| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"alen" |
| Date: |
09 Dec 2005 09:37:45 PM |
| Object: |
Re: WHICH IS THE TRUE RELIGION AND TRUE GOD? |
wrote:
http://home.att.net/~meditation/soul.html
Do you have a soul?
To know truth you must have a deep desire to see it, and a willingness
to let go of the old lies.
[...]
Christopher Calder
THE NECESSARY, ETERNAL, DIVINE BEING:
1) It is impossible that there could be nothing
at all, since it is impossible to even think nothing
at all. For, if I try to think 'nothing', I must get rid
of the thought itself, which is something. But
if I get rid of the thought itself, I am no longer
thinking 'nothing', and therefore nothing is a
thought that is impossible. Hence, we are
compelled to believe that there always was
something, and always must be.
2) It is impossible to speak of anything existing
without an observer to observe it. For, if I look
at something in order to see that it has no
observer, I myself am automatically its observer
and, if I don't look at it at all, so that it will have
no observer at all, I can't think of it at all, say
it exists at all, or even use the word 'it' at all.
Since I can never get rid of myself as an
observer of anything I in any way observe, or
even think of as having an existence at all, the
thought of something existing without an
observer is a thought that is impossible, and
is something that only looks like a thought, but
is not, just as 2+2 = 5 only looks like an equation
but is not.
Hence, we cannot even think of anything as having
an existence except in the observation of
some observer.
Since, from 1, something must always have
existed and, from 2, it must always have had
an observer and furthermore, from 2, the observer
must also have had an observer, we can say, in
the spirit of Occam's razor, that the simplest way
to gather together these imperatives is to
postulate the existence of an eternal, necessary,
self-observing observer, who cannot not exist, i.e.,
the being we call God.
Alen
.
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: WHICH IS THE TRUE RELIGION AND TRUE GOD? |
10 Dec 2005 05:11:09 PM |
|
|
Do you have a soul?
Yes, I have a soul.
It's called a conscience.
Some people don't have souls; they're called "sociopaths".
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: WHICH IS THE TRUE RELIGION AND TRUE GOD? |
12 Dec 2005 09:30:04 AM |
|
|
THE NECESSARY, ETERNAL, DIVINE BEING:
1) It is impossible that there could be nothing
at all, since it is impossible to even think nothing
at all. For, if I try to think 'nothing', I must get rid
of the thought itself, which is something. But
if I get rid of the thought itself, I am no longer
thinking 'nothing', and therefore nothing is a
thought that is impossible. Hence, we are
compelled to believe that there always was
something, and always must be.
this is a meaningless argument. if i draw a
symbol for infinity and say "this stands for
infinity", it does, even if my limited brain
can't fully comprehend infinity. likewise
with "nothingness". if i use a zero to imply
a nothing quantity, i am stating that there
is _nothing_ there. in fact, the very idea
that you could do this was a major
advancement in mathematics, and one
of the big reasons higher mathematics
came about. i would have to point you
elsewhere for the history of zero, but i
encourage it, you might learn something.
in many ways we use symbols to
define in abstract, approximate ways
a concept that we can't easily wrap our
minds around. imaginary numbers, repeating
decimals, irratinonal numbers (like pi),
negative numbers, even non-mathematical
concepts like the divine (god, gods), justice,
even the moral fiber of a nation (flags, for
instance).
by using symbols to encapsulate and
approximate reality in such a way, i can
easily postulate that there once was nothing,
and that some day there will be nothing...
it all comes down to manipulating symbols.
2) It is impossible to speak of anything existing
without an observer to observe it. For, if I look
at something in order to see that it has no
observer, I myself am automatically its observer
and, if I don't look at it at all, so that it will have
no observer at all, I can't think of it at all, say
it exists at all, or even use the word 'it' at all.
this somewhat denies the concept of imaginative
speculation. if i can imagine it, does that automatically
imply that it must exist? for instance, i have
observed a stool in my garage about an hour ago.
i would bet money that it is still there. hold on, let me
check. ... . yup. still there. since it is closed and
locked, i know that there is no one observing it, at
least no one _i_ would qualify as an observer.
i can imagine, as i have said once before, our president
committing lewd acts with a penguin in a tutu. does
this mean that it must exist, or even if it did exist, must
someone be able to imagine it for it to exist? i
can use similar arguments about myself, but
i await your response first.
i don't follow what rule prohibits the concept of
reality apart from my direct observation. i did
recently watch We Don't Know Bleep about
Reality, so i grasp the basics of quantum
mechanics... is this the logical basis of your
assertions?
i also take note that while your philisophical
assertions attempt to derive the existence of
god, they say nothing about god other than
that. do you have further "self-evident"
theories that you propose as to the nature of
god? (in other words, what use is a god that
just sits around and watches us?)
Saul
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Frank" |
|
| Title: Re: WHICH IS THE TRUE RELIGION AND TRUE GOD? |
17 Dec 2005 06:57:19 AM |
|
|
<saul_sabia@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1134401404.366559.87790@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
THE NECESSARY, ETERNAL, DIVINE BEING:
1) It is impossible that there could be nothing
at all, since it is impossible to even think nothing
at all. For, if I try to think 'nothing', I must get rid
of the thought itself, which is something. But
if I get rid of the thought itself, I am no longer
thinking 'nothing', and therefore nothing is a
thought that is impossible. Hence, we are
compelled to believe that there always was
something, and always must be.
That is the ancient argument of Permenides and his Eliatic School. He
was a contemporary of Pythagoras.
this is a meaningless argument. if i draw a
symbol for infinity and say "this stands for
infinity", it does, even if my limited brain
can't fully comprehend infinity. likewise
with "nothingness". if i use a zero to imply
a nothing quantity, i am stating that there
is _nothing_ there. in fact, the very idea
that you could do this was a major
advancement in mathematics, and one
of the big reasons higher mathematics
came about. i would have to point you
elsewhere for the history of zero, but i
encourage it, you might learn something.
If nothing IS nothing, the nothing is something that has a "meaning".
"meaningless" indeed!!!!!
in many ways we use symbols to
define in abstract, approximate ways
a concept that we can't easily wrap our
minds around. imaginary numbers, repeating
decimals, irratinonal numbers (like pi),
negative numbers, even non-mathematical
concepts like the divine (god, gods), justice,
even the moral fiber of a nation (flags, for
instance).
by using symbols to encapsulate and
approximate reality in such a way, i can
easily postulate that there once was nothing,
and that some day there will be nothing...
it all comes down to manipulating symbols.
2) It is impossible to speak of anything existing
without an observer to observe it. For, if I look
at something in order to see that it has no
observer, I myself am automatically its observer
and, if I don't look at it at all, so that it will have
no observer at all, I can't think of it at all, say
it exists at all, or even use the word 'it' at all.
this somewhat denies the concept of imaginative
speculation. if i can imagine it, does that automatically
imply that it must exist? for instance, i have
observed a stool in my garage about an hour ago.
i would bet money that it is still there. hold on, let me
check. ... . yup. still there. since it is closed and
locked, i know that there is no one observing it, at
least no one _i_ would qualify as an observer.
i can imagine, as i have said once before, our president
committing lewd acts with a penguin in a tutu. does
this mean that it must exist, or even if it did exist, must
someone be able to imagine it for it to exist? i
can use similar arguments about myself, but
i await your response first.
i don't follow what rule prohibits the concept of
reality apart from my direct observation. i did
recently watch We Don't Know Bleep about
Reality, so i grasp the basics of quantum
mechanics... is this the logical basis of your
assertions?
i also take note that while your philisophical
assertions attempt to derive the existence of
god, they say nothing about god other than
that. do you have further "self-evident"
theories that you propose as to the nature of
god? (in other words, what use is a god that
just sits around and watches us?)
God doesn't "sit around and watches us". God created us, keeps us in
being and does His works though us. As we are made in the image of God, we
do the same in our dreams. We create ourselves in our dreams and do the work
of the sleeping person through our self-projection in our dream. See below
Pastor Frank
Acts:17:28: For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain
also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.
Jesus in John 14:6-10: "The words that I speak unto you I speak
not of myself, but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Saul_Sabia" |
|
| Title: Re: WHICH IS THE TRUE RELIGION AND TRUE GOD? |
17 Dec 2005 11:58:28 AM |
|
|
i also take note that while your philisophical
assertions attempt to derive the existence of
god, they say nothing about god other than
that. do you have further "self-evident"
theories that you propose as to the nature of
god? (in other words, what use is a god that
just sits around and watches us?)
God doesn't "sit around and watches us". God
created us, keeps us in being and does His works
though us. As we are made in the image of God, we
do the same in our dreams. We create ourselves in
our dreams and do the work of the sleeping person
through our self-projection in our dream. See below
alen has kindly kept this a relatively logical
discussion, and not involved anything further about
his hypothetical model of god other than the basics....
that there must exist an eternal necessary observer
that he calls "god". this "god" has no more purpose
at this point in his argument than to sit around and
observer reality, so that it stays real.
that's all. why, this god could be fornicating with
elephants, doing Groucho Marx impersonations,
and making moonbeams shoot out his arse. or
anything! but, keeping to the spirit of Occam's Razor,
and especially since no deterministic quality about
the morality of this hypothetical god has been shown
to derive from either of the two premises alen has
set forth, we make no further assumptions....
than that alen's god watches us. that's it.
Saul
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Yournameheres personal Cthulhu" |
|
| Title: Re: Re: WHICH IS THE TRUE RELIGION AND TRUE GOD? |
10 Dec 2005 05:29:02 AM |
|
|
In alt.atheism , alen said:
Psychopaths like me cannot even think of anything as having
an existence except in the observation of
me.
There. I fixed it for you, and you know what? You don't even have to
thank me.
------------------------------------------------
Look at the logo and tell me Christianity isn't a death cult.
D Silverman BAAWA and bar.
AA #2208
.
|
|
|
| User: "alen" |
|
| Title: Re: WHICH IS THE TRUE RELIGION AND TRUE GOD? |
10 Dec 2005 08:33:56 PM |
|
|
<Yournamehere>'s personal Cthulhu wrote:
In alt.atheism , alen said:
Psychopaths like me cannot even think of anything as having
an existence except in the observation of
me.
There. I fixed it for you, and you know what? You don't even have to
thank me.
That has nothing to do with me. You fixed
it for yourself, and yourself with it.
Alen
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Vic" |
|
| Title: Re: WHICH IS THE TRUE RELIGION AND TRUE GOD? |
09 Dec 2005 11:36:24 PM |
|
|
Once upon a time in alt.atheism, dear sweet alen (alen1@westserv.net.au)
made the light shine upon us with this:
calderhome@yahoo.com wrote:
http://home.att.net/~meditation/soul.html
Do you have a soul?
To know truth you must have a deep desire to see it, and a willingness
to let go of the old lies.
[...]
Christopher Calder
THE NECESSARY, ETERNAL, DIVINE BEING:
<snip>
I always liked Popeye the Sailor Man. He made me love spinach. No god
could ever do that.
--
Uncle Vic
aa#2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department
-----
Only the atheist realizes how morally objectionable it is for survivors of
a catastrophe to believe themselves spared by a loving God while this same
God drowned infants in their cribs. - Sam Harris
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Santolina chamaecyparissus" |
|
| Title: Re: WHICH IS THE TRUE RELIGION AND TRUE GOD? |
09 Dec 2005 09:50:51 PM |
|
|
alen wrote:
THE NECESSARY, ETERNAL, DIVINE BEING:
1) It is impossible that there could be nothing
at all, since it is impossible to even think nothing
at all.
Get to the point
For, if I try to think 'nothing',
Get to the point.
I must get rid
of the thought itself, which is something. But
if I get rid of the thought itself,
Get to the fucking point.
I am no longer
thinking 'nothing', and therefore nothing is a
thought that is impossible.
Sorry, the Final Jeopardy music ran out.
.
|
|
|
| User: "alen" |
|
| Title: Re: WHICH IS THE TRUE RELIGION AND TRUE GOD? |
10 Dec 2005 08:30:33 PM |
|
|
Santolina chamaecyparissus wrote:
alen wrote:
THE NECESSARY, ETERNAL, DIVINE BEING:
1) It is impossible that there could be nothing
at all, since it is impossible to even think nothing
at all.
Get to the point
For, if I try to think 'nothing',
Get to the point.
I must get rid
of the thought itself, which is something. But
if I get rid of the thought itself,
Get to the fucking point.
Does the truth hurt? If so, why? Any apparent
harm is always an illusion.
Alen
.
|
|
|
| User: "Santolina chamaecyparissus" |
|
| Title: Re: WHICH IS THE TRUE RELIGION AND TRUE GOD? |
11 Dec 2005 09:09:34 PM |
|
|
alen wrote:
Santolina chamaecyparissus wrote:
alen wrote:
THE NECESSARY, ETERNAL, DIVINE BEING:
1) It is impossible that there could be nothing
at all, since it is impossible to even think nothing
at all.
Get to the point
For, if I try to think 'nothing',
Get to the point.
I must get rid
of the thought itself, which is something. But
if I get rid of the thought itself,
Get to the fucking point.
Does the truth hurt?
I'll let you know when you've uttered some.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: WHICH IS THE TRUE RELIGION AND TRUE GOD? |
13 Dec 2005 11:43:18 PM |
|
|
On 11 Dec 2005 19:09:34 -0800, "Santolina chamaecyparissus"
<santolina@juno.com> wrote:
Get to the fucking point.
Hey dude
Why dont you clean up your vocabulary. After all, this is a CHRISTIAN
newsgroup. Not alt.porn or some of the other smut groups you visit
regularly.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: WHICH IS THE TRUE RELIGION AND TRUE GOD? |
14 Dec 2005 11:12:01 AM |
|
|
<!@#..> wrote in message news:e7cvp15kort8q3t3toeb8cjn6f7pteoopg@4ax.com...
On 11 Dec 2005 19:09:34 -0800, "Santolina chamaecyparissus"
<santolina@juno.com> wrote:
Get to the fucking point.
Hey dude
Why dont you clean up your vocabulary. After all, this is a CHRISTIAN
newsgroup. Not alt.porn or some of the other smut groups you visit
regularly.
You think your religious newsgroup is the only one in the headers? Take a
look.
Additionally, since when don't christians use foul language? My theist
sis-in-laws curse like fucking sailors.
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: WHICH IS THE TRUE RELIGION AND TRUE GOD? |
14 Dec 2005 03:20:46 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 23:43:18 -0600, !@#.. wrote:
On 11 Dec 2005 19:09:34 -0800, "Santolina chamaecyparissus"
<santolina@juno.com> wrote:
Get to the fucking point.
Hey dude
Why dont you clean up your vocabulary. After all, this is a CHRISTIAN
newsgroup. Not alt.porn or some of the other smut groups you visit
regularly.
Check the headers, moron.
And while you're at it stop the personal lies.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mephisto" |
|
| Title: Re: WHICH IS THE TRUE RELIGION AND TRUE GOD? |
14 Dec 2005 12:49:28 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 23:43:18 -0600, !@#.. wrote:
On 11 Dec 2005 19:09:34 -0800, "Santolina chamaecyparissus"
<santolina@juno.com> wrote:
Get to the fucking point.
Hey dude
Why dont you clean up your vocabulary. After all, this is a CHRISTIAN
newsgroup. Not alt.porn or some of the other smut groups you visit
regularly.
Smut and swearing are two of my favourite hobbies so leave them alone;
and alt.atheism is not a Christian newsgroup.
Mephisto
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Painter" |
|
| Title: Re: WHICH IS THE TRUE RELIGION AND TRUE GOD? |
10 Dec 2005 08:36:56 PM |
|
|
alen wrote:
Get to the fucking point.
Does the truth hurt? If so, why? Any apparent
harm is always an illusion.
You hear that a lot from people in their second year of college.
Then some jock comes along and whacks them on the side of the head.
It's odd but they never act as thought it was an illusion.
.
|
|
|
| User: "alen" |
|
| Title: Re: WHICH IS THE TRUE RELIGION AND TRUE GOD? |
11 Dec 2005 05:44:28 AM |
|
|
Mike Painter wrote:
alen wrote:
Get to the fucking point.
Does the truth hurt? If so, why? Any apparent
harm is always an illusion.
You hear that a lot from people in their second year of college.
Then some jock comes along and whacks them on the side of the head.
It's odd but they never act as thought it was an illusion.
I guess that must be a joke!
Alen
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: WHICH IS THE TRUE RELIGION AND TRUE GOD? |
12 Dec 2005 08:51:32 PM |
|
|
alen wrote:
THE NECESSARY, ETERNAL, DIVINE BEING:
1) It is impossible that there could be nothing
at all, since it is impossible to even think nothing
at all.
It is actually the case that there is not nothing.
How you proceed from an actuality to a necessity is not obvious.
Your statement has the form:
"Elephants are actually grey therefore it is necessay that elephants
are grey"
Or
"it is necessary that elephants are grey because elephants are in fact
grey"
For, if I try to think 'nothing', I must get rid
of the thought itself, which is something. But
if I get rid of the thought itself, I am no longer
thinking 'nothing', and therefore nothing is a
thought that is impossible. Hence, we are
compelled to believe that there always was
something, and always must be.
Even if it were true that our thoughts are so compeelled that doent
mean that our thoughts are true.
Perhaps we are compelled to think/believe a false thing.
2) It is impossible to speak of anything existing
without an observer to observe it.
It may be impossible to think or speak something and for that something
to be true.
Truth is not limited by what we can think or speak.
Our KNOWLEDGE of truth may be so constrained but why REALITY be
constrained by our limitations is not obvious.
So (2) is not only a baseless assertion it seem fairly clearly false.
Mark.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Neil Kelsey" |
|
| Title: Re: WHICH IS THE TRUE RELIGION AND TRUE GOD? |
12 Dec 2005 10:47:25 AM |
|
|
alen wrote:
calderhome@yahoo.com wrote:
http://home.att.net/~meditation/soul.html
Do you have a soul?
To know truth you must have a deep desire to see it, and a willingness
to let go of the old lies.
[...]
Christopher Calder
THE NECESSARY, ETERNAL, DIVINE BEING:
1) It is impossible that there could be nothing
at all, since it is impossible to even think nothing
at all. For, if I try to think 'nothing', I must get rid
of the thought itself, which is something. But
if I get rid of the thought itself, I am no longer
thinking 'nothing', and therefore nothing is a
thought that is impossible. Hence, we are
compelled to believe that there always was
something, and always must be.
You're equivocating on the word "nothing" here. You are talking about
"nothing" in terms of physics and "nothing" in terms of thought, and
mixing these definitions willy nilly. In physics, nothing = vaccuum. In
thought, nothing = brain dead. Let's analyze your sentence:
"But if I get rid of the thought itself, I am no longer thinking
'nothing', and therefore nothing is a thought that is impossible."
It depends what you mean by "getting rid of the thought." If you are
alive, and you think about something else, then I agree that you are no
longer "thinking nothing" (although I'd phrase it "thinking about
nothing). But are "getting rid of the thought" by dying, then you truly
are thinking nothing. Therefore, your conclusion is wrong, thinking
"nothing" is totally possible, people do it all the time, and for an
eternity.
So, I conclude that your premise 1) is false.
2) It is impossible to speak of anything existing
without an observer to observe it. For, if I look
at something in order to see that it has no
observer, I myself am automatically its observer
and, if I don't look at it at all, so that it will have
no observer at all, I can't think of it at all, say
it exists at all, or even use the word 'it' at all.
I can speak of a planet orbiting a star that exists in a remote part of
the universe and the light from that planet cannot be seen from Earth.
I can speak of Napolean Bonaparte, no one on Earth exists who has
observed him, yet I could do an essay on him if I wanted. I totally
disagree with you, I think you CAN speak of things existing without an
observer.
Since I can never get rid of myself as an
observer of anything I in any way observe, or
even think of as having an existence at all, the
thought of something existing without an
observer is a thought that is impossible, and
is something that only looks like a thought, but
is not, just as 2+2 = 5 only looks like an equation
but is not.
Again, I think you can think of things existing without an observer, I
think we do it all the time. Therefore, I think your premise here is
false, the idea of something existing without an observer is perfectly
plausible, and that the equation you gave as an example is still an
equation, but one with a flase conclusion. Just like the argument
you're making.
And I'm puzzled you'd be promoting this line of thinking. If, as you
say, "something existing without an observer is a thought that is
impossible," how do you conlude "god" exists, since "god" does not have
an observer?
Hence, we cannot even think of anything as having
an existence except in the observation of
some observer.
I don't know how you'd get this conclusion from your previous premises,
which I think are false anyway. Do you really think that if someone
ELSE observes something then it exists? I have a schizophrenic sister
who regularly pulls household appliances out of her skin, according to
her. Do I conclude that these appliances exist? Seems pretty gullible
to me, but then, I think gullible is the defining trait of any theist.
Anyway, I think your premises are false and your conclusion does not
follow from your premises.
Since, from 1, something must always have
existed and,
false premise
from 2, it must always have had
an observer
false premise
and furthermore, from 2, the observer
must also have had an observer, we can say, in
the spirit of Occam's razor, that the simplest way
to gather together these imperatives is to
postulate the existence of an eternal, necessary,
self-observing observer, who cannot not exist, i.e.,
the being we call God.
Conclusion does not follow from false premises. And postulating
something does not make it true. I see no reason why you have to fill
the gaps in with a being; I think there are all sorts of plausible
theories in physics and cosmology that do not require god to exist at
all for them to work.
I read your argument carefully; you think you've proven the existence
of "god," I think you've only proven your thinking is muddled.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Colin Day" |
|
| Title: Re: WHICH IS THE TRUE RELIGION AND TRUE GOD? |
09 Dec 2005 10:15:51 PM |
|
|
alen wrote:
calderhome@yahoo.com wrote:
http://home.att.net/~meditation/soul.html
Do you have a soul?
To know truth you must have a deep desire to see it, and a willingness
to let go of the old lies.
[...]
Christopher Calder
THE NECESSARY, ETERNAL, DIVINE BEING:
1) It is impossible that there could be nothing
at all, since it is impossible to even think nothing
at all. For, if I try to think 'nothing', I must get rid
of the thought itself, which is something. But
if I get rid of the thought itself, I am no longer
thinking 'nothing', and therefore nothing is a
thought that is impossible. Hence, we are
compelled to believe that there always was
something, and always must be.
2) It is impossible to speak of anything existing
without an observer to observe it. For, if I look
But is it possible for something to be without being
spoken of?
at something in order to see that it has no
observer, I myself am automatically its observer
and, if I don't look at it at all, so that it will have
no observer at all, I can't think of it at all, say
it exists at all, or even use the word 'it' at all.
Since I can never get rid of myself as an
observer of anything I in any way observe, or
even think of as having an existence at all, the
thought of something existing without an
observer is a thought that is impossible, and
is something that only looks like a thought, but
is not, just as 2+2 = 5 only looks like an equation
but is not.
But can something be without being thought of?
Hence, we cannot even think of anything as having
an existence except in the observation of
some observer.
But can things just be without being thought of?
Colin Day aa #1500
.
|
|
|
| User: "alen" |
|
| Title: Re: WHICH IS THE TRUE RELIGION AND TRUE GOD? |
10 Dec 2005 08:26:59 PM |
|
|
Colin Day wrote:
Hence, we cannot even think of anything as having
an existence except in the observation of
some observer.
But can things just be without being thought of?
I say that they can be without being thought of by
you or me etc., but not without being thought of by
their necessary observer, on whom their actual
existence depends.
Alen
.
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p" |
|
| Title: Re: WHICH IS THE TRUE RELIGION AND TRUE GOD? |
11 Dec 2005 04:57:35 AM |
|
|
On 10 Dec 2005 18:26:59 -0800, "alen" <alen1@westserv.net.au> wrote:
Colin Day wrote:
Hence, we cannot even think of anything as having
an existence except in the observation of
some observer.
But can things just be without being thought of?
I say that they can be without being thought of by
you or me etc., but not without being thought of by
their necessary observer, on whom their actual
existence depends.
Please explain how you know that there is any such thing as a
"necessary observer".
Thomas P.
"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"
(Kierkegaard)
.
|
|
|
| User: "R. Steve Walz" |
|
| Title: Re: WHICH IS THE TRUE RELIGION AND TRUE GOD? |
11 Dec 2005 05:39:51 PM |
|
|
thomas p wrote:
On 10 Dec 2005 18:26:59 -0800, "alen" <alen1@westserv.net.au> wrote:
Colin Day wrote:
Hence, we cannot even think of anything as having
an existence except in the observation of
some observer.
But can things just be without being thought of?
I say that they can be without being thought of by
you or me etc., but not without being thought of by
their necessary observer, on whom their actual
existence depends.
Please explain how you know that there is any such thing as a
"necessary observer".
Thomas P.
-----------------------
Because the only example one has of existence is as BEING the
observer witnessing it. THAT IS THE ONLY WAY IT OCCURS!! There
is NO reality that does not occur in the witness of an observer,
and in EVERY case, that observer MUST BE YOU!! The universe cannot
exist without you!! That is the "necessary observer"!
Steve
.
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p" |
|
| Title: Re: WHICH IS THE TRUE RELIGION AND TRUE GOD? |
12 Dec 2005 10:12:07 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 23:39:51 GMT, "R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com>
wrote:
thomas p wrote:
On 10 Dec 2005 18:26:59 -0800, "alen" <alen1@westserv.net.au> wrote:
Colin Day wrote:
Hence, we cannot even think of anything as having
an existence except in the observation of
some observer.
But can things just be without being thought of?
I say that they can be without being thought of by
you or me etc., but not without being thought of by
their necessary observer, on whom their actual
existence depends.
Please explain how you know that there is any such thing as a
"necessary observer".
Thomas P.
-----------------------
Because the only example one has of existence is as BEING the
observer witnessing it. THAT IS THE ONLY WAY IT OCCURS!!
Oberving existence is observing existence. That does not demonstrate
the need for an observer; it merely demonstrates the existence of an
observer in a particular case.
There
is NO reality that does not occur in the witness of an observer,
and in EVERY case, that observer MUST BE YOU!! The universe cannot
exist without you!! That is the "necessary observer"!
Steve
Not because you say so.
Thomas P.
"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"
(Kierkegaard)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Frank" |
|
| Title: Re: WHICH IS THE TRUE RELIGION AND TRUE GOD? |
17 Dec 2005 06:57:27 AM |
|
|
"thomas p" <tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote in message
news:bv6rp19gi38o8vfq28og94p12vs9q119pq@4ax.com...
On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 23:39:51 GMT, "R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com>
wrote:
thomas p wrote:
On 10 Dec 2005 18:26:59 -0800, "alen" <alen1@westserv.net.au> wrote:
Colin Day wrote:
Hence, we cannot even think of anything as having
an existence except in the observation of
some observer.
But can things just be without being thought of?
I say that they can be without being thought of by
you or me etc., but not without being thought of by
their necessary observer, on whom their actual
existence depends.
Please explain how you know that there is any such thing as a
"necessary observer".
Because the only example one has of existence is as BEING the
observer witnessing it. THAT IS THE ONLY WAY IT OCCURS!!
Oberving existence is observing existence. That does not demonstrate
the need for an observer; it merely demonstrates the existence of an
observer in a particular case.
There
is NO reality that does not occur in the witness of an observer,
and in EVERY case, that observer MUST BE YOU!! The universe cannot
exist without you!! That is the "necessary observer"!
Steve
Not because you say so.
Virtually all religions presume multiple realities distinguished from
each other by their quality. Hindu maya philosophy spells it out in great
detail, and maya forms the basis of all Eastern religions. In Christianity
we have the here and now, heaven(s), hell and perhaps purgatory. Death is
passage from one reality to another.
There is no way maya can be proved, for "all is illusion". The way I see
it therefore, Thomas argues, that when he wakes up from his dream, it
continues in his absence, and he will pick it up again next time he is
dreaming. The other argues, that when he goes to sleep, the world ceases to
exist, only to come into being again along with his ability to observe. In
maya, both are illusions of course.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "alen" |
|
| Title: Re: WHICH IS THE TRUE RELIGION AND TRUE GOD? |
12 Dec 2005 06:05:55 AM |
|
|
R. Steve Walz wrote:
Please explain how you know that there is any such thing as a
"necessary observer".
Thomas P.
-----------------------
Because the only example one has of existence is as BEING the
observer witnessing it. THAT IS THE ONLY WAY IT OCCURS!! There
is NO reality that does not occur in the witness of an observer,
and in EVERY case, that observer MUST BE YOU!! The universe cannot
exist without you!! That is the "necessary observer"!
Steve
That is a good argument and, in a sense, you are right.
I say that it means that you and I, and everyone, have
some kind of necessary, partial identification, as observers,
with the eternal, necessary observer.
Alen
.
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p" |
|
| Title: Re: WHICH IS THE TRUE RELIGION AND TRUE GOD? |
12 Dec 2005 10:12:09 AM |
|
|
On 12 Dec 2005 04:05:55 -0800, "alen" <alen1@westserv.net.au> wrote:
R. Steve Walz wrote:
Please explain how you know that there is any such thing as a
"necessary observer".
Thomas P.
-----------------------
Because the only example one has of existence is as BEING the
observer witnessing it. THAT IS THE ONLY WAY IT OCCURS!! There
is NO reality that does not occur in the witness of an observer,
and in EVERY case, that observer MUST BE YOU!! The universe cannot
exist without you!! That is the "necessary observer"!
Steve
That is a good argument and, in a sense, you are right.
I say that it means that you and I, and everyone, have
some kind of necessary, partial identification, as observers,
with the eternal, necessary observer.
It is not an argument at all. It is an assertion.
Thomas P.
"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"
(Kierkegaard)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Saul_Sabia" |
|
| Title: Re: WHICH IS THE TRUE RELIGION AND TRUE GOD? |
13 Dec 2005 10:26:46 AM |
|
|
I say that it means that you and I, and everyone, have
some kind of necessary, partial identification, as observers,
with the eternal, necessary observer.
It is not an argument at all. It is an assertion.
Big deal! Your comment doesn't add or subtract
anything.
aloen, your argument is less of an
argument and more of an assertion, as parts
of your conclusion are not supported by your
argument.
for example, you assert that there must be
an eternal, necessary observer. what you don't
show is how something can exist outside of
space/time in order to be eternal, how said
being can exist outside of space/time and yet
still observe it, much less omnipresently,
bearing in mind that while higher or other
dimensions have been proposed, they have
not conclusively been demonstrated to exist,
much less shown how something could exist
in a different or higher dimension and intereact
with us in any way, with the exception of the
string theory, the mathematics of which are
waaay over my head, which means probably
over yours, too.
finally, you don't adress the singularity of such
a still very much hypothetical being. there
doesn't have to be just one... there could be
two. or two and a half. or ten billion billion.
for that matter, what if this observer always
traveled at the speed of light? time is
essentially meaningless at that point, and
this observer could ... well, observe with
relative assurance of eternal existence.
either way, which came first... the observer
or the observed? if this observer is a part
of space/time (speed of light), what was
the origin of this observer? how about if
the observer _isn't_ within space/time....
how is it possible for something to
cause a beginning if there is no
time? what is the origin of such a
being? (or beings, excuse me)
Saul
.
|
|
|
| User: "alen" |
|
| Title: Re: WHICH IS THE TRUE RELIGION AND TRUE GOD? |
14 Dec 2005 07:31:05 AM |
|
|
Saul_Sabia wrote:
aloen, your argument is less of an
argument and more of an assertion, as parts
of your conclusion are not supported by your
argument.
for example, you assert that there must be
an eternal, necessary observer. what you don't
show is how something can exist outside of
space/time in order to be eternal, how said
being can exist outside of space/time and yet
still observe it, much less omnipresently,
bearing in mind that while higher or other
dimensions have been proposed, they have
not conclusively been demonstrated to exist,
much less shown how something could exist
in a different or higher dimension and intereact
with us in any way, with the exception of the
string theory, the mathematics of which are
waaay over my head, which means probably
over yours, too.
The purpose of the argument was to establish
the necessary existence of an eternal observer.
'Eternal' here means simply an observer who
cannot not exist. No further discussion of
eternity, spacetime, dimensions, or whatever
else, is involved, or necessary to the argument.
Since the argument is based on a series of
self-evident assertions, it has priority over all
possible further considerations, like those you
mention. This means that whatever else may
be said about anything, all results must conform
to the argument, and not the other way round.
Thus the argument stands alone and self-sufficient,
above and beyond any further consideration.
finally, you don't adress the singularity of such
a still very much hypothetical being. there
doesn't have to be just one... there could be
two. or two and a half. or ten billion billion.
I used Occam's razor to postulate a single being.
More than one being disconnects the beings from
the necessary existence of any, and also fails to
show how some observer had to always exist at
every moment. Also, the uniformity of the creation
works against the idea of completely distinct
sources. A postulate of a single, necessary being,
is therefore the simplest and most explanatory.
for that matter, what if this observer always
traveled at the speed of light? time is
essentially meaningless at that point, and
this observer could ... well, observe with
relative assurance of eternal existence.
either way, which came first... the observer
or the observed? if this observer is a part
of space/time (speed of light), what was
the origin of this observer? how about if
the observer _isn't_ within space/time....
how is it possible for something to
cause a beginning if there is no
time? what is the origin of such a
being? (or beings, excuse me)
I repeat that the argument achieves its intended
conclusion independently of all further considerations,
which cannot ever modify it, except possibly in
the matter of the singularity of the observer, which
I don't expect will ever happen.
The argument achieves what was intended, and
it was not intended to go further, nor does it have
to in order to be justified, since it is self-sufficient,
and acts as its own evidence.
Alen
.
|
|
|
| User: "Saul_Sabia" |
|
| Title: Re: WHICH IS THE TRUE RELIGION AND TRUE GOD? |
14 Dec 2005 11:54:24 AM |
|
|
The purpose of the argument was to establish
the necessary existence of an eternal observer.
'Eternal' here means simply an observer who
cannot not exist. No further discussion of
eternity, spacetime, dimensions, or whatever
else, is involved, or necessary to the argument.
Since the argument is based on a series of
self-evident assertions, it has priority over all
possible further considerations, like those you
mention. This means that whatever else may
be said about anything, all results must conform
to the argument, and not the other way round.
Thus the argument stands alone and self-sufficient,
above and beyond any further consideration.
any argument or assertion made about reality must
necessarily draw upon what we know about it....
and thus involve the fields of science that can
be brought into play. your argument does not
rely "on its own evidence" any more than the
laws of thermodynamics or our understanding
of quantum mechanics do. but that's besides
the point. you make a jump in your argument
that can' t be done, unless you know something
i don't.
define "nothing" if you don't mean
"vacuum". if you have no other
definition, then it is patently obvious
that we can't think "nothing" because
we can't put vacuum inside our
heads, and our brain is constantly
running with involuntary "system
maintenance" if you will. there is
always something going on in our
brain, to keep us alive. to think nothing
would mean that we were dead.
we can however symbolize
nothingness abstractly, but you
don't allow for that, you think that
it is impossible to do so. please
explain how our supposed inability
to think nothing, however you define
it, has any bearing upon reality outside
of our own brain, and can be construed
as anything more than a limitation of
our mental capacity.
please explain how "it is impossible to
speak of anything existing without an
observer to observe it" is anything more
than a limitation of our language.
please explain how " we cannot even think
of anything as having an existence except
in the observation of some observer" means
anything outside of our brains, and is
binding in any way upon reality outside of our
immediate viewpoint.
since limitations of our language and
limitations of our brains do not and cannot
constrain reality in any way, please tell
me how you can connect the two.
if you can't, then you must necessarily
admit that your argument is intrinsically
flawed.
i cannot see how your argument of "i can't imagine
it any other way" is any more valid than "god did it".
and since all i've seen you respond to criticism
with has been snarky stuff like "well, your criticism
is an assertion, and means nothing" i can't help
but conclude that you really can't. your argument
is an attempt at being clever, and that's it. kinda
like Pascal's wager, it is intrinsically flawed.
Saul
.
|
|
|
| User: "alen" |
|
| Title: Re: WHICH IS THE TRUE RELIGION AND TRUE GOD? |
15 Dec 2005 06:58:59 AM |
|
|
Saul_Sabia wrote:
since limitations of our language and
limitations of our brains do not and cannot
constrain reality in any way, please tell
me how you can connect the two.
And tell me how you justify that assumption.
What do you mean by 'reality' independently
of mind? How does a mind conceive something
real existing in its own absence? How does
a mind, which is present in all its actions, form
the concept of its own absence? I am not
saying it doesn't; I am asking what precisely
is the mechanism by which it achieves such a
result? If you don't understand how, but
nevertheless merely make hand-waving declarations
that reality is entirely unconnected with ANY mind,
you don't really know what you are talking about.
if you can't, then you must necessarily
admit that your argument is intrinsically
flawed.
i cannot see how your argument of "i can't imagine
it any other way" is any more valid than "god did it".
and since all i've seen you respond to criticism
with has been snarky stuff like "well, your criticism
is an assertion, and means nothing" i can't help
but conclude that you really can't. your argument
is an attempt at being clever, and that's it. kinda
like Pascal's wager, it is intrinsically flawed.
Sure! And, of course, you WOULD fail to notice that
'assertion' was the kind of criticism first directed at
me, before I replied in kind.
Alen
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
