A line from Berkeley...

[uruk]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Gestahl
Why do you keep arguing with him?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I agree with Upchurch, I learn something new each time I engage in debate.

 

[lifegazer]

I am imagining a great, black dragon. Assuming there is a material world,

You're not cutting down my reasoning on the back of a giant assumption. What do you think this thread's about? It's about cutting through the assumptions and dealing with the facts.

 

[lifegazer]

Re: What everyone seems to have missed...

I have been browsing LG's threads for weeks now... and you consistently argue him down to solipsism or nihilism, I can't tell which one (he very poorly distinguishes whether "he" is an illusion (something else perceiving itself in his mind or something like that) or is real).

You haven't got a clue pal... and as such, you shouldn't be posting a critique of my philosophy.
Only God exists. Everything else is a perception within God's Mind. That's my philosophy.

Why do you keep arguing with him? You cannot assail those two philosophies, nor anything built up upon it, simply because LG can claim langauge and even logic are illusion, etc.

LG has never done anything of the sort. Again, you're talking through your behind.

His philosophy is useless, because from his viewpoint there are no limitations to what can be the truth, because somehow through all the illusions *he* is able to see what he says.

Garbage.

Just like when an athiest argues with a Christian, he *cannot* accept the assumption of God's existence and prove the Christian wrong. God is too laden and too powerful an assumption to overcome.

Like I said, once you argue someone down to solipsism or nihilism, if this were a game, you would have "won".

Don't ever post any more utter crap like this again in one of my threads. Clear off and browse elsewhere.

 

[lifegazer]

Re: Re: What everyone seems to have missed...

First and foremost, in my mind, is that nothing should ever be left to stand unchallenged, whether or not one personally believes that it is correct or not. That is the very essence of skepticism, endless questioning.

Cling firm to your own assumptions and be skeptical of anything else. I know your game. Same as the rest.

The rest of your post was complete tripe.

 

[Upchurch]

Re: What everyone seems to have missed...

Like I said, once you argue someone down to solipsism or nihilism, if this were a game, you would have "won".

I imagine that one also wins if one's opponents can do nothing but come back with personal attacks.

 

[RandFan]

Re: Re: Re: What everyone seems to have missed...

Cling firm to your own assumptions and be skeptical of anything else.

The only one who is clinging to anything here is you. Most if not all of us agree that you could be right and we could be wrong. You are the one who knows that he is right. You are like all of the rest who think that they have discovered the meaning of life. You KNOW that you are right. Not unlike the guy who thought that he was the first to square the circle (see Time Cube) and figure out that nature is it's own dynamic and harmonic time cube. Hey, there is a $1,000.00 reward for anyone who can
disprove 4 days in each earth rotation. You can prove it, right? email oray612959@earthlink.net.

I know your game. Same as the rest.

Oh hell, you figured it out. You should get together with Gene Ray.

 

[uruk]

Cling firm to your own assumptions and be skeptical of anything else. I know your game. Same as the rest.

Well at least we admit that they are assumptions. You are the one who doesn't want to admit to your assumptions. 'cause in the end, that's all we got.

 

[Acrimonious]

You're not cutting down my reasoning on the back of a giant assumption. What do you think this thread's about? It's about cutting through the assumptions and dealing with the facts.

Yes, I freely admit that my view that an external material reality exists is an assumption.

You, on the other hand, claim the assumption that an external material reality doesn't exist is a "fact."

You come into a "discussion" about your "philosophy" with no intention of discussing your philosophy. In your mind, your philosophy is complete and correct, and nothing remains but missionary work and/or witch-burning of the heretical non-believers.

FYI: Assumptions take a whole lot more to prove as Fact than a single internet forum troll repeating them ad nauseum.

FYI: The first thing you should do when scrutinizing a hypothesis is to actually do the scrutinizing. Yes, even if you came up with it "all by yourself," *cough* Mr. Solipsist.

 

[Gestahl]

Re: Re: What everyone seems to have missed...

You haven't got a clue pal... and as such, you shouldn't be posting a critique of my philosophy.
Only God exists. Everything else is a perception within God's Mind. That's my philosophy.

First of all, I have no more of a clue than you, and if you can't admit that in philosophy then you miss the basics of discussing it. Philosophy cannot be proven true, only desirable (personal choice), logically consistent, and useful. I see no further use in your philosophy... you cannot make value judgements, you cannot discern any more truth, and you cannot gain any more "true" knowledge.

So be it. I stand corrected. You argue that your perceptions are not yours, that there is no *you* to speak of, and that reality is an illusion created by this God's own awareness of himself. I think I know your philosophy pretty well, I had a friend with a similar one (although I have to admit, I may be attributing some things to him, and not you).

LG has never done anything of the sort. Again, you're talking through your behind.

Read back carefully what I said.... I said you *can*, not that you *had*. Learn some reading comprehension skills.

LG, there is nothing so far that has convinced you are not "talking from your behind". If I were really speaking out of my ass, the post would just be PPPTTTHTHTBTBTBTHTBHT!!!

(In response to my claim that he can claim anything and defend it). Garbage.

Nope. With your philosophy, since the external world is an illusion, your thoughts are an illusion created by God experiencing himself, you have created nothing on which to debate your statements merits. God is by definition infinite in power, no? What prevents *anything* from being true in this case, if God wills it? God is above logic, above words, etc. Otherwise he is not all-powerful. If your philosophy boils down to this, all you are saying is "Everything is." Brilliant.

Go learn some basic philosophy....

Don't ever post any more utter crap like this again in one of my threads. Clear off and browse elsewhere.

You do not own this thread, no one does. If you want, please let the moderators know and they might give you a section where you are the moderator on every thread. I will browse and post where I choose. *sticks out tongue* There, I can be petulant and infantile too. Your insults are not furthering your case...

 

[Dancing David]

1 real dollar + 1 unreal dollar = 1 real dollar.

But if the real dollar contains within it the unreal dollar, and seems to contain millions of unreal dollars, what basis is there for saying there is a real dollar when all of it's components are unreal.

A perception contained within the reality of the metamind is real. Otherwise the meta-mind contains two states (lack of awareness)=real and (awareness)=unreal. If the metamind has two states then it is not a unity but a pluraility.

 

[Dancing David]

Gesthal
Like I said, once you argue someone down to solipsism or nihilism, if this were a game, you would have "won".

I believe that monism is in essence the same as nihilism. And it must have really scored somewhere in LG's non-existant brain, because he flamed you. Way to go!

 

[RussDill]

Please explain what your question means.

If I say it is a truth that elephants are big, it isn't really a truth, because I haven't defined what "big" is. So if you have a statement with a bunch of ambiguous terms, and call it a truth, it is not really a truth, it is just a meaningless collection of words.

You see how dumb and annoying and evasive responses like mine are to perfectly understandable statements such as your own? Well, the same applies to you.

Whatever, I think this example shows the opposite, you asked me to clarify something, I clarified it. I didn't repeat what I said before, I didn't call you dumb or annoying. I clarified. Calling you dumb, evasive, a simpleton, etc, doesn't advance the discussion, it just wastes electrons. (luckily, my messages are produced with a minimum of 73% post-consumer content electrons)

Everyone here knows what I mean by an intangible realm comprised of abstract sensations which give rise to the appearance of intangible (illusory) things. We live the language.

Really? you might want to check that, because you've never explained what the difference is between an intangible realm, and a tangible realm, nor what the difference between an abstract sensation, and a non-abstract sensation, or intangible things, and tangible things. Unless you can clearly explain them, it is as useless as saying that an elephant is big (big in relation to what), or that 7 is a real number (only meaningfull if you explain what a fake number is, in this case, ignoring what is commonly meant by real/imaginary numbers).

The point is that there is an intangible realm (of existence). The proof is in our own experience of existence.

Unless you can define what makes it a realm, and not just intangible ideas, then it is useless. Not only that, you need to define what is an intangible idea besides a tangible idea. Is a tangible idea real, but an intangible idea not real? (even then, you have to define "real"). Would a tangible idea occupy space, but an intangible idea not? If so, isn't occupying space a result of position being a property of things existing in space? If so, how is the property of position any more or less special than a property of an idea in an intangible realm to make you call it tangible vs intangible?

Again, you'll have to stop playing silly games. I'm not interested.

No, really, you need to define "realm". Because a "realm" refers to a division of something. What are you dividing? What are the other realms? How do they fit together? IE, if you are talking about a company and their sales, a realm might be a sales region. The term "realm" is one of those words that is useless unless you define it in your context.

There is an intangible realm of existence. We know this because "we" are in it. In fact, we are it. This is the only information that I need to proceed with my logic:-

Again, realm, "In general, province; region; country; domain; department; division; as, the realm of fancy.". So what are the other realms of existence? If they aren't any, then it doesn't make any sense to call it a realm.

An intangible entity/realm possesses no real form nor occupies any real space. Therefore, nothing can exist next to an intangible entity/realm or around it, for where exactly is that entity/realm that something might be next to it or embrace it??!!!

How many times have I explained how this is possible with you ignoring it?

A material existence represents intangible things with ease. A good example is a book, or a computer program.

What you refer to as a "material" existence is just as intangible (or tangible) as your mind existence. Define the terms tangible and intangible fully and you will see this. A material existence, just like you mind existence, can be viewed as simply a collection of information.

Clearly, by rational default, nothing can exist externally to an intangible realm. And since most of you have agreed that we exist within an intangible realm of sensation, thought & feeling, you must also acknowledge that nothing can exist externally to this realm.

And you keep ignoring the counter argument, just as you ignore your proof of the speed of sound is a constant, and just as you ignore every other difficult question I put to you.

(1) There is an intangible realm.
(2) Nothing can be external to such a realm.
(3) Therefore, only our intangible realm exists!!

Wake up call Russ. Meet your God, amongst you. Or just continue in denial.

You've contridicted yourself in (2). It is a contridiction to say there can be nothing external to a realm, because a realm is a form of division.

 

[RussDill]

Now I remember why I got fed up of trying to have a proper discussion with you. You simply cannot comprehend, or do not listen to, my philosophy... even after all of my threads.

"we" perceive of nothing. "we" are the perception had by It.
There is only God. Russ is one of those illusory "things" I was talking about, being had within the awareness of God.

You've played the switch-o-rou with awareness and perception. You say "there is only god" but there is more than one "awareness". According to your philosophy, god has purposely divided itself into many awarenesses, each one having it's perceptions fed by the still infinite (since dividing finite portions of god into awareness would still leave the rest of god at infinite) portion of god, who manages the blueprint you spoke of.

You say "we" perceive nothing, then tell me, what does the awareness that I refer to as "you" perceive.

 

[Wudang]

One of the problems I have with this "we are all fragments of God/Mind" is: what maintains the divisions between our own little pockets of conciousness? I work on multi-processing computers based on partitioning storage so that running programs don't interfere with each other. We have incredibly complex software and hardware which maintains those separate processes. And the operating system (and all this sort of stuff ) has to involved and we still see problems. So if God is not managing us all how do we remain separate?
It's a general objection I have to most idealist philosophies - what is the nature of the "reality" we exist in that allows all this to happen? I'm too aware of the required underlying complexity.