Is Randmoness Possible?

[jan]

Some posters in this thread seem to assume that we face a dilemma like this: either God created the world, or something came from nothing. Furthermore, it has been proposed here that the second horn of the dilemma is absurd, so we have a proof that God exists.

I don't think that this dilemma is an exhaustive list of all possibility (that is, I think it's a false dilemma). Therefor, I started a new thread about everything and how it came to exist.

 

[Iacchus]

Swedenborg's writings--certainly better evidence than anything you have brought to bear in your years here. And, contrary to your thinking, science would not have to "reformat their hard drive", because the demonstration would be perfectly compatible with the scientific method. Certainly, some of the rules would need re-writing, but that is what happens in science--Einstein re-wrote Newton, who re-wrote Copernicus. This is called progress, and Randi would be very happy to contribute.

Sometimes you have to go backwards, in order to retrace your steps. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news. While in terms of human potential, science has not been around all that long anyway has it?

 

[Iacchus]

Incredibly ironic--Yes, we change, we grow, we learn...you remember very little about yesterday, and yet the details of your life from years ago are the fodder for your manifesto, which changed how much since you wrote it? It seems set in stone, despite the information you learn here that questions the things you say there that you saw.

Actually I have changed a great deal over the past few years, in spite of the fact that I didn't think I would. It made it very difficult to address what I had written. But, now that this change has essentially taken effect (a necessary change, I believe), that which I have written stands. I'm just not the same person looking at it anymore.

Convenient, memory is. You forget the lessons here, and remember the fantasy you concocted years ago ...

Memory is only knowledge, it is not the wisdom (i.e., that which is alive and everchanging) which utilizes that knowledge.

Bull. That is a lie and you know it. I have critiqued your ideas and shown you where they are logically or empirically unsound. You have not changed. I have asked for clarifications, even asked simple questions to try to better understand. You have avoided answering. I have given more thought to your ideas here than you appear to have--you have been shown here, again and again (and not just by me) that logic or evidence contradicts your ideas; if you had given these ideas adequate thought in the first place, you might have discovered this on your own.

All you've done is encourage me to drop my beliefs.

I have been perfectly willing to work with you. I have asked you to help. What I have not done is parked my brain at the door when I go examine what you say. At this point, you are left with "if you'll just believe, then you'll see I'm right." Sorry, but you have it backwards. If you can demonstrate you are right, I will publicly support you. So far, logic and evidence are both against you, though, and that has nothing to do with any alleged unwillingness on my part.

The river flows. Which is to say, the mind which examines the evidence is metaphysical, not empirical.

 

[Mercutio]

Sometimes you have to go backwards, in order to trace your steps. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news. While in terms of human potential, science has not been around all that long anyway has it?

When do you go backwards? When the evidence merits it. What is your evidence that science must be abandoned, and we should return to mysticism?

And, once again, please feel free to compare the brief history of science with the lengthy history of mysticism, to see which one we should step backwards from.

 

[Ryokan]

37

 

[Mercutio]

All you've done is encourage me to drop my beliefs.

I have encouraged you to critically examine them. If they are sound, they will hold up. I do not think they are sound, and have pointed out logical and factual errors. You have not been able to respond to those errors. If I am wrong about them, I would like to know. I encourage you once again to critically examine your beliefs, and to demonstrate to me why I am wrong.

 

[Iacchus]

Some posters in this thread seem to assume that we face a dilemma like this: either God created the world, or something came from nothing. Furthermore, it has been proposed here that the second horn of the dilemma is absurd, so we have a proof that God exists.

I don't think that this dilemma is an exhaustive list of all possibility (that is, I think it's a false dilemma). Therefor, I started a new thread about everything and how it came to exist.

If it is not possible for something to come from nothing, then everything has always existed, at least in potential. If so, then how else might this potential be maintained, except through omniscience? This would be my opinion. And yes, it can be construed as "evidence" of an omniscient entity, "God" if, such an entity exists. I'm not asking anyone to accept anything beyond this.

 

[Iacchus]

I have encouraged you to critically examine them. If they are sound, they will hold up. I do not think they are sound, and have pointed out logical and factual errors. You have not been able to respond to those errors. If I am wrong about them, I would like to know. I encourage you once again to critically examine your beliefs, and to demonstrate to me why I am wrong.

What you propose is a "physical" examination of the metaphysical, thereby putting the cart before the horse.

 

[Mercutio]

What you propose is a "physical" examination of the metaphysical, thereby putting the cart before the horse.

No, I am proposing an examination of the physical. The things you write of were physical events. Much is known about them--much which you ignore. How can you build a worldview on an unexamined foundation? Such an important thing, completely ignored...

 

[Iacchus]

It's not a question of whether or not you approach him honestly and decently, as other people here already have done so... Or if you approach him sarcastically, as you and I have done.

On the contrary, it is very much a reflection upon you. You're one of those folks who likes to shoot first and ask questions later ... which, is a pretty piss poor way of maintaining any sense of order. Why? Because there's no justice in it. There's no justice in trying to destroy something you don't understand. All it does is fan the flames of sensationalism and makes matters worse.

 

[Iacchus]

No, I am proposing an examination of the physical. The things you write of were physical events. Much is known about them--much which you ignore. How can you build a worldview on an unexamined foundation? Such an important thing, completely ignored...

How is a dream, or a thought physical ... albeit they may have "physical" ramifications?

 

[jan]

If it is not possible for something to come from nothing, then everything has always existed, at least in potential.

So it would be reasonable and perhaps interesting to examine whether or not it is possible for something to come from nothing?

If so, then how else might this potential be maintained, except through omniscience?

I tried to list some possibilities how everything is made and/or maintained in the new thread. I would be glad to hear about more possibilities. Saying that "I can't think of another possibility" doesn't sound very convincing; it sounds like an argument from ignorance.

This would be my opinion.

I'm glad for any dissenting opinion, since it might add to my list. Unfortunately, it seems to me that your opinion is not that original.

 

[Iacchus]

I, personally, am not comfortable myself with these threads and although placing someone on ignore can be considered as treating someone differently, I consider it better than my current attitude towards him which isn't complimentary in the slightest. I'll leave this up to people who have more patience than I and hope that there is some benefit, in comparison to my posts.

That's because the "ugliness" that you see is welling up inside of you. Whereas some people are more comfortable with this than others.

 

[Iacchus]

I tried to list some possibilities how everything is made and/or maintained in the new thread. I would be glad to hear about more possibilities. Saying that "I can't think of another possibility" doesn't sound very convincing; it sounds like an argument from ignorance.

This is not my only argument in favor of God, however. If it was, then you might have a point.

 

[Mercutio]

How is a dream, or a thought physical ... albeit they may have "physical" ramifications?

Iacchus, I have linked sites on dream research for you, which you have ignored. I have explained how "a thought" is the metaphorical tag for the process of thinking, a physical process which I and others have also discussed at length (I don't recall whether particular sites were linked for this one). You have ignored these discussions as well. Your question, thus, is a product of your willful ignorance. Ignorance because you simply are unaware that your question has been answered at length in the literature, and willful because you have been given the opportunity to address your ignorance, and have chosen not to.

If dreams and thoughts are the bedrock of your philosophy, don't you think it would be important for you to find out what is known about them?

 

[Mercutio]

That's because the "ugliness" that you see is welling up inside of you. Whereas some people are more comfortable with this than others.

Iacchus, you dolt. Kiless has put you on ignore because she is concerned for your well-being. Whether her actions are right or wrong, her motives are kind and well-intentioned. I don't know what it says about you that you see ugliness here.

 

[Iacchus]

Yet when all is said and done I know nothing. Even as I sign off (because I have to go) I can't help but forget.

 

[DavoMan]

An argument based on the definition of the word. Like almost all philosophical debates. A waste of time.

 

[P.S.A.]

All it does is fan the flames of sensationalism and makes matters worse.

No Iacchus, what makes things worse is your refusing to address your illness, and then coming to a skeptical board and telling other people that your delusions of who they personally are is true... Even though you don't remember what those claims were by the next day, and even though others can remember those claims, and can objectively prove they are untrue.

Do you even recall what you said yesterday?

No, the spirits are inside my head (and being) and are refined in the way I relate to them. This is something which has been going on for the last twenty years or so.

No, it's important not to allow these "voices" to get the upper hand (I have my means), otherwise they begin to get into your bodily functions.

Originally posted by rharbers
I deemed as much. So this fellow shouldn't be taken seriously? Remember, I'm one of the new kids around here. I've always been interested in exactly where these claims originate. I have a friend who hears "Voices", and the only thing that helps him is medication.

Been there, done that.

I've learned how to control it without the meds, thanks. Also, I don't "participate" with it nearly so much as I used to. I still have a lot of vivid dreams and from time to time I'm aware that I'm dreaming. There are some other side effects as well, but for the most part I'm able to handle it.

Maybe I have a mild form of Alzheimers? As I tend not to remember what I say from day to day. So, that when I do "rehash" things -- albeit I seldom repeat things exactly the same way -- it feels more fresh. While admittedly, since I don't take others too seriously, I find little of my "self" to hold on to as well. Which is to say, I don't find a whole lot of things that important.

But I do understand you. If you read these words, and accept that it was the same "Iacchus" who said them, you have to face your illness. So you can't, can you? And how do I make you any worse than you make yourself, just to avoid facing what deep down you have an inkling of knowledge is true?

 

[Mercutio]

PSA, consider the possibility that Iacchus has discovered this "I forget each day" notion as a brilliant excuse. It is certainly a recent development, and it does not at all fit with his posting pattern, which is remarkably consistent for someone who forgets so much. I am willing to be proven wrong, but I do not, at this moment, buy it. I think it is an excuse, and nothing more; I think he is playing on the sympathies of good people like yourself and Kiless, who will err on the side of kindness. I think it is a cowardly tactic, ensuring that he does not have to address the tough questions his inane manifesto brings up.

I take your point, though: even if he "forgets" in actuality, he has not, it seems, lost the ability to read. He is still responsible for the things he posted which he conveniently does not recall...