Hello & the "riddle" of Epicurus

Tell us a little about yourself.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

seeds
Posts: 389
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 9:31 pm

Re: Hello & the "riddle" of Epicurus

Post by seeds » Mon Dec 18, 2017 1:51 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Mon Dec 18, 2017 1:20 am
-1- wrote:
Sun Dec 17, 2017 8:38 pm
Eodnhoj7 and -1-,

Didn't you guys get enough crayons to play with when you were kids? :D

If you don't mind too much, please use the normal quoting method and stop with your rainbow responses, it makes your posts difficult to sort out.
_______

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 991
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Hello & the "riddle" of Epicurus

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Mon Dec 18, 2017 1:53 am

seeds wrote:
Mon Dec 18, 2017 1:51 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Mon Dec 18, 2017 1:20 am
-1- wrote:
Sun Dec 17, 2017 8:38 pm
Eodnhoj7 and -1-,

Didn't you guys get enough crayons to play with when you were kids? :D

I knew I should have used purple....there are just so many pretty colors I can't decide which one to use :)

If you don't mind too much, please use the normal quoting method and stop with your rainbow responses, it makes your posts difficult to sort out.
_______

User avatar
Greta
Posts: 2821
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: Hello & the "riddle" of Epicurus

Post by Greta » Mon Dec 18, 2017 2:32 am

Another thought (yeah, the red "crayon" and messy quotes are hard to read - I gave up after a while).

To quote Richard Feynman about how humans view themselves:
It doesn't seem to me that this fantastically marvellous universe, this tremendous range of time and space and different kinds of animals, and all the different planets, and all these atoms with all their motions, and so on, all this complicated thing can merely be a stage so that God can watch human beings struggle for good and evil — which is the view that religion has. The stage is too big for the drama.
[/quote]

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 547
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: Hello & the "riddle" of Epicurus

Post by -1- » Mon Dec 18, 2017 3:11 am

Johndoe7:
"I find it too convenient for how rational atheists claim to be, they shut up when a logical proof goes against their argument. I don't like Christians, but atheists are the worse of the two hypocrites."

I saw no logical proof in your argument. Apparently I can't see eye-to-eye with you in your logical arguments, because you go into mathematical abstractions, every time, which I am honest enough to say I don't understand.

This may be because you are so much more intelligent than I.

If you would please, and come down to my level of intellect, then I can respond to your claims. But as long as seem to prove that 3-1=0 mathematically, or use abstract symbols without defining the symbols, or do other stuff that I can't follow... well, if I can't follow your reasoning, how can I respond to that? You can't expect me to pump up my IQ, but you can make the effort of coming down to my level. If you do that, then maybe I can respond to you.

This is neither an admission of defeat, nor a challenge of your claims. I am simply saying, I don't understand your claims as written, so please, if you want me to treat your logical arguments with due respect and logic, then it is you who has to come down to my level, for it is impossible for me to come up to yours.

My comprehension of your arguments would also be served if you kept your arguments shorter than your normal length of posts.

Thanks.

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 547
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: Hello & the "riddle" of Epicurus

Post by -1- » Mon Dec 18, 2017 3:23 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Mon Dec 18, 2017 1:53 am
seeds wrote:
Mon Dec 18, 2017 1:51 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Mon Dec 18, 2017 1:20 am
-1- wrote:
Sun Dec 17, 2017 8:38 pm
Eodnhoj7 and -1-,

Didn't you guys get enough crayons to play with when you were kids? :D

I knew I should have used purple....there are just so many pretty colors I can't decide which one to use :)

If you don't mind too much, please use the normal quoting method and stop with your rainbow responses, it makes your posts difficult to sort out.
_______
For the record: I never changed colours. I bolded and italicized my responses in the colour JohnDoe7 used; which was red.

He responded to an all-red thread, and used subsequently two or three other colours, whereas one would have sufficed to designate as his text of response to my reply to his responses.

I concur, Seeds, it is very distracting to jump from one colour to another for no apparent legibility reasons.

I, like you, also wish JohnDoe7 would use the conventional quoting system provided by this site.

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 547
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: Hello & the "riddle" of Epicurus

Post by -1- » Mon Dec 18, 2017 3:28 am

I counted the colours JohnDoe switched to in one single response: three, in number, being purple, green, and teal-blue. I may be mistaken in precisely naming the colours, but that's how they appear to me. And the number of them is not mistaken, being 3.

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 991
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Hello & the "riddle" of Epicurus

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Mon Dec 18, 2017 5:40 pm

-1- wrote:
Mon Dec 18, 2017 3:11 am
Johndoe7:
"I find it too convenient for how rational atheists claim to be, they shut up when a logical proof goes against their argument. I don't like Christians, but atheists are the worse of the two hypocrites."


Measurement and Definition as Actualization:

We can observe through science and philosophy, that observation itself effects what is observed. Observation, can be equivocated to measurement which in turn both forms and effects reality. It is in the observation of ourselves, that the question of God comes into existence as measurement seems to be a universal constant within the human experience as a form of mediation. We observe dimensions, physical and abstract, and in turn these dimensions acts as medians for other dimensions. It is this act of mediation through measurement, as a universal constant that observes God as everpresent, for measurement gives God existence through the act of observing him.

To say a spaghetti monster does not exist, is to actualize the spaghetti monster, at minimum as a phenomenon of the mind. This thought in turn affects physical reality, as habits may change causing a corresponding effect to the environment. The environment in turn affects the thought and a symmetry is observed between the two causing a further actualization of the percieved reality. Then what you have is a group of atheist sitting around a coffee table, or online, talking about God the whole time.

Atheism, created God not religious belief as it is a continual intellectual process of negation that requires to invent new definitions of God. God will always being around as long as Atheism exist, because Atheism keeps actualizing him through redefinition as a form of measurement. In these respects, God is equated to a greater measurer, as measurement becomes the continual constant and what we understanding of God is a continual process of measurement in opposition to nothingness.



I saw no logical proof in your argument. Apparently I can't see eye-to-eye with you in your logical arguments, because you go into mathematical abstractions, every time, which I am honest enough to say I don't understand.

This may be because you are so much more intelligent than I.



If you would please, and come down to my level of intellect, then I can respond to your claims. But as long as seem to prove that 3-1=0 mathematically, or use abstract symbols without defining the symbols, or do other stuff that I can't follow... well, if I can't follow your reasoning, how can I respond to that? You can't expect me to pump up my IQ, but you can make the effort of coming down to my level. If you do that, then maybe I can respond to you.

What abstract symbols? This is not the mathematics/logic or metaphysics section

This is neither an admission of defeat, nor a challenge of your claims. I am simply saying, I don't understand your claims as written, so please, if you want me to treat your logical arguments with due respect and logic, then it is you who has to come down to my level, for it is impossible for me to come up to yours.

Then how can you claim believers are wrong, if you don't understand all of their arguments?

My comprehension of your arguments would also be served if you kept your arguments shorter than your normal length of posts.

Thanks.

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 991
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Hello & the "riddle" of Epicurus

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Mon Dec 18, 2017 5:43 pm

Greta wrote:
Mon Dec 18, 2017 2:32 am
Another thought (yeah, the red "crayon" and messy quotes are hard to read - I gave up after a while).

To quote Richard Feynman about how humans view themselves:
It doesn't seem to me that this fantastically marvellous universe, this tremendous range of time and space and different kinds of animals, and all the different planets, and all these atoms with all their motions, and so on, all this complicated thing can merely be a stage so that God can watch human beings struggle for good and evil — which is the view that religion has. The stage is too big for the drama.
[/quote]

Is the stage to big for strict interpretations of the universe also? What is the difference between physics and religion, when viewed as the study of being and non-being? Is that not what the universe is... Being and Non-being?

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 547
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: Hello & the "riddle" of Epicurus

Post by -1- » Mon Dec 18, 2017 7:05 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Mon Dec 18, 2017 5:43 pm
Greta wrote:
Mon Dec 18, 2017 2:32 am
Another thought (yeah, the red "crayon" and messy quotes are hard to read - I gave up after a while).

To quote Richard Feynman about how humans view themselves:
It doesn't seem to me that this fantastically marvellous universe, this tremendous range of time and space and different kinds of animals, and all the different planets, and all these atoms with all their motions, and so on, all this complicated thing can merely be a stage so that God can watch human beings struggle for good and evil — which is the view that religion has. The stage is too big for the drama.
Is the stage to big for strict interpretations of the universe also? What is the difference between physics and religion, when viewed as the study of being and non-being? Is that not what the universe is... Being and Non-being?
[/quote]
You seem to have a never-ending series of questions. I suggest you go and figure things out for yourself, instead of asking every man and his brother what this means and what that means and why is this and why is that.

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 991
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Hello & the "riddle" of Epicurus

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Mon Dec 18, 2017 7:20 pm

-1- wrote:
Mon Dec 18, 2017 7:05 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Mon Dec 18, 2017 5:43 pm
Greta wrote:
Mon Dec 18, 2017 2:32 am
Another thought (yeah, the red "crayon" and messy quotes are hard to read - I gave up after a while).

To quote Richard Feynman about how humans view themselves:
Is the stage to big for strict interpretations of the universe also? What is the difference between physics and religion, when viewed as the study of being and non-being? Is that not what the universe is... Being and Non-being?
You seem to have a never-ending series of questions. I suggest you go and figure things out for yourself, instead of asking every man and his brother what this means and what that means and why is this and why is that.
[/quote]

Is that your answer? If that is the case why do you criticize everyone for non knowing everything? How can you justify your absence of belief in the face of believers or agnostics?

User avatar
Greta
Posts: 2821
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: Hello & the "riddle" of Epicurus

Post by Greta » Mon Dec 18, 2017 11:32 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Mon Dec 18, 2017 5:43 pm
Greta wrote:
Mon Dec 18, 2017 2:32 am
Another thought (yeah, the red "crayon" and messy quotes are hard to read - I gave up after a while).

To quote Richard Feynman about how humans view themselves:
It doesn't seem to me that this fantastically marvellous universe, this tremendous range of time and space and different kinds of animals, and all the different planets, and all these atoms with all their motions, and so on, all this complicated thing can merely be a stage so that God can watch human beings struggle for good and evil — which is the view that religion has. The stage is too big for the drama.
Is the stage to big for strict interpretations of the universe also? What is the difference between physics and religion, when viewed as the study of being and non-being? Is that not what the universe is... Being and Non-being?
Is an entire cosmos of hundreds of billions of galaxies, each with many billions of solar systems, needed to allow for one Earth?

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 991
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Hello & the "riddle" of Epicurus

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Tue Dec 19, 2017 1:54 am

Greta wrote:
Mon Dec 18, 2017 11:32 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Mon Dec 18, 2017 5:43 pm
Greta wrote:
Mon Dec 18, 2017 2:32 am
Another thought (yeah, the red "crayon" and messy quotes are hard to read - I gave up after a while).

To quote Richard Feynman about how humans view themselves:
Is the stage to big for strict interpretations of the universe also? What is the difference between physics and religion, when viewed as the study of being and non-being? Is that not what the universe is... Being and Non-being?
Is an entire cosmos of hundreds of billions of galaxies, each with many billions of solar systems, needed to allow for one Earth?
Unless a point reflects ad-infinitum it ceases to be point. Modal realism is a necessary dimensional structure that allows for stability, while allowing each dimension to be a phenomena in itself.

User avatar
Greta
Posts: 2821
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: Hello & the "riddle" of Epicurus

Post by Greta » Tue Dec 19, 2017 1:58 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Tue Dec 19, 2017 1:54 am
Greta wrote:
Mon Dec 18, 2017 11:32 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Mon Dec 18, 2017 5:43 pm


Is the stage to big for strict interpretations of the universe also? What is the difference between physics and religion, when viewed as the study of being and non-being? Is that not what the universe is... Being and Non-being?
Is an entire cosmos of hundreds of billions of galaxies, each with many billions of solar systems, needed to allow for one Earth?
Unless a point reflects ad-infinitum it ceases to be point. Modal realism is a necessary dimensional structure that allows for stability, while allowing each dimension to be a phenomena in itself.
Are you referring to fractal layers?

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 991
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Hello & the "riddle" of Epicurus

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Tue Dec 19, 2017 3:04 am

Greta wrote:
Tue Dec 19, 2017 1:58 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Tue Dec 19, 2017 1:54 am
Greta wrote:
Mon Dec 18, 2017 11:32 pm

Is an entire cosmos of hundreds of billions of galaxies, each with many billions of solar systems, needed to allow for one Earth?
Unless a point reflects ad-infinitum it ceases to be point. Modal realism is a necessary dimensional structure that allows for stability, while allowing each dimension to be a phenomena in itself.
Are you referring to fractal layers?
View it this way. Lets say 1 exists as a point in space. This point reflects further points, with the reflection of points forming structures. The point continually reflects ad-finitum through itself to form all possible structures as extensions of itself. These structures are both extensions of the one point and of eachother (as composed of the 1 point). This point must reflect ad-finitum otherwise it ceases to be, as it contains deficiency and is temporal in nature.

This could be called the ether.

The structures of the universe are much like that, possibility is merely an infinite extension of the point as an ever present medium.

What we observe as movement, is really just an approximation of "unity" through a dual 0d space acting as a median. So what we observe as space continually manifesting all possibilities, has already happened. This would be the fractal dimensions, I believe you are talking about, as continually relating "parts". Parts, as particles, must relate to other parts in order to exist. The same applies for dimensions. Dimensions are merely relating particles.

Infinity is totality of being, and in these respects modal realism is a logical necessity as possibility is strictly a center point of structure as "infinity".

If that makes more sense.

seeds
Posts: 389
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 9:31 pm

Re: Hello & the "riddle" of Epicurus

Post by seeds » Tue Dec 19, 2017 6:29 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Mon Dec 18, 2017 1:53 am
seeds wrote:
Mon Dec 18, 2017 1:51 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Mon Dec 18, 2017 1:20 am
-1- wrote:
Sun Dec 17, 2017 8:38 pm
Eodnhoj7 and -1-,

Didn't you guys get enough crayons to play with when you were kids? :D

I knew I should have used purple....there are just so many pretty colors I can't decide which one to use :)

If you don't mind too much, please use the normal quoting method and stop with your rainbow responses, it makes your posts difficult to sort out.
_______
:D
_______

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests