The greatest imaginable is much less than the greatest possible -- Anselm fails

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

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Age
Posts: 3570
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: The greatest imaginable is much less than the greatest possible -- Anselm fails

Post by Age » Sat Jan 19, 2019 4:23 am

Logik wrote:
Fri Jan 18, 2019 2:25 pm
P1. ALL-THERE-IS is the Universe, Itself.
P2. If some thing exists, then
C. The Universe exists.
This is a violation of Cantor’s theorem.
Who cares?

It is a "theorem", which obviously can be falsified.
Logik wrote:
Fri Jan 18, 2019 2:25 pm
From P1 follows that there is only ONE thing. The Universe, Itself. U=U ⇒ True - The Law of identity!
You could've left it there as there is nothing more to be said.
Okay.

There is NOTHING more that needs to be said.
Logik wrote:
Fri Jan 18, 2019 2:25 pm
But if P2 is true then it follows that there is another thing: some thing (T)

The existence of T contradicts P1.

It does NOT.

Therefore the Universe is not all there is. ALL-THERE-IS is U+T
Utterly WRONG, stupid, and a ridiculous conclusion that YOU have deduced here.

When, and if, you LOOK AT this in relation to what this is about, then you MIGHT see differently.

If you Truly WANT to UNDERSTAND, then surely by now you would KNOW what to do.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2771
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: The greatest imaginable is much less than the greatest possible -- Anselm fails

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Sat Jan 19, 2019 6:07 am

Age wrote:
Fri Jan 18, 2019 12:02 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Jan 18, 2019 8:00 am

The idea of a universe that is created by a god is not empirically possible.
That sounds like an absolute.
Nope.
The above statement is explainable and conditioned* upon human mind[s].
* conditioned, thus not absolute.

Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: The greatest imaginable is much less than the greatest possible -- Anselm fails

Post by Logik » Sat Jan 19, 2019 7:27 am

Age wrote:
Sat Jan 19, 2019 4:23 am
Logik wrote:
Fri Jan 18, 2019 2:25 pm
P1. ALL-THERE-IS is the Universe, Itself.
P2. If some thing exists, then
C. The Universe exists.
This is a violation of Cantor’s theorem.
Who cares?

It is a "theorem", which obviously can be falsified.
No, a theorem cannot be falsified.

A theorem can be valid or invalid. A theorem either follows from the axiomatic pre-suppositions or it doesn't.
This is called 'consistency' in logic.

You say "ALL there is is the Universe" (U) . Which is what I have said and claimed over and over.
But then you say "something exists" (S)

So one would ask is U the same as S?

Either S=U is True, Which means the something that exists is The Universe so you are equivocating.
Or S=U is False in which means you contradict P1.

So if you insist that your conclusion is true, then you need to explain how you use the word "ALL".

Age
Posts: 3570
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: The greatest imaginable is much less than the greatest possible -- Anselm fails

Post by Age » Sat Jan 19, 2019 8:16 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Jan 19, 2019 6:07 am
Age wrote:
Fri Jan 18, 2019 12:02 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Jan 18, 2019 8:00 am

The idea of a universe that is created by a god is not empirically possible.
That sounds like an absolute.
Nope.
The above statement is explainable and conditioned* upon human mind[s].
* conditioned, thus not absolute.
A human "mind[s]" HAS TO exit first BEFORE the above statement is explainable and conditioned upon it[them].

Now, define what you think or believe human 'mind[s]' is, and then if you can, also explain what it/they do and/or how it/they work.

Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: The greatest imaginable is much less than the greatest possible -- Anselm fails

Post by Logik » Sat Jan 19, 2019 8:21 am

Age wrote:
Sat Jan 19, 2019 8:16 am
A human "mind[s]" HAS TO exit first BEFORE the above statement is explainable and conditioned upon it[them].
Sure. That doesn't mean the universe exists.
Age wrote:
Sat Jan 19, 2019 8:16 am
Now, define what you think or believe human 'mind[s]' is, and then if you can, also explain what it/they do and/or how it/they work.
I don't need to define/explain what the mind is to claim that it exists any more than you had to define what you think or believe the universe is, or explain what it does and how it works when you claimed that it exists.

In fact I am perfectly happy to admit that I don't know what the mind or the universe are like.

But I do conceptualise my mind as a computer.
And the universe - as a MUCH MUCH bigger computer.

Age
Posts: 3570
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: The greatest imaginable is much less than the greatest possible -- Anselm fails

Post by Age » Sat Jan 19, 2019 8:38 am

Logik wrote:
Sat Jan 19, 2019 7:27 am
Age wrote:
Sat Jan 19, 2019 4:23 am
Logik wrote:
Fri Jan 18, 2019 2:25 pm

This is a violation of Cantor’s theorem.
Who cares?

It is a "theorem", which obviously can be falsified.
No, a theorem cannot be falsified.
If you say so.
Logik wrote:
Sat Jan 19, 2019 7:27 am
A theorem can be valid or invalid. A theorem either follows from the axiomatic pre-suppositions or it doesn't.
This is called 'consistency' in logic.
Okay.
Logik wrote:
Sat Jan 19, 2019 7:27 am
You say "ALL there is is the Universe" (U) .
This is incorrect.

If you want to start some where, then it is best to start with thee Truth.
Logik wrote:
Sat Jan 19, 2019 7:27 am
Which is what I have said and claimed over and over.
Who cares?
Logik wrote:
Sat Jan 19, 2019 7:27 am
But then you say "something exists" (S)
This is also incorrect.

Again, it is best to work with thee Truth, if you want to SHOW some thing.
Logik wrote:
Sat Jan 19, 2019 7:27 am
So one would ask is U the same as S?
One would NOT necessarily ask such a question, but you are one that did ask such a question.

Thee answer by the way is NO.
Logik wrote:
Sat Jan 19, 2019 7:27 am
Either S=U is True, Which means the something that exists is The Universe so you are equivocating.
Or S=U is False in which means you contradict P1.
I did NOT contradict P1. You made that ASSUMPTION, jumped to a CONCLUSION, then BELIEVED that YOUR own ASSUMPTION and CONCLUSION is absolutely True, Right, and Correct. Unfortunately though your BELIEF is NONE of them.
Logik wrote:
Sat Jan 19, 2019 7:27 am
So if you insist that your conclusion is true, then you need to explain how you use the word "ALL".
Out of all of the things that you could have asked for clarification, from me, is this really the only one that you are unsure of and are going to ask me?

If you do NOT yet KNOW what ALL means, to me, then, 'ALL' means EVERY thing.

SEE, the trouble you are having, and why you are NOT understanding what it is that I am actually writing and saying is because you are TRYING TO use human made complex, cumbersome, and conflated meanings and terms to just look at and see the very simple, of which I am expressing.

There is absolutely nothing hard nor complex about the Universe, Itself. Only human beings make things appear complex and hard. The Universe, Itself, is really just, very simple and easy to LOOK AT, SEE, and UNDERSTAND.

Age
Posts: 3570
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: The greatest imaginable is much less than the greatest possible -- Anselm fails

Post by Age » Sat Jan 19, 2019 8:43 am

Logik wrote:
Sat Jan 19, 2019 8:21 am
Age wrote:
Sat Jan 19, 2019 8:16 am
A human "mind[s]" HAS TO exit first BEFORE the above statement is explainable and conditioned upon it[them].
Sure. That doesn't mean the universe exists.
My statement had nothing whatsoever to do with if the Universe exists or does NOT exist.
Logik wrote:
Sat Jan 19, 2019 8:21 am
Age wrote:
Sat Jan 19, 2019 8:16 am
Now, define what you think or believe human 'mind[s]' is, and then if you can, also explain what it/they do and/or how it/they work.
I don't need to define/explain what the mind is
I KNOW YOU do NOT.

I NEVER asked YOU to.
Logik wrote:
Sat Jan 19, 2019 8:21 am
to claim that it exists any more than you had to define what you think or believe the universe is, or explain what it does and how it works when you claimed that it exists.
Have you maybe confused MY reply TO VERITAS with some other thing?
Logik wrote:
Sat Jan 19, 2019 8:21 am
In fact I am perfectly happy to admit that I don't know what the mind or the universe are like.

But I do conceptualise my mind as a computer.
And the universe - as a MUCH MUCH bigger computer.
Okay.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2771
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: The greatest imaginable is much less than the greatest possible -- Anselm fails

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Sat Jan 19, 2019 9:47 am

Age wrote:
Sat Jan 19, 2019 8:16 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Jan 19, 2019 6:07 am
Age wrote:
Fri Jan 18, 2019 12:02 pm


That sounds like an absolute.
Nope.
The above statement is explainable and conditioned* upon human mind[s].
* conditioned, thus not absolute.
A human "mind[s]" HAS TO exit first BEFORE the above statement is explainable and conditioned upon it[them].

Now, define what you think or believe human 'mind[s]' is, and then if you can, also explain what it/they do and/or how it/they work.
Note we are sure what a 'mind' is from the current knowledge and perspectives.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind
In this discussion, I take "mind" to be empirical verifiable.

Mind first or the conditions first is like the chicken or egg first.
You made the wrong assumption and beliefs [you cannot deny beliefs] the 'mind' has to come first.
Who are you to assert the mind has to be present first? An omnipresent God?

The most realistic scenario is we start with the real mind and the conditions that co-arise to enable the mind and statements to emerge.

Note co-dependence or co-arising as in Yin-Yang or others e.g.

Image

Age
Posts: 3570
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: The greatest imaginable is much less than the greatest possible -- Anselm fails

Post by Age » Sat Jan 19, 2019 10:03 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Jan 19, 2019 9:47 am
Age wrote:
Sat Jan 19, 2019 8:16 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Jan 19, 2019 6:07 am

Nope.
The above statement is explainable and conditioned* upon human mind[s].
* conditioned, thus not absolute.
A human "mind[s]" HAS TO exit first BEFORE the above statement is explainable and conditioned upon it[them].

Now, define what you think or believe human 'mind[s]' is, and then if you can, also explain what it/they do and/or how it/they work.
Note we are sure what a 'mind' is from the current knowledge and perspectives.
Lol who is 'we'?
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Jan 19, 2019 9:47 am
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind
In this discussion, I take "mind" to be empirical verifiable.
Okay
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Jan 19, 2019 9:47 am
Mind first or the conditions first is like the chicken or egg first.
The chicken/egg first so called "problem" has been solved and answered ages ago.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Jan 19, 2019 9:47 am
You made the wrong assumption and beliefs [you cannot deny beliefs] the 'mind' has to come first.
Lol.

You made the WRONG assumption by assuming some thing that did NOT even exist and therefore was NOT even close to being true.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Jan 19, 2019 9:47 am
Who are you to assert the mind has to be present first?
I did NOT even say any thing like this. You completely and UTTERLY misunderstood Me.

What I am saying IS, you have to first prove, with evidence, that there is a 'human "mind/s" ' FIRST, before you can sprout on like you are.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Jan 19, 2019 9:47 am
An omnipresent God?
That could be, and WILL BE, very easily proven.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Jan 19, 2019 9:47 am
The most realistic scenario is we start with the real mind and the conditions that co-arise to enable the mind and statements to emerge.
LOL

You really do make me laugh veritas.

You really BELIEVE that when you use the words 'reality' and/or 'real' in front of other words then that makes what you are saying True, and that that has also been settled once and for all.

LOL
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Jan 19, 2019 9:47 am
Note co-dependence or co-arising as in Yin-Yang or others e.g.

Image
Noted.

Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: The greatest imaginable is much less than the greatest possible -- Anselm fails

Post by Logik » Sat Jan 19, 2019 3:11 pm

Age wrote:
Sat Jan 19, 2019 10:03 am
What I am saying IS, you have to first prove, with evidence, that there is a 'human "mind/s" ' FIRST, before you can sprout on like you are.
No, we don't.

You didn't use any evidence to prove the universe exists.
You relied strictly on logic.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2771
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: The greatest imaginable is much less than the greatest possible -- Anselm fails

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Sun Jan 20, 2019 6:15 am

Age wrote:
Sat Jan 19, 2019 10:03 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Jan 19, 2019 9:47 am
Age wrote:
Sat Jan 19, 2019 8:16 am


A human "mind[s]" HAS TO exit first BEFORE the above statement is explainable and conditioned upon it[them].

Now, define what you think or believe human 'mind[s]' is, and then if you can, also explain what it/they do and/or how it/they work.
Note we are sure what a 'mind' is from the current knowledge and perspectives.
Lol who is 'we'?
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Jan 19, 2019 9:47 am
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind
In this discussion, I take "mind" to be empirical verifiable.
Okay
You have perverted views.
You are ignorant of "we" which include yourself, note the following;

"We" refer to those who agree with the wiki article on mind which you are agree with.
So why are you being sarcastic [Lol] of yourself?

Age
Posts: 3570
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: The greatest imaginable is much less than the greatest possible -- Anselm fails

Post by Age » Sun Jan 20, 2019 7:23 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sun Jan 20, 2019 6:15 am
Age wrote:
Sat Jan 19, 2019 10:03 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Jan 19, 2019 9:47 am

Note we are sure what a 'mind' is from the current knowledge and perspectives.
Lol who is 'we'?
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Jan 19, 2019 9:47 am
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind
In this discussion, I take "mind" to be empirical verifiable.
Okay
You have perverted views.
How can you seriously logically make the assumption, and then jump to a conclusion, that I have perverted views based on just the asking to you of this very simple and basic Truly OPEN clarifying question, and/or writing "okay"?
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sun Jan 20, 2019 6:15 am
You are ignorant of "we" which include yourself, note the following;
I asked, "who is 'we?'" to clarify who you are talking about. Now you just answered with the most idiotic stupid response possible here.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sun Jan 20, 2019 6:15 am
"We" refer to those who agree with the wiki article on mind which you are agree with.
So why are you being sarcastic [Lol] of yourself?
Two things here:

1.You tell me that I am ignorant of "we", which includes me, and then state that I agree with some thing, which I do NOT, at all, agree with.

The very reason WHY I asked the question to clarify who is the 'we' you are referring to here is to make sure that you were NOT making a very stupid mistake. You, however, just proved that you are.


2. Now, if you want to make statements about 'me' having 'perverted views', then you NEED to SHOW those, to YOU, "perverted views", and also explain WHY they are "perverted", to YOU.

I have continually made it clear here in this forum that I like to be shown WHEN my views are perceived to be WRONG, shown WHERE exactly that "WRONG view" is, and most importantly WHY that view is perceived to be WRONG. Now, if you would care to do that, then it would be much appreciated, and enjoyed, by me.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2771
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: The greatest imaginable is much less than the greatest possible -- Anselm fails

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Sun Jan 20, 2019 7:40 am

Age wrote:
Sun Jan 20, 2019 7:23 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sun Jan 20, 2019 6:15 am
Age wrote:
Sat Jan 19, 2019 10:03 am


Lol who is 'we'?



Okay
You have perverted views.
How can you seriously logically make the assumption, and then jump to a conclusion, that I have perverted views based on just the asking to you of this very simple and basic Truly OPEN clarifying question, and/or writing "okay"?
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sun Jan 20, 2019 6:15 am
You are ignorant of "we" which include yourself, note the following;
I asked, "who is 'we?'" to clarify who you are talking about. Now you just answered with the most idiotic stupid response possible here.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sun Jan 20, 2019 6:15 am
"We" refer to those who agree with the wiki article on mind which you are agree with.
So why are you being sarcastic [Lol] of yourself?
Two things here:

1.You tell me that I am ignorant of "we", which includes me, and then state that I agree with some thing, which I do NOT, at all, agree with.

The very reason WHY I asked the question to clarify who is the 'we' you are referring to here is to make sure that you were NOT making a very stupid mistake. You, however, just proved that you are.


2. Now, if you want to make statements about 'me' having 'perverted views', then you NEED to SHOW those, to YOU, "perverted views", and also explain WHY they are "perverted", to YOU.

I have continually made it clear here in this forum that I like to be shown WHEN my views are perceived to be WRONG, shown WHERE exactly that "WRONG view" is, and most importantly WHY that view is perceived to be WRONG. Now, if you would care to do that, then it would be much appreciated, and enjoyed, by me.
I have already proven why you have the wrong view of reality when you claimed you do not have any beliefs and imply you are not a 'human being'.
I have asked you to provide links to whoever has the same thoughts as yours and you are unable to do so.

Age
Posts: 3570
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: The greatest imaginable is much less than the greatest possible -- Anselm fails

Post by Age » Sun Jan 20, 2019 7:51 am

Logik wrote:
Sat Jan 19, 2019 3:11 pm
Age wrote:
Sat Jan 19, 2019 10:03 am
What I am saying IS, you have to first prove, with evidence, that there is a 'human "mind/s" ' FIRST, before you can sprout on like you are.
No, we don't.
I was talking to veritas when I used the word 'you'. So, really, there was, and still is, no 'we'.

You didn't use any evidence to prove the universe exists.[/quote]

I did NOT think I was meant to, nor had to.

I was NOT trying to prove that the Universe exists, which can obviously be seen within my first two OPEN clarifying questions, of which I am still waiting answers.

You put up a challenge to veritas. I am just SEEING how open and honest you really are.

When you answer the questions, openly and honestly, then we can MOVE ON.
Logik wrote:
Sat Jan 19, 2019 3:11 pm
You relied strictly on logic.
If you say so.

You said to veritas:
I am willing donate $100 to The Salvation Army (or any charity of your choosing) if you could provide ANY empirical grounding/evidence for The Universe's existence!

Put your money where your mouth is and offer to do the same if you fail to fulfil the challenge.


I just asked you an OPEN clarifying qestion:
Is there any thing that you are 100% certain about that you KNOW, for sure, exists?

If not, then so be it.
If you do, then would you say that exists within the Universe's existence?


You then did NOT, at all, answer the question/s, but instead went on about some thing or other, which appeared to be based on some assumption that you were making at the time.

Now, I was NOT trying to prove that the Universe exists or not, because the Truth can already be SEEN, and is thus obviously already KNOWN also. But what I did instead was put some words together, and asked you some more OPEN clarifying questions, of which you, once again, FAILED to answer. These put together words were:
Your so called "challenge" WAS to provide ANY empirical grounding/evidence for The Universe's existence!

If some thing exists, then that is a part of ALL-THERE-IS, or, ALL-THERE-IS.

So,
If you can SEE a tea cup on "YOUR" desk, then does either or both exist?
If you can SEE a moon, then does it exist?
If you can SEE 10 planets in the "solar system", then does either or both exist?
If you can SEE 100 billion galaxies, then do they exist?
If you can SEE cosmic microwave background, then does that exist?

P1. ALL-THERE-IS is the Universe, Itself.
P2. If some thing exists, then
C. The Universe exists.

Now, we are back to my original two questions to you here;
Is there any thing that you are 100% certain about that you KNOW, for sure, exists?

If no, then so be it.
If yes, then would you say that exists within the Universe's existence?

A yes or no response would suffice for both questions. Thank you.


When, and IF, you answer ALL the questions openly and honestly, then you also may SEE the Truth as well.

Age
Posts: 3570
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: The greatest imaginable is much less than the greatest possible -- Anselm fails

Post by Age » Sun Jan 20, 2019 8:00 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sun Jan 20, 2019 7:40 am
Age wrote:
Sun Jan 20, 2019 7:23 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sun Jan 20, 2019 6:15 am

You have perverted views.
How can you seriously logically make the assumption, and then jump to a conclusion, that I have perverted views based on just the asking to you of this very simple and basic Truly OPEN clarifying question, and/or writing "okay"?
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sun Jan 20, 2019 6:15 am
You are ignorant of "we" which include yourself, note the following;
I asked, "who is 'we?'" to clarify who you are talking about. Now you just answered with the most idiotic stupid response possible here.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sun Jan 20, 2019 6:15 am
"We" refer to those who agree with the wiki article on mind which you are agree with.
So why are you being sarcastic [Lol] of yourself?
Two things here:

1.You tell me that I am ignorant of "we", which includes me, and then state that I agree with some thing, which I do NOT, at all, agree with.

The very reason WHY I asked the question to clarify who is the 'we' you are referring to here is to make sure that you were NOT making a very stupid mistake. You, however, just proved that you are.


2. Now, if you want to make statements about 'me' having 'perverted views', then you NEED to SHOW those, to YOU, "perverted views", and also explain WHY they are "perverted", to YOU.

I have continually made it clear here in this forum that I like to be shown WHEN my views are perceived to be WRONG, shown WHERE exactly that "WRONG view" is, and most importantly WHY that view is perceived to be WRONG. Now, if you would care to do that, then it would be much appreciated, and enjoyed, by me.
I have already proven why you have the wrong view of reality when you claimed you do not have any beliefs and imply you are not a 'human being'.
WHY is when I did what I did, supposedly, having the "wrong view of reality"? And, HOW did you, supposedly, already prove that I have the "wrong view of reality"?
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sun Jan 20, 2019 7:40 am
I have asked you to provide links to whoever has the same thoughts as yours and you are unable to do so.
Of course I am unable to do so. I have yet to find another with the same thoughts.

But just because I can NOT yet find another with the same thoughts does NOT prove that My views are wrong, nor perverted, nor any thing else for that matter.

Did the first person, who was explaining that the earth actually revolves around the sun, who obviously also could NOT provide any "links" to any other person with the same thoughts as theirs, have the "wrong view of reality", and/or "perverted views"?

From all accounts if you existed in those days you would have been one of the first ones calling that person's "views of reality" WRONG, and/or even maybe "perverted views".

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Age and 6 guests