lifegazer's logical conclusion. [Archive]

Beleth

6th May 2004, 03:57 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer
One must distinguish between God-is-existence and unreal "things" that are perceived within God's awareness.So there are two layers of existence, then - the unreal "world" which we perceive, and the "true existence" of God. Is that what you are saying?

If so, then how can you say anything about the nature of God? God is, by your definition, beyond what can be perceived. Therefore we can't perceive God. If we can't perceive God, how can we say anything meaningful about God? We can't even say for sure that God exists. We certainly can't say that only one God exists, since you can't rule out the possibility that there are numerous Gods, all dreaming their own universes, and that they all have invisible pink unicorns as pets.

As I said, it's a language game. But ultimately, since a distinction exists between God and the "things" God creates, you will lose that game.Actually, since I have already made you admit that there's a difference between God's level of existence and the existence of the rest of us, I have already won. You just haven't realized it yet.

I don't want to spend too much time on this, so please don't stretch it unless you have something meaningful to say. It's my thread. I started it; I'll decide how much time I spend on it. You are welcome to leave whenever you like, of course.

Emotionalised. 'Feelings'.Emotions have no place in logic or science. Any conclusion based on nothing but emotion is philosophically null and void.

triadboy

6th May 2004, 04:28 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer
God however - in my philosophy - is existence.

Lifegazer's god is not the Christian god. He has an Eastern god philosophy.

Zombified

6th May 2004, 04:30 PM

So this "God" is one example of something that's not a thing. Are there other things that are not things? (E.g. not sensed, not causal). If not, why not?

Upchurch

6th May 2004, 04:54 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer

No, God cannot be sensed... though God can be reasoned for and, perhaps, 'felt'. The "what's the difference between sensed and felt" question aside, how can God exist if God cannot be sensed?

Ratman_tf

6th May 2004, 06:19 PM

Originally posted by whim
If God is existence, why do we need a new term? Why not just talk about existence?

Because Lifegazer LOVES to talk. :rolleyes:

Atlas

6th May 2004, 06:38 PM

God is existence. But not only existence. Sometimes existence is God. Sometimes not. God is will. Free Will. God is Intelligence. But 'you' don't exist. 'You' can't know that. 'You' can have the experience of knowing that though.

And it's all gonna blow up in Armageddon, and soon, if we don't embrace the truth of Lifegazer.

But since we're all at singularity and don't exist anyway it doesn't matter. Besides there is no afterlife. No pleasing God. Can't really know God. But Lifegazer knows.

That's what I've learned from Lifegazer so far. That, and that he might have predicted QM if it had occurred to him and if someone who didn't know Lifegazer's God hadn't introduced it first.

Filippo Lippi

7th May 2004, 12:46 AM

I thought LG only had time for one thread?

Beleth

7th May 2004, 05:52 PM

Originally posted by Fillipo Lippi
I thought LG only had time for one thread? Yeah, but I find it hard to believe that he'll grant me God's reason-defying existence by ignoring this thead.

Dancing David

7th May 2004, 08:09 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer

What?:confused:
I'm not sure what you mean. But existence, ultimately, is acausal. I.e., I contend that God, being a primal-cause, is itself without any cause. Logic would demand that a primal-cause be acausal.

Logic is s ideshow pont that preforms tricks on demand.
Your logic says that there is a primal cause without a cause.
My logic syas that there can be no cause without a cause and that it is an infinite recurrsion.

The difference is that you think that you are right, I think that it is all metaphor without a way of discerning the actuality.

You can not prove that there is a primal cause, you just beleive it to be true. There is no experience without the experient, the rest is speculation/hypothesis.

Dancing David

7th May 2004, 08:11 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer

Emotionalised. 'Feelings'. Is it possible to 'feel' the presence/existence of God? I dunno. But many claim that it is, which is why I mentioned that possibility.

Silly rabbit! Emotions are sensations!

(You should really have some of the popcorn at the Ivory Tower!)

RandFan

7th May 2004, 11:13 PM

Originally posted by triadboy
Lifegazer's god is not the Christian god. He has an Eastern god philosophy. Are you sure? He was telling me to read the Bible while assuming his philosophy and I would see the truth. Hmmm.....

UndercoverElephant

9th May 2004, 11:47 AM

Originally posted by triadboy

Lifegazer's god is not the Christian god. He has an Eastern god philosophy.

This is completely wrong. Lifegazer hates mysticism, meditation and any eastern philosophy he encounters. He started a thread attempting to "Destroy Taoism". Lifegazer has specifically stated that God, to be God, must have an ego, emotions, desires and thoughts. These are the characteristics of the Western concept of God, not the eastern. This is a bit of a bizarre paradox, only possible because lifegazer is so utterly ignorant of eastern philosophy. In truth, his philosophy should lead to eastern mysticism, but he hates mysticism. If he actually followed his own logic, instead of combining simplistic pseudo-idealist ontology with his pre-destined conclusion of "God exists", he would be led to conclude that whilst materialism may well be an incomplete picture of reality, the complete picture does not include his westernised, anthropomorphised God.

lifegazer

9th May 2004, 02:00 PM

Originally posted by JustGeoff
Lifegazer hates mysticism, meditation and any eastern philosophy he encounters.

"Hate"? No, I leave that emotion for you to monopolise.
I see alot of good and alot of wisdom in the things you mention. I just happen to think that they fall short of the absolute truth and/or lend too much importance to the individual.
So many religions note the insignificance of the individual and then proceed to advise that person to focus everything upon and within himself to lose himself. I see individuals sitting in dark caves, indifferent to everything but their own peace and joy and inner ecstacy, claiming to be in the process of losing the self. See the irony?

Lifegazer has specifically stated that God, to be God, must have an ego, emotions, desires and thoughts.

How can God have no sense of self-awareness, no emotions, no desires or thoughts; yet be the perceiver of such things that do?
God is omnipresent = God IS existence = whatever is experienced within God must be inherent within that God.

The bible says that man was created in God's image. Obviously, we're talking about the mental & emotional image here. Man is a dimly perceived reflection of what exists within God itself.

the complete picture does not include his westernised, anthropomorphised God.
The western version of God cannot be the same as mine, since Jews and Christians think themselves separate to God.

Donks

9th May 2004, 02:36 PM

Lifegazer: Is your God Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnipresent? Is your God represented in the bible? How accurate is that representation?

Beleth

9th May 2004, 03:47 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer
How can God have no sense of self-awareness, no emotions, no desires or thoughts; yet be the perceiver of such things that do?Probably the same way God can only exist in one singularity, yet be the perceiver of things that are separated by distance.

God is omnipresent = God IS existence = whatever is experienced within God must be inherent within that God.God's existence, in your philosophy, is so far beyond what we can experience that saying anything about God's attributes is meaningless. Even this.

The bible says that man was created in God's image. Obviously, we're talking about the mental & emotional image here.Um, no. That's not the obvious interpretation of what the Bible says.

The western version of God cannot be the same as mine, since Jews and Christians think themselves separate to God. The Western version of God is based on the Bible. You say that your philosophy is consistent with the Bible, yet you say that the Western version of God cannot be the same as yours. Explain this, please.

lifegazer

9th May 2004, 06:02 PM

Originally posted by Donks
Lifegazer: Is your God Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnipresent? Is your God represented in the bible? How accurate is that representation?
Yes to your first questions. The accuracy of this representation is tainted by the religions which have miscontrued the words therein. I find the text to be perfectly consistent with my own philosophy. I am neither a christian or a Jew. Neither is God.

lifegazer

9th May 2004, 06:17 PM

Originally posted by Beleth
Probably the same way God can only exist in one singularity, yet be the perceiver of things that are separated by distance.

To be the perceiver of personal qualities, requires self-awareness and that the perceiver has those qualities..
To have desires, thoughts & emotions, depends upon what is within you - not without. The perception of distance between illusory objects has nothing to do with this.

God's existence, in your philosophy, is so far beyond what we can experience that saying anything about God's attributes is meaningless. Even this.

You don't understand my philosophy, for if you did, you'd realise that there is no "we" - there is only the perception of being us... had by God itself.
"We" experience nothing. "We" are the experience.

Um, no. That's not the obvious interpretation of what the Bible says.

Biblical literalists are dummies.

The Western version of God is based on the Bible. You say that your philosophy is consistent with the Bible, yet you say that the Western version of God cannot be the same as yours. Explain this, please.
Easy. Man has misconstrued the words of the bible. Just like yourself.

UndercoverElephant

10th May 2004, 01:39 AM

Originally posted by Donks
Lifegazer: Is your God Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnipresent? Is your God represented in the bible? How accurate is that representation?

Donks,

"Omnipresence" and "Omniscience" are not solely biblical or western concepts regarding the Supreme Being. This suggests "the totality of being" or "the root of consciousness", and these things are just as much eastern as western. The defining characteristic of the biblical/western system is the God of Abraham. This God has human-like characteristics in addition to the "omni-" characteristics. This God communicates with humans and is depicted as having thoughts and emotions like a human.

Lifegazers inconsistencies come from this stuff :

How can God have no sense of self-awareness, no emotions, no desires or thoughts; yet be the perceiver of such things that do?
God is omnipresent = God IS existence = whatever is experienced within God must be inherent within that God.

He answers his own question, but does not realise he has done it. According to lifegazers idealistic argument "God IS existence". This is the eastern concept - God as the totality of existence, with existence being viewed as conciousness. The eastern mystics insist that one must transcend thoughts, emotions and desires to achieve divinity, precisely because divinity is associated with pure, empty consciousness free from the human weaknesses of thoughts, desires and emotions. God is the ISNESS itself, not anything that is being. The thoughts, desires and emotions of the western God makes that concept of God more than just the ISNESS of all Being. Which leaves lifegazers so-called philosophy completely and utterly incoherent and incomprehensible. He is trying to use an eastern, idealistic ontology to argue the existence of the westernised anthropomorphic God and because he knows absolutely nothing at all about either western philosophy or eastern mysticism he remains blissfully unaware that is accidentally "batting for the wrong side". In truth he is probably batting for no side but his own : atheists are his enemy, mystics are his enemy, materialists are his enemy, skeptics are his enemy, scientists are his enemy, modern academic philosophy is his enemy, Jews and Christians are his enemy. Precisely who isn't his enemy I am yet to figure out.

:)

lifegazer

10th May 2004, 02:37 AM

Originally posted by JustGeoff
He answers his own question, but does not realise he has done it. According to lifegazers idealistic argument "God IS existence". This is the eastern concept - God as the totality of existence, with existence being viewed as conciousness. The eastern mystics insist that one must transcend thoughts, emotions and desires to achieve divinity, precisely because divinity is associated with pure, empty consciousness free from the human weaknesses of thoughts, desires and emotions.

If God IS existence, then it follows that all thoughts, desires and emotions are being had by that God.
Nothing belongs to man since man does not exist. Only God exists, believing/perceiving itself to be man.
The qualities believed to be innate to man are indeed innate to God, since man is nothing. Man simply does not exist as a real entity external/separate to God. It's just an illusion... the appearance of things.
The purpose of transcendentalism should be to think and feel as God would feel. Not to turn oneself into a zombie.

UndercoverElephant

10th May 2004, 02:58 AM

Originally posted by lifegazer

If God IS existence, then it follows that all thoughts, desires and emotions are being had by that God.
Nothing belongs to man since man does not exist. Only God exists, believing/perceiving itself to be man.

You really have no grasp of logical thought whatsoever, do you Lifegazer? :D

You are arguing that God is the root of all being - it IS existence, and you are then saying that this God "must have emotions/desires/thoughts because some of the things to which it grants existence have emotions/desires/thoughts. " But we aren't talking about the emotions/desires/thoughts that God has when He is being human beings - we are talking about God's own emotions/desires/thoughts. Your conception of God includes that God has his own "self" (you referered to it previously as "God-self"). So we can forget about the thoughts/emotions/desires which God has when he is being a human. You need to get your argument straight because at the moment you are making even less sense than normal. Please explain very clearly whether you believe God has his own thoughts, emotions and desires, or merely the thoughts and emotions associated with physical beings and physical brains. Or do you think God has his own brain? :rolleyes:

The qualities believed to be innate to man are indeed innate to God, since man is nothing.

Same utterly illogical argument.

Man simply does not exist as a real entity external/separate to God.

You are arguing that God has thoughts/emotions/desires which are seperate to man. If God is seperate from man then man is seperate from God. Your argument is a contorted illogical mess.

It's just an illusion... the appearance of things.

YAWN

The purpose of transcendentalism should be to think and feel as God would feel.

Only in the illogical world of lifegazer.

Not to turn oneself into a zombie.

Man, do you have problems. If you dislike the mystical imperative to detach yourself from physical reality, and to transcend thought and emotion then why on Earth have you spent the last 2 years of your life pointlessly promoting the ontological viewpoint which is held by 90% of the worlds mystics? If you do not want to go to the self-sacrificial effort of overcoming your own EGO i.e. your thoughts, desires and emotions then nobody is forcing you to do so. YOU, however, are trying to force everybody and anybody to subscribe to an idealistic philosophy which logically leads to the exact same denial-of-ego that you paraphrase as "turning oneself into a zombie" and which you are so clearly incapable of, evidenced by your unbelievable level of egotistical self-importance.

You are the most hypocritical person I have ever encountered, by a very long way. I can't believe that you still don't understand the problem I have explained to you yet again in this post. A child could understand it.

If you are going to argue that physical reality is an illusion and God is the ISNESS of all being, then you cannot argue that emotions, desires and thoughts are not also an illusion. The problem with materialism is that it is missing the ISNESS. It is NOT missing the emotions, desires and thoughts. Yet you are trying to use anti-materialistic arguments to claim God has emotions and thoughts, and that these are real! DOH! :D

Your argument would only work if you could demonstrate why we should believe that emotions and thoughts can exist without there being any physical correlate for them - that thoughts don't need brains. I am afraid that such a claim flies square in the face of all the available scientific evidence. We have no reason to believe there can be thoughts without a brain. None of the arguments against materialism claim that subjective experiences are not even correlates of brain activity. They argue that they are not identical to brain activity. Why don't you understand this? :(

Acrimonious

10th May 2004, 07:42 AM

Originally posted by JustGeoff

Or do you think God has his own brain?
His stance on this issue has already been made. Check out my sig line.

Here's the original post it came from: Lifegazer on his brainless God (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870318777#post1870318777)

UndercoverElephant

10th May 2004, 07:57 AM

Originally posted by Acrimonious

His stance on this issue has already been made. Check out my sig line.

Here's the original post it came from: Lifegazer on his brainless God (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870318777#post1870318777)

So even though human thoughts and emotions and desires are inextricably linked to human brains, lifegazers brainless God has thoughts, desires and emotions. At this point lifegazer appears to be completely at odds with both science and mysticism since both materialistic science and idealistic mysticism are quite clear on the fact that thoughts and desires are things which belong to humans, not the Supreme Being.

Lifegazer, your "philosophy" is nothing but a steaming pile of incomprehensible gibberish. :)

lifegazer

10th May 2004, 09:22 AM

Originally posted by JustGeoff
... are quite clear on the fact that thoughts and desires are things which belong to humans, not the Supreme Being.

Only God exists. There are no humans. There's just God, perceiving itself as human. Get back to me if you ever understand this.

UndercoverElephant

10th May 2004, 09:28 AM

Originally posted by lifegazer

Only God exists. There are no humans. There's just God, perceiving itself as human. Get back to me if you ever understand this.

What on Earth do you think is the point in a philosophy that outright denies the existence of human beings? :D

If this is truly what you mean to say, then it really is original. Many philosophers before you have claimed that the physical world was rooted in the mental world, but none claimed that the physical world (and humans) had no existence. Truly original and completely and utterly useless!

If there are no humans then why the f*** are you here trying to get these non-existent humans to share your absurd belief in their own non-existence?

Hey everybody! Our problems are solved! Humans don't exist! All hail the great philosopher! :rolleyes:

lifegazer

10th May 2004, 09:38 AM

Originally posted by JustGeoff

What on Earth do you think is the point in a philosophy that outright denies the existence of human beings? :D

If this is truly what you mean to say, then it really is original. Many philosophers before you have claimed that the physical world was rooted in the mental world, but none claimed that the physical world (and humans) had no existence. Truly original and completely and utterly useless!

If there are no humans then why the f*** are you here trying to get these non-existent humans to share your absurd belief in their own non-existence?

Hey everybody! Our problems are solved! Humans don't exist! All hail the great philosopher! :rolleyes:
I do not deny you - or anyone - the actuality of their existence. I merely try to explain to you that you are not who you perceive yourself to be.
If you don't understand the implications of this knowledge, then fine. But do not pretend that there aren't any.
Personal suffering is a real experience. Though everything in the world can be unveiled as illusory, the veracity of our feelings cannot.
Only a realisation of what I am talking about can spare God the catastrophe of a hellish experience.

Atlas

10th May 2004, 11:38 AM

Originally posted by lifegazer
Though everything in the world can be unveiled as illusory, the veracity of our feelings cannot.Everything is illusory except some things?

Originally posted by lifegazer
Only a realisation of what I am talking about can spare God the catastrophe of a hellish experience. And where does this come from. Surely it's your own imagined horror. If one cannot know the mind of God because of one's limited existence, ie. the veracity of our feelings... why threaten people with Armageddon.

Why not assume God will just "change your mind." Everything would simply wink off and a new immaterial illusion could wink on and this time only Invisible Happy Pink Unicorns would think they exist.

This Armageddon is the most bizarre aspect of of your illogical philosophy. Have you ever explained how it came to you and why it is true?

Beleth

10th May 2004, 12:52 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer
To be the perceiver of personal qualities, requires self-awareness and that the perceiver has those qualities..This is a conclusion on your part which you have not yet proven.

To have desires, thoughts & emotions, depends upon what is within you - not without. The perception of distance between illusory objects has nothing to do with this.Why not? How is "location" not a personal quality?

You don't understand my philosophy, for if you did, you'd realise that there is no "we" - there is only the perception of being us... had by God itself.
"We" experience nothing. "We" are the experience.Oh, I understand the basics of it well enough. When I say "we" I mean "the experiences that think of themselves as 'we'." And those experiences cannot possibly have any useful knowledge of the Experiencer, either gleaned through reason or through sensory input.

Your God simply lies beyond reasoning ability of His experiences, including any which would prove He exists. I know that this is an unappealing conclusion for you, yet it is one which your philosophy inevitably demands.

Biblical literalists are dummies.And people who interpret the Bible to suit their own agenda are bound for Hell. (yawn)

Easy. Man has misconstrued the words of the bible. Just like yourself. Man, as in, "God's experiences"? Are you saying that God Himself is misconstruing the Bible?

Oh yeah, and please, point out to me where I, personally, have misconstrued the Bible.

UndercoverElephant

10th May 2004, 01:16 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer
I do not deny you - or anyone - the actuality of their existence. I merely try to explain to you that you are not who you perceive yourself to be.

So you do not deny "the actuality of my existence"?

Then why earlier today did you post :

Only God exists. There are no humans. Get back to me if you ever understand this

How can anyone with a working brain possibly understand you? One moment you insist that "Only God exists. There are no humans", and you patronise me for "not understanding this." The next moment you say "I do not deny you your existence?".

Of course we cannot understand you. You are directly contradicting yourself.

Now, let's try again : do humans exist or do they not exist?

Only a realisation of what I am talking about can spare God the catastrophe of a hellish experience.

So why are you having such a hellish experience?

Gestahl

12th May 2004, 09:47 AM

Originally posted by JustGeoff

Of course we cannot understand you. You are directly contradicting yourself.

Now, let's try again : do humans exist or do they not exist?

I think LG was just speaking in different frames of reference. Humans do not exist per se as we perceive them, only as illusory figments of a super-mind that is The Solipsist. They do have an ultimate ontological existence.

I still do not see, however, how experiences relating to the "extermal world" are to be in doubt, while our experiences relating about our "internal world" should not be, if what LG claims is true and the "I" does not truly exist. How are we to know that the emotions given by LG's God are not false, like the sensations that appear to posit a consistent external reality are.

UndercoverElephant

12th May 2004, 04:18 PM

Originally posted by Gestahl

I think LG was just speaking in different frames of reference. Humans do not exist per se as we perceive them, only as illusory figments of a super-mind that is The Solipsist. They do have an ultimate ontological existence.

His frame of reference was the original question I asked him, not what he chose to turn it into.

Geoff : "Science and mysticism are in agreement that thoughts and desires are things which belong to humans, not the Supreme Being."

Lifegazer : "Human beings don't exist. There are no humans, only God."

He used "human beings don't exist" as a means of dodging the question about subjective thoughts correlating with physical brain events. Trying to claim that "humans don't exist' makes no sense in the frame of reference he was using it. He has to switch the frame of reference to escape the logic.

lifegazer

12th May 2004, 04:47 PM

Originally posted by JustGeoff
"I do not deny you - or anyone - the actuality of their existence. I merely try to explain to you that you are not who you perceive yourself to be."

- So you do not deny "the actuality of my existence"?
Then why earlier today did you post : "Only God exists. There are no humans. Get back to me if you ever understand this."

Are you trying to make yourself appear unintelligent?
Clearly, I'm trying to tell "you" that you are God, lost within the perception (dream, if you like) of being Geoff.

How can anyone with a working brain possibly understand you? One moment you insist that "Only God exists. There are no humans", and you patronise me for "not understanding this." The next moment you say "I do not deny you your existence?".

I'm talking to you as Geoff because that's who you think you are. I'm presenting myself as lifegazer, because that's who you think I am.
Wake up. Time's running out.

Now, let's try again : do humans exist or do they not exist?

No. Only God exists. However, the perception (belief) of being human also exists.

In effect, my philosophy reduces the human experience to a [complex] dream being had by God.

billydkid

12th May 2004, 05:16 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer

Wake up. Time's running out.

Oh please. You are well and truly a jackass. How on earth have you been able to kid yourself that you have unearthed some earth shattering enlightenment that manages to escape all of the rest of us slobs? You can not really believe that what you say is really substantially meaningful. Life will go on as it always has and none of your insights or "discoveries" will amount to anything other than some marginal person spouting BS on an internet forum. "This is the dawning of the age of aquarius, the age of aquarius...." You don't want to be casting your pearls here among all of us swine. Here you are offering your gems of enlightenment to all us dimwitted bottom dwellers - creatures who crawl under rocks for safety and into the sun for warmth - and we can't even appreciate it. Just like Christ himself - so misunderstood, offering priceless wisdom and salvation. If only you could get through to us. If only you could show us the light and the way. So noble, so heroic.

lifegazer

12th May 2004, 05:30 PM

Originally posted by billydkid
Oh please. You are well and truly a jackass. How on earth have you been able to kid yourself that you have unearthed some earth shattering enlightenment that manages to escape all of the rest of us slobs? You can not really believe that what you say is really substantially meaningful. Life will go on as it always has and none of your insights or "discoveries" will amount to anything other than some marginal person spouting BS on an internet forum. "This is the dawning of the age of aquarius, the age of aquarius...." You don't want to be casting your pearls here among all of us swine. Here you are offering your gems of enlightenment to all us dimwitted bottom dwellers - creatures who crawl under rocks for safety and into the sun for warmth - and we can't even appreciate it. Just like Christ himself - so misunderstood, offering priceless wisdom and salvation. If only you could get through to us. If only you could show us the light and the way. So noble, so heroic.
I'm not exactly sure what this means. Are you apologising for being completely stupid?
I forgive you.

Filippo Lippi

13th May 2004, 02:41 AM

How about that evidence you promised us?

lifegazer

13th May 2004, 03:10 AM

Originally posted by Fillipo Lippi
How about that evidence you promised us?
I must show that science is biased. I must change the mindset of skeptics before I show them my philosophy. I'm sorry, but that is what I am concentrating on right now. I've been diverted to Tom's thread because he presented some formal logic that needed adressing.

Upchurch

13th May 2004, 05:32 AM

Originally posted by lifegazer

I must show that science is biased. I must change the mindset of skeptics before I show them my philosophy. I'm sorry, but that is what I am concentrating on right now. I've been diverted to Tom's thread because he presented some formal logic that needed adressing. You keep saying that you have to focus on your "science is biased" thread, but you spend all your time in other threads saying that you have to focus on the thread you aren't really working on.

*sniff*

Iacchus

13th May 2004, 05:45 AM

Originally posted by lifegazer

Only God exists. There are no humans. There's just God, perceiving itself as human. Get back to me if you ever understand this. Technically this correct if, in fact God exists. And it would be tantamount to saying energy was the basis for everything, in which case there is nothing original about us but engergy. However, if you fail to make any distinctions beyond that then you're mistaken, otherwise we would have just pure energy without form. :)

Filippo Lippi

13th May 2004, 06:54 AM

Upchurch

13th May 2004, 07:20 AM

Originally posted by Fillipo Lippi

So, no actual proof then? Well, it depends on the type of proof you want.

From what lifegazer has said, I think he is very prepared to provide subjective proof. That is, if you can just accept his premises as true, then I think he feels he can prove what he saying. He'd almost be correct, if it weren't for his arguments' internal contradictions, which have been documented all over this board. In short, if you believe that he is right, he can prove it to you.

Now, it is a different story when it comes to absolute, or objective, proof. That is, proof that is self-evident regardless of the biases, beliefs, or perspectives of the people involved. Despite his claims of absolute truth, lifegazer hasn't even tried to provide absolute proof. I'm guessing that's because he doesn't have any and is too scared to admit it.

But that's only a guess.

Filippo Lippi

13th May 2004, 07:41 AM

In short, if you believe that he is right, he can prove it to you.

Yes, that was the conclusion I had reached too.

Iacchus

13th May 2004, 09:29 AM

So, exactly what kind of proof are we looking for here? The proof that God exists? If so, meaning this is the only true issue here, then I suggest lifegazer has held up rather well, in spite of all your criticisms. ;)

Upchurch

13th May 2004, 09:31 AM

Originally posted by Iacchus
So, exactly what kind of proof are we looking for here? The proof that God exists?ACtually, I'd be happy if he started with proof that the physical world doesn't exist. We've gotten nada from him so far...

Iacchus

13th May 2004, 09:49 AM

Originally posted by Upchurch

ACtually, I'd be happy if he started with proof that the physical world doesn't exist. We've gotten nada from him so far... Well it would be easier to accept if he meant it in the figurative sense which, is no doubt how I look at it. Of course once we die, it would be as if we (our identity) were never here if, in fact there were no afterlife. So what would your identity have been all about then, if not some facet of something else? ... i.e., God.

Upchurch

13th May 2004, 09:56 AM

Originally posted by Iacchus
Well it would be easier to accept if he meant it in the figurative sense which, is no doubt how I look at it.If he meant it in a figurative sense, there would be nothing to prove or disprove.

Donks

13th May 2004, 10:00 AM

Originally posted by Upchurch
ACtually, I'd be happy if he started with proof that the physical world doesn't exist. We've gotten nada from him so far...

I don't agree with Lifegazer in the slightest, but still you have to be fair. You're asking him to prove a negative. I don't have to dig up quotes from many people here saying or implying that can't be done, do I?

Iacchus

13th May 2004, 10:05 AM

Originally posted by Upchurch

If he meant it in a figurative sense, there would be nothing to prove or disprove. Except that God does exist, right? Otherwise I don't see why he's wasting his time?

Upchurch

13th May 2004, 10:12 AM

Originally posted by Donks

I don't have to dig up quotes from many people here saying or implying that can't be done, do I? Although that isn't always true, you are correct.

My statement should be more correctly phrased this way, "I'd be happy if he started with proof that it is, by necessity, impossible that a physical world is the cause of sensation."

Upchurch

13th May 2004, 10:13 AM

Originally posted by Iacchus
Except that God does exist, right?Who can say for certain? And how would they know for certain? Otherwise I don't see why he's wasting his time? Honestly, me either.

Atlas

13th May 2004, 11:10 AM

Originally posted by Iacchus
Except that God does exist, right? Otherwise I don't see why he's wasting his time? He says he's compelled to argue here to so that God does not experience Armageddon. That is, we are the experiences of God and if we don't start having "better" experiences the whole set of experiences is going to blow up in God's "face". We don't ever get a glimpse, as far as I know, how lifegazer came to that conclusion. It seems an afterthought.

That is, his subjective idealism yields the same result as atheism in a critical regard. No afterlife for us (because we don't exist.) Our experience dies when every other experience of us admits we are dead.

For some reason this caused lifegazer some extreme cognitive dissonance and he jumped from the non interacting experiencer to the interventionist deity about to unleash Armageddon just so He can experience that - It's a weird kind of punishment I guess.

All His experiences are destined to "die" anyway but lifegazer believes that God is threatening His experiences with a "death" that God really doesn't want to have to deliver unto Himself.

In some way I believe lifegazer must have come to the conclusion of the Interventionist Destroyer God of Armageddon to support his idea of the God of all Existence. Only God is, after all. But we must know that He is and we know this from His acts. There are only 3 - Creation, Maintenance, Destruction.

The Creation is not real. Matter doesn't exist. Only God exists and the experience of matter. This delusion is maintained by the whim and will of God as dreamlike experiences that have one superpower - their weird ability to have a sub-experience of "will" to stave off Destruction by exhibiting Utopian Love. Nothing is really gained - no reward - no afterlife. Just a fuzzy feeling that if we work toward Utopia maybe we'll escape Armageddon.

We are little more than feedback loops existing to plead for continuance. What makes it totally bizarre is lifegazer's insistence that we don't really exist. I can't count the times he typed those nonexistent words into his nonexistent keyboard.

OK, I'm done. I think lifegazer blended the ideas of Eastern and Western religions into an illogical and pointless philosophy that offers nothing to anyone except an occasion for argument.

Upchurch

13th May 2004, 11:14 AM

Your skill with language never ceases to amaze me, Atlas. Remind me never to get into a debate with you.

Iacchus

13th May 2004, 12:00 PM

Originally posted by Atlas

OK, I'm done. I think lifegazer blended the ideas of Eastern and Western religions into an illogical and pointless philosophy that offers nothing to anyone except an occasion for argument. Actually, most of the time I can follow what he's saying --and yes, he does appear to be talking about God -- so long as I don't take this one thing too literally. Albeit it does say in the Bible, "That unless you lay down your life (ego life), you shall surely lose it." So whose life is it in that sense if, it espouses picking up the life of God?

Atlas

13th May 2004, 01:22 PM

Originally posted by Upchurch
Your skill with language never ceases to amaze me, Atlas. Remind me never to get into a debate with you. You know how to flatter, Upchurch. :) I'm not the match in critical thinking of you and many others around here. Any debate between us would most likely end with me saying -- Geez, I didn't think of that.

Thanks, I appreciate the compliment.
Originally posted by Iacchus
Actually, most of the time I can follow what he's saying --and yes, he does appear to be talking about God -- so long as I don't take this one thing too literally. Albeit it does say in the Bible, "That unless you lay down your life (ego life), you shall surely lose it." So whose life is it in that sense if, it espouses picking up the life of God? I do think there is something to the "dying to self" idea promoted by religionists. I think when one puts a spouse's wellbeing ahead of one's own, good things happen and life has an enhanced "meaning". This is also true for parents putting the wellbeing of their children ahead of their own. The meaning of life is enhanced in the subjugation of ego in this regard.

I even think that, occasionally, fasting enhances one's "spiritual" state. I think that many human states of "spiritual" awareness are in some ways connected to the idea of "dying to self". I've written some of my thoughts on these pages in the past.

But ego is also a good thing. We should see ourselves as more than snail snot in the eyes of our creator. Those who have a positive self image generally are able to contribute more to society. Those with a negative image of themselves as sinners who need self mutilation and suffering to purify themselves generally need more attention - they supply less to society than they take, IMO.

Lifegazer, to me, is like so many other authoritarian types. He seeks to convince us that we have a problem that is really, really bad... Armageddon in this case. We must gives up our "selfish" ways and live in peace with one another. That's his solution, which he presents arrogantly. His ego will not be satisfied until we knuckle under to his truth. He's certainly no Buddha or Jesus in his presentation. He comes off more like the Jonathan Edwards (1703-1758) of Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God (http://www.visi.com/~contra_m/ab/je_sinners.html) fame. <blockquote> There are the black clouds of God's wrath now hanging directly over your heads, full of the dreadful storm, and big with thunder; and were it not for the restraining hand of God they would immediately burst forth upon you. The sovereign pleasure of God, for the present, stays His rough wind, otherwise it would come with fury; and your destruction would come like a whirlwind, and would be like the chaff of the summer threshing-floor. </blockquote> Ok, he's not that articulate. But when you boil down his message is the same old "Believe in me or suffer greatly" crap that authoritarians have always invoked. One suspects that the angry arrogance of lifegazer would give way to violence on the heads of unbelievers if he had the wherewithal to deliver such a purging, purifying flame.

Iacchus

13th May 2004, 02:01 PM

One way or another we all have to struggle with our own puniness now don't we? Perhaps it might be better if we all just looked at it that way? ;) So in that sense I don't see lifegazer doing anything differently than anyone else around here.

Wudang

14th May 2004, 04:15 AM

Originally posted by Iacchus
One way or another we all have to struggle with our own puniness now don't we? Perhaps it might be better if we all just looked at it that way? ;) So in that sense I don't see lifegazer doing anything differently than anyone else around here.

Really? Some of us try to be honest when we do so. Both with others and ourselves.

UndercoverElephant

14th May 2004, 08:43 AM

Originally posted by lifegazer

Are you trying to make yourself appear unintelligent?

*YAWN*

No lifegazer, I am trying to make sense of the illogical mess which you call a belief system. :(

Clearly, I'm trying to tell "you" that you are God, lost within the perception (dream, if you like) of being Geoff.

And it is more irrelevant claptrap which is designed as a means of avoiding answering the actual question, as normal.

I'm talking to you as Geoff because that's who you think you are. I'm presenting myself as lifegazer, because that's who you think I am.

To get back to the point you are dodging :

DO HUMANS EXIST OR DON'T THEY EXIST!? :D

BOO! :D

Wake up. Time's running out.

Zzzzzzzzzz.

No. Only God exists.

In effect, my philosophy reduces the human experience to a [complex] dream being had by God.

Whoopie Doo! You really believe you are the first person to say this don't you? :rolleyes:

lifegazer

15th May 2004, 05:15 PM

Originally posted by JustGeoff
DO HUMANS EXIST OR DON'T THEY EXIST!? :D

I've already addressed this question. Humans do NOT really exist EXCEPT as perceived within the awareness of A Mind.

Everything that you think you are, is judged via what you perceive/sense within "A Mind".
Thus, your humanity is merely a perception occuring within your Mind.

If you want to know who you really are, you have to contemplate the essential nature of your Mind, rather than the "things" existing within its perception.
Comprendez-vous?

Yahweh

15th May 2004, 05:26 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer
I've already addressed this question. Humans do NOT really exist EXCEPT as perceived within the awareness of A Mind.
Bob is hit on the head with an oversized cartoonish wooden mallet, his unconscious body is dragged into room.

The room is empty, except for one camera fixed on ol' comatose Bob.

In another room, Steve is watching Bob on a closed-circuit camera.

Does Bob exist?

No, because Bob is not being percieved by a mind (unless of course you believe the camera is a mind). All Steve sees is a graphical representation of Bob on his computer screen, he is not perceiving Bob at all.

Is it possible for Bob, being a bit nonexistent, to wake up and percieve his own existence? No, that wouldnt follow as logically coherent. Poor Bob.

lifegazer

15th May 2004, 05:32 PM

Everything you just mentioned described what was perceived by A MIND.

Iacchus

15th May 2004, 07:02 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer

Everything you just mentioned described what was perceived by A MIND. This mind you're referring to here is none other than consciousness isn't it, right? Indeed, how would we even know we exist without consciousness? So in that respect, our existence emanates from within our minds. ;)

Atlas

15th May 2004, 08:08 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus
This mind you're referring to here is none other than consciousness isn't it, right? Indeed, how would we even know we exist without consciousness? So in that respect, our existence emanates from within our minds. ;) Iacchus, that is not the only respect. The wooden mallet in Yahweh's example has no consciousness, nor does a fire. Yet the mallet exists in a respect real enough to knock you out even if you are not looking at it. And a fire will burn you whether or not you are conscious.

So whether something knows it exists is hardly the only valid criterion for evaluating whether it exists.

Lifegazer,

look again at Yahweh's example. It has several perspectives on your nonexistent human, ie Bob. Isn't there an equal amount of reality to being Bob, conscious or unconscious? Does "being" cease for Bob if Steve's Mind doesn't perceive him on the monitor? Would Bob have more "being" if Steve is looking at the "real" body in the same room as the unconscious Bob - and less "being" when he only gets an televised image? When we watch old movies with dead actors on TV are the as real as they were when they actually walked among us? Your statement about A Mind did not really clear any of that up.

Iacchus

15th May 2004, 11:43 PM

Originally posted by Atlas

Iacchus, that is not the only respect. The wooden mallet in Yahweh's example has no consciousness, nor does a fire. Yet the mallet exists in a respect real enough to knock you out even if you are not looking at it. And a fire will burn you whether or not you are conscious. Yes, and if it wasn't for the conscious cartoonist which created the cartoon in the first place? Isn't this in effect what lifegazer was just saying? ... that it was perceived by A MIND.

So whether something knows it exists is hardly the only valid criterion for evaluating whether it exists.Yes, but how do you know? :D Can't you see, that consciousness is the only criteria we have for determining whether anything exists? Indeed, how would we know? There wouldn't be a damn thing to tell us about it now would there? And, if that's the case, it kind of leads me to wonder if consciousness isn't some sort of super-entity which exists all about? Something besides us humans has to define what existence is all about doesn't it? What's to keep a rock from becoming a cloud if there wasn't some sort of definition to separate the two? Something must be aware of something else in order to allow such a definition to arise. And isn't this in fact what consciousness does, gives definition to or, at the very least acknowledges that definition in what we see? So maybe by virtue of the fact that we're conscious makes us that much closer to the original mind which created the whole she-bang in the first place?

Iacchus

16th May 2004, 12:19 AM

lifegazer

16th May 2004, 04:29 AM

Originally posted by Atlas
Lifegazer,

look again at Yahweh's example. It has several perspectives on your nonexistent human, ie Bob. Isn't there an equal amount of reality to being Bob, conscious or unconscious? Does "being" cease for Bob if Steve's Mind doesn't perceive him on the monitor? Would Bob have more "being" if Steve is looking at the "real" body in the same room as the unconscious Bob - and less "being" when he only gets an televised image?
Only A Mind can perceive itself as being 'Bob'.
Only A Mind can perceive another "thing" called Bob.

Bob is not The One doing the perceiving.
Bob is the perception, always.

Dancing David

16th May 2004, 06:41 AM

Originally posted by Iacchus
One way or another we all have to struggle with our own puniness now don't we? Perhaps it might be better if we all just looked at it that way? ;) So in that sense I don't see lifegazer doing anything differently than anyone else around here.

Human occupy the middle kingdom lifegazer, we are not puny, we are in between, we are very large compared to a virus. We are in the middle of the physical world.

Dancing David

16th May 2004, 06:42 AM

Originally posted by lifegazer

Only A Mind can perceive itself as being 'Bob'.
Only A Mind can perceive another "thing" called Bob.

Bob is not The One doing the perceiving.
Bob is the perception, always.

You just assume that you can't prove it , nanny nanny boo boo!

scribble

16th May 2004, 08:23 AM

Well, ****. I guess Bob's not one of those folks who can say "Cogito, ergo sum," eh?

Poor Bob. I wonder what it would feel like to be him.

Iacchus

16th May 2004, 08:33 AM

Unconscious perhaps? :D

lifegazer

16th May 2004, 09:45 AM

Originally posted by scribble
Well, f**k. I guess Bob's not one of those folks who can say "Cogito, ergo sum," eh?

Poor Bob. I wonder what it would feel like to be him.
Actually, the entity/Mind which perceives itself as Bob says "Cogito, ergo sum".
My philosophy does not deny any entity its existence - it merely explains that the entity is much more than what it perceives of itself.

BoulderHead`

16th May 2004, 09:56 AM

Originally posted by lifegazer

Actually, the entity/Mind which perceives itself as Bob says "Cogito, ergo sum".
Even while it's unconscious?

UndercoverElephant

16th May 2004, 02:41 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer

I've already addressed this question. Humans do NOT really exist EXCEPT as perceived within the awareness of A Mind.

Flippity floppity flippity floppity. Now they exist. Now they don't. Now they exist. Now they don't.

You were asked about the direct correlation between physical brains and thoughts and emotions. In order to dodge the question you claimed that "humans don't exist". Now you are saying "they don't really exist." As normal, you have missed the point. It DOES NOT MATTER whether you believe that the physical world self-exists or whether it only exist within the mental realm : IT STILL EXISTS. Understand? No, not very likely. :)

Let's make it simple : It does not matter whether idealism is true or materialism is true or even both are false, it remains an inescapable scientific FACT that thoughts, emotions and desires, as subjectively experienced, correlate directly with physical brain processes. Even if you think idealism is true, it does not change these scientific facts. The physical world does not stop existing just because idealism is true. You understand nothing.

You must stick to ONE definition of "exists". You cannot have "exists" and "kind of exists/not really exists". Either something exists or it doesn't exist. This is precisely the sort of philosophical nonsense that people come out with when they have no understanding or knowledge of the subject. If you are going to try to do philosophy then you must define existence and stick to the definition, not continually wobble about. This subject is known as "ontology".

Comprendez-vous?

Don't talk to me in French, numbskull.

Beleth

16th May 2004, 02:42 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer
If you want to know who you really are, you have to contemplate the essential nature of your Mind, rather than the "things" existing within its perception.I can contemplate all I want, but without the ability to perceive acausal things, that's all it is - empty, meaningless contemplation.

By your own reckoning, I am unable to know anything at all about the Mind, including whether it actually exists or not. Your philosophy is therefore just a tapestry of guesswork. A very intricate, colorful tapestry, perhaps, but consisting entirely of guesswork all the same.

lifegazer

16th May 2004, 03:57 PM

Originally posted by JustGeoff
"I've already addressed this question. Humans do NOT really exist EXCEPT as perceived within the awareness of A Mind."

Flippity floppity flippity floppity. Now they exist. Now they don't. Now they exist. Now they don't.

Show me where I have said that humans really do exist. It's your understanding which is "flippity floppity", not my philosophy.

You were asked about the direct correlation between physical brains and thoughts and emotions. In order to dodge the question you claimed that "humans don't exist". Now you are saying "they don't really exist."

"They don't exist" and "They don't really exist", actually mean the same thing - "really" just adds emphasis to the fact.

As normal, you have missed the point. It DOES NOT MATTER whether you believe that the physical world self-exists or whether it only exist within the mental realm : IT STILL EXISTS. Understand? No, not very likely. :)

Dreams exist too. But the "things" therein are no more real than the "[sensed-]things" within your ordered awareness.
The point being that those "things" do not really exist, except as figments of your sensory-awareness and belief.

Let's make it simple : It does not matter whether idealism is true or materialism is true or even both are false, it remains an inescapable scientific FACT that thoughts, emotions and desires, as subjectively experienced, correlate directly with physical brain processes.

Would that be the "physical brain processes" as observed within your senses, by any chance? Of course it is.

Even if you think idealism is true, it does not change these scientific facts.

Those "scientific facts" you're harping-on about, refer to the order present amongst the sensed-things of our awareness. Remember that.

The physical world does not stop existing just because idealism is true. You understand nothing.

The perception of a physical-world is most-definitely real. But if idealism is true, the only real and significant aspect of everything is The Mind itself.

You must stick to ONE definition of "exists". You cannot have "exists" and "kind of exists/not really exists". Either something exists or it doesn't exist. This is precisely the sort of philosophical nonsense that people come out with when they have no understanding or knowledge of the subject. If you are going to try to do philosophy then you must define existence and stick to the definition, not continually wobble about. This subject is known as "ontology".

I haven't wobbled one iota. Read my philosophy more often - you'll never see a sentence where I state that humans are truly real. In fact, you'll never see a sentence where I say that any "thing" is truly real.
Read the reason & observation thread and contemplate the distinction I make between the sense of a thing and the reality of a thing.
Seriously Geoff, if you want to criticise my philosophy, you need to make an effort to understand it.

Beleth

16th May 2004, 09:25 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer
[Y]ou'll never see a sentence where I say that any "thing" is truly real.Your quotation marks around the word thing couldn't be more telling about the flaw in your logic.

Is anything real?

Is any "thing" real?

If your answers to those two questions are different, you need to explain that difference, without using the word "thing" in quotation marks to mean what the rest of us use the word illusion to mean.

UndercoverElephant

17th May 2004, 02:49 AM

Originally posted by lifegazer

Show me where I have said that humans really do exist.

Right here, dickhead.

"I do not deny you - or anyone - the actuality of their existence. I merely try to explain to you that you are not who you perceive yourself to be."

The first post in page 2 of this thread you said :

"I do not deny you - or anyone - the actuality of their existence."

If the only existence you grant me is that "I am God" and "everyone is God" then you are denying me my existence..

I repeat. You must provide ONE DEFINITION ONLY of the word "exists". You cannot have "exist", "really exists" and "does not really exists". Existence = reality, you little prick. There is no difference between "existing" and "really exist". If you are real, then you exist. Dickhead.

It's your understanding which is "flippity floppity", not my philosophy.

You are a prick.

"They don't exist" and "They don't really exist", actually mean the same thing - "really" just adds emphasis to the fact.

No dickface, it adds nothing. It doesn't mean anything.

Dreams exist too. But the "things" therein are no more real than the "[sensed-]things" within your ordered awareness.
The point being that those "things" do not really exist, except as figments of your sensory-awareness and belief.

So you think the physical world has no more existence than a dream, is that what you are saying?

If so, go away and be a solipsist.

Would that be the "physical brain processes" as observed within your senses, by any chance? Of course it is.

No, dickface. Physical brain processes are never "observed within my senses". Physical brain processes are abstract scientific concepts which are never directly observed at all. They are inferred from what we know from our sensory input, with reason applied to it. The fact that we have no direct knowledge of the physical world does not mean the physical world has no existence. Again, if you had any real knowledge of philosophy whatsoever, you would know this.

Those "scientific facts" you're harping-on about, refer to the order present amongst the sensed-things of our awareness. Remember that.

I have NOTHING to learn from you. You are a jumped-up little prick. You know nothing.

The perception of a physical-world is most-definitely real. But if idealism is true, the only real and significant aspect of everything is The Mind itself.

Nope, dickhead. You do not understand idealism. The fact that you are still amazed and overwhelmed by the very idea of it does not mean everybody else has to be so. Most people get over their amazement and actually go and read what has been written on the subject. In your case, you don't understand that this is OLD NEWS and you are trying to convince everybody that you are the first person to think of it.

GO AND READ ABOUT KANT, HEGEL AND SCHOPENHAUER, IN THAT ORDER.

Seriously Geoff, if you want to criticise my philosophy, you need to make an effort to understand it. [/B]

Sorry, but......

:dl:

UndercoverElephant

17th May 2004, 02:52 AM

Originally posted by Beleth
Your quotation marks around the word thing couldn't be more telling about the flaw in your logic.

Is anything real?

Is any "thing" real?

If your answers to those two questions are different, you need to explain that difference, without using the word "thing" in quotation marks to mean what the rest of us use the word illusion to mean.

He hasn't got a clue, and cannot explain the difference. Existence = Reality. They are the same thing. Reality is "what exists". Except in lifegazers sad little world, where his ground-breaking philosophy consists of some things which "exist, but not really" and other things which "exist, and really exist".

What a pile of dog crap.

UndercoverElephant

17th May 2004, 04:17 AM

One more time I will try to get through.

Lifegazer,

Whenever you are pushed to explain yourself you end up waving your arms and basically saying :

"But you don't understand! Everything is MIND! All consciousness is one! We are all God. Isn't that an incredible idea?"

Yes, lifegazer, it is an incredible idea. What you do not seem to understand is that it is a very very old idea. You didn't think of it. In fact, your philosophy is a rather contorted and screwed up version of Berkeleys idealism, which was a reaction to the rise of Newtonian physics. In terms of academic philosophy this is ancient history. After Berkeley there have been several centuries of history, during which time this "amazing, incredible idea" that you think you are the first to come up with was examined from every conceivable angle. A great deal of highly complex work has been done in this area which is why people go to University to study it.

You aren't a philosopher. If you were, then you would be interested in learning about idealism and/or mysticism. But the truth is that you are not remotely interested in learning about it. All you are interested in is making yourself feel important. That is what is so sad about you : you have to deliberately keep yourself ignorant of academic philosophy and of mysticism because only if you remain ignorant of these things can you keep inflating your own sense of self-brilliance and genius.

You are the saddest wanker that has ever existed. Sorry for the language but that is exactly what you are, lifegazer. You are absorbed in self-love, proclaiming to be God. There is no better term for such a person than "wanker".

lifegazer

17th May 2004, 02:28 PM

Originally posted by JustGeoff
"Show me where I have said that humans really do exist."

Right here, Sir:

"I do not deny you - or anyone - the actuality of their existence. I merely try to explain to you that you are not who you perceive yourself to be."

The first post in page 2 of this thread you said :

"I do not deny you - or anyone - the actuality of their existence."

If the only existence you grant me is that "I am God" and "everyone is God" then you are denying me my existence..

You're not that bright are you Geoffrey son? If I say that you are God, I mean that you are not Geoffrey - and that you just perceive yourself as being Geoffrey.
Hence, I do not deny you the actuality of your existence... I merely awaken you from the delusion of thinking that you are Geoffrey.
I.e., you still exist, but now you know that you're not Geoff, but God thinking that it is Geoff.

Simple stuff Geoff. You need to concentrate more.

lifegazer

17th May 2004, 02:32 PM

Originally posted by Beleth
Your quotation marks around the word thing couldn't be more telling about the flaw in your logic.

Is anything real?

Is any "thing" real?

If your answers to those two questions are different, you need to explain that difference, without using the word "thing" in quotation marks to mean what the rest of us use the word illusion to mean.
Simple to answer. 'God' is not a "thing" in the sense that we understand things to be. "Things" are closed/finite systems or entities which exist (are defined) in relation to other things.
But God is not a closed/finite system and is not defined with relation to anything else. Indeed, God is absolute-existence.

Beleth

17th May 2004, 02:37 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer
'God' is not a "thing" in the sense that we understand things to be. "Things" are closed/finite systems or entities which exist (are defined) in relation to other things.
But God is not a closed/finite system and is not defined with relation to anything else.So God defies logic, then?

lifegazer

17th May 2004, 02:46 PM

Originally posted by Beleth
So God defies logic, then?
Not at all. God is absolute... "things" are relative. Pure logic.

UndercoverElephant

17th May 2004, 03:59 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer

You're not that bright are you Geoffrey son?

No. I'm a fool. Compared to the great philosophers I am a nothing. I am an ignorant dullard. My saving grace is that I am less of a wanker than you are.

Beleth

17th May 2004, 04:42 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer
Not at all. God is absolute... "things" are relative. Pure logic. But "things" obey logic, and God, as you have said many times before, is not a "thing".

There is one set of logical rules that apply to "things", and a different set that applies to God. This is what you have been, in essence, saying.

gentlehorse

17th May 2004, 04:57 PM

Originally posted by Beleth
But "things" obey logic, and God, as you have said many times before, is not a "thing".

There is one set of logical rules that apply to "things", and a different set that applies to God.

My guess at LG's response: The one set of logical rules that applies to "things" is God, or a characteristic thereof.

Atlas

17th May 2004, 08:41 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer
Not at all. God is absolute... "things" are relative. Pure logic. Of course, even this pure logic has a back door.

Everything is God according to you. God is existence. There is no "thing" that is not God. Hence, God is as relative as God is absolute.

(And the way you argue, "Absolute" is a very flexible concept.)

lifegazer

18th May 2004, 01:03 PM

Originally posted by JustGeoff
No. I'm a fool.

Given your record here for thinking that foul and abusive language - combined with ignoring my actual reasoning - constitutes meaningful debate, I have no choice than to agree with you.

Compared to the great philosophers I am a nothing. I am an ignorant dullard.

Who are the great philosophers? The ones you agree with?

lifegazer

18th May 2004, 01:11 PM

Originally posted by Beleth
But "things" obey logic, and God, as you have said many times before, is not a "thing".

There is one set of logical rules that apply to "things", and a different set that applies to God. This is what you have been, in essence, saying.
Logic encompasses both the relative and the absolute.
God is not a "thing" - God is the perceiver (and creator) of all things within Its own Mind/awareness. God is [absolute/all] existence. The "things" created/perceived by God are not the same as God itself. Indeed, those "sensed-things" aren't even real.

Is anything real?

Is any "thing" real?

... No. No "things" are real. But God is not a thing... yet God is real.

RandFan

18th May 2004, 01:54 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer
But God is not a thing... yet God is real.

God = real
God = existince
God = not-a-thing

Not a thing = nothing

thing ( P ) Pronunciation Key (thng)
n.
An entity, an idea, or a quality perceived, known, or thought to have its own existence. Which raises the question, what the hell are you talkin about?

RandFan

18th May 2004, 02:05 PM

re·al1 ( P ) Pronunciation Key (rl, rl)
adj.

Being or occurring in fact or actuality; having verifiable existence: real objects; a real illness.

ex·is·tence ( P ) Pronunciation Key (g-zstns)
n.

A thing that exists; an entity.

Dictionary
Real = Existence
Existence = Thing

Gazerism
God = Real
God = Not-a-thing
Thing = not a thing

Thing = x
x = not x

RandFan

18th May 2004, 02:18 PM

Your statement is logically false gazer.

Let P = God
Let Q = Existince
Let R = a thing.

P → Q
P → &sim;R
Q → R
…
&there4; Q → &sim;Q

Someone do a double check. And I don't mean you gazer.

lifegazer

18th May 2004, 04:02 PM

Originally posted by RandFan
Not a thing = nothing

False: Since "things" - as we understand them - are all relative finite/closed systems (as perceived).
My philosophy unveils "things" as unreal ~phantoms~ which exist within perception. Like dream-things. So "things" [as perceived] are actually not real.
So, "things" - as we understand them - don't even truly exist. Indeed, a "thing" is nothing in itself!!
God is not a closed/finite system/entity which exists within awareness. Nay, God is the entity which harbours the awareness of unreal things!!

Which raises the question, what the hell are you talkin about?
I'm distinguishing between the relative-unreality of [perceived] "things" and the absolute-source (absolute-existence) of their perception.

I can only take you to a new level if you open the door of the cage you are locked in.

lifegazer

18th May 2004, 04:16 PM

Originally posted by Atlas
Of course, even this pure logic has a back door.

Everything is God according to you. God is existence. There is no "thing" that is not God. Hence, God is as relative as God is absolute.

(And the way you argue, "Absolute" is a very flexible concept.)
If God alone is all that truly exists, then there is no real thing which is relative to that existence. Hence, God is the absoluteness of existence.
The relativity of "things" refers to the relations/order which exists between unreal-things within God's awareness.

Upchurch

18th May 2004, 04:18 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer

If God alone is all that truly exists, then ...I see an assumption. Care to back it up?

edited to add:
Or where you just speaking hypothetically?

lifegazer

18th May 2004, 04:31 PM

Originally posted by Upchurch
"If God alone is all that truly exists, then ..."

I see an assumption.
You didn't see any assumption, since I used the qualification of "If".

Care to back it up?

The point of this thread - apparently - is not to prove that God is existence - but to prove that such an axiom is not illogical in relation to any knowledge which we think we have.
I have made no efforts here to prove that my hypothesis is true. I've just been defending that hypothesis against the accusations that it cannot be true.

Upchurch

18th May 2004, 04:37 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer

I have made no efforts here to prove that my hypothesis is true. Ain't that the truth.

RandFan

18th May 2004, 06:38 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer
False: Since "things" - as we understand them - are all relative finite/closed systems (as perceived).
My philosophy unveils "things" as unreal ~phantoms~ which exist within perception. Like dream-things. So "things" [as perceived] are actually not real.
So, "things" - as we understand them - don't even truly exist. Indeed, a "thing" is nothing in itself!!
God is not a closed/finite system/entity which exists within awareness. Nay, God is the entity which harbours the awareness of unreal things!!

I'm distinguishing between the relative-unreality of [perceived] "things" and the absolute-source (absolute-existence) of their perception.

I can only take you to a new level if you open the door of the cage you are locked in. Your logic is invalid by its very form.

I'm not simply trying to be semantical. God either exists or he doesn't. If he exists then he is by definition an entity, a thing.

Beleth

18th May 2004, 06:40 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer
Logic encompasses both the relative and the absolute.I'm not sure what you mean when you use those two words, so I'm not sure how to respond to this statement. Logic encompasses a lot of things, granted, but there are things beyond what logic encompasses.
God is not a "thing" - God is the perceiver (and creator) of all things within Its own Mind/awareness.
The word you're looking for is "imaginer". God, according to your philosophy, is the imaginer of all things within it's own Mind. And that's a perfectly good axiom for a philosophy, as long as you realize that it is indeed an axiom, and not something that's provable. If you try to prove it, you end up proving either "God does not exist" or "God defies logic" instead.

These are the two cul-de-sacs idealist philosophers have found themselves in since the first idealist. Don't get me wrong - they are not necessarily bad conclusions, and materialist philosophers have gotten stuck in their own cul-de-sacs - but they are, frankly, rather unsatisfying conclusions, aren't they.

God is [absolute/all] existence. The "things" created/perceived by God are not the same as God itself. Indeed, those "sensed-things" aren't even real.

Is anything real?

Is any "thing" real?

... No. No "things" are real. But God is not a thing... yet God is real. So you answer those two questions differently (no "thing" is real, but God is real, therefore something is real), in which case you have violated my stipulation, which was to not use the term "thing" where you mean the term illusion.

According to you, everything we sense, including our own separateness and humanness, is an illusion. But God - "the Mind" - is not an illusion. God is the only thing, with no quotation marks, that there is. Is that right?

RandFan

18th May 2004, 06:48 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer
I can only take you to a new level if you open the door of the cage you are locked in. I have been into the rabbits hole and through the looking glass.

"For a complete logical argument," Arthur began with admirable solemnity, "we need two prim Misses--"

"Of course!" she interrupted. "I remember that word now. And they produce--?"

"A Delusion," said Arthur.

"Ye--es?" she said dubiously. "I don't seem to remember that so well. But what is the whole argument called?"

"A Sillygism?

"Ah, yes! I remember now. But I don't need a Sillygism, you know, to prove that mathematical axiom you mentioned."

"Nor to prove that 'all angles are equal', I suppose?"

"Why, of course not! One takes such a simple truth as that for granted!"

RandFan

18th May 2004, 10:40 PM

The problem dear gazer is that you are arguing as if we don't understand your thesis. On the contrary, as I have labored to instill an understanding on your part that many of us do indeed understand quite well your philosophy. In fact a number here likely understand it far better than you yourself do. You only have a narrow view of the landscape.

That is why many have encouraged you to seek education. You are like a kid who has discovered Newton and Euclid and you think that you have found the key to unlocking the secrets of the universe so you endeavor to open the minds of people who have a background in non-Euclidean Geometry and Relativity.

And you might have found the key (sadly you wouldn't be the first, see early Greek philosophers). But your lack of understanding and logical mistakes and poor comprehension suggests that it is unlikely. So, right or wrong we must pat you on the head.

Now don't get me wrong. Many of the people here could rightfully pat me on the head. But I have studied philosophy, in both an academic background and on my own. I understand what you don't. I know what you don't.

In your defense:

Marconi wasn't a scientist. When he suggested that Radio waves could cross the Atlantic the experts scoffed. He was one of many who intuitively understood what the scientists of the time did not.

You could be another Marconi lifegazer. My commitment to objectivity demands that I accept this possibility. Of course any of the posters here could just as likely be genius in their own right. But my own experience and understanding tells me that you are not the philosophical equivelant of Marconi.

However:

Experience and obersavtion tells me you are just a garden variety arm chair philosopher with an idea. And not a very good idea or unique idea at that. Your idea violates the rule of parsimony and offers us nothing at all to advance our understanding of life (existence), the universe, TLOP, or anything. It is just a fanciful idea. If my life is just an illusion I can't tell the difference. So whether I live my life as if it is an illusion or if it isn't an illusion makes no difference whatsoever.

Thanks anyway,

RandFan.

lifegazer

18th May 2004, 11:11 PM

Originally posted by RandFan
The problem dear gazer is that you are arguing as if we don't understand your thesis. On the contrary, as I have labored to instill an understanding on your part that many of us do indeed understand quite well your philosophy. In fact a number here likely understand it far better than you yourself do. You only have a narrow view of the landscape.

What a plonker you are. How can you claim to know my philosophy better than myself? LOLOL

That is why many have encouraged you to seek education. You are like a kid who has discovered Newton and Euclid and you think that you have found the key to unlocking the secrets of the universe so you endeavor to open the minds of people who have a background in non-Euclidean Geometry and Relativity.

I'm not a kid and you're waffling nonsense again. Why bother boring me with this crap? I'm not interested.
I wipe the floor with you when it comes to rational expression. So stop lecturing me about your opinion of my abilities.

And you might have found the key (sadly you wouldn't be the first, see early Greek philosophers). But your lack of understanding and logical mistakes and poor comprehension suggests that it is unlikely. So, right or wrong we must pat you on the head.

More irrelevant garbage.
Address what I have presented or clear off.

Now don't get me wrong. Many of the people here could rightfully pat me on the head. But I have studied philosophy, in both an academic background and on my own. I understand what you don't. I know what you don't.

You're having a laugh. You may have studied philosophy, but you haven't got a clue how to think for yourself.

In your defense:
But my own experience and understanding tells me that you are not the philosophical equivelant of Marconi.

No, I am greater. :D

Your idea violates the rule of parsimony

No it doesn't.
... The rule of parsimony dictates that we accept the simpler explanation over the more complex. But the fact of the matter is that you don't have any explanation for the experience that is you. I do. So, tell me your "simpler explanation" that we may accept it. But make sure it makes sense or I'll tear you (your philosophy) to shreds.

and offers us nothing at all to advance our understanding of life (existence), the universe, TLOP, or anything.

I see... so telling you that only God exists and that you are in fact God, is totally meaningless? LOL

lifegazer

18th May 2004, 11:16 PM

Originally posted by RandFan
God either exists or he doesn't. If he exists then he is by definition an entity, a thing.
"Things" are what we perceive within awareness. If you've been reading the reason & observation thread, you should understand that these sense-things are not in fact real. I.e., existence does not equate to thing-ness.

lifegazer

18th May 2004, 11:38 PM

Originally posted by Beleth
If you try to prove it, you end up proving either "God does not exist" or "God defies logic" instead.

No I don't. Logic has different things to say about different entities. God & things, are different entities.
"Things" are what we perceive within awareness. If you've been reading the reason & observation thread, you should understand that these sense-things are not in fact real. I.e., existence does not equate to thing-ness.
Until you understand this, you'll continue to make the same error.

So you answer those two questions differently (no "thing" is real, but God is real, therefore something is real), in which case you have violated my stipulation, which was to not use the term "thing" where you mean the term illusion.

God is God and things are things. God is not a thing.
So, no thing is real, but God is real, therefore God is real. [wrt the underlined bit, above]

I have been guilty, in the past, of saying things like "Something is having the experience of being me.". Since I deduce that this "thing" is in fact God, I actually need to change the word 'something' for another word which does not necessitate that a "thing" be the entity which is having the experience of being me. For as explained, God is not a thing. But this is just pedantry.

According to you, everything we sense, including our own separateness and humanness, is an illusion. But God - "the Mind" - is not an illusion. God is the only thing, with no quotation marks, that there is. Is that right?
No it's not right. God is not a thing.

RandFan

19th May 2004, 07:23 AM

Originally posted by lifegazer
What a plonker you are. How can you claim to know my philosophy better than myself? LOLOL First, I didn't say that I did. Learn reading comprehension. Second, simple, your philosophy is not fundamentally different than a number of philosophies that have been examined and documented for melenium.

I'm not a kid and you're waffling nonsense again. Why bother boring me with this crap? I'm not interested.
I wipe the floor with you when it comes to rational expression. So stop lecturing me about your opinion of my abilities. You make so many fundamental mistakes. Twice now you have made demonstrably illogical claims.

More irrelevant garbage.
Address what I have presented or clear off. I have. You just ignore it.

You're having a laugh. You may have studied philosophy, but you haven't got a clue how to think for yourself. Not worthy of a response.

No it doesn't.
... The rule of parsimony dictates that we accept the simpler explanation over the more complex. But the fact of the matter is that you don't have any explanation for the experience that is you. I do. So, tell me your "simpler explanation" that we may accept it. But make sure it makes sense or I'll tear you (your philosophy) to shreds. The order of the universe is what it is without mysterious forces or unexplained processes (god's mind).

You tell us NOTHING. "God did it" tells us nothing.

Ok Mr. smarts, tell us how "God's Mind" does what it does?

Tell us how the process works?

You CAN'T do it.

I see... so telling you that only God exists and that you are in fact God, is totally meaningless? LOL In a word, YES!

RandFan

19th May 2004, 07:36 AM

Originally posted by lifegazer
"Things" are what we perceive within awareness. If you've been reading the reason & observation thread, you should understand that these sense-things are not in fact real. I.e., existence does not equate to thing-ness. Oh really? You just make things up as you go along? How can you say that existince does not equate to thing-ness? What is your definition of a thing? And don't give me this mumbo-jumbo BS about closed entities?

thing ( P ) Pronunciation Key (thng)
n.
An entity, an idea, or a quality perceived, known, or thought to have its own existence. Existence is something. Hell, a thought is something.

Are you saying that god isn't physical? You desperately need an educations. God is a "thing", he might not be physical but he/she/it is, by definition, a "thing".

RandFan

19th May 2004, 08:00 AM

Originally posted by lifegazer
I have been guilty, in the past, of saying things like "Something is having the experience of being me.". Since I deduce that this "thing" is in fact God, I actually need to change the word 'something' for another word which does not necessitate that a "thing" be the entity which is having the experience of being me. For as explained, God is not a thing. But this is just pedantry. You do not need to change a thing (pun intended). It's just a word to convey meaning. A thing can be anything (again, intended) including metaphysical and abstract things.

God is not a thing. Not a thing = No thing = nothing. God is nothing.

If you had an education you might understand the difference between metaphysical and physical. The things you are talking about are physical and god is metaphysical. It would be much easier for you to use not-physical rather than not-a-thing since that is logically invalid. However, you are probably going to continue to argue that God is something (as opposed to nothing) but not-a-thing. :D

Logically invalid by form alone. But you don't even know what that means do you?

lifegazer

19th May 2004, 09:30 AM

Originally posted by RandFan
First, I didn't say that I did. Learn reading comprehension.

You said that some people understand my philosophy better than me. That's absurd.

Second, simple, your philosophy is not fundamentally different than a number of philosophies that have been examined and documented for melenium.

I never said it was. I'm not the first to say that God exists.

You make so many fundamental mistakes. Twice now you have made demonstrably illogical claims.

Where?

The order of the universe is what it is without mysterious forces or unexplained processes (god's mind).

That's not an explanation for the existence of perceived order within the awareness that is 'you', now is it? You can't sell this crap to me.

You tell us NOTHING. "God did it" tells us nothing.

It tells you that God did it. Hardly nothing. Indeed, the most significant fact ever to be realised.

Ok Mr. smarts, tell us how "God's Mind" does what it does?

The point of my philosophy is to unveil the absoluteness of existence (as God)... show that this entity is the primal-cause of all perceived things... show that 'man' is God thinking/believing that it is man... and to air the repercussions of this realisation to anyone that will listen.

Tell us how the process works?

You CAN'T do it.

Don't be so bleedin' stupid. Of course I (lifegazer) don't know how God creates a universe of sensed-things and the consequent awareness of being (believing myself to be) lifegazer.

In a word, YES!
You're a fool. If you think that unveiling the true identity of all men as God is meaningless/irrelevant, then you must have an exceedingly low IQ.

lifegazer

19th May 2004, 09:41 AM

Originally posted by RandFan
Oh really? You just make things up as you go along?

It's called employing reason to unveil truths.

How can you say that existince does not equate to thing-ness?

I've explained why already.

What is your definition of a thing? And don't give me this mumbo-jumbo BS about closed entities?

"Things" are closed-systems or finite-entities that exist within our awareness. They are really sensed-things.

Existence is something. Hell, a thought is something.

Really? Then send me a thought in the post. Not a piece of paper with ink on it - but a real thought. You can't do it because a thought is not a "thing" either. God and God's attributes are not the same as the "things" within our awareness. Fact.

Are you saying that god isn't physical? You desperately need an educations.

Of course God isn't physical. And what school is going to educate me about the physical-dimensions of God?!

God is a "thing", he might not be physical but he/she/it is, by definition, a "thing".
If God is different from the "things" perceived within Its awareness, then God is not the same as one of those "things". Why don't you engage your ability to reason for once and stop chirping the mantras that they taught you at infant school?

RandFan

19th May 2004, 10:13 AM

Originally posted by lifegazer
You said that some people understand my philosophy better than me. "I" and "some people" are not the same.

That's absurd. Not at all. By having a thorough understanding of the foundations of philosophy and all of the subtleties of different schools of thought and the the philosophies that are similar it is likely that one would understand your (by your I mean the philosophy you hold) much better than you

I never said it was. I'm not the first to say that God exists. That is right as well as the rest of your thesis.

Where? God exists but is not-a-thing = God exists but is nothing.

God is capable - and hence incapable - of all things.Both are logically invalid.

That's not an explanation for the existence of perceived order within the awareness that is 'you', now is it? You can't sell this crap to me. Well, let's see, big bang, evolution, abiogenesis. I don't need to add "god" to the mix to understand.

It tells you that God did it. Hardly nothing. Indeed, the most significant fact ever to be realised. How is that different than we are all just a computer algorythym? It's not!

The point of my philosophy is to unveil the absoluteness of existence (as God)... show that this entity is the primal-cause of all perceived things... show that 'man' is God thinking/believing that it is man... and to air the repercussions of this realisation to anyone that will listen. This doesn't tell anyone anything. It's just fanciful mythology. I can just as easily say that Zeus lives at the top of Mount Olympus and that fact is relevant to your life.

Don't be so bleedin' stupid. Of course I (lifegazer) don't know how God creates a universe of sensed-things...Then how on earth do you know it is true? Odd that you berate me for not being able to explain existence but it is ok for you to blithely say "god did it". and the consequent awareness of being (believing myself to be) lifegazer.You believe that you are lifegzer? I thought you knew that you werent.

You're a fool. If you think that unveiling the true identity of all men as God is meaningless/irrelevant, then you must have an exceedingly low IQ. It tells us nothing. It has roughly the same meaning as saying that there are magical invisible pink unicorns that will be angry and punish us if we don't belive in them.

If I make such a statement it doesn't advance our understanding at all. If I say that there are magical invisible frogs that hold the univers together or that the force in Star Wars is real it does not tell us anything. It's just a mythology without proof. It does not provide us with a foundation to understand existence just a blanket reason to lump everything into.

RandFan

19th May 2004, 10:35 AM

Originally posted by lifegazer
It's called employing reason to unveil truths. God exists but is not-a-thing is NOT reason.

I've explained why already. And I have shown why your explanation is logically inconsistent.

God's existence = nothing.

"Things" are closed-systems or finite-entities that exist within our awareness. They are really sensed-things. So concepts are not "things". Thoughts are not "things". Ideas are not things? Is love a thing?

Really? Then send me a thought in the post.[/b] I already did. You sensed my thought and to a degree you comprehended it. A concept is a thing. It is not physical. But it is real and it can be transfered from one person to another. It exists and it can be communicated that is why it is a thing, by defintion.

I know you ignore the dictionary definition because you are being obtuse.

thing ( P ) Pronunciation Key (thng)
n.
An entity, an idea , or a quality perceived, known, or thought to have its own existence.You should contact Websters and let them know that that things can't be ideas simply because you have redefined the word.

Not a piece of paper with ink on it - but a real thought. You can't do it because a thought is not a "thing" either. God and God's attributes are not the same as the "things" within our awareness. Fact. Hold on here, "things" are thoughts according to you!

I have to repeat that. Things are thoughts according to you. So my thoughts are the same as paper with ink on it. My thought is percieved and the paper and ink are thoughts. You can't even keep your philosophy straight.

Of course God isn't physical. And what school is going to educate me about the physical-dimensions of God?! And what school is going to educate me about the physical-dimensions of things that don't exist?

If God is different from the "things" perceived within Its awareness, then God is not the same as one of those "things". That is NOT what you have been saying. You have said that god is not-a-thing. Of course things don't exist anyway. Not-a-thing = no thing = nothing.

God is nothing. We can agree on that.

Why don't you engage your ability to reason for once and stop chirping the mantras that they taught you at infant school? Why don't you learn some simple logic.

Beleth

19th May 2004, 10:37 AM

Originally posted by lifegazer

No I don't. Logic has different things to say about different entities. God & things, are different entities.
"Things" are what we perceive within awareness. If you've been reading the reason & observation thread, you should understand that these sense-things are not in fact real. I.e., existence does not equate to thing-ness.
Until you understand this, you'll continue to make the same error.Then stop using the word which means "real entities" when you mean "not-real entities".

You are dancing around your own special definition of the word thing because it's the only way your philosophy can possibly work. Until you understand this, you will continue to have an illogical philosophy.

God is God and things are things. God is not a thing.
So, no thing is real, but God is real, therefore God is real.And there were have it.

"God is real, therefore God is real."

I couldn't have summed up the problem in your logic any better.

I have been guilty, in the past, of saying things like "Something is having the experience of being me.". Since I deduce that this "thing" is in fact God, I actually need to change the word 'something' for another word which does not necessitate that a "thing" be the entity which is having the experience of being me. For as explained, God is not a thing. But this is just pedantry.A thing is an object which exists. If God exists, then God is a thing. I don't see how you can possibly have a problem with that statement and still claim to be logical. Now, it might be that we're all figments of God's imagination, in which case it can be argued that we're not things, but until you start using words the same way everyone else uses them, you are stuck in a semantic quagmire.

No it's not right. God is not a thing. Therefore either God doesn't exist; or, if God exists, then God defies logic; or you are using the word thing inconsistently. I wish you would give yourself the courtesy of stepping back and actually try to come to terms with this statement. It can only improve the validity of your beliefs.

lifegazer

19th May 2004, 01:30 PM

Originally posted by RandFan
By having a thorough understanding of the foundations of philosophy and all of the subtleties of different schools of thought and the the philosophies that are similar it is likely that one would understand your (by your I mean the philosophy you hold) much better than you

My philosophy is my own creation. I haven't copied anybody else. If you can find just one philosopher who follows the exact same reasoning-paths as me to yield the conclusion that I do, I will send you a hundred dollars in the post. I'd send you more, but I'm not very wealthy.
So Mister, it's time to put-up or shut-up. I'm tired of you making casual remarks which you cannot back-up. I want a name and several examples of that philosopher's arguments which mirror all of the arguments I have presented at JREF. If you cannot do this, then don't tell any more porkies. Understand?
Nobody can understand my philosophy better than me unless a certain philosopher has existed who has presented several arguments which all mirror my own.

That is right as well as the rest of your thesis.

More porkies. Put-up or shut-up. I want details in future. No more of this garbage, please. You cannot state something in a debate of this kind without evidence or reason.

God exists but is not-a-thing = God exists but is nothing.

God is capable - and hence incapable - of all things.

Both are logically invalid.

No they're not. That's just your naive opinion...

"God is capable - and hence incapable - of all things."
Omnipotence is negated/refuted by the inability to effect the negative of a thing. If God cannot create [the awareness of] a scenario whereby God perceives itself as unable to do a thing, then God is not omnipotent. Clearly, true omnipotence must be accompanied by an ability to create [the awareness of] any scenario.
Now if you don't see the sense in that, then that's your problem. I do know that anyone with above-average intelligence will readily accept what I have just said.

"God exists but is not-a-thing = God exists but is nothing."

God is the entity that is aware of unreal sensed-things. Thus "things", in this reality, are obviously not the same as God. God is existence and God is the creator and awareness of unreal-things.
There are no similarities between what God is and what God is perceiving. They are not the same. God and "things" are as different as can be.

Well, let's see, big bang, evolution, abiogenesis. I don't need to add "god" to the mix to understand.

Utter pooh. This is not an explanation. What caused the big-bang? What causes the forces/order which yield the effects that we see?
Come back when you have some answers. Proper answers next time, okay?

How is that different than we are all just a computer algorythym? It's not!

This isn't the fiction room mate. Evidence or reason, please.

This doesn't tell anyone anything. It's just fanciful mythology. I can just as easily say that Zeus lives at the top of Mount Olympus and that fact is relevant to your life.

Well present a reasoned argument to such effect and I will listen to it. Otherwise, don't make irrelevant comments.

"Of course I (lifegazer) don't know how God creates a universe of sensed-things..."

Then how on earth do you know it is true?

In a similar fashion to why you think that the big-bang created the universe. You have reason to think that there was a big-bang but you don't know how it happened.
I have reason to think that there was a God who created the awareness of a universe, but I don't know how it was done.

The difference between my philosophy and yours, is that my philosophy reaches to the primal-cause of all existence.

You believe that you are lifegzer? I thought you knew that you werent.

I have reasoned that I am not lifegazer, but I am having the perception/experience of being lifegazer, nevertheless.
The realisation alone has sufficed to change my attitude towards life. I.e., the realisation alone is significant to both the individual and to mankind as a whole.

It tells us nothing. It has roughly the same meaning as saying that there are magical invisible pink unicorns that will be angry and punish us if we don't belive in them.

It's nothing like that. Fear of God(s) cannot occur when one realises that one is God. The realisation of my philosophy leaves one with a fear of oneself.

If I make such a statement it doesn't advance our understanding at all. If I say that there are magical invisible frogs that hold the univers together or that the force in Star Wars is real it does not tell us anything. It's just a mythology without proof. It does not provide us with a foundation to understand existence just a blanket reason to lump everything into.
The repercussions for mankind that each one is the same entity, are profound. Stop talking out of your bottom.

Acrimonious

19th May 2004, 01:44 PM

I'm afraid.

I fear that cattle will come to the understanding that they do not exist, but are merely imaginations of God (and therefor, are themselves God) before mankind does.

And then, bovines will understand that the parts of God that imagines itself to be human beings EAT the parts of God that imagines itself to be cattle, and will use their now-realized, harmonious God-powers to will mankind into complete (both real AND imagined) non-existance.

Nothing is stopping these cows from doing this, save for their own misguided assumption of a material world.

I pray to myself every night that I allow myself to convince the other illusions of myself that I am the only thing that exists, so I can all live together with myself in harmony, free of this bovine terror.

lifegazer

19th May 2004, 01:47 PM

Originally posted by Beleth
You are dancing around your own special definition of the word thing because it's the only way your philosophy can possibly work. Until you understand this, you will continue to have an illogical philosophy.

This is wake-up time. Reform time. Amendment time. Time to correct all errors of thinking. This is the philosophy room and any concept and any definition are to be scrutinied as I see fit.

God is the creator and awareness of "things". Only God itself is real. Every-thing else is unreal. Just thoughts and beliefs within God's awareness.
There's no rational justification whatsoever for bracketing God within the set of "things", since there are no similarities whatsoever between God and those things.
What's so difficult to understand about that?!

And there were have it.

"God is real, therefore God is real."

I couldn't have summed up the problem in your logic any better.

Don't be silly. I was just revising the underlined bit of your own sentence, which equated God to some-thing.

You have to make the effort to understand the distinction which necessarily exists between a God and the unreal-things that God creates and is aware of. Then you will understand my whole argument.

A thing is an object which exists. If God exists, then God is a thing.

But God is existence. A "thing" is an object which is perceived (by God), but which is unreal in itself (since God is existence).
So, a thing is an object which doesn't exist. But God exists, so God is obviously not a "thing".

Clear as daylight.

lifegazer

19th May 2004, 01:50 PM

Go away Acrimonious. That was so bad I cringed.

RandFan

19th May 2004, 02:07 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer
My philosophy is my own creation. I haven't copied anybody else. If you can find just one philosopher who follows the exact same reasoning-paths as me to yield the conclusion that I do, I will send you a hundred dollars in the post. I'd send you more, but I'm not very wealthy. I don't care about the path you took. I only care about the end results. You offer nothing of unique value. If you had studied philosophy you would know this.

Omnipotence is negated/refuted by the inability to effect the negative of a thing. If God cannot create [the awareness of] a scenario whereby God perceives itself as unable to do a thing, then God is not omnipotent. Clearly, true omnipotence must be accompanied by an ability to create [the awareness of] any scenario.

Now if you don't see the sense in that, then that's your problem. I do know that anyone with above-average intelligence will readily accept what I have just said. Gibberish. I doubt many people of above average intelligence would agree and I'm very certain that anyone with an education that includes critical thinking will agree.

God is the entity that is aware of unreal sensed-things. Thus "things", in this reality, are obviously not the same as God. God is existence and God is the creator and awareness of unreal-things. More gibberish. God either exists or he doesn't. Objects either exist or they don't. My thoughts are either real or they aren't. A very simple dichotomy.

There are no similarities between what God is and what God is perceiving. They are not the same. God and "things" are as different as can be. According to your made up definition. Not according to any reason.

Utter pooh. This is not an explanation. What caused the big-bang? What causes the forces/order which yield the effects that we see? What caused god? How does god work? What are the processes.

Come back when you have some answers. Proper answers next time, okay? I don't have all the answers. What I do have are the results of decades of research by some of the greatest minds of history and they say you are full of crap.

This isn't the fiction room mate. Evidence or reason, please. The exact same evidence or reason that you give for "god did it". Talk about fiction. Sheesh.

Well present a reasoned argument to such effect and I will listen to it. Otherwise, don't make irrelevant comments. No more irrelevant than "god did it".

In a similar fashion to why you think that the big-bang created the universe. You have reason to think that there was a big-bang but you don't know how it happened. My conclusions are based on observation and physics. I don't claim to know the truth but I do claim that physicists are able to back up these claims with evidence, math and logic.

I have reason to think that there was a God who created the awareness of a universe, but I don't know how it was done. No testable thesis. No math. No physics. Just a claim.

The difference between my philosophy and yours, is that my philosophy reaches to the primal-cause of all existence. Your philosophy is that "god did it". This tells us nothing.

I have reasoned that I am not lifegazer, but I am having the perception/experience of being lifegazer, nevertheless.
The realisation alone has sufficed to change my attitude towards life. I.e., the realisation alone is significant to both the individual and to mankind as a whole. So do you believe that you are lifegazer or not?

It's nothing like that. Fear of God(s) cannot occur when one realises that one is God. The realisation of my philosophy leaves one with a fear of oneself. {yawn} So what?

The repercussions for mankind that each one is the same entity, are profound. Stop talking out of your bottom. The repercussions for mankind if there are angry invisible pink unicorns is profound also. That it COULD be IF it were true is meaningless.

RandFan

19th May 2004, 02:16 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer
But God is existence. A "thing" is an object which is perceived (by God), but which is unreal in itself (since God is existence).

So, a thing is an object which doesn't exist. But God exists, so God is obviously not a "thing".

thing = object
object = non existence
non existence = no thing

Therefore:
thing = nothing

God = existence
God = not a thing
Existence = nothing

Invalid by definition

If you find me a philosophy teacher who thinks this thesis of yours is valid I'll see to it that he is fired for incompetence.

Clear as daylight. :D As clear as mud.

God = nothing
Things = nothing
God = things

Two Prim Misses and a sillygism. Lewis Carrol would be proud.

RandFan

19th May 2004, 02:36 PM

I think it important not to gloss over your gaffe about thoughts.

You made a distinction between things and thoughts.

Not a piece of paper with ink on it - but a real thought. You can't do it because a thought is not a "thing" either. God and God's attributes are not the same as the "things" within our awareness. Fact. Aren't both the same "non-things"?

Why can I send a note (non-thing) but not "a real thought" (also a non-thing)?
I think I see your brain smoking gazer. Keep thinking, you just might get this one.

Atlas

19th May 2004, 02:36 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer
You cannot state something in a debate of this kind without evidence or reason.

This isn't the fiction room mate. Evidence or reason, please.

I have reason to think that there was a God who created the awareness of a universe, but I don't know how it was done.

The difference between my philosophy and yours, is that my philosophy reaches to the primal-cause of all existence. I think science reaches back to the primal cause but it doesn't say any thing about that which it doesn't know about. It has evidence of a big bang that it lays before the community for discussion.

It allows one to come to one's own conclusion about whether the bang was a unique natural or supernatural event.

But beside that quibble, you have not laid before us, to my knowledge, the logical underpinnings of your philosophy. By that I mean - what led you to it? Point me to the post where you explained the inception and I'll apologize - I don't read all you stuff.

Is there a beginning to your "apparent" circular reasoning. Something like, cogito ergo sum? There must be, for you deny apparent reality. You deny apparent reality in favor of not simple solipsism but a solipsism in which you postulate God - and not even a simple god but one with all the "omnis" - and somehow this means Armageddon.

The only statement you make on which we all agree is "Something is having an experience of 'me' ". Is this the starting point of your logical reasoning? Or is it deduced? If it is the start what logic led you to where you are today. Please don't say - just read my stuff. Most of it is name calling and shots back and forth. Spell it out so that we can look at it anew.

You ask others for evidence and reason. Can you restate why you are dissatisfied with the notion that apparent reality is unreal. What fundamental realization about it made you adopt the solipsistic position and then the logic that went from there to OmniGod.

Thanks

lifegazer

19th May 2004, 02:49 PM

Originally posted by RandFan
I don't care about the path you took.

Which just highlights your foolishness. A philosophical conclusion is only as good as the path that leads you to it. The path is all-important. The path determines the value of a philosopher - not just his conclusion.

I only care about the end results. You offer nothing of unique value. If you had studied philosophy you would know this.

I don't need to study philosophy to know that "God exists" has been stated on many occasions.

Gibberish.

I presented clear and concise reasoning to show why true omnipotence must be accompanied by an ability to create [the awareness of] any scenario. This would include the ability to create [the awareness of] having the inability to effect things as well as the ability to effect those thing. True omnipotence cannot have limitations to the scenarios it can create.
This is so obvious and understandable. And your unqualified response: "gibberish". Don't complain anymore when I ignore your worthless responses.
In future, if you want to judge anything I say, then do it properly. Refute what I say by deconstructing what I construct. Refute my logic, step-by-step.
If you want a meaningful discussion, then explain yourself. Give evidence or reason. Stop wasting my time whilst making yourself look naive.

I doubt many people of above average intelligence would agree

What I said there was spot-on. Omnipotence cannot be limited in the scenarios it can create. An omnipotent God must have the ability to create a scenario whereby that God could create the awareness of having the inability to do something.
For example, through you, God has created the inability to reason properly.

and I'm very certain that anyone with an education that includes critical thinking will agree.

Well I'm sure that there's lots of people in here who will agree with you, if that's what you mean. But that don't mean jack.

"There are no similarities between what God is and what God is perceiving. They are not the same. God and "things" are as different as can be."

According to your made up definition. Not according to any reason.

What "reason"?
An omnipresent God leaves no room for other entities to exist. Therefore, God alone is existence. Therefore, there is a distinction of identity to be observed between God and the unreal-things that God creates within its awareness. Hence, God is not the same as a "thing" = God is not a thing.
You're living in denial if you think that an existent God is the same kind of entity as a non-existent thing.

What caused god? How does god work? What are the processes.

God is the primal-cause of all [perceived] effected-things. A primal-cause is the effect of no other entity, by rational default. You can only ask what caused effects. Your question reflects more naivity.
... And I've already admitted that my philosophy only extends to God itself. It doesn't extend to how God creates "things" within its own awareness. I accept that I cannot know that... and to be honest, it's not important to me.

I don't have all the answers.

You don't have any answers. That's your problem. You accuse me of breaking the "law of parsimony" when you have no other explanation to my God-explanation. How can I be breaking the law of parsimony when there are no other [simpler] explanations for this experience of ours?
Whilst there is only one explanation for the existence that we perceive, the law of parsimony remains unbroken.

I gotta go.

RandFan

19th May 2004, 03:17 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer
Which just highlights your foolishness. A philosophical conclusion is only as good as the path that leads you to it. The path is all-important. The path determines the value of a philosopher - not just his conclusion. Fallacious. One can arrive at the truth through unsound reasoning. Your "path" has little bearing unless their is something that is integral to the philosophy.

I don't need to study philosophy to know that "God exists" has been stated on many occasions. Straw man. Never said that you did. Fallacious, presumes a knowledge that god exists.

I presented clear and concise reasoning to show why true omnipotence must be accompanied by an ability to create [the awareness of] any scenario. This would include the ability to create [the awareness of] having the inability to effect things as well as the ability to effect those thing. This isn't your original argument.

True omnipotence cannot have limitations to the scenarios it can create. Including a scenario where there are limitations.

This is so obvious and understandable. And your unqualified response: "gibberish". Don't complain anymore when I ignore your worthless responses. I like how you change the goal posts.

In future, if you want to judge anything I say, then do it properly. Refute what I say by deconstructing what I construct. Refute my logic, step-by-step. That is exactly what I did.

If you want a meaningful discussion, then explain yourself. Give evidence or reason. Stop wasting my time whilst making yourself look naive. Riiiiight.

What I said there was spot-on. Omnipotence cannot be limited in the scenarios it can create. An omnipotent God must have the ability to create a scenario whereby that God could create the awareness of having the inability to do something.

For example, through you, God has created the inability to reason properly. Well, at least I never said that things are non-things and then delineated between a thought (non-thing) and a piece of paper (another non-thing). That was you Einstein.

Well I'm sure that there's lots of people in here who will agree with you, if that's what you mean. But that don't mean jack. I'm sure that there's few if any educated people anywhere that will agree with you.

What "reason"?
An omnipresent God leaves no room for other entities to exist. Therefore, God alone is existence. Therefore, there is a distinction of identity to be observed between God and the unreal-things that God creates within its awareness. Hence, God is not the same as a "thing" = God is not a thing.
You're living in denial if you think that an existent God is the same kind of entity as a non-existent thing. Incoherent.

God is not a thing.
God is existence
Existence is nothing.

Dispute that.

God is the primal-cause of all [perceived] effected-things. A primal-cause is the effect of no other entity, by rational default. You can only ask what caused effects. Your question reflects more naivity.Ok, how about this argument.

Premise: Every event has a cause

Premise: The universe has a beginning

Premise: All beginnings involve an event

Inference: This implies that the beginning of the universe involved an event

Inference: Therefore the beginning of the universe had a cause

Conclusion: The universe had a cause Would you agree?

... And I've already admitted that my philosophy only extends to God itself. It doesn't extend to how God creates "things" within its own awareness. I accept that I cannot know that... and to be honest, it's not important to me. Then it is as worthless as angry invisible pink unicorns.

You don't have any answers. That's your problem. You accuse me of breaking the "law of parsimony" when you have no other explanation to my God-explanation. How can I be breaking the law of parsimony when there are no other [simpler] explanations for this experience of ours? Just because you think or claim it is simple does not make it so.

You agree with the order in our "perceived" universe. I state that is all there is. You on the other hand throw mysterious forces and unknown processes into the mix. You by default violate the rule of parsimony.

Whilst there is only one explanation for the existence that we perceive, the law of parsimony remains unbroken. A mysterious force with unknown processes.

I can play the same game. There is no god. The universe was started through unknown processes. We are the same but I lop off god. There is one distinct difference. Physicists can theorize on the processes that caused the universe. You cannot theorize on anything.

lifegazer

19th May 2004, 04:23 PM

Most of you will be pleased to hear that my visitations to this forum are about to decrease substantially. This is not due to choice, but to unforeseen circumstances in my personal life.
I'm not sure how long this situation will continue for or how limited my visitations will be. But after tomorrow, it will be difficult for me to participate much, I think. Hopefully, I'll still be able to contribute to a lesser degree.
I'm hoping that this situation is a short-term problem for me - so don't cheer too loudly. I'm hoping to return with my usual quota
of posts asap. But I am not sure whether I'll be able to.
I like this forum. Arguing with skeptics sharpens my mind/philosophy. I want to stay here as long as people will talk to me.

I'm hoping that none of you will see my absence or limited participation as a retreat or as a defeat of my philosophy, which is why I'm making this announcement. I give you my word that I have no other options here.
I don't want to make a big deal about this. I just thought I owed the regular readers of my conversations an explanation.
Thanks.

Beleth

19th May 2004, 04:28 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer
This is wake-up time. Reform time. Amendment time. Time to correct all errors of thinking. This is the philosophy room and any concept and any definition are to be scrutinied as I see fit.Scrutinize all you want. But you are redefining well-defined words to suit your own purposes, and we're simply not letting you get away with it.

God is the creator and awareness of "things".There you go again. Could you please stop putting the word thing in quotes to mean something that means something which is not real?

Things exist. Things are real. By definition. If God is the only thing your philosophy posits is real, then so be it. Please stop confusing the issue by half-redefining words.

Only God itself is real. Every-thing else is unreal.Then the only real thing is God.

There's no rational justification whatsoever for bracketing God within the set of "things", since there are no similarities whatsoever between God and those things.
What's so difficult to understand about that?!What's difficult to understand is your constant misuse of the word thing. The quoted section above is a perfect example. You use both thing and "thing" to mean "something unreal", when thing actually means "something real."

You have to make the effort to understand the distinction which necessarily exists between a God and the unreal-things that God creates and is aware of. Then you will understand my whole argument.And you have to make the effort to use words in the way they are meant to be used. If you don't, you just end up with a hamburger shovel of rickety.

But God is existence. A "thing" is an object which is perceived (by God), but which is unreal in itself (since God is existence).To you, and only to you. To the rest of us, a thing is an object which exists. If God is the only thing, then so be it. Don't you see that I'm willing to grant a large part of your argument to you if you only start using the word thing to mean what it means?

So, a thing is an object which doesn't exist.Actually, a thing is an object which does exist.

RandFan

19th May 2004, 04:31 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer
Most of you will be pleased to hear that my visitations to this forum are about to decrease substantially. This is not due to choice, but to unforeseen circumstances in my personal life.
I'm not sure how long this situation will continue for or how limited my visitations will be. But after tomorrow, it will be difficult for me to participate much, I think. Hopefully, I'll still be able to contribute to a lesser degree.
I'm hoping that this situation is a short-term problem for me - so don't cheer too loudly. I'm hoping to return with my usual quota
of posts asap. But I am not sure whether I'll be able to.
I like this forum. Arguing with skeptics sharpens my mind/philosophy. I want to stay here as long as people will talk to me.

I'm hoping that none of you will see my absence or limited participation as a retreat or as a defeat of my philosophy, which is why I'm making this announcement. I give you my word that I have no other options here.
I don't want to make a big deal about this. I just thought I owed the regular readers of my conversations an explanation.
Thanks. lifegazer,

I sincerely hope that what ever the situation is it works out in your favor. I don't have any desire for you to stop posting. I wish you would avoid some of the name calling but I can live with it.

I would not make any assumptions as to your absence. God speed and an honest wish for the best to you.

RandFan