lifegazer's logical conclusion.

[Beleth]

Note:
If you are not familiar with lifegazer's philosophy, you are probably not going to agree with this line of reasoning. I'm simply using three statements lifegazer has said in the past, and come to the inescapable, reasoned, conclusion.


1) God is acausal.
(From "A Universe Without God")

2) All sensed things have a cause.
(From "The rise & fall of the Scientific empire")

3) Things which are not sensed do not exist.
(Ibid.)

From 1 and 2, we have:

4) God is not sensed.

From 3 and 4, we have:


wait for it...





5) God does not exist.


Now I'm sure lifegazer will argue against this. But to do so, he will have to admit that at least one of statements 1, 2, or 3 is false. Since they are all pretty basic premises of his philosophy, I eagerly await his response.

[lifegazer]

The reason why you have come to the conclusion that you have is simply because you class God as a "thing".
... God however - in my philosophy - is existence. God is the source of such [perceived] things, but is not alike those things.
Just a conflict of language we have here... nothing else.
God cannot be sensed but exists since God is the source of the sensations and is the entity which experiences them. God, by default, cannot be the same entity as the [perception of] things that God creates within itself.

Your post merely forces me to explain the difference between a "thing" and an all-existing God. Surely you must realise that God, if existent, is not the same entity as the "things" that God creates within itself?
As such, there's no real value to your post. God is not a thing so God does not apply to (3).

[Dancing David]

But shouldn't existance have a cause, or how can you seperate the experience from the experient?

[uruk]

God is haveing a dream *yawn* so this is your new and unique discovery?
Please! read hindu mythology, nothing new here!

[lifegazer]

Quote:

Originally posted by Dancing David
But shouldn't existance have a cause, or how can you seperate the experience from the experient?

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

[lifegazer]

Quote:

Originally posted by uruk
God is haveing a dream *yawn* so this is your new and unique discovery?
Please! read hindu mythology, nothing new here!

Yet you still live like a brainless heathen. What's your excuse? You need one. You need a very good one. I'd plead stupidity if I were you. It's your only hope.

[Zombified]

So there are entities which lifegazer calls 'things', and entities lifegazer does not call 'things'. Both exist, but 'things' only exist if they are sensed. The same applies to causality: 'things' are caused, but not-'things' may not be.

Given the list of axioms above, I can argue for the existance and/or acausality of something just by putting it in the category of not-'things'.

This would appear to make proposition #3 somewhat useless except as a definition of 'thing'-ness.

So perhaps lifegazer can explain what goes in the category of not-'things'?

[Upchurch]

Quote:

Originally posted by lifegazer

Logic would demand that a primal-cause be acausal.

So, being acausal, can God be sensed?

[Zombified]

At first glance, it seems not, but since lifegazer has defined God to be in the category not-'thing', then axiom 2 no longer applies. It is possible God could be sensed in lifegazerism, unless there is an additional condition.

[Beleth]

Quote:

Originally posted by lifegazer
The reason why you have come to the conclusion that you have is simply because you class God as a "thing".

My definition of "thing" is "an entity which exists." If I didn't classify God as an entity which exists, then I would be classifying God as "not an entity which exists", i.e. I would be taking as an axiom that God does not exist, which I obviously do not wish to do.

What is your definition of the word "thing"?

Quote:

God is not a thing so God does not apply to (3).

"God is not a thing."
"God does not exist."
These statements are absolutely equivalent.

Now, if you have a lesser definition of "thing" which comes down to, basically, "everything which exists except God", then you allow for the dreaded Invisible Pink Unicorn counterargument. Is that what you want to do?

[lifegazer]

Quote:

Originally posted by Upchurch
So, being acausal, can God be sensed?

No, God cannot be sensed... though God can be reasoned for and, perhaps, 'felt'.

[Beleth]

Quote:

Originally posted by lifegazer
No, God cannot be sensed... though God can be reasoned for and, perhaps, 'felt'.

What's the difference between 'sensed' and 'felt'?

[lifegazer]

Quote:

Originally posted by Beleth
My definition of "thing" is "an entity which exists."

Then you are mistaken, since any "thing" existing within your awareness does not exist.
One must distinguish between God-is-existence and unreal "things" that are perceived within God's awareness.
As I said, it's a language game. But ultimately, since a distinction exists between God and the "things" God creates, you will lose that game.
I don't want to spend too much time on this, so please don't stretch it unless you have something meaningful to say.

[lifegazer]

Quote:

Originally posted by Beleth
What's the difference between 'sensed' and 'felt'?

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

[whim]

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

[uruk]

Quote:

Yet you still live like a brainless heathen. What's your excuse? You need one. You need a very good one. I'd plead stupidity if I were you. It's your only hope.

OOO! don't like it when you are shown the truth, huh lifegazer?
Yep, that's me. one of the unwashed, brainless heathen masses.
My life's pretty darn good. How's yours?

Your still trying to start a revolution by braying your hackneyed philosophy here. Where are your letters to leading scientists demanding reform? Where are your published articles?
Where is your crusade?

You ain't going to start a revolution here. This is too much of a niche forum for that. Besides your wearing yourself a little thin here. Right now your pretty much entertainment for the fellas who like shooting fish in a barrel. Your not going to make any converts here. You need to stop wasting your time here and go preach to the masses. I hear tele-evangelizing does pretty good.

[Beleth]

Quote:

Originally posted by lifegazer
One must distinguish between God-is-existence and unreal "things" that are perceived within God's awareness.

So there are two layers of existence, then - the unreal "world" which we perceive, and the "true existence" of God. Is that what you are saying?

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

Quote:

As I said, it's a language game. But ultimately, since a distinction exists between God and the "things" God creates, you will lose that game.

Actually, since I have already made you admit that there's a difference between God's level of existence and the existence of the rest of us, I have already won. You just haven't realized it yet.

Quote:

I don't want to spend too much time on this, so please don't stretch it unless you have something meaningful to say.

It's my thread. I started it; I'll decide how much time I spend on it. You are welcome to leave whenever you like, of course.

Quote:

Emotionalised. 'Feelings'.

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

[triadboy]

Quote:

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

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

[Zombified]

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

[Upchurch]

Quote:

Originally posted by lifegazer

No, God cannot be sensed... though God can be reasoned for and, perhaps, 'felt'.

The "what's the difference between sensed and felt" question aside, how can God exist if God cannot be sensed?

[Ratman_tf]

Quote:

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

Because Lifegazer LOVES to talk.

[Atlas]

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

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

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

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

[Filippo Lippi]

I thought LG only had time for one thread?

[Beleth]

Quote:

Originally posted by Fillipo Lippi
I thought LG only had time for one thread?

Yeah, but I find it hard to believe that he'll grant me God's reason-defying existence by ignoring this thead.

[Dancing David]

Quote:

Originally posted by lifegazer

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

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

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

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

[Dancing David]

Quote:

Originally posted by lifegazer

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

Silly rabbit! Emotions are sensations!

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

[RandFan]

Quote:

Originally posted by triadboy
Lifegazer's god is not the Christian god. He has an Eastern god philosophy.

Are you sure? He was telling me to read the Bible while assuming his philosophy and I would see the truth. Hmmm.....

[UndercoverElephant]

Quote:

Originally posted by triadboy


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

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

[lifegazer]

Quote:

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

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

Quote:

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

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

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

Quote:

the complete picture does not include his westernised, anthropomorphised God.

The western version of God cannot be the same as mine, since Jews and Christians think themselves separate to God.

[Donks]

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

[Beleth]

Quote:

Originally posted by lifegazer
How can God have no sense of self-awareness, no emotions, no desires or thoughts; yet be the perceiver of such things that do?

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

Quote:

God is omnipresent = God IS existence = whatever is experienced within God must be inherent within that God.

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

Quote:

The bible says that man was created in God's image. Obviously, we're talking about the mental & emotional image here.

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

Quote:

The western version of God cannot be the same as mine, since Jews and Christians think themselves separate to God.

The Western version of God is based on the Bible. You say that your philosophy is consistent with the Bible, yet you say that the Western version of God cannot be the same as yours. Explain this, please.

[lifegazer]

Quote:

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

Yes to your first questions. The accuracy of this representation is tainted by the religions which have miscontrued the words therein. I find the text to be perfectly consistent with my own philosophy. I am neither a christian or a Jew. Neither is God.

[lifegazer]

Quote:

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

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

Quote:

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

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

Quote:

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

Biblical literalists are dummies.

Quote:

The Western version of God is based on the Bible. You say that your philosophy is consistent with the Bible, yet you say that the Western version of God cannot be the same as yours. Explain this, please.

Easy. Man has misconstrued the words of the bible. Just like yourself.

[UndercoverElephant]

Quote:

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

Donks,

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

Lifegazers inconsistencies come from this stuff :

Quote:

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

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

[lifegazer]

Quote:

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

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

[UndercoverElephant]

Quote:

Originally posted by lifegazer

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

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

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

Quote:

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

Same utterly illogical argument.

Quote:

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

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

Quote:

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

YAWN

Quote:

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

Only in the illogical world of lifegazer.

Quote:

Not to turn oneself into a zombie.

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

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

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

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

[Acrimonious]

Quote:

Originally posted by JustGeoff

Or do you think God has his own brain?

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

Here's the original post it came from: Lifegazer on his brainless God

[UndercoverElephant]

Quote:

Originally posted by Acrimonious

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

Here's the original post it came from: Lifegazer on his brainless God

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

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

[lifegazer]

Quote:

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

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

[UndercoverElephant]

Quote:

Originally posted by lifegazer

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

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

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

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

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