The blockchain is the perfect technology for such a system. It wouldn't even have to be imposed by the government. We'll impose it on ourselves. — fishfry

Yes, exactly! There was a video that I saw awhile ago, which I can't find :( . Finally I found it... @StreetlightX watch this video, it's the POMO stuff that you love. So take this as a Christmas gift >:O



So crypto would be a way to create a SYSTEM which is no longer controllable by any one person or group once created - rather it controls what is possible or impossible for people. That's what I mean when I say that it cannot be controlled by the government.

I think the real question of this thread is how is REAL economic value determined (that will show us what it is too - just like the process of genesis of a triangle will show us what a triangle is). I've proposed a mechanism that I think is scientific and fully applicable to the market.

The Marxist theory and the supply-demand theory are lacking.

Marxist theory ascribes value based solely on the work that went into production. So if I do the same work making a website for an oil tank producer and a website for the local coffee shop - and spend the same time on both, according to Marx, their value is equal since the same amount of work went in both. But in practice, we see that this isn't the case - people don't behave according to this assumption.

While supply-demand takes real value to be identical to market value (and we know that this isn't the case, because it is frequent that the market overvalues or undervalues assets). And yet supply-demand and market economics presuppose this real value, because the equilibrium market value is expected to approach this real value in the long run.

So in effect, when you say "supply and demand" you're only pushing the question further. The real question (supposing market value is real value) is why is the demand curve such that 90 people are willing to pay $100 and 60 people are willing to pay $120? How do those people RATIONALLY make the decision "I'm willing to pay $X for this?"

And supply and demand also ignores the fact that there isn't one point of equilibrium, but MANY. In fact, the more efficient your business is, the more market segmentation you use. Meaning you charge those 60 people willing to pay $100, $100 and you charge the remaining 30 people willing to pay $120, $120.

That's how things actually work. That's why companies have multiple different offers, at different price points. You're supposed to grab as much area under the demand curve as possible. So in football, some people are willing to pay $100,000 to watch a match of football. So I have a special place for them to watch, where they get massage, champagne and whatever other services. Others are only willing to pay $10 - so they have the regular seats. Etc.

Yes, you might think your poetry has no economic value, but if write a poem to let's say your mother, for her it can have a lot of value. — ssu

I agree, that's why I also mention that not all things have ECONOMIC value. But I thought we're meant to discuss economic value in this thread, not other kinds of value (and I admit they do exist).

Now if you go an try to sell your peoms, then you obviously get the price to the poem (assuming you can sell one). — ssu

How do I go out to sell my poem? To sell it, I must figure out a way to get clients - a distribution channel. So will I print my poem? Put it in a nice letter? Make a website where it can be accessed provided the customer pays a fee? That must be decided - all these things can be value-adds, changing the price. Then I actually must decide a price for it. How can I sell it if I don't pick a price? So how will I go about picking this first price? You can't be selling something without a price - customer will ask you what it's worth.

The fact here is that picking a price doesn't mean I'll be able to sell the poem. Selling is a skill - and it includes knowing what price to set, and also what's the best way to get customers. So really, this doesn't function at all like the economics textbook pretends it does. That's why I think this supply-demand system is outdated with regards to how most business is happening.

Well, you'll see the price mechanism work on the demand side if you tommorrow multiply the price of your services by 100. I presume you won't find any customers. — ssu

No, that doesn't work. I set my prices based on the value that I create for my customers. I refer you to this previous post of mine:

If you design and develop a website for someone, the value of it is in the traffic it can generate and how well it converts. So how well does it rank on Google? (that determines organic traffic) and what percentage of those visitors get converted to clients? and how much is one client, on average, worth?

So if I make a website for an oil tank producer, where one sale is worth $1,000,000 on average, that is entirely different than if I make a website for a local coffee shop, where one sale is worth $5. I will charge the oil tank producer a lot more, even though it's about the same amount of work for me.

So this talk about the market deciding this and that is actually bullshit. When you start pricing stuff, you will see that you price them mainly based on the value added - that also allows you to justify the price. In some rare cases, when there is a craze on the market for example, and everyone wants a certain type of website, nobody can keep up with demand, etc. then, of course, you will raise prices above whatever is supposed to be the real price.

So to raise my price 100 times, I must produce 100 times as much value for that customer. If I can do that, I'm 100% sure I will be able to sell at x100 the price - why would anyone refuse? Figuring out how to do that though, isn't very easy.

So to raise my price I either start looking for big clients and narrow down my advertising budget to those, or I increase the value I add for existing customers.

As I already said, I don't set my prices based on supply and demand. I set them based on the mechanism I've described above. I think supply and demand only makes sense for commodities.

Easy example: any individual stock in the stock market. There you will see the prices and the quantities that market participants are willing to buy and sell a stock. Aggregate of all those buy offers are the demand of the stock and the all those sell offers are the supply at the present moment. — ssu

So what exactly am I supposed to do? Read the volume of all asks at $90, $95, etc. and then all the bids at $85, $80, etc. and draw two curves through them?

Okay fine. Suppose I do that. How's that helpful? I still don't know whether that stock is worth whatever price it's trading at - so how do I know if I'm supposed to buy it or short sell it, etc.? And knowing the shape of the supply and demand curve won't tell me if those curves are what they ought to be in the first place (if the stock isn't overvalued or undervalued).

So to cut the chase, my question to you is how do I determine the value of an asset? The REAL value, not the market value.

Where we disagree is in the ability of governments to control cryptocurrency and in the role of currencies that are legal tender. — ssu

To begin with, I think we have entirely different visions of what "controlling" crypto means. To you, it seems to me at least, that controlling crypto means following all transactions and knowing who made them, and what value was exchanged through crypto - such that governments can effectively tax people, keep track of who has what, and prevent tax evasion and money laundering.

To me controlling crypto doesn't mean that. It means being able to stop the propagation of crypto through society - to prevent it from becoming the accepted payment system (as you call it). In addition, it means that government is able to control what the crypto permits and what it doesn't permit once it does become the accepted payment system.

Let's start with things like the functions of money and why it's important for any government to have control of that money as legal tender. — ssu

I think I've outlined the last part (why it's important) above, when I discussed tax evasion, money laundering, and the like. As for the functions of money, the only functions I see when quickly thinking about it is regulating inflation, and having a recognised exchange/payment system.

Now I will need to address the serious comments in this thread (including yours) when I get more time.

Same for you.

You know what Buddhists think of corporate mindfulness? Its a massive threat to real meditative practice. — MysticMonist

I am aware of that, and I agree. The way mindfulness is taught to employees is different to the way it's learned and practiced by the likes of Steve Jobs, Zuckerberg, etc.

Mindfulness can be improperly used as sedative to make people more complacent to the unjust status quo and to detach and thus enable continued corrupt social structures. — MysticMonist

Yes! Excellent point.

But I do think spirtual practice exists to liberate us from the world not be more productive in it. — MysticMonist

And what do we do once liberated?

I think being more productive in the world is good. But this more productive is different for each person. The way Zuckerberg, or Steve Jobs, etc. use mindfulness is that they're using it to better understand their aims, what they really want to do, and how to get there - it allows them to live more active lives. Whereas the way this is taught to employees, it makes them more passive - such that they just keep working, instead of re-assessing if this kind of work is what they really want to be doing with their lives, etc.

I think that that just demonstrates my point. Bravo. — Sapientia

You can think what you want, doesn't make it true.

Prejudice against that which is associated with New Atheism might be another factor. — Sapientia

It's not prejudiced. New Atheism is actually recognised as entirely childish and not worthy of intellectual respect. It's so intellectually dishonest, I wouldn't even give it a second glance. They don't even understand what they're talking about. And that's a fact. Anyone who understands theism - even if they are an atheist and disagree with it - will actually agree.

Oh actually they are. Just look at how economically important they are. If your neck of the woods would have great art museums with World renown art, famous Theaters and a Disney World, I would suspect that the masses of tourists visiting your Place would be extremely important economically for the local economy. — ssu

Okay, obviously in some cases, their value can be economically quantified. My main point was that in many cases this cannot be done. If I start writing poetry, those poems have no economic value, and may never have any economic value (or they may indeed have it - depends how well they do). My point isn't that these distinctions are clear-cut. Just that in some cases, it's very easy to quantify value, and in other cases not so easy. Very easy case are marketing and sales services - whatever extra revenue they generate, that is their value.

price depends both on demand and supply — ssu

Supply and demand are empty abstractions to me. When I've helped a client modify his prices, or when I set my own prices for my services, I don't consider supply and demand at all :s . I never need to.

Can you quantify supply and demand? I've seen some people draw some charts based on some usually extrapolated data, but the whole procedure seems so unscientific, it's like empty guesswork for me. When I've tried to actually apply that theory in reality, I found that it has nothing to do with reality. I don't actually use supply and demand when deciding on prices.

As value is different from price, I would say that the defining value should take into consideration these both sides of the coin too. — ssu

Why?

Notice the value isn't defined by the person willing to buy the good or service. — ssu

Same idea with stocks - why do you bother to do a DCF analysis if all that matters is the price people are willing to pay for it?! Clearly, when you do that, you're trying to determine what it's REALLY worth, regardless of what people are willing (right now) to pay for it.

If you actually look at the praxis of setting prices and deciding if things are worth it or not, you will see that it's actually quite a scientific process of value quantification. It's nothing vague like "uhhh what people are willing to pay for it" or textbook economics nonsense.

And your definition btw. ignores the value of things produced and basically anything else than production tools. — ssu

If you read my longer posts you will see that this is not the case. A website isn't a production tool. Its value can be calculated. Marketing and sales services aren't production tools - their value can be scientifically calculated. And so on so forth.

Notice the value isn't defined by the person willing to buy the good or service. — ssu

I think both systems are stupid. Defining value merely in terms of work makes no sense, since machines can also do useful work, and obviously, in Marxist terms, you ought not pay them a wage for it. Also some may do work faster than others.

Defining value in terms of the willingness of people to spend is also stupid. That's why we say that the market overvalues or undervalues things - because we have a real value in mind. You say Bitcoin is a bubble. Why? Because you have some idea of the price it ought to have in mind. That real value obviously cannot be calculated by the willingness of people to spend - people can be idiots.

So that real value is calculated by knowing the financial return that people get out of that respective good / service.

all religious items and services are worthless — MysticMonist

Not necessarily - workers who pray more, meditate more, are more spiritual, etc. may be more productive. Why do you think Google, Facebook, etc. are investing so much in mindfulness retreats, etc.? So the worth of these services could be measured in economic terms.

Because they have special value. — MysticMonist

Right, but their special value is not economic value - there's a big difference there.

Why donate to churches or charities if they have no economic value? — MysticMonist

You know why? Because they are important spiritually, not economically. So I give money to the church without seeking an economic return from it, because the Church is spiritually valuable to me. But it's not a business - it doesn't provide economic value, for the most part.

Second, due to opportunity cost and limited resources of time and energy, we need to spend our time and effort only on things of value. So if good and truth have no value then none of us should be on this forum, except if it's only because they like to argue. Oh wait... That is this forum. — MysticMonist

This is true, but in order for people like you to have the time to spend on things of value (spirituality, art, etc.) there must be businessmen who make sure you get all your needs taken care of. That's why I like the Renessaince model - rich families sponsored artists and basically ensured that all their needs were met so they could do what they loved and what was so extremely valuable. I think it's the businessman who makes the poet & philosopher possible, and not the other way around. Philosophy is hard to do properly, and it's best done when all your worldly needs are already taken care of. So quite the contrary, we must invest those limited resources in economic production, so that we can sustain our poets, our musicians, our artists, etc.

Now one of them uses some of that profit to reduce its prices. The others have no choice but to follow suit. — Inter Alia

Yes, that's why they're all going to go bankrupt, because they're idiots. This is a textbook example of economics which actually doesn't reflect reality at all, and I've seen many small business owners make precisely this mistake. I actually don't understand why this idiocy was ever taught in textbooks (and actually continues to be taught), it has cost me many thousands of hours lost, not to mention money.

You should run away from competition on price (and price wars) as if you were running away from the devil. This is absolutely possible for most businesses and industries - there are some exceptions, though I have personally never encountered them so far. I imagine highly commodified goods, like sugar, where all brands have pretty much the same product, though even there I imagine you could do something creative or imaginative in terms of marketing. Also industries like farming - I imagine all corn is the same, etc. - but even there, you can have non-GMO corn without additives and chemicals, 100% pure natural corn like you remember from your grandmother kind of thing ;)

Now let me explain what would actually happen if one of them slashes prices, by, say 30%. That will be a reduction in his profit margin by 30% (scenario 1) unless he also starts reducing costs (scenario 2), and paying people less.

In scenario 1, I have a 30%+ profit margin over him. That means for every $1 he spends in client acquisition, I can spend $1.3, and that's without being willing to cut into my own profit margin more than he does. Who do you think will acquire more clients? The one who spends more in acquiring them, quite obviously. And 1 client for me is worth more than 1 client for him since I have higher prices.

In scenario 2, taking an extreme that he slashes prices and passed all the expenses unto his workers in the form of 30% lower wages, then first of all, his business will (1) have a higher employee turnover than mine (hence higher costs with labour) and (2) his best workers will come to me, who am paying them 30% higher - meaning the quality of his services will reduce. So now he has somewhat higher costs than me (say 5%, but likely much more), his people don't like working for him, and his services are of lower quality. I will keep my prices high, and if anything change my marketing strategy and increase my customer acquisition costs (and use better strategies). The asymmetry will still be there - 1 customer gained for me is worth 30% more than 1 customer gained for him. So for every customer I get, he needs to get 1.3 customers, with a lower profit margin than myself. Of course, worst comes to worst, I can also reduce wages (though not as much as my competitor), but prices would definitely remain the same. But really, when you have a high-profit margin, you really don't care about relatively tiny costs so that people love working for you and hate working for your competitor - you can afford this luxury.

So yeah, this price slashing doesn't work well as a form of competition in most industries. You get hurt, your (smart) competitors don't. The real place where the competition is, is over quality and over distribution (which includes sales and marketing). Distribution is especially important - that's why everyone is seeking to get a strangle over distribution channels, then they literarily own that industry. Supermarkets can be like this. You don't like their terms, your product doesn't get sold by them.

monopolies — Inter Alia

They're not necessarily bad or invincible for that matter. They just require a different strategy to combat - and usually that strategy is not competing with them, until you grow to a sufficient size.

the interaction of service industries (which don't own the means of production) with manufacturing industries (which do) — Inter Alia

What difference does it make?

the effect of futures trading on investments — Inter Alia

:s - what's that got to do with value?

I'm afraid it's not as tidy as your capitalist fantasy might like it to be. — Inter Alia

Oh too bad, I'm not a capitalist.

Here's my take.

I think:

work — filipeffv

value is subjective — filipeffv

utility — ssu

things they think will be worth more in the future — Posty McPostface

the satisfaction received from consuming a good or service — ssu

Value is a reflection of beauty. — MysticMonist

Are all bullshit. These are vague and empty nonsense so long as it cannot be quantified scientifically.

Value is equivalent to production & means of distribution. So if machines produce, they are valuable. If workers produce, they too are valuable, etc.

per certain august philosophers here. — Bitter Crank

Which ones? >:)

Value is whatever can be quantified scientifically in monetary terms.

Marketing and Sales services are the easiest to think about. Their value is whatever sales they generate. But most work can be converted into an economic value. The work a CEO does can be converted in economic value - reductions of cost, contracts acquired, etc. The worth of a website can be analysed scientifically in terms of the revenues it can generate for a client.

This means that some things are not valuable. Poetry, art, etc. Of course, they matter to us and are important, but they're not valuable in an economic sense - they're not productive.

You can look at the posts linked below (and the respective threads and discussions) for more details. The above was a very sketchy and cursory summary with many holes in it, but I've described this in more rigorous detail many times in the forum. After you read through these remarks, I look forward to your questions.

Yes and no. This is a speculative way to determine value, and isn't of much interest. What is of interest is the underlying value. We know that the market can undervalue or overvalue services or goods. What is of real interest is the real value of a service since over time the market will be approaching it. So how is that calculated?

It's calculated by trying to convert the activity to monetary value. Marketing is very simple to convert to monetary value. If I do a Google Adwords campaign for you, then the value it has brought you is whatever sales it has generated for you. If it has generated $1,000,000 in sales for you, then that's the value added. Now the value of my services ought to be a certain percentage of the value added. Probably around 10% is fair, so $100,000 for me.

If you design and develop a website for someone, the value of it is in the traffic it can generate and how well it converts. So how well does it rank on Google? (that determines organic traffic) and what percentage of those visitors get converted to clients? and how much is one client, on average, worth?

So if I make a website for an oil tank producer, where one sale is worth $1,000,000 on average, that is entirely different than if I make a website for a local coffee shop, where one sale is worth $5. I will charge the oil tank producer a lot more, even though it's about the same amount of work for me.

So this talk about the market deciding this and that is actually bullshit. When you start pricing stuff, you will see that you price them mainly based on the value added - that also allows you to justify the price. In some rare cases, when there is a craze on the market for example, and everyone wants a certain type of website, nobody can keep up with demand, etc. then, of course, you will raise prices above whatever is supposed to be the real price.

And this differentiated pricing is called market segmentation (or "some things are more valueable to some people"). You can make basic packages for all the low-value clients, which are a lot. They all get the same relatively low price. But you'll make special deals for the high-value clients. That's why in football matches there are cheap tickets, and expensive tickets too. And the expensive ones are many many many times more expensive than the cheap ones. On airlines, there is economy class, business class, and sometimes first class too. Same idea.

The value workers produce must be determined in the same manner. — Agustino

This Marxist framework doesn't portray the full complexities right. There was something that Karl Marx didn't realise, which represents the value of the entrepreneur, which isn't tied solely to owning the means of production. In other words, economies of scale do not result from the simple ownership of the means of production.

So say in my case, the product is a website, let's say a very simple one for now. It costs basically nothing in terms of raw material costs - people I employ would be people who own computers at home too, so they don't need me to access the means of production.

So all these people can basically produce and sell websites by themselves. I do not own the means of production as such - at least not in a way that they cannot individually access because of lack of capital.

Now the theory of surplus value has it that the worker is exploited because he doesn't have access to the means of production (the assembly line for example) himself. So he cannot, by himself, produce in as short a time as much as he can produce by working under the capitalist, having access to the capitalist's assembly line. So his labour under the capitalist produces a lot more value than he is given.

In my case, the advantage comes from specialization. The entrepreneur also creates something useful - he creates a system which employs specialised people and out of that individual specialization and the internal processes which ensure the smoothest flow possible, the time it takes to finish one website minimises. Let's say that this procedure minimizes the time it takes to finish one website individually by 70%.

The entrepreneur also ensures that there is continuous work. Now that production is 70% faster, there needs to be a bigger pipeline of willing buyers lined up outside. Who maintains that pipeline? Who works to bring the buyers in? The entrepreneur, of course. Without the pipleline, the other people have nobody to sell to (or at least not enough).

So suppose each person can produce 10 websites by himself in a month, and each website costs $200. So that means, if they were to work individually, they would make $2000 assuming they could source the work themselves.

Now, when they work in my team, they will produce faster due to their individual specializations and the team I have formed as entrepreneur AND also because they no longer have to market and look for business by themselves - the entrepreneur takes care of that. We'll quantify this time as 20% decrease in working time compared to working by themselves (meaning they will produce 20% more assuming they will work all that time). So, let's say I am employing 5 people.

5*(1+0.7)*(1+0.2)*10*200 = $20,400/month in revenue or total value produced.

So I will pay them what they can earn individually which is $2,000/month. For 5 people that is $10,000. But the benefits from increased production is due to my work as entrepreneur - I brought them together, arranged them in a team, and setup the whole marketing pipeline to get sufficient work so that we can achieve those numbers. So I pocket the other $10,400.

I make $10,400 and they make $2,000. Is that unfair? You could argue no. I pay them exactly what they would earn working by themselves for the same time, and I pocket what is the difference from bringing them together, arranging them by specialization, and organising the sales and marketing required to sell all the production - since I myself am not actually producing the products sold (websites).

And this remains true even if it would be a worker's collective. There would still need to be someone who does the entrepreneur's job. How much should that someone be paid, since he doesn't actually produce any of the products himself, all he does is make production faster and more efficient through his work. That person would effectively be responsible for the growth in numbers that are achieved, so it's fair that he pockets all of it.

But, let's say now that I want them to love their job and prefer working for me than working for themselves. So then I will share some of what I earn with them, so that we're both better off.

So I pay them $2,600 each, and I pocket $7,400. Now they make 30% more than they would have made working by themselves, without the risk of bad months (not finding work, etc.). It's a fixed wage, which wasn't the case if they would work for themselves. You think that's fair? — Agustino

(it's the Christmas rush and all my projects are expected to be complete in a few days time :-} ) — Janus

Haha, I've closed the biggest part of my work already this week, but past 2 weeks were very busy for me as well. It's not only about Christmas, but end of the year stuff - have to deal with bureaucracy X-)

but you don't seem to have answered my question here; which was really concerned with whether ontological standpoints such as idealism and materialism are necessarily implied by the various forms of religious belief. I don't think so; — Janus

Ahh okay, I must have missed that. If that's the case, then I agree with you. I think obviously that ontological standpoints aren't necessarily implied by forms of religious beliefs. But I do think that idealism will generally tend to lean towards being adopted by the religious, while materialism will tend to be adopted more frequently by atheists and non-believers. But I think this is really a false dichotomy, since idealism is really opposed to realism (not just materialism). I'm a realist for the most part, but not a materialist.

It's you who is lacking in the fundamentals of economics money. — ssu

Right, until you show how this is the case, it's merely an empty assertion. And for beginners, I have no clue what the hell you're talking about with "economics money" :s . I showed how you were misunderstanding Bitcoin and the crypto technology when I said you don't know what you're talking about. So please, put some effort, otherwise it's a waste of time for both of us.

Far more better — ssu

"more better" doesn't exist in the English language.

But good that you admit Maw making the obsevation that such volatility isn't good for any currency. Of course I made the observation too... — ssu

The truth is that this observation in this thread originated neither with you nor with Maw, I just picked Maw since he happened to be the last one who clearly made it, and I can't remember who made it earlier. With regards to yourself, no, I didn't see this observation clearly made in your posts, I saw that you were more concerned about the high price per unit of Bitcoin, unaware that Bitcoin can trade in smaller units than 1 BTC. You would have been right if Bitcoin couldn't trade at lower values, but that's not the case - you're just misunderstanding it, and you don't know enough about it.

Betting on when a bubble bursts is a dumb gamble. — ssu

Why? All you have to know is that it will burst - these aren't options that you're buying where if your timing is slightly off, you're screwed. So you short it, and then you wait. So long as you were right that it is a bubble, then it will eventually pay off, regardless of your timing.

I've just once in my life used a "hedge" at the market. — ssu

This, by itself, isn't a hedge. It's a bet.

I haven't yet read the latest of MU's post, but then you should be addressing MU not me :P

You can define it, but I don't have to believe it. One issue in this thread is the suggestion that defining it entails believing it to be real, which is dubious. — Buxtebuddha

Where was that suggested?

Agreeing to the theist's definition of terms is a slippery slope when the definitions themselves allow for zero disagreement once accepted. If an unbeliever is foolish enough to agree terms, then they've already lost and will only proceed down a rabbit hole. — Buxtebuddha

Why do you think so? In order to have a conversation with a physicist about quarks, I must agree with his use of the term quarks - namely that quarks are the smallest known particle, and they have such and such properties which can be detected in such and such ways. If we don't start from his definition of quarks, then whatsoever I'm talking about with him will clearly not be what he means by quarks.

I may very well think, as a non-physicist, that quarks are pink balls or whatever, but that's irrelevant. To have a conversation with a physicist, I must accept his definition. So likewise, to have a conversation with a theist about transubstantiation in this case, the atheist must accept the definition of transubstantiation that the theist provides. This seems entirely natural.

You don't need The Lord of the Rings. Just follow these instructions:

1. Pick any item that you know exists.
2. Call it "elves".

Now elves exist. Impressive, huh? — Sapientia

No, that's not what is being said. You have to go to the propositional content of the words. When you call any item that exists as "elves", assuming that others adopt that usage of the word elves, that means that elves has taken on the propositional content of whatever item you have picked. So when used in those particular contexts, elves now refers to whatever that item refers to. Elves could also have other meanings (referents) in different contexts - in the context of Lord of the Rings, it refers to particular humanoid characters which have certain traits.

And no, Lord of the Rings isn't evidence that elves exist, the same way that the Bible isn't evidence that there was a literal flood of water in Noah's day that covered the whole geographic surface of the Earth.

But the Lord of the Rings is evidence that, for example, power corrupts, the same way that the Bible is evidence that immorality is self-destructive. You have to understand the literary genre of what you're reading. If you read the Bible like an asinus (much like many incapable New Atheists or fundamentalists are doing), taking it as a book of latest physics, you're going to miss the whole point.

This isn't the starting point for a conversation about God, it's the ending point. — Hanover

I don't think so. In order to determine whether God exists or not, then we must first agree on a definition. If you go back as far as Socrates and Plato, you will find that before going any further, any philosophical discussion must agree on definitions (and that doesn't mean purely agreeing on the words of a definition, but more importantly on their meaning). For how can we answer the question of whether there is a God or there is not a God if we don't first agree what God refers to or means?

The problem here is precisely that atheists don't want, by sheer will, to agree with the definitions provided by the theists. The theists aren't interested to discuss the strawman God (or transubstantiation) of the atheists on the other hand. So no progress can be made. I told you to accept the definitions of the theist, for the sake of progress, and because, the theist studying these aspects of reality more, is likely more aware than you what God refers to.

What you've done here is no different than it would be if I simply declared myself an authority on any subject, declared I knew better than you, and then proclaimed that you should defer to me for guidance. That posits you as Socrates, where I suppose I'm supposed to listen carefully to your comments and questions and try to obtain your wisdom. Anyway, this entire line of conversation hinges upon the fallacy of appealing to authority, although in this case, you appeal to yourself as the authority. — Hanover

That's not true, but if you want to discuss transubstantiation or God, you must agree with the definitions of the person you seek to combat in this case, or otherwise make clear why you disagree. Without agreeing to the definitions you are actually discussing something different.

I don't agree with this. We've all been relying upon the Catholic definition of the term throughout. — Hanover

Yes, we've been using the same words, BUT with different meanings. That's exactly the problem. You understand by "literal change" something different than I - or other believers - understand by a literal change.

So, they know what the terms mean, which is to say that what they refer to, but the things that they refer to aren't real, wouldn't you agree? — Harry Hindu

Depends what the terms are in question are.

So, again, how is it knowledge if the terms they use refer to non-existent things - like the influence of the planets and stars on your life? — Harry Hindu

That's not non-existent things. I imagine they must make predictions based on the planets and stars that the state of my life. Those predictions can be verified, once you understand what they are and what they mean.

And what about the 72 year old Muslim, or Hindu, who has studied their religion their whole life and disagrees with what your word, "God" refers to? — Harry Hindu

Depends on the particular person. Study time is necessary to know better, but not also sufficient.

And I doubt they'd disagree. As it has already been said by multiple people in this thread, there is a mystical core that all religions agree to in one way or another. They may disagree about the path to get there, but not about the destination.

A contradiction.
If it's not real knowledge, then how can you say that they know better than others? — Harry Hindu

Know WHAT better than others? What the field-specific terms refer to? They know that better than others because they frequently use those terms and try to understand them (while others don't).

Why wouldn't it be different, if our bodies are still the same, just ressurrected - whatever that actually means? — Harry Hindu

It will very likely be different, since creation is in a fallen state now, and after the Resurrection it won't be. How it will be different, it hasn't been revealed to us. Some people, including in the Church, do have opinions, but those are just opinions. I'm personally of the opinion that bodies will not age in the afterlife. If you want, I can explain to you why I think so.

You might say that they know more about astrology, but is it real knowledge? — Harry Hindu

Whether it's real knowledge or not doesn't change the fact that they do know better than those who don't study astrology what astrology-specific terms mean or refer to.

Citing reasons doesn't mean that it isn't a delusion. Delusional people cite reasons for the beliefs all the time in order to maintain the delusion. — Harry Hindu

So you disagree with the reason given? Based on what considerations?

What age will we be when ressurected? Bodies age, will we continue to age? — Harry Hindu

Bodies age in this world, as things stand now. We don't know how it will be in the afterlife.

What about what happened before we were born? — Harry Hindu

We don't remember anything, so I take that as we didn't exist. Scripture makes no reference to this state.

What is the point of being born and to die just to be ressurected? — Harry Hindu

Who said just to be resurrected? The point was to live in communion with God, and be an image of God on Earth. But man sinned, and things spiralled out of control. God was faithful to mankind and has kept saving and protecting man, and ultimately guiding him towards redemption. That is our history.

How did you come by this information? — Harry Hindu

Scripture, Apostolic Tradition, personal revelation (experience) and reason.

Have you asked any of these questions of yourself, or do you simply believe in this stuff unquestioningly? — Harry Hindu

Sure.

It looks like he still doesn't see his problem, Hanover. He knows better what the word God refers to, you ignorant dolt. — Harry Hindu

What makes you think you or Hanover know better what "God" refers to? I cited reasons for making this claim, so that's by all means not a delusion. Do you disagree that the fact that I spend more time than both of you combined studying this topic likely means I know more about it than both of you combined, at least with reference to what "God" refers to?

The problem is that you assume superiority in your position. It would make as much sense to argue that you should open your mind to the enlightenment of atheism by someone who insists they have had ineffable experiences of the lack of a supreme being as it makes for you to argue the opposite. — Hanover

I assume that I know better what the word "God" refers to, and I've cited why. So at the very least, my definitions (or the believer's more generally) ought to be accepted as a starting point. I don't think there is much room to doubt that someone who devotes more time to one particular topic - say God - generally understands it better than someone who never devotes much time to it.

higher power — Hanover

I, personally, made no mention of a "higher power" as of yet, as that is another thing that requires definition and must be sought for within experience.

It was the outlandish attempts to defend transubstantiation to a secular crowd that generated the discussion. — Hanover

What actually happened in this thread was that the secular crowd rejected the definitions (and understandings) of transubstantiation offered by the theistic crowd, and therefore they've been off-topic all along. The statement transubstantiation happens and the statement transubstantiation doesn't happen are both true at the same time, since there is an equivocation on the word transubstantiation.

You said atheists can even receive salvation. I consider myself an atheist. — Harry Hindu

I didn't say all atheists will receive salvation or can receive salvation.

The only way to receive salvation is to experience what you experience, which means to see things the way I see them. — Harry Hindu

I don't see how the last part follows.

What you are saying is no different than fundamentalists Muslisms, who say that you have to experience things the way the do in order to receive salvation. What you are saying is that you have the truth in your experiences - and that in order to get at the truth, you have to experience what I experience - a symptom of a delusion. — Harry Hindu

In order to know what "water" means, you must experience water no? That's no delusion, that's quite sensible.

If that's not a symptom of a grandiose delusion, I don't know what is. — Harry Hindu

Saying that virtually 90%+ of people (an estimate of the religious) who have ever lived were deluded is indeed a form of grandiose delusion.

Sure, non-believers can receive salvation by experiencing things the way I experience them. — Harry Hindu

Same thing. I made no reference to you when I said non-believers can receive salvation.

What does it mean to "come and see for yourself"? — Harry Hindu

To experience it.

People call the Christian God loving, yet the Bible shows otherwise. — Harry Hindu

Have you read the Bible from cover to cover?

If hell exists, that also shows that it isn't loving. — Harry Hindu

Depends. According to Christianity, the gates of hell are locked from within. God cannot force people out of hell against their own will - at least He can't if He is loving and respects their free will.

Take it like this. If you don't know English, and I'm speaking to you, and I say "water" and point to a glass of water, you will know what I mean by water. And we will have the same definition. You don't know the language, so, on faith, you accept it that "water" refers to whatever I point to.

You're not a believer, you used to be one. So you don't understand, at least anymore (maybe you never have, I wouldn't know that) how the term "God" is best to be used, and what it refers to. I, who am a believer, am more likely, by the fact that I devote more time to study and understand this than you do, to understand what "God" refers to. So it's best if you accept the definition of God that I point to, and then ask constructive questions about it. Such as, if God is found in this experience (meditation), why does the Church insist on these particular set of rituals? Why do I have to say I believe in order to be saved? Etc.

The problem with God is that I cannot point to God the way I point to a glass of water. God is not a sense experience, but more like a meaning, or a pattern, something that is subtle and must be directly perceived. So I can force you to experience a glass of water and become aware of it, but I cannot force you, on command, to experience God.

Sure, non-believers can receive salvation by seeing things the way I see them. — Harry Hindu

I didn't make the underlined comment.

You've just proved my point. — Harry Hindu

The point that I was deluded? Or what point?

So now you're moving the goal posts because at no point did you assume the possibility by, for instance, saying: "meditation could move one closer to God, were he to exist". Instead you put it out there as a fact. — Benkei

By doing that I tried to show to you that I'm referring to different things by God than you are. You refuse to accept my usage of "God", because you want to stick to whatever understanding you have of God. And this is deeper than the question of whether God exists, because that question requires that we use the same definition. So far, we're not even using the same definition (and more importantly, the same understanding) of the term.

Also, you and I both know you don't assume the possibility since you have faith in his existence. — Benkei

That is true, just like you have faith in his nonexistence. But - for the purposes of this discussion I did assume the possibility of his existence. And we both must assume that for a conversation to be possible.

I can admit that I'm wrong. You have yet to do that - a symptom of being delusional. — Harry Hindu

Sure, I've done that many times.

How do you know that your god is the right god? — Harry Hindu

God is a referent to something or someone that can be experienced. So I know that my God is the right God because I experienced Him. This isn't to say that the Christian God is the real God, and the Muslim God is the false God, etc. No. The word "God" in all religions refers to the same underlying reality, approached through different manners and understood to different extents. Catholicism for example freely admits that salvation is possible for Muslims, for Buddhists, and even for atheists. I had a post about it in this thread earlier. And Eastern Orthodoxy admits the same.

So take the attitude that us Eastern Orthodox have with regards to conversion. We say come and see for yourself - try it out. "Taste and see that the Lord is good". Without that experience, you cannot know.

Isn't it because you were raised in a family that believes in that particular kind of god? — Harry Hindu

No, my family are mostly atheists. It's true that the prevailing faith in my country is Christianity, and that did play a significant role as to why I became a Christian, and not a Buddhist, or something else. Keep in mind that religion is also a communal activity - that's one of the reasons for being a Christian, or a Muslim, or a Buddhist and not an independent seeker. I think it's best for people to delve deeper in the religion of their country, wherever they happened to be born. It is their tradition, and they are most equipped to understand it and progress most fully in it, rather than switch.

No, it requires logic and reason - by integrating all knowledge into a consistent whole. — Harry Hindu

So what about the Christian God is inconsistent with our knowledge?

Exactly, you have already accepted the premise unquestioningly and made it your life's work to study this particular god. — Harry Hindu

I haven't studied just one religion.

I wouldn't believe the my brother had sex with my wife without evidence. Your words are evidence, but not proof. When someone claims something, I need more evidence. — Harry Hindu

I cannot give you evidence, as I said evidence is found in your own experiences. God isn't something or someone that can be shown in a photograph, the way I'd show you a gazelle, or a black swan. And even then, you could say that the photograph doesn't correspond to something that exists in reality, but was altered with Photoshop, etc. So some faith is inescapable to live in the world. Whatsoever knowledge is transmitted to you requires some faith to be accepted.

When someone claims something, I need more evidence. — Harry Hindu

My claims are with regards to the cumulation of my experiences, which includes time spent studying Christianity, the Bible, Buddhism, mysticism, philosophy, and other such subjects. So I am trying to convey you my experiences through words. I cannot make you, through those words, to have the same experiences. You have to do the work yourself, as it were.