T
Tom
Guest
thx
ive just come back from like a years absencse, thx 4 all ur posts, all 99 of em, hehe.
thx
ive just come back from like a years absencse, thx 4 all ur posts, all 99 of em, hehe.
thx
yes i do exist.
now keep chumping chumps.
now keep chumping chumps.
God in Numbers...
God is 0 and infinite...
The Nothingness and the Infinite are the same thing.
0 = infinite...
Sounds weird?
Yes it does... but the Truth is beyond our imagination.
If an object such as a Black Hole is so common in an Universe, imagine what can be common in other Universes, paralel Universes, in the Multiverse and beyond the Universe!?!?
We are just some crazy little ants trying to explain the unexplainable...
In a little ball in the middle of an ocean of Nowhere...
How poetical life is...
And how little we are...
Blessings,
Nelson
God is 0 and infinite...
The Nothingness and the Infinite are the same thing.
0 = infinite...
Sounds weird?
Yes it does... but the Truth is beyond our imagination.
If an object such as a Black Hole is so common in an Universe, imagine what can be common in other Universes, paralel Universes, in the Multiverse and beyond the Universe!?!?
We are just some crazy little ants trying to explain the unexplainable...
In a little ball in the middle of an ocean of Nowhere...
How poetical life is...
And how little we are...
Blessings,
Nelson
Re: God in Numbers...
I guess the difference between an atheist and a theist is I look at the 0 more often and you look at the infinite more often.
Originally posted by TruthSeeker
God is 0 and infinite...
The Nothingness and the Infinite are the same thing.
0 = infinite...
I guess the difference between an atheist and a theist is I look at the 0 more often and you look at the infinite more often.
The Paradox
Hoth,
Yes... and then we have two different perspectives of the same reality...
I guess this single paradox is the origin of all theological and phylosophical discussions...
Blessings,
Nelson
Hoth,
Yes... and then we have two different perspectives of the same reality...
I guess this single paradox is the origin of all theological and phylosophical discussions...
Blessings,
Nelson
Originally posted by Hoth
No, you still don’t understand my position. I do indeed allow for the subjective and the objective to have distinct definitions. In my view, the subjective is that which is perceived without having been confirmed. Objective is something that’s confirmed – in such a way that it’s something that independent observers would agree on. However, there is no difference between the subjective and the objective in terms of the mechanics of the mind.
Your analysis is flawed. If perspective was the only source of this “illusory” universe that you imagine, then you would never be caught by surprise when a stray bullet penetrates the back of your skull and ends your existence. Before you were born your perspective didn’t exist – yet you were born. Even when you’re unconscious things happen to you (your body) – regardless of whether you have the presence of mind to observe that or not. Far away in the constellation of Orion stars are being formed even without you being aware of it.
Relativity does not support the argument that reality is an illusion. Rather, within a relativistic framework you may consider dimensional measurements to be illusory (although even that’s a questionable characterization indeed.) In a relativistic universe your measurements of some event’s coordinates may not agree with the measurements of another observer (though the “disagreement” is very deterministic and systematic.) However, you will still both agree that the event has indeed occurred. That aspect of existence (i.e. existence itself) is not illusory. Neither is the presence of dimensionality in the universe (i.e. the very coordinates you’re measuring). Neither is the existence of natural laws that govern the universe independently and irrespectively of any observer.
That is rather an objective truth, isn’t it?
Except you have it backwards. It’s not perspective that defines the brain’s existence. Rather the brain’s existence within spacetime grants it its coordinates and velocity, and thereby imbues it with what you seem to call “perspective”.
Accordingly there’s no need for me to address the rest of that particular argument of yours.
You’ll have to forgive me if I don’t accept a particular philosopher’s take on reality as The Absolute Truth With a Capital ‘T’.
That is an idealist difficulty. It does not exist for materialists.
Absolute rubbish. Physicists routinely use the term “information” to refer to a system’s instantaneous state. When systems interact information is said to be transferred between them. Physical processes are well known to occur quite without anyone looking on and trying to make sense of them.
That’s what I claim as well. It’s going back to my original analogy equating the brain with computer hardware and the mind with the instantaneous state of the brain.
While I agree with your summary of the essay, I disagree with that presumption. The root of the presumption is that the self is an irreducible, abstract entity. However, such an assumption is not justifiable. If, as I suspect, the self is merely a decision-making hub within the brain then it is entirely expressible as a string of bits (just as is anything else in the universe) – in other words, it is expressible as information. Now, as Turing had shown and computers have demonstrated since, information can be both an input and an algorithm. Therefore it is physically possible to represent the self in a way appropriate for human perception. Given a hypothetical technology to map the brain’s dynamic state at atomic precision and millisecond resolution, and then given adequate analysis, it will be possible to point at a neuron or collection of neurons and say here is your sense of self, here is your emotional state, here is what you’re currently thinking about, etc. With the key nodes of the self so identified, it would then be possible (given another hypothetical technology) to directly feed non-human input from the corresponding cognitive centers of other animals into a human’s conscious mind. That would be a direct way for you to experience what it is like to be anything, including a bat.
No, you still don’t understand my position. I do indeed allow for the subjective and the objective to have distinct definitions. In my view, the subjective is that which is perceived without having been confirmed. Objective is something that’s confirmed – in such a way that it’s something that independent observers would agree on. However, there is no difference between the subjective and the objective in terms of the mechanics of the mind.
Your analysis is flawed. If perspective was the only source of this “illusory” universe that you imagine, then you would never be caught by surprise when a stray bullet penetrates the back of your skull and ends your existence. Before you were born your perspective didn’t exist – yet you were born. Even when you’re unconscious things happen to you (your body) – regardless of whether you have the presence of mind to observe that or not. Far away in the constellation of Orion stars are being formed even without you being aware of it.
Relativity does not support the argument that reality is an illusion. Rather, within a relativistic framework you may consider dimensional measurements to be illusory (although even that’s a questionable characterization indeed.) In a relativistic universe your measurements of some event’s coordinates may not agree with the measurements of another observer (though the “disagreement” is very deterministic and systematic.) However, you will still both agree that the event has indeed occurred. That aspect of existence (i.e. existence itself) is not illusory. Neither is the presence of dimensionality in the universe (i.e. the very coordinates you’re measuring). Neither is the existence of natural laws that govern the universe independently and irrespectively of any observer.
That is rather an objective truth, isn’t it?
Except you have it backwards. It’s not perspective that defines the brain’s existence. Rather the brain’s existence within spacetime grants it its coordinates and velocity, and thereby imbues it with what you seem to call “perspective”.
Accordingly there’s no need for me to address the rest of that particular argument of yours.
You’ll have to forgive me if I don’t accept a particular philosopher’s take on reality as The Absolute Truth With a Capital ‘T’.
That is an idealist difficulty. It does not exist for materialists.
Absolute rubbish. Physicists routinely use the term “information” to refer to a system’s instantaneous state. When systems interact information is said to be transferred between them. Physical processes are well known to occur quite without anyone looking on and trying to make sense of them.
That’s what I claim as well. It’s going back to my original analogy equating the brain with computer hardware and the mind with the instantaneous state of the brain.
While I agree with your summary of the essay, I disagree with that presumption. The root of the presumption is that the self is an irreducible, abstract entity. However, such an assumption is not justifiable. If, as I suspect, the self is merely a decision-making hub within the brain then it is entirely expressible as a string of bits (just as is anything else in the universe) – in other words, it is expressible as information. Now, as Turing had shown and computers have demonstrated since, information can be both an input and an algorithm. Therefore it is physically possible to represent the self in a way appropriate for human perception. Given a hypothetical technology to map the brain’s dynamic state at atomic precision and millisecond resolution, and then given adequate analysis, it will be possible to point at a neuron or collection of neurons and say here is your sense of self, here is your emotional state, here is what you’re currently thinking about, etc. With the key nodes of the self so identified, it would then be possible (given another hypothetical technology) to directly feed non-human input from the corresponding cognitive centers of other animals into a human’s conscious mind. That would be a direct way for you to experience what it is like to be anything, including a bat.
I have recently discovered chalk. I want to spread the word. It is fantastic for writing with, messages, arrows... and it is erased by footsteps and by rain.
yesterday i kissed a painter outside the picasso museum in barcelona. and then i took a pink pill with ´love´written on it in the gardens.
then i heard that the queen mother had died, and remembered it was april fool´s day and easter too.
its been quite a day.
yesterday i kissed a painter outside the picasso museum in barcelona. and then i took a pink pill with ´love´written on it in the gardens.
then i heard that the queen mother had died, and remembered it was april fool´s day and easter too.
its been quite a day.
to me, the God we speak of is and consists of all of us. It is infinite. God, thus we have named It, is everything conscious and unconscious, physical and spiratual. God has always been. We have always been and will continue to be. We are infinite. God exists, but perhaps not the "God" everyone perceives.
(of course this is purely an opinion but one in which i cannot seem to disbelieve no matter how hard i try to go against it. as i mature so will my philosophy and therefore of course my beiliefs. i am too young though and realize that my thoughts of today far surpass my thoughts from the past. so i can only hope the same will happen as i grow older.)
(of course this is purely an opinion but one in which i cannot seem to disbelieve no matter how hard i try to go against it. as i mature so will my philosophy and therefore of course my beiliefs. i am too young though and realize that my thoughts of today far surpass my thoughts from the past. so i can only hope the same will happen as i grow older.)
Aware... how old are you...?
You seem really aware...!
Your description of God is very good. Really very good!
You already saw one of the aspects of God... Now you have to see the opposite one...
I'll give you a hint. If God is infinite, He has to be in the light and in the darknes... so what's the real Nature of God?
Love,
Nelson
You seem really aware...!
Your description of God is very good. Really very good!
You already saw one of the aspects of God... Now you have to see the opposite one...
I'll give you a hint. If God is infinite, He has to be in the light and in the darknes... so what's the real Nature of God?
Love,
Nelson
Truth,
when u talk of God, in your opinion, do u beleive this God to be one person and to have His own self awareness and is seperate from our minds in life and in death? from this i think i can better interpret your question.
on another note....it may be impossible for me to know your answer considering all these views are purely based on opinion. it would be like me trying to prove to u that i am self aware. but i keep an open mind and will try to understand your views.
when u talk of God, in your opinion, do u beleive this God to be one person and to have His own self awareness and is seperate from our minds in life and in death? from this i think i can better interpret your question.
on another note....it may be impossible for me to know your answer considering all these views are purely based on opinion. it would be like me trying to prove to u that i am self aware. but i keep an open mind and will try to understand your views.
Last edited:
Aware,
Answer for your question... no.
Answer for mine... I was just trying to tell you that God is "neutral". If a Truth is absolute, it can't have only one of the opposites such as good or bad. If God is only good, and He is the Truth, then, what's bad? God is neutral. What create the opposites is the illusion of our ego, by our mind.
Love,
Nelson
Answer for your question... no.
Answer for mine... I was just trying to tell you that God is "neutral". If a Truth is absolute, it can't have only one of the opposites such as good or bad. If God is only good, and He is the Truth, then, what's bad? God is neutral. What create the opposites is the illusion of our ego, by our mind.
Love,
Nelson
I got used using words... a little bit of practice and you can pass something for someone... but is nothing compared to experience....
Love,
Nelson
Love,
Nelson
exactly. in my opinion, there are experiences and opinions that could never be described by useing any form of language(well maybe any language that we know of). i have one thought that i cannot describe no matter how hard i sit and think about it. the closest i have come to describing it, lies along the lines of self awareness. but that is as far as i can go with it, verbaly discussing it that is.
But what do you really believe?
Henry Miller suggested "God is the summation of all the spermatazoa come to full consciousness." Saying "God" triggers all kinds of automatic responses and it's much easier to scoff at the topic than consider what each of us actually believes or not and why.
I've come to the conclusion that there's some sort of instinct within us humans that needs more than a ultimately pointless existence in a chaotic universe. Even when I can't help but dismiss the notion of a God on an intellectual level, especially when connected to a man-made religious institution. Being bombarded with the multitudes of legends, prophets and dogma that connect each denomination to their own image of who and what is God. It makes even more difficult to swallow. Surely if God exists I don't understand how any living man can presume to know what God wants with us, who he is etc. This is where we run into all sorts of problems. When we humans decide to be his human representatives here on earth as if they have some special connection to God as if God e-mails them and says this is the way you people are supposed to act. We've all heard the stories of what some of God's reps have been up to in the Catholic Church for example. I digress.
We must consider our presuppositions before we say we are truly believers or atheists. Belief in the notion of truth for example presupposes a universal reference point of truth. My point is that in our faith in certain notions in our world such as truth, justice, right and wrong, good and evil not necessarily in absolutes but even slight degrees of them, there must be a point of reference by which such concepts are measured. Are we all simply products of the combinations of environment and genetics?Can you think of an incedent in your childhood when you felt something you did or thought of doing was instinctively wrong? Were we taught to feel guilt and shame? Is that we refer to as morality something we're taught or is there something within us beyond instinct, experience, learning and heredity that resides within us?
This isn't an arguement for the existence of a God but rather a inquiry into the existence of complete atheism. An assertion that there's something within us that requires an ultimate force or truth by which we base the foundation of our principles, ethics, truths. Something beyond the service of our fellow man, our own drives for pleasure, happiness and acheivement. Still I can't say what I believe.
Henry Miller suggested "God is the summation of all the spermatazoa come to full consciousness." Saying "God" triggers all kinds of automatic responses and it's much easier to scoff at the topic than consider what each of us actually believes or not and why.
I've come to the conclusion that there's some sort of instinct within us humans that needs more than a ultimately pointless existence in a chaotic universe. Even when I can't help but dismiss the notion of a God on an intellectual level, especially when connected to a man-made religious institution. Being bombarded with the multitudes of legends, prophets and dogma that connect each denomination to their own image of who and what is God. It makes even more difficult to swallow. Surely if God exists I don't understand how any living man can presume to know what God wants with us, who he is etc. This is where we run into all sorts of problems. When we humans decide to be his human representatives here on earth as if they have some special connection to God as if God e-mails them and says this is the way you people are supposed to act. We've all heard the stories of what some of God's reps have been up to in the Catholic Church for example. I digress.
We must consider our presuppositions before we say we are truly believers or atheists. Belief in the notion of truth for example presupposes a universal reference point of truth. My point is that in our faith in certain notions in our world such as truth, justice, right and wrong, good and evil not necessarily in absolutes but even slight degrees of them, there must be a point of reference by which such concepts are measured. Are we all simply products of the combinations of environment and genetics?Can you think of an incedent in your childhood when you felt something you did or thought of doing was instinctively wrong? Were we taught to feel guilt and shame? Is that we refer to as morality something we're taught or is there something within us beyond instinct, experience, learning and heredity that resides within us?
This isn't an arguement for the existence of a God but rather a inquiry into the existence of complete atheism. An assertion that there's something within us that requires an ultimate force or truth by which we base the foundation of our principles, ethics, truths. Something beyond the service of our fellow man, our own drives for pleasure, happiness and acheivement. Still I can't say what I believe.
Gabalawi good analogy, however....
Quote: "I've come to the conclusion that there's some sort of instinct within us humans that needs more than a ultimately pointless existence in a chaotic universe."
The problem here is that there's no such thing as instinct!!. Instinct represents innate knowledge, knowledge that supposedly comes from beyond our own existence, then we are just born with it!. No such rediculous thing happens, every single being born is born under "tabula raza" an empty slate, everything is a learned behavior.
Quote 2: "Surely if God exists I don't understand how any living man can presume to know what God wants with us, who he is etc."
Now this one makes allot of sence, and good to question it. Faith is the believe of others authority, those who claim to have knowledg of god's plan are simply taking advantage of the ignorant.
Quote 3: "This isn't an arguement for the existence of a God but rather a inquiry into the existence of complete atheism. An assertion that there's something within us that requires an ultimate force or truth by which we base the foundation of our principles, ethics, truths. Something beyond the service of our fellow man, our own drives for pleasure, happiness and acheivement. Still I can't say what I believe."
Complete atheism, I see it daily!!, though hidden in the vail of religious superstition. How can a man call himself a man of god, then have airplanes run into buildings? Radical SOBs, the believers were the ones' who piloted the planes, the athiest SOB is the one who ordered it!.
How can a man hide his true identiy? When he preaches, the word of god, then becomes a lecher of children. That SOB is more than likely a closet athiest.
When a man claims to be an athiest in the open, without hiding behind the cloth, nor for political virtues, that man is honest!. He is putting himself in judgement of all, he is then treated as confused, evil, etc..
Theres no such force that controls truth, nor what may be our principles, look of what is happening around us in the world. What principles do you speak of?. Murders happen daily, rape, incest, child mutulations, pedophilia, beastiality, all these things happen on a daily basis, around the world, were are the "moral principles of the individuals commiting these acts?., If it were some inborn knowledge as you speak of to be moral, the above would just not take place.
Quote: "I've come to the conclusion that there's some sort of instinct within us humans that needs more than a ultimately pointless existence in a chaotic universe."
The problem here is that there's no such thing as instinct!!. Instinct represents innate knowledge, knowledge that supposedly comes from beyond our own existence, then we are just born with it!. No such rediculous thing happens, every single being born is born under "tabula raza" an empty slate, everything is a learned behavior.
Quote 2: "Surely if God exists I don't understand how any living man can presume to know what God wants with us, who he is etc."
Now this one makes allot of sence, and good to question it. Faith is the believe of others authority, those who claim to have knowledg of god's plan are simply taking advantage of the ignorant.
Quote 3: "This isn't an arguement for the existence of a God but rather a inquiry into the existence of complete atheism. An assertion that there's something within us that requires an ultimate force or truth by which we base the foundation of our principles, ethics, truths. Something beyond the service of our fellow man, our own drives for pleasure, happiness and acheivement. Still I can't say what I believe."
Complete atheism, I see it daily!!, though hidden in the vail of religious superstition. How can a man call himself a man of god, then have airplanes run into buildings? Radical SOBs, the believers were the ones' who piloted the planes, the athiest SOB is the one who ordered it!.
How can a man hide his true identiy? When he preaches, the word of god, then becomes a lecher of children. That SOB is more than likely a closet athiest.
When a man claims to be an athiest in the open, without hiding behind the cloth, nor for political virtues, that man is honest!. He is putting himself in judgement of all, he is then treated as confused, evil, etc..
Theres no such force that controls truth, nor what may be our principles, look of what is happening around us in the world. What principles do you speak of?. Murders happen daily, rape, incest, child mutulations, pedophilia, beastiality, all these things happen on a daily basis, around the world, were are the "moral principles of the individuals commiting these acts?., If it were some inborn knowledge as you speak of to be moral, the above would just not take place.