No God???

Discussion in 'Religion Archives' started by CHRISCUNNINGHAM, Mar 24, 2003.

  1. mountainhare Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,287
    No its not...
    Two isn't a concept. It's a label. An apple is one. We attach the label "1" to an apple (or any singular object). When we have an apple + an apple, we give it the group of objects the label two.
    Total bs. It is very solid proof. We label an apple and another apple together two. Therefore, if you place an apple (which has the label 1) together with another apple (which also has the label 1), you have an apple and another apple together. Therefore, they form the label two.

    Translated: I have no evidence that God exists, so I'm going to try and trick you into thinking I don't have to provide evidence.
    How about this...
    ...Santa exists because Santa exists...
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. CHRISCUNNINGHAM The Ethereal Paradigm Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    280
    No......really.......it is.

    Ok..however stating that we have one apple added to another apple eqauls TWO apples does not prove that 1+1=2. What's your point because you obviously missed mine.

    No....really...it's not.

    You mean that anything is provable by simply stating what it is one is trying to prove, and corroborating it with that conclusion....

    Uhhh yeaaahh....the statement the above was a response to was completely sarcastic. I mean...the point of making the comment was to show how silly you sound saying that 1+1=2 BECAUSE 1+1=2. But I guess you missed that....
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Raithere plagued by infinities Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,348
    Re: Raithere, it's been awhile but ya...

    No problem at all, I quite understand.
    I understand what an absolute frame of reference is, I just don’t see that one is evident. Perhaps some day we’ll discover one but in the meantime the lack of such an absolute does not invalidate the relative relationships we have discovered.
    Well, the argument you're giving is essentially nihilistic.
    There are no ‘rules’ per se to logic, there are only fallacies and more-or-less arguable propositions. Logic doesn’t have anything to do with what is true or false, possible or impossible outside of logical argument. Logic is simply a formal method of thought very similar to mathematics. It is a way to conceptualize reality and to analyze reasoning.
    I find it unlikely that there was a pre-defined concept. The concept was born from perception, most primary concepts are.

    Because motion is relative. Without a point of reference there can be no motion. Without motion the concept of rest is meaningless.

    This is a tough one. Reality, by definition, is not relative to the observer. However, Reality may in fact be relative (which quantum physics seems to be indicating) but relative to the rest of reality rather than to the observer. Currently, I am at the point where I find the truest resolution is not to always insist upon reduction. We may simply have to accept that there are multiple levels of reality that are true.
    This is often misused. One can prove a negative within a finite ‘world’. For instance, I can quite conclusively prove that there are no wild boars in the room with me. I can also prove that the Greek Pantheon does not live atop Mt. Olympus. I can also prove, by definition, that there is no such thing as a square circle. The problem with proving a negative is when we’re dealing with the unknown or semantic differences.
    I think we’re off track but that’s not quite true. It might be nit-picking but we do accept the existence of things that we cannot perceive as long we can perceive some effect that thing may cause.
    Unless you are talking about the movement of parts of your body relative to other parts of your body there is no motion. Relative to yourself you are always at rest.

    We never are at rest because we are always in motion relative to something else. So things would look exactly the way they do.

    ~Raithere
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Raithere plagued by infinities Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,348
    Undoubtedly exists? Care to give us your argument?

    ~Raithere
     
  8. Gravage Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,241
    Re: Re: Re: Re: No God???

    Excellent argumants!
     
  9. Gravage Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,241
    Yep...

    I completely agree with you,Mystech.
     
  10. mountainhare Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,287
    Because we assign two apples with the value 2.
    We assign one apple with the value 1.

    Therefore, if the value's 1 and 1 are added together, which each represent one apple, you end up with two apples. Two apples has a value of 2.

    There we go. It's been proven. 1 + 1 = 2.
     
  11. CHRISCUNNINGHAM The Ethereal Paradigm Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    280
    This is the frame in which the universe can be viewed from. And the reason why I state this undoubtably exists, is because if it did not we in fact could not ever refer to the universe as an singler entity. And when I say universe I am including all the other " bubble universes" that may exist.

    This ultimate frame of reference is existence itself.

    Well where I feel I differ is in the sense that though I believe that everything is essentially undefineable and completely conjured, I believe this is because it is all created to be so. Why? I am not sure yet. But as profound as reality being a figment of our imagination may be, it is a truth.

    Well what makes something "Logical" or "illogical", what makes something true or false, what makes something a fallacy.



    Exactly...but without the concept of rest how is there motion?

    So then order in the universe is an acceptable, and preceivable effect of implying a creator?


    So do you mind explaining to I, the entity of perpetual motion, what exactly this "rest" state that relative to me I exist in?



    Maybe. But we in fact are never in motion relative to ourselves. For everything can be considered to be moving around us. A three dimensional conveyor belt if you will.

    If I am in a perpetual state of motion what could I call this entity you claim is "rest". For the only real way to define something as "rest" is to use a reference object that would appear to be moving at the "same speed".

    Hmmm... I need to think about this perptual motion idea a bit more.

    I will get back to you on it.
     
  12. CHRISCUNNINGHAM The Ethereal Paradigm Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    280
    Once again you have not proven anything, you have simply stated it.

    We... assign... two apples... with... a value... of 2...And one apple... with a value of.... one....

    Hmm, well then what is this "two" apples that we are assigning the value of 2 to?
     
  13. Raithere plagued by infinities Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,348
    Why not? A species is not a singular entity is it a categorization of individual organisms by traits, yet we can refer to insects, or humans as singular entities.

    How do you know that it’s absolute? What if it’s infinite in one or more dimensions?
    I have no problem with that as long as it is admitted.
    Or would it be simpler to say that the nature of reality is that it can never be absolutely known?
    A logical conclusion is one that is reached through a proper argument. For instance: A > B, B > C therefore A > C. An illogical conclusion skips some steps along the way: A > B therefore A > C.
    Ultimately? I don’t know. Personally, I find something to be more true the more it is congruent with other things.
    A fallacy is a technical flaw in an argument where the premises do not infer the conclusion. Such as the fallacy of an appeal to ignorance: Science does not know what caused the Universe to come into being therefore God must have created the Universe.

    Motion is self-apparent, one does not need to have the concept of rest to understand it.

    ’Order’ is caused by the laws of nature.

    Sure, the distance between you and yourself never changes.

    Correct.

    An object at rest, relative to you, is ‘moving’ at the same velocity and in the same direction as you, yes.

    No problem. You might want to consider what Einstein had to say about it: http://www.bartleby.com/173/

    ~Raithere
     
  14. CHRISCUNNINGHAM The Ethereal Paradigm Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    280
    Whether this does any good to post here again I don't know. Ha its been quite a while.

    Raithere if you are still "right there" to answer I am back to continue, if you so choose.

    Let it resume....

    The universe as it its parts is comprised of gas dust galaxies and light. But the idea of "universe" lends itself to a singular enity seprated from its opposite "not universe" for when one labels something he is seperating it from what it is not. More pertinently if the universe is, however curved in any way there is a greater dimension/entity in which curves relatively to. This presumably is the absolute frame of reference.

    Infinty is a product of imperfect categorization. Our minds seperate an object into smaller, yet similar enities, but then treats this scaled version as a part of the original when truly it is the original. For instance, points on a line, if you seperate the line into "points" an infinity crops up, but this plenum of points is nothing more than a line, and each point is ultimately a line itself.

    |____________|
    |______|

    One could say these are approximately a 2:1 ratio, but this is nothing more than the original segment scaled to a different size, not a seperate entity with a seperate "absolute value". This sense of absolute value is not, however, a product of absolute logic, rather a discernibly relative logic.


    Maybe. But not necessarily. I'm pressed for time so I will get back to this, IF you're even reading this. Ha.




    As for my original statement that you were replying to, I take it back. I have come to realize that "order" has no absolute meaningThe Laws of nature we have invented just as we have invented mathematics, for chaos and order are relative observations just as truth and falsehood. Randomness does not exist.


    But in the world, this existence, what is purpose, and why should it have absolute antecedence.

    Essentially...can purpose have any purpose?

    Is its integrality in man's tainted logic the manifestation of the given absolute?


    My point is that its only "self-apparent" because rest exists.

    Again, how can one define motion without a "motionless" point of reference?
     
  15. Gravage Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,241
    God doesn't exist!

    You can only think on entities who live in higher dimension,they are gods for us-we're in 3th dimension.So,in higher dimension-4th dimension entities are superior to 3dimensional entities.So,these entities you can call gods,but there is no god,what theists talk about.
     
  16. Gravage Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,241
    I completely disagree,about world being an illusion...

     
  17. Gravage Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,241
    Re: god is the biggest HOAX ever

    I completely agree with you,Johann.You,Mystech and Frenchneeze have completely proved how theists blind are,when you believe in something.The only thing I truly believe is energy and nature are totally,completely uncreateable and indestructible(energy creates laws of physics in any of the universes-if there are more than one,i's not the laws of physics that make energy indestructible).Energy can only be transferred into another form of energy,but it cannot be created or destroyed.With energy,nature operates infinitely,without beginning and end,no intelligence is really needed,because everything and everyone just made of natural processes and energy.
     
  18. Gravage Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,241
    Re: WOW

    The only thing what is certain,is that reality we see is real,but we don't see the entire reality,we only see a small part of reality.That's why have measuring instruments for that.God doesn't exist,that's for sure.String theory may prove in the future that there are higher dimensions.If there is 4th dimension,and if there are entities in this 4th dimension than we can call them gods,because they simply live in higher dimension and we're incapable of harming them-one of the possible explanations why people see ghosts,the other irrefutable explanation is that when you believe too much in ghosts,you'll see them,but not because they exist,but only because they are simply a simulated hallucination of our tiny brain.Nature and energy are eternal,without beginning and end,that's certain,too,all other things are not certain.
     

Share This Page