hello

please can you prove my ontology?

hello noetic and pilgrim.1

well i seem to be interested for them to state my ontology, by scientifically stating my ontology.

expecting all u athiest,

And after you've done that I would like you to please prove my pharmacology.

I was not mocking u, I was only laughing.

You seem to assume that the atheists on this forum are intelligent or knowledgeable. To the contrary, they . . . . . ,  . .


They CANNOT answer ur question and will only insult u or attempt to change the topic. Atheism is disguised foolishness aimed at hiding one's ignorance of pertinent issues pertaining to life. Atheists, as evidenced on this forum, continue to hide under the spectrum of independent mind and science, none of which is alien to religion.

I have been on this road before, and I can confidently tell u, that the most vocal atheists on this forum are not worth engaging in an intellectually driven debate. They enjoy noise making.

esensed:

hello noetic and pilgrim.1

well i seem to be interested for them to state my ontology, by scientifically stating my ontology.

expecting all u athiest,

     That's alright. I was just wondering (rather bemused) about the one-liner.

     It would not be the responsibility of other people to 'prove' my own claim;
     because the claim is mine. It sounded to me like an atheist would ask me
     to 'prove' his own atheism - which is an almost impossible position to take.

     If I make a claim, it's my responsibility to 'prove' what is mine; just as it is
     the responsibility for another person to 'prove' his or her own statement.

    Perhaps the one thing that could be more helpful is to state what is your
    ontology and then invite a dialogue.  At the end of the day,  anyone
    (theist or atheist) may hear you out and draw their own conclusions, not
    necessarily 'prove' it for you or anyone else.

    Just my observation; no offences meant.

pilgrim.1:

     That's alright. I was just wondering (rather bemused) about the one-liner.

     It would not be the responsibility of other people to 'prove' my own claim;
     because the claim is mine. It sounded to me like an atheist would ask me
     to 'prove' his own atheism - which is an almost impossible position to take.

     If I make a claim, it's my responsibility to 'prove' what is mine; just as it is
     the responsibility for another person to 'prove' his or her own statement.

    Perhaps the one thing that could be more helpful is to state what is your
    ontology and then invite a dialogue.  At the end of the day,  anyone
    (theist or atheist) may hear you out and draw their own conclusions, not
    necessarily 'prove' it for you or anyone else.

    Just my observation; no offences meant.

I think the OP is simply drawing a sketch that leads to asking the question: what is the ontology of Jehovah GOD? since the atheist believes there is no GOD.

Not a bad idea, since it is to help the atheist demonstrate a little understanding of the subject (GOD) of his beliefs/disbelief (atheism).

@Poster
Are you kidding me?

noetic2:

I was not mocking u, I was only laughing.

You seem to assume that the atheists on this forum are intelligent or knowledgeable. To the contrary, they . . . . . ,  . .


They CANNOT answer ur question and will only insult u or attempt to change the topic. Atheism is disguised foolishness aimed at hiding one's ignorance of pertinent issues pertaining to life. Atheists, as evidenced on this forum, continue to hide under the spectrum of independent mind and science, none of which is alien to religion.

I have been on this road before, and I can confidently tell u, that the most vocal atheists on this forum are not worth engaging in an intellectually driven debate. They enjoy noise making.

Every body (both believers and atheist alike are) culpable. The same could be said of Christianity or any other religion. Science is alien to all religions because science is yet to support the assertions of any religion. If you say that science supports the Christian assertion then its up to you to prove it.

On the other hand science has disproved some of the assertions of the bible.

What kind of topic is this?

esensed:

hello

please can you prove my ontology?

And Jesus said unto them, "And who do you say that I am?"

They replied, "You are the eschatological manifestation of the ground of our being, the ontological foundation of the context of our very self-hood revealed."

And Jesus replied, "What?"

hi all

thanks pilgrim and noetic, i understand what u u mean however i wish them to prove my ontology with what seun has provided for them,  that is why its so short.

hello kag tudo
what kind of question? my ontology

kag
talk about me first now that is my ontology

esensed:

hi all

thanks pilgrim and noetic, i understand what u u mean however i wish them to prove my ontology with what seun has provided for them, that is why its so short.

Okay, that's fine. I didn't understand initially. Regards.

athiest,

as you scientifically consider, remember this simple line is the smooth stone of the five from the river of life, it is seekin you temple of ur uncircumsiced mind.

so please prove my ontology.

esensed:


kag
talk about me first now that is my ontology

But don't you see, dear fellow, the answer you seek is within the short story I posted. Figure that out and you'll find your lost ontology.

kag

simply u cant explain plainly my ontology scientifically -- [size=20pt]why cant you just own up and prove my ontology or admit that you cant prove my ontology. em seun has provided you with what you may use to prove my ontology am waitin[/size]

esensed:

kag

simply u cant explain plainly my ontology scientifically -- [size=20pt]why cant you just own up and prove my ontology or admit that you cant prove my ontology. em seun has provided you with what you may use to prove my ontology am waitin[/size]

Are you sure you want to go down this route? Now, clearly, based solely on reading the way you've used the word, I'd say you have no idea what ontology means. That makes your "prove my ontology" clamour all the more interesting to me. I'm going to respond in a slightly more detailed manner because I will like to see where this leads.

First, I'll start by letting you know that like science, I don't do proofs - well, except for when I drink alcohol and when I do maths^[1]. To that effect, there will be no "proofs" only evidence based on the logical reading of your posts. It will be short, though, because you refused to try to understand what you were trying to ask from the Jesus story I posted. Nor, thinking about it, understand what Pastor AIO wrote in response to your op.

Now what is the meaning of the term "ontology"? I like this one as I think it best sums it up: "An ontology is a specification of a conceptualization." Which in layman's terms means ". . . a description (like a formal specification of a program) of the concepts and relationships that can exist for an agent or a community of agents."^[2] Doesn't that just blow you away? What I particularly like about that description is that, despite the claims of the author, it covers many thorny aspects of what exactly ontology describes in philosophy: studies about the nature of existence, life, essence, etc.

Having gotten an idea of what ontology means. What, then, does one mean when one states or implies they have an ontology? Bear in mind the claim here isn't I am a being, or I exist, or I am an ontological manifestation, or, even, I bear traits identified in ontology. The claim or implication was that you have an ontology. Something you subsequently asked to be "proved". In light of that, it is easy to state unequivocally (a surprising state of things given the logical, literal reading that has occurred thus far) that you'd like atheists to show evidence that you, the OP, have the capacity for the study of nature, existence and other such things. To get even more technical - and as it is philosophy, it's hard not to - to show that you have the capabilities to be a dasein.^[3]

If that is case - and it is the logical conclusion I drew from your words - what remains is to show that you have the abilities to not only think, but to think in such a way as to ask questions about existence. Questions about what "it" all means. Can we in fact show that based solely on your words? I think we can.

What you wrote in the op is probably sufficient for the task. You wrote: "please can you prove my ontology?" Reading that and parsing the words correctly, what you imply is that you already have an ontology. That is, in your question, you ask if we atheists can prove your description of existence, etc. From that we can gather that you do, in fact, already possess an ontology. That in itself is evidence (I refuse to do proof) that the broad scope of your study or analysis of your manifest person, etc has some basis. The evidence here has small caveat: that since you didn't explicitly state your ontology in full, then we have to assume based on the notion that the gestalt^[4] of all daseins have a basic structure built on language, that your ontology will have to follow the usual pattern, and it is the vague outlines that you want proved. Q.E.D.

Oh, also, in case you're wondering, you're a dasein because you have an ontology.

P.S. If you have any questions or need me to be clearer in some part, then please don't hesitate to ask. I'll get on it as soon as I can.


[1] It's a paraphrase of "proof is for maths and alcohol"
[2] http://www-ksl.stanford.edu/kst/what-is-an-ontology.html
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dasein
[4] Gestalt, in this instance, is Lacan's use of the term: "the visual image of another member of the same species, which is perceived as a unified whole." (http://nosubject.com/Gestalt)

KAG:

Are you sure you want to go down this route? Now, clearly, based solely on reading the way you've used the word, I'd say you have no idea what ontology means. That makes your "prove my ontology" clamour all the more interesting to me. I'm going to respond in a slightly more detailed manner because I will like to see where this leads.

First, I'll start by letting you know that like science, I don't do proofs - well, except for when I drink alcohol and when I do maths^[1]. To that effect, there will be no "proofs" only evidence based on the logical reading of your posts. It will be short, though, because you refused to try to understand what you were trying to ask from the Jesus story I posted. Nor, thinking about it, understand what Pastor AIO wrote in response to your op.

Now what is the meaning of the term "ontology"? I like this one as I think it best sums it up: "An ontology is a specification of a conceptualization." Which in layman's terms means ". . . a description (like a formal specification of a program) of the concepts and relationships that can exist for an agent or a community of agents."^[2] Doesn't that just blow you away? What I particularly like about that description is that, despite the claims of the author, it covers many thorny aspects of what exactly ontology describes in philosophy: studies about the nature of existence, life, essence, etc.

Having gotten an idea of what ontology means. What, then, does one mean when one states or implies they have an ontology? Bear in mind the claim here isn't I am a being, or I exist, or I am an ontological manifestation, or, even, I bear traits identified in ontology. The claim or implication was that you have an ontology. Something you subsequently asked to be "proved". In light of that, it is easy to state unequivocally (a surprising state of things given the logical, literal reading that has occurred thus far) that you'd like atheists to show evidence that you, the OP, have the capacity for the study of nature, existence and other such things. To get even more technical - and as it is philosophy, it's hard not to - to show that you have the capabilities to be a dasein.^[3]

If that is case - and it is the logical conclusion I drew from your words - what remains is to show that you have the abilities to not only think, but to think in such a way as to ask questions about existence. Questions about what "it" all means. Can we in fact show that based solely on your words? I think we can.

What you wrote in the op is probably sufficient for the task. You wrote: "please can you prove my ontology?" Reading that and parsing the words correctly, what you imply is that you already have an ontology. That is, in your question, you ask if we atheists can prove your description of existence, etc. From that we can gather that you do, in fact, already possess an ontology. That in itself is evidence (I refuse to do proof) that the broad scope of your study or analysis of your manifest person, etc has some basis. The evidence here has small caveat: that since you didn't explicitly state your ontology in full, then we have to assume based on the notion that the gestalt^[4] of all daseins have a basic structure built on language, that your ontology will have to follow the usual pattern, and it is the vague outlines that you want proved. Q.E.D.

Oh, also, in case you're wondering, you're a dasein because you have an ontology.

P.S. If you have any questions or need me to be clearer in some part, then please don't hesitate to ask. I'll get on it as soon as I can.


[1] It's a paraphrase of "proof is for maths and alcohol" 
[2] http://www-ksl.stanford.edu/kst/what-is-an-ontology.html
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dasein
[4] Gestalt, in this instance, is Lacan's use of the term: "the visual image of another member of the same species, which is perceived as a unified whole." (http://nosubject.com/Gestalt)

This is very unintelligent and ridiculous.

In one breadth the poster's request that u prove his ontology is an admission of his being an entity that can be ontologically defined, yet u failed woefully to ontologically define him.

In further revealing the limits of ur understanding, u chose to ontologically define the poster based on his/her opening words, but u consider this untenable for a God who does not exist and as such cannot produce words. who are u deceiving? why the continuous shifts in position?

I cant believe u ran under grammatical semantics. Let us re frame the opening post: What is esensed's ontology?
Now make an attempt.

@noetic2,

Bros, how body?

I don't think it would be fair to have stated this, though:

noetic2:

In one breadth the poster's request that u prove his ontology is an admission of his being an entity that can be ontologically defined, yet u failed woefully to ontologically define him.

My worry here is this: it would be unfair to say that the respondent (KAG) had 'failed woefully' or even 'failed' at all. For me, I think it was a very intelligent response she made; and anyone could plainly see how she developed her response - apt, precise, logical, smooth, and connected. The problem, though, was that you had hoped she would by extension make the same application to "a God who does not exist and as such cannot produce words". Honestly, it would sound to me like anticipating what was wider than the response she was supposed to have given in regards to the OP's request.

This, I suppose, is a simple logical sequence:

[#1]. the OP states a premise

[#2]. a respondent gives comment - based on the OP's premise and not wider than that

[#3]. if the OP would like to add more or develop his premise from the comment offered. .

[#4]. . . then the respondent addresses what's new or the development thereto.

There's no gainsaying the fact that #4 was well observed in the respondent's comments; example:

KAG:

P.S. If you have any questions or need me to be clearer in some part, then please don't hesitate to ask. I'll get on it as soon as I can.

One cannot anticipate a response that is wider than a stated premise - it would be. . er. . prove disastrous for the discussant who expects to go down that route.

These are just my observations, and I'm quite open and happy to be corrected. Enjoy.

@ Pilgrim

I believe that my comments was fair and objective. My understanding of ur logical sequence is that u examined it from naked view without any underlying contents.

but here is my understanding of the scenario.

1. esensed asked "can u prove my ontology?"

2. KAG replied: u (esensed) don't know what an ontology means. it means . . . . . .
I still dont know how she deduced that esensed does not know what an ontology means.

3. KAG further stated.

Reading that and parsing the words correctly, what you imply is that you already have an ontology. That is, in your question, you ask if we atheists can prove your description of existence, etc. From that we can gather that you do, in fact, already possess an ontology.

This was irrelevant and simply delay tactics considering that esensed NEVER denied having an ontology, all he wanted was a prove to establish he (esensed) has an ontology based on the PREMISE that he (esensed) does not have one.

4. KAG then stated that:

That in itself is evidence (I refuse to do proof) that the broad scope of your study or analysis of your manifest person, etc has some basis. The evidence here has small caveat:

How can KAG's assumption of esensed having an ontology be an evidence? evidence of what? This in my opinion is simple linguistic manipulation.
KAG refused to answer the simple question asked in the OP and instead ran round in circles.

5. Noetic then re framed the question to a more direct one: What is esensed's ontology?

I considered that to be a very simple question, since esensed is not invisible, is he?

I might be wrong. I am also open to corrections. Enjoy [quote][/quote]

@noetic2,

Thanks for your observations, and my apologies where I might have misunderstood you. However I still feel that even where someone makes a response and we try to be objective in considering their views, we could calmly reason with them. It may be 'true' in your view that KAG 'failed'; but that may not ncessarily be so for others who might read the sequence in her response. Having read and re-read her logical development, it seemed to me it would be unfair to just dismiss hers in such a manner.

In all this, it wasn't my intension to offend anyone other than make the observation that one could not anticipate a response that is wider than a clearly defined foregoing premise. If someone was to 'prove' something (in this case, an 'ontology'), the essential things we could not ignore are:

1. to acknowledge the fact that esensed 'has' an ontology

2. to then contextualize what sort of ontology we're talking about

3. and then focus on that particular ontology

If, on the other hand, esensed was not on the same page with KAG as regards 'ontology', it was up to the former (ie., esensed) to show what he meant before inviting further discussions from KAG or anyone else. This is where people like me would plead 'ignorant' for the moment as regards what exactly the OP had in mind. Certainly, you're been helpful in trying to rephrase the OP's request.

One thing is clear: there are DIFFERENT TYPES of 'ontologies' - and it was sensible of KAG to have first chosen a particular one that she thought related to the OP's quest and then reply accordingly. If the OP felt she'd missed it, it would be up to him to show what he meant nonetheless. If again the OP wanted KAG to apply the latter's response on someone/something else by extension, he was free to let KAG know - and then they can both take it on from there.

Certainly, you've communicated - but for some of us, there seem to be certain things being communicated in a vacuum. But let me comment on this:

noetic2:

How can KAG's assumption of esensed having an ontology be an evidence? evidence of what? This in my opinion is simple linguistic manipulation.

Your opinion is well respected; but for other readers like me, I would agree with KAG's 'assumption' and even go so far as to say that it was an astute statement - especially because she had explained the 'evidence' with pointers to "show that you [esensed] have the capabilities to be a dasein". The word 'evidence' is applied in various contexts to facilitate substance in an enquiry - it does not mean just one kind of 'evidence' for someone's bias. In simple terms, if the OP did not exist in any sense at all, he would not even be making any request in the first place. The fact that he does make a request (such as "please can you prove my ontology?" is 'evidence' in the philosophical sense that the OP has the capabilities of a dasein.

It's my desire to be as objective as possibly could be managed in reading anyone's input - which requires that I look at what is being said more than who says what. If someone seems to be making good sense in a particular discussion, my observations would not be affected either way by whether or not the person was a theist or an atheist.

I hope this helps in some way.

@essenced
Very interesting question!

Can you prove your own ontology?

Atheists don't claim to have all the answers yet. If they cannot scientifically prove your ontology, what does this mean to you?

And can you prove my ontology?

pilgrim.1:

@noetic2,

Thanks for your observations, and my apologies where I might have misunderstood you. However I still feel that even where someone makes a response and we try to be objective in considering their views, we could calmly reason with them. It may be 'true' in your view that KAG 'failed'; but that may not ncessarily be so for others who might read the sequence in her response. Having read and re-read her logical development, it seemed to me it would be unfair to just dismiss hers in such a manner.

I do agree completely with ur assertion here.

I guess I was harsh and probably biased in fast dismissing KAG's points by pre-empting that the subject would lead to a debate on God's ontology. But that was born out of the fact that,

1. The question "can u prove my ontology" is very straight forward.
2. KAG never directly/indirectly attempted to answer this question (in my opinion)
3. KAG is fond of running in circles with words.

But let me comment on this:

Your opinion is well respected; but for other readers like me, I would agree with KAG's 'assumption' and even go so far as to say that it was an astute statement - especially because she had explained the 'evidence' with pointers to "show that you [esensed] have the capabilities to be a dasein". The word 'evidence' is applied in various contexts to facilitate substance in an enquiry - it does not mean just one kind of 'evidence' for someone's bias. In simple terms, if the OP did not exist in any sense at all, he would not even be making any request in the first place. The fact that he does make a request (such as "please can you prove my ontology?" is 'evidence' in the philosophical sense that the OP has the capabilities of a dasein.

Your opinion is respected. But I strongly disagree.

KAG could have simply asked esensed for clarification, instead of going into the mantra of defining ontology and trying to establish without proving that esensed has an ontology (which would also serve as a perceived "evidence".

My point is this,  note that
1. KAG refused to ontologically define esensed on the premise that there are several concepts of ontology.

2. KAG however established that by asking "can u prove my ontology?" esensed simply proved that he was a dasein, which in reality does not produce a convincing analogy of esensed's ontology. For instance, I (and presumably esensed) was expecting an ontology that included his (esensed) meta-physical components, hindsights, abilities and limitations all summed up in the basis of his (esensed's) existence.

Deducibly KAG has limited the scope of esensed's ontology to the fact that esensed might be a dasein, based on grammatical function without stating the ontological basis that establishes:
1. The nature of esensed's existence
2. essensed's life
3. The very essence of this life.

@noetic2,

My heartfelt thanks for further clarifying your concerns. It helps to foster an enabling atmosphere for a healthy discussion.

Just one small correction, though:

noetic2:

My point is this,  note that
1. KAG refused to ontologically define esensed on the premise that there are several concepts of ontology.

No, the assumption (and any mistake thereto) was mine - I had interjected that 'there are DIFFERENT TYPES of 'ontologies'' (and indeed there are), and I don't think KAG was responding a fortiori on my interjection.

Thanks  again, and enjoy.

hello all

thanks to all that contributed.

kag
[b]Are you sure you want to go down this route? Now, clearly, based solely on reading the way you've used the word, I'd say you have no idea what ontology means. That makes your "prove my ontology" clamour all the more interesting to me. I'm going to respond in a slightly more detailed manner because I will like to see where this leads.

First, I'll start by letting you know that like science, I don't do proofs - well, except for when I drink alcohol and when I do maths[1]. To that effect, there will be no "proofs" only evidence based on the logical reading of your posts. It will be short, though, because you refused to try to understand what you were trying to ask from the Jesus story I posted. Nor, thinking about it, understand what Pastor AIO wrote in response to your op.

Now what is the meaning of the term "ontology"? I like this one as I think it best sums it up: "An ontology is a specification of a conceptualization." Which in layman's terms means ". . . a description (like a formal specification of a program) of the concepts and relationships that can exist for an agent or a community of agents."[2] Doesn't that just blow you away? What I particularly like about that description is that, despite the claims of the author, it covers many thorny aspects of what exactly ontology describes in philosophy: studies about the nature of existence, life, essence, etc.

Having gotten an idea of what ontology means. What, then, does one mean when one states or implies they have an ontology? Bear in mind the claim here isn't I am a being, or I exist, or I am an ontological manifestation, or, even, I bear traits identified in ontology. The claim or implication was that you have an ontology. Something you subsequently asked to be "proved". In light of that, it is easy to state unequivocally (a surprising state of things given the logical, literal reading that has occurred thus far) that you'd like atheists to show evidence that you, the OP, have the capacity for the study of nature, existence and other such things. To get even more technical - and as it is philosophy, it's hard not to - to show that you have the capabilities to be a dasein.[3]

If that is case - and it is the logical conclusion I drew from your words - what remains is to show that you have the abilities to not only think, but to think in such a way as to ask questions about existence. Questions about what "it" all means. Can we in fact show that based solely on your words? I think we can.

What you wrote in the op is probably sufficient for the task. You wrote: "please can you prove my ontology?" Reading that and parsing the words correctly, what you imply is that you already have an ontology. That is, in your question, you ask if we atheists can prove your description of existence, etc. From that we can gather that you do, in fact, already possess an ontology. That in itself is evidence (I refuse to do proof) that the broad scope of your study or analysis of your manifest person, etc has some basis. The evidence here has small caveat: that since you didn't explicitly state your ontology in full, then we have to assume based on the notion that the gestalt[4] of all daseins have a basic structure built on language, that your ontology will have to follow the usual pattern, and it is the vague outlines that you want proved. Q.E.D.

Oh, also, in case you're wondering, you're a dasein because you have an ontology.

P.S. If you have any questions or need me to be clearer in some part, then please don't hesitate to ask. I'll get on it as soon as I can.


[1] It's a paraphrase of "proof is for maths and alcohol"
[2] http://www-ksl.stanford.edu/kst/what-is-an-ontology.html
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dasein
[4] Gestalt, in this instance, is Lacan's use of the term: "the visual image of another member of the same species, which is perceived as a unified whole." (http://nosubject.com/Gestalt)[/b]

see kag, what u rote to me i simply explaining around my simple question 'prove my ontology".
good u have started by defining it


Which in layman's terms means ". . . a description (like a formal specification of a program) of the concepts and relationships that can exist for an agent or a community of agents."

good can u describe the concepts and relations that can exist of me?

hi pilgrim well i feel that noetic comprehends what qm requesting of our fellows to delve in. in any case i appreciate your observation. thanks.


@noetic

In further revealing the limits of ur understanding, u chose to ontologically define the poster based on his/her opening words, but u consider this untenable for a God who does not exist and as such cannot produce words. who are u deceiving? why the continuous shifts in position?

I cant believe u ran under grammatical semantics. Let us re frame the opening post: What is esensed's ontology?
Now make an attempt.

true that is what i need anyone to prove not just in the text but remember i said what seun has provoided us and they cant comprehend?

My point is this, note that
1. KAG refused to ontologically define esensed on the premise that there are several concepts of ontology.

2. KAG however established that by asking "can u prove my ontology?" esensed simply proved that he was a dasein, which in reality does not produce a convincing analogy of esensed's ontology. For instance, I (and presumably esensed) was expecting an ontology that included his (esensed) meta-physical components, hindsights, abilities and limitations all summed up in the basis of his (esensed's) existence.

Deducibly KAG has limited the scope of esensed's ontology to the fact that esensed might be a dasein, based on grammatical function without stating the ontological basis that establishes:
1. The nature of esensed's existence
2. essensed's life
3. The very essence of this life.

true again.

@mantraa


@essenced
Very interesting question!

Can you prove your own ontology?

Atheists don't claim to have all the answers yet. If they cannot scientifically prove your ontology, what does this mean to you?

And can you prove my ontology?

now i see someone has started but mantraa are you saying this of your own self or of all athiest? it really matters.

can I ask, who is seun? and where is his post?

@essenced

What is your definition of ontology?

Wow, thanks pilgrim1, you totally understood my post and responded to the posts to it probably better than I could.

noetic2:

I do agree completely with ur assertion here.

I guess I was harsh and probably biased in fast dismissing KAG's points by pre-empting that the subject would lead to a debate on God's ontology. But that was born out of the fact that,

1. The question "can u prove my ontology" is very straight forward.

I answered it straight forwardly in my second post. The first post was. . . well, lets' think of it as a parable.

2. KAG never directly/indirectly attempted to answer this question (in my opinion)
3. KAG is fond of running in circles with words.

With all due respect, considering that's your general response to posts you can't tackle, I'd say it's your way of being complimentary.

KAG could have simply asked esensed for clarification, instead of going into the mantra of defining ontology and trying to establish without proving that esensed has an ontology (which would also serve as a perceived "evidence".

I thought the OP asked that his or her ontology be proved. Yes, that is what the OP asked. I didn't prove it, I gave a logical argument and evidence.

My point is this,  note that
1. KAG refused to ontologically define esensed on the premise that there are several concepts of ontology.

You will note that no where prior to my post did esensed ask that he or she be ontologically defined. Which is akin to a point Pilgrim1 made: it's almost like you want me to respond to a question that isn't there. A question that you formulated out of the blue and expect to be psychically known by others. I refuse to play that game.

Basically, no, I didn't do what you think I should have done based on the premise that you state.

2. KAG however established that by asking "can u prove my ontology?" esensed simply proved that he was a dasein, which in reality does not produce a convincing analogy of esensed's ontology. For instance, I (and presumably esensed) was expecting an ontology that included his (esensed) meta-physical components, hindsights, abilities and limitations all summed up in the basis of his (esensed's) existence.

I'm not a mind reader. Since I'm rushing through these, I'll use a quick analogy. Asking someone to prove my ontology is similar to asking that my physics be proved. The best response, especially after several posts with the same question, is to prove only the basic, general outlines of physics, since we already know that based on the persons words there is a physics that can be evidenced.

Deducibly KAG has limited the scope of esensed's ontology to the fact that esensed might be a dasein, based on grammatical function without stating the ontological basis that establishes:
1. The nature of esensed's existence
2. essensed's life
3. The very essence of this life.

No, once again, the OP didn't ask for that. And all things in the human sphere are based on grammatical functions. I don't see the problem with using grammar. Unless, I'm misunderstanding you.

esensed:

hello all

thanks to all that contributed.


see kag, what u rote to me i simply explaining around my simple question 'prove my ontology".
good u have started by defining it

Thank you.

Which in layman's terms means ". . . a description (like a formal specification of a program) of the concepts and relationships that can exist for an agent or a community of agents."

good can u describe the concepts and relations that can exist of me?

No. I don't know you. I know absolutely nothing about you. Can YOU describe the concepts and relations that can exist of you?

What is esensed's ontology?

It is after we've deduced that esensed has an ontology - and I already did so - that we can ask esensed, not me, what his or her ontology, away from the basic generalities, are.

KAG:

Wow, thanks pilgrim1, you totally understood my post and responded to the posts to it probably better than I could.

Lol, but no - yours was in a class of its own, couldn't have improved on it.

YOU see,I consider it quite unrealistic for anybody to think GOD doesn't exist.With all the various things around e.g plants,animals even human beings.Like the psalmist says in the BIBLE 'the ------ says in his heart'There is no GOD'