No God???

Haha well then...

Well that suggests there is unequivocal proof.

Prove that existence exists....

Tell the blind man that there exists this "thing" known as Red....

Oh, but if one cannot prove a subject/entity/quantity and all of its parts as truth, then he cannot know it to be a certainty.

Please explain and prove to me what "exist" is.....

But remember, realtive to a ball my friend.... there is no such thing as existence....

So what is left???

The matter...

or the mind.....

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Congruency

First question: Who's mind?

Second question: Care to prove it?

Tell you what, I have an experiment for you: You can imagine that reality is all in your mind and I'll whack you in the back of the head with a brick. Then we can see who's right.

LOL okay. So an apple is defined by everything else in existence (and non-existence) that is not an apple. I'll accept that, although I think defining something by what is actually is is a bit less cumbersome than the infinity you propose.

Well according to you, reality exists only in the mind, which would mean that nothing is ever accomplished. Personally, I believe that there is a reality external to the mind (even if only for reasons of expediency) and that tools such as logic help us to function reliably within such a system.

I disagree. Purpose can exist on many levels. As intelligent, "free-willed", beings I believe that our purpose is self-determined and is our greatest responsibility.

Indeed I can rationalize such a nihilistic position as well but it gives one no basis for thought or action. In such a context your assertion of God becomes meaningless and arbitrary; it is simply the imaginary frame upon which you choose to paint your non-existent 'reality' and has no more validity than any other frame that might be imagined. As such, 'God exists' may be 'true' or even necessary but so is anything else we might assert.

Where is the paradox?

IMO; The closest we can come to determining absolute 'truth', is congruency. This is simply a matter of expediency, it relies entirely upon the presumptions; "That exists which is not self." and "Not-self is more-or-less internally consistent." IMO, these are necessary (although by no means proven) assumptions without which there is no basis to assert anything beyond "I am."

~Raithere

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

ChrisCunningham confounds:

its ok to base logic on them

Logic is comletely fallacious, it is paradoxical, and all of the answers one thinks he has is nothing more than folly…

I am a pure logician…

Logic and reason are tantamount. To say logic is formalized reason is in fact redundant.

Terms such paradoxical do no exist until logic is established.

When I said logical and illogical I meant True and False.

Everything around has a completely unfounded validity, time. numbers, displacement, logic, existence...

Is it just me or is Chris a logistic yo-yo? I don't think I've ever seen anyone flip-flop so much in the span of just a few posts. Amazing!?!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

So you mean God... or just external mind completely exclsuive of all presumtpions, assumptions, and logcial syetems???

But the question is.. Why?

Why must there be purpose???

The paradox exists when one concludes that B is logical.

For example...

When an assumption, as all assumptions, has no concrete proof, any system based on that assumption has no concrete proof.

That is exactly what I am proving, defining something as it "ACTUALLY IS" is no less cumbersome than the infinity I purpose. And I can't believe I am the only one who can see how words are defined. ...then everyone wonders why I can be condecending at times.....

How can you define an apple, if you have nothing that seperates it from an orange or everything else for that matter.

You cannot have or state that something is red unless you have other "things" that are not red.

You cannot have or state that something is a certain shape, unless you have other things that are not that shape.

You cannot have or state a certain taste unless you have other things that are not that taste.

There is abolsutely NO way to define anything unless there is a comparison. Imagine you were a ball moving in space, away from any light, and any particles. How would you know what movement is?? Moreover how would ever even know what rest is?

Equally if you were a ball constantly moving amongst particles and light, how would you know what rest is???? Additionally how would you know what movemement is??

Realtive to you neither one of these things exist.

SO what proof can someone give you that either of them do??? (Hate to say it but "assuming", that you cannot be slowed or stopped)

How can they make claims of such a thing that has no real defintion??

When you the ball would ask them to describe it what could they say???

Existence... by far, the greatest display of imagination and relativity..

 

Yes I do contradict myself at times, but I must do so as to convey a message, as language and existence must do so to convey a messsage.....

....but I couldn't care less because I always remember I am 17 years old, and I am sure the only thing most of you were doing at my age was "nerdy", masturbating excessively, or both....

And I am sure things haven't changed much eh....

Why don't you read my previous post, and see if it does anything for you.

 

Chris

Yes I do contradict myself at times

Then how are we supposed to know what point you’re trying to get across if you contradict yourself all the time?

but I must do so as to convey a message, as language and existence must do so to convey a message

So far, the only message I’m getting from you is one of confusion.

but I couldn't care less because I always remember I am 17 years old, and I am sure the only thing most of you were doing at my age was "nerdy", masturbating exceesively, or both....

Are those the only two activities to which you can draw knowledgeable comparisons?

And I am sure things haven't changed much eh....

Apparently not.

Why don't you read my previous post, and see if it does anything for you.

Aside from making my brow furrow, it was more or less the same as the rest of your posts – confusing and contradictory.

What is your point?

 

I do believe it was stated in the conlusion of the post...

Existence... by far, the greatest display of imagination and relativity...

 

Chris

Existence... by far, the greatest display of imagination and relativity...

This makes no sense. Whose imagination are you talking about? What is existence relative to – non-existence?

 

Why refute something when there is no logical reason to believe it in the first place?

 

No, I mean an absolute reality, a physical (as much as anything is) existence that is; regardless of the mind perceiving it. Of course, I believe the mind is a structure within this reality.

It depends upon what level you're asking the question but generally, I don't find that purpose is necessitated. However, I generally find that if you do not determine your own purpose you will become part of someone or something else's.

You're talking in circles. You still haven't adequately explained what your concern is.

Not entirely true. There may be 'concrete' statements within an argument that also contains an assumption; however, the conclusion is still vulnerable through the assumed premise. The assumption is the weakest link.

But that is not how words are defined. Words, at the most basic level are defined by object reference. It is very unlikely that you learned what an apple was through words... you learned what an apple was when someone pointed to an apple and said, 'apple'. Even if you did learn what an apple was by description, this description ultimately relied on other terms which you learned through perception. This is why dictionaries are so confusing at times, containing circular definitions, because our most basic understanding is sensory.

While I understand what it is your are saying this is simply not how things are perceived; 'things' as much as they are 'things' are already 'separate'. Now, ultimately things are not quite the way they are perceived to be, or better our perception is only of a particular order and there are other orders that are more intrinsic and/or more complete. But language was built from our natural level of perception.

The ability to perceive something, to be able to distinguish it from something else does not preclude its existence. We did not need to experience a vacuum before we could conceive of air.

Sure you can, it's just unlikely that you would need a term to describe something that everything is.

Heh, that's exactly the question Einstein asked; his answer is that the state of rest is relative.

Yes, constant motion is a relative state. Either object can be considered to be moving or not moving. I've lost your point though. One of the problems, I believe, you are having is that there are various levels upon which these things can be contemplated... and it sounds as if you are kind of throwing them all into one heap and trying to sort out a single workable explanation. If this isn't the case you'll need to be a bit more explicit in your explanations because there are some large areas where I'm not understanding what it is you're getting at.

~Raithere

 

Prozak,Q, Raithere

...hmm, funny, I could have sworn that's what people said about relativity and quantum mechanics.

How ironic.....

It makes no sense??

Whose imagination??

The given observer.

Relative to what?

This is an inane question.

The given observer.

Don't believe me?

Prove to the blind man that there exists such a thing as color.

Or read what I am about to say to Raithere.

Maybe we can agree slightly, but if it "IS" then one must assume that it is perceptible by the mind, for the concept of "is" is created by the mind.

Then why not believe that purpose is unecessary notwithstanding its existence is in fact refutable, hence there is no need to concern yourself with it at all.

My concern as I have adequately, rather descriptively, and unmistakably explained on multiple occasions is the fact that until I prove the assumption in a logical system to be an absolute/fact in all systems or THE System (the fundamental system of which Logic itself is based on) then I cannot ever be certain that conclusion based on that assumption is correct absolutely, only realtively. Thus I can never use this system to disprove another systems validity. Nothing that is ever concluded has truth, but even when it has no truth it is not false, it is indeed....in between. Therefore we know nothing at all.

If I cannot distinguish it from something else I cannot define it. If I cannot define it(not necessarily linguistically, but definition/distinction in general), I cannot perceive it. If I cannot perceive it, relative to me, it does not exist.

Yes I am completely aware of this. I have stated this in a post to momentum7 earlier on this page of the thread....

But moreover, this being true one can in actuality never be certain of anything for every proof is based on an assumption, erego(still don't know how to spell this word, help anyone?) erego everything is an assumption, and everything has no meaning whatsoever. Existence is, consequently, completely irrelavent for it is imagined.

Very true, but sensory perception is just as circular, and language manifests this. The only reason why we think our senses understand everything is because we assume this to be so, there is no proof that it is true.

Well then explain to me what a curvature is?

...this may go on ad infintum if you don't see the point I am trying to make, which is ubiquitous in all my posts....

Well that seems to be exactly what is happening, everyone loses my point. Why? Because I ask questions with answers much more significant than one would ever think at first glace. I ask questions that require one to lose his preconceptions and assumptions....Wesmorris do you see why I ask rather than tell?

My point is that relative to that ball in constant motion(which is constant motion REALTIVE TO US) in fact has no concept of motion or rest whatsoever. It has never been stopped so it does not know there is anything other than existence. He has no notion of this "rest" or "motion". Why? Because without rest there is no motion, and without motion there is no rest.

Because of the lack in "false"(as you put it) duality they have no existence.

I guess it wasn't so false after all.....

 

Why am I posting??

For no reason but to remind people that this thread still exists...

Oh how I do dislike when it is forgotten and thrown into the bottom of the pit.


Well hell at least I'm being honest....

 

These are my sentiments about the whole issue-

I want to believe in God. I really do. And an afterlife.

It would be so great -- so reassuring, so comforting, so peaceful -- to know that there's Someone out there who's in control of a world that seems so out of control. That, despite all appearances, all things really do work together for good to them that love God. That an Eternal Reward awaits all of us (or at least, me) in a future life to compensate for all of the crap we have to put up with (some more than others) in this one. That in the end, I can look back on my existence and rejoice that all the balances are added up and everything has worked out to be just and fair.

So, searching them out by the spirit doesn't tell us anything, since the spirit is demonstrably telling one thing to one person and another thing to another person. How about logic and reason? Well, logic and reason are no help, because each one of these belief systems is demonstrably self-contradictory in one way or another. And what's more, the adherents of those belief systems don't see those things as contradictory at all -- they have found ways to explain these things away so that they don't seem like contradictions after all ... not to the believers, anyway. One example: two books of the New Testament say that Mary saw one angel at Jesus's tomb, and two more say that there were two angels at Jesus's tomb. How do we resolve this? Clearly, there *were* two there, but Mary only *saw* one of them. It all makes sense ... if you believe.

Ah, and that's really the bottom line, isn't it. Logic and sound reasoning are "misleading", and even spiritual witnesses aren't reliable -- but that leap of faith, that will answer all your doubts. Just believe. As I've been told so often, "Seeing isn't believing; believing is seeing." ... which is a clever way of saying that "we who are believers, we don't let troublesome contradictions get in our way; we've made that 'leap of faith', which renders doubts and contradictions irrelevant. God will make everything clear, in His Own good time. Ours is not to reason why, ours is but to sit quietly and wait for the Second Coming (or some analogous occurrence), at which time, all these things will be made clear."

Sorry, but I just can't buy that. If there is a God, He wouldn't have discontinuities that would need explaining, or at least, He wouldn't wait forever to make them understandable to the average mortal mind. If there is a God, He wouldn't *want* me to suspend reason and doubt and critical analysis for the sake of a "just believe, and that will make everything all right" mentality -- on the contrary, He would welcome questions and doubts and fears, and would explain them clearly and understandably. He loves me, after all, presumably, right? He wants me to know the truth. So why all the (apparently deliberate) secrecy? He's my Parent, after all, in at least some metaphorical sense, right? Why then does He act so much like an absent father?

If God could create the universe, God could speak to me and help me understand Him. God wouldn't need a spokesperson, and wouldn't need a book, and wouldn't need a Holy Spirit. If God wants me to know Him, He knows where to find me

In the end, I've been unable to discover any system of belief -- Christian or otherwise -- in which God can exist without colliding with observable evidence in significant ways.

And so, after looking for God using logic and reason, using blind faith, using spiritual witnesses, using written scriptures -- in short, using any and all means available to us -- God simply fails to emerge as a viable concept, much less a living, breathing, existing being.

I really want to believe that there's Someone out there who will make everything all right. I suspect that we all do. I suspect that it's built into us, a holdover from our childhoods. But eventually we have to grow up, and face facts. There is no one out there who has all the answers. We're on our own for that. I have come to the conclusion that the sooner we get ahold of that and hang onto it, the happier we will all be.

 

Evidence there is no Heaven or Hell

Using medical science we have two states of death, clinical death and terminal death.
clinical death is the ceasing of a major organ which will lead to becoming brain dead, or terminal death. (if not revived and the major organ repaired.)
we know that if someone's brain goes for 15 to 20 minutes with out being oxygenated, when reveived, they will probably have severe brain damage to the point of a vegatative state or retardation or some other type of loss of cognitive skill.
the science of cryogenics states that they quick freeze people "after they die a nature death" but before the lack of oxygenation to the brain takes effect.
we all got our views of what heaven or hell is like from our parents. when we die, if good = heaven, if bad = hell.
yet when these scientists thaw out the brains in say 50 or 100 years later and reintroduce them to an oxygenated blood supply, when they "wake up", will they say they have been in heaven or hell the past 50 or 100 years? or will they just wake up?
mommy and daddy said that once you are in heaven or hell you can never leave. ever.
so...is mommy and daddy lying or are the scientists right?

 

Reducing to absolutes

Yes, that seems to be the case, in fact, there is some suggestion that there may be no absolute point of reference. This does not mean that relative systems are invalid, however... only that they are relative. Look at it this way, if we take a measurement of the distance between where we sit relative to one another it will be the same whether we use the Earth, the Solar System, or the Galaxy as our absolute frame of reference.

I am quite familiar with this nihilistic reduction; I simply reject it because it is impractical. To take this position means that my mind is the only thing that exists and I am simply dreaming everything (including this conversation). While I cannot disprove this it is of no value.

I think most of us know that our senses do not reveal everything.

A curve is a graph of a function on a coordinate plane. A curvature is the act or state of being curved.

While your obviously quite intelligent you are not asking any original questions here, I asked them myself when I was around your age. Of course, I've had another 18 years to work on the answers. The main problem that I see is that you have not really worked out a position; you are going around in circles without really coming to any conclusions. Essentially, your argument seems to be reductionist which is fine, in itself, but you then attempt to make assertion that are not supported by your argument.

A ball has no concept of motion or rest because it is not conscious not because of your false duality. Motion or rest is a relative measurement between two objects, nothing more or less. If you have a universe with only two objects in it, it is impossible to determine which is moving or at rest or if they are both moving.

~Raithere

 

Yes but this relativity suggests a fallacy. When I say invalid, that's what I mean, fallacious. We cannot, by convetional/logical means, say that we understand the universe or existence in its purity. As obvious as it may seem this implies at least two things, we can never understand them and we are destined to be left in the dark, or we can understand the universe and existence but we must evolve our method thinking. The very workings of our brain and consciousness must be improved.

I was not aware of this until quite recently, and I think I need to do a bit more reading on different philisophical ideologies because it does seem I am simply treking on plodden ground. However to me this is realization all based on my own conclusions. I never let myself become a sheep, because I like the way something sounds, I figure it out on my own.

But, it is a shame that you choose to simply REJECT it. This is the shame of society, "reject that which one does not wish to understand and/or is not in agreement with his preconceptions."

Most... no.

Some...very much so.

But why is it that so many use the exact opposite as refutation.

"I am living, breathing, having converstation, conscious, therefore existence is REAL."

Whatever those last two words may mean....

Define plane. Define curved.

It truly isn't as simple as you believe it to be. And as I said this will go on ad infintum if you do not see the point I am trying to corroborate. Although I believe you answered with the typical response despite this entire conversation and my main thesis based on your view point, so I am going to leave it alone for now.

Yes and No. I haven't worked out a postion, simply a starting point. The main reason I come to forums, and debate with people is because it helps me understand what it is I am saying, and come to, though sometimes different, even more elaborate conclusions.

This thread, our converstation, is a small part of a year-long self debate. I began believing that time is static, and existence is the only absolute, but these were the early stages. This conversation is at the intermediate stage of this "theory". I have yet to come to the conclusive one.

However in order to come to an intricate conclusion, I must look at it form all postions, therefore I must take one side that contradicts the other in order to see all manifolds included in the original question...."Is the only asbolute that there are no other absolutes?"

This meeger question has become a perplexing conundrum that upon contemplation subsequently leads to many more.

I will come to a conlcusion eventually, but you must understand that you and many others are an integral part of it. Please, bear with me.

Ah yes, though semi-expected the short-sighted and nearly off prompt response.

....rest and motion....a relative measurement between two objects...nothing more or less....

I presented the Given that this ball has consciousness by originally stating....

The "you" means you, Raithere, a conscious being, as a ball. A ball as the observer maybe unecessary, but I began the question with an "aconscious" ball, and changed it after realizing that consciousness itself was not the conlcusive factor.

It's been awhile since I have posted in this thread, and after rereading my previous post I see that I have already presented the answer to both of the questions below. It seems as if you skimmed the post for if you read it, you would have observed that consciousness was NOT a missing factor and you wouldn't have seen it's abscence as refutation for my conclusion.

Now rephrasing the question to be less subtle, and thought provoking, a.k.a to the point (NOT because I doubt your ability, but because it is unecessary at this point).....

Assume that relative to an observer that is in a state of rest relative to yet another observer you were born into a state of Perpetual Motion.

Do you think you are at rest or do you think that you are moving?

Based on what?

 

Chris, I don't know if this would help or if I mentioned it, but:

I thought I remembered earlier that set paradoxes disturb or displease you somehow. If one accepts the concept of "real" and "abstract" as applicable to the apparent classifications regarding reality - it might be concluded that since the "abstract world" has virtually no constrictions, there is nothing wrong with duality in that context. Since the human mind delves into the abstract, but is adapted to the purpose of abstracting the objective, the possibility of duality seems inherently wrong. Since our main tool to attempt to understand our environment is what has become 'logic' (which is constrained by duality), we are generally forced to reject that is dual. As such, thought experiments need not exclude potential dualities from elements of analysis that are purely abstract in nature.

Hell nevermind. I'm on crack and off topic I guess.

 

Haha, I think I was on my way to coming to that conclusion...maybe...

 

I think the effectiveness of the concept of "i" in mathematics is supporting evidence of the validity of the idea.

 

Why is that? What leads you to the presumption that there must be an absolute frame of reference?

That is excellent, keep trekking and finding your own way. Keep studying too.

I don't reject it out of hand based upon preconceptions or a refusal to understand. I reject it because I find no practical value in it. While it may indeed be the case that everything I experience exists only in my mind it gives me no grounds for either action or thought. It leads nowhere which, of course, is what nihilism is all about.
The problem I have with this is that even nihilists must think and act and then the question becomes; upon what do they base their actions/thoughts?

There is a difference, I think, between believing that there is some congruency between sensation and that which is not-self and believing that what we sense is an exact representation of not-self. Both of these oppose the position that nothing exists except self. Personally, I subscribe to the belief that exists which is not-self and that there is some congruency between experience and not-self.

I do see your point but definition is not reality. The easiest way to convey the meaning of curvature would be show examples of things that have that property. After several examples one would come to recognize the property we call curvature. Now, you may argue that this experience is not reliable, you can question it's validity to the point where it exists only in your mind but then I must ask, what are you doing arguing nihilistic reduction with yourself? At some point we must assume a more or less congruent non-self or we may as well forget even pondering the questions.

Excellent, I hope you're enjoying yourself, I know I am.

I would also suggest a couple of things: There may be no way to come to a solid conclusion and in such a case you may want to consider positions based upon certain assumptions purely for reasons of expediency.

Gladly. Keep asserting positions, test them for weaknesses, let other people bash them about so you know how they play. I continue to do the same thing, often taking a position of devils advocate simply to see how far a position can be pushed.

One object, alone in an infinite Universe, would have no motion or rest.

This depends upon how many objects we are considering. If there are only two objects either may be considered to be at rest or in motion, there is no means by which to distinguish which is which. If there are three or more objects we determine relative states of motion or rest by the simplicity of the equation which expresses their movement. Generally, the simplest equation is deemed to be correct provided it abides by physical laws.

That is an assumption. We may not be able to prove that they exist but neither can we prove that they do not.

The reason I mentioned it is because I feel that you are confusing the two issues (relative motion and nihilistic reduction). The two issues should be handled seperately.

Then I would base my determination upon which of the possibilities conformed to the known laws of physics and resulted in the simplest model.

Both. Relative to some objects I am in motion and relative to others I am at rest.

~Raithere