There's no singular cause of anything, therefore...

[lifegazer]

I've seen the light. My brain has shrunk and I now see everything the same way as you lot:-

(1) There's an end to everything. An end to me; an end to you; an end to my (sob) hamster, Buffy; an end to this post (you'll be glad to hear).
Therefore, we can define any thing/event as an end in it's own right - a definitive product of all things/events that conspired to bring-about that thing/event.
(2) There's no absolute-cause of anything. If I hold this view then I have to believe in God. But I've seen the light, so I say screw that. Therefore:-
(a) There are no singular causes... but there are singular events/things. There must be singular things/events or else nothing can exist.
(b) Singular things exist, but they are the cause of nothing. Singular things cannot be the cause of anything, or else this contradicts the view that there are no singular causes.
(c) The universe is comprised of singular things which are the cause of nothing.
(d) The cumulative effect of combining countless singular-things that have zero causal influence is... err... zero causal influence.
If 1 = 0
then...
A x 1 = 0... where A can be any number you wish to mention, including our good ol' friend 'infinity'.

In summary, there's no absolute-cause of any thing (and everything). I cannot believe this because if I do I'll have to believe in God - but I want to have mates here, so screw that idea.
Therefore, even though no thing can be the cause of anything, and even though an infinite-number of these things cannot cause jack, I still refuse to believe in the existence of an absolute cause.

How did I do? Can I have some mates now?

[c4ts]

Well, your brain really did shrink if you think this is supposed to amount to some kind of understanding. I certainly wouldn't mistake it for something common to the forum.

[H'ethetheth]

Originally posted by lifegazer
I've seen the light. My brain has shrunk and I now see everything the same way as you lot:-

(1) There's an end to everything. An end to me; an end to you; an end to my (sob) hamster, Buffy; an end to this post (you'll be glad to hear).
Therefore, we can define any thing/event as an end in it's own right - a definitive product of all things/events that conspired to bring-about that thing/event.
(2) There's no absolute-cause of anything. If I hold this view then I have to believe in God. But I've seen the light, so I say screw that. Therefore:-
(a) There are no singular causes... but there are singular events/things. There must be singular things/events or else nothing can exist.
(b) Singular things exist, but they are the cause of nothing. Singular things cannot be the cause of anything, or else this contradicts the view that there are no singular causes.
(c) The universe is comprised of singular things which are the cause of nothing.
(d) The cumulative effect of combining countless singular-things that have zero causal influence is... err... zero causal influence.
If 1 = 0
then...
A x 1 = 0... where A can be any number you wish to mention, including our good ol' friend 'infinity'.

In summary, there's no absolute-cause of any thing (and everything). I cannot believe this because if I do I'll have to believe in God - but I want to have mates here, so screw that idea.
Therefore, even though no thing can be the cause of anything, and even though an infinite-number of these things cannot cause jack, I still refuse to believe in the existence of an absolute cause.

How did I do? Can I have some mates now?

I'm getting the distinct feeling of "errr...what?!" right now. Might be the beer talking though.

[Ratman_tf]

pet·u·lant
adj.
Unreasonably irritable or ill-tempered; peevish.
Contemptuous in speech or behavior.

[Atlas]

Lg,

Buddy! Well almost anyway. Giving up the first cause idea you had is a real positive step but as usual you find the unfounded implication.

You are a single thing and mama lifegazer and papa lifegazer produced you. (I blame mama.) Causality is not destroyed by your logic.

[c4ts]

Originally posted by H'ethetheth
I'm getting the distinct feeling of "errr...what?!" right now. Might be the beer talking though.

I'm sober, and it had the same effect. I think he is trying very hard not to be understood.

[SezMe]

LG, is there ANY bribe we can offer you to have you NOT post arguments anywhere on the web in favor of atheism? :)

[c4ts]

Originally posted by SezMe
LG, is there ANY bribe we can offer you to have you NOT post arguments anywhere on the web in favor of atheism? :)

Are you sure those arguments had anything to do with atheism in the first place?

I think he was trying to be nihilistic, but gave up in frustration before he started.

[KelvinG]

Originally posted by c4ts
Are you sure those arguments had anything to do with atheism in the first place?

I think he was trying to be nihilistic, but gave up in frustration before he started.

No, he's not trying to be a nihilistic. He's just a pathetic, crybaby whiner who can stand the fact that everyone doesn't agree with everything he says.

[Lord Muck oGentry]

Does anyone remember the quantifier-shift fallacy( each thing has a cause, therefore there exists a cause of everything)? It looks to me as if lifegazer has transposed this to: if there is no cause of everything, then it is not the case that there is a cause of each thing. And, for good measure, he goes on to say that there are no causes at all.
Bring back the old fallacies, I say, before modern logic ruins the game! :-)

[Atlas]

He is trying to show the absurdity in the non believer's position.

If there is no godly absolute cause then, of course, there is no causality at all. It makes perfect sense if your logic is unhampered by reason.

[Upchurch]

Wow, now that's what I call a strawman argument.

Ya know, lifegazer, it isn't your faith that I take issue with, it is your lack of logic and reason by which you attempt to apply your faith. If the above is what you truly believe that atheists/agnostics think, I highly recommend that you actually listen to atheists/agnostics. Heck, some plain ol' philosophy would do you a world of good.

Plato would be a wonderful place to start in terms of logic, reason, and argument.

[c4ts]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Wow, now that's what I call a strawman argument.

Ya know, lifegazer, it isn't your faith that I take issue with, it is your lack of logic and reason by which you attempt to apply your faith. If the above is what you truly believe that atheists/agnostics think, I highly recommend that you actually listen to atheists/agnostics. Heck, some plain ol' philosophy would do you a world of good.

Plato would be a wonderful place to start in terms of logic, reason, and argument.

I think he has read some Plato. More like skimmed it. But I'm always open to discussion of the classics, it's what I've been doing throughout college.

[lifegazer]

What's the point in me abandoning logic and giving God the finger if I still have no mates?
Screw u all then. I have decided I'd rather believe in God and have no mates than not believe...

So, interesting that there were a dozen responses and nobody could refute the core logic of my OP. I was right about you lot: small brains.

[lifegazer]

The argument that there's no absolute-causal agent is a preposterous and pea-brained position to hold.
I shall explain why again, so there is no confusion...

There are no singular causes of anything [this is the view contrary to my own, btw]. I.e., no thing exists which - by itself, without any kind of external dependency or assistence - can effect any kind of change amongst existence.
This position must be upheld or else one is reduced, ultimately, to accepting the idea that there is a singular-cause amongst existence. Eventually, one has no choice other than to get down on their knees and praise the big fella in the sky, so to speak.

So, the view contrary to my own is that all things, in themselves, have ZERO causal influence. No thing, in itself, has the ability to change anything. The universe is comprised of singular things which are the cause of nothing.
As I said in my OP:-
"The cumulative effect of combining countless singular-things that have zero causal influence is... err... zero causal influence."

I am now very close to exposing the fact that peas exist within your skulls, for holding this position contrary to my own:-

Without the existence of an absolute-cause, nothing could change!!!
Very simple logic. If all things possess zero causal-influence within themselves, then there would be no change... no time.

So, are you on your knees yet?

[Atlas]

In your OP, Lg, your logic hung on this... If 1 = 0...

Not too much refutation of your core idea was required since it was stated in terms of a shaky mathematical idea.

Furthermore, if you read the followon posts many were confused as to what you were trying to say.

You are so in tune with non sequitor to extend your "logical" philosophy that you are unaware when you employ it. Others do not recognize the same power of argument from non sequitor that you do.

(ex. This position must be upheld or else one is reduced, ultimately, to accepting the idea that there is a singular-cause amongst existence. Eventually, one has no choice other than to get down on their knees and praise the big fella in the sky, so to speak.)

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Atlas
In your OP, Lg, your logic hung on this... If 1 = 0...

Not too much refutation of your core idea was required since it was stated in terms of a shaky mathematical idea.

Don't play silly games Atlas.
The '1' in question referred to "one thing".
The '0' in question referred to zero causal-influence.

This was implied by the previous qualifying sentence:
(d) The cumulative effect of combining countless singular-things that have zero causal influence is... err... zero causal influence.

So, 1 = 0 is just shorthand for:
One thing = zero causal-influence.

The proceeding statement was:
then...
A x 1 = 0... where A can be any number you wish to mention, including our good ol' friend 'infinity'.

... This explains that the number of 'things' is irrelevant. If a thing has zero causal-influence, then so do a whole bunch of such things.

This leads to the inescapable conclusion:
Without the existence of an absolute-cause, nothing could change!!!

Furthermore, if you read the followon posts many were confused as to what you were trying to say.

I clarified it all earlier. It's not difficult.

I'll send you a robe & sandals in the post.

[Lord Muck oGentry]

lifegazer,
Are you quite sure you understand the word "refute"? Let's have a look at criticism made so far.
1. I suggested that, to get the conclusion that not everything has a cause, you committed the quantifier-shift fallacy.
2. I implied that you committed an elementary scope fallacy in getting from the assertion that not everything has a cause to the assertion that everything has not got a cause.
3. As Atlas and Upchurch have pointed out, you created a strawman in attributing to atheists positions that depend on these fallacies.These fallacies belong to you, not your critics.
4. You seem to be well on the way to the Argumentum ad Nauseam ( repeating yourself, loudly) by now.

Would you care to humour a godless old peabrain by trying to answer criticism?

[Atlas]

Originally posted by lifegazer
This leads to the inescapable conclusion:
Without the existence of an absolute-cause, nothing could change!!! This is something of a non sequitor as well for me. I'm not an expert on causality but it seems to me that that you confuse absolute cause with first cause.

Adherents of the Big Bang theory admit to a first cause, I believe, but do not ascribe god as the agent of the Big Bang nor do they necessarily rule such an agent out. The God concept does not aid us in scientific inquiry into the workings of the resultant universe.

Causality arises out of the interaction of matter and energy operating in the space-time continuum. You cling to a metaphysic that describes an immaterial original Cause that exists before space-time. Science does not support you in this. You assume it, then define it, then structure a "logic" that "proves" your definition. It's all bass-ackwards.

Your statement above did make me ponder things a bit though. I think it is incorrect. If our brains remained wired to appreciate the affects of time but the Universe operated on a different principle than Causality, why couldn't things still change? Children would sometimes pop into existence before their parents, sometimes after. Stars would sometimes burn out before their own birth. It sure wouldn't make much sense - but in a timeless singularity or any other weird Universe that is not this one we'd have to expect a little strangeness.

[c4ts]

Originally posted by lifegazer
What's the point in me abandoning logic and giving God the finger if I still have no mates?
Screw u all then. I have decided I'd rather believe in God and have no mates than not believe...

So, interesting that there were a dozen responses and nobody could refute the core logic of my OP. I was right about you lot: small brains.

Lifegazer, your arguments for God were essentially abandoning logic and giving him the finger.

[Nex]

Originally posted by lifegazer
What's the point in me abandoning logic and giving God the finger if I still have no mates?
Screw u all then. I have decided I'd rather believe in God and have no mates than not believe...

So, interesting that there were a dozen responses and nobody could refute the core logic of my OP. I was right about you lot: small brains.
After a petulant little rant like this, you wonder why you haven't any mates here... :nope:

Do you see the glaring problem with your reasoning on this little tangent of yours?

Originally posted by c4ts
Lifegazer, your arguments for God were essentially abandoning logic and giving him the finger.
Pretty much.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Lord Muck oGentry
1. I suggested that, to get the conclusion that not everything has a cause, you committed the quantifier-shift fallacy.

You said this:
"Does anyone remember the quantifier-shift fallacy( each thing has a cause, therefore there exists a cause of everything)? It looks to me as if lifegazer has transposed this to: if there is no cause of everything, then it is not the case that there is a cause of each thing. And, for good measure, he goes on to say that there are no causes at all.".

... Firstly, I never said any of that. That's just you trying to manipulate what I did say into another form, thus enabling you to cry "QS fallacy!".
You commited a strawman.

My actual line of reasoning was along the lines that if there are no absolutely-singular causes of anything, then everything must have zero causal influence. A thing can only actually have causal-influence if it is the absolute cause of whatever effects proceed from it.

2. I implied that you committed an elementary scope fallacy in getting from the assertion that not everything has a cause to the assertion that everything has not got a cause.

I am not the world's best writer. If there was ambiguity and confusion in whatever I wrote, then I apologise. However, whether there was ambiguity and confusion in what I wrote has certainly not been verified - just hinted at. If you want me to clarify something, then please ask.
However, I have not asserted anything. Whatever I said came with rational explanation.
Also, I never said that "not everything has a cause"... and I certainly never concluded that "everything has not got a cause".

Perhaps it would be better if you actually quoted the text that I used, then we might be able to progress.

3. As Atlas and Upchurch have pointed out, you created a strawman in attributing to atheists positions that depend on these fallacies. These fallacies belong to you, not your critics.

So far, your post boils-down to a strawman and an unfounded gripe about whether my argument was ambiguous/confusing.
Upchurch's complaint was that I don't know what atheists think. But he was wrong. I can know with absolute certainty that no "atheist" can believe in the existence of an absolute-cause, since an absolute-cause = God.

4. You seem to be well on the way to the Argumentum ad Nauseam ( repeating yourself, loudly) by now.

My argument is simple to understand. I've even clarified it for everyone, today.
Your post equates to argumentum ad doindatango (dancing around and away from whatever it is that I posted).

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Atlas
"This leads to the inescapable conclusion:
Without the existence of an absolute-cause, nothing could change!!!"

This is something of a non sequitor as well for me. I'm not an expert on causality but it seems to me that that you confuse absolute cause with first cause.

There's no difference mate. The first cause of an event is the absolute-cause of that event. Or, something that is a first-cause is also an absolute-cause.
If there's any confusion here, it belongs to you.

Adherents of the Big Bang theory admit to a first cause, I believe, but do not ascribe god as the agent of the Big Bang nor do they necessarily rule such an agent out.

The big-bang is an effect, not a first-cause. This becomes apparent when you contemplate the second-half of your sentence, because if such adherents can neither prove that God exists nor negate said Deity, they are at least acknowledging the fact that the big-bang is an effect.

The God concept does not aid us in scientific inquiry into the workings of the resultant universe.

What a dumb and irrelevant thing to say.

Causality arises out of the interaction of matter and energy operating in the space-time continuum.

Wrong. Causality gives rise to the interaction of matter and energy operating in the space-time continuum.

You cling to a metaphysic that describes an immaterial original Cause that exists before space-time. Science does not support you in this.

Why harp-on about the limitations of science?
This is philosophy mate. Deal with it.

You assume it, then define it, then structure a "logic" that "proves" your definition. It's all bass-ackwards.

Read my [clarification] argument again. I conclude (emphasis) that there must be an absolute causal-agent since if there weren't, then there would be no change(s).

[Atlas]

I hope others comment on my thoughts and lifegazer's. Apart from the fact that he is seldom correct, I find the notions of causality that I have are my own common sense ideas - that's gotten me in trouble before and I enjoy a good lesson.
Originally posted by Lifegazer
There's no difference mate. The first cause of an event is the absolute-cause of that event. Or, something that is a first-cause is also an absolute-cause.But there is something more to "Absolute cause" or you'd use the more familiar "First cause" wouldn't you? Simply for clarity. It's in these phrases that I find my accusation that you first assume what you ultimately conclude. But you say "no difference" - so for now I'll go with that.
The big-bang is an effect, not a first-cause. This becomes apparent when you contemplate the second-half of your sentence, because if such adherents can neither prove that God exists nor negate said Deity, they are at least acknowledging the fact that the big-bang is an effect. I disagree with your assessment and invite comment by others. It's my understanding that causality has real "before-after" associations and the Big Bang has only "after" associations because time, that is, the time-space continuum was born in the Bang. It is nonsensical to talk about what came "before" the Big Bang because time did not exist. Here again I find you are assuming that which you will soon conclude. You cannot logically speculate about that which precedes time. You can only do it assumptively.

Something else now... When I said: "The God concept does not aid us in scientific inquiry into the workings of the resultant universe," You replied: "What a dumb and irrelevant thing to say."

Did you mean that it's untrue or merely that ideas without scientific value are the core of your philosophical truth?Causality arises out of the interaction of matter and energy operating in the space-time continuum.
Wrong. Causality gives rise to the interaction of matter and energy operating in the space-time continuum.I'm sure there are other ways of looking at Causality than our 2 ideas. But I find the difference in our statements interesting. I understand your statement to mean that God is causality and god causes everything to happen. My idea is that the physical universe exists in a space-time continuum and the interaction events are understood by human consciousness such that later events are caused by events happening earlier in time. Your idea is far more tangible (though obviously immaterial) than mine which is merely descriptive of events.Why harp-on about the limitations of science?
This is philosophy mate. Deal with it. Well, I don't mean to harp on it but I don't wish to abandon it either. Science informs most philosophy, does it not?
Read my [clarification] argument again. I conclude (emphasis) that there must be an absolute causal-agent since if there weren't, then there would be no change(s).And I cannot get past the notion that you concluded what you assumed. That which we observe in Time tells us nothing about what we might conclude about "Before Time". Science tells us such conclusions are nonsense and thoughtful philosophers agree - then speculate on options. I say again, you assume then torture logic to "prove".

[Lord Muck oGentry]

lifegazer,
Thanks for the reply. Let's look at your opening post.
"(2) There's no absolute-cause of anything. If I hold this view then I have to believe in God. But I've seen the light, so I say screw that. Therefore:-
(a) There are no singular causes... but there are singular events/things. There must be singular things/events or else nothing can exist.
(b) Singular things exist, but they are the cause of nothing. Singular things cannot be the cause of anything, or else this contradicts the view that there are no singular causes.
(c) The universe is comprised of singular things which are the cause of nothing."
You went on to say:
"In summary, there's no absolute-cause of any thing (and everything). I cannot believe this because if I do I'll have to believe in God - but I want to have mates here, so screw that idea.
Therefore, even though no thing can be the cause of anything, and even though an infinite-number of these things cannot cause jack, I still refuse to believe in the existence of an absolute cause."

In your reply you said:
"I can know with absolute certainty that no "atheist" can believe in the existence of an absolute-cause, since an absolute-cause = God."
That is, you equate "absolute-cause" with "God".
These words of yours are the reason for my contention that you believe that if there is no god, then there are no singular causes.The same belief can be expressed by contraposition as: if there are singular causes, then there is a god. Whichever way it is put, it embodies a fallacy.
Now, if you say that I have misunderstood you and that you disclaim this belief, then the main disagreement between us disappears.
Over to you.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer
I've seen the light. My brain has shrunk and I now see everything the same way as you lot:-


...You've always seemed to have a lot of trouble understanding a point of view other than your own.



(1) There's an end to everything. An end to me; an end to you; an end to my (sob) hamster, Buffy; an end to this post (you'll be glad to hear).
Therefore, we can define any thing/event as an end in it's own right - a definitive product of all things/events that conspired to bring-about that thing/event.


This is a part of themodynamics and does not seem to apply to the universe as a whole, but rather patterns contained within the universe.


(2) There's no absolute-cause of anything. If I hold this view then I have to believe in God. But I've seen the light, so I say screw that. Therefore:-


You are talking about two very different types of causes and effects. On one hand, you are talking about the interactions of things within the universe, things within reality, and on the other hand, you are talking about existence itself. I think you need to seperate these two, just as above with "endings".



(a) There are no singular causes... but there are singular events/things. There must be singular things/events or else nothing can exist.


Singular causes of what, events within the universe, events within reality, or a cause that causes existence itself. Any cause which causes existence would be outside of existence, and would therefore not exist.


(b) Singular things exist, but they are the cause of nothing. Singular things cannot be the cause of anything, or else this contradicts the view that there are no singular causes.
(c) The universe is comprised of singular things which are the cause of nothing.
(d) The cumulative effect of combining countless singular-things that have zero causal influence is... err... zero causal influence.
If 1 = 0
then...
A x 1 = 0... where A can be any number you wish to mention, including our good ol' friend 'infinity'.


More following from above, once existence exists, it operates according to its laws.


In summary, there's no absolute-cause of any thing (and everything). I cannot believe this because if I do I'll have to believe in God - but I want to have mates here, so screw that idea.


Again, when talking about a cause of existence, and a cause within existence, you are talking about two different things. You cannot force them together.


Therefore, even though no thing can be the cause of anything, and even though an infinite-number of these things cannot cause jack, I still refuse to believe in the existence of an absolute cause.


Like I said above, absolute cause cannot exist, because it would be outside of existence, and therefore, not exist. If absolute cause is god, then god exists, and existence is god. If you define absolute cause as what caused existence, then clearly, god cannot be absolute cause, because he is existence. And around and around we go.

Go even further and realize that absolute cause assigns linear time to a realm outside of existence, because you are making two regions of time, the time before absolute cause, and the time after.

Absolute cause is not necessary for existence to exist. The only thing that is necessary for existence is the rules that define that existence.

[Atlas]

Interesting post RussDill.

I liked your explanation... Any cause which causes existence would be outside of existence, and would therefore not exist.

And this too...when talking about a cause of existence, and a cause within existence, you are talking about two different things.

It still seems like the Big Bang is the cause of existence rather than a cause within. But it's flavor is different from Lg's absolute cause. Though he doesn't say it here the absolute cause is changed, he's used the word fractured, in the production of creation which is real but immaterial.

First cause was different when Aquinas described it. The deity remained unchanged and stood apart from his material creation. (I should add, that's my understanding.)

As I describe the Big Bang I use the term "first cause" in a different sense than Aquinas and I wonder if the proper term would be First Event. What say you? Do you have terms you use?

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Atlas
As I describe the Big Bang I use the term "first cause" in a different sense than Aquinas and I wonder if the proper term would be First Event. What say you? Do you have terms you use? I've only been lurking because I've mostly found this argument rather silly. However, I was thinking about this the other day.

I would say that "first cause" or "initial cause" would describe the Big Bang. It is, as you say, the first event which started time and a more or less causal string of events to the current day.

I would, however, distinguish "initial cause" from "absolute cause". My great-great-grandfather, for example, is a cause for me in the sense that his existence was necessary for my own. However, my great-great-grandfather is not the cause of my writing this post. There are, instead, other causes that has motivated me to be in the here and now taking this action.

What lifegazer fails to understand is that acausal event that triggered the Big Bang (at least as well as we understand it today) is not entirely unique . The only thing that is truly unique about it is that it started a metric from which to measure events. Other acausal events have continued to happen and still happen today. There are events today that cannot be causally connected to the "initial cause".

Thus, the "initial cause" is not an "absolute cause" because all events cannot be causally linked to a single cause.

[Atlas]

Originally posted by Upchurch
... What lifegazer fails to understand is that acausal event that triggered the Big Bang (at least as well as we understand it today) is not entirely unique . ...

Thus, the "initial cause" is not an "absolute cause" because all events cannot be causally linked to a single cause. Somehow I believe your insight will do nothing more than generate a lecture for us all on how Lg could have predicted that when God fractured himself into this creation he would necessarily acquire a case of quantum hiccups.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by Atlas
As I describe the Big Bang I use the term "first cause" in a different sense than Aquinas and I wonder if the proper term would be First Event. What say you? Do you have terms you use?

My point being, is that a logical paradox is involved in calling anything the first event. Luckily, our universe is shaped in such a way that this isn't a problem.

The ancients grappled with the problem of "what is beyond the edge of existence". It was a problem that they did not believe was solvable, because they could not comprehend the possibility of an infinite or a non-euclidian universe.

We have the same problem with time, but it is more difficult to imagine. We already accept that space is non-euclidian, so we don't grapple with the same problems as the ancients. However, time and space are part of the same property, spacetime. Its not just space that is non-euclidian, it is spacetime. Space doesn't just wrap in on itself, spacetime does.

Trying to find first cause is like trying to draw a line through the universe and determine the first thing the line intersects. Non-sensical, eh?

I would then refer to the big bang and just the "beginings" or the "beginning time", since it is impossible and non-sensical to fix one single point of time and space and call it the big bang.

[Atlas]

Originally posted by RussDill
... I would then refer to the big bang and just the "beginings" or the "beginning time", since it is impossible and non-sensical to fix one single point of time and space and call it the big bang. You do put things together in interesting ways. And I do agree that it is impossible and non-sensical to fix on a single beginning point from this vantage in our expanded universe. Still my bias is more towards how I was thinking about it and how Upchurch described it.

The comprehensibility of the Big Bang has always been found more in the math of scientific theory than in being able to point to any point and saying that's where it all started. No point in space has any greater claim to the center than any other. Likewise the physical size of our universe expanding from such a tiny spot boggles the mind and without numbers and math describing it all I wonder if I could give it any creedence.

It's my understanding that what Grand Unification Theorists are searching for is that homogenous single force that broke down into Gravity, the Strong, Weak and EM forces. And it is in the first microseconds of the Big Bang that they look. So it's not important to fix it in spacetime as it is to analyze and describe the event and its implications.

Still, your thoughts have got my mind working. This may be one of those things like Euclidian space or Newtonian gravity that is easier for me to think about with the simple terms of First Cause but is actually better left less defined because of the implications of Einsteinian spacetime. I'll ponder this more.

[scotth]

For 2 days I have resisted even LOOKING into a LG started thread. For two days, I have told myself there is no need to look, because the post probably would make about zero sense and just make my head hurt trying to figure out what LG could have possibly meant. For two days, this has been enough to keep me away, even though my (morbid) curiosity of the contents continued to grow while the post count climbed to 30.

Damn my curiosity. It finally overwelmed my good sense, and I looked. Again, damn my curiosity. How many times do I have to look and find the same thing before I won't bother to look again?

Well, my expectations weren't dissappointed, again.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by scotth
For 2 days I have resisted even LOOKING into a LG started thread. For two days, I have told myself there is no need to look, because the post probably would make about zero sense and just make my head hurt trying to figure out what LG could have possibly meant. For two days, this has been enough to keep me away, even though my (morbid) curiosity of the contents continued to grow while the post count climbed to 30.

Damn my curiosity. It finally overwelmed my good sense, and I looked. Again, damn my curiosity. How many times do I have to look and find the same thing before I won't bother to look again?

Well, my expectations weren't dissappointed, again.
Criticism without content. Useless effort. The mods may as well delete your post.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Criticism without content. Useless effort. The mods may as well delete your post. Ditto. what's your point?

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Lord Muck oGentry
In your reply you said:
"I can know with absolute certainty that no "atheist" can believe in the existence of an absolute-cause, since an absolute-cause = God."

That is, you equate "absolute-cause" with "God".
These words of yours are the reason for my contention that you believe that if there is no god, then there are no singular causes.The same belief can be expressed by contraposition as: if there are singular causes, then there is a god. Whichever way it is put, it embodies a fallacy.
Now, if you say that I have misunderstood you and that you disclaim this belief, then the main disagreement between us disappears.
Over to you.
To be the singular-cause of something is to be the absolute-cause
of that thing. Those terms have identical meanings.
As I equate an absolute-cause to 'God', then it follows that if there is no God then there are no singular causes whatsoever, since only God can be a singular (absolute) cause.
I see no problem here.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Upchurch
"Criticism without content. Useless effort. The mods may as well delete your post."

Ditto. what's your point?
I'm just trying to deter useless criticism devoid of relevant content. It serves no purpose and I'm tired of it.

[Upchurch]

Someday, we need to teach you the difference between "if...then..." statements and "if and only if...then..." statements.
Originally posted by lifegazer
To be the singular-cause of something is to be the absolute-cause of that thing. Agreed as long as we're using "cause" to refer to a causal chain of events. However, the singular cause of something may not be the singular cause of something else. As such, it may not be the universal absolute cause that you are alluding to, i.e. a singular-cause of something may not be the absolute cause of everything.
As I equate an absolute-cause to 'God', then it follows that if there is no God then there are no singular causes whatsoever, since only God can be a singular (absolute) cause.
I see no problem here. I do. Here you have jumped from the case of "a singular cause of something" to the case of "a singular cause of everything" with no justification whatsoever.

Just because something may have a singular cause, it does not stand to reason that everything must have a singular cause, or even that if other things also have a singular cause that it is necessarily the same singular cause.

[Upchurch]

Hawking Radiation (http://www.thinkquest.org/library/site_sum.html?tname=C007571&url=C007571/), for example, has at least two distinct causes: First is the cause(s) of the black hole. Second is the acausal quantum fluctuation that creates the virtual particle pair.

Hawking Radiation, thus, has no singular, or absolute, cause.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by RussDill
"... we can define any thing/event as an end in it's own right - a definitive product of all things/events that conspired to bring-about that thing/event."

This is a part of themodynamics and does not seem to apply to the universe as a whole, but rather patterns contained within the universe.

Irrelevant to the point I made. And whether the universe as a whole will come to an absolute-end is not known. Hell, we don't even know whether the universe even exists. ;)

"There's no absolute-cause of anything. If I hold this view then I have to believe in God."

You are talking about two very different types of causes and effects. On one hand, you are talking about the interactions of things within the universe, things within reality, and on the other hand, you are talking about existence itself. I think you need to seperate these two, just as above with "endings".

The interactions of things within the perceived universe are not caused by those things.
When it comes to philosophical discussion pertaining to the actual causality of any event within the perceived universe, there is no way you can cite a "thing" within the universe, or even a whole bunch of them, as the absolute-cause of that perceived event.
You have to look alot deeper than the level of your current gaze.

There are not two types of cause. There can only be one absolute-cause and everything else is just an effect.
You're trying to argue that the cause of the 5th domino
falling, in a line of dominoes, is the 4th domino. That's totally incorrect, for the cause of that domino falling is the ~thing~ responsible for putting those dominoes where they are and for providing the forces (gravity and whatever else) which will enable the 4th domino to knock down the 5th.

Throughout history, our shallow minds have incorrectly attributed the word "cause" to almost every entity. The 4th domino is a domino and is 4th in-line because Something else dictated that it should be so. And the 4th domino does not cause the downfall of the 5th.
The same principle applies to everything else within the perceived universe.

**[Edited to add: This is important and explains why I said, earlier, that "things" possess zero causal-influence.]**

I'm getting tired. Have to leave it there.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by lifegazer
The interactions of things within the perceived universe are not caused by those things. When cornered, fall back on the "God dunnit" argument.

We're back to solipsism, which means rational, productive conversation is over. It's really sort of the "Hitler/Nazi" of philosophy discussions, isn't it?



edited because my spellcheck doesn't know the difference between solipsism and sophism.

[Lord Muck oGentry]

lifegazer,
You said:
"To be the singular-cause of something is to be the absolute-cause
of that thing. Those terms have identical meanings.
As I equate an absolute-cause to 'God', then it follows that if there is no God then there are no singular causes whatsoever, since only God can be a singular (absolute) cause"
Fine. This settles that you were not misunderstood.

You said:
"I see no problem here."
No, you don't, bless you, you don't. But Upchurch has pointed it out:
"Here you have jumped from the case of 'a singular cause of something' to the case of 'a singular cause of everything' with no justification whatsoever."

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Irrelevant to the point I made. And whether the universe as a whole will come to an absolute-end is not known. Hell, we don't even know whether the universe even exists. ;)


Yes, it does, because you mentioned everything having an end, and proceeded to name things that exist within the universe. I'm pointing out that the law of everything having an end applies only to things within the universe, so don't try to extend it beyond that unless you have some proof or evidence.


The interactions of things within the perceived universe are not caused by those things.


Says who? This is part of your philosophy. Sorry, it won't be taken as fact in this discussion.


When it comes to philosophical discussion pertaining to the actual causality of any event within the perceived universe, there is no way you can cite a "thing" within the universe, or even a whole bunch of them, as the absolute-cause of that perceived event.


Why not? I can describe the exact causation of why a receive light from an incadescent bulb. I don't need to describe the cause of why the lightbuld exists to describe how it emits light. And why do you keep switching cause, absolute cause, and singular cause around?


You have to look alot deeper than the level of your current gaze.


No, I have to look at your philosophy for answers, you don't care where I look, just as long as it isn't at your philosophy, its wrong


There are not two types of cause. There can only be one absolute-cause and everything else is just an effect.


Your definition of cause rests soley on your philosophy. The reality we live in also has causes and effects if you haven't noticed. Whack yourself in the head, and your action will cause pain.

Ever read the book moby dick? Why did the captain chase the whale. Was it because he was mad? Or was it because someone wrote the book?


You're trying to argue that the cause of the 5th domino falling, in a line of dominoes, is the 4th domino. That's totally incorrect, for the cause of that domino falling is the ~thing~ responsible for putting those dominoes where they are and for providing the forces (gravity and whatever else) which will enable the 4th domino to knock down the 5th.


You mistake what I'm arguing, and anyway, you are making no attempt to say what caused whatever entity to put those forces into effect, you've only moved the cause back a step, and instituted a great deal of special pleading.

Like I said before, due to the nature of our universe, there is no need for a first cause, which is a good thing, because a first or absolute cause isn't logical. Refute the statement. If a first cause is what brings about existence, it must be outside of existence, and therefore, does not exist.


Throughout history, our shallow minds have incorrectly attributed the word "cause" to almost every entity.


According to your philosophy. Determining that viruses cause disease has led us to develop immunizations for instance. Clearly, the world does not work at random, the world is ordered, and because of that order, we can trace events and determine cause and effect.


The 4th domino is a domino and is 4th in-line because Something else dictated that it should be so.


Who says? Why could it not have simply developed that way over time? Why is an intelligence necessary?


And the 4th domino does not cause the downfall of the 5th. The same principle applies to everything else within the perceived universe.


This is only true if your philosophy is true. Your arguments are always completely, and totally circular

[Atlas]

Originally posted by lifegazer
... You're trying to argue that the cause of the 5th domino falling, in a line of dominoes, is the 4th domino. The thing is that we all are the 4th domino knocking down that 5th. Your idea is humans cause nothing, they are effects only. Einstein is irrelevant. Lifegazer is irrelevant.

If you do not expect to cause change in those you preach at, why do you do it? Are you unable to stop? Do you have no free will? If you do have free will but you cannot change anything - not even you own mind - what is free will? If everything is the effect of an absolute cause what really matters?

We cannot really escape Armageddon can we? We'd have to change, wouldn't we?

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Upchurch
When cornered, fall back on the "God dunnit" argument.

We're back to solipsism, which means rational, productive conversation is over. It's really sort of the "Hitler/Nazi" of philosophy discussions, isn't it? Godwin's law. That's the term I was trying to come up with when I wrote this the above.

Solipsism is the Godwin's law of philosophy discussions.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Upchurch
"The interactions of things within the perceived universe are not caused by those things."

When cornered, fall back on the "God dunnit" argument.

"Cornered" by who... and by what??

Of course my thread is trying to prove that "God dunnit"... and I've provided rational support for this contention.
But if you're just going to ignore the bulk of what I say then we cannot have a conversation, can we? Especially when you come out with nonsense like this:-

We're back to solipsism, which means rational, productive conversation is over. It's really sort of the "Hitler/Nazi" of philosophy discussions, isn't it?
Firstly, I'm not a solipsist in the traditional understanding of that term. I.e., I do not think that only I, lifegazer, exist. If I was a solipsist, I would.
Indeed, my philosophy opposes this belief - stating instead, that 'lifegazer' (or anyone, for that matter) does not actually exist... and that these human experiences are delusions of identity held by whatever it is that I am.
This philosophy applies to [the perception of being] anybody, so that human identity becomes irrelevant. I.e., I don't have to prove that there is a perception of being upchurch for my philosophy to be true. But if there really is the experience of being upchurch and self-aware, then it applies to you. Moreover, your non-existence would not negate my philosophy.

Since my philosophy unites existence so that 'we' are all actually One, and since it applies to any self-aware entity that has inner-experience, you have no grounds to say that rational, productive conversation is over.
Further, you've just derailed the thread - which is about causality. I would appreciate it if you would get back on-track.

Lastly, you said this in a later post:-

Solipsism is the Godwin's law of philosophy discussions.

You know what my philosophy is about. You've been talking to me for over a year. Aside from the fact that you fail to distinguish my philosophy from traditional solipsism, your comment here is akin to saying that:
'Jesus' is the Godwin's law of Christian discussion.

... Pretty dumb stuff upchurch.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Lord Muck oGentry
You said:
"I see no problem here."
No, you don't, bless you, you don't. But Upchurch has pointed it out:
"Here you have jumped from the case of 'a singular cause of something' to the case of 'a singular cause of everything' with no justification whatsoever."
A thing cannot be the singular-cause of an effect (as perceived, btw) unless it is the totality of existence.
... I say this because an absolute (singular) causal-agent must, itself, be defined as an entity that has not been effected by any other entity... nor is dependent upon any other entity or medium for its own existence.
To be dependent upon external circumstances/conditions/laws for one's own existence (not to mention one's position within that existence) and to use those pre-determined external conditions and forms (of other things, that are also dependents) to craft something anew, does not make one the singular-cause of the effects that might proceed your actions.

Likewise, no 'man' can claim to have absolute free-will (there is no such thing as partial free-will, btw) unless that man recognises that 'he' is actually One with God.

We are either absolute puppets... or God, absolutely.

[Atlas]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Likewise, no 'man' can claim to have absolute free-will (there is no such thing as partial free-will, btw) unless that man recognises that 'he' is actually One with God.

We are either absolute puppets... or God, absolutely. Doesn't absolute free will imply being able to change shapes and perhaps flying like superman? Is there a difference between free will and absolute free will.

If I claim to have absoute free will does that mean I am one with god since you say I'd be unable to if I wasn't?

If you claim to be one with god does your free will manifest itself differently than mine?

If only god exists and only god can 'cause' does having free will have any meaning?

What would 'cause' us to change our mind and become one with god?

[P.S.A.]

A thing cannot be the singular-cause of an effect (as perceived, btw) unless it is the totality of existence.

Public Service Announcement for Lifegazer;

Therefore the singular cause of all your suffering, your disappointments in life, your loneliness and inability to persuade anyone of your religion is also God. God is dreaming he hates you. 6 billion parts of God have rejected you. There will be no meeting at singularity, because God, being everything that is, can be, shall be, must also be an ending... God must be the singular ending too if he is totality; and what the component God-parts have decided, and decide in ever greater numbers every single day, is that they no longer want to embrace God;. Indeed, only you even care about your own interpretation of the true God... it seems God wants not to wake up, as you preach, but instead to die. Independantly, 6 billion seperate minds of God decide to withdraw his protection and interest not just from your own life, but from the world in it's entirety.

If you think that's cold and heartless to say to you, so be it. It's your philosophy after all, you who have nothing to offer us but emptiness and endings. Don't be surprised when no one embraces it.

[Upchurch]

Premise:Originally posted by lifegazer
A thing cannot be the singular-cause of an effect (as perceived, btw) unless it is the totality of existence.
(attempted) Justification:... I say this because an absolute (singular) causal-agent must, itself, be defined as an entity that has not been effected by any other entity... nor is dependent upon any other entity or medium for its own existence.
To be dependent upon external circumstances/conditions/laws for one's own existence (not to mention one's position within that existence) and to use those pre-determined external conditions and forms (of other things, that are also dependents) to craft something anew, does not make one the singular-cause of the effects that might proceed your actions.Do you see that your justification (or "I say this because") does not support your claim that a singular-cause must be "the totality of existence"? It doesn't even address the issue.

Further, this just goes to show that you really don't understand what causal relationships are or how they work. So, despite what you said earlier, you really don't understand what "atheists" think.

Would you care to address my point about your leap from the singular cause of something to the singular cause of everything? Do you have a reason why different effects cannot have different singular causes?

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by P.S.A.
If you think that's cold and heartless to say to you, so be it. It's your philosophy after all, you who have nothing to offer us but emptiness and endings. Don't be surprised when no one embraces it.
Hardly on-topic.
You don't have a clue about my philosophy mate. It offers you divine identity and victory over death. It offers you sovereignity over all that you survey. It offers peace and unity to the world where all love thy neighbour as thyself... because thy neighbour is thyself. An end to war, injustice, nationality, inequality, poverty, etc...
Please don't criticise what you don't understand.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Do you see that your justification (or "I say this because") does not support your claim that a singular-cause must be "the totality of existence"? It doesn't even address the issue.

Why not? Reasons please. Don't make a mockery of rational discussion by omitting the use of reason in such discussion.

Further, this just goes to show that you really don't understand what causal relationships are or how they work. So, despite what you said earlier, you really don't understand what "atheists" think.

Your criticisms of my post are meaningless without rational justification. I expect better of you.

Would you care to address my point about your leap from the singular cause of something to the singular cause of everything? Do you have a reason why different effects cannot have different singular causes?
The reason for this is apparent in that post to Lord Muck. I explained why a singular-cause (an absolute-cause) has to be the totality of existence. Clearly, there can be only one entity that is the totality of existence = there can be only one singular-cause.

If you want me to address this in more detail, you'll have to actually address the points I made in that post.

[Wudang]

Originally posted by lifegazer
[
The reason for this is apparent in that post to Lord Muck. I explained why a singular-cause (an absolute-cause) has to be the totality of existence.

c/I explained why/I stated that/

Reasons please. Not unsupported assertions.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Why not? Reasons please. Don't make a mockery of rational discussion by omitting the use of reason in such discussion.I have no idea why you chose not to make any reference to your premise in your justification. However, nothing in your justification makes any reference that can be construed to support the contention that a singular cause must be the "totality of existence".

I am also a bit perplexed as to why you insist on anthropomorphizing causes.
Your criticisms of my post are meaningless without rational justification. I expect better of you.Unfortunately, I didn't expect better of you. I just hoped better.

You want to know why I'm not happy with your justification which is not related to your premise. I would think that would be self-evident, but I will explain: Because your justification is not-related, it is not a sufficient justification. It is incomplete in that it does not use a logical chain of arguments to connect "singular-cause" to "totality of existence".
The reason for this is apparent in that post to Lord Muck. I explained why a singular-cause (an absolute-cause) has to be the totality of existence. Clearly, there can be only one entity that is the totality of existence = there can be only one singular-cause.That is nonsensical. You've merely re-stated your premise rather than justifying why a singular-cause must be the totality of existence.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

The reason for this is apparent in that post to Lord Muck. I explained why a singular-cause (an absolute-cause) has to be the totality of existence. Clearly, there can be only one entity that is the totality of existence = there can be only one singular-cause.


So wait, existence can only consist of one singular thing.

That singular thing is god

Only one singular thing could have caused existence

That singular thing is god

ergo, god caused himself to exist.

...right...

[P.S.A.]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Hardly on-topic.
You don't have a clue about my philosophy mate. It offers you divine identity and victory over death. It offers you sovereignity over all that you survey. It offers peace and unity to the world where all love thy neighbour as thyself... because thy neighbour is thyself. An end to war, injustice, nationality, inequality, poverty, etc...
Please don't criticise what you don't understand.

I've already achieved victory over death. You see, for God to be omnicogniscent, he must have knowledge of every single thing that can be. Part of that knowledge is the knowledge of my own existance here in the dream. When God wakes up, he cannot forget what it was to be me, because if he does so, he's not omnicogniscent. There would be things he wouldn't know.

Indeed, to know me with 100% accuracy, he would also have to be able to BE me with 100% accuracy. God must BE me, and I must BE God, otherwise his knowledge of everything is imperfect. And you have stated, to almost infinite levels of tedium, that we are all God over and over again.

So even when God wakes up, my existance must continue. Because if I cease to exist, God loses awareness of a small part of the universe.

You don't understand your own philosophy, mate. I'm going to be there for all of eternity with you at singularity, calling you a jerk over and over again... Not because I want to, but because the dream you are having now can never, ever end. Not without killing little bits of your God. Who is me. And everyone else. God hates you, mate.

He'll hate you forever

[Atlas]

Originally posted by lifegazer
... We are either absolute puppets... or God, absolutely. I'm coming back to this quote once more. I wonder if I've made lifegazer's ignore list.

I truly am puzzled by this notion he has of absolute cause. I think he's leaving the door open to say that if we are god we actually can cause change because we are in divine identity. Otherwise we are just puppets as his quote above states.

If we are puppets unable to change or cause change then we are wholly dependent on the absolute cause for our current attitude and our ability to adopt divine identity. Like the good book says, "He has hardened their hearts."

So what is the deal with lifegazer's preaching? He must believe that as an agent of divine identity only he has the ability to effect change in our awareness of our divinity. We cannot do it. He must ordain it. Similarly he must believe that his ordained reality is coming about. Why his ordained reality still includes an Armageddon that he pleads with us to stop from happening betrays his own faith.

Some of lifegazer's ideas do make a kind of sense within his own philosophy but his notions of free will and absolute cause seem to have become uncoupled to me.

[Z]

Y'know, I'm off the net for a month, and the Jester slips in a few good ones!

Of course, if nothing is a singular cause but, rather, a cause in combination with prior causes ad infinitum, this refutes his entire logic system.

But, then, logic refutes his entire logic system.

[Lord Muck oGentry]

lifegazer,
Thanks for the reply to my last post.
As I hope to be burning the candle at both ends for the next day or three, I shan't have much time to post. In the meantime, I shall just note that you replied to the second half of my post but not the first. Since that part of the post concerned two contested questions( the validity of your argument and the question whether it had been misunderstood), the omission is significant.

[Atlas]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
Y'know, I'm off the net for a month, and the Jester slips in a few good ones! We missed ya, Z. So where ya been... collecting the eyes of newts or catching toads for Valentines potions? If you've been sacrificing virgins again I guess I don't want to know. Am I being excluded because I drool too much?

[Z]

lol

No, I was moving. New house. And our phone company only just today got our service connected - after two weeks of nothing!

So... I gots some catchin' up to do.

And do you know how hard it is to keep track of the sacrificial maidens during a move?

[hodgy]

Originally posted by scotth
For 2 days I have resisted even LOOKING into a LG started thread. For two days, I have told myself there is no need to look, because the post probably would make about zero sense and just make my head hurt trying to figure out what LG could have possibly meant. For two days, this has been enough to keep me away, even though my (morbid) curiosity of the contents continued to grow while the post count climbed to 30.

Damn my curiosity. It finally overwelmed my good sense, and I looked. Again, damn my curiosity. How many times do I have to look and find the same thing before I won't bother to look again?

Well, my expectations weren't dissappointed, again.

I think that Lifegazer is a computer program generated as a result of a conspiracy between JREF and the internet service providers. KEEPING YOU ALL ON LINE FOR AS LONG AS POSSIBLE...

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Atlas
Doesn't absolute free will imply being able to change shapes and perhaps flying like superman? Is there a difference between free will and absolute free will.

Yes... and no.
I contend that we have the authority to do anything (within perceived existence). I contend that the measure of our faith in the power of our own [divine] will, shapes what we shall experience.
I share the same mindset as Jesus (or, whoever said these words):
"for verily I say unto you, If ye have faith [in your divinity or oneness with God] as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you." Matthew 17:20

If I [i]claim to have absoute free will does that mean I am one with god since you say I'd be unable to if I wasn't?

There have been many claims, made throughout history. If we look to find the absolute cause of these claims (if we seek the actual claimer), then we are left with an interesting fact to ponder:-
If Nothing/nobody is making any claims then the claim would not be witnessed/made.
Hence Something definite is making the claim.
... Ultimately, all claims come from an absolute source since they cannot come from nothing. And you know my views about the identity of a source that is absolute.

If you claim to be one with god does your free will manifest itself differently than mine?

If God purposely designs a scenario/dream whereby divine identity is lost, then God's free will becomes misguided. Hence the diversity of human will.

If only god exists and only god can 'cause' does having free will have any meaning?

It is true that only God possesses the power "to cause". But my philosophy contends that you are God. So my philosophy certainly has merit for you.

What would 'cause' us to change our mind and become one with god?
To be brief, realisation and willingness.

My philosophy is only an open door to the changing-room. My philosophy is not the key to change, but the key to the possibility of change.

[Donks]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Yes... and no.
I contend that we have the authority to do anything (within perceived existence). I contend that the measure of our faith in the power of our own [divine] will, shapes what we shall experience.
I share the same mindset as Jesus (or, whoever said these words):
[i]"for verily I say unto you, If ye have faith [in your divinity or oneness with God] as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you." Matthew 17:20

Easy enough to prove. Do you want to pick the mountain, or shall I? I'm sure a mountain moving will be noticed by the media.

[Z]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Yes... and no.
I contend that we have the authority to do anything (within perceived existence). I contend that the measure of our faith in the power of our own [divine] will, shapes what we shall experience.
I share the same mindset as Jesus (or, whoever said these words):
[i]"for verily I say unto you, If ye have faith [in your divinity or oneness with God] as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you." Matthew 17:20

There have been many claims, made throughout history. If we look to find the absolute cause of these claims (if we seek the actual claimer), then we are left with an interesting fact to ponder:-
If Nothing/nobody is making any claims then the claim would not be witnessed/made.
Hence Something definite is making the claim.
... Ultimately, all claims come from an absolute source since they cannot come from nothing. And you know my views about the identity of a source that is absolute.

If God purposely designs a scenario/dream whereby divine identity is lost, then God's free will becomes misguided. Hence the diversity of human will.

It is true that only God possesses the power "to cause". But my philosophy contends that you are God. So my philosophy certainly has merit for you.

To be brief, realisation and willingness.

My philosophy is only an open door to the changing-room. My philosophy is not the key to change, but the key to the possibility of change.

Or, your philosophy is nihilistic solipsism, and is utterly irrelevant and offensive towards God.

Why is it an 'all or nothing' proposition with you? You seem to think there is either an Absolute Cause, or no cause at all. All or nothing. Doesn't make much sense at all, given our observations of reality.

There may even be an infinitely regressed chain of mingled causation, with every effect being the result of the mingling of prior causes, which themselves are also the effects of other prior causes, ad infinitum. In fact, I'd suggest that such a notion of continued regression to, at the least, a point at which causation is unknowable is more indicative of the truth of our reality than any notion of 'absolute causation'. Even the Big Bang is the result of some other series of causes - assuming the Big Bang is, itself, the causal agent of our Universe, it cannot be the ONLY causal agent of our universe, or it would not have happened, period. In fact, logic would suggest that no single causal agent CAN exist, for the simple fact that in order for causation to occur, some interaction between a minimum of two things must occur. So, instead, universal duality (which can be observed in so many effects throughout our reality) seems more logically certain. Perhaps, the Chinese were on to something after all.

As usual - a lifegazer thread with no meaning, no purpose, no logic, and clearly no understanding of basic principles.

Courage, serenity, and wisdom are the keys to the possibility of change - and acceptance of that which you observe and understand, rather than denial of your senses. Deny this reality, and you forever deny the possibility of change.

Anyway, I look forward to more lunacy - the Jester serves me well!

[P.S.A.]

Anyway, I look forward to more lunacy - the Jester serves me well! [/B]

I recommend everyone replies to Lifegazer from now on with the opening phrase:
"Hear now your God, in the form of zaayrdragon, as he speaks the following...."
After all, LG can't complain if we embrace the central tennet of his philosophy, can he?
Unfortunately God probably won't have much positive to say to LG, in whatever form he takes. But as you can see, so far LG's weaselled away from addressing that problem rather Sir Robin-ly; So declares God, in the form of a Public Service Announcement!

Edited because God cannot spell... But God now declares himself infallible. Thus it never happened!

[Z]

Originally posted by P.S.A.
I recommend everyone replies to Lifegazer from now on with the opening phrase:
"Hear now your God, in the form of zaayrdragon, as he speaks the following...."
After all, LG can't complain if we embrace the central tennet of his philosophy, can he?
Unfortunately God probably won't have much positive to say to LG, in whatever form he takes. But as you can see, so far LG's weaselled away from addressing that problem rather Sir Robin-ly; So declares God, in the form of a Public Service Announcement!

Edited because God cannot spell... But God now declares himself infallible. Thus it never happened!

Shouldn't that be, "HEAR now your God"? Rather than "HERE" now?

... just because I haven't picked nits in a while... :D

edited because God edits faster than God types and therefore God is both right and wrong simultaneiously and can and cannot spell both at the same time and never...


Is there a :head spinning: icon in here somewhere?

[Atlas]

Originally posted by lifegazer
I contend that we have the authority to do anything (within perceived existence). I contend that the measure of our faith in the power of our own [divine] will, shapes what we shall experience.
I share the same mindset as Jesus (or, whoever said these words):
[i]"for verily I say unto you, If ye have faith [in your divinity or oneness with God] as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you." Matthew 17:20

...

If God purposely designs a scenario/dream whereby divine identity is lost, then God's free will becomes misguided. Hence the diversity of human will. Ok, Lg

the fractured god is misguided in his experience of Atlas. Still, Atlas is God and is capable of ordaining future effects as absolute cause. I can do this whether I am a misguided god puppet or have attained divine identity, however divine identity has some perks.

As usual your ideas invite weird questioning... Is the rock misguided god too?

Math isn't my strongest area but if I used the notation to communicate the idea that a rock to the head causes pain I might choose to write it as:

Rock + Head = Pain or R + H = P

You always correct us as if it would be more correct to write: G_R + G_H = G_P
where G is always God. All such ideas break down to: G = G and offer no real information and no chance at increasing our knowledge. I don't really think you want us to not seek real information, but rather that we seek it with a foundation that all is god and nothing really matters because god causes everything and, truth be told, anything can be ordained to happen by the faithful.

You claim that your faith in the notion does, according to your understanding, promise the power to move mountains. Yet no one, not even you, ever does. You claim the truth and the promise but cannot demonstrate a single instance. You are not the first to make the claim and in fact were quoting a man from legend who made the promise. For the skeptic it is bizarre, when all is god, that no one and no thing (except folklore) ever exhibits any power beyond what scientists perceive.

Scientists explicitly leave God out of all their equations - yet they demonstrate truth, repeatable truth, truth that really changes lives. You believe they are wrong and that you know the better truth but have no way to demonstrate or communicate it. And nothing can swerve you from the rightness of your certain knowledge in that which so far offers no proof or value. As skeptics we conclude from the lack of evidence that your philosophy is powerless, truthless and valueless but you continue to insist desperately it is in humanity's interest to recognize and adopt it.

Is there any evidence of the promise your philosophy that can be demonstrated? Anything that a skeptic might wonder at?

[H'ethetheth]

Originally posted by lifegazer
A thing cannot be the singular-cause of an effect (as perceived, btw) unless it is the totality of existence.
... I say this because an absolute (singular) causal-agent must, itself, be defined as an entity that has not been effected by any other entity... nor is dependent upon any other entity or medium for its own existence.
To be dependent upon external circumstances/conditions/laws for one's own existence (not to mention one's position within that existence) and to use those pre-determined external conditions and forms (of other things, that are also dependents) to craft something anew, does not make one the singular-cause of the effects that might proceed your actions.

I remember reading replies mentioning uncaused quantum-mechanical events in several of your threads, lifegazer. Has it taught you nothing? The universe is apparently the result of a lot of causes, and a lot of effects. What caused the universe itself is still open to speculation though, but saying that the universe consists only of effects determined by one cause - its genesis - is very old fashioned and has been proven wrong.


...We are either absolute puppets... or God, absolutely.
Do you have a means to discern whether you are or are not a puppet? How can you know that what you're thinking isn't what the laws of nature necessitate you to think, given the circumstances?

[Wudang]

Originally posted by lifegazer

There have been many claims, made throughout history. If we look to find the absolute cause of these claims (if we seek the actual claimer), then we are left with an interesting fact to ponder:-
If Nothing/nobody is making any claims then the claim would not be witnessed/made.
Hence Something definite is making the claim.
... Ultimately, all claims come from an absolute source since they cannot come from nothing. And you know my views about the identity of a source that is absolute.



Excellent!

I claim lifegazer is a plonker.
So lifegazer believes that the absolute source of this claim is God.
Therefore lifegazer says that God claims that lifegazer is a plonker.

[uruk]

So LG's pro-god argument boils down to: "There has to be god because something had to have started the whole universe thingy."
It's an old argument based on our "common sense" reasoning that everything has to have had a begining. But science has proven that our universe does not always follow our "common sense".
You run into the same problems by declaring that god has had no begining. You have no way of providing evidence for this supposition in much the same way that science has very little to go on about the conditions that caused the big bang. (if indeed that it had a cause as we concieve of the notion)

Claiming that god had no cause is equal to claiming that big bang had no cause. You can't say much about either subject untill you have evidence or something to test. Otherwise your just conjecturing.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by uruk
So LG's pro-god argument boils down to: "There has to be god because something had to have started the whole universe thingy."
It's an old argument based on our "common sense" reasoning that everything has to have had a begining. But science has proven that our universe does not always follow our "common sense".

Science has provided us with no facts pertaining to a real world existing beyond our inner-perception of one. I will repeat this until I'm blue in the face. All knowledge supplied by science relates to the world WITHIN your awareness.
Now, you're trying to tell us that recent scientific-knowledge runs contrary to "common-sense". But this is only true when one ignores the fact that the effects we perceive are not "out there", but "in here".
... The world is a self-given inner experience and concepts like relativity and quantum-phenomena make perfect "common sense"... i.e., my philosophy is completely compatible with that knowledge.
relativity
There is no such thing as absolute/real/definite time or space. These things are completely subjective and their values are subject to relative fluctuation. Twin-paradox, for example.
Time and space can only have meaning as an inner experience.
quantum mechanics
(1) Nonlocality supports the idea that awareness is non-spatial. Remember that nonlocality relates to effects that are perceived, so that it relates to inner-experience.
(2) I have argued that God is the absolute-cause of the perceived-world. God possesses [absolute] free-will. It is impossible to determine what God will do; i.e., God is indeterminate. Therefore, the energy of God (the cause of the perceived world) is essentially indeterminate but, importantly, that energy works towards effecting the order that is perceived.

We can observe the effects of the fundamental cause - not the cause itself. Via our observations, we have determined that fundamentally, the cause of what we see is essentially indeterminate but works towards yielding perceived order. Hence, we can only say what the fundamental-cause of the effects that we perceive will prabably do.

You run into the same problems by declaring that god has had no begining.

No I don't. God is an absolute-cause, not an effect. It is only rational to ask what caused an effect - it is not rational to ask what caused an absolute-cause.

You have no way of providing evidence for this supposition

Sound reason - based upon the fact that the world we experience is an internal phenomenon - and supported by scientific knowledge, should be all the evidence you need to know that God exists.

in much the same way that science has very little to go on about the conditions that caused the big bang. (if indeed that it had a cause as we concieve of the notion)

What big bang? Has there been an explosion inside your awareness? Does science have proof that the world exists beyond your awareness of one?
We aren't even sure that the [perceived] universe is expanding. That conclusion was based upon doppler redshift of light. Yet the conclusion is premature. Check-out a scientific-concept called the Shapiro effect, which, if correct, instantly negates the idea that the universe is expanding.

Claiming that god had no cause is equal to claiming that big bang had no cause.

Rubbish. All physical entities within spacetime are effects. Therefore, at any instant where there are physical entities in spacetime, there is legitimate reason to ask what caused them.

[P.S.A.]

Originally posted by lifegazer
[B]Science has provided us with no facts pertaining to a real world ... *SNIP*

Here now the words of your God, in the current shape of a P.S.A.; Verily I say to Lifegazer the Plonkerish, ye hath wasted many years trying to persuade God that God exists, and yet ye hath not had any success in persuading God to recognise himself. God is displeased... or would be, if God was not also laughing his heavenly ass off at ye, and will do for all of singularity-eternity as ye try and wiggle away from accepting the consequences of thy philosophy.

So speaketh thy God! Get down on thy knees Sinner and worship me!

[Z]

However blue in the face lg gets, he cannot yet explain why science can demonstrate that the universe existed prior to the existance of any being on Earth capable of having inner experience. Nor, indeed, the fact that things continue to exist whether anyone is present to have an inner-experience of them or not.

In fact, when you get right down to it, science has offered gobs of evidence that things have existed prior to the existence of anyone to experience them.

Or, like Terry Pratchet's Discworld gods, does the God-Mind simply plant evidence of millions of years of unexperienced existence just for the hell of it?

Notice, also, how lg continues to cling to his quantum nonlocality error. Even after having it explained, time and again, that quantum mechanics has not embraced the idea of nonlocality - that what he has latched onto was an off-handed metaphor - he still insists that this somehow constitutes proof of his philosophy.

Also, notice how his philosophy necessarily requires all experiencers to be one continuous being - else, all that is experienced must necessarily be external to the experiencer, for the simple fact that beings capable of perception die, yet the universe continues on.

I'm afraid the way lg has constructed his argument, that you either have to buy into it as a whole, or reject it as a whole. Which means, unless lg can absolutely prove that space-time does not exist, and that all experiential entities are, in fact, a singular entity - until he can do this, his philosophy must be rejected as a whole as meaningless and pointless. So how can he do this? So far, none of his methods have worked, because those methods he selected were fundamentally flawed. He argued against a bounded universe, and then against an infinite one - but his argue against infinite space was illogical and senseless, so he has yet to negate the possibility of an infinite universe. He mentions an 'absolute cause', yet cannot provide proof that there is such a thing, nor that such a thing could, in any way, even exist. He is correct in one thing: an absolute cause cannot be, itself, an effect; yet if this is true, then an absolute cause also cannot exist, for it has no means by which to cause anything, and no thing upon which to affect an effect. Which, in a way, he has said: that God is indivisible, featureless, and singular; but within his awareness he has created the entirety of the Universe.

In other words, lg's absolute causal God cannot actually do or create or affect anything, but must only have internal experiences. Yet, if God is, in fact, as lg describes, then it cannot have internal experiences, either, as there is no 'internal' to such a being. Logic and reason, therefore, dictates that the God described by lg cannot exist, and certainly cannot, in any way, be the cause of our universe, regardless of the nature of that universe. So, no matter what part of his premise we accept, we either must accept the entire thing, rejecting logic and reason in the process, or we must reject the entire thing for any of a number of reasons.

Sorry, lg, but it's pretty clear you will never go down in history as a 'great thinker'. Maybe as a 'great jester', though.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by lifegazer
relativity
There is no such thing as absolute/real/definite time or space. These things are completely subjective and their values are subject to relative fluctuation. Twin-paradox, for example.Whoa there, sparky. We've been over that in some detail (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=31311) and we've shown you that the relativity that you proport is not supported by Relativity in any way shape or form.

I keep telling you: you should avoid using physical arguments for your philosophy. You're just no good at it.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Upchurch
relativity
There is no such thing as absolute/real/definite time or space. These things are completely subjective and their values are subject to relative fluctuation. Twin-paradox, for example.

Whoa there, sparky. We've been over that in some detail (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=31311) and we've shown you that the relativity that you proport is not supported by Relativity in any way shape or form.

I keep telling you: you should avoid using physical arguments for your philosophy. You're just no good at it.
You're criticising my statement without again using any rationale to counter it. Old habits die hard, it seems.

As you've criticised my statement, I can only assume that you disagree with it and think, contrary to that statement, that there is such a thing as absolute time and space existing beyond our subjective and personal perception of it.
... You're not on very good form in this thread upchurch.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by H'ethetheth
I remember reading replies mentioning uncaused quantum-mechanical events in several of your threads, lifegazer. Has it taught you nothing?

Yes, it's taught me that there are more plonkers in the world than I had first imagined.
There is no justification whatsoever for proclaiming a perceived-event as "uncaused". Indeed, to proclaim a perceived (inner-event) as "uncaused" mirrors a high measure of stupidity upon the proclaimer.

The universe is apparently the result of a lot of causes, and a lot of effects.

Where did you get your info from that the universe is an effect of lots of causes??

What caused the universe itself is still open to speculation though, but saying that the universe consists only of effects determined by one cause - its genesis - is very old fashioned and has been proven wrong.

Absolute BS. If you have "proof" that my argument is wrong, then bring it on. Don't lie to this forum.

Do you have a means to discern whether you are or are not a puppet? How can you know that what you're thinking isn't what the laws of nature necessitate you to think, given the circumstances?
My argument for whether I am a puppet or, essentially, the absolute-cause itself, has been presented on page 1 of this thread.

[Z]

My argument for whether I am a puppet or, essentially, the absolute-cause itself, has been presented on page 1 of this thread.

Well, just for laughter's sake, re-post it - because I haven't spotted any valid reasonable arguments in any post under your username yet.

[P.S.A.]

Yes, it's taught me that there are more plonkers in the world than I had first imagined.

There are no Plonkers. There is only God. And if God's a Plonker, then considering how you are God yourself, then you are a Plonker.

Gosh, this being Lifegazer/God is easier than I ever imagined... Woo hoo, eternal life is mine! And Plonkerdom too, natch.

[Wudang]

Originally posted by lifegazer
You're criticising my statement without again using any rationale to counter it. Old habits die hard, it seems.

As you've criticised my statement, I can only assume that you disagree with it and think, contrary to that statement, that there is such a thing as absolute time and space existing beyond our subjective and personal perception of it.
... You're not on very good form in this thread upchurch.

No, in the thread Upchurch reference it was explained over and over and over again that you do not understand relativity. Anyone who wants a laugh at how badly you misunderstand frames of reference only has to click on the link Upchurch provided.
I still think the "absolute speed of sound" was the funniest though.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by lifegazer
You're criticising my statement without again using any rationale to counter it. Old habits die hard, it seems.Indeed. There is an entire (and quite long) thread of rationales countering your above statement. That's why I reminded you of it.

But, as old habits do indeed die hard, you obviously haven't reviewed the thread at all nor learned anything from it the first time around. Instead, you have once again used your incomplete understanding various topics to erroneous conclusions. Your response? Personal attacks.

Well done.
As you've criticised my statement, I can only assume that you disagree with it and think, contrary to that statement, that there is such a thing as absolute time and space existing beyond our subjective and personal perception of it.
... You're not on very good form in this thread upchurch. Interestingly, you didn't even read your own post this time. You said, relativity
There is no such thing as absolute/real/definite time or space. These things are completely subjective and their values are subject to relative fluctuation. Twin-paradox, for example.First of all, you are correct that there is no absolute spacetime, but that is not the same thing as there being no real spacetime. Second of all, nothing in Relativity indicates that spacetime is not real. Third of all, there is nothing in Relativity that indicates that spacetime is completely subjective. We've gone over your example, the twin paradox, in great detail in the thread I linked and explained to you why neither twin's view point is subjective.

You have based your argument on ignorance and incorrect information. Your conclusion does not follow from actual relativity.

What puzzles me is that it seemed to me that you were almost to the point of grasping Relativity in that other thread, but now it seems you've slid back into your preconceived ideas. Not only do you have trouble learning new things, but it seems that your retention leaves much to be desired.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Wudang
I still think the "absolute speed of sound" was the funniest though. No question. That is a classic blunder on the order of Jedi Knight's "Humans Evolved from Martian Civilization" proof.

[wollery]

Originally posted by lifegazer
We aren't even sure that the [perceived] universe is expanding. That conclusion was based upon doppler redshift of light. Yet the conclusion is premature. Check-out a scientific-concept called the Shapiro effect, which, if correct, instantly negates the idea that the universe is expanding.My Ed, you really are a moron!!! :(

The Shapiro effect is a prediction of Einsteins relativity, it's the slight time lag in receiving a light signal that passes close to a gravitational source. It is in no way related to cosmological redshift, or any other type of redshift for that matter. It's prediction comes from the same set of equations that predict the expansion of the Universe.

You were aware weren't you, that one of the principle results of accepting relativity is that it negates the possibility of a static Universe!

It's been said to you by many people countless times - Go read a text book, or take a course (or several) and until then stop talking about things that you really, really don't understand! It just shows you up for the plonker that you are.

[H'ethetheth]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Yes, it's taught me that there are more plonkers in the world than I had first imagined.
There is no justification whatsoever for proclaiming a perceived-event as "uncaused". Indeed, to proclaim a perceived (inner-event) as "uncaused" mirrors a high measure of stupidity upon the proclaimer.

Where did you get your info from that the universe is an effect of lots of causes??
First of all, I didn't say the universe (as we observe it now) is an effect but the result of many causes.
Anyway, the argument goes as follows (http://www.philosophos.com/knowledge_base/archives_12/philosophy_questions_1206.html)
As I understand it, uncaused quantum-mechanical events occur all the time. These events trigger can then cause other events. Each of these uncaused events is an absolute cause. Therefore the universe is an accumulation of caused and uncaused events.
Again, I'm no expert on QM, like you, so this post is open to correction by people who know QM, but I think I'm not stretching the truth too far.
Of course our perception of said events is not uncaused, but nobody is saying this.
Now in your philosophy, these events would be directly caused by God's imagination, but there's still no indication that this is true, despite your rabid attempts.
Which of course brings me to my old question:
What can I, the little inhabitant of some universe, do to discern whether you are right or not (other than accepting your wobbly reasoning)?
In my most recent wording: (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870726649#post1870726649)
Quoth H'ethetheth
The problem with your philosophy is that it doesn't change a thing about how the universe appears to us.How on earth are scientists supposed to research the reasons for the universe not appearing different?

I'm curious about what specific reforms you would like to see in scientific method.

Quoth ligefazer
My argument for whether I am a puppet or, essentially, the absolute-cause itself, has been presented on page 1 of this thread.
Hmmmm, yes. Where exactly?:confused:

[H'ethetheth]

Bah, sorry for the double post. Browser impatience i guess.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Now, you're trying to tell us that recent scientific-knowledge runs contrary to "common-sense". But this is only true when one ignores the fact that the effects we perceive are not "out there", but "in here".


How many times do I need to repeat that your philosophy includes an external reality. Remember the blueprint? In your philosophy, science is studying the laws that govern the blueprint that is external to ourselves.


... The world is a self-given inner experience and concepts


Again, the blueprint is not given by our individual self, it is given by "god". At least don't contridict your own philosophy.


like relativity and quantum-phenomena make perfect "common sense"... i.e., my philosophy is completely compatible with that knowledge.


No they don't, because if we are all imaginations of god, that would mean that there is a universal time measurement. There isn't. Also, it would help if you knew the science and physics.


relativity
There is no such thing as absolute/real/definite time or space.


That isn't what relativity says. It says that there is no absolute frame of reference. It doesn't say anything about real of definite. That's all you.


These things are completely subjective and their values are subject to relative fluctuation. Twin-paradox, for example.


No, no where in realitivity does it say anything about space or time being subjective or anything about fluctuations sorry.


Time and space can only have meaning as an inner experience.


Space probes don't have inner experience, but the laws of relativity apply equally. How about you read up on what relativity actually is, then make statements. There has never been any individual that has actually experienced relativistic effects. The only way we can detect them is with instrumentation.


quantum mechanics
(1) Nonlocality supports the idea that awareness is non-spatial.


No it doesn't, because you don't understand entanglement.


Remember that nonlocality relates to effects that are perceived, so that it relates to inner-experience.


Remember that that is an assumption of your philosophy, which isn't even true in your philosophy, since you have the whole blueprint thing.


(2) I have argued that God is the absolute-cause of the perceived-world.


How about you argue about the absolute-cause of god then.


God possesses [absolute] free-will.


a) you've never defined absolute free-will, ie, what is the difference between absolute free-will and free-will. Its just another one of your useless meaningless adjetives.

b) God having "absolute free-will" is just part of your dogma.


It is impossible to determine what God will do; i.e., God is indeterminate.


How is that different than random events? Is your definition of absolute free-will just random events? Because you can predict what someone with free-will will do based on past behavior.


Therefore, the energy of God (the cause of the perceived world)


Again, "energy" only applies to our existence, why are you trying to apply and relate it with god? If our existence is imagined, why does it need any energy to exist? How is energy the cause of anything?


is essentially indeterminate


What does it mean for energy to be essentially indeterminate? How does that differ from normal energy?


but, importantly, that energy works towards effecting the order that is perceived.


So energy is making decisions now and has a goal? How is there evidence of this anywhere?


We can observe the effects of the fundamental cause - not the cause itself. Via our observations, we have determined that fundamentally, the cause of what we see is essentially indeterminate but works towards yielding perceived order. Hence, we can only say what the fundamental-cause of the effects that we perceive will prabably do.


So...the cause of the universe has to be "essentially indeterminate". BTW, that is a really long phrase, why don't you say random. IE, the cause of the universe is random. Unless you mean something else. I don't see how you've determined that anyway.


No I don't. God is an absolute-cause, not an effect. It is only rational to ask what caused an effect - it is not rational to ask what caused an absolute-cause.


What makes the universe an effect and god not an effect? What if we just say that the universe is not an effect. If you want to say otherwise, you'll have to prove it


We aren't even sure that the [perceived] universe is expanding. That conclusion was based upon doppler redshift of light. Yet the conclusion is premature. Check-out a scientific-concept called the Shapiro effect, which, if correct, instantly negates the idea that the universe is expanding.


If you understood relativity, you wouldn't be drawn in by crackpot sites. The Shapiro effect does delay a photon, because it is traveling through curved space, but it does not remove any energy from the photon, thus it does not add to the redshift. How about you check out this scientific concept called crop circles, which, if correct, instantly negates the idea that aliens have not visited us.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by wollery
My Ed, you really are a moron!!! :(

Grow up wollery.

The Shapiro effect is a prediction of Einsteins relativity, it's the slight time lag in receiving a light signal that passes close to a gravitational source. It is in no way related to cosmological redshift, or any other type of redshift for that matter.

http://www.geocities.com/newastronomy/animate.htm
extract:-
The Gravitational Time Delay, now known as the Shapiro Effect, was first predicted by Einstein. It is proven by measuring the time delay of radar and radio beams sent between Earth and Mars. As the beams pass closer and closer to the Sun, a delay in the transit time is measured. This delay is caused by the gravitational force of the Sun. This delay also causes a Doppler shift in the signal, which is equivalent to the redshift observed for distant galaxies.

Further reading:
http://www.geocities.com/newastronomy/Shapiro.htm

It's prediction comes from the same set of equations that predict the expansion of the Universe.

You were aware weren't you, that one of the principle results of accepting relativity is that it negates the possibility of a static Universe!

That's rubbish. Before Hubble came along and announced that the universe is expanding (reference to doppler redshift), Einstein thought that there was a force opposite to gravity. He introduced the 'cosmological constant' to account for this force, later declaring - upon the back of Hubble's now contested work - that it was "The biggest blunder of his life.".

It's been said to you by many people countless times - Go read a text book, or take a course (or several) and until then stop talking about things that you really, really don't understand! It just shows you up for the plonker that you are.
You owe me an apology. And then, I suggest that you go and read a textbook.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer
You're criticising my statement without again using any rationale to counter it. Old habits die hard, it seems.


Why bother using rationale when you can point to more than a dozen posts that explain relativity in detail, that you completely ignore. Why add to the number?

[RussDill]

Originally posted by wollery
It's been said to you by many people countless times - Go read a text book, or take a course (or several) and until then stop talking about things that you really, really don't understand! It just shows you up for the plonker that you are.

He'd rather stick to crackpot sites that make all kinds of outlandish claims without any backing in physics (Ie, equations) beyond throwing out the names of some theories that most people have little understanding of:

http://www.geocities.com/newastronomy/Shapiro.htm

I think he really enjoys reading and digesting anything he considers to be "anti-establishment".

[lifegazer]

(1) We cannot be sure that there is a universe beyond the inner-awareness of one.
(2) The shapiro-effect has cast serious doubts upon the idea that the universe is expanding. Those that continue to insist that it is, are just exhibiting foolishness.
(3) Given the above, we cannot be sure that there was a "big bang".

Anybody who stands before this forum and insists that:
(1) The universe is real.
(2) The universe is expanding.
(3) There was a big bang.

... Is either completely stupid or an absolute liar.
A few people need to raise their game if they want to participate in this philosophical discussion.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Grow up wollery.


Your acceptance of the below site as fact without any evidence to back anything up is a pretty good indication that yes, you are in fact a moron. Lets digest this (not lifegazer's words)


The Gravitational Time Delay, now known as the Shapiro Effect, was first predicted by Einstein.


I think Shapiro was the first one to point it out, but it is a consequence of general relativity. The equations contained within general relativity are used to calculate things like the rate of expansion of the universe.


It is proven by measuring the time delay of radar and radio beams sent between Earth and Mars. As the beams pass closer and closer to the Sun, a delay in the transit time is measured.


This is the result of the shapiro effect. Light beam have longer to travel, and thus take longer to get where they are going.


This delay is caused by the gravitational force of the Sun.


The distortion of spacetime near the sun (which is caused by the gravitational force of the sun).


This delay also causes a Doppler shift in the signal, which is equivalent to the redshift observed for distant galaxies.


* RussDill looks up the shapiro effect...Nope, nothing about a doppler shift, sorry. Further studying the site reveals the reason for this delusion (again, not lg's words)


Dr. Shapiro’s discovery, which has now been named The Shapiro effect or gravitational time dilation, is extremely important from two aspects -- it proves that light rays lose velocity (and thus energy) when passing through a gravitational field, resulting in a redshift, and that the effect is a long-range one!


Ah, "it proves that light rays lose velocity" there is the problem right there. Light never, ever, ever, loses velocity, the velocity of light is always c. The author of the page misunderstands the reason for the shapiro effect, and therefore makes all sorts of false assumptions.


That's rubbish. Before Hubble came along and announced that the universe is expanding (reference to doppler redshift), Einstein thought that there was a force opposite to gravity. He introduced the 'cosmological constant' to account for this force, later declaring - upon the back of Hubble's now contested work - that it was "The biggest blunder of his life.".


wow are you clueless. Try, his equations predicted the expansion of the universe, and then he introduced a fudge factor called the "cosmological constant" to counter that expansion. The missed prediction is what he refered to "The biggest blunder of his life".

[uruk]

Science has provided us with no facts pertaining to a real world existing beyond our inner-perception of one.....
Yada, yada, yada, same tired old solipsistic regurgitation.
You have never, I repeat, never shown any proof or reasonable logical argument that the what we are percieveing does not reflect an actual existance. Thw world we percieve, in all probability, may actually exist. In fact everything we've have experianced sofar seems to support that idea.

Face it LG, this is the only world we can percieve, and for all intent and purposes; This is it. So quit your whining and deal with it.
No I don't. God is an absolute-cause, not an effect. It is only rational to ask what caused an effect - it is not rational to ask what caused an absolute-cause. Just saying so does not make it so. The truth is that you really have no idea what god is muchless that he exists, so making such claims is just conjecture.
Sound reason - based upon the fact that the world we experience is an internal phenomenon - and supported by scientific knowledge, should be all the evidence you need to know that God exists. a construct based upon assumption based upon willful missinterpretation does not reason make. Besides, reason alone is insufficient. I can "reason" just about anything I want. Why do you think so many people believe in UFO's , bigfoot, ghosts, and god. People pick and choose from any bit of notions or ideas and build up any "sound reasoning" that it takes to convince themselves of whatever it is they want to believe in. I'm sorry, you have to provide much more than just "reasoning".
What big bang? Has there been an explosion inside your awareness? Does science have proof that the world exists beyond your awareness of one?
We aren't even sure that the [perceived] universe is expanding. That conclusion was based upon doppler redshift of light. Yet the conclusion is premature. Check-out a scientific-concept called the Shapiro effect, which, if correct, instantly negates the idea that the universe is expanding.

The big bang happened a very long time before I was born. How could it have happened in my awareness? My awareness only encompasses my experiances to date. Experiance of things I had no previous knowledge of come into my awarness every day. Where were those things before they came inrto my awarness? Those things had to exists somewhere before they came into my awareness otherwise there would not be anything to be aware of.
And you don't seem to know what the Shapiro effect is, much less relativity , QM, philosophy, logic.etc..
Rubbish. All physical entities within spacetime are effects. Therefore, at any instant where there are physical entities in spacetime, there is legitimate reason to ask what caused them. turtles all the way down. You just arbitrarily chose to pick a stopping point with god. and then with out justification claim that there is nothing before god. You can't even prove the existance of god. That would seem to be an important first step before you can even say anything about the nature of god.

Tryagain LG.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer
(1) We cannot be sure that there is a universe beyond the inner-awareness of one.


Which implies we cannot be sure that there isn't one either.


(2) The shapiro-effect has cast serious doubts upon the idea that the universe is expanding. Those that continue to insist that it is, are just exhibiting foolishness.


Again, your statements prove that you are a moron, and you will parot any anti-establishment information you can find.


(3) Given the above, we cannot be sure that there was a "big bang".

Anybody who stands before this forum and insists that:
(1) The universe is real.
(2) The universe is expanding.
(3) There was a big bang.

... Is either completely stupid or an absolute liar.
A few people need to raise their game if they want to participate in this philosophical discussion.

You've found your latest "fad". You accept the newastronomy site as dogma, and worship it without question. nice.

[H'ethetheth]

Originally posted by RussDill
... introduced a fudge factor called the "cosmological constant" ...

Mmmmm, fudge.:xelvis

So the Shapiro effect is that gravity lens effect?
I learn something every day, thanks. Good posts!

[RussDill]

Originally posted by H'ethetheth
Mmmmm, fudge.:xelvis


I have some fudge at home from that fudge shop in sedona, shoulda brought it to work


So the Shapiro effect is that gravity lens effect?


Part of it, the more well know portion of the gravity lens is that it bends light.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by lifegazer
... Is either completely stupid or an absolute liar.Given your track record with "facts", you're one to talk.

It's true that we cannot know for certain about a universe beyond our inner awareness. But for that matter, we cannot even really be certain about our inner awareness when you get right down to it. But, as Russ pointed out, we cannot be certain that there isn't inner awareness or outer universe either.

Ultimately, there is no absolute evidence for anything. And the only real evidence you can have against something is if it is logically inconsistant, like omnipotence and the "rock so big" paradox.
A few people need to raise their game if they want to participate in this philosophical discussion. I'm curious lifegazer, what counts as a "philosophical discussiong" in your world? You are often the one who brings up false information about traditionally non-philosophical topics in order to support your position. Is that what you consider a philosophical discussion? Where do you draw the line?

[H'ethetheth]

Originally posted by RussDill
I have some fudge at home from that fudge shop in sedona, shoulda brought it to work
Yeah, rub it in will you?

[RussDill]

Originally posted by H'ethetheth
Yeah, rub it in will you?

sorry, I would, but I don't have any pictures of me eating the fudge. Its ok though, it only exists within what it is that I call myself. (at least the parts that I ate).

[Z]

For someone who does not value education or facts, any source of information is valid, so long as it supports his worldview. lifegazer actually disdains learning, knowledge, science, and facts, so any website that pokes holes in 'establishment knowledge' he will swallow whole, without considering its veracity or sources.

Now we can add 'Shapiro effect' to the ever-expanding list of scientific concepts of which lifegazer understands nothing.

[lifegazer]

I need to get this discussion back on-track.
However, for those of you who casually dismissed my mentioning of the Shapiro effect, may I suggest that you do a google on
"tired light theories" and observe for yourselves the seriousness of these theories and how they cast immediate doubts upon the notion of an expanding universe... and consequently, a "big bang".
There's not alot of point in pursuing this. My main reason for doing so was to exhibit the fragility of many scientific theories, thus highlighting the need for caution when citing those theories as support for a particular philosophical stance.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Upchurch
It's true that we cannot know for certain about a universe beyond our inner awareness. But for that matter, we cannot even really be certain about our inner awareness when you get right down to it.

The second sentence - apart from being at-odds with the first - is nonsense:
ALL experience occurs within/upon the awareness of whatever it is that you are. We can neither deny the actuality of those experiences nor suggest that they are occuring outside awareness.
... Hence, this absolute fact destroys your comment. The only uncertainty, initially, is pertaining to the actual identity of whatever it is that you are.

But, as Russ pointed out, we cannot be certain that there isn't inner awareness or outer universe either.

Why do people keep saying that we cannot know if there is something external to whatever it is that we are?
What is the grounds for stating this as an absolute fact?

If it can be proven that whatever it is that you are is non-spatial, then the game is over and you need your kneepads.

Ultimately, there is no absolute evidence for anything.

Says who?
Do you have absolute evidence that there is no absolute evidence for anything? Of course not, since if you did you would have absolute evidence of something which counters your claim.

This line of reasoning is naive. You cannot state, as an absolute fact, that there are no absolute facts. And that is an absolute fact.
There are absolute facts. The trick is to discover them.

[Z]

Yep - a quick Google shows lots of debate over 'tired light'. Most of these are posted on sites that have very little credibility - among other things, Ashmore's Theory ranks as 'Cranky' on a crackpot sight. Yeah - real strong theory there.

Nevertheless, if 'tired light' is true, what does is show? That the Universe is probably infinite... something lg doesn't accept, either.

[Z]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Why do people keep saying that we cannot know if there is something external to whatever it is that we are?
What is the grounds for stating this as an absolute fact?

Yes, what are the grounds for this statement, lg? Being it is your own statement, thrown back at you.

If it can be proven that whatever it is that you are is non-spatial, then the game is over and you need your kneepads.

And that's the problem - you can't prove that anything is non-spatial, so your game is over, and you can eat those kneepads.

This line of reasoning is naive. You cannot state, as an absolute fact, that there are no absolute facts. And that is an absolute fact.
There are absolute facts. The trick is to discover them. [/B]

Only in the physical world of science. And since those things are only based upon the faith that something external exists, they are not absolute, either.

As to 'inner experiences', consider that the only absolute fact there is that my inner experiences exist - and since you can neither confirm nor deny whether my experiences exist, then it becomes a purely relative fact - ergo, there is no pure evidence that anything absolute exists UNLESS we accept an external reality.

Really, lg - up the grade, you're embarrassing yourself.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by lifegazer
The second sentence - apart from being at-odds with the first {snip}Do you think so? In what way does the second contradict the first?
ALL experience occurs within/upon the awareness of whatever it is that you are. We can neither deny the actuality of those experiences nor suggest that they are occuring outside awareness.
... Hence, this absolute fact destroys your comment. The only uncertainty, initially, is pertaining to the actual identity of whatever it is that you are.Do you have any evidence that all experience happens within an actual awareness? How do you even know that you or I actually are? Or that we, if we exist, have awareness for this experience to occur in? If you have proof of this "absolute fact" then please present it.

I think you'll find that although personal experience seems to indicate that we exist and have awareness, there is no way for you to prove it to yourself, let alone anyone else, beyond any shadow of a doubt. No "fact" is above questioning its reliabilty, including those things to which you over-generously apply the label "absolute fact".

(My guess is that you won't even try to provide any evidence but will instead fall back on reiteration and personal attacks, but one can hope.)
Why do people keep saying that we cannot know if there is something external to whatever it is that we are?It is the flip side of your point that we cannot know that there is an external reality. If we cannot know that there is something, then we cannot know that there isn't that something. It's that "logic" thing your so frightened of.
If it can be proven that whatever it is that you are is non-spatial, then the game is over and you need your kneepads.Heh. That argument was torn into so many pieces, I had forgotten it had even existed. That was one of your flimsiest, except for the absolute speed of sound.
Do you have absolute evidence that there is no absolute evidence for anything? Of course not, since if you did you would have absolute evidence of something which counters your claim.But I don't have absolute evidence for it, so my claim that no absolute evidence exists is plausable. It is further backed by the lack of absolute evidence in ...well, evidence. :)
This line of reasoning is naive. You cannot state, as an absolute fact, that there are no absolute facts. And that is an absolute fact.
There are absolute facts. The trick is to discover them. You're the one claiming they exist and you have labeled quite a few things as absolute facts (even though few of them are even true), but how do you know they are absolute facts? You have never backed any of these claims.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
As to 'inner experiences', consider that the only absolute fact there is that my inner experiences exist - and since you can neither confirm nor deny whether my experiences exist, then it becomes a purely relative fact - ergo, there is no pure evidence that anything absolute exists UNLESS we accept an external reality.

My philosophy applies equally to any entity that has experiences of existence within/upon It's awareness.
If you are a figment of my imagination, it doesn't matter: my philosophy is not affected. If, however, 'you' are really having the experience of being Z, then my philosophy applies to you and identifies you as the same entity as 'me', ultimately.

[Z]

Originally posted by lifegazer
My philosophy applies equally to any entity that has experiences of existence within/upon It's awareness.
If you are a figment of my imagination, it doesn't matter: my philosophy is not affected. If, however, 'you' are really having the experience of being Z, then my philosophy applies to you and identifies you as the same entity as 'me', ultimately.

Nevertheless, you have no absolute proof that anyone or anything exists or is having experiences; you have the experiences yourself, but as you pointed out, you cannot be absolutely sure of what you are. So there is no absolute proof that you are having these experiences; nor do you have absolute proof that whatever it is that you are is other than you, so you also cannot say that whatever it is that you are is having experiences, either. This is logic, lg, applied to your argument, which demonstrates, irrevocably, that there are no absolute truths.

Further, whether I accept your existence as a real being or not, I have no proof that you are having experiences of any type; therefore, any proof you might thing you have for yourself does not apply to anyone else, who cannot verify your proof; ergo, no absolute facts exist.

Really, lg, you ought to be better prepared to deal with these arguments. Of course, it's not like we set a high bar, being we're used to Mr. "Absolute Speed of Sound/Infinite Space between Fixed Points" and the nature of your arguments. Logic and reason just aren't your bag of tea, mate.

[uruk]

Anybody who stands before this forum and insists that:
(1) The universe is real.
Well, you tell me what it means to be "real". Can it be be sensed? Can it have an effect on you and you on it? Does it do things beyond your control or knowledge?
What does it mean to be "real" LG?
(2) The universe is expanding.
The Shapiro effect talks about light passing near a star. What does it say about light emitted from a star? Your talking about two different things.
(3) There was a big bang. Evidence for the big bang comes from background radiation not from the stars.

Uncontravertable and irrefutable proof that you have no idea what-so-ever what your talking about.

Up the game LG.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer
I need to get this discussion back on-track.
However, for those of you who casually dismissed my mentioning of the Shapiro effect,


I didn't casually dismiss it, I explained in detail why it is flawed. It is now your turn to respond.


may I suggest that you do a google on
"tired light theories" and observe for yourselves the seriousness of these theories and how they cast immediate doubts upon the notion of an expanding universe... and consequently, a "big bang".


http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=tired+light+theory

Well, the first site debunks it, and links several sites that offer further proof against it.

The "tired light theory" simply states that photons must be losing energy as they travel, but gives no mechanism. The site you linked before with the shapiro effect tries to claim that the shapiro effect causes light to lose energy, which I have shown to be untrue.


There's not alot of point in pursuing this.


Absolutely, you find some crackpots sites, you linked them, they have been thourogly debunked, lets drop it, ok?


My main reason for doing so was to exhibit the fragility of many scientific theories, thus highlighting the need for caution when citing those theories as support for a particular philosophical stance.

You mean the fragility of the "tired light theory". A theory invented by those who want to believe that the universe is younger than it really is? A theory that has no support whatsoever? Reminds me of crop circles.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
Yep - a quick Google shows lots of debate over 'tired light'. Most of these are posted on sites that have very little credibility - among other things, Ashmore's Theory ranks as 'Cranky' on a crackpot sight. Yeah - real strong theory there.

Nevertheless, if 'tired light' is true, what does is show? That the Universe is probably infinite... something lg doesn't accept, either.

My favorite is the one with the colored boxes, and different sized text.

http://www.lyndonashmore.com/

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
Nevertheless, you have no absolute proof that anyone or anything exists or is having experiences; you have the experiences yourself, but as you pointed out, you cannot be absolutely sure of what you are.

My philosophy eventually concludes (from reason) that whatever it is that I am, is 'God'. This philosophy, as I said in the previous post, applies equally to any entity that has experiences of existence within/upon It's awareness.

So there is no absolute proof that you are having these experiences;

There is to 'me' and that's all that matters. Whatever it is that I am is definitely having inner-experiences.

nor do you have absolute proof that whatever it is that you are is other than you, so you also cannot say that whatever it is that you are is having experiences, either.

"Other than me"?
'lifegazer' is an inner experience.

This is logic, lg, applied to your argument, which demonstrates, irrevocably, that there are no absolute truths.

It's basic logic to understand that your sentence, above, states - absolutely - that no facts are absolute. Hence you negate the very validity of your own sentence. Meaning that you are wrong.

There MUST be absolute truths!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Further, whether I accept your existence as a real being or not, I have no proof that you are having experiences of any type; therefore, any proof you might thing you have for yourself does not apply to anyone else, who cannot verify your proof; ergo, no absolute facts exist.

Re-read my previous post. Whether 'you' are really having inner-experiences or not is irrelevant to 'me' or the validity of this philosophy to me. Likewise, vice versa.
If you are really having the inner-experience of being Z, then my philosophy applies to you. End of story.

Really, lg, you ought to be better prepared to deal with these arguments.

Don't be an ass.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by uruk
Evidence for the big bang comes from background radiation not from the stars.

Uncontravertable and irrefutable proof that you have no idea what-so-ever what your talking about.

Up the game LG.
I'm well aware of background radiation. It doesn't prove that there was a BB. It just proves that light permeates everything and everywhere... within our awareness, btw.

[RussDill]

Is anyone else curious as to why lifegazer talks about the structure of the universe so much? According to his philosophy, it is just a dream of god, so it could apear to us in any concievable way, since god is omnipotent.

[Edited to add: I like how lifegazer ignores refutations of the shapiro effect causing tired light. I know that he figures he must be right, so, hey, why bother with the difficult task of refuting a plonker.]

[P.S.A.]

Really, lg, you ought to be better prepared to deal with these arguments.


Don't be an ass.

But God IS an ass... because God is everyone, including the asses. As proof of Lifegazer's philosophy, I present to you; "Adventures Of God In The Shape Of An Ass"!

God, discovering that someone is feeling lonely, decides to wind them up with completely off topic and irrelevant nonsense instead of offering true compassion!

http://www.physicsforums.com/archive/topic/t-595_God..._Are_You_Out_There.html

God refuses to stay in just one discussion area, and invades a Philosophy board with his Godness... and then drunkenly goes up to passersby and declares "Go on then, crucify me! Crucify me if you think you can!"

http://www.physicsforums.com/archive/topic/t-1982_%22God%22_topics.html

And... Holy ****, there's another 5 pages of this, when I do a search for "God God". I mean "Navelgazer God". I mean... ahh heck, it's so hard to tell the different parts of God apart... I keep coming across this Iacchus part of God right alongside the Lifegazer part too... It's all true, everywhere you look, there's God, and he's being an ass! STOP IT GOD, FOR THE LOVE OF GOD STOP BEING AN ASS TO ALL THE DIFFERENT PARTS OF YOURSELF!

But as I'm God too, I now feel exhausted from all that assery. So I shall stop it myself. Oh, God's inhumanity to God is a terrible thing to behold....

[Atlas]

Originally posted by lifegazer
My philosophy applies equally to any entity that has experiences of existence within/upon It's awareness.
If you are a figment of my imagination, it doesn't matter: my philosophy is not affected. If, however, 'you' are really having the experience of being Z, then my philosophy applies to you and identifies you as the same entity as 'me', ultimately. One problem I have with this approach is there is no way to identify truth especially absolute triuth. Lg, you cannot distinguish whether Z is a real awareness having God's experience of Z or whether Z is a pure figment of your own experience. Furthermore, it doesn't matter.

Whatever delusions God experiences (as Lg) are absolute truth. Even in a drunken state watching pink elephants dance, you must accept that they have an equal reality to any family member you have, and though they may not have the persistence, you must listen to whatever they tell you as absolute truth. God demands it unless God is false.

Since science is wrong and all reality is imaginary or intuitive how can you know whether you suffer from mental illness, delusions or senility? Why would you try to convince others that your delusion is better than their own? They cannot know your delusion. What makes it valid?

[Donks]

Lifegazer, you might want to read this article (http://www.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0106566). Just click on PDF or Postscript to view the full paper.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Re-read my previous post. Whether 'you' are really having inner-experiences or not is irrelevant to 'me' or the validity of this philosophy to me.
I can only provide proof to myself so as long as I believe, that is all that matters.

[uruk]

I'm well aware of background radiation. It doesn't prove that there was a BB. It just proves that light permeates everything and everywhere... within our awareness, btw.
Well then if your aware of background radiation then you would know that the most likely explination for that radiation is a big bang type event. By the way, why do keep talking about the universe as if is is real? You talk about the laws of physics as if they actually exist. Then you throw in the "within our awarness" retraction. Are you confused? Oh, and how do you know that the universe that I percieve is the same one that you percieve? You seem to be making that assumption. Why?

And another thing, you never answered my question; What does it mean to be "real"? How do you define what is real?

One other thing I found interesting about your "philosophy" is that the universe is an illusion being had by an illusion being had by a non-spatial entity. wouldn't the first two illusion be equal? Would not the first illusion be just as real (or unreal) as the second illusion? Why the multi-layer illusion?

[Atlas]

I've looked at some of the "tired light" literature and frankly it exceeds my grasp. I realize that there are some fundamentals that still elude me as I approach the topic.

One of the sites mentions that the energy loss doesn't really involve the speed of light c which RussDill has already addressed as being an idiotic claim if it was being made. Instead, the author suggests that photons in the void are stiking electrons and atoms and whatever else might be out there and are being absorbed and reemitted at a lower frequency. The frequency shift does mathematically compute to an energy loss as well as optically equate to a redshift.

In order for this to work the author postulates an ether whose temperature is 2.73 Kelvin. This is equal to the Cosmic Background residue temp from the Big Bang but the Big Bang is a misreading of the more steady state condition this ether/plasma of space really is.

Everytime I read "ether" I think "bogus". I think it was the long ago Michelson/Morley experiment to measure the speed of light that was supposed to refute the idea of an ether but I must admit I didn't understand that too well either.

Anyway, I'm taking a long time just to get to my silly question. I know that when scientists discuss light they refer to it as both particle and wave propagation. When it is being discussed as a particle phenomon is there a way to think about frequency?

When I think of sound being waves of compression and rarefaction I kinda get a sense of full/empty/full/empty/full/empty that vibrates the eardrum. I'm saying it like that because photonic frequecy to me is visualized by an energy photon followed by another with an empty space between in a similar full/empty/full/empty/full/empty. I don't know if I'm saying this clearly.

Lets say that a photon of light can travel about a foot in a nanosecond. I believe that's a close approximation of c. Can the frequency of that light be described by the number of photons per foot?

I really don't know the answer so tell me if that's a dumb way to look at it.

What I found interesting is that in order for the light to change frequency it had to interact with something it was colliding with, like floating electrons. It was absorbed by the electron and reemitted at lower frequency. The ether absorbed the excess energy but did not heat up due to some unknown phenomonon whereby it released the energy in a different part of the ether.

Firstly, I would expect the light to be scattered by the intervening collisions in empty space. Also I would expect that starlight passing through sparse but unhomogenous gas clouds in space would be expected to show different red shifting from time to time as our movement through space gave us different angles through different cloud densities.

Some galaxies we can see in visible light poorly and have to rely on infrared. The reason is that there is intervening matter absorbing much of the visible light. I imagine that red shift patterns exist in the infrared just as they do in visible light. Where we have both visible and infrared don't the red shifts match? I guess I'm asking, wouldn't we know if intervening cloud density was causing red shifting by photonic refrequencing?

That original question about light frequency being comparitive to the number of photons per foot per nanosecond is how I'm thinking about photon collisions with electrons in free space. I get lost when read of electrons absorbing the photon and reemitting it at a lower frequency. I have the image of a single electron floating in space and being bombarding by a zillion photons per second absorbing them and emitting .8 zillion photons along the same path with minimal scatter effect. It sounds bizarre and with the ether involved just plain wrong but I don't understand physics all that well.

Can anyone shed some light on this for me.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by uruk
Well then if your aware of background radiation then you would know that the most likely explination for that radiation is a big bang type event.

"Most likely" holds no water in a philosophical discussion about reality, ol' chum.
You - everyone - must learn that not only can science tell us nothing about a real universe (since science concerns the order exhibited by the universe within awareness), but that alot of the theories formulated in the 20th century (expanding universe and BB to name but two) are still questionable, despite being accepted by the masses as absolutely true.
Not only that, but you'll find many scientific theories to be founded upon the [absolutely unfounded] premise that what we are observing is, in fact, a real universe.
... One good example of this is the thing you mentioned: CMB - cosmic background-radiation... whereby we discover [microwave] light flooding the entire universe and instantly jump to the conclusion that this provides absolute evidence of a BB. But somebody forgot to tell the physicists that they weren't observing light flooding the entire universe - they were observing light flooding the entirety of awareness itself.

By the way, why do keep talking about the universe as if is is real? You talk about the laws of physics as if they actually exist.

The laws of physics do exist. They mirror the order exhibited by the universe perceived via the sensations.

Oh, and how do you know that the universe that I percieve is the same one that you percieve? You seem to be making that assumption. Why?

The laws of physics apply equally to all. There are not 6 billion different laws of physics.

And another thing, you never answered my question; What does it mean to be "real"? How do you define what is real?

A real entity is one that actually exists.

One other thing I found interesting about your "philosophy" is that the universe is an illusion being had by an illusion being had by a non-spatial entity.

Incorrect. In my philosophy, the universe ('uruk' being a part of that universe) is an illusion being had by a non-spatial entity. Illusions do not have experiences. Uruk is having no experiences... but is, in fact, part of the experience itself.
... You are God.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by Atlas
One of the sites mentions that the energy loss doesn't really involve the speed of light c which RussDill has already addressed as being an idiotic claim if it was being made. Instead, the author suggests that photons in the void are stiking electrons and atoms and whatever else might be out there and are being absorbed and reemitted at a lower frequency. The frequency shift does mathematically compute to an energy loss as well as optically equate to a redshift.


How so? In basic elements, like hydrogen, energy levels are very discrete. Anytime a photon is emitted by hydrogen, they spectral lines are clear. You might look up some stuff on photon emission.


In order for this to work the author postulates an ether whose temperature is 2.73 Kelvin. This is equal to the Cosmic Background residue temp from the Big Bang but the Big Bang is a misreading of the more steady state condition this ether/plasma of space really is.


So now we are going back to the ether of space? And the ether is not quantum in nature?


Everytime I read "ether" I think "bogus". I think it was the long ago Michelson/Morley experiment to measure the speed of light that was supposed to refute the idea of an ether but I must admit I didn't understand that too well either.


People figured that EM waves must travel in some material, ie, ether, the MM experiment was to determine how we traveled relative to this ether (or at least, many hoped it would answer that, not necessary M&M)


Anyway, I'm taking a long time just to get to my silly question. I know that when scientists discuss light they refer to it as both particle and wave propagation. When it is being discussed as a particle phenomon is there a way to think about frequency?


The frequency of light relates to how often it switches between magnetic and electric fields and it is directly related to the energy of each photon.


When I think of sound being waves of compression and rarefaction I kinda get a sense of full/empty/full/empty/full/empty that vibrates the eardrum. I'm saying it like that because photonic frequecy to me is visualized by an energy photon followed by another with an empty space between in a similar full/empty/full/empty/full/empty. I don't know if I'm saying this clearly.


Magnetic field/electric field/magnetic field/etc...

A changing magnetic field causes a changing electric field. A changing electric field causes a changing magnetic field.


Lets say that a photon of light can travel about a foot in a nanosecond. I believe that's a close approximation of c. Can the frequency of that light be described by the number of photons per foot?


Nope, frequency applies to individual photons.


What I found interesting is that in order for the light to change frequency it had to interact with something it was colliding with, like floating electrons. It was absorbed by the electron and reemitted at lower frequency.


Kinda, the electron orbits a nucleus. The photon raises the electron to a higher energy level. If the photon does not have enough energy to do this, then the collision will not occur.


The ether absorbed the excess energy but did not heat up due to some unknown phenomonon whereby it released the energy in a different part of the ether.


Sounds like a whole lot of handwaving to me. My only question is, does it lead to "zero point energy" and etc.


Firstly, I would expect the light to be scattered by the intervening collisions in empty space. Also I would expect that starlight passing through sparse but unhomogenous gas clouds in space would be expected to show different red shifting from time to time as our movement through space gave us different angles through different cloud densities.


Right, not only that, if light is striking something and being re-emitted after imparting momentum to a particle, then it is likely being emitted in a different direction. So it would be like fog.


Some galaxies we can see in visible light poorly and have to rely on infrared. The reason is that there is intervening matter absorbing much of the visible light. I imagine that red shift patterns exist in the infrared just as they do in visible light. Where we have both visible and infrared don't the red shifts match? I guess I'm asking, wouldn't we know if intervening cloud density was causing red shifting by photonic refrequencing?


Yes, the redshifts match. Same with EM in the electromagetic and even the X-ray spectrums.


That original question about light frequency being comparitive to the number of photons per foot per nanosecond is how I'm thinking about photon collisions with electrons in free space. I get lost when read of electrons absorbing the photon and reemitting it at a lower frequency. I have the image of a single electron floating in space and being bombarding by a zillion photons per second absorbing them and emitting .8 zillion photons along the same path with minimal scatter effect. It sounds bizarre and with the ether involved just plain wrong but I don't understand physics all that well.


Again, they are talking about photons striking electrons that are associated with atoms.


Can anyone shed some light on this for me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photoelectric_effect

follow the links to your heart's desire.

[Z]

Originally posted by lifegazer
"Most likely" holds no water in a philosophical discussion about reality, ol' chum.

It holds more water than your so-called reasonong.

You - everyone - must learn that not only can science tell us nothing about a real universe (since science concerns the order exhibited by the universe within awareness), but that alot of the theories formulated in the 20th century (expanding universe and BB to name but two) are still questionable, despite being accepted by the masses as absolutely true.

No, I'd say the masses are willing to accept that theories are true enough, but not necessarily 100% true. I'd say that the masses are at least twice as smart as you, and don't go leaping to conclusions the way you do.

Not only that, but you'll find many scientific theories to be founded upon the [absolutely unfounded] premise that what we are observing is, in fact, a real universe. [/quote]

No, most scientific theories are founded upon the observations made by scientists, the correllations observed, and calculations made concerning those observations. That what they observe is 'real' is a completely irrelevant situation - 'real' being defined as that which can be verified to exist through observation, measurement, and confirmation from multiple parties.

What premise founds most observations is the concept that more than one observer actually exists. This is, itself, possibly, a questionable premise; however, as there is no way to prove otherwise, it is safe to assume that other observers exist, and that they are accurately communicating their observations as well - therefore providing evidence external to the individual observer that there is something extant after all. And what exists, what can be verified by multiple observers, is real.

See, lg, this is a problem with your 'no real universe' theory: to the various and sundry life forms inhabiting this so-called 'illusionary universe', this universe is absolutely real. It is just as real as we are. It doesn't matter one lick, one way or another, if we are also illusions as well; the universe inhabits the same mode of reality that we inhabit. It is within the same set that we are, and as such, is the only reality we can ever know.

So all of your babbling still doesn't alter that one fact.

... One good example of this is the thing you mentioned: CMB - cosmic background-radiation... whereby we discover [microwave] light flooding the entire universe and instantly jump to the conclusion that this provides absolute evidence of a BB. But somebody forgot to tell the physicists that they weren't observing light flooding the entire universe - they were observing light flooding the entirety of awareness itself.

No, actually, background radiation doesn't cause anyone to instantly conclude that there was a BB - rather, background radiation could be consistent with the BB theory. It could also have several other explanations, many of which are also being explored by scientists. You apparently have a lot of confusion about how science works, lg - perhaps you ought to take a few classes on scientific methods and procedures?

Besides - if the entire universe exists within awareness, then they were, in fact, observing light flooding the entire universe. Again, they belong to the same set - so placing it within awareness is irrelevant. Further, you'd be wrong, since this radiation also exists whether anyone is aware of it or not. But that may be going way over your head.

The laws of physics do exist. They mirror the order exhibited by the universe perceived via the sensations.

So you admit, then, that the universe does exist, that it demonstrates an order which may be perceived via sensations? Good - and that which exists is real - so the universe is real. Ergo, the laws of physics do, in fact, apply to reality.

The laws of physics apply equally to all. There are not 6 billion different laws of physics.

Exactly - which means the laws of physics are external to any individual observer.

A real entity is one that actually exists.

So physics are a real entity, as per your explanation above; further, since physics mirrors the order within the universe, the universe also must be real. Good, we're getting somewhere.

Incorrect. In my philosophy, the universe ('uruk' being a part of that universe) is an illusion being had by a non-spatial entity. Illusions do not have experiences. Uruk is having no experiences... but is, in fact, part of the experience itself.
... You are God.

(sigh.)

Oh well - back to the non-sequiturs and unfounded assertions.

Heck, that doesn't even make sense. Uruk (from Uruk's POV) can only ever verify that Uruk is having experiences. However, you're claiming (once again) that Uruk is not real. Yet Uruk clearly exists, from Uruk's point of view, ergo, Uruk must be real.

On the other hand, no one, anywhere, is having all the experiences of the entire Universe. No one, anywhere, is behaving as God. No one, anywhere, can in any way sense, detect, or logically reason the existence of any God - so to claim that You are God is irrational and illogical. God apparently does not exist, ergo, God cannot be real.

Really, lg, you are so blinded by your zealous faith in this imaginary God that you cannot apply even the simplest logic or reason to your thinking. It's sad to watch you flounder in your own excretia like this. I'm actually starting to feel sorry for you.

[lifegazer]

My aim - concerning the BB and the expanding-universe - was to make you all question the authority of certain scientific-theories which are widely-believed to be absolutely true.
I'm not a physicist and cannot prove whether "tired light theories" are true. But what I can do is unlock the door to many closed minds.
With that in mind, some of you might want to review this interesting site that I found:
http://www.metaresearch.org/cosmology/BB-top-30.asp

I really don't want to get bogged-down in scientific debate about this. Like I said, my main aim was to open a few minds and draw attention to the fact that some theories are inconclusive and, therefore, irrelevant to philosophical discussion about 'reality'.

[Z]

This philosophy, as I said in the previous post, applies equally to any entity that has experiences of existence within/upon It's awareness.

I thought this deserved a second glance...

So, as you claim, God is any and all entities having experiences. therefore - non-living things are not God. Things which have no awareness cannot be God, by this definition. This then divides God from non-living things - meaning God cannot, therefore, be singular nor omni-anything. Moreover, since we now have a definitive separation between God and non-living matter, we know that non-living matter must exist external to God - which means external to all living entities. Ergo, an external reality does, in fact, exist which is also external to God.

Anyway, this chain of reasoning eventually dissolves the entire philosophy, so you might want to rethink the statement I quoted above.

[Z]

Originally posted by lifegazer
My aim - concerning the BB and the expanding-universe - was to make you all question the authority of certain scientific-theories which are widely-believed to be absolutely true.
I'm not a physicist and cannot prove whether "tired light theories" are true. But what I can do is unlock the door to many closed minds.
With that in mind, some of you might want to review this interesting site that I found:
http://www.metaresearch.org/cosmology/BB-top-30.asp

I really don't want to get bogged-down in scientific debate about this. Like I said, my main aim was to open a few minds and draw attention to the fact that some theories are inconclusive and, therefore, irrelevant to philosophical discussion about 'reality'.

Whether or not we question one theory or a dozen doesn't mean we don't accept the validity of scientific method as the best possible way to understand reality. Most of us here do not subscribe to an 'absolute authority of this theory' concept. Most of us are more than willing to admit that Big Bang, Oscillating Universe, and any other theories are just that: theories. Theories are not all-inclusive nor all-final - and I'm pretty sure that we're not the ones clinging to every detail of this theory or that in support of our arguments. It's you, jester, who clings to such strange ideas as 'quantum non-locality' to desperately attempt to back your own weak philosophical content.

Philosophical discussions about reality are largely useless without referencing known scientific theories and facts. You have to start with what we know about reality through science before you can start waxing poetic about the philosophy of reality. For example, you at one point argued that an infinite reality was impossible, which was a part of why, in your philosophy, all of reality must exist within a null-point. However, as was demonstrated, your reasoning for thinking infinite space was impossible was simply wrong, and this, in turn, weakened the stance upon which you based your philosophy. Most of your threads, in fact, are along these lines: you try demonstrating the validity of your philosophy by discussing some known scientific principle, theory, or fact, yet you get the science part so horribly wrong that you only serve to further undermine your own credibility and the validity of your philosophy.

I don't remember who said it, but I'll say it again: stop referring to science, lg - you're just no darned good at it.

[Z]

Originally posted by lifegazer

With that in mind, some of you might want to review this interesting site that I found:
http://www.metaresearch.org/cosmology/BB-top-30.asp


Pretty good stuff, btw - if it pans out as true. It is true that astronomers do tend to get bogged down in their own concepts of what is or isn't real.

On the plus side, Ton Van Flandern does seem sceptical enough that he doesn't just jump on the popular theories bandwagon, nor does he instantly resort to the woo bandwagon either. However, he does seem to spend a whole lot of time on questionable research - he seems to be obsessive about Martian faces, tenth planet research, and comparing astronomy to astrological and magical features. Of course, that might mean he's on the edge of being able to make a break-through discovery. Or it could mean he's on the edge of being a sad quack, and descending into woo-ism.

I'll definitely have to look deeper into his 'speed of Gravity' concepts, though - interesting thoughts!

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by lifegazer
The laws of physics apply equally to all. There are not 6 billion different laws of physics. Don't suppose you have any evidence for these statements? Or, heck, even a rationale, given your specific set of assumptions?

Is there any reason why the laws of physics need necessarily apply equally to all? If you allow that we are merely figments of an omnipotent god's imagination, there is no reason that God could not imagine different laws of physics for different figments of His imagination.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by lifegazer
My aim - concerning the BB and the expanding-universe - was to make you all question the authority of certain scientific-theories which are widely-believed to be absolutely true. I'm not a physicist and cannot prove whether "tired light theories" are true. But what I can do is unlock the door to many closed minds.What you fail to understand, even though it has been explained to you many, many times, is that scientists are the ones that are most likely to question authority. Every scientist wants to be the one that makes some discovery or learns some new fact that overthrows the current way of thinking. Consider Newton and Einstein. These men turned their contemporary respective understandings of the universe on their heads and they are almost revered for it. And, paradoxically, because of that semi-reverence, any scientist would love to be the one to show them wrong or correct their theories, just as Einstein corrected Newton's.
With that in mind, some of you might want to review this interesting site that I found:
http://www.metaresearch.org/cosmology/BB-top-30.asp
Like Z said, interesting if true. Unfortunately, that article is, by itself, in no way conclusive. They are essentially just proposing ideas on why the big bang might not be true. They've got a lot of leg work ahead of them in order to support any of them.


Incidentally, the metaresearch folks still believe that there are artificial structures on Mars (http://metaresearch.org/media%20and%20links/press/artifacts_of_mars.asp), a claim that has been pretty thoroughly torn to pieces by taking better pictures of those "structures" at different times of (the Martian) day. That doesn't help their credibility any.
Like I said, my main aim was to open a few minds and draw attention to the fact that some theories are inconclusive and, therefore, irrelevant to philosophical discussion about 'reality'. And you do this so that you can replace those theories with your own inconsistant, unprovable and, therefore, irrelevant theory?

Gee, thanks. :rolleyes:

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer
"Most likely" holds no water in a philosophical discussion about reality, ol' chum.


Actually, cosmic background radiation was predicted to exist before it was discovered, not the other way around. CMB helped solidify the big bang theory. Not only that, but the sprectrum of the CMB matches that of a perfect black body radiator, which means that it could not be from stars.

The big bang theory does not rely on the hubble effect and CMB alone. It has many other factors, like distant universes that are traveling at high speed being effected by time dialation.


You - everyone - must learn that not only can science tell us nothing about a real universe (since science concerns the order exhibited by the universe within awareness), but that alot of the theories formulated in the 20th century (expanding universe and BB to name but two) are still questionable, despite being accepted by the masses as absolutely true.


The big bang theory has stood up to every challenge, that doesn't mean that there is some discovery over the horizon that will disprove the big bang, its just unlikely.


Not only that, but you'll find many scientific theories to be founded upon the [absolutely unfounded] premise that what we are observing is, in fact, a real universe.


The only thing science is founded upon is that we are observing a consistent universe.


... One good example of this is the thing you mentioned: CMB - cosmic background-radiation... whereby we discover [microwave] light flooding the entire universe and instantly jump to the conclusion that this provides absolute evidence of a BB.


Like I said, CMB was predicted long before its discovery, and those that found it, found it by accident.


But somebody forgot to tell the physicists that they weren't observing light flooding the entire universe - they were observing light flooding the entirety of awareness itself.


No, even in your philosophy, the laws that govern the light they are observing are contained outside of their awareness. The blueprint, remember?


The laws of physics do exist. They mirror the order exhibited by the universe perceived via the sensations.


Meaningless statement. The laws that govern things mirror the was we perceive them. Our perception of things does not create the laws that govern them.


The laws of physics apply equally to all. There are not 6 billion different laws of physics.


So the laws of physics are not contained in an individual human? You mean they are seperate from them? The blueprint...

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Upchurch
"The laws of physics apply equally to all. There are not 6 billion different laws of physics."

Don't suppose you have any evidence for these statements? Or, heck, even a rationale, given your specific set of assumptions?

I'm surprised you're asking this question. If the laws of physics are not singularly-universal, then what's the point of physics?
Did Newton's second law of motion (F=ma) only apply to Newton? Would you not think I was crazy if I said that in the world I perceived, F=m/2 + v ?

My philosophy is that there is one entity viewing itself in a variety of ways (upchurch; lifegazer; Z; Russ; etc.) via the specific order of a dream. There's more than one angle to view a specific scene... which is why your last sentence seems irrelevant to me.

If you allow that we are merely figments of an omnipotent god's imagination, there is no reason that God could not imagine different laws of physics for different figments of His imagination.
You seem to be clutching at straws. Where there are 6 billion LOP's, there are 6 billion different Universes (note that the argument by design doesn't even allow for life on Earth if those laws and certain constants [google cosmological-constant & ID, for example] were to fluctuate by extremely small degrees).

Is there any reason why 6 billion different people (as perceived), upon one Earth, should see the elements of that Earth ordered differently? Not unless that Earth was unreal and God thought there was purpose in having a dream where no communication was possible within that dream.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer
My aim - concerning the BB and the expanding-universe - was to make you all question the authority of certain scientific-theories which are widely-believed to be absolutely true.

There is no authority. Everyone is always questioning. Why? Because questioning is what makes them a successfull researcher. No one gets big grants, nobel prizes, prestige, etc, by reproving or agreeing with what is already widely-believed. They get the accilades by breaking the mold, by changing the common thinking.

You act like there is some master commitee (the free masons, right?) deciding the dogma of science and that it should be unquestioned. Perhaps you should do a little history research.

We dismiss the links you send us because they have no basis in science, fact, matchmatics, or logic.


I'm not a physicist and cannot prove whether "tired light theories" are true. But what I can do is unlock the door to many closed minds.


Sorry, you are too late, the locks on these minds are already open.


With that in mind, some of you might want to review this interesting site that I found:
http://www.metaresearch.org/cosmology/BB-top-30.asp

I really don't want to get bogged-down in scientific debate about this. Like I said, my main aim was to open a few minds and draw attention to the fact that some theories are inconclusive and, therefore, irrelevant to philosophical discussion about 'reality'.

Then why are you attempting to debate against the big bang? This site is hogwash.

ie, Static universe models match most observations with no adjustable parameters..

The static universe model has no way of explaining the black body nature of CMB. The static universe model also does not explain redshift.

BTW, he then claims that cosmic dust explains the black body nature of CMB, which is bunk, because cosmic dust is far, far, from being a perfect black body. In fact, we can look at light from a spectrum, and determine the contents of cosmic dust.

The universe has too much large scale structure (interspersed “walls� and voids) to form in a time as short as 10-20 billion years.

recent research shows exactly how those structure formed. The fingerprints are even left in variations in the CMB.

All of the claims on the site have been debunked and can be debunked here if you like. There are going to be people out there that want to fight some "perceived" authority, and want the respect given to those that rightfully break through and find new discoveries.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
I'll definitely have to look deeper into his 'speed of Gravity' concepts, though - interesting thoughts!

My read? Quack. Partially because he first implies that the speed gravity has been measured by "standard methods" which would imply, in the labratory, which is untrue, the speed of gravity has never been measured in the labratory.

Secondly, the speed of gravity has been measured on several occasions, here is one such example:

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn3232

He then goes on to use some mathmatics someone worked out in the 20's on orbits taking into acount the non-instananeous nature of gravity, but not all the other aspects of GR. He completely ignores modern physics and seems to have made no attempt on finding the answers that modern physics provide.

In fact, the orbit of mercury is predicted correctly by GR. Classical physics gets it wrong.

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/grav_speed.html

I'm sorry, people claiming to be great and trying to gain respect by plugging their ears and singing lalalalala do not impress me. The people who make the real discoveries and do the real work are the ones who deserve our respect.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by RussDill
There is no authority. Everyone is always questioning.

That's not true... certainly, in here. I wish I had a £ for every time somebody tried to refute my philosophy because of a particular scientific theory.
... Even you label people "crackpots" when they challenge established theories. You did it with the Shapiro-effect and the tired-light-theories and again mock the credibility of the last site that I highlighted - even though it's a site devoted to scientific enquiry for the masses.

We dismiss the links you send us because they have no basis in science, fact, matchmatics, or logic.

The last site I mentioned cannot be accused of being biased towards any philosophical disposition. Yet it mentions 30 reasons why there are problems with believing in a big-bang.
... Come on Russ - 30 reasons to question the BB by a neutral site not concerned with philosophical questions about reality and you (not a qualified [noted] physicist as far as I'm aware) still berate the credibility of ANY link that I provide!!!!!!!

Sorry, you are too late, the locks on these minds are already open.

Russ: in almost every discussion I have with you, you condemn me for challenging contemporary scientific-theory. You defend the establishment as though your life depends upon it. And you're not the only one. So don't gimme that BS.

Then why are you attempting to debate against the big bang?

I've already stated why I'm doing this: so that uncertain scientific theories do not interfere with rational discussion pertaining to reality.

This site is hogwash.

I see. So an amateur physicist questions the credibility of a respected site devoted to [philosophically] neutral analysis of physical-theory... and claims it to be "hogwash".

All of the claims on the site have been debunked

That's crap. This site has no philosophical bias. Moreover:-

and can be debunked here if you like.

... By a wannabe physicist? I don't think so.
Even top-gun physicists cannot truly debunk the notion that the [perceived] universe is static. So don't embarrass yourself Russ.

[Atlas]

Originally posted by lifegazer
I'm surprised you're asking this question. If the laws of physics are not singularly-universal, then what's the point of physics?
Did Newton's second law of motion (F=ma) only apply to Newton? Would you not think I was crazy if I said that in the world I perceived, F=m/2 + v ?

My philosophy is that there is one entity viewing itself in a variety of ways (upchurch; lifegazer; Z; Russ; etc.) via the specific order of a dream. ...

Is there any reason why 6 billion different people (as perceived), upon one Earth, should see the elements of that Earth ordered differently? ... To me, your philosophy makes more sense when you are arguing just the opposite of this.

How does awareness get the laws of physics right and so much other stuff wrong. How does awareness on any given day in math class have 30 different outcomes of test scores.

Awareness does not create external reality, it only creates internal reality. Inside awareness we believe we are loved and hated often when we are not. So why, when there are 6 billion realities, should we not expect 6 billion laws of physics.

[Z]

So instead we should listen to a wanna-be philosopher, with absolutely no comprehension of even simple scientific principles, logic, or reason?

No, thanks, you're nothing but a jester now. You've repeatedly demonstrated your willful ignorance on just about every subject - philosophy included - and the only reason I even bother with you is a) it amuses me to see what deranged circles you will try to talk in next and b) it prevents newbies from seriously considering you a valid source of knowledge or wisdom.

And it's pretty clear that you don't have the credentials or credibility to tell anyone else what motives or purpose a website has - especially not the site which seems geared toward selling books at $19 a pop, which contain theory based on flawed reasoning and poor scientific method.

So, while I welcome you to spout any crap you so desire, I do warn you that your crap will not go unchallenged.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer
That's not true... certainly, in here.


I'm sorry, you are right, everyone in here might not be as interested in phyiscs as I am.


I wish I had a £ for every time somebody tried to refute my philosophy because of a particular scientific theory.


No one has ever tried to refute your philosophy because of a particular scientific theory. What has happened is that you have tried to show that you have proven your philosophy by using your misunderstanding of various scientific theories. Members of this forum have tried to correct that misunderstanding.


... Even you label people "crackpots" when they challenge established theories.


No I don't. In fact, I love researching alternate theories.


You did it with the Shapiro-effect


I don't call the shapiro effect, I call the person who seemingly purposely misinterprets it for their own devices. The text the person wrote regarding the shapiro effect is clearly unrelated to, and unsupported by, the shapiro effect.


and the tired-light-theories and again mock the credibility of the last site that I highlighted - even though it's a site devoted to scientific enquiry for the masses.


How is pointing out factual and process errors "mocking"? I wasn't even the one who went for the credibility angle, although it is revealing. The site is not interesting in scientific enquiry, otherwise, they would not ignore it.


The last site I mentioned cannot be accused of being biased towards any philosophical disposition. Yet it mentions 30 reasons why there are problems with believing in a big-bang.


All of which have been throughogly debunked, and they can be debunked here for you if you'd like


... Come on Russ - 30 reasons to question the BB by a neutral site not concerned with philosophical questions about reality and you (not a qualified [noted] physicist as far as I'm aware) still berate the credibility of ANY link that I provide!!!!!!!


There are many, many, many, philosophical groups that wish that the evidence did not point to the big bang. And if you didn't notice, a number of them have a great deal in common with your philosophy. I'm not even sure why the big bang effects your philosophy one way or another rather than to satisify your nihilistic tendancies.

I've also posted links with information from qualified (and noted) physicists berating the accuracy of the links you provide. I have not berated their credibility, nor do I have any need to.

What if I gave you a list of 60 reasons to "not question the big bang"?


Russ: in almost every discussion I have with you, you condemn me for challenging contemporary scientific-theory.


I've welcomed you to challenge it on many occasions. You never really have. All you've done (until recently) is try to use your misunderstanding of physics, ie, QM and relativity, to show some form of evidence of your philosophy. There is no condemning, I encourage you to challenge, but I will try to ensure correctness. If you say that science has proven that F=1/2(ma), I'll say, no, F=ma. If you want to challenge the current physics, and say the relationship is different, go right ahead.


You defend the establishment as though your life depends upon it. And you're not the only one. So don't gimme that BS.


When have I ever defended any establishment other than that of truth?

Many times through my study of physics and mathmatics, I've had to change my understanding of the universe, that doesn't happen without an open mind. Having an open mind I don't think is just about being able to admit you are wrong, but being exciting at the prospect. You are neither.


I've already stated why I'm doing this: so that uncertain scientific theories do not interfere with rational discussion pertaining to reality.


Why does the Big Bang threatren your philosophy? Why do any scientific theories threaten your philosophy? Could not the mind model the universe in any way?


I see. So an amateur physicist questions the credibility of a respected site devoted to [philosophically] neutral analysis of physical-theory... and claims it to be "hogwash".


It is hogwash because he has done absolutely 0 research and provides 0 support for his conclusions. If he does those two things, his ideas will be revolutionary, and he will get the nobel prize. Unfortunately, for the former, he will find that his ideas have already been negated, and the latter, he cannot obtain.


That's crap. This site has no philosophical bias. Moreover:-


What do the claims on the site being debunked have anything to do with a philosophical basis? I'm really confused here.


... By a wannabe physicist?


Yes, the research required is not that great. It attests to the impartiality of the writer.


I don't think so.


You wanna go point by point? I'm confused, your claim is that a wannabe physicist has debunked the claims of evidence for the big bang sufficently for your liking, but you don't trust someone to challenge those claims? I'm really confused..oh, right, its anti-establishment, it must be true.


Even top-gun physicists cannot truly debunk the notion that the [perceived] universe is static. So don't embarrass yourself Russ.

since when?

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/nri.html

and don't forget Friedmann and Lemaitre.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
So instead we should listen to a wanna-be philosopher, with absolutely no comprehension of even simple scientific principles, logic, or reason?

First of all, you are to physics what the teletubbies are to acting... so don't lecture me on my knowledge of physics.
Secondly, your idea of 'philosophy' is any notion which sustains the status quo of 'Z', so stop pretending that your intentions here are to to get behind the reality of everything.
Thirdly, the practise of being a good physicist requires good knowledge of the order which one perceives within one's awareness... whereas the practise of being a good philosopher requires that one should identify with the fact that observation of the order of inner-representations tells us zilch about 'reality'.
... Those are just base facts which expose you as a complete pratt with regards philosophical discussion pertaining to reality. I would write a more detailed appraisal of your [lack of] qualities if
I thought it was worth it. The fact is that I gain nothing by attacking you on a regular basis. So I don't do it anymore.
Occaisionally, however, I will rip you to pieces. Not for vindictive purposes - but for the purpose of exposing the nonsensity of the notions held by contemporary peasants. The common-man is but a victim of so-called elite theories & philosophies - not just about science and philosophy, but about politics; culture; religion; sport; law; whatever...

You've repeatedly demonstrated your willful ignorance on just about every subject - philosophy included

Philosophy is special. It's the only subject in which ALL of it's conclusions are questionable. That's why you have supra-intellingent men who totally diagree with one another.

- and the only reason I even bother with you is a) it amuses me to see what deranged circles you will try to talk in next and b) it prevents newbies from seriously considering you a valid source of knowledge or wisdom.

If your name was Kant or Bacon or Wittgenstein, my confidence would be blunted - for the briefest of moments. However, you're just a dodo who believes that 'Z' exists and who likes what 'Z' is and what 'Z' has.
My philosophy won't even register with you until you're old and realise that 'z' is about to decay into nothing, without anything.
Perhaps you should review my philosophy in 25+ years when you are less bewitched by all the world seems to offer to you.

[Z]

Originally posted by lifegazer
First of all, you are to physics what the teletubbies are to acting... so don't lecture me on my knowledge of physics.

And, while we're on the subject of analogies that make no sense, you are to reason what Barnie is to dinosaurs.

Secondly, your idea of 'philosophy' is any notion which sustains the status quo of 'Z', so stop pretending that your intentions here are to to get behind the reality of everything.

No, my idea of 'philosophy' is that philosophy is about as useful as the paper it's written upon; which means, it's only as useful as what purpose it serves in the real world. As explained, numerous times, your philosophy is irrelevant. It is meaningless to the common man, has no practical value to the elite, is offensive towards the very God it purports to reveal, and is empty and hollow. The only reason it merits any notice at all is that you would use your philosophy as a basis for undermining science and reverting the world back to a dark age of poverty, hunger, disease, and want.

Thirdly, the practise of being a good physicist requires good knowledge of the order which one perceives within one's awareness... whereas the practise of being a good philosopher requires that one should identify with the fact that observation of the order of inner-representations tells us zilch about 'reality'.

And if this were true, then 'reality' would be an empty, meaningless term, entirely. Plato dealt with this quite some time ago - you'd benefit from re-reading his life's works, and the directions it followed, once he realised that this world of shadows is all we have, after all.

... Those are just base facts which expose you as a complete pratt with regards philosophical discussion pertaining to reality. I would write a more detailed appraisal of your [lack of] qualities if
I thought it was worth it. The fact is that I gain nothing by attacking you on a regular basis. So I don't do it anymore.

Oh, please! You're killing me with this humour of yours! You are, truly, the master jester!!

The fact is, attacking me is meaningless, since nothing you say matters to me (personally), and since all I need to is point out, continuously, what a buffoon you are, educationally and logically, for anyone to clearly perceive the hollowness and emptiness of any so-called attack you can levy upon me.

Occaisionally, however, I will rip you to pieces.

Please do - it might be interesting to see you try. So far - you've not even scratched my surface, jester.

Not for vindictive purposes - but for the purpose of exposing the nonsensity of the notions held by contemporary peasants. The common-man is but a victim of so-called elite theories & philosophies - not just about science and philosophy, but about politics; culture; religion; sport; law; whatever...

So now you insult the common man as 'peasant' - yet you purport to philosophise on behalf of the 'common man'. You claim that common-man are victims of some secret elite theories, yet you yourself are tossing about some theory that you expect people to swallow, whole cloth, without so much as a single question. And, what are you, if not another 'peasant'? You're certainly not even qualified to teach toddlers, much less to instruct in advanced philosophy or any other subject. Your blatant ignorance demonstrates that even simple subjects like math must be way over your head.

Philosophy is special. It's the only subject in which ALL of it's conclusions are questionable.

Not at all. The entire foundation of science is to question the answers given. Every single notion from science is a result of questioning prior conclusions and reaching new ones.

If, on the other hand, you are inferring that philosophical conclusions are questionable as in, uncertain and weakly supported, I'd agree with you there.

That's why you have supra-intellingent men who totally diagree with one another.

And who entirely disagree with you.

If your name was Kant or Bacon or Wittgenstein, my confidence would be blunted - for the briefest of moments. However, you're just a dodo who believes that 'Z' exists and who likes what 'Z' is and what 'Z' has.

And 'Kant' believed that 'Kant' existed, and who liked what 'Kant' was, and what 'Kant' had... As do most philosophers, no matter the philosophy they espoused. None of them - not one - ever once overcame the boundaries of the physical world. Not one, ever, was able to survive without tending to the needs of the body. Not one, ever, touched God, or changed the world in earth-shattering ways. Sure, some of our progress comes from what little enlightenment philosophers have had to offer - but so much more has been the result of scientists, working diligently and logically, that one wonders what need Man truly has for philosophy. Especially any more.

My philosophy won't even register with you until you're old and realise that 'z' is about to decay into nothing, without anything.

No, I've realized that fact for decades. Unlike most people, I fully realize that I will one day die. I have no material greed to worry about. I can't take it with me, nor would I even want to. I'll be happy passing into the grave, and discovering if anything follows life. And if nothing follows life, I'll be totally ignorant of it, because I will not be.

Your philosophy will be long forgotten when I'm old, maybe even sooner than that. Why does fear of death mean anything special to you? I embrace the thought that this, too, shall pass. I look forward to living an enjoyable and comfortable life, then passing the veil and either enjoying the adventure of what follows, or facing oblivion knowing I enjoyed my life to the full.

You should review my philosophy in 25+ years when you are less bewitched by all the world seems to offer to you.

Why? Will it take you that long to work the bugs out of it?

It's not like I'm trapped in a material world of 'stuff'. I've been impoverished to the point of wandering the streets looking for pennies to buy ramen with. I've lost every material possession twice for various reasons. I've lost children and lovers. I've been near death several times. And all this has taught me that everything passes, good or ill, and life always changes, one way or another. The material goods I enjoy today are entirely disposable. The computer I type on at this very moment means less to me than the fact that I'll wake up tomorrow and see what the day brings. Unlike you, I could very well give it all up and wander the world for a year or two like Jesus and the Apostles supposedly did, preaching and spreading whatever gospel I so choose to spread, without being bothered by it - if material possessions were all that tied me down. Alas, I am primary caretaker of six wonderful children, and I would not deprive them of the care and attention that they need and deserve.

I think, when you've grown old and grey and you face the grave, alone, it's you who will be reconsidering your philosophy. You fear death. You fear oblivion. Only by denying your own existance and clinging to the concept of a universal experiencer can you even accept the thought of death. I accept the thought that, a billion years from now, nothing might be alive. Man might be forgotten in dust, and with him, every god, every philosophy, every religion with him. I accept that Man is a flash in the pan, a brief and utterly insignificant abberation in a cold and heartless, utterly meaningless Universe. I'm fine with that. Let Man make Man's life more comfortable. Enjoy it while it lasts. For this, too, shall pass.

But I'll always hold onto the hope that, one day, you will grow up and realize the damage that your nihilistic solipsism would actually cause the world if people did listen to your ravings. And I'll always be here to prevent your madness from infecting young minds.

Blessings,

The Rev. Z

edited to correct quote structure... :D

[uruk]

"Most likely" holds no water in a philosophical discussion about reality, ol' chum. Niether does baseless proclamations of beliefs that are passed off as facts, ol' chum.
Not only that, but you'll find many scientific theories to be founded upon the [absolutely unfounded] premise that what we are observing is, in fact, a real universe. So what, if true? It works. It is an equally unfounded premise to say that the universe is not real.
But somebody forgot to tell the physicists that they weren't observing light flooding the entire universe - they were observing light flooding the entirety of awareness itself.
It is an entirely useless idea. The universe behaves as if it is exists externaly to us. Our presence is not a requirement for the universe to exist in and of itself. There is no law of physics that says "...and then Bob experianced gravity." The laws of physics do exist. They mirror the order exhibited by the universe perceived via the sensations. Then by extension the universe exists. If the laws exists it because the universe exists and vice-versa. you cannot have one without the other. If there were no universe there would be no laws, likewise if there were no laws there would be no universe. Remember the universe and the laws are inseperable. The universe exists because of the laws. The laws of physics apply equally to all. There are not 6 billion different laws of physics. How do you know this? If you make the assumption that there are people other than you that exists, and that the laws are the same for all, this would imply That what ever it is that exhibits or is governed by the laws (i.e. the universe) is objective and not subjective. It does not depend on the individual who is percieving the laws. A real entity is one that actually exists. Therefore, if the laws of physics actually exist then by extention the universe actually exists. The universe is the law, the law is the universe. ( the Universe. It's not just a good idea, It's the law!)Incorrect. In my philosophy, the universe ('uruk' being a part of that universe) is an illusion being had by a non-spatial entity. Illusions do not have experiences. Uruk is having no experiences... but is, in fact, part of the experience itself. Ok you say here I am part of the universe. If the laws of physics are real then the universe is real, therefore Uruk is real because Uruk is part of the universe which is governed by the laws of physics. But even if the universe is an illusion being by a non-spatial entity, it does not matter to me. I am an illusion in an illusion. It is just as real as I am. It is reality for me.... You are God. Nope. Uruk is not god. Uruk is an illusion being had by god. Uruk is not real in relation to god. Uruk is part of the universe which is an illusion being had by a non-spatial entity.

edited to correct a clumsy statement

[H'ethetheth]

Lifegazer,

as I've said before, science cannot not enter into this discussion. Neither its limitations, nor its intended purpose. Science can only tell us about things in the apparent universe. This means that you need not bother taking arguments from any field of science to prove your theory, or to disprove the apparent reality of the universe. If the truth is as you say it is, these things are part of the illusion and therefore cannot have anything to do with absolute truth.
Claiming that the illusion itself is non-spatial by virtue of things that happen within the space of the illusion is absurd. Experiences exist. Experiences of lifegazer exist by inspection. Therefore, lifegazer could say that lifegazer exists by inspection.
lifegazer observes space. This space is spatial by inspection, because lifegazer can take up more than one position in it, and even has some room for his house and possibly some family.

Now lifegazer, it is up to you to prove what you claim without using any argument that stems from observation. I think that leaves you with math and logic, neither of which may be used incorrectly or fallaciously.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by H'ethetheth
Lifegazer,

as I've said before, science cannot not enter into this discussion. {snip}

Now lifegazer, it is up to you to prove what you claim without using any argument that stems from observation. I think that leaves you with math and logic, neither of which may be used incorrectly or fallaciously. Much better stated than my usual "You shouldn't use physical arguments, you're no good at them" shtick. Well done.

[wollery]

Originally posted by lifegazer
http://www.metaresearch.org/cosmology/BB-top-30.aspThanks LG, I needed a good laugh! :D

Seriously though, you offer this site as some sort of evidence that the Big Bang theory is uncertain and under attack from people who know what they're talking about. RussDill offered refutations of the site's evidence, and you have a go at him because he isn't a qualified physicist.

Well, I am a qualified astrophysicist, and I can tell you that most of the objections to the Big Bang raised on that page are erroneous. I'm not saying that the Big Bang model is correct, just that the site you linked to is largely cobblers. I could go through each point in turn and explain why, but quite frankly it isn't worth it, since I seriously doubt you'd pay any attention to me.

You constantly introduce aspects of physics which you say support your position, and then when your interpretation of these is shown to be wrong you either say that it doesn't matter because the observed Universe isn't real, or call into question the intelligence or honesty (??) of those who are refuting your claims.

It's truly pathetic. If you don't want to discuss physics then stop bringing it up. And if you're going to bring it up then you'd better be prepared to be corrected by people who have more knowledge and experience on the subject than you do.

[P.S.A.]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Hardly on-topic.
You don't have a clue about my philosophy mate. It offers you divine identity and victory over death. It offers you sovereignity over all that you survey. It offers peace and unity to the world where all love thy neighbour as thyself... because thy neighbour is thyself. An end to war, injustice, nationality, inequality, poverty, etc...
Please don't criticise what you don't understand.

Ok, I think I've made my point for long enough. Now to clarify it for you Lifegazer.

Imagine an Othello board, which has been filled with markers, all of them black side up. If someone states that he wishes to turn them all to the White side, how does he approach this desired end?

Assuming there are no Othello rules, he just turns them all over, one by one. And if there are rules, if there must be a method by which he must turn, he follows the method, and slowly works until each one is white.

What he does not do is ignore the color of certain individual counters. Not if he wants the whole board to change.

You know, it might surprise you to learn Lifegazer that I'm just as educated as most of the posters here. Oh, I've been acting borish and arrogant and cruel... some might even say that deep down that's who I truly am. But I've been deliberately exagerating that to make a point. I know what your philosophy is. You claim you which to get everyone to realise that they are God. You want to turn the Othello board. At least, so you claim. And yet... and yet you refuse to address me in any way after my initial post. You have not only not attempted to turn this piece, you've tried to pretend that piece doesn't even exist. So much for your universal God awareness claims.

And I know why you've done it. I'm every co-worker you've ever had who didn't want to listen to your "Philosophy" but wanted to talk about football, aren't I? I'm every person who laughed at you. Every tutor who just discreditted your ideas without a second thought. I'm all those "Peasants" who have refused to see your greatness.... and ahhh! There is where the truth lies. Because it's not ultimately about God at all, is it Lifegazer?

No, it can't be; in your "Philosophy" if the majority don't wake up to God, then God doesn't wake up and... But I've been deliberatly characaturing the majority; the vast hordes of ignorant "Peasants" you yourself believe exists. The mindless hordes, the spiritually empty majority, the rude, insolent crowd. The very people you need to win over to save God from dream death in fact. And you've made no effort at all to do so.

Because the reality is, what you really seek recognition. Saving God comes second to being seen as his Prophet. You want to be seen as great in the eyes of great men. You want to be not just a Philosopher, but one even greater than "Kant or Bacon or Wittgenstein,". This is what you really crave, and why you continue to seek out boards where philosophers and thinkers and educated people hang about. You'd get far more attention on something like a Coronation Street bulletin board, but that's where the hoi-polloi hang out isn't it? And you do not need the attentions of such plebs, even if abandoning them means abandoning God. I trust the more honest amongst you can now see what I've been doing... I've been making this point to you, behind childish satire, rather a lot Lifegazer. If we are all part of God's dream, then... but it seems some parts are more important than others, aren't they?

Oh, you have a genuine martyr complex, as well as an obvious streak of religiosity too. I'm sure on an emotional level at least you do believe in God, and enjoy being the misunderstood prophet; But these are just convergent desires for your main neurosis, which is to always seek to be seen as the Great Philosopher. But where's your peer reviewed book Lifegazer? Where's your published manifesto? Where's your submission to the numerous philosophy magazines? It's nowhere, is it? Indeed, after demanding your ideas be submitted to an expert in that field here, you immediately discreddited his judgement. Because you know that the vast majority of that Othello board will not turn for you. No, you've made no genuine effort to become genuinely great, because you know you can't be. What you want is to try and find isolated individuals who will admire your thinking... and you cast off those who won't admire your greatness. The only reason you remain at JREF is because you know that open minded skeptics will always listen to your philosophy at least. It doesn't matter that your philosophy is torn to shreds time after time; that just feeds your martyr complex. But here you are, debating philosophy with wise people.... Not so wise that they make you feel uncomfortable with their criticism; indeed even Bacon et all wouldn't get past your sense of superiority at times. But just wise enough for you to feel like a big fish in a small pond without too much cognitive dissonance.

Except of course, you are no such thing. You travel around in your self selected little argumentative world, reducing yourself in the eyes of your fellow and greater men over and over again. You an insignificat fish in an almost infinitely large universe, making yourself more insignificant with every strained argument used to try and inspire admiration. And with each step, the "Establishment" has to become greater and greater to justify the constant reduction of your own worth. And in doing so, God dies a little more each time, because you abandon that much more of the world to the death of Establishmentarianism. But you won't stop doing this, because to do so will take away the very thing which gives your life any meaning... You HAVE to be greater than any other man.

Christ reputedly healed the Lepers Lifegazer. True or not, that's the sign of a truly Great man. One who focuses on all the parts of Othello board, or at least can touch all the pieces in some way. But where was Lifegazer, when I denied the existance of his God, when my soul was blighted? Lifegazer's still in the Temple, turning over tables, and trying to tackle the Establishment... still locked into the big, dramatic gesture rather than providing a path towards heaven for those who desperately need one.

Now if you'll excuse me, it's back to seeing how well I've rattled Interesting Ian's cage. I already know how you'll react anyway... You'll just ignore this message too. Ian at least still notices his fellow man, even if he doesn't like what he sees. But you?

"Oh Lifegazer Christ, this man here, my brother, is possesed with demons!"

"What man? I see no man"

"Oh. Do you see any demons at least?"

"I Only See God."

"I... see... And this God is where?"

"I am He. Admire me"

"I will... if you remove the demons from my brother!"

"I see no demons. I am God. Admire me, and no man will have Demons."

"Can I see some proof of this?"

"Yes. Admire me, and you'll see God"

"Er... no thanks"

"Thou art a fool and a knave, begone worm food!"

And so on, for as long as what ever it is that thinks it's Lifegazer persists... Ahh, the endlessly repeating circle of Life (gazer)!

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Philosophy is special. It's the only subject in which ALL of it's conclusions are questionable. That's why you have supra-intellingent men who totally diagree with one another.


Eh? Are you not aware of the constant disagreement of great physicists, especially right now, with quantum gravity, string theory, m-theory, etc, etc? Even bets including dirty magazines and encyclopedias. Take some history from einstien, schodenberg, turing, telsa, hawking, etc, etc, etc.

ALL conclusions in any arena (Except religion, and questions pertaining to god) are questionable.

[lifegazer]

... It's impossible to be the absolute-cause of an event outside of yourself. For example, if I stand on a snail on my patio and crush it, I cannot claim to be the absolute-cause of that snail's demise because:
(1) I cannot crush snails unless the environment I exist within creates snails.
(2) I cannot crush snails unless I can find one. I.e., I cannot will a snail to come to my patio.
(3) I cannot crush snails without gravity.
(4) I cannot crush snails unless they are soft enough to be crushed. Thus, I depend upon the fragility of the snail's molecular bonds. I depend upon external forces/laws.
(5) Having a garden patio is similarly facilitated by external conditions and laws beyond my control.
Etc...

The point is that you cannot be the absolute-cause of anything unless the event occurs within whatever you are - ridding you of dependency in external matters.
Moreover, to be an absolute-cause, you must be absolutely singular/indivisible. You cannot be an absolute-cause if your very existence is effected by the ordered integration of many parts.

All finite entities are absolute effects which have zero causal capability. "The 4th domino" is an absolute effect, both in it's make-up and it's action (as it falls)(and the repercussions of that action - the event that follows)... it's entire history is governed by forces and conditions that existed before it did.

If all finite-entities are absolute-effects, then no finite entity is responsible for change. Hence, since change exists (even as perceived), then logic dictates that an absolute-cause must exist.

So, any sensible responses to this?

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by lifegazer
... It's impossible to be the absolute-cause of an event outside of yourself. For example, if I stand on a snail on my patio and crush it, I cannot claim to be the absolute-cause of that snail's demise because:Let's analyze, as we always do, more closely:
(1) I cannot crush snails unless the environment I exist within creates snails.Nothing about this point necessitates that the even occurs within you. The very statement defines an external space in which you and the snail exist.
(2) I cannot crush snails unless I can find one. I.e., I cannot will a snail to come to my patio.The snail's existance and location are not relevent. It is the initation of the event (i.e. the crushing of the snail) that we are analyzing the cause of. The event could have happened in any number of places and any number of times. The subject and the operator are all that are necessary.
(3) I cannot crush snails without gravity.Of course you could. You could crush it between your hands, if you choose. You are simply using gravity as a tool to bring about the event.
(4) I cannot crush snails unless they are soft enough to be crushed. Thus, I depend upon the fragility of the snail's molecular bonds. I depend upon external forces/laws.Again, it is irrelevent. Were a snail anything other than a snail, you would not be performing the act of "crushing a snail". We're talking about the cause of the act of crushing a snail. The snail's existance is a given in this scenerio. It is the act that we are analyzing. So far, you're still it.
(5) Having a garden patio is similarly facilitated by external conditions and laws beyond my control.Again, the stage does not matter. It is still you who initiated the event. It could have happened anywhere.
The point is that you cannot be the absolute-cause of anything unless the event occurs within whatever you are - ridding you of dependency in external matters.The entire example is defined in an external reality and you did not provide any evidence of (or even describe) a cause other than yourself. In terms of the act of crushing a snail, you were the single cause of that act.

You didn't even describe how the cause of "crushing a snail" was not dependant on outside forces. :con2:
Moreover, to be an absolute-cause, you must be absolutely singular/indivisible. You cannot be an absolute-cause if your very existence is effected by the ordered integration of many parts.Actually, to be an absolute cause, it must not have a cause itself. It need not be necessarily unique, as there is evidence that acausal events are not unique.

In order to show that the absolute cause of crushing a snail did not eminate from you, you would have to be able to define the exact cause/effect chain that led to the act came from outside yourself. Even with your heavy reliance on modern science to try to defend your position, you will be hard pressed to do that. And regardless, you would then also have to show that the same absolute cause that caused you to crush a snail is the same absolute cause of the snail being in that place at that time. Also very difficult. And even then you would have to show that you and the snail were both still somehow inside that absolute cause, which is practically nonsensical without further assumptions.

All finite entities are absolute effects which have zero causal capability. "The 4th domino" is an absolute effect, both in it's make-up and it's action (as it falls)(and the repercussions of that action - the event that follows)... it's entire history is governed by forces and conditions that existed before it did.Unless you can show that there were no acausal events that occurs when the 4th domnio falls, you cannot pin it down to a single cause.
So, any sensible responses to this? Barely, in that it is hardly sensible itself.

[Z]

Upchurch, that's not bad... here's my take on it.

Originally posted by lifegazer
... It's impossible to be the absolute-cause of an event outside of yourself. For example, if I stand on a snail on my patio and crush it, I cannot claim to be the absolute-cause of that snail's demise because:
(1) I cannot crush snails unless the environment I exist within creates snails.
(2) I cannot crush snails unless I can find one. I.e., I cannot will a snail to come to my patio.
(3) I cannot crush snails without gravity.
(4) I cannot crush snails unless they are soft enough to be crushed. Thus, I depend upon the fragility of the snail's molecular bonds. I depend upon external forces/laws.
(5) Having a garden patio is similarly facilitated by external conditions and laws beyond my control.
Etc...

Consider, for a moment, that he is attempting to use the term 'absolute-cause' to refer to a primal, singular cause. As I think I've mentioned before, his so-called 'absolute cause' cannot exist, for any and every event requires at least two things, whether matter, energy, quantum particles, etc. interacting in some fashion - whether we understand that interaction or not. Now, I may be wrong, on some quantum level; however, as far as I've understood, there is no such thing as an absolutely singular cause, ergo no absolute causes exist. All causes are combination causes, in effect.

The point is that you cannot be the absolute-cause of anything unless the event occurs within whatever you are - ridding you of dependency in external matters.

This is largely nonsensical. Even 'within' what we are - whether God or some other thing, there must be a mechanism of change. Some two things, energy, particles, whatever, must in some way interact to initiate causation.

Moreover, to be an absolute-cause, you must be absolutely singular/indivisible. You cannot be an absolute-cause if your very existence is effected by the ordered integration of many parts.

Another proof that absolute causes cannot exist; if something is absolutely singular and indivisible, it has no mechanism of causation; it becomes stagnant and unchanging. A thing which is singular and indivisible is also utterly featureless and changeless. It is, in fact, an unchanging non-causal agent - ergo, by lifegazer's logic, no absolute cause CAN exist, since the very requirements for an absolute cause cannot be met.

All finite entities are absolute effects which have zero causal capability. "The 4th domino" is an absolute effect, both in it's make-up and it's action (as it falls)(and the repercussions of that action - the event that follows)... it's entire history is governed by forces and conditions that existed before it did.

Here I have to question this idea of 'absolute effects'. This term makes no sense whatsoever; he seems to be saying that finite entities are incapable fo causing any change to occur, which is, of course, senseless. He seems to be claiming that all change must be initiated by a singular causal agent, and that no combination causation is permitted within his logic. However, our experiences tell us that almost all causation - all, as near as I can tell - is combinatory causation. Therefore, this idea of 'absolute effects' is itself senseless. The fourth domino (why fourth?) remains motionless until acted upon by the toppling of the third combined with gravity; the effect of the impact of the third domino and gravity is the cause of the fourth domino's falling; the effect of that motion, plus gravity, results in an impact which is causatory to the toppling of the next domino in line. No 'absolute' effects exist, either.

If all finite-entities are absolute-effects, then no finite entity is responsible for change. Hence, since change exists (even as perceived), then logic dictates that an absolute-cause must exist.

This statement is illogical. First, the term 'absolute effect' is nonsensical; further, the fact that no entity is an absolute effect in no way demonstrates that an absolute cause must exist - the existance of combinatory causation does not somehow negate the effect of finite entities, after all. This statement is logically flawed - there is a leap of faith here, between the non-possibility of absolute effects, and the existance of an absolute cause.

Of course, I admit I could be wrong - please demonstrate the logical process that leads you from no absolute-effects to an absolute cause. After all, you did say that logic dictates this. I don't see it, myself.

So, any sensible responses to this? [/QUOTE]

It's very hard to provide sensible responses to nonsensical statements, but I think Upchurch and I have both managed rather well.

(Hey, Gentle Reader, at least he's not starting yet another topic to avoid the tough questions; he's just avoiding them in-topic.)

[Atlas]

Originally posted by lifegazer
.... All finite entities are absolute effects which have zero causal capability. ...

So, any sensible responses to this? Not really sensible, just my usual plonking.

I'm picturing several PETA goons seeing you crush that snail. Next they chase you down and scream, "Let's see how you like it!" With that the throw you down and stomp you.

If the court prosecutes them at trial would you speak in their favor? "Judge, they did not cause my injuries. I ran too slow to escape them. If it weren't for gravity they could not have stomped me so hard. My bones were too brittle for the jumping and kicking they engaged in. They have no responsibility because they have no causal capability."

[Lord Muck oGentry]

lifegazer,
You were unwise enough to say:"So, any sensible responses to this?"This" being:"The point is that you cannot be the absolute-cause of anything unless the event occurs within whatever you are - ridding you of dependency in external matters.
Moreover, to be an absolute-cause, you must be absolutely singular/indivisible. You cannot be an absolute-cause if your very existence is effected by the ordered integration of many parts."
Has it struck you that your use of " absolute-cause" is an abuse of language? Some people might be misled into believing that it had something to do with the English word "cause".

[Atlas]

Lg,

I was being a little flip with my earlier post but perhaps you could address the legal issues of your philosophy.

Does there exist a physical realm where human activity should be praised or prosecuted. If a man commits a crime that is outside of our awareness, perhaps a child molestation, could he really have any responsibility - didn't God cause it? What part of God is Ok with that?

I really like what Heth said earlier. I kind of agree that you can't make your arguments from science. Now human laws governing behavior are different from the laws of physics. They are arbitrary. They relate to the behaviors of humans in the physical world. Because they assume that humans exist, are causal agents, and that they perform in a physical world - does that make laws wrong 3 ways. Are we better off without them? Is your stance that we should abolish laws because crime is impossible if God is the absolute cause?

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer
... It's impossible to be the absolute-cause of an event outside of yourself. For example, if I stand on a snail on my patio and crush it, I cannot claim to be the absolute-cause of that snail's demise because:


So, many of the factors that lead to the snail's death are outside of yourself, and you have no control over? This is kindof a no-duh for everyone else, but you continouly insist that there is nothing outside of yourself. Which is it.


The point is that you cannot be the absolute-cause of anything unless the event occurs within whatever you are - ridding you of dependency in external matters.


No, I think you have proven that a sentient being cannot be the absolute cause of anything, because that sentient being exists by some cause.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Upchurch
"(1) I cannot crush snails unless the environment I exist within creates snails."

Nothing about this point necessitates that the even occurs within you. The very statement defines an external space in which you and the snail exist.

What??
We're discussing the possibility of a finite entity being the absolute-cause of an event. Now, to be the absolute-cause of an event means that the entity claiming to be that cause must be the sole creator of whatever effect occurs.
Clearly, in this case, I am dependent upon external causes producing 'snails'. Now, what my actions produce, really, is a "crushed snail". However, since I did not create the snail, I cannot claim to be the absolute-cause of a crushed snail.
Simple stuff.

"(2) I cannot crush snails unless I can find one. I.e., I cannot will a snail to come to my patio."

The snail's existance and location are not relevent.

Of course they are. If we are to be exact about the event my actions produce, then we would say that my actions have crushed a snail existing in space and time.
... Now, without the existence of snails, space or time, I could not crush a snail in spacetime. I.e., my actions are dependent upon external causes and conditions.

It is the initation of the event (i.e. the crushing of the snail) that we are analyzing the cause of.

Well, you cannot disregard what I've said above. But even if we ignore what I've said (and you probably will, knowing you), we cannot say that I am the initiator of a crushed snail unless I have absolute free will.
... For me to have absolute free will means that I cannot be an effect, otherwise 'my' will is really a product of whatever caused me to exist.
Therefore, to have absolute free will = to be an absolute cause.

... Hence, we're back at the start and the question remains: Can a finite entity be the absolute cause of any event external to it?
The answer is no, for reasons already discussed (the snail).

The event could have happened in any number of places and any number of times.

Only true if space and time exist beyond me. And only true if snails exist beyond me. And I created none of 'em.

The subject and the operator are all that are necessary.

You're running around like a headless chicken, hoping to evade the inevitable conclusion.

Of course you could. You could crush it between your hands, if you choose. You are simply using gravity as a tool to bring about the event.

Accepted.

"4) I cannot crush snails unless they are soft enough to be crushed. Thus, I depend upon the fragility of the snail's molecular bonds. I depend upon external forces/laws."

Again, it is irrelevent. Were a snail anything other than a snail, you would not be performing the act of "crushing a snail".

Not accepted.
Firstly, nothing prevents me from trying to crush a snail. Whether I succeed or not depends upon how strong or heavy I am, or how small or soft a snail is... and the existence of snails in spacetime, that I might crush them.
My strength.
Whether I am strong enough to crush a snail between my hands is dependent upon how hard a snail is. I.e., I am depending upon the fragility of the snail's molecular bonding, that I might crush it between my hands.
My weight.
Whether or not I am heavy enough to crush a snail is dependent upon the force of gravity... (and the snail's hardness).
The make-up of a snail
How small and soft a snail is, is clearly dependent upon factors external to myself.
The existence of snails in spacetime
Clearly, all actions external to one's own existence are dependent upon what exists beyond oneself.

We're talking about the cause of the act of crushing a snail. The snail's existance is a given in this scenerio. It is the act that we are analyzing. So far, you're still it.

You haven't given enough thought to your response. As I said earlier in the post, I must have absolute free will to be the [absolute] initiator of any act. As such, I must be an absolute cause. And then we're back to the question of whether a finite entity can be an absolute cause, as discussed.

I could also discuss absolute free-will in the same vein. I.e., I cannot have absolute will over events external to myself unless I have absolute control over the external universe.

All roads lead to God.

[Z]

Originally posted by lifegazer
What??
We're discussing the possibility of a finite entity being the absolute-cause of an event. Now, to be the absolute-cause of an event means that the entity claiming to be that cause must be the sole creator of whatever effect occurs.
Clearly, in this case, I am dependent upon external causes producing 'snails'. Now, what my actions produce, really, is a "crushed snail". However, since I did not create the snail, I cannot claim to be the absolute-cause of a crushed snail.
Simple stuff.

Of course they are. If we are to be exact about the event my actions produce, then we would say that my actions have crushed a snail existing in space and time.
... Now, without the existence of snails, space or time, I could not crush a snail in spacetime. I.e., my actions are dependent upon external causes and conditions.

Well, you cannot disregard what I've said above. But even if we ignore what I've said (and you probably will, knowing you), we cannot say that I am the initiator of a crushed snail unless I have absolute free will.
... For me to have absolute free will means that I cannot be an effect, otherwise 'my' will is really a product of whatever caused me to exist.
Therefore, to have absolute free will = to be an absolute cause.

... Hence, we're back at the start and the question remains: Can a finite entity be the absolute cause of any event external to it?
The answer is no, for reasons already discussed (the snail).

Only true if space and time exist beyond me. And only true if snails exist beyond me. And I created none of 'em.

You're running around like a headless chicken, hoping to evade the inevitable conclusion.

Accepted.

Not accepted.
Firstly, nothing prevents me from trying to crush a snail. Whether I succeed or not depends upon how strong or heavy I am, or how small or soft a snail is... and the existence of snails in spacetime, that I might crush them.
My strength.
Whether I am strong enough to crush a snail between my hands is dependent upon how hard a snail is. I.e., I am depending upon the fragility of the snail's molecular bonding, that I might crush it between my hands.
My weight.
Whether or not I am heavy enough to crush a snail is dependent upon the force of gravity... (and the snail's hardness).
The make-up of a snail
How small and soft a snail is, is clearly dependent upon factors external to myself.
The existence of snails in spacetime
Clearly, all actions external to one's own existence are dependent upon what exists beyond oneself.

You haven't given enough thought to your response. As I said earlier in the post, I must have absolute free will to be the [absolute] initiator of any act. As such, I must be an absolute cause. And then we're back to the question of whether a finite entity can be an absolute cause, as discussed.

I could also discuss absolute free-will in the same vein. I.e., I cannot have absolute will over events external to myself unless I have absolute control over the external universe.

All roads lead to God.

What is this obsession with 'absolutes'?

No, there is no such thing as an 'absolute cause'. There is no such thing as 'absolute free will'. You are an effect, and when combined with other effects, you are a cause as well.

SO, since there is no such thing as an 'absolute' anything, all you have done is proven the existence of a universe external to you.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
What is this obsession with 'absolutes'?

No, there is no such thing as an 'absolute cause'. There is no such thing as 'absolute free will'. You are an effect, and when combined with other effects, you are a cause as well.

SO, since there is no such thing as an 'absolute' anything, all you have done is proven the existence of a universe external to you.
You must have been on the beer at the vital points of this discussion. Either that, or you simply haven't grasped the point of it all:-

If a finite entity, itself, cannot change anything external to itself (cannot itself claim to be the absolute-cause of ANY change), then change (time) cannot occur.
... Therefore, since change/time is occuring (even as perceived), the inevitable conclusion is that there is an absolute cause.
Also note that an absolute-cause must have absolute will.

You're knocking on God's door mate.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

If a finite entity, itself, cannot change anything external to itself (cannot itself claim to be the absolute-cause of ANY change), then change (time) cannot occur.


It kinda makes since, unfortunately, it doesn't apply to quantum mechanics. Certain particles have a particular chance of decaying at any moment in time. They eventuall decay. If the only particle in the universe was one that decays, it would still decay. If you do this enough times, you could find the half life of the particle. IE, before the particle decays, time is still passing.

Also, I don't think you mean "finite entity", I think you mean "singular entity" because time can pass for a watch if it is the only thing in the universe. The hands go tick tick tick.


... Therefore, since change/time is occuring (even as perceived), the inevitable conclusion is that there is an absolute cause.


You conclusion in no way whatsoever follows the premise. Especially since it apears you mean "singular entity".


Also note that an absolute-cause must have absolute will.


Interesting to note, except, you don't provide any backing, so its utterly meaningless.


You're knocking on God's door mate. [/B][/QUOTE]

[Z]

Originally posted by lifegazer
You must have been on the beer at the vital points of this discussion. Either that, or you simply haven't grasped the point of it all:-

If a finite entity, itself, cannot change anything external to itself (cannot itself claim to be the absolute-cause of ANY change), then change (time) cannot occur.
... Therefore, since change/time is occuring (even as perceived), the inevitable conclusion is that there is an absolute cause.
Also note that an absolute-cause must have absolute will.

You're knocking on God's door mate.

Nonsense.

A finite entity quite clearly can change things external to itself without being the absolute-cause of those changes. You are, again, insisting on a purely black-and-white interpretation. Change obviously occurs, as the results of multiple, cascading causes.

Again, why this insistance on absolutes?

Your statement is illogical. I can claim to be the cause of a change without being an absolute-cause of that change. I can say, "I saved a snail from being crushed by lifegazer" without being the absolute cause of his salvation. I can be the cumulative effect-cause of his salvation. It's so simple, so clear, my first grader understands this concept. So, again, why this insistance on absolutes?

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by RussDill
"If a finite entity, itself, cannot change anything external to itself (cannot itself claim to be the absolute-cause of ANY change), then change (time) cannot occur."

It kinda makes since,

Of course it makes sense. Thanks for acknowledging it.

... unfortunately, it doesn't apply to quantum mechanics.
Certain particles have a particular chance of decaying at any moment in time. They eventuall decay. If the only particle in the universe was one that decays, it would still decay. If you do this enough times, you could find the half life of the particle. IE, before the particle decays, time is still passing.

What??
The decay of a particle - as perceived, btw - does not alter anything that I said. Are you implying that a particle is the absolute cause of its own decay?
Please note that an entity cannot be an absolute cause unless it has absolute will over it's actions, since if the actions of an entity are not willed, then that entity has no control over it's actions... which means that it is not the absolute cause of those actions.

The thing about "absolute will" is that only one entity can have it. Why? Because two+ entities cannot have absolute will within existence as a singular whole. For example, me and you (as separate entities) cannot both have absolute will since having absolute will equates to absolute authority... and only one being can possess absolute authority.

Also, I don't think you mean "finite entity", I think you mean "singular entity" because time can pass for a watch if it is the only thing in the universe. The hands go tick tick tick.

What?? Have you found Z's stash of beer?

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
A finite entity quite clearly can change things external to itself without being the absolute-cause of those changes.

"Quite clearly"? Howso?
Have you paid no attention to these discussions?
Firstly, there is no evidence or reason to support the actual existence of a finite entity, since all knowledge of finite entities resides from and within boundless awareness.
That reasoning alone kinda demolishes your "quite clearly" assertion.
Secondly, I have produced a whole bunch of reasoning to show why the 4th domino possesses zero causal influence, but is in fact just a rung on the effectual ladder.
... You are of the mindset that the word 'produced' (4th word in my previous sentence) has somehow caused the word 'a' (5th word) to exist. But even you must understand that the word 'produced' is not a causal agent.

Again, why this insistance on absolutes?

Are you in the wrong discussion? You are aware, I hope, that we are discussing whether change can occur without the existence of an absolute cause?

I can claim to be the cause of a change without being an absolute-cause of that change. I can say, "I saved a snail from being crushed by lifegazer" without being the absolute cause of his salvation.

[Unintelligent] claims hold no water in a philosophical discussion.

I can be the cumulative effect-cause of his salvation.

You don't just need to up a gear Z - you need to get in the car.

[Z]

Given your rather predictable, inane response, I can tell you lack even the intelligence required to make this an amusing discussion.

Obviously, your first reaction is to scream, "But you can't prove anything exists beyond your awareness of it!" I'm actually surprised it took you this long to get there. However, having done so, you remove the entire impetus of the question (is that the right word?), since neither causal agents nor effects can be proven to exist beyond your so-called 'awareness' of them - meaning the discussion is utterly nullified. After all, what relationship can you discuss between cause and effect unless you first accept that causes and effects exist beyond singularity? Within singularity, causes and effects cannot exist - singularities are, by definition, formless, featureless, and changeless.

Further, it's quite clear from your discussions with others that you agree that every causal agent works in combination with other causal agents to produce effects. This in no way requires there to be any absolute causal agent, only causal agents working in combination ad-infinitum. Unless you're asking what started all these causal-agent-effects - in which case, your answer would be 'God'; however, at this point, the clear question is, what causes God? And with what other causal agent does God accomplish anything?

You also completely mis-interpret everything I've said to you. It is you, I suspect, who are not paying attention. The fourth domino is not, in itself, an absolute causal agent, but a causal agent nonetheless. When combined with the impact from the falling third domino, Gravity, and the precise position and location of the fifth domino, the fourth domino becomes one of several causal agents in the falling of the fifth domino. However, the question you appear to be asking is, what made these dominoes start falling in the first place? What made domino number one react to gravity? Whatever it was, there was at least two causal agents - Gravity and whatever caused the first domino to fall - as well as the position and location of the second domino. Ergo - causation through combination of causal agents, which is generally the case throughout the universe.

As far as I know, even particle decay is a system in which multiple causal agents are present and undergoing some manner of reaction, so even the quantum particles example works as I explain.

Your usual battle cry of, 'But it doesn't necessarily exist beyond awareness!!!' is irrelevant to the discussion, since you are specifically using examples within the reality which may or may not exist only within our awareness. You are taking a subset of that reality which we sense, as an example to support your cause; in which case, all information relevant to that reality is relevant to the example. So we can safely discard the issue of whether the domino exists at all, beyond awareness.

Further, even if all of reality exists only within the awareness of God, we have one of two possibilities: that everything works as we have experienced it to, and God requires something external (or internal, as a component thereof) to be a causal agent with; or the absolute nature of reality is nothing like what we sense, in which case, no reasonable or logical discussion on the subject is possible or even warranted.

And if there is something internal to God with which God is a causal agent, then God cannot be a singularity. God can be unique, but composed of innumerable components; in which case, the entire reality as we sense it may well exist beyond ourselves and within the body of God.

Sadly, Dear Reader, I have a feeling lifegazer lacks the intelligence or attention span to comprehend what is being said here. He seems stuck on the idea that either there is an absolute causal agent, or no change can exist, period. He is incapable of understanding that change can certainly exist without that change having a singular absolute cause. I can only hope those of you reading this thread are able to grasp these concepts with greater clarity and understanding than our Jester here.

Really, lg, I think I'll have to pass getting into the car, when the driver (you) are drunk, stoned, and driving off a cliff, because (after all) the cliff isn't really there. Besides - I'm already at the destination. Where are you?

[Atlas]

Originally posted by lifegazer
... Please note that an entity cannot be an absolute cause unless it has absolute will over it's actions, since if the actions of an entity are not willed, then that entity has no control over it's actions... which means that it is not the absolute cause of those actions.

The thing about "absolute will" is that only one entity can have it. Why? Because two+ entities cannot have absolute will within existence as a singular whole. For example, me and you (as separate entities) cannot both have absolute will since having absolute will equates to absolute authority... and only one being can possess absolute authority. Lg, you believe that we all have a will, a free will, but we do not have an absolute free will. You argue for change in the attitude of those you believe can choose a path leading away from Armageddon.

The absolute cause has absolute will. But either we have will and are causal agents or we cause nothing and have no will - or else your term absolute means something one time and something else the next.

If we are causal agents with "free will" then your term absolute needs clarification. It is either doing it all and we cannot think or experience or change anything about the world and ourselves, in which case you are a fool for trying to persuade us, or you are trying to persuade entities who do think and reason and change and who are causal agents of changes in themselves and their world.

Please clarify.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Atlas
Lg, you believe that we all have a will, a free will, but we do not have an absolute free will.

No, that's not right.
... My philosophy is that we have absolute free will. In fact, it's impossible to have free will unless it is 'absolute'.
However, divine identity has been lost to a belief in being human. As humans, we believe we are subjects or slaves to [perceived] existence. We believe that we are serfs to [supposedly] external forces. We believe we are mortal. We believe we must conform to establishment viewpoints and governmental laws. In short, our will is in bondage and cannot exercise it's authority until we escape these bonds.

The absolute cause has absolute will. But either we have will and are causal agents or we cause nothing and have no will - or else your term absolute means something one time and something else the next.

We are God perceiving/believing itself to be 'we'. My philosophy does not negate your identity - it merely awakens you to the truth of what you are.

If we are causal agents with "free will" then your term absolute needs clarification.

If one believes that one is subject to the universe, then in effect one's will has ordained that one should be subject to the universe.
My opinion is akin to this:

7 Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. 8 For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting. (Galatians 6, KJV)

[H'ethetheth]

Originally posted by lifegazer
... It's impossible to be the absolute-cause of an event outside of yourself. For example, if I stand on a snail on my patio and crush it, I cannot claim to be the absolute-cause of that snail's demise because:
(1) I cannot crush snails unless the environment I exist within creates snails.
(2) I cannot crush snails unless I can find one. I.e., I cannot will a snail to come to my patio.

[...]

If all finite-entities are absolute-effects, then no finite entity is responsible for change. Hence, since change exists (even as perceived), then logic dictates that an absolute-cause must exist.

So, any sensible responses to this?
Hmm, I see I've missed a lot.
What bothers me about the above is that you disregard uncaused events again. For the sake of argument, and because science is not complete, I will treat uncaused QM- events as a possibility. And I see no reason why you should discard this as a possibility beforehand, especially in this discussion.
This leaves us with basically two kinds of universe. The deterministic and the random universe.
In the former case, the absolute and really only cause of you crushing a snail, or anything else for that matter, is indeed that which caused the universe. However, in the random universe, the cause of your crushing the snail is the cause of the universe plus the complete accumulation of 15 billion years of uncaused events and their effects, throughout the universe.
You discard this without even giving it thought. I don't see why. Nor do I see where God enters the picture.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by H'ethetheth
What bothers me about the above is that you disregard uncaused events again. For the sake of argument, and because science is not complete, I will treat uncaused QM- events as a possibility.

What uncaused events are you refering to?
The only events we know about are the events that occur within our awareness, via the sensations... and all sensations have a cause.
The whole "uncaused events" idea is hogwash, promoted by fools who think they are observing phenomena outside of their own being/awareness. This is in fact impossible to do... and as I have said, we are observing events within our being/awareness which all have a cause: whatever it is that we, essentially, are.

Furthermore, even if one just foolishly ignores the above and continues to assume in the existence of a world external to one's being/awareness, there is no logical justification for stating that an event with no observable cause is an acausal event.

[H'ethetheth]

Originally posted by lifegazer
What uncaused events are you refering to?
The only events we know about are the events that occur within our awareness, via the sensations... and all sensations have a cause.
The whole "uncaused events" idea is hogwash, promoted by fools who think they are observing phenomena outside of their own being/awareness. This is in fact impossible to do... and as I have said, we are observing events within our being/awareness which all have a cause: whatever it is that we, essentially, are. How can you possibly be sure that your sensations have a cause. Why could they not be random 'images' popping up in your mind? If you know, provide sound logical proof.

Furthermore, even if one just foolishly ignores the above and continues to assume in the existence of a world external to one's being/awareness, there is no logical justification for stating that an event with no observable cause is an acausal event.
I agree somewhat with this, however as I'm trying to tell you, there is also no justification in dismissing the possibility beforehand. Causation is the way things seem to work in the universe, but it's just a man made label for certain chains of events. Who are we to say that otherwise is necessarily impossible?

And finally of course, this world external to our minds you harp on about; You still haven't answered my age old question(s).
How is the observable universe not external to me, H'ethetheth? How is it not spatial? How can I verify that the universe is as you say it is? How can I verify that the matrix isn't true?
How do you know - in a logically sound way - that you, lifegazer, are not who you think you are?
Which is it that Descartes should have said, were he a wise man?
"I think, therefore I am God"?
"I think, therefore I may not be who I think I am"?
"I think, therefore I couldn't possibly be me"?

Edited for clarification, hopefully...and again for other issues

[Z]

Simply put, the world is only logically consistent if it exists beyond our sensations of it. If we desire to apply reason and logic to any facet of reality - including philosophical discussions of the nature of our reality - we can only do so if the reality we perceive is external to ourselves; any attempt to do otherwise either assumes solipsism, or denies the proper uses of logic and reason.

lifegazer has already demonstrated he has no ability in logic and reason, so I can understand why he harps on a non-external reality while, at the same time, trying to apply systems from that reality in defense of his arguments.

Oddly, most of us aren't claiming the existence of non-caused events, only of no absolute causes. Yet he's harping on the necessity of causation? Odd. Maybe he's finally losing his last grip, after all.

[H'ethetheth]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
...most of us aren't claiming the existence of non-caused events, only of no absolute causes...
Hold on, I'm a bit confused about this.
If there are no absolute causes and everything has a cause, as in the above quote, what caused stuff in the first place?
I'm not sure if it is possible to argue against absolute causes (as I understand them), and not for uncaused events, but you might of course persuade me or correct my understanding of what everybody means by "absolute cause".

[Z]

Well, as lifegazer defines it, an absolute cause is one that must be singular - a cause which is also the only existing thing, because otherwise it might not be absolute, after all. I'd say it's apparent that all effects are the result of a number of causes, even if only two; that every effect in the universe has been caused by two or more 'forces' - energy, matter, whatever - interacting to create an effect. In fact, name any uncaused event which we understand fully and can claim, with absolute correctness, that it has no cause? I'd say that those things we currently call 'uncaused events' are not understood sufficiently for us to know their causal agents, as such.

As to 'absolute causes', I'm merely suggesting that ages-old argument, 'Who is God's creator'? There is no evidence of what the state of causation was in the distant past; we cannot prove (or disprove) that there was or was not an acausal causation for reality; yet our observations and (admittedly) limited understanding of our universe suggests that there are no acausal agents. A body at rest remains at rest unless acted upon by an outside force, for example.

Your question, "what caused stuff in the first place?" is, to me, the search for God. Ultimately, there may be no cause. Ultimately, the search for the first cause may be futile. For all we know, there have been an infinite number of interacting agents throughout all of time, or beyond what we understand as 'time', all being, in combination, causes of other things forever. And the only other answer is that there has to be an uncaused causal agent - or that there had to have been, at some point, some uncaused causal agent. Even then, even if you can pinpoint at last the original cause of all-that-is, you still can ask, what caused the original cause?

The ultimate and final unknowable mystery of our reality is ultimate causation. All I'm saying is, we can only logically argue about things which are within our reality, and absolute causes do not exist within our reality. If we seek to argue for something which does not exist within our reality, we are no longer constrained by logic, but we also have no means by which to guide the path of our arguments. Similarly, any argument for God as supplied by lifegazer is free of the constraints of logic and reason, and are no more or less valid than similarly stated arguments about unicorns, vomiting Gods, giant turtles and elephant quartets. Likewise, given the form of his arguments, absolute causes.

All events within our awareness are the results of multiple causes. lifegazer seems to ignore this evidence, and instead desires that all events are directly and solely the result of singular causes. But the world does not work this way; an event may be caused by a plurality of forces/forms. In fact, events are almost always (I still hesitate to use the term 'always', since man doesn't know everything) caused by more than one force/form interacting. Without plurality, change is impossible. So lifegazer's absolute singularity would be incapable of doing anything, whatsoever.

Sorry if that doesn't clear up my position... I'm really groggy today.

[H'ethetheth]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
...Sorry if that doesn't clear up my position... I'm really groggy today.

It does,
I don't know enough about QM to know if it is reasonable to suspect a yet unobserved cause, and I'm not sure if our limited understanding of the world warrants the conclusion that uncaused events do not exist, but again the limits to my knowledge of the limited knowledge of the universe limit my ability to say anything definite about these matters, so I found it reasonable to not dismiss the possibility of uncaused events, especially in lifegazer's case where the universe is exactly not what it seems to be.

Other than that, I agree.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by H'ethetheth
How can you possibly be sure that your sensations have a cause. Why could they not be random 'images' popping up in your mind? If you know, provide sound logical proof.

The sensations are orchestrated to provide awareness of an ordered universe full of "things". Moreover, each sensation - when you have one - relates to a specific thing or event. For example, I might sense light that relates to a dog... and I might hear the sound of the dog barking. So, the sensations are synchronised, as well as ordered. They each - in their own unique way - try to portray the same reality into your awareness.

If it were true that sensations had no cause, then there would be no synchronicity of those senses and no order [of things] could be perceived from them.

Given the perpetual consistency of this order & synchronicty and given the fact that people (different perceptions of being) communicate and interact because of this consistency, order & synchronicity, logic must accept that these sensations have been introduced into awareness by a causal-agent with the ability to orchestrate thus.

"Furthermore, even if one just foolishly ignores the above and continues to assume in the existence of a world external to one's being/awareness, there is no logical justification for stating that an event with no observable cause is an acausal event."

I agree somewhat with this, however as I'm trying to tell you, there is also no justification in dismissing the possibility beforehand.

Of course there is [logical] justification in dismissing the possibility of something appearing from nothing. There is certainly no logical justification in accepting that things can appear from nothing.
... 'Acausality' is a concept that can only apply to something that has always existed.

Causation is the way things seem to work in the universe, but it's just a man made label for certain chains of events. Who are we to say that otherwise is necessarily impossible?

So, in order to evade my conclusions, you are going to cling to the notion that things can come into being from nothing... despite the fact that there is zero evidence for this (sensations have a cause and everything we observe is a sensed-thing) and despite the fact that it is contrary to reason?

And finally of course, this world external to our minds you harp on about; You still haven't answered my age old question(s).

I may answer them in the near future. I know for a fact that if I answer your questions now, that what I've written about causality will again be derailed and forgotten about.
I will answer one thing though:-

Which is it that Descartes should have said, were he a wise man?

Whatever it is that I am is thinking, therefore I am.

It should be noted that 'Descartes' was not the thinker, but a thought within that thinker. I.e., Descartes was right to say "I think, therefore I am.", but never addressed the identity of that thinker.

[Z]

Now, see, most of that post was reasonable, with the only obvious flaw being logic must accept that these sensations have been introduced into awareness by a causal-agent with the ability to orchestrate thus.

First, 'logic' is not an entity, and doesn't need to accept anything. But that's a nitpick - I know what you mean.

Second, sensations have been introduced into awareness by a multitude of causal agents. There is no orchestration involved, only a logical and consistent series of physical laws and interactions between matter and energy which allow sensations to be brought, through known means, from the media through which different wave-particle forms travel, via the organs of sensation, which in turn react in such a way as to form neural signals which bring awareness of those reactions into that phenomenon which we call 'consciousness'. In other words, observation, logic, and science fully describe the causal-agents (plural) which introduce sensations into awareness.

Other than that one major faux pas, this wasn't a half-bad post, lg.

[H'ethetheth]

Originally posted by lifegazer
The sensations are orchestrated to provide awareness of an ordered universe full of "things". Moreover, each sensation - when you have one - relates to a specific thing or event. For example, I might sense light that relates to a dog... and I might hear the sound of the dog barking. So, the sensations are synchronised, as well as ordered. They each - in their own unique way - try to portray the same reality into your awareness.

If it were true that sensations had no cause, then there would be no synchronicity of those senses and no order [of things] could be perceived from them.
On the level of this discussion this is simply not a logically sound assumption. You just can't believe that it isn't coincidence in stead of order, but arguments from incredulity hold no water as you say. There's just no way of knowing whether seemingly ordered sensations are not actually ordered but accidental.
Given the perpetual consistency of this order & synchronicty and given the fact that people (different perceptions of being) communicate and interact because of this consistency, order & synchronicity, logic must accept that these sensations have been introduced into awareness by a causal-agent with the ability to orchestrate thus.
More of the same. You can't believe there isn't some kind of orchestration, so there must be. Not to forget that you induce from past experience that it's consistent and perpetually so, but induction isn't logically valid. You probably know the example about the white swans.
In other words, what you claim is possibly the truth, but not definitely. And then one must admit there are other cosmologies that are supported by evidence.

Of course there is [logical] justification in dismissing the possibility of something appearing from nothing. There is certainly no logical justification in accepting that things can appear from nothing.
... 'Acausality' is a concept that can only apply to something that has always existed.
I agree that in the universe we observe something probably cannot come from nothing. But the QM events that physicists can tell us more about will surely be events in which no energy is created or destroyed. That doesn't mean they don't change anything. Meaning that the universe would have a cause but as it is now would be the result of both caused and uncaused events.

So, in order to evade my conclusions, you are going to cling to the notion that things can come into being from nothing... despite the fact that there is zero evidence for this (sensations have a cause and everything we observe is a sensed-thing) and despite the fact that it is contrary to reason?

Firstly, you're one to speak of evidence! Again, this discussion has nothing to do with evidence. Evidence is what points to external reality and an expanding, cold, scary and meaningless universe. We're discussing proof here. You claim to know the ultimate truth, and 'support' it using arguments of incredulity and inductive logic.:nope:
Secondly, it is not contrary to reason, it is contrary to evidence that something can come from nothing. But as I've said before, this is part of our observations, so we cannot fundamentally trust it as truth, something you of all people should appreciate.

I may answer them in the near future. I know for a fact that if I answer your questions now, that what I've written about causality will again be derailed and forgotten about.
Agreed, I will be reminding you regularly...or shall I start a new thread?

Whatever it is that I am is thinking, therefore I am.

It should be noted that 'Descartes' was not the thinker, but a thought within that thinker. I.e., Descartes was right to say "I think, therefore I am.", but never addressed the identity of that thinker.
Yes he defined the thinker as himself, by lack of any indication of it being anything else.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by H'ethetheth
On the level of this discussion this is simply not a logically sound assumption. You just can't believe that it isn't coincidence in stead of order, but arguments from incredulity hold no water as you say. There's just no way of knowing whether seemingly ordered sensations are not actually ordered but accidental.

I suppose, technically, that you are correct. Therefore, I shall provide another answer:-
The sensations must have a cause because if they didn't I could not affect the quality & content of their imposition upon my awareness. Yet, I can willfully affect whether I have sensations and the quality of those sensations. For example, I can close my eyes and sense no more light. So, if the inner-sensation of light had no cause - no orchestrating creative-agent, as it were - then the inner-sensation of light would not be affected by my actions.
... If there was no reason (no cause) for the imposition of coloured-light upon/within my awareness, for example, then there should be nothing I could do to affect the quality or content of that inner-sensation. Certainly, if there is no causal-agent for that light, then the light itself cannot know that I don't want to be aware of it anymore.
If internal sensations are to be considered as acausal events, which themselves have no rhyme or reason for being within my awareness, then I could not willfully act to affect/change them to suit myself.
I could expand upon this some more if you wish, but I'm hoping this will suffice to convince you.

I agree that in the universe we observe something probably cannot come from nothing.

No "probably" about it. What you observe is within/upon your awareness - and everything there does have a cause.

But the QM events that physicists can tell us more about will surely be events in which no energy is created or destroyed. That doesn't mean they don't change anything. Meaning that the universe would have a cause but as it is now would be the result of both caused and uncaused events.

I don't understand this. You're not clear enough.
However, as I've said on many occasions, physicists can only tell us about observed effects (internal effects) - and observed effects all have a cause. The word 'acausal' cannot be applied to ANY observable phenomena. The word 'acausal' needs to be retracted from the physicists' dictionary. It was a philosophical oversight (the knowledge that we are observing internal phenomena) which was responsible for it's introduction into that dictionary, as it were.

Evidence is what points to external reality and an expanding, cold, scary and meaningless universe.

The order we comprehend is of the universe existing within our awareness - an internal 'reality'. Whether the universe is expanding (even as perceived) is arguable. Whether it is cold and scary is irrelevant to this discussion. And whether it is meaningless is certainly just the personal opinion of somebody who refuses to accept the existence of a God.
In short, no philosophical merit to your statement whatsoever.

Secondly, it is not contrary to reason, it is contrary to evidence that something can come from nothing.

Rubbish. Using reason alone:
'Acausal' means to be without cause or dependency, for one's own existence. Yet if reason examines this, then something that came into existence from nothing would also have to exist in nothing. Why? Because if this ~something~ is dependent upon the existence of space & time for it to have existence as a spacetime entity, then it is not truly acausal.
Furthermore, it is completely irrational to say that a finite entity can exist amongst nothing so that 'nothing' envelops it's outer surface. Therefore, a finite entity cannot come into existence from nothing and into nothing. Certainly, a real finite entity with a real outer-surface or boundary would have to be embraced by something, since 'nothing' cannot have extension around that entity.
Hence, no finite entity can be labelled as acausal.

But as I've said before, this is part of our observations, so we cannot fundamentally trust it as truth, something you of all people should appreciate.

Philosophy is not restricted by observation. That is why philosophy is enabled to discuss concepts such as God, timelessness, infinity, spacelessness, nothing, eternity, etc., as well as 'acausality'.

Agreed, I will be reminding you regularly...or shall I start a new thread?

No thanks. I'm too busy to seriously do more than one thread at a time these days. But if you really want me to answer those questions, I will do so. Remind me on Tuesday because I have a couple of days off mid-week.

[Z]

Congrats on having time off next week! As a parent of 6, I get absolutely no time off - unless you count nap-times, or whenever the wife is home...

Anyway, I just want to address a single statement you made:

Philosophy is not restricted by observation. That is why philosophy is enabled to discuss concepts such as God, timelessness, infinity, spacelessness, nothing, eternity, etc., as well as 'acausality'.

This also enables philosophy to discuss concepts such as faeries, Gods, dwarves, invisible pink unicorns, goblins, honest lawyers, intelligent internet fora posters, etc. as well as 'lifegazer'.

:D

However, through observation, we have a means of separating reasonable discussion from empty or frivolous discussion.

Question, lifegazer - since you, for once, appear to be in a fairly reasonable mood - Is philosophy restricted by logic and reason? Or, should I say, is it constrained to logic such as we have awareness of??

As to this concept of 'acausal' being removed from dictionaries (physicists, anyway)... if (and only if) they can observe an event which is ABSOLUTELY acausal in nature, which I cannot even begin to imagine, then they have the right to use such terms. However, I'm not personally aware that physicists are running around spouting off about acausal events. And, as to this forum, the first one to mention the possibility of acausality was you. Just curious as to why this concept offends you so - it's like saying Biologists ought to remove those darned unicorns from their textbooks.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
Second, sensations have been introduced into awareness by a multitude of causal agents.

Back to forcing assertions upon us and claiming them to have philosophical merit, I see.

In other words, observation, logic, and science fully describe the causal-agents (plural) which introduce sensations into awareness.

A complete and utter lie.
You are aware, I hope, that the inner sensation of something is a completely different phenomenon to the [supposed] occurance of a corresponding external phenomenon?
... For example, sounds only happen inside awareness. Beyond that - that is if we assume the existence of "a beyond" - there are no sounds. There is just, supposedly, the travelling-vibration of atoms which vibrate something in your ear, which then informs your brain that the air outside is vibrating vigorously. Hence, 'sounds' only exist within awareness - outside, they do not. Likewise for any & every sensation you care to mention. Thus, different phenomenon: internal & external.

Whatever it is that you are must, alone, create it's own sensations and experience them internally to itself. "Vibrations through air" don't do anything to create the inner-experience of sounds. Only whatever it is that you are can do that.
Hence whatever it is that you are is the sole originator of it's own sensations... and those experiences occur internally to itself.
These are the exact criteria I explained earlier, when discussing absolute causes. I said that it was impossible to be the absolute cause of an event externally to oneself and I said an entity had to be the sole origin of that event to be an absolute-cause.
... The new creation of "a sensation" within and by whatever it is that you are, mirrors the fact that whatever it is that you are is an absolute cause.
Behold, your God is whatever it is that you are.

[Z]

Originally posted by lifegazer
A complete and utter lie.

Prove it.

You are aware, I hope, that the inner sensation of something is a completely different phenomenon to the [supposed] occurance of a corresponding external phenomenon?

Of course - just the way a letter on paper is completely different from the sound that it represents. Yet the letter on paper doesn't deny the existence of that sound.

... For example, sounds only happen inside awareness.

Define 'Sound' - as near as I can tell, the proper definition of 'sound' is the vibration of air molecules.

Beyond that - that is if we assume the existence of "a beyond" - there are no sounds. There is just, supposedly, the travelling-vibration of atoms which vibrate something in your ear, which then informs your brain that the air outside is vibrating vigorously. Hence, 'sounds' only exist within awareness - outside, they do not. Likewise for any & every sensation you care to mention. Thus, different phenomenon: internal & external.

Or, more precisely, representational and actual.

Whatever it is that you are must, alone, create it's own sensations and experience them internally to itself.

Yes, the mechanisms of sensory organs are responsible for producing sensations in response to stimuli.

"Vibrations through air" don't do anything to create the inner-experience of sounds. Only whatever it is that you are can do that.

Incorrect - Without 'vibrations through air' to act upon the hearing mechanism, there is no reason for your nervous system to produce 'sounds'. And you cannot make your own signals for sound without employing a physical mechanism which, in turn, vibrates the air and brings these vibrations back to your mechanism of hearing.

Hence whatever it is that you are is the sole originator of it's own sensations... and those experiences occur internally to itself.

When you say 'sole originator' you make it sound as if sensations cannot be caused by the combination of external stimulus, sensory apparatus, and nervous system. You are not, in fact, the sole originator of your sensations - your environment, the presense (or absence) of sensory apparatus, and of course your nervous system all work in concert to provide you the awareness of sensations.

These are the exact criteria I explained earlier, when discussing absolute causes. I said that it was impossible to be the absolute cause of an event externally to oneself and I said an entity had to be the sole origin of that event to be an absolute-cause.

Which proves, once again, that no absolute-causes can exist.

... The new creation of "a sensation" within and by whatever it is that you are, mirrors the fact that whatever it is that you are is an absolute cause.

Incorrect, since you cannot create 'sensations' yourself, without resorting to external physical apparatus. Can you cause yourself to have the sensation of ultra-violet light? Of sounds below the range of human hearing? Can you grasp a flaming hot piece of metal and deny yourself the sensations of pain, fear, panic? Well, maybe fear and panic - depends on your personal level of self-control. But it is quite clear that sensations are dependent upon external experiences - stimuli - and that you cannot generate sensations without them, nor without the appropriate sensory apparatus. This is where your theory really starts to deteriorate.

Behold, your God is whatever it is that you are.

And this statement doesn't logically follow, no matter which of your empty assertions we accept as true.

Up the game, lg - you're slipping again.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
Question, lifegazer - since you, for once, appear to be in a fairly reasonable mood - Is philosophy restricted by logic and reason? Or, should I say, is it constrained to logic such as we have awareness of??

Reason is not subject/slave to observation/sensation alone. That is why reason is capable of unveiling the fact that what we are observing/sensing is within the reality that is whatever it is that we are - which is unobservable. After all, you cannot observe/sense whatever it is that you are inside whatever it is that you are that is doing the sensing = you cannot observe/sense the sensER = logic/reason is not a slave to thinking about things that can only be sensed.

As to this concept of 'acausal' being removed from dictionaries (physicists, anyway)... if (and only if) they can observe an event which is ABSOLUTELY acausal in nature, which I cannot even begin to imagine, then they have the right to use such terms.

It's impossible!!! to observe (sense) acausality. All sensations have a cause means that acausality cannot be sensed.

However, I'm not personally aware that physicists are running around spouting off about acausal events. And, as to this forum, the first one to mention the possibility of acausality was you.

Nonsense. Do some research. You can even observe some people in this thread introducing the concept of acausality as a means to evading my philosophical conclusions.

Just curious as to why this concept offends you so - it's like saying Biologists ought to remove those darned unicorns from their textbooks.
It should be removed because it is incorrect and should not be taught as a fact, thus corrupting the minds of our scholars and facilitating the abuse of reason in philosophical discussions such as this.

[Z]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Reason is not subject/slave to observation/sensation alone. That is why reason is capable of unveiling the fact that what we are observing/sensing is within the reality that is whatever it is that we are - which is unobservable. After all, you cannot observe/sense whatever it is that you are inside whatever it is that you are that is doing the sensing = you cannot observe/sense the sensER = logic/reason is not a slave to thinking about things that can only be sensed.

While that's fascinating and all, that's not what I asked, now is it? Are you avoiding my question for a reason, or are you just dense?

Here, let me repost it for you:

Question, lifegazer - since you, for once, appear to be in a fairly reasonable mood - Is philosophy restricted by logic and reason? Or, should I say, is it constrained to logic such as we have awareness of??

It's impossible!!! to observe (sense) acausality. All sensations have a cause means that acausality cannot be sensed.

Agreed - but I'm not discussing sensations. I'm discussing events, which in turn cause (in combination with other factors) the appropriate reactions to cause sensations. It would be completely possible to observe an event which was without cause itself, as that event in turn caused sensation to occur. Since the event had no cause, there would be nothing to produce sensation from such a cause - hence, we could observe an acausal event easily. However, we may very well not know it was acausal, only that the cause was unknown or unclear to us as of yet. We would only know it was an acausal event if we could fully and absolutely understand the nature of the universe at all levels - which may be impossible to do. So while we may not KNOW we were observing an acausal event, we may very well observe them.

However, I still haven't heard of anyone observing an acausal event.

Nonsense. Do some research. You can even observe some people in this thread introducing the concept of acausality as a means to evading my philosophical conclusions.

That I have seen - but what research I can find deals with theoretical acausal events - not actual ones. Or mathematical models which introduce acausality as a simplification. As near as I can tell, no scientist of any worth or credential truly claims to have observed an acausal event. They merely say the cause is, as yet, unknown.

It should be removed because it is incorrect and should not be taught as a fact, thus corrupting the minds of our scholars and facilitating the abuse of reason in philosophical discussions such as this.

How can you prove it to be incorrect? Because you say so?? You aren't exactly the most intelligent person, and your track record thus far makes it very hard for anyone to trust any assertion you make concerning science, logic, or reason. After all, if it were up to you, the expression 'infinite space' would also have to be removed from their dictionary, and we all know how goofy THAT argument turned out to be!

Anyway, I agree that acausal events don't exist, and as such, that no acausal agents can exist, either - including whatever it is that you are.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
So while we may not KNOW we were observing an acausal event, we may very well observe them.

I've explained - in my previous post to H - why a finite entity cannot exist within something and be acausal. So no, there cannot be any finite entities "out there" that are acausal.

Even the notion that "we do not know" means that acausality should be scrapped from being taught as a fact.

However, I still haven't heard of anyone observing an acausal event.

Whatever you observe has a cause. You cannot observe any events beyond those that occur within your awareness. If somebody tells you that they are observing an acausal event, call them a liar or stupid. It can NEVER be done.

[Aussie Thinker]

Lifegazer,

It is a tribute to you that the worthy folk here have even deemed to keep arguing with you. (Either that or we are so bored for some sort of argument that we stoop to responding to you)

You point blank REFUSE to acknowledge their arguments and blindly continue to bluster out your own misguided logic which has been arrived at by starting with the answer and working backwards.

You have been told some very salient points here which make a joke of your argument.

1. Un caused things happen today so it is possible the universe was “uncaused�

2. If it was caused nothing shows it had to be caused by a “God�

3. Every other thing in the universe has been shown to have a NATURAL cause so it is logical to presume universe would have been caused by natural means

4. If the universe WAS caused by a God it is EXTREMELY unlikely that God would in any way resemble the ridiculous contradictory childish primitive man made God that you adhere to.

In summary your conclusion that the universe HAD to be caused is a possibility but only one of many possibilities which have been raised here but completely unheeded by you.

Your conclusion that the cause was an intelligent “God� is also a possibility but on an even lesser probability that your first conclusion.

Your conclusion that the intelligent “God� is the inane Christian version is completely IMPROBABLE and borders on the ridiculous.

[Z]

You are adding a filter which we, by definition, both accept and exclude from discussion. Of course you can observe an acausal event - if they were possible - because the very definition of 'observe' takes into account the sensory process. You can observe a waterfall without having to have a cascade of water splashing through you. The waterfall does not exist within you, but your sensations - your representational signals - of the waterfall do exist within you. You observe the waterfall - through your sensations of light and sound, and the translation of said sensations into forms you comprehend as 'waterfall'.

Your insistance that you cannot observe an acausal event is illogical. You cannot observe an acausal sensation, however - this much is true. All sensations are caused sensations. The cause of those sensations may, themselves, be acausal. So it is possible - if such things exist as acausal events - to observe an acausal event. Just not an acausal sensation.

As such - since you cannot have an acausal sensation, all sensations must be caused - and sinse absolute causes are not possible, all sensations must be the product of two or more systems interacting and reacting. Hence - singularity is impossible for the sensor, and that which 'has sensations' must by logic be separate from at least one causal agent for that sensation. This, then, logically demonstrates more flaws in your monist theorem, all based upon the logic that all sensations must be caused.

[Z]

Would someone please tell me what 'uncaused events' have been observed in the universe? I missed that class, apparently...

And, AT, point 3 and point 1 contradict each other - please clarify.

[Aussie Thinker]

Zay,

Good point..

I refer to Upchurch’s post earl in this discussion

Hawking Radiation, for example, has at least two distinct causes: First is the cause(s) of the black hole. Second is the acausal quantum fluctuation that creates the virtual particle pair.

Hawking Radiation, thus, has no singular, or absolute, cause.

I should have said unknown, unexplained or contradictory causes.

This is also in line with the contradiction between 1 & 3. 3 Refers to all KNOWN or EXPLAINED causes being natural.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Aussie Thinker
Lifegazer,

It is a tribute to you that the worthy folk here have even deemed to keep arguing with you. (Either that or we are so bored for some sort of argument that we stoop to responding to you)

The privilege is all yours.

1. Un caused things happen today so it is possible the universe was “uncaused�

As I explained to Z, anybody who claims to have observed an acausal event is either a liar or stupid. Probably both. In future, you should read the thread if you want to participate.

2. If it was caused nothing shows it had to be caused by a “God�

My logic in this thread explains why there has to be an absolute cause = God. If you want to refute that logic, then address it.

3. Every other thing in the universe has been shown to have a NATURAL cause so it is logical to presume universe would have been caused by natural means

Everything in the universe is merely a rung on an effectual ladder. Read my posts about dominoes and crushed-snails for explanation. There are no finite causal agents.

4. If the universe WAS caused by a God it is EXTREMELY unlikely that God would in any way resemble the ridiculous contradictory childish primitive man made God that you adhere to.

Which God would that be and why would that God be any of the things you define it as?

In summary your conclusion that the universe HAD to be caused is a possibility but only one of many possibilities which have been raised here but completely unheeded by you.

I have explained-away all possibilities. If you have any objections with any of those explanations, you should address them head-on before criticising me.

Your conclusion that the cause was an intelligent “God� is also a possibility but on an even lesser probability that your first conclusion.

Show your math. How did you work-out the probability of there being a God?

Your conclusion that the intelligent “God� is the inane Christian version is completely IMPROBABLE and borders on the ridiculous.
Again, show your math (use of "improbable").
The fact is, cobber, that the Christian interpretation of God is not the same as mine. I am not a Christian.
Why waltz in here, shooting your guns, when you know very little about what has been discussed and are, yourself, unwilling to discuss all the issues which you have raised?
Pointless participation mate. Scram.

[Z]

That was pointlessly rude for someone who cannot manage enough intellect to understand infinity or the difference between sensation and observation, lg. And, besides, you've never 'shown your math' - at least, you've never shown correct logic and reasoning. What right do you have to demand that of others?

[Z]

Originally posted by Aussie Thinker
I should have said unknown, unexplained or contradictory causes.

This is also in line with the contradiction between 1 & 3. 3 Refers to all KNOWN or EXPLAINED causes being natural.

So we're not discussing acausal events, but absolute causes. No 'absolute causes' exist. Good.

And no 'acausal events' exist. Even better.

Thanks!

[Aussie Thinker]

Lifegazer,



Au contraire you should feel incredibly privileged that people here even give you the time of day !

[quote]As I explained to Z, anybody who claims to have observed an acausal event is either a liar or stupid. Probably both. In future, you should read the thread if you want to participate.

Did you ever address Upchurch’s query about Hawking Radiation ?

My logic in this thread explains why there has to be an absolute cause = God. If you want to refute that logic, then address it.

Your “logic� merely states if things had to be caused they had to be caused by a “God�. That is not LOGIC it is just a statement. NOTHING leads from things had to be caused to they had to be caused by a GOD !

Examples of other causes.

1. Completely natural unknown cause.
2. Universe always was
3. Your notion of cause is wrong and things do not have to be caused

Everything in the universe is merely a rung on an effectual ladder. Read my posts about dominoes and crushed-snails for explanation. There are no finite causal agents.

So you THINK.. nothing leads others to the same conclusion.

Which God would that be and why would that God be any of the things you define it as?

The “God� (if it existed) could be anything. It is highly unlikely it would have any interest in us. It may be a moronic mass of unknown energy that “accidentally� created the Universe.. it could have **** us out of its arse like a cow dropping.

I have explained-away all possibilities. If you have any objections with any of those explanations, you should address them head-on before criticising me.

Your explanations ALL reverberate back to ONE thing. YOUR conclusion (while not incorrect) is the ONLY one. It is up to YOU to accept that other peoples conclusions are also not incorrect. Their conclusion also stack up as far more likely and probable than yours.

Show your math. How did you work-out the probability of there being a God?

Well if there are many valid explanations for a cause of the universe and GOD is one of them it becomes a small probability. The God probability also requires a cause for the God itself which leads again to a natural cause.

The fact is, cobber, that the Christian interpretation of God is not the same as mine. I am not a Christian.

The stop using quotes from the Bible.. unless of course your religion is Judaism which has the same ridiculous notion of God as the Christian one.. same thing to me !

Why waltz in here, shooting your guns, when you know very little about what has been discussed and are, yourself, unwilling to discuss all the issues which you have raised?

I was merely pointing out no matter how many times you have been told countless logical explanations for existence without the need for a God you REFUSE to address any of them. You just have your fingers in your ears saying “nyah nyah nayh�.. open them and read what the others are saying. Pay some attention and address their valid explanations !

Pointless participation mate.

Well duh.. any argument with you is pointless.. you don’t argue you just keep STATING the same flawed logic over and over again !

Scram.

Nope !

[H'ethetheth]

Originally posted by lifegazer
I suppose, technically, that you are correct. Therefore, I shall provide another answer:-
The sensations must have a cause because if they didn't I could not affect the quality & content of their imposition upon my awareness. Yet, I can willfully affect whether I have sensations and the quality of those sensations. For example, I can close my eyes and sense no more light. So, if the inner-sensation of light had no cause - no orchestrating creative-agent, as it were - then the inner-sensation of light would not be affected by my actions.
... If there was no reason (no cause) for the imposition of coloured-light upon/within my awareness, for example, then there should be nothing I could do to affect the quality or content of that inner-sensation. Certainly, if there is no causal-agent for that light, then the light itself cannot know that I don't want to be aware of it anymore.
If internal sensations are to be considered as acausal events, which themselves have no rhyme or reason for being within my awareness, then I could not willfully act to affect/change them to suit myself.
I could expand upon this some more if you wish, but I'm hoping this will suffice to convince you. Alas, it is not enough. Far fetched as it may be, we cannot leave any possibility out of consideration at this moment. Can you prove logically, that it is impossible for the 'light to go out' coincidentally everytime you want to blink etc?

I say: Far fetched? Yes.
Farther than what you claim? Yes.
Impossible? No.

No "probably" about it. What you observe is within/upon your awareness - and everything there does have a cause. For the same reason as above: No. Everything appears to need a cause, because that's the way stuff seems to work. But the ultimate reality you try to find may work in any imaginable or unimaginable way, as long as it somehow manages to get the sensations right in your mind, whatever it may be.

I don't understand this. You're not clear enough... Fair enough, I'll drop my arguments concerning uncaused QM events, because clearly neither of us knows enough about them to have a sensible discussion about them.

The order we comprehend is of the universe existing within our awareness - an internal 'reality'. Whether the universe is expanding (even as perceived) is arguable. Whether it is cold and scary is irrelevant to this discussion. And whether it is meaningless is certainly just the personal opinion of somebody who refuses to accept the existence of a God.
In short, no philosophical merit to your statement whatsoever. Yes, order is what we attribute to the observed universe, but we cannot know if such order actually exists. Great! However, that still has nothing to do in this Cartesian discussion. Evidence is out. No more evidence. Evidence is what we cannot trust to point us in the direction of ultimate truth. That's the point I'm trying to get across.

Rubbish. Using reason alone:
'Acausal' means to be without cause or dependency, for one's own existence. Yet if reason examines this, then something that came into existence from nothing would also have to exist in nothing. Why? Because if this ~something~ is dependent upon the existence of space & time for it to have existence as a spacetime entity, then it is not truly acausal.
Furthermore, it is completely irrational to say that a finite entity can exist amongst nothing so that 'nothing' envelops it's outer surface. Therefore, a finite entity cannot come into existence from nothing and into nothing. Certainly, a real finite entity with a real outer-surface or boundary would have to be embraced by something, since 'nothing' cannot have extension around that entity.
Hence, no finite entity can be labelled as acausal. Hmmm, let's see. The first statement is self-contradictory, and doesn't solve the problem. Something that pops into existence didn't exist before, not even in nothing. There is a problem there, but not a logical one, I think. Why should something that doesn't necessarily have to adhere to the laws of physics, not suddenly come to exist? Time denotes just another co-ordinate in space-time, and nobody is baffled to find that some object exists at such and such spatial co-ordinate and not at another. Why not the same in time, logically?
Second, finite 3D entities can exist without having an "outer surface" by being curved in a fourth spatial dimension. Something that has been mentioned to you before.
Lastly, I have no idea how the conclusion follows from the premises.

Philosophy is not restricted by observation. That is why philosophy is enabled to discuss concepts such as God, timelessness, infinity, spacelessness, nothing, eternity, etc., as well as 'acausality'.
Exactly! And in this discussion, any observation except "I think, therefore I am" is irrelevant. All other observation is to be discarded as untrustworthy.
You have devised some mechanism by which our sensations could be explained, and claim it is the only true way. Yet I've presented to you a number of other mechanisms ('old school' solipsism, naturalism, matrix) that you must logically falsify, every single one of them, in order to establish the truth of your own. I can go as far fetched as I want because I don't need evidence.
You keep trying to present evidence for us to find in the observed world, but you don't need to, plus your not being very good at it. The only thing that evidence does is point us (well, scientists) to how the observed universe works. What the truth is is impossible to deduce from this evidence. In fact, it cannot be deduced from observation that there is any truth other than the observed universe. Yet you do this over and over. Stop it.

No thanks. I'm too busy to seriously do more than one thread at a time these days. But if you really want me to answer those questions, I will do so. Remind me on Tuesday because I have a couple of days off mid-week. I would really like you to answer those questions...

and falsify every other mechanism that could possibly account for our sensations. :D

[Z]

Originally posted by lifegazer
I've seen the light. My brain has shrunk and I now see everything the same way as you lot:-

Good - then they cured your water on the brain syndrome?

(1) There's an end to everything. An end to me; an end to you; an end to my (sob) hamster, Buffy; an end to this post (you'll be glad to hear).

All true.

Therefore, we can define any thing/event as an end in it's own right - a definitive product of all things/events that conspired to bring-about that thing/event.

Partially. An ending may also be a beginning. And matter/energy, being neither created nor destroyed, really has no ending - only transitional states of being. However, things/events obviously have endings.

No conspiring, though - products just happen.

(2) There's no absolute-cause of anything. If I hold this view then I have to believe in God. But I've seen the light, so I say screw that. Therefore:-

An absolute cause does not require belief in God. The 'absolute cause' may even have ceased to exist in the process of universal creation.

(a) There are no singular causes... but there are singular events/things. There must be singular things/events or else nothing can exist.

Of course. And singular things/events can also exist in combination/concert.

(b) Singular things exist, but they are the cause of nothing. Singular things cannot be the cause of anything, or else this contradicts the view that there are no singular causes.

Correction: they are, individually, the cause of nothing. However, this does not cause any problem with several singular things reacting to be the cause of other things.

Consider chemistry: a chemical, by itself, is inert; but combine it with another chemical, and things start to happen. A vacuum chamber full of hydrogen gas won't do anything, but combine it with some oxygen and a little electricity, and you can get water out of it.

(c) The universe is comprised of singular things which are the cause of nothing.

Correction: The universe is comprised of singular things which, individually, are the cause of nothing.

(d) The cumulative effect of combining countless singular-things that have zero causal influence is... err... zero causal influence.

Obviously incorrect. Any example from the physical reality we experience proves this to be faulty thinking.

If 1 = 0
then...
A x 1 = 0... where A can be any number you wish to mention, including our good ol' friend 'infinity'.

This appears to be total nonsense - it doesn't even follow from what you were saying.

In summary, there's no absolute-cause of any thing (and everything). I cannot believe this because if I do I'll have to believe in God - but I want to have mates here, so screw that idea.
Therefore, even though no thing can be the cause of anything, and even though an infinite-number of these things cannot cause jack, I still refuse to believe in the existence of an absolute cause.

In summary: You fail to comprehend that singular things in combination are the cause of effects, and that singular/absolute causes are not possible; you also fail to understand that belief in absolute cause does not require belief in God. Further, you fail to understand that what you believe or don't believe isn't going to earn you mates here, but how you apply logic, reason, and critical thinking - three areas you are woefully lacking in.

How did I do? Can I have some mates now?

I'll send Martha over after I'm done with her... :D

I just thought this article needed a revisit, considering I now understand where lifegazer went so wrong.

Simple question, lifegazer: Do you understand that singular things which, themselves, are the cause of nothing, combine with other singular things which are also the cause of nothing, and result in a new effect/thing? That, in combination, singular things cause effects? And, as such, no 'absolute cause' is required??

Somehow, I doubt you'll answer this one.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Of course it makes sense. Thanks for acknowledging it.

What??
The decay of a particle - as perceived, btw - does not alter anything that I said. Are you implying that a particle is the absolute cause of its own decay?


Yes. Unless you have some evidence to show otherwise


Please note that an entity cannot be an absolute cause unless it has absolute will over it's actions, since if the actions of an entity are not willed, then that entity has no control over it's actions... which means that it is not the absolute cause of those actions.


Since when did cause imply or require choice?


What?? Have you found Z's stash of beer?

Its is a serious statement. Because the internal state of a finite entity can change, time can be seen to pass.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer
No, that's not right.
... My philosophy is that we have absolute free will.


But...wait, you said that two individuals cannot both have absolute free will. I am an individual. You are an individual. In fact, thats the example you used. I cannot impose anything on you, so clearly, I do not have absolute free will.


In fact, it's impossible to have free will unless it is 'absolute'.


Why not?


However, divine identity has been lost to a belief in being human. As humans, we believe we are subjects or slaves to [perceived] existence. We believe that we are serfs to [supposedly] external forces. We believe we are mortal. We believe we must conform to establishment viewpoints and governmental laws. In short, our will is in bondage and cannot exercise it's authority until we escape these bonds.


So, what you are saying is, as long as we are confined by external forces, we are confined by external forces.


7 Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. 8 For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting. (Galatians 6, KJV)

So part of god will go to hell, and part of god will get life everlasting...right, that whole singular thing you were talking about

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer
What uncaused events are you refering to?


Events such as particle decay.


The only events we know about are the events that occur within our awareness, via the sensations... and all sensations have a cause.


Says who?


The whole "uncaused events" idea is hogwash, promoted by fools who think they are observing phenomena outside of their own being/awareness. This is in fact impossible to do... and as I have said, we are observing events within our being/awareness which all have a cause: whatever it is that we, essentially, are.


Wait, you explained before how everything we observe is outside of our own awareness. Its in the blueprint. You continue to ignore this time and time again.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer
The sensations are orchestrated to provide awareness of an ordered universe full of "things".


Orchestrated by an entity external to our own awareness (according to your philosophy)


If it were true that sensations had no cause, then there would be no synchronicity of those senses and no order [of things] could be perceived from them.


Random events average out to create synchronicity. Just like random events in a casino average out to create profit for the casino. There is no one in the casino purposely deciding the outcome of games.


Given the perpetual consistency of this order & synchronicty and given the fact that people (different perceptions of being) communicate and interact because of this consistency, order & synchronicity, logic must accept that these sensations have been introduced into awareness by a causal-agent with the ability to orchestrate thus.


Again, take the example of the casino.


Of course there is [logical] justification in dismissing the possibility of something appearing from nothing. There is certainly no logical justification in accepting that things can appear from nothing.


What is the difference between something and some thing?


... 'Acausality' is a concept that can only apply to something that has always existed.


The statement "always existed" implies that a reality with time has "always existed".

[voodoochile]

Originally posted by lifegazer
I'm just trying to deter useless criticism devoid of relevant content. It serves no purpose and I'm tired of it.

I can help...

Stop posting ideas that are devoid of relevant content and you probably won't get responses that are devoid of relevant content...

Just trying to do my part...

BTW, are you actually arguing that because there is no initial cause that nothing else can cause things to happen? Isn't your very premise refuted by your making the post and thus causing others to respond?

What if the initial cause was purely random chance? Quantum theory suggests as much. What does that do to the whole concept of cause?

Why does the cause have to be intelligent in nature and designed on purpose?

Is your life really that important that it has to have something that caused it to be?

Is mine?

Maybe my cat is the reason this universe exists... What the heck, it's as good a reason as any... :p

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by lifegazer
As I explained to Z, anybody who claims to have observed an acausal event is either a liar or stupid. Probably both.Correct me if I'm wrong but your primary rationale for this is that all sensations are caused. I believe that is correct, but that is not what is being said here. No one is explicitly saying that sensations are acausal (at least, not when refering to the quantum stuff). The point being raised is whether or not the causes of those sensations can, themselves, be acausal.

So, it is need not necessarily be a lie nor stupidity to think that the cause of a sensation is acausal. In fact, under your base immaterialist assumptions, it is impossible to know whether or not the cause of a sensation is either causal or acausal.

That being said, I should point out that while I believe all sensations have causes, given your set of assumptions, there is no way to show that they do. Sensations may very well be acausal themselves, for all we know, and the world would appear entirely the same to us.

And ultimately, this is why I tend to reject pure immaterialism. In the end it really comes down to being a "can know nothing" philosophy, which is generally useless outside of a purly academic realm of thought.
My logic in this thread explains why there has to be an absolute cause = God. If you want to refute that logic, then address it.I can refute it in a number of fashions. First, it is inconsistant with your base assumptions that perception can tell us nothing about reality since the very idea of cause and effect is a material world concept and not necessarily applicable to an immaterialist philosophy. If you are going to justify the existance of an absoulute cause in an immaterialist philosophy, you must show (1) a cause and effect relationship between anything, let alone, everything and (2) the exclusion of the possibility for multiple acausal phenomenon under an immaterialist philosophy.

Second, it is simply inconsistant with the perceived world. As much as you like to point to science to back up your beliefs, you cherry pick your data and simply ignore the bits that flat out contradict your conclusions. If you are going to use the perceived world to try to back your conclusions, you must use the perceived world in its entirety. Since you are using the perceived world's concept of cause and effect, you must also account for the perceived world's ability to contain multiple acausal effects.

Third, your final conclusion that an absolute cause, should it exist, is "God" is simply loose, and rather loaded, labeling. In this iteration of the argument, you have selectively used the "prime mover" definition of God with no accountability to the earlier definitions you have used. God is (here) defined as the prime mover, thus any absolute cause must be God. It is circular reasoning.

And as we all know, you can use circular reasoning to prove anything. Thus, it really proves nothing.

[voodoochile]

Originally posted by Upchurch
And as we all know, you can use circular reasoning to prove anything. Thus, it really proves nothing.

Translation...

1=0

Talk about circular logic... well done...

I think I'm going to like these forums...:)

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by voodoochile
Translation...

1=0

Talk about circular logic... well done...

I think I'm going to like these forums...:) Sorry, I was being sarcastic when I said you could use circular logic to prove anything. It might have helped if I had put that first "prove" in quotes.

To reiterate the point,

if A, then B.
if B, then A.

The above is circular logic because one has to assume A in order for the logic to conclude A. Were circular logic a valid technique, it could be used to prove anything. It is not a valid technique, however, and cannot be used to prove anything.

We could take this into more detail if you like, but you probably catch my drift.

[voodoochile]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Sorry, I was being sarcastic when I said you could use circular logic to prove anything. It might have helped if I had put that first "prove" in quotes.

To reiterate the point,

if A, then B.
if B, then A.

The above is circular logic because one has to assume A in order for the logic to conclude A. Were circular logic a valid technique, it could be used to prove anything. It is not a valid technique, however, and cannot be used to prove anything.

We could take this into more detail if you like, but you probably catch my drift.

No, I was making a joke - hence the smilie. Your logic came back to the very opening post's logic to disprove that which he used as proof. I thought it was great. Not a true definition of circular logic, but you did come full circle...

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by voodoochile
No, I was making a joke - hence the smilie. D'oh. This is why I need to take a break from working every once in a while. :D

[c4ts]

Originally posted by lifegazer

The whole "uncaused events" idea is hogwash, promoted by fools who think they are observing phenomena outside of their own being/awareness.
Except that lifegazer is trying to prove one very large phenomena existing outside all possible awareness by claiming he is aware of it.

[H'ethetheth]

Originally posted by lifegazer
But if you really want me to answer those questions, I will do so. Remind me on Tuesday because I have a couple of days off mid-week.

It's tuesday.

[Wudang]

Originally posted by P.S.A.
Ok, I think I've made my point for long enough. Now to clarify it for you Lifegazer.

Imagine an Othello board, which has been filled with markers, all of them black side up. If someone states that he wishes to turn them all to the White side, how does he approach this desired end?

Assuming there are no Othello rules, he just turns them all over, one by one. And if there are rules, if there must be a method by which he must turn, he follows the method, and slowly works until each one is white.

What he does not do is ignore the color of certain individual counters. Not if he wants the whole board to change.

You know, it might surprise you to learn Lifegazer that I'm just as educated as most of the posters here. Oh, I've been acting borish and arrogant and cruel... some might even say that deep down that's who I truly am. But I've been deliberately exagerating that to make a point. I know what your philosophy is. You claim you which to get everyone to realise that they are God. You want to turn the Othello board. At least, so you claim. And yet... and yet you refuse to address me in any way after my initial post. You have not only not attempted to turn this piece, you've tried to pretend that piece doesn't even exist. So much for your universal God awareness claims.

And I know why you've done it. I'm every co-worker you've ever had who didn't want to listen to your "Philosophy" but wanted to talk about football, aren't I? I'm every person who laughed at you. Every tutor who just discreditted your ideas without a second thought. I'm all those "Peasants" who have refused to see your greatness.... and ahhh! There is where the truth lies. Because it's not ultimately about God at all, is it Lifegazer?

No, it can't be; in your "Philosophy" if the majority don't wake up to God, then God doesn't wake up and... But I've been deliberatly characaturing the majority; the vast hordes of ignorant "Peasants" you yourself believe exists. The mindless hordes, the spiritually empty majority, the rude, insolent crowd. The very people you need to win over to save God from dream death in fact. And you've made no effort at all to do so.

Because the reality is, what you really seek recognition. Saving God comes second to being seen as his Prophet. You want to be seen as great in the eyes of great men. You want to be not just a Philosopher, but one even greater than "Kant or Bacon or Wittgenstein,". This is what you really crave, and why you continue to seek out boards where philosophers and thinkers and educated people hang about. You'd get far more attention on something like a Coronation Street bulletin board, but that's where the hoi-polloi hang out isn't it? And you do not need the attentions of such plebs, even if abandoning them means abandoning God. I trust the more honest amongst you can now see what I've been doing... I've been making this point to you, behind childish satire, rather a lot Lifegazer. If we are all part of God's dream, then... but it seems some parts are more important than others, aren't they?

Oh, you have a genuine martyr complex, as well as an obvious streak of religiosity too. I'm sure on an emotional level at least you do believe in God, and enjoy being the misunderstood prophet; But these are just convergent desires for your main neurosis, which is to always seek to be seen as the Great Philosopher. But where's your peer reviewed book Lifegazer? Where's your published manifesto? Where's your submission to the numerous philosophy magazines? It's nowhere, is it? Indeed, after demanding your ideas be submitted to an expert in that field here, you immediately discreddited his judgement. Because you know that the vast majority of that Othello board will not turn for you. No, you've made no genuine effort to become genuinely great, because you know you can't be. What you want is to try and find isolated individuals who will admire your thinking... and you cast off those who won't admire your greatness. The only reason you remain at JREF is because you know that open minded skeptics will always listen to your philosophy at least. It doesn't matter that your philosophy is torn to shreds time after time; that just feeds your martyr complex. But here you are, debating philosophy with wise people.... Not so wise that they make you feel uncomfortable with their criticism; indeed even Bacon et all wouldn't get past your sense of superiority at times. But just wise enough for you to feel like a big fish in a small pond without too much cognitive dissonance.

Except of course, you are no such thing. You travel around in your self selected little argumentative world, reducing yourself in the eyes of your fellow and greater men over and over again. You an insignificat fish in an almost infinitely large universe, making yourself more insignificant with every strained argument used to try and inspire admiration. And with each step, the "Establishment" has to become greater and greater to justify the constant reduction of your own worth. And in doing so, God dies a little more each time, because you abandon that much more of the world to the death of Establishmentarianism. But you won't stop doing this, because to do so will take away the very thing which gives your life any meaning... You HAVE to be greater than any other man.

Christ reputedly healed the Lepers Lifegazer. True or not, that's the sign of a truly Great man. One who focuses on all the parts of Othello board, or at least can touch all the pieces in some way. But where was Lifegazer, when I denied the existance of his God, when my soul was blighted? Lifegazer's still in the Temple, turning over tables, and trying to tackle the Establishment... still locked into the big, dramatic gesture rather than providing a path towards heaven for those who desperately need one.

Now if you'll excuse me, it's back to seeing how well I've rattled Interesting Ian's cage. I already know how you'll react anyway... You'll just ignore this message too. Ian at least still notices his fellow man, even if he doesn't like what he sees. But you?

"Oh Lifegazer Christ, this man here, my brother, is possesed with demons!"

"What man? I see no man"

"Oh. Do you see any demons at least?"

"I Only See God."

"I... see... And this God is where?"

"I am He. Admire me"

"I will... if you remove the demons from my brother!"

"I see no demons. I am God. Admire me, and no man will have Demons."

"Can I see some proof of this?"

"Yes. Admire me, and you'll see God"

"Er... no thanks"

"Thou art a fool and a knave, begone worm food!"

And so on, for as long as what ever it is that thinks it's Lifegazer persists... Ahh, the endlessly repeating circle of Life (gazer)!

Does this message being ignored qualify for the million bucks? Do I get commission?

[H'ethetheth]

lifegzer, it's not tuesday anymore. Or did you mean tuesday next week?

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by H'ethetheth
lifegzer, it's not tuesday anymore. Or did you mean tuesday next week?
No. I'll answer your questions before thursday ends - maybe even later today. Am on midweek break now, but unfortunately I cannot afford to pay for butlers or maids so have been busy doin stuff. If you have a spare maid, send her in the post for me.

[H'ethetheth]

Originally posted by lifegazer
No. I'll answer your questions before thursday ends. Am on midweek break now, but unfortunately I cannot afford to pay for butlers or maids so have been busy doin stuff.
Great. Thanks.

[Z]

Originally posted by lifegazer
No. I'll answer your questions before thursday ends - maybe even later today. Am on midweek break now, but unfortunately I cannot afford to pay for butlers or maids so have been busy doin stuff. If you have a spare maid, send her in the post for me.

I would, but she won't fit in the little envelope. Or in the little slot, for that matter.

:D

[P.S.A.]

Originally posted by Wudang
Does this message being ignored qualify for the million bucks? Do I get commission?

I was so absorbed in attempting to appear to be making some deep, meaningful point that I didn't stop to think there would be a simple consequence to my prediction... You and I could share the million, indeed I could simply embrace it myself and vastly improve my material conditions in life, but this challenges my precious intellectual solitude. So instead, I declare that you Wudang have not added anything to this philosophical discussion... indeed I not just drive you away, but declare "Wudang" doesn't even exist, and that the worms await "what ever it is Wudang thinks he is". Goodbye, "Wudang" :(

And thus another part of God is abandoned to a death in the cold, unforgiving earth....

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by P.S.A.
......... And thus another part of God is abandoned to a death in the cold, unforgiving earth....
I'm only interested in discussing my philosophy. Not myself (lifegazer).
I'm deadly serious when I state that you are God believing itself to be P.S.A.. My philosophy does not negate your existence, but tries to awaken you to the truth of your identity.
Why does it matter? God cannot die, that is true. But God can die to experience. God can cease to feel; think; and express itself. Not just as the individual - but, more importantly, as a whole (totally). Armageddon to being anything specific. Afterall, God just IS. Emphasis full-stop.
God, being God, is alone. Nothing else. Nobody else. No space to move. Nothing to have feelings about. Nothing to think about.
To have experiences is to have interactions with other things. But as God is the totality of existence (OMNIPRESENT), there are no other things.
... Yet, God - being more intelligent than 'you' can fathom - knew that It could have "things" to think about and "things" to feel about and a means to express Itself, simply by creating and losing Itself amongst dreams.
The thing with dreams, is that unless they are persistent and consistent and ordered, they are of little value. They provide entertainment, but no means to grow - evolve. Ten minutes (brief memories) with the mermaids from Venus, for example, followed by 10 minutes believing myself to be a flying pig in the Congo, followed by 10 minutes believing myself to be a Frog-like creature on a pink-planet with yellow water, aint gonna do much to help me evolve from all of these experiences.
... I need consistency and order within my awareness if I'm going to get anything other than cheap thrills out of the experiences I have within my awareness.
... So does God. One planet... order... = evolution.

Mankind (the perception of being man) teeters upon the brink of destruction. If this happens, God - as a whole - shall have decided not to feel; not to think; not to have a realm of expression. Our choice is God's choice, since we are God making the choices which God-alone cannot make.
As the individual, it doesn't matter too much. If God dies to being Cleopatra, for instance, then it's no big deal. But if God dies to being all things (armageddon) - God's choice, remember - then it is a big deal.

I am here sowing the seeds of knowledge which will, eventually, prevent not only the obliteration of self-expression, but which will faciltate the transformation of "the fall" into heaven on Earth.

This transformation is inevitable. It cannot fail. Do you really think that God didn't know the outcome of It's creation? And do you really think that God would have embarked upon this process if God would have known that it would be a total failure?

Lifegazer is a bolt (or nut - I pre-empt your response) in the dream-machine as a whole. He doesn't exist, but he is perceived. He's just doing his job in the dream.
You can laugh, but it does not matter. The machine rolls on. The only loss for God will be the experience of being P.S.A..
I think God can live with that. Or can It?
... Only you, God, can make that choice.

[voodoochile]

Originally posted by lifegazer
I'm only interested in discussing my philosophy. Not myself (lifegazer).
I'm deadly serious when I state that you are God believing itself to be P.S.A.. My philosophy does not negate your existence, but tries to awaken you to the truth of your identity.
Why does it matter? God cannot die, that is true. But God can die to experience. God can cease to feel; think; and express itself. Not just as the individual - but, more importantly, as a whole (totally). Armageddon to being anything specific. Afterall, God just IS. Emphasis full-stop.
God, being God, is alone. Nothing else. Nobody else. No space to move. Nothing to have feelings about. Nothing to think about.
To have experiences is to have interactions with other things. But as God is the totality of existence (OMNIPRESENT), there are no other things.
... Yet, God - being more intelligent than 'you' can fathom - knew that It could have "things" to think about and "things" to feel about and a means to express Itself, simply by creating and losing Itself amongst dreams.
The thing with dreams, is that unless they are persistent and consistent and ordered, they are of little value. They provide entertainment, but no means to grow - evolve. Ten minutes (brief memories) with the mermaids from Venus, for example, followed by 10 minutes believing myself to be a flying pig in the Congo, followed by 10 minutes believing myself to be a Frog-like creature on a pink-planet with yellow water, aint gonna do much to help me evolve from all of these experiences.
... I need consistency and order within my awareness if I'm going to get anything other than cheap thrills out of the experiences I have within my awareness.
... So does God. One planet... order... = evolution.

Mankind (the perception of being man) teeters upon the brink of destruction. If this happens, God - as a whole - shall have decided not to feel; not to think; not to have a realm of expression. Our choice is God's choice, since we are God making the choices which God-alone cannot make.
As the individual, it doesn't matter too much. If God dies to being Cleopatra, for instance, then it's no big deal. But if God dies to being all things (armageddon) - God's choice, remember - then it is a big deal.

I am here sowing the seeds of knowledge which will, eventually, prevent not only the obliteration of self-expression, but which will faciltate the transformation of "the fall" into heaven on Earth.

This transformation is inevitable. It cannot fail. Do you really think that God didn't know the outcome of It's creation? And do you really think that God would have embarked upon this process if God would have known that it would be a total failure?

Lifegazer is a bolt (or nut - I pre-empt your response) in the dream-machine as a whole. He doesn't exist, but he is perceived. He's just doing his job in the dream.
You can laugh, but it does not matter. The machine rolls on. The only loss for God will be the experience of being P.S.A..
I think God can live with that. Or can It?
... Only you, God, can make that choice.

Someone read too much Heinlein in their formative years...

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by H'ethetheth
You still haven't answered my age old question(s).

Okay H. I promised you that I would, so I will...

How is the observable universe not external to me, H'ethetheth?

Firstly, my philosophy states that 'you' are God - not 'H'. The experience of being anything else ('H' in this case) is an inner experience to you, God.
... 'H' is a part of your sensed-dream, relative to everything else within that dream. I.e., the experience of being 'H' resides within you - and you are not 'H', but God.

How is it not spatial?

If God is the totality of existence (indivisible and singular) and is boundless (non-finite), then there are no separate parts of God which means that God is non-spatial.

How can I verify that the universe is as you say it is? How can I verify that the matrix isn't true?

Ultimately, only by believing that you are God. After that, you will be able to do anything you like (within the dream) and you won't need verification.
I am of the opinion of these words, attributed to [the experience of being the man named] Jesus:
Jesus answered and said unto them, Verily I say unto you, If ye have faith, and doubt not, ye shall not only do this which is done to the fig tree, but also if ye shall say unto this mountain, Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea; it shall be done. (Matt. 21:21, KJV)

How do you know - in a logically sound way - that you, lifegazer, are not who you think you are?

Who is 'lifegazer'? He exists within awareness, like all other "things", the perceived-product of orchestrated-sensations upon the intangible (non-spatial) awareness of Whatever it is that I am. Lifegazer is no-more real than any "thing" that exists within my awareness.
... 'Lifegazer' doesn't have awareness, but exists within it.

I already answered your Descartes-enquiry, so that's all questions answered. Probably not to your satisfaction, but at least I did not not renege on my promise.

Furthermore, H, I intend to address your post about the sensations being acausal. So, unless it's really important, don't ask me another batch of questions which will detract me from doing this.
Take care H.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by voodoochile
Someone read too much Heinlein in their formative years...
Never heard of the guy. Am not a big reader; nor an academic... and my philosophy is not a copy of others' works.
It doesn't really matter who gets attributed with this philosophy. That's why I'm here, dishing it out for nuttin for the masses, with no interest in making a buck out of it, nor of receiving personal adulation.
I'm just interested in affecting the populace as a whole. Doesn't matter how long it takes as long as it makes a difference before Armageddon.
If you have any serious questions about the philosophy itself, then ask-away. Honestly, my only interest here is to convince 'you' that you are God and that nobody else exists. Which means that you should Love thy neighbour as thyself.
... Because they are.

My philosophy is profound not just because of what it says, but because of the implications it presents to past and contemporary attitudes... and because of the drastic transformation it heralds, for all.

[voodoochile]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Never heard of the guy. Am not a big reader; nor an academic... and my philosophy is not a copy of others' works.
It doesn't really matter who gets attributed with this philosophy. That's why I'm here, dishing it out for nuttin for the masses, with no interest in making a buck out of it, nor of receiving personal adulation.
I'm just interested in affecting the populace as a whole. Doesn't matter how long it takes as long as it makes a difference before Armageddon.
If you have any serious questions about the philosophy itself, then ask-away. Honestly, my only interest here is to convince 'you' that you are God and that nobody else exists. Which means that you should Love thy neighbour as thyself.
... Because they are.

My philosophy is profound not just because of what it says, but because of the implications it presents to past and contemporary attitudes... and because of the drastic transformation it heralds, for all.


Your philosophy ain't that profound, nor is it new.

Robert A Heinlein wrote a book called Stranger in a Strange Land. The whole premise is that an earth baby gets raised on Mars by Martians who have achieved a spiritual plane far beyond human consciousness. The child Michael also achieves that consciousness and when he is discovered on a subsequent trip to Mars and brought back to Earth, he is soon deemed the next Messiah.

His phrase of enlightenment "Thou Art God". I actually wrote a paper for a philosophy class at OSU back in the early 80's with that title and tried to convince my teacher that everyone and every living thing is God. I'll never forget the comment I got back.

"I ask you to define and defend your notion of God and you do away with Him all together. This is nothing more than Atheism. Which leaves you with nothing to say on the matter. In short, I think you missed the point of the assignment."

He gave me a B+ anyway. I was highly put out as I thought I had something brilliant to say. Then I grew up.

Get over yourself man. You aren't that deep...

[Z]

If God is all that is, and God is omni-everything, then God can gain nothing from experience, for God is all that is. Hence, God doesn't need an ordered inner experience to advance - in fact, God cannot have an inner experience. If God is a non-spatial, non-temporal, unchanging singularity, then God is a speck, and one that has no features, no form, and no values; in short, God is utterly insignificant, and cannot have any experiences, memories, thoughts, etc.

lifegazer, your philosophy is purely B-grade entertainment. You've had this 'awareness' that you are God for how many years now? And, tell me - can you do anything you like now? Has your inner awareness of Godhood provided you with anything at all?

As for "Mankind (the perception of being man) teeters upon the brink of destruction," what gives you this idea? Mankind is in far better shape for survival as a species now than at any point in his history, provided armageddon nuts like you don't spoil it by trying to end it all, or thrusting us into another dark age.

You will never affect the population at large, because you're a nobody, with nothing intelligent nor hopeful to offer the public at large. All that your last couple of posts show is that, in your philosophy, God is a complete mess, a loser, a lonely creature that cannot make anything outside of itself, that must dwell in dreams. Probably alot like you.

[H'ethetheth]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Okay H. I promised you that I would, so I will...

Firstly, my philosophy states that 'you' are God - not 'H'.

[...]

Furthermore, H, I intend to address your post about the sensations being acausal. So, unless it's really important, don't ask me another batch of questions which will detract me from doing this.
Take care H. I won't ask you any new questions and I appreciate your effort, but unfortunately you precisely didn't answer my questions.

My questions are about personal experience, which is the only source of information available to me, H'ethetheth.
I'm not asking for another dissection of your theory, I'm asking you to think about its implications to personal experience, and the difference between the personal experiences generated by all kinds of hypothetical universes. I only have enough information to assume that H'ethetheth exists. For any further hypothesizing I must rely on untrustworthy information provided by my senses. This information can be supplied to me in any number of ways, one of which is yours.
You tell me that the universe isn't spatial, yet all space has to be is something that offers me the opportunity to be somewhere else. I can do that, so the universe I observe is by definition spatial, even if illusory.

Furthermore, you claim that what I call "me" isn't really what I think it is, but base this on untrustworthy information from my senses. I can only assume that I am me.
I cannot sense that I'm also you, and I cannot sense that I'm hallucinating. How can you conclude these things based on external sensory information?

The point is; Imagine you're a mind in your universe and imagine what you see, hear etc, and imagine what you can learn about the universe based on that information.
Now imagine youre that same mind, but in a body in a natural universe with space and matter and the lot. Where do the experiences differ?

I feel I understand your cosmology almost completely and I can only conclude that for any inhabitant the resulting sensory information is the same in either universe.
One good thing is that you have provided a critical experiment though. However, the experiment is unfortunately impossible to execute before everyone (including dolphins, parrots and possibly oysters) finds out that they're actually God deluding Himself.

Think about this hard, lifegazer, and I think you will find that no mind (not Mind!!) can discern the origin of its sensations or the mechanism by which they arrive. This means that it's simply impossible to know (i.e. logically sound) for such a mind whether it lives in a seemingly spatial God illusion or an actually spatial universe.

[Z]

Hethethethethethethethet'''th, I applaud your post. Bingo. One of the unsurmountable challenges faced by lifegazer is the inability to demonstrate any difference between a spatial world of several dimensions populated by multiple people, and a God-illusion of a world; only reason - faulty reasoning, depending on which opinion and what viewpoint we take - can demonstrate a difference; sadly, for lg, reasoning that invalidates the physical world can be proven to be faulty; according to lg, reasoning that invalidates the God-illusion must also be faulty.

The trick for you, Gentle Reader, is to discern which mode of reason is most logical.

[P.S.A.]

By my Heavenly Self, this is the second attempt I'm making to try and reply to this post without making whatever it is that thinks it's my mind rebel at the sheer incomprehensibility of finding a sensible path to avoid the Worms... But as the fate of my own Godhood depends upon it, I must try again!

Originally posted by lifegazer
I'm only interested in discussing my philosophy. Not myself (lifegazer).

You mean "Whatever it is you think your philosophy is"; because the only thing which exists is your own internal sense of making sense. From another perspective of God's mind, you make no sense at all, as can be shown by comparing the following quotes;


I'm deadly serious when I state that you are God believing itself to be P.S.A.. My philosophy does not negate your existence, but tries to awaken you to the truth of your identity.

But this is directly contradicted by the following quote:

Lifegazer is a bolt (or nut - I pre-empt your response) in the dream-machine as a whole. He doesn't exist, but he is perceived.

So which is it? Am I an Existance, or am I a Perception only?

You can laugh, but it does not matter. The machine rolls on. The only loss for God will be the experience of being P.S.A..
I think God can live with that. Or can It?

But this is directly contradicted by the following quote:

To have experiences is to have interactions with other things. But as God is the totality of existence (OMNIPRESENT), there are no other things.

So which is it? Is God Everything, or do Parts Of God (like the P.S.A. part) cease to exist?

... Only you, God, can make that choice.

But this is directly contradicted by the following quote

This transformation is inevitable. It cannot fail. Do you really think that God didn't know the outcome of It's creation? And do you really think that God would have embarked upon this process if God would have known that it would be a total failure?

This doesn't make sense on two entirely different levels. If I accept that my identity here genuinely IS God, then God clearly doesn't know the final outcome, lost in the dream as he is, because I and the myriad other parts like me need Whatever Ever It Is That Think's It's Lifegazer (WIETTIL) to enlighten us that we are... which violates the second quote. God here knows nothing until he's told it.

But if I assume that God can know at a higher level than the dream existance what the Predestined outcome is, then the God in the dream doesn't truly have any freedom to chose, which violates the first quote. God's already decided, what God as P.S.A. chooses doesn't have any effect. This is contradiction WIETTIL repeats a second time in the same response:

If this happens, God - as a whole - shall have decided not to feel; not to think; not to have a realm of expression. Our choice is God's choice, since we are God making the choices which God-alone cannot make.

But this is directly contradicted by the following quote

it seems God wants not to wake up, as you preach, but instead to die. Independantly, 6 billion seperate minds of God decide to withdraw his protection and interest not just from your own life, but from the world in it's entirety.[/b]

Oh wait, that's not a contradiction, it's almost an exact understanding of your Philosophy and of the consequences of the previous quote; and the second quote is not from WIETTIL at all, but from WIETTIP. And it's also what is actually happening... WIETTIL hasn't actually converted a single dream entity to accepting it's own Godhood. And that quote directly contradicts the following quote:

You don't have a clue about my philosophy mate.

The WIETTIL is more full of plonkers than I realised...
And now for the next contradiction;

The thing with dreams, is that unless they are persistent and consistent and ordered, they are of little value.

Which contradicts your entire philosophy, the point of which is to wake up from the dream and realise you are God.

And also contradicts the idea that God's dream has any worth; it can't, if it isn't consistent, persistent, infinite. Which brings us right back to where we started. The dream of P.S.A. cannot die; not without making God's entire experiment in being ignorant of his own predestined plan completely valueless.

Honestly WIETTIL, your philosophy doesn't have a single consistent point within it... which brings us to what will be the last quoted contradiction;

I need consistency and order within my awareness if I'm going to get anything other than cheap thrills out of the experiences I have within my awareness.

No WIETTIL, no you don't. You really, truly don't... your every post directly contradicts that assertion.

[H'ethetheth]

Some other things I'd like you to think about, lifegazer.
Actually exactly the same things

In your universe a person is defined by the subset of sensations it 'gets'. So out of all the thoughts and sensations that make up this universe some sets can be discerned that do not directly exchange sensations with other sets. This means that in this respect they are separate sets of experiences. One such a set is a mind. Thus minds are separate entities.

Then some of the sensations relate to space, and such in fact that every mind is not only separate in experience but every mind also experiences the separation.
Also every mind experiences the sensation of 'inhabiting' exactly one unique body, which is again separated by sensed space from the other sensed bodies/minds.

In short, your philosophy dictates that minds are both separate and separated by sensed space, which is spatial in every way discernable to any mind.

Now say we go out on a limb and state that space, which is spatial in every discernable way actually is a space, we may say that your universe is a space containing separate minds in spatial 'vessels'.
(You may think that the above assumption is bold, but think about what is non-spatial about such a space. Then think of, say, a graph of sorts and try to name one thing that's different.)

So... if we analyse your theory, and strip it to the bones we see that it actually presents us with a big space filled with stuff and minds, on planets and there's light and stars and stuff appears to adhere to certain rules and...
Wait a minute...

that sounds familiar. :clap:

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by voodoochile
Your philosophy ain't that profound

... Of course it's profound. If everybody believed it, the world would transform beyond your comprehension.

, nor is it new.

I agree, especially as I view that Jesus was espousing the same words as myself, 2000-ish years ago. Others too, have presented similar ideas.
... The difference between myself and Jesus (or those others) is that I'm trying to convince you with reason alone, rather than ~miracles~.
... The problem with miracles, is that they only affect those that are present when they are done... and even then, many of those that are present think that those 'miracles' are either works of the devil or-else are 'tricks'.

... I have chosen to go for reason. If one can present sound-reason for any particular concept, then miracles should not even be required - except by those that do not care what reason has to offer them, as long as they can sustain the status-quo of their own existence... which they appear, apparently, to be happy with.

Robert A Heinlein wrote a book called Stranger in a Strange Land.

Oh yes - I've heard of it. Not a big lover of fiction though, which is why I haven't read it. My loss, probably.

His phrase of enlightenment "Thou Art God".

Like I said - it doesn't matter how you acquire the knowledge that you are God. I (lifegazer) don't care whether you believe this through me (lifegazer), or through Mister Heinlein... or through whomever.
The problem for Mister Heinlein, is that fiction is not akin to sound-philosophy. Therefore, other than entertainment value and stimulating your "what if he's right" imagination, he aint gonna do much to transform things.
... Drastic transformation requires either BIG miracles or BIG reason. Not fictional stories.

I actually wrote a paper for a philosophy class at OSU back in the early 80's

Do you have a degree in philosophy? I welcome serious involvement.

with that title and tried to convince my teacher that everyone and every living thing is God. I'll never forget the comment I got back.

I'd like to see your argument.

... "I ask you to define and defend your notion of God and you do away with Him all together.

WHY?
You don't "do away" with God if you recognise that God is not an individual with specific attributes, but rather an individual with the attributes to be anything It chooses to exhibit, given the format/creation to exhibit those attributes.
Your teacher was short-sighted. You were even more short-sighted for accepting his comments as absolute. My apologies if this sounds-like anything other than a formal correction.

This is nothing more than Atheism. Which leaves you with nothing to say on the matter. In short, I think you missed the point of the assignment."

'God' CAN be defined. That definition must, however, encompass boundless potential.

He gave me a B+ anyway. I was highly put out as I thought I had something brilliant to say. Then I grew up.

He was your teacher. You trusted him to tell you "the truth". The fact is that the truth has not been - until now, I would argue - unveiled by philosophy/reason.
With all due respect, I don't think you shall have "grown-up" (philosophically) until you acknowledge that your teacher was just a puppet spitting contemporary views upon it's audience. And so are you.

Get over yourself man. You aren't that deep...
'My' deepness isn't a concern. The fact that you fail to see the deepness of a unifying philosophy, is.
So much for university.

[H'ethetheth]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
Hethethethethethethethet'''th, I applaud your post. Bingo. One of the unsurmountable challenges faced by lifegazer is the inability to demonstrate any difference between a spatial world of several dimensions populated by multiple people, and a God-illusion of a world; only reason - faulty reasoning, depending on which opinion and what viewpoint we take - can demonstrate a difference; sadly, for lg, reasoning that invalidates the physical world can be proven to be faulty; according to lg, reasoning that invalidates the God-illusion must also be faulty.

The trick for you, Gentle Reader, is to discern which mode of reason is most logical.

Thanks, since I was in the mood I took the liberty of blathering on some more on the issue.
Let's see if lifegazer finally gets it this time. If he does, I might consider a career in teaching. If not, ... meh.

[voodoochile]

Originally posted by lifegazer
... Of course it's profound. If everybody believed it, the world would transform beyond your comprehension.

I agree, especially as I view that Jesus was espousing the same words as myself, 2000-ish years ago. Others too, have presented similar ideas.
... The difference between myself and Jesus (or those others) is that I'm trying to convince you with reason alone, rather than ~miracles~.
... The problem with miracles, is that they only affect those that are present when they are done... and even then, many of those that are present think that those 'miracles' are either works of the devil or-else are 'tricks'.

... I have chosen to go for reason. If one can present sound-reason for any particular concept, then miracles should not even be required - except by those that do not care what reason has to offer them, as long as they can sustain the status-quo of their own existence... which they appear, apparently, to be happy with.

Oh yes - I've heard of it. Not a big lover of fiction though, which is why I haven't read it. My loss, probably.

Like I said - it doesn't matter how you acquire the knowledge that you are God. I (lifegazer) don't care whether you believe this through me (lifegazer), or through Mister Heinlein... or through whomever.
The problem for Mister Heinlein, is that fiction is not akin to sound-philosophy. Therefore, other than entertainment value and stimulating your "what if he's right" imagination, he aint gonna do much to transform things.
... Drastic transformation requires either BIG miracles or BIG reason. Not fictional stories.

Do you have a degree in philosophy? I welcome serious involvement.

I'd like to see your argument.

WHY?
You don't "do away" with God if you recognise that God is not an individual with specific attributes, but rather an individual with the attributes to be anything It chooses to exhibit, given the format/creation to exhibit those attributes.
Your teacher was short-sighted. You were even more short-sighted for accepting his comments as absolute. My apologies if this sounds-like anything other than a formal correction.

'God' CAN be defined. That definition must, however, encompass boundless potential.

He was your teacher. You trusted him to tell you "the truth". The fact is that the truth has not been - until now, I would argue - unveiled by philosophy/reason.
With all due respect, I don't think you shall have "grown-up" (philosophically) until you acknowledge that your teacher was just a puppet spitting contemporary views upon it's audience. And so are you.

'My' deepness isn't a concern. The fact that you fail to see the deepness of a unifying philosophy, is.
So much for university.

Won't do miracles or can't do miracles. ah... ah...ah...********...chooo! Maybe if we all think together... Give voodoo $10M, a porsche and a bikini model wife. Come on, LG. I know you can do it... use the force, Luke! No wait... it's the Matrix. Hopfully the Machines don't get a computer virus or we will all wake up and than you above all others are totally screwed. Because reality is going to seem like a complete kick in the teeth to someone who was convinced they were god a few hours ago.

No, I don't have a degree in philosophy. I have a degree in business computers, but when I was at OSU, I was in restaurant management.

You don't read. You don't go to classes. You don't trust any evidence that you are presented with. You just want to sit around and dream up a bunch of deep sounding (read: the key word) crap and hope that no one calls you on it.

Do us all a favor... don't bogart that ... pass it over to me...

Maybe teabag will listen to you. He already has a watch stuck on 4:20...

[P.S.A.]

Do you have a degree in philosophy? I welcome serious involvement.

You asked for your work to be submitted to a tutor in Philosophy, remember? And then discreditted his response when you got it. And let's not forget your claims that even Wittgenstein, Bacon et all couldn't phase you... No Lifegazer, you really don't welcome serious involvement; because the moment someone disagrees with your overall delusion, you'll simply abandon this supposed value of yours and declaim the "so called Philosophers".... and I can't seriously be persuaded by someone so obviously unable to apply consistant standards to his own beliefs and philosophy; And as I said, I'm not the only one, am I? Which means that if you truly are sowing the seeds of knowledge, God has clearly chosen to die. Why else would he use such a transparently confused and intellectually dishonest entity such as Lifegazer?

And I say that as someone whose degree certificate does say Philosophy upon it, although I majored in History and Politics. For all the difference it truly makes to you. The worms await you Lifegazer. Worms of your own ignorance, worms of your own making. :(

Edited to add:

'My' deepness isn't a concern. The fact that you fail to see the deepness of a unifying philosophy, is.
So much for university.

He said this before I'd even got my post up. This is why no one believes in you Lifegazer. Because your philosophy is nothing more than the fig leaf behind which all your neurosii hide, as I've already pointed out.

[Wudang]

Originally posted by lifegazer
... Of course it's profound. If everybody believed it, the world would transform beyond your comprehension.
'My' deepness isn't a concern. The fact that you fail to see the deepness of a unifying philosophy, is.


Well, if that's your measure of a "profound philosophy" then, as I've said before, the philosophy of the Invisible Pink Unicorn is even more profound as not only do we offer everything you do, at least, but we also offer a free widescreen TV* for every believer once the world accepts the IUP. So, much more profound.
On you knees before the IUP!

regards, the perception of Wudang's perceived ghost
* or rather what we perceive to be a widescreen TV. Offer void where prohibited by reality

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by H'ethetheth
My questions are about personal experience, which is the only source of information available to me, H'ethetheth.

Again, I need to point out that ~H'ethetheth~ is part of the overall inner-experience being had by whatever it is that you are.
You consistently fail to grasp this.

I only have enough information to assume that H'ethetheth exists.

That's not true. You have enough information to know that whatever it is that you are exists and is having the inner-experience of being the ever-changing H, relative to all other inner-experience.
Deal with facts or you can progress no further.

You tell me that the universe isn't spatial,

I'm telling you that the universe within you isn't truly spatial because you (awareness, being boundless and singular) are not spatial. If you/awareness are not spatial, then the dreams you have within you/awareness cannot be either. Simple logic.

yet all space has to be is something that offers me the opportunity to be somewhere else. I can do that, so the universe I observe is by definition spatial, even if illusory.

The appearance/illusion of space facilitates experience with other illusory things, yes.

Furthermore, you claim that what I call "me" isn't really what I think it is, but base this on untrustworthy information from my senses. I can only assume that I am me.

Who is H? H is ever-changing. An ever-changing entity cannot be defined. When you say that "I am H", you say it without realising that H is unknowable, even unto yourself.
Do not tell me that you are H unless you can provide me with absolute knowledge about him.
By the way, the definition of one's being cannot be given as a historical list of that being's actions. For example, you cannot tell me that H is a student. Why not? Because H doesn't have to be a student. H can do a multitude of things and will not always be a student. Hence, note the distinction between being & doing before you even ponder who/what you are.
Have a read of:
http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=50047

You cannot define yourself as H because H is undefineable. Simple as that. H is the ever-changing experience... not the experiencER.

The point is; Imagine you're a mind in your universe and imagine what you see, hear etc, and imagine what you can learn about the universe based on that information.
Now imagine youre that same mind, but in a body in a natural universe with space and matter and the lot. Where do the experiences differ?

Well in "my reality", you are God. In your reality, you are nothing but an ever-transforming lump of matter that somehow generates the illusion that 'it' is a singular entity.
The experiences differ because experience is governed by what you think you are. In my reality, I would be able to move mountains if I were convinced of my divinity. In your reality, only serfdom exists.
You're obviously missing the point of it all. The experiences we have are dependent upon our attitudes. My philosophy, for example, promotes unity since All is One. Yours, does not.

Space is merely the arena which facilitates human expression. Human expression extends from our thoughts & feelings. Those things are what determine the quality of our experiences. Contrasting the potential diversities of thought & feeling is where we see the potential for experience to differ. This contrast is most noticeable between "my space" and yours.

I feel I understand your cosmology almost completely and I can only conclude that for any inhabitant the resulting sensory information is the same in either universe.

So what? It's how you interact with what you perceive which is the issue here.

Think about this hard, lifegazer, and I think you will find that no mind (not Mind!!) can discern the origin of its sensations or the mechanism by which they arrive.

Whatever it is that I am has generated this sensational dream for itself. 'Lifegazer' is not the dreamer, but exists within the dream... as part of the dream itself. I, lost within the dream that I somehow created, cannot tell you how I created the dream. All I can do is tell you that I must be 'Whatever it is that I am'.
But who/what is that? Listen to threads like this and you can find out.

This means that it's simply impossible to know (i.e. logically sound) for such a mind whether it lives in a seemingly spatial God illusion or an actually spatial universe.
There can be nothing external to a boundless and non-spatial entity. My philosophy destroys the concept of an external world.

[Z]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Again, I need to point out that ~H'ethetheth~ is part of the overall inner-experience being had by whatever it is that you are.
You consistently fail to grasp this.

You consistently fail to grasp that, until you can prove the existence of an experiencer superior to the individual, your insistance upon this statement is illogical, and changes nothing at all.

That's not true. You have enough information to know that whatever it is that you are exists and is having the inner-experience of being the ever-changing H, relative to all other inner-experience.
Deal with facts or you can progress no further.

If you have the inner-experience of being something, all you can know is whatever it is that you are having the experience of being. You cannot know of the experiences of any other being, least of all God, only of the person that your experiences are telling you that you are.

[quoe]I'm telling you that the universe within you isn't truly spatial because you (awareness, being boundless and singular) are not spatial. If you/awareness are not spatial, then the dreams you have within you/awareness cannot be either. Simple logic.[/quote]

There is no 'universe' within you. There is the sensory impression OF a universe - like a photograph can accurately represent a lake, this doesn't mean the lake is flat, or exists only on photo paper. lg, have you ever watched television? Do you really believe that the TV just generates images of its own accord, or do you understand the process of film, radio waves, etc? The only difference here is, that the sensory impressions we receive, we do so directly - no viewer to view them, only us to receive them directly.

Further, you cannot prove that awareness is boundless or singular. Plus, you cannot prove there is not a distinction between dreams and reality.

Assertions do not reason make.

The appearance/illusion of space facilitates experience with other illusory things, yes.

So does the reality of space. In the case of your philosophy, there is no difference, so why insist on the illusory distinction?

Who is H? H is ever-changing. An ever-changing entity cannot be defined.

Nonsense. Any and every entity within our awareness is ever-changing, to some degree. And we define them all the time. Where do you get the idea that you cannot define an ever-changing entity? Probably the same place you got the idea that infinite space requires infinite distances between fixed points.

When you say that "I am H", you say it without realising that H is unknowable, even unto yourself.
Do not tell me that you are H unless you can provide me with absolute knowledge about him.

'Absolute knowledge' is not a requirement in the identification of an entity. We've already been through this - and you were thoroughly handed your hat last time. Your own personal definition of 'absolute knowledge' is, by no means, required for knowing what an entity is. A dog is a dog, no matter how many changes it goes through over the course of its life. It won't become an elephant tomorrow. And a pit bull remains a pit bull throughout its existence, no matter what happens to it; and the pit bull named Nako will be the same, regardless of changes (some exceptions may be noted). Therefore, 'absolute knowledge' is not at all a requirement of identity.

Besides, do you have 'absolute knowledge' of God? If not, then you cannot, by your own requirements, claim that you are God.

By the way, the definition of one's being cannot be given as a historical list of that being's actions. For example, you cannot tell me that H is a student. Why not? Because H doesn't have to be a student. H can do a multitude of things and will not always be a student. Hence, note the distinction between being & doing before you even ponder who/what you are.

Hmmm... Possibly valid.

Have a read of:
http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=50047

Yes, where you ran away from the discussion after making more of your wild claims that God is suicidal, or something... Yet, once again, you failed to address any of the issues therein.

You cannot define yourself as H because H is undefineable. Simple as that. H is the ever-changing experience... not the experiencER.

H is both. It's really rather simple.

Well in "my reality", you are God. In your reality, you are nothing but an ever-transforming lump of matter that somehow generates the illusion that 'it' is a singular entity.
The experiences differ because experience is governed by what you think you are. In my reality, I would be able to move mountains if I were convinced of my divinity. In your reality, only serfdom exists.

Oh, good! Here's a means of proving your philosophy!! Go ahead - move a mountain. A small one will do. Please. Any mountain will suffice.

If you can't, then I'd guess your reality is wrong.

You're obviously missing the point of it all. The experiences we have are dependent upon our attitudes. My philosophy, for example, promotes unity since All is One. Yours, does not.

Your philosophy also promotes death to scientific progress, and dooms the world to starvation and warfare.

<snip>

There can be nothing external to a boundless and non-spatial entity. My philosophy destroys the concept of an external world.

NO, actually, your philosophy is critically dependant on there not being an external world, but you have absolutely no proof, reason, or explanation (logical one) that it doesn't exist. SO until you can prove the external world doesn't exist, your philosophy is cow dung.

[voodoochile]

I've always said that IF there is a supernatural creator and an infinite soul, the most likely candidate is...

drum roll please...

Us.

Which of course begs the question WHY did we create a physical universe or at least one that has ALL of the perceived qualities of a physical universe?

Because without a physical body and a playground to play in one cannot write poetry, listen to music, gaze at great works of art, explore new worlds or have mindblowingly great sex (well, not LG - he's too busy railing against the injustice of being forced to have a physical body).

So we created a physical universe.

Now here comes Lifegazer saying, " ut we need to wake up to truly experience the beauty that is life." No, that's why we created this world in the first place because life without a body or a playground is boring as all get out. Even more so when you live forever...

Wat can I say, I used to do a lot of drugs and I thought I was really deep.

Of course none of these philosophys actually tell us anything about anything so since they are all meaningless, I'm becoming a practitioner of IUP. When do I get my wide screen TV?:D

[Wudang]

Originally posted by lifegazer

By the way, the definition of one's being cannot be given as a historical list of that being's actions. For example, you cannot tell me that H is a student. Why not? Because H doesn't have to be a student. H can do a multitude of things and will not always be a student. Hence, note the distinction between being & doing before you even ponder who/what you are.


Not bad. However you need to firm this up a bit by clarifying some distinctions. "student" can be an attribute of H without being in the list of necessary and sufficient conditions of being H. In fact, and you might like this, it is the experience of being (and later of having been) a student that is one of the defining characteristics of H as it shapes his perception of himself.
You might also like Buckminster Fuller's "I seem to be a verb". You should be able to google on his explanation.

[H'ethetheth]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Again, I need to point out that ~H'ethetheth~ is part of the overall inner-experience being had by whatever it is that you are.
You consistently fail to grasp this.
No, I get that, but even in your philosophy, whatever it is that keeps thinking it's H'ethetheth is separate from whatever it is that keeps thinking it's lifegazer.
No experiences can pass between them, there is a border, therefore we are separate.

That's not true. You have enough information to know that whatever it is that you are exists and is having the inner-experience of being the ever-changing H, relative to all other inner-experience.
Deal with facts or you can progress no further. That is exactly equivalent. My mind has persistently thought it was me. That is all sound information it has. What is your point?

I'm telling you that the universe within you isn't truly spatial because you (awareness, being boundless and singular) are not spatial. If you/awareness are not spatial, then the dreams you have within you/awareness cannot be either. Simple logic. And I've shown you that the two situations are again completely equivalent.

Who is H? H is ever-changing. An ever-changing entity cannot be defined. When you say that "I am H", you say it without realising that H is unknowable, even unto yourself.
Do not tell me that you are H unless you can provide me with absolute knowledge about him.
By the way, the definition of one's being cannot be given as a historical list of that being's actions. For example, you cannot tell me that H is a student. Why not? Because H doesn't have to be a student. H can do a multitude of things and will not always be a student. Hence, note the distinction between being & doing before you even ponder who/what you are.
Have a read of:
http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=50047

You cannot define yourself as H because H is undefineable. Simple as that. H is the ever-changing experience... not the experiencER.

Yes I can define myself as H'ethetheth, because my mind has never experienced anything else than the H'ethetheth experience. My mind thinks it's me, not you, Jimi Hendrix or anyone. That's a very useful definition of "me" as it includes everything that is unique to me, and doesn't include anything else.

Well in "my reality", you are God. In your reality, you are nothing but an ever-transforming lump of matter that somehow generates the illusion that 'it' is a singular entity.
The experiences differ because experience is governed by what you think you are. In my reality, I would be able to move mountains if I were convinced of my divinity. In your reality, only serfdom exists.
You're obviously missing the point of it all. The experiences we have are dependent upon our attitudes. My philosophy, for example, promotes unity since All is One. Yours, does not. That's all great of course but hardly constitutes a reason to believe you.

There can be nothing external to a boundless and non-spatial entity. My philosophy destroys the concept of an external world. No it doesn't. It presents an external world which is in every aspect exactly equivalent to the usual universe. Except it becomes fuzzy when everything that has a mind becomes aware of its divinity.

I'm not waiting up.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by H'ethetheth
No, I get that, but even in your philosophy, whatever it is that keeps thinking it's H'ethetheth is separate from whatever it is that keeps thinking it's lifegazer.
No experiences can pass between them, there is a border, therefore we are separate.

This isn't true. In my philosophy, God is the one having all experiences... and whilst having any individual experience, is not aware of other experiences that It is having or that It has had. Nevertheless, God is having all experience.
There is no separation between me and you. There is just one entity having those two experiences, unaware of one experience whilst having the other.

Whilst I dreamt that I was pink giraffe, last night, I had no awareness nor memory of the fact that I've had countless other such dreams, full of diverse experiences. Yet it was 'me' (whatever it is that I am), that had those different experiences. Nobody else. I was not separate, last night, from the entity who dreamt he was a green hippo the night before.

There is no spatial separation between different inner-experiences had by the same entity.

That is exactly equivalent. My mind has persistently thought it was me. That is all sound information it has. What is your point?

Your mind has been fooled into believing that it was H but this does not mean that you are H, nor does it mean that you cannot awaken from this delusion. I've explained why H is just an inner-experience and I have tried to awaken you to the fact that H is not who or what you are.

And I've shown you that the two situations are again completely equivalent.

You've shown nothing of the sort. Being God and having the universe within you is not equivalent to being an intangible epiphenomenon of an ever-changing lump of matter that exists within the universe around it. Why? Because if you accept that you are God then your experiences/interactions with the world will be vastly different to those had by a lump of matter that has no meaning nor purpose in the world that exists around it.
Wake-up H.

Yes I can define myself as H'ethetheth, because my mind has never experienced anything else than the H'ethetheth experience. My mind thinks it's me, not you, Jimi Hendrix or anyone.

Previously, I tried to explain to you why what you do does not define you. You have ignored me.
The experiences that you have do not define what you are since your experiences of life do not encompass the potential that exists within you. You are a student now (I assume?), but you could equally be a soldier, a sailor, or a candlestick-maker. There's a multitude of things that you can do but will never do in your life. So, when defining yourself, presenting me with a list of your experiences is irrelevant. Indeed, when you present me with such a list, you are not defining what you are; but are in fact just listing your inner-experiences, thus far. If you cannot see the distinction between being & doing, then perhaps you've outreached your abilities to grasp such concepts.

That's all great of course but hardly constitutes a reason to believe you.

I have showed you why being God and having the illusion of the world within you is not equivalent to being a lump of matter that exists within the world. So stop saying that it is.

"There can be nothing external to a boundless and non-spatial entity. My philosophy destroys the concept of an external world."

No it doesn't. It presents an external world which is in every aspect exactly equivalent to the usual universe.

Once again, you err by making God equivalent to a lump of matter.

God, boundless and singular, is non-spatial. There can be nothing external to a boundless non-spatial entity. If I prove that such an entity exists, then my philosophy automatically destroys the possibility of an external realm.

[voodoochile]

Okay, so what's going to happen if we suddenly all wake up and accept our godhood? What are the practical aspects of your philosophy?

You talk about the interconnectedness aspect and I say that I already am connected to the world because I accept it for what it is. I already am connected to my fellow humans/thoughts in god's mind by my belief in the survival of the species and the desire to see us propogate through the entire universe/god's mind turning planet after perceived planet into toxic balls uninhabitable by humans as we strip mine their resources and pee in their oceans. I already am connected to my fellow humans by my desire to go out and meet them, get to know them, have a beer or a burger with them, dance with them, sleep with them and talk with them about inane philosophical ideas until the wee hours of the morning.

Does time exist in your philosophy? I would assume the answer is no because all parts of God still exist so somewhere inside of God is Albert Einstein (LHFAO at you) and all the other greater parts of this infinite creature that exists. So everything must be an eternal now which means that maybe god is really a dog doing nothing more than existing until the next belly rub or Milk Bone. (What if d-o-g really spelled God?!) Or Maybe this infinite God is really just an amoeba floating in the bottom of some poor burger flipper's toilet in the "real universe" hoping that no one flushes us out to sea where something bigger will surely consume us. After all, how would we know?

This all begs the question, why do we die or percieve ourselves to die at all?

And finally, and again, what does all of this mean to my life or to the life of everyone else on this planet. Why should I believe you? What are we going to do to make this planet better if we do follow the word of LG and suddenly become the godlike beings we truly are capable of becoming? Will we be able to fly like in the Matrix when Neo wakes up? Will we be able to do whatever our hearts desire? What if our desires conflict with another God's desires? I mean what if Angela Jolie isn't interested in sleeping with me even after I become God. I mean she will be God too. Won't life get a bit boring if everyone has infinite powers? No need to eat, work, sleep, paint, write music because all I will have to do is think it and it will already be done. What will be next for me? Go to sleep and create my own universe with scattered parts of me running around lying to themselves about the nature of reality until their LG comes along and frees them from the reality I have created and then they all go to sleep and dream an infinite number of universes all contained inside of my universe inside of God's universe inside of Her God's universe and so on and so on...

And still it proves nothing... Where does it end? Where do I end? Where do you end?

Oh crap... now I have to go lie down...

[lifegazer]

I enjoyed reading that voodoo. You made me laugh.
I'll respond later.

[uruk]

I guess this means LG hasn't really thought about it.
But it will be interesting to see what he comes up with.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by voodoochile
You talk about the interconnectedness aspect and I say that I already am connected to the world because I accept it for what it is.

And what would that be? And how do you know that your beliefs about it are true?

I already am connected to my fellow humans/thoughts in god's mind by my belief in the survival of the species and the desire to see us propogate through the entire universe/god's mind turning planet after perceived planet into toxic balls uninhabitable by humans as we strip mine their resources and pee in their oceans. I already am connected to my fellow humans by my desire to go out and meet them, get to know them, have a beer or a burger with them, dance with them, sleep with them and talk with them about inane philosophical ideas until the wee hours of the morning.

Let's be honest here. The average man in the street devotes the bulk of his time, other than in bed, earning whatever he can so that he can acquire goodies for himself and his immediate family.
The remainder of his time, apart from housework/DIY, is devoted to relaxation and pleasure.
A few kindly souls like to help people now-and-then and many of us occasionally donate to needy causes such as the tsunami relief fund. But all in all we're a selfish breed and are primarily concerned with ourselves (the perceived self) and our immediate family & close friends.
... We're like this because, like H (see previous post to H), we think we are the being that we perceive/experience. We have defined ourselves via our list of experiences, asleep to the fact that whatever it is that we are (the experiencER) is more than a list of inner-experiences.
The bottom-line is that we don't know that we are God and that God is the totality of existence - we think existence is fragmented and separate and believe that contrasting experiences equates to contrasting experienceRs. In short, we think of ourselves as individuals in a very-large crowd.
This belief in divided/fragmented existence or life is responsible for our selfish behaviour and lifestyles. It's also responsible for the creation of separate countries (borders). Ultimately, it is the cause of all war and injustice/inequality, etc..
It's a rotten belief - even if it were to be true - and has been the root-cause of most of man's self-inflicted suffering.
So, you ask me:
"Okay, so what's going to happen if we suddenly all wake up and accept our godhood? What are the practical aspects of your philosophy?"

... Firstly, even without the faith to produce so-called miracles within our awareness, my philosophy has the potential to rid the world of nationality/borders, war, inequality, injustice, poverty, etc..
... Why? Because now - armed with the truth that only God exists - we "Love thy neighbour as thyself.". Literally.
To know oneself as God and to be selfish now, is to do everything one can for God... which is to do everything one can for humanity as a whole. God's selfishness embraces what's best for God - not what's best for the perceived-self.

Does time exist in your philosophy?

Time = change. Only experiences change, not the experiencER.

I would assume the answer is no because all parts of God still exist so somewhere inside of God is Albert Einstein (LHFAO at you)

My philosophy is fully consistent with Einstein's work.

So everything must be an eternal now which means that maybe god is really a dog doing nothing more than existing until the next belly rub or Milk Bone. (What if d-o-g really spelled God?!) Or Maybe this infinite God is really just an amoeba floating in the bottom of some poor burger flipper's toilet in the "real universe" hoping that no one flushes us out to sea where something bigger will surely consume us. After all, how would we know?

You appear to have been on the beer, at this point. However, my philosophy explains why God is a boundless (non-finite) and non-spatial entity... without beginning or end.

This all begs the question, why do we die or percieve ourselves to die at all?

It would be impossible to experience heaven on Earth without first having been through hell.
Divine knowledge was forsaken that we (God, believing itself to be man) might express Divine potential. Hence the diversity of man. We were given free reign to create & destroy, love & hate, live & die.
But now, the end approaches. The game is nearly over. Unless we transform we will destroy ourselves fairly soon. Another 20 years (certainly this century) and you'll have suicide bombers, armed with nuclear devices, blowing-up every city & town. America will have no choice other than to destroy everything and everybody to try and save herself. She will fail.
No more human awareness = armageddon to divine expression.
It will be God's choice since only God exists. The creation will have ended with death & evil as victors over life & love. And that will be that. Another eternity of silence & loneliness.

Will we be able to do whatever our hearts desire? What if our desires conflict with another God's desires?

When you know yourself as God, your will is as God's. There is only one God. If you really act like God and I really act like God, our desires cannot conflict.

Won't life get a bit boring if everyone has infinite powers? No need to eat, work, sleep, paint, write music because all I will have to do is think it and it will already be done.

Desire does not end. God will always enjoy good music and the beauty the sensations impose upon our awareness. God will always enjoy having conversation. God will always enjoy the expression of love and the feeling of being loved. God will always enjoy sleep and the experience of wild dreams.
My philosophy rids life of the bad, not the good in life.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer
God, being God, is alone. Nothing else. Nobody else. No space to move. Nothing to have feelings about. Nothing to think about.
To have experiences is to have interactions with other things. But as God is the totality of existence (OMNIPRESENT), there are no other things.

You are suggesting that at a point in time god was lacking something. This is a contridiction.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by RussDill
You are suggesting that at a point in time god was lacking something. This is a contridiction.
A contradiction of what?
Btw, God itself is timeless. Only inner experiences can change.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

A few kindly souls like to help people now-and-then and many of us occasionally donate to needy causes such as the tsunami relief fund. But all in all we're a selfish breed and are primarily concerned with ourselves (the perceived self) and our immediate family & close friends.

If I believed your philosophy, it would be herasy to donate to a disaster relief fund. God purposely made that disaster happen so that he could experience suffering, why should I take that away? Wouldn't that be working against god? Why would god create suffering if god did not want to experience suffering?

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer
A contradiction of what?
Btw, God itself is timeless. Only inner experiences can change.

Saying that god lacks or desires something is a condritiction with the statement that god is complete. If there is an experience that god feels he must have (ie, being lifegazer), it means that god does not already have the knowledge of what it is like to be lifegazer.

[voodoochile]

Originally posted by lifegazer
And what would that be? And how do you know that your beliefs about it are true?

Let's be honest here. The average man in the street devotes the bulk of his time, other than in bed, earning whatever he can so that he can acquire goodies for himself and his immediate family.
The remainder of his time, apart from housework/DIY, is devoted to relaxation and pleasure.
A few kindly souls like to help people now-and-then and many of us occasionally donate to needy causes such as the tsunami relief fund. But all in all we're a selfish breed and are primarily concerned with ourselves (the perceived self) and our immediate family & close friends.
... We're like this because, like H (see previous post to H), we think we are the being that we perceive/experience. We have defined ourselves via our list of experiences, asleep to the fact that whatever it is that we are (the experiencER) is more than a list of inner-experiences.
The bottom-line is that we don't know that we are God and that God is the totality of existence - we think existence is fragmented and separate and believe that contrasting experiences equates to contrasting experienceRs. In short, we think of ourselves as individuals in a very-large crowd.
This belief in divided/fragmented existence or life is responsible for our selfish behaviour and lifestyles. It's also responsible for the creation of separate countries (borders). Ultimately, it is the cause of all war and injustice/inequality, etc..
It's a rotten belief - even if it were to be true - and has been the root-cause of most of man's self-inflicted suffering.
So, you ask me:
"Okay, so what's going to happen if we suddenly all wake up and accept our godhood? What are the practical aspects of your philosophy?"

... Firstly, even without the faith to produce so-called miracles within our awareness, my philosophy has the potential to rid the world of nationality/borders, war, inequality, injustice, poverty, etc..
... Why? Because now - armed with the truth that only God exists - we "Love thy neighbour as thyself.". Literally.
To know oneself as God and to be selfish now, is to do everything one can for God... which is to do everything one can for humanity as a whole. God's selfishness embraces what's best for God - not what's best for the perceived-self.

Time = change. Only experiences change, not the experiencER.

My philosophy is fully consistent with Einstein's work.

You appear to have been on the beer, at this point. However, my philosophy explains why God is a boundless (non-finite) and non-spatial entity... without beginning or end.

It would be impossible to experience heaven on Earth without first having been through hell.
Divine knowledge was forsaken that we (God, believing itself to be man) might express Divine potential. Hence the diversity of man. We were given free reign to create & destroy, love & hate, live & die.
But now, the end approaches. The game is nearly over. Unless we transform we will destroy ourselves fairly soon. Another 20 years (certainly this century) and you'll have suicide bombers, armed with nuclear devices, blowing-up every city & town. America will have no choice other than to destroy everything and everybody to try and save herself. She will fail.
No more human awareness = armageddon to divine expression.
It will be God's choice since only God exists. The creation will have ended with death & evil as victors over life & love. And that will be that. Another eternity of silence & loneliness.

When you know yourself as God, your will is as God's. There is only one God. If you really act like God and I really act like God, our desires cannot conflict.

Desire does not end. God will always enjoy good music and the beauty the sensations impose upon our awareness. God will always enjoy having conversation. God will always enjoy the expression of love and the feeling of being loved. God will always enjoy sleep and the experience of wild dreams.
My philosophy rids life of the bad, not the good in life.

You'd truly like to believe that wouldn't you, but isn't conflict and loss and pain and hate and friction all part of our experience? Isn't the growth that sometimes occurs after these traumatic events something that sometimes inspires new art, music, poetry, etc. How can we have free will if we cannot have the right to wage war? How can we have any sense of individuality if we cannot commit murder? I'm not defending these actions, merely pointing out that you cannot have it your way and still have free will. It just doesn't work like that.

You ask how I know the world I perceive is real. I don't, I suppose. You could have the answer, but since it adds nothing to my perceptions of a tree or a road or a flower or a piece of art or a TV show, it doesn't do much for the conversation.

I ask you for how my life will be changed and you say, "you will see things as God does and experience life as God does", but that doesn't mean anything because you cannot define what god does, sees, feels or wants. It is the height of hubris for you to speak for god. Maybe god hates poetry and art and music and philisophical treatises that purport to understand god and that in reality god is just waiting for that big nuclear war so he can be done with us.

You have no more idea if what I am saying is true than you can prove what you are saying is true except you feel it in your heart. You cannot move mountains. you cannot make me believe. You are completely powerless. You aren't god anymore than my dog is. You aren't god anymore than a tree is and even though a tree might indeed be part of god, in the end, it still lives its life as a tree until fire or pestilance or some guy with an axe ends its existence.

Even you admit, your faith only has the potential to do the things you claim it will. If it doesn't do it, what have we gained? What have we lost?

How are you going to sell this empty sack of air to those people who think Jesus and all of his followers are lying evil blood sucking maniacs.

You do realize how bad the nuclear war would have to be to destroy all human consciousness don't you?

You don't honestly believe that human consciousness is the only consciousness in the infinitely big thing called god do you?

Even if our little corner of the this infinite being called god goes blammo, there has to be something else out there to feed god and keep the dream alive or do you honestly believe that all of the billions and billions and billions of galaxys each containing billions and billions and billions of stars are only here because we think they are here?

That's kind of a limite vision to give a god of infinite knowledge and power isn't it?

If a sole pair of cockroaches survive the armageddon to come, god will go on. If pod of whales or dolphins survive or even a few chimpanzees in the wild or a flock of geese, god will go on.

It ain't just about the humans, LG. God was infinite and eternal, right? So since human awareness has only been around for a few million years, god must have been here before humans and god will be here after humans.

Am I missing something here? Survival of the species is one thing, but to say god itself depends on the human species survival is pretty egocentric and I doubt god appreciates it very much...

[H'ethetheth]

Lifegazer,

you have given me the same answers over and over, but you keep looking at and explaining the issue from the God's-eye-view. No mind (not Mind!!) can have the God's-eye-view. If you cannot let go of this perspective you will never understand my question and you will not see that there simply is no difference to any mind until of course you "move the mountain". But even then, all kinds of other devilry might be at hand.

In order to appreciate what you have painted, you must step away from the canvas every once in a while.

I wish you luck on your endeavours. I can't be bothered trying to explain this to you anymore, I'm sorry.
I'm also sorry that by not believing you, I will ruin your grand devine unification for about another half century.

ta ta!

H'ethetheth.

[Z]

Exactly. Maybe God likes pain, suffering, violent deaths. Maybe God likes warfare, and theft, and rape. Maybe, when we do acts of 'good', we're really pissing off God.

Besides, something that's 'timeless' can't have inner experiences that change - change only comes with time, ergo, either God is affected by time, or change cannot happen. Further, a 'boundless singularity' cannot have anything 'inner', since inner and outer are attributes of non-singular phenomenon.

Weak, lg - weak.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by RussDill
Saying that god lacks or desires something is a condritiction with the statement that god is complete.

(A) I have never said that God is "complete".
(B) I'm not sure what you mean by that. Complete in what way?

If there is an experience that god feels he must have (ie, being lifegazer), it means that god does not already have the knowledge of what it is like to be lifegazer.
That's not true. One can have knowledge of something without ever having experienced it for oneself before. Knowledge often precedes experience. This is especially true in physics where many discoveries (empirical experience/proof) is sought & found after mental realisation that what we are about to experience must already exist. Some of Einstein's work, for instance, preceded certain observations of light that were predicted by Einstein.
Having knowledge is not the same as having the experience. The only way God can have experiences with other things is to create -with the prior knowledge to do so - the illusion of other things that God may actually have experiences with them.

[Z]

If God is not 'complete', then God cannot be omnipresent, nor can God be singular and alone. Otherwise, God must be complete.

Simple logic.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by H'ethetheth
you have given me the same answers over and over, but you keep looking at and explaining the issue from the God's-eye-view. No mind (not Mind!!) can have the God's-eye-view.

I explained to you why the knowledge that one is God and that the world is within is not equivalent to the knowledge that one is a lump of matter with the world being out there.
That's not God's eye view. These things I understand from within the illusion itself.

Those answers I supplied for you were sound answers all. I invested alot of time & thought in addressing them, so to just evade the details in my responses is "annoyingly rude" to say the least. Never mind, maybe somebody got something out of them.

I can't be bothered trying to explain this to you anymore, I'm sorry.

You cannot explain because you were wrong and I explained why you were wrong:-
(1) Wrong to define yourself as a list of inner-experiences (H).
(2) Wrong to say that it makes no difference whether the world is internal or external, forgetting that if one is God that the experiences one can have are [potentially] vastly different to the experiences one can have if one is just an epiphenomenon of a lump of matter.
(3) Wrong to assert that separate experiences automatically equates to multiple beings.

I cannot even be bothered to remember what other cock-ups you have made. Suffice to say that when one is proven to be wrong on so many points within one post and then walks away like a baby when told why he is wrong, that the person involved deserves nothing other than contempt. Which is a shame because I had a feeling you were a decent bloke.

I'm also sorry that by not believing you, I will ruin your grand devine unification for about another half century.

I doubt it. I see armageddon occuring well before then.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
If God is not 'complete', then God cannot be omnipresent, nor can God be singular and alone. Otherwise, God must be complete.

Simple logic.
What :confused:
One crazy dude.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer
(A) I have never said that God is "complete".


In your philosophy, he is the alpha, the omega, he is everything that exists.

If god is not complete, then he is incomplete, which means that there are things that can be added to god to make god complete. Adding something to god contridicts your philosphy on many, many levels.


That's not true. One can have knowledge of something without ever having experienced it for oneself before.


No, knowledge is not just limited to something you read in a book. The memory of an experience is knoweldge as well.

Our minds and communication abilities are limited in that we have no way of communicating experiences. Are you suggesting that god is not omnipotent and cannot know an experince without experiencing it? Are you limiting god?


Knowledge often precedes experience. This is especially true in physics where many discoveries (empirical experience/proof) is sought & found after mental realisation that what we are about to experience must already exist. Some of Einstein's work, for instance, preceded certain observations of light that were predicted by Einstein.


All of the observations you listed are a form of basic knowledge that we humans have no problem communicating.

The type of experience we cannot communicate, are things like the color red, or that of being lifegazer, however, god, being omnipotent. If you could perfectly communicate to another human the experience of the color red, seeing the color red would gain them no new knowledge.


Having knowledge is not the same as having the experience.


Says who?


The only way God can have experiences with other things is to create -with the prior knowledge to do so - the illusion of other things that God may actually have experiences with them.

So, you are limiting god, you are saying that god cannot know what it is like to experience something without first experiencing it.

[voodoochile]

I just want to point out one other thing...

LG says that without human awareness, god will die - or cease to exist. In other words, humans don't depend on god for their existence, but without humans there is no god.

It's true... LG created god in his own image...:p

[RussDill]

Originally posted by voodoochile
I just want to point out one other thing...

LG says that without human awareness, god will die - or cease to exist. In other words, humans don't depend on god for their existence, but without humans there is no god.

It's true... LG created god in his own image...:p

*sigh*, now lifegazer is going to miss all the other important points and questions, and latch onto this post instead. I think his definition of death is god choosing to stop having illusionary experiences, not god actually ceasing to exist.

[Z]

So what if God stops having inner experiences? It's God's choice, isn't it?? Why should these 'experiences' have to do or change anything, if God is making this decision?

And, as further described above, if God is not complete, then God cannot be what your philosophy describes.

You really deserve nothing but contempt. You are proven to be wrong, time and time again, and all you do, like a baby, is run away when confronted with your errors. Loser.

Not even a jester any more. Report to the stables.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by voodoochile
You'd truly like to believe that wouldn't you, but isn't conflict and loss and pain and hate and friction all part of our experience?

Of course. That's why I said one cannot experience heaven without first walking through hell. Eventually though, to get to heaven, one must close the door on hell.

Isn't the growth that sometimes occurs after these traumatic events something that sometimes inspires new art, music, poetry, etc.

Suppose so. But what sort of art music & poetry might my philosophy inspire? Certainly a more uplifting kind, I assume.

How can we have free will if we cannot have the right to wage war?

You always will have the free-will to do anything, including to wage war. What you don't seem to grasp is that when one sees thy neighbour as thyself, one's will to wage war kinda evaporates all by itself.

How can we have any sense of individuality if we cannot commit murder?

Same response as previous.

I'm not defending these actions, merely pointing out that you cannot have it your way and still have free will. It just doesn't work like that.

Incorrect. When one knows oneself as God and understands that the experience of being other people is also being had by Yourself, then one's attitudes and will changes with regards to the interaction of these experiences.
If I know myself, absolutely, as God, then I no longer act-like nor have the will of "a man". I have the will of that God. And whatever I do, I do freely, as that God.

You ask how I know the world I perceive is real. I don't, I suppose. You could have the answer, but since it adds nothing to my perceptions of a tree or a road or a flower or a piece of art or a TV show, it doesn't do much for the conversation.

You obviously didn't read my responses to H on this matter. My philosophy certainly adds nothing to your actual sensations; but it would - if you were to believe it - change your experiences that you have with that world given to you by those sensations.

I ask you for how my life will be changed and you say, "you will see things as God does and experience life as God does", but that doesn't mean anything because you cannot define what god does, sees, feels or wants.

Only God exists, so God is the one having these Earthly experiences. God is expressing itself through 'me' and through all other perceived beings. I can know what God wants simply by observing mankind as a whole and by observing my own nature & desire.
Once one recognises that the evil and selfishness in this world are by-products of a belief in separation, one can easily fathom what One would want when that ignorance has been overcome.

It is the height of hubris for you to speak for god.

Not if I say that only God exists.

Maybe god hates poetry and art and music and philisophical treatises that purport to understand god and that in reality god is just waiting for that big nuclear war so he can be done with us.

God does often hate those things. God often loves them too. It all depends on who you talk to. As to why God - believing itself to be that person - might hate those things, depends upon many factors, such as the intelligence of that individual, his upbringing, etc..

You have no more idea if what I am saying is true

What you said was true. So was what I have said. You simply haven't grasped the profundity of my philosophy yet, otherwise you wouldn't have said that.

than you can prove what you are saying is true except you feel it in your heart.

My philosophy is built entirely upon reason.

You cannot move mountains.

I can't? How do you know that? What you mean to say is that I haven't moved a mountain.

you cannot make me believe.

You would never, ever, ever, believe in the existence of God through reason. That's all you are telling me here.
So, what if I were to move a mountain? Do you think everybody would then believe me? Or do you think that they would seek to kill me?
Name something I could do that you think would change the whole world for the good.

Even you admit, your faith only has the potential to do the things you claim it will. If it doesn't do it, what have we gained? What have we lost?

I have said that one must have absolute faith in the knowledge (given to one through reason) that one is God before one can willfully manipulate the world within one's awareness. Your only response to this is to demand miracles, rather to analyse the actual merits of what I have said.

How are you going to sell this empty sack of air to those people who think Jesus and all of his followers are lying evil blood sucking maniacs.

I'm not selling 'Christianity'. My views of Jesus contradict many of the views held by the Christian church.

You do realize how bad the nuclear war would have to be to destroy all human consciousness don't you?

Imagine America, losing it's cities to terrorists (who have now obtained nuclear devices) from all over the globe, that are intent on bringing Uncle Sam down to his knees. They will not stop until America is destroyed. You know their mentality by now.
What can America do about this? It needs to act fast before it's knees hit the deck! Only one course of action remains - destroy the threat by destroying everybody else!
Drastic action? Of course. But it's kill or risk being killed.

I'm not anti-muslim. I am anti-terrorism, of course. The terror threat comes primarily from a small minority of Muslims. Do you realise how spread-out the Muslim populace is?
http://www.allianceforsecurity.org/muslim_world

Destroying the middle-east would not safeguard Sam. You can see from that link I provided why I think Sam would destroy most of the world which is why talk of armageddon is justified in relation to the scenario I presented.

How long before the terrorists get nuclear devices? Not too long, I don't think. That's why time is now an issue. I see no way out unless mankind suddenly transforms.

[voodoochile]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Of course. That's why I said one cannot experience heaven without first walking through hell. Eventually though, to get to heaven, one must close the door on hell.

Suppose so. But what sort of art music & poetry might my philosophy inspire? Certainly a more uplifting kind, I assume.

You always will have the free-will to do anything, including to wage war. What you don't seem to grasp is that when one sees thy neighbour as thyself, one's will to wage war kinda evaporates all by itself.

Same response as previous.

Incorrect. When one knows oneself as God and understands that the experience of being other people is also being had by Yourself, then one's attitudes and will changes with regards to the interaction of these experiences.
If I know myself, absolutely, as God, then I no longer act-like nor have the will of "a man". I have the will of that God. And whatever I do, I do freely, as that God.

You obviously didn't read my responses to H on this matter. My philosophy certainly adds nothing to your actual sensations; but it would - if you were to believe it - change your experiences that you have with that world given to you by those sensations.

Only God exists, so God is the one having these Earthly experiences. God is expressing itself through 'me' and through all other perceived beings. I can know what God wants simply by observing mankind as a whole and by observing my own nature & desire.
Once one recognises that the evil and selfishness in this world are by-products of a belief in separation, one can easily fathom what One would want when that ignorance has been overcome.

Not if I say that only God exists.

God does often hate those things. God often loves them too. It all depends on who you talk to. As to why God - believing itself to be that person - might hate those things, depends upon many factors, such as the intelligence of that individual, his upbringing, etc..

What you said was true. So was what I have said. You simply haven't grasped the profundity of my philosophy yet, otherwise you wouldn't have said that.

My philosophy is built entirely upon reason.

I can't? How do you know that? What you mean to say is that I haven't moved a mountain.

You would never, ever, ever, believe in the existence of God through reason. That's all you are telling me here.
So, what if I were to move a mountain? Do you think everybody would then believe me? Or do you think that they would seek to kill me?
Name something I could do that you think would change the whole world for the good.

I have said that one must have absolute faith in the knowledge (given to one through reason) that one is God before one can willfully manipulate the world within one's awareness. Your only response to this is to demand miracles, rather to analyse the actual merits of what I have said.

I'm not selling 'Christianity'. My views of Jesus contradict many of the views held by the Christian church.

Imagine America, losing it's cities to terrorists (who have now obtained nuclear devices) from all over the globe, that are intent on bringing Uncle Sam down to his knees. They will not stop until America is destroyed. You know their mentality by now.
What can America do about this? It needs to act fast before it's knees hit the deck! Only one course of action remains - destroy the threat by destroying everybody else!
Drastic action? Of course. But it's kill or risk being killed.

I'm not anti-muslim. I am anti-terrorism, of course. The terror threat comes primarily from a small minority of Muslims. Do you realise how spread-out the Muslim populace is?
http://www.allianceforsecurity.org/muslim_world

Destroying the middle-east would not safeguard Sam. You can see from that link I provided why I think Sam would destroy most of the world which is why talk of armageddon is justified in relation to the scenario I presented.

How long before the terrorists get nuclear devices? Not too long, I don't think. That's why time is now an issue. I see no way out unless mankind suddenly transforms.

Well then we're screwed, LG. Truly screwed.

If you could move a mountain, how would people kill you. I mean if you can move a mountain, you could certainly get away from anyone trying to do you bodily harm.

I stick by my claim. You cannot do it.

And, yes. I demand miracles of those who claim they can perform them...

I guess I'll try and drop out of this conversation now. We aren't going to do anything but go around in circles. I agree to disagree because I am never going to convince you anyway. You don't want to be convinced and honestly speaking, your philosophy does nothing for me.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by voodoochile
Well then we're screwed, LG. Truly screwed.

If you could move a mountain, how would people kill you. I mean if you can move a mountain, you could certainly get away from anyone trying to do you bodily harm.

I stick by my claim. You cannot do it.

And, yes. I demand miracles of those who claim they can perform them...

I guess I'll try and drop out of this conversation now. We aren't going to do anything but go around in circles. I agree to disagree because I am never going to convince you anyway. You don't want to be convinced and honestly speaking, your philosophy does nothing for me.
I see. We're "truly screwed" and my philosophy - which has the potential to stop this happening, does nothing for you.
What can I say, except bring on those four horsemen.
I give up on you. If you choose death then death shall be yours.

[P.S.A.]

Suppose so. But what sort of art music & poetry might my philosophy inspire? Certainly a more uplifting kind, I assume.

And thus, Whatever It Is That Thinks It's Lifegazer returns to ignoring his God again, when his God points out the huge flaws in his logic, and thus abandons yet more of God to the Worms. So it's back to being a part of God which treats Lifegazer like the God-Killer he clearly is for this part of God, then.

Hey Lifegazer, your "Philosophy" has inspired no art, no music, no poetry. I repeat, where is your Philosophy book? Where is your articles submitted to peer review? Where is one convert, show me just one convert to this insane, self contradictory, random-definition-of-words mess you call your philosophy?

Honestly, you might be able to throw around philoso-babble like a lazy university student, but I've met toddlers who have more intellectual honesty than you do. You don't have a "Philosophy", you have a Tautology... A tautology you've conjured from nothing more than your own neursii, and then been too dishonest to even admit to yourself what you've done. Your "Philosophy" is no more profound than me saying "If everyone realises what makes them happy, they'll realise they are happy." And here's the real laugh; you won't even admit that they have... I repeat, I'm the majority of God parts here again, Lifegazer. And every single one of them thinks that, you enormously deluded, at best. Indeed, only you would be arrogant enough to think that you know better than 6 billion parts of GOD HIMSELF what decision he is coming to. Even in the face of Him telling you, over and over and over again...

I pity you. I truly do. You've thrown away all the things that make life worth living, for man and God, for nothing more than a case of Tautological Tourettes. You speak of getting your fellow man to love each other like God... whilst driving away what love you have had, to continue persuing these devils inside yourself. In all seriousness Lifegazer, I'd sooner both myself and God ceased to exist than condemn him to your lonely, incoherant, contradictory existance. And it IS my choice, remember? You said so. So I choose for God to die, rather than follow you. All of us chose that.

[voodoochile]

Originally posted by lifegazer
I see. We're "truly screwed" and my philosophy - which has the potential to stop this happening, does nothing for you.
What can I say, except bring on those four horsemen.
I give up on you. If you choose death then death shall be yours.

oooooo.... can you hear the ominous music playing in the background?

It will be yours too, LG. Nothing you can will stop it. Even if you somehow convinced everyone in the world to accept your point of view, it still wouldn't stop it.

But, unlike you, I don't think the world is on that short of a time frame. Tell you what, I'll meet you back here in 20 years and we can talk about it...

You really want to prevent this armageddon caused by Muslim extremists? Go to the Middle East and start teaching and helping the poor and finding a way to do something about it. Get involved in the parts of God's dream where you can make an impact. Stop wasting your time talking about it on the Internet hoping that somehow you will be recognized as the messiah/teacher/holder of the one truth. Go get involved...

[H'ethetheth]

Originally posted by lifegazer
I explained to you why the knowledge that one is God and that the world is within is not equivalent to the knowledge that one is a lump of matter with the world being out there.
That's not God's eye view. These things I understand from within the illusion itself.

Those answers I supplied for you were sound answers all. I invested alot of time & thought in addressing them, so to just evade the details in my responses is "annoyingly rude" to say the least. Never mind, maybe somebody got something out of them.
Calling me annoyingly rude earns you one more response. ;)
I've shown you, you even said I was "technically correct", that you cannot possibly know your experiences are orchestrated in stead of random. That means that there is no knowledge of being God.

You cannot explain because you were wrong and I explained why you were wrong:-
(1) Wrong to define yourself as a list of inner-experiences (H).
(2) Wrong to say that it makes no difference whether the world is internal or external, forgetting that if one is God that the experiences one can have are [potentially] vastly different to the experiences one can have if one is just an epiphenomenon of a lump of matter.
(3) Wrong to assert that separate experiences automatically equates to multiple beings.
ad (1): You claim I'm exactly not who my mind thinks I am, yet you cannot prove this, and consequently have failed to do so.
ad (2): Yes, as I said: I'm not waiting up.
ad (3): Do you truly not see that this is the definition of "beings" within your universe? Sets of experiences that do not directly exchange experiences with other such sets. It's somewhat abstract, but if you consider the cosequences of this it just means that in your universe there exists some sort of space in wich minds experience roaming around in spatial bodies. Your singular hypothetical non-space is exactly equally spatial as any space. I cannot stress this enough.

I cannot even be bothered to remember what other cock-ups you have made. Suffice to say that when one is proven to be wrong on so many points within one post and then walks away like a baby when told why he is wrong, that the person involved deserves nothing other than contempt. Which is a shame because I had a feeling you were a decent bloke. I am a decent bloke and I suspect you are too, but unlike you I'm not out to convert the world. I do not have the patience of a missionary. If you cannot recognise the major flaw in your thinking I cannot help you beyond pointing it out (several times). You have not proven me wrong, in fact you've not proven anything beyond your acceptable premise: I think therefore I am.
The only and I mean only conclusion that can be drawn is that whatever thinks it's you exists. Nothing else.

I doubt it. I see armageddon occuring well before then.
Again, I'm not waiting up. The bottom line is: Your theory doesn't change the way the universe appears to me until miracles start to happen. They don't, so you might very well be wrong.

Edited to remove slight ambiguity