Tricky
Briefly immortal
Tricky said:
If he cannot, then He is not omnipotent. If he can, but will not do anything about evil, then He is himself evil, and if he existed, I would oppose him in every way I could, because He would be, by every standard that I can measure, immoral. He would be worse than the worst human ever to exist.
You're thinking of a black-hole, which only contains a small amount of the matter in the universe.Beleth said:
I'm talking about something which embraces the whole of existence.
Physicists may use the "buzzterm" 'singularity', but it's a misuse of language because a singularity of existence should actually mirror existence as singular.
The big bang (if it happened), for example, might be considered as occuring at a true singularity since it embraced the whole of existence. A black hole does not. To say that a singularity exists within a black hole is incorrect because a singularity really embraces the whole.
The singularity of a black-hole is an infinitessimal pinpoint.
The singularity of the whole of existence is not.
Re: Re: There's only one primal-cause.
I often hear people citing the surface of a sphere or circle as their examples. Yet these people don't realise that the boundary of a circle or sphere still exists, perpendicular to its surface.
Think about what you're parroting please.
There is something rather than nothing. The identity of the ~thing~ is irrelevant - doesn't stop us from recognising that something has existence.Flatworm said:
That's nonsense. If you want to believe that, then sobeit. But if you think than an entity can be finite without reference to an external reality, then I think you're crazy.
I often hear people citing the surface of a sphere or circle as their examples. Yet these people don't realise that the boundary of a circle or sphere still exists, perpendicular to its surface.
So, all space is contained within itself? Is this what you're saying.
Think about what you're parroting please.
If existence as a whole is completely boundless, then it is not finite.
See my previous post to Beleth, tonight.
A singularity containing the whole of existence is not a point.
In black-holes maybe.
My question, to physics as a whole.
RussDill
Philosopher
Re: Re: Re: There's only one primal-cause.
infinite or finite in what quantity? Distance? no...nothing external to reality has distance, mass? no...same thing, time? same thing again. The comparison cannot be made to begin with. You are assuming that something external to reality has distance.
These are not the examples these are ways of conceptually viewing curved, bounded space.
There is no actual sphere or circle.
Nope, that is not what he is saying.
bzzzt, wrong.
Then you are using the word singularity as a buzzword, not caring what the definition is.
nope, in your "singularity" existence, you have merely removed distance because you have claimed infinities, boundlessness, divisibility, etc. However, distance is only one differentiating means. Best example is time. You removed distance, but not time. Any reasons given for removing distance can also be used to remove time. Same with other ideas you have introducted, thoughts, awarenesses, descisions, etc.
lifegazer said:
infinite or finite in what quantity? Distance? no...nothing external to reality has distance, mass? no...same thing, time? same thing again. The comparison cannot be made to begin with. You are assuming that something external to reality has distance.
These are not the examples these are ways of conceptually viewing curved, bounded space.
There is no actual sphere or circle.
Nope, that is not what he is saying.
bzzzt, wrong.
Then you are using the word singularity as a buzzword, not caring what the definition is.
nope, in your "singularity" existence, you have merely removed distance because you have claimed infinities, boundlessness, divisibility, etc. However, distance is only one differentiating means. Best example is time. You removed distance, but not time. Any reasons given for removing distance can also be used to remove time. Same with other ideas you have introducted, thoughts, awarenesses, descisions, etc.
But the cause of an effect is actually it's primal-cause. Of course, you're arguing for an alternative explanation:Flatworm said:
(1) There is an existence full of effects.
(2) There is no absolute-cause for any of these effects. They all effected each other... giving us the irrational solution that effects are the primal-cause of themselves.
As silly as all that is, you also defend the notion that this post, for example (of an effect), is the culmination of an infinite process. Yet anyone with half-an-ounce of sense should know that there is no culmination to an infinite process. One can reach for infinity, but one can never grasp it.
This post is the effect of a primal-cause.
Re: Re: Re: 479th Post in Thread
By the way my silly friend it was NOT Zero’s 479th post in this thread or anyones. Simple math shows that with 13 pages divided into 479th post shows that each page would need contain 36.8 post. The average page contains 9 post.
I realize that you believe things are true simply because you say them but this is further evidence that simply is not the case.
Just a suggestion between friend someone who believes in numerology should learn to count and apply simple math skills.
Iacchus said:But that's a heckuva lot of posts don't you think?
By the way my silly friend it was NOT Zero’s 479th post in this thread or anyones. Simple math shows that with 13 pages divided into 479th post shows that each page would need contain 36.8 post. The average page contains 9 post.
I realize that you believe things are true simply because you say them but this is further evidence that simply is not the case.
Just a suggestion between friend someone who believes in numerology should learn to count and apply simple math skills.
Acrimonious
Scholar
- Joined
- Nov 21, 2002
- Messages
- 111
Let me ask this again, because I think Lifegazer missed it when he went off on this current tangent.
I just have a few questions (copied, and edited hopefully for more clarity):
1) You have stated in several threads that the purpose of your philosophy is to show to all mankind that they are God, so that we all unite in peace and love and goodness. Is this truly the main goal of your philosophy?
2) Is God truly Omnipotent as well as Omnipresent (after all, he is the Primal Cause and is Everyone and Everything)?
3) If so, how is it possible for figments of God (The Mind)'s imagination (US) to override the very things he has created us to do, programmed us to do, and forces us to do with Omnipotent power: mankind NOT being peaceful, uniting in peace, etc?
Quite frankly: How do you, Lifegazer, propose that a single person (let alone an entire race of them) go about the by-definition impossible task of going against the will of an Omnipotent Primal Cause?
If we are all God
And if we are not peaceful, loving, nor in perfect harmony
And If God is Omnipotent
Then how do you come to the conclusion that the status quo is not the Way God Wants Reality To Be?
I just have a few questions (copied, and edited hopefully for more clarity):
1) You have stated in several threads that the purpose of your philosophy is to show to all mankind that they are God, so that we all unite in peace and love and goodness. Is this truly the main goal of your philosophy?
2) Is God truly Omnipotent as well as Omnipresent (after all, he is the Primal Cause and is Everyone and Everything)?
3) If so, how is it possible for figments of God (The Mind)'s imagination (US) to override the very things he has created us to do, programmed us to do, and forces us to do with Omnipotent power: mankind NOT being peaceful, uniting in peace, etc?
Quite frankly: How do you, Lifegazer, propose that a single person (let alone an entire race of them) go about the by-definition impossible task of going against the will of an Omnipotent Primal Cause?
If we are all God
And if we are not peaceful, loving, nor in perfect harmony
And If God is Omnipotent
Then how do you come to the conclusion that the status quo is not the Way God Wants Reality To Be?
Yes.Acrimonious said:
Yes: God truly possesses all the power... and God truly is omnipresent because only God exists.
God created existence with all possibility. Life is a series of choices, not a puppet show. Unity or armageddon awaits. God shall make the choice, through us.
We are not going against that will. We are in the process of making the choice, as decreed.
Marquis de Carabas
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2002
- Messages
- 27,071
All right, LG, I don't really want to spoil everything, but here goes...you're right.
Well, mostly.
You see, we are God, and God is everything that exists, right as rain. But we're doing just fine. No need to mount any heroic campaigns to save me(us...one thing we're (I'm?) not fine on, though, is the pronoun problem of being one of many perceived illusions of the only entity that exists...). Nothing's wrong here. See, here's the full story.
(going to use the plural pronouns here, for brevity, if not sanity's sake)
We got bored, being the only thing in existence. Really, really bored. So we decided to carve off a small part of ourselves and make it think that we needed saving. Then we set up an elaborate illusion of a universe, complete with a history (several conflicting theories of one, actually...a fine bit of work, if we do say so ourselves) billions of people on one seemingly insignificant illusionary world, and even computers, and an Internet, and message boards.
Sure enough, that part we cut off found the illusionary message boards, which we then used to shoot down his ideas as wacky, all the while laughing at our clever little stunt.
But it's gotten old. You did good. Joke's over. Time to go home.
Well, mostly.
You see, we are God, and God is everything that exists, right as rain. But we're doing just fine. No need to mount any heroic campaigns to save me(us...one thing we're (I'm?) not fine on, though, is the pronoun problem of being one of many perceived illusions of the only entity that exists...). Nothing's wrong here. See, here's the full story.
(going to use the plural pronouns here, for brevity, if not sanity's sake)
We got bored, being the only thing in existence. Really, really bored. So we decided to carve off a small part of ourselves and make it think that we needed saving. Then we set up an elaborate illusion of a universe, complete with a history (several conflicting theories of one, actually...a fine bit of work, if we do say so ourselves) billions of people on one seemingly insignificant illusionary world, and even computers, and an Internet, and message boards.
Sure enough, that part we cut off found the illusionary message boards, which we then used to shoot down his ideas as wacky, all the while laughing at our clever little stunt.
But it's gotten old. You did good. Joke's over. Time to go home.
All I did was say it was the 479th post in the thread, and it was. And if you go to the Religion and Philosophy forum (this forum), and look under the "Replies" column, it will tell you how many posts/replies there are currently.Pahansiri said:
By the way my silly friend it was NOT Zero’s 479th post in this thread or anyones. Simple math shows that with 13 pages divided into 479th post shows that each page would need contain 36.8 post. The average page contains 9 post.
I realize that you believe things are true simply because you say them but this is further evidence that simply is not the case.
Just a suggestion between friend someone who believes in numerology should learn to count and apply simple math skills.
Acrimonious
Scholar
- Joined
- Nov 21, 2002
- Messages
- 111
Your false dilemma (Unity or Armageddon) is meaningless.
What is the point of Unity in a reality, that, by your own definition of God, is ALREADY in Unity with itself?
What is the point of Armageddon in a reality, that, by your own definition, doesn't even truly exist?
When is the judgement going to happen, oh Prophet? When is the choice deemed made?
When do we (God) decide whether success is achieved? Or, how many more millenia of Humanity's Hung Jury have to go by before Unity is abandoned and we relegate this charade to Armageddon?
------------------
This fanatic on a message board told me I'm God, and that mankind must unite in Unity or face Armageddon.
I decided I like things the way they are. Since I'm God, I'm postponing this Unity or Armageddon decision indefinitely. I'm God, he says. God is Omnipotent, he says. So I have the power to do these things.
He says you're all God, too, so if you have any problems with our decision, I suggest we bugger off: our decision is final.
Re: Re: Re: There's only one primal-cause.
You're missing the point. To say "existence is" is self-referential. It's like saying "Colour is blue".
I'm sorry, but this is straight General Relativity. The curvature of space is an observable (observed!) thing. The concept of a sphere's surface can be generalized to any number of dimensions. We can indeed have 4-dimensional spacetime with no boundary in 4 dimensions. It has no boundary in the space of discourse. If you lack the mathematical background to understand these concepts, that's your problem.
Why does space need a container?
Untrue, as shown above.
If it is not a single point, then logically there are at least two points, so you have refuted your own claim that there cannot be two separate points within a singularity.
Yes, certain types of black holes are postulated to include singularities of different shapes. However, the center of a black hole is simply an example of a gravitational singularity. The concept of a singularity is a much broader one.
I take that as a no. If you don't understand what it is, then why try to use it in an argument?
lifegazer said:
You're missing the point. To say "existence is" is self-referential. It's like saying "Colour is blue".
I'm sorry, but this is straight General Relativity. The curvature of space is an observable (observed!) thing. The concept of a sphere's surface can be generalized to any number of dimensions. We can indeed have 4-dimensional spacetime with no boundary in 4 dimensions. It has no boundary in the space of discourse. If you lack the mathematical background to understand these concepts, that's your problem.
Why does space need a container?
Untrue, as shown above.
If it is not a single point, then logically there are at least two points, so you have refuted your own claim that there cannot be two separate points within a singularity.
Yes, certain types of black holes are postulated to include singularities of different shapes. However, the center of a black hole is simply an example of a gravitational singularity. The concept of a singularity is a much broader one.
I take that as a no. If you don't understand what it is, then why try to use it in an argument?
Unity of being refers to a harmony of being.Acrimonious said:
Let me ask you a question: if the right-side of your body was at war with the left-side of your body, would you say that your body
was a perfect unity, at harmony with itself?
The reality doesn't exist, but the experience is very real. We can experience armageddon, and feel the emptiness of eternal death.
God is eternal. But what God experiences is entirely upto us, because we are God's experience.
I dunno. But we live at a very dangerous time, and it will become increasingly precarious. Time is not on our side.
One nation, one people... we save ourselves.
lifegazer said:
Wrong. In order to define primal cause, we must first have a coherent definition of a cause. If we are not allowed to define the relationship "A causes B", then the entire question of whether there is one primal cause for all effects is meaningless.
Don't you see? You need to admit to a chaining of causes and effects or your whole argument is meaningless.
It doesn't follow from 1 and 2 that there is primal cause at all. In fact, it rather shows the opposite. There is no primal cause for the effects so it is irrational to ask "what is their primal cause".
Again, just because you have trouble dealing with infinities doesn't mean they are logically incoherent. You must actually show logical inconsistency, not just assert it.
Consider the sequence {Xi}, with i >= 0. Let's say that All Xi are effects except is x=0, and All Xi are effects, with Xi being the cause of Xi+1. Since X0 is not an effect but only a cause, it is by definition the first cause.
Do you agree that this chain of causation is valid for all i >= 0? That is, that a first cause can set in motion an infinite chain of events?
Well then, let's try a change of variable. let j=i-1. Now we still have X-1 as a first cause, but it just starts at -1 instead of 0. Note that it still goes on to infinity.
Now if we can start at -1 instead of 0 with no problem, let's take the limiting case and let the starting index go off to -infinity. Now the primal cause has disappeared. The simple proof of this is to ask "what is its index number i?" If you answered "minus infinity", then you proved that it doesn't exist, because -infinity is not in the integers. If you answered any integer, you just contradicted the fact that we took the limit toward -infinity
Note that I have nowhere introduced new elements into the sequence- The set of positive integers has the same cardinality as the set of all integers.
Re: Re: Re: Re: There's only one primal-cause.
Your definition of a singularity is of an infinitessimal full-stop existing within black-holes.
As I said, the word itself implies wholeness: singularity.
Physics has abused language by using that term in relation to black-holes, since they only contain a finite-amount of matter.
The mathematics of black-holes do not apply to a singularity of the whole.
Can space exist within nothing?Flatworm said:
My definition of a singularity is of a boundless existence without beginning or end. Indivisible. No two points exist there. In fact, even one point is unattainable. But God is not a point.
Your definition of a singularity is of an infinitessimal full-stop existing within black-holes.
As I said, the word itself implies wholeness: singularity.
Physics has abused language by using that term in relation to black-holes, since they only contain a finite-amount of matter.
The mathematics of black-holes do not apply to a singularity of the whole.