I'm sorry if I made the assumption that you knew my stance on "authority". I have had the same point of view since the first post in this thread. I see "government" and "authority" as being dependent upon each other. Showing that "government" is a fiction also shows that there is no "authority". A government without authority is no government.
This is all fine; but it doesn't address the fact that the argument is so over-general that it can be applied to any kind of abstract concept. This again was not the primary purpose of my original line of questioning, but the fact that you believe it is logically consistent that you make broad sweeping statements of fact solely based upon your personal experience.
I have demonstrated why I feel that's dangerous, and how this kind of thinking is used to rationalize some of Humanities most egregious and atrocious acts of barbarism. You do not seem to either feel or think this is the case, and therefore we are at an impasse here.
This will be my final comment on this particular matter.
The existence of God has been proven to me and I have stated so in the past (so I do not accept His authority as "fiction"). I've also stated that I cannot PROVE His existence to anyone else. This is something you can only "prove" to yourself by seeking Him. Briefly, I have had personal experiences that I can only attribute to a supernatural being (which is outside the realm of the scientific method). I further use my personal observations of the universe to show an intelligent designer. We can go down this road again if you wish, but I have many examples of WHY I believe God to exist, but this is something that each of us has to determine from their own perspective. In my youth, I believed there was no God and believed in evolution. My journey on this ball has change my perspective a great deal.
Arguments that basically boil down to "trust me,
x is true," is not an argument that has any functional use when trying to convince, persuade or otherwise reason with individuals other than yourself.
- "This is something you can only "prove" to yourself by seeking Him." - Well, all my experiences have neither proved nor disproved God, so this is out the window...
- "I further use my personal observations of the universe to show an intelligent designer." - I'm amazed you haven't taken these observations and have them published in the Scientific community - because if you can show there's an intelligent designer, then you can show, in fact, that a creator must exist.
...but that would then contradict the first bullet item, wouldn't it?
- "We can go down this road again if you wish, but I have many examples of WHY I believe God to exist, but this is something that each of us has to determine from their own perspective." - What happened to those personal observations that show Intelligent Design? Wouldn't the observations, which by definition are quantifiable, and repeatable, help determine objective fact (read: perspective) for me?
...again, I think we're at an impasse, if for no other reason that we seem to be using the same words, but have fundamentally different meanings associated with them. My guess is that you will take issue with my definition of "observation," and broaden it to include that which is emotional and or intangible, but this is of course, just a guess.
Feel free to respond if you like, but I think at this point the constructive potential of our discourse has past the point of diminishing returns.
I think the existence of a feeling or emotion (which has no form) but is believed to exist cannot be compared to an imagined authority over others called "government".
Wrong. Abstract concepts can very easily be compared to other abstract concepts when discussing the validity of their reality using tangibility as the frame of reference, as you did originally when you thought you had me in a "gotcha." Let me see if I can jog your memory a bit with a re-purposed truth statement:
Government Compassion is a fiction, only the men and their actions are real.Remember that?
These emotions exist in the minds of the person experiencing them.
Oh! ....so:
These emotions Government exist in the minds of the person experiencing them.
See, the English language allows me to do some pretty cool things. I can take your noun, replace it with another noun, and see if the statement could still be true. I think it's very interesting that you deny Government as a fiction, but you'll qualify emotions as less a fiction because it exists in the minds of the person experiencing them.
With this one sentence, Gene, you have completely undermined your entire argument. Because
everything can now, "
exist in the minds of the person experiencing them." The validity of Government, according to this, is now just as valid as the validity of emotions. "Authority" is no longer a requisite, only that the person believes that what they are experiencing in their mind is "Government."
:::claps::: I don't think I could have made a more compelling point in that one single sentence as you did. So as far as this point in your discussion, I'm officially satisfied. No further definition tweaks or non-universal qualifiers are necessary. You and I will probably need to part ways on this point as well.
As such, we can only take their word that they have "compassion". There are some people who don't have compassion, and for them, compassion is truly a fiction.
So you'll take someone's word about emotions, which can be incredibly nuanced and "beyond understanding," and incapable of being objectively observed/measured except by those experiencing the emotion, but you'll summarily dismiss scientific data because "they [the scientists] can't be trusted" and the data "is overly complicated for common understanding."

edit: fixed personal -> person, and not -> no