Photonic
Ad astra!
The exterior world is unprovable (at least rationally speaking).
Most people would say it is healthy to believe in it though.
It's about as healthy as knowing gravity exists.
Pretty much equivalent I would say.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The exterior world is unprovable (at least rationally speaking).
Most people would say it is healthy to believe in it though.
It's about as healthy as knowing gravity exists.
Pretty much equivalent I would say.
(emphasis mine)
But it doesn't.
Explain why you have a conception of God that theists do not have and are attempting to impose that upon us. That and why you think using a thesaurus for everything somehow makes your argument much more valid. I do not believe you actually talk like that, and the word you are looking for is "anthromorphism": giving things human properties.I can clarify more if you wish..
To me the joke is: When a person while acting as a thinker and doer, preaches falsity of other views while using the powers that he has not created or possesed. When such an individual declares that there is no reality in Self, that there is no consciousness, and that there is no life force.
They declare the objects of mind-sense as real while declaring the very subject as false. They want to become like Buddha, without realising the falsity of objects that Buddha realised and taught.
Could that statement be any more vague?
It cannot be more vague than your question.
Seeing as how my question was regarding your statement as a whole, your statement was way more vague.
So, it can be healthy to believe in things that can´t be proven logically then?
No, the entire premise is that it's healthy to believe true logic.
I bet it is one of those things you have to have a belief in something without any compelling evidence for in order to understand.what are you guys talking about?
The entire premise of what?
Maybe we are answering in too short for the answers but I got kinda lost.
Someone said that it is unhealthy to believe in something that can´t be proven logically, referring to beleiving in deities.
My answer was that it is imposible to prove the exterior world logically, so according to this person´s reasoning, believing in the exterior world should be unhealthy.
Which is your posture on it?
It is quite possible to prove the exterior world with non-vacuous statements.
I'm going to take your example to the extreme;
This logic would also dictate that theism is the only rational and logical solution. You would have a very hard time backing that statement up.
Me Myself said:My answer was that it is impossible to prove the exterior world logically, so according to this person´s reasoning, believing in the exterior world should be unhealthy.
I think I'm beginning to understand why most mystics and contemplatives almost always spoke in poetic metaphor: it wasn't just that what they'd discovered couldn't be effectively expressed in mundane language, I'm becoming convinced it was also so that the open-minded would get the message and everybody else would just sit there and go "OH! Pretty!" and leave it at that.
Could that statement be any more vague?
what are you guys talking about?
I bet it is one of those things you have to have a belief in something without any compelling evidence for in order to understand.
Or you gotta be possessed.
It is quite possible to prove the exterior world with non-vacuous statements.
I'm going to take your example to the extreme;
This logic would also dictate that theism is the only rational and logical solution. You would have a very hard time backing that statement up.
what are you guys talking about?
Everyone else is falling back on the old "I don't get it so it must be nonsense" maneuver.