First principles

[Iacchus]

So, your "means" amounts to "I have a feeling". Again without a means to verify or establish it's validity outside your own "feelings" it cannot be taken as fact or said to certain as that "feeling' can be anything. How would you know that that "feeling" is your spirit or god and not gas? Faith, I suppose?

Or, perhaps it's just beyond your feeble ability to accept it? But then again, I can't prove to you what's in my mind so, at least you're safe for now.

 

[Iacchus]

a) there is either Only One Universe, or Many
b) God is either Real or Unreal
c) God either exists or does not exist (in this case, Exist can also mean Unreal - mathematical concept, bear with me.)
d) God is either integral to the universe, external to the universe, or the universe is somehow included within God.

Everything is a subset of the moment, which is of One Mind, which is God's.

 

[uruk]

Or, perhaps it's just beyond your feeble ability to accept it? But then again, I can't prove to you what's in my mind so, at least you're safe for now.

Or perhaps you lack the ability to articulate it or perhaps there is nothing there to articulate. (which seems likely considering the content of your posts)

 

[uruk]

Everthing is a subset of the moment, which is of One Mind, which is God's.

Of course you have no way of verifing or proving this other than your "feelings" so it will remain in the realm of personal opinion.

 

[Iacchus]

Or perhaps you lack the ability to articulate it or perhaps there is nothing there to articulate. (which seems likely considering the content of your posts)

No, you are not qualified in the least, to speculate upon anything of this nature.

 

[Iacchus]

Of course you have no way of verifing or proving this other than your "feelings" so it will remain in the realm of personal opinion.

Which part doesn't make sense?

 

[uruk]

No, you are not qualified in the least, to speculate upon anything of this nature.

All I got to go on is what you put out. If you articulate cogently and succinctly your ideas and concepts should be easily understandable or at least obtainable, yet you choose to eschew vagarities and wax poetical with little catch phrases and sound bites. This thread (and others) is repleat with other readers who continually request that you define your terms and explain your self in an understandable manner (of which you seem incapable of) And yet you evade and switch subjects and place links to sites which seem to have bearing on the subject being discussed. This leaves the impression with me (and possibly others) that you either are purposfully being obtuse or unable to articulate what it is you that you want to say or really don't know what you are talking about and making it up as you go along.

quote:
Iacchus
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Everthing is a subset of the moment, which is of One Mind, which is God's.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

uruk
Of course you have no way of verifing or proving this other than your "feelings" so it will remain in the realm of personal opinion.:

Iacchus
Which part doesn't make sense?

It does not make sense in reguards to the terms used being too general. and your refusal to elaborate or qualify any of the terms makes this a meaningless statement.
And in addition, before the statement can any wieght or merit you need to prove that there is a god otherwise this statement is just pure conjecture.

 

[Iacchus]

It does not make sense in reguards to the terms used being too general. and your refusal to elaborate or qualify any of the terms makes this a meaningless statement.
And in addition, before the statement can any wieght or merit you need to prove that there is a god otherwise this statement is just pure conjecture.

Why don't you start with the part about "everything is a subset of the moment" and get back to me when you figure it out, Okay? If that doesn't make sense, neither will the rest of it.

 

[Maledict]

As usual, Iacchus makes no sense, and when cornered, hastily links to other threads - in which, he is doing the exact same thing.

Honestly Iacchus, you used to be mildly entertaining - now you're just droll.

 

[Iacchus]

As usual, Iacchus makes no sense, and when cornered, hastily links to other threads - in which, he is doing the exact same thing.

Honestly Iacchus, you used to be mildly entertaining - now you're just droll.

Yeah, what's the point in having a Tweedle Dum without a Tweedle Dee?

 

[uruk]

Why don't you start with the part about "everything is a subset of the moment" and get back to me when you figure it out, Okay? If that doesn't make sense, neither will the rest of it.

Your right. It makes no sense according to the criteria that I laid out.

Case in point:

Hey, does anyone know that the moment ( to which definition of "moment" are you refering to? Webster's? Or your own? either way you do not provide any defition at all)encompasses the whole Universe, from one end to the next, including time and space? ( If you mean "moment" as in Webster's then this has no meaning. A moment is an arbitrary portion or segment of time which ultimately comes down to a perception, our perception, of time which is relative. Then in that case, the human mind is incapable of encompasing the totality of the universe . Heck we don't even know what that totality is.)What does that suggest then, that everything is born of the moment? (how again can an arbitrary, relative perception of a segment of time bring about the birth of the universe? Clearly you are using a nonstandard definition of the term "moment". Unfortunately you refuse to give us your particular definition. This causes your statement to become sensless and meaningless)While here I could be standing on some planet 20 million light years away, and be thinking the same thing (or, anything else) that I am right at this very moment. (So what significance does this have? Also you seem to have shifted to the conventional definition of the word "moment" in this instance. again without your specific defintion of your usage of the term "moment" we have no idea what you are talking about. You are causing the confusion either purposefully or by incompetance.)Hmm ... So how about the notion of the Big Bang then? Is it possible that the moment existed before that, and has always been?(here again you seem to have shifted back to your "unique" definition of the term "moment" of which you never give to us.) Sounds plausible to me. While hey, today is the first day of the rest of your life, right? (what is the significance of this statement? What does this cliche have to do with the over all idea you wish to convey? Are you hoping we infer what your meaning is? Problem with that is that it is too general and subject to missinterpretation)
Also, is anyone aware that the only way we can conceive of the moment is through consciousness? (well d'uh. the only way to concieve anything is through conciousness. Unfortunately, here again you do not define what the"moment" is) How is that? And what might it suggest? That the moment is a dimension unto itself perhaps, (O.K. we have a glimer of what your definition is here. Are you saying that "the moment" is a realm of existance or you using a "unique" definition of "dimension" too?If this is the case , then why confuse people by using a term in an unconventional way? why not clearly state that you believe that spirit, mind, thought, and god exist in a separate realm or reality that is separate, yet encompasing of our physical universe? Was that so hard? Or did you just want to restate an old concept in a new age, flashy kind of way?) indeed the very dimension of spirit -- or thought -- of which the Mind of God becomes manifest?

 

[Iacchus]

Do you expect me to wade through this?

 

[uruk]

Do you expect me to wade through this?

You expect us to wade through yours.
Case in point:

Why don't you start with the part about "everything is a subset of the moment" and get back to me when you figure it out, Okay? If that doesn't make sense, neither will the rest of it.

But hey if don't wan't to, no big woop.

 

[Iacchus]

The point that I made about everything being the subset of the moment is very clear. Now, is this direct evidence that says God exists? Of course not. However, it is supportive evidence, which must in fact be there, if He did. So, if you are incapable of recognizing 1 + 1 = 2, how will you ever get to E=MC2?

 

[Maledict]

The point that I made about everything being the subset of the moment is very clear. Now, is this direct evidence that says God exists? Of course not. However, it is supportive evidence, which must in fact be there, if He did. So, if you are incapable of recognizing 1 + 1 = 2, how will you ever get to E=MC2?

 

[Iacchus]

Are you sure you aren't in fact illustrating what's in your own mind here? Because this is basically what I see.

 

[Maledict]

Are you sure you aren't in fact illustrating what's in your own mind here? Because this is basically what I see.

No, just reflecting the same debating tactics that you use.

 

[Iacchus]

No, just reflecting the same debating tactics that you use.

Oh, do you mean infantile things such as this?

I don't see anyone else but you doing this. In fact that's about all I see from you.

Aside from that though, I'm not here to discuss your problems, so what do you say we just drop it, Okay?

 

[Maledict]

Oh, do you mean infantile things such as this?

No, your infantile debating tactics such as:

Originally posted by Iacchus in reponse to BillHoyt
Nonsense!!!

I am just reflecting the same debating tactics which you use - which is namely, spouting contrived nonsense to your contrived nonsense.

I don't see anyone else but you doing this.

Aye, that's cause most people simply can't be bothered to talk to you anymore. In fact, I think I will too.

In fact that's about all I see from you.

I would refer you to the last thread where we had a good discussion going about which is the "True" Interpretation / Church (Tm) - That is, before you began your descent into drivel and ducked out of the thread and refused to address the points.

Aside from that though, I'm not here to discuss your problems, so what do you say we just drop it, Okay?

Poisoning the well too?

 

[Iacchus]

No, your infantile debating tactics such as:

Nonsense!!!

What, I say this once -- and only once mind you -- to this imbecile who continues to badger me for no justifiable reason, and I'm supposed to pay for it through the rest of Eternity? Why don't you come over to my house, and perhaps we could discuss it?