Here's proof of your God.

[lifegazer]

Reason dictates that there cannot be a an existing reality of X that is infinite since this requires that different parts of X (A and Z, for instance) actually exist an infinite-distance from each other.
This is plainly dumb since it means that ALL parts traversed on an attempted journey from A to Z are no nearer to Z than A itself. This of course is a ludicrous notion and therefore there can be no acceptance of the claim that there is any existing reality X that is infinite in itself.

Can there be a reality that is finite?

... Well, let's "get real" again:-
If we advocate the reality of a finite existence, we are advocating the reality of something completely bounded by absolutely nothing. Clearly, absolutely-nothing cannot embrace a finite reality.
Therefore, there is no finite reality either.
Therefore, reality must be non-spatial.
Therefore, get praying you bozos.

[Z]

Yet another garbage thread to run from his falsehoods...

[sigh]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Reason dictates that there cannot be a an existing reality of X that is infinite since this requires that different parts of X (A and Z, for instance) actually exist an infinite-distance from each other.
This is plainly dumb since it means that ALL parts traversed on an attempted journey from A to Z are no nearer to Z than A itself. This of course is a ludicrous notion and therefore there can be no acceptance of the claim that there is any existing reality X that is infinite in itself.

Clearly wrong. Infinite is not a unit of distance; any two points define a finite space; since infinity has infinite points within it, then it also contains an infinite number of finite spaces. Nothing about this refutes infinity. Your reasoning is wrong.

Can there be a reality that is finite?

... Well, let's "get real" again:-
If we advocate the reality of a finite existence, we are advocating the reality of something completely bounded by absolutely nothing. Clearly, absolutely-nothing cannot embrace a finite reality.
Therefore, there is no finite reality either.
Therefore, reality must be non-spatial.
Therefore, get praying you bozos.

While you make a great case against finite space, there cannot be non-spatial reality. Non-spatial reality could have no part measured by distances - ergo, the reality we perceive, whether we insist on calling it sensed-reality or not, which DOES have 'distances' within it, could not exist, either actually or illusionarily, within non-spatial reality. Non-spatial reality is non-real and non-existent. Ergo - your proof of God falls flat right out of the gates.

[Dragonrock]

I win this debate!


oops, wrong poster

nothing to see here, move along...

[Z]

You know, LG, try this one - and, honestly, I'm trying to help you out a bit. Demonstrate the reasoning that leads to the conclusion that an infinite reality - let's use something simple, an infinite line - MUST contain two points an infinite distance apart. This will require you to define and reason how an 'infinite' distance could exist, and how it could be bounded by two points.

Now, as I'm sure other can clearly see, the very requirements of this proof already involve some paradox or contradiction, but can you reason through it and unravel the apparent paradox?

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
Clearly wrong. Infinite is not a unit of distance; any two points define a finite space; since infinity has infinite points within it, then it also contains an infinite number of finite spaces. Nothing about this refutes infinity. Your reasoning is wrong.

The assumed claim is that something EXISTS that is infinite in distance.
Therefore, there must be EXISTING (keyword) parts of said thing that are infinitely-distanced from each other.
If there are NO existing parts of an entity that are infinitely-distanced from each other, then the aforementioned claim cannot be true. Simple.

While you make a great case against finite space, there cannot be non-spatial reality. Non-spatial reality could have no part measured by distances - ergo, the reality we perceive, whether we insist on calling it sensed-reality or not, which DOES have 'distances' within it, could not exist, either actually or illusionarily, within non-spatial reality. Non-spatial reality is non-real and non-existent. Ergo - your proof of God falls flat right out of the gates.

Reason does not demand that reality be spatial. Whatever gave you such an idea?

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
You know, LG, try this one - and, honestly, I'm trying to help you out a bit. Demonstrate the reasoning that leads to the conclusion that an infinite reality - let's use something simple, an infinite line - MUST contain two points an infinite distance apart. This will require you to define and reason how an 'infinite' distance could exist, and how it could be bounded by two points.

Now, as I'm sure other can clearly see, the very requirements of this proof already involve some paradox or contradiction, but can you reason through it and unravel the apparent paradox?
From my other thread:-
That's the problem here: people fail to "get real" with the philosophies that they advocate.
For example, if I claim to be holding a real stick that is infinitely-long, then I MUST also claim that there are parts of that stick that exist an infinite-distance from me and itself. Those parts must exist or else the stick is not infinite.
Same with infinite-space.

The key-words in this debate are "existence" and "reality".
What you are failing to realise is that for an entity to be an existing infinity requires that some of its parts must exist an infinity-away from other parts.

[Z]

Ah... so your reasoning assumes the existence of things that exist at infinity or with infinite properties. This is another error.

Your 'infinite stick' is nonsensical. Obviously and demonstrably, no object exists which is infinite. Space, however, is not an object - it is a void, a non-object. It contains objects, but is not an object itsself. When you claim to try to reach a point an infinite distance away, you are claiming to try to reach infinity. There is no 'point' that exists at infinity - that is the very definition of infinity - space that is unbounded i.e. has no points at its edge, for it has no edge. To use terms such as an 'infinitely long stick' or 'a point infinitely distant from X' are erroneous. Again, your key assumption is wrong - and as this assumption is the groundwork of your philosophy, it invalidates your philosophy as well.

What's sad is, this is a very old argument, with those who don't understand holding your position, and those more educated and intelligent holding the opposite position.

When we say 'reality is infinite' we are simply expressing that for any point x we can go beyond it to another point, infinitely. There is no 'boundary at an infinite distance away' - there simply is no boundary.

I know this is hard for you to grasp, but you are creating illogical examples and then trying to reason using those examples. You might just as well insist that there must exist a point X that is green distance from Y, or quick distance from Z, or heavy distance from B.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
Ah... so your reasoning assumes the existence of things that exist at infinity or with infinite properties. This is another error.

Wake-up. My reasoning questions the assumptions of others (including yourself), which make the claim for an existing infinity.

Your 'infinite stick' is nonsensical. Obviously and demonstrably, no object exists which is infinite.

My infinite-stick has been very useful in pointing-out the fact that any existing reality would have to have some parts of it that were an infinite-distance from other parts.

Space, however, is not an object - it is a void, a non-object.

You cannot equate the existence of space with 'absolutely-nothing', especially when you want to differentiate between different parts of that space.

To use terms such as an 'infinitely long stick' or 'a point infinitely distant from X' are erroneous.

I've told you time and again:-
The key-words in this debate are "existence" and "reality".
What you are failing to realise is that for an entity to be an existing infinity requires that some of its parts must exist an infinity-away from other parts.

I will repeat this, if necessary, until you finally grasp it. The issue here is whether there can be an existing reality which is infinite in itself: an existing infinity. For there to be so, requires that some existing parts of this infinite-reality be infinitely-distanced from other parts.
I know that they cannot be infinitely-distanced - which is why such an existing reality is cobblers.

Again, your key assumption is wrong - and as this assumption is the groundwork of your philosophy, it invalidates your philosophy as well.

My assumption? The existence of an infinite-reality is your bleedin' assumption mate. I'm the one who is "getting real" with it and showing you why it cannot be so.

What's sad is, this is a very old argument, with those who don't understand holding your position, and those more educated and intelligent holding the opposite position.

Stick to the argument you bozo.

When we say 'reality is infinite' we are simply expressing that for any point x we can go beyond it to another point, infinitely. There is no 'boundary at an infinite distance away' - there simply is no boundary.

Don't be so insincere. There are only three possible choices:-
(1) Reality (of space or otherwise) is a finite-existence.
(2) Reality is an infinite-existence.
(3) Reality is non-spatial.

There are no other choices. (2) means that existence is not finite. It means what it says: that something exists which is infinite in itself. Consequently, some parts of that thing have to be infinitely-distanced from others.

Now stop waffling and dancing around this. Accept it for what it is and then you will understand why there cannot be an existing infinity.

[Z]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Wake-up. My reasoning questions the assumptions of others (including yourself), which make the claim for an existing infinity.

My infinite-stick has been very useful in pointing-out the fact that any existing reality would have to have some parts of it that were an infinite-distance from other parts.

No, it hasn't. It has demonstrated that you completely misunderstand the definitions of 'infinite' and 'distance'.

You cannot equate the existence of space with 'absolutely-nothing', especially when you want to differentiate between different parts of that space.

Actually, space is void - objects within that space can be differentiated, and locations within that space can also be differentiated, but not space itself.

I've told you time and again:-

Which doesn't make it any more true;

The key-words in this debate are "existence" and "reality".
What you are failing to realise is that for an entity to be an existing infinity requires that some of its parts must exist an infinity-away from other parts.

Prove it. Show me the reasoning that insists that an existing infinity must have parts that are an infinity away from other parts. This simply doesn't follow, because any part of infinity is itself finite, and therefore measurable in finite terms.

Have you ever taken basic math, LG? An infinite set is the set that contains all numbers, such that there is a Y for which Y>X. Clearly, these are finite numbers that exist at finite intervals, yet they exist within the infinite set.

I will repeat this, if necessary, until you finally grasp it. The issue here is whether there can be an existing reality which is infinite in itself: an existing infinity. For there to be so, requires that some existing parts of this infinite-reality be infinitely-distanced from other parts.

And I will continue to repeat this, not for your sake, as you are not intelligent enough to grasp it, but for the poor wandering soul who happens upon this discussion, so that they may know that you are wrong: No, no part of an infinite reality must be infinitely distant from any other part. This is not a definition of an infinite reality - only YOUR incorrect assumption again.

I know that they cannot be infinitely-distanced - which is why such an existing reality is cobblers.

Cobblers? Well, based on your use of language, I'd have to guess you're a high-school dropout, flipping burgers to pay the rent of your one-room flat.

But insults are YOUR pattern, not mine...

Anyway, this conclusion is false.

My assumption? The existence of an infinite-reality is your bleedin' assumption mate. I'm the one who is "getting real" with it and showing you why it cannot be so.

No, actually, I said that we cannot know if reality is infinite. In fact, you made an excellent argument as to why reality cannot be infinite. And in return, I and others have demonstrated how reality also cannot be non-spatial.

Stick to the argument you bozo.[/quote}

Where you are, do insults constitute intellectual superiority?

[quote]Don't be so insincere. There are only three possible choices:-
(1) Reality (of space or otherwise) is a finite-existence.
(2) Reality is an infinite-existence.
(3) Reality is non-spatial.

Agreed - and 1) must be false, since reality could not be bounded by nothing - as you already demonstrated. 3) must also be false, since reality includes distances and spaces, thereby meaning reality cannot be non-spatial. So we are left with 2).

There are no other choices. (2) means that existence is not finite. It means what it says: that something exists which is infinite in itself. Consequently, some parts of that thing have to be infinitely-distanced from others.

Again, prove this statement. It is clearly false.

Now stop waffling and dancing around this. Accept it for what it is and then you will understand why there cannot be an existing infinity.

In other words: don't think for myself, just accept your assertions for thruth? Um, no, I don't think so. Your assertions are clearly mistaken, and therefore your conclusions are also mistaken.


edited to fix a bracket error

[Z]

And with that - I'm off to work. Don't worry, LG - I'll be back to continue debunking your theory tonight. It should be interesting to see how others tackle your nonsense. It should also be interesting to see if you can make any progress before I return.

[Yahweh]

Lifegazer,

As the universe has a finite time of existence it can't be infinite in volume and span. (And as for the center it's no more an issue than any other part.)

Now on the issue of bounds, that gets into the shape of the universe, or rather the curvature. The universe can have a positive, negative or flat curvature. Which curvature it has depends on total mass. But here's the trick, go in a straight line and you'll eventually end up back where you started from. You could never reach the actual bound of the universe, nor even state where it is.

[tdn]

I'll let others address the rest of this ridiculous OP, but I want to talk about this point:

Originally posted by lifegazer
Therefore, reality must be non-spatial.
Therefore, get praying you bozos.

Let's assume that, for some insane reason, that we agree that "reality must be non-spatial." Nevermind the weak arguments that got us there, let's pretend that we agree up to this point. How does a non-spacial reality automatically prove an infinitely superior, ultimately intelligent, omniscient being that must be appeased by us?

[tdn]

Originally posted by Yahweh
Now on the issue of bounds, that gets into the shape of the universe, or rather the curvature.

In other words, the Earth is not infinite, but you could walk an infinite number of miles around its circumference. This proves an intelligent God how, again?

[EdipisReks]

[Homer Simpson]Booooring![/Homer Simpson]

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Yahweh
As the universe has a finite time of existence it can't be infinite in volume and span.

Have you not heard of the "bubble theory" of universes?
Basically, our particular universe "could be" just like a bubble that emerges from the infinite ocean of existence... apparently.
In other words, I cannot use your reasoning to explain why existence cannot be finite.

(And as for the center it's no more an issue than any other part.)

What? :confused:

Now on the issue of bounds, that gets into the shape of the universe, or rather the curvature.

Not really: It just asks whether the universe (existence) as a whole is bounded. I'm not interested in shapes.

The universe can have a positive, negative or flat curvature. Which curvature it has depends on total mass. But here's the trick, go in a straight line and you'll eventually end up back where you started from. You could never reach the actual bound of the universe, nor even state where it is.
Irrelevant.
Walk on a straight line around the Earth and you'll end up in the same country eventually... but this doesn't evade the issue of whether the Earth is bounded by something else.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by EdipisReks
[Homer Simpson]Booooring![/Homer Simpson]
You are the epitome of a prick who has no interest in "the truth". Go away and finish (in very short time) the rest of your meaningless existence. Enjoy it before it ends, as it must.

[Piscivore]

Originally posted by lifegazer
You are the epitome of a prick who has no interest in "the truth". Go away and finish (in very short time) the rest of your meaningless existence. Enjoy it before it ends, as it must.

Nice. You play at being god with that mouth? Way to win hearts and minds for your crusade, Mr. Stinky-drawers.

ETA: But seriously; what else should he do but "Enjoy it before it ends, as it must"? Even your half-a$$ed "philosophy" offers no escape from that, and less meaning.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by tdn
I'll let others address the rest of this ridiculous OP

Don't stroll in here declaring my OP as "ridiculous" without a reasoned explanation. If you don't have an explanation, then don't pass judgement.

but I want to talk about this point:

Let's assume that, for some insane reason, that we agree that "reality must be non-spatial."

You mean "Let's open our minds to the actual possibility that you are right.".

Nevermind the weak arguments that got us there,

Nevermind passing judgement without reason.

let's pretend that we agree up to this point. How does a non-spacial reality automatically prove an infinitely superior, ultimately intelligent, omniscient being that must be appeased by us?
I've decided not to answer this question yet (but I will in the near future, I promise) because of a very specific reason:-
If I start discussing this now, on page 1 of a thread which proves that reality is non-spatial, I shall be inundated with posts wanting to discuss my answers to you and my OP will be lost in the crossfire.
I shall answer this question within 48 hours (probably sooner). All you have to do is remind me by Thursday. Sincerely.

[Piscivore]

Originally posted by lifegazer
...a thread which proves that reality is non-spatial...

Indeed. Peals of hilarious laughter on this side, mate- no smilies as per your preference. Your "proofs" all boil down to "That's the way I define it, Fsck all what anyone else says. If they disagree they're part of the 'establishment' or just stupid cake-sniffers."

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Piscivore
Nice. You play at being god with that mouth? Way to win hearts and minds for your crusade, Mr. Stinky-drawers.
Listen good: My posts here are of the utmost importance. The relevance of these posts/threads is extremely important because the very survival of being mankind is dependent upon them being taken seriously. Hence, I don't take lightly to idiots strolling in and dismissing my words as "boring".
Pricks like him are the reason why the world is in the mess that it's in. He must be exposed as a prick for humanity's own sake. God forbid the masses should find him funny and worth mimicking.
God forbid the world as a whole should become closed and disinterested in 'God'.

[arawn]

when you think of God you cant be thinking is a scintific perspective you need to look at it from a religous point of view

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Piscivore
Indeed. Peals of hilarious laughter on this side, mate- no smilies as per your preference. Your "proofs" all boil down to "That's the way I define it, Fsck all what anyone else says. If they disagree they're part of the 'establishment' or just stupid cake-sniffers."
If you have a problem with the reason I have put on the stage for all to see, then have the balls to open the curtains to the reason which facilitates your laughter.
Stop wasting my time with insincerity. The desirelessness for God is evident in your words... but your ability to denounce "him" is not.

[Piscivore]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Listen good: My posts here are of the utmost importance. The relevance of these posts/threads is extremely important because the very survival of being mankind is dependent upon them being taken seriously. Hence, I don't take lightly to idiots strolling in and dismissing my words as "boring".
Pricks like him are the reason why the world is in the mess that it's in. He must be exposed as a prick for humanity's own sake. God forbid the masses should find him funny and worth mimicking.
God forbid the world as a whole should become closed and disinterested in 'God'.

Why? This is all just a fabrication of god's, according to you. What does it matter? The very survival of being mankind is dependent upon the whim of your dreaming god.

You advocate extinguishing one's own ego in favour of god's, now you seem to be saying that preservation of our ego-identities as humans is of "supreme importance". Which is it?

If what you are saying is so bloody important, why didn't anyone listen when the Hindus invented it?

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by arawn
when you think of God you cant be thinking is a scintific perspective you need to look at it from a religous point of view
That's garbage. I'm not even religious. You've been brainwashed pal.
Also, science is limited to observing the order of "things" that are sensed. In short, science is limited to observing the order of UNreality.

[Piscivore]

Originally posted by lifegazer
If you have a problem with the reason I have put on the stage for all to see, then have the balls to open the curtains to the reason which facilitates your laughter.

I have- but you keep fleeing (sorry, "retiring") from the treads with questions unanswered, or answered with unsupported assertions and childish name-calling.

Originally posted by lifegazer
Stop wasting my time with insincerity. The desirelessness for God is evident in your words... but your ability to denounce "him" is not.

I do not denounce "him"- "he" is a character that appears in several folk-tales and other works of fiction. "He" is a creation of mankind's we used to require to explain the things that go "bump" in the night. Some of us have grown out of that.

[Piscivore]

Originally posted by lifegazer
God forbid the world as a whole should become closed and disinterested in 'God'.

Take out the first two words of that sentence, and you have the first step towards real peace and real harmony.

Of course, fiction would then be a lot less interesting...

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Piscivore
Why? This is all just a fabrication of god's, according to you. What does it matter? The very survival of being mankind is dependent upon the whim of your dreaming god.

You advocate extinguishing one's own ego in favour of god's, now you seem to be saying that preservation of our ego-identities as humans is of "supreme importance". Which is it?

If what you are saying is so bloody important, why didn't anyone listen when the Hindus invented it?
The Hindus just preached it - they couldn't actually explain it with reason. Note the distinction between:-
(1) God exists, so you'd better listen.
(2) God exists because x + y + z tells us that 'he' does. So listen.

... Clearly, (2) gets a bigger and more curious audience.

I don't want to become embroiled within your other questions yet for the same reason I gave to tdn a few posts-ago.
My aim here, initially, is to prove that reality is non-spatial. I want the reader to absorb that first, or to complain about it using reason.
Do you actually have an intelligent opinion of my OP?

[EdipisReks]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Listen good: My posts here are of the utmost importance. The relevance of these posts/threads is extremely important because the very survival of being mankind is dependent upon them being taken seriously. Hence, I don't take lightly to idiots strolling in and dismissing my words as "boring".
Pricks like him are the reason why the world is in the mess that it's in. He must be exposed as a prick for humanity's own sake. God forbid the masses should find him funny and worth mimicking.
God forbid the world as a whole should become closed and disinterested in 'God'.

congrats! you've gone from merely boring to hilarious! may the everlasting love of John Wayne Gacy find you in the dark.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by EdipisReks
congrats! you've gone from merely boring to hilarious! may the everlasting love of John Wayne Gacy find you in the dark.
Do you honestly believe that your participation here has earmarked you as anything other than a fool with no interest in God?
Prove otherwise. Prove you have intelligence and prove you are interested: say something worthwhile, with rational merit.
Otherwise, do as I said earlier... go and enjoy the rest of your very-short time left here before the worms eat what you claim is 'you'.

[EdipisReks]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Do you honestly believe that your participation here has earmarked you as anything other than a fool with no interest in God?
Prove otherwise. Prove you have intelligence and prove you are interested: say something worthwhile, with rational merit.
Otherwise, do as I said earlier... go and enjoy the rest of your very-short time left here before the worms eat what you claim is 'you'.

rationality is wasted on you. here, have a pony :h2:

[lifegazer]

Don't persist in disappointing me here: Let me see some wheat instead of just chaff.
Most of the responses here haven't even addressed my OP. That's a pitiful indictment of the state of the average skeptic's mind here.
Your desirelessness for God is the foundation of the responses here, but it's not good enough I'm afraid.

[EdipisReks]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Don't persist in disappointing me here: Let me see some wheat instead of just chaff.
Most of the responses here haven't even addressed my OP. That's a pitiful indictment of the state of the average skeptic's mind here.
Your desirelessness for God is the foundation of the responses here, but it's not good enough I'm afraid.

the reason nobody bothers is beause you vomit out the same regurgitated crap over, and over, and over, and over, and over. people get sick of you. maybe you should go on a street corner and give people you opinion there. at least you would have a fresh audience.

[Piscivore]

Originally posted by lifegazer
The Hindus just preached it - they couldn't actually explain it with reason. Note the distinction between:-
(1) God exists, so you'd better listen.
(2) God exists because x + y + z tells us that 'he' does. So listen.

... Clearly, (2) gets a bigger and more curious audience.

Bad logic is bad logic, no matter how many it attracts. To believe otherwise is to commit ad Populum. But if it was "the truth"- why would reason matter?

Originally posted by lifegazer
I don't want to become embroiled within your other questions yet for the same reason I gave to tdn a few posts-ago.

Then go answer them in the thread you fled from, that you began before this. Or the one I started specifically for those questions. You cannot; for all your boasting, you know you have nothing. Your "philosophy" is nothing but a child's attempt to re-build the "god" he fled from when he left Christianity. Do you really think you are the first?

Originally posted by lifegazer
My aim here, initially, is to prove that reality is non-spatial. I want the reader to absorb that first, or to complain about it using reason.
Do you actually have an intelligent opinion of my OP?

Yes, and I gave it in the thread of yours just before this. As I recall, your "answer" was to insult me, say I was wrong without explanation, refer to your "definition (that difers from everyone else's), and start this thread. ZD has been repeating it in this thread, with the same result.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by EdipisReks
rationality is wasted on you. here, have a pony :h2:
I can only conclude that you are very stupid, very selfish and egotistical, very anti-God.
The worms await you sonny. Their mouths are wet with anticipation. Time shrinks for 'you'. Your poxy meaningless life will be gone in the blink of an existential eye.
Let's see you mock the importance of these discussions on the day of your death.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Piscivore
Then go answer them in the thread you fled from, that you began before this. Or the one I started specifically for those questions. You cannot; for all your boasting, you know you have nothing. Your "philosophy" is nothing but a child's attempt to re-build the "god" he fled from when he left Christianity. Do you really think you are the first?

Every time I start a thread you ignore the content of that thread and either ask me other questions not related to that content or just mock me.
I've just gone through a bad-patch (lasted 4 months) in my own personal life which prevented me from being on the internet for more than several hours a week. I've only recently remedied this situation and so now I want to concentrate on what I want to discuss.
Proving the existence of God or a non-spatial entity is not dependent upon answering your questions about God's purpose for the illusion we find ourselves within.

Now, for the final time, I ask you to address the reason given in my OP, or just go away and wait for the worms.

[Cosmo]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Now, for the final time, I ask you to address the reason given in my OP, or just go away and wait for the worms.

Sing it now: All you have to do is follow the worms! :o

Anyone else think of Pink Floyd when they read this? :)

[Piscivore]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Every time I start a thread you ignore the content of that thread and either ask me other questions not related to that content or just mock me.

I've been trying hard not to mock you. But sometimes that's the best way to get your attention. Sometimes questions naturally follow from the assertions you make, so I ask them. Whether or not you find them particularly "relevant", if you want to be understood you should recognise that not everyone comes to this forum with the same sets of definitions or assumptions as yourself. Especially as yours are frequently... unique. Dismissing the questions, for whatever reason, appears as if you cannot answer. Repeatedly doing so strengthens this perception.

Originally posted by lifegazer
I've just gone through a bad-patch (lasted 4 months) in my own personal life which prevented me from being on the internet for more than several hours a week.

What the hell do you think life is like for the rest of us? Smooth sailing? Every single one of us has "personal problems". Get over yourself, you win no points for self-pity.

Originally posted by lifegazer
I've only recently remedied this situation and so now I want to concentrate on what I want to discuss.

Good for you. But you don't want to "discuss"- you want to preach. You want us to sit back and absorb your wisdom. Sorry, bub, but you are just one more in a very long line of would-be prophets and philosophers, expounding on the same errors over and over. Your "philosophy" was discarded centuries ago by all but the most naive and delusional, or the dishonest. You'll have to forgive us the laughter and the jeers, but how would you feel if someone came up to you and started stridently urging he'd invented a whole new method of transportation- no horses involved- and he wanted to illustrate every badly designed and fundamentally unworkable part of the motor-car he's "invented"?

That's what you look like, to us.

Originally posted by lifegazer
Proving the existence of God or a non-spatial entity is not dependent upon answering your questions about God's purpose for the illusion we find ourselves within.

Let me repeat what uruk has been shouting at you: Even if we grant you all your incorrect "logic", even if we "accept" that everything about the nature of the universe and god you claim is true- it makes absolutly no difference to us as humans. None. And going by what you claim for god, it cannot mean anything to It, either. Why should we follow you lemming-like to the sea, when we know what cliffs are to come?

Originally posted by lifegazer
Now, for the final time, I ask you to address the reason given in my OP

As soon as you coherently explain why "an existing infinity must have parts that are an infinity away from other parts." Besides, you know, because you say so. Explain why "infinity" is a unit of measure. It most certainly doesn't follow for us, and it is the opposite that is "obvious". So explain yourself.


ETA: Originally posted by lifegazer
or just go away and wait for the worms.

You hardly think you disturb anybody with this prattle about "the worms", do you? I've told you before I've come to terms with my eventual demise- you are the one trying to invent a world wherein you don't have to die.

[EdipisReks]

Originally posted by lifegazer
I can only conclude that you are very stupid, very selfish and egotistical, very anti-God.
The worms await you sonny. Their mouths are wet with anticipation. Time shrinks for 'you'. Your poxy meaningless life will be gone in the blink of an existential eye.
Let's see you mock the importance of these discussions on the day of your death.

strange. i conclude that you are very stupid, moronic, naive, and delusional. strange how that works. John Wayne Gacy waits for you, along with the worms. hopefully, on the day of my death, i will mock you, this discussion, and then you again. i will then end my life in the classic Lorne Greene pose from "Battlestar Galactica." Best ... death ... ever!

[gnome]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Therefore, there is no finite reality either.
Therefore, reality must be non-spatial.
Therefore, get praying you bozos.

Missed a step in between:

1. Therefore, reality must be non-spacial.
2. Therefore, a god that wants you to pray to him exists.
3. Therefore, get praying you bozos.

It's where you go from 1 to 2 that loses me.

[c4ts]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Reason dictates that there cannot be a an existing reality of X that is infinite since this requires that different parts of X (A and Z, for instance) actually exist an infinite-distance from each other.
This is plainly dumb since it means that ALL parts traversed on an attempted journey from A to Z are no nearer to Z than A itself. This of course is a ludicrous notion and therefore there can be no acceptance of the claim that there is any existing reality X that is infinite in itself.

Can there be a reality that is finite?

... Well, let's "get real" again:-
If we advocate the reality of a finite existence, we are advocating the reality of something completely bounded by absolutely nothing. Clearly, absolutely-nothing cannot embrace a finite reality.
Therefore, there is no finite reality either.
Therefore, reality must be non-spatial.
Therefore, get praying you bozos.

What does this have to do with proving God exists? You didn't even mention God in the entire proof. The last line seems entirely non-sequiter.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Cosmo
Sing it now: All you have to do is follow the worms! :o

Anyone else think of Pink Floyd when they read this? :)
Another example of indifference and desirelessness, regarding 'God'. No reason provided.

Those of you semi-interested in what I have to say should note this trait. There is a real desire to extinguish people and ideas like me and mine, regardless of their credibility... without any reason whatsoever.
Observe their methods. Observe their evasiveness. Observe their desire to use humour as a means to gaining credibility and popularity, for their own sake.
They don't give a s**t about God because they only give a *hi* about themselves and what's important to themselves.
Note that the the notion of God destroys the notion of the ego and you will understand the methods of these plonkers.
They will disappear in the time they worship. They will be decimated by worms. Their laughter will cave-in on their on graves.

Don't be a fool to popularity. Have the balls to face these friggin idiots and question their unfounded confidence in the unreality of an all-creative non-spatial entity.
They will be dust and forgotten in the blink of a memory. Their contribution to existence is themselves. Yet they rot-away to nothing, as all other plonkers like them have rotted-away to nothing before them.
Philosophy is the meaning of life. If you don't philosophise - sincerely - your life aint worth *h*t.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by c4ts
What does this have to do with proving God exists? You didn't even mention God in the entire proof. The last line seems entirely non-sequiter.
Do you accept that reality is non-spatial or not? If you do, your proof that all is God will be forthcoming.

[c4ts]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Do you accept that reality is non-spatial or not? If you do, your proof that all is God will be forthcoming.

Please define the relationship between a non-spatial reality and God. Otherwise you are too vague, and I cannot answer your question without more information.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by c4ts
Please define the relationship between a non-spatial reality and God. Otherwise you are too vague, and I cannot answer your question without more information.
You are living in fear that I might be right.
I ask you again: Do you accept that reality is non-spatial or not?
If not, provide reason which counters my OP.

... If you do, your proof that "all is God" will be forthcoming, very soon.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by gnome
Missed a step in between:

1. Therefore, reality must be non-spacial.
2. Therefore, a god that wants you to pray to him exists.
3. Therefore, get praying you bozos.

It's where you go from 1 to 2 that loses me.
So you agree that (1) is correct? If so, then I will introduce you to God before Thursday ends.

[c4ts]

Originally posted by lifegazer
You are living in fear that I might be right.
I ask you again: Do you accept that reality is non-spatial or not?
If not, provide reason which counters my OP.

... If you do, your proof that "all is God" will be forthcoming, very soon.

I'm sorry if I sound impatient, but I cannot believe something if you don't tell me what it is. You are telling me you cannot prove anything to somebody unless they accept the conclusion first, and that is called "dogma," not philosophy. Otherwise, you should have no problem explaining how a non-spatial reality proves god. Believing you without explanation grants me no extra knowledge, so I would not suddenly know as you claim. Now you can repeat your question again, causing me to ignore you, or might try explaining your philosophy in a way that is comprehensible to believers and unbelievers alike.

[lifegazer]

Again, I draw the reader's attention to the lack of attention to my OP.
Hardly a soul here has actually addressed it and we're already close to 50 posts into it.
The stench of insincerity and desirelessness, regarding 'God', is blatantly evident.
You people are already worm fodder.

[plindboe]

*Sigh* lifegazer has a great gift for starting disappointing threads. The thread topics give great promises, but the content always consist of confused nonsense. This guy is alot like Interesting Ian in that respect, though that guy could at least make decent points and interesting posts once in a while.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by plindboe
*Sigh* lifegazer has a great gift for starting disappointing threads. The thread topics give great promises, but the content always consist of confused nonsense. This guy is alot like Interesting Ian in that respect, though that guy could at least make decent points and interesting posts once in a while.
Another post which claims to address the frailty of my logic, yet does no such thing.
The evidence mounts. You're all a bunch of lieing bastards who will say anything to sustain the reality of your egos.

Once more, I challenge any of you lieing bozos to actually refute the reason - using reason - given in my OP.
If you do not do this, I will continue to expose you all as BS'ers who only give a crap about the reality of themselves.
I don't care if this takes up my whole life: The truth shall be known - both of "reality" and of the indifference/desirelessness towards that reality.

[lifegazer]

Do any of you knobheads actually have the intelligence to refute my OP?
I know that you don't.
Keep exhibiting this inability for it exposes what I say of you.

[Ratman_tf]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Another post which claims to address the frailty of my logic, yet does no such thing.
The evidence mounts. You're all a bunch of lieing bastards who will say anything to sustain the reality of your egos.


As are you.

You make numerous assertations, some of them quite convoluted, but in essence, it seems to me that you're saying:

"1+1=2! Therefore God exists! YOU CANNOT DENY IT!"

I won't try to debate your points, because to me they don't even line up, or really mean anything. And I've been following your stuff for a while, in the hope that at least you have a coherent argument for god. (Setting aside the question of wether it's a compelling argument or not...)

[Piscivore]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Another post which claims to address the frailty of my logic, yet does no such thing.

He did not claim to address the frailty of your logic. Your paranoia is showing.

Originally posted by lifegazer
The evidence mounts. You're all a bunch of lieing bastards who will say anything to sustain the reality of your egos.

Show me where I lied. Show me where I dispaly my "ego". Show me where I claimed a reality for my "ego".

Originally posted by lifegazer
Once more, I challenge any of you lieing bozos to actually refute the reason - using reason - given in my OP.
If you do not do this, I will continue to expose you all as BS'ers who only give a crap about the reality of themselves.

Once more, I challenge you, delusional equivocater, to actually refute the notion that "infinity" in not a unit of measure.
If you do not do this, I will continue to let you expose yourself as a delusional fanatic who only gives a crap about proving to himself the reality of a god to preserve your ego after death.

Originally posted by lifegazer
I don't care if this takes up my whole life: The truth shall be known - both of "reality" and of the indifference/desirelessness towards that reality.

How very noble of you. Being dramatic does not improve the quality of your argument- if it did, my daughter has you beat.

The fact that we do not "desire" to share your delusions does not prove them either.

[Cosmo]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Another example of indifference and desirelessness, regarding 'God'. No reason provided.

Excuse me - it's well-known that "waiting for the worms" is a Pink Floyd song, off the popular album "The Wall". It's merely a cultural reference, not a stab at your God - that part comes in a bit.

Originally posted by lifegazer
Note that the the notion of God destroys the notion of the ego and you will understand the methods of these plonkers.
They will disappear in the time they worship. They will be decimated by worms. Their laughter will cave-in on their on graves.

This planet has existed for an extremely small amount of time, as compared to the duration of the universe's existence.
I have existed for an extremely small amount of time, as compared to the duration of this planet's existence.
My entire life is an extremely small amount of time, as compared to the duration of either the planet's or the universe's existence.

When I die, you're quite correct that I will be, for all intents and purposes, worm fodder.

You seem to see something wrong with this statement. Do you fear being worm fodder? I can't seem to find the problem with being resigned to that ultimate fate - yet you seem to be adamantly opposed to it.

How deep is your fear for that ultimate fate?
Does your god grant you an escape from that ultimate fate?

If so, it seems you've found a happy medium - believe in your god, and you no longer have to fear being worm fodder! Woohoo!That does not, however, explain why you feel the need to preach to this community the existence of your god.

Not everyone fears their ultimate fate as you do.
Not everyone needs a god like you do.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Cosmo
When I die, you're quite correct that I will be, for all intents and purposes, worm fodder.

You seem to see something wrong with this statement. Do you fear being worm fodder? I can't seem to find the problem with being resigned to that ultimate fate - yet you seem to be adamantly opposed to it.

Firstly, let it be noted that you also have ignored the content of my OP.
Anyway... I do not fear 'it'. I just abhor the acceptance that I am nothing-other than 'it'.
You fail to realise that one's acceptance of one's reality and fate plays THE major-role in how we actually live our lives.

How deep is your fear for that ultimate fate?
Does your god grant you an escape from that ultimate fate?

Actually, my philosophy grants me the realisation that death is an illusion like all sensed-phenomena are illusions.
God is all that exists and God does not die.

If so, it seems you've found a happy medium - believe in your god, and you no longer have to fear being worm fodder! Woohoo!That does not, however, explain why you feel the need to preach to this community the existence of your god.

My OP has not been addressed. Dare "you" address it?

Not everyone fears their ultimate fate as you do.
Not everyone needs a god like you do.
You will have plenty of need and fear as your destiny with the worms gets closer.

[Cosmo]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Anyway... I do not fear 'it'. I just abhor the acceptance that I am nothing-other than 'it'.

Exactly. You abhor nothingness, nonexistence, non-being. Not all of us do.

Originally posted by lifegazer
You fail to realise that one's acceptance of one's reality and fate plays THE major-role in how we actually live our lives.

Foolish. If this were true, atheists everywhere would be murdering and stealing to their heart's content, as they fear no afterlife. I need not offer a rebuttal here.

Originally posted by lifegazer
God is all that exists and God does not die.

Evidence?

Originally posted by lifegazer
My OP has not been addressed. Dare "you" address it?

No, I see no need to; a number of other, more talented people than I have already spent a great deal of time addressing your OP. I was, and am, merely commenting on your subsequent comments.

Originally posted by lifegazer
You will have plenty of need and fear as your destiny with the worms gets closer.

Is that so? How do you figure that? What makes you think that, as I get older, I'll suddenly develop a fear of death? I am not the first atheist to die, nor will I be the last - what makes me any different?

[Piscivore]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Firstly, let it be noted that you also have ignored the content of my OP.

Let it be further noted that you only respond to the "diversions" you rail against, yet you have twice refused to answer my question that does address your OP. By what logic do you claim that "infinity" is a unit of measure?

Originally posted by lifegazer
Actually, my philosophy grants me the realisation that death is an illusion like all sensed-phenomena are illusions.
God is all that exists and God does not die.

Just as I said. You are a frightened, weak little child trying to build a cosmic parent to cling to in the darkness. Coward.

Originally posted by lifegazer
My OP has not been addressed. Dare "you" address it?

It has been addressed. You are a coward and a liar. By what logic do you claim that "infinity" is a unit of measure? Show your work, use real logic, try not to dodge and insult instead, and if you are going to use definitions different from the rest of the English-speaking world, explain why.

If you can't, I'll just have to assume that you are a blowhard and a liar and a coward.

[plindboe]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Another post which claims to address the frailty of my logic, yet does no such thing.

Ok, I guess it's fair to give a reply, though I'll probably regret it.

I haven't read the thread yet, so not sure if others have made these points already, but here I go:

Originally posted by lifegazer
Reason dictates that there cannot be a an existing reality of X that is infinite since this requires that different parts of X (A and Z, for instance) actually exist an infinite-distance from each other.

No, reason doesn't dictate that. As soon as you define two points, there will be a finite distance between them. Like picking any two numbers, numbers have an infinite range too, but as soon as you have picked two you will be able to subtract the one from the other, and calculate the difference. You could just as well use the same way of arguing against the infinite range of numbers.


Originally posted by lifegazer
This is plainly dumb since it means that ALL parts traversed on an attempted journey from A to Z are no nearer to Z than A itself.

This is also wrong, even if assuming the distance between A and Z was infinite. If you have point A, and you travel towards Z, you can define the travelling via A. Like saying A+1, A+2, A+3 etc. In this case, you will in your entire journey always be closer to A than to Z. This directly contradicts your statement.

Infinity means that there will always be something beyond whatever you present. So it makes no sense to talk about a location at an infinite distance, because as soon as you have a certain location, it's distance is not infinite.


Originally posted by lifegazer
Can there be a reality that is finite?

... Well, let's "get real" again:-
If we advocate the reality of a finite existence, we are advocating the reality of something completely bounded by absolutely nothing. Clearly, absolutely-nothing cannot embrace a finite reality.
Therefore, there is no finite reality either.
Therefore, reality must be non-spatial.

Because of curvature of space, which has been observed btw, it can be finite yet have no borders. Like a circle, it's finite, yet it has no end. The universe is bound by it's own laws.


Originally posted by lifegazer
Therefore, get praying you bozos.

This doesn't logically follow from your other conclusions.

Edited to add: I see zaayrdragon has made the same points I have, though more eloquently.

[Robin]

Lifegazer:

Personally I have never considered that reality was spatial although I find your reasoning a little sparse.

So with at least one person agreeing with you about this first part, can you get on with the part where you show that non-spatiality implies a sentient God, as a number of people have asked?

[Z]

Hmm.. no progress, and no ability, apparently, to address the real issues raised by your claims. Just a lot of garbage posts about worms and the finality of death.

Well, LG, it's all looking mighty bad for your philosophy, pal.

Basically, unless you want to be labelled as nothing more than an annoying troll, you have two options:

1) explain the reasoning behind using infinity as a unit of measure between two points; or

2) skip the explanations and get on with your philosophy, as you have 'promised' to do now for a VERY long time.

I doubt you can do 2) because you haven't so far, in thread after thread after thread; you just continue to troll with more attempts at proving a 0-dimensional reality, all of which fail miserably. But if you can, then please do - because we're all just a little tired of your pseudo-religious, pseudo-reasoned, circular, failed arguments and childish insults and threats. Do you really think we're all scared of you or of your philosophy? Or afraid of what might happen if you are right? Heck, as near as any of us can tell, even if your 'philosophy' is right, it still means absolutely nothing to us. Can you even prove why your posts are 'of the utmost importance'?

Not bloody likely.

You're a troll, some kid with an ego problem and a sucky life, trying to post here about some 'profound philosophy' that makes you sound intelligent and important, when, in fact, your 'philosophy' is based on flawed reasoning, incorrect facts, and a LOT of hot air.

Your posts mean less than camel's spit. I find discussing them with you amusing, just to learn the extent to which you will backpeddle, redefine, and outright lie just to make yourself feel a little more grandoise. Plus, it's useful to keep tabs on morons who want to 'start a revolution against Science' and 'overthrow the Scientific dictatorship'.

But, since I'm back from work, feel free to address the issues at hand. And you'd better hurry, the worms are drooling for you.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by plindboe
"Reason that there cannot be a an existing reality of X that is infinite since this requires that different parts of X (A and Z, for instance) actually exist an infinite-distance from each other."

No, reason doesn't dictate that. As soon as you define two points, there will be a finite distance between them.

I know this. But the claim/assumption made by some here (not me) is that the universe/existence IS infinite. As I said earlier, there are 3 possibilities:-
(1) The universe is finite existence.
(2) The universe is infinite existence.
(3) The universe is non-spatial and is neither of the above.

We are currently contemplating the actual existence of infinity here - point 2.
Now, if an entity is infinite in itself, there would have to be parts of that entity which were infinitely-distanced from one another. Clearly, this cannot be so which is why the universe is not infinite.

Like picking any two numbers, numbers have an infinite range too, but as soon as you have picked two you will be able to subtract the one from the other, and calculate the difference. You could just as well use the same way of arguing against the infinite range of numbers.

Numbers do not exist, except in our minds. Let's concentrate on existence please.

This is also wrong, even if assuming the distance between A and Z was infinite. If you have point A, and you travel towards Z, you can define the travelling via A. Like saying A+1, A+2, A+3 etc. In this case, you will in your entire journey always be closer to A than to Z. This directly contradicts your statement.

My statement said that ALL points/parts between A and Z are no nearer to Z than A. You have completely ignored this.

Infinity means that there will always be something beyond whatever you present. So it makes no sense to talk about a location at an infinite distance, because as soon as you have a certain location, it's distance is not infinite.

Wake-up. The question is whether something can itself actually have an infinite existence.

Because of curvature of space, which has been observed btw, it can be finite yet have no borders. Like a circle, it's finite, yet it has no end. The universe is bound by it's own laws.

A circle is finite and has no end but is still bounded.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Robin
Lifegazer:

Personally I have never considered that reality was spatial although I find your reasoning a little sparse.

So with at least one person agreeing with you about this first part, can you get on with the part where you show that non-spatiality implies a sentient God, as a number of people have asked?
Yep, will do so by Thursday's end.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
explain the reasoning behind using infinity as a unit of measure between two points;

I have. Making the claim that an entity is infinite means that some existing parts of that entity must be infinitely-distanced from others. In other words, the claim itself is ludicrous.

[lifegazer]

My stick analogy was very apt.
If I claim that the stick I am holding is infinite, then I also make the claim that certain parts of the stick exist which are infinitely-distanced from myself and other parts of the stick.

It's all very simple to see.

[Z]

A stick is a matter-thing. Matter-things are finite. Existence/reality is not a matter-thing. It encompasses matter, energy, time, etc. It may or may not be finite. If it is finite, however, it does not logically follow that there must be a specific point which is infinitely distant from another specific point. You continue to assert that there must be infinite distances between specific points if infinity exists, but when asked why you assert this, you use circular reasoning. "It would have to follow because it would have to follow." Sorry, that's not reasoning or logic at all.

So far, you still have failed to grasp even the fundamental concepts necessary to explain your philosophy.

The 'infinite stick' concept is like saying you are holding a one-sided cube, and trying to prove by such example why three dimensions can't exist. Oh, wait, you already tried that one, didn't you? And that didn't work either. "If a point exists, and a point is 0-dimensional, then the universe has to be 0-dimensional as well." Well, once again, you are confusing a conceptual thing with a matter-thing. The point that we already debunked for you is the same as infinite distance. Once again, your grasp of physics and reality are shown to be weak at best.

But, since you never successfully discussed the 0-dimensional thing, but merely ran off to start a new thread, I expect you'll do the same about infinite distance. And somehow, I doubt you'll finally 'get to the point' :D on Thursday.

Please - surprise me. It would be a nice change.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
A stick is a matter-thing. Matter-things are finite. Existence/reality is not a matter-thing. It encompasses matter, energy, time, etc. It may or may not be finite.

I've already told you that You cannot equate the existence of space with 'absolutely-nothing', especially when you want to differentiate between different parts of that space.

Your complaint is futile and irrelevant. The claim that space is infinite subjects it to the same reasoning I applied to the stick.

If it is finite, however, it does not logically follow that there must be a specific point which is infinitely distant from another specific point.

The claim was that the stick is infinite, not finite.

You continue to assert that there must be infinite distances between specific points if infinity exists, but when asked why you assert this, you use circular reasoning. "It would have to follow because it would have to follow." Sorry, that's not reasoning or logic at all.

Your inability to understand the simple analogy of the stick reflects upon you, not me.

The 'infinite stick' concept is like saying you are holding a one-sided cube, and trying to prove by such example why three dimensions can't exist.

Everyone knows what a stick is, so spare me this nonsense about a one-sided cube.

Your insincerity here is bordering on the remarkable.

[Z]

Everyone knows what a cube is. But a one-sided cube makes no more sense than an infinite stick.

Can you define the properties of reality? Of space? What is space's mass? What is space's temperature? Space is emptiness - void - lack. It can thus easily be infinite, since it has no parts to it. Things within that space must be finite. That is simple enough. But since quanitity - another non-matter term - can be infinite as well, there can be an infinite quanitity of finite things. Can you refute that? And if there are an infinite quantity of finite things, and they cannot occupy the same space-time, then there must be an infinite quantity of space-time. Ergo - space-time is infinite.

BTW - why were you banned from the Philosophy forums? I read your posts - at least, those that were accessible and fairly recent (the most recent it allowed was from 2003) - and there wasn't anything in those that would suggest you needed banning - only that you needed education in relativity theory. :D

[The Don]

Your analogy of the infinite stick is very poor. There's no such thing as an infinite stick.

Your premise is that the universe cannot be finite and expanding because there must be something outside the universe for it to expand into. It's a really difficult thing for anyone to get their head around. What's even more difficult is that things are expressed in four dimensions (which our brains, used to three dimensions fin very difficult to understand intuitively).

So what happens if i'm standing at the "edge" of the universe ? Well, no matter which direction you set off in, you'll still be within the same finite universe (counterintuitive isn't it ?). The standard analogy is of a balloon (two spacial dimensions representing three and the third spacial dimension representing time). If you consider the two dimensional surface, it's getting larger but no matter which direction you move in (in those two dimensions) you are still on that surface. It's something you either get or you don't (and there's no shame in just not getting it).

So in a three dimensional representation of spacetime, what's outside the universe ? Why tomorrow of course.

So your argument falls at the first hurdle, space is finite (but growing).

[Z]

That's an interesting analogy - so, by this 'balloon theory', even his refutation of 2) was wrong. So the only fully refuted of his three choices remains 3).

Yet 3) is what he clings to so dearly.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by The Don
Your analogy of the infinite stick is very poor. There's no such thing as an infinite stick.

No kiddin. The analogy was given to reflect why there cannot be infinite-anything, including space.

So what happens if i'm standing at the "edge" of the universe ? Well, no matter which direction you set off in, you'll still be within the same finite universe (counterintuitive isn't it ?). The standard analogy is of a balloon (two spacial dimensions representing three and the third spacial dimension representing time). If you consider the two dimensional surface, it's getting larger but no matter which direction you move in (in those two dimensions) you are still on that surface. It's something you either get or you don't (and there's no shame in just not getting it).

This is BS. Your balloon is still bounded whether you can get off it or not.

[The Don]

It's the use of the word existence which throws me. The universe is either:

- Finite (in the three spacial dimensions
- Infinite (in the three spacial dimensions)
- Non-spacial

I think the infinite universe is refuted by the fact that if the universe were infinite, then there'd be an infinite mass in the universe which means that we'd all be subjected to infinite gravitational forces the whole time. (finite mass in an infinite "space" doesn't work beause everything would have to be an infinite distance apart).

The non-spacial thing demonstrates a lack of desire to question one's position.

The universe does not really work like a balloon (we are not awaiting the cosmic pin to make it go POP) but I found the analogy a useful tool

[The Don]

Originally posted by lifegazer
This is BS. Your balloon is still bounded whether you can get off it or not. [/B]

I don't understand your problem. I was merely trying to illustrate how a finite universe doesn't have an observable edge.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by The Don
I don't understand your problem. I was merely trying to illustrate how a finite universe doesn't have an observable edge.
You're looking from the inside of an existence you are part of and saying that because you - a 4-dimensional entity - cannot leave his own 4-dimensional existence, that this proves said existence has no boundary.
That's BS. Your inability to leave the existence you are part of does not mean said existence is not bounded.
The balloon is embraced. You've been rumbled.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by The Don
I think the infinite universe is refuted by the fact that if the universe were infinite, then there'd be an infinite mass in the universe which means that we'd all be subjected to infinite gravitational forces the whole time.

Nope. If the universe is infinite then it takes infinite time for the effects of infinite mass to affect one locality. Which means that all localities are free of the effects of infinite mass.

The non-spacial thing demonstrates a lack of desire to question one's position.

What??

The universe does not really work like a balloon (we are not awaiting the cosmic pin to make it go POP) but I found the analogy a useful tool
The tool is not yours. People have been brandishing it for years and it's BS.

[The Don]

Originally posted by lifegazer
You're looking from the inside of an existence you are part of and saying that because you - a 4-dimensional entity - cannot leave his own 4-dimensional existence, that this proves said existence has no boundary.
That's BS. Your inability to leave the existence you are part of does not mean said existence is not bounded.
The balloon is embraced. You've been rumbled.
Your terminology is very inexact. By what is the balloon "embraced" ? (and what does embraced mean in this context ?)

If your argument relies on there being "something" outside the four dimensional representation of spacetime then please demonstrate how this is so.

[The Don]

Originally posted by lifegazer
The tool is not yours. People have been brandishing it for years and it's BS.
Never claimed it was mine, if you note I said:
The standard analogy is of a balloon
Please demonstrate how it is BS

[The Don]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Nope. If the universe is infinite then it takes infinite time for the effects of infinite mass to affect one locality. Which means that all localities are free of the effects of infinite mass.

It would have had an infinite amount of time to do so on the grounds that it would have taken an infinite amount of time to get there.

[Z]

[sigh] There he goes with his new pet-phrase again.

Apparently (for you readers coming in late) any time LG thinks he's made a witty rebuttal of someone's point, he has decided they've been 'rumbled'. From what I can tell, this just means, "Ha! I disagree with you! Don't you feel silly!"

Back to the discussion...

I'm not sure I fully buy the finite space-time thing - but I caught myself making a simple mistake in the other post where I mentioned infinite space having infinite things within that space. Don, it is entirely possible that, within infinite space, there is only finite matter... or that the infinite matter is scattered widely enough that the overall gravitational effect is small. Consider: just how much gravitational effect does a star even on the other side of our galaxy have on us? Not much at all. Now, a galaxy has a much greater mass and therefore much greater effect - but are we really so heavily affected by galaxies even within our own neighborhood? Consider, also, that 'black holes' (or whatever the modern concept for them is) contain masses so great, even light cannot escape. Yet do these immense masses affect much beyond their local space-time?

Consider, then, that the gravitational effects of large masses dissipates through space. And if space, itself, is infinite, and there is infinite matter in space, then in spite of such enormous mass, there is also an equally enormous amount of space to negate the overall mass problem.

It IS a difficult concept to deal with - that there could be infinite mass in the universe, but that there is less mass than space. In fact, logically speaking, that shouldn't be possible - or so we think - but in dealing with infinity theorem, that's exactly what is stated: that there are infinities that are greater than other infinities. I think, if I remember correctly, the concept is one of infinite distribution of infinite mass within infinite space...

Yep, it gets very confusing, very fast.

But so far, LG can't tell us WHY infinite space must exist between two fixed points in an infinite universe, but not in a finite universe. Or, more exactly, why the inability for infinite space to exist between fixed points negates the possibility of infinite space beyond any fixed points?

[The Don]

LG did respond with the only possible reason why an infinite mass (no matter how widely spaced) doesn't exert an infinite force, it doesn't have time to do so. No matter how far away, a mass will exert some force on us. If there is infinite mass, there must perforce be an infinite force.

Of course I'm always willing to be educated. I'm not aware of too many cosmologists who consider the universe to be infinite.

[Z]

Is it possible, then, that space is itself infinite, but the Universe (all energy/matter that is) is finite?

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by The Don
Nope. If the universe is infinite then it takes infinite time for the effects of infinite mass to affect one locality. Which means that all localities are free of the effects of infinite mass.

It would have had an infinite amount of time to do so on the grounds that it would have taken an infinite amount of time to get there.
If the universe of matter is infinite then some of that matter is infinitely-distanced from you (yes I know it's not possible but that's the consequence of making the claim - it compares to the stick analogy). As such, no amount of time will enable the gravitational-effects of said matter to affect your locality.

[Z]

If the universe of matter is infinite then some of that matter is infinitely-distanced from you

ONCE AGAIN - No. No matter is ever infinitely distant from you. Even in an infinite universe of matter. Every bit of matter is at a finite distance from you. But in turn, in an infinite universe of matter, there is an infinite quantity of matter, with each bit being farther from you than the one before it.

You are really willfully ignorant, aren't you LG?

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by The Don
Your terminology is very inexact. By what is the balloon "embraced" ? (and what does embraced mean in this context ?)

I'm talking about a medium which houses the existence of a finite entity.
Since we're discussing the reality of a balloon where 2-dimensional people walk its surface, I can tell you right now that the medium housing this reality is the mind itself. 2-dimensional entities cannot truly exist.

If your argument relies on there being "something" outside the four dimensional representation of spacetime then please demonstrate how this is so.
All finite entities are housed by something.

[Z]

Hoo boy - here comes the medium talk.

Next he'll be discussing the aether that light waves travel through space on.

:D

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
ONCE AGAIN - No. No matter is ever infinitely distant from you. Even in an infinite universe of matter. Every bit of matter is at a finite distance from you. But in turn, in an infinite universe of matter, there is an infinite quantity of matter, with each bit being farther from you than the one before it.

You are really willfully ignorant, aren't you LG?
An existing infinity of matter is akin to my infinite stick. If I make the claim that my stick has infinite existence, then I also make the claim that some parts of that stick are infinitely-distanced from other parts.
It's an either or situation:-
(1) The stick has finite existence.
(2) The stick has infinite existence.
[(3) Or the stick simply doesn't truly exist, like all other "things".]

If you claim '2', then you cannot escape the reason provided.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
Can you define the properties of reality? Of space? What is space's mass? What is space's temperature? Space is emptiness - void - lack.

Explain to this forum why your nothingness of space is warped by matter. Explain to this forum how "nothing" bends.

[The Don]

IIRC "Space" is part of the universe. So, unless things have changed in the last 15 years or so (which of course they may have) the consensus is that the universe is finite.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by The Don
IIRC "Space" is part of the universe. So, unless things have changed in the last 15 years or so (which of course they may have) the consensus is that the universe is finite.
Existence as a whole cannot be finite.

[The Don]

Originally posted by lifegazer
I'm talking about a medium which houses the existence of a finite entity.
Since we're discussing the reality of a balloon where 2-dimensional people walk its surface, I can tell you right now that the medium housing this reality is the mind itself. 2-dimensional entities cannot truly exist.
The term "medium" implies to me that there is sometheing within which the universe is "sitting", that there's something outside the universe "containing" the universe. Please demonstrate why that has to be the case. Why cannot the universe be everything there is ?

Originally posted by lifegazer
All finite entities are housed by something.
All finite enities are finite. Why do they have to be housed ? Housed implies bound and I'm not aware of a boundary (in the same way that the balloon people would not have a boundary). As I understand it, if you move in ANY direction in three dimensional space, the curvature of will ensure that you will eventually return to your starting point (in three dimensions) of course you will have moved in four dimensions because you'll be in a place caled "later"

[The Don]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Existence as a whole cannot be finite.
What do you mean by existence.

- Space is finite (though unbound)
- Mass is finite
- Time is finite

What is there in existence which is not described by space, mass or time ?

[The Don]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Explain to this forum why your nothingness of space is warped by matter. Explain to this forum how "nothing" bends.
If you care to read it, this brief overview of general relativity describes how this can be so.

http://library.thinkquest.org/25886/yrelcont.htm

[lifegazer]

The question was a lead to highlighting the idiocy of a claim which relates space(time) to 'nothingness'.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by The Don
What is there in existence which is not described by space, mass or time ?
Sensation, thought, feeling.

You'd do well to remember that the universe is a sensed-experience.
You should be asking what there is in existence beyond the sense and thought of it.

[The Don]

Originally posted by lifegazer
You should be asking what there is in existence beyond the
sense and thought of it.
You really DID enjoy The Matrix didn't you ?

A non-physical universe is a self consistent albeit limiting. As far as I am aware there is no simple argument for a physical universe.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by The Don
You really DID enjoy The Matrix didn't you ?

The first one was okay.

A non-physical universe is a self consistent albeit limiting. As far as I am aware there is no simple argument for a physical universe.
Correct... there is no reason which can support the existence of a reality beyond the perceiver of its own sensations.

[plindboe]

Originally posted by lifegazer
I know this. But the claim/assumption made by some here (not me) is that the universe/existence IS infinite. As I said earlier, there are 3 possibilities:-
(1) The universe is finite existence.
(2) The universe is infinite existence.
(3) The universe is non-spatial and is neither of the above.

Well, I would tend to agree with this, though I find the third option utterly unlikely and quite frankly nonsensical.


Originally posted by lifegazer
We are currently contemplating the actual existence of infinity here - point 2.
Now, if an entity is infinite in itself, there would have to be parts of that entity which were infinitely-distanced from one another. Clearly, this cannot be so which is why the universe is not infinite.

Well, I can understand your way of reasoning in this regard, I truly can, but it is flawed because you do not understand what infinity means exactly, which is totally understandable since it's quite an abstract and strange term, and something which we can not be sure even exists in reality. Instead of picking an A and a Z as points/areas/spaces, which makes it unnecessarily complicated, we can instead just use A as a frame of reference, with Z being an infinite distance away, and make the whole thing easier to perceive(this will make it analogous with your stick idea for example). Infinity means that whatever number you pick, infinity will always be greater, so when you say a specific number, like Z, there will always be a Z+1, and therefore Z can not be infinity since there's an even greater number. Infinity can never be a given number, distance or any specific value whatsoever. We can say that the universe is infinitely large and there is matter all the way, but as soon as we pick some place with matter, there will always be more matter beyond it, and therefore by definition the place we picked is finite. So you can argue, in this model, that whatever point you choose in the Universe, there will always be an infinite amount of matter to the left and right of it, but it would be wrong to say that there's a point in each direction that equals infinity.


Originally posted by lifegazer
Numbers do not exist, except in our minds. Let's concentrate on existence please.

Numbers can be used to describe reality, so if we're talking about an infinite reality, we're also talking about infinite numbers. Describe a distance with a number. Infinite distance, means infinite number.


Originally posted by lifegazer
My statement said that ALL points/parts between A and Z are no nearer to Z than A. You have completely ignored this.

No, A+1 is a point between A and Z and is much closer to A than to Z. Likewise Z-1 will always be nearer to Z. I haven't ignored anything on purpose. If you mean anything else than what I have just specified, perhaps you can give a more detailed describtion about what you mean.


Originally posted by lifegazer
Wake-up. The question is whether something can itself actually have an infinite existence.

I realize that you and zaayrdragon have a habit of insulting each other, so telling me to wake up, or that I'm insane, or stupid(or other ad hominems) because I don't get it, means nothing to me. Please, let us have a rational discussion instead. If you can not reason for your hypotheses properly to me, then the fault is on your side.


Originally posted by lifegazer
A circle is finite and has no end but is still bounded.

Exactly. Like the Universe. No end, no borders and still it's bounded because of the laws that function within that universe.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by plindboe
Well, I would tend to agree with this, though I find the third option utterly unlikely and quite frankly nonsensical.

Just because the third possibility seems personally 'incredible' to accept for you doesn't negate that possibility. I'm afraid you'll have to use reason if you want to refute any of my points.

Infinity means that whatever number you pick, infinity will always be greater, so when you say a specific number, like Z, there will always be a Z+1, and therefore Z can not be infinity since there's an even greater number.

I know all this. Yet once again you fail to address the actual issue on the table:- If somebody claims that there is an existing infinity of something (like the stick), then by default the claim is made that some parts of that thing are infinitely-distanced from others.
Now I know that this isn't possible which is why an infinity of something cannot actual exist.
A "thing" - if really existing - must be either finite in itself or infinite in itself. There's no inbetween option.

No, A+1 is a point between A and Z and is much closer to A than to Z. Likewise Z-1 will always be nearer to Z. I haven't ignored anything on purpose.

You can never get any nearer to an infinitely-distanced point, no matter how hard you try.
B, C, D, E, F - any and all points between A and Z - are no nearer to Z than is A.

[The Don]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Correct... there is no reason which can support the existence of a reality beyond the perceiver of its own sensations.
There are two options, the universe is either the product of your imagination and no physical universe exists at all or there is a physical universe.

Because neither proposition can be proved beyond doubt (after all, a physical universe is also self-consistent), what position you take is a matter of faith.

If you take a non-physical point of view, investigation of the universe is presumably an exercise in self-discovery (after all, you've made up the rules (presumably subconciously) and so you imagine scientists, explorers, doctors etc. etc. who are investigating your rules for you. What interests me is why you've bothered to imagine all of us posters and why you haven't been able to imagine us being more amenable to persuasion by your arguments.

If you take a physical point of view then this is a much less ego-centric point of view but it does mean that you have to accept that there are things we don't know and will never know.

If someone can provide a conclusive argument either way (which doesn't require leaps of faith) then I'd love to hear it.

I personally believe in a physical universe but that's because I find the alternative limiting.

[Z]

Well, it's clear that no amount of education can pierce your hide of belief. However, let's set aside infinity for the moment - I am not totally convinced that the universe must be 'infinite', though not for your reasoning. I merely say that infinity is certainly possible, and does not demand that points within infinity have infinite distance one from the other.

I would say it is possible to define the Universe as finite, as it is expanding from a fixed beginning, but had a clear boundary. This boundary is not a 'thing' in and of itself, but a place where either a) nothing exists (the ultimate void), or b) physical laws such as we know them dissolve and cease to be. We may very well be a finite universe, expanding into infinite space; or, the outer edge of the finite universe appears, to us, to be an ultimately destructive shell that disintegrates anything that approaches it, yet is slowly expanding to accommodate the increasingly larger universe within it. Now, this might beg the question, what lies beyond said boundary - but if physical laws break down at this edge, then dimensions also cease to exist at this edge, and there is no 'beyond' nor a 'later' to ponder about.

So... after much consideration - I have to consider both a) and b) possible, though neither without a great deal of mystery and a large number of unresolved issues.

c) however, a 'non-spatial reality', is completely nonsensical.

LG, you seem to forget that sensation, thought, and feeling all have physical correllates and prerequisite physical activity that corresponds to them. Each of these three can be negated by damaging/destroying the part of the brain responsible for them. Each can be falsely stimulated by stimulating the appropriate brain area. Without some brain to do the sensing/thinking/feeling, these things do not exist.

Now, in your non-spatial reality, there is nothing. Yet we know there must be something - even if it's just a God that's thinking about being us. Something is not nothing - and a something with an extensive reality, or even the sensation of an extensive but illusionary reality, is still something. You cannot reason, in the least, how a 0-dimensional unreal thing can be real or can have the illusion of being real - no more so than you could reason any of a dozen other, equally fantastic and equally unprovable assertions.

Perhaps our universe is merely one of the free-floating atoms of the atmosphere of a really, REALLY big planet, for example. Can you prove it otherwise? Of course not - and it's certainly a possibility.

Without some real physical correllate to begin from, you are reasoning in a vacuum. You first discount all physical reality, then try to reason - but on what basis? You cannot even discount infinite space since our reality, in which infinite space is not possible (according to you), is the illusion. Perhaps infinite space - and infinite distance between fixed points - is part of the reality. Perhaps the reality is nothing like the illusion you have discounted. By discounting what you can discern with your senses, you are left solely with your imagination. Reason cannot be based upon imagination. It is a house built upon sand.

[lifegazer]

You are completely potty. If waffling was an olympic sport, you'd have won the gold medal in Athens.
I notice that you completely avoided answering why your nothingness of spacetime is warped by matter.
All in all, you're not worth talking to.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon:-
"I admit, I have no idea how nothing bends."

The defence rests its case. Wheel him outta here.

[Z]

You have yet to rest anything, little boy.

All in all, you are only worth talking to because your ignorance is amusing.

Just because I have no idea how space-time bends means neither that it does not bend nor that it does not exist.

Let's face it - for all your 'belly laughing' you cannot reason, explain, or prove how the universe is neither finite nor infinite. In fact, so far you have proven... let's see...

NOTHING.

Besides - is it the void that bends, or are photons merely affected by gravity as they pass a massive object? Certainly, it would seem to me that this 'warp' effect is more readily explained simply by photons having a minute mass and therefore being affected by the mass of large bodies as they pass them.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
Besides - is it the void that bends, or are photons merely affected by gravity as they pass a massive object? Certainly, it would seem to me that this 'warp' effect is more readily explained simply by photons having a minute mass and therefore being affected by the mass of large bodies as they pass them.
You're making a fool of yourself. Space and time are physically affected by mass. Moreover, the space and time we sense changes dependent upon our own velocity.

Spacetime cannot be equated with nothing.
I suggest that you take a backseat before they put a straightjacket on ya.

[Z]

What, you don't want us wearing the same fashions? :D

[The Don]

You do realise that there isn't an ether though which electromagnetic radiation and gravitational forces propogate don't you Lifegazer ?

[sackett]

Wasn't anybody listening? LiteSaber said in reply to Robin's request for a proof of God's existence,
"Yep, will do so by Thursday's end."

Staggering! Earthshaking! Epocal! A logical proof of God, at last, after all these centuries!

How can we possibly wait until Thursday's end? Is that before midnight GMT, or does he just mean before the pubs close?

He'd better deliver. We all know what happens to false prophets.

Where's TinChrist when you need him?

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by The Don
You do realise that there isn't an ether though which electromagnetic radiation and gravitational forces propogate don't you Lifegazer ?
You do realise that the motion of all sensed light is an illusion occuring within your awareness, don't you Don?

However, if we ponder the actual existence of a universe beyond the abstract sense of one, my answer to your question would be that spacetime cannot be "nothing".

[The Don]

Originally posted by lifegazer
You do realise that the motion of all sensed light is an illusion occuring within your awareness, don't you Don?

However, if we ponder the actual existence of a universe beyond the abstract sense of one, my answer to your question would be that spacetime cannot be "nothing".
Absolutely, if you take the view that mine is the only frame of reference then there is no absolute proof for the existence of anything other than my perceptions. Upon my death then from my frame of reference there is nothing. I am not sufficiently ego-centric to believe that if it were not for my existence then nothing would exist. I am happy to concede that that point of view is however internally consistent as is the alternative point of view that things are happening all over the place about which I have no knowledge. The hoary old chestnut of "If a tree falls and there's no-one to hear it, does it make a sound" applies. You either believe that is does or it doesn't, there's no way to prove it one way or another.

Unless of course you know differently and are able to prove it.

[lifegazer]

This is important to my argument so I want to address it once more...
There are only three possible scenarios for existence:-

(1) Something (existence as a whole) is finite.
(2) Something is infinite.
(3) Something is non-spatial.

We all know what finite existence is:- Each part of existence is a finite distance from all other parts of that existence.
So, how would Something that is infinite differ from a finite existence?
... Well it's obvious: Each part of an infinite existence would have to be an infinite-distance from all other parts.
Obviously, this is absurd which leads to the conclusion that existence cannot - in itself - be infinite.

[The Don]

I'm still puzzled by your use of the word existence. How does existence differ from the sum of matter, space and time ?

[tdn]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Yet once again you fail to address the actual issue on the table

On the contrary. If you want a fair definition of infinite, look to the number of times your points have been addressed already. Just because people haven't fallen to their knees and praised your "infinite wisdom" doesn't mean they haven't considered your points, it just means that they've considered your points and found them to be lacking.

Nonetheless, you're going to share with us why 2+2=God tomorrow? Is that a promise? Can I take your word on that?

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by The Don
I'm still puzzled by your use of the word existence. How does existence differ from the sum of matter, space and time ?
There may not even be a reality of matter and spacetime. So existence could differ greatly from such things. I'm not sure what your point is.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by tdn
On the contrary. If you want a fair definition of infinite, look to the number of times your points have been addressed already. Just because people haven't fallen to their knees and praised your "infinite wisdom" doesn't mean they haven't considered your points, it just means that they've considered your points and found them to be lacking.

Nonetheless, you're going to share with us why 2+2=God tomorrow? Is that a promise? Can I take your word on that?
I thought you wanted a civilised discussion?
Somebody asked me why a non-spatial reality would = God. I said that I would answer that question before the end of Thursday and I will.

Address my post about the nature of things. It's about 5 posts above this. It clearly explains the issue you have constantly failed to grasp.
Edit to add: If you disagree with that post, then please explain to this forum the difference between a finite entity and an infinite entity.

[Z]

Originally posted by lifegazer
There may not even be a reality of matter and spacetime. So existence could differ greatly from such things. I'm not sure what your point is.

Since you admit this, then any conjecture you make about the nature of that which is real, is simply that: conjecture. You have just admitted that there may not be a 'singular, boundless, indivisible God' after all.

Thank you.

Here's your straitjacket back - you'll find the back seat nice and warm for you.

Nevertheless, do enrich our lives with your final proof of God. By tomorrow, of course.

:D

[The Don]

Originally posted by lifegazer
There may not even be a reality of matter and spacetime. So existence could differ greatly from such things. I'm not sure what your point is.
I was trying to understand what you were proposing and your use of the word existence was, and still is, confusing me.

[Z]

I am still puzzled - perplexed - absolutely confused. Why does an infinite existence demand that distance between two fixed points be infinite? Explain this, logically and properly, and I will not shadow this thread again until AFTER you give your 'proof'.

The stick theory, however, is illogical. Explain logically and properly. Without circular reasoning. In other words, saying, "An infinite reality must contain an infinite distance between two points because an infinite distance between two points is impossible," is illogical and improper.

[The Don]

Oh, I see where this is going....

If there's no spacial reality then everything must be a product of a mind.

That mind, because it has produced everything must, in that universe be omniscient and omnipotent.

That is what God is

Therefore God exists

That's a brilliantly simple proof and I congratulate you. Of course you have no proof of that first premise, that there is no spacial reality.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
Since you admit this, then any conjecture you make about the nature of that which is real, is simply that: conjecture. You have just admitted that there may not be a 'singular, boundless, indivisible God' after all.

No I haven't. I was just making Don aware of the fact that existence is not necessarily physical, which is what he believes.

Here's your straitjacket back - you'll find the back seat nice and warm for you.

They've released you already? Did you ask the guards for their thoughts on how to bend nothing? I expect not or they would have thrown away the key. :D

Nevertheless, do enrich our lives with your final proof of God. By tomorrow, of course.

:D
Tomorrow, I'm going to be answering why a non-spatial reality = God. Until then, I'm trying to show why reality must be non-spatial.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
I am still puzzled - perplexed - absolutely confused.

... and completely potty.

Why does an infinite existence demand that distance between two fixed points be infinite? Explain this, logically and properly, and I will not shadow this thread again until AFTER you give your 'proof'.

I have. Read my post about the nature of things. If you disagree with it, then explain to this forum what the difference is between a finite entity and an infinite entity.
I expect to be laughing again very shortly.

[Z]

Originally posted by The Don
Oh, I see where this is going....

If there's no spacial reality then everything must be a product of a mind.

That mind, because it has produced everything must, in that universe be omniscient and omnipotent.

That is what God is

Therefore God exists

That's a brilliantly simple proof and I congratulate you. Of course you have no proof of that first premise, that there is no spacial reality.

Au contraire, Don - his proof is that, since we cannot prove the existence of a spacial reality beyond our sense of one, then one cannot exist. Proof by lack of proof, essentially.

Oh, and declaring that both an infinite reality and a finite reality are illogical... um... on the grounds that an infinite reality absolutely must have fixed points an infinite distance apart, and that anything finite must be bounded by something else.

I think that sums up his proof of the non-existence of spacial reality.

[Piscivore]

Originally posted by The Don
Oh, I see where this is going....

If there's no spacial reality then everything must be a product of a mind.

That mind, because it has produced everything must, in that universe be omniscient and omnipotent.

That is what God is

Therefore God exists

That's a brilliantly simple proof and I congratulate you. Of course you have no proof of that first premise, that there is no spacial reality.

Not only that, But the syllogism in the first sentence is unproveable as well. Even if he "proves" somehow that there is no spacial reality, it does not follow that the illusion of spacial reality is the product of a mind.

Also it is perfectly closed; none of the other "qualities" he insists this god posesses follow necessarily from this.

[Piscivore]

Originally posted by lifegazer
... and completely potty.

I have. Read my post about the nature of things. If you disagree with it, then explain to this forum what the difference is between a finite entity and an infinite entity.
I expect to be laughing again very shortly.

"Infinite entity" is a contradiction in terms. Chuckle away. When you are done, perhaps you would be so kind as to share with us your definition of "infinite"

[The Don]

Originally posted by Piscivore
Not only that, But the syllogism in the first sentence is unproveable as well. Even if he "proves" somehow that there is no spacial reality, it does not follow that the illusion of spacial reality is the product of a mind.

Also it is perfectly closed; none of the other "qualities" he insists this god posesses follow necessarily from this.
Yeah, but apart from *those* "minor details" he's sooooooooo close

[Z]

Originally posted by lifegazer have. Read my post about the nature of things. If you disagree with it, then explain to this forum what the difference is between a finite entity and an infinite entity. I expect to be laughing again very shortly.

Originally posted by lifegazer
This is important to my argument so I want to address it once more...
There are only three possible scenarios for existence:-

(1) Something (existence as a whole) is finite.
(2) Something is infinite.
(3) Something is non-spatial.

We all know what finite existence is:- Each part of existence is a finite distance from all other parts of that existence.
So, how would Something that is infinite differ from a finite existence?
... Well it's obvious: Each part of an infinite existence would have to be an infinite-distance from all other parts.
Obviously, this is absurd which leads to the conclusion that existence cannot - in itself - be infinite.

I still miss where you PROVE that each part of an infinite existence would have to be an infinite distance from all other parts. There is certainly nothing in this post that explains that assertion.

Hold off on laughing until you can expain your assertion.

What I do see is, that you have incorrectly defined a finite existence. A finite existence is one which has an endpoint - boundaries - defined borders. Such an existence has an edge.

Your definition, that each part of a finite existence is a finite distance from all other parts of that existence, is also true of an infinte existence. All parts of an infinite existence is a finite distance from all other parts of that existence. The difference is, in a finite existence, there are finite parts; in an infinite existence, there are infinite parts. An infinite number of parts that are each a finite distance from an infinite number of other parts. This is the proper definition for an infinite existence, not that mistake you posted.

[big belly laugh]Hyuck! Hyuck! Hyuck![/big belly laugh]

sorry, that was uncalled-for.

Anyway, back to the question: Why does an infinite existence demand that distance between two fixed points be infinite? Explain this, logically and properly.

[tdn]

Originally posted by lifegazer
I thought you wanted a civilised discussion?

First of all, I never said that. You'll notice that before my last post I had only posted once, and I never made that request.

Secondly, I don't see anything uncivilised in my last post. You, on the other hand, have been insulting to everyone in this thread, and on most every other thread that you participate in. Was it or was it not you who called the rest of us worm food?

Thirdly, yes, I'd like to keep this discussion civilised and polite.

Somebody asked me why a non-spatial reality would = God. I said that I would answer that question before the end of Thursday and I will.

That somebody was me, although many more people have made the same request since.

I don't see why you need to wait to answer the question, but if that's the way you want to do it, then I respect that. The reason I express doubt is that I see, on this and other message boards, people promising proof for extraordinary claims, then reneging on that promise -- they often either disappear from the thread, or evade the question, or offer up the same lame arguments as before, or change the subject. I just don't want to see that happen here.

But to presume you'll do the same is rude on my part. Sorry. I'll take it on your word that you'll reval all when you say you will.

Address my post about the nature of things. It's about 5 posts above this. It clearly explains the issue you have constantly failed to grasp.
Edit to add: If you disagree with that post, then please explain to this forum the difference between a finite entity and an infinite entity.

I'm not sure where you get "constantly" from my one post. And as I said, people smarter than me have already answered the question. I'm not sure why you insist that every single poster address every single point you make.

But what the hell, I'll give it a try.


There are only three possible scenarios for existence:-

(1) Something (existence as a whole) is finite.
(2) Something is infinite.
(3) Something is non-spatial.


Be wary of making such limited, blanket statements. They'll just get you into trouble.

We all know what finite existence is:- Each part of existence is a finite distance from all other parts of that existence.
So, how would Something that is infinite differ from a finite existence?
... Well it's obvious: Each part of an infinite existence would have to be an infinite-distance from all other parts.

No, it wouldn't. By your definition, in an infinite number set, the number 34 would be an infinite distance from the number 35. Clearly this is not so.

Obviously, this is absurd

Agreed.

which leads to the conclusion that existence cannot - in itself - be infinite.

Disagreed. Just because 34 is only one less than 35 does not mean that the number system cannot be infinite.

Let's take your stick example: Say I put a pencil mark every inch on it, starting with where you are holding it, and number each mark starting with one. Although the stick stretches to infinite, the tenth mark is still clearly a measurable distance away. Suppose I wanted to find a mark so far away that you couldn't see it. Several miles, perhaps. While still really far away, I'm still at a mark that has a number, say 125847521. I can go still farther away, but no matter where I stop, I can still find an identifiable number. The stick can be infinite, but every single point along it is still a measurable distance from the end.

Thus, no point along an infinite stick is an infinite distance from the end. Not a single one.

Does that make sense?

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Piscivore
"Infinite entity" is a contradiction in terms.

Exactly.
However, if you're one of those dumbos who say that the universe could BE (existence being the keyword) infinite, then you are in fact saying that the universe is an infinite entity.

[tdn]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Exactly.
However, if you're one of those dumbos

I thought you wanted a civilised discussion?

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by tdn
"However, if you're one of those dumbos..."

I thought you wanted a civilised discussion?
Okay. Then:-

If you're one of those people with a low IQ...

Err...

If you're one of those people who were born with a limited ability to rationalise...

Err...

If you're one of those people who errr.

Hmm.
... How about:
If you've been unlucky enough to have made a rational mistake and have somehow concluded that...

[Piscivore]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Exactly.
However, if you're one of those dumbos who say that the universe could BE (existence being the keyword) infinite, then you are in fact saying that the universe is an infinite entity.

However, if you're one of those dumbos who say that the universe could NOT BE infinite, then you are in fact confusing two separate and distinct definitions of the word "existence". Not to mention your butchery of the word "infinite".

Define both of these terms, please, as used in your "philosophy":
Existence
Infinite

[tdn]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Okay. Then:-

If you're one of those people with a low IQ...

Err...

If you're one of those people who were born with a limited ability to rationalise...

Err...

If you're one of those people who errr.

Hmm.
... How about:
If you've been unlucky enough to have made a rational mistake and have somehow concluded that...

And you're still insulting people. All the while whinging about how people are insulting you.

Dude, it's called projection. This is Psych 101 stuff.

And you have yet to address my last post.

[Z]

If there can be no such thing as an infinite entity (granted), then reality/existence cannot be an entity; it can only be a state of being. As such, we cannot therefore define God as reality or existence, if we are to also define God as an entity, per se.

But let's step back from God for just a sec...

Returning to the ACA - what if the ACA is NOT an entity, but merely a unique phenomenon which, once it has initiated the Big Bang reaction, disappears forever? In that case, the ACA cannot be God either.

However - a completely unreal God - by which I mean, a being that in no way conforms to any known laws of our reality - could have created Reality yet still not be a detectible part of said reality. Such a being could even, in small part, exist WITHIN said reality by defining real portions of itself. Those real portions COULD be seen as life forms.. possibly.

Mind you, there is no proof and very little reason to suppose such conditions. But to deny the existence of reality as we perceive it leads one to no available conclusions. If the reality we perceive does not exist, and we can perceive of no alternative, then we can conclude absolutely nothing as to the nature of true reality or God.

[tdn]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
If there can be no such thing as an infinite entity (granted)

I'm still not sure of this. What is meant by "entity"? Is the numbering system an entity? If so, then that is an example of an infinite one.

Or are we talking about living entities?

[Z]

Yes, I agree - the exact definition of 'entity' is in question here.

If an 'entity' is a physical thing, then it cannot be infinite. If an 'entity' includes hypothetical things and states of being, then it certainly can be infinite.

So... what precise definition are we to use?

[H'ethetheth]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
Yes, I agree - the exact definition of 'entity' is in question here.

If an 'entity' is a physical thing, then it cannot be infinite. If an 'entity' includes hypothetical things and states of being, then it certainly can be infinite.

So... what precise definition are we to use? Is a space not a physical thing? I'd say yes. So I would say that infinite entities can exist. I must be one of those intellually impared erronius bozoes.





:id:

[uruk]

Lifegazer says "space" cannot be "nothing". O.k. so what is space made out of?

[lifegazer]

It's difficult not to use the word "bozo" here, but I am totally frustrated by the inability of most participants to distinguish between a conceptual-infinity and an existing-infinity.

What's the difference? A bleedin' lot!
Let's take a stroll down reality-check lane and take a peek at the distinctions...

What is a conceptual infinity? Well, it's something that exists in our minds. For example, the number scale. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5... etc. etc.
There's no end to it. Potentially, this scale of numbers can go on forever and ever and you'll never reach the end of the line.
However, the scale doesn't exist. It's just an idea in our minds, yet no man (or machine) has ever counted more than a finite portion of the scale.
We can say three things about the number scale:-
(1) It doesn't actually exist.
(2) It's potential to grow (in our awareness) is unlimited.
(3) No man or machine can ever count more than a finite portion of numbers. So, it's existence in our mind will always be a finite but unlimited one.

So now...
What is an existing infinity? Rather, what would an existing infinity be if it could exist? Well, it's nothing like the number-scale.
We can say three things about an existing infinity:-
(1) 'It' actually exists (allegedly, by some of you).
(2) It's potential to grow is nil, for how can an exisiting infinity grow any larger than infinity? Our observation of it may grow but that's something else altogether. We are talking about an entity which exists right now as an infinity - and not just when you come to observe or count it (as is the case with numbers).
(3) No man or machine can observe all of it - but this doesn't mean (unlike the number scale) that the rest of it doesn't exist.

As you can see, there's some important distinctions to be made between conceptual-infinity and an existing-infinity. Some of you don't seem to grasp this.
Note:- an existing infinity is not concerned with your ability to observe or count it, for as we know, we can only grasp finite knowledge of anything. But neither it nor myself give a rats about your abilities to observe or count an infinity.
I shall speak for 'it' as 'it' would surely speak for itself: "You cannot see all of me but believe me, there are parts of me that exist an infinite distance from you. If this was not so, I would not claim to be an infinite-existence."

Expand your minds and start thinking on higher levels.
Existence cannot be infinite.

[uruk]

Hey bozo, that wasn't the issue. The issue was what definition of entity you were using.
Take a look here:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by zaayrdragon
Yes, I agree - the exact definition of 'entity' is in question here.

If an 'entity' is a physical thing, then it cannot be infinite. If an 'entity' includes hypothetical things and states of being, then it certainly can be infinite.

So... what precise definition are we to use?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Is a space not a physical thing? I'd say yes. So I would say that infinite entities can exist. I must be one of those intellually impared erronius bozoes.

Please try and keep up.

[Piscivore]

Originally posted by lifegazer
We can say three things about the number scale:-
(1) It doesn't actually exist.

Yes it does; you just mentioned it, didn't you?

Originally posted by lifegazer
(2) It's potential to grow (in our awareness) is unlimited.

Note the "in our awareness" qualifier you had to add there- how is this different from "our observation of it" you used below for "an existing infinity"? Do you see from where all your errors spring?

Originally posted by lifegazer
(3) No man or machine can ever count more than a finite portion of numbers. So, it's existence in our mind will always be a finite but unlimited one.

Identical to your #3 for "an existing infinity", yet you seem to think this deliniates a difference. How?

Originally posted by lifegazer
(1) 'It' actually exists (allegedly, by some of you).
(2) It's potential to grow is nil, for how can an exisiting infinity grow any larger than infinity? Our observation of it may grow but that's something else altogether. We are talking about an entity which exists right now as an infinity - and not just when you come to observe or count it (as is the case with numbers).
(3) No man or machine can observe all of it - but this doesn't mean (unlike the number scale) that the rest of it doesn't exist.

As you can see, there's some important distinctions to be made between conceptual-infinity and an existing-infinity. Some of you don't seem to grasp this.


I don't see- what I DO see is you trying to force distinctions between identical sets of statements.

Does the concept of "numbers" cease to exist unless someone is actually counting them? That's nonsense, and even you have to know this. One error, the same error every time- you think there is an existential difference between a conceptual entity and a "real" entity. Only with you, you have decided that "real" entities are illusory, so you have to go through all these linguistic contortions to maintain this dichotomy. Sorry, bozo- you are wrong.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by uruk
Hey bozo, that wasn't the issue.

Hey fellow bozo... the issues are as I decree. I have God on my side so I rig the vote in my favour.
Actually - seriously - what I've just posted was an issue, since alot of people cannot grasp the actual distinction between an existing infinity and a conceptual infinity.

The issue was what definition of entity you were using.

Note that my previous post made the distinction between an actual physical reality (as alleged) and a conceptual reality.

Take a look here:

Okay... let's have a look:-

If an 'entity' is a physical thing, then it cannot be infinite.

Notice how he's changed his mind. Earlier in the thread, he was pushing for an existing physical-universe that was infinite in itself. Mind you, he has had a tough day - dragged off earlier in a straight-jacket, apparently, claiming that ~nothing~ could actually be bent.
Poor sod.

If an 'entity' includes hypothetical things and states of being, then it certainly can be infinite.

Yep. I've just dealt with this in my previous post which you claim is not the issue.

Please try and keep up.
Well I'm not in work tomorrow so I'll stay up as long as I can.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Piscivore
"We can say three things about the number scale:-
(1) It doesn't actually exist."

Yes it does; you just mentioned it, didn't you?

Well I can mention other things if you like, such as Randi, down on his knees, begging for forgiveness for his sins. Does my mentioning of a thing make it exist so? Of course not.
You've just earned yourself 10 bozo points for that duff response.

"(2) It's potential to grow (in our awareness) is unlimited."

Note the "in our awareness" qualifier you had to add there

5 bozo points for this one. The scale of numbers can only get bigger/longer as we think about it. I can count to 1000 if I want to... or I can count to 1001... or even 10000000001 (if I can survive that long). Of course I added the qualifier because the scale of numbers only exists in our awareness.

- how is this different from "our observation of it"

Numbers only exist in your mind... as you think about them. However, an existing-infinity must exist whether you think about it or not. Like I said, an existing infinity doesn't care about your inability to observe it in its entirety or think about it in its entirety: it exists anyway.
This sums-up the difference between a conceptual-infinity and an existing-infinity.

Identical to your #3 for "an existing infinity", yet you seem to think this deliniates a difference. How?

5 more bozo points since #3 is definitely different in both definitions. My previous statement, prior to this quote, actually explains this distinction.

I don't see- what I DO see is you trying to force distinctions between identical sets of statements.

Don't tell porkies. It's very easy to see that those statements are not identical.

Does the concept of "numbers" cease to exist unless someone is actually counting them?

Does the French language cease to exist unless someone is actually using it or thinking about it?
Are you under the impression that stardust knows how to count to 10... or that it knows how to speak French?

One error, the same error every time- you think there is an existential difference between a conceptual entity and a "real" entity.

*Infinite-points bozo alert*.
Are you seriously standing before this forum and declaring that there is no difference between an idea/concept of a thing and 'reality'?
... I'm double-checking before declaring you an "infinite bozo".

Only with you, you have decided that "real" entities are illusory,

My declaration comes after reasoned scrutiny of potential realities.
I am not like you. I don't declare what is real without first thinking about it. :nope:

[tdn]

Originally posted by lifegazer
What is a conceptual infinity? Well, it's something that exists in our minds.

Which, according to your overriding philosophy, makes it absolutely real. The way we perceive things is ultimate reality, right?

Anyway, what is it about "real" infinity that gives it different properties than "conceptual" infinity? Why does conceptual infinity allow adjacent parts, while real infinity doesn't?

I'd also like to point out that real infinity doesn't exist (according to you), which makes it conceptual infinity, in which case adjacent parts are allowed, but only in the mind, which makes it real infinity.

Wow. I need an aspirin.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by tdn
"What is a conceptual infinity? Well, it's something that exists in our minds."

Which, according to your overriding philosophy, makes it absolutely real. The way we perceive things is ultimate reality, right?

Incorrect. In my philosophy, only God - It's mind - is real. The "things" God perceives or senses or thinks about are, ultimately, unreal in themselves.

Anyway, what is it about "real" infinity that gives it different properties than "conceptual" infinity? Why does conceptual infinity allow adjacent parts, while real infinity doesn't?

The issue is whether an actual physical-reality exists beyond the concept/idea or abstract/intangible sense of one. We know that sensations or ideas are not 'real' in themselves; hence, there is a distinction to be noted between the idea or sense of a "thing" and the actual reality of said thing.
... That's what that previous long-post sought to convey.

I'd also like to point out that real infinity doesn't exist

Well I've been saying that all along.

(according to you)

According to you too, apparently.

which makes it conceptual infinity, in which case adjacent parts are allowed, but only in the mind, which makes it real infinity.

"Things" that exist in the mind are not real in themselves, as explained. There are no ~real~ infinities of being or even real finite-beings existing in the mind. Entities existing in the mind are obviously intangible.

Wow. I need an aspirin.
You also need knee-pads for the amount of time you're about to spend "on yer knees". But you can use a cushion if you're broke.

[Robin]

From Lifegazer
It's difficult not to use the word "bozo" here, but I am totally frustrated by the inability of most participants to distinguish between a conceptual-infinity and an existing-infinity.

The problem is that you haven’t defined the difference between a conceptual infinity and an actual infinity either:
1. An existing infinity exists – OK but it doesn’t tell us anything
2. Neither can grow, although we can gradually become aware of both.
3. No man or machine can observe all of either.

In other words you have not said anything that distinguishes a conceptual infinity from an existing infinity. We agree that there is a difference, the point is to be precise about it. I would have thought that this would be key to the discussion.

Since we have rejected spaciality as a condition for existence then we cannot say that it physically exists. It could be argued that something like a number line that accurately and consistently describes independently observed phenomena could be said to ‘actually’ exist.

Whereas we have not even begun to understand what an ‘existing’ infinity might be, only what it is not.

I still await your reasoning for why non-spaciality implies God. If you know now then why do you have to wait for Thursday? I am assuming that you live in one of those parts of the world that don’t get Thursday properly started until early Friday morning, so I will wait till then.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Robin
The problem is that you haven’t defined the difference between a conceptual infinity and an actual infinity either:
1. An existing infinity exists – OK but it doesn’t tell us anything

It doesn't tell you anything, apparently. Though I have obviously defined the difference/distinction between these things and I can re-post the argument, for evidence, at your whim.
Your inability or indifference to see a truth doesn't mean that a truth hasn't been presented.

2. Neither can grow, although we can gradually become aware of both.

Incorrect: your awareness of the amount of numbers that can exist in your mind is unlimited. However, an existing-infinity exists regardless of your awareness of it. This is significant.

3. No man or machine can observe all of either.

I agree. Though I explained why an existing infinity exists whether you see or think about it, or not. Whereas a conceptual infinity doesn't exist - even if you do think about it.

I still await your reasoning for why non-spaciality implies God. If you know now then why do you have to wait for Thursday?

Thursday is my last day off work. I wanted to get feedback - and answer it - about why reality had to be non-spatial before I explained why a non-spatial reality = 'God'. Given that I only started this thread on Tuesday, I don't think that anyone can accuse me of being unreasonable in having this plan.

I am assuming that you live in one of those parts of the world that don’t get Thursday properly started until early Friday morning, so I will wait till then.
I live in England. The time of the world is grounded around where I live. You work out what that means for yourself.

[lifegazer]

Apt that I should exist in a place that defines your time.

[Robin]

It doesn't tell you anything, apparently. Though I have obviously defined the difference/distinction between these things and I can re-post the argument, for evidence, at your whim.
Your inability or indifference to see a truth doesn't mean that a truth hasn't been presented.

Now I am frustrated at your inability (or unwillingness) to see my point - remember I am the one who agreed with you. You said:

We can say three things about an existing infinity:-
(1) 'It' actually exists (allegedly, by some of you).

You merely repeated the definition - to say "an existing infinity exists" is a meaningless statement - like "a husband is married".

your awareness of the amount of numbers that can exist in your mind is unlimited. However, an existing-infinity exists regardless of your awareness of it. This is significant.

Abstract does not mean malleable. If I become aware of an integer that nobody has been aware of before the set of integers does not change. Moreover the behaviour of integers depends on certain external realities, we cannot just define them as we like.

You have not identified any distinctions between conceptual and existing. In fact I think that anything that we can describe exists in some sense. The distinction is between abstract and concrete existence.

Again I say, nobody says that there is no difference, but you will need to be more precise about it.

Apt that I should exist in a place that defines your time.

Now who's confusing conceptual with actual? :)

[Z]

STILL waiting on the reasoning behind insisting that infinite reality requires infinite distances between fixed points... :D

[tdn]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
STILL waiting on the reasoning behind insisting that infinite reality requires infinite distances between fixed points... :D

It's obvious, isn't it? By careful observation of "actual" infinity, which, by definition doesn't exist, as opposed to "pretend" infinity, one can clearly see that all points are infinitely far from each other, which is impossible, which one can neatly observe from that which doesn't exist, therefore we live in a wafer-thin universe, therefore, God.

You bozo.

This should be obvious to anyone who has had the priviledge of visiting the snakepit of lifegazer's "brain."

[uruk]

Does my mentioning of a thing make it exist so? Of course not.
Mark this statement well LG.

Numbers only exist in your mind... as you think about them.
Well according to you, everything exists in our mind.Incorrect. In my philosophy, only God - It's mind - is real. The "things" God perceives or senses or thinks about are, ultimately, unreal in themselves. So then tell again what the difference between a conceptual inifinity and a "real" inifinity is again?"Things" that exist in the mind are not real in themselves, as explained. There are no ~real~ infinities of being or even real finite-beings existing in the mind. Entities existing in the mind are obviously intangible. Then absolutly nothing is real since everything we experiance is in our minds, according to you. Everything is conceptual. So, according to your philosophy, there should be no difference between a "real" inifinity or a conceptual infinity. They are one in the same. This is what your line reasoning leads to.
an existing-infinity exists regardless of your awareness of it. So then our awarness does not have to encompass an infinite universe.

Apt that I should exist in a place that defines your time. Quite right. An arbitrary point which has no meaning, in and of itself, but only to those who accept it....or not.

[tdn]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Incorrect. In my philosophy, only God - It's mind - is real. The "things" God perceives or senses or thinks about are, ultimately, unreal in themselves.

The issue is whether an actual physical-reality exists beyond the concept/idea or abstract/intangible sense of one. We know that sensations or ideas are not 'real' in themselves; hence, there is a distinction to be noted between the idea or sense of a "thing" and the actual reality of said thing.

Funny, this contradicts every single post I have ever read from you since I joined this board.

According to you too, apparently.

Why am I not surprised that you completely misread my post? Dude, you have some serious comprehension issues.

I DO believe that infinities can exist in nature, and I don't ascribe to them the wonky and insane attributes that you do.

You also need knee-pads for the amount of time you're about to spend "on yer knees". But you can use a cushion if you're broke.

Huh?

[The Don]

Originally posted by lifegazer
I live in England. [/B]
I feel I must apologise on behalf of my compatriots

[kuroyume0161]

Originally posted by tdn
Funny, this contradicts every single post I have ever read from you since I joined this board.

Nah, this about the same ole' *****. No external reality - only sensed reality - therefore there is only one 'real' mind experiencing it for all of us. Hyper-Solipsism.

Why am I not surprised that you completely misread my post? Dude, you have some serious comprehension issues.

Definitely!

Huh?

Rewored: My Grand Unified Philosophy Proving In-Exhaustible (Guppie) will convince everybody and they, and you, will be worshipping god in no time (obviously compulsorily).

Robert

[Piscivore]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Well I can mention other things if you like, such as Randi, down on his knees, begging for forgiveness for his sins. Does my mentioning of a thing make it exist so? Of course not.

Yes, because we can now talk about that entity (Randi, down on his knees, begging for forgiveness for his sins.). You are redifining "existence" to be limited to "physical reality" here. You never explained why my friend Pierre is not real, you know.

Let's look at your statments #1:
"(1) It doesn't actually exist.
(1) 'It' actually exists (allegedly, by some of you)."

Again, you have to qualify to create a dichotomy; "allegedly, by some of you". By that, you have changed the direct objects of your sentences. Allow me to restate:

(1) According to lifegazer, the number scale does not "exist"
(1) According to some of the rest of the forum, "physical reality" does exist.

Functionally meaningless. If we remove your equivocation, we get:

(1) According to lifegazer, the number scale does not "exist"
(1) According to lifegazer, "physical reality" does not "exist"

Identical meanings. Don't you see that your assertion that we are dealing with sensed data only means that any entity we postulate from those senses is a "conceptual entity"? But that's one of those questions from another thread that you refused to answer.

You use pronouns, but I will use nouns, if you don't mind- it's more precise. Your example of a "conceptual infinity" is the number scale, can we aggree that the "existing infinity" we are talking about is "space"- or do you want to be free to redifine "existing infinity" at will?

Let me show you something (this would be easier if tables were possible):
"existing" phenomenon
A) I have an apple in each hand
B) I am five feet from the door

"Sensed" entity
A) units of quantity
B) units of distance

Conceptual entity
A) number
B) number

This is the root of your declaration that "existence is distanceless", right? Because "distance" is a conceptual entity. But then you have no criteria to declare anything "real", because then any "thing" can be broken down to its component "sensations, which are only conceptual entities. But then you are deep in Solipsism (which you also did not invent), and as others have demonstrated, solipsism is functionally meaningless as well.

Originally posted by lifegazer
The scale of numbers can only get bigger/longer as we think about it. I can count to 1000 if I want to... or I can count to 1001... or even 10000000001 (if I can survive that long). Of course I added the qualifier because the scale of numbers only exists in our awareness.

The "scale of numbers" cannot "get bigger"- it is infinite. You can always think of a bigger number, but the scale is not limited.

The "sense of distance" cannot "get bigger"- it is infinite. You can always think of a farther-away place, but the scale is not limited.

You added the exact same qualifier to your "existing infinity", infinite space. let's compare the two statements:
"2) It's potential to grow (in our awareness) is unlimited.

(2) It's potential to grow is nil, for how can an exisiting infinity grow any larger than infinity? Our observation of it may grow but that's something else altogether."

"In our awareness" and "in our observation" are equivilent. Just because you change the subject in your sentences doesn't make the statements mean different things. In your first #2, your subject is our observation of a finite entity, particular numbers. In your second, it is the scale, and you split out "our observations" as a follow-up sentence. Your use of the pronoun is a device to further obfuscate this linguistic sleight-of-hand. Your two #2s can be accurately restated thus:

"2) The potential for the number scale we observe to grow is unlimited, but the potential for the scale to grow is nil, for how can a conceptual infinity grow any larger than infinity?
2) The potential for an existing infinity (space) we observe to grow is unlimited, but the potential for the entity to grow is nil, for how can an existing infinity grow any larger than infinity?"

Identical statements.

You do the exact same switcheroo in the third point, thus:
"(3) No man or machine can ever count more than a finite portion of numbers. So, it's existence in our mind will always be a finite but unlimited one.
(3) No man or machine can observe all of it - but this doesn't mean (unlike the number scale) that the rest of it doesn't exist. "

In the first, you address the phenomenon ("finite portion of numbers"), in the second, the scale ("unlike the number scale")

You continually confuse the sense-data (numbers) with the conceptual entity (the set of real numbers). Then you further obfuscate by using two different definitions of "exist"- not to mention your poor use of English seems to be failing to specify a difference between our sensations and a machine's

Let's clarify your #3s:
3) No man or machine can observe all of the number scale - but this doesn't mean that the rest of the infinite set of real numbers doesn't exist.

3) No man or machine can observe all of the universe - but this doesn't mean that the rest of infinite space doesn't exist.

Originally posted by lifegazer
Numbers only exist in your mind... as you think about them. However, an existing-infinity must exist whether you think about it or not.

Why? Do the apples in my hand cease to exist when I stop counting them? No. The quantity exists. The conceptual entity I use to describe the quantity exists too, whether I am "using" it at the time or not.

Originally posted by lifegazer
This sums-up the difference between a conceptual-infinity and an existing-infinity.

Yup. No difference.

Originally posted by lifegazer
Are you seriously standing before this forum and declaring that there is no difference between an idea/concept of a thing and 'reality'?

No, there is a difference. If you weren't a bozo, you'd see it illustrated above. But that difference isn't "existence".

Oh, and "Infinite bozo points" further illustrates that your idea of "infinity" is the colloquial meaning of "really big number". Get on the trolley, bozo.

[lifegazer]

Pointless to carry on with this. If anybody wants to discuss something specific then let me know, but I'm not repeating things I've already said.

[tdn]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Pointless to carry on with this. If anybody wants to discuss something specific then let me know, but I'm not repeating things I've already said.

You're not going to wimp out on why 2+2=God, are you?

And people have been discussing specifics. You made a number of assertions, and people have been discussing them as specifically as possible. Just because people are not falling to their knees and kissing your feet does not mean that they are drifting off-topic.

It just means that things are not going your way.

[Anathema]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Pointless to carry on with this. If anybody wants to discuss something specific then let me know, but I'm not repeating things I've already said. Are you shaping up a cop-out now, or are you getting ready to spring this noble truth upon us today, as promised? You still have quite a gap to jump from "nonspatiality" to "on yer knees, plonkers" --- I'm really interested in the stuff in between.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Anathema
Are you shaping up a cop-out now, or are you getting ready to spring this noble truth upon us today, as promised? You still have quite a gap to jump from "nonspatiality" to "on yer knees, plonkers" --- I'm really interested in the stuff in between.
Don kinda pre-empted my non-spatial reality = God argument.

I did my best to persuade readers why there cannot be a finite or infinite existence. Any further efforts would only be repeating things that I've already said... and clearly, nobody wants to buy it.

[Piscivore]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Pointless to carry on with this.

Are you admitting that you've been "rumbled", or is that too much text for you to comprehend?

Originally posted by lifegazer
If anybody wants to discuss something specific then let me know, but I'm not repeating things I've already said.

I've got a whole list (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=46480), but I'll settle for your definitions of Existence, Infinity, and Entity.

Or is that too specific, you half-wit, two-bit, undereducated, equivocating charlatan?

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Piscivore
Are you admitting that you've been "rumbled", or is that too much text for you to comprehend?

Don't be silly. Don't you get fed-up of talking to brick walls? I do.

[tdn]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Don kinda pre-empted my non-spatial reality = God argument.


So now you're not going to present your idea?

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by tdn
So now you're not going to present your idea?
If somebody in this forum agrees that reality is non-spatial I'll gladly talk about it. But as far as I can see, nobody does.

[tdn]

Originally posted by lifegazer
If somebody in this forum agrees that reality is non-spatial I'll gladly talk about it. But as far as I can see, nobody does.

*sigh* Fine. Reality is non-spatial. You've convinced me.

And it's Thursday.

Now, how does that prove God?

[Piscivore]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Don't be silly. Don't you get fed-up of talking to brick walls? I do.

No, I like you. You are very amusing, and your grotesque errors and poor reading comprehension really have been helpful- in refining my own ideas, warning me of possible errors, and challenging me to write as clearly as possible. Thanks.

And don't be so hard on yourself, you are hardly a "brick wall". If you want to talk with someone thick, you should try Iacchus. That boy's dense.

I asked you a specific question- got balls enough to answer it, or would defining your terms expose your little "magic trick"?

Originally posted by lifegazer
If somebody in this forum agrees that reality is non-spatial I'll gladly talk about it. But as far as I can see, nobody does.

"Play by my rules or I'll take my philosophy and go home!"

[Z]

Ah, so your entire premise absolutely requires non-spatial reality. Since non-spatial reality has not been proven (notice, I have not claimed it was disproven, since what has actually happened, is that spatial-reality has been successfully defended after all), you are not willing to continue discussing your premise.

Well, I can certainly understand your reluctance. After all, if we won't accept the foundations of your brainwashing, we'll never swallow the rest of it.

Unfortunately, this demonstrates your lack of honor and your inability to keep promises.

So... either you do continue with your premise, or you lack honor and are unworthy of respect.

[tdn]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
So... either you do continue with your premise, or you lack honor and are unworthy of respect.

Personally, I don't think he had a theory about God in the first place. He never expected to be called on it, and hoped that we'd forget all about it by today.

[Piscivore]

Originally posted by tdn
Personally, I don't think he had a theory about God in the first place. He never expected to be called on it, and hoped that we'd forget all about it by today.

Our Mr. Lifegazer is just trying to bolster his own self esteem. By tricking somone else into thinking he's got some revolutionary new insight, he hopes to convince himself he's "smart", in the face of his demonstrable incompetence in English, Maths, and Logic.

Philosophy, in this day and age, is the final refuge of the intellectually challenged.

[uruk]

you've been "rumbled",
Is it me or does anyone else find this cute?

You've been wumbled.... tee hee... wumbled.....*sigh*

[H'ethetheth]

Originally posted by lifegazer
If somebody in this forum agrees that reality is non-spatial I'll gladly talk about it. But as far as I can see, nobody does.

I'm willing to agree, but not on the grounds you've presented.
For instance, as the Don pointed out, a finite space does not have to be "surrounded by nothing". This is a very hard thing to understand and impossible to visualise but there is no reason why a 3-D space could not be curled up into a "hyperballoon" in a 4th spatial dimension. This would constitute a finite universe without a middle, beginning or end but not infinitely large.
The Dons refutation of the infinite universe however is not valid if I recall correctly. First of all, gravity is transferred at light speed, so gravity from the other end of the universe wouldn't have arrived here yet, and it wouldn't be noticed here as infinite gravity because its strength is inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the source, making it diminish too quickly to constitute infinite gravity at infinity.
This implies that an external universe might also be infinite (feel free though to correct me on this, anyone).
It may also be singular, but what then is the space we perceive? Is it infinite itself? If not, why?
Also, there's no reason why a God/Mind couldn't have imagined it to be any of these.
You're just shifting the problem into the Mind/God thing, you don't solve it. This brings us back to the "so what" question.

You know what? For the sake of argument I will agree that reality is non-spatial, and I call upon all the contributors and readers of this thread to do so. Then we can start answering the "so what" question.

[Piscivore]

Originally posted by uruk
Is it me or does anyone else find this cute?

You've been wumbled.... tee hee... wumbled.....*sigh*

It's a rugby term, roughly meaning "Soundly defeated". Another attempt by LG to give the impression he's an "alpha-male", a subltler version of the Argumentum ad baculum he employs via his "worm-food" warnings.

[Piscivore]

Originally posted by H'ethetheth
You know what? For the sake of argument I will agree that reality is non-spatial, and I call upon all the contributors and readers of this thread to do so. Then we can start answering the "so what" question.

I will so stipulate for the purpose of further discussion.

[The Don]

Originally posted by H'ethetheth
The Dons refutation of the infinite universe however is not valid if I recall correctly. First of all, gravity is transferred at light speed, so gravity from the other end of the universe wouldn't have arrived here yet, and it wouldn't be noticed here as infinite gravity because its strength is inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the source, making it diminish too quickly to constitute infinite gravity at infinity.
I understand that, but if the universe is infinite, in order to get there it would have take an infinite amount of time (and would have an infinite mass). I don't understand how a mass could have taken a finite time to get an infinite distance from a given point.

edited to add....

but that's not important right now so if you want to take it to another thread I'd be happy to learn

[H'ethetheth]

Originally posted by The Don
I understand that, but if the universe is infinite, in order to get there it would have take an infinite amount of time (and would have an infinite mass). I don't understand how a mass could have taken a finite time to get an infinite distance from a given point.
Right, but that just implies that if the universe is infinite, it allways has been, even during the big bang. Hard to imagine but im not sure if it's impossible per se. I'm underinformed concerning the big bang.

Edited to respond to Leslie: Exactly, there are more urgent matters at hand.

[The Don]

I've created another thread to avoid derailing this one

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=46773

[lifegazer]

Alright then.
We are now assuming that something is completely non-spatial. I shall proceed.
(Warning: clear a space near to your computer enabling you to drop to your knees in an instant.).

(1) 'Something' exists and is non-spatial - non-physical.
(2) This Thing is completely singular. A non-spatial existence is absolutely indivisible. Existence is One Thing.
(3) This Thing is the cause of the abstract experiences perceived by its own awareness (sensations, thoughts & feelings). It must be, since there is nothing else which exists except it.
(4) The human experience (the experience of being human) is being had by It. Nothing else exists. That's why your true identity is that of the perceiver - and not that which you perceive of yourself.

So, we're talking about a boundless non-spatial existence which has created the perception of everything.
It is omnipresent (all of existence).
It is omnipotent (the only power in existence).
It is omniscient (knows how it creates the perception of everything).
It is omnicreative (the only cause in existence) and given the boundlessness of 'imagination' and the variety of our dreams, there seems to be no limits to the (perceived) realities it can create for itself.

This entity exhibits purpose, intelligence and will, in its creation of an orderly universe.

If such an entity cannot be defined as the living God, then what can?

Now, on yer knees and thank God for sending lifegazer into your awareness. ;)

[tdn]

Pretty much every attribute you list could be described as "The Universe." In fact, by definition, that is so.

Originally posted by lifegazer
This entity exhibits purpose, intelligence and will, in its creation of an orderly universe.

It does? You've jumped from "Everything is as big as everything" to intelligent design with no intermediate steps.

Can you elaborate on why the universe is proven to have intelligent purpose?

Oh, and I'm not on my knees yet.

[Piscivore]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Alright then.
We are now assuming that something is completely non-spatial. I shall proceed.
(Warning: clear a space near to your computer enabling you to drop to your knees in an instant.).

(1) 'Something' exists and is non-spatial - non-physical.
(2) This Thing is completely singular. A non-spatial existence is absolutely indivisible. Existence is One Thing.
(3) This Thing is the cause of the abstract experiences perceived by its own awareness (sensations, thoughts & feelings). It must be, since there is nothing else which exists except it.
(4) The human experience (the experience of being human) is being had by It. Nothing else exists. That's why your true identity is that of the perceiver - and not that which you perceive of yourself.

So, we're talking about a boundless non-spatial existence which has created the perception of everything.
It is omnipresent (all of existence).
It is omnipotent (the only power in existence).
It is omniscient (knows how it creates the perception of everything).
It is omnicreative (the only cause in existence) and given the boundlessness of 'imagination' and the variety of our dreams, there seems to be no limits to the (perceived) realities it can create for itself.

This entity exhibits purpose, intelligence and will, in its creation of an orderly universe.

If such an entity cannot be defined as the living God, then what can?

Brahman. But I told you this before. Now answer the "So what" questions.

ETA: Further dissection will have to wait till after lunch. Plus the others deserve a shot at your "proof"

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by tdn
Pretty much every attribute you list could be described as "The Universe." In fact, by definition, that is so.

What??

"This entity exhibits purpose, intelligence and will, in its creation of an orderly universe."

It does? You've jumped from "Everything is as big as everything" to intelligent design with no intermediate steps.

What are you talking about? What is the reference to "Everything is as big as everything"? Did you fall to your knees and bang your head? ;)
I did provide intermediate steps for intelligent design: single existence, sole cause, orderly sensations giving the awareness of the world. Etc.

Oh, and I'm not on my knees yet.
Beware of thunderstorms then.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Piscivore
Now answer the "So what" questions.

"So what"?!
Are you serious?

[mom_4_justice]

Lifegazer, I totally agree with you. I for one pray just to talk to him about what ever is on my mind at the time. :)
mom_4_justice

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by mom_4_justice
Lifegazer, I totally agree with you. I for one pray just to talk to him about what ever is on my mind at the time. :)
mom_4_justice
She must be joking. Nobody ever agrees with me.:v:

[The GM]

Hey Mom,
Just wanted to welcome you to the forums!

[The GM]

Originally posted by lifegazer
She must be joking. Nobody ever agrees with me.:v:

Not true, I agreed w/ one of your posts last week. :D

[Marquis de Carabas]

Originally posted by lifegazer
She must be joking. Nobody ever agrees with me.:v:
You're absolutely right. :D:D:D

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by The GM
Not true, I agreed w/ one of your posts last week. :D
Did you get down on your knees?

[Marquis de Carabas]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Did you get down on your knees?
*ahem* "...and will neither post with language that is...sexually suggestive..."

[The GM]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Did you get down on your knees?

To do what, specifically?
:)

[lifegazer]

What a motley crew.

[The GM]

Originally posted by lifegazer
What a motley crew.

Aw, c'mon now, you know you love it. That's why you keep coming back.:D

[Marquis de Carabas]

Originally posted by lifegazer
What a motley crew.
God bless the children of the Beast.

[mom_4_justice]

Originally posted by The GM
Hey Mom,
Just wanted to welcome you to the forums! Thanks GM

[mom_4_justice]

Originally posted by Marquis de Carabas
*ahem* "...and will neither post with language that is...sexually suggestive..."
WELLLLLLL, I did when I excepted him into my heart, soul, and life. If that is what you meant great; if it was a mindfully dirty thought than, "shame on you!" lol

[Marquis de Carabas]

Originally posted by mom_4_justice
WELLLLLLL, I did when I excepted him into my heart, soul, and life. If that is what you meant great; if it was a mindfully dirty thought than, "shame on you!" lol
Have no worry after me. I except God in my life.

[mom_4_justice]

Originally posted by Marquis de Carabas
Have no worry after me. I except God in my life.
Welcome to the fold! :):D

[Z]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Alright then.
We are now assuming that something is completely non-spatial. I shall proceed.

Please note, that I still have not made this assumption. Indeed, I and others have already discussed why it is a false assumption.

Nevertheless, let's continue:

(Warning: clear a space near to your computer enabling you to drop to your knees in an instant.).

he he he he... yeah, right.

(1) 'Something' exists and is non-spatial - non-physical.

It would follow that, IF something exists AND it is non-spatial, THEN it is non-physical as well; yet CAN something exist and be non-physical? By which I mean, can there exist some thing that is neither composed of matter or energy? As of yet, no singular thing has ever been observed which is not correllated to matter and/or energy - including thoughts, dreams, and feelings. Though this does not necessarily mean that thoughts, dreams, and feelings ARE their physical correllates, that is a subject of even more in-depth debate between materialists and dualists. Since we are already starting from one radical assumption, it would be hazardous to pile on still more radical assumptions... yet we can, I suppose, apply a form of circular reasoning, and say that, if something can exist and be non-physical, then the thoughts, feelings, and emotions which we perceive and whose physical correlates we also perceive may also be themselves non-physical. This is neither proof nor disproof - but one assumption implies the other, in this case.

(2) This Thing is completely singular.

This does not follow from the statements already made. There is no reason to believe that there could not, in fact, be an infinite number of non-physical, non-spatial THINGS. It does follow from your ACA definitions, but you missed the opportunity to apply those definitions here. Hence, another mistake.

A non-spatial existence is absolutely indivisible. Existence is One Thing.

Now, we're getting into a very hard grey area. A thing which is physical certainly is divisible; yet we can apply no reasoning whatsoever to the properties of a non-physical thing. Even a non-spatial thing. Since we have already assumed that a non-spatial thing can still exist, in spite of being neither physical nor spatial, it is just as equally valid to assume that this non-existant existence is divisible - or is not divisible - depending on what you want to believe, as we have no observable data on non-spatial existences to work from.

However, if we further make this assumption, then we are also saying that Existence is Homogenous (all of one form). Otherwise, it would be divisible - i.e. marked by variations in form that are separate from the whole.

(3) This Thing is the cause of the abstract experiences perceived by its own awareness (sensations, thoughts & feelings). It must be, since there is nothing else which exists except it.

And here you apply a paradox of sorts. Here we have mentioned that there is One Thing, Indivisible, and Singular. Yet now we introduce abstract experiences, perception, and awareness - and therefore have four things (minimum) which exist. They either must exist externally to existence - which makes existence non-singular - or they must exist internally to existence - which makes existence non-indivisible.

(4) The human experience (the experience of being human) is being had by It. Nothing else exists. That's why your true identity is that of the perceiver - and not that which you perceive of yourself.

And here we introduce another series of concepts. For the hard solipsist, at least two: the 'perceiver' and the 'experience' being 'had'. For others, a vast number of new concepts. Again, either these concepts exist outside existence (nonsense, of course) or existence is divisible.

(Please note: when I use divisible I use it not in the sense 'able to be split apart physically' - since it is non-physical - but in the sense 'able to have parts less than the whole distinguished within it'.)

So, we're talking about a boundless non-spatial existence which has created the perception of everything.

Actually, you've just dropped 'boundless' into the conversation without history or explanation. Further, by 'creating' this existence has 'brought into existence' a new thing: perception of everything. Ergo - either non-singular or divisible.

It is omnipresent (all of existence).
It is omnipotent (the only power in existence).

So far, so good - if we ignore the problem of divisibility and singularity mentioned above.

It is omniscient (knows how it creates the perception of everything).

Does it, now? When did we say it knows HOW it does this??

It is omnicreative (the only cause in existence) and given the boundlessness of 'imagination' and the variety of our dreams, there seems to be no limits to the (perceived) realities it can create for itself.

OK.

This entity exhibits purpose, intelligence and will, in its creation of an orderly universe.

Whoa, whoa, whoa... where have you proven, in the least, that the universe it has 'created' exhibits purpose or intelligent? How is this universe 'orderly'?

If such an entity cannot be defined as the living God, then what can?

Now, on yer knees and thank God for sending lifegazer into your awareness. ;)

Numerous inconsistancies and logical fallacies. Further, I somehow think my knees are going to remain free of pressure for quite some time.

[Marquis de Carabas]

Heh. I love words.

[sackett]

Once two monks were watching a flag flapping in the wind. They began arguing.

"Wind is moving!" said the first monk.

"No, flag is moving!" insisted the other.

A Zen master was passing by and heard them. He smiled and said, "Not wind, not flag. MIND is moving!" The two monks experienced immediate enlightenment. In after times, the place became a site of holy pilgrimage.

Some centuries passed. One day an aged Zen nun was visiting the shrine and overheard two monks talking about the famous incident. She took the pipe out of her mouth, spat, and said, "That old master was a fool! Not wind, not flag, not mind. IT is moving!"

So LifeSaver is a Zen man.

BTW: I realize I misspelled "epochal" in my post of yesterday, but I was SO EXCITED at the prospect of LG's logical proof o' God that I couldn't hardly type straight.

[The GM]

Originally posted by Marquis de Carabas
Heh. I love words.

Except when you don't.:D

[sackett]

Yeah, and something else: I begin to suspect that we've been treating LG more seriously than he does himself. Sure, he really believes he's onto something with his sub-sophomoric metaphysics, but I don't think he wants his tone to be over-solemn. His constant use of "you bozos" is just an attempt at rough male humor. It's all meant in fun! Lighten up!

Although that stuff about people going down on their knees bothers me. I've said elsewhere that it calls a queasy-making picture to mind - but hey! probably LG doesn't mean all that much by it.

I'm right about this, aren't I? Well of course I am!

[tdn]

Originally posted by lifegazer
What??

I suppose I could explain myself better huh?

You said that the universe is a singularity, so that there is only room for something as big as that singularity, and is its beginning, middle, and end -- in short, its everything. But the universe doesn't have to be a singularity for that to be true.

Go back and read your own list again, but apply it to the notion of a very big universe with dimension, and you'll see it applies to that as well.

I'm still not explaining it well. It's a hard thing to articulate.

Originally posted by lifegazer
I did provide intermediate steps for intelligent design: single existence, sole cause, orderly sensations giving the awareness of the world. Etc.

Single existence, sole cause, and orderly sensations are not necessarily markers of intelligence, of course.

[Anathema]

Originally posted by lifegazer
If such an entity cannot be defined as the living God, then what can?

Now, on yer knees and thank God for sending lifegazer into your awareness. ;) I'll let others handle the foundational aspects of this, and I'll jump to the final output.

Let's say for purposes of killing another pint this proof is true. How/where/when exactly does this "Being" communicate Its desire for us to generate an image of ourselves in a kneeling position -- in Its own mind? What purpose does cooperating in this mental illusion of "God's" serve?

BTW, I am in fact glad you are here -- even if we are just two unsubstantiated sensations in some big CosmicMind ;)

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
yet CAN something exist and be non-physical?

You should be dealing with that post under the assumption that there exists a non-spatial Thing, as agreed. But never mind.

By which I mean, can there exist some thing that is neither composed of matter or energy? As of yet, no singular thing has ever been observed which is not correllated to matter and/or energy - including thoughts, dreams, and feelings.

This is rubbish because you fail - yet again - to realise that all experience and knowledge comes directly from intangible sensations, thoughts & feelings.
The question we should be asking ourselves is "Can something exist that is neither sensation, thought or feeling, other than the mind having those experiences?
You say that nothing has ever been observed which is not matter. But that's absolutely untrue: the only "things" observed have been abstract/intangible illusory entities, representative of "things", directly via one of the 5 sensations.
First the sensation... then the illusion of a thing we label as matter.

You ask if something can exist and be non-spatial. Well everything which exists inside your awareness is non-spatial.
Do you really believe that there are 93 million miles between your sense of the earth and your sense of the Sun?

"(2) This Thing is completely singular."

This does not follow from the statements already made. There is no reason to believe that there could not, in fact, be an infinite number of non-physical, non-spatial THINGS.

Really? Then explain to this forum what separates those entities.

"A non-spatial existence is absolutely indivisible. Existence is One Thing."

Now, we're getting into a very hard grey area.

Are you talking about the inside of your skull?
Sorry, couldn't resist.;)

A thing which is physical certainly is divisible; yet we can apply no reasoning whatsoever to the properties of a non-physical thing.

Again, think about it: What could possibly separate two real entities sharing the same non-spatial existence?

Need a break.

[Piscivore]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Really? Then explain to this forum what separates those entities.

Again, think about it: What could possibly separate two real entities sharing the same non-spatial existence?


Is six the same as seven? "distance" isn't the only concept that "separates" things. You are getting confused again.


Originally posted by lifegazer
Need a break.

Really, that's too bad, because I'm just getting started:
*ahem*
Originally posted by lifegazer
(1) 'Something' exists and is non-spatial - non-physical.

So stipulated (but not conceded). "Something" is vague and easily equivocated, let's give it a variable, "X".

(1) X exists, is non-spacial and non-physical

Originally posted by lifegazer
(2) This Thing is completely singular. A non-spatial existence is absolutely indivisible. Existence is One Thing.

This is one assertion, restated three ways, organised as a circular argument, and disguised as a premise.

"This Thing" and "existence" mean the same thing in these statements, and since you asserted (1) and I stipulated, "A non-spatial existence" does too. I will remove all these labels and use "X" to eliminate the equivocation.

Similarlly, "Completely singular", "absolutly indivisible", and "One Thing"- even Capitalised- all mean the same thing. Lets just say "indivisible" for clarity, okay? Your statements then boil down to:

a) This Thing is completely singular = X is indivisible
b) A non-spatial existence is absolutely indivisible = X is indivisible
c) Existence is One Thing = X is indivisible

Repetition and rephrasing, while valuable in advertising, add nothing in logic. So number two is:

(2) X is indivisible

Well, certainly a lot of problems with that one, as has been amply illustrated, but that didn't phase you for the first premise, so we'll let this one slide for now. So stipulated (but not conceded).


Originally posted by lifegazer
(3) This Thing is the cause of the abstract experiences perceived by its own awareness (sensations, thoughts & feelings). It must be, since there is nothing else which exists except it.

This one is harder to let go, because it DIRECTLY CONFLICTS with your second premise. First let's clean it up, there are a few other premises snuck in here, as well as a restatement of your second pretending to be a conclusion.

"It must be, since there is nothing else which exists except it" is your second premise, and it's just sloppy to repeat it yet again.

"X is the cause of the abstract experiences"- what "experiences"? Are not these "experiences" non-physical conceptual entities? How do they differ from the "sensations, thoughts & feelings" that comprise the "awareness" of X? Doesn't awarenes equal the sum total of experience? I'll simplify this, explain please if I have it wrong.

You have an unstated premise here that there is an "awareness", as well, so let's make that clear:

(3a) There exists an awareness in X
(3b) X is the cause of this awareness.

Originally posted by lifegazer
(4) The human experience (the experience of being human) is being had by It. Nothing else exists. That's why your true identity is that of the perceiver - and not that which you perceive of yourself.

This is supposed to be the conclusion, but it's just a restatement of the premises. Let's look at your "proof" cleaned up and dressed for church:

(1) X exists, is non-spacial and non-physical
(2) X is indivisible
(3a) There exists an awareness in X
(3b) X is the cause of this awareness.

Now your conclusion: "The human experience (the experience of being human) is being had by It." This is premise (3), both parts, restated and "human" used in place of "X". More shell games with your labels.

"Nothing else exists." Premise (2), in yet another restatement. This one must be pretty important to you to be included five times.

"That's why your true identity is that of the perceiver - and not that which you perceive of yourself" Well, you are circular in your own conclusion as well. Nothing like consistancy. This is premise (3) again, only "you" is used for "X"

(4) There exists an awareness in X, and X is the cause of this awareness. X is indivisible. That is why the awareness in X is caused by X

ETA: Your first premise, the one you fight so damned hard for, isn't even involved.

Boiled down your "proof" is just your premises reworded, not a collection of statments that logically follow to a sound conclusion. You get an "Fail" on this assignment, and your god can get on "It's" knees to me.

I'll get to "so what" in another post.

[H'ethetheth]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Alright then.
We are now assuming that something is completely non-spatial. I shall proceed.
(Warning: clear a space near to your computer enabling you to drop to your knees in an instant.).

(1) 'Something' exists and is non-spatial - non-physical.
(2) This Thing is completely singular. A non-spatial existence is absolutely indivisible. Existence is One Thing.
(3) This Thing is the cause of the abstract experiences perceived by its own awareness (sensations, thoughts & feelings). It must be, since there is nothing else which exists except it.
(4) The human experience (the experience of being human) is being had by It. Nothing else exists. That's why your true identity is that of the perceiver - and not that which you perceive of yourself.
These claims just constitute classical solipsism. You are the cause of your sensations. The only thing you know to have awareness is you. You cannot know of a higher 'awareness'.
So, we're talking about a boundless non-spatial existence which has created the perception of everything.
It is omnipresent (all of existence).
Yes, as it is the universe.
It is omnipotent (the only power in existence). This does not follow. Is the universe omnipotent? Why?
It is omniscient (knows how it creates the perception of everything). You're going to have to support the existence of awareness higher than your own. I read this as saying that you do not believe that you are 'deluding' yourself but are being 'deluded' as the universe appears so elaborate that you could never have come up with it by yourself.
It is omnicreative (the only cause in existence) and given the boundlessness of 'imagination' and the variety of our dreams, there seems to be no limits to the (perceived) realities it can create for itself.Who created it?

This entity exhibits purpose, intelligence and will, in its creation of an orderly universe.

If such an entity cannot be defined as the living God, then what can? Intelligence, purpose and will of some supreme being have often been misattributed to things that weren't understood (evolved animals, organs, fire, electricity). How do you know the universe is intelligent?

And then some more questions:

How large is the universe that appears to exist? Is it finite?
What is apparent space?
Do you think physics should be conducted differently in apparent space? If so, how?
Why do you think the laws of physics fit our observations so well? What is the difference between a mathematical space in 'your' imagination, and one in God's imagination?
Is God's imagination consistent?
Will God ever appear to us as anything else than the apparent universe?

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Piscivore
"What could possibly separate two real entities sharing the same non-spatial existence?"

Is six the same as seven? "distance" isn't the only concept that "separates" things. You are getting confused again.

This is an absurd response. How can you even begin to equate concepts/ideas of the mind with two real and distinct entities?

(2) X is indivisible

Well, certainly a lot of problems with that one, as has been amply illustrated,

*Smirk*. "Amply illustrated"? Where? You mean when you mentioned the difference between 6 and 7?

It is clear that in a non-spatial realm, that two real and distinct entities cannot really exist apart from one another.
Only space can separate two real entities... but there's no space in a non-spatial realm.

"(3) This Thing is the cause of the abstract experiences perceived by its own awareness (sensations, thoughts & feelings). It must be, since there is nothing else which exists except it."

"It must be, since there is nothing else which exists except it" is your second premise, and it's just sloppy to repeat it yet again.

Don't be silly - It's the qualifying reason for the first sentence. If I fail to give a reason for that sentence, then some people would, legitimately, ask what the basis for the first sentence was.

Clearly, if nothing else exists but it, I can claim that 'It' is the cause of any [perceived] effects within awareness.

Doesn't awarenes equal the sum total of experience? I'll simplify this, explain please if I have it wrong.

No, 'awareness' is an attribute of X. As in "I, am aware.".
Existence cannot be defined as awareness alone.
Something exists which has awareness.

(1) X exists, is non-spacial and non-physical
(2) X is indivisible
(3a) There exists an awareness in X
(3b) X is the cause of this awareness.

X and any attributes of X, have no cause. X is acausal.
What is caused are the sensations, thoughts, feelings, etc., which come into awareness.

Now your conclusion: "The human experience (the experience of being human) is being had by It." This is premise (3), both parts, restated and "human" used in place of "X". More shell games with your labels.

It's important that my philosophy confronts the belief that One is human.
I hope you realise that the bulk of your post deals with my presentation. I'd appreciate it if you just stuck to the issues in future.

You have failed to realise why a non-spatial reality has to be singular.
You have failed to see why a singular existence has to be the cause of all [perceived] effects.
You have omitted to address about half of my post, which consequently explains why this singular all-creative entity is the omni-God I sought to show you.

You spent the bulk of your time avoiding the meat of my post, thinking it would make you look far cleverer to attack my presentation. The only actual meaty issues you addressed were failures, as explained in my previous paragraph.

All in all, a terrible response smacking of insincerity.

[Piscivore]

Originally posted by lifegazer
"So what"?!
Are you serious?

Yes.

Let's say all the thing you have claimed are true:
"It is omnipresent (all of existence).
It is omnipotent (the only power in existence).
It is omniscient (knows how it creates the perception of everything).
It is omnicreative (the only cause in existence) and given the boundlessness of 'imagination' and the variety of our dreams, there seems to be no limits to the (perceived) realities it can create for itself.

This entity exhibits purpose, intelligence and will, in its creation of an orderly universe."

None of these characteristics apply to me, as Pesky. Pesky cannot change the world by force of will- and believe me, I've tried. Pesky cannot know the "thoughts" of one single other avatar's actions except through communication and guesswork. Pesky cannot make any of his wishes become "reality"- perceived or otherwise- except through direct action. Pesky suffers consequnces- whether "sensed" or "real"- when he violates the operating rules for this simulation. Therfore, in my incarnation of the avatar "Pesky", nothing I say, do, or think is of any consequence whatsoever to the inalterable omnimax entity you call "god".

Further, as Pesky, I am not privy to know the "will" or "mind" of this god. In fact, despite great effort to the contrary, there has been no manifestation nor message whatsoever from this entity.

As an unalterable, omnimax entity, "god" is not, cannot be affected whatsoever by the actions or limitations of this simulation or its avatars. Further, since "I", as god, cannot harm myself- this would be "altering"- therefore nothing done in the simulation- which is comprised entirely of myself- can be be of any influence whatsoever to an entity you describe.

Your "god" can, will, and must do any bloody thing it "wants", and as an "indivisible part" (oxymoron that it is) of this beast, anything I do is just at the whim of "It". Therefore, "It" is absolutly irrelevant to my existence as "Pesky"

In other words, "So what".

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by H'ethetheth
These claims just constitute classical solipsism. You are the cause of your sensations. The only thing you know to have awareness is you. You cannot know of a higher 'awareness'.

You clearly have no grasp of my philosophy. Lifegazer has no awareness. Rather, lifegazer exists within awareness.
Similarly, H'ethetheth isn't the entity possessing awareness, but exists within awareness.

My philosophy is not the same as classical solipsism. I claim that only God exists and possesses the awareness into which all perception takes place.
I claim that you are God, believing yourself to be H'ethetheth.

[Piscivore]

Originally posted by lifegazer
This is an absurd response. How can you even begin to equate concepts/ideas of the mind with two real and distinct entities?

Explain to me the difference between "real" entities and concept entities.

Originally posted by lifegazer
Originally posted by Piscivore
"(3) This Thing is the cause of the abstract experiences perceived by its own awareness (sensations, thoughts & feelings). It must be, since there is nothing else which exists except it."

"It must be, since there is nothing else which exists except it" is your second premise, and it's just sloppy to repeat it yet again.
Don't be silly - It's the qualifying reason for the first sentence. If I fail to give a reason for that sentence, then some people would, legitimately, ask what the basis for the first sentence was.

In that case it is a syllogism of its own and needs to not be jammed into this one:
(1) There exists an awareness in X
(2) X is indivisible
(C) X is the cause of this awareness.

Originally posted by lifegazer
Originally posted by Piscivore
Doesn't awarenes equal the sum total of experience?
No, 'awareness' is an attribute of X. As in "I, am aware.".
Existence cannot be defined as awareness alone.
Something exists which has awareness.

How does an "indivisible" entity have attributes?

I didn't say existence was defined by awareness alone, I asked isn't awareness only a sum total of experiences. Meaning how can you have an awareness that is non-experiential?

Originally posted by lifegazer
X and any attributes of X, have no cause. X is acausal.

"Acausal" is nowhere in there. And you said "This Thing is the cause of the abstract experiences perceived by its own awareness" which is a direct contradiction of "X and any attributes of X, have no cause. X is acausal." Which is it?


Originally posted by lifegazer
It's important that my philosophy confronts the belief that One is human.

Why?


Originally posted by lifegazer
I hope you realise that the bulk of your post deals with my presentation. I'd appreciate it if you just stuck to the issues in future.

The presentation is the root of your errors, as demonstrated. It is the issue, as you might say. Your exessive use of easily confused pronouns and important terms with multiple definitions lies at the very root of your mistakes.


Originally posted by lifegazer
You have failed to realise why a non-spatial reality has to be singular.

Your "proof" does not address this. They are presented as unconnected premises. Show your work

Originally posted by lifegazer
You have failed to see why a singular existence has to be the cause of all [perceived] effects.
ibid


Originally posted by lifegazer
You have omitted to address about half of my post, which consequently explains why this singular all-creative entity is the omni-God I sought to show you.

I didn't wish to confuse my response to your "proof" with my response to the arbtrary qualities you assign to your "god". I posted this at the same time you did. Sorry.

[Z]

Originally posted by lifegazer
You should be dealing with that post under the assumption that there exists a non-spatial Thing, as agreed. But never mind.

This is rubbish because you fail - yet again - to realise that all experience and knowledge comes directly from intangible sensations, thoughts & feelings.
The question we should be asking ourselves is "Can something exist that is neither sensation, thought or feeling, other than the mind having those experiences?
You say that nothing has ever been observed which is not matter. But that's absolutely untrue: the only "things" observed have been abstract/intangible illusory entities, representative of "things", directly via one of the 5 sensations.
First the sensation... then the illusion of a thing we label as matter.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. Apparently, you have this fantasy about how the senses and the mind works.

First, you need to understand that we cannot sense 'nothing' and get sensations from that 'nothing'. We very nearly fully understand the process by which our senses are stimulated and those sensations transmitted to the brain. The brain does not typically 'generate' those sensations without the stimulation of the sensory nerves involved. And if we disable the sensory instrument, we disable the brain's ability to 'have that sensation'.

Your process - sensation, then illusion of matter - is missing a prime, vital set of steps: physical phenomenon, interaction with sensory organs, generation of sensation.

This is not mysticism or nonsense - this is actual reality. This is the source.

Of course, you will continue to deny it, because you will claim that our knowledge of the working of our senses comes from these sensations being fed us by ourselves (???God???) to improve the reality of the illusion, I suppose - all mystic hogwash, but let's continue.

You ask if something can exist and be non-spatial. Well everything which exists inside your awareness is non-spatial.
Do you really believe that there are 93 million miles between your sense of the earth and your sense of the Sun?

No, but I believe millimicrons exist between those neurons responsible for me sensing the Earth, the Sun, and the measure of distance between them. Nothing exists inside awareness. Any more than they exist within a photograph. But the photograph cannot be generated without an original, real thing to photograph, and our awareness of things cannot exist without real things of which to be aware.

Really? Then explain to this forum what separates those entities.

IF you insist that this THING is ALL of existence (which you have hinted at, but never addressed fully), AND it is a non-spatial entity, then space cannot and does not exist whatsoever - and neither, then does any thing at all - INCLUDING this entity. But without the ability to sense anything beyond our forced perceptions of a fake universe, we cannot assume that Existence is singular, nor can we assume that Existence is ALL THAT IS - both assumptions are unprovable and irrelevant. Since we can't know anything about a 'reality beyond our sense of one'.

Need a break.

You have omitted to address about half of my post, which consequently explains why this singular all-creative entity cannot and does not exist, as you see it.

[Filip Sandor]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Reason dictates that there cannot be a an existing reality of X that is infinite since this requires that different parts of X (A and Z, for instance) actually exist an infinite-distance from each other.
This is plainly dumb since it means that ALL parts traversed on an attempted journey from A to Z are no nearer to Z than A itself. This of course is a ludicrous notion and therefore there can be no acceptance of the claim that there is any existing reality X that is infinite in itself.

Can there be a reality that is finite?

... Well, let's "get real" again:-
If we advocate the reality of a finite existence, we are advocating the reality of something completely bounded by absolutely nothing. Clearly, absolutely-nothing cannot embrace a finite reality.
Therefore, there is no finite reality either.
Therefore, reality must be non-spatial.
Therefore, get praying you bozos.

Lifegazer,

Space can't 'shrink' and 'stretch' for an observer just by the observer accelerating to near the speed of light and then decellerating back to a slower speed again - that's proposterous!

[Z]

Well, it's no wonder lifegazer insisted people agree with his premise before he continued on. Without the possibility of things existing at singularity, his entire philosophy falls apart.

Of course, it continues to do so anyway, but all of that is completely irrelevant, since it is his initial premises that are fundamentally flawed and erroneous. No-thing can exist which is non-spatial. A thing which is non-spatial does not exist. It is unreal. And it certainly would have no method nor means of acting, thinking, feeling, creating, or anything else. There could be no mind existent within a non-spatial thing to have thoughts, emotions, feelings, etc.

So we're back to square one - but now at least we know what lg would LIKE to have happen with his weird little idea.

(Of course, even if he is 100% correct, it still fails the 'so what' test miserably. His God is also irrelevant.)

[Robin]

Lifegazer
(2) This Thing is completely singular. A non-spatial existence is absolutely indivisible. Existence is One Thing.
Still digesting this, but can I have a clarification?

What is your reasoning that non-spatial existence implies singularity?

[Ratman_tf]

So god is dreaming of man? Hardly an original concept. You've just stated that god is a solipist instead of yourself.

And, as others have pointed out, the road you built to get there is missing a few bricks.

[Robin]

From me:

Still digesting this, but can I have a clarification?

What is your reasoning that non-spatial existence implies singularity?

Ok, I missed where you addressed this already so don't worry.

[H'ethetheth]

Originally posted by lifegazer
You clearly have no grasp of my philosophy. Lifegazer has no awareness. Rather, lifegazer exists within awareness.
Similarly, H'ethetheth isn't the entity possessing awareness, but exists within awareness.

My philosophy is not the same as classical solipsism. I claim that only God exists and possesses the awareness into which all perception takes place.
I claim that you are God, believing yourself to be H'ethetheth. Be that as it may, but you've ignored a lot of questions dear lifegazer. Most of these questions are valid regardless of the above answer. Please address them, I didn't pose them for no reason.
As to the above, I don't know how you can prove this. How do you know you are God thinking he's lifegazer, and not lifegazer thinking he's lifegazer, creator of the universe? How do you know that I am not an illusion as well? That I just appear to be a thinking thing like you, but in fact you have created me to appear like you.

[tdn]

Well, lifegazer, some 6 pages later it should be clear to you that you've failed to convince. You've set up a logical sequence of "truths" designed to reach a conclusion, and failed miserably at each and every one. It should be clear by now that you have little chance of convincing any of us, no matter how many more pages that would take.

There are two possibilities as to why this is so:

1) You're infinitely smarter than the rest of us, and we're all in denial, rubbing our lucky rabbits' feet, hoping against hope that God doesn't notice that we don't want to believe, or

2) You're a loony.

Guess what the smart money is on?

[uruk]

Explain to me the difference between "real" entities and concept entities.
I've asked this question before and still want to know what the answer is. If everything is an illusion and unreal. then what is the difference between a "real" entity and a conceptual entity if everything is basically a concept.Meaning how can you have an awareness that is non-experiential?oooo. I d like to know this one too. How can you have awareness without experiance or senses?

I also want to know what is a non-spacial realm? or how an attribute does not define a part or does not allow differentiation. or how something that is homogeneous can all these things and still be unchanged or have no mechanisim to perform those things. Or how denying the existance of the only reality that we are capable of percieveing will make our lives any different. Or how believing that we are all the same god, even though we still have live as individuals will make us want to unite into one big orgy of waving our hands in the air. Or why if we are god do we need t get down on our knees to pray to ourselves when we can do it while we are sitting on the crapper excreeting an illusionary stinker. Or why if everything is in our minds (which are not real by the way) we can't affect the laws which govern the percieved reality yet when we dream we can. Or why there is a difference between our dreams and "reality" when both are in our non-existant mind. Or....well there are a million of them.

Also, anyone notice that LG's god is just like us, non spatial, just like all the illusions in our (or rather, god's) mind? Could it be that god is also a nonspaitial concept in another non-spatial god's mind? Oh, wait. we have to buy the ACA thingy. Isn't that just another way of saying "there is no creator to the creator because I say so?" Aren't definitions just concepts too? or are they attributes? So many questions

[Z]

Looks like LG is taking a trip to 1inchJesus' Garage Chapel for more classes on reasoning and logic.. :D

Anyone want to bet he'll either a) come back shortly and continue to fling mis-informed poop at us in a wild attempt to bring us into the fold or
b) vanish for a while and reappear a month or two from now, starting again at ground zero?

[Piscivore]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
Looks like LG is taking a trip to 1inchJesus' Garage Chapel for more classes on reasoning and logic.. :D

Anyone want to bet he'll either a) come back shortly and continue to fling mis-informed poop at us in a wild attempt to bring us into the fold or
b) vanish for a while and reappear a month or two from now, starting again at ground zero?

I say it's even odds. Depends on how firmly dug into his bunker of faith he is, which is hard to know.

Too bad option c) is right out; he actually picks up a book and reads it and learns something. ;)

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Robin
Still digesting this, but can I have a clarification?

What is your reasoning that non-spatial existence implies singularity?
If existence is non-spatial, then only one ~thing~ can exist since the existence of two+ things requires that each entity exists in separate locations... meaning that two+ things require the existence of space in order to exist themselves.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Filip Sandor
Space can't 'shrink' and 'stretch' for an observer just by the observer accelerating to near the speed of light and then decellerating back to a slower speed again - that's proposterous!
Relativity is a theory relating to sensed space and sensed light. The mind is responsible for the creation of the actual sensations. None of the sensed-things depicted by those sensations are actually real - they're just intangible representations of a world.
Sensed-motion is an illusion and so is sensed-space. The mind just plays games with sensed-light to give the appearance of sensed-motion.

[Piscivore]

Originally posted by lifegazer
If existence is non-spatial, then only one ~thing~ can exist since the existence of two+ things requires that each entity exists in separate locations... meaning that two+ things require the existence of space in order to exist themselves.

Wrong- conceptual entities, being non-physical and non-spatial, can and do exist in multipliciy without taking up any physical "space".

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by uruk
"Explain to me the difference between "real" entities and concept entities."

I've asked this question before and still want to know what the answer is. If everything is an illusion and unreal

It's obviously impossible for everything to be unreal. There must be a reality of something which is harbouring the illusions/abstractions.

The dreamer is the reality... the dream is not.

oooo. I d like to know this one too. How can you have awareness without experiance or senses?

Self awareness.

I also want to know what is a non-spacial realm?

Existence without beginning or end. For lack of a better word, I would say we have entered the realm of 'spirit'.

You are lost to the physical world. You can conceive of no other existence than the physical. Yet anyone who has followed my philosophy will know that the entire human experience of the world is composed of non-physical events: sensations, thoughts & feelings.
Let that sink in for a minute. Your entire existence is founded upon 3 base 'elements' (for lack of a better word) which are essentially intangible experiences.
Your existence is really non-physical because you've never actually experienced anything else other than these 3 base elements.
Take a look around your awareness. All those "things" you can see - whether it be stars, the sun, trees, the moon, people, your own body even, or anything - every single one of those sensed-things exists within your awareness.
Basically, this means that the whole universe which you interact with exists within you.
You cannot leave your own awareness. It embraces everything that you know about and lots of things that you don't.

[The GM]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Take a look around your awareness. All those "things" you can see - whether it be stars, the sun, trees, the moon, people, your own body even, or anything - every single one of those sensed-things exists within your awareness.
Basically, this means that the whole universe which you interact with exists within you.
You cannot leave your own awareness. It embraces everything that you know about and lots of things that you don't.

So basically your theory parses down to: Your perception is your reality?

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Piscivore
Wrong- conceptual entities, being non-physical and non-spatial, can and do exist in multipliciy without taking up any physical "space".
Sensed-things exist in sensed-space. If the reality of the space is that it is non-spatial, then the reality of the things is that they are no-things.

[Anders]

Originally posted by lifegazer


[snip]

Existence without beginning or end. For lack of a better word, I would say we have entered the realm of 'spirit'.

You are lost to the physical world. You can conceive of no other existence than the physical. Yet anyone who has followed my philosophy will know that the entirehuman experience of the world is composed of non-physical events: sensations, thoughts & feelings.

And so are you, you too can conceive of no other existence than the physical. You might think you do otherwise, but that is very likely not the case. The fact that you have come up with a philosophy doesn't make it real.

Let that sink in for a minute. Your entire existence is founded upon 3 base 'elements' (for lack of a better word) which are essentially intangible experiences.

They are not intangible experiences. We are not living in a "Matrix" world, or at least, there is nothing that even points in that direction.

Your existence is really non-physical because you've never actually experienced anything else other than these 3 base elements.

Neither have you, probably.

Take a look around your awareness. All those "things" you can see - whether it be stars, the sun, trees, the moon, people, your own body even, or anything - every single one of those sensed-things exists within your awareness.
Basically, this means that the whole universe which you interact with exists within you.

You don't know that, it's pure speculation.

You cannot leave your own awareness. It embraces everything that you know about and lots of things that you don't.
That sentence dosen't make any senese.

[Z]

Originally posted by lifegazer
If existence is non-spatial, then only one ~thing~ can exist since the existence of two+ things requires that each entity exists in separate locations... meaning that two+ things require the existence of space in order to exist themselves.

Given this statement, the logic of our experiences suggests two things. Either 1) solipsism is correct, and only I exist (and, therefore, all that 'I' imagine is merely imagination; and the laws of physics that suggest a thing without dimensions cannot exist is merely another imagining), or 2) that existence cannot be non-spatial. For even if we acknowledge that human experience only provides sensed-awareness of a world, if we concede that even one other person is real, then there must be a space to separate the two entities.

[Z]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Relativity is a theory relating to sensed space and sensed light. The mind is responsible for the creation of the actual sensations. None of the sensed-things depicted by those sensations are actually real - they're just intangible representations of a world.

The sensed-things in and of themselves may not be physical in the same sense as the things they represent, but given that they exist within the brain as neural activity patterns, they are also real - just as the sensations, which exist as neural activity throughout the brain/body, are real as well.

This statement also doesn't deny that there is a real world - in fact, the statement 'intangible representations of a world' suggests what we already assume to be true: that our senses are fairly accurate, and what things we perceive are really there, and that their attributes may be determined through careful observation and analysis.

Sensed-motion is an illusion and so is sensed-space. The mind just plays games with sensed-light to give the appearance of sensed-motion.

Are these really 'illusions', or 'representations of real-motion and real-space? An illusion, after all, suggests that what the illusion portrays is not there at all, and the portrayal is effected by another real phenomenon, merely one that does NOT coincide with what it portrays, like a photograph or painting.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Anders
And so are you, you too can conceive of no other existence than the physical.

That's obviously untrue since I have conceived of my philosophy. There have been lots of people who have conceived of similar philosophies.
As I said, we exist in what appears to be a physical world. But it's all an illusion. No sensed-thing is real in itself and no sensed-space is real. Moreover, your own awareness embraces all that it sees meaning that everything you see exists within you.

You might think you do otherwise, but that is very likely not the case. The fact that you have come up with a philosophy doesn't make it real.

This is naive. Sensations are not physical entities. Neither are thoughts or feelings.
Think of your awareness as a kind of screen upon which the 5 sensations 'flicker' with an order that gives you the perception of "things" and space.

You don't know that, it's pure speculation.

I know it as an absolute fact.
Consider a real world and a real person observing that world: real objects exist and also the perception of those things exist.
I ask you to consider this because it clearly shows the distinction between what is real and what is sensed within the perceiver's own awareness.
... Everything you sense exists within you and is not real in itself.

" You cannot leave your own awareness. It embraces everything that you know about and lots of things that you don't."

That sentence dosen't make any senese.

Your awareness embraces the sensed-world. All knowledge is derived from sensed-things.

[Z]

Originally posted by lifegazer
The dreamer is the reality... the dream is not.

Again, a dream implies that the reality itself does not exist; rather, what we sense is a representation of the actual world; thus, it is not a good analogy to relate dreams to our sensed-perceptions of reality.

Self awareness.

Which is impossible without experience or senses.

Existence without beginning or end. For lack of a better word, I would say we have entered the realm of 'spirit'.

Existence without beginning or end is infinite, not non-spatial. Non-spatial is existence without dimension. Mathematically impossible, as a 0-dimensional existence would preclude any matter, energy, or even aether in which to 'exist' or to 'have existence. The realm of 'spirit' isn't even non-spatial, assuming one exists at all; it may not occupy the 'same space' as our reality at all.

You are lost to the physical world. You can conceive of no other existence than the physical. Yet anyone who has followed my philosophy will know that the entire human experience of the world is composed of non-physical events: sensations, thoughts & feelings.

Sensations, thoughts, and feelings are impossible without a brain to process them and neurons to fire off. Ergo, sensations, thoughts, and feelings are also physical in nature.

Let that sink in for a minute. Your entire existence is founded upon 3 base 'elements' (for lack of a better word) which are essentially intangible experiences.
Your existence is really non-physical because you've never actually experienced anything else other than these 3 base elements.
Take a look around your awareness. All those "things" you can see - whether it be stars, the sun, trees, the moon, people, your own body even, or anything - every single one of those sensed-things exists within your awareness.
Basically, this means that the whole universe which you interact with exists within you.
You cannot leave your own awareness. It embraces everything that you know about and lots of things that you don't.

Yet unless you assume solipsism, you must assume that your awareness is being given an accurate - or reasonably accurate - portrayal of true reality. Further, since there are things that can affect you without your sensation of their existence, this would suggest that there are things external to you which are independent of your awareness of them. If a thing is independent of your awareness, you cannot claim that this is within your own awareness.

[Z]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Sensed-things exist in sensed-space. If the reality of the space is that it is non-spatial, then the reality of the things is that they are no-things.

This demonstrates the inherent absurdity of a non-spatial reality. Ergo - non-spatial reality does not exist.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
Again, a dream implies that the reality itself does not exist;

The dream doesn't exist. Clearly, something real must be having the dream. Same principle for the sensations of so-called conscious existence.

Which is impossible without experience or senses.

How do you know this?

Existence without beginning or end is infinite, not non-spatial.

A singular existence cannot be defined as infinite (in space).
Only fragmented existence can be defined as infinite.
If existence is absolutely singular, as explained, then it cannot be fragmented/divided. Therefore, its existence must be non-spatial.

[Z]

Originally posted by lifegazer
That's obviously untrue since I have conceived of my philosophy. There have been lots of people who have conceived of similar philosophies.
As I said, we exist in what appears to be a physical world. But it's all an illusion. No sensed-thing is real in itself and no sensed-space is real. Moreover, your own awareness embraces all that it sees meaning that everything you see exists within you.

This is naive. Sensations are not physical entities. Neither are thoughts or feelings.

And that is ignorant. Every sensation you have is dependent upon a functioning system of physical components, transmitting physical signals along physical pathways, into a physical brain. Every sensation is dependent upon a physical system, and is therefore physical as well.

Think of your awareness as a kind of screen upon which the 5 sensations 'flicker' with an order that gives you the perception of "things" and space.

I know it as an absolute fact.
Consider a real world and a real person observing that world: real objects exist and also the perception of those things exist.
I ask you to consider this because it clearly shows the distinction between what is real and what is sensed within the perceiver's own awareness.
... Everything you sense exists within you and is not real in itself.

You have added what essentially is an unnecessary layer in the reality/perception model. You make a distinction between real-things and sensed-things, as if one could exist without the other. Yet sensed-things are dependent upon real-things and functioning sensory systems to exist; further, real-things do not need to be sensed to function. So - some real-things do not have corresponding sensed-thing, but no sensed-thing can exist without a corresponding real-thing. Ergo, the set of real-things is superior to / more real than the set of sensed-things.

Sensed-things are the activity within the brain that is a responsed to the sensations imposed by real-things through sensory systems OR through non-sensory neural activity, such as thoughts, imaginations, and dreams. Yet even these cannot exist without first experiencing sensory input and subsequent formation of appropriate paths to provide basic groundwork for such things to come into existence. You cannot dream of a thing which you have in no way experienced. Even if you believe this is not true, if you carefully analyze every aspect of a dream-thing which you think is unique, you will find it is made of fundamental components which you HAVE experienced previously.

Your awareness embraces the sensed-world. All knowledge is derived from sensed-things.

And verified knowledge is derived from the continuity and constancy of sensed-things, shared as information between existing beings, which demonstrates that real-things impose consistant and realiable sensory information to the senses.

[Z]

Originally posted by lifegazer
[B]The dream doesn't exist. Clearly, something real must be having the dream. Same principle for the sensations of so-called conscious existence.

Explained one post up.

How do you know this?

What is self-awareness? Self-awareness is sense of self. Thus, it requires sense. What is self? Self is a concept which is learned through experience. Newborns do not have a sense of self; they derive the sense of self after several weeks of experiencing the difference between 'self' and 'others'. Basic pediatric knowledge.

A singular existence cannot be defined as infinite (in space).

And why would this be true? Singular simply means unique, alone, that none other exists. IF existence encompasses all that is, it is automatically singular. It also cannot be divided into two 'all that is'/existences. But parts of existence can be distinguished. This does not separate them FROM existence; nor does it differentiate them FROM existence. If the whole is 'all that is' you cannot remove a part from the whole. All-inclusive existence can certainly be infinite - or finite, though I would argue that a finite existence would not be possible, because whatsoever 'bounds' it must also exist and therefore is part of existence ad infinitum. Hence - existence itself must be infinite.

Only fragmented existence can be defined as infinite.

That made no sense. Fragmented existence? How do you fragment 'all that is'? And how is a fragment infinite? Illogical.

If existence is absolutely singular, as explained, then it cannot be fragmented/divided. Therefore, its existence must be non-spatial.

Your conclusion does not follow from your premise, as existence can certainly be infinite.[b]

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
And that is ignorant. Every sensation you have is dependent upon a functioning system of physical components, transmitting physical signals along physical pathways, into a physical brain. Every sensation is dependent upon a physical system, and is therefore physical as well.

(1) This is your belief.
(2) All knowledge is of sensed-things. Even the brain is a sensed-thing.
(3) All sensed-things are seen because of the sensations and not because of events/bodies occuring beyond those sensations.
(4) Explain to this forum the exact details of how the motion of 4-dimensional matter/energy is transformed into an abstract/intangible sensation, thought or feeling.
When you can really do this, I will embarrass myself by showing my bum on the main road and will never write another philosophical post again for as long as I live.
(5) Explain to this forum how the multiplicity of the 4-dimensional brain manages to recognise abstract/intangible entities.
When you can do this, I will walk naked down the high street singing "I've been a jackass all my life" and will be promptly led away in a straight-jacket.

Such is the fiction you espouse as philosophy. Are you even aware of how stretched and unfounded your beliefs are, or have they brainwashed you too well?

[Piscivore]

Originally posted by lifegazer
(5) Explain to this forum how the multiplicity of the 4-dimensional brain manages to recognise abstract/intangible entities.

Do you know what the hell "multiplicity" means? because it makes no sense in that sentence.

[Z]

Originally posted by lifegazer
(1) This is your belief.

I will grant you that, inasmuch as I believe that the things we experience are real enough and consistant enough to be considered real. Since we can never experience anything beyond what we experience, these things are all that can comprise our reality. Ergo, knowledge based on sensed-perception of that reality, I believe, is true knowledge.

(2) All knowledge is of sensed-things. Even the brain is a sensed-thing.

It is a sensed-thing if it is exposed to the senses; yet if you never are exposed to a brain, nor ever provided information about that brain, can you truly call it a 'sensed-thing'? Yet it exists and functions, whether sensed or not.

(3) All sensed-things are seen because of the sensations and not because of events/bodies occuring beyond those sensations.

Since you used sight, let us consider.

Light coming from some source - let's say, the sun, since this is a primal source of light. That light strikes a molecule, whose atoms are stimulated by the photons. (Specifically, the electron shell of said atoms) When the electrons return to their normal state, they emit light of a particular wavelength i.e. a 'color'. This light is absorbed by the eye and stimulates the molecules of the photoreceptive cells, causing a series of neural impulses to travel from the eye to the optic processing center of the brain. The brain translates that signal on the basis of acquired knowledge, and at that point, we have a sense of that color and that object (whatever that molecule is a part of).

So while you are technically correct - that a sensed thing is seen because of sensation - those sensations are, in turn, caused by events and bodies occuring beyond the sensations i.e. real things.

So if we simplify the chain of events - since a sensation of 'sight' cannot occur without stimulation of some part of the sensory process - then we can say that our sense of a thing is derived from outside events and bodies. Chain reactions. All quite logical and rational.

However, you seem to insist that the sensations simply 'occur', acasually, or at best, caused by a kind of hypermind beyond our control or cognizance. This is illogical and irrational.

(4) Explain to this forum the exact details of how the motion of 4-dimensional matter/energy is transformed into an abstract/intangible sensation, thought or feeling.
When you can really do this, I will embarrass myself by showing my bum on the main road and will never write another philosophical post again for as long as I live.

I'm not claiming the necessary expertise to do this, though I would dearly love to see your reaction - well, mainly the second reaction - but do keep in mind we are far closer to understanding this process than we are a process by which an intangible, invisible, non-spatial hypermind can generate sensations, and further generate a series of sensations to generate an illusion of a causal chain for those sensations.

Of course, you loaded the question with one key assumption, thereby rendering it impossible to answer. You asked for abstract/intangible sensation, thought, or feeling. Abstract means representing no real-thing - ergo, you automatically disqualify any real effector for an abstract sensation, thought, or feeling. Yet I wonder - do you truly understand the nature of abstract things? Our minds are representational in nature, and even what we term 'abstract art' is, in fact, representational of something to each of us. We can glance at a random pattern of colors and lines and note two things: 1) the actual forms and materials, colors and lines of that pattern, and 2) what it represents to us. In neither case do we ever actually experience 'abstractness'.

As for intangible - this simply means 'unable to be touched', or to broaden it, unable to be sensed. And how can you 'touch' a thought? Certainly, sensations are tangible - otherwise, they would not be sensations. And feelings are, by definition, able to be felt. They correspond exactly to biochemical processes in the body which can be controlled or even eliminated by external means. Feelings and sensations can both be eliminated or controlled by systems other than the mind. I'm not so sure about thoughts, but I'm no expert, either.

(5) Explain to this forum how the multiplicity of the 4-dimensional brain manages to recognise abstract/intangible entities.
When you can do this, I will walk naked down the high street singing "I've been a jackass all my life" and will be promptly led away in a straight-jacket.[/quote]

It doesn't. First, there is no such thing as an abstract entity. Even the most vague notions of entity include some defining characteristic, thereby removing abstractness. Note, for example, that our most abstract notions are still notions with at least one characteristic, thereby making them representational entities.

As for an intangible entity, again, you'd have to define what is an intangible entity.

You cannot use 'abstract' and 'intangible' interchangeably.

Such is the fiction you espouse as philosophy.

:dl:

Oh, my, no! I espouse no philosophy here. I am not seeking the source of the truth, or the origin of all-that-is. I don't bother with philosophy, which is inherently unprovable and irrelevant. If, at any point, a philosophical statement becomes provable or relevant, it becomes a scientific statement. If it becomes falsifiable, it is forgotten.

Are you even aware of how stretched and unfounded your beliefs are, or have they brainwashed you too well?

Stretched? Curious. Unfounded? Certainly, the body of material evidence (SENSED-evidence, you would insist) supports my understanding of the systems by which real-things and sensed-things work. Whereas your beliefs are so stretched, so unfounded, that even if we accept half of your premises, we are still left with no knowledge whatsoever of anything beyond our sensed-awareness of reality, and no relevance in any case.

[Z]

Originally posted by Piscivore
Do you know what the hell "multiplicity" means? because it makes no sense in that sentence.

I suggest that he is using the term to refer to the fact that the Brain consist of numerous areas and components. Apparently, it boggles his mind that anything which is made up of smaller components can, as a whole, comprehend anything at all. Apparently, he hasn't given much thought to any system of computation or biology, or much else, for that matter.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Piscivore
Do you know what the hell "multiplicity" means? because it makes no sense in that sentence.
Talk about something meaningful.
I used that term in reference to the complex multitude of components which constitute "the brain". But I'm not going to have a lengthy debate on this.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
Oh, my, no! I espouse no philosophy here. I am not seeking the source of the truth, or the origin of all-that-is. I don't bother with philosophy, which is inherently unprovable and irrelevant. If, at any point, a philosophical statement becomes provable or relevant, it becomes a scientific statement. If it becomes falsifiable, it is forgotten.

You claim that you are not seeking the truth, but do a good impression of the fact that you already know everything there is to know about reality. Here's a quick version of your truth:-
(1) A reality exists beyond the mind and beyond the mind's sense of the world.
(2) We are physical entities.
(3) All human sensations, thoughts & feelings, are products of physical events.

Don't BS me about not having a philosophy. And don't dare claim that science has proved any of the above as true. Indeed, let's list the actual truth and see how it compares to your lies:-
(1) Science knows nothing about a world beyond the sense of one. In fact, science is the study of the order of sensed-things - not real things. Science cannot prove the existence of an external reality.
(2) Science cannot prove that we are physical entities. Given my philosophy relating the distinction between sensed-things and real things, I should not have to explain this to you in any more detail than this.
(3) Absolute porkie with no proper explanation for how physical motion transforms into abstract experience, or how abstract experience is recognised by 4-dimensional matter.

If you're not interested in the truth, then stop claiming that you know it when clearly, you do not.
If you're not interested in philosophy or open to possible states of reality which conflict with your own beliefs, then take a hike.
And for God's sake, stop making claims for science which are simply not true.

[Z]

Then either use a more appropriate term, or just don't use that term.

Otherwise, you are begging for more debate.

You see, each time you utilize a term or concept in a manner which is inconsistant or possibly inconsistant with common usage, you engender debate. Every term you use either must be concrete and absolute (as much as such in our language are) or you must be prepared to debate each term. Your only other real option is to create some form of glossary, in which each and every term left open to interpretation or which may cause confusion, is defined into common-langauge terms without ambiguity or confusion.

So, with regards to your debating, your responsibility when you introduce a term such as multiplicity, is to define it and/or defend the meaning as you understand it.

[Z]

Originally posted by lifegazer
You claim that you are not seeking the truth, but do a good impression of the fact that you already know everything there is to know about reality. Here's a quick version of your truth:-
(1) A reality exists beyond the mind and beyond the mind's sense of the world.
(2) We are physical entities.
(3) All human sensations, thoughts & feelings, are products of physical events.

All fully qualified when I said: will grant you that, inasmuch as I believe that the things we experience are real enough and consistant enough to be considered real. Since we can never experience anything beyond what we experience, these things are all that can comprise our reality. Ergo, knowledge based on sensed-perception of that reality, I believe, is true knowledge.

Just as you state, in 2) below, that your philosophy is required for you to make the distinction that science cannot prove we are physical entities, so I state that my belief is required for me to make the statement that science HAS proven we are physical entities. Consider - science deals with what we can sense AND what we can infer due to its interactions with what we can sense. Since we cannot ever have any concept of a thing which we can neither sense nor infer due to its interactions with what we can sense, this is the limits of reality and Science deals quite well with them.

Don't BS me about not having a philosophy. And don't dare claim that science has proved any of the above as true. Indeed, let's list the actual truth and see how it compares to your lies:-
(1) Science knows nothing about a world beyond the sense of one. In fact, science is the study of the order of sensed-things - not real things. Science cannot prove the existence of an external reality.

In your opinion. However, since no-one can prove the exitence of a reality beyond the one we sense and infer, this is irrelevant.

(2) Science cannot prove that we are physical entities. Given my philosophy relating the distinction between sensed-things and real things, I should not have to explain this to you in any more detail than this.
(3) Absolute porkie with no proper explanation for how physical motion transforms into abstract experience, or how abstract experience is recognised by 4-dimensional matter.

If you're not interested in the truth, then stop claiming that you know it when clearly, you do not.

I know the truth relevant to the sensed-world, under the assumption that the sensed-and-inferred world is, in fact, real (or sufficiently real). Since we cannot know anything beyond that, attempting any other claims are irrelevant.


The real truth here is, your own philosphical foundations are shaky at best, and only point to simple solipsism, nothing else. Grade school stuff at best.

[Z]

OK - here's my ultimate philosophy:

Your life is what you make of it. So make it a good one.

And with that - I'm off to work.

[Ratman_tf]

Originally posted by lifegazer

I know it as an absolute fact.
Consider a real world and a real person observing that world: real objects exist and also the perception of those things exist.
I ask you to consider this because it clearly shows the distinction between what is real and what is sensed within the perceiver's own awareness.
... Everything you sense exists within you and is not real in itself.


How do you KNOW that sensations are not caused by an external reality?

If you can explain that one, you might actually have something interesting. As it is, you're just saying that the world is unreal "Just Because!"

[H'ethetheth]

Lifegazer,

I didn't agree on a non-spatial reality just to sit around. I want to know certain things and see what your philosophy says about them.
I asked you the following questions, please answer them.

Why is the universe omnipotent? How can we be sure?

Who created it?

How can one know the universe is intelligent?

How large is the universe that appears to exist? Is it finite?

What is apparent space?

Do you think physics should be conducted differently in apparent space? If so, how?

What is the difference between a mathematical space in 'your' imagination, and one in God's imagination?

Is God's imagination consistent?

Why do you think the laws of physics fit our observations so well?

Will God ever appear to us as anything else than the apparent universe?

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by H'ethetheth
Why is the universe omnipotent? How can we be sure?

I said that the singular entity that is existence was omnipotent. This seems obvious to me: nothing else exists, so It possesses all the power Itself that is available to create perceived realities.
I've answered this question elsewhere. Have you been reading my posts? Anyway, I even added to this that since imagination seems unbounded (and also consider our dreams), that God's ability to create perceived realities also seems limitless.

Who created it?

'God'... as I also explained.

How can one know the universe is intelligent?

The creation of the perceived world is created by It (being the only cause).
Given the persistent order apparent in the sensations which It creates, the attribute of 'intelligence' is a must.
Also, given the capacity to reason/judge the order inherent within these sensations, 'intelligence' is a double-must.

How large is the universe that appears to exist? Is it finite?

Well it doesn't exist of course, but we can only perceive finite portions of the illusory universe.
If you're asking me whether this illusory universe is limitless to behold or not, I could not give you a definite answer. All I will say is that it could be, since awareness itself is also limitless.
Note: This does not affect what I said a few days ago about a truly-existing infinity.

What is apparent space?

The illusion of space between the illusion of things. A play on the senses - mainly the sense of light.

Do you think physics should be conducted differently in apparent space? If so, how?

I called for scientific reform in another thread "The rise & fall of the scientific empire".
Firstly, stop insisting that the cause of all perceived effects has to be a physical entity (another perceived effect).
Clearly, the ultimate cause of sensed-things cannot also be a sensed-thing (a physical entity).
This realisation would affect string-theories, brain-research, genetics, psychology, cosmology. And perhaps other areas of research which I haven't thought of right now.

What is the difference between a mathematical space in 'your' imagination, and one in God's imagination?

I don't have imagination. I've told you once already that 'lifegazer' doesn't exist and doesn't, therefore, possess a mind or any of Its attributes. Didn't you understand what I said? Only God exists. If imagination is an attribute of The Mind, then it's an attribute belonging to God.

Is God's imagination consistent?

I don't understand the question.

Why do you think the laws of physics fit our observations so well?

They merely mirror the order which exists amongst our sense of things.

Will God ever appear to us as anything else than the apparent universe?
God can only truly appear when you see It in your yourself.

[uruk]

It's obviously impossible for everything to be unreal. There must be a reality of something which is harbouring the illusions/abstractions.

According to you the only "real thing is god. But your god is non-spatial and non-dimensional yet boundless and yet again singular. Also homogenous and unchanging yet can have experiances without any mechinizm in which to have them. It sounding more and more like it is your god that is illusionary. Your god is an oxymoron.
In fact, the only thing that you can say (in a solipsitic sense) is that you are the only thing that is real. you have sense and experiance of a "reality" that may or may not be real because you can't know for sure. But you have absolutely no sense of a god or his realm whatsoever. Yet you say this god is more real than what you sense. If you argue against the reality of our sensed world you can only say that you are real. no god, no universe, nothing. That is pure solipsizim. You can try and come up with a "reasoned" argument for god and all that, but that gets you nowhere. The argument is NOTHING without verification. Yet the only thing that you CAN verify is that you exist.
Self awareness. That still requires experiance and sense. How do you know you exists? What are you doing when you are having an internal dialogue?
Existence without beginning or end. For lack of a better word, I would say we have entered the realm of 'spirit'. meaningless tripe. What is spirit?You are lost to the physical world. You can conceive of no other existence than the physical. Yet anyone who has followed my philosophy will know that the entire human experience of the world is composed of non-physical events: sensations, thoughts & feelings.
But these sensations and thoughts and feelings are happening to something. There is a mechizim which allows this thing to have those experiances. Again Ii'll remind you that you still do not have any sense of god and it's "realm".Basically, this means that the whole universe which you interact with exists within you. This is solipsizim. which is what your "philosophy" really is.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by uruk
According to you the only "real thing is god. But your god is non-spatial and non-dimensional

My God is not non-dimensional. My God is God-dimensional. God has a singular dimension of being.
... Let me explain:-
A dimension is an extension of being. Hitherto, we've only considered the concepts of length, breadth, width & time, to be extensions of being. Therefore, we have said that there are 4 dimensions of being.
... However, if God is the only being, then God is the only extension of being.
Thus, I claim that existence is really 1-dimensional... not to be confused with the physical-dimension of length.

This is radical philosophy but it is self-consistent philosophy: if a dimension is an extension of being, then 'God' must be 1-dimensional being, since God is singular and is being.

Also homogenous and unchanging yet can have experiences without any mechinizm in which to have them.

You continue to insist upon having a "mechanism" for ALL effects. Do you know what this means? It means that you think that there is no absolute-cause for anything. Indeed, it means that for every effect, you think that a complex mechanism is the cause of that effect.
And do you know what this means, if you say it ad infinitum? It means that you think:-
A complex mechanism is the cause of ALL things.

This is a radical viewpoint which you've probably never come across or realised before. Why? I'll tell you why. Your position boils-down to this:-

(1) There are no absolute (singular) causes.
(2) There are only mechanistic (multiple) causes.
(3) Therefore, there are lots of singular effects but no singular causes.
Here's the crunch:-
(4) Given that there are no singular causes, what causes singular effects to act, collectively, as a singular mechanism in the production of a proceeding effect?

You've "been rumbled". So has the whole "effects ad-infinitum" argument, espoused for centuries/millennia by primal-cause haters around the globe.
Answer that last question with all the sincerity you can muster.
This question is so radical and so profound that if I were a professor at Oxford or Princeton, the philosophical-world would be rocked to the rafters.
As it is, my audience is you uruk. The future of philosophy has been put into your lap. Can you deal with it?

I need a break. You need to think. Don't worry too much - this new realisation is so profound that I think I shall start a new thread with it as the theme, thus taking the responsibility from your singular lap.

[Correa Neto]

Originally posted by lifegazer
...snip...You continue to insist upon having a "mechanism" for ALL effects. Do you know what this means? It means that you think that there is no absolute-cause for anything. Indeed, it means that for every effect, you think that a complex mechanism is the cause of that effect.
And do you know what this means, if you say it ad infinitum? It means that you think:-
A complex mechanism is the cause of ALL things.

This is a radical viewpoint which you've probably never come across or realised before. Why? I'll tell you why. Your position boils-down to this:-

(1) There are no absolute (singular) causes.
(2) There are only mechanistic (multiple) causes.
(3) Therefore, there are lots of singular effects but no singular causes.
Here's the crunch:-
(4) Given that there are no singular causes, what causes singular effects to act, collectively, as a singular mechanism in the production of a proceeding effect?
...snip...

I was just waiting to see how long it would take for this "proof" to show itself as being the old "clock-without-a-maker" line...

This has been discussed countless times.:o

[Z]

(Yawn)

L.G., you DO realize how OLD this particular line of reasoning is - and the fact that this particular dead horse has been beaten for literally DECADES?

I was just surprised that you didn't drag it out earlier.

I just realized - LG doesn't espouse solipsism - he espouses nihilism, ultimately.

Well, everyone get ready for YET ANOTHER boring thread full of mis-assumptions and ignorance from our resident Starving Philosopher in Training...

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Correa Neto
I was just waiting to see how long it would take for this "proof" to show itself as being the old "clock-without-a-maker" line...

This has been discussed countless times.:o
Then answer the question [in blue] or shut up.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
(Yawn)

L.G., you DO realize how OLD this particular line of reasoning is - and the fact that this particular dead horse has been beaten for literally DECADES?

I was just surprised that you didn't drag it out earlier.

I just realized - LG doesn't espouse solipsism - he espouses nihilism, ultimately.

Well, everyone get ready for YET ANOTHER boring thread full of mis-assumptions and ignorance from our resident Starving Philosopher in Training...
Shut up waffling and answer the question [in blue].

The question destroys ad-infinitum mechanisms of singular-effect.

Hope you don't mind me saying this again, but:-
"Get on your knees you plonkers."