Light things.

[RussDill]

Assertion!

doesn't matter

Assertion!

doesn't matter

I've answered this two times and you have ignored my answer. For the third time, it is nonsensical to discuss the reality of an external realm beyond that of an intangible realm. Nothing exists beyond the intangible.

already explained this many times.

Liar. Tell this forum where 'pain' or 'red' or 'love' or 'sweet' or 'sad' comes from, if not from the entity that experiences those abstract experiences.

doesn't matter

It doesn't matter if he has not proved his assertions. The point is that your philosophy cannot disprove them. If there are alternate explainations to things your philosophy looks to explain, or dichotomies your posts attempt to make, then your proof has been shown to be incomplete.

IE, someone sets out a case for a crime, and attempts to prove that the mistress killed the husband. But then someone points out that given the evidence it is perfectly plausible thet the butler did it. The defense for the husband does not need to prove that the butler did the crime.

 

[RussDill]

The internal (not external) does not affect God. It just affects what is perceived or how it is perceived. God is immutable.

I'm sorry, you have just contridicted yourself again. The whole point of your philosophy was for man to realize that man was god, and choose unity. If man does not do this, god will choose death. Is that not the internal (the individual awareness and perception of each of us) effecting a supposively immutable god?

 

[RussDill]

It amazes me that you would all continue to lie to uphold the reality of an existence beyond your own awareness. Even if one existed - and there is not one jot of reason to show it - "we" have no dealings with it whatsoever!! This is hugely significant and I want you to think about it. Your universe is the realm of your own sensations and your mental/emotional responses to those sensations. You live within your own Mind. But when I say that it is your mind, I do not mean that it belongs to you uruk, Rand, Wudang, or whomever else reads these words. I mean that it belongs to you God and that you are having the perception of being uruk, Rand, Wudang, or whomever.

so...your point is we cannot prove A (that there is a reality beyond our awareness). And since we cannot prove A, it must not be true, so B (existence is entirely our awareness) must be true.

What if I say instead that we cannot prove B, and since we cannot prove it, A must be true?

 

[RussDill]

The central nervous system, or thereabouts.
Sorry, I'm not a biologist...

The answer that he refuses to consider, or even attempt to counter, is simply that we are "born" or "created" with the ability to feel pain. Something even most immaterialists consider to be true.

 

[RussDill]

Sigh. I'm at the point of giving up. How distressing it is for me to see a fellow of good intelligence, who I have been conversing with for a considerable time, to utter tripe like this in response to everything I have posted.
I have just recently (today) told you that you (uruk) are not the creator of the sensory-experience but are indeed part of that experience itself - one of the "things" therein.
'uruk' is not the essence of the mind nor of the sensations perceived therein. Please squire, climb the ladder or take a back seat.

You said that awareness chooses to have a sensation. Now you are saying that awareness does not, but whatever higher level of awareness exists does.

 

[RussDill]

This is God's stage, and God shall be given the finale. Welcome to the penultimate act.

And by what logic do you decide that it is the "penultimate" act? I suppose by listening to Art Bell and hearing about the "quickening"

 

[RussDill]

You are simply incapable of walking into the undiscovered country.
So it seems. Our ability to comprehend universal behaviour is not evidence to counter the reality of a God. Climb the ladder or leave. You seem to be under the impression that I would rather have any participation than none. That's not true. Go and die, if that is what you choose.

Again with the assumption that not proving position A someone PROVES position B.

 

[RussDill]

You aren't even seeing what your eyes are seeing. I've already established the fact that the light-show you are aware of is completely abstract and/or subjective. The universe does not impose the experience of colour upon any entity. Hence, neither do the eyes.

OK lifegazer, lets say for a second, that maybe we do live in a material world, and we do have eyes. How would you define what happens when we do experience sight?

 

[RussDill]

My so-called "bedrock" is not arbitrary. Everone here of average+ intelligence (who has actually made an effort to understand my philosophy) understands that sensations, as experienced, are distinctly separate from the external world they are meant to represent. They should thus recognose that what is sensed, abstractly, has nothing to do with any presumed external universe.

If two things are seperate, that does not imply that they have nothing to do with one another.

 

[RussDill]

What real world are you talking about? No man knows of any world except for the one residing within his own awareness.

This statement assumes your philosophy is true. You cannot advance your argument with such statements.

 

[RussDill]

Actually, there is just God. My philosophy reduces the complex universe to nought but a thought within God's Mind. Like I said, my philosophy reduces existence down to one absolute entity and you cannot simplify things any more than this. Fact.

Saying "god did it" simply raises the question, "why did god do it", which will in turn, raise more and more and more questions.

 

[RandFan]

lifegazer

1. ...sensations, as experienced, are distinctly separate from the external world they are meant to represent.
   
2. They should thus recognose that what is sensed, abstractly, has nothing to do with any presumed external universe.
   [/list=1]

1. #1 is a premise. #2 Is a conclusion.
   
   This is what is called a non sequitur. It doesn't follow.
   
   The images that I see on television via my DVD player are distinctly separate from the events that they represent.
   
   By your logic the images have nothing to do with the actual events.

 

[RandFan]

lifegazer
I hereby demand an explanation for all existence or a retraction of this statement. And an apology.

Straw man. I never said that I could explain all existence. Only that everything that we can explain, you agree with and by default add god.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Realism:
Fire = Fuel + Heat + Oxygen

Gazerism:
Fire = Fuel + Heat + Oxygen + God's Mind + Unexplained Mysterious processes.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Realism:
Water = 2 Molecules Hydrogen + 1 Molecule Oxygen

Gazerism:
Water = 2 Molecules Hydrogen + 1 Molecule Oxygen + God's Mind + Unexplained Mysterious processes.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Try as you might you can't escape the fact that any and all scientific models, according to your philosophy, must by default include god and mysterious processes. When in fact, according to Occam, we don't need god to understand these principles. We can simply shave god off. Got it?

It's ok, you don't have to apologize, my ego isn't invested in my world view.

RandFan

 

[RandFan]

lifegazer,

Going back through this thread I see allot of posts that you have ignored. Why do you start new threads whithout resolving old issues?

 

[scribble]

Randfan asks such an inightful question in the last post in this thread that I can only assume it will go unanswered.

C'mon lifegazer.... inquiring minds want to know. Why can't you ever finish what you started?