Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
lifegazer said:
It is a statement that reason is not the sole determinant of truth.
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
Read it again. I said that reason alone does not determine truth. I said nothing denouncing reason.lifegazer said:
Reason is necessary for discovering truth, but it is not, itself, sufficient. Your claim above seems to imply that it is.
Get your head out of the fishbowl squire.uruk said:
I agree with tricky, this sounds like a discriptin of non-existance.
Thanks Lifegazer for proving that god does not exist.
The concepts of distance, position, time, form, only exist within awareness... within the perception of the relations existing between things seen therein.
But in truth, no thing possesses definite form or definite position in spacetime. Ask your local quantum-physicist - he'll back me up.
The realm of definite things with definite form and definite location, is a realm of illusion, seen by a Mind of the eternal spirit that we know as God.
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
Well, yes, actually. If we are to accept "the truth of God" as objective truth, it is required that there be some sort of observation that fits no other set of rationality.lifegazer said:
Reason alone can be used to arrive at any conclusion dependent on the premises the reasoning is based on. I could use reason to show the Smurfs rule the universe, as long as you don't make me prove the premises of that reasoning. Likewise, you've used reason to show that the universe is God, but you do not prove the premises your reasoning is based on.
A burning bush, perhaps? Or a parting of the Atlantic ocean? Or Scribble posting something worthwhile? Just what sort of observation would suffice to confirm the reasoning of God's existence?Upchurch said:
God is the whole - God is absolute existence. God resides everywhere and nowhere, everywhen and nowhen. God is without form. God is without beginning or end. Pray tell, where in spacetime might we expect to see God?
My reason begins with a premise that is absolutely true:-
Something is having the abstract experience of being 'me'. Even if 'i' am just an illusion, something is definitely having this experience.
My philosophy starts thus, and is founded upon a true premise.
Which of course I would.
We've been down this road before. Somehow, you denied that the premise was true.
Edit: Will one of the moderators delete this post please. I've posted the same thing twice.
A burning bush, perhaps? Or a parting of the Atlantic ocean? Or Scribble posting something worthwhile? Just what sort of observation would suffice to confirm the reasoning of God's existence?Upchurch said:
God is the whole - God is absolute existence. God resides everywhere and nowhere, everywhen and nowhen. God is without form. God is without beginning or end. Pray tell, where in spacetime might we expect to see God?
My reason begins with a premise that is absolutely true:-
Something is having the abstract experience of being 'me'. Even if 'i' am just an illusion, something is definitely having this experience.
My philosophy starts thus, and is founded upon a true premise.
Which of course I would.
We've been down this road before. Somehow, you denied that the premise was true.
Tricky
Briefly immortal
Well, he didn't exactly prove God does not exist, only that God as he as defined him does not exist. To accept this as proof of God's nonexistance, you would have to accept Lifegazer's assumptions about God's formlessness, placelessness and motionless state. So far, I haven't seen a single one of Lifegazer's assumptions that was worth the electrons it took to show it on my screen, so I'm going to refrain from calling it "proof".uruk said:I agree with tricky, this sounds like a discriptin of non-existance.
Thanks Lifegazer for proving that god does not exist.
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
Those would be lovely. (Sorry, Scriblifegazer said:
) As long as there was no other natural explination, of course. BTW, did you know that bushes spontaneously catching on fire is a natural phenomenon? I think there was a thread about it a while ago.If only that were your only premise. Sadly, it is not.
edited to add: Forgot to mention the logical inconsistancies in the reason itself.
This thread proposes that the existence (of whatever) precedes the changes which began to be perceived within that existence.
Change is an occurance. It happens to something. So, time (being the equivalent of change), is happening to whatever exists before changes are perceived within it.
Ultimately, since existence is the source of her own changes/time, we must conclude that there is a timeless existence.
Very reasonable argument, imo.
Are there any final questions before I collect my million dollars? lol
Change is an occurance. It happens to something. So, time (being the equivalent of change), is happening to whatever exists before changes are perceived within it.
Ultimately, since existence is the source of her own changes/time, we must conclude that there is a timeless existence.
Very reasonable argument, imo.
Are there any final questions before I collect my million dollars? lol
Tricky
Briefly immortal
Yeah. What did you put on the "Million Dollar Challenge" application form where it asks what powers or abilities are to be demonstrated?lifegazer said:
uruk
Philosopher
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2003
- Messages
- 5,311
proof , yet again, that sarcasm does not transfer to print.
it was just nice to see lifgazer resort to spewing dogma again.
Did anybody notice that he finally admitted to not knowing something about his "philosophy?"
poetic gobbledy gook. god exists yet doesn't exist. absolutly meaningless.
this reminds me of a saying: If you can't dazzel them diamonds; baffel them with bullsh*t.
Really? Can I change my mind?uruk said:
No squire. God exists but not as a definite body within definite spacetime. QM supports this. Existence is nowhere to be found, except within the mind and as the mind.
No pearls for the piggies, I'm afraid.
uruk
Philosopher
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2003
- Messages
- 5,311
They may not posse definite form or position but they do posses form and position none the less.
A QM physicist would remind you that the uncertaity principal referes to measurements. The system has those properties but when you try to measure one property to a precice measurement you affect the other properties so that they become unknown. we can know the precise position of a particle with 99.9% accuracy (you can never approach 100%) but you affect the velocity, energy level,..etc. so that those properties become unknown. Philosophicaly speaking: observing the system changes the system.
edited to correct a sentence
RussDill
Philosopher
lifegazer said:
In your philosophy, the only kind of existence there is is awareness (of the mind of god), correct? So you can easily replace that sentance. "The concepts of distance, position, time, form, only exist within existence".
You seem somehow convinced that if distance is real within existence, then somehow it is real is some realm outside existence, same with time. But then rationalize the problem away by saying that it is only real within awareness...which by your philosophy, is existence.
Your local quantum physicists already told you that you haven't a clue when it comes to QM and it's implications. So sorry, no, no QM physicist would back you up.
There is no realm of definite location, ever, even in some illusionary world. (definite form, things, etc, are all a result of the definite location thing, not seperate "problems").
RussDill
Philosopher
lifegazer said:
time happens to things within reality no more than distance happens to things within reality. It is all one cohesive unit.
Saying something is the source of time is non-sensical. Are you saying that the source makes all changes occur? Then the source is changing at each initiated change, but that is a change, so it must come from the source, which comes from the source, etc, etc.