God is an Impossibility

Is there a God? If so, what is She like?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 4452
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Age wrote: Wed Oct 24, 2018 4:44 am To prove how a particular apple exists I PLACE the physical apple in front of you. If you WANT to, you then allow the body to experience the apple through any of the five senses. If you experience the apple, then you can or can not accept the evidence I provided for you.

Just like I have placed the physical Universe in front of you. If you WANT to, you can now allow the body to experience the Universe through any of the five senses. If you experience the Universe, then can or can not accept the evidence I provided for you. If you do or do not accept the evidence, then that is up to you SOLELY.
Kant argued there are only 3 transcendental illusions, i.e.
  • 1. The Whole Universe
    2. The Soul that survives physical death.
    3. Absolute perfection is God or the likes.
The point is we can produce the relatively total complete apple in front of us and any one else and prove its empirical existence. QED

Now can you produce the real whole and complete Universe in front of us and prove to everyone that such total complete Universe exists empirically.
What we know of the Universe is the partial empirical evidences we have available and critically that is based on Science which is conditioned by its Framework & System invented by humans.
In addition, scientific theories are at best 'polished conjectures'.

With so much reservations and conditions against the "Universe" how can you claim the Universe [you learned from Science] is of absolute perfection [i.e. totally unconditionality]

Relatively, you are very stupid in equivocating all over and arriving with the above thoughts.
Age
Posts: 5065
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Post by Age »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Oct 24, 2018 4:03 am
Age wrote: Tue Oct 23, 2018 2:22 pm
absolute perfection is unconditional,
therefore there can never be absolute perfection within the conditional empirical world.
But I have NEVER been talking about any thing within some thing. I am taking about the ALL-THERE-IS, sometimes known as the Universe, Itself.

The Universe is NOT conditional to any thing, that I am aware of anyway. Do you have any evidence that the Universe, Itself is conditional?

If you do, then WHAT are those CONDITIONS?
Note YOUR 'ALL-THERE-IS' is realized within yourself as a human being in interaction with other humans & the Universe.

This why I have to bring you back to the arena of Philosophical Realism versus Philosophical anti-Realism.
I do NOT care one iota about what you human beings say you do in any arena of what you call "philosophizing". I asked you earlier to provide just at least ONE sound, valid argument that has been arrived from, your misuse of the word, "philosophy" in the past 200 years and that which has been of useful helpful benefit to human beings, or to life itself. You have failed to provide just one.

Until then the rest of what you say is pointless as I have already POINTED out;
YOU are just TRYING TO grasp onto absolutely any thing that supports your already ill-gained BELIEF, which you obviously do NOT want to let go. I have also POINTED out that just because you have a BELIEF, that in and of itself does NOT make it true, right, nor correct.

I am here in this forum for two reasons;
1. To show through written evidence of how the Mind and the brain work. I have USED you and others here as My test subjects, and you all have preformed 'absolutely perfectly' for Me to demonstrate EXACTLY what I am explaining. Your job is done here. So, thank you.
2. I also want to learn how to communicate better. A human beings with BELIEFS is a hard thing to get through, but a human being who calls them self a "philosopher" or classes them self as doing "philosophy" with a BELIEF is a whole other aspect of hardness. Thus, the reason I am here in this actual forum to learn HOW to communicate successfully. That is; if I learn how to get through stubbornness of the people here in this forum who will NOT let go off their BELIEFS, then I can get through any human being who will TRY NOT to let go of their BELIEFS.

For example you BELIEVE you KNOW what the ideology of islam IS, and, I was telling you ONLY the ones who wrote it KNOW what 'the original intention' IS and what the ideology IS behind islam. Without clarification from the speakers/writers all that any one else can do is second-guess. Even in this post you write things like; Note I was the one who raise the topic [OP] so I am aware of my original intentions.

Now, can any one else KNOW 'your original intentions' if you do NOT clarify with them what it IS?

If no, then how can you KNOW other's 'original intention'. And,
If yes, then I can KNOW what your 'original intention' IS.

And, If you want to KNOW what your 'original intention' IS, then it is for the benefit of YOU, only. Just like about what every other ADULT 'intention' is, at the moment.

Your stubbornness has been a great asset to Me in my learning and understanding more here, of what I actually want to keep learning. But there comes a time when you become of NO worth and NO use any more, and thus I do NOT need you any more. You are incapable of any change whatsoever. So that time has come to when I just let you go and pass on, happy in, and with, your own BELIEFS.

I do NOT want to say any thing further here, for now.
Age
Posts: 5065
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Post by Age »

TimeSeeker wrote: Wed Oct 24, 2018 5:21 am
Age wrote: Wed Oct 24, 2018 3:53 am You are TRYING TO GET so far off track, as you PURPOSELY can, from what I am actually writing, saying, and meaning, so that that BELIEF that you are so dearly trying to to hang on to will still make some sort of sense, to you.
You need stop accusing me of "purposefully getting off the track" when i am trying to explain to you how and why you are wrong. I need to find a way to EXPLAIN it to you in a way you can RELATE to the issue at hand.
Firstly, write down WHAT IS wrong.
Secondly. write down HOW "it" IS wrong. Then,
Thirdly, write down WHY "it" IS wrong.

But do remember I have NOT argued for any thing. Only you and veritas aequitas HAVE.

I am saving, what I want do do, for later on went I want to explain to the readers and observers here what has been actually taking place and is actually happening here between, you, veritas aequitas, and I.
TimeSeeker wrote: Wed Oct 24, 2018 5:21 am
Age wrote: Wed Oct 24, 2018 3:53 am You wrote;
That would be a false analogy.

Anyone can conceptualize the notion of a 'horseless carriage' in the 17th century because they would be starting with something they already had (carriages) and then they take away the horse.

I have nothing to start with when you speak of 'absolute perfection'. Neither word is something that you can just point to with your finger.

I explained MY BAD. AND, used 'motor vehicle' INSTEAD so now it is NOT a false analogy. Now, you say that you have nothing to start with when you speak of 'absolute perfection'. My point IS the people before the 17th century also had nothing to speak of in relation to a diesel powered computerized motor vehicle.
No matter how far you move the goalpost (motorized vehicle, flying airplane, rocket ship). People do have something to relate to - EXPERIENCE.

As I already pointed out (and you dismissed): I could explain the CONCEPT to people by saying "It will take 1 hour instead of 10 hours to get from A to B". I don't have to tell them HOW that will work (diesel powered computer vehicle, airplane OR rocket ship). Those are specifics.

I have explained to them in ways that:
1. They can relate to
2. They understand HOW that thing will make their life better ( reduce travel time! )
Every thing you try to bring into the equation is some thing that has already been conceptualized to those people beforehand. You HAVE TO do this in order to support your own BELIEF. You are ignoring, dismissing, or completely incapable of seeing what I am saying. That is;

Human beings, just like YOU, have a tendency to completely disregard absolutely any idea IF it is beyond their realm of senses/sensing.

For example; If YOU, the one that calls itself "timeseeker", lived in a time when you BELIEVED some thing is an impossibility, (for example a motorized vehicle if you lived in the year 1018), then you would BELIEVE that it is possible. Thus, you would not and COULD not even know were to begin to conceptualize it, which is EXACTLY what you are doing in this year you call 2018. That is; you BELIEVE so strongly that it is impossible for some thing to exist SO you can NOT even begin to conceptualize it. The BELIEF is just way to strong for you to overcome it and then even begin to imagine. The BELIEF overrides the reality.



TimeSeeker wrote: Wed Oct 24, 2018 5:21 am
Age wrote: Wed Oct 24, 2018 3:53 am My point was, and still IS, just because some thing can NOT yet be imagined BY SOME PEOPLE to come into existence, that is; into being empirical, then that does NOT mean IN and OF ITSELF that that thing is JUST an ideal.
It does.

"Horseless carriage" relates to experience as "10 times faster travel from A to B"
"absoute perfection" = ???
You keep dismissing the 'motorized' part, for the obvious effect that it has on YOU.

Tell us ALL here now HOW you would conceptualize a motor if you lived 10,000 years ago or 1,000 years ago?
Age wrote: Wed Oct 24, 2018 3:53 am Just because some thing, at that moment, is an ideal does NOT make it then an impossibility in the empirical. Which is exactly what the argument was saying; that i was saying was WRONG. That argument was WRONG for the very reason I have been GIVING.
Age wrote: Wed Oct 24, 2018 3:53 am Tell me; HOW do I explain a, relatively, NEW IDEA to a group of people? That is; a NEW IDEA that CAN (and WILL?) come into existence like;
Relate it to experience and human needs.[/quote]

HOW many needs are there? And,
WHAT are they?

How do I explain to a group of people 1,500 years ago from what you call 2018 that motorized vehicles are very simple and easy things to operate and will come into existence, especially when they have had NO experience of them and that there is NO actual real need for them?

How do I explain to you , or any group of people in what you call 2018, that time traveling machines are very simple and easy things to operate and will come into existence, especially when you, and (most of) them, have had NO experience of them and there there is NO actual real need for them?

How do I do it now?
TimeSeeker wrote: Wed Oct 24, 2018 5:21 am
Age wrote: Wed Oct 24, 2018 3:53 am You are the same as one of these people. You are NOT yet able to imagine some thing, so to you you BELIEVE it is an impossibility.
Ad hominem.I am nothing like that.
Do you think I am attacking you? If so:
WHERE?
HOW? And,
WHY?

TimeSeeker wrote: Wed Oct 24, 2018 5:21 am I told you what "impossible" means to me - it violates the laws of physics.
If I recall correctly you actually have NOT told me that before.

But it does NOT matter anyway. Because I have stated that it is THAT BELIEF that stops you from IMAGINING. NOT that it matters what BELIEF it is, BELIEFS are the very things themselves that stops IMAGINATION. And, it is IMAGINATION how human beings are actually able to CONSTRUCT things.
TimeSeeker wrote: Wed Oct 24, 2018 5:21 amSo what you need to tell me is how you intend to do all of the following without violating the laws of physics:
1. Manufacture electricity to meet global demand without pollution
2. Sustain industry to feed, clothe, house, educate, transport and employ all people on Earth without pollution
3. Ensure that human needs are met at some minimum standard SO THAT wars do not occur.

VERY EASILY, and also way off topic. Also, your PERCEPTION of those things is completely missing the mark. But anyway:
1. With constant base load, pollution-free energy.
2. Take GREED out of society so people like your self do NOT have the continued distorted view that LIFE exists for you, human beings, and you alone.
3. The actual real and true human beings NEEDS are BETTER met without the LOVE OF MONEY. Once you ALL KNOW how to live together in peace and harmony, then OBVIOUSLY wars are a thing of the PAST.

TimeSeeker wrote: Wed Oct 24, 2018 5:21 am
Age wrote: Wed Oct 24, 2018 3:53 am You are the type of person WHO unless you physically observe and feel [experience] some thing you are, on most accounts, incapable of just even imagining it (ETC...)
Ad hominem. I am nothing like that. I am the type of person who can actualise his ideas.
"his" ideas being the operative word here.
TimeSeeker wrote: Wed Oct 24, 2018 5:21 amOr recognise what prevents him from actualising his ideas. I build things.
I do NOT care if you built every thing.

By the way does recognizing that WHAT prevents YOU from actualizing your ideas, help you or hinder bringing your ideas into fruition.

Just maybe there REALLY is NO THING that prevents an idea from actualizing other than a BAD idea, in the beginning? Just food for thought.
TimeSeeker wrote: Wed Oct 24, 2018 5:21 amTell me how you would bring your idea into being.
By continually learning how to communicate better. One way of doing that is by asking for clarification of how I can be better understood, especially by those who are clearly not able to nor want to understand. That is; ones like your self.

TimeSeeker wrote: Wed Oct 24, 2018 5:21 am
Age wrote: Wed Oct 24, 2018 3:53 am WHY do you say the Universe is a box? Where and when did you start conceptualizing the Universe as a box? To state; 'the Universe IS a box' is a pretty big thing to do. Do you have any evidence for this?
I don't need evidence for my concepts.
So, you do NOT need evidence for "your" CONCEPTS. But you can NOT even begin to make up a concept of 'absolute perfection', is that RIGHT?
TimeSeeker wrote: Wed Oct 24, 2018 5:21 am The universe is a box for exactly the same reason why you say "you are pointing IN the Universe". We are inside the universe.
HOW, in hell, do you relate to being INSIDE the Universe and that some HOW provides to you the reason the Universe, IS A "BOX", of all things. Of ALL the words that you could pick from, in the Universe, to describe the Universe your self, you conceptualize the Universe as a "BOX". So be it. You are free to choose WHATEVER you like.
TimeSeeker wrote: Wed Oct 24, 2018 5:21 am But also the CONCEPT of "the universe" is inside OUR heads.
OF COURSE the CONCEPT is inside the human head/body. Where is did you conceptualize IT could be?
TimeSeeker wrote: Wed Oct 24, 2018 5:21 am Inside our heads the CONCEPT of "The Universe" is the category for "everything that exists".
REALLY? I am glad you cleared that up. Just NOT sure WHO you were clearing it up for.
TimeSeeker wrote: Wed Oct 24, 2018 5:21 am
Age wrote: Wed Oct 24, 2018 3:53 am Although the Universe IS NOT a box but that is the only conceptualization you have for It, the aspect of the Universe that is the 'absolute perfection' is the WHOLE of IT as One.
You are violating the law of identity.
Is there a 'law of identity'?
WHERE is this law?
WHAT is this law?
WHO made up and decided this law?

I thought the whole bases for the way you 'rational logical reason' was that the definition of words, or the IDENTITY of things, was relative and NOT objective?
TimeSeeker wrote: Wed Oct 24, 2018 5:21 amThe universe is "the whole lot of it". The one. The Universe is Everything.
YES, I KNOW. That is WHAT I have been saying, as evidenced above and in other threads here in this forum.
TimeSeeker wrote: Wed Oct 24, 2018 5:21 amTo say that the universe is "absolute perfection" is to describe an ADDITIONAL aspect of the thing which is not conveyed in its original description.
Example: I am TimeSeeker - I am human. At this point you assert that I have a head, eyes etc.
I VERY, VERY strongly do NOT assert that 'you' or 'I' have a head, eyes, etc. To do so would be to do the absurd.
TimeSeeker wrote: Wed Oct 24, 2018 5:21 amMy eyes are blue <----- new information that was not contained in the description of "human".
But who is the 'My', in the ill-gained BELIEF and thus ill-gotten and arrived, statement "My eyes are blue? (By the way I in NO way expect you to even think about this question correctly let alone be able to answer it in any way at all for now.) I am just pointing out to the observers NOW how far behind in thinking and KNOWING the human beings actually were back in the year when this was written, which some of them called 2018.
TimeSeeker wrote: Wed Oct 24, 2018 5:21 amWhen you say "absolute perfection" what NEW INFORMATION about The Universe are you giving me?
WHAT NEW INFORMATION could I give you?

Did you forget? You BELIEVE that 'absolute perfection' is an IMPOSSIBILITY. Therefore, by definition there is NO NEW any thing that could show you otherwise. YOU are literally NOT at all OPEN to any thing new.
TimeSeeker wrote: Wed Oct 24, 2018 5:21 amWhat property OF the universe you describing that is not already included in the definition of "The Universe" which means "everything".
I am NOT giving you any other property other than what I have been giving you all along, that is; the property OF Itself.

But you BELIEVE that that is NOT possible. RIGHT?

TimeSeeker wrote: Wed Oct 24, 2018 5:21 am
Age wrote: Wed Oct 24, 2018 3:53 am If they have a meaning to you, THEN you have some where to start. Which contradicts what you previously stated. That is; that you have NOTHING to start with when you speak of 'absolute perfection'.
It's not a contradiction. You are just jumping to conclusions. I use the word "absolute" in certain contexts. I use the word "perfection" to describe my desires/feelings.
So, you actually do have SOME WHERE to start, which you previously said you did not. Therefore, a contradiction in terms? (I will let the observers decide that).
TimeSeeker wrote: Wed Oct 24, 2018 5:21 am I don't use the two together.
YES I am well aware you do NOT use those words together. I am pretty sure most observers are well aware of that also, by NOW. You keep reminding us what your BELIEF IS. That is; there is NO 'absolute perfection'. So, you are completely incapable of even being able to use those two words together.
TimeSeeker wrote: Wed Oct 24, 2018 5:21 am And I definitely don't know how to use them in relation to the universe.
That is perfectly fine.

We already KNOW that because of that BELIEF of yours that you definitely DO NOT KNOW HOW to use them in relation to the Universe. It would be very contradictory to WANT to maintain that BELIEF as well as be even able to see them, let alone use them, in relation to the Universe. You are NOT able to even SEE how they could relate to the Universe. We get it!
TimeSeeker wrote: Wed Oct 24, 2018 5:21 am
Age wrote: Wed Oct 24, 2018 3:53 am ALL you are doing here is TRYING your very hardest to find and grasp onto absolutely anything that could SUPPORT your already ill-gained and strongly held BELIEFS.

Because of the way the way the Mind and the brain work you just do NOT want to even begin to start because if you did then that would be going against your OWN little self. You might find that what you BELIEVE is true now actually is not.
I think you are projecting your feelings onto me.
They were words projected onto the screen, in FRONT of, as thinking/knowing THOUGHTS. Thoughts and feelings are different.

What you ALLOW to get 'projected' onto you is another thing
TimeSeeker wrote: Wed Oct 24, 2018 5:21 am
Age wrote: Wed Oct 24, 2018 3:53 am I do NOT care what you want to BELIEVE, and do actually BELIEVE. But if you, like other human beings, are going to keep insisting some things are absolutely true, right, and correct, of which they are obviously clearly NOT, then I will keep pointing WHERE they are WRONG, and WHY they are.
That is; they are WRONG because of YOUR subjectivity views, based on your OWN personal ASSUMPTIONS and BELIEFS.
See. I have a much easier way for you to say the above paragraph to people you meet.
BUT I do NOT want to say it to people I meet. I ONLY WANT to say it to people who BELIEVE that they are RIGHT, when clearly they are NOT.
TimeSeeker wrote: Wed Oct 24, 2018 5:21 am And in a way that they WILL understand you.
You can just utter this phrase and they will understand you INTANTLY. Ready? Here it is.

"You are wrong and I am right. You MUST listen to me!"
But is that not what you and veritas aequitas are just expressing and saying?

Remember, I am NOT arguing either for nor against some thing. You two are the ones TRYING TO.

I am saying you and veritas aequitas is WRONG because you are basing your WHOLE attempt at arguments on your own BELIEFS, without any evidence for them.

Whereas,

You and that self-labelled veritas aequitas are just saying that I am WRONG because you two are RIGHT. Again because of the BELIEFS that you both HAVE and SHARE.
TimeSeeker
Posts: 2866
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:42 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Post by TimeSeeker »

Age wrote: Wed Oct 24, 2018 8:49 am I am saving, what I want do do, for later on went I want to explain to the readers and observers here what has been actually taking place and is actually happening here between, you, veritas aequitas, and I.
Are you sure it's for the readers, or is it for your future self? ;) Seems like you are trying to built yourself a coherent theory. Good.

Age wrote: Wed Oct 24, 2018 8:49 am Every thing you try to bring into the equation is some thing that has already been conceptualized to those people beforehand. You HAVE TO do this in order to support your own BELIEF. You are ignoring, dismissing, or completely incapable of seeing what I am saying. That is;

Human beings, just like YOU, have a tendency to completely disregard absolutely any idea IF it is beyond their realm of senses/sensing.
Yes. It's called empiricism. It is HOW SCIENCE WORKS. If you think you have a better idea than science. Tell us! We need you!

Age wrote: Wed Oct 24, 2018 8:49 am For example; If YOU, the one that calls itself "timeseeker", lived in a time when you BELIEVED some thing is an impossibility, (for example a motorized vehicle if you lived in the year 1018), then you would BELIEVE that it is possible. Thus, you would not and COULD not even know were to begin to conceptualize it, which is EXACTLY what you are doing in this year you call 2018. That is; you BELIEVE so strongly that it is impossible for some thing to exist SO you can NOT even begin to conceptualize it. The BELIEF is just way to strong for you to overcome it and then even begin to imagine. The BELIEF overrides the reality.
You are strwamanning me agin. I gave you my definition of IMPOSSIBLE - it violates the laws of physics. And so if it doesn't violate a law of physics I have no problem accepting your idea.

That is - once you tell me what your idea actually is...
Age wrote: Wed Oct 24, 2018 8:49 am You keep dismissing the 'motorized' part, for the obvious effect that it has on YOU.

Tell us ALL here now HOW you would conceptualize a motor if you lived 10,000 years ago or 1,000 years ago?
Before I can conceptualise the SOLUTION. First I need to conceptualise the PROBLEM. Necessity is the mother of invention!

I WANT to get from village A to village B in 1 hour. It takes me 10 hours to walk there.

PROBLEM STATEMENT: How do I make "walking" faster? I have an idea - we can ride horses!

Well. it now takes 4 hours instead of 10 hours. It's still not 1 hour, but it's much better than walking! But if we COULD do it in 1 hour - it would be absolute perfection!
Age wrote: Wed Oct 24, 2018 8:49 am HOW many needs are there? And,
WHAT are they?
Many. Start here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_ ... y_of_needs

Or you can introspect and figure out what your own needs are, then ask whether other people share your needs.

Age wrote: Wed Oct 24, 2018 8:49 am How do I explain to a group of people 1,500 years ago from what you call 2018 that motorized vehicles are very simple and easy things to operate and will come into existence, especially when they have had NO experience of them and that there is NO actual real need for them?
Why do you NEED to explain to people from 1500 years ago that motorized vehicles are ver simple and easy to operate and will come into existence?
Age wrote: Wed Oct 24, 2018 8:49 am How do I explain to you , or any group of people in what you call 2018, that time traveling machines are very simple and easy things to operate and will come into existence, especially when you, and (most of) them, have had NO experience of them and there there is NO actual real need for them?

How do I do it now?
Why do you NEED to explain it to us? Either they will become reality. Or they won't Wait and see.

Unless you know HOW to build a time machine. In which case - why haven't you built it yet? Do you need anything from us?
Age wrote: Wed Oct 24, 2018 8:49 am Do you think I am attacking you? If so:
WHERE?
HOW? And,
WHY?
You keep mis-interpreting my words. And you fill in the blanks. You are guessing on incomplete information (like I am guessing). And you are guessing wrong.


Age wrote: Wed Oct 24, 2018 8:49 am But it does NOT matter anyway. Because I have stated that it is THAT BELIEF that stops you from IMAGINING.
No it doesn't. It just tells me (very quickly) if my beliefs are bullshit. Because if I run into conflict with the laws of Physics well... I am betting on physics being right.

There is no law (yet?) which makes time machines impossible. There is no technology which makes them possible. All that we can say is "We don't know if they are possible OR impossible".
Age wrote: Wed Oct 24, 2018 8:49 am 1. With constant base load, pollution-free energy.
Where is the technology for this?
Age wrote: Wed Oct 24, 2018 8:49 am 2. Take GREED out of society so people like your self do NOT have the continued distorted view that LIFE exists for you, human beings, and you alone.
Uhhh. No. I just like living. Like every other living thing. But if push comes to shove and somebody needs to die for somebody else to survive. Then I choose me over you.
Age wrote: Wed Oct 24, 2018 8:49 am 3. The actual real and true human beings NEEDS are BETTER met without the LOVE OF MONEY. Once you ALL KNOW how to live together in peace and harmony, then OBVIOUSLY wars are a thing of the PAST.
You don't want money? So you are willing to work for free? What can you do? I have a job for you!

Age wrote: Wed Oct 24, 2018 8:49 am "his" ideas being the operative word here.
Naturally. I have a penis. We refer to human animals with penises as men. And the 2rd person possessive pronoun for a man is "his".

Age wrote: Wed Oct 24, 2018 8:49 am By the way does recognizing that WHAT prevents YOU from actualizing your ideas, help you or hinder bringing your ideas into fruition.

Just maybe there REALLY is NO THING that prevents an idea from actualizing other than a BAD idea, in the beginning? Just food for thought.
Yes. it helps you know what you need to overcome IF you want to bring your ideas into fruition. IF you need to overcome the laws of physics - you have a problem. That is one example of a "bad" idea.

Age wrote: Wed Oct 24, 2018 8:49 am By continually learning how to communicate better. One way of doing that is by asking for clarification of how I can be better understood, especially by those who are clearly not able to nor want to understand. That is; ones like your self.
I see. So what your idea boils down to is making everybody think like you? I thought you had some technological advancements to bring to the table...

Age wrote: Wed Oct 24, 2018 8:49 am So, you do NOT need evidence for "your" CONCEPTS. But you can NOT even begin to make up a concept of 'absolute perfection', is that RIGHT?
You gave me evidence for "absolute perfection". What you call "absolute perfection" I call "the universe". It's the same concept. You just have extra words for it.

Age wrote: Wed Oct 24, 2018 8:49 am HOW, in hell, do you relate to being INSIDE the Universe and that some HOW provides to you the reason the Universe, IS A "BOX", of all things. Of ALL the words that you could pick from, in the Universe, to describe the Universe your self, you conceptualize the Universe as a "BOX". So be it. You are free to choose WHATEVER you like.
Because it's a concept. And the concept exists as a category in my head. And that category contains EVERYTHING. So it is a metaphorical box.
Age wrote: Wed Oct 24, 2018 8:49 am REALLY? I am glad you cleared that up. Just NOT sure WHO you were clearing it up for.
For you. Because you were surprised as to why I would describe the universe as a box. The metaphor bothered you for some reason.

Age wrote: Wed Oct 24, 2018 8:49 am Is there a 'law of identity'?
WHERE is this law?
WHAT is this law?
WHO made up and decided this law?
We, humans, did. When we invented language to label things. If you don't like it - stop speaking.

Age wrote: Wed Oct 24, 2018 8:49 am I thought the whole bases for the way you 'rational logical reason' was that the definition of words, or the IDENTITY of things, was relative and NOT objective?
Yes. And? I don't understand what you misunderstand. You called it "absolute perfection" I called it "the universe", or reality. It's the same thing - with different names. In English they are called synonyms.
TimeSeeker wrote: Wed Oct 24, 2018 5:21 amThe universe is "the whole lot of it". The one. The Universe is Everything.
YES, I KNOW. That is WHAT I have been saying, as evidenced above and in other threads here in this forum.
Age wrote: Wed Oct 24, 2018 8:49 am I VERY, VERY strongly do NOT assert that 'you' or 'I' have a head, eyes, etc. To do so would be to do the absurd.
OK. I have eyes. If you don't have eyes - how are you reading this message? Are you in The Matrix?

Age wrote: Wed Oct 24, 2018 8:49 am But who is the 'My', in the ill-gained BELIEF and thus ill-gotten and arrived, statement "My eyes are blue? (By the way I in NO way expect you to even think about this question correctly let alone be able to answer it in any way at all for now.) I am just pointing out to the observers NOW how far behind in thinking and KNOWING the human beings actually were back in the year when this was written, which some of them called 2018.
I. TimeSeeker. This body.

Age wrote: Wed Oct 24, 2018 8:49 am WHAT NEW INFORMATION could I give you?
Whatever you mean over and above "The universe".
Like eyes vs "blue eyes". and "universe" vs "absolute perfection universe". What is the difference?
Age wrote: Wed Oct 24, 2018 8:49 am Did you forget? You BELIEVE that 'absolute perfection' is an IMPOSSIBILITY.
And you believe that "absolute perfection" IS the same thing as "the universe". So you aren't telling me anything new. Except that you seem to have great admiration for the universe.
Age wrote: Wed Oct 24, 2018 8:49 am I am NOT giving you any other property other than what I have been giving you all along, that is; the property OF Itself.

But you BELIEVE that that is NOT possible. RIGHT?
That's a lie. I told you I have blue eyes. That is a property of self over and above "I have eyes".

Why is it that you can't do the same with "the universe"? What color is it?


Age wrote: Wed Oct 24, 2018 8:49 am So, you actually do have SOME WHERE to start, which you previously said you did not. Therefore, a contradiction in terms? (I will let the observers decide that).
Yeah. I started with my experiences. Which is the same as my knowledge of the universe.
Age wrote: Wed Oct 24, 2018 8:49 am So, you are completely incapable of even being able to use those two words together.
Well, of course I can. You just taught me how! You said "The universe" is "absolute perfection". But that is a mouthful!
So I am going to continue to call it "universe", and not your label "absolute perfection". You are welcome to continue using the phrase.
I just have to keep reminding myself that when you say "absolute perfection" you mean "the universe".
Age wrote: Wed Oct 24, 2018 8:49 am What you ALLOW to get 'projected' onto you is another thing
Well. There is no way to stop you from projecting your feelings onto me, so it's not a matter of allowing. Which is why I keep correcting you where yo u misinterpret me.

Age wrote: Wed Oct 24, 2018 8:49 am BUT I do NOT want to say it to people I meet. I ONLY WANT to say it to people who BELIEVE that they are RIGHT, when clearly they are NOT.
OK. Then why are you talking to me?

Age wrote: Wed Oct 24, 2018 8:49 am But is that not what you and veritas aequitas are just expressing and saying?
No. Do I have to correct you for the 8th time now?

Being LESS WRONG is not the same as being RIGHT.

Two different things, see?
Last edited by TimeSeeker on Wed Oct 24, 2018 9:33 am, edited 1 time in total.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 4452
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Age wrote: Wed Oct 24, 2018 7:10 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Oct 24, 2018 4:03 am
Age wrote: Tue Oct 23, 2018 2:22 pm

But I have NEVER been talking about any thing within some thing. I am taking about the ALL-THERE-IS, sometimes known as the Universe, Itself.

The Universe is NOT conditional to any thing, that I am aware of anyway. Do you have any evidence that the Universe, Itself is conditional?

If you do, then WHAT are those CONDITIONS?
Note YOUR 'ALL-THERE-IS' is realized within yourself as a human being in interaction with other humans & the Universe.

This why I have to bring you back to the arena of Philosophical Realism versus Philosophical anti-Realism.
I do NOT care one iota about what you human beings say you do in any arena of what you call "philosophizing". I asked you earlier to provide just at least ONE sound, valid argument that has been arrived from, your misuse of the word, "philosophy" in the past 200 years and that which has been of useful helpful benefit to human beings, or to life itself. You have failed to provide just one.

I don't recall we had a specific discussion on the contribution of philosophy to humanity.

You are living in the world of ignorance.

I have done very extensive research on 'what is philosophy' and have analyzed more than 500+ definitions of 'what is philosophy' by various philosophers and others. I don't think you have done that.
I had defined 'philosophy-proper' as an inherent impulse of continuous improvement within the individual human for the sake of the well being of the individual, the others, humanity and the universe. Therefore all general progress of humanity can be attributable to philosophy-proper. Science which has contributed much to humanity is leveraged fundamentally upon philosophy proper to establish its foundation for its Scientific Framework and Sytem.
As for 'philosophy' specific, just google 'the usefulness of philosophy' and you will get loads of answers

Until then the rest of what you say is pointless as I have already POINTED out;
YOU are just TRYING TO grasp onto absolutely any thing that supports your already ill-gained BELIEF, which you obviously do NOT want to let go. I have also POINTED out that just because you have a BELIEF, that in and of itself does NOT make it true, right, nor correct.
I told you every human being has beliefs.
Whatever beliefs I expressed as knowledge they are backed by empirical-rational justifications.
Your contended claims in contrast are not backed by empirical-rational justifications.
I am here in this forum for two reasons;
1. To show through written evidence of how the Mind and the brain work. I have USED you and others here as My test subjects, and you all have preformed 'absolutely perfectly' for Me to demonstrate EXACTLY what I am explaining. Your job is done here. So, thank you.
2. I also want to learn how to communicate better. A human beings with BELIEFS is a hard thing to get through, but a human being who calls them self a "philosopher" or classes them self as doing "philosophy" with a BELIEF is a whole other aspect of hardness. Thus, the reason I am here in this actual forum to learn HOW to communicate successfully. That is; if I learn how to get through stubbornness of the people here in this forum who will NOT let go off their BELIEFS, then I can get through any human being who will TRY NOT to let go of their BELIEFS.
I have my own intentions in participation in this forum.
Who give a damn of what your intentions are.
I have no issue as long as you participate within the rules of the forum and I have my discretion whether to response to your posts or not and vice versa.
For example you BELIEVE you KNOW what the ideology of islam IS, and, I was telling you ONLY the ones who wrote it KNOW what 'the original intention' IS and what the ideology IS behind islam. Without clarification from the speakers/writers all that any one else can do is second-guess. Even in this post you write things like; Note I was the one who raise the topic [OP] so I am aware of my original intentions.

Now, can any one else KNOW 'your original intentions' if you do NOT clarify with them what it IS?

If no, then how can you KNOW other's 'original intention'. And,
If yes, then I can KNOW what your 'original intention' IS.

And, If you want to KNOW what your 'original intention' IS, then it is for the benefit of YOU, only. Just like about what every other ADULT 'intention' is, at the moment.
Obviously I know my intentions.
That is how I have told you where you are off topic.
Your stubbornness has been a great asset to Me in my learning and understanding more here, of what I actually want to keep learning. But there comes a time when you become of NO worth and NO use any more, and thus I do NOT need you any more. You are incapable of any change whatsoever. So that time has come to when I just let you go and pass on, happy in, and with, your own BELIEFS.

I do NOT want to say any thing further here, for now.
Whatever you gained from this forum within the rules is your business and whatever I gained is mine.
You have the discretion to do what you like and you don't have to tell me about it.
If you think it is time to stop, then just stop, there is no need to fuss about it.
TimeSeeker
Posts: 2866
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:42 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Post by TimeSeeker »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Oct 24, 2018 9:31 am I had defined 'philosophy-proper' as an inherent impulse of continuous improvement within the individual human for the sake of the well being of the individual, the others, humanity and the universe. Therefore all general progress of humanity can be attributable to philosophy-proper.
Only one question: Do you really not recognise how "philosophy-proper" (or wisdom; or prevention over cure; or whatever else you have called it) is all built on the foundation of continuous improvement of HUMAN:
* science improving towards the ideal of omniscience.
* potential improving towards the ideal of omnipotence
* presence improving towards the ideal of omnipresence

Do you really not recognise that your IDEAL is the Abrahamic God? It would be a damn shame to end up a Christian after your crusade against religion ;)

By improving ourselves we gain CONTROL (e.g determinism) so as to ensure the well being of the individual, the others, humanity.
By improving ourselves we BECOME God. Against the universe (which is trying damn hard to kill us). It's the David vs Goliath metaphor ;)
Age
Posts: 5065
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Post by Age »

TimeSeeker wrote: Wed Oct 24, 2018 9:22 am
Being LESS WRONG is not the same as being RIGHT.

Two different things, see?
WHEN you insist 'absolute perfection' IS an impossibility, HOW being LESS WRONG of being RIGHT is that?

Also, what you capitalized in red highlights, for others EXACTLY what I have been saying. That is exactly WHERE, and HOW, the self-labelled "timeseeker" gets distracted away from the actual point I am making, and is thus unable to see and recognize the point which puts the BELIEF into question.

Those BELIEFS that "timeseeker" is dearly holding onto is controlling "timeseeker" in ways that they, them self, does NOT even recognize.
TimeSeeker
Posts: 2866
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:42 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Post by TimeSeeker »

Age wrote: Wed Oct 24, 2018 11:16 am WHEN you insist 'absolute perfection' IS an impossibility, HOW being LESS WRONG of being RIGHT is that?
You need to define what "absolute perfection" is in a way that is TESTABLE and FALSIFIABLE before I can answer you. From the doctrine of verificationism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verificationism ) : how do I VERIFY that what you say is true?

So far you have just equivocated yourself. You said "the universe" is "absolute perfection". How right or less wrong is the universe? That's a dumb question!
Age wrote: Wed Oct 24, 2018 11:16 am Also, what you capitalized in red highlights, for others EXACTLY what I have been saying. That is exactly WHERE, and HOW, the self-labelled "timeseeker" gets distracted away from the actual point I am making, and is thus unable to see and recognize the point which puts the BELIEF into question.
THE belief? Your belief or my belief?
Age wrote: Wed Oct 24, 2018 11:16 am Those BELIEFS that "timeseeker" is dearly holding onto is controlling "timeseeker" in ways that they, them self, does NOT even recognize.
Unless TimeSeeker engineered his beliefs to suit his own needs and desires. In which case he has free will.
Age
Posts: 5065
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Post by Age »

TimeSeeker wrote: Wed Oct 24, 2018 9:42 am
By improving ourselves we gain CONTROL (e.g determinism) so as to ensure the well being of the individual, the others, humanity.
Where does the 'others' and 'humanity' come into play with you "timeseeker". You just not very long ago wrote:
Uhhh. No. I just like living. Like every other living thing. But if push comes to shove and somebody needs to die for somebody else to survive. Then I choose me over you.

WHY would you even think like that? You will be dead and gone is just a relatively very short few years. Yet while you are here you will continue to take from and get as much from others, from humanity, and even from the planet itself, without a care for what else happens. You even wrote about killing others, even if they have a much longer life here than you, you just do NOT care.
TimeSeeker wrote: Wed Oct 24, 2018 9:42 amBy improving ourselves we BECOME God. Against the universe (which is trying damn hard to kill us). It's the David vs Goliath metaphor ;)
Yeah I am sure a God would go AGAINST the very Universe, Itself.

You really would be one of the most self-centered human beings I have met. You really believe that the Universe is out to kill you? All you can think about is YOU.

You even come up with some very illogical sayings like; The Universe is TRYING damn hard to kill us. You seem to have some sort of illusion that the "world", the Universe, is out to get you/us. And, that the Universe is TRYING TO kill you, could be interpreted, by some, as you have some sort of belief that you could actually outlive It. Just because you MAY WISH that you alone out lived the Universe Itself and that EVERY one else perished along with It, I am pretty sure you find that is not going to happen. Your choice to kill any and every one, just so you can keep living could be seen to infer that you have some sort of importance of ALL others, including the Universe, Itself
Age
Posts: 5065
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Post by Age »

TimeSeeker wrote: Wed Oct 24, 2018 11:25 am
Age wrote: Wed Oct 24, 2018 11:16 am WHEN you insist 'absolute perfection' IS an impossibility, HOW being LESS WRONG of being RIGHT is that?
You need to define what "absolute perfection" is in a way that is TESTABLE and FALSIFIABLE before I can answer you. From the doctrine of verificationism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verificationism ) : how do I VERIFY that what you say is true?
So, HOW do I VERIFY that what you say is true?

Remember it was YOU who says that 'absolute perfection' is impossible.

Have I stated anywhere that 'absolute perfection' is true?

Or, are you just assuming that I have?


TimeSeeker wrote: Wed Oct 24, 2018 11:25 amSo far you have just equivocated yourself.
Have I?

Depending on the definition of 'equivocate', if i recall correctly, I have already explained that I equivocate purposely and on just about every occasion I write here in this forum. I do this to evoke particular responses. There is NO necessary negative thing to equivocating.
TimeSeeker wrote: Wed Oct 24, 2018 11:25 amYou said "the universe" is "absolute perfection". How right or less wrong is the universe? That's a dumb question!
But that is NOT the actual question I asked you. So, I agree that question that YOU just wrote IS a very stupid question.

You have said that 'absolute perfection is impossible'. Obviously, I asked the question in relation to this.

TRYING TO turn things around, and misplace them, in order to feed your BELIEFS, does NOT help you. The reason it does NOT help is because what you write all remains here for ALL to see.

I even wrote the word WHEN in capital letters to highlight the very FACT that you;
WHEN you insist 'absolute perfection' IS an impossibility, HOW being LESS WRONG of being RIGHT is that?
Did you NOTICE it this time. That was the ACTUAL question I asked and it was in direction relation to NOT just what you say but also WHEN you say it.

I am NOT sure how much clearer I can BE.

(But we are getting much closer now. Just waiting for a few more obviously BELIEF remarks to come out. Then I can reveal what I have been waiting to do).
TimeSeeker wrote: Wed Oct 24, 2018 11:25 am
Age wrote: Wed Oct 24, 2018 11:16 am Also, what you capitalized in red highlights, for others EXACTLY what I have been saying. That is exactly WHERE, and HOW, the self-labelled "timeseeker" gets distracted away from the actual point I am making, and is thus unable to see and recognize the point which puts the BELIEF into question.
THE belief? Your belief or my belief?
I have already forewarned you that I do NOT believe any thing. Therefore, that means I have NO belief. How many times do I have to tell you?
TimeSeeker wrote: Wed Oct 24, 2018 11:25 am
Age wrote: Wed Oct 24, 2018 11:16 am Those BELIEFS that "timeseeker" is dearly holding onto is controlling "timeseeker" in ways that they, them self, does NOT even recognize.
Unless TimeSeeker engineered his beliefs to suit his own needs and desires. In which case he has free will.
But the one labelled "timeseeker" is MADE UP of BELIEFS. "timeseeker" can NOT control them. BELIEFS have control over "timeseeker", which has become more obvious this time around.
TimeSeeker
Posts: 2866
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:42 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Post by TimeSeeker »

Age wrote: Wed Oct 24, 2018 12:25 pm
TimeSeeker wrote: Wed Oct 24, 2018 11:25 am
Age wrote: Wed Oct 24, 2018 11:16 am WHEN you insist 'absolute perfection' IS an impossibility, HOW being LESS WRONG of being RIGHT is that?
You need to define what "absolute perfection" is in a way that is TESTABLE and FALSIFIABLE before I can answer you. From the doctrine of verificationism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verificationism ) : how do I VERIFY that what you say is true?
So, HOW do I VERIFY that what you say is true?

Remember it was YOU who says that 'absolute perfection' is impossible.

Have I stated anywhere that 'absolute perfection' is true?

Or, are you just assuming that I have?


TimeSeeker wrote: Wed Oct 24, 2018 11:25 amSo far you have just equivocated yourself.
Have I?

Depending on the definition of 'equivocate', if i recall correctly, I have already explained that I equivocate purposely and on just about every occasion I write here in this forum. I do this to evoke particular responses. There is NO necessary negative thing to equivocating.
TimeSeeker wrote: Wed Oct 24, 2018 11:25 amYou said "the universe" is "absolute perfection". How right or less wrong is the universe? That's a dumb question!
But that is NOT the actual question I asked you. So, I agree that question that YOU just wrote IS a very stupid question.

You have said that 'absolute perfection is impossible'. Obviously, I asked the question in relation to this.

TRYING TO turn things around, and misplace them, in order to feed your BELIEFS, does NOT help you. The reason it does NOT help is because what you write all remains here for ALL to see.

I even wrote the word WHEN in capital letters to highlight the very FACT that you;
WHEN you insist 'absolute perfection' IS an impossibility, HOW being LESS WRONG of being RIGHT is that?
Did you NOTICE it this time. That was the ACTUAL question I asked and it was in direction relation to NOT just what you say but also WHEN you say it.

I am NOT sure how much clearer I can BE.

(But we are getting much closer now. Just waiting for a few more obviously BELIEF remarks to come out. Then I can reveal what I have been waiting to do).
TimeSeeker wrote: Wed Oct 24, 2018 11:25 am
Age wrote: Wed Oct 24, 2018 11:16 am Also, what you capitalized in red highlights, for others EXACTLY what I have been saying. That is exactly WHERE, and HOW, the self-labelled "timeseeker" gets distracted away from the actual point I am making, and is thus unable to see and recognize the point which puts the BELIEF into question.
THE belief? Your belief or my belief?
I have already forewarned you that I do NOT believe any thing. Therefore, that means I have NO belief. How many times do I have to tell you?
TimeSeeker wrote: Wed Oct 24, 2018 11:25 am
Age wrote: Wed Oct 24, 2018 11:16 am Those BELIEFS that "timeseeker" is dearly holding onto is controlling "timeseeker" in ways that they, them self, does NOT even recognize.
Unless TimeSeeker engineered his beliefs to suit his own needs and desires. In which case he has free will.
But the one labelled "timeseeker" is MADE UP of BELIEFS. "timeseeker" can NOT control them. BELIEFS have control over "timeseeker", which has become more obvious this time around.
You bore me now. Bye ;) You and Atla would get along! Message him!
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 4452
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Age wrote: Wed Oct 24, 2018 12:25 pm I have already forewarned you that I do NOT believe any thing.
Therefore, that means I have NO belief.
How many times do I have to tell you?
Seriously, the above are the stupidest statements I have ever come across in all philosophical forums I have participated in.

Note this is a Philosophy Forum not a fish-market.

Here is one definition of 'belief' in the philosophical context;
Belief is the state of mind in which a person thinks something to be the case with or without there being empirical evidence to prove that something is the case with factual certainty. Another way of defining belief sees it as a mental representation of an attitude positively oriented towards the likelihood of something being true.[1]

In epistemology, philosophers use the term "belief" to refer to personal attitudes associated with true or false ideas and concepts.
However, "belief" does not require active introspection and circumspection. For example, we never ponder whether or not the sun will rise. We simply assume the sun will rise. Since "belief" is an important aspect of mundane life, according to Eric Schwitzgebel in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, a related question asks: "how a physical organism can have beliefs?"[3]
commonsense
Posts: 2405
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm

Re: God is an Impossibility

Post by commonsense »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Aug 06, 2018 4:12 am
Note I have shown God is an impossibility to be real empirically and illusory if transcendental.


Have you shown God is an impossibility in pure thought? Is there a need to show this?

Halucinations-CR are not pure thought, are they not?

Illusions, like halucinations-CR, are not pure thought, are they not?
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 4452
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

commonsense wrote: Mon Nov 26, 2018 9:10 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Aug 06, 2018 4:12 am
Note I have shown God is an impossibility to be real empirically and illusory if transcendental.


Have you shown God is an impossibility in pure thought? Is there a need to show this?

Halucinations-CR are not pure thought, are they not?

Illusions, like halucinations-CR, are not pure thought, are they not?
The use of a syllogism to prove God is an impossibility as in the OP is logical thus purely thoughts only.
It is critical to show the idea of God as real is based purely on thoughts only, i.e. it cannot be something that is really real.

Hallucination-CR is not pure thoughts since conscious reality can be proven empirically and empirical-rationally.

But a hallucination that God exists as real on the other extreme is based on pure thoughts only.
Nick_A
Posts: 5129
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Post by Nick_A »

Veritas wrote
• P1. Absolute perfection is an impossibility to be real
P2. God, imperatively must be absolutely perfect
C. Therefore God is an impossibility to be real.
But on the other hand:
"It is only the impossible that is possible for God. He has given over the possible to the mechanics of matter and the autonomy of his creatures." - Simone Weil ...
Rubbish or profundity? Naturally I'm in the minority supporting Simone.
Post Reply