MasterHermes
Posts: 136
Joined: 5/23/2008 Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Esinn We know according to the three laws of logic which are non-conceptual laws, they exist without a human mind, for something to exist it must have an identity which is not a logical contradiction. Definition is a mandatory prerequisite for existence - a logical postulate. Meaning for something which human current knowledge is aware of to exist we must be able to give "X" an articulate non-ambigious definition. If this can not be done or the definition violates the laws of logic the concept is meaningless, & simply ceases to exist or is proven to be a concept existing only within the individual mind - having no external influence. Since you are a great follower of the logic: How did you come up with the idea of these logical laws being exist without a human mind (or any other mind in that matter) ? In order to make that observation you must exist, and your very existence makes it impossible for you to observe if those laws are non-conceptual. You can not declare any non-conceptual laws in the field of logic, because you as a human being are already conceptualizing every observation you make. This is how a thought process works for the human mind. First you get a sensory information from your eyes, ears, nose etc.. (it can be something like reading too, you need eyes for reading or ears for hearing somebody to read you if you are blind). Then your mind process this sensory information and conceptualize it, then it makes a conclusion by comparing it with prior knowledge, then your brain stores it. Therefore you can never be in a position of knowing what is non-conceptual as long as you are in the field of thought , therefore logic. Now what happened here is similar. You read or heard something about god (sensory info from ears and eyes), you thought about it (conceptualized it) , you compared it with your previous conclusions, you made a new conclusion or an altered version of an old one and you decided to share it. Same process repeated for other people replying you, and since everybody has different previous conclusions , they also made different inferences. This will keep on going as an endless cycle. Now I suspect you want to challenge other peoples concept of god using your logic, instead of wondering what is the essence of the universe. That is all fine (if you are all entertained), as long as you realize every inference you make is conceptual. Hermes
|