Meaning

[Jimmy... Dead.]

Man is God. We are the given, the evident. What you see as a flaw another sees as basic axioms of the metaphysical absolute. God exist only as an abstraction, man giving this idea an identity and consciously pursuing it doesn't make it real. A mans mind as the producer of such mysticism is man as God.

Intrinsicism and subjectivism rejects reality.

 

[Dak]

So if I think about Fords does that make me a car?

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

Don't be a fool! A Ford is a car, an inanimate object. God is an idea, human conception.

A car is an object in reality. We know it exist perceptually, conceptually it has identity. It is self evident.

Abstractions do not exist.

 

[crimsonfloyd]

Don't be a fool! A Ford is a car, an inanimate object. God is an idea, human conception.

A car is an object in reality. We know it exist perceptually, conceptually it has identity. It is self evident.

Abstractions do not exist.

You just said subjectivism rejects reality. If so, what is the difference between an imaginary idea and a real (and therefore rejected) object? Please explain.

 

[Dak]

Don't be a fool! A Ford is a car, an inanimate object. God is an idea, human conception.

A car is an object in reality. We know it exist perceptually, conceptually it has identity. It is self evident.

Abstractions do not exist.

A car is also an idea, or was at one point a concept with no physical representation. If you went to one of the tribes in South America that had never met civilization, and described a car, they would probably laugh at the possibility, or lack there-of in their eyes.

The problem with modern civilization is we have grown "too big for our britches" to borrow an old southernism. Even the smartest human among us is still woefully ignorant of so very much. We are a far cry from gods.

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

A car is also an idea, or was at one point a concept with no physical representation. If you went to one of the tribes in South America that had never met civilization, and described a car, they would probably laugh at the possibility, or lack there-of in their eyes.

True, but I can still prove that the car exist. You can't do that with "god" because it is an idea. With the car I have physical perceptual proof and conceptual knowledge.

The problem with modern civilization is we have grown "too big for our britches" to borrow an old southernism. Even the smartest human among us is still woefully ignorant of so very much. We are a far cry from gods.

I agree, not as a defeatist but as an inspiration to become better. God? never, but a human to envision ultimate individuality.

 

[Cythraul]

Man is God. We are the given, the evident. What you see as a flaw another sees as basic axioms of the metaphysical absolute. God exist only as an abstraction, man giving this idea an identity and consciously pursuing it doesn't make it real. A mans mind as the producer of such mysticism is man as God.

I don't understand your line of reasoning here. I'm thinking you must mean "man is God" in a metaphorical sense. I can't see what compelling reason you give for taking that literally. The last line of your post there is suggestive: Man creates things with the use of its mind, and so man is godlike. Is that the reasoning? But then what about the following argument:

1. Humans take shits.
2. Dogs take shits.
--------------------
Therefore, dogs are humanlike.

Ok, yes, dogs are humanlike in that particular respect, but if somebody came and told me dogs were humanlike to such a degree that they are humans, I would laugh in their face. But isn't that the sort of reasoning you're putting forward if I'm interpreting you correctly? If not, is your claim not meant to be taken literally? If so, then why even make the claim at all? What particularly interesting issue hangs on the truth or falsity of that claim?

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

I don't understand your line of reasoning here. I'm thinking you must mean "man is God" in a metaphorical sense.

Yes.

1. Humans take shits.
2. Dogs take shits.

This is literal.

Ok, yes, dogs are humanlike in that particular respect, but if somebody came and told me dogs were humanlike to such a degree that they are humans, I would laugh in their face. But isn't that the sort of reasoning you're putting forward if I'm interpreting you correctly? If not, is your claim not meant to be taken literally? If so, then why even make the claim at all? What particularly interesting issue hangs on the truth or falsity of that claim?

As an abstraction I am giving a new definition to God; interpreted by reality. That's the point.