Dear Atheists. It's over.

[Magnolia5275]

A:

1. It is not possible to know the unknowable
2. A world outside the knowing is unknowable
3. It is not possible to know a world outside the knowing
4. Mind is knowing
5. It is not possible to know a world outside the mind
6. It is not possible for me to know the world outside my mind
7. The world is my mind


---------------------------------------------------------------
B:

1. We know a world
2. The world we know must be in the mind[A]
3. The world is in the mind
4. The mind is greater than the world
5. The mind is All-Knowing of the world
6. All that is in the mind are its conceptions
7. The world is the mind's creation
8. The mind is All-Powerful
9. The mind is God
10. God exists

[FlashDangerpants]

I don't think I've seeen such a mismatch between the claim in the title and the ability of the author to deliver upon it, since Advocate reckoned he had completely answered all the questions of philosophy.

[Veritas Aequitas]

B:

1. We know a world
2. The world we know must be in the mind[A]
3. The world is in the mind
4. The mind is greater than the world
5. The mind is All-Knowing of the world
6. All that is in the mind are its conceptions
7. The world is the mind's creation
8. The mind is All-Powerful
9. The mind is God
10. God exists

The Mind-A in mind-B is a SPECULATED illusion.

1. We [mind B] know a world
2. The world we know [mind B] must be in the mind[A]
3. The world is in the mind
4. The mind is greater than the world
5. The mind is All-Knowing of the world
6. All that is in the mind are its conceptions
7. The world is the mind's creation
8. The mind is All-Powerful
9. The mind is God
10. God exists

As such Mind-A is known and in Mind-B.
If Mind [A] is greater than the world, how can it be in that small little mind-B.
Mind-A is a speculated illusion by mind-B to deal with an existential crisis generating terrible cognitive dissonance.
Mind-B speculated and conceive Mind-A as a consonance [a salvific comforter] to soothe the terrible dissonance.

It is Impossible for God to exists as Real
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=24704

[Advocate]

[quote=FlashDangerpants post_id=615659 time=1672109313 user_id=11800]
I don't think I've seeen such a mismatch between the claim in the title and the ability of the author to deliver upon it, since Advocate reckoned he had completely answered all the questions of philosophy.
[/quote]

I cannot answer all questions in any sense because an exhaustive set of answers would require forever. However, I can answer everything in metaphysics which is a sub-set of all the questions if philosophy, and more than you can.

[Advocate]

>A:
2. A world outside the knowing is unknowable

That's wrong. We can know anything we can repeatable sense because the replication is the knowing - justified belief. Our external sensations are if a different kind and useful for different purposes than our internal sensations, Knowledge of the external is absolutely possible. Not only that, things which are unknowable today may become knowable tomorrow as we increase the resolution of our instruments and the precision of our logic.

[FlashDangerpants]

I don't think I've seeen such a mismatch between the claim in the title and the ability of the author to deliver upon it, since Advocate reckoned he had completely answered all the questions of philosophy.

I cannot answer all questions in any sense because an exhaustive set of answers would require forever. However, I can answer everything in metaphysics which is a sub-set of all the questions if philosophy, and more than you can.

My bad, thanks for the update and correction about how magnificent and unprecedented you are.

[Advocate]

[quote=FlashDangerpants post_id=615775 time=1672155414 user_id=11800]
[quote=Advocate post_id=615744 time=1672148048 user_id=15238]
[quote=FlashDangerpants post_id=615659 time=1672109313 user_id=11800]
I don't think I've seeen such a mismatch between the claim in the title and the ability of the author to deliver upon it, since Advocate reckoned he had completely answered all the questions of philosophy.
[/quote]

I cannot answer all questions in any sense because an exhaustive set of answers would require forever. However, I can answer everything in metaphysics which is a sub-set of all the questions if philosophy, and more than you can.
[/quote]
My bad, thanks for the update and correction about how magnificent and unprecedented you are.
[/quote]

You invoked me. Do you have any metaphysics questions you want answered coherently? Don't use the name of the Lord, thy god in vain.

[Peter Kropotkin]

A:

1. It is not possible to know the unknowable
2. A world outside the knowing is unknowable
3. It is not possible to know a world outside the knowing
4. Mind is knowing
5. It is not possible to know a world outside the mind
6. It is not possible for me to know the world outside my mind
7. The world is my mind


---------------------------------------------------------------
B:

1. We know a world
2. The world we know must be in the mind[A]
3. The world is in the mind
4. The mind is greater than the world
5. The mind is All-Knowing of the world
6. All that is in the mind are its conceptions
7. The world is the mind's creation
8. The mind is All-Powerful
9. The mind is God
10. God exists

K: this ''argument" are variations of Medieval arguments
that have been floating around for almost a thousand years...
and they are what I like to think of as "logical" arguments for
god...they use logic to "prove" god's existence...
but logical arguments aren't real world arguments...they are
are linguistic arguments for the existence of god...

kinda like the argument that goes like this:

"The world exists, so god exists"

now I don't intend to reinvent the wheel and argue against
these logical arguments as they have been thoroughly
discussed over the last 800 years...no, I have an entirely
different agenda.....

the need to hold such beliefs as god... I have talked to many
including a sister who holds such beliefs, and to many, they
have said, they came to god from a place of weakness, from
being at the bottom of the well... they had hit rock bottom and
only found redemption from a belief in god...

in other words, they came to a belief in god because
they had no where else to go.. they had hit the bottom..
it wasn't from strength that they turned to god but from weakness...

now there is a second group of people.. those who
were indoctrinated into belief as children... and they may or
may not have held their beliefs into adulthood but they
eventually came back to religion and god... in other words,
they couldn't overcome their childhood indoctrinations...
we are all indoctrinated as children.. that is what we call
education...and we are indoctrinated by the state, church,
society, family, media into various beliefs... ''America is
the greatest country in the world" is one such indoctrination...
"capitalism is the only possibility for an economic system"
is another such indoctrination...the American indoctrination
against communism and socialism is another example...

I suspect you, as with many believers who believe, believe
not as an honest search for the truth, but because
you were indoctrinated as a child and you never overcame
that indoctrination... and of course, you will deny this,
but hay, we lie to ourselves far more than we lie to others...

philosophy is not a search for the truth of the outside world,
but as a means to overcome our childhood indoctrinations...
I was raised to hold certain beliefs, and by the use of philosophy,
I was able to overcome those beliefs, I replaced the beliefs of
my family, state, religion, media, beliefs indoctrinated into me,
with beliefs that I actually hold.. for many, it is hard to
overcome one's indoctrinations and many never make it...
as you apparently haven't overcome...and that is ok....

but be aware of the fact that your beliefs are simply
beliefs that are your family, state, society, and the church...
not your beliefs, but beliefs you were educated/indoctrinated with...

the question that lies before you is simple, have you overcome?

Kropotkin

[FlashDangerpants]

I cannot answer all questions in any sense because an exhaustive set of answers would require forever. However, I can answer everything in metaphysics which is a sub-set of all the questions if philosophy, and more than you can.

My bad, thanks for the update and correction about how magnificent and unprecedented you are.

You invoked me. Do you have any metaphysics questions you want answered coherently? Don't use the name of the Lord, thy god in vain.

I will only ever be referencing you as an example of delusionaly excessive self-belief such as that which led this Magnolia idiot to think he's got a perfect argument. You are a cartoon character, and if he's not a Handjob7 sock puppet, Magnolia is probably as narcissist just like you.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

'What' is 'over'?

[dattaswami]

A:

1. It is not possible to know the unknowable
2. A world outside the knowing is unknowable
3. It is not possible to know a world outside the knowing
4. Mind is knowing
5. It is not possible to know a world outside the mind
6. It is not possible for me to know the world outside my mind
7. The world is my mind


---------------------------------------------------------------
B:

1. We know a world
2. The world we know must be in the mind[A]
3. The world is in the mind
4. The mind is greater than the world
5. The mind is All-Knowing of the world
6. All that is in the mind are its conceptions
7. The world is the mind's creation
8. The mind is All-Powerful
9. The mind is God
10. God exists

Let us analyse these aspects. Let us assume that we have seen a dream of tiger in the bed room. The tiger in the bed room in a dream is certainly unreal. But, when this unreal tiger entered the dream, it gets amalgamated with the awareness to become the thought of a tiger in the dream. The tiger by itself is unreal, but it is associated with the real awareness to become the thought of a tiger, which is real. Awareness is a special form of inert energy and since inert energy, the fundamental component of the creation is absolutely real, the awareness is also absolute reality.

The absolute reality belongs to the unimaginable God, which is gifted to the creation and hence, the creation became absolutely real. The creation by itself is unreal like the tiger in the bed room. When this unreal creation is associated with God, the creation also became absolute reality just like the unreal tiger which when associated with awareness, also became absolute reality.

God is the creator of this creation and you are the creator of the dream. Just like the unreal creation became absolutely real for God also, the unreal tiger became absolutely real for your awareness as well. In this way, both the unreal creation and unreal tiger are felt absolutely real by both God and your awareness respectively. In such a case, why does your awareness feel that the dream tiger is unreal and why does God feel the absolutely real creation as unreal? The reason is that your awareness feels the thought as unreal because the thought is subtle like air and not gross like earth.

The subtle thought is neglected and is felt as unreal, but, actually, the subtle thought is absolutely real like any other gross item. Such subtle thought, which becomes absolutely real, generates a real effect like madness. Anything that is unreal by itself and becomes real due to the reality gifted by its associated item, is called as ‘relative-reality’ (mithyā).

The tiger in the bedroom and this creation even before God thought it are unreal by themselves, but, due to the association with awareness and with God respectively, both have become absolutely real and hence, both the dream tiger and this creation (after entering the unimaginable awareness of God and subsequently created) are relatively real items. This creation also contains both gross and subtle items and the dream also contains both gross and subtle items.

When the soul is with ignorance in the dream, the soul distinguishes both gross and subtle items. When the soul comes to awaken state, it recognizes both gross and subtle items as totally subtle items only. In the awaken state, in a day-dream (imagining an imaginary world for entertainment), the soul can do any miracle with all these totally subtle items and such state is called ‘day-dream’, which means dreaming in the awaken state. Similarly, when God also wants to do a miracle, He reaches the full awaken state in which all the creation becomes subtle.
As long as God wants real entertainment with the creation, God will cover Himself with ignorance by which God differentiates gross and subtle items in the creation to have continuous real entertainment.

The difference between God and soul is:- God covers Himself with the ignorance maintaining awaken state in depth whereas the soul is really covered with ignorance in the dream state. Hence, God will never get the real dream state and is always in the awaken state only. Hence, God is always in the state of day-dream only (which means that God covers Himself with ignorance maintaining awaken state in depth) whereas the soul has both awaken state and dream state separately.

The soul feels the creation as equal reality because the entire creation along with the souls has become absolutely real by the wish of God. This means that the soul is part and parcel of the creation. The soul also gets day-dream by entering into entertainment with the imaginary world in awaken state by covering itself with ignorance. Hence, taking the understandable example of the day-dream of the soul, we can understand clearly the day-dream of God.

The soul enjoys fully in the day-dream also, even though, it covers itself with ignorance (without being controlled by ignorance as in a dream), God also is entertained fully in the day-dream. In the day-dream of God or soul, God or soul controls the ignorance whereas in the real dream (while sleeping) the soul is controlled by ignorance. Hence, real dream never occurs for God and it occurs only for the soul.

[Advocate]

[quote=FlashDangerpants post_id=615836 time=1672178206 user_id=11800]
[quote=Advocate post_id=615789 time=1672162314 user_id=15238]
[quote=FlashDangerpants post_id=615775 time=1672155414 user_id=11800]

My bad, thanks for the update and correction about how magnificent and unprecedented you are.
[/quote]

You invoked me. Do you have any metaphysics questions you want answered coherently? Don't use the name of the Lord, thy god in vain.
[/quote]
I will only ever be referencing you as an example of delusionaly excessive self-belief such as that which led this Magnolia idiot to think he's got a perfect argument. You are a cartoon character, and if he's not a Handjob7 sock puppet, Magnolia is probably as narcissist just like you.
[/quote]

So you're just spinning your wheels instead of getting at the truth. I understand and will take appropriate action by doing nothing.

[Walker]

but be aware of the fact that your beliefs are simply
beliefs that are your family, state, society, and the church...
not your beliefs, but beliefs you were educated/indoctrinated with...
Kropotkin

This entire posting of yours is based on circular reasoning. Why? Because learning by rote does not negate the information learned by rote. For example, learning by rote is a good way to learn the multiplication tables. Just because this multiplication table learning is an indoctrination does not falsify the multiplication tables. You also assume a lack of questioning and analysis when they yield the same conclusion as the rote learning.

Plus, you seem stuck on belief as the primary source of information that when analyzed to determine truth, may very well correlate with the indoctrination/rote learning. Or, it may not.

[Iwannaplato]

A:

1. It is not possible to know the unknowable
2. A world outside the knowing is unknowable
3. It is not possible to know a world outside the knowing
4. Mind is knowing
5. It is not possible to know a world outside the mind
6. It is not possible for me to know the world outside my mind
7. The world is my mind


---------------------------------------------------------------
B:

1. We know a world
2. The world we know must be in the mind[A]
3. The world is in the mind
4. The mind is greater than the world
5. The mind is All-Knowing of the world
6. All that is in the mind are its conceptions
7. The world is the mind's creation
8. The mind is All-Powerful
9. The mind is God
10. God exists

K: this ''argument" are variations of Medieval arguments
that have been floating around for almost a thousand years...
and they are what I like to think of as "logical" arguments for
god...they use logic to "prove" god's existence...
but logical arguments aren't real world arguments...they are
are linguistic arguments for the existence of god...

kinda like the argument that goes like this:

"The world exists, so god exists"

now I don't intend to reinvent the wheel and argue against
these logical arguments as they have been thoroughly
discussed over the last 800 years...no, I have an entirely
different agenda.....

the need to hold such beliefs as god... I have talked to many
including a sister who holds such beliefs, and to many, they
have said, they came to god from a place of weakness, from
being at the bottom of the well... they had hit rock bottom and
only found redemption from a belief in god...

in other words, they came to a belief in god because
they had no where else to go.. they had hit the bottom..
it wasn't from strength that they turned to god but from weakness...

now there is a second group of people.. those who
were indoctrinated into belief as children... and they may or
may not have held their beliefs into adulthood but they
eventually came back to religion and god... in other words,
they couldn't overcome their childhood indoctrinations...
we are all indoctrinated as children.. that is what we call
education...and we are indoctrinated by the state, church,
society, family, media into various beliefs... ''America is
the greatest country in the world" is one such indoctrination...
"capitalism is the only possibility for an economic system"
is another such indoctrination...the American indoctrination
against communism and socialism is another example...

I suspect you, as with many believers who believe, believe
not as an honest search for the truth, but because
you were indoctrinated as a child and you never overcame
that indoctrination... and of course, you will deny this,
but hay, we lie to ourselves far more than we lie to others...

philosophy is not a search for the truth of the outside world,
but as a means to overcome our childhood indoctrinations...
I was raised to hold certain beliefs, and by the use of philosophy,
I was able to overcome those beliefs, I replaced the beliefs of
my family, state, religion, media, beliefs indoctrinated into me,
with beliefs that I actually hold.. for many, it is hard to
overcome one's indoctrinations and many never make it...
as you apparently haven't overcome...and that is ok....

but be aware of the fact that your beliefs are simply
beliefs that are your family, state, society, and the church...
not your beliefs, but beliefs you were educated/indoctrinated with...

the question that lies before you is simple, have you overcome?

Kropotkin

I think Peter is trying to show us some common distortions of thinking and dialogue here:
We have the fallacy of generalization - yes, he cleverly lists a couple of options for 'what's really happening' to show how pernicious this can be.
Ad hominim fallacies
A cognitive distortion - he's implicitly claiming to be a mind reader
The appeal to novelty fallacy - if you have done philosophy and arrive at new beliefs, these will be better. Whereas humans talk themselves into all sorts of shit.
And then the cumulative dialogue failure: not a bit of substance about what the guy wrote.

Some may think PK is not aware of what a philosophical discussion is, but I know better. He's showing us how one can go astray.

He's a sin eater.

[FlashDangerpants]

I think Peter is trying to show us some common distortions of thinking and dialogue here:
We have the fallacy of generalization - yes, he cleverly lists a couple of options for 'what's really happening' to show how pernicious this can be.
Ad hominim fallacies
A cognitive distortion - he's implicitly claiming to be a mind reader
The appeal to novelty fallacy - if you have done philosophy and arrive at new beliefs, these will be better. Whereas humans talk themselves into all sorts of shit.
And then the cumulative dialogue failure: not a bit of substance about what the guy wrote.

Some may think PK is not aware of what a philosophical discussion is, but I know better. He's showing us how one can go astray.

He's a sin eater.

I must commend you for being able to read his posts at all.
I just can't get past my distate for the crippled decapentasyllabic metre he insists upon writing in.
I've never read beyond 4 lines of his withersome drivel.






Fighting the urge to rework that into a set of haiku