Philosophical Speculations

Rather, "if abstractions replaced concepts of inner experiences". Not, "if abstractions were replaced by concepts of inner experiences".
For some reason I am unable to edit my post again.

As far as I can tell, your criticisms suggest that god cannot be empirically proven. No chance that would happen. Although empirics do inform my logical axioms, we cannot form inner concepts demonstrating how our sense perceptions pertain to “god”. I don’t think any of this negates the proposal tha...

As far as I can tell, your criticisms suggest that god cannot be empirically proven. No chance that would happen. Although empirics do inform my logical axioms, we cannot form inner concepts demonstrating how our sense perceptions pertain to “god”. I don’t think any of this negates the proposal tha...

We can certainly conceptualize the means by which thoughts arrive - that is presupposed in these posts of mine and Cleric's TCT essays. It is of utmost important to build a conceptual foundation for higher understanding. The meaningful context which exists 'behind' our current perceptual perspectiv...

Clerics post is interesting and well articulated. How I would put it in my own words (and correct me if I’m wrong) is that we can experience sense perceptions and observe “what they are to us”, but we can never conceive of the means by which those thoughts “arrive” to us as sense perceptions, becau...

Let me add something on this objective v. subjective distinction. Let's imagine we are observing ourselves shoot a basketball. I see the ball come up when I raise my arms, go through the air after releasing, and go through the hoop or bounce off the rim or miss everything entirely. Then I can descr...

... Let me add something on this objective v. subjective distinction. Let's imagine we are observing ourselves shoot a basketball. I see the ball come up when I raise my arms, go through the air after releasing, and go through the hoop or bounce off the rim or miss everything entirely. Then I can d...

Fair point Mikekatz. "we are consciousness" it is then.

The potential dualist interpretation from this communication error shouldn't be reflected within my actual views however.

I don't see why it would be easier to define consciousness than god. We experience consciousness, and we experience God (whatever it is). These are axiomatic. There is no reasonable definition of either which puts them outside experience (although most try to put them outside direct and conscious k...

Hi Ashvin, nice to see you again. Interesting analysis. To be honest, though, I think your conclusion of "God existing" is embedded in your axioms because they are so abstractly broad. Anselm's definition is accurate but is little more than a tautology in this context. This is a good point...