• right now

  Adding your comment:
• 
  TeChNoWC
  November 13, 2006
  Edit | Reply
  *"it might be my artefact of a computer, but I keep getting these bloody "501 - not implemented" code lines when I try to reply. Sorry but I have to post rather than reply if I'm at home. You're a moderator right? What the hell does "501 - not implemented" mean?? Maybe there's a way to retroactively shift posts into replies? ..sigh.. in the mean time, I'll see what I can do from here. sorry again"* The 'combine' feature seems to be not working for the meantime. I could copy, paste and delete, but then the comments will be posted under my name and not yours. I recommend you contact Energizer Bunny the site admin for more details. You can do this through the prompts at the bottom of the screen, or simply sending him an IM directly. *"By implication: Your idea of an absolute referred to as revelation & God could be skewed by your fallible perception"* So what? Belief is empowerment. %{color:red}"What I really need is to become clear in my own mind what I must do, not what I must know--except in so far as a knowing must precede every action. The important thing is to understand what I am destined for, to perceive what the Deity wants me to do; the point is to find the truth which is truth for me, to find that idea for which I am ready to live and die"% - Soren Kierkegaard *"Absolutes cannot exist in reality because to be true in reality they will always be accompanied by their opposing absolutity, thus be made real."* Then this statement, as concieved in reality, is subject to its self, and is therefore an absolute and contradictory to logic. *"Deductive reasoning - correlating specifics into a trend Inductive reasoning - relating a trend to a specific example"* The problem of induction; need I say anymore? The issue prevents us from doing the very thing I pointed out earlier - you can't be sure as to what a thrown rock will do, because to do this we need to make assumptions on future events based on the reference of past events. What may be is not limited to what we are aware of (necessarily). *"Eg: making absolutely everything 3 feet larger, is the same as making absolutely nothing 3 feet larger."* I see what you are saying, but similarity does not posit congruency. If I get the original universe and compare it the universe that has the imposition of the three feet rule, which one will be bigger? The idea is that there is no reference to tell the difference, and so it would appear by all means that the universe is the same size, even according to measurements and all - but if I find another reference, eg the original universe; one is bigger than the other. They are similar in that all proponents of the two universes are equal to their counterparts, but the second has been enlarged. It is like zooming in or zooming out. There is still a difference. And if by saying absolutely everything you also mean the original universe? Then a change never took place, and the equation would simply be Absolutely everything * 1 = Absolutely everything. oh, and what about absolutely everything^2? With regards to infinity? 0 is not symmetrical to infinity, in regards to mathematics, because: 0^infinity = 0 while 0^0 = 1 so therefore 0^infinity < 0^0 all of this non-sensicality just goes to show..... *"Absolutes are absolutely not possible (btw that is an absolute being solved by an absolute; the only possible answer). And I'll correct you: You mean to say "ABSOLUTE knowledge would seem to be a non-existent concept". -- it is non-existent."* I don't buy your crap. You can determine that something cannot exist and ascribe an absolute to this claim while expressing the so called fact that absolutes do not exist? Still, a logical fallacy (a system of which you ascribe to). *"I touch, smell/taste, see, hear; they are all relative to self, and cross-referential. But glad to see we agree reality is relative. (you did mean to say 'absolute knowledge' again right?)"* Huh? Did you just change your mind or something? *"The smile of the man causes variations in the air currents and pressures (only to the smallest fraction of a degree) This inevitably changes the entirety of air currents and systems of weather, and eventually everything effected by that (butterfly effect). Again, influences are perceivable."* The idea was that the man did not perceive it, indicated by the smile. If you don't perceive something, you simply don't perceive it, whether there or not. QED (by logic). *"They have highly similar brain constructs to us. Try reading a dog, it's thoughts are lamen in contrast to humans, but it still has emotional and intellectual qualities nonetheless."* Oh, so they believe in God then? Its plausible, but you can go tell someone else about your pseudoscience theories, cos I don't even buy the hardcore stuff. *"how do you figure? 'something' is static, God is supposedly absolute"* You were the one that came up with the idea that if something is not perceivable then it doesn't exist. Oh, that is, until it is perceived. Even using your own theories, you still can't produce a logical solution to this logical dilemma. *"Who's to say that what we dub as reality isn't just the dream, and the dream is the reality? Your mood; your perceptions; the condition of "awareness" you are in? The waking hours seem the most real right now because it is the only state of being our cognitio is AWARE of, the point of reference we experience from. Who are you to say what is real and what is fake? Your current point of reference? (just playing devil's advocate there) Dreams are measurable in the waking world because they affect your mindset; in turn, your actions... et vice versa (I think I just caught one of your slip ups)"* But the waking world heavily affects my dreams too. I had a disturbing experience, I go to bed, and I dream about it, and the experience affects how I feel in the dream and thus how I (illusionarily) 'behave' in the dream. It's like a big circle. *"o contraire, everyone knows how to channel a behaviour set (mainstream translation: acting [if you've ever been in the drama business, you'll know what I mean] ). These channels are not absolute to the origin, but still hold value, much like light shone through glass (aka said monocle of perception from earlier posts). But then again, not even tv sets have absolute channelling… especially without HDTV … damn it… I gotta get better television… -- Chances are, if you are able to channel anything, you are compatible with it; hence lesser variance from true form. Again, for one to channel a spirit it's all a matter of sifting through sensory white noise.. hmm hey that makes for a pretty rad movie too lol."* You didn't answer my question, you just tried to show how stuff is all relative to the mind again. Which comes back to my question. So what seperates the rest of the world from being included in this analysis (manifestations of the mind)? Yeah the movie was ok (the ghost movie?) I think what you are also talking about is transcendental irrealism (if memory serves correct, I do believe that is the term). However, you don't posit absolutes, didn't you say that it isn't just that absolutes cannot be accessed or relationalized because the world is relative to the self, but also that there are no such thing is absolutes ((plain) relativism)? The theory also only seeks to support that the world is only a manifestation of the mind, not deny it. It simply stops at the point that the perception still must relate to a similar identical, but this would require that there be no seperation between hallucination/illusion and 'real' objects. Otherwise, as all objects are mental projections of the true identification, there is no way to ascribe difference between one 'type' of mental projection to another type (ie, as in, what refers to this so called, inaccessible, absolute true identification, and what doesn't). Simply because, we cannot see the identification behind the relative projection, and thus one could not know, if there are differing levels of reality in perception, which perception refers to a real substance, and which is an idle, induced perception. You only shift the problem to the world in the mind, if we are to considering that the mind at least creates representations of reality (yet still, sometimes doesn't). *"Yes, so my point does come across! In my thoughts, for anything to be correct, it must be relative. I don't believe total correctness can ever be found, in anyway, through any means. Because the moment it is found, it is no longer relative, thus no longer part of our selves, and so in a sense reality. so, for god to exist, god must be relative, and thus not god."* Not if God is an absolute and He can express Himself as an absolute to us. You deny yourself what God may be able to do because you have affirmed 'absolutes' in your mind. I understand that it seems to pose a problem for you, but not really for me. As Kierkegaard said, Hegelianism is unproductive as Jesus Himself is paradoxical in nature, and therefore irrational. 100% God yet 100% man. *"It is a matter of the individual repeatedly renewing h/er passionate subjective relationship to an object which can never be known, but only believed in. This belief is offensive to reason, since it only exists in the face of the absurd (the paradox of the eternal, immortal, infinite God being incarnated in time as a finite mortal)."* http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kierkegaard/ Adding more to the paradox only adds to the absurdity and elation of the belief. 'God must be' But wait; God can defy logic and reason, because He created the concepts.
• 
  TeChNoWC
  November 13, 2006
  Edit | Reply
  I found the reason why the text kept applying the bold to the wrong paragraphs. You were inserting astericks signs to elate onomatopoeias. When you have a peice of bold text within an already assigned peice of bold text, it somehow screwed up the order of things.
• • 
    C-a-s-m-e-r-o-k-u
    December 2, 2006
    Edit | Reply

    your wrong

    Okay... so you have a calculator that can give you the answer to 0 to the power of 0? and infinity to the power 0? right....
    
    
    you say belief is empowerment? so your agreeing that it is not truth than? how do you know it is a being with human qualities? isnt this simply a projection of your own experiences onto an absolute? Why human? why human qualities?
    
    
    no religious person has ever answered this? how can you say that you cannot know 'god' and yet still assume to know qualities of him? I think thsi is the reason some athiest have contempt for the religious. They claim that through time they can know something that is impossible. revelation of an absolute is impossible, I kinda see what molzhan was getting at. He wasnt trying to say that absolutes dont exist, but rather for them to be part of reality they must become 'static' as he put it, and so no longer absolute.
    
    
    How can god be absolute if he emulates human qualities? your concept of what is absolute has been twisted to suit your ideaology. and instead of continuing to search for an answer you cower behind evasivity. Not only do you fabricate information, you complicate your words to hide. "to elate onomatopoeias" this phrase doesnt actually make any sense, it took me awhile to realize you were using the english words that came from the words you were trying to say. "carry up name" elatum + onoma.
    
    
    And you said that people like molzhan and i affirm absolutes? like in math, we are only using absolutes as a symbol of an unknown, a representation. it is an item that cannot be further factored, and thus absolute, we are not claiming to be able to factor absolutes.
    
    
    the thing about the 3 feet difference, if the speed of light adjusted to the change they would be the exact same.
• 
  TeChNoWC
  December 2, 2006
  Edit | Reply
  How could I relate to a being if it did not have qualities of the universe displayed?
  
  To say that it is simply a projection of my own human qualities is affirming the power of the mental. We cannot escape the mental (seemingly). So any argument based on the mental could be used to both support or debase the claims of God belief.
  
  There is no seemingly attainable truth, except for, what the unescapable mental mind convinces one of. In a world of subjectivity and relativity, belief stands as the highest mental subjective proponent of our minds and is thus the closest representation of the relational reality. It is the highest level of truth, while one is trapped in the mental. Conviction is also another, however, it changes of its own accord, while belief is controlled by the will.
  
  You can have contempt for the religious all you like. Atheists claim they already know the impossible. They are fooled by their own convictions and are thus not in control of their mental states. They are, to say the least, evolutionarily inferior.
  
  I can have facist opinions too. Let's restrict ourselves to debate.
  
  God does not need to emulate every human quality, otherwise Jesus (God in human form) would be in effect no more human than God the Father was originally. God represents an absolute, Jesus represents that absolute in human form, and the Holy Spirit is the interrelation part. The paradox of Jesus is illogical, but the logical has no need or foundary place in one's faith driven relationship with the realised, rather than the rationalised. This is what makes faith the 'leap'.
  
  Ummmm, if you couldn't quite understand an onomatopiea is a word like BANG! or CRASH! or BOOOOM. To elate these simply means to elevate or heighten the effect of the (usually) already heightened word (sounds musn't always be).
  
  Maths is only relative to the assumption of its absolute nature. 2 + 2 = 4. You can say it, theorize, even demonstrate or actualise, but those constructs in themselves remain as 'static' as you so call it. For an absolute to be attained mentally as an absolute, than we must know (mental absolution) and we must use absolute methods to attain the absolute, all of which need to be justified individually, or by themselves (foundational). Otherwise, we fall prey to Agrippa's Trilemma.
  
  The universe thing was a dumb analysis, it still stands that if you compare the initial universe to the one now three feet larger, the second universe is three foot larger than the first. This is a scale comparison, for an outside observer. The thought experiment only aims to dwindle down your seemed objects to compare, because 'nearly' everything is relative to one another.
  
  But this could only occur if their were no time, because everything would have to be unchanging and constant.
  
  

Please register or login to comment! It's totally free

• right now

  Adding your comment:

Please register or login to comment! It's totally free

• right now

  Adding your comment:
• 
  TeChNoWC
  December 2, 2006
  Edit | Reply
  What did you pray for?

Please register or login to comment! It's totally free

• right now

  Adding your comment:
• 
  C-a-s-m-e-r-o-k-u
  December 11, 2006
  Edit | Reply
  um.... ya... saying your 14 doesnt forgive your ignorance. look up what ockham's razor really means. go to this site:
  http://physics.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node10.html
  
  For instance, this would be the proper use of Ockham's razor:
  
  
  1) -- The planets move around the sun in ellipses because there is a force between any of them and the sun which decreases as the square of the distance.
  2) -- The planets move around the sun in ellipses because there is a force between any of them and the sun which decreases as the square of the distance. This force is generated by the will of some god.
  
  Of these two ideas, the first of these will be chosen as the simpler choice by ockham's razor. why? because it is the simpler choice.
  
  nice try logic wins again..
  
  oh btw... you should have a look into politics/economy/technology and perhaps psychology to see the reason behind the developement of weaponry, and the moderation of poverty assistance
• 
  TeChNoWC
  December 22, 2006
  Edit | Reply
  ppffffttt your assessment was bogus, dude. This works in your example, yet works in others that may be God accentuated. Occam's Razor is not designed to be God prejudiced, and it does work with God related arguments. In fact, Occam was a christian. The examples you used are also in effect trying to promote the belittlement of philosophy, ie, your theories were not simplifications of the philosophical nature, only literary and colloqiual ones. The reduction is only in terms of the explanation should you wish to commune appropriately. Relevant data would insist the last line, as it is not conducive to the theory itself relative to physics, but rather an explanation and another set theory that supercedes physics, thus making your stated theory poorly planned. Occam's Razor does not call for a doing away of complex analyses. It does away with the more complex of a particular specified nature. Thus, the theory would only work in assuming the properties of physics first hand, once claims of God or no God have already been made, and then the two theories can compete within their proposed individual premises. Otherwise, I could use Occam's Razor to rule out complex societal structures, eg
  
  claim one: beer fixes all behavioural inconsistencies.
  claim two: beer does not fix all behavioural inconsistencies, as it further creates more inconsistencies if used in inappropriate ways, and their are long term beneficial and deleterious affects respectively. Beer also has behavioural affects of the temporal nature which can be harmful.
  
  Number one is not correct simply due to ignorance and lack of elaboration. In this case, I would wager number one is not correct at all.

Please register or login to comment! It's totally free

• right now

  Adding your comment:
• 
  TeChNoWC
  December 28, 2006
  Edit | Reply
  conviction and belief are not the same thing, by my experiential definitions. If words are fallible, excuse my labels. But definitions may enlighten:
  
  conviction (as seen by me): the firm holding to a thought or ideation or even instinct due to the mental conditioning and feeling in the gut that propels one to consider it as inherently known or as fact, with little doubt as to otherwise. Mental conditioning compelling one towards a certain held ideation.
  
  belief (as seen by me): the willed (as opposed to emotively recieved) decision or act in which one propels themself into alignment with a particular ideation, based on their own makings, and the singular desire known as hope, which is the only mental counteract to the helplessness of the Grand Unknowing, other than conviction, however, this is also where the two differ in that
  
  a ) conviction is integrated and therefore changes and wavers whenever the mind so choose, as it is cognitive dominance controlled by the sub-conscious, and thus one is helpless to the will of the mental and thus hope is temporal.
  
  b ) belief is what one, when recieving mental doubt simply desires to attain and climb to, the exertion of which is not needed for conviction which is induced. Thus, wavering does not have absolute dominance (with the exception of the possibilities of simple mind dominance by an exterior force, but while confining oneself to the mental, the belief induces the hope that this will not be, and thus is of no concern until it ever actually happens, should it) and only has dominance if one does not ascertain the belief once more, which is willed into being. Belief is the highest faculty of supposed free will. Conviction is the mind's use of belief without the faculty of free will, and is not reliable. Belief excedes reality, as the mental is reality and belief controls the mental. Only exertive external forces may overcome belief (such as death), but the user is unaware of such occurences if strong belief still remains, and thus is not a part of the user's aware reality.
  
  "(comparing one universe with a parallel 'unchanged' universe would not be applying the change to absolutely everything now would it?)"
  
  There is, at least, always a metaphysical observer who can compare the absolutes or the argument is simply beyond us. An absolute still stands, even if we cannot tell the difference - that being, that everything is 3 feet smaller. To us, it is not, to absolution, it is.
  
  "I wasn't arguing he would perceive it, but simply that it is perceivable in a fashion. But if I wanted to be nit-picky I could argue how we are possibly subconsciously aware of many things and occasionally will see the future (precognition) through visions or 'dreams'."
  
  Percievable in a fashion? What? It leaves indentations you mean, markers for the allowance of perception, but this doesn't mean anything will be percieved. you were the one arguing the absolute, not me. I have no idea why you threw in the thing about dreams. You were trying to argue that anything that is taking place is percievable due to effects. Bullshit. I am totally unaware of the fluids in my brain. Markers may be there, but nonetheless, they are not apart of my percieved universe.
  
  "So stage magic doesn't work? Cause and effect doesn't matter? Probable cause, school systems, politics, religions, literary systems, stage-healers, placebos, advertisements, all don't matter nor work at all because they relate to psychology? Every thought you compose, every action you take is psychological. Tell me how you know you have a soul without psychological reference? How do you interact with people without psychology? Its impossible, and as ridiculous as your scepticism of the matter. Science is the idea that everything has an origin and can be factored to the contributing elements. It is the study of pattern, the exploration of deduction……. I don't take it you have a pet, do you?"
  
  Yes, I do have pets, I have two dogs and a budgie, I used to have a pet cat and a scorpion, an ant farm, sea monkeys, venus fly traps, you name it. I have been exposed to a large variety of so called animals. You're idea of animals believing in God, maybe you could elaborate, 'convince' me using your deductive science.
  
  "It is not real in the personal universe of the individual if it cannot be directly perceived. If it has relation to the perceivable (thus perceivable indirectly) it is part of reality. Just because I stare at an optical illusion and see only one picture, does not make the other unperceivable. Personal Universe VS Reality"
  
  Perception I speak of is not just the conscious awareness, just before we continue. It is any effect that or bearing that it may have on the mentality of the individual. To me, reality is what I percieve. I AM the absolute.
  
  "What about "et vice versa" did you not catch?… Its latin if you didn't recognize it."
  
  Cool. Now you're argument is null, because one cannot tell the supposed true reality without conviction. Some scientists have even speculated that sleep was to become the dominant state, the absolution of life, and awakeness was only needed for the organism to evade capture and find food etc, so as to protect the sleeping organism..... But this would denote an absolute of life. What life is 'meant' to be. Anyways, one cannot tell whether the dream or the supposed awoken state is the real reality without mental conditioning.
  
  "What are you using 'manifestations of the mind' as a euphemism for? The physical and mental worlds are intertwined and function in co-existence… wait are you talking about the idea of the universal world? The difference between 'illusion' and reality? if not, do enlighten me"
  
  Yes, I am talking about illusion, that the world may all be a simple manifestation of the mind and everything a big illusion. Yes yes yes. You are consciously procrastinating. You're argument is senseless. You cannot prove that the exterior is anything but simple internal ramblings and perceptions of a maybe even non-existent world. Can you experience a chair without percieving it?
  
  "Seeing as you know little about genetics, nor any hard-core/pseudo-core science, I'd have to say your belittling words are as empty and meaningless as your flim-flam logic. As I see it, every pattern and the very flow of every pattern is life. Your religious dogma constricts that definition to only what is understandably interactive on a human level.. (this relates to 'mirror neurons' responsible for empathy, but seeing as you respect little of neuroscience/psychology this is more of a footnote for the curious)"
  
  Superiority is not found in advanced understanding, as your intellectual status may wish to suggest. Superiority is found in delusion. Superiority is found in simplistic complacency. Superiority is found in the will to thrive, and this is evident in those who are mentally stable. Intellectualism has nothing to do with the continuation of species. Understanding the effects of mentality may increase your chances of making a correct choice on the implications of mentality and their eventual effects, and thus determining which path will be an evolutionary advantage, but my analysis simply comes from the physical prospect, the simple analysis of sexual continuation and mental stability up to one's succesful brooding, and this takes place amongst a society with little threat. Society as a whole is christian dominant. The zombified will shall live on, and not the inquiring self-defeaters. Hush, hush the world and thrive. Order and distinct prominence for an unquestionable absolute. Safety and security. The world shall be a nursery and christianity as its caretaker. Not discovery of the so called defeatist truth, compelled by the convcitions of a depressant mind. Get in line or die.
  
  "Why do you see Jesus as part of the trinity? (just curious)"
  
  This theological argument has already been discussed at length elsewhere on this site. The conclusion was not in your favour, and verses in the Bible clearly state Jesus as God.
  
  I do not ignore the so called validity of maths. I simply question it. You ignore the possiblity of its wavering. Thus, you are the true ignorant one. Skeptics are not ignorant, they are open minded, ideally. It exists to doubt and question the validity of all foundations, and to not except the argument 'tis obvious'. It could most certainly be that 2+2=3, should some unknown force will it to be so. Just because we cannot comprehend it, does not mean it is not impossible. But, I do realise that we work under a system of assuming that which we can comprehend as instrinsically absolute. But such things can only be applied to the world as we know it, and not bigger things such as God.
  
  "So you say god defies pattern by being absolute? And yet is a pattern? That He created the concepts? And so pattern is just an interpretive means of finding Him? So if this were so, any pattern overlaid upon Him, interpreting what He is, is erroneously presumed? So even the idea that He is a creator, that He is a being, that he lives in pattern at all is fraud. So God does not exist… but what is there, that we are trying to grasp through concept is beyond pattern? Through your interpretive symbolism you are trying to grasp what the fabric of all is. God exists only on the conceptual level as a personification of the untouchable, to believe in the humanity of perfection is ill-founded. He is only as real as you interpret him to be (whatever you decide He is a euphemistic reference for (or even further down the rabbit hole, what component of your psyche He serves)), thus he is only a mechanic of the mind, not a true acting force (Of the internal universe, not the external reality… not a universal truth). If God does not exist in the universe of logic, then not at all (He is a logical configuration)."
  
  First part true, your conclusion, bullshit. Like I said, the mental is reality. He is as real as is anything else I can percieve. It is all a thing of the psyche. God bellows to me in an audible fashion, and it is simple empirical data, as is the perception of a chair. I percieve of a concept of logic and am convinced of its truth bearing nature. Psyche. It is all psyche. psyche psyche psyche. Prove to the solipsist he is not a solipsist. Your idea of static is simple conviction for reality. Again, the inferior faculty. I 'believe' in God. This argument has been so drawn out that I forget the initial purpose. It would be advantageous if you engage in other debates on the board as your point is coming across rather strongly but is being lost in our inclining to follow hopeless tangents. If we stick to specified topics, we may be able to confine our debates and thus get more out of each other. Relating through this manner will be far more beneficial, and I urge you to conduct yourself in this manner. This is becoming tiresome and confusing, and I admit defeat out of your dizzying effect.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  

Please register or login to comment! It's totally free