If you're going to be the typical Internet Chatter and deny what you post whenever convenient, bother someone else with your crap. You wrote that pain is not a matter of perception -- it's right there in black and white in your post. Now produce this unperceived pain of yours.
Mind your own intellectual honesty, boss. Shall we dredge up the exchange you refer to and see what's what?
If you did not conflate the concepts, then you agreed with my thesis that they are distinct concepts. Are you prepared to say that now, or will you fly off into another self-contradictory fit of pique? Did you or did you not agree with Angel in that matter?
Shall we dredge up you past fail? Yes or no?
That's not how it ended. It ended with you refusing to give up your unreasonably limited dictionary definition of "belief" in order to allow discussion, and this after two philosophically astute members pointed out to you that you were being unreasonable.
It ended because you stubbornly refused to accept a broader, more accurate philosophical definition of "belief" for a discussion of belief, and two other members posted articulately as to why your dictionary definition would not do in a discussion of belief, but you just ignored their arguments and insisted on your synonymy of belief and opinion. We can quote these others if we must, and we can quote the broader philosophical definition if we must. Your refusal to budge on this matter demonstrated that you were not interested in discussion.
GOD IS REAL
A Note on the Thread
Contrary to 2500 years of philosophy and natural philosophy and 400 years of modern science, as well as the last 15 years of militant atheism, the existence of God is not something to be known; it is not a matter of knowledge, the existence of God. No, the existence of God (to be distinguished conceptually from the nature of God, which is the province of religion and properly so) -- the existence of God is a matter of judgment, of discernment. The existence of God is a value, a value discovered in and through the things of the world. God, the existence of God, is the value discovered in the world by unclouded percipience.
The Argument
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
The eye of the beholder sees Beauty in a thing.
The eye of a second beholder may miss seeing the Beauty in the thing that the first beholder sees,
but sees Beauty in another thing.
Both see the Beauty of things, but in and through different things.
The eye of a third beholder may miss the Beauty of the things seen as Beautiful by the first and second beholders,
and yet see Beauty in a third thing.
All three see the Beauty of things in different things.
The Beauty they see is as Real as the things they see Beauty in.
A fourth beholder sees Beauty in nothing.
His eye is deficient: his eye is purblind.
Beauty is as Real as the world in which Beauty is seen.
Do you have an eye for Beauty?
God is in the eye of the beholder.
The eye of the beholder sees God in a thing.
The eye of a second beholder may miss God in that thing
and see God in another thing.
Both see God in things but in different things.
The eye of a third beholder may miss God in the two things
and see God in a third thing.
All three see God in different things.
God is as Real as the things they see God in.
A fourth beholder sees God in nothing.
His eye is deficient: his eye is purblind.
God is as Real as the world in which God is seen.
Do you have an eye for God?
I am not talking religion here. There are many in the forum who will talk religion with you, in other threads. Please find them. Thank you.
If you won't budge on your belief=opinion business, no discussion is possible, which I dare say is just what you want.
