illogical paradise (for lifegazer)

[UndercoverElephant]

This is a thread for lifegazer to explain in more detail about the paradise he claims is on offer if everybody does what he wants them to do (whatever that is).

He has said that there will be no suffering. He views this "Kingdom of God" as a physical place like our current Universe, but where everything is "Unified with God", and nothing ever suffers.

This idea is of course very familiar to Jehovas Witnesses, Seventh Day Adventists and various other extremist Christian groups. It is also completely and utterly illogical.

I asked lifegazer whether the lions would lay down with the lambs. He said that in his paradise the lions would clean the lambs.

I do not understand.

I do not understand how the lions can eat without killing other animals. If they kill other animals then those animals will surely suffer. If they do not kill other any animals then they will starve.

Will there be no death?

Or will death cause no suffering?

Will animals not have to eat?

Will being eaten not cause suffering?

Will starving not cause suffering?

Any person capable of the most basic critical thinking should be able to see very easily that such an idea of a physical paradise where there is no suffering is a completely illogical concept - it cannot work. Even if one accepts the mystical doctrine that "all is one", I still do not understand how it can work.

So this is a chance for lifegazer to explain how his paradise differs from that of the SDAs and JWs. I would like to know how it is physically possible for a world with no suffering to exist. And I would specifically like to know whether carnivores would continue to eat herbivores, and how both could exist in a world with no suffering.

And please remember when answering, Lifegazer, that I am not interested in talking about metaphysics or fantasy-physics or any bald assertions about God. I am only interested in the logical consistency of your claims about paradise. I am interested in finding out whether YOU YOURSELF have thought critically about the paradise you claim is on offer, or whether all of your argumentation about physics and metaphysics leads to nowhere but a concept of paradise which is fundamentally illogical and impossible anyway.

[lifegazer]

Anybody who read the specific conversation we had, relevant to this thread, will know that this is unfair.
You were asking me - in that conversation - to use my childish imagination to express my heart's desires. There was nothing in that small off-shoot of a conversation relating to the logic of my philosophy.

My vision of unity is something that has to be worked for. Even without a God I believe that the philosophy of unity is the one which mankind subconciously yearns for and is where we are headed, barring armageddon.

You make it so difficult to have any kind of meaningful conversation with you.

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Anybody who read the specific conversation we had, relevant to this thread, will know that this is unfair.


Good start, lifegazer. Sorry mate, I was asking you whether the lambs will be eaten. I wasn't asking you to bleat like a lamb. :)


You were asking me - in that conversation - to use my childish imagination to express my heart's desires.


No, I wasn't. YOU have been telling everybody that you have the key to the worlds problems. YOU have been telling us that there is a paradise where everything is Unified with God. I am not asking you to use your childish imagination to express your hearts desires, we see you do that all the time. I AM ASKING YOU TO USE YOUR CRITICAL THINKING TO EVALUATE THE LOGICAL CONSISTENCY OF YOUR OWN CLAIMS. I DON'T CARE ABOUT YOUR DESIRES. I CARE ABOUT YOUR LOGICAL CONSISTENCY.


There was nothing in that small off-shoot of a conversation relating to the logic of my philosophy.


It is the central goal of your "philosophy", Lifegazer. That is why I am asking you about it.


My vision of unity is something that has to be worked for.


That does not answer any of my questions.


Even without a God I believe that the philosophy of unity is the one which mankind subconciously yearns for and is where we are headed, barring armageddon.


Not interested in your "yearning". I am interested in the logical consistency of the thing you think you are yearning for. :)


You make it so difficult to have any kind of meaningful conversation with you.

eh? :confused:

I asked you a set of quite clear, highly relevant questions.

Wanna have another go at answering (any of) them? ;)

[lifegazer]

Do you want a rational conversation about Unity, or do you want me to use my childish imagination AGAIN and express my heart's desires for life?
I'm sure we all have wonderful dreams and fantasies - even a cold-hearted turkey such as yourself. So do you want to berate me for having such a sweet imagination, or do you want a meaningful and rational conversation? Because my patience wears thin with your insincerity, and I have an inkling that some of the members - even those that despise me - are beginning to see through you also.

Up the quality Geoffrey. I like you but I only have so much patience and time.

[UndercoverElephant]

So that's two posts, and so far you have not made any attempt at all to answer any of the questions I asked you.

(Can I ask anyone else who contributes to this thread to make sure it stays right on-topic and do not allow lifegazer to avoid the prime questions by derailing the thread.)

Originally posted by lifegazer

Do you want a rational conversation about Unity, or do you want me to use my childish imagination AGAIN and express my heart's desires for life?


Perhaps you misunderstood my previous reply. I am not interested in the output of your childish imagination - childish imagination has no place in philosophy.

I am interested in the LOGICAL CONSISTENCY of the paradise you claim to be offering us, based on your own philosophy. I want you to use CRITICAL THINKING, not childish imagination.

Do you understand what you have been asked?


I'm sure we all have wonderful dreams and fantasies - even a cold-hearted turkey such as yourself.


I do not confuse dreaming with philosophy.


So do you want to berate me for having such a sweet imagination, or do you want a meaningful and rational conversation?


I want you to learn the difference between philosophy and childish dreaming. At the moment you do not appear to know the difference.


Because my patience wears thin with your insincerity, and I have an inkling that some of the members - even those that despise me - are beginning to see through you also.


OK, third chance to answer the questions in the original post....?


Up the quality Geoffrey. I like you but I only have so much patience and time.


I have plenty of time and patience. I am willing to ask you these questions however many times it takes until you either offer me some answers or your head explodes trying to think of some. :D

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by JustGeoff
Perhaps you misunderstood my previous reply. I am not interested in the output of your childish imagination - childish imagination has no place in philosophy.

But that's exactly what you was interested in when I spoke of the lambs and the lions, previously. Do I really have to root out the specific conversation to prove this, or are you going to show some maturity for a change?

I am interested in the LOGICAL CONSISTENCY of the paradise you claim to be offering us, based on your own philosophy. I want you to use CRITICAL THINKING, not childish imagination.

Any "philosophy" I have presented in relation to the ideal state of Unity has made, nor will make, any mention of lions & lambs. So I'm at a loss as to how this conversation can go anywhere until you distinguish between listening to my childish imagination or listening to my philosophy of unity.

Do you understand what you have been asked?

You're playing games. But you cannot outfox this lamb.

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally posted by lifegazer

But that's exactly what you was interested in when I spoke of the lambs and the lions, previously. Do I really have to root out the specific conversation to prove this, or are you going to show some maturity for a change?


You told everybody that there is a paradise on offer where there was NO SUFFERING. I am asking you to explain what this means. I asked you therefore whether carnivores would still eat herbivores, since this involves suffering to the herbivore and the alternative involves suffering to the carnivore.

You replied "In my paradise the lions will clean the lambs." So no dinner then.

You have now made three posts in this thread and you have still failed to make any attempt at all to answer the questions. You've made various attempts to dodge the question and your normal claims of superiority, but you have not answered the questions.

Are you now ready to admit that the paradise you are offering is an illogical fantasy that cannot exist? Please either explain how this paradise could logically work, or admit it cannot exist.

In your paradise, do carnivores still eat other animals?

In your paradise, do animals still die?

Does being eaten involve suffering?

Does starvation involve suffering?

Or is a world without suffering a logical impossibility?

Please try to answer the questions. :)


Any "philosophy" I have presented in relation to the ideal state of Unity has made, nor will make, any mention of lions & lambs. So I'm at a loss as to how this conversation can go anywhere until you distinguish between listening to my childish imagination or listening to my philosophy of unity.


I have no means of distinguishing between your childish imagination and your "philosophy of unity". They are one and the same, Lifegazer.

ANSWER THE QUESTIONS.


You're playing games.


No, Lifegazer. I am giving you a lesson in critical thinking. ;)


But you cannot outfox this lamb.


Well, you seem to be having some serious difficulties ANSWERING THE QUESTIONS. :)

Here they are again :

In your paradise, do carnivores still eat other animals?

In your paradise, do animals still die?

Does being eaten involve suffering?

Does starvation involve suffering?

Or is a world without suffering a logical impossibility?

[UndercoverElephant]

You seem to have gone a little quiet, Lifegazer. :cool:

Can I assume that you are now ready to admit your "childish imagination" (your words) of a paradise where there is no suffering is in fact illogical and impossible as well as being a childish fantasy?

If so, can you please explain why anybody who thinks critically (like skeptics choose to) should join you in your childish fantasies?

Do you think the world would be a better place if all the skeptics adopted your childish fantasy?

Don't you think your own development might be helped by growing out of your childish fantasies and learning to reason like a rational adult?

:)

[UndercoverElephant]

All together now....


Somewhere over the rainbow
Way up high,
There's a land that I heard of
Once in a lullaby.
Somewhere over the rainbow
Skies are blue,
And the dreams that you dare to dream
Really do come true.

Someday I'll wish upon a star
And wake up where the clouds are far
Behind me.
Where troubles melt like lemon drops
Away above the chimney tops
That's where you'll find me.

Somewhere over the rainbow
Bluebirds fly.
Birds fly over the rainbow.
Why then, oh why can't I?

If happy little bluebirds fly
Beyond the rainbow
Why, oh why can't I?


:D

No place like home...
No place like home...
There's no place like home...

Time to wake up now Dorothy. It was all a dream....

http://home.cfl.rr.com/mmeara/noplace1.jpg


"No, Aunt Em, this was a real, truly live place. And I remember
that some of it wasn't very nice...but most of it was beautiful. But just the same, all I kept saying to everybody was, 'I want to go home!' And they sent me home!"

"Oh, but anyway, Toto, we're home! Home!
And this is my room...and you're all here!
And I'm not going to leave here ever, ever again, because
I love you all! And...Oh, Auntie Em, there's no place like home!"



There is no paradise, Lifegazer. Only childish fantasies. It's time for you to grow out of your nappies and stop pooing everywhere. We know it's not really your fault, because your parents should have done a better job with your toilet training, but the smell is getting really bad round here.

[Zero]

Why doesn't Lifegazer answer your questions? Wait, I know:


If he answers your questions, then you will start worshipping him, so that's he won't do it?

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally posted by Zero
Why doesn't Lifegazer answer your questions? Wait, I know:


If he answers your questions, then you will start worshipping him, so that's he won't do it?

Maybe, maybe. Hey! I've got an idea!

***** I promise not to worship Lifegazer, even if he answers my questions. *****

There we go. Do you think that'll do the trick?

We are waiting for your answers, Lifegazer.

Here is a recap :

The original questions you can't answer :

In your paradise, do carnivores still eat other animals?

In your paradise, do animals still die?

Does being eaten involve suffering?

Does starvation involve suffering?

Or is a world without suffering a logical impossibility?

The second set of questions, based upon your inability to answer the originals :


Can I assume that you are now ready to admit your "childish imagination" (your words) of a paradise where there is no suffering is in fact illogical and impossible as well as being a childish fantasy?

If so, can you please explain why anybody who thinks critically (like skeptics choose to) should join you in your childish fantasies?

Do you think the world would be a better place if all the skeptics adopted your childish fantasy?

Don't you think your own development might be helped by growing out of your childish fantasies and learning to reason like a rational adult?


Fire away, oh man of wisdom, we await your history-making answers. :cool:

[UndercoverElephant]

Bump.

My, this thread is quiet, especially since Lifegazer has been back twice since the previous post.

I can't hear you, nappy boy! :D

[TheERK]

Not that I agree with lifegazer's logic, or anything, but....

What is so illogical or impossible about paradise? Why shouldn't we be able to achieve utopia, once we master the workings of thr brain? I don't see anything illogical about it. Suffering can be eliminated.

I've posted this link before, I'll post it again:

http://www.hedweb.net

[Upchurch]

Geoff,

While I think that lifegazer is about a 8 out of 10 on the "psychotic break with reality" scale, I remember this conversation from the other thread and I didn't get impression that lifegazer was seriously putting the "lions and lambs" forth as part of his philosophy. I think you're jumping on something that was not meant to be taken seriously.

[UndercoverElephant]

[double post]

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally posted by TheERK

Not that I agree with lifegazer's logic, or anything, but....

What is so illogical or impossible about paradise?

Why shouldn't we be able to achieve utopia, once we master the workings of thr brain? I don't see anything illogical about it. Suffering can be eliminated.


This is a more general question. Lifegazer was specifically talking about the sort of total paradise long spoken about by Christian extremists, a place where lions and lambs lie down together. This whole concept is a logical absurdity.

You, I presume, are talking about some sort of physical Utopianism rather than lifegazers metaphysical "Kingdom of God.


I've posted this link before, I'll post it again:

http://www.hedweb.net


I am plenty aware of HedWeb. The author of that website lives about half a mile from me and we are residents of a city containing more hedonists-per-head-of-population that anywhere else, maybe anywhere on the planet.

I do not actually agree that the answer is that simple. I don't think we can create a Utopia using drugs. I think some drugs are useful in opening peoples minds, and I think that if people want to take drugs to improve their lives then that is up to them. But I don't think it will lead to a Utopian society. Drugs are a form of escapism, not the long-term solution to human misery.

I think the best book ever written about Utopianism is "Island" by Aldous Huxley. And even here, after painting a picture of an isolated Utopia that works, it only works because it remains isolated, and on the last page of the book the outside world comes stomping into Pala :

http://www.island.org/

Put simply - what goes up must come down. You cannot go up and stay up. Everything balances out to Zero, as another article on Hedweb suggests. That means the only way to approach Utopia is to close the gap between peoples enormously high expectations of what they expect from their lives and their usually low standards of behaviour towards others. Again, this is where lifegazer falls on his face because his expectations are off the top of the scale and the standards of his behaviour are off the bottom of the scale. Thus Lifegazer perceives himself to be in Hell but does not believe the problem is anything to do with him.

There is much I admire about the contents of HedWeb but personally I believe there is no such thing as Utopia.

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

LIFEGAZER : I AM STILL WAITING FOR YOUR ANSWERS TO MY QUESTIONS.

[UndercoverElephant]

[triple post] !!

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Geoff,

While I think that lifegazer is about a 8 out of 10 on the "psychotic break with reality" scale, I remember this conversation from the other thread and I didn't get impression that lifegazer was seriously putting the "lions and lambs" forth as part of his philosophy. I think you're jumping on something that was not meant to be taken seriously.
Thankyou Upchurch. I know you had to swallow hard to do me any favours.

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Geoff,

While I think that lifegazer is about a 8 out of 10 on the "psychotic break with reality" scale, I remember this conversation from the other thread and I didn't get impression that lifegazer was seriously putting the "lions and lambs" forth as part of his philosophy. I think you're jumping on something that was not meant to be taken seriously.

eh?

Then you haven't understood the real problem with Lifegazers philosophy. Like many others around here you have been hoodwinked into pointless arguments about metaphysics and relativity, rather than seeing the real problem.

Lifegazer has not thought properly about what is ACTUALLY required to change the world. In fact, one part of his argument is true. All conscious beings are indeed metaphysically unified. You can't prove it, but it's true, and it is the basis of a long history of mysticism and philosophy. The real problem with Lifegazers philosophy is that having understood that all things are Unified, he has not understood anything else ever written about the subject (maybe because he hasn't read any of it). Specifically, he has not understood that for the world to change in the way he wants it to change there are certain ****PRACTICAL**** considerations to be taken account of. The questions I have asked him are the very simplistic ones - they are representative of a whole category of questions about how a physical world can exist and maintain internal coherency. In terms of philosophy these questions are represented by two strands : One is philosophical mysticism which concentrates on ego-reduction and consicousness-raising, and the other is political philosophy which ends in the failure of Marxism.

So....the questions I am asking him are far from irrelevant. Once he has admitted that his "childish fantasies" (his words) aren't logically possible, then we can get him to start thinking about what can really be done to change the world, both in terms of mysticism and in terms of politics. In words other I am trying to get Lifegazer to actually think about PHILOSOPHY, since he claims to be a philosopher. That is why he must answer my questions. If you want to go on arguing with him about physics then that is your business, but personally I suggest it is a total waste of time.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Thankyou Upchurch. I know you had to swallow hard to do me any favours. Not hard at all. I'm all about the intellectual honesty, whether it is mine, yours, Geoff's, or anyone else's on this board.

Despite what you think, there is very little actual brotherhood on this board. If there are a bunch of people who disagree with you, it is not because there is a mob mentality. It is because each of us [i]actually[i] disagrees with you (or Geoff, or Tricky, or DD, or myself, etc.).

I don't expect you to believe that. I'd actually be very much surprised if you did, given you past tendencies. However, in the interest of honesty, it needed to be said.

[TheERK]

Originally posted by JustGeoff
I am plenty aware of HedWeb. The author of that website lives about half a mile from me and we are residents of a city containing more hedonists-per-head-of-population that anywhere else, maybe anywhere on the planet.


That's neat. Have you ever had a debate with him over your criticisms?

I do not actually agree that the answer is that simple. I don't think we can create a Utopia using drugs. I think some drugs are useful in opening peoples minds, and I think that if people want to take drugs to improve their lives then that is up to them. But I don't think it will lead to a Utopian society. Drugs are a form of escapism, not the long-term solution to human misery.

Drugs are not, by definition, a form of escapism. All they do is alter consciousness. If you have serious problems, and you take drugs in order to ignore those problems, then yes, that is escapism. But the contents of hedweb suggest no such thing. Besides, it's not so much drugs, as it is a total rewiring of the brain.

Put simply - what goes up must come down. You cannot go up and stay up. Everything balances out to Zero, as another article on Hedweb suggests.

First of all, there's no evidence for 'what goes up, must come down' with regard to mental states. Although this may be true in many cases, for example, a cocaine high, it is clearly for physical reasons that this 'down' occurs. There is no reason to assume that the mental state could not be perpetuated, given ridiculously sophisticated physical control.

What article on Hedweb said that? From what I read, it seemed that they stifled the objection 'Happiness is only acheived through contrast with pain', that is, life is a zero sum game, with their own valid reasoning.

That means the only way to approach Utopia is to close the gap between peoples enormously high expectations of what they expect from their lives and their usually low standards of behaviour towards others.

...or rewire the brain :)

There is much I admire about the contents of HedWeb but personally I believe there is no such thing as Utopia.

It is our moral responsibility, as intelligent life forms, to at least attempt the ideas laid out in Hedweb.

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Thankyou Upchurch. I know you had to swallow hard to do me any favours.

Going to answer my questions, nappy boy?

HERE YOU GO :

The original questions you can't answer :

In your paradise, do carnivores still eat other animals?

In your paradise, do animals still die?

Does being eaten involve suffering?

Does starvation involve suffering?

Or is a world without suffering a logical impossibility?

The second set of questions, based upon your inability to answer the originals :


Can I assume that you are now ready to admit your "childish imagination" (your words) of a paradise where there is no suffering is in fact illogical and impossible as well as being a childish fantasy?

If so, can you please explain why anybody who thinks critically (like skeptics choose to) should join you in your childish fantasies?

Do you think the world would be a better place if all the skeptics adopted your childish fantasy?

Don't you think your own development might be helped by growing out of your childish fantasies and learning to reason like a rational adult?

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Not hard at all. I'm all about the intellectual honesty, whether it is mine, yours, Geoff's, or anyone else's on this board.

Unfortunately, not everyone shares your noble views. Certainly not Geoff, as is apparent again here.

I thank you again. And now I call for Geoff to do the honourable thing and stop this nonsense.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by JustGeoff

In other I am trying to get Lifegazer to actually think about PHILOSOPHY, since he claims to be a philosopher. That is why he must answer my questions. If you want to go on arguing with him about physics then that is your business, but personally I suggest it is a total waste of time. If you say so. Frankly, once I homed in on where lifegazer is coming from (I've narrowed it down to two and a half possibilities), I've decided that arguing philosophy with him is just as pointless as arguing physics. lifegazer doesn't want to discuss any issue rationally and no one can force him to do so. So, why bother?

I'll probably continue to interject actual physics when the question arises, but I'm going to avoid arguing with him over it. He simply isn't qualified, in more ways than one.

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Unfortunately, not everyone shares your noble views. Certainly not Geoff, as is apparent again here.

I thank you again. And now I call for Geoff to do the honourable thing and stop this nonsense.

What nonsense? :D

Is that dirty nappy getting uncomfy for little Lifegazer?

Here are the questions again, Lifegazer. Please either answer them or explain what you really mean when you talk about a world with no suffering. I get the impression you may have realised now that such a world cannot exist, but I want you to ADMIT IT. Then I will stop asking you.

Here we go :

Going to answer my questions, nappy boy?

HERE YOU GO :

The original questions you can't answer :

In your paradise, do carnivores still eat other animals?

In your paradise, do animals still die?

Does being eaten involve suffering?

Does starvation involve suffering?

Or is a world without suffering a logical impossibility?

The second set of questions, based upon your inability to answer the originals :


Can I assume that you are now ready to admit your "childish imagination" (your words) of a paradise where there is no suffering is in fact illogical and impossible as well as being a childish fantasy?

If so, can you please explain why anybody who thinks critically (like skeptics choose to) should join you in your childish fantasies?

Do you think the world would be a better place if all the skeptics adopted your childish fantasy?

Don't you think your own development might be helped by growing out of your childish fantasies and learning to reason like a rational adult?

[UndercoverElephant]

I've decided that arguing philosophy with him is just as pointless as arguing physics. lifegazer doesn't want to discuss any issue rationally and no one can force him to do so.


We will see. I think you can argue philosophy with Lifegazer, but you have to keep it very simple and you must keep reminding him which questions he couldn't answer.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Upchurch
If you say so. Frankly, once I homed in on where lifegazer is coming from (I've narrowed it down to two and a half possibilities), I've decided that arguing philosophy with him is just as pointless as arguing physics. lifegazer doesn't want to discuss any issue rationally and no one can force him to do so. So, why bother?

I'll probably continue to interject actual physics when the question arises, but I'm going to avoid arguing with him over it. He simply isn't qualified, in more ways than one.
The issue is not physics. The issue is internal or external reality.
And no physicist that's ever lived is more qualified than me to discuss this issue of reason.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by lifegazer

The issue is not physics. The issue is internal or external reality.
And no physicist that's ever lived is more qualified than me to discuss this issue of reason. In difference to Geoff, I'm going to refrain from derailing this thread any further. My appologies.

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally posted by TheERK

That's neat. Have you ever had a debate with him over your criticisms?


No. There is far more things on that site which I agree with than which I disagree with. His aims are solid, and his general standard is very good. I agree with his approach, but I am cautious about jumping to conclusions about the final destination. Part of me remains the skeptic I was for most of my life. But there is nothing wrong with thinking positively, provided it does not go as far as the Jehovas Witnesses.


Drugs are not, by definition, a form of escapism. All they do is alter consciousness. If you have serious problems, and you take drugs in order to ignore those problems, then yes, that is escapism. But the contents of hedweb suggest no such thing. Besides, it's not so much drugs, as it is a total rewiring of the brain.


Lofty ambitions. We'll see. :)


First of all, there's no evidence for 'what goes up, must come down' with regard to mental states.


The testimony of my own mind says there is plenty. I think it is a pattern that applies EVERYWHERE. 0 = 1 + -1. All is in balance. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Net energy of the Universe is Zero (ontological nuetrality). Net result of all our philosophizing is also Zero (epistemological neutrality).


Although this may be true in many cases, for example, a cocaine high, it is clearly for physical reasons that this 'down' occurs.


I think emotions are derived from physical activity in the brain.


There is no reason to assume that the mental state could not be perpetuated, given ridiculously sophisticated physical control.


I disagree. I think that being permanently on the mental high produced by cocaine is both physically and mentally impossible.


What article on Hedweb said that? From what I read, it seemed that they stifled the objection 'Happiness is only acheived through contrast with pain', that is, life is a zero sum game, with their own valid reasoning.


http://www.hedweb.com/witherall/zero.htm

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Upchurch
In difference to Geoff, I'm going to refrain from derailing this thread any further. My appologies.
The thread is a farce, as you pointed out yourself. But I shall not forget that you think the issue is one of physics.

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally posted by lifegazer

The issue is not physics. The issue is internal or external reality.
And no physicist that's ever lived is more qualified than me to discuss this issue of reason.

The "issue" is the logical consistency of physical reality. I am not interested in hearing your meaningless waffle about metaphysics and relativity. I want you to either answer my questions or admit that you cannot.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by lifegazer

... you think the issue is one of physics...

Hmm. Something about "for a man who has only a hammer, everything is a nail". ;)

It seems to me that physicists are just philosophers who have faith that "an objective, physical, reality exists".

The alternate "an objective reality exists independent of my ego" just doesn't seem sufficient, apparently. ;)

[UndercoverElephant]

Lifegazer

Time for another reminder of the questions I asked you in the opening post.


The original questions you can't answer :

In your paradise, do carnivores still eat other animals?

In your paradise, do animals still die?

Does being eaten involve suffering?

Does starvation involve suffering?

Or is a world without suffering a logical impossibility?


The second set of questions, based upon your inability to answer the originals :

Can I assume that you are now ready to admit your "childish imagination" (your words) of a paradise where there is no suffering is in fact illogical and impossible as well as being a childish fantasy?

If so, can you please explain why anybody who thinks critically (like skeptics choose to) should join you in your childish fantasies?

Do you think the world would be a better place if all the skeptics adopted your childish fantasy?

Don't you think your own development might be helped by growing out of your childish fantasies and learning to reason like a rational adult?

[wollery]

Wow, Navelgazer you are unbelievable!

Upchurch tells JustGeoff that he isn't going to argue philosophy with you because it's a waste of time, but will post as and when aspects of physics arise. You have a go at Upchurch for (according to you) saying that the issue is physics (which he didn't say at all). He apologises for derailing the thread and you have another go at him!! :(

Get a grip!

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by hammegk
It seems to me that physicists are just philosophers who have faith that "an objective, physical, reality exists".

Who would dare to call themselves "a philosopher" whilst relying upon faith for their conclusions?
Let's get one thing straight here: science is a perfectly legitimate practise, being the reasoning of perceived order. But science has been corrupted by a belief in an external realm it knows nothing about.
The mind creates the mind's subjective sensations. The mind is the source of the perceived universe. The mind is the source of the light and energy within its own awareness.
How dumb to look for strings & such things. The mind did it!

The alternate "an objectve reality exists independent of my ego" just doesn't seem sufficient. ;)
You lot are strung-up on egos. I don't give a monkey's uncle about them. God is and that's it. I cannot offend myself, so you should not find offense in me, nor me you.
Deal with the philosophy and spare your judgements for the Rikki Lake show.

[Zero]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Who would dare to call themselves "a philosopher" whilst relying upon faith for their conclusions?
Ever look in a mirror? The reason that the rest of us look outside ourselves for answers is because we know that our minds are subject to certain subjective biases, so 'mind' is not trusted without mutually agreed-upon outside confirmation. You are the one who takes things on faith, not us.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Zero
Ever look in a mirror? The reason that the rest of us look outside ourselves for answers is because we know that our minds are subject to certain subjective biases, so 'mind' is not trusted without mutually agreed-upon outside confirmation. You are the one who takes things on faith, not us.
Zero, ALL knowledge is derived from the reasoning of sensations. All of it.
You don't look outside the mind for didley squat, I can promise you. Everything is seen within you, and all knowledge is derivative of this experience, via a mix of reason & emotion.
No man has either experience or knowledge of a realm beyond his own awareness. Behold, the truth.

[Zero]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Zero, ALL knowledge is derived from the reasoning of sensations. All of it.
You don't look outside the mind for didley squat, I can promise you. Everything is seen within you, and all knowledge is derivative of this experience, via a mix of reason & emotion.
No man has either experience or knowledge of a realm beyond his own awareness. Behold, the truth. Hmmmm...so, you have never answered as to how you know you are right, and not just deluded. The rest of us have some sort of confirmation, while you have...ummm...nothing but your ego telling you that you are correct?

[lifegazer]

I have my inner-existence, exactly like you. Nothing else. I have no knowledge of any thing residing beyond my awareness of it. Neither do you.

[UndercoverElephant]

You lot are strung-up on egos. I don't give a monkey's uncle about them.


That is obvious. It is also quite astonishing, since every other person in history who preached about unity and the primacy of consciousness also talked about the need to reduce ego, since egotism causes most of the problems of humanity and does not allow consciousness to fulfil its true potential.

YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND YOUR OWN PHILOSOPHY.

And I still see no answers to the questions I have asked you.


Deal with the philosophy and spare your judgements for the Rikki Lake show.




No, Lifegazer, YOU deal with the philosophical questions I have asked YOU. This thread isn't about them. It is about YOU.


:)

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally posted by Zero
Ever look in a mirror? The reason that the rest of us look outside ourselves for answers is because we know that our minds are subject to certain subjective biases, so 'mind' is not trusted without mutually agreed-upon outside confirmation. You are the one who takes things on faith, not us.

Ya. I think we have to invent a new word. "Hypocrisy" no longer carries the required punch. How about......

Hyper-Hyposcrisy?

:D

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally posted by lifegazer

No man has either experience or knowledge of a realm beyond his own awareness. Behold, the truth.

Oh boy oh boy. Yes, Lifegazer, that is certainly the truth. :)

[UndercoverElephant]

Lifegazer,

It is time for your regular reminder of the questions you haven't answered. As you are so fond of telling everybody-else please DEAL WITH THE PHILOSOPHY.


The original questions you can't answer :

In your paradise, do carnivores still eat other animals?

In your paradise, do animals still die?

Does being eaten involve suffering?

Does starvation involve suffering?

Or is a world without suffering a logical impossibility?


The second set of questions, based upon your inability to answer the originals :

Can I assume that you are now ready to admit your "childish imagination" (your words) of a paradise where there is no suffering is in fact illogical and impossible as well as being a childish fantasy?

If so, can you please explain why anybody who thinks critically (like skeptics choose to) should join you in your childish fantasies?

Do you think the world would be a better place if all the skeptics adopted your childish fantasy?

Don't you think your own development might be helped by growing out of your childish fantasies and learning to reason like a rational adult?

[Dancing David]

I was going to nominate Geoff for the Ahab awrd in the senseless pursuit of Lifegazer , but LG still occupies that spot. Seems to be in the running for the lifetiem achievement.

I think that paradise would not be staic , so death is still part of the equation, paradice is what you make of it. We are in the middle realm after all.

LG: so what if awareness is limited, this is the analogy:

1. I have a flashlight and the room is dark.

2. All that I can percieve is within the light of the flashlight.

3. All that I can see is the objects illuminated by the flashlight.

4. All I am aware of is that lit by the flashlight.

5. Awareness is limited by the flashlight.

6. All there is the flashlight.

Substitute mind for flash light.

Davidini predicts that:
a. Lifegazer will ignore this post (90%)
b. Lifegazer will tell me this analogy is flawed but can't explain the flaw.( 9%)
c.Lifegzaer will spew some unrelated monsense at me (.9%)
d. Lifegazer will engage in rational discussion.(.1%)

[scribble]

Originally posted by JustGeoff
Lifegazer,

It is time for your regular reminder of the questions you haven't answered. As you are so fond of telling everybody-else please DEAL WITH THE PHILOSOPHY.


The original questions you can't answer :

In your paradise, do carnivores still eat other animals?

In your paradise, do animals still die?

Does being eaten involve suffering?

Does starvation involve suffering?

Or is a world without suffering a logical impossibility?


The second set of questions, based upon your inability to answer the originals :

Can I assume that you are now ready to admit your "childish imagination" (your words) of a paradise where there is no suffering is in fact illogical and impossible as well as being a childish fantasy?

If so, can you please explain why anybody who thinks critically (like skeptics choose to) should join you in your childish fantasies?

Do you think the world would be a better place if all the skeptics adopted your childish fantasy?

Don't you think your own development might be helped by growing out of your childish fantasies and learning to reason like a rational adult?


I think my irony-o-meter just exploded. PErhpas you'd be happy if lifegazer claimed to be leaving forever, and came back in a year trying to act more rationally, only to explode eventually and claim to be leaving forever again, only to come back to claim to try to atone for his previous errors?

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally posted by scribble


I think my irony-o-meter just exploded. PErhpas you'd be happy if lifegazer claimed to be leaving forever, and came back in a year trying to act more rationally, only to explode eventually and claim to be leaving forever again, only to come back to claim to try to atone for his previous errors?

Stranger things have happened, scribble. ;)

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Who would dare to call themselves "a philosopher" whilst relying upon faith for their conclusions?
Let's get one thing straight here: science is a perfectly legitimate practise, being the reasoning of perceived order. But science has been corrupted by a belief in an external realm it knows nothing about.
The mind creates the mind's subjective sensations. The mind is the source of the perceived universe. The mind is the source of the light and energy within its own awareness.
How dumb to look for strings & such things. The mind did it!


Why is materialism any more of an assumption than idealistic monism?

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Zero, ALL knowledge is derived from the reasoning of sensations. All of it.
You don't look outside the mind for didley squat, I can promise you. Everything is seen within you, and all knowledge is derivative of this experience, via a mix of reason & emotion.
No man has either experience or knowledge of a realm beyond his own awareness. Behold, the truth.

you are assuming that sensation does not come from the external world. Again, please explain why one assumption is more valid than the other.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by RussDill


Why is materialism any more of an assumption than idealistic monism?

Idealist: I think.

Materialist: I think; and I also think a physical world exists. :)

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by RussDill


you are assuming that sensation does not come from the external world. Again, please explain why one assumption is more valid than the other.
I am assuming no such thing. I state what I know for certain. And what I know for certain is that there is awareness of sensations, an ability to fathom them with reason, and a corresponding emotional response... all happening within a singular conciousness.

From Hammegk:
... the denial of irreducible qualia is one of the greatest absurdities imaginable...
Titus Rivas

Thankyou both.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by hammegk


Idealist: I think.

Materialist: I think; and I also think a physical world exists. :)

no, LG's world philosophy isn't just I think.

Its I think. There must be something greater than me that thinks. Everything I perceive must be a vast illusion created by the greater thinker.

Whereas Materialism is just:

I think. I perceive things. I assume that what I perceive is.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by RussDill


no, LG's world philosophy isn't just I think.
Er, you asked about monistic idealism, and I provided the simplest answer I'm aware of.


Its I think. There must be something greater than me that thinks. Everything I perceive must be a vast illusion created by the greater thinker.[

and

Whereas Materialism is just:

I think. I perceive things. I assume that what I perceive is.

To be more realistic, for monist idealists, equally valid answers are either *I* "think", or *Something* "thinks".

Both Idealists & Materialists additionally "perceive", but only materialists (or dualists) find the need to name these perceptions "things", with the true implication being non-mind "things".

[RussDill]

Originally posted by hammegk

Both Idealists & Materialists additionally "perceive", but only materialists (or dualists) find the need to name these perceptions "things", with the true implication being non-mind "things".

materialists have no such dualism.

[TheERK]

Originally posted by hammegk


Idealist: I think.

Materialist: I think; and I also think a physical world exists. :)

Idealist: I think. Therefore nothing else but my thoughts exist. Wow, look how mystical I am!

Materialist: I think, but I also observe that my thoughts aren't random. In fact, given similar situations, it seems that me and other people happen to receive similar sensory input. The simplest explanation is that something else exists to provide both of us with this sensory data.

Idealist: If two people are in a room, and they both perceieve a shiny red box, it is because both of their minds simultaneously and independently created that shiny red box. It's just a coincidence. There isn't really a box there at all.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by RussDill
..materialists have no such dualism.

Originally posted by TheERK
Idealist: I think. Therefore nothing else but my thoughts exist. Wow, look how mystical I am!

Materialist: I think, but I also observe that my thoughts aren't random. In fact, given similar situations, it seems that me and other people happen to receive similar sensory input. The simplest explanation is that something else exists to provide both of us with this sensory data.

Idealist: If two people are in a room, and they both perceieve a shiny red box, it is because both of their minds simultaneously and independently created that shiny red box. It's just a coincidence. There isn't really a box there at all.[/b]

You two made me look, but, yup, this is a philosophy forum. The sandbox you apparently want to play in is somewhere else. :rolleyes:

[TheERK]

Originally posted by hammegk
You two made me look, but, yup, this is a philosophy forum. The sandbox you apparently want to play in is somewhere else. :rolleyes:

Nice response. It's nice to see that you choose empty sarcasm and insult over an intelligent response to what I wrote.

To be blunt, your actions are about as reasonable as this:

Person: (Logical argument which can be both reasonably criticized or defended)

Hammegk: LOL n00b

[Zero]

Originally posted by lifegazer

I am assuming no such thing. I state what I know for certain. And what I know for certain is that there is awareness of sensations, an ability to fathom them with reason, and a corresponding emotional response... all happening within a singular conciousness.

From Hammegk:
... the denial of irreducible qualia is one of the greatest absurdities imaginable...
Titus Rivas

Thankyou both. Spoken like someone who knows nothing about philosophy, and a whole lot about blind religious faith.

I make this statement: I know for certain that there is an internal perception, an external universe, and that the two interact through the senses. Without an external reality, humanity(and all animals) would have no sensory organs. I state this as fact, now please don't worship me.

[UndercoverElephant]

Can I ask the people contributing to this thread NOT to let it get sidetracked into a discusion about ontology. The questions I asked LG have nothing to do with idealism or materialism.

Lifegazer - the questions are still awaiting answers.

[Zero]

Originally posted by JustGeoff
Can I ask the people contributing to this thread NOT to let it get sidetracked into a discusion about ontology. The questions I asked LG have nothing to do with idealism or materialism.

Lifegazer - the questions are still awaiting answers. Fine, blame me for it if you want...I don't care...:(

Seriously, I think he should put up or shut up....come on Lifegazer, fill us in O Mighty Prophet!!

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by TheERK
Idealist: If two people are in a room, and they both perceieve a shiny red box, it is because both of their minds simultaneously and independently created that shiny red box. It's just a coincidence. There isn't really a box there at all.
Qualification: That's two different perceptions in the same Mind. Not really two minds. The mind doesn't belong to the individual... the "little self" is in Its Mind.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by JustGeoff
Can I ask the people contributing to this thread NOT to let it get sidetracked into a discusion about ontology. The questions I asked LG have nothing to do with idealism or materialism.

Lifegazer - the questions are still awaiting answers.
Go and start a new thread called "Unity" and I'll participate. Otherwise, stop wasting our time.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Dancing David
1. I have a flashlight and the room is dark.
6. All there is the flashlight.

Are you the flashlight then? Or do you become the flashlight? Or does the flashlight become you? *Headache*
Let's stick to the details we have DD.

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally posted by Zero
Fine, blame me for it if you want...I don't care...:(

Seriously, I think he should put up or shut up....come on Lifegazer, fill us in O Mighty Prophet!!

Not seeking to aportion blame. Just want Lifegazer to answer my questions rather than trotting off into la-la-land.

:)

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Go and start a new thread called "Unity" and I'll participate. Otherwise, stop wasting our time.

Time for your reminder, nappy boy. :)


The original questions you can't answer :

In your paradise, do carnivores still eat other animals?

In your paradise, do animals still die?

Does being eaten involve suffering?

Does starvation involve suffering?

Or is a world without suffering a logical impossibility?


The second set of questions, based upon your inability to answer the originals :

Can I assume that you are now ready to admit your "childish imagination" (your words) of a paradise where there is no suffering is in fact illogical and impossible as well as being a childish fantasy?

If so, can you please explain why anybody who thinks critically (like skeptics choose to) should join you in your childish fantasies?

Do you think the world would be a better place if all the skeptics adopted your childish fantasy?

Don't you think your own development might be helped by growing out of your childish fantasies and learning to reason like a rational adult?


These questions aren't going to go away, Lifegazer. You must either answer them, or you will find them returning to haunt you over and over and over again.

:)

[UndercoverElephant]

Can I help you with the answers? Here is an example of how to answer simple questions.

Perhaps you can tell me which answers you disagree with? Go through them one by one and explain where your answers differ from the ones I have suggested. Easy! eh? ;)

I can't make it any easier for you, not that it was difficult to start with.... :rolleyes:

Q1) In your paradise, do carnivores still eat other animals?

A1) Yes, in the physical world carnivores must eat animals.

Q2) In your paradise, do animals still die?

A2) Yes, in the physical world animals still die.

Q3) Does being eaten involve suffering?

A3) Yes, being eaten involves suffering.

Q4) Does starvation involve suffering?

A4) Yes, starvation involves suffering.

Q5) Or is a world without suffering a logical impossibility?

A5) Yes, a physical world without suffering is a logical impossibility.


The second set of questions, based upon your inability to answer the originals :

Q6) Can I assume that you are now ready to admit your "childish imagination" (your words) of a paradise where there is no suffering is in fact illogical and impossible as well as being a childish fantasy?

A6) Yes, I admit it was a childish fantasy.

Q7) If so, can you please explain why anybody who thinks critically (like skeptics choose to) should join you in your childish fantasies?

A7) No, I can't explain why skeptics should join in my childish fantasies.

Q8) Do you think the world would be a better place if all the skeptics adopted your childish fantasy?

A8) No, I don't think the world would be a better place if skeptics started believing childish fantasies.

Q9) Don't you think your own development might be helped by growing out of your childish fantasies and learning to reason like a rational adult?

A9) Yes, it might help me to grow out of my nappies and stop pooing everywhere if I learned to reason like a rational adult.

Now, where do YOUR answers differ from the ones that appear reasonable to me, and why?

These questions are easy, Lifegazer. ANYONE could answer them. Except, apparently, YOU, because you have been asked them EIGHT times and you have failed to make any attempt at all to answer. Now why is that do you think? Hmmm. Could it be because if you answer these EASY questions that your sad little world will collapse in a heap?

[UndercoverElephant]

bump.

Still waiting, nappy boy.

:)

[hammegk]

Originally posted by TheERK


Hammegk: LOL n00b

At least you understood that. Perhaps you should try elsewhere for kindergarten.


Anyway, enough of this hijack. Lifegazer, Geoff has presented a sequence of questions, and answers. Have you nothing rational to say on any of those points?

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by hammegk


At least you understood that. Perhaps you should try elsewhere for kindergarten.


Anyway, enough of this hijack. Lifegazer, Geoff has presented a sequence of questions, and answers. Have you nothing rational to say on any of those points?
My philosophical vision is of unity. The things he speaks of relate to a conversation where he enquired about my deepest heartfelt desires. And I do indeed yearn for a world where the lions clean the lambs. But that is not my philosophy nor is it related to my vision of unity.
As upchurch himself noted, Geoff's playing politics.

[TheERK]

Originally posted by hammegk


At least you understood that. Perhaps you should try elsewhere for kindergarten.

Perhaps you do not understand. Even lifegazer was intelligent enough to actually respond to my point, while you wallow in pure ad-hom.

The funny thing is, you don't even try to deny your rudeness and inability to reply with a meaningful answer. You simply bolster your image of ignorance and inability to partake in debate by suggesting I 'try elsewhere for kindergarten.'

Grow up, buddy.

Eric

[hammegk]

Originally posted by lifegazer

But that is not my philosophy nor is it related to my vision of unity.
If your philosophy cannot -- or will not -- address specifics, what use is it?

Do you assume only homo sapiens is suitable to recognize your unity?


As upchurch himself noted, Geoff's playing politics.
Er, yes. Politics is imo the oldest profession.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by lifegazer

As upchurch himself noted, Geoff's playing politics. Correction for those who aren't familiar with lifegazer's condition: I did not say anything of the kind.

[UndercoverElephant]

To hammegk and ERK

I actually like and respect both of you. Please do not come to blows in the middle of a thread designed to explain "Janet and John" philosophy to LifeLoser.

Thanks.

Geoff.

LifeLoser :


My philosophical vision is of unity.


No it isn't. Your philosophical vision is non-existent. There is a long tradition of mystical philosophy dedicated to Unity, but you do not understand ANY OF IT, and have chosen to reject ALL OF IT. There is also a rather famous person called KARL MARX who had a vision of unity. You do not understand Marxism either. Because of this, it is painfully obvious that although you jabber on about "Unity" you actually do not have the first clue about the history of philosophies of Unity, and your own philosophy is divisive, self-contradictory and USELESS.


The things he speaks of relate to a conversation where he enquired about my deepest heartfelt desires. And I do indeed yearn for a world where the lions clean the lambs. But that is not my philosophy nor is it related to my vision of unity.


Your whole philosophy is based upon your childish "yearnings". You have also projected your "yearnings" onto God. You think because YOU "yearn" for some amorphous illogical paradise where "Unity" is true (whatever that means) that God must also "yearn" for this. You think your own life would be meaningless if God doesn't have an ego, so you claim God has an ego. You understand NOTHING.


If my questions have got nothing to do with your philosophy, then why on Earth can you not answer them? Do you not understand them? Are they too complicated for that mess you call a mind? Are you SCARED of answering them? I don't get it Lifegazer.

WHY CAN'T YOU ANSWER MY QUESTIONS, O WISE ONE?



As upchurch himself noted, Geoff's playing politics.


No Lifegazer. I am giving you a test in CRITICAL THINKING. So far you have failed apocalyptically.

Try again. You know what the questions are.

:)

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Correction for those who aren't familiar with lifegazer's condition: I did not say anything of the kind.

Yeah - I didn't recall you saying anything of the kind either.

I think if Lifegazer presented himself at doctors surgery (in the UK) and explained what was going on his head he might well risk being sectioned :

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/health/2204983.stm

[scribble]

Originally posted by JustGeoff
I think if Lifegazer presented himself at doctors surgery (in the UK) and explained what was going on his head he might well risk being sectioned :

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/health/2204983.stm [/B]

I'm sorry, I can't resist asking what they might do to someone who claimed that a document magically appeared to him containing all the answers to all his philosophical questions. He claimed it was from a higher power. And then he claimed he couldn't share it because of copyright issues.

What do you suppose they'd do to someone like that?

It's too bad my irony meter exploded the first day I noticed you were back. I like watching stuff blow up.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Lg: As upchurch himself noted, Geoff's playing politics.

Correction for those who aren't familiar with lifegazer's condition: I did not say anything of the kind.
Let's see what you said then:-

"I remember this conversation from the other thread and I didn't get impression that lifegazer was seriously putting the "lions and lambs" forth as part of his philosophy. I think you're jumping on something that was not meant to be taken seriously."

So explain why this doesn't equate to geoff playing politics.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Are you the flashlight then? Or do you become the flashlight? Or does the flashlight become you? *Headache*
Let's stick to the details we have DD.

wow, your cranium is small. I guess when the mind was handing out portion of its intellect, you were off navelgazing

[UndercoverElephant]

Scribble,

The past is the past and what is done is done and what is said is said.

I don't believe there is any point in making the sort of claims I made, regardless of whether or not they were true. The point is that if you cannot demonstrate why you believe something is true (even if this is because of the limits of language), or you cannot prove that a certain event occured, then it is absolutely pointless trying to convince a bunch of skeptics that it is true or did occur, because they are never going to believe you anyway. So it was a waste of time, just as it would also be a waste of time to revisit it now. It was inappropriate and self-defeating.

Class entertainment though, eh? ;)

I was wrong to come here and say the things I said. It achieved nothing but pointless conflict.

Geoff

[hgc]

Originally posted by scribble


I'm sorry, I can't resist asking what they might do to someone who claimed that a document magically appeared to him containing all the answers to all his philosophical questions. He claimed it was from a higher power. And then he claimed he couldn't share it because of copyright issues.

What do you suppose they'd do to someone like that?

...Give him the Utah territory to colonize?

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by lifegazer

So explain why this doesn't equate to geoff playing politics. Technically, lifegazer, I was accusing Geoff of consructing a strawman (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html). Politics (http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=politics), on the other hand, are primarily "concerned with guiding or influencing governmental policy", which is entirely unrelated to Geoff's statement.

[scribble]

Originally posted by hgc
Give him the Utah territory to colonize?


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

That was awesome.

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Technically, lifegazer, I was accusing Geoff of consructing a strawman (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html). Politics (http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=politics), on the other hand, are primarily "concerned with guiding or influencing governmental policy", which is entirely unrelated to Geoff's statement.

It wasn't a strawman though. It was entirely representative of the problem with Lifegazers argument.

A "strawman" is when you attack something different to the actual point being made. But Lifegazer really does claim to believe in some future vision of a "Unified" world where there is no suffering. So my questions are NOT strawmen, because they expose the fact that Lifegazer has not thought critically about his own philosophy. He is CHASING RAINBOWS. Unless we examine the rainbow he is asking us to chase, we will not learn that there is no pot of gold at the ends of it. Lifegazer himself WILL NOT answer those questions, because even thinking about answering them causes him to panic - because it means the rainbow he is chasing will be shattered, and with it the whole of his world.

Thus my questions are highly relevant.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Technically, lifegazer, I was accusing Geoff of consructing a strawman (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html). Politics (http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=politics), on the other hand, are primarily "concerned with guiding or influencing governmental policy", which is entirely unrelated to Geoff's statement.
Now it's my turn to accuse you of playing politics.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by hgc
Give him the Utah territory to colonize?

But do you think Geoff is trying to start a cult? Something he has done is changed in approach, anyway. Materialists/atheists are lucky in that they have The Answer. Lifegazer is the first immaterialist I've seen who thinks he does too.


Uppie, ever heard of interoffice politics? And what do families & acquaintances use in the final analysis?

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Now it's my turn to accuse you of playing politics.

No. It's your turn to....

ANSWER THE QUESTIONS...


The original questions you can't answer :

In your paradise, do carnivores still eat other animals?

In your paradise, do animals still die?

Does being eaten involve suffering?

Does starvation involve suffering?

Or is a world without suffering a logical impossibility?


The second set of questions, based upon your inability to answer the originals :

Can I assume that you are now ready to admit your "childish imagination" (your words) of a paradise where there is no suffering is in fact illogical and impossible as well as being a childish fantasy?

If so, can you please explain why anybody who thinks critically (like skeptics choose to) should join you in your childish fantasies?

Do you think the world would be a better place if all the skeptics adopted your childish fantasy?

Don't you think your own development might be helped by growing out of your childish fantasies and learning to reason like a rational adult?

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by JustGeoff

It wasn't a strawman though. Well, as you say, it's a matter of opinion and I'm willing to let you explore it. I was just expressing mine. However, from a technical point of view, I was calling your argument a strawman. Whether it was or not, is questionable, I suppose.
Originally posted by lifegazer

Now it's my turn to accuse you of playing politics.Right. Now, how does what I said have to do with government policy again?

Nevermind. Don't answer that. I don't want to get to the point that I'm actually picking on someone who truly needs help.

[hgc]

Originally posted by hammegk


But do you think Geoff is trying to start a cult? Something he has done is changed in approach, anyway. Materialists/atheists are lucky in that they have The Answer. Lifegazer is the first immaterialist I've seen who thinks he does too.As usual, you make zero sense and contribute nothing. These materialists/atheists that you continually rant about, interjecting them into any discussion, no matter how tangential, constitute a bogeyman obsession that might be amenable to mental hygiene. Check it out.Uppie, ever heard of interoffice politics? And what do families & acquaintances use in the final analysis? Agreed. Politics apply in all manner of human interaction, where influence and constituency make a material difference.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by hammegk

Uppie, ever heard of interoffice politics? Sure. Same link ('cause you know me and definitions :)):relations or conduct in a particular area of experience especially as seen or dealt with from a political point of view <office politics>Where the definition of political pretty much references politics in the annoying cyclical fashion that language often does.
Originally posted by hgc
Politics apply in all manner of human interaction, where influence and constituency make a material difference.M'kay. So, if we use the broad definition of politics that includes merely trying to influence someone, I suppose we are all playing politics? Not an entirely useful distinction, is it?

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Are you the flashlight then? Or do you become the flashlight? Or does the flashlight become you? *Headache*
Let's stick to the details we have DD.

I thought that it was pretty obvious that flashlight=mind.

[hgc]

Originally posted by Upchurch
...

M'kay. So, if we use the broad definition of politics that includes merely trying to influence someone, I suppose we are all playing politics? Not an entirely useful distinction, is it? Well, that's the sense that it was originally used in this thread, so I think it's fair. And yes we are all practicing (not playing, it's more than a game) politics (those of use that aren't reclusive), every day in so many ways. It's an entirely useful concept; and it is usefully analogous to governmental politics, which is a mere subset. That having been said, I don't see how anything you posted to this thread was playing politics.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Dancing David


I thought that it was pretty obvious that flashlight=mind.
Really?
DD: "1. I have a flashlight and the room is dark."

Clearly, if you have a flashlight, you are not the flashlight. Up the quality DD.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by hgc
As usual, you make zero sense and contribute nothing. These materialists/atheists that you continually rant about, interjecting them into any discussion, no matter how tangential, constitute a bogeyman obsession that might be amenable to mental hygiene.

The best defense to hide lack of understanding is to declare what you don't understand as meaningless.


Agreed. Politics apply in all manner of human interaction, where influence and constituency make a material difference.

I didn't realize you were an Upchurch sockpuppet. Per the M'kay; Are you sure want to argue with yourself?

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by hgc
That having been said, I don't see how anything you posted to this thread was playing politics. Well, in the broad definition of politics, I was practicing politics by trying to influence lifegazer that Geoff wasn't playing politics as I understood the narrower definition of the word (i.e. government related).

That's why I'm not comfortable with this broader definition of "politics". Even informing someone of simple facts becomes political because one is trying to influence that person that the information is correct.

I dunno.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by hammegk

I didn't realize you were an Upchurch sockpuppet. Me either, but that would explain why my hand is...

er ...nevermind.

[hgc]

Originally posted by hammegk

The best defense to hide lack of understanding is to declare what you don't understand as meaningless. I wouldn't know, but do ramble on some more.I didn't realize you were an Upchurch sockpuppet. Per the M'kay; Are you sure want to argue with yourself? Here's an example of what doesn't make sense. I agreed with you about the definition of and use of the word politics, and you labeled me a sockpuppet of the person I was disagreeing with. There must be a materialist/atheist connection here -- somewhere under the pile of horse manure.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Really?
DD: "1. I have a flashlight and the room is dark."

Clearly, if you have a flashlight, you are not the flashlight. Up the quality DD.

Lifegazer, look at the post again and make an attempt to understand what he is saying, because its very important. If you still can't understand, mabye we can guide you though it with babysteps

[hammegk]

Originally posted by hgc
I wouldn't know, but do ramble on some more.

You mean you also answer to "Uppie" as a matter of course?

Now why would I think that comment might ring a bell in that skull of yours? Naaah, forgedaboudit.


Carry on .... nothing to see here. :)

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Really?
DD: "1. I have a flashlight and the room is dark."

Clearly, if you have a flashlight, you are not the flashlight. Up the quality DD.

I know that you are closed to the discussion of what the mind actualy is: but I will try anyhow.

What is the mind Lifegazer, which process is ir exactly. It is like looking at the body in a lot of ways, the body is comprised of different part, the bomes, the muscles, the internal orans, circulatory system, etc..

So too is the mind, what is the mind? Is it thought, is it the non-verbal cognitive awareness (perceptive qualia), is it the actual perception (qualia), is it the cognitive associations, is it the emotional association, visual processes, memory processes, non cognitive association, what about the whole array of learned non cognitive behaviors (motor skills), the lis can go on and on.

I assume that you will tell me that the mind is the 'awareness', and 'of which' I shall ask, awareness of qualia, awareness of non verbal cognition, awareness of memory, etc.s

So while you are saying that my analogy is innaccurate on one level , a very concrete level, it is as adequate an anology as the oft cited cave=mind analogy. So either you are so concrete as to not understand analogy or , moe likely, you just don't like the implications of the analogy.

But the analogy stands , especialy on the level of your previously established analogy. You have said that the mind is the cave and awareness the light, so by extension I have just modified your own analogy.

1. Blind, deaf man with a stick.
2. Senses the world around him with the stick.
3.Stick is the basis of perception.
4. All is stick.

The mind and awareness are just tools Lifegazer but if you wish to elevate them to some totaly undeserved status because of anthropomorphism, that is your right.

A falsh light is just a tool, a mind is just a tool. You have mistaken a small part of creation for the totality of creation Lifegazer. But god , if they exist, obviously doesn't care....

[c4ts]

Hey lifegazer, is God truly omnipotent? Can he make square circles and invert morality so stealing and killing are right?

[UndercoverElephant]

bump

Just keeping the thread alive so Lifegazer cannot forget he hasn't answered any of the questions he was asked.

I'm still waiting for your answers, Lifegazer. All you have to do is answer the questions. Is it really so difficult?

If you claim to have a world-changing philosophy, why can't you answer these questions, these simple questions that just about every other person on this board already knows the answers to?

You have not even given me a reason why you can't answer them - you have just spent the whole thread pretending the questions aren't there!


The original questions you can't answer :

In your paradise, do carnivores still eat other animals?

In your paradise, do animals still die?

Does being eaten involve suffering?

Does starvation involve suffering?

Or is a world without suffering a logical impossibility?


The second set of questions, based upon your inability to answer the originals :

Can I assume that you are now ready to admit your "childish imagination" (your words) of a paradise where there is no suffering is in fact illogical and impossible as well as being a childish fantasy?

If so, can you please explain why anybody who thinks critically (like skeptics choose to) should join you in your childish fantasies?

Do you think the world would be a better place if all the skeptics adopted your childish fantasy?

Don't you think your own development might be helped by growing out of your childish fantasies and learning to reason like a rational adult?

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Dancing David
1. Blind, deaf man with a stick.
2. Senses the world around him with the stick.
3.Stick is the basis of perception.
4. All is stick.

Again you err with your analogy, since the blind deaf man does not sense the world around him with a stick, but with the sensation of touch. The stick is what he believes exists within his sensation (of touch). As I keep saying, all things exist within sensation. Including sticks DD.
You need to up the quality and start listening to me.

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally posted by lifegazer

You need to up the quality and start listening to me. [/B]

NO Lifegazer. It is YOU who cannot answer questions and suffers form quality control problems. It is YOU who does not listen.


Answer the questions, nappy boy!

[lifegazer]

If I answer them, I want Randi's million.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by lifegazer
If I answer them, I want Randi's million. Because lifegazer answering a question honestly would be paranormal?

[wollery]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Because lifegazer answering a question honestly would be paranormal?
No, just abnormal! :)

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Again you err with your analogy, since the blind deaf man does not sense the world around him with a stick, but with the sensation of touch. The stick is what he believes exists within his sensation (of touch). As I keep saying, all things exist within sensation. Including sticks DD.
You need to up the quality and start listening to me.

I think a quick look at the dictionary under analogy will help.

have you decided which of the many form of awareness you have decided to be the mind Lifegazer?

Quality is not an issue when it comes to anaology, the correct term is apt or apt-ness.

You also have yet to REALLY discuss what is the cause of perception, why can't you see with out your eyes Lifegazer?

I have been listening to you you wonk, the problem is that you never discuss you just monolouge, I grant that your ideas have some validity, but you seem to only be capable of one thought. can you entertian more than one?

If you were as bright as you say , you could percieve that the analogy is related to your belief. I will give you a hint, just as flashlight equals mind, stick equals body.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Dancing David
have you decided which of the many form of awareness you have decided to be the mind Lifegazer?

Awareness is singular. All sensation is had within the same awareness... relates to the same being.

You also have yet to REALLY discuss what is the cause of perception, why can't you see with out your eyes Lifegazer?

If the mind wants to see itself as a finite body within the universe, then the body it sees itself as must sense itself in relation to the rest of matter. The body must have receptors of existence.

If you were as bright as you say , you could percieve that the analogy is related to your belief. I will give you a hint, just as flashlight equals mind, stick equals body.
You said the blind man had a stick and now you're saying the blind man is a stick?
Do me a favour, stop waffling around with awful analogies. Go and share some of Russ' popcorn on the backseat for a while.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Awareness is singular. All sensation is had within the same awareness... relates to the same being.If this is true, then awareness of the external world is no different from awareness of the internal world, including awareness of the mind. If you question awareness of the material world as false, which is the same as the awareness of the intenal world, you must question the awareness of the internal world, and really, already are whether or not you admit it to yourself.

Now, if awareness is singular, how can it be subdivided into "direct" and "indirect" awareness?

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

You said the blind man had a stick and now you're saying the blind man is a stick?


I think you need to go double check that definition of analogy


Do me a favour, stop waffling around with awful analogies. Go and share some of Russ' popcorn on the backseat for a while.

btw, its your choice to have me in the backseat. If you don't respond to my posts and questions, but instead ignore them, I really don't have much of a choice. It'd be nice if you'd bother, because then we might actually have some progress, but I imagine that progress is not what you want.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by RussDill
btw, its your choice to have me in the backseat. If you don't respond to my posts and questions, but instead ignore them, I really don't have much of a choice. It'd be nice if you'd bother, because then we might actually have some progress, but I imagine that progress is not what you want.
Your posts can be summed in two words: waffling sarcasm.

You're not a bad kid, but you've started to grow white wool on your back and I don't have time to shear it off properly.

[wollery]

Originally posted by lifegazer

You need to up the quality and start listening to me.
I think this one sentence says everything that needs to be said about navelgazers personality and approach to discussion! :mad:

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by wollery

I think this one sentence says everything that needs to be said about navelgazers personality and approach to discussion! :mad:
Shouldn't that be 'woolery' as opposed to wollery?

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Your posts can be summed in two words: waffling sarcasm.

You're not a bad kid, but you've started to grow white wool on your back and I don't have time to shear it off properly.

You always claim waffling sarcasm. You never back it up. You always claim proof. You never back it up. Instead you fall back to "kid" and "sheep".

[wollery]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Shouldn't that be 'woolery' as opposed to wollery?
In a word - no.

There I answered a question. See how easy it is? Go on, have a go, answer the questions that JustGeoff has asked you repeatedly.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by RussDill


You always claim waffling sarcasm. You never back it up. You always claim proof. You never back it up. Instead you fall back to "kid" and "sheep".
I have tried to talk to you. It deteriorated. You no longer respect me nor my philosophy so what's the point? I don't like teasing you because you're so young and I like you.

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally posted by lifegazer
If I answer them, I want Randi's million.

:jaw:

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by wollery

In a word - no.

There I answered a question. See how easy it is? Go on, have a go, answer the questions that JustGeoff has asked you repeatedly.
Come on scouse... engage me in mental chess or take a back seat. Are you a materialist? Why? What's wrong with Idealism? Etc..
Forget the nonsense.

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally posted by lifegazer

I have tried to talk to you. It deteriorated. You no longer respect me nor my philosophy so what's the point?

Lifegazer - I hate to break this to you but NOBODY respects you or your philosophy.

ANSWER THE QUESTIONS!

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by JustGeoff


:jaw:
That's wonderful. Wish I knew how to make those great images.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

I have tried to talk to you. It deteriorated. You no longer respect me nor my philosophy so what's the point? I don't like teasing you because you're so young and I like you.

The threads on your proof only deteriorated because you would not respond to critizism. Instead, you resorted to insulting peoples intelligence and maturity. You or your philosophy are no longer respected because you respond to critizism in this way, insead of shooting off a well thought out, reasoned post.

(BTW, Don't bring geoff into this, I have no control over what he says.)

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by RussDill


The threads on your proof only deteriorated because you would not respond to critizism. Instead, you resorted to insulting peoples intelligence and maturity. You or your philosophy are no longer respected because you respond to critizism in this way, insead of shooting off a well thought out, reasoned post.

(BTW, Don't bring geoff into this, I have no control over what he says.)
If you're willing to drop the sarcasm and waffle, I'll be willing to put more effort into responding to your posts. I like quality and sincerity. I know I've made an exception with Geoff but he reminds me of someone.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

If you're willing to drop the sarcasm and waffle, I'll be willing to put more effort into responding to your posts. I like quality and sincerity. I know I've made an exception with Geoff but he reminds me of someone.

Ah yes, excactly what I'm talking about, you never, ever, even attempt to point out any actual "waffling".

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Lg: Awareness is singular. All sensation is had within the same awareness... relates to the same being.

If this is true, then awareness of the external world is no different from awareness of the internal world, including awareness of the mind. If you question awareness of the material world as false, which is the same as the awareness of the intenal world, you must question the awareness of the internal world, and really, already are whether or not you admit it to yourself.

Now, if awareness is singular, how can it be subdivided into "direct" and "indirect" awareness?
I want to answer this, but I'm really not sure what you're asking me. Please clarify.

[wollery]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Come on scouse... engage me in mental chess or take a back seat. Are you a materialist? Why? What's wrong with Idealism? Etc..
Forget the nonsense.
Several people have tried to engage you in several different ways, but all you do is call them names and assert that you have all the answers without telling anyone what they are.

But I will `up the quality' as you keep putting it.

Yes I am a materialist. I believe that the world which I perceive with my senses actually exists. There is of course no hard and fast way of proving this, but I find it harder to believe that we are just figments of the imagination of some deity.

In a sense there is nothing wrong with idealism, as a basic philosophy it has just as much validity as materialism.

However, since my senses tell me that we live in a material world and I can perform experiments on the matter around me, I have to ask, why would an existence of pure mind construct the highly complex figment of matter when it is utterly unnecesarry to do so. Moreover I can take the results of experiments that I have performed and use these to construct ideas about how the matter might act in other experiments I can conduct. This is called science, and the results of the experiments that have been carried out are revealing a large amount about the matter that you don't believe in.

Enough for now, your turn.

[wollery]

Bump

Half an hour since I posted lifegazer.
Any response?

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by lifegazer

I want to answer this, but I'm really not sure what you're asking me. Please clarify. It's the same question I've been asking again and again. I don't believe that you do want to answer it, but I will clarify.

You claim that you do not believe that the external, material world is real because you have no evidence that it exists. Further, the only evidence anyone has for the external, material world is their perception or awareness of it. On the other hand, you claim that you do believe that the mind is real because you have direct internal perception or awareness of it.

However, in your last post, you stated that "Awareness is singular. All sensation is had within the same awareness." If this is so, then your awareness of the "external" world is the same as your awareness of the "internal" world. You cannot subdivide awareness into "direct" and "indirect" awareness because, if you did, awareness is no longer singular, as you claim, but would be a composite of two subcategories of awareness. Thus, you have the same amount of evidence for the existence of mind as you have for the material world: your awareness of it.

Since your only evidence for either the material world or the mind is awareness (not "direct awareness" or "indirect awareness", but just "awareness"), you cannot question the reality of material world without also questioning the reality of the mind. Conversely , if you accept the existence of the mind based on nothing more than your awareness of it, you must accept the existence of the material world based on nothing more than your awareness of it.

To accept one and reject the other means, based on your definitions, that it is not simple awareness of the mind that causes you to believe its existence, since you disbelieve in the material world despite your awareness of it. There must be, then, another reason why you believe in the existence of the mind and reject the material world apart from awareness. What is that reason?

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by wollery
Yes I am a materialist. I believe that the world which I perceive with my senses actually exists. There is of course no hard and fast way of proving this, but I find it harder to believe that we are just figments of the imagination of some deity.

I always acknowledge the sincerity of a materialist who acknowledges his philosophy is founded upon belief. Believe it or not, some materialists think that materialism is a sound philosophy.
I admit that believing in a God, without reason, is far harder (for a rational mind) to accept than believing materialist philosophy.
But the key phrase is "without reason". What astounds me is that you actually see no reason to believe in a God - a living essence of all creation. Hence, I invite further discussion and less banter.

However, since my senses tell me that we live in a material world and I can perform experiments on the matter around me,

Your senses are internal to your awareness, and when you perform experiments, you are actually performing experiments upon the things perceived within your awareness... experiments within the mind.
Science is of the internal.

I have to ask, why would an existence of pure mind construct the highly complex figment of matter when it is utterly unnecesarry to do so.

To have specific/definite experience in relation to other things/concepts (The mind cannot do this otherwise, since the mind is existence and there is nothing else.).

Moreover I can take the results of experiments that I have performed and use these to construct ideas about how the matter might act in other experiments I can conduct.

Predicting the behaviour of material processes proves no external (to the mind) reality. It just proves that order(ing) exists.

[wollery]

Originally posted by lifegazer

I always acknowledge the sincerity of a materialist who acknowledges his philosophy is founded upon belief. Believe it or not, some materialists think that materialism is a sound philosophy.

It is a sound philosophy, just as much so as idealism. It is utterly impossible to prove either is right or wrong, both are systems of belief!

I admit that believing in a God, without reason, is far harder (for a rational mind) to accept than believing materialist philosophy.
But the key phrase is "without reason". What astounds me is that you actually see no reason to believe in a God - a living essence of all creation. Hence, I invite further discussion and less banter.
Why should the essence of creation be living? In the materialist philosophy we use the scientific approach. The Universe can be brought about by a random quantum fluctuation in the nothingness before time and space. This starts the big bang and hey presto we have a Universe. No need for god. Certainly none for a living god. And here's the question that keeps me from believing in god - If god created the Universe, then who created god?

Your senses are internal to your awareness, and when you perform experiments, you are actually performing experiments upon the things perceived within your awareness... experiments within the mind.
Science is of the internal.
Semantics, it depends on your philosophy. You, as an idealist, believe matter to be illusion. I, as a materialist believe mind to be a function of matter. Proof that either view is right is impossible.

To have specific/definite experience in relation to other things/concepts (The mind cannot do this otherwise, since the mind is existence and there is nothing else.).
Predicting the behaviour of material processes proves no external (to the mind) reality. It just proves that order(ing) exists.
Again, semantics, it depends upon your belief system.

Will you now concede that your philosophy is also based purely on belief?

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by wollery
It is a sound philosophy, just as much so as idealism. It is utterly impossible to prove either is right or wrong, both are systems of belief!

Is any opinion sound that requires an assumed founding-axiom?
With materialism, it is assumed that an external reality exists.
With Idealism - rather, with my form of idealism - no assumption is needed. I base my philosophy upon the direct experience of sensation. Do you have sensations? Yes? Then I am not assuming that you do, am I?

Why should the essence of creation be living?

That's a good question that deserves a lengthy answer. Perhaps some other time, or perhaps I can refer you to other threads of mine. Type "Only God exists: Monism.", into the search function, and read the first post for a generalisation of why I think the essence of creation is a living mind.

In the materialist philosophy we use the scientific approach. The Universe can be brought about by a random quantum fluctuation in the nothingness before time and space.

But is it - can it be - "nothing"??!!?

And here's the question that keeps me from believing in god - If god created the Universe, then who created god?

Existence is eternal. Something cannot emanate from nothing, without cause = something has always existed.
Do not mistake our inability to define "the void" as absolute nothingness. This is bad rationale, if you do.

Will you now concede that your philosophy is also based purely on belief?
Of course not. There's more to my philosophy than either you, or they, know about.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Awareness is singular. All sensation is had within the same awareness... relates to the same being.



that is speculation, there is no proof or evidence that such is the case, you can claim it all you want. Awareness is seperate thingsm are you saying that a body is not composed of oragans and cell. OH NO! I just used analogy again, gosh, I am sorry that you are so concrete that you can only use one anaology Lifegazer. But then you have pretty much demonstrated you aren't here for discussion, just insulting other people. Which is why i used the term wonk, which you fit the label of.

If the mind wants to see itself as a finite body within the universe, then the body it sees itself as must sense itself in relation to the rest of matter. The body must have receptors of existence.

So where is this other mind you are making reference to? Oh, in your mind, i see, so what is in your mind and all that matters and what is in anybody else's mind doesn't matter. So not only are you an insulting wonk, you are an eletist insulting wonk.


You said the blind man had a stick and now you're saying the blind man is a stick?


I know you have trouble with analogies Lifegazer, and therefore I will not respond with analogies. Toobad, because you lack the capacity to see that the stick/body model fits perfectly with your mind/totaility model. You claim that we only experience our reality through the perceptions of the mind/body. And that therefore the materialist has mistaken the stick for the reality. It is kind and sad how you can't even see an analogy that communicates the same message that you communicate.

So while you are looking up analogy I suggest you also look up meglomania. It is sad that you are so hell bent on proving yourself right that you can't even communicate with other people. You are not worthy of scorn you partake f pathos, you insult hammegk, the one person who could help you on the forum. And you are so blind that you can't even tell when people are trying to dialouge with you.

Do me a favour, stop waffling around with awful analogies. Go and share some of Russ' popcorn on the backseat for a while.

The back seat is large enough to accomadate all the Ivory Tower amenities. much finer than that shabby little speck you call your philosophy.

I don't think you give a damn about god or the world, if you do, you are sure going about it all wrong. If god dies it is because your meglomania had prevented you from actualy succeding in your alleged mission.

Just pathetic.

[hgc]

Originally posted by lifegazer
...
Of course not. There's more to my philosophy than either you, or they, know about. Hamlet: There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy. (Hamlet; I, v)

lifegazer: There are more things in my philosophy, sane people, than are experienced in your reality.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by hgc
Hamlet: There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy. (Hamlet; I, v)

lifegazer: There are more things in my philosophy, sane people, than are experienced in your reality.
Majority views are notoriously screwed.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Majority views are notoriously screwed. Crank pot religious zealot views even more so. Still avoiding the question? It's up just a few posts...

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by lifegazer

I always acknowledge the sincerity of a materialist who acknowledges his philosophy is founded upon belief. Believe it or not, some materialists think that materialism is a sound philosophy.


That is crap, I have often stated that it is purely a belief Lifegazer. You are double ended beast , you talk so fast you forget when you use your mouth and when you use you ass.
You have no respect for any one who does any such thing, you have respect for no one Lifegazer. And now you are just a liar. A pathetic elitist liar.

I admit that believing in a God, without reason, is far harder (for a rational mind) to accept than believing materialist philosophy.

I see no difference between the two, but you are so obstinate that you can't even be nice to the people who agree with you.
Misanthropic pathetic elitist liar.

But the key phrase is "without reason". What astounds me is that you actually see no reason to believe in a God - a living essence of all creation. Hence, I invite further discussion and less banter.

I find plenty of reason to believe in divinity, which is too bad because your obnoxious ways make it hard to comunicate with you.
You appear to have such low social skill you wouldn'y know banter if it came and bit your hind quarters.
Contrarian misanthropic elitist pathetic liar.



Your senses are internal to your awareness, and when you perform experiments, you are actually performing experiments upon the things perceived within your awareness... experiments within the mind.

Senses interact with the nonexistant external world, it is perception that is internal. Wether the experiment is in the MIND or the external world is not an issue. but no your bloated ego has prevented you from ever seeing anything except what you want to see.
Narrow minded...liar.

Science is of the internal.

thats a laugh Lifegazer, no proof just your shabby flea bitten one trick pony. It just shows that you have zero imagination. let us hope that you are not the chosen one...otherwise god is dead.
Uncreative...liar.

To have specific/definite experience in relation to other things/concepts (The mind cannot do this otherwise, since the mind is existence and there is nothing else.).

That is a double standard LG, if the Great Mind is Unified, then by definition it can't have relations with other things/concept.
Inconsistent...liar.


Predicting the behaviour of material processes proves no external (to the mind) reality. It just proves that order(ing) exists.

Duh Lifegazer, that point was conceded long ago but your bloated eog makes it hard for you to see that.

You sir are a liar, you can't even keep your own story straight. In short you are no savior, you arethe devil come to make things worse.

I challenge you to a deul your speck of filth. Cream pies at three feet at dawn, meet me at the place of your choosing.
I shall bring coconut custard, you may bring whatever pie you wish.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Of course not. There's more to my philosophy than either you, or they, know about.

You wish looser, your philosphy is shabby thread bare and so old that it creaks, you have less imagination than a three year old and less grace than the catholic church. You are a cad and a poseur.

I challenge you to a deul at noon, at the place of your choice. We shall deul with lunchmeatsand condiments. I must warn you i am a master with the mustard.

The buddha whipped your ass so bad you ran from the arena!

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Dancing David

The buddha whipped your ass so bad you ran from the arena! The unitarian isn't doing too bad with a question that is actually about reality and not about physics!

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Dancing David
Lg: I always acknowledge the sincerity of a materialist who acknowledges his philosophy is founded upon belief. Believe it or not, some materialists think that materialism is a sound philosophy.

That is crap, I have often stated that it is purely a belief Lifegazer. You are double ended beast , you talk so fast you forget when you use your mouth and when you use you ass.
You have no respect for any one who does any such thing, you have respect for no one Lifegazer. And now you are just a liar. A pathetic elitist liar.

David; I like talking to you precisely because of your sincerity. I have other reasons for liking Russ and Geoff. I even think you're more sincere than Pahanblahblah, who is a nice guy but who is not interested in learning anything which can take him beyond buddhism.
The thing that bugs me about you is that you say alot of dumb things and then react badly when I tell you that you're being dumb. Other than that, I'd like to give you a big brotherly hug, regardless, and have the most honest conversation that you have ever had in your entire life. That's an invitation, btw. Seriously.

[hgc]

Originally posted by lifegazer

...
The thing that bugs me about you is that you say alot of dumb things and then react badly when I tell you that you're being dumb. Other than that, I'd like to give you a big brotherly hug, regardless, and have the most honest conversation that you have ever had in your entire life. That's an invitation, btw. Seriously. No soap, radio. Seriously.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by hgc
No soap, radio. Seriously.
I was taking to David. The conversation did not extend to you, who I knew - several weeks ago - was insincere. David is the opposite, regardless of his feelings towards me. He's a nice guy.

[hgc]

Originally posted by lifegazer

I was taking to David. The conversation did not extend to you, who I knew - several weeks ago - was insincere. David is the opposite, regardless of his feelings towards me. He's a nice guy. This being a public forum, you can't very well control whom a conversation extends to. I am very nice. I let my grandmother out of her room twice a month. Now you take that back!

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by lifegazer

David; I like talking to you precisely because of your sincerity. I have other reasons for liking Russ and Geoff. I even think you're more sincere than Pahanblahblah, who is a nice guy but who is not interested in learning anything which can take him beyond buddhism.
The thing that bugs me about you is that you say alot of dumb things and then react badly when I tell you that you're being dumb. Other than that, I'd like to give you a big brotherly hug, regardless, and have the most honest conversation that you have ever had in your entire life. That's an invitation, btw. Seriously.

The problem I have Lifegazer is this, you think that you have all the answers ans that your reasons are superior to ther peoples. But I have the same exact faculties that you do, my answers are just as valid as yours as is my reason.

Your ideas are just as dumb as anybodies Lifegazer but you seem to be inacapable of even acting like you aren't the center of the universe. You aren't even brave enough to discuss why you feel that something is dumb, you just wave your hand in the air, filck-whish, and dismiss. I don't really understand why you won't engage in dialouge as opposed to the reptitive monotony.

You seem to be more interested in just slamming people than talking to them which makes your mission of unity seem like a complete joke, and you a sarcastic troll.

I don't think you have any humility at all Lifegazer or you might consider that I already engage in honest conversation all the time (correct speech), do you or are you really a poseur? Why not start by canning the dismissive crap and start being honest now?

As for dismissing Pahansiri, you haven't really thought about any thing he has posted or that I have posted about the buddha, same subject as you just a different perspective.


and have the most honest conversation that you have ever had in your entire life. That's an invitation, btw. Seriously.

This just reminds me too much of the standard born again brain washing lifegazer. Why not be honset here on the forum?

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by lifegazer

I was taking to David. The conversation did not extend to you, who I knew - several weeks ago - was insincere. David is the opposite, regardless of his feelings towards me. He's a nice guy.

More dishonesty Lifegazer, why not share the truth with every one? For all you know hgc is very sincere, maybe he has seen too many snake oil sales men passing through the forum.

I want no part of insincerity. How can you judge.

The Dao De Ching has a great passage where it warns the emereror to not act as the executioner.

Why do you judge?

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by hgc
This being a public forum, you can't very well control whom a conversation extends to. I am very nice. I let my grandmother out of her room twice a month. Now you take that back!
A nice guy allows grandma to rule the house. Or is that a brainless guy?
Regardless, I will talk to anybody - as my history with Geoff will support - but I will do my utmost to bring sincerity into the discussion. I hate false repartee.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Dancing David


The back seat is large enough to accomadate all the Ivory Tower amenities. much finer than that shabby little speck you call your philosophy.

I don't think you give a damn about god or the world, if you do, you are sure going about it all wrong. If god dies it is because your meglomania had prevented you from actualy succeding in your alleged mission.

Just pathetic.
I'm sorry you judge me thus. I give my all to God. If that wasn't obvious by my philosophy, then I don't know what is.
I don't really care what you think of 'me'. But I do actually care about you, Russ... and even Geoff. I say hang that nutter lifegazer, and then let God reign eternal.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by lifegazer

A nice guy allows grandma to rule the house. Or is that a brainless guy?
Regardless, I will talk to anybody - as my history with Geoff will support - but I will do my utmost to bring sincerity into the discussion. I hate false repartee.

I would judge you as being quite insincere, as you resort to insult rather than debate. You could have responded to Russ and come to some agrrement but instead you just talk about popcorn. maybe you should speak with your audience instead of preaching. You know give and take instead of shout and ignore.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by lifegazer

I'm sorry you judge me thus. I give my all to God. If that wasn't obvious by my philosophy, then I don't know what is.
I don't really care what you think of 'me'. But I do actually care about you, Russ... and even Geoff. I say hang that nutter lifegazer, and then let God reign eternal.

If you wish to have people listen to your ideas then I suggest you listen to the ideas of others and stop using insults.

I doubt that you care about us as individuals since you absolutely refuse to engage in conversation, you engage in repititve monolouge.

I say that you have yet to even explore the evidence for 'god' and that hanging you would be the loss of yet another human being.

Preaching never changed the world, charity always does, as does sincere conversation. But first you have to work on your 'reflective listening skill', part of the reason that people dismiss you is that they are returning what you have given them.

If god is what you say they are then they already reign eternal, your little life will do little to influence more than the lives around you, have you considered volunteer work, like at a shelter?

[Wudang]

Originally posted by Upchurch
It's the same question I've been asking again and again. I don't believe that you do want to answer it, but I will clarify.

Exactly, how many times now has he said you us that he doesn't understand this question? That he doesn't understand the point of what we're saying? Then we explain and he hurls insults or ignores us and goes off to important threads on grandmothers.

[wollery]

Okay lifegazer, I've read the post that you pointed me to and these are my thoughts on it, and your philosophy/approach in general;

You don't understand relativity.

You really don't understand quantum mechanics.

You offer no proof for your theory beyond your own immovable beliefs.

Those beliefs state that the material world does not exist in reality, but is instead just a figment of all our minds, which are in turn all connected as part of gods mind.

This then begs the question - if you believe that the physical world is a figment of gods imagination then why do you feel the need to explain relativity and quantum mechanics in terms of order and unity. They could be completely disordered, it makes no difference to your philosophy. Yet you dedicate half your post to it!

You claim to have all the answers and a fully consistent argument that cannot be refuted, but all I've seen from you are sketchy outlines, logical inconsistencies, backtracking and just plain inconsistency. As pointed out above you try to justify your philosophy by explaining GR and QM, but just a few days ago you shouted down Upchurch for suggesting that your philosophy had anything to do with physics.

Anyone offering any critique of your philosophy is insulted and you refuse to answer direct simple questions about it.

You claim to have no ego, but display stunningly egotistical traits, almost to the point of Narcissism. You claim to have the answer to all of humankinds problems, yet you won't share these answers - "There's more to my philosophy than either you, or they, know about". So share! Of course that would require that you do have all the answers, which you don't.

I now understand far better the animosity that has been directed toward you from other members of the forum. I don't feel any animosity for you, I pity you, with your head stuck so far up your own backside that all you can see is your own faecal matter, and all you can hear are the echoes of you own ravings. For your own sake remove your head from it's current position, give it a good wash, and get yourself to a reputable psychiatrist - they can treat psychosis you know!

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by wollery
Okay lifegazer, I've read the post that you pointed me to and these are my thoughts on it, and your philosophy/approach in general;

Thanks for making the effort.

You don't understand relativity.

... Because? Hint, rational discussion is founded upon reason.

You really don't understand quantum mechanics.

... Because?

Those beliefs state that the material world does not exist in reality, but is instead just a figment of all our minds, which are in turn all connected as part of gods mind.

This then begs the question - if you believe that the physical world is a figment of gods imagination then why do you feel the need to explain relativity and quantum mechanics in terms of order and unity. They could be completely disordered, it makes no difference to your philosophy. Yet you dedicate half your post to it!

The energy of God, which is indeterminate by nature (God having free will), progresses towards the classical order we perceive.
Relativity shows that each individual perception emanates from the Mind and not an external reality.
This is why I discuss them - because they relate to the mind - to the reality my philosophy advocates.

You claim to have all the answers and a fully consistent argument that cannot be refuted, but all I've seen from you are sketchy outlines, logical inconsistencies, backtracking and just plain inconsistency.

All we're seeing from you is unjustified/unreasoned complaints.

As pointed out above you try to justify your philosophy by explaining GR and QM, but just a few days ago you shouted down Upchurch for suggesting that your philosophy had anything to do with physics.

A discussion about reality requires more than a degree in physics.
Physics is a study of perceived order - the study of universal behaviour. The study of universal origins, however, requires a philosophical approach.

You claim to have no ego

That's a lie. Only dead men or zombies have no egos. And even God has an ego.

but display stunningly egotistical traits, almost to the point of Narcissism.

You mean I put up a fight when subjected to mass abuse? You mean that I refuse to roll over for a bunch of boneheaded sheep such as yourself?

You claim to have the answer to all of humankinds problems, yet you won't share these answers - "There's more to my philosophy than either you, or they, know about". So share! Of course that would require that you do have all the answers, which you don't.

I have produced several arguments. Go and read them and stop waffling.

I now understand far better the animosity that has been directed toward you from other members of the forum. I don't feel any animosity for you, I pity you, with your head stuck so far up your own backside that all you can see is your own faecal matter, and all you can hear are the echoes of you own ravings. For your own sake remove your head from it's current position, give it a good wash, and get yourself to a reputable psychiatrist - they can treat psychosis you know!
I've been quite reasonable with you and you resort to this kind of loutish behaviour. No doubt I'll be castigated yet again for having the temerity to laugh in your face, as I am doing right now.
Stop wasting my time. Either use reason, or take a hike.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Upchurch
1. If awareness is singular and you do not believe your awareness of the material world, what do you base your belief in the mind on?

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


The question is flawed. I do believe that I am aware of a material world. What I do not believe, is that there is really a material world existing beyond my mind.
The sensations are real. The world is not.

Next question please.

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Originally posted by Upchurch
1. If awareness is singular and you do not believe your awareness of the material world, what do you base your belief in the mind on?

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


The question is flawed. I do believe that I am aware of a material world. What I do not believe, is that there is really a material world existing beyond my mind.
The sensations are real. The world is not.

Next question please.

Not sure why I am doing this… Self abuse perhaps I enjoy pounding my head? Who knows..

Question pick one YES or NO

Do you believe you control your mind, are you in control of your mind?

[wollery]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Originally posted by Upchurch
1. If awareness is singular and you do not believe your awareness of the material world, what do you base your belief in the mind on?

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


The question is flawed. I do believe that I am aware of a material world. What I do not believe, is that there is really a material world existing beyond my mind.
The sensations are real. The world is not.

Next question please.
For someone who keeps telling others to up the quality you really need to work on your english comprehension skills. The question is pretty simple.

You say that awareness is singular and that you are aware of the outside world, but that the outside world does not exist, that your awareness of it is created by mind. If awareness is singular then how can you dismiss the material world of which you are aware and yet believe in the mind of which you are aware? If awareness of one does not imply it really exists then how can awareness of the other do so?

[Dorian Gray]

Without taking any sides, let's examine this.

For there to be any sort of paradise, some god would probably be involved, let's assume. Any such god would be omniscient, or if you think that's impossible, would at least have a vast array of knowledge compared to us. In that case, that god might be able to effect some situations that seem as impossible to us as human flight would seem to a caveman.

In other words, for purposes of argument, if you assume there is a god, then what we find to be impossible in the context of Geoff's questions might in fact be possible, but outside the scope of our knowledge.

If you don't accept that there is a god, then you still must consider the possibility, no matter how small or remote, that such a paradise could evolve and exist due to some force we have not yet encountered.

Want to talk likelihood? I don't think so, man. But possible? I am not going to be the one to claim this with absolution.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Originally posted by Upchurch
1. If awareness is singular and you do not believe your awareness of the material world, what do you base your belief in the mind on?The question is flawed. I do believe that I am aware of a material world. What I do not believe, is that there is really a material world existing beyond my mind.
The sensations are real. The world is not.

Next question please. Uh-uh. You are still avoiding the question by playing the intellectually dishonest "shifting definition" game. Just because you don't understand it, or don't want to answer it, doesn't mean that you're done with the question, lifegazer.

You are aware of both the mind and the material world through your senses/perception/awareness (whichever shifting definition you care to choose). If awareness is singular, as you claim, then it either all represents reality or all of it is potentially illusion. As you've admited to having sensed/perceiving/being aware of both the material world and the mind but believe that only the mind has reality, senses/perception/awareness can not be the only criteria for your belief that only the mind is real.

You've said in the past that you have direct experience of the mind and indirect experience of the material world, but this cannot be if sense/perception/awareness is singular, because that would mean a subdivision of sense/perception/awareness.

So, on what do you base your belief that mind is real and that the material world is not, as it certainly can not be sense/perception/awareness?

[lifegazer]

I have recently become aware that somebody is impersonating me, somehow, and has actually started a thread in flamewars as me. So be prepared.

[Dorian Gray]

A thought just occurred to me.

Take the ominous machine adversaries out of 'Matrix', and just use the basic idea - or maybe more like 'Lawnmower Man'. But if we are hardwired into a system, and that system is programmed to allow us to alter the virtual world with our thoughts, then that would be a sort of 'paradise', would it not? If we were in a 'holodeck' all the time?

Just a matter of time, I think, but any conceivable paradise would be possible given virtual reality that was indistinguishable from reality.

You still there, Geoff?

Also, it is foolish to discuss the physical limitations of God. Either he exists, which means he would possess knowledge that we do not and could do things that we cannot, or he doesn't, which means, well, why bother?

But the universe doesn't need some sort of 'god' in order to exist.

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally posted by Dorian Gray
Without taking any sides, let's examine this.

For there to be any sort of paradise, some god would probably be involved, let's assume. Any such god would be omniscient, or if you think that's impossible, would at least have a vast array of knowledge compared to us. In that case, that god might be able to effect some situations that seem as impossible to us as human flight would seem to a caveman.

In other words, for purposes of argument, if you assume there is a god, then what we find to be impossible in the context of Geoff's questions might in fact be possible, but outside the scope of our knowledge.

If you don't accept that there is a god, then you still must consider the possibility, no matter how small or remote, that such a paradise could evolve and exist due to some force we have not yet encountered.

Want to talk likelihood? I don't think so, man. But possible? I am not going to be the one to claim this with absolution.

Dorian,

The problem is logical coherency. It was nicely summed up by c4ts, who asked whether God to create a square circle.

The issue boils down to whether you think Gods omnipotency allows Him to defy the laws of logic.

Geoff.

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by lifegazer
I have recently become aware that somebody is impersonating me, somehow, and has actually started a thread in flamewars as me. So be prepared.
:rub: :rolleyes:

Now ignoring this silly post please answer my Question pick one YES or NO

Do you believe you control your mind, are you in control of your mind?

Please also answer Upchurch’s also..

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by Dorian Gray


For there to be any sort of paradise, some god would probably be involved, let's assume.

Hello my friend. why would there need be a god involved?

We know there is an Earth and places on it of great beauty, people, All types of flora, animals etc. We know these to be reality, a known and we can point to while not completely but greatly to the causes and conditions, natural causes that are behind this and do so with out adding any such unknown as a God?




We know there are countless planets and it seems logical that on at least some of these planets there should be life and these planets and universes can be explained by natural causes.

Why would any “ paradise” need involved a God?

Is not this assumption using an unknown to explain a known rather then a known explaining an unknown which is the logical way.

[Dorian Gray]

Hello my friend. why would there need be a god involved? Wait just a minute, Pahansiri - I said "let's assume" in that quote. I said in the same post: In other words, for purposes of argument, if you assume there is a god, then what we find to be impossible in the context of Geoff's questions might in fact be possible, but outside the scope of our knowledge.and later said: If you don't accept that there is a god, then you still must consider the possibility, no matter how small or remote, that such a paradise could evolve and exist due to some force we have not yet encountered. That assumption was an argumentative one, not a position I actually hold. Perhaps you missed this? Try taping your knees to the chair when you post here - may cut down on the jerking.

[Dorian Gray]

JustGeoff, since 'omnipotent' means 'all-powerful', then yes, if an omnipotent god existed, he would be able to do anything, including defy logic.

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by Dorian Gray
Wait just a minute, Pahansiri - I said "let's assume" in that quote. I said in the same post: and later said: That assumption was an argumentative one, not a position I actually hold. Perhaps you missed this? Try taping your knees to the chair when you post here - may cut down on the jerking.

That assumption was an argumentative one, not a position I actually hold. Perhaps you missed this? Try taping your knees to the chair when you post here - may cut down on the jerking.



Well that is certainly mature and adult conversation, how dare I respond to your post at a discussion board…lol

Lets look at your statement For there to be any sort of paradise, [b]some god would probably be involved, [b]let's assume

My point was WHY assume that?

I understand you said later "let's assume" and “for purposes of argument, if you assume there is a god,” .

Again look at your first statement For there to be any sort of paradise, [b]some god would probably be involved, [b]let's assume


You are saying For there to be any sort of paradise, there would probably need be a creator.

I am asking you why? What do you see as a logical reason for this idea?

But please do forget I said anything I must remember a discussion board is no place for conversations.
:rub:

[Dorian Gray]

You are saying For there to be any sort of paradise, there would [b] probably need be a creator. No, I am not saying that. I am saying this: Whether you believe there is a god or not, a paradise of any definition could possibly exist.

Logical reason: some people believe in a god - here is an argument for you.
Some people don't - here is an argument for you.

If you'll notice, I have essentially used the same two arguments often used in the creation/evolution debate.

However, I said 'let's assume', not 'one must assume'. If you don't believe there is a god, then If you don't accept that there is a god, then you still must consider the possibility, no matter how small or remote, that such a paradise could evolve and exist due to some force we have not yet encountered. is for you - but by the same token, why must you assume that there isn't a god?

I am an atheist, by the way.

Well that is certainly mature and adult conversation, how dare I respond to your post at a discussion board…lol I am not saying you can't respond, I am saying don't let your knee-jerk reactions distract you from the point I am making.

[Dorian Gray]

I also said this in the next post: But the universe doesn't need some sort of 'god' in order to exist. I just wish you had read my whole post, or preferably both posts, before you jumped on the word 'God', and on me by association.

But upon reading my last couple of posts, I seem to be coming across as sort of a dick. I apologize for that, Pahansiri, as I meant no offense.

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally posted by Dorian Gray
JustGeoff, since 'omnipotent' means 'all-powerful', then yes, if an omnipotent god existed, he would be able to do anything, including defy logic.

I think this view of God is rather simplistic. It seems like a bit of a strawman argument to claim that "omnipotent" includes the ability to defy logic when it is perfectly possible to posit "omnipotent" to mean "capable of doing anything which is logically possible." By setting "omnipotent God" up to mean "capable of defying logic" you are just setting up a really nonsensical conception of God so that it is very easy to knock it down again - a classic straw man argument.

If I was a theist, and trying to present a rational argument, I would avoid a logic-defying God like the plague. And this is my point - because Lifegazer is not doing this. He believes in a God which can make square circles and realities where there is no suffering.

Geoff

[Wudang]

Originally posted by lifegazer


... Because? Hint, rational discussion is founded upon reason.
Relativity shows that each individual perception emanates from the Mind and not an external reality.
This is why I discuss them - because they relate to the mind - to the reality my philosophy advocates.

I have produced several arguments. Go and read them and stop waffling.

Stop wasting my time. Either use reason, or take a hike.

Above edited. It was explained to you several times in the relativity thread that you don't even understand O-level science never mind relativity. You produced no arguments there, just rather silly assertions.


Now - back to Upchurch's question, okay?

[Dorian Gray]

I think this view of God is rather simplistic. It seems like a bit of a strawman argument to claim that "omnipotent" includes the ability to defy logic when it is perfectly possible to posit "omnipotent" to mean "capable of doing anything which is logically possible." By setting "omnipotent God" up to mean "capable of defying logic" you are just setting up a really nonsensical conception of God so that it is very easy to knock it down again - a classic straw man argument.

If I was a theist, and trying to present a rational argument, I would avoid a logic-defying God like the plague. And this is my point - because Lifegazer is not doing this. He believes in a God which can make square circles and realities where there is no suffering.
I think your deeming this a 'strawman argument' is inaccurate. According to this and other dictionaries, if someone has limitations, they are not omnipotent:

om·nip·o·tent ( P ) Pronunciation Key (m-np-tnt)
adj.
Having unlimited or universal power, authority, or force; all-powerful. Unlimited power, no exceptions.

un·lim·it·ed ( P ) Pronunciation Key (n-lm-td)
adj.
Having no restrictions or controls: an unlimited travel ticket.
Having or seeming to have no boundaries; infinite: an unlimited horizon.
Without qualification or exception; absolute: unlimited self-confidence No restrictions. Not even logic.

"I" am not setting up the definitions - they are readily available in most dictionaries. You can argue that there is no god, and that is valid. But you cannot argue that an omnipotent god has limitations, because that would be a 'strawman argument'.

If I was "trying to present a rational argument", I certainly wouldn't refute multiple dictionary definitions.

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by Dorian Gray
No, I am not saying that. I am saying this: Whether you believe there is a god or not, a paradise of any definition could possibly exist.

Logical reason: some people believe in a god - here is an argument for you.
Some people don't - here is an argument for you.

If you'll notice, I have essentially used the same two arguments often used in the creation/evolution debate.

However, I said 'let's assume', not 'one must assume'. If you don't believe there is a god, then is for you - but by the same token, why must you assume that there isn't a god?

I am an atheist, by the way.

I am not saying you can't respond, I am saying don't let your knee-jerk reactions distract you from the point I am making.

Greetings Dorian Gray


I am sorry if it seems I judged your post wrong I believe what I did do is not word my response in the best fashion and as with all people I did not mean you any respect.



I Do agree with your point that there could be such a being I 1st have no reason to car and find it with to respect to who do believe in such a thing, irrelevant. I also do not see any logical evidence to support the belief as far as I am concerned, for what it is worth.

But I also fully understand there very well could be as what I know for certain is there is certainly much I do not know.


You wrote: quote:If you don't accept that there is a god, then you still must consider the possibility, no matter how small or remote, that such a paradise could evolve and exist due to some force we have not yet encountered. is for you - but by the same token, why must you assume that there isn't a god?

Again I agree there very well could be a God or 2 or a billion as well as 10 headed giants.

I will say I do not ( and I ado not mean you wanted it to read this way) believe that an arising of a “paradise” and there needing to be a God to make it would be mutually exclusive.


But I know what you mean.


I am an atheist, by the way.

Yes I knew that. I did not say you were not.

I am not saying you can't respond, I am saying don't let your knee-jerk reactions distract you from the point I am making.

Again what I wrote was not a knee-jerk reaction nor did I believe you believed in a God. My wording may not have been the best and for that I apologize.

Be well my friend.

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally posted by Dorian Gray

I think your deeming this a 'strawman argument' is inaccurate. According to this and other dictionaries, if someone has limitations, they are not omnipotent:
Unlimited power, no exceptions.

No restrictions. Not even logic.

"I" am not setting up the definitions - they are readily available in most dictionaries. You can argue that there is no god, and that is valid. But you cannot argue that an omnipotent god has limitations, because that would be a 'strawman argument'.

If I was "trying to present a rational argument", I certainly wouldn't refute multiple dictionary definitions.

Positing an illogical God is an illogical concept to begin with. The term "omnipotent" is itself illogical, by definition, if it is taken to include being able to breach logic. Any concept which breaches logic is illogical. Saying this is the equivalent of saying "If the cat is sitting on the mat then the cat is sitting on the mat." Is this contraversial? :confused:

[c4ts]

If the cat is sitting on the mat then there is a football team known as the "Spungos."

[Dorian Gray]

Positing an illogical God is an illogical concept to begin with. Positing ANY god is an illogical concept - but that's because it takes faith and belief rather than logic and reason. And besides, ultimately we cannot know whether there is a god or not, nor can we know what form that god would take.

The term "omnipotent" is itself illogical, by definition, if it is taken to include being able to breach logic. I disagree with this statement - there may be some knowledge that humans are not yet privy to that make a power illogical to us but in actuality completely logical. Not to mention, a deity may exist in dimensions we don't exist in, etc.

Any concept which breaches logic is illogical. I disagree with this as well. Sometimes logic is in conflict with itself. Zeno's arrow logically will never reach its target, but in reality it reaches its target. One logic, the "half the distance, then half that distance, etc." says the arrow never reaches the target. Another logic says that if you nock an arrow on a bow, draw back the string and let go, the arrow will be propelled on a trajectory, etc., and ultimately reach the target. One of these breaches the other's logic, yet neither is illogical.


Saying this is the equivalent of saying "If the cat is sitting on the mat then the cat is sitting on the mat." O...kay.

[Dorian Gray]

I am sorry if it seems I judged your post wrong I believe what I did do is not word my response in the best fashion and as with all people I did not mean you any respect. Oh, you don't mean anyone any respect? Just kidding, I am sure you meant DISrespect.

I also do not see any logical evidence to support the belief as far as I am concerned, for what it is worth. I don't either. That's a well-constructed sentence, by the way.

[UndercoverElephant]

Dorian


Positing ANY god is an illogical concept - but that's because it takes faith and belief rather than logic and reason.


That is not entirely true. I did not come here to talk to skeptics about philosophy. However, A good example of rationalist concept of God would be that of Spinoza. I am not defending any particular position here, but I think that the claim that all concepts of God are fundamentally illogical is bad philosophy.


And besides, ultimately we cannot know whether there is a god or not, nor can we know what form that god would take.


Well, we certainly cannot prove it. :)



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The term "omnipotent" is itself illogical, by definition, if it is taken to include being able to breach logic.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I disagree with this statement - there may be some knowledge that humans are not yet privy to that make a power illogical to us but in actuality completely logical. Not to mention, a deity may exist in dimensions we don't exist in, etc.


This is a slightly different claim. You are now saying that things which appear logical to us in this here reality may actually be logical from a 'higher perspective'. This actually opens up all sorts of lines of question that I don't think belong in this thread. Personally I do not think any such "higher perspective" could allow square circles and realities where there is no suffering, but a similar position to the one you have implied was taken by the mathematician P.D.Ouspensky. Ouspensky claimed we needed a new kind of logic for dealing with transfinite quantities - which amounts to saying that when Infinity is in the equation our normal understanding of logic breaks down.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Uh-uh. You are still avoiding the question by playing the intellectually dishonest "shifting definition" game. Just because you don't understand it, or don't want to answer it, doesn't mean that you're done with the question, lifegazer.

So you rewrite the question in a similarly flawed fashion, as I am about to demonstrate...

You are aware of both the mind and the material world through your senses/perception/awareness (whichever shifting definition you care to choose).

I have already told you that I am not aware of an external material world. I have awareness of inner-sensations that give the appearance of a real material world. But that appearance cannot be verified with reason or evidence, for no man can reach beyond his sensations or his reason & emotion. I.e., no man can reach beyond the reality of the Mind. No man has had an experience external to his inner-awareness of existence. No man is aware of any reality other than the mind. And that squire is a fact. Your question doth err from the onset: I am not aware of two realities... I am aware of one reality and the inner-appearance of another.

Please make the effort to think about my philosophy before asking me any more questions that infer a dual reality. I'm a monist.

[Dorian Gray]

I am not defending any particular position here, but I think that the claim that all concepts of God are fundamentally illogical is bad philosophy.
I am just illustrating that 'logic' is relative, not absolute, and so the possibility that a 'god' would have a different or higher form of logic certainly does belong in this thread.

This is a slightly different claim. You are now saying that things which appear logical to us in this here reality may actually be logical from a 'higher perspective'. It is a slightly different claim, but in no way am I changing the first claim. Multiple dictionaries define 'omnipotence' as having no limit whatsoever, so an omnipotent god would be without limit whatsoever. The second 'claim' was an attempt to give a possible explanation for this, but there are certainly other possible explanations.

If you want to argue that any 'god' would have vast and far-reaching powers, but be limited by logic, that would be a fair argument. But you cannot correctly argue that an 'omnipotent god' would be limited by anything at all whatsoever.

[uruk]

I have already told you that I am not aware of an external material world. I have awareness of inner-sensations that give the appearance of a real material world. But that appearance cannot be verified with reason or evidence, for no man can reach beyond his sensations or his reason & emotion. I.e., no man can reach beyond the reality of the Mind. No man has had an experience external to his inner-awareness of existence. No man is aware of any reality other than the mind. And that squire is a fact. Your question doth err from the onset: I am not aware of two realities... I am aware of one reality and the inner-appearance of another.

But niether can it's existance be disproved because you do not experiance a reality other than this one. You are bound by rules of this "apparent"real material world. We have no control over these rules. (that would seem to be a proof that it is external to our mind but within our perception) We know we share the same perceptions of this "reality" (but different P.O.V.s) because we can mutualy agree (to a degree) on observations (further proof for...).

We cannot percieve your "god mind" because it exists beyond our internal awareness (otherwise we would be able to sense it). Since the "god mind" is beyond our internal awareness we can never have proof of it's existance.

It seems that it is easier to believe that there is an external (to the mind) existance that stimulates the "inner-awareness". we are perciving that external reality via our senses.

Even if the perception of an "external reality" is being generated by "something or god thing", all we can percieve is this reality, nothing else.

Which kind of makes everything moot.

We have mountains of proof for the existance of this reality provided we accept what our senses are telling us. But even if we accept your philosophy, there is still no evidence or proof to prove it's existance since we have no way to sense or percieve it.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Please make the effort to think about my philosophy before asking me any more questions that infer a dual reality. I'm a monist.

You do not understand materialism. Understand it, then argue against it. Materialism does not require any dualism.

[Yahweh]

Kitties are so cool! Yeah!

[jj]

Originally posted by RussDill


You do not understand materialism. Understand it, then argue against it. Materialism does not require any dualism.

Russ, if he's a monist, then he would seem to be to be a pure solipcist of the "insane ONE" variety.

After all, if he's a monist, and he insists it's all his perception, WHY DO WE DISAGREE WITH HIM?

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by jj
Russ, if he's a monist, then he would seem to be to be a pure solipcist of the "insane ONE" variety.

After all, if he's a monist, and he insists it's all his perception, WHY DO WE DISAGREE WITH HIM?
I've discussed this issue a hundred times or more. The Mind
I speak of does not belong to 'lifegazer'. He too, like all other related entities, is a perception of The Mind which houses all.

My philosophy is that you and I are that same being... that same Mind... having a different but related dream.

Solipcism applies to God. Otherwise, solipcism does not apply.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by lifegazer

I have already told you that I am not aware of an external material world. I have awareness of inner-sensations that give the appearance of a real material world. But that appearance cannot be verified with reason or evidence, for no man can reach beyond his sensations or his reason & emotion. I.e., no man can reach beyond the reality of the Mind. No man has had an experience external to his inner-awareness of existence. No man is aware of any reality other than the mind. And that squire is a fact. Your question doth err from the onset: I am not aware of two realities... I am aware of one reality and the inner-appearance of another.

Please make the effort to think about my philosophy before asking me any more questions that infer a dual reality. I'm a monist. Once again, you've only answered half my question. You've explained why you don't believe your sensations of the external material world, but you have not explained why you do believe the sensations of the internal world (or mind).

You say that no man has had an experience external to his inner-awareness of existence, however, if there is no external sensations, then all sensations, including those of the external world, are really inner experiences. If this is so, why do you believe those sensations that lead you to believe in the existance of the mind, but disbelieve the sansations that lead to the existance of the material world.

You say that, "No man is aware of any reality other than the mind." However, how can a man trust that awareness when the existence of the material world appears to be just as real?

Please finish answering the question by justifying why your belief that the mind is real.

[UndercoverElephant]

Lifegazer,

Since you have promised to answer my questions now......


The original questions you can't answer :

In your paradise, do carnivores still eat other animals?
Update : Partial answer : "There will be no killing."

In your paradise, do animals still die?

Does being eaten involve suffering?

Does starvation involve suffering?

Or is a world without suffering a logical impossibility?


The second set of questions, based upon your inability to answer the originals :

Can I assume that you are now ready to admit your "childish imagination" (your words) of a paradise where there is no suffering is in fact illogical and impossible as well as being a childish fantasy?

If so, can you please explain why anybody who thinks critically (like skeptics choose to) should join you in your childish fantasies?

Do you think the world would be a better place if all the skeptics adopted your childish fantasy?

Don't you think your own development might be helped by growing out of your childish fantasies and learning to reason like a rational adult?

[lifegazer]

Bump it up tomorrow night or thursday morning. I'll try and answer then.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Bump it up tomorrow night or thursday morning. I'll try and answer then.

please be sure to phrase it carefully, otherwise, we might all start worshiping you.

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Bump it up tomorrow night or thursday morning. I'll try and answer then.

bump

[UndercoverElephant]

bump

I don't get it. Why did he say he was going to try to answer the questions?

[Wudang]

When he paints himself into a corner and can't find another way of ignoring a salient question he claims to take time off to work out his reply, then a couple of days later he starts a new thread where he makes the same silly assertions, claims that everything in the previous thread he "explained several times" and hopes people will forget the questions he sidestepped. I mean, how many weeks has he avoided answering Upchurch's simple question?

[lifegazer]

It's Thursday morning... I'm supping my coffee and am much more concerned with crushing the credibility of Wittgenstein, right now.

I did tell Geoff that I'd answer these questions either last night or sometime today - so spare me any more nonsense. And btw Wudang, I started a whole thread (Upchurch's question), a few weeks back, specifically designed to address his question or any question relating to my philosophy. So stop telling porkies.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by JustGeoff
The original questions you can't answer :

Actually, I can answer them. I chose not to.

In your paradise, do carnivores still eat other animals?
Update : Partial answer : "There will be no killing."

In your paradise, do animals still die?

No to both.

Does being eaten involve suffering?

No suffering anywhere.

Does starvation involve suffering?

No starvation anywhere.

Or is a world without suffering a logical impossibility?

A world without suffering is the ultimate wish (of God). Therefore, that destiny awaits.

Can I assume that you are now ready to admit your "childish imagination" (your words) of a paradise where there is no suffering is in fact illogical and impossible as well as being a childish fantasy?

No, you cannot assume any such thing.
My philosophy is that we are all God, being. At "the end of days", humanity as a whole will know this. Hence, at that time, man shall be crowned sovereign over all that he surveys. King of the universe... God upon his throne.

Do you think the world would be a better place if all the skeptics adopted your childish fantasy?

The world would be a better place if people strived for unity, yes. But the future you ask of facilitates no skeptics.

Don't you think your own development might be helped by growing out of your childish fantasies and learning to reason like a rational adult?

I have reasoned that there is a God and that God is all being. Therefore, I have legitimately reasoned that mankind is headed towards a future of Divine dominion over all that he surveys.

I speak of the future. Not today. But not too far distant.

[wollery]

Originally posted by lifegazer
No suffering anywhere.

No starvation anywhere.

A world without suffering is the ultimate wish (of God). Therefore, that destiny awaits.

My philosophy is that we are all God, being. At "the end of days", humanity as a whole will know this. Hence, at that time, man shall be crowned sovereign over all that he surveys. King of the universe... God upon his throne.

The world would be a better place if people strived for unity, yes. But the future you ask of facilitates no skeptics.

I have reasoned that there is a God and that God is all being. Therefore, I have legitimately reasoned that mankind is headed towards a future of Divine dominion over all that he surveys.

I speak of the future. Not today. But not too far distant.

But you also believe that all that we survey is a figment of Gods imagination and that the mind of God is all that there is, so by your arguments we're destined to hold sway over Gods imagination. Oh no, hang on, figments of Gods imagination (that's us right?) are destined to hold sway over Gods imagination. In other words God is destined to hold sway over Gods imagination. (Um, doesn't he do that already?) :confused:

[UndercoverElephant]

In what way does the response "No suffering anywhere." serve as an answer to the question "Does being eaten involve suffering?"

You think this isn't "Tangoing around?"

What you have done is provide a response which has got nothing to do with the question. I asked.

DOES BEING EATEN INVOLVE SUFFERING.

Possible logical answers are :

Yes.
No.
Depends on whether you are concious.
etc....

But your answer is "No suffering anywhere".

This is not anything new is it? You have ALREADY stated that in your paradise there will "be no suffering." I am trying to establish HOW there could be no suffering. All you have done is repeat your bald assertion that there will be no suffering.



Try again. This time ANSWER THE QUESTIONS I ACTUALLY ASKED, NOT THE QUESTIONS YOU WOULD LIKE ME TO HAVE ASKED.

[Wudang]

Originally posted by lifegazer
It's Thursday morning... I'm supping my coffee and am much more concerned with crushing the credibility of Wittgenstein, right now.

I did tell Geoff that I'd answer these questions either last night or sometime today - so spare me any more nonsense. And btw Wudang, I started a whole thread (Upchurch's question), a few weeks back, specifically designed to address his question or any question relating to my philosophy. So stop telling porkies.

"porkies"? I find that extremely offensive. You started that thread with no intention of answering Upchurch's question. I have read that thread repeatedly and it's full of the same old moronic assertions without the faintest attempt to address Upchurch's question. You know that, I know that, everyone knows that.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by JustGeoff
In what way does the response "No suffering anywhere." serve as an answer to the question "Does being eaten involve suffering?"

You think this isn't "Tangoing around?"

What you have done is provide a response which has got nothing to do with the question. I asked.

DOES BEING EATEN INVOLVE SUFFERING.

Possible logical answers are :

Yes.
No.
Depends on whether you are concious.
etc....

These were the first questions:
------------------------------
In your paradise, do carnivores still eat other animals?
Update : Partial answer : "There will be no killing."

In your paradise, do animals still die?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My answer: No to both.
-----------------------

So, this proceeding question ("Does being eaten involve suffering?") didn't even need an answer, because I've already stated that no animals will die or eat each other. Yet, to drive home my point, I said that there will be no suffering anywhere. Suffering is a thing of the past (at this point of affairs).

I am trying to establish HOW there could be no suffering. All you have done is repeat your bald assertion that there will be no suffering.

I have already told you: man will live as God... for man is God. Man (as God) shall have dominion over all that he perceives within himself.

[UndercoverElephant]

Lifegazer :

THIS :


I have already told you: man will live as God... for man is God. Man (as God) shall have dominion over all that he perceives within himself.


is totally meaningless BUNK, OK? I am not interested in your meaningles BUNK. I want you to answer MY questions. Why is this SO HARD for you to understand?

But you have finally now provided answers to the first two questions :


My answer: No to both.
-----------------------


Q1) In your paradise, do carnivores still eat other animals?
Lifegazer answers : NO

Q2) In your paradise, do animals still die?
Lifegazer answers : NO


Well done! 2 down, 7 to go.

Let's have a look at the next ones :

Q3) Does being eaten involve suffering?

Well you didn't answer, but as you say, if carnivores do NOT eat other animals in your paradise then Q3 is not relevant, since "being eaten" will no longer occur. I can forgive you for not answering Q3.

How about Q4?

Q4) Does starvation involve suffering?

Your attempt at an answer :

"No starvation anywhere."

Now, this is a little bit of problem, is it not?

Let me explain. You have already said that

A1) Carnivores will no longer eat other animals

and you have also said

A4) "no starvation anywhere"

This is NOT an answer, but it serves as one....


Houston, we have a LOGICAL problem!

If carnivores no longer eat other animals then how can there be no starvation anywhere?

There is only one logical answer to this :

There will be no carnivores.

Is this correct?


We are getting there (slowly).

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by wollery
Oh no, hang on, figments of Gods imagination (that's us right?) are destined to hold sway over Gods imagination.
There is only God. 'you' are what God is perceiving of itself, right now.

[UndercoverElephant]

Answer my questions. I am waiting.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by JustGeoff
THIS : "I have already told you: man will live as God... for man is God. Man (as God) shall have dominion over all that he perceives within himself."

... is totally meaningless BUNK, OK? I am not interested in your meaningles BUNK. I want you to answer MY questions. Why is this SO HARD for you to understand?

Geoffrey... My philosophy is that only God exists and that everything else exists as a perception within God's mind. So, my answers to your questions are a consequence of my philosophy. So, the above statement is not "meaningless bunk" in relation to my philosophy.
At the "end of days", man shall live as the God that man is.

But you have finally now provided answers to the first two questions :
Q1) In your paradise, do carnivores still eat other animals?
Lifegazer answers : NO

Q2) In your paradise, do animals still die?
Lifegazer answers : NO


Well done! 2 down, 7 to go.

Actually, I answered these questions in my very first attempt to do so. LOL

Let's have a look at the next ones :

Q3) Does being eaten involve suffering?

Well you didn't answer, but as you say, if carnivores do NOT eat other animals in your paradise then Q3 is not relevant, since "being eaten" will no longer occur. I can forgive you for not answering Q3.

Gee thanks Geoff. You forgive me for your screw-up. How nice of you.

How about Q4?

Q4) Does starvation involve suffering?

Your attempt at an answer :

"No starvation anywhere."

Now, this is a little bit of problem, is it not?

Let me explain. You have already said that

A1) Carnivores will no longer eat other animals

and you have also said

A4) "no starvation anywhere"

This is NOT an answer, but it serves as one....


Houston, we have a LOGICAL problem!

If carnivores no longer eat other animals then how can there be no starvation anywhere?

There is only one logical answer to this :

There will be no carnivores.

Is this correct?


We are getting there (slowly).
There will be no more need of food. No more desire to kill. So, I guess only ex-carnivores will exist.

[UndercoverElephant]

This is like pulling teeth.




There will be no more need of food. No more desire to kill. So, I guess only ex-carnivores will exist.


So there will be no more carnivores. We are beginning to learn about what your "paradise" will be like.

There will be no more need for food???????

This requires further examination, Lifegazer. You see it is an absolutely fundamental requirement for all life as we know it TO EAT. This is to do with the laws of physics, specifically the laws about energy conservation. Animals need to eat because otherwise they do not have a supply of energy. I presume you understand this.

I can only assume you believe that in your paradise, God will continually intervene to somehow break this fundamental logical law. He will provide us with a continual source of free energy, completely in breach of all the known laws of physics.

Is this correct?

[lifegazer]

Which part of "Living as God" and "Having dominion over all that he surveys", do you not understand?

[wollery]

Originally posted by lifegazer

There is only God. 'you' are what God is perceiving of itself, right now.
Yes, precisely. I'll go through this again slowly so that you can follow it!

You believe that we are figments of gods imagination.

You believe that the universe (creation) is a figment of our imaginations and, therefore, by proxy, gods imagination.

It therefore follows that if we are going to hold sway over creation that figments of gods imagination are going to hold sway over the rest of gods imagination.

In other words gods imagination will hold sway over gods imagination. It's a circular and, frankly, pointless argument.

But let us assume for a second that it isn't -
Your argument implies that god does not already hold sway over his own mind, you've said before that god desires unity and is seeking to attain it. This, however, implies that god is imperfect, neither omnipotent nor omniscient, but seeking to improve himself. I applaud his efforts, I believe that everyone should seek to improve themselves, but as a supreme being I'd hope that he could find a better way to do it!

[wollery]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Which part of "Living as God" and "Having dominion over all that he surveys", do you not understand?
Oh great, now your mixing in classic biblical statements.

Originally posted by lifegazer
There is only God
So what is it that he surveys?

[UndercoverElephant]

I think, Lifegazer, that this has come to an end now.

You want us to believe in a physical paradise where God continually intervenes to break the laws of physics so that there can be no suffering.

But in fact, "no suffering" not only includes continual magical breaches of the laws of physics, it also involves the removal of basic human pleasures, LIKE EATING.

I LIKE EATING.

I'll tell you a funny little story before I leave. The day before Christmas eve, as I was on my way to work wondering what I would feed my guests on Christmas day, I drove past a dead deer. It was still warm, having been hit by a vehicle during the night. I took it home with me, and my friend helped me butcher it. For Christmas dinner we had fresh saddle of wild venison, free. It was DELICIOUS. It was one of those wonderful things that actually make life worth living. And in this particular case, there was no intentional killing, since the deer was killed in an accident.

But in your imaginary paradise, this could not have happened. The deer probably suffered as it was killed. God would have intervened to stop the accident and prevent the suffering. I would have had only vegetables for Christmas dinner, or according to you, there would be no Christmas dinner at all, because there would be no eating.

You are trapped in a total delusion. There is nothing wrong with the basic way this world works. Things must die to make life worth living for other things. That is just the way things are - life has to involve suffering or it isn't worth living at all.

In fact, if it was not for the suffering, we would never appreciate the good things, like free venison for Christmas.

This is another part of your failure to grow up, I am sad to say.

A perfect world needs bad to contrast the good. It needs suffering to contrast pleasure.

Without suffering THERE IS NO JOY.

Your "paradise" cannot exist. It is a great big nothing. The harder you look at it, the more you will find that as you remove the bad things, you also remove the goodness of the good things. Eventually you are left with nothing at all.

0 = 1 + -1, Lifegazer.

You want the 1, but without the -1.

This does not work. The logic fails.

[UndercoverElephant]

.

[UndercoverElephant]

This is life, Lifegazer. Grow up. (Those are my feet on the steps wearing trainers).

[metropolis_part_one]

I don't see how it's a contradiction to have a world without pain (if that's what 'no suffering' means). We are nearly able to 'grow' meat ourselves - I'm sure an omnipotent God could come up with a way to allow us to eat things without having to kill real animals.
Whether or not such a 'world without pain' would be enjoyable or not is an entirely personal opinion, but I don't think you can refute it by saying 'it can't exist'

;)

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally posted by metropolis_part_one

I don't see how it's a contradiction to have a world without pain (if that's what 'no suffering' means). We are nearly able to 'grow' meat ourselves - I'm sure an omnipotent God could come up with a way to allow us to eat things without having to kill real animals.
Whether or not such a 'world without pain' would be enjoyable or not is an entirely personal opinion, but I don't think you can refute it by saying 'it can't exist'



I'm saying that without the nasty things, we would see no value in the nice things. It is as simple as that.

That picture I posted will be offensive to some people, but that is their problem. It is a picture of what life really is - at least it is if we are grown-ups who have accepted the that things have to die in order for other things to live (unlike lifegazer who is IN DENIAL of this). We might be disgusted by the blood and gore, but at the end of the day that is just our own disgust.

Is it a picture which depicts EVIL?

I don't see how.

[lifegazer]

I have been asked questions about the "end of days" (end of time as we now know it) and am answering them in relation to my philosophy which states that only God exists.

I am fully aware that we have yet to reach this state of affairs, so I'm not sure why Geoff is delighting in showing us his trophy- photography nor giving me lectures about the way things are now. I only have to watch the news to see how bad things are. But this isn't the point, is it? I mean, I'm being asked about a future state-of-affairs when mankind, as a whole, comes to know itself as God.

Geoff also points out that the laws of physics aren't going to be too happy about creatures which have no need of eating. Oh really? Does Geoffrey know what the laws of physics are? They are reflective of the order imposed upon perceived creation, by God. Yet when I say that the time will come when man (God) shall have dominion upon all that he perceives and that there shall be no more need to eat, he (Geoffrey) seems puzzled by the remark, as though God were unable to manipulate things into any order that he so desired.
If God says that he has no need of food, then he has no need of food. As simple as that... because for God, it is as simple as that.

[UndercoverElephant]

Lifegazer,

It isn't a "trophy". I did not kill that deer. I am trying to get you to understand that without the things in life that you think are bad (like death or killing animals for food) there can be none of the things which are good. This includes death itself. If you were immortal, the one thing you would want more than anything else would be to be allowed to die. You are a little boy, Lifegazer. You have not accepted that without the apparently bad things, the things you think are "good" would not seem good. This SO BASIC.

I'm waiting for you to start arguing that in your paradise the sun will always shine, and it will never rain. But of course, in those places where the sun always shines, nothing grows and the people pray for clouds. Understanding these things are a basic part of growing up. You are a little boy, still coming to terms with the death of his hamster.


I only have to watch the news to see how bad things are. But this isn't the point, is it? I mean, I'm being asked about a future state-of-affairs when mankind, as a whole, comes to know itself as God.


You are living in a fairy-land, Lifegazer. You do not understand the most basic things about life that EVERY MATURE ADULT knows. Yet you have the arrogance to call yourself a philosopher.


If God says that he has no need of food, then he has no need of food. As simple as that... because for God, it is as simple as that.

God has NO NEED. PERIOD. You are a just sad little boy with a big head, Lifegazer. It is **YOU** who has needs, NOT GOD. What you need most of all is a great big kick up the backside. What you need is a close brush with cancer, or to lose a leg in a road accident. Then you would grow up very quickly. Then you would realise that all of your moaning and whining where the words of an immature little boy who never had the courage to be a man, let alone a philosopher.

But I am glad you are here. This thread is teaching me things too. It is exorcising from me the last remnants of the part of me that was once like you.

This is a WONDERFUL WORLD, Lifegazer. It's just perfect the way it is.

Thankyou for helping me to remember this. :)

That deer tasted GOOD, Lifegazer. If you like, you can come down in the Spring and visit me. We can have home-made venison-burgers on the BBQ. Seriously.

[Q-Source]

I hadn't considered the suffering of the deer from that perspective. Thanks to its death (and inevitable suffering :( ), I had the pleasure to taste such delicious meat for the first time in my life.

Suffering is not in vain, it cannot be. There is always a positive thing attached to it.


Originally posted by metropolis_part_one
I don't see how it's a contradiction to have a world without pain (if that's what 'no suffering' means). We are nearly able to 'grow' meat ourselves - I'm sure an omnipotent God could come up with a way to allow us to eat things without having to kill real animals.
Whether or not such a 'world without pain' would be enjoyable or not is an entirely personal opinion, but I don't think you can refute it by saying 'it can't exist'



Suffering does not apply only to animals, it applies to everything. Only thru illness we are capable of appreciating what it feels to be healthy. Only thru fear and pain we can appreciate what it feels to be happy, and many other examples.

The problem is that universal religions have indoctrinated people to think that a promised paradise without suffering will give them eternal happiness, so they project their desires to have that sort of world in this life without noticing that suffering is inevitable and necessary to be happy.

Q-S

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by JustGeoff
That deer tasted GOOD, Lifegazer. If you like, you can come down in the Spring and visit me. We can have home-made venison-burgers on the BBQ. Seriously.
You plan on killing another deer?
Regardless, I have recently become a vegetarian. Thanks for the offer though.

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally posted by lifegazer

You plan on killing another deer?


OK I give up. You either cannot read or your memory fails within moments of what you do read. I clearly told you that I found that deer lying by the side of the road. I did not kill it.

I am going to waste no more time talking to you. You are a spoiled little brat whose life has been far too easy. I don't need to make your life any more miserable, because it is quite obviously a living hell already. And that is exactly what you deserve. It is not neccesary for me to punish you, because you are doing an excellent job at punishing yourself.

I am full of joy right now - joy at how wonderful this world is, in its permanent state of perfect balance. And it is partly because of you. I have remembered just how good my own life is. Thankyou. :)


Bows and flows of angel hair
And ice cream castles in the air,
And feather canyons everywhere,
I've looked at clouds that way.
But now they only block the sun,
They rain and snow on everyone.
So many things I would have done,
But clouds got in my way.

I've looked at clouds from both sides now,
From up and down and still somehow
It's clouds' illusions I recall;
I really don't know clouds at all.

Moons and Junes and ferris wheels,
The dizzy dancing way you feel,
When every fairy tale comes real,
I've looked at love that way.
But now it's just another show,
You leave 'em laughing when you go.
And if you care, don't let them know,
Don't give yourself away.

I've looked at love from both sides now,
From give and take and still somehow
It's love's illusions I recall;
I really don't know love at all.

Tears and fears and feeling proud,
To say "I love you" right out loud,
Dreams and schemes and circus crowds,
I've looked at life that way.
But now old friends are acting strange,
They shake their heads, they say I've changed.
Well something's lost but something's gained,
In living every day.

I've looked at life from both sides now,
From win and lose and still somehow
It's life's illusions I recall;
I really don't know life at all.

(Joni Mitchell)


:clap:

[lifegazer]

I am killing your hero as we speak. Wittgenstein is kaput.

[hgc]

Originally posted by lifegazer
I am killing your hero as we speak. Wittgenstein is kaput. I am reminded of a character from the TV Show "Kids in the Hall," who would hold his thumb and index finger right in front of his eye, and focus on the person in the distance so that their head would appear between his fingers. Then he'd start saying "I am crushing your head."

[lifegazer]

He's legged it, as we say. No need to address the death of ol' W's philosophy now. No need to address the future. No need to address my philosophy.
Contented with the temporal pleasures of life and youth, Geoffrey walks off into the sunset... with his dark shadow close on his heel... and the ghost of my thoughts to haunt him in his darker days.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer
He's legged it, as we say. No need to address the death of ol' W's philosophy now. No need to address the future. No need to address my philosophy.
Contented with the temporal pleasures of life and youth, Geoffrey walks off into the sunset... with his dark shadow close on his heel... and the ghost of my thoughts to haunt him in his darker days.

No, you're a stupid head!

[Q-Source]

Originally posted by hgc
I am reminded of a character from the TV Show "Kids in the Hall," who would hold his thumb and index finger right in front of his eye, and focus on the person in the distance so that their head would appear between his fingers. Then he'd start saying "I am crushing your head."


:D It is very funny.

It seems that Geoff is not the only one who sees the stupidity in Lifegazer's arguments.

[wollery]

Originally posted by lifegazer
He's legged it, as we say. No need to address the death of ol' W's philosophy now. No need to address the future. No need to address my philosophy.
Contented with the temporal pleasures of life and youth, Geoffrey walks off into the sunset... with his dark shadow close on his heel... and the ghost of my thoughts to haunt him in his darker days.
You self-absorbed arrogant prat! He hasn't run away because you've out argued him! He's given up trying to get any answers or actual discussion out of you. He's finally figured out that you can't be reasoned with and don't want a discussion.
He's addressed your philosophy - many of us have, but you refuse to answer simple direct questions, insult anyone who criticises your ideas, and then seem to expect us all to bow to your wisdom. I'm sorry to have to break this to you lifegazer, but you plainly have none.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Q-Source
It seems that Geoff is not the only one who sees the stupidity in Lifegazer's arguments.
It seems that Geoff is not the only who sees the stupidity in lg's arguments but never addresses those arguments. Put your money where your mouth is and address the things I say. Go back in the Wittgenstein thread, for example, and address the reasons I gave for denouncing the philosophy of W.
Do something philosophically constructive. But please stop posting mindless insults.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by wollery
He's given up trying to get any answers or actual discussion out of you. He's finally figured out that you can't be reasoned with and don't want a discussion.

Another porkie. Geoffrey has refused to address any of my arguments/threads and has publicly stated that he doesn't even read them.
He even promised to address the Wittgenstein thread if I answered his questions. But he has not.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Another porkie.


Wow, more insults roll on out. Geoff was *absolutely* correct.


Geoffrey has refused to address any of my arguments/threads and has publicly stated that he doesn't even read them.


No, he's addressed your arguments, but you move on without answering those critizisms. So rather than just addressing your new arguments, he asks you to back up, and respond to his critizisms. (Which, you never do)


He even promised to address the Wittgenstein thread if I answered his questions. But he has not.

You haven't answered his questions. (at least in a consistent way)

[Q-Source]

Originally posted by lifegazer

It seems that Geoff is not the only who sees the stupidity in lg's arguments but never addresses those arguments. Put your money where your mouth is and address the things I say. Go back in the Wittgenstein thread, for example, and address the reasons I gave for denouncing the philosophy of W.
Do something philosophically constructive. But please stop posting mindless insults.

what could I address in your "arguments" against Wittgenstein???

This.....?:


W's thoughts: "Language is subjective... not to be trusted... therefore there are no universal truths!"

You summarise W's thoughts saying that "Language is subjective"???

It is evident that you don't know anything about W's philosophy. He didn't really say that, he said that concepts have different meanings in different contexts, therefore a unique language cannot provide absolute answers to questions that people arise from different positions.

Language -such as the scientific language- can be objective, so no, Wittgenstein didn't say that language is subjective. If you don't know the basics of Wittgenstein's philosophy then it is worthless to discuss with you. PERIOD.


Q

[joyrex]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Regardless, I have recently become a vegetarian.Have you considered breatharianism? It sounds perfect for your paradise.. just living on the nourishment of God ;)

[Upchurch]

You know, it seems to me lifegazer has had problems with objective/subjective before...

Tell me, lifegazer, how do you define the terms "subjective" and "objective"?

[Q-Source]

I like your avatar, Upchurch.
Now as a moderator you look serious... :D

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Q-Source
I like your avatar, Upchurch.
Now as a moderator you look serious... :D Thanks, Q. They say the clothes make the man. And Ed knows, I'm a serious guy... http://smilies.jeeptalk.org/otn/laughing/astrosmiley2.gif

[Wudang]

And as I said before, once again lifegazer fails in every other stratgey to avoid Upchurchs question and so goes off and starts a new thread, hoping we will forget how many weeks it has been now.