The "real world"

[Dja Majista]

The "real world" is simply the world we as humans percieve. But does this "real world" which accurately reflect everything that exists? Are things often distorted when we percieve them through our bodies? What human limitations should we take into consideration when we use logic to discern what is real, fake, right, or wrong?

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

damasta said:

The "real world" is simply the world we as humans percieve. But does this "real world" which accurately reflect everything that exists? Are things often distorted when we percieve them through our bodies? What human limitations should we take into consideration when we use logic to discern what is real, fake, right, or wrong?

Reality, is based off of what is fundamentally relative, for each and every individual person. How can you say I'm wrong, and how can I say you're right?

[Dja Majista]

The only things that we can be sure of are things that our bodies can directly percieve (I can prove that light does in fact exist). However, things get less and less sure once you have to indirectly percieve something through discernment or logic (from the existance of love to the existance of ghosts). None of these can be directly percieved and can be interpreted as something else.

Of course I say all of this under the premise that we don't live in a dream world, and everything we can directly percieve does exist.

Right. we are probably in agreement here. Let's discuss human limitations. What are some things that keep us from seeing things (conceptual) the way they are or inhibit our ability to make flawless logic?

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

damasta said:

The only things that we can be sure of are things that our bodies can directly percieve (I can prove that light does in fact exist). However, things get less and less sure once you have to indirectly percieve something through discernment or logic (from the existance of love to the existance of ghosts). None of these can be directly percieved and can be interpreted as something else.

But it's still only relative. NOTHING is proven in stone at all before we got here. We as man made our own laws, our own culture, and our culture reflects us as much as we do vice versa. There is no darkness without light, but is darkness simply the abscence of light. Everything is opinionated (even this), but facts are just what we as society agree on. In essence everything is an expression of one way or another and there is no "right" or "wrong" in that aspect, just that we as humans need a common grounds for communication.

You may show me what we people consider "light" (as in the wavelengths), but if I honestly think light is something else, you can't prove me wrong in that sense without "logic" and "science".

It's like me saying this computer is gray, why is it gray, says who?

damasta said:

Of course I say all of this under the premise that we don't live in a dream world, and everything we can directly percieve does exist.

Which is relative to perception.

damasta said:

Right. we are probably in agreement here. Let's discuss human limitations. What are some things that keep us from seeing things (conceptual) the way they are or inhibit our ability to make flawless logic?

Read above, it's all relative to the person, who says what is or isn't flawless? That would make everyone the same and indifferent.

[Dja Majista]

But it's still only relative. NOTHING is proven in stone at all before we got here. We as man made our own laws, our own culture, and our culture reflects us as much as we do vice versa. There is no darkness without light, but is darkness simply the abscence of light. Everything is opinionated (even this), but facts are just what we as society agree on. In essence everything is an expression of one way or another and there is no "right" or "wrong" in that aspect, just that we as humans need a common grounds for communication.

You may show me what we people consider "light" (as in the wavelengths), but if I honestly think light is something else, you can't prove me wrong in that sense without "logic" and "science".

It's like me saying this computer is gray, why is it gray, says who?

I know everything is relative but the world that we should be concerned with (wheather it be real of not) is the world that we can directly and indirectly percieve. It simply doesn't change anything if it's real or not because it's the only world we can really concern ourselves with. That's what counts.

Which is relative to perception.

Yes, and I simply use this premise because this is a real world that is relevant to us wheather it in fact be a dream world or not.

Read above, it's all relative to the person, who says what is or isn't flawless? That would make everyone the same and indifferent.

Logic can be deemed flawless or flawed relative to the percievable world. Any world that we can't percieve may in fact exist, but discerning it's existence is the equivalent of a 100% uneducated guess --a shot in the dark. So the world we do not percieve (directly or indirectly) shouldn't matter to us. That's why we are only talking about the world we can observe . There is the world that is relevant to us (the world that we can directly percieve as well as use logic to discern). Then there is the world that we directly percieve through our bodies. The whole question is: in what ways is the world that we percieve through our bodies (the "real world" that people usually refer to) different from the purely logical world that is relevant to us (with the above premise it is the true world the way things are.)

[Dja Majista]

Here is a sketch that better illustrates what I'm talking about.



Anything inside the red box exists. The diagram has the green box (directly percieved) completely inside the red box because of the premise. But this discussion doesn't really concern anything outside the blue box because we can only come to logical conclusions based on what limitted knowledge we have. The purpose of the discussion is to help us make the upper part of the blue box as small as possible and the lower part of the box as big as possible. To do this we must identify, isolate, and recognize our limits as humans.

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

I know everything is relative but the world that we should be concerned with (wheather it be real of not) is the world that we can directly and indirectly percieve.

Do you mean just for this discussion?

It simply doesn't change anything if it's real or not because it's the only world we can really concern ourselves with. That's what counts.

So how do you guage if something is real?

Yes, and I simply use this premise because this is a real world that is relevant to us wheather it in fact be a dream world or not.

What makes it real, one again?

Logic can be deemed flawless or flawed relative to the percievable world. Any world that we can't percieve may in fact exist, but discerning it's existence is the equivalent of a 100% uneducated guess --a shot in the dark. So the world we do not percieve (directly or indirectly) shouldn't matter to us.

That's why we are only talking about the world we can observe .

The world that is deemed observable by what requisite? What is the requirement for it to be the observable world to all people in the same way?

There is the world that is relevant to us (the world that we can directly percieve as well as use logic to discern). Then there is the world that we directly percieve through our bodies. The whole question is: in what ways is the world that we percieve through our bodies (the "real world" that people usually refer to) different from the purely logical world that is relevant to us (with the above premise it is the true world the way things are.)

So you are basing the existence of this world based off of the 5 senses alone?

[Dja Majista]

Do you mean just for this discussion?

For any discussion that you want to have meaning. We might as well not talk about things that we can't use reason to discern. As I said, it's a shot in the dark. Everything outside the blue box is stuff we can't really bother ourselves with. All we can do is expand our blue box

So how do you guage if something is real?

I knew this would get really confusing. Let's simplify this. Suppose we do exist in a dream world. If it's the world we live in and the only world we can understand, it might as well be the real world, correct? My whole point is, don't concern yourself with things you can't concern yourself with.

The world that is deemed observable by what requisite? What is the requirement for it to be the observable world to all people in the same way?

Logic.
The directly percievable world is the world that we use our 5 senses to observe. Just outside that is the world that we use logic to discern. That logic is based on the factual knowledge our five senses provide us with.

So you are basing the existence of this world based off of the 5 senses alone?

No.
Also based off of logic that uses evidence to go beyond the five senses.


Ok from now on I ask the questions dammit ;D.

How do we as humans distort logic and cause ourselves to make false conclusions, or decisions (correct conclusions being in regards to the world that concerns us.) How do we identify, isolate, and eliminate (or at least disregard) these factors?

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

For any discussion that you want to have meaning. We might as well not talk about things that we can't use reason to discern. As I said, it's a shot in the dark. Everything outside the blue box is stuff we can't really bother ourselves with. All we can do is expand our blue box

Back up, I meant in terms of the contents of this discussion, you keep narrowing it down so I’m trying to pin it to a specific point. We could debate all day long about what is relative or not and what is perceived in the real world, because there is no set limitations by anyone, it is all relative. We bother ourselves with what’s outside of the blue box all the time, a part called wonder (different from curiosity) which is part of human cognition.

I knew this would get really confusing. Let's simplify this. Suppose we do exist in a dream world. If it's the world we live in and the only world we can understand, it might as well be the real world, correct? My whole point is, don't concern yourself with things you can't concern yourself with.

The better question is what deines our world? Our world is based on what we as humans influenced others in a group to believe, there was nothing set down here that defined what our world was. We as humans who rule the earth define the world we live in each and every day, and that world defines us. What we couldn’t concern ourselves with a.k.a ignorance narrows each and every day. Cavemen probably thought space was a dream world and outside of our reality but we made it reality. We seek to understand more so that we can grow more and continue to have our influence on the world as we sculpt it.

Logic.
The directly percievable world is the world that we use our 5 senses to observe. Just outside that is the world that we use logic to discern. That logic is based on the factual knowledge our five senses provide us with.

You’re being ambiguous again in your meaning, it’s not confusing to me but you keep switching your interpretation. You said the topic would be too vague to discuss what was simply relative and limited (for the sake of the discussion) what we perceived as the real world by what cannot be disputed. You said logic itself can be countered and proven wrong or ineffective in certain instances.

The point of me asking the senses was that not that it was necessarily all we used, but it was we examined without a shadow of a doubt to what exists in front of us. But even then that has limitations because if we don’t have our 5 senses we see the world in a different way from others. You can only do so much to explain to a blind person who has never seen what the sky looks like, but it will always be different to them because they haven’t seen it. We are limited by our own limitations in discovery. What we describe as “too far” our “outside of our realities” is only because we haven’t found a means to detect or gather information of it yet. It happens all of the time in human history.

No.
Also based off of logic that uses evidence to go beyond the five senses.

Covered above.

Ok from now on I ask the questions dammit

How do we as humans distort logic and cause ourselves to make false conclusions, or decisions (correct conclusions being in regards to the world that concerns us.) How do we identify, isolate, and eliminate (or at least disregard) these factors?

But who determines whether something is logical or not? We as humans defined this with what limitations we have, and those limitations lessen, but it still remains that it’s no “set” logic, just what most people agree on, also known as “fact”, we as humans have no set facts however.

[Dja Majista]

Back up, I meant in terms of the contents of this discussion, you keep narrowing it down so I’m trying to pin it to a specific point. We could debate all day long about what is relative or not and what
is perceived in the real world, because there is no set limitations by anyone, it is all relative. We bother ourselves with what’s outside of the blue box all the time, a part called wonder (different from curiosity) which is part of human cognition.

Then yes just for this discussion. I usually wouldn't discuss something without the use of logic though. Do you mean wonder as a form of cognition that does not necessarily use reason?

The better question is what deines our world? Our world is based on what we as humans influenced others in a group to believe, there was nothing set down here that defined what our world was. We as humans who rule the earth define the world we live in each and every day, and that world defines us. What we couldn’t concern ourselves with a.k.a ignorance narrows each and every day. Cavemen probably thought space was a dream world and outside of our reality but we made it reality. We seek to understand more so that we can grow more and continue to have our influence on the world as we sculpt it.

We learned of space because as we grew as a civilization we percieved more (green box expansion), which gave us more knowledge and evidence to discern more (blue box expansion), and with that we made the rocket and explored space, percieving it directly (green box expansion). I'm saying that blue box does have limits as to how big it can get, as we are only human. We need not concern ourselves with things that we cannot and do not discern the existence of logically. For example, gods that people make up whose only purposes are to act as governing forces.

You’re being ambiguous again in your meaning, it’s not confusing to me but you keep switching your interpretation. You said the topic would be too vague to discuss what was simply relative and limited (for the sake of the discussion) what we perceived as the real world by what cannot be disputed. You said logic itself can be countered and proven wrong or ineffective in certain instances.

I know. I'm just having difficulty using the right words to identify the different "worlds" I'm talking about. (like the world that concerns us and the world that is relevant to us are actually two different things) That's why I said it was going to get confusing. To be honest this was a premise I hoped we could just leave as is and discuss the question. But we might as well finish our discussion here.

Anyway flawed logic can be proven wrong once the flaw is identified yes. Basically the point is how do we as humans get the largest possible blue box below the red line and the smallest possible bue box above the red line. Do you agree that would be the most ideal goal we humans can go for?

The point of me asking the senses was that not that it was necessarily all we used, but it was we examined without a shadow of a doubt to what exists in front of us. But even then that has limitations because if we don’t have our 5 senses we see the world in a different way from others. You can only do so much to explain to a blind person who has never seen what the sky looks like, but it will always be different to them because they haven’t seen it. We are limited by our own limitations in discovery. What we describe as “too far” our “outside of our realities” is only because we haven’t found a means to detect or gather information of it yet. It happens all of the time in human history.

Not everything is within human grasp. Take God for example. If he chose not to have any effect on this world, would we ever be able to logically reason his existance, even with all the information of the universe? No. (btw wheather someone believes he exists or not does not null the argument. his existance is debatable therefore it is still valid)

But who determines whether something is logical or not? We as humans defined this with what limitations we have, and those limitations lessen, but it still remains that it’s no “set” logic, just what most people agree on, also known as “fact”, we as humans have no set facts however.

That's why I say logic in terms of this world. If it happens to be wrong in some alternate world, well there is nothing you can do about it because we will never ever be able to grasp the concept of 2+2 not equaling 4. Sometimes there are things you just have to trust to be right, like logic.

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

Then yes just for this discussion. I usually wouldn't discuss something without the use of logic though. Do you mean wonder as a form of cognition that does not necessarily use reason?

I simply meant as in curiosity with a greater meaning behind it.

won‧der  - Show Spelled Pronunciation[wuhn-der] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–verb (used without object)
1. to think or speculate curiously: to wonder about the origin of the solar system.
2. to be filled with admiration, amazement, or awe; marvel (often fol. by at): He wondered at her composure in such a crisis.
3. to doubt: I wonder if she'll really get here.
–verb (used with object)
4. to speculate curiously or be curious about; be curious to know: to wonder what happened.
5. to feel wonder at: I wonder that you went.
–noun
6. something strange and surprising; a cause of surprise, astonishment, or admiration: That building is a wonder. It is a wonder he declined such an offer.
7. the emotion excited by what is strange and surprising; a feeling of surprised or puzzled interest, sometimes tinged with admiration: He felt wonder at seeing the Grand Canyon.
8. miraculous deed or event; remarkable phenomenon.
—Idiom
9. for a wonder, as the reverse of what might be expected; surprisingly: For a wonder, they worked hard all day.

[Origin: bef. 900; (n.) ME; OE wundor; c. D wonder, G Wunder, ON undr; (v.) ME wonderen, OE wundrian, deriv. of the n.]

We learned of space because as we grew as a civilization we percieved more (green box expansion), which gave us more knowledge and evidence to discern more (blue box expansion), and with that we made the rocket and explored space, percieving it directly (green box expansion). I'm saying that blue box does have limits as to how big it can get, as we are only human.

Which is the same as saying we shape our world around us by how much more we learn. A better way to say is to say we can’t put a limit to our growth, but it isn’t infinite, since we as humans are limited.

We need not concern ourselves with things that we cannot and do not discern the existence of logically. For example, gods that people make up whose only purposes are to act as governing forces.

But the discernment of any god isn’t fully logical and we concern ourselves with it, along with strews of other things.

I know. I'm just having difficulty using the right words to identify the different "worlds" I'm talking about. (like the world that concerns us and the world that is relevant to us are actually two different things) That's why I said it was going to get confusing. To be honest this was a premise I hoped we could just leave as is and discuss the question. But we might as well finish our discussion here.

I get what you are saying now, when you originally asked the question I pondered the meaning of “the world” first. You are saying there’s a different in the world we perceive and the world that’s out there. In the sense that even if we don’t discover these things, they already exist regardless until we do and we shape it with our human personality. In that case the “real world” would be both, because the world exists, and we determine what is real.

Anyway flawed logic can be proven wrong once the flaw is identified yes.

What determines a flawed logic? A logic that is less efficient? What is right or wrong is totally relevant, but we can eliminate what is less efficient, which is what you mean below?

Basically the point is how do we as humans get the largest possible blue box below the red line and the smallest possible bue box above the red line. Do you agree that would be the most ideal goal we humans can go for?

Rephrase that one please.

Not everything is within human grasp. Take God for example. If he chose not to have any effect on this world, would we ever be able to logically reason his existance, even with all the information of the universe? No. (btw wheather someone believes he exists or not does not null the argument. his existance is debatable therefore it is still valid)

But we’ve already proven god isn’t 100% provable and also isn’t of the world 100%, we are talking about just the world we “exist” in. I’ve discussed limits with you earlier.

That's why I say logic in terms of this world. If it happens to be wrong in some alternate world, well there is nothing you can do about it because we will never ever be able to grasp the concept of 2+2 not equaling 4. Sometimes there are things you just have to trust to be right, like logic.

Logic is only a reason for inference, there is no otherworldly logic just like there is no “comic logic” in the since that the principle of logic is different, but the way things are weighed are. Like “comic logic” and “real logic”, you could argue that none of characters in comics are logical in real world with their powers, but you could also maintain a consistent internal logic and produce a theoretical debate on how those characters powers would work and should work and should affect the others around them.

[Dja Majista]

I simply meant as in curiosity with a greater meaning behind it.

won‧der  - Show Spelled Pronunciation[wuhn-der] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–verb (used without object)
1. to think or speculate curiously: to wonder about the origin of the solar system.
2. to be filled with admiration, amazement, or awe; marvel (often fol. by at): He wondered at her composure in such a crisis.
3. to doubt: I wonder if she'll really get here.
–verb (used with object)
4. to speculate curiously or be curious about; be curious to know: to wonder what happened.
5. to feel wonder at: I wonder that you went.
–noun
6. something strange and surprising; a cause of surprise, astonishment, or admiration: That building is a wonder. It is a wonder he declined such an offer.
7. the emotion excited by what is strange and surprising; a feeling of surprised or puzzled interest, sometimes tinged with admiration: He felt wonder at seeing the Grand Canyon.
8. miraculous deed or event; remarkable phenomenon.
—Idiom
9. for a wonder, as the reverse of what might be expected; surprisingly: For a wonder, they worked hard all day.

[Origin: bef. 900; (n.) ME; OE wundor; c. D wonder, G Wunder, ON undr; (v.) ME wonderen, OE wundrian, deriv. of the n.]

Wonder obviously generates great prompts for discussion, and should be practiced as it helps people have an open mind. So wonder is a tool humans can use to suprass their limitations (opposes closed mindedness, and can enhance one's capacity for faith) but are still mere catalysts for a blue box expansion. It's an incentive to search for knowledge. In the end however, wonder will always have a logical base and is therefore based on what you already have in the blue and green boxes. Otherwise, you would be wondering about something completely random . Which is why I say we should only concern ourselves with the blue box; because only the things inside it can be used to expand it.

Which is the same as saying we shape our world around us by how much more we learn. A better way to say is to say we can’t put a limit to our growth, but it isn’t infinite, since we as humans are limited.

yes, but our growth in knowledge over time will be twisted (as we are human, it is difficult to counter our natural tendencies); false discernments will be made and then questioned again. We will always grow but we will always have a lot of things wrong as well.

But the discernment of any god isn’t fully logical and we concern ourselves with it, along with strews of other things.

Every time you make a discernment of a god's existance, there must be that element of logic. If there is no logic, there is no reason in your belief. So it is fully logical in the sense that every discernment is ultimately made through the use of logic and reason.

I get what you are saying now, when you originally asked the question I pondered the meaning of “the world” first. You are saying there’s a different in the world we perceive and the world that’s out there. In the sense that even if we don’t discover these things, they already exist regardless until we do and we shape it with our human personality. In that case the “real world” would be both, because the world exists, and we determine what is real.

Yes.

What determines a flawed logic? A logic that is less efficient? What is right or wrong is totally relevant, but we can eliminate what is less efficient, which is what you mean below?

No I'm just talking about flaws within the logical chain, perhaps a flawed premise or so caused by our human limitations.

Rephrase that one please.

lol that is ugly.

The point is: How do we as humans get the largest possible blue box below the red line and the smallest possible bue box above the red line. Do you agree that would be the most ideal goal we humans can go for?

Will that suffice?

But we’ve already proven god isn’t 100% provable and also isn’t of the world 100%, we are talking about just the world we “exist” in. I’ve discussed limits with you earlier.

I'm saying the world we exist in does have God in it. But it's up to him wheather we can discern his presence or not. Some things in this world are impossible to reach.

Logic is only a reason for inference, there is no otherworldly logic just like there is no “comic logic” in the since that the principle of logic is different, but the way things are weighed are. Like “comic logic” and “real logic”, you could argue that none of characters in comics are logical in real world with their powers, but you could also maintain a consistent internal logic and produce a theoretical debate on how those characters powers would work and should work and should affect the others around them.

There is no difference between the logic used in comics or real world sense other that there are certain constant premises. The logic is still logic. The only difference is that logical statements are simply made off of different sets of premises. For example, in a comic thread a commonly acceptable premise might be that the laws of physics not recognized inside a superheroes body (and is not up for debate), but all other external physics laws still apply (gravity, Newtons laws, etc. still apply and may be used in the argument)

This another note. I thought of it and didn't really fit in any of the points in particular... just the spectrum...
Evidence is given for us to percieve; we use logic to discern and draw conclusions; those conclusions become premises in another logical chain to discern more and so on. Sometimes I wish we could just start from scratch sometimes, but we can't. There are so many premises imbeaded in out minds and they are very hard to shake off, let alone identify...

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

Wonder obviously generates great prompts for discussion, and should be practiced as it helps people have an open mind.

Wonder isn’t simply a “tool” you get or practice, nor is curiousity. It is a natural human tendency (or tendencies of other intelligent beings) that is a result of cognition. Wonder, itself is a grander ability that humans themselves have that allow for us to think of things on a much grander scale, such as things of “God” or anything else in particular. Try not to mix up tools and tendencies, we humans are still emotional and instinctual beigns.

So wonder is a tool humans can use to suprass their limitations

The tendency to wonder has been responsible ever since human creation to surpass their limitations, even moreso than logic.

(opposes closed mindedness, and can enhance one's capacity for faith) but are still mere catalysts for a blue box expansion.

Expansion in the world must first start with the interest and ability for us humans ourselves to grow, that itself isn’t just based on one factor, but several factors, and is seldomly logical in fact.

It's an incentive to search for knowledge. In the end however, wonder will always have a logical base and is therefore based on what you already have in the blue and green boxes.

No, you’re giving too much credit to logic, logic itself is based off of perception, has it’s limitations and it just an aspect we use to go from one point to the next, it is just a tool for our thinking with what we already have, and has very little to do with growth because we can only use what has been defined.

?+4=? This is undefined, and is therefore a misnomer.

Logic itself has meant a small part in human expansion, and is only one part of thinking, and is very worldly based. You need creative thinking I.E a vision to carry out expansion, you have to somehow break the traditional ways of thinking to expand and make a new traditional way to think. “Logic” itself said the world is flat, the creativity, wonder, and vision of one man in particular proved that all to be wrong. The same with space travel, medical accomplishments, and many things in physics that you deem logical today were not always because they were deemed illogical at one time. It’s not so much that these things started with logic at their base, but that logic grew once they became accepted and accompanied the new growth that occurred. So that statement is very very untrue. Humans would never change if we never tried to use new tools. While it is logical to want that you have to have the vision and the capacity for wonder to do so, those are VERY different from logic.

Otherwise, you would be wondering about something completely random. Which is why I say we should only concern ourselves with the blue box; because only the things inside it can be used to expand it.

And that is the complete definition of closed mindedness. Who decides what is completely random and what is logical? Noone, we make claims to it but the world is our sandbox to play with, conquer, and explore, to shape and define. By using what is already defined and marking it as the only standard by which things are shows closed mindedness and inhibits growth. You need vision to see the growth and it helps to use some tools, and to have logic in your disposal. Like many things it is more than one ingredient involved.

yes, but our growth in knowledge over time will be twisted (as we are human, it is difficult to counter our natural tendencies); false discernments will be made and then questioned again. We will always grow but we will always have a lot of things wrong as well.

Which I can agree that we won’t have it all right, but that shouldn’t stop our quest for knowledge and growth, particularly since we don’t have the answer sheet of the world and won’t know what is exactly wrong anyways, so there’s little we can do about the fact that it isn’t perfect. But we aren’t striving to be perfect in the first place, or else there would be no need for further growth.

Every time you make a discernment of a god's existance, there must be that element of logic. If there is no logic, there is no reason in your belief. So it is fully logical in the sense that every discernment is ultimately made through the use of logic and reason.

There is a big difference between logic in the concepts of analyzing something and discerning something, just as there is a big difference between the concept of intelligence and the concept of wisdom. Intelligence tells me that if I throw a pebble in the water that I can stop its flow. Wisdom tells me if I get a big enough rock I can stop its flow entirely.

Intelligence is the sponge, Knowledge is how much water you’ve collected in your bucket, and Wisdom is how we use that water. Analzying and discernment are multiple ways to look at the same thing, just as ethics and morals are. Your logic can only be suitable for the person that makes it because it isn’t provable 100% that he exists and will always need that element of faith. Furthermore the events in the bible aren’t seen as logical at all by todays standards because people don’t see them happen. It is very easy to say that god has little place in our logic in both a good in bad way. Because his work as miracles aren’t supposed to be logical, or else they wouldn’t have their impact.

No I'm just talking about flaws within the logical chain, perhaps a flawed premise or so caused by our human limitations.

Covered above.

lol that is ugly.

The point is: How do we as humans get the largest possible blue box below the red line and the smallest possible bue box above the red line. Do you agree that would be the most ideal goal we humans can go for?

Will that suffice?

In the terms of what though, logic, reason, relativity?

I'm saying the world we exist in does have God in it. But it's up to him wheather we can discern his presence or not. Some things in this world are impossible to reach.

But for the sake and purposes of this discussion (although I agree with you obviously) you can’t prove he exists beyond a shadow of a doubt and you can’t prove that he masks his prescence, so you believing he is there is just that, a belief. It hasn’t been shown to everyone yet to the point where it has been demonstrated enough to be a norm of regulated thinking. So saying it’s impossible to reach is more or less a way of saying you have no way to prove it to me if I ask you to.

It might just be a part of your world.

There is no difference between the logic used in comics or real world sense other that there are certain constant premises. The logic is still logic. The only difference is that logical statements are simply made off of different sets of premises. For example, in a comic thread a commonly acceptable premise might be that the laws of physics not recognized inside a superheroes body (and is not up for debate), but all other external physics laws still apply (gravity, Newtons laws, etc. still apply and may be used in the argument)

I agree, their powers negate anything specified but the other laws apply.

This another note. I thought of it and didn't really fit in any of the points in particular... just the spectrum...
Evidence is given for us to percieve; we use logic to discern and draw conclusions; those conclusions become premises in another logical chain to discern more and so on. Sometimes I wish we could just start from scratch sometimes, but we can't. There are so many premises imbeaded in out minds and they are very hard to shake off, let alone identify...

Which is part of human cognition, starting over wouldn’t change as much as you think because we’d only have to do it all over again.

[warmunger]

If you mean to see the world as it truly is, I believe we can't, simply becuase we are human. Our fragile boddies can only experince so much which only allows us to view so much or at least view it as our boddies see fit. In order to see the world as it truly is, we can not be alive.

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

So do you believe there is a greater power then?

[warmunger]

Yes, somthing that is alive but does not posess the drawbacks of being so. Besides, scientist say life began from stardust, that sounds just as crazy as being created by a higher being, if not crazier. How can something not alive create some thing that is?

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

warmunger said:

Yes, somthing that is alive but does not posess the drawbacks of being so. Besides, scientist say life began from stardust, that sounds just as crazy as being created by a higher being, if not crazier. How can something not alive create some thing that is?

Which is why in all honesty it is more reasonable to believe in an intelligent creator.

[warmunger]

Absolutly, but scientist think they have an ansewer for every thing. If people were created from stars then why aren't there people created every time there's a super nova and why can't we survive the harsh conditions of space like stars can.

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

warmunger said:

Absolutly, but scientist think they have an ansewer for every thing. If people were created from stars then why aren't there people created every time there's a super nova and why can't we survive the harsh conditions of space like stars can.

Well even true Christians know that they don't have an answer for every question, nor do they have to, the search is half the battle.

[warmunger]

Yup, the christians don't claim to have all the ansewers, nor do they seem so desperate to find them. Religionist know that life isn't made with all the ansewers and that they will never find them all.

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

warmunger said:

Yup, the christians don't claim to have all the ansewers, nor do they seem so desperate to find them. Religionist know that life isn't made with all the ansewers and that they will never find them all.

Life is better that way, we are here to learn and help, not to be perfect and condemn.

[warmunger]

Absolutly! Just think if this world didn't have religion, it would be 1 F##kED up place. (Not like it isn't already.

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

Well we need balance and order, if the religion were too strict and harsh, then people will be drawn from it and want to rebel as well. Therefore it is best to have the free will and motives, but also the discipline to keep people happy and in place.

[warmunger]

It is kinda strict though. Our friggen laws are mostly from the bible. The laws control our lives.

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

warmunger said:

It is kinda strict though. Our friggen laws are mostly from the bible. The laws control our lives.

Well the strictness is relative to the person. In this thread we discussed how our world is shaped by the people around us, and the world shapes the people, so it is a big circle. Many of the laws are from the bible, but laws also neglect religion basis in judgment.

[warmunger]

Yea, you right. Killing is wrong but if there is the slightest bit of self defense it's O.K in the eyes of the law. The bible would've saw OJ guilty but some how the law didn't.

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

warmunger said:

Yea, you right. Killing is wrong but if there is the slightest bit of self defense it's O.K in the eyes of the law. The bible would've saw OJ guilty but some how the law didn't.

Well there was also killing and wars going on in the Bible, even God asked certain people to stand up and fight in wars as well. Bloody, but has gone on since the dawn of man and civilization.

[warmunger]

Yeah but GOD told'em too. He didn't tell OJ to kill his wife and that other guy. OJ had evil and malicious intent

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

warmunger said:

Yeah but GOD told'em too. He didn't tell OJ to kill his wife and that other guy. OJ had evil and malicious intent

Oh of course, but I was touching on the topic of killing.

So you think OJ did it?

[warmunger]

I don't want OJ to do it, at the time I didnt think he did it but every one knows he did.