well If I'm an atheist and I truly think about this concept with an open mind to all possibilities, I could find one thing that could potentially prove that this concept is completely false. That one thing that could potentially prove this concept is completely false is the idea of sameness.
If our consciousness can define something as being the same as something else and then we extend that to absolute consciousness, then the absolute consciousness would define absolute sameness, meaning everything absolute consciousness defines must be absolutely the same as itself, thus causing absolute consciousness to have to be exactly the same as consciousness. Making this concept appear false. Did that make sense?
If I'm still an atheists and I'm still considering this concept with an open mind, then I am still considering that consciousness can define sameness. Now lets use an example to better explain this:
Our consciousness defines two particles as being exactly the same, accept that there is a difference between them, the two particles must take up two separate amounts of space, because if they took up the exact same amount of space they would be absolutely the same and if they are absolutely the same they must become one single particle.
This thought is very interesting when considering quantum physics. Lets think about a different example before we get to that:
Remember I'm still an atheist considering this theory with an open mind. Lets say our consciousness defines two ideas to be exactly the same. Well again the two same ideas must be thought of one at a time, thus one same idea is thought of at a point in time and the other same idea is thought of at a different point in time, thus they cannot be absolutely the same because if they where then they would be a single idea at a single point in time. Make sense?
Now considering the possibility that absolute consciousness has already defined our consciousness as having the ability to define things as the same, we can never define things as absolutely the same and there inlies the difference between our consciousness and absolute consciousness, they cannot possibly be one in the same. Absolute consciousness can define things as absolutely the same as well as just the same, whereas we can only define things as the same and not as absolutely the same.
Lets imagine that point of interaction between absolute consciousness and our subjective consciousness. Absolute consciousness doesn't not experience time and space and created the universe in a single point of action with no reference to time and space. Now we use our subjective consciousness to view the absolute smallest things in our universe and we observe weird behavior that shouldn't be possible in our objective reality. Material particles behave as if they are waves, seeming to interfere with each other when they should act as separate particles. Could this be a result of a single creation point interacting with our objective reality. That single point of creation doesn't need to be either a particle or a wave because it isn't experiencing time and space, but when we view it from our subjective point of view we see it as both a particle and a wave because of our restriction to time and space.
These are my preliminary thoughts on this for now.
You know this whole process you thought of is subjective right? And abstract and not based on the existence of reality? You created two terms: absolute and subjective consciousness. Yea I don't think we have that in neuroscience yet. We're still studying that, so wait before you make any factual claims quite yet. Who knows: you might be wrong. Your terms that you have are just as abstract as god. I understand your wanting to understand how everything is, but what if what you understand and have created "is just an illusion"? And your making a factual claim based off an illusion??? What if this is all an illusion???? What if we're not even here? What if the conscious is just a created by the brain and what if our conscious is tricking us about what we think, percieve, feel, and etc? Because it has before. Why not on a grander scale???? So I'm just saying when it comes to things like this, we think we can get the specifics, but so many abstract things and concepts can come and make them look so vague. I honestly don't care about logic because it's subjective to me. And the fact you will disagree with me most likely proves my point about subjevtivity. So go ahead and think what you want: just know your concepts aren't existent in the physical realm but rathter in the metaphysical and the abstract. When it comes to abstract, it can have so many things contradict it. Why? Because it's abstract. Good luck though.
Since brevity is a lost art on this topic, I'll say absolute knowledge is not required to make reliable choices that are beneficial to a group or individual.
Right, you just described free will.
Hold it! I just found the final answer to the question. It's right here:
http://www.400monkeys.com/God/
Chriliman - "...o̲u̲r̲ ̲s̲u̲b̲j̲e̲c̲t̲i̲v̲e̲ ̲m̲i̲n̲d̲s̲ ̲c̲a̲n̲'̲t̲ ̲c̲o̲m̲p̲r̲e̲h̲e̲n̲d̲ ̲a̲b̲s̲o̲l̲u̲t̲e̲s̲ beyond our own absolute certainty of our own existence"
vs.
Chriliman - "Leave absolutely 0 time out of it because it contradicts absolute time and w̲e̲ ̲k̲n̲o̲w̲ ̲a̲b̲s̲o̲l̲u̲t̲e̲s̲ ̲c̲a̲n̲'̲t̲ ̲c̲o̲n̲t̲r̲a̲d̲i̲c̲t̲."
Getting pretty desperate I see. We may not be able to comprehend absolutes, but we can think about the implications if they were to exist as well as if they were not to exist. I've made my case pretty clear that I believe they do exist, simply because believing this can explain a lot about this existence we all find ourselves in. It's makes more sense to assume that absolutes do not contradict because if you start assuming they can contradict then the term absolute becomes meaningless. Since we don't want the term absolute to become meaningless we must assume absolutes can't contradict. With that said, I'm willing to say that I know for a fact that absolutes can't contradict, otherwise I wouldn't be using the term in the first place. You realize when I say absolute, I'm also meaning logical absolute. I would hope this would go without saying.
you know assume means to supose something is true without proof right? Soooo your saying that we have to supose absolutes can't conradict without proof. Soooo i'm not going to believe something without proof because that just seems silly to me. And if we're talking about logical and rational absolutes, I don't agree with that. I agree with absolutes of reality such as a plant uses photosynthesis and etc invlolving the physical domain, but when it comes the abstract and infinite mind, I don't see it being absolute from "what I see" personally.( Not saying everyone thinks the same. Everyone is subjective, even when it comes to truth. Why do you think we have so many philosophies?) When it comes to logic and ratinonal thinking, it depends on the intent and the individual. Say someone asks you to smoke a cigarette. Do you smoke it? You think about the logic and the implications your choice will have and you decide. Some decide yes to smoke. Some say no. Why? Because without an underlining basis for the logic along with the intent, the logic will be subjective. You have to decide on a basis on how to conduct your logic and reasoning for it to be "somewhat" objective. Who knows? Maybe the basis for the logic is subjective. So I'll agree with you to an extent that we can "create" logical absolutes. But the basis for determing the absolutes could and can be subjective. I believe personally that logic and reasoning is determined by how your environment effects you, your psychology affecting how you think, and possibly some biological factors. In my opinion, philosophy and psychology are in a way connected or intertwined. Other than with science or absolutes we've created (such as math. but technically, we could remake the whole math system and give different symbols and values to each other. 4 could become 5, and 5 become 6, or we could create a new number to represent the value of 7 such as the number "derf" which i made up.), I have never seen people determine absolute truths that couldn't be countered to an extant to make it obsolete when calling it absolute.
"Since we don't want the term absolute to become meaningless"........Why don't we want that? I mean if the logical absolute or just plain absolute is that there is no logical absolute (whoa....just realized that might be possible. gonna think about that and get back to you on that.), why wouldn't we want that? I mean we're trying to figure out how things are (even though we have a bias to them), and if the case is that absolute is meaningless, then that's how it is. We can't just say 2+2=5 because we dont want it to be 4. If we're going to determine an absolute based of the basis we gave it, we have to go with it even if we don't like the outcome. To do anything less or more would be subjective. So stick with the answer you get i guess.
I overall don't believe in absolutes becasue the logic in itself is variant. It depends on the basis and intent of the logic. I belive in absolues of reality, but when it comes to rationalizing things i don't believe in absolutes. I will disagree with you, but admire your ability to decide what you want because you are using your potential as a intellectual being. When it comes to absolutes of the infinite human mind, there are many and many will disagree with each other, but the fact we can come up with them shows our ability to determine value, meaning, purpose, and etc. In my opinion, it's a superpower. To determine the perspective of reality, it's such an amazing feat. So i will not say you are wrong. I will only say you see things different, and i will aknowledge and accept that.
and u said we can't think of two ideas at the same time? Well i can think of a pizza. thats an idea. then i can think of a hamburger. now im going to think of them together. Pretty cool right? two ideas at the same time. But i get what your saying. the brain has only so much power that it can't think of so many things at once. But that's a biological absolute, not a logical one. Our brains have 20 watts of power: that's barely enough to run a dim light bulb. So of course you can't think of a whole lot at once. Our brain doesn't have enough power to. But that's not a logical absolute, that's a biological absolute. I admire your thinking and depth of the idea though. Just research a bit more before you make a factual claim. It's okay, I've done it before too.
Yea just realized you might also be a theist: where is your proof for god? You can continue for hours about your bullshit about absolutes and etc, but no one is going to listen to you about "possiblities" without proof. No proof for god. No proof for allah. No proof for the spaghetti god. No proof for the fountain fairy. No evidence for any deity. No reason to believe it. So ahead and continue about your abstract terms, but they don't prove god is real. I mean, another guy can say what your saying to prove that the hindu gods are real. So unless you have evidence, your asking me to believe in a god based on faith. Faith is admitting there is no evidence. I don't believe something unless it has evidence. So forget your god, and im going to focus on "reality" and "non abstract concepts" that actually affect my reality. Not my "subjective reality" (i hope you mean opinion in that context. Cause there is only one reality. We just see it differently with opinions and sometimes the occasional person with schizophrenia who can't see things right. Your claims have no other evidence to them other than abstract concepts. Abstract isn't set in stone with reality. Not going to listen to them unless they are. Sure theyre fun to think about, but nothing to actually consider.).
This conversation has gotten quite complicated and technical. The bottom line is...anyone can believe any kind of magical, mystical nonsense they make up their minds to believe is real... illusionists, magic, fairy tales, Gods, psychics, UFO"S, martians, leprechuans, fairies, aliens,etc. you get the picture. But it dosen't mean these things really exist...and I find it sad, and pathetic how many people out there are so desperate, and willing to believe in magical, mystical things that are so ridiculous that it defies all logic...but that is what "faith" is supposed to be...believing in things even when they don't make sense. I personally see no purpose to that whatsoever, but too many people do for their own reasons... and there is nothing you can do about it...sensible discussion is not possible, the believers will not accept that...so, what are you going to do??
How is claiming that nothing can exist outside of consciousness not a belief, when you can't test or verify that this claim is true? Since you can't test or verify that nothing exists outside of our minds, then you must believe it. Yet believing this is irrational. Apparently all atheists seem to believe that objective reality exists and is not dependent on consciousness to exist. We can't test or verify this, so why believe it? Our subjective minds can't reach absolute objectivity, only a degree of objectivity so how can we know for sure that objective reality is real? The answer is we can't be absolutely certain, but logic tells us that objective reality must be absolutely real because we can see feel touch and smell it. If objective reality is absolutely real and not dependent on our consciousness to exist, yet our minds are required to realize this degree of objective reality, then it would make logical sense for there to be an absolute conscious mind that realizes that absolute objective reality.
Here is my problem with the whole mess Chriliman:
You tell us that humans can't comprehend absolutes (which may or may not be true, I'll reserve judgment on that). Here are some snippets of the many times you have repeated this idea:
1) Chriliman - "he only thing we can be certain of is that we can't comprehend a̲b̲s̲o̲l̲u̲t̲e truth"
2) Chriliman - "our subjective minds can't comprehend a̲b̲s̲o̲l̲u̲t̲e truth"
3) Chriliman - "No one can define a̲b̲s̲o̲l̲u̲t̲e truth"
4) Chriliman - "we are not able to comprehend a̲b̲s̲o̲l̲u̲t̲es"
---------------------
Then after assuring us of this---ad nauseum---you then proceed to fill post after post of claims about absolutes, the same absolutes you just told us that no one (including yourself) can understand! Here is a sample of those:
5) Chriliman - "This is a̲b̲s̲o̲l̲u̲t̲e logic that can't be denied"
6) Chriliman - "a̲b̲s̲o̲l̲u̲t̲e truth can only exist in a̲b̲s̲o̲l̲u̲t̲e objective reality"
7) Chriliman - "He is the a̲b̲s̲o̲l̲u̲t̲e objective truth"
8) Chriliman - "because there is an a̲b̲s̲o̲l̲u̲t̲e consciousness(God) that realizes an a̲b̲s̲o̲l̲u̲t̲e reality"
9) Chriliman - "left would be a̲b̲s̲o̲l̲u̲t̲e unchanging truth"
10) Chriliman - "because an a̲b̲s̲o̲l̲u̲t̲e conscious(God) realized that a̲b̲s̲o̲l̲u̲t̲e truth first"
11) Chriliman - "since an a̲b̲s̲o̲l̲u̲t̲e conscious mind has always"
12) Chriliman - "we'll be able to observe a̲b̲s̲o̲l̲u̲t̲e truth as realized by a̲b̲s̲o̲l̲u̲t̲e consciousness(God)"
13) Chriliman - " it's a̲b̲s̲o̲l̲u̲t̲e̲l̲y true that a̲b̲s̲o̲l̲u̲t̲e truth exists"
14) Chriliman - "an a̲b̲s̲o̲l̲u̲t̲e consciousness that doesn't experience"
15) Chriliman - "that can realize a̲b̲s̲o̲l̲u̲t̲e truth"
16) Chriliman - "Our objective reality is a̲b̲s̲o̲l̲u̲t̲e̲l̲y true"
17) Chriliman - "making it a̲b̲s̲o̲l̲u̲t̲e̲l̲y true"
18) Chriliman - "my consciousness to exist then their existence must be a̲b̲s̲o̲l̲u̲t̲e"
19) Chriliman - "an a̲b̲s̲o̲l̲u̲t̲e consciousness defined it to be a̲b̲s̲o̲l̲u̲t̲e̲l̲y true"
20) Chriliman - "can be opposite of the a̲b̲s̲o̲l̲u̲t̲e truth"
21) Chriliman - "an a̲b̲s̲o̲l̲u̲t̲e consciousness would have a full comprehension of a̲b̲s̲o̲l̲u̲t̲e truth"
22) Chriliman - " the difference between " a̲b̲s̲o̲l̲u̲t̲e Truth" and "truth" is very simple"
23) Chriliman - "a̲b̲s̲o̲l̲u̲t̲e truth cannot exist inside consciousness"
24) Chriliman - "a̲b̲s̲o̲l̲u̲t̲e truth must either exist or not exist"
25) Chriliman - "a̲b̲s̲o̲l̲u̲t̲e truth cannot be tested"
-------------
If you really don't think humans can comprehend absolutes; STOP USING/APPEALING TO THEM IN YOUR ARGUMENTS!
Remember:
You are dealing with someone who believes that their beliefs are absolutes, but that subjective absolutes are not absolutes, but that subjective concepts such as truth MUST be absolute. I must say, I wasn't quite prepared for all of this, as I don't own a large snow-shovel and a space suit. It is not everyday that one must shovel bullshit in space, I'd tell him to shut his simpering weasel-flange but his self-contradictory statements are even worse than the bibles.
You've completely left out one key word "belief". I've claimed from the beginning that we must either "believe" absolutes exist or "believe" they don't exist. I was saying absolute truth from the beginning, but even still if you "believe" absolutes exist then there must be an absolute truth that exists. I "believe" absolutes do exist because "believing" this allows me to be certain (not absolutely certain just certain) that mars existed in objective reality before I existed in objective reality. If you "believe" absolutes do not exist, then you can't be certain that mars existed in objective reality before you existed in objective reality, even though you can see that it is very old and must of been around for a very long time. If you don't "believe" in absolutes beyond your own mind then mars existing in objective reality is dependent on your mind and not independent of your mind. Can you see how not "believing" in absolutes lead to irrational thinking? Whereas "believing" in absolutes leads to rational thinking? Don't leave out that one key word "belief", it's all our subjective minds are capable of when you get down to the bottom of reason, and where your thinking goes from there will determine if you're a rational thinker or an irrational thinker.
Chriliman - "You've completely left out one key word "belief"."
You told us you can't comprehend absolutes. Therefore: the dozens of additional statements you made about absolutes are wild speculation, since they are statements about something you admittedly don't comprehend.
Not to mention that a belief and an absolute are mutually exclusive, believing in an absolute is like claiming complete knowledge of something you admit that you do not know, it makes no sense.
"You told us you can't comprehend absolutes. Therefore: the dozens of additional statements you made about absolutes are wild speculation, since they are statements about something you admittedly don't comprehend."
You would agree that YOU can't comprehend absolutes either correct? And saying your absolute certain of somethings does not equal comprehension of absolutes, it only means you're subjectively absolutely certain about something, which by definition is subjective NOT ABSOLUTE. So this means none of us can comprehend absolutes because we are all restricted to our subjective minds. However, when we consider this objective reality that we can see touch smell and feel right in front of us, the logic we have in our minds tells us that this objective reality must be absolutely objective and not dependent on our subjective minds to exist. Our minds are not creating this objective reality, if my mind was creating this objective reality then my mind would be the only mind to exist and I believe and am darn near absolutely certain this isn't true. My mind is simply realizing this absolute objective reality that isn't dependent on my mind to absolutely exist.
Here's where it gets tricky for you atheists to understand. If my mind/consciousness is required to realize this objective reality that absolutely exists independent of my mind then it would make complete sense for this absolute objective reality to require an absolute mind/consciousness to realize absolute objective reality. This reasoning and rational thinking leads to the belief in God.
Pages