| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Sanford Manley" |
| Date: |
12 Aug 2006 12:18:47 AM |
| Object: |
Re: Question about the Existence of God. |
Sphere said:
I'm trying to understand this argument about the existence of God
thing.
My problem is with the notion of existence. Does "the little green me
who don't exist who live under my bed" exist?
It seems to me that if it doesn't exist then I don't exist, and if it
does
exist then God exists. Put another way: Assume God is only a story
told by millions of people. I am only a story told by trillions of
cells.
God and I have the same ontological status -- we either both exist
or both do not exist.
Define your terms. If you define your terms, you answer
your own question.
--
Sanford M. Manley
God is conscience. He is even the
atheism of the atheist. - Gandhi
The AnsaMan Wiki http://wiki.ansaman.com
.
|
|
| User: "Sphere" |
|
| Title: Re: Question about the Existence of God. |
12 Aug 2006 08:32:25 AM |
|
|
Sanford Manley wrote:
Sphere said:
I'm trying to understand this argument about the existence of God
thing.
My problem is with the notion of existence. Does "the little green me
who don't exist who live under my bed" exist?
It seems to me that if it doesn't exist then I don't exist, and if it
does
exist then God exists. Put another way: Assume God is only a story
told by millions of people. I am only a story told by trillions of
cells.
God and I have the same ontological status -- we either both exist
or both do not exist.
Define your terms. If you define your terms, you answer
your own question.
If I define my terms I either get rapped up in circular definition
or I descend into infinite regress. It is in the nature of words
that they have meaning only within the context of other words.
--
Sanford M. Manley
God is conscience. He is even the
atheism of the atheist. - Gandhi
The AnsaMan Wiki http://wiki.ansaman.com
---
No essence. No permanence. No perfection. Only action.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sphere" |
|
| Title: Re: Question about the Existence of God. |
12 Aug 2006 04:31:13 PM |
|
|
Fred Stone wrote:
....
I tend to agree that God exists as a story. Your little equivocation of
yourself as a "story told by trillions of cells" is cute but a non-
starter. Cells don't tell stories in the same sense that people do. That
doesn't give you the excuse you need to obfuscate the meaning of the
word "exist".
....
Please explain the sense in which people tell stories such that
it is clearly distinct from the way cells tell stories. It seems
to me that both are no more than an exchange of information --
just action.
As far as obfuscating the meaning of the word 'exist' is concerned,
what meaning of this word makes me exist but not this God?
I have found no such definition, except the degenerate definition
where I am specified as existing and God is specified as not
existing. (I have no problems with not existing myself, as I
believe there is only action and action happens rather than
exists.)
---
No essence. No permanence. No perfection. Only action.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Question about the Existence of God. |
12 Aug 2006 05:43:00 PM |
|
|
"Sphere" <sphere1952@gmail.com> wrote in
news:1155418273.401412.7800@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
...
I tend to agree that God exists as a story. Your little equivocation
of yourself as a "story told by trillions of cells" is cute but a
non- starter. Cells don't tell stories in the same sense that people
do. That doesn't give you the excuse you need to obfuscate the
meaning of the word "exist".
...
Please explain the sense in which people tell stories such that
it is clearly distinct from the way cells tell stories. It seems
to me that both are no more than an exchange of information --
just action.
That little denigration of "no more". I call it the fallacy of "just".
As in "just action". What a simple word to wipe away so much content and
thought so easily.
You seemed at first to be equating the two by some rather strained
metaphor. Now you're using the vagueness of "just information" to
obfuscate the differences between the chemical signals between cells and
the syntactical and grammatical signaling entailed in the cultural
"story" that makes up the legend of God.
As far as obfuscating the meaning of the word 'exist' is concerned,
what meaning of this word makes me exist but not this God?
Well, you are a human being, are you not? Is this God a human being?
No? Then "His" existence is not the same as yours.
I have found no such definition, except the degenerate definition
where I am specified as existing and God is specified as not
existing. (I have no problems with not existing myself, as I
believe there is only action and action happens rather than
exists.)
Ah, but "to be" is a verb. :-)
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"Truth is the first casualty in war - but it shouldn't be the news media
who kill it."
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sphere" |
|
| Title: Re: Question about the Existence of God. |
12 Aug 2006 07:34:18 PM |
|
|
Fred Stone wrote:
"Sphere" <sphere1952@gmail.com> wrote in
news:1155418273.401412.7800@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
...
I tend to agree that God exists as a story. Your little equivocation
of yourself as a "story told by trillions of cells" is cute but a
non- starter. Cells don't tell stories in the same sense that people
do. That doesn't give you the excuse you need to obfuscate the
meaning of the word "exist".
...
Please explain the sense in which people tell stories such that
it is clearly distinct from the way cells tell stories. It seems
to me that both are no more than an exchange of information --
just action.
That little denigration of "no more". I call it the fallacy of "just".
As in "just action". What a simple word to wipe away so much content and
thought so easily.
Content and thought are still just action.
I'm completely rejecting reification, and claiming that all of
"existence" is a transitive verb.
You seemed at first to be equating the two by some rather strained
metaphor. Now you're using the vagueness of "just information" to
obfuscate the differences between the chemical signals between cells and
the syntactical and grammatical signaling entailed in the cultural
"story" that makes up the legend of God.
These "differences" are mere partitions within the already
arisen partitions we have already socially constructed.
While I agree that we can make these distictions, I reject
the notion that the partitioning we have developed has some
sort of Ultimate meaning. It is we who have chosen to
distingush chemical signals from grammatical signals, for
otherwise they are both just flows of action (actions of action).
There may be differences in the flow of information (action)
involved in what we have partitioned off as 'atoms' and what
we have partitioned off at 'people', but those differences are
basically minor. Overriding those differences is the comonality
that they are all simply action -- and it is possible to make
a different choice in partitioning that action.
As far as obfuscating the meaning of the word 'exist' is concerned,
what meaning of this word makes me exist but not this God?
Well, you are a human being, are you not? Is this God a human being?
Given that I use the same paritioning into 'human' and 'non-human'
you do, no. This God, like all gods. is "supra-human." This God
is built at the social level -- along with the United States; which I
consider to be a god.
No? Then "His" existence is not the same as yours.
I arise in interaction. He arises in interaction. Please explain
your notion of existence such that I exist and He does not.
I have found no such definition, except the degenerate definition
where I am specified as existing and God is specified as not
existing. (I have no problems with not existing myself, as I
believe there is only action and action happens rather than
exists.)
Ah, but "to be" is a verb. :-)
Only because language -- like all else -- is without essence,
impermanent, and imperfect.
---
No essence. No permanence. No perfection. Only action.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Question about the Existence of God. |
12 Aug 2006 07:11:36 PM |
|
|
"Sphere" <sphere1952@gmail.com> wrote in
news:1155429258.762888.11690@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
"Sphere" <sphere1952@gmail.com> wrote in
news:1155418273.401412.7800@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
...
I tend to agree that God exists as a story. Your little
equivocation of yourself as a "story told by trillions of cells"
is cute but a non- starter. Cells don't tell stories in the same
sense that people do. That doesn't give you the excuse you need to
obfuscate the meaning of the word "exist".
...
Please explain the sense in which people tell stories such that
it is clearly distinct from the way cells tell stories. It seems
to me that both are no more than an exchange of information --
just action.
That little denigration of "no more". I call it the fallacy of
"just". As in "just action". What a simple word to wipe away so much
content and thought so easily.
Content and thought are still just action.
I'm completely rejecting reification, and claiming that all of
"existence" is a transitive verb.
You seemed at first to be equating the two by some rather strained
metaphor. Now you're using the vagueness of "just information" to
obfuscate the differences between the chemical signals between cells
and the syntactical and grammatical signaling entailed in the
cultural "story" that makes up the legend of God.
These "differences" are mere partitions within the already
arisen partitions we have already socially constructed.
While I agree that we can make these distictions, I reject
the notion that the partitioning we have developed has some
sort of Ultimate meaning. It is we who have chosen to
distingush chemical signals from grammatical signals, for
otherwise they are both just flows of action (actions of action).
Nothing has any Ultimate meaning.
*Here and *now, we are alive.
There may be differences in the flow of information (action)
involved in what we have partitioned off as 'atoms' and what
we have partitioned off at 'people', but those differences are
basically minor.
Tell that to the bus that you just stepped in front of.
Overriding those differences is the comonality
that they are all simply action -- and it is possible to make
a different choice in partitioning that action.
Try all you want, you're still alive *here* and *now*.
As far as obfuscating the meaning of the word 'exist' is concerned,
what meaning of this word makes me exist but not this God?
Well, you are a human being, are you not? Is this God a human being?
Given that I use the same paritioning into 'human' and 'non-human'
you do, no. This God, like all gods. is "supra-human." This God
is built at the social level -- along with the United States; which I
consider to be a god.
Oh, well, I consider my cat to be a god. She certainly thinks so. ^_^
No? Then "His" existence is not the same as yours.
I arise in interaction. He arises in interaction. Please explain
your notion of existence such that I exist and He does not.
If you want to go there, of course you can define God to exist in that
way. I'll just agree with you. God is a figment of the collective
imagination of the social construct.
I have found no such definition, except the degenerate definition
where I am specified as existing and God is specified as not
existing. (I have no problems with not existing myself, as I
believe there is only action and action happens rather than
exists.)
Ah, but "to be" is a verb. :-)
Only because language -- like all else -- is without essence,
impermanent, and imperfect.
---
No essence. No permanence. No perfection. Only action.
I'm sorry, I don't speak word salad. Words have meanings.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"Truth is the first casualty in war - but it shouldn't be the news media
who kill it."
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Keynes" |
|
| Title: Re: Question about the Existence of God. |
12 Aug 2006 05:01:50 PM |
|
|
On 12 Aug 2006 14:31:13 -0700, "Sphere" <sphere1952@gmail.com> wrote:
Fred Stone wrote:
...
I tend to agree that God exists as a story. Your little equivocation of
yourself as a "story told by trillions of cells" is cute but a non-
starter. Cells don't tell stories in the same sense that people do. That
doesn't give you the excuse you need to obfuscate the meaning of the
word "exist".
...
Please explain the sense in which people tell stories such that
it is clearly distinct from the way cells tell stories. It seems
to me that both are no more than an exchange of information --
just action.
Cells don't tell stories. The world is like a giant analog
computer that stores the results of 'previous events' and
sets up 'future events'. But it has no memory. The past
has morphed into the present with barely a trace. The
past no longer exists except as human memory. The
future can never exist by definition.
The present doesn't move or change. All of that stuff is
in the hypothetical past and future. (Strangely, they're
the only 'measurable' times, and those very times where
no one has ever been or can ever go to.)
Life is a story with beginning, middle and end.
Never in the present are there any beginnings or
endings, except hypothetically by comparison to
memory or imagination.
The Now doesn't come from anywhere or go anywhere.
It neither begins nor ends. Yet it has no measurable dimensions.
Life is an abstract hypothesis that depends on
beginnings, middles, and ends. But where are they?
Only in the calculating discriminating mind.
As far as obfuscating the meaning of the word 'exist' is concerned,
what meaning of this word makes me exist but not this God?
I have found no such definition, except the degenerate definition
where I am specified as existing and God is specified as not
existing. (I have no problems with not existing myself, as I
believe there is only action and action happens rather than
exists.)
---
No essence. No permanence. No perfection. Only action.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sphere" |
|
| Title: Re: Question about the Existence of God. |
12 Aug 2006 05:16:08 PM |
|
|
Keynes wrote:
On 12 Aug 2006 14:31:13 -0700, "Sphere" <sphere1952@gmail.com> wrote:
Fred Stone wrote:
...
I tend to agree that God exists as a story. Your little equivocation of
yourself as a "story told by trillions of cells" is cute but a non-
starter. Cells don't tell stories in the same sense that people do. That
doesn't give you the excuse you need to obfuscate the meaning of the
word "exist".
...
Please explain the sense in which people tell stories such that
it is clearly distinct from the way cells tell stories. It seems
to me that both are no more than an exchange of information --
just action.
Cells don't tell stories. The world is like a giant analog
computer that stores the results of 'previous events' and
sets up 'future events'. But it has no memory. The past
has morphed into the present with barely a trace. The
past no longer exists except as human memory. The
future can never exist by definition.
The past is merely a memory,
The future just a dream, and
The present doesn't exist at all.
The present doesn't move or change. All of that stuff is
in the hypothetical past and future. (Strangely, they're
the only 'measurable' times, and those very times where
no one has ever been or can ever go to.)
The present doesn't move or change because there
is no present. There is only memories transmutting
into dreams -- only action.
Life is a story with beginning, middle and end.
Never in the present are there any beginnings or
endings, except hypothetically by comparison to
memory or imagination.
The Now doesn't come from anywhere or go anywhere.
It neither begins nor ends. Yet it has no measurable dimensions.
Yup. There is nothing which can be assigned to the present.
Life is an abstract hypothesis that depends on
beginnings, middles, and ends. But where are they?
Only in the calculating discriminating mind.
Heheh.
As far as obfuscating the meaning of the word 'exist' is concerned,
what meaning of this word makes me exist but not this God?
I have found no such definition, except the degenerate definition
where I am specified as existing and God is specified as not
existing. (I have no problems with not existing myself, as I
believe there is only action and action happens rather than
exists.)
---
No essence. No permanence. No perfection. Only action.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Keynes" |
|
| Title: Re: Question about the Existence of God. |
12 Aug 2006 02:05:51 PM |
|
|
On 12 Aug 2006 16:15:08 GMT, Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
"Sphere" <sphere1952@gmail.com> wrote in
news:1155389545.051285.68140@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
Sanford Manley wrote:
Sphere said:
I'm trying to understand this argument about the existence of God
thing.
My problem is with the notion of existence. Does "the little green
me who don't exist who live under my bed" exist?
It seems to me that if it doesn't exist then I don't exist, and if
it does
exist then God exists. Put another way: Assume God is only a story
told by millions of people. I am only a story told by trillions of
cells.
God and I have the same ontological status -- we either both exist
or both do not exist.
Define your terms. If you define your terms, you answer
your own question.
If I define my terms I either get rapped up in circular definition
or I descend into infinite regress. It is in the nature of words
that they have meaning only within the context of other words.
That isn't really circular logic; that's a semantic network. That's also
a lousy excuse for not defining your terms or using vague and fuzzy
logic.
As for your cute little problem about existence, you're mixing up the
fact of existence with the type of the thing that "exists". A thing that
exists *is* a particular type of thing.
You seem to be a person, since you somehow manage to communicate on
USENET. You might be a 'bot program, I'll reserve judgement on that
until I see whether you can pass the Turing test.
I tend to agree that God exists as a story. Your little equivocation of
yourself as a "story told by trillions of cells" is cute but a non-
starter. Cells don't tell stories in the same sense that people do. That
doesn't give you the excuse you need to obfuscate the meaning of the
word "exist".
What is existence?
If we mean it to be persistence through time,
then we must demonstrate scientifically-physically
that time is more than an idea.
If we mean existence to be 'what is here now' the term
is meaningless because it allows no opposite. Existence
is a dualistic yes or no proposition. Yes without no
is beyond dualistic discourse.
The God of the bible is a cobbled up human effigy
unlovable as depicted because he lacks the 'human'
virtues and has the inhuman faults of domineering,
arrogance, vindictiveness, carelessness, violence,
and cruelty. God is unfair to all and everything.
He made us weak and then punishes us for that.
But that's a pretty good picture of how we view nature
and the 'facts of life', isn't it? God of the bible is a
model of reality as we perceive it. He stands for the
laws of physical and psychological nature.
God may not be watching and judging us, but gravity
does that, and there is no appeal from the instant
judgements of physical and psychological nature.
God (as the controler and virtual doer of all deeds
through first cause and all subsequent effects) cannot
exist for us as long as we pretend to be autonomous
beings with intelligent minds and the miraculous god-like
power of uncaused free will. We can accept Man or God,
but not both at once.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"Truth is the first casualty in war - but it shouldn't be the news media
who kill it."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Question about the Existence of God. |
12 Aug 2006 01:55:56 PM |
|
|
Keynes <Keynes@earthlinkspam.net> wrote in
news:lr7sd217degl5jnao0rdlu8st4sq3rh3qn@4ax.com:
On 12 Aug 2006 16:15:08 GMT, Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com>
wrote:
"Sphere" <sphere1952@gmail.com> wrote in
news:1155389545.051285.68140@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
Sanford Manley wrote:
Sphere said:
I'm trying to understand this argument about the existence of God
thing.
My problem is with the notion of existence. Does "the little
green me who don't exist who live under my bed" exist?
It seems to me that if it doesn't exist then I don't exist, and
if it does
exist then God exists. Put another way: Assume God is only a
story told by millions of people. I am only a story told by
trillions of cells.
God and I have the same ontological status -- we either both
exist or both do not exist.
Define your terms. If you define your terms, you answer
your own question.
If I define my terms I either get rapped up in circular definition
or I descend into infinite regress. It is in the nature of words
that they have meaning only within the context of other words.
That isn't really circular logic; that's a semantic network. That's
also a lousy excuse for not defining your terms or using vague and
fuzzy logic.
As for your cute little problem about existence, you're mixing up the
fact of existence with the type of the thing that "exists". A thing
that exists *is* a particular type of thing.
You seem to be a person, since you somehow manage to communicate on
USENET. You might be a 'bot program, I'll reserve judgement on that
until I see whether you can pass the Turing test.
I tend to agree that God exists as a story. Your little equivocation
of yourself as a "story told by trillions of cells" is cute but a non-
starter. Cells don't tell stories in the same sense that people do.
That doesn't give you the excuse you need to obfuscate the meaning of
the word "exist".
What is existence?
Existence is the property that a thing has when it is a thing (first-
order predicate). Existence is also the property that existence has,
that makes it possible for things to have properties (second-order
predicate). There aren't any third-or-higher-order predicates, and
existence is the only second-order predicate. All other properties that
things have are first-order predicates.
If we mean it to be persistence through time,
then we must demonstrate scientifically-physically
that time is more than an idea.
That would be a property of a thing, but that would not be existence
itself.
If we mean existence to be 'what is here now' the term
is meaningless because it allows no opposite. Existence
is a dualistic yes or no proposition. Yes without no
is beyond dualistic discourse.
I don't see how you get there from anywhere. Existence is a property of
a thing that exists.
The God of the bible is a cobbled up human effigy
unlovable as depicted because he lacks the 'human'
virtues and has the inhuman faults of domineering,
arrogance, vindictiveness, carelessness, violence,
and cruelty. God is unfair to all and everything.
He made us weak and then punishes us for that.
But that's a pretty good picture of how we view nature
and the 'facts of life', isn't it? God of the bible is a
model of reality as we perceive it. He stands for the
laws of physical and psychological nature.
No, not really. God stands for the repudiation of the laws of physical
reality. He's a rejection of perceived reality in favor of wishful
thinking.
God may not be watching and judging us, but gravity
does that, and there is no appeal from the instant
judgements of physical and psychological nature.
Gravity doesn't watch or judge, it just is. We either take account of it
or we don't. If we don't, it does what it does anyway.
God (as the controler and virtual doer of all deeds
through first cause and all subsequent effects) cannot
exist for us as long as we pretend to be autonomous
beings with intelligent minds and the miraculous god-like
power of uncaused free will. We can accept Man or God,
but not both at once.
That's not much of a God, if He only exists if we think of Him.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"Truth is the first casualty in war - but it shouldn't be the news media
who kill it."
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sphere" |
|
| Title: Re: Question about the Existence of God. |
12 Aug 2006 05:30:22 PM |
|
|
Fred Stone wrote:
....
Gravity doesn't watch or judge, it just is. We either take account of it
or we don't. If we don't, it does what it does anyway.
....
'Gravity' is merely a description. The 'Universe' does what it
does without regard to 'law'. The laws are all made up by us
in an attempt to describe and predict.
Gravity neither is nor is not in the sense of being objective
reality. Gravity IS only in the sense of being a description
which we find useful.
This is not to denigrate "natural law," but only to put
it in its' proper context as a descriptive technique
invented by humans in an attempt to predict "the
future." These 'laws' are purely pragmatic devices,
and not some sort of Objective Reality.
---
No essence. No permanence. No perfection. Only action.
.
|
|
|
| User: "fritz" |
|
| Title: Re: Question about the Existence of xGodz. |
12 Aug 2006 06:18:27 PM |
|
|
"Sphere" <sphere1952@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1155421821.996315.232260@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Fred Stone wrote:
...
Gravity doesn't watch or judge, it just is. We either take account of it
or we don't. If we don't, it does what it does anyway.
...
'Gravity' is merely a description. The 'Universe' does what it
does without regard to 'law'. The laws are all made up by us
in an attempt to describe and predict.
Gravity neither is nor is not in the sense of being objective
reality. Gravity IS only in the sense of being a description
which we find useful.
This is not to denigrate "natural law," but only to put
it in its' proper context as a descriptive technique
invented by humans in an attempt to predict "the
future." These 'laws' are purely pragmatic devices,
and not some sort of Objective Reality.
---
No essence. No permanence. No perfection. Only action.
a law of action only?
a law of necessitated vibratility?
i 'must' be a snake...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sphere" |
|
| Title: Re: Question about the Existence of xGodz. |
12 Aug 2006 06:50:00 PM |
|
|
fritz wrote:
"Sphere" <sphere1952@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1155421821.996315.232260@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Fred Stone wrote:
...
Gravity doesn't watch or judge, it just is. We either take account of it
or we don't. If we don't, it does what it does anyway.
...
'Gravity' is merely a description. The 'Universe' does what it
does without regard to 'law'. The laws are all made up by us
in an attempt to describe and predict.
Gravity neither is nor is not in the sense of being objective
reality. Gravity IS only in the sense of being a description
which we find useful.
This is not to denigrate "natural law," but only to put
it in its' proper context as a descriptive technique
invented by humans in an attempt to predict "the
future." These 'laws' are purely pragmatic devices,
and not some sort of Objective Reality.
---
No essence. No permanence. No perfection. Only action.
a law of action only?
a law of necessitated vibratility?
i 'must' be a snake...
You can be whatever story you like.
We must be careful here. I do not posit an a priori
law of action only. I just posit a descriptive law of
action only. I do not posit any law which governs
"The Universe," but only descriptive laws with pragmatic
value. I don't believe in Truth, and my philosophy
is strictly pragmatic. To me laws governing "The
Universe" is a meaningless idea, for the laws are
themselves ideas and it cannot be that an idea
contains the totality which contains the idea.
(Even the Three Characteristics are subject to the
Three Characteristics.)
---
No essence. No permanence. No perfection. Only action.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim07D6" |
|
| Title: Re: Question about the Existence of xGodz. |
12 Aug 2006 07:44:54 PM |
|
|
"Sphere" <sphere1952@gmail.com> said:
fritz wrote:
"Sphere" <sphere1952@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1155421821.996315.232260@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Fred Stone wrote:
...
Gravity doesn't watch or judge, it just is. We either take account of it
or we don't. If we don't, it does what it does anyway.
...
'Gravity' is merely a description. The 'Universe' does what it
does without regard to 'law'. The laws are all made up by us
in an attempt to describe and predict.
Gravity neither is nor is not in the sense of being objective
reality. Gravity IS only in the sense of being a description
which we find useful.
This is not to denigrate "natural law," but only to put
it in its' proper context as a descriptive technique
invented by humans in an attempt to predict "the
future." These 'laws' are purely pragmatic devices,
and not some sort of Objective Reality.
---
No essence. No permanence. No perfection. Only action.
a law of action only?
a law of necessitated vibratility?
i 'must' be a snake...
You can be whatever story you like.
We must be careful here. I do not posit an a priori
law of action only. I just posit a descriptive law of
action only. I do not posit any law which governs
"The Universe," but only descriptive laws with pragmatic
value. I don't believe in Truth, and my philosophy
is strictly pragmatic. To me laws governing "The
Universe" is a meaningless idea, for the laws are
themselves ideas and it cannot be that an idea
contains the totality which contains the idea.
The idea of laws as governance is a remnant of theism.
-- Jim07D6
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "fritz" |
|
| Title: Re: Question about the Existence of xGodz. |
12 Aug 2006 07:53:22 PM |
|
|
"Sphere" <sphere1952@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1155426600.438987.75850@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
No essence. No permanence. No perfection. Only action.
a law of action only?
a law of necessitated vibratility?
i 'must' be a snake...
You can be whatever story you like.
need it have a happy ending?
like a little snakehouse with a
white snake picket fence?
We must be careful here.
famous last words amid the cries
of the safety addicts
I do not posit an a priori
law of action only.
just the memory of one
I just posit a descriptive law of
action only.
laws of action and reaction leave
most divide and conquer causality
scheming strategies with much to
be desired until the point of eternal
subsequent consequence licks the
drippings down the side of the cone.
I do not posit any law which governs
"The Universe," but only descriptive laws with pragmatic
value.
and certainly the universe is
dependent upon antipragmatism
I don't believe in Truth, and my philosophy
is strictly pragmatic.
is this another law besides
the one of action?
To me laws governing "The
Universe" is a meaningless idea, for the laws are
themselves ideas and it cannot be that an idea
contains the totality which contains the idea.
the idea is just a measurement brochure
of something that appears to take place,
occur or have happenstance, if you will.
(Even the Three Characteristics are subject to the
Three Characteristics.)
somebody's gotta do it
No essence. No permanence. No perfection. Only action.
as wide brimmed as entropy
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "dee" |
|
| Title: Re: Question about the Existence of xGodz. |
13 Aug 2006 05:18:37 AM |
|
|
Sphere wrote:
fritz wrote:
"Sphere" <sphere1952@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1155421821.996315.232260@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Fred Stone wrote:
...
Gravity doesn't watch or judge, it just is. We either take account of it
or we don't. If we don't, it does what it does anyway.
...
'Gravity' is merely a description. The 'Universe' does what it
does without regard to 'law'. The laws are all made up by us
in an attempt to describe and predict.
Gravity neither is nor is not in the sense of being objective
reality. Gravity IS only in the sense of being a description
which we find useful.
This is not to denigrate "natural law," but only to put
it in its' proper context as a descriptive technique
invented by humans in an attempt to predict "the
future." These 'laws' are purely pragmatic devices,
and not some sort of Objective Reality.
---
No essence. No permanence. No perfection. Only action.
a law of action only?
a law of necessitated vibratility?
i 'must' be a snake...
You can be whatever story you like.
We must be careful here. I do not posit an a priori
law of action only. I just posit a descriptive law of
action only. I do not posit any law which governs
"The Universe," but only descriptive laws with pragmatic
value. I don't believe in Truth, and my philosophy
is strictly pragmatic. To me laws governing "The
Universe" is a meaningless idea, for the laws are
themselves ideas and it cannot be that an idea
contains the totality which contains the idea.
(Even the Three Characteristics are subject to the
Three Characteristics.)
---
No essence. No permanence. No perfection. Only action.
"it cannot be that an idea contains the totality which contains the
idea" - something springs to mind, it could be if an idea has the
property of inifinity
e.g. infinity = infinity + infinity + infinity + ......
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sphere" |
|
| Title: Re: Question about the Existence of xGodz. |
13 Aug 2006 08:56:34 AM |
|
|
dee wrote:
Sphere wrote:
fritz wrote:
"Sphere" <sphere1952@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1155421821.996315.232260@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Fred Stone wrote:
...
Gravity doesn't watch or judge, it just is. We either take account of it
or we don't. If we don't, it does what it does anyway.
...
'Gravity' is merely a description. The 'Universe' does what it
does without regard to 'law'. The laws are all made up by us
in an attempt to describe and predict.
Gravity neither is nor is not in the sense of being objective
reality. Gravity IS only in the sense of being a description
which we find useful.
This is not to denigrate "natural law," but only to put
it in its' proper context as a descriptive technique
invented by humans in an attempt to predict "the
future." These 'laws' are purely pragmatic devices,
and not some sort of Objective Reality.
---
No essence. No permanence. No perfection. Only action.
a law of action only?
a law of necessitated vibratility?
i 'must' be a snake...
You can be whatever story you like.
We must be careful here. I do not posit an a priori
law of action only. I just posit a descriptive law of
action only. I do not posit any law which governs
"The Universe," but only descriptive laws with pragmatic
value. I don't believe in Truth, and my philosophy
is strictly pragmatic. To me laws governing "The
Universe" is a meaningless idea, for the laws are
themselves ideas and it cannot be that an idea
contains the totality which contains the idea.
(Even the Three Characteristics are subject to the
Three Characteristics.)
---
No essence. No permanence. No perfection. Only action.
"it cannot be that an idea contains the totality which contains the
idea" - something springs to mind, it could be if an idea has the
property of inifinity
e.g. infinity = infinity + infinity + infinity + ......
Cute, but there is only the idea of infinity without the
infinity to go with the idea.
---
No essence. No permanence. No perfection. Only action.
.
|
|
|
| User: "dee" |
|
| Title: Re: Question about the Existence of xGodz. |
18 Aug 2006 12:13:09 AM |
|
|
Sphere wrote:
dee wrote:
Sphere wrote:
fritz wrote:
"Sphere" <sphere1952@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1155421821.996315.232260@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Fred Stone wrote:
...
Gravity doesn't watch or judge, it just is. We either take account of it
or we don't. If we don't, it does what it does anyway.
...
'Gravity' is merely a description. The 'Universe' does what it
does without regard to 'law'. The laws are all made up by us
in an attempt to describe and predict.
Gravity neither is nor is not in the sense of being objective
reality. Gravity IS only in the sense of being a description
which we find useful.
This is not to denigrate "natural law," but only to put
it in its' proper context as a descriptive technique
invented by humans in an attempt to predict "the
future." These 'laws' are purely pragmatic devices,
and not some sort of Objective Reality.
---
No essence. No permanence. No perfection. Only action.
a law of action only?
a law of necessitated vibratility?
i 'must' be a snake...
You can be whatever story you like.
We must be careful here. I do not posit an a priori
law of action only. I just posit a descriptive law of
action only. I do not posit any law which governs
"The Universe," but only descriptive laws with pragmatic
value. I don't believe in Truth, and my philosophy
is strictly pragmatic. To me laws governing "The
Universe" is a meaningless idea, for the laws are
themselves ideas and it cannot be that an idea
contains the totality which contains the idea.
(Even the Three Characteristics are subject to the
Three Characteristics.)
---
No essence. No permanence. No perfection. Only action.
"it cannot be that an idea contains the totality which contains the
idea" - something springs to mind, it could be if an idea has the
property of inifinity
e.g. infinity = infinity + infinity + infinity + ......
Cute, but there is only the idea of infinity without the
infinity to go with the idea.
---
No essence. No permanence. No perfection. Only action.
Just thought of something after reading those bellafish translation
post, it would work if everything is just an idea.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Question about the Existence of God. |
12 Aug 2006 05:30:16 PM |
|
|
"Sphere" <sphere1952@gmail.com> wrote in news:1155421821.996315.232260
@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
...
Gravity doesn't watch or judge, it just is. We either take account of it
or we don't. If we don't, it does what it does anyway.
'Gravity' is merely a description. The 'Universe' does what it
does without regard to 'law'. The laws are all made up by us
in an attempt to describe and predict.
Gravity neither is nor is not in the sense of being objective
reality. Gravity IS only in the sense of being a description
which we find useful.
This is not to denigrate "natural law," but only to put
it in its' proper context as a descriptive technique
invented by humans in an attempt to predict "the
future." These 'laws' are purely pragmatic devices,
and not some sort of Objective Reality.
If you like.
Gravity is still a description of something real.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"Truth is the first casualty in war - but it shouldn't be the news media
who kill it."
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Keynes" |
|
| Title: Re: Question about the Existence of God. |
12 Aug 2006 03:13:34 PM |
|
|
On 12 Aug 2006 18:55:56 GMT, Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
I don't see how you get there from anywhere. Existence is a property of
a thing that exists.
You're serious?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ned Ludd" |
|
| Title: Re: Question about the Existence of God. |
12 Aug 2006 03:17:58 PM |
|
|
"Keynes" <Keynes@earthlinkspam.net> wrote in message
news:bhdsd2t168ic6e5e25goitj4cg7b046qf5@4ax.com...
On 12 Aug 2006 18:55:56 GMT, Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
I don't see how you get there from anywhere. Existence is
a property of a thing that exists.
You're serious?
Yeah, Fred, how is that not a tautology?
Ned
(And how do you know that you are not a bot, simultaneously
executing on several computers with no self or individual
existence anywhere?)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Question about the Existence of God. |
12 Aug 2006 05:28:12 PM |
|
|
"Ned Ludd" <nedludd@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
news:WHqDg.3499$Qf.191@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net:
"Keynes" <Keynes@earthlinkspam.net> wrote in message
news:bhdsd2t168ic6e5e25goitj4cg7b046qf5@4ax.com...
On 12 Aug 2006 18:55:56 GMT, Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com>
wrote:
I don't see how you get there from anywhere. Existence is
a property of a thing that exists.
You're serious?
Yeah, Fred, how is that not a tautology?
Of course it's a tautology. Is there something wrong with that?
Existence exists. There isn't really anything more you can say about it
without getting into the properties of things that exist.
Ned
(And how do you know that you are not a bot, simultaneously
executing on several computers with no self or individual
existence anywhere?)
What difference does it make?
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"Truth is the first casualty in war - but it shouldn't be the news media
who kill it."
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ned Ludd" |
|
| Title: Re: Question about the Existence of God. |
12 Aug 2006 10:37:42 PM |
|
|
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns981DC5924EAE5fstone69@66.150.105.47...
I don't see how you get there from anywhere. Existence is
a property of a thing that exists.
You're serious?
Yeah, Fred, how is that not a tautology?
Of course it's a tautology. Is there something wrong with that?
Tautologies leave you where you started. With some proposition
or apriori assumption... which is a nice phrase for bias, prejudice,
or preconceived notion.
Existence exists. There isn't really anything more you can say
about it without getting into the properties of things that exist.
I looks like existence is a property you are assigning to
various aspects of your mind. And before you throw me in front
of a bus, I think you should consider that most of the misery
of humankind comes from these notions of existence and the
properties we assign to "things that exist".
(And how do you know that you are not a bot, simultaneously
executing on several computers with no self or individual
existence anywhere?)
What difference does it make?
You wouldn't exist in any of the senses that you are claiming
for existence. There would be no 'there' there. You would be
an aggregate of various subroutines and electrical currents,
with no self, being, soul or person.
Ned
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Question about the Existence of God. |
13 Aug 2006 09:31:53 AM |
|
|
"Ned Ludd" <nedludd@ix.netcom.com> wrote in news:a8xDg.3206$Sn3.2780
@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns981DC5924EAE5fstone69@66.150.105.47...
I don't see how you get there from anywhere. Existence is
a property of a thing that exists.
You're serious?
Yeah, Fred, how is that not a tautology?
Of course it's a tautology. Is there something wrong with that?
Tautologies leave you where you started. With some proposition
or apriori assumption... which is a nice phrase for bias, prejudice,
or preconceived notion.
That's about as far as you can get with the first-order predicate
existence anyway.
Existence exists. There isn't really anything more you can say
about it without getting into the properties of things that exist.
I looks like existence is a property you are assigning to
various aspects of your mind. And before you throw me in front
of a bus, I think you should consider that most of the misery
of humankind comes from these notions of existence and the
properties we assign to "things that exist".
No, existence is a predicate.
You can, if you like, throw yourself in front of a bus, but that would
imply that you exist and that the bus exists.
(And how do you know that you are not a bot, simultaneously
executing on several computers with no self or individual
existence anywhere?)
What difference does it make?
You wouldn't exist in any of the senses that you are claiming
for existence. There would be no 'there' there. You would be
an aggregate of various subroutines and electrical currents,
with no self, being, soul or person.
I'm not claiming any senses for my existence. I don't have to. Solipsism
is self-defeating.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"Truth is the first casualty in war - but it shouldn't be the news media
who kill it."
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sphere" |
|
| Title: Re: Question about the Existence of God. |
13 Aug 2006 11:55:52 AM |
|
|
Fred Stone wrote:
....
You can, if you like, throw yourself in front of a bus, but that would
imply that you exist and that the bus exists.
....
All that would demonstrate is that action happens.
Just what is it that is being thrown in front of the bus anyway?
An idea of a singular Self? A collection of cells?
---
No essence. No permanence. No perfection. Only action.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Keynes" |
|
| Title: Re: Question about the Existence of God. |
13 Aug 2006 01:58:53 PM |
|
|
On 13 Aug 2006 14:31:53 GMT, Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
I'm not claiming any senses for my existence. I don't have to. Solipsism
is self-defeating.
And unfortunately, solipsism is logically irrefutable.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Question about the Existence of God. |
13 Aug 2006 02:16:22 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 13 Aug 2006 13:58:53 -0500, Keynes <Keynes@earthlinkspam.net>
wrote:
On 13 Aug 2006 14:31:53 GMT, Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
I'm not claiming any senses for my existence. I don't have to. Solipsism
is self-defeating.
And unfortunately, solipsism is logically irrefutable.
Maybe not - but his one in the face and ask them if that was in their
own mind or caused by something external.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sphere" |
|
| Title: Re: Question about the Existence of God. |
13 Aug 2006 05:00:53 PM |
|
|
Keynes wrote:
On Sun, 13 Aug 2006 15:16:22 -0400, Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net>
wrote:
On Sun, 13 Aug 2006 13:58:53 -0500, Keynes <Keynes@earthlinkspam.net>
wrote:
On 13 Aug 2006 14:31:53 GMT, Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
I'm not claiming any senses for my existence. I don't have to. Solipsism
is self-defeating.
And unfortunately, solipsism is logically irrefutable.
Maybe not - but his one in the face and ask them if that was in their
own mind or caused by something external.
Consciousness is irreducible.
If the cosmos were chock full of objects shoulder to shoulder,
back to back, and belly to belly, there might as well be
nothing at all if no one or nothing knows about it.
Even the stone-age-materialists insist that the only
doorway to experience of any kind is brain-mind.
(All imagined objects, real or otherwise can only
exist for us as mind objects).
Materialists say that the mind is necessarily in the world,
but admit that all of the known world must be in the mind.
That there may be things unknown is a conjecture.
And where does that conjecture come from
but a mind?
The brain itself (as a material chemical factory that
produces immaterial products of ultimate significance
to humans) is just a thought in a mind. (And a pretty
wild superstition that leaps the gap of reason
without any apology or excuse.)
How can one distinguish inside from outside?
It's likely a matter of opinion, and that opinion
isn't in the table or in the chair or even in the
brain, but in the mind.
Solipsism doesn't imply any personal power to
shape events to one's liking. It just says that
all experience is mind experience. What's
outside of mind can't possibly matter.
The idea that one may be punched around by circumstance
and finally beaten to death by 'time' only says that one dislikes
and attempts to disown the contents of his own mind.
It's an infantile fantasy a la Bart Simpson
that keeps repeating, "I didn't do it!"
But the common worldly wisdom of shifting the blame for
one's own discomforts is a lot easier to take than to
examine and to rearrange one's own mental furniture.
Not a bad defense of solpisism, but all I claim is that
whatever is without our thinking it so is undiscussable.
This nothing outside of MY MIND stuff assumes a unitary
MY, and I see no reason to assume such. It is clear
to me that my thoughts arise in interdependance I see
no singularity which binds these thoughts. Perhaps
if I saw some sort of fundamental ME I would be more
inclined to argue there was nothing other than me, but I
don't see any such fundamental singularity.
---
No essence. No permanence. No perfection. Only action.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Keynes" |
|
| Title: Re: Question about the Existence of God. |
13 Aug 2006 05:18:59 PM |
|
|
On 13 Aug 2006 15:00:53 -0700, "Sphere" <sphere1952@gmail.com> wrote:
Keynes wrote:
On Sun, 13 Aug 2006 15:16:22 -0400, Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net>
wrote:
On Sun, 13 Aug 2006 13:58:53 -0500, Keynes <Keynes@earthlinkspam.net>
wrote:
On 13 Aug 2006 14:31:53 GMT, Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
I'm not claiming any senses for my existence. I don't have to. Solipsism
is self-defeating.
And unfortunately, solipsism is logically irrefutable.
Maybe not - but his one in the face and ask them if that was in their
own mind or caused by something external.
Consciousness is irreducible.
If the cosmos were chock full of objects shoulder to shoulder,
back to back, and belly to belly, there might as well be
nothing at all if no one or nothing knows about it.
Even the stone-age-materialists insist that the only
doorway to experience of any kind is brain-mind.
(All imagined objects, real or otherwise can only
exist for us as mind objects).
Materialists say that the mind is necessarily in the world,
but admit that all of the known world must be in the mind.
That there may be things unknown is a conjecture.
And where does that conjecture come from
but a mind?
The brain itself (as a material chemical factory that
produces immaterial products of ultimate significance
to humans) is just a thought in a mind. (And a pretty
wild superstition that leaps the gap of reason
without any apology or excuse.)
How can one distinguish inside from outside?
It's likely a matter of opinion, and that opinion
isn't in the table or in the chair or even in the
brain, but in the mind.
Solipsism doesn't imply any personal power to
shape events to one's liking. It just says that
all experience is mind experience. What's
outside of mind can't possibly matter.
The idea that one may be punched around by circumstance
and finally beaten to death by 'time' only says that one dislikes
and attempts to disown the contents of his own mind.
It's an infantile fantasy a la Bart Simpson
that keeps repeating, "I didn't do it!"
But the common worldly wisdom of shifting the blame for
one's own discomforts is a lot easier to take than to
examine and to rearrange one's own mental furniture.
Not a bad defense of solpisism, but all I claim is that
whatever is without our thinking it so is undiscussable.
This nothing outside of MY MIND stuff assumes a unitary
MY, and I see no reason to assume such. It is clear
to me that my thoughts arise in interdependance I see
no singularity which binds these thoughts. Perhaps
if I saw some sort of fundamental ME I would be more
inclined to argue there was nothing other than me, but I
don't see any such fundamental singularity.
---
No essence. No permanence. No perfection. Only action.
Do you see anything that you can't see?
Do you think anything that you can't think?
Really. Mind is ultimate. The rest is conjecture.
(And that's mind too.)
But whether it's one or many isn't the important issue.
Although if you say it's many, you may put yourself at the
mercy of the imaginary many, absolving yourself of any
responsibility, but yet accepting and paying all the bills.
Non-duality is recommended as a remedy for personal
disintegration. And the perception of one's conditional
existence doesn't conflict with that.
'Understanding' is such a fragile make-shift.
Uncertainty is much better. It can't be disordered
from it's already disordered condition after all.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sphere" |
|
| Title: Re: Question about the Existence of God. |
13 Aug 2006 05:26:59 PM |
|
|
Keynes wrote:
On 13 Aug 2006 15:00:53 -0700, "Sphere" <sphere1952@gmail.com> wrote:
Keynes wrote:
On Sun, 13 Aug 2006 15:16:22 -0400, Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net>
wrote:
On Sun, 13 Aug 2006 13:58:53 -0500, Keynes <Keynes@earthlinkspam.net>
wrote:
On 13 Aug 2006 14:31:53 GMT, Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
I'm not claiming any senses for my existence. I don't have to. Solipsism
is self-defeating.
And unfortunately, solipsism is logically irrefutable.
Maybe not - but his one in the face and ask them if that was in their
own mind or caused by something external.
Consciousness is irreducible.
If the cosmos were chock full of objects shoulder to shoulder,
back to back, and belly to belly, there might as well be
nothing at all if no one or nothing knows about it.
Even the stone-age-materialists insist that the only
doorway to experience of any kind is brain-mind.
(All imagined objects, real or otherwise can only
exist for us as mind objects).
Materialists say that the mind is necessarily in the world,
but admit that all of the known world must be in the mind.
That there may be things unknown is a conjecture.
And where does that conjecture come from
but a mind?
The brain itself (as a material chemical factory that
produces immaterial products of ultimate significance
to humans) is just a thought in a mind. (And a pretty
wild superstition that leaps the gap of reason
without any apology or excuse.)
How can one distinguish inside from outside?
It's likely a matter of opinion, and that opinion
isn't in the table or in the chair or even in the
brain, but in the mind.
Solipsism doesn't imply any personal power to
shape events to one's liking. It just says that
all experience is mind experience. What's
outside of mind can't possibly matter.
The idea that one may be punched around by circumstance
and finally beaten to death by 'time' only says that one dislikes
and attempts to disown the contents of his own mind.
It's an infantile fantasy a la Bart Simpson
that keeps repeating, "I didn't do it!"
But the common worldly wisdom of shifting the blame for
one's own discomforts is a lot easier to take than to
examine and to rearrange one's own mental furniture.
Not a bad defense of solpisism, but all I claim is that
whatever is without our thinking it so is undiscussable.
This nothing outside of MY MIND stuff assumes a unitary
MY, and I see no reason to assume such. It is clear
to me that my thoughts arise in interdependance I see
no singularity which binds these thoughts. Perhaps
if I saw some sort of fundamental ME I would be more
inclined to argue there was nothing other than me, but I
don't see any such fundamental singularity.
---
No essence. No permanence. No perfection. Only action.
Do you see anything that you can't see?
Do you think anything that you can't think?
Really. Mind is ultimate. The rest is conjecture.
(And that's mind too.)
But whether it's one or many isn't the important issue.
Although if you say it's many, you may put yourself at the
mercy of the imaginary many, absolving yourself of any
responsibility, but yet accepting and paying all the bills.
Non-duality is recommended as a remedy for personal
disintegration. And the perception of one's conditional
existence doesn't conflict with that.
'Understanding' is such a fragile make-shift.
Uncertainty is much better. It can't be disordered
from it's already disordered condition after all.
Well...This isn't the best place to put this, but
I've been wanting to make reference to the Discordians
for awhile now.
I'd tend to agree with the Discordians, although their
way of putting it is much too personalistic for my tastes.
Fundamentally, the root of all existence is pure chaos.
---
No essence. No permanence. No perfection. Only action.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "=?ISO-8859-1?Q?D=E9j=E0_Fu?=" |
|
| Title: Re: Question about the Existence of God. |
13 Aug 2006 05:12:55 PM |
|
|
Sphere wrote:
Keynes wrote:
On Sun, 13 Aug 2006 15:16:22 -0400, Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net>
wrote:
On Sun, 13 Aug 2006 13:58:53 -0500, Keynes <Keynes@earthlinkspam.net>
wrote:
On 13 Aug 2006 14:31:53 GMT, Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
I'm not claiming any senses for my existence. I don't have to. Solipsism
is self-defeating.
And unfortunately, solipsism is logically irrefutable.
Maybe not - but his one in the face and ask them if that was in their
own mind or caused by something external.
Consciousness is irreducible.
If the cosmos were chock full of objects shoulder to shoulder,
back to back, and belly to belly, there might as well be
nothing at all if no one or nothing knows about it.
Even the stone-age-materialists insist that the only
doorway to experience of any kind is brain-mind.
(All imagined objects, real or otherwise can only
exist for us as mind objects).
Materialists say that the mind is necessarily in the world,
but admit that all of the known world must be in the mind.
That there may be things unknown is a conjecture.
And where does that conjecture come from
but a mind?
The brain itself (as a material chemical factory that
produces immaterial products of ultimate significance
to humans) is just a thought in a mind. (And a pretty
wild superstition that leaps the gap of reason
without any apology or excuse.)
How can one distinguish inside from outside?
It's likely a matter of opinion, and that opinion
isn't in the table or in the chair or even in the
brain, but in the mind.
Solipsism doesn't imply any personal power to
shape events to one's liking. It just says that
all experience is mind experience. What's
outside of mind can't possibly matter.
The idea that one may be punched around by circumstance
and finally beaten to death by 'time' only says that one dislikes
and attempts to disown the contents of his own mind.
It's an infantile fantasy a la Bart Simpson
that keeps repeating, "I didn't do it!"
But the common worldly wisdom of shifting the blame for
one's own discomforts is a lot easier to take than to
examine and to rearrange one's own mental furniture.
Not a bad defense of solpisism, but all I claim is that
whatever is without our thinking it so is undiscussable.
This nothing outside of MY MIND stuff assumes a unitary
MY, and I see no reason to assume such. It is clear
to me that my thoughts arise in interdependance I see
no singularity which binds these thoughts. Perhaps
if I saw some sort of fundamental ME I would be more
inclined to argue there was nothing other than me, but I
don't see any such fundamental singularity.
---
No essence. No permanence. No perfection. Only action.
A news article headlined "Pluto's Status Attacked"
and I was worried about all those philosophy books
that would have to be revised and the suffering of
Socrates...
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
