Order

[lifegazer]

All things must be ordered. The definition of something real within existence is dependent upon the co-existentence of order within that thing.
Even in particle-physics, we may see disorder about behaviour, but the particles themselves (the identity of those things) have ordered attributes of existence (spin, color, charge, etc.)
When the order of something breaks-down, the things become unstable and then proceed to exist as other [different] things [of a different order]. So, existence = [changing] order.
Order has always been inherent within existence.

I would argue that there is no such thing as chaos except as a concept within the mind's eye. For what thing can exist as chaos?
The behaviour of existence is irrelevant, even though the universe's behaviour doth proceed to become ordered within awareness. My argument centers around the essence or substance of existence itself... and in itself, existence contains order.

Order has not arisen from blind chaos and chance. Order reigns eternal. Existence has always possessed self-order and definite identity.

[RussDill]

*yawn* maybe you should read up on thermodynamics. Until then, you are just mouthing unitelligible gibberish.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by RussDill
*yawn* maybe you should read up on thermodynamics. Until then, you are just mouthing unitelligible gibberish.
Your point please. Less waffle Russ. Or less posts.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Your point please. Less waffle Russ. Or less posts.

You are a waste of time, If you want to talk about this subject, study thermodynamics first.

[lifegazer]

Does anyone here have a brain or what?

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Does anyone here have a brain or what?

yes lifegazer, a lot of people besides you have brains. If you'd stop to think about this, maybe you'd bother learning from them. If you want to talk about order, disorder, etc, you should read up on thermodynamics first, otherwise, you are not fit for the discussion. Its like going on a fishing trip and not bringing a fishing pole. Now go home, and get your pole.

[lifegazer]

Chickens and sheep.

I have presented an argument which mirrors an eternal God and you tell me to read thermodynamics as a response. What a plonker.

[c4ts]

How do you know that "order" isn't just something imposed upon reality because of how the human brain works? Why do we assume that a pattern exists because something is repetitive over the period of time it is observed? Pattern recognition could just be some kind of evolutionary fluke that happens to work only enough to keep us alive in certain situations. The order that we see may be nothing more than an instintive attempt to make sense of a bunch of random stuff that affects other stuff.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Chickens and sheep.

I have presented an argument which mirrors an eternal God and you tell me to read thermodynamics as a response. What a plonker.

you have presented a completely meaningless argument. I wouldn't need to bother responding if you had any knowledge of thermodynamics, because you wouldn't have posted it in the first place.

[Bikewer]

If you don't want to study thermodynamics, try quantum mechanics. "Order" is pretty illusory at the subatomic level.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by c4ts
How do you know that "order" isn't just something imposed upon reality because of how the human brain works?

Ah, so the order of things is, in essence, a reality of Mind? Now why didn't I think of that?

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Bikewer
If you don't want to study thermodynamics, try quantum mechanics. "Order" is pretty illusory at the subatomic level.
Did you read the argument? All particles have specific attributes of identity. No particle can have existence if it does not possess an order of identity.

[c4ts]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Ah, so the order of things is, in essence, a reality of Mind? Now why didn't I think of that?

That would depend on what you mean by "mind."

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Ah, so the order of things is, in essence, a reality of Mind? Now why didn't I think of that?

He's pointing to your assumption of the meaning of order, a word you bend around quite a bit in your argument until its completely meaningless. You can't use the meaning of a word to prove anything about reality.

[Yahweh]

All things must be ordered.

...

I would argue that there is no such thing as chaos except as a concept within the mind's eye.
Your reasoning is internally inconsistent.

First you say all things are ordered, then you say chaos is a concept within the mind's eye. Why isnt "order" a concept within the mind's eye?

See TalkOrigins.org - The universe was supposedly formed in the Big Bang, but explosions don't produce order or information (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE441.html).

See TalkOrigins.org - Design is self-evident. You just need to open your eyes and see it. (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI100_1.html).

Your argument is founded entirely upon an Argument from Incredulity (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA100.html).

Humans have a natural tendency to notice "design" and "order". If you've ever seen a cloud that looks like a bunny, that is just your temporal lobes (there are other parts of the brain associated with the interpretation of abstract concepts) trying to find "meaning" where there is none.

You should also define your terms such as "order", your concept of matter, etc.

My argument centers around the essence or substance of existence itself...
Existence isnt a substance or made of any kind of substance, its an abstract concept used to describe things which are real in objective reality. If your argument centers around the "substance of existence itself", your argument crumbles.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Did you read the argument? All particles have specific attributes of identity. No particle can have existence if it does not possess an order of identity.

This is not borne out in experiments in quantum mechanics. Sorry lifegazer. Also, nothing in reality or logic neccesitates any points in your argument.

[chance]

lifegazer All things must be ordered <snip> Possibly true, but it depends at what level you are observing the event. E.g. observing some chaotic motion of an individual molecule of water bumping it’s way around a cloud, but in reality if observed in microseconds each motion has been caused by a specific collision and is not chaotic. So in this sense there is no such thing a chaos. If one has neither the means or need to investigate individual molecules but requires a system behaviour, then chaos algorithms are valid. So I don’t agree where you state that “behaviour of existence is irrelevant”, it is, but requires perspective.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by Yahweh

Your reasoning is internally inconsistent.

again, with lifegazer, this is intentional. He attempts to set a view of reality that is inconsistent, get everyone to agree, and then point out that it is inconsistent, and thus proof for his mind. Unfortunately for lifegazer, he is completely uneducated with the topics at hand, so he never really gets past stage one in any of his arguments (I pointed out what stage 2 in his relativity thread would be, but I think he gave up getting past stage 1)

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Yahweh
Your reasoning is internally inconsistent.

First you say all things are ordered, then you say chaos is a concept within the mind's eye. Why isnt "order" a concept within the mind's eye?

Well if order was just a concept of the mind, then only the mind could exist anyway; since if no order exists beyond that mind, then no other thing exists. Take a second to ponder this.

Existence isnt a substance or made of any kind of substance, its an abstract concept

This is rubbish. Existence is more than a concept. If it wasn't, then the conclusion about reality is that: nothing is having an abstract experience, giving the appearance that something exists.

used to describe things which are real in objective reality. If your argument centers around the "substance of existence itself", your argument crumbles.
My argument centers around the fact that something is. Now that 'thing' may not be matter as we know it. But I can tell you that it is more than 'nothing'.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Well if order was just a concept of the mind, then only the mind could exist anyway; since if no order exists beyond that mind, then no other thing exists. Take a second to ponder this.


heh, you are pretty comical here, if order is only a concept of the mind, then it would most definately not be a requirement for reality. Take a second to ponder that, er wait, you won't, because you, the great messiah, know you are right, and we shall all bow to thou on one knee in thet great judgement day

[c4ts]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Well if order was just a concept of the mind, then only the mind could exist anyway; since if no order exists beyond that mind, then no other thing exists. Take a second to ponder this.

If nothing can exist without order, then the mind itself cannot exist without order, and there would be no way to create the illusion. If you were right, there would not even be a concept of order to discuss.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Well if order was just a concept of the mind, then only the mind could exist anyway; since if no order exists beyond that mind, then no other thing exists. Take a second to ponder this.
After the second of pondering, I've concluded this:

You've demonstrated the logical fallacy of Irrelevant Conclusion. You state "since no order exists beyond the mind" (which is also a shaky premise) and "then no other thing exists", the fallacy is that there is nothing logically connecting those two statements.

See also: RussDill's comment above.
See also: C4t's comment above.

This is rubbish. Existence is more than a concept. If it wasn't, then the conclusion about reality is that: nothing is having an abstract experience, giving the appearance that something exists.
I've got a pretty good handle on linguistics (I can understand rap lyrics for example), but I dont know what you are trying to tell me.

I think you are trying to tell me Existence is a substance. However, I'll maintain that existence is about as much a substance as music is a substance. Its about as much a substance as evil is a substance.

My argument centers around the fact that something is.
Regardless of whether "something is" or "something aint", you have to keep a division between things which exist objectively and things which are merely concepts.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Did you read the argument? All particles have specific attributes of identity. No particle can have existence if it does not possess an order of identity.
See Brownian Motion (http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/BrownianMotion.html). This is the mathematical technical definition.

See Wikipedia - Brownian Motion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brownian_motion). This is the significance of Brownian motion.

Here is a very highly technical description of a phenomena in physics called Random Walk (http://scifun.chem.wisc.edu/WOP/RandomWalk.html).

You can familiarize yourself with the Second Law of Thermodynamics (http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy). It describes how closed systems of order always revert to disorder.

Now, if order has to exist for particles to exist, how does anything which is described by Brownian Motion, Random Walk, or The Second Law of Thermodynamics exist? I would say your presumption "no particle can have existence if it does not possess an order of identity" is incorrect.

[calladus]

Originally posted by lifegazer
All things must be ordered. The definition of something real within existence is dependent upon the co-existentence of order within that thing.
Even in particle-physics, we may see disorder about behaviour, but the particles themselves (the identity of those things) have ordered attributes of existence (spin, color, charge, etc.)
When the order of something breaks-down, the things become unstable and then proceed to exist as other [different] things [of a different order]. So, existence = [changing] order.
Order has always been inherent within existence.

I would argue that there is no such thing as chaos except as a concept within the mind's eye. For what thing can exist as chaos?
The behaviour of existence is irrelevant, even though the universe's behaviour doth proceed to become ordered within awareness. My argument centers around the essence or substance of existence itself... and in itself, existence contains order.

Order has not arisen from blind chaos and chance. Order reigns eternal. Existence has always possessed self-order and definite identity.

Wow dude! Nice drugs. Nothing you said makes a lick of sense. Maybe you should sober up before posting?

Out of all of it, I would like to see you prove, "the universe's behaviour doth proceed to become ordered within awareness."

I guess my physics class was wrong - all this time I believed my Prof. when he said that a system gains order when energy is added. Now I realize all I had to do was THINK the system ordered.

They probably offer remedial physics at your local city college.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by lifegazer

When the order of something breaks-down, the things become unstable and then proceed to exist as other [different] things [of a different order]. Wasn't this from an episode of Star Trek?
The definition of something real within existence is dependent upon the co-existentence of order within that thing. Define "existence", "dependent", "co-existence" and "order". They are used ambiguously here. Normally, I'd assume by "existence" you mean "universe", but the usage of "co-existence" makes "existence" ambiguous in this case. This is further complicated by the huge logical leap in the next sentice that existence = changing order.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by lifegazer
All things must be ordered. The definition of something real within existence is dependent upon the co-existentence of order within that thing.
Even in particle-physics, we may see disorder about behaviour, but the particles themselves (the identity of those things) have ordered attributes of existence (spin, color, charge, etc.)
When the order of something breaks-down, the things become unstable and then proceed to exist as other [different] things [of a different order]. So, existence = [changing] order.
Order has always been inherent within existence.

I would argue that there is no such thing as chaos except as a concept within the mind's eye. For what thing can exist as chaos?
The behaviour of existence is irrelevant, even though the universe's behaviour doth proceed to become ordered within awareness. My argument centers around the essence or substance of existence itself... and in itself, existence contains order.

Order has not arisen from blind chaos and chance. Order reigns eternal. Existence has always possessed self-order and definite identity.

Order is yet another illusion of human percetion, our brains search for order and find it, the order exists within our heories not within reality.

Yet another question for you Lifegazer and one well worth considering!

I would argue that there is no such thing as order except as a concept within the mind's eye. For what thing can exist as order?

I expect the usual bluster at this point but you fail to understand the truth that stand beside immaterial/monist philosophy, ie nihilism. Are you barve enough to look in the void? Or will you just assert from here on out that order is nessecary.
BTW I don't think that the pauli exclusion principle needs order to work, it basicaly states that there are only so many electrons that can fit in the 'shell' of an atom, just like only one car can occupy a parking space.

Order is the same illusion as chaos, you do realise that us ordered beings destroy the order created by plants when we consume them or burn them, as our order maintains itself it does so only by disordering other things.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Did you read the argument? All particles have specific attributes of identity. No particle can have existence if it does not possess an order of identity.

OOOPS you are acting like the particles are real! Poseur! You are a fake monist and I denounce you to the Tribunal of the People. You just goofed Lifegazer from this day forth we shall remeber that you are not a monist! You are a monist wanna be!

All particles have specific attributes,they don't have identities. Hi I am Bob the Electron.
There are crazy things in physics that would support your philosophy, if you would stop your heperbole long enough to see how they support your philosophy.

There was a wit who once suggested that all electrons are in reality just one electron, I hope you take the hint better than you did in the space/time thread. If you put your meglomania aside you might find that there are parts of physics that support your philosphy. But I don't know if I will give you any more hints.

(Another one is Bose-Einstien Condensate)

[Suddenly]

The universe is really one of my sockpuppets. There is really only one particle, and I just move it around so fast that it just appears that there is all this matter and stuff. I also change the spin regularly. It is all in the wrist, and spinning particles go further when hit with a bat anyway. Think about it! Plus, heavier stuff falls faster than lighter stuff because there is order and matter wants to be with matter so more matter will feel even more strongly and thus, obviously get there faster. It's obvious.

Chaos doesn't exist because of Control. Would you believe... doesn't exist anymore? Or are you too wrapped up in your matter worship to see the real truth?

Nothing exists without identification. You can't buy beer without identification. The rest is obvious to anyone not brainwashed by the scientific "truths" that those people come up with. They only wear those coats because they know capes would look silly.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by Suddenly
The universe is really one of my sockpuppets. There is really only one particle, and I just move it around so fast that it just appears that there is all this matter and stuff. I also change the spin regularly. It is all in the wrist, and spinning particles go further when hit with a bat anyway. Think about it! Plus, heavier stuff falls faster than lighter stuff because there is order and matter wants to be with matter so more matter will feel even more strongly and thus, obviously get there faster. It's obvious.

Chaos doesn't exist because of Control. Would you believe... doesn't exist anymore? Or are you too wrapped up in your matter worship to see the real truth?

Nothing exists without identification. You can't buy beer without identification. The rest is obvious to anyone not brainwashed by the scientific "truths" that those people come up with. They only wear those coats because they know capes would look silly.

dude, you are so cool. Keep up the posts, and keep drinkin' that coffee

[Zero]

Originally posted by lifegazer

I have presented an argument which mirrors an eternal God.... Ummm, dude, that statement makes absolutely no sense, which is part of the reason, along with your name-calling, which explains why almost the entire World Wide Web thinks less than highly of you.

Hey, at least you are almost famous?

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by c4ts


If nothing can exist without order, then the mind itself cannot exist without order, and there would be no way to create the illusion. If you were right, there would not even be a concept of order to discuss.
'The Mind' is its own order. It's own identity. It has its own attributes of defining order. Omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient, omnicreative, omnifeeling.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Yahweh
You've demonstrated the logical fallacy of Irrelevant Conclusion. You state "since no order exists beyond the mind" (which is also a shaky premise) and "then no other thing exists", the fallacy is that there is nothing logically connecting those two statements.

I have no idea what this means.

I think you are trying to tell me Existence is a substance.

I'm trying to tell you that existence is definite and not abstract.
Abstract = unreal.
Your argument boils down to the fact that everything is unreal, meaning that 'nothing' is having a dream. Clearly, you are crazier than me!

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Yahweh
Brownian Motion.
Random Walk.
Second Law of Thermodynamics. It describes how closed systems of order always revert to disorder.

Now, if order has to exist for particles to exist, how does anything which is described by Brownian Motion, Random Walk, or The Second Law of Thermodynamics exist? I would say your presumption "no particle can have existence if it does not possess an order of identity" is incorrect.
I did distinguish between being and behaviour in my argument. You have not.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by calladus
Out of all of it, I would like to see you prove, "the universe's behaviour doth proceed to become ordered within awareness."

The statement is true. The [quantum] reality of nature is essentially indeterminate and doth proceed to generate the classical order seen within our awareness.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Dancing David
Order is yet another illusion of human percetion, our brains search for order and find it, the order exists within our heories not within reality.

I've answered this already. Please don't ask me to repeat myself
anymore.
"Well if order was just a concept of the mind, then only the mind could exist anyway; since if no order exists beyond that mind, then no other thing exists. Take a second to ponder this."

Yet another question for you Lifegazer and one well worth considering!

I would argue that there is no such thing as order except as a concept within the mind's eye. For what thing can exist as order?

See the quote above. If there is no such thing as order, except within the mind's eye, then no thing can exist beyond that mind, since things must have definitive attributes... they must have order of identity.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Dancing David
All particles have specific attributes,they don't have identities. Hi I am Bob the Electron.
There are crazy things in physics that would support your philosophy, if you would stop your heperbole long enough to see how they support your philosophy.

Stop dancing, take a seat, and start thinking.
"An electron" has to be defined with the specific attributes (the order) which constitute "an electron".
No thing (absolutely nothing) can exist without self-order.

[The Don]

I know I'll end up kicking myself for getting involved....

All things must be ordered. The definition of something real within existence is dependent upon the co-existentence of order within that thing.

You are meking a statement here. If someting isn't ordered it doesn't exist, if something is ordered it does exist. The thing that doesn't exist has been created by the "Mind".

Well if those are your definitions I guess for this argument we'll just have to live with them

Even in particle-physics, we may see disorder about behaviour, but the particles themselves (the identity of those things) have ordered attributes of existence (spin, color, charge, etc.)

So you are saying that there are a number of fundamental sub-atomic building blocks.

The ordered attributes have been assigned to them by people as a means of describing the way the particles interract. Charge may not exist in the abstract, it's a useful short-hand way of describing the behaviour of the particles.

When the order of something breaks-down, the things become unstable and then proceed to exist as other [different] things [of a different order]. So, existence = [changing] order.
Order has always been inherent within existence.

Well duh! You've already stated that only "ordered things" can exist as part of your opening premise. Thats a circular argument It's like me saying
"all animals are dogs"
"animals exist"
"therefore all animals are dogs

I would argue that there is no such thing as chaos except as a concept within the mind's eye. For what thing can exist as chaos?
The behaviour of existence is irrelevant, even though the universe's behaviour doth proceed to become ordered within awareness. My argument centers around the essence or substance of existence itself... and in itself, existence contains order.

Well Duh again. One again you're just employing the same circular argument.
"look at that cat over there"
"that can't be a cat, all animals are dogs"
"therefore I must have imagined the cat"

Order has not arisen from blind chaos and chance. Order reigns eternal. Existence has always possessed self-order and definite identity.

Well of course, if your opening premise is "Order is existence"

A person can come up with as many circular arguments as they wish. I personally believe that umbrellas don't exist. Sure, I've seen things that look like umbrellas but some were figments of my imagination and the rest were parasols.

The usefulness of a theory is in being able to predict events and behaviour. Yours doesn't, it makes an assertion and then goes on to "prove" the assertion through a series of circular arguments.

"things that exist are stable" - well duh, if they're not stable they cease to exist pretty quickly

How this provides any evidence for the existence of a "mind" compleetly escapes me.

[Darat]

Popcorn! Come and get your popcorn... butter, toffee, salted, sugared, we've got it all...

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Stop dancing, take a seat, and start thinking.


Stop w**king, take a seat, and start thinking.


No thing (absolutely nothing) can exist without self-order. [/B]

Are you self-ordered? Or are you a mess of internal inconsistencies?

[lifegazer]

Existence requires self-order. Order is as old as existence itself. Order did not evolve from chaos. Order may have transformed into other systems of order, but when we say existence is we are also saying order is.
There has always been a definitive identity inherent within existence, who itself is responsible for the changing systems of order perceived within itself.
Behold, the Mind of God.

[UndercoverElephant]

And what does this Mind of God do to components of itself which are out of order?

Does it act? Or does it remain passive?

How does it deal with components which are malfunctioning and causing damage to the whole?

How is order maintained, Lifegazer?

How should order be maintained?

What do you think should happen to components which are threatening to upset the order?

Think carefully before answering.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Existence requires self-order. Order is as old as existence itself. Order did not evolve from chaos. Order may have transformed into other systems of order, but when we say existence is we are also saying order is. Okay, ignoring the sloppiness of the definitions for a moment, you have yet to overcome the double standard inherent in your argument. You argue that there is no evidence that the external world exists, but then you turn around and assert that the internal world exists with just as little evidence.

What evidence do you have that the mind exists at all? If the external world is nothing more than an illusion of the senses, a false perception, how then can we know if the internal world is nothing more than an illusion of those same, or perhaps different, senses?

This is a question you've avoided answering on three threads now because the existance of the mind is merely an assumption on your part.

Please, answer the question for us: How is the existence of the internal world not an assumption if the existence of the external world is an assumption?

[UndercoverElephant]

Upchurch


Please, answer the question for us: How is the existence of the internal world not an assumption if the existence of the external world is an assumption?


Just a suggestion here - I'm not on any mission to evangelise any metaphysical position, but I have personally spent a long time trying to get to grips with these issues.

I eventually found the answer I was looking for in the words of Bertrand Russell (1929) :

http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~philos/MindDict/neutralmonism.html


One of the most painful circumstances of recent advances in science is that each one makes us know less than we thought we did. When I was young we all knew, or thought we knew, that a man consists of a soul and a body; that the body is in time and space, but the soul is in time only. Whether the soul survives death was a matter as to which opinions might differ, but that there is a soul was thought to be indubitable. As for the body, the plain man of course considered its existence self-evident, and so did the man of science, but the philosopher was apt to analyze it away after one fashion or another, reducing it usually to ideas in the mind of the man who had the body and anybody else who happened to notice him. The philosopher, however, was not taken seriously, and science remained comfortably materialistic, even in the hands of quite orthodox scientists.

Nowadays these fine old simplicities are lost: physicists assure us that there is no such thing as matter, and psychologists assure us that there is no such thing as mind. This is an unprecedented occurrence. Who ever heard of a cobbler saying that there was no such thing as boots, or a tailor maintaining that all men are really naked? Yet that would have been no odder than what physicists and certain psychologists have been doing. To begin with the latter, some of them attempt to reduce everything that seems to be mental activity to an activity of the body. There are, however, various difficulties in the way of reducing mental activity to physical activity. I do not think we can yet say with any assurance whether these difficulties are or are not insuperable. What we can say, on the basis of physics itself, is that what we have hitherto called our body is really an elaborate scientific construction not corresponding to any physical reality. The modern would-be materialist thus finds himself in a curious position, for, while he may with a certain degree of success reduce the activities of the mind to those of the body, he cannot explain away the fact that the body itself is merely a convenient concept invented by the mind. We find ourselves thus going round and round in a circle: mind is an emanation of body, and body is an invention of mind. Evidently this cannot be quite right, and we have to look for something that is neither mind nor body, out which both can spring.

Let us begin with the body. The plain man thinks that material objects must certainly exist, since they are evident to the senses. Whatever else may be doubted, it is certain that anything you can bump into must be real; this is the plain man's metaphysic. This is all very well, but the physicist comes along and shows that you never bump into anything: even when you run your hand along a stone wall, you do not really touch it. When you think you touch a thing, there are certain electrons and protons, forming part of your body, which are attracted and repelled by certain electrons and protons in the thing you think you are touching, but there is no actual contact. The electrons and protons in your body, becoming agitated by nearness to the other electrons and protons are disturbed, and transmit a disturbance along your nerves to the brain; the effect in the brain is what is necessary to your sensation of contact, and by suitable experiments this sensation can be made quite deceptive. The electrons and protons themselves, however, are only crude first approximations, a way of collecting into a bundle either trains of waves or the statistical probabilities of various different kinds of events. Thus matter has become altogether too ghostly to be used as an adequate stick with which to beat the mind. Matter in motion, which used to seem so unquestionable, turns out to be a concept quite inadequate for the needs of physics.

Nevertheless modern science gives no indication whatever of the existence of the soul or mind as an entity; indeed the reasons for disbelieving in it are very much of the same kind as the reasons for disbelieving in matter. Mind and matter were something like the lion and the unicorn fighting for the crown; the end of the battle is not the victory of one or the other, but the discovery that both are only heraldic inventions. The world consists of events, not of things that endure for a long time and have changing properties.



Materialists and Idealists have been fighting about this forever and a day. But by fighting, both sides merely prolong a completely pointless and unwinnable battle. I have no intention of getting involved in that battle - certainly not here because here is the wrong place to do it, and anyway I am not on either side but bang in the middle. I personally believe the way forward is to come to the realisation that this argument cannot be won, and rather than declaring a winner, to go beyond the argument altogether.

:)

Geoff.

[wollery]

Okay lifegazer I'll give your argument a go.

Everything is ordered even down to the fundamental particles (we're ignoring QM & thermodynamics for this argument). That means that there is no chaos and no random behaviour, right? So all chemical and physical interactions can be predicted with absolute certainty, which means that when the universe was created all actions within the universe were set in motion in a predetermined way. This includes all human actions and thought processes, even yours. So you have no free will, and everything you are writing on this forum was determined in the instant of creation (whatever that was).

But don't you believe that God has given us free will? If not then what sort of God is he/she/it? Do you have free will lifegazer? If you do then your argument is spurious. If you don't then it's utterly pointless.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by wollery
Okay lifegazer I'll give your argument a go.

Ahoy scouse.

Everything is ordered even down to the fundamental particles (we're ignoring QM & thermodynamics for this argument). That means that there is no chaos and no random behaviour, right?

You haven't read my argument closely enough. I center my argument upon being, not doing (behaviour).
I state that whatever exists must do so with definitive order.

So all chemical and physical interactions can be predicted with absolute certainty, which means that when the universe was created all actions within the universe were set in motion in a predetermined way. This includes all human actions and thought processes, even yours. So you have no free will, and everything you are writing on this forum was determined in the instant of creation (whatever that was).

But don't you believe that God has given us free will? If not then what sort of God is he/she/it? Do you have free will lifegazer? If you do then your argument is spurious. If you don't then it's utterly pointless.
Of course I have free-will. So do you. But I am not lifegazer and you are not wollery. Those are perceptions of The Mind.

What's free-will got to do with my argument anyway?

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by JustGeoff
http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~philos/MindDict/neutralmonism.html

physicists assure us that there is no such thing as matterNot true. Physics has shown us that matter isn't what we used to think it was, but physicists don't think there is no such thing as matter.What we can say, on the basis of physics itself, is that what we have hitherto called our body is really an elaborate scientific construction not corresponding to any physical reality.I'm not familiar with Bertrand Russell but, like lifegazer, he suffers from an incomplete understanding of physics. It doesn't surprise me that this misconception was held in 1927, when the ideas of quantum physics were just starting to get popular attention and were (and really still are) so counter-intuitive that untrained interpretation of the physics were way off base from what the theories actually said. I'll grant you that it is a fundamental shift in how the world is looked at, but it is a far cry from saying that the physical body has no physical reality.

Russell is clinging to old ideas of what is "physical". An example is the following passage.the physicist comes along and shows that you never bump into anything: even when you run your hand along a stone wall, you do not really touch it. When you think you touch a thing, there are certain electrons and protons, forming part of your body, which are attracted and repelled by certain electrons and protons in the thing you think you are touching, but there is no actual contact.Russell is hung up on the idea that "touch" must be matter against matter, but what he doesn't understand is that matter and energy are the same thing. When the electromagnetic field of one set of atoms comes in close enough contact to repell the electromagnetic field of another set of atoms, that is called "touching". That we better understand what "touching" is does not negate that "touch" occurs. Energy still comes in contact with energy, thus matter still comes in contact with matter. It is the same thing, just a more precise description.
Materialists and Idealists have been fighting about this forever and a day. ...{snip}... I personally believe the way forward is to come to the realisation that this argument cannot be won, and rather than declaring a winner, to go beyond the argument altogether. I think you've missed my point. I've conceeded a long time ago that the materialist assumption is just that. My argument isn't that the materialist philosophy is provable. My argument is that the immaterialist philosophy is just as unprovable. Further, there is an innate hypocracy and double standard to the immaterialist logic because it rejects some perceptions (i.e. those pertaining to the so-called "external world") as purely illusionary while absolutely accepting other perceptions (i.e. those pertaining to the so-called "internal world") as real even though both are just as unprovable, in an absolute sense.

edited to add:

Or rather, it isn't that the immaterialist logic is hypocritical as much as it is the immaterialists who complain that materialism is unprovable that are hypocritical. The double standard for evaluating perception, however, is inherent to the immaterialist logic.

[lifegazer]

The sheep are squabbling amongst themselves I see.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by lifegazer
The sheep are squabbling amongst themselves I see. Perhaps you missed the question directed to you: How is the existence of the internal world not an assumption if the existence of the external world is an assumption?

[hammegk]

Originally posted by JustGeoff

Materialists and Idealists have been fighting about this forever and a day. But by fighting, both sides merely prolong a completely pointless and unwinnable battle. I have no intention of getting involved in that battle - certainly not here because here is the wrong place to do it, and anyway I am not on either side but bang in the middle. I personally believe the way forward is to come to the realisation that this argument cannot be won, and rather than declaring a winner, to go beyond the argument altogether.



Do you have a name for your stance? "Living Universe" is a possibility that comes to my mind.


Uppie: I see you continue to miss the point under discussion.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Perhaps you missed the question directed to you: How is the existence of the internal world not an assumption if the existence of the external world is an assumption?
How can you compare direct experience of inner-sensation, inner-feeling and inner-reason, with some unprovable notion - least of all no direct experience - in an external realm?

[wollery]

You haven't read my argument closely enough. I center my argument upon being, not doing (behaviour).
I state that whatever exists must do so with definitive order.
Sorry, but that argument is specious. If being is ordered then doing must be as well, since all doing is determined by things that are. If all that exists is ordered then it must behave in an ordered way or it introduces disorder to the system.

Of course I have free-will. So do you. But I am not lifegazer and you are not wollery. Those are perceptions of The Mind.
I am wollery. If wollery is just Mind, then whose mind? Mine of course, and if my mind exists then even if my physical body is just a figment of my imagination then wollery still exists.

[Edit to add] Your initial argument was based on the order of physical things, such as electrons, you can't just throw that out now because it doesn't suit you any more!!

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by lifegazer

How can you compare direct experience of inner-sensation, inner-feeling and inner-reason, with some unprovable notion - least of all no direct experience - in an external realm? Why is it "direct" experience? Do you not perceive your "inner" sensations? How is that perception any more reliable than your "outer" sensations?

Further, since you do not believe in an external world, those "outer" perceptions are really illusionary "inner" perceptions. If some of your "inner" perceptions are illusionary, how can you be sure that all of your "inner" perceptions aren't illusionary?

[UndercoverElephant]

Lifegazer,

No squabbling, no.


Upchurch,

You are of course free to critique Bertrand Russells answer to the problem. As I said, I just offered it as food for thought, especially considering who Bertrand Russell was and the rather obvious fact that this argument between materialists and idealists cannot be won be either side. I can't say it any better than Bertie did, and maybe some proportion of people will always be happier having their battle rather than seeking to go beyond it.


I'll grant you that it is a fundamental shift in how the world is looked at, but it is a far cry from saying that the physical body has no physical reality.


He isn't saying that, Upchurch. He is not arguing as an idealist does. He is trying to get beyond the unwinnable argument, and this requires an open and fearless acknowledgement of the weaknesses of both sides.

A lot of your responses are along the lines of "Russell doesn't understand physics" or "Russell has got an out of date idea about matter". I humbly suggest to you that this most eminent of philosophers is worthy of more respect than that.

But I respect your choice to believe as you will and have no intention of trying to force my own opinion on you or anybody else.


My argument isn't that the materialist philosophy is provable.

My argument is that the immaterialist philosophy is just as unprovable.


Neither materialism nor idealism are provable, nor will they ever be. If analytical philosophy proved anything at all before it expired, it proved that neither side can win this argument. It is linguistically impossible. :)

However, having established neither side can win, where to go next? Do we go on rooting for the side we wanted to win?

Hence Russells neutral monism. That is where it comes from. What else is there to do but to declare a draw?



Further, there is an innate hypocracy and double standard to the immaterialist logic.....


Russell would argue there is mirror image hypocracy on both sides.

:)

Geoff.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by wollery
Sorry, but that argument is specious. If being is ordered then doing must be as well, since all doing is determined by things that are. If all that exists is ordered then it must behave in an ordered way or it introduces disorder to the system.

What of the being that acts with free-will?
That being is ordered does not necessitate that doing should be so. You are wrong scouse.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by JustGeoff
Just as UNprovable? You said materialism was provable. Is that a typo? No, you misread what I said. I said that my argument isn't that materialism is provable, implying that I am not arguing that it is provable. Further, just as materialism is unprovable, so is immaterialism unprovalbe.

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally posted by Upchurch
No, you misread what I said. I said that my argument isn't that materialism is provable, implying that I am not arguing that it is provable. Further, just as materialism is unprovable, so is immaterialism unprovalbe.

Have corrected post.

[wollery]

Originally posted by lifegazer

What of the being that acts with free-will?
That being is ordered does not necessitate that doing should be so. You are wrong scouse.

I'm only wrong in your reality!

And by the way, the name is wollery, I'm not a plate of stew!!

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Stop dancing, take a seat, and start thinking.
"An electron" has to be defined with the specific attributes (the order) which constitute "an electron".
No thing (absolutely nothing) can exist without self-order.

Dancing is fun, especialy when I let you lead! I think more than you think I think, I just doubt more than you do. Have you discovered that nihilism is inherent in monism?

See now you have changed you definition to make order fir it, I am sayiing and you will disagree that order is not have makes an electron, it is the specific attributes, one of those attributes is possible occupy-ing a space defined and bounded by the speed of light whcih it does in a most chaotic fashion. So perhaps you are just using order to mean attribure.

So you are saying that self-consistancy is order?(Meaning consistancy of behavior).

[Andonyx]

Can I offer just one piece of advice that I mean sincerely and constructively to LG?

It seems to me, and correct me if I am wrong, that you are more interested in debating a simple philosophy as a way of thinking about or approaching life experiences....

And to concede a point to you on that, you are posting your arguments here in religion and philosophy, as opposed to the science section.

Fine that's all well and good.

But if you're going to do that, start small on an elemental level. Instead of trying to jump immediately into some sort of grand unifying perspective on the universe, start with billiard balls, or some other spherical regular objects, like Lucretius did. Don't even go to atoms, just say, "things" if you have to. Generalize your concepts more, and make them apply to less.

It's easier to construct a small proposition on a small scale and start to check it for flaws, and then build on it and extrapolate to larger concepts, than it is to try an do everything at once and defend a theory on six different fronts while it's shot to holes.

And the next part of that process is...don't use scientific terms.

If your idea is simply an idea, and is not stated as a genuine falsifiable, practically testable hypothesis, then you are now in the realm of philosophy, not science.

So leave science out of it.

When you try and present a philosophical argument with scientific terms you inevitably end up doing several things:

1. You use the terms incorrectly. Which you have done repeatedly. Which weakens your argument.

2. You bring unecessary scientific thought baggage into your argument. Scientific words have very specific meanings with very specific acpplications all related to their actual use and function in the real world. When you use them haphazardly you bring all sorts of considerations and concepts into the picture that are irrelevant and distracting to your argument.

3. You bog people down with details. Not that details are un-important. As you refine theories and even hypothesis details become crucial. But if you're just trying to pin down a philosophy and start to shape it...you need to get the big picture going in the right direction first. So why, as you have no doubt seen right here on this board, let people get caught up in the minutiae if you're just trying to check pheasability first?

I really think this might help other people and even yourself focus more on the central idea of what you're saying rather than the experimental correctness of it. I'm not even making any statement about the right or wrong of your idea at the moment, just offering some advice on communicating it.

You also have to understand that there is in fact a bias of sorts on this message board. Many people here are scientifically minded, either as an area of interest, or as a profession. As a result even if you stated a purely philosophical quandry in language Descartes would envy, many of us would start to nitpick the physical details, and wonder how we could go about testing this in real life. It's the nature of how many of us think.

When that happnes the most productive response is not to react defensively as though we attacked you or your idea, but to gently restate that while the poster may be correct in a technical sense, you were merely demonstrating an analogy and your discussion is about a conceptual hypothesis, not a physical circumstance.

Hope that's helpful.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by JustGeoff
He isn't saying that, Upchurch. He is not arguing as an idealist does. He is trying to get beyond the unwinnable argument, and this requires an open and fearless acknowledgement of the weaknesses of both sides.I'm all for that at a basic level. I'm only a tentative materialist or, as I more often put it, I am not a strict materialist. Maybe a better term is pragmatic materalist. That is, the materialist assumption is a useful assumption for working with in the material world (or, at least, working within the perception of the material world).
A lot of your responses are along the lines of "Russell doesn't understand physics" or "Russell has got an out of date idea about matter". I humbly suggest to you that this most eminent of philosophers is worthy of more respect than that.Perhaps, but he's still putting words in people's mouths that isn't what they are saying, at least not to my knowledge of 1929 physics and certainly not in 2003. Eminent philosopher or not, that's still a strawman argument.
However, having established neither side can win, where to go next? Do we go on rooting for the side we wanted to win?Or we come up with something else. Personally, as I mentioned above, I prefer what I consider to be a pragmatist approach. Wheither or not my perceptions of the material world are true or not, those perceptions hurt if, say, I try to ignore gravity or a slap to the face or hunger.

[calladus]

Originally posted by lifegazer
The statement is true.

I asked for proof, not your own belief.

Or was that your proof?

[calladus]

Originally posted by lifegazer

I've answered this already. Please don't ask me to repeat myself
anymore.
Maybe you should choose better words, 'cause the ones you are using are not doing a very good job of it.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Existence requires self-order. Order is as old as existence itself. Order did not evolve from chaos. Order may have transformed into other systems of order, but when we say existence is we are also saying order is.
There has always been a definitive identity inherent within existence, who itself is responsible for the changing systems of order perceived within itself.
Behold, the Mind of God.

Poker requires a deck of cards. Cards are as old as poker itself. Cards did not evolve from not cards. Cards may have transformed into other types of cards, but when we say poker is we are also saying cards are. There has allways been a definitive identity inherent within poker, who itself is responsible for the changing systems of cards percieved within itself.
Behold, the mind of Hoyle (or maybe David Sklansky).

Oddly enough, poker did largely drive the evolution of playing cards. Coinicidence?

[calladus]

Originally posted by Andonyx
Can I offer just one piece of advice that I mean sincerely and constructively to LG?

It seems to me, and correct me if I am wrong, that you are more interested in debating a simple philosophy as a way of thinking about or approaching life experiences....

And to concede a point to you on that, you are posting your arguments here in religion and philosophy, as opposed to the science section.

Fine that's all well and good.

But if you're going to do that, start small on an elemental level. Instead of trying to jump immediately into some sort of grand unifying perspective on the universe, start with billiard balls, or some other spherical regular objects, like Lucretius did. Don't even go to atoms, just say, "things" if you have to. Generalize your concepts more, and make them apply to less.

It's easier to construct a small proposition on a small scale and start to check it for flaws, and then build on it and extrapolate to larger concepts, than it is to try an do everything at once and defend a theory on six different fronts while it's shot to holes.

And the next part of that process is...don't use scientific terms.

If your idea is simply an idea, and is not stated as a genuine falsifiable, practically testable hypothesis, then you are now in the realm of philosophy, not science.

So leave science out of it.

When you try and present a philosophical argument with scientific terms you inevitably end up doing several things:

1. You use the terms incorrectly. Which you have done repeatedly. Which weakens your argument.

2. You bring unecessary scientific thought baggage into your argument. Scientific words have very specific meanings with very specific acpplications all related to their actual use and function in the real world. When you use them haphazardly you bring all sorts of considerations and concepts into the picture that are irrelevant and distracting to your argument.

3. You bog people down with details. Not that details are un-important. As you refine theories and even hypothesis details become crucial. But if you're just trying to pin down a philosophy and start to shape it...you need to get the big picture going in the right direction first. So why, as you have no doubt seen right here on this board, let people get caught up in the minutiae if you're just trying to check pheasability first?

I really think this might help other people and even yourself focus more on the central idea of what you're saying rather than the experimental correctness of it. I'm not even making any statement about the right or wrong of your idea at the moment, just offering some advice on communicating it.

You also have to understand that there is in fact a bias of sorts on this message board. Many people here are scientifically minded, either as an area of interest, or as a profession. As a result even if you stated a purely philosophical quandry in language Descartes would envy, many of us would start to nitpick the physical details, and wonder how we could go about testing this in real life. It's the nature of how many of us think.

When that happnes the most productive response is not to react defensively as though we attacked you or your idea, but to gently restate that while the poster may be correct in a technical sense, you were merely demonstrating an analogy and your discussion is about a conceptual hypothesis, not a physical circumstance.

Hope that's helpful.

Andonyx, thank you!

Coming from an electrical engineer, with more than just an armchair interest in physics - you are so right.

When Lifegazer talks about increasing or decreasing order, or atomic particles, what he says is so far from proven physics that I just figure that he's confused or ignorant, or that he is redefining terms that he has decided that he likes.

If Lifegazer could present his argument in a more concrete way, using small, easy to grasp analogies, and if the argument is logically sound, then it may start to make sense to me.

I can get philosophical arguments - I just start small and edge my way into 'em. I did very well in my philosophy classes. But lifegazer doesn't sound at all like a professor - he sounds more like the guy who dresses in robes and yells at students in the Free Speech area.

[calladus]

Originally posted by Suddenly


Poker requires a deck of cards. Cards are as old as poker itself. Cards did not evolve from not cards. Cards may have transformed into other types of cards, but when we say poker is we are also saying cards are. There has allways been a definitive identity inherent within poker, who itself is responsible for the changing systems of cards percieved within itself.
Behold, the mind of Hoyle (or maybe David Sklansky).

Oddly enough, poker did largely drive the evolution of playing cards. Coinicidence?

OW! I understood that! :D

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Suddenly
Poker requires a deck of cards.

Correct. Poker is a game founded upon the idea of another idea (to create cards for games).

Cards are as old as poker itself.

Correction. Cards are older than poker. Also, cards themselves have not always existed. Their existence is dependent upon other influences.
How you relate this to an argument which states that everything in existence has always reflected the presence of definitive order, is beyond me.

Looks like the bluff didn't pay off for you. You went "all in" with your poker analogy and completely lost out. Come back when you have fresh chips and another hand.

[Wudang]

Originally posted by JustGeoff
.
A lot of your responses are along the lines of "Russell doesn't understand physics" or "Russell has got an out of date idea about matter". I humbly suggest to you that this most eminent of philosophers is worthy of more respect than that.


Well speaking as someone who knows and has admired Russells work for 30 odd years, I feel that his contribution is great enough that we can recognize where he spoke as a man of his time (albeit a brilliant one) and with the concommitant misconceptions and misunderstandings.

[Upchurch]

lifegazer, you seem to keep not answering this fairly basic question, even after I gave the clarification you asked for: How is the existence of the internal world not an assumption if the existence of the external world is an assumption?

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

'The Mind' is its own order. It's own identity. It has its own attributes of defining order. Omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient, omnicreative, omnifeeling.

Where did the mind's order originate then?

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally posted by hammegk

Do you have a name for your stance? "Living Universe" is a possibility that comes to my mind.


Hi hammegk,

Nice to speak to you as always. :)

"Living Universe" sounds like a nice way to put it. I am passed the point where I cared too much about labels. But I like neutrality and balance, and I try to incorporate them everywhere I can. I've tried extremism, and it hurts. ;)

Geoff.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

I have no idea what this means.


This is the advantage to studying philosophy and reason. Its much easier to spot simple common mistakes in others arguments and especially your own arguments:

http://www.savagemind.com/encyclopedia/logicalfallacies/IrrelevantConclusion

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

The statement is true. The [quantum] reality of nature is essentially indeterminate and doth proceed to generate the classical order seen within our awareness.

You are using awareness in a different sense now. It apears to be classical at our scale of awareness. Our awareness does not generate this.

[UndercoverElephant]

Upchurch


I'm all for that at a basic level. I'm only a tentative materialist or, as I more often put it, I am not a strict materialist. Maybe a better term is pragmatic materalist. That is, the materialist assumption is a useful assumption for working with in the material world (or, at least, working within the perception of the material world).


That seems fair enough to me.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A lot of your responses are along the lines of "Russell doesn't understand physics" or "Russell has got an out of date idea about matter". I humbly suggest to you that this most eminent of philosophers is worthy of more respect than that.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Perhaps, but he's still putting words in people's mouths that isn't what they are saying, at least not to my knowledge of 1929 physics and certainly not in 2003. Eminent philosopher or not, that's still a strawman argument.


He's was a philosopher, not a physicist. Because of that, he was dealing with different problems and he had a different set of tools available to him to deal with them. Many modern-day philosophers would tend to agree with his words still. I don't expect scientific skeptics to think like philosophers. :)



Or we come up with something else.


There isn't anything else.


Personally, as I mentioned above, I prefer what I consider to be a pragmatist approach. Wheither or not my perceptions of the material world are true or not, those perceptions hurt if, say, I try to ignore gravity or a slap to the face or hunger.


I am not suggesting you do.

Geoff.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

I've answered this already. Please don't ask me to repeat myself
anymore.
"Well if order was just a concept of the mind, then only the mind could exist anyway; since if no order exists beyond that mind, then no other thing exists. Take a second to ponder this."


yes, and many people including myself have shot this down, you haven't bothered responding...I suppose it must be a really tough wet paper bag.


See the quote above. If there is no such thing as order, except within the mind's eye, then no thing can exist beyond that mind, since things must have definitive attributes... they must have order of identity.

definate attributes and order are two different things. Things that are in disorder must have attributes, otherwise, you would not be able to distinguish them from things that are ordered. Ponder that.

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally posted by Wudang


Well speaking as someone who knows and has admired Russells work for 30 odd years, I feel that his contribution is great enough that we can recognize where he spoke as a man of his time (albeit a brilliant one) and with the concommitant misconceptions and misunderstandings.

I do not believe anything that has gone by since his day would have changed his opinion. I don't think it was Russell who was out of date. I think the physicists might be struggling to catch up with the philosophers rather than the other way around, but then I'm a philosopher and not a physicist.

It takes all sorts. Who'd want to live in a world where everyone agrees?

:)

Geoff.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Stop dancing, take a seat, and start thinking.
"An electron" has to be defined with the specific attributes (the order) which constitute "an electron".
No thing (absolutely nothing) can exist without self-order.

What about the interstellar vacuum of space? I'd challenge you to find any identity to differenate between regions of interstellar space.

[joyrex]

lifegazer,

Let's say that for a while I agree with all of your theories about reality. What would it mean for me, in practice? Would I feel different, experience something profound, be happier? What is the purpose of your knowledge?

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Existence requires self-order.


Why? Much of existence is not ordered, does that portion of existence not exist?


Order is as old as existence itself.


Certainly the concept did not suddenly come into being at some magical moment. However, there are many things in the universe that do not have order.


Order did not evolve from chaos.


order always evolves from chaos if you add energy.


Order may have transformed into other systems of order, but when we say existence is we are also saying order is.


Order is not immunable like energy. I can certainly destroy order (releasing energy in the process)


There has always been a definitive identity inherent within existence, who itself is responsible for the changing systems of order perceived within itself.


This is simply a statement by you with no reason to back it up. There is certainly no evidince that anything "external" to the universe is imposing order. How about you show some.


Behold, the Mind of God.

Behold, the random ramblings of lifegazer.

[Andonyx]

Originally posted by RussDill



order always evolves from chaos if you add energy.





Ummm....I think I know what you're saying but this might also be mis-leading.

Do you mean that adding energy from an external source to a chaotic system ALWAYS creates order?

Or that when you do come across pockets of order, that it must have arisen when energy was added to a chaotic system?

I'm just saying I can think of examples in which adding energy to a chaotic systems creates merely higher energy chaos.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer


You haven't read my argument closely enough. I center my argument upon being, not doing (behaviour).
I state that whatever exists must do so with definitive order.


I don't think you can seperate being from doing. There is no doing without being, and there is no being without doing. Two sides of the same coin. Again, point me to the definate order of interstellar space. A place with no ordered energy, a place where random virtual fields and particles constantly pop in and out of existence.


Of course I have free-will. So do you. But I am not lifegazer and you are not wollery. Those are perceptions of The Mind.
What's free-will got to do with my argument anyway?


What he is saying is that if everything is a "machine" that just runs out a program, there cannot be freewill. But I understand from your theory, free will iminates from the mind, and we can control the actions of our bodies with this free will. However, I would argue that this is just adding another layer. If the mind is similary ordered, then the mind also has no free will.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer
The sheep are squabbling amongst themselves I see.

Its actually called rational discussion, you might try it sometime.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

How can you compare direct experience of inner-sensation, inner-feeling and inner-reason, with some unprovable notion - least of all no direct experience - in an external realm?

you assume that there is truth in your inner-sensation.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Looks like the bluff didn't pay off for you. You went "all in" with your poker analogy and completely lost out. Come back when you have fresh chips and another hand.

wow, you are that completely blind that you missed it. He makes a parallel argument with all the same logical fallacies of your argument, and then you throw away his argument....Its a parady of you lifegazer. Throw away his argument, you throw away yours.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by JustGeoff


I've tried extremism, and it hurts. ;)



Hi Geoff. :) Good to hear from you.


Question: Is extremism in search of knowledge defensible? :p

[RussDill]

Originally posted by Andonyx


Ummm....I think I know what you're saying but this might also be mis-leading.

Do you mean that adding energy from an external source to a chaotic system ALWAYS creates order?

Or that when you do come across pockets of order, that it must have arisen when energy was added to a chaotic system?

I'm just saying I can think of examples in which adding energy to a chaotic systems creates merely higher energy chaos.

sorry, I simplified thermodynamics. I'd really prefer lifegazer to get a book and study it though.

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally posted by hammegk


Hi Geoff. :) Good to hear from you.


Question: Is extremism in search of knowledge defensible? :p

Yes. Sometimes it works for some people, especially those who are extreme by nature. The Buddhas own path included several years of extreme ascetism. But that was his choice - the problems start when people start imposing their extremism on others.

[wollery]

Originally posted by RussDill
What he is saying is that if everything is a "machine" that just runs out a program, there cannot be freewill. But I understand from your theory, free will iminates from the mind, and we can control the actions of our bodies with this free will. However, I would argue that this is just adding another layer. If the mind is similary ordered, then the mind also has no free will.
Thanks, I couldn't have put it better myself!

Come to think of it I didn't! :D

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Correct. Poker is a game founded upon the idea of another idea (to create cards for games).

Have a source for that? I thought it had more to do with people wanting to compete with each other.

Correction. Cards are older than poker. Also, cards themselves have not always existed. Their existence is dependent upon other influences.
How you relate this to an argument which states that everything in existence has always reflected the presence of definitive order, is beyond me. Is that what I did? I thought I was just parroting nonsense.

Looks like the bluff didn't pay off for you. You went "all in" with your poker analogy and completely lost out. Come back when you have fresh chips and another hand.

You seem to know a few poker terms. Do you play? Someone with your apperant logical abilities would be very welcome in any poker game of mine to be sure, although I have a feeling you would be the type to claim you are being cheated when you lose.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Suddenly
Is that what I did? I thought I was just parroting nonsense.

LOL. The humour is flowing tonight. But you're right - you were.

You seem to know a few poker terms. Do you play? Someone with your apperant logical abilities would be very welcome in any poker game of mine to be sure, although I have a feeling you would be the type to claim you are being cheated when you lose.
I can play. Prefer bridge to be honest. More brains required.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by RussDill
I don't think you can seperate being from doing.

Really? You don't understand the difference between the actor and the act?

What he is saying is that if everything is a "machine" that just runs out a program, there cannot be freewill.

The free-will belongs to the being behind the behaviour.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by joyrex
lifegazer,

Let's say that for a while I agree with all of your theories about reality. What would it mean for me, in practice? Would I feel different, experience something profound, be happier? What is the purpose of your knowledge?
The fulfilment of God's purpose: unity.
All for one and one for all.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Really? You don't understand the difference between the actor and the act?


Yes I do, and they are concepts. As far as reality on the scale of particle physics, I don't see how you can seperate the actor from the act.


The free-will belongs to the being behind the behaviour.

You completely ignored the substance of my post, I said "I understand from your theory, free will iminates from the mind". Let me restate, so that you can actually meaningfully disagree:

What he is saying is that if everything is a "machine" that just runs out a program, there cannot be freewill. But I understand from your theory, free will iminates from the mind, and we can control the actions of our bodies with this free will. However, I would argue that this is just adding another layer. If the mind is similary ordered, then the mind also has no free will.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

The fulfilment of God's purpose: unity.
All for one and one for all.

You'd think for a God, he wouldn't suck so much at creating unity.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by lifegazer

LOL. The humour is flowing tonight. But you're right - you were.

You sure? It was your nonsense I was parroting. Are you admiting this is all a put-on?

I can play. Prefer bridge to be honest. More brains required.

Different brains maybe. I know a few bridge players. Nice guys. I usually give them a buck or two after they wipe off my windsheild.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Suddenly
You sure? It was your nonsense I was parroting. Are you admiting this is all a put-on?

I misunderstood you. And like I said, your poker analogy had no resemblance to the argument I presented. Analogies often fail like that. Best to discuss the argument I presented and then there's no confusion.

Different brains maybe. I know a few bridge players. Nice guys. I usually give them a buck or two after they wipe off my windsheild.
How generous of you. Who wipes your lips?

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

I misunderstood you. And like I said, your poker analogy had no resemblance to the argument I presented. Analogies often fail like that. Best to discuss the argument I presented and then there's no confusion.


I pointed it out to your many posts earlier. However, you seem to ignore all my posts since you've given up trying to counter my arguments. After all, why bother, you are right, you don't need to counter someone's arguments if its too hard to do so. I predict you will soon start ignoring Upchurch as well.


How generous of you. Who wipes your lips?

I never seem to "get" british insults.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by RussDill
I pointed it out to your many posts earlier. However, you seem to ignore all my posts since you've given up trying to counter my arguments. After all, why bother, you are right, you don't need to counter someone's arguments if its too hard to do so. I predict you will soon start ignoring Upchurch as well.

I only have time for so much kid, and you've had plenty of my time.

I never seem to "get" british insults.
Would you describe yourself as intelligent?

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Would you describe yourself as intelligent? [/B]

Would you?

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

I only have time for so much kid, and you've had plenty of my time.


Again, I think discounting someone simply because they are 24 is a bit immature. You've complained often about people attacking the messanger (you) instead of the message (your philosophy). So why the hypocracy LG? Again, Eienstien was 24/25 when he did his work that won him the nobel prize.

If you can't provide counters to my arguments, just calling me a "kid" won't make them go away. Just like someone calling you an arrogant tosser won't make your philosophy go away.


Would you describe yourself as intelligent?

Yes, I would, but I don't see "who wipes your lips?" as being some sort of witty insult.

[lifegazer]

Give me your reasoned opinion of the argument Geoff. I'm curious.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by RussDill
Yes, I would, but I don't see "who wipes your lips?" as being some sort of witty insult.
Ask yourself why he might need his lips cleaning.

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Give me your reasoned opinion of the argument Geoff. I'm curious.

I asked you whether you would describe yourself as intelligent.

You asked Russ. I am asking you. Is that fair do you think?

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by lifegazer
I'm trying to tell you that existence is definite and not abstract.
Abstract = unreal.
Your argument boils down to the fact that everything is unreal, meaning that 'nothing' is having a dream. Clearly, you are crazier than me!
My argument boils down to "existence is quality (or qualititive propery) used to describe real things, the quality is not some kind of substance".

"Beautiful" is a qualititive property used to describe women, "beauty" itself does not exist as a substance.

"Woman" is a word used to refer to adult human females. Women do happen to be real (i.e. not abstract concepts).

http://216.218.248.155/datastore/ca/02/b/ca0276f055f4e9274e827bf9efa26c91.jpg

If it helps at all, try to think of "existence" and "beautiful" as adjectives.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by JustGeoff


I asked you whether you would describe yourself as intelligent.

You asked Russ. I am asking you. Is that fair do you think?
In relation to you, yes.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Ask yourself why he might need his lips cleaning.

Is it because he drinks too much coffee?

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Yahweh
My argument boils down to "existence is quality (or qualititive propery) used to describe real things, the quality is not some kind of substance".

Existence is being. It is the essence of isness. It is not a subjective quality, such as beauty, assigned to a specific object (of existence).

"Beautiful" is a qualititive property used to describe women, "beauty" itself does not exist as a substance.

True. But beauty speaks of existence.

"Woman" is a word used to refer to adult human females. Women do happen to be real (i.e. not abstract concepts).

I see. So women have existence, but beauty does not have existence. And existence does not have existence?
Have you been drinking?

If it helps at all, try to think of "existence" and "beautiful" as adjectives.
Existence facilitates the use of adjectives but is not an adjective.
You're way off course.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by lifegazer

I misunderstood you. And like I said, your poker analogy had no resemblance to the argument I presented. Analogies often fail like that. Best to discuss the argument I presented and then there's no confusion. My poker argument followed your argument almost word for word. If something is logically sound it makes sense no matter what the items are. I was just working through your logic, or lack thereof. It is pretty clear your argument only makes sense in your mind because you assume certain sooper seekrit characteristics for certain terms.

Pretty much you are like every other wanabe sage that tries to simply define himself right. The rest of the time is just covering your tracks. Here's a tip:

Being cryptic is not being intelligent. Being clear is intelligent.

How generous of you. Who wipes your lips?

Thank you. An excellent illustration of my tip.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Suddenly
My poker argument followed your argument almost word for word.

Nonsense. And since you ignored my response, I'll repeat my replies:

****Originally posted by Suddenly
Poker requires a deck of cards.

Lg: Correct. Poker is a game founded upon the idea of another idea (to create cards for games).

S: Cards are as old as poker itself.

Lg: Correction: cards are older than poker. Also, cards themselves have not always existed. Their existence is dependent upon other influences.
How you relate this to an argument which states that everything in existence has always reflected the presence of definitive order, is beyond me.****

You see, talking about a game which proceeded the creation of the cards which themselves proceeded other causes, is not the same as discussing existence and order in the same breath.
You're on the wrong bus.

If something is logically sound it makes sense no matter what the items are. I was just working through your logic, or lack thereof. It is pretty clear your argument only makes sense in your mind because you assume certain sooper seekrit characteristics for certain terms.

Look, address the argument head-on or head for the casinos. But stop talking bs.

Thank you. An excellent illustration of my tip.
Then who cleans the bs off your lips?

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Nonsense. And since you ignored my response, I'll repeat my replies:

****Originally posted by Suddenly
Poker requires a deck of cards.

Lg: Correct. Poker is a game founded upon the idea of another idea (to create cards for games).
S: Cards are as old as poker itself.

Lg: Correction: cards are older than poker. Also, cards themselves have not always existed. Their existence is dependent upon other influences.
How you relate this to an argument which states that everything in existence has always reflected the presence of definitive order, is beyond me.****

You see, talking about a game which proceeded the creation of the cards which themselves proceeded other causes, is not the same as discussing existence and order in the same breath.
You're on the wrong bus.

Look, address the argument head-on or head for the casinos. But stop talking bs.

I was using your own logic, just with different terms. You should have more respect for your own reasoning than to call it "bs", whatever the heck "bs" is.

You really need to get smart and realize that chaos and control are in an eternal struggle for order. Would you believe that even though it seems control wins, chaos is always there to begin the battle again?

[c4ts]

What does it mean to exist?

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by c4ts
What does it mean to exist? If existence is being, does love and/or hate exist despite not having being?

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by lifegazer
I see. So women have existence, but beauty does not have existence. And existence does not have existence?
Have you been drinking?

Have I been drinking...

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-12/535625/576243410-Image05.jpg

[I'm a bit too
young for drinkin'
but I'll be plenty
happy with a Capri Sun.
--- Yahweh

(There is an arrow off to the side with the words "Beautiful Woman" pointing to it)]

If it helps at all, I maintain a discreet difference between "subjective 'existence'" and "objective existence".

Oh, and I should probably fix up my hair, maybe look directly at the camera next time I pose for the camera...

[c4ts]

Originally posted by Upchurch
If existence is being, does love and/or hate exist despite not having being?

Emotions exist, I think. We have biochemical evidence for that. Does an effect not have being?

For example, say you get hit on the head by a jagged rock, and you feel it. Does the pain have being, or is being limited to the response travelling up your spine? I say it does, and that it is a different kind of being than the cause itself, for if pain were indistinguishable from the cause, you would feel the signal travelling through your body. If pain had no being, then you would not feel it.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by c4ts
Emotions exist. We have biochemical evidence for that.
(More specific proof emotions exist (http://www.drweitz.com/scientific/brain.htm).)

Does "emotion" exist?

It's really a semantics-type assertion.

Do you define "emotion" as one of the specific pattern and combination of molecular neurochemicals and impulses that occur in the frontal lobes? If so "emotion" does exist in the objective sense.

If you define "emotion" along the lines of a sensation that one "feels", then it does not exist in the objective sense.

Using the same approach, you can ask yourself whether "smell" exists.

Silly silly semantics...

[c4ts]

Originally posted by Yahweh

(More specific proof emotions exist (http://www.drweitz.com/scientific/brain.htm).)

Does "emotion" exist?

It's really a semantics-type assertion.

Do you define "emotion" as one of the specific pattern and combination of molecular neurochemicals and impulses that occur in the frontal lobes? If so "emotion" does exist in the objective sense.

If you define "emotion" along the lines of a sensation that one "feels", then it does not exist in the objective sense.

Using the same approach, you can ask yourself whether "smell" exists.

Silly silly semantics...

It's only semantics if one of us knows what the word "emotion" means and the other one doesn't. I think we both know what it means, but if you want, you can look it up in the dictionary for clarification.

[calladus]

Originally posted by lifegazer

The fulfilment of God's purpose: unity.
All for one and one for all. Uhm, why do you believe that God wants unity?

To me, that sounds like the purpose is a sort of group mind. The problem with group minds is that you lose individual identity. (or so I would guess.)

[calladus]

Originally posted by Yahweh
Oh, and I should probably fix up my hair, maybe look directly at the camera next time I pose for the camera...

(Examines photo) Hey! It's the Unibomber! :D

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally posted by lifegazer

In relation to you, yes.

Oh I see. So you aren't intelligent, but you are more intelligent than me. Good. Glad we got that one cleared up. :)

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Suddenly
I was using your own logic, just with different terms. You should have more respect for your own reasoning than to call it "bs", whatever the heck "bs" is.

You was on the wrong bus pal, heading the wrong way and arriving at the wrong destination.

You really need to get smart and realize that chaos and control are in an eternal struggle for order.

Chaotic states of behaviour do not relate to my argument. My argument is that all being (as opposed to doing) is ordered.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by calladus
Uhm, why do you believe that God wants unity?

If God exists, then nothing else does. Clearly, God would want harmony of being = God would want unity.

[Wudang]

If god exists, nothing else does. Order is the essence of existence. There God is ordered = God is already harmonious so we're already in a perfect world. It's quite obvious.
What other kind of world could possibly have me in it?

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally posted by lifegazer

If God exists, then nothing else does. Clearly, God would want harmony of being = God would want unity.

WHY?

You have stated this over and over again but it is based on pure fantasy.

Why should "God" WANT anything. God is perfect already. It is YOU, TOSSPOT, who WANTS things.

Why is this "clear"?

It is NOT "clear"!

It is total nonsense, something you pulled straight out of your arse, just like the rest of your "philosophy".


What/who gave YOU the right to speak for God?

[lifegazer]

In the beginning there was God.
Nothing else.
All alone.

How did God feel?
About what? There was nothing else... nobody else. All alone.

***Whoosh***
Creation.
Things to like. Things to hate. Love to flow. Choices to be made.

Does God prefer war or peace? Happiness or sadness? Love or hate? Harmony or disharmony? Heaven or hell?

Welcome to life. Welcome to life's purpose.

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally posted by lifegazer
[B]In the beginning there was God.
Nothing else.
All alone..

How did God feel?...........



I said....What/who gave YOU, TOSSPOT OF THE CENTURY, the right to speak for God!!!!???

[lifegazer]

I told you, there is only God.

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally posted by lifegazer
I told you, there is only God.

You have NOT answered the question. Clearly there is much disagreement about what God is/thinks/feels/does. So your above attempt at an answer is completely worthless. If there is "only God" then WHY DOES EVERYBODY DISAGREE WITH YOU!!!!???????

I want to know how YOU know what God "feels", what God "thinks. Many others have claimed to speak for God, and most them were not UTTER WANKERS.


....What/who gave YOU, TOSSPOT OF THE CENTURY, the right to speak for God!!!!???

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by JustGeoff
You have NOT answered the question. Clearly there is much disagreement about what God is/thinks/feels/does. So your above attempt at an answer is completely worthless. If there is "only God" then WHY DOES EVERYBODY DISAGREE WITH YOU!!!!???????

I see nobody else in this forum arguing that there is only God and that We are One. The reason why everybody disagrees with me is because only I am speaking for that truth. Everybody else believes that they have an existence of their own and are separate to everyone else.
Even you, brother Geoffrey.

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally posted by lifegazer

I see nobody else in this forum arguing that there is only God and that We are One.


EVERY RELIGION THERE HAS EVER BEEN HAS ARGUED THIS, YOU IDIOT! I HAVE NOT CHALLENGED THE CLAIM THAT ALL IS ONE. I HAVE CHALLENGED ***YOUR*** RIGHT TO SPEAK FOR GOD AND ***YOUR*** MORAL HYPOCRISY.

Now, for the umpteenth time.....


....What/who gave YOU, TOSSPOT OF THE CENTURY, the right to speak for God!!!!???

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by JustGeoff
EVERY RELIGION THERE HAS EVER BEEN HAS ARGUED THIS, YOU IDIOT! I HAVE NOT CHALLENGED THE CLAIM THAT ALL IS ONE. I HAVE CHALLENGED ***YOUR*** RIGHT TO SPEAK FOR GOD AND ***YOUR*** MORAL HYPOCRISY.

Now, for the umpteenth time.....


....What/who gave YOU, TOSSPOT OF THE CENTURY, the right to speak for God!!!!???

I've told you Geoff: There is only God. Those that know this can speak it. Those that know this have spoken it. Those that want to have a right to speak it.

If there is only God, then whom else would I speak for?
It's about time you disengaged the autopilot and turned-on the reason-knob.

[lifegazer]

And I vehemently dispute the fact that all religions have argued the same point.

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally posted by lifegazer

I've told you Geoff: There is only God. Those that know this can speak it. Those that know this have spoken it. Those that want to have a right to speak it.


I don't quite understand Lifegazer.

Why do YOU have the right to speak for God and I don't?

Please explain.


If there is only God, then whom else would I speak for?



YOUR EGO. YOU SPEAK FOR YOUR EGO. NOT GOD.



It's about time you disengaged the autopilot and turned-on the reason-knob.

I don't think one-liners are going to help you now Lifegazer.

Here goes again.

I agree that all is one. I agree that the basic obervation of the mystics and religious teachers of every age is correct.

BUT EVERYTHING I BELIEVE ABOUT GOD IS IN DIRECT CONTRADICTION TO WHAT YOU CLAIM TO SAY IN HIS NAME.

NOW.

DO YOU KNOW WHAT I AM GOING TO ASK YOU NEXT?

BET YOU'VE GUESSED ALREADY.


....What/who gave YOU, TOSSPOT OF THE CENTURY, as opposed to ME (or anybody else who believes that the mystics are correct) the right to speak for God!!!!???

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by JustGeoff
I don't quite understand Lifegazer.

Why do YOU have the right to speak for God and I don't?

Please explain.

We have opposing philosophies Geoffrey. You do not speak for all is one. If you did, you would not berate me.


YOUR EGO. YOU SPEAK FOR YOUR EGO. NOT GOD.


Please refer to the post where I ask for fame or recognition.

I don't think one-liners are going to help you now Lifegazer.

Here goes again.

I agree that all is one. I agree that the basic obervation of the mystics and religious teachers of every age is correct.

BUT EVERYTHING I BELIEVE ABOUT GOD IS IN DIRECT CONTRADICTION TO WHAT YOU CLAIM TO SAY IN HIS NAME.

Then you must stop babbling Geoffrey, and explain your beliefs about God that we may discuss the differences.

NOW.

DO YOU KNOW WHAT I AM GOING TO ASK YOU NEXT?

BET YOU'VE GUESSED ALREADY.


....What/who gave YOU, TOSSPOT OF THE CENTURY, as opposed to ME (or anybody else who believes that the mystics are correct) the right to speak for God!!!!???[/b]
I speak for and as all is one. You speak for division and disharmony and disinterest in worldly (whole) affairs. You also speak from fear. I know this from other conversations I have had with you. God scares you to death.
But in truth, fear of God is death.

[UndercoverElephant]

Lifegazer


We have opposing philosophies Geoffrey. You do not speak for all is one. If you did, you would not berate me.


No Lifegazer. You do not have a philosophy, so there is no opposition.

How more clearly do I have to say it? ALL IS ONE ALREADY. THE MYSTICS ARE CORRECT. MY POSITION IS THAT ALL THE MYSTICS ARE CORRECT. ALL IS ONE.

HAS THAT GONE INTO THAT VACANT HEAD OF YOURS?

I BELIEVE THAT ALL IS ONE **AND** I THINK THAT EVERYTHING YOU HAVE SAID ABOUT GOD IS ***WRONG***.

UNDERSTAND?


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

YOUR EGO. YOU SPEAK FOR YOUR EGO. NOT GOD.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please refer to the post where I ask for fame or recognition.


You have not "ASKED" for fame and recognition. Oh no. What you have done is DEMANDED that you be recognised as having a world-changing philosophy. You do not even know what your EGO is.

People who have experienced ego-death DO NOT BEHAVE LIKE ARROGANT TOSSERS!

UNDERSTAND?



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't think one-liners are going to help you now Lifegazer.

Here goes again.

I agree that all is one. I agree that the basic obervation of the mystics and religious teachers of every age is correct.

BUT EVERYTHING I BELIEVE ABOUT GOD IS IN DIRECT CONTRADICTION TO WHAT YOU CLAIM TO SAY IN HIS NAME.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Then you must stop babbling Geoffrey, and explain your beliefs about God that we may discuss the differences.


I am not "babbling", Lifegazer. I DO NOT BELIEVE I HAVE EARNED THE RIGHT TO SPEAK FOR GOD. I AM ASKING ***YOU*** WHAT/WHO GAVE ***YOU*** THE RIGHT TO SPEAK FOR GOD.

IT IS QUITE CLEAR THAT WE ARE NOT GOING TO AGREE ON WHAT GOD IS/WANTS/FEELS.

SO GIVEN THAT WE DO NOT AGREE, WHAT GIVES ***YOU*** THE RIGHT TO CLAIM TO KNOW THE MIND OF GOD RATHER THAN ME?????


I speak for and as all is one. You speak for division and disharmony and disinterest in worldly (whole) affairs.


No Lifegazer. I have not spoken at all about these things. I have agreed with you that ALL IS ONE. But I disagree about the nature of God.


SO GIVEN THAT WE DO NOT AGREE, WHAT GIVES ***YOU*** THE RIGHT TO CLAIM TO KNOW THE MIND OF GOD RATHER THAN ME?????




You also speak from fear. I know this from other conversations I have had with you. God scares you to death.
But in truth, fear of God is death.



So now, ARROGANT TOSSER, you are also presuming the right to speak FOR ME???????????!

[lifegazer]

May I appeal to the moderators to go easy on Geoff for his obviously unacceptable language. I actually like the guy and wouldn't want to see him barred at my expense.
Geoff, you can't carry on as you are. They won't let it go forever.

[UndercoverElephant]

Answer the f*****g questions you piece of worthless cr*p!



We have opposing philosophies Geoffrey. You do not speak for all is one. If you did, you would not berate me.


No Lifegazer. You do not have a philosophy, so there is no opposition.

How more clearly do I have to say it? ALL IS ONE ALREADY. THE MYSTICS ARE CORRECT. MY POSITION IS THAT ALL THE MYSTICS ARE CORRECT. ALL IS ONE.

HAS THAT GONE INTO THAT VACANT HEAD OF YOURS?

I BELIEVE THAT ALL IS ONE **AND** I THINK THAT EVERYTHING YOU HAVE SAID ABOUT GOD IS ***WRONG***.

UNDERSTAND?


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

YOUR EGO. YOU SPEAK FOR YOUR EGO. NOT GOD.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please refer to the post where I ask for fame or recognition.


You have not "ASKED" for fame and recognition. Oh no. What you have done is DEMANDED that you be recognised as having a world-changing philosophy. You do not even know what your EGO is.

People who have experienced ego-death DO NOT BEHAVE LIKE ARROGANT T*SSERS!

UNDERSTAND?



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't think one-liners are going to help you now Lifegazer.

Here goes again.

I agree that all is one. I agree that the basic obervation of the mystics and religious teachers of every age is correct.

BUT EVERYTHING I BELIEVE ABOUT GOD IS IN DIRECT CONTRADICTION TO WHAT YOU CLAIM TO SAY IN HIS NAME.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Then you must stop babbling Geoffrey, and explain your beliefs about God that we may discuss the differences.


I am not "babbling", Lifegazer. I DO NOT BELIEVE I HAVE EARNED THE RIGHT TO SPEAK FOR GOD. I AM ASKING ***YOU*** WHAT/WHO GAVE ***YOU*** THE RIGHT TO SPEAK FOR GOD.

IT IS QUITE CLEAR THAT WE ARE NOT GOING TO AGREE ON WHAT GOD IS/WANTS/FEELS.

SO GIVEN THAT WE DO NOT AGREE, WHAT GIVES ***YOU*** THE RIGHT TO CLAIM TO KNOW THE MIND OF GOD RATHER THAN ME?????


I speak for and as all is one. You speak for division and disharmony and disinterest in worldly (whole) affairs.


No Lifegazer. I have not spoken at all about these things. I have agreed with you that ALL IS ONE. But I disagree about the nature of God.


SO GIVEN THAT WE DO NOT AGREE, WHAT GIVES ***YOU*** THE RIGHT TO CLAIM TO KNOW THE MIND OF GOD RATHER THAN ME?????




You also speak from fear. I know this from other conversations I have had with you. God scares you to death.
But in truth, fear of God is death.



So now, ARROGANT T*SSER, you are also presuming the right to speak FOR ME???????????!

[Wudang]

Originally posted by lifegazer
In the beginning there was God.
Nothing else.
All alone.

How did God feel?
About what? There was nothing else... nobody else. All alone.

***Whoosh***
Creation.
Things to like. Things to hate. Love to flow. Choices to be made.

Does God prefer war or peace? Happiness or sadness? Love or hate? Harmony or disharmony? Heaven or hell?

Welcome to life. Welcome to life's purpose.

But there is only god so there are no other things to love or hate. At least try to be consistent

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally posted by Wudang


But there is only god so there are no other things to love or hate. At least try to be consistent

Again, congratulations Wudang. Simple, isn't it? :cool:

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by lifegazer

The reason why everybody disagrees with me is because only I am speaking for that truth. I really can't believe no one picked up on this line. This is borderline psychotic (http://www.aacap.org/about/glossary/Psychos.htm)Psychotic disorders include severe mental disorders which are characterized by extreme impairment of a person's ability to think clearly, respond emotionally, communicate effectively, understand reality, and behave appropriately.

{snip}

Delusion: A false, fixed, odd, or unusual belief firmly held by the patient. The belief is not ordinarily accepted by other members of the person’s culture or subculture. There are delusions of paranoia (others are plotting against them), grandiose delusions (exaggerated ideas of one's importance or identity), and somatic delusions (a healthy person believing that he/she has a terminal illness).lifegazer, seriously, you've got two out of three going there.

[wollery]

Originally posted by lifegazer If God exists, then nothing else does. Clearly, God would want harmony of being = God would want unity.
Ummm don't you believe that god is omnipotent? Then what god wants is what is.
But quite clearly harmony and unity do not exist, certainly not on this planet. Your argument with JustGeoff proves this beyond any doubt, so either you don't know what god wants or god doesn't exist. Either way your argument's shot to crap.

JustGeoff - give it up. He's an arrogant, egotistical, prat with not quite enough brain to realise that he has nothing to be arrogant or egotistical about. You won't get through to him because he's utterly convinced that he's right and refuses to see that there are any flaws in his logic. We can point them all out until we're blue in the face, but he'll never get it. He's invested too much of his ego in being right to ever admit that any part of his argument could possibly be wrong. To do so would destroy his entire world. So instead he simply responds to everyone that argues with him by telling them that they are wrong, regardless of what they say or how they say it.
His world is pure black and white - He's right (and the wisest person ever to exist) and anyone who disagrees is wrong. End of story.
He doesn't make me angry, just sad, I have nothing but pity for him. :rub:

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Wudang


But there is only god so there are no other things to love or hate. At least try to be consistent
There is the perception of things and there are related ideals. Hence there are the associated feelings. Hence there are choices, even for God, pertaining to state of being.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by wollery
Ummm don't you believe that god is omnipotent?

Yep.

Then what god wants is what is.

What God wants is what God becomes. God has the potential to be everything. Thus a specific choice entails a specific progress.

But quite clearly harmony and unity do not exist, certainly not on this planet.

Not yet they don't.

Your argument with JustGeoff proves this beyond any doubt, so either you don't know what god wants or god doesn't exist. Either way your argument's shot to crap.

2000 years ago the Romans revelled in the sport of human death and torture. 200 years ago, slavery was still rampant throughout the "civilised" world. 100 years ago, women had no rights.

We progress towards unity and equality and harmony, in time.

[Wudang]

Originally posted by lifegazer

There is the perception of things and there are related ideals. Hence there are the associated feelings. Hence there are choices, even for God, pertaining to state of being.

But there are no things outside of god for him to perceive unless he is delusional. Hence there are no associated feelings. Hence God has no choices.
If God wishes to change then surely he is not perfect and therefore he is not god.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Wudang
But there are no things outside of god for him to perceive unless he is delusional.

Losing oneself within ones dreams, for a purpose, is not delusional.

Hence there are no associated feelings.

Feelings relate to the things and ideals discerned within perception.

Hence God has no choices.

We each make those choices, as God, on a daily basis.

If God wishes to change then surely he is not perfect and therefore he is not god.
"Perfect" is what God chooses, rather than what God is. Perfect is a choice of state-of-being. Perfect is subjective.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by lifegazer

You was on the wrong bus pal, heading the wrong way and arriving at the wrong destination.

Chaotic states of behaviour do not relate to my argument. My argument is that all being (as opposed to doing) is ordered.

Ah, Lifegazer, you dance devinely!

Suddenly has you by the throat and is throttling you, you don't really seem to understand that the same argument that you use to attack his card analogy is equaly applicable to your unity of all in mimind philospohy.

BTW what he said is that cards are as old a poker, this is not the exclusive statement that cards are the same age as poker. You have made a rather simple error in logic for one of your intelligence.

If you really have faith in your convitions i suggest that you take Suddenly seriously, but aloas you are here for the fight, which is what you like to do.

Again, many of us agree with much of what you have to say, but your need to be 'right' makes you a maglomanic.

Ahoy, there is the White Wall Cap'n!

[Wudang]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Losing oneself within ones dreams, for a purpose, is not delusional.

What purpose can God have when he is already perfect and embraces all things?



"Perfect" is what God chooses, rather than what God is. Perfect is a choice of state-of-being. Perfect is subjective.

So if "perfect" is not what god is, then you say that God is not perfect. Thank you for clearing that up.

If God is not perfect then doesn't cause problems for your argument that he must be omnipresent?

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Wudang
What purpose can God have when he is already perfect and embraces all things?

Why ignore the argument that "perfect", like beauty, relates to a specific preference of being in relation to others? Do you not realise that 'God' - being All - relates to no others? So how do you measure God's perfection? Against what?
Again, "perfect" is a word used in relation to things and ideals which relate to each other. It has no significance or relevance to 'God'. Only through 'man' can perfection be sought, via the choices he makes and the desires he strives to fulfil.

So if "perfect" is not what god is, then you say that God is not perfect. Thank you for clearing that up.

I don't say that at all. That came from your head. "Perfect" exists amongst the minds of men, and relates to ideals and states of being experienced in relation to things perceived within the Mind (of God).
God is neither perfect nor imperfect. Similarly, God is neither beautiful nor ugly.

[calladus]

Originally posted by lifegazer

If God exists, then nothing else does. Clearly, God would want harmony of being = God would want unity. Nope. Not clear. The logic does not follow. I can easily postulate a disinterested god.

You keep making these stupid 3rd grade mistakes - saying things like Clearly, or making blind assertions without a shred of proof.

What's worse, you seem to think you are being logical.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Dancing David
Suddenly has you by the throat and is throttling you, you don't really seem to understand that the same argument that you use to attack his card analogy is equaly applicable to your unity of all in mimind philospohy.

No it isn't. Try arguing the case and I'll tear your argument to shreds. His analogy was useless because it was incomparable to my argument and I showed him why.

BTW what he said is that cards are as old a poker, this is not the exclusive statement that cards are the same age as poker. You have made a rather simple error in logic for one of your intelligence.

If I say that Hannah is as old as Jamie, do I not infer that they are the same age? And if do not mean to infer that, then I shouldn't phrase it thus. Strike 2.

If you really have faith in your convitions i suggest that you take Suddenly seriously, but aloas you are here for the fight, which is what you like to do.

'Suddenly' tried the smartass approach, twice, and so got the custard-pie in the eye response. It was his karma. It's the only way to wake him up.

Again, many of us agree with much of what you have to say, but your need to be 'right' makes you a maglomanic.

I'm not here to win friends, unfortunately.

[calladus]

Originally posted by lifegazer
In the beginning there was God.
Nothing else.
All alone.

How did God feel?
About what? There was nothing else... nobody else. All alone.

***Whoosh***
Creation.
Things to like. Things to hate. Love to flow. Choices to be made.

Does God prefer war or peace? Happiness or sadness? Love or hate? Harmony or disharmony? Heaven or hell?

Welcome to life. Welcome to life's purpose.

In the beginning there was God.
God created the multiverse.

God mucked around a bit, then finally settled on an infinite set of universes to play with.

Unfortunately, our universe is not in that set. Therefore when it comes to our universe, God doesn't give a flying crap.

See? I too can make blind, unproved assertions that cannot be disproved by any use of logic. Your reasoning falls down LG.

[wollery]

Originally posted by lifegazer

What God wants is what God becomes. God has the potential to be everything. Thus a specific choice entails a specific progress.

2000 years ago the Romans revelled in the sport of human death and torture. 200 years ago, slavery was still rampant throughout the "civilised" world. 100 years ago, women had no rights.

We progress towards unity and equality and harmony, in time.
you said earlier that god wants harmony and unity and that god is omnipotent, is, in fact, everything. Now you say that progress to unity takes time. But if god is omnipotent and wants unity then surely unity just happens instantly. Or are we one of gods thought experiments?

btw there are still people who revel in human death and torture, slavery still exists and in many parts of the world women still have no rights! Our "progress towards unity and harmony" has seen an increase in conflict and death including such harmonious unifying acts as the use of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons, massive increases in gun crime and the rise of massive networks of terrorist organisations.

Lovely. :(

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by calladus
Nope. Not clear. The logic does not follow. I can easily postulate a disinterested god.

Well you can easily type that God is disinterested, but you cannot back it up with reason.
A disinterested God = a God in a stupor; not acting, not creating, not thinking, not feeling, no purpose. Basically, a disinterested God is the equivalent of a zombie.

You keep making these stupid 3rd grade mistakes - saying things like Clearly, or making blind assertions without a shred of proof.

The proof is in the reason squire. Something you seem incapable of using, given this evidence.

[Wudang]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Why ignore the argument that "perfect", like beauty, relates to a specific preference of being in relation to others? Do you not realise that 'God' - being All - relates to no others? So how do you measure God's perfection? Against what?
Again, "perfect" is a word used in relation to things and ideals which relate to each other. It has no significance or relevance to 'God'. Only through 'man' can perfection be sought, via the choices he makes and the desires he strives to fulfil.

I don't say that at all. That came from your head. "Perfect" exists amongst the minds of men, and relates to ideals and states of being experienced in relation to things perceived within the Mind (of God).
God is neither perfect nor imperfect. Similarly, God is neither beautiful nor ugly.

Similarly god is neither here nor absent. So your proof that only god can exist if god exists doesn't work because each position can only be occupied by one "thing". If "perfect" does not apply surely "position" can apply even less?

[UndercoverElephant]

Upchurch


I really can't believe no one picked up on this line. This is borderline psychotic.


Borderline!?? :D

Lifegazer is one of the most obviously clinically psychotic people I have ever encountered. "Psychotic" means "detached from reality." He is not borderline psychotic. He is clearly both psychotic and increasingly paranoid and delusional - probably to an extent that requires psychotherapy.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Wudang


Similarly god is neither here nor absent. So your proof that only god can exist if god exists doesn't work because each position can only be occupied by one "thing". If "perfect" does not apply surely "position" can apply even less?
I do not understand this, sorry. I can give no answer unless you explain.

[Wudang]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Why ignore the argument that "perfect", like beauty, relates to a specific preference of being in relation to others? Do you not realise that 'God' - being All - relates to no others?

Why ignore the argument that "purpose", like beauty, relates to a specific preference of being in relation to others? Do you not realise that 'God' - being All - has no purpose?
Purpose implies direction from an undesired state to a desired state. God, being omnipotent, cannot be in an undesired state by definition.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by wollery
you said earlier that god wants harmony and unity and that god is omnipotent, is, in fact, everything. Now you say that progress to unity takes time. But if god is omnipotent and wants unity then surely unity just happens instantly. Or are we one of gods thought experiments?

Unity of choice cannot be enforced. The choices have to be made in relation to the things God creates. Hence, creation precedes choices precedes unity of choice.

btw there are still people who revel in human death and torture, slavery still exists and in many parts of the world women still have no rights!

I know this. Why do you think I'm bothering?

Our "progress towards unity and harmony" has seen an increase in conflict and death including such harmonious unifying acts as the use of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons, massive increases in gun crime and the rise of massive networks of terrorist organisations.

Lovely. :(
Hence the urgency. Time is winning.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Everybody else believes that they have an existence of their own and are separate to everyone else.


Statements like that one keep your message from spreading.

Even if Truth is yours, what good does it do if you don't understand it?

[Wudang]

You have previously argued that any given point can only be occupied by one "thing". You further stated that if god exists, then he is omnipresent and therefore occupies all points in space. Since God occupies all space then there's no room left for anything else? That was your argument, yes?
I am now arguing that if a quality such as perfection cannot be applied to god then surely the far more limited concept of "position" cannot be applied to him either. Therefore god need not be considered as being omnipresent in such a limited sense of occupying space.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by hammegk
"Everybody else believes that they have an existence of their own and are separate to everyone else."

Statements like that one keep your message from spreading.

Statements like that are the truth. Most people are lost amongst the divisions they perceive. How can they become aware of this without being told of this?

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Wudang
You have previously argued that any given point can only be occupied by one "thing". You further stated that if god exists, then he is omnipresent and therefore occupies all points in space. Since God occupies all space then there's no room left for anything else? That was your argument, yes?
I am now arguing that if a quality such as perfection cannot be applied to god then surely the far more limited concept of "position" cannot be applied to him either. Therefore god need not be considered as being omnipresent in such a limited sense of occupying space.
God is omnipresent because there is nothing else. The spacetime is reducible to a perception. God is at singularity, really, which contrary to established teaching is not an infinitessimal fullstop. It's a boundless realm of existence.
These details have no bearing on a discussion pertaining to "perfection".

[Wudang]

Originally posted by lifegazer

God is omnipresent because there is nothing else.

But you previously argued that gods omnipresence proved there was nothing else - i.e the other way round. Please try to keep up.

[lifegazer]

Discussions of omnipresence have no bearing on "perfection".

[Wudang]

Well you brought it up earlier in this thread.
"Since god exists, nothing else does".
Do you wish to revise that statement?

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Wudang
Well you brought it up earlier in this thread.
"Since god exists, nothing else does".
Do you wish to revise that statement?
Nope, that statement is correct. And so is the statement that God is omnipresent because nothing else exists. They both mean the same thing really, though I acknowledge the latter statement can be mistakenly read to think that 'nothing' is the cause of God's omnipresence, which of course, is incorrect.
I apologise for the/your confusion, but none of this relates to "perfection".
Was you hoping to change direction in the hope we might forget that you were wrong?

[wollery]

Unity of choice cannot be enforced. The choices have to be made in relation to the things God creates. Hence, creation precedes choices precedes unity of choice.

But you keep saying that god is everything, so who is he forcing the choices on? Us? If your philosophy is right then we are just figments of his imagination!!

btw there are still people who revel in human death and torture, slavery still exists and in many parts of the world women still have no rights!

I know this. Why do you think I'm bothering?

At least you have good intentions even if your arguments are totally circular.

Our "progress towards unity and harmony" has seen an increase in conflict and death including such harmonious unifying acts as the use of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons, massive increases in gun crime and the rise of massive networks of terrorist organisations.

Lovely. :(

Hence the urgency. Time is winning.

Sorry but no! You can't have it both ways. You post to say that we're moving towards unity and harmony and when I point out that we aren't you agree with me!!!! One or the other Navelgazer, which is it?

[c4ts]

Here is what you have argued:

1. Because God is omnipresent, nothing else exists
2. Because nothing else exists, God is omnipresent

What we have here is a classic example of circular logic. You have a statement of cause and effect. Either omnipresence causes the nonexistence of everything else, or the nonexistence of everything else causes omnipresence. You can't hold both to be true at the same time because an effect cannot create its cause. So which is it?

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Statements like that are the truth. Most people are lost amongst the divisions they perceive. How can they become aware of this without being told of this?

Sometimes a method is a better way to decrease division than a mere esciption. So what method (albeit in the non-existant material world) do you recommend for decreasing division?

By example is the best means known, are you sure you don't create divisions?(I seem to recall some rudimentary dualisms earlier)

[Wudang]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Nope, that statement is correct. And so is the statement that God is omnipresent because nothing else exists. They both mean the same thing really, though I acknowledge the latter statement can be mistakenly read to think that 'nothing' is the cause of God's omnipresence, which of course, is incorrect.
I apologise for the/your confusion, but none of this relates to "perfection".
Was you hoping to change direction in the hope we might forget that you were wrong?

Thank you for the clarification. I see that you fail to address your circular logic.
And again the subject is not perfection. he subject is "order". And we were discussing "perfection" only as it pertained to gods existence or lack of. If this were a conversation, I'd be speaking very slowly and clearly now as you seem to have trouble following anything.
I note that you have now acknowledged that your proof of God via omnipresence is not valid. Thank you for that.

[c4ts]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Existence requires self-order. Order is as old as existence itself. Order did not evolve from chaos. Order may have transformed into other systems of order, but when we say existence is we are also saying order is.
There has always been a definitive identity inherent within existence, who itself is responsible for the changing systems of order perceived within itself.
Behold, the Mind of God.

Instead of stringing a bunch of stuff about order together, why don't you assemble an argument instead?

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Wudang
And again the subject is not perfection. he subject is "order".

Yes it is. So why did you go off on a tangent about perfection? And then why did you go off on another tangent about omnipresence?
If this were a conversation, I'd be speaking very slowly and clearly now as you seem to have trouble following anything.

I've followed you everywhere you've gone. I would suggest that it is you that is lost. Do you have anything meaningful to contribute to the original argument or what? Or do you intend discussing everything and anything but order, or the argument as presented?

I note that you have now acknowledged that your proof of God via omnipresence is not valid. Thank you for that.
I never presented a proof for God's existence via omnipresence. What I did was state that an omnipresent God leaves room for no other entity.
Perhaps you should take a back seat with Russ.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by c4ts


Instead of stringing a bunch of stuff about order together, why don't you assemble an argument instead?
I present sensible arguments in the hope that the more intelligent amongst you will comprehend them. But I cannot guarantee that my arguments are accessible to the stupid. Perhaps one of your buddies might explain it to you. I'm a bit too busy.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by wollery
But you keep saying that god is everything, so who is he forcing the choices on?

Godself.

Us?

There is only God. The perception of 'us' is an illusion, created to facilitate the purpose of choice.

If your philosophy is right then we are just figments of his imagination!!

God has created a wonderous illusion for God's own purpose. There is no 'you'. Well there is, but it is not 'you', if you get my drift... which it seems that you don't.

At least you have good intentions even if your arguments are totally circular.

Try to understand my arguments before passing judgement upon them.

Sorry but no! You can't have it both ways. You post to say that we're moving towards unity and harmony and when I point out that we aren't you agree with me!!!! One or the other Navelgazer, which is it?
We are moving towards unity, on the whole. But it is the nature of the weapons and technology at-hand which means that the world is living through very dangerous times and that this unity is threatened with possible armageddon. All caused by extreme divisions, might I add, so that division is seen, literally, to oppose unity.

[c4ts]

Originally posted by lifegazer

I present sensible arguments in the hope that the more intelligent amongst you will comprehend them. But I cannot guarantee that my arguments are accessible to the stupid. Perhaps one of your buddies might explain it to you. I'm a bit too busy.

I understand what you are trying to say about order, but you do not post any reasons why these things should be true. Calling me stupid is not a sufficient explanation. You could be smarter than I and still be wrong.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by c4ts
I understand what you are trying to say about order, but you do not post any reasons why these things should be true.

How can you understand what I say if there are no reasons? Read the argument again and if there are things which are not clear or which you do not understand, I will explain.

[c4ts]

Originally posted by lifegazer

How can you understand what I say if there are no reasons? Read the argument again and if there are things which are not clear or which you do not understand, I will explain.

Very well.

Originally posted by lifegazer
Existence requires self-order.
Why? Order's age does not determine whether one reqires the other. Nor does speculation about its origins. Equating "existence" with "order" still does not eliminate the possibility of other causes. The identity you point out as being responsible for order is just a way of restating the first argument if you assume that this identity is existence, yet you give no reasons why existence should be an identity.

Order is as old as existence itself.
This looks like it may depend on the previous unsupported statement, yet really it only serves to obfuscate the first statement. Just because two things are the same age does not mean one requires the other. For example, Bob is as old as Ted, but Bob won't die if Ted does. We go from the assertion of a statement "A is true" to "A could be true or untrue." This means there is absolutely no reason why the second statement should be there. Your first statement remains unsupported.

Order did not evolve from chaos.
You also have yet to prove this. It's nothing more than speculation about order, as are the previous two statements. For if it were more than speculation, you would say something about chaos that would lead you to conclude this, which you have not. This is the only place in your "argument" where you mention chaos. Even if you actually demonstrated this, which you haven't, then you still would be a long way from relating this to how existence requires self-order.


Order may have transformed into other systems of order, but when we say existence is we are also saying order is.
This is a speculation in which you restate your initial statement without backing it up. The only thing the statements on either side of the comma have in common with each other is the word "order." Unless you would like to explain otherwise.


There has always been a definitive identity inherent within existence, who itself is responsible for the changing systems of order perceived within itself.
Behold, the Mind of God.

You do not say what this identity is, but I can only hope you are implying that it is supposed to be self-order. If so, it is a restatement of the first sentence with a quazi-explanation for the the fourth, whcih also happens to be a restatement of the first.

To sum things up, this is your argument:
A is B because A is B because A is B.

Try to avoid being so mystical. Your metaphors become coinage without value.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

If God exists, then nothing else does. Clearly, God would want harmony of being = God would want unity.

If only god exists, and god is oneness, there can be no such thing other than unity.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer
In the beginning there was God.


How was there a beginning, what began god?


Nothing else.
All alone.


God was alone? So god was incomplete, imperfect?


How did God feel?
About what? There was nothing else... nobody else. All alone.
***Whoosh***
Creation.


I thought you were convinced that god could not create anything besides himself because he would not be able to control it. If its within god, then it isn't creation, its a thought.


Things to like. Things to hate. Love to flow. Choices to be made.

Does God prefer war or peace? Happiness or sadness? Love or hate? Harmony or disharmony? Heaven or hell?

Welcome to life. Welcome to life's purpose.

If God has always existed, and was always perfect, then god when always know these things.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

We have opposing philosophies Geoffrey. You do not speak for all is one. If you did, you would not berate me.


So, if all is one, why do the insults flow so freely from your lips?


I speak for and as all is one. You speak for division and disharmony and disinterest in worldly (whole) affairs.


you mistake diversity for disharmony. I personally delight in diversity.


You also speak from fear. I know this from other conversations I have had with you. God scares you to death.
But in truth, fear of God is death.

I don't think your God is scaring anyone here lifegazer

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

There is the perception of things and there are related ideals. Hence there are the associated feelings. Hence there are choices, even for God, pertaining to state of being.

A perfect god cannot choose. Choice implies being able to make the right or wrong choice. God cannot make the wrong choice. There are no choices for a perfect god.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer


2000 years ago the Romans revelled in the sport of human death and torture. 200 years ago, slavery was still rampant throughout the "civilised" world. 100 years ago, women had no rights.


Just a quick check here. Things are better in certain nations, but torture, slavery, and the treatment of women as second class citizens is certainly rampant in many parts of the world. There are more slaves today than there ever where in the entire history of US slavery. Lets not revel in our success and leave the rest of the world behind.


We progress towards unity and equality and harmony, in time.

Yes, and guess what, that progress has nothing to do with you or your philosophy

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Losing oneself within ones dreams, for a purpose, is not delusional.


What purpose would god have if he is already everything? What improvement could god possibly make? In fact, in past threads, I think you even stated that the mind cannot have purpose (could be wrong there, will have to dig it up)



We each make those choices, as God, on a daily basis.


Man is imperfect, man makes wrong choices. Man is clearly not making choices for god.


"Perfect" is what God chooses, rather than what God is. Perfect is a choice of state-of-being. Perfect is subjective.

If the idea of right and wrong is subjective, then god would have the perfect idea of right and wrong, correct? Then if perfect is subjective, god would have the perfect idea of perfect.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Well you can easily type that God is disinterested, but you cannot back it up with reason.
A disinterested God = a God in a stupor; not acting, not creating, not thinking, not feeling, no purpose. Basically, a disinterested God is the equivalent of a zombie.


Clearly you have not read the Tao Te Ching. In doing nothing, you leave nothing undone. A perfect god would clearly need to do nothing, and reason nothing.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Perhaps you should take a back seat with Russ.

He most definately has a welcome seat in the ivory tower. He has most certainly earned it, and just like my points, you are ignoring all of his points. And rightly so, because if you are right, he is clearly wrong. So why even bother listening, right?

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

I present sensible arguments in the hope that the more intelligent amongst you will comprehend them. But I cannot guarantee that my arguments are accessible to the stupid. Perhaps one of your buddies might explain it to you. I'm a bit too busy.

aye, thats why you can't even answer any of the question I put to you.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Try to understand my arguments before passing judgement upon them.


Everyone understands your arguments lifegazer. We even point out in detail which rules of reason you are breaking. So labor under the misconception that you are simply misunderstood, you won't get very far.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by c4ts
"Existence requires self-order"

Why?

It's in the argument: no thing can have existence without definitive identity... attributes of being... order.
Think about it: anything that exists does so because of the order that brings stability and definition and identity to its existence. If that stability fails, then the thing is transformed into other things with different attributes of order and different identities of order.
Like I said, even quanta of energy are known by their attributes... the order which defines their existence.

I'd really like somebody here to name some thing which has existence without any defining order of its own. Cannot be done.

A few people here think that the chaotic behaviour of these things, amongst each other (such as Brownian motion), constitutes an example of disordered existence. But it doesn't relate to my argument. For each of the things participating in this motion, are themselves all ordered entities. Again, I distinguish between being and doing but few here seem able to grasp the distinction. Being is existence, whilst doing is behaviour of existence. Actor and action.

Order's age does not determine whether one reqires the other.

Whilst there has been being, there has also been order, for the reasons I have just given.

you assume that this identity is existence, yet you give no reasons why existence should be an identity.

Only 'nothing' has no identity. Anything which exists must have an identity which distinguishes it from 'nothing'.

"Order did not evolve from chaos."

You also have yet to prove this.

If you follow the argument I have, for chaos cannot exist except in the behaviour of ordered being. Being has always been ordered. Therefore, whatever existence is [being], it did not evolve from chaotic being - it merely transformed from another state of ordered being.

It's nothing more than speculation about order, as are the previous two statements. For if it were more than speculation, you would say something about chaos that would lead you to conclude this, which you have not. This is the only place in your "argument" where you mention chaos. Even if you actually demonstrated this, which you haven't, then you still would be a long way from relating this to how existence requires self-order.

Chaos exists in the behaviour of existence, and not in the being that is existence.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by RussDill


If only god exists, and god is oneness, there can be no such thing other than unity.
As a perception there can. Perceived division.

"In the beginning there was God."

How was there a beginning, what began god?

The story of creation begins with God. God is eternal. Something cannot be created from absolutely nothing. Existence is eternal. Only things have an origin.

"Nothing else.
All alone."

God was alone? So god was incomplete, imperfect?

I had a discussion about "perfect" earlier. Read it. Perfect is something man judges in relation to something else. With God, there was only God.

I thought you were convinced that god could not create anything besides himself because he would not be able to control it. If its within god, then it isn't creation, its a thought.

Call it what you want: it came from God.

If God has always existed, and was always perfect, then god when always know these things.

God knew how to create a realm of choice. But God had to live the choices to make the choices. Hence, welcome to life as we know it... a realm of choice.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

It's in the argument: no thing can have existence without definitive identity... attributes of being... order.


Again, order and identity are two seperate things. A system cannot be said to have disorder unless there is identity within the system. If you had a bag full of spheres, you would say that you had an ordered collection of spheres. If you had a bag full of spheres that were all different colors, you would say that the bag contains disordered collection of colored spheres.


Think about it: anything that exists does so because of the order that brings stability and definition and identity to its existence. If that stability fails, then the thing is transformed into other things with different attributes of order and different identities of order.


Again, the vacuum of space disagrees with this very strongly. The vacuum of space certainly exists, but it is not ordered. Also, if a system is disordered, it does not become another ordered system, it simply is a disorered system.


Like I said, even quanta of energy are known by their attributes... the order which defines their existence.


Nothing needs order in order to exists. Things are perfectly happy existing in disorder.


I'd really like somebody here to name some thing which has existence without any defining order of its own. Cannot be done.


The vacuum of space.


A few people here think that the chaotic behaviour of these things, amongst each other (such as Brownian motion), constitutes an example of disordered existence.


I can't manage to form an argument against that so....


But it doesn't relate to my argument.


I'll just claim that its irrelavent.


For each of the things participating in this motion, are themselves all ordered entities.


please explain how a free electron has any order.


Again, I distinguish between being and doing but few here seem able to grasp the distinction. Being is existence, whilst doing is behaviour of existence. Actor and action.


You fail to show how they are in any way seperable.


Whilst there has been being, there has also been order, for the reasons I have just given.


being does not neccesitate order. You are again using a circular argument.


Only 'nothing' has no identity. Anything which exists must have an identity which distinguishes it from 'nothing'.


You keep mixing identity and order, they are two different concepts.


If you follow the argument I have, for chaos cannot exist except in the behaviour of ordered being. Being has always been ordered. Therefore, whatever existence is [being], it did not evolve from chaotic being - it merely transformed from another state of ordered being.


again, the mixing of order and identity. Chaos cannot exist except for in the behavior of being with identity. The very definition of Choas neccesitates the lack of order.


Chaos exists in the behaviour of existence, and not in the being that is existence.

And you still haven't show that being and behavior are seperable.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

As a perception there can. Perceived division.


A perceived division would be a disagreement in god's perception. God's perception cannot be dividing, if it were, one perception would be right, and one wrong.


The story of creation begins with God. God is eternal. Something cannot be created from absolutely nothing. Existence is eternal. Only things have an origin.


Why are things special that they must have an origin, but the mind must not have an origin. There are two ideas, thing, and not-thing. The mind is certainly not not-thing, so it is thing. Where is the Mind's origin?


I had a discussion about "perfect" earlier. Read it. Perfect is something man judges in relation to something else. With God, there was only God.


(see subsequent comments)


Call it what you want: it came from God.


If something came from god, where did it go to? The thing would be somewhere, ask where did it come from, point over to god, and say, "from God" the thing would be seperate from god.


God knew how to create a realm of choice. But God had to live the choices to make the choices. Hence, welcome to life as we know it... a realm of choice.

What has changed over eternity that god must choose?

[Disbeliever]

lifegazer, a simple question for you:

I know you believe God is omnipresent. Do you believe he is omniscient?

[Dancing David]

Think about it: anything that exists does so because of the order that brings stability and definition and identity to its existence. If that stability fails, then the thing is transformed into other things with different attributes of order and different identities of order.


Just a hypothetical but what if soemthing is defined by it's inconstancy? Why should electrons be defined by thier stability when they are wavelenths in motions, where is the stability?

What if something is defined by it's inconstant nature, I think your definition of order fits well for the wuark based particles but not the leptons.(Have you looked up BEC yet?)

[calladus]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Well you can easily type that God is disinterested, but you cannot back it up with reason.
A disinterested God = a God in a stupor; not acting, not creating, not thinking, not feeling, no purpose. Basically, a disinterested God is the equivalent of a zombie.

The proof is in the reason squire. Something you seem incapable of using, given this evidence.

Okay, disprove this reasoning.
Our universe is God's control universe. He is purposfully 'disinterested' in us because we are his scientific control.

There you go - disinterested, plus intelligent.

[calladus]

Originally posted by lifegazer

The proof is in the reason squire. Something you seem incapable of using, given this evidence.

I love the way you ignore uncomfortable reasoning.

[calladus]

Originally posted by lifegazer

If God exists, then nothing else does. Clearly, God would want harmony of being = God would want unity. Nope. God likes disorder - that's why he made so much of it. Clearly this is the real truth.

[Wudang]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Yes it is. So why did you go off on a tangent about perfection? And then why did you go off on another tangent about omnipresence?


Because surely god must, by being the all of existence, be totally ordered since you have said that existence implies order. Something that is perfectly ordered should be considered to be perfect, no?

I've followed you everywhere you've gone. I would suggest that it is you that is lost. Do you have anything meaningful to contribute to the original argument or what? Or do you intend discussing everything and anything but order, or the argument as presented?

Actually, you've had to admit several times that you couln't follow me and didn't understand what I was saying. I spend too much time with intelligent people.

I never presented a proof for God's existence via omnipresence. What I did was state that an omnipresent God leaves room for no other entity.
Perhaps you should take a back seat with Russ.
Apologies, you did present the argument but you did not say that you believed it. I shall seek such clarification in future.
By the way, I've just found I have 2 dictionarys. Would you like my spare one?

[Dancing David]

Hey Russ,
Should we tell Lifegazer all the cool stuff in the 'back seat' back at the Ivory Tower of Conformity, I heard that there is going to be another sheep squabble tonight!


Lifegazer:

You really look weak when you just dismiss the ideas of a person without refuting them, more proof that you are afraid?

[RussDill]

Originally posted by Dancing David
Hey Russ,
Should we tell Lifegazer all the cool stuff in the 'back seat' back at the Ivory Tower of Conformity, I heard that there is going to be another sheep squabble tonight!

I would really love it if lifegazer would start thinking critically and we could all take him out for a drink.

[c4ts]

The last thing Lifegazer needs is another drink.