Proofs and evidences of the existence of God

In addressing Lori, Boris remarks that...

"As for physical nature, you cannot dispute that every single thing you know and are is physical. This includes your knowledge, your thoughts, and your emotions. There's no God behind your 'proofs' -- merely psychology."

I must say--Boris must be on drugs! Now he's saying here that thought is a physical thing; he's saying that knowledge is physical, too. My! My! See to what conclusions madmen arrive at when totally devoid of the love of God. I am very curious to know how "thought" feels and tastes like. Boris, please tell us. And while you're at it, please also tell us what is the sound of knowledge; what does it sound like? Oh, and while you're at it, tell us also how knowledge looks and smells like. We are waiting for this greatest of revelations.

I guess you could also tell us, since you believe that there is nothing else but the physical world, tell us to what world one travels to in a dream. Elizabeth-Kubler Ross has found that people who are about to die see their diseased relatives come to help them make the transition from this world to the next. Call them "spirits" or "ghosts" or whatever. They certainly aren't physical because Elizabeth couldn't see, smell, touch, hear or feel them. But somebody was there, according to her! Maybe Boris has a "scientific" explanation for this? (But please get off the drugs before you answer us, okay?)

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

------------------
dumaurier

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Drugs, huh? Madman, huh? Boy, aren't we doing that Galileo dance all over again?

Thank you! That is my entire point -- such arguments are not logical. That by the way includes <u>your</u> arguments as well.

As for your laudation of mankind, I'm sorry you have such a limited vision of the possibilities for advancement.

How naive must you get before you hit the rock bottom, Dumaurier? I mean, maybe you could tell us what an alpha particle tastes like? Or maybe, you could describe the sound of computation inside your computer? Or, what about the color of a black hole? But surely, you could at least tell us about the smell of air?!! Are you going to claim that the computation inside your computer's CPU is not a physical process? But if it is, pray tell me which one of your five senses are you planning to use for ascertaining that fact?

For your information (and I know it's a great and awesome revelation to you) our senses are extremely limited, and cannot measure all conceivable physical phenomena. That is why we resort to augmentation of our sensory endowments with various artificial instruments. I know, it's an incredibly difficult concept, but I really do have faith you can make it through this one. Here's another deep revelation for your perusal (and by the way, I claim it came to me straight from God): not everything can be <u>perceived</u>. Some things must simply be understood in terms of their definition or description. You cannot <u>perceive</u> 'computation'. You can only describe it as a certain type of process, unfolding in time, and involving certain other measurable phenomena. It is precisely computation that lies behind your feelings, thoughts, beliefs, and knowledge. Well now, don't you feel enlightened?

Nobody travels anywhere in dreams. Dreams are hallucinatory experiences produced by a brain in an altered state of consciousness.

But I would ask Elizabeth-Kubler Ross this question: if she "couldn't see, smell, touch, hear or feel them", how on earth was she aware of their presence? Through what modality was that presence perceived by her? How would she describe the 'presence'?

------------------
I am; therefore I think.

[This message has been edited by Boris (edited July 21, 1999).]

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Boris, a mule should be so stubborn!

You wrote to Lori saying,

"As for physical nature, you cannot dispute that every single thing you know and are is physical. This includes your knowledge, your thoughts, and your emotions. There's no God behind your 'proofs' -- merely psychology."

You said that EVERY SINGLE THING YOU KNOW AND ARE IS PHYSICAL.

You said, "Every single thing you know is physical...THIS INCLUDES YOUR KNOWLEDGE, YOUR THOUGHTS.[i/]

You said, "Every single thing you are is physical...THIS INCLUDES YOUR KNOWLEDGE, YOUR THOUGHTS.[i/]


Besides your sentence structure that makes no sense, now, in your latest post you are saying the complete opposite.

Boris, may i suggest you drink less coffee? The caffeine doesn't agree with you!

[This message has been edited by dumaurier (edited July 21, 1999).]

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Dumaurier:

What is your problem with the word 'physical'? In case you think I simply mean the opposite of 'spiritual', you are wrong! By 'physical' I mean that which either is a physical object, a physical process, a series of physical processes, or the result of physical processes. In other words, something which can be entirely described and modeled using physics. Now, what part of that is self-contradictory again?

As for the things we <u>are</u>, I expected the reader to use their imagination. How about this sampling: an animal, a human, a person, a being, a child, a parent, a God-worshipper -- should I go on? I know I made the sentence structure unnecessarily complex, but it is not meaningless, I assure you.

------------------
I am; therefore I think.

[This message has been edited by Boris (edited July 21, 1999).]

 

But you do see my point, nevertheless.

Boris, in cyberspace it is extremely easy to be misunderstood. Write what you mean; mean what you say.

Need i add more?

------------------
dumaurier

 

Boris,
http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@66.VoElawNse9Q^729120@.ee6b663

Explaining Consciousness is my fav there...

If that link doesnt work it the new york times, then forums, then hosted forums...I think you would find some of your true contemporaries there.

tall-p

 

html probs

[This message has been edited by 2+2 (edited July 23, 1999).]

 

2+2:

I wish you to stopped pushing this silly position that knowledge = words. Animals possess no capability of speech; nevertheless they possess vast amounts of knowledge. For example, a dog knows who its owner is. A tiger knows how to chase down its prey, and what prey to avoid. A bird knows where its nest is, and it knows where to forage for food. A trained horse knows it will get a snack for doing a trick (and it has learned how to do that trick, too). Hopefully, you see my point.

Knowledge does not include just the explicit facts that can be put into words; it also encompasses such implicit things as skills, events, locales, qualities and memories of objects. For example, if I asked you to describe a chair, you would tell me all about its major components and its function. The knowledge you used for that was not entirely verbal; you first had to know what a support looks and feels like, how objects behave when put on it, what the rough geometry of a chair is, etc. For example, to attach meaning to the word 'straight', you must first understand the quality of 'straightness' (unless you are a mathematician, that is -- but even mathematicians start out learning about their world with no help from mathematics.) Behind the word 'solid', you have the experience-based concepts of flexibility, spatial extension, continuity, interpenetration. Behind every word, there is a set of mental concepts which is non-verbal, and oftentimes irreducible; it is these intrinsic mental concepts that give words meaning in the first place). The word 'leg' is just a combination of letters without the attached meaning. Hopefully, you can see now that meaning must arise first, and only then can language follow.

There exists knowledge that one cannot even put into words. For example, if I asked you to describe how exactly you accomplish the task of regaining balance when you are about to fall (so that I could take your directions and make a computer program out of them to enable a robot to walk), you would not be able to tell me. Nevertheless, it is knowledge, and must be learned. By the way you'll notice that children learn to crawl, for example, way before they are able to say even their first word, much less describe how crawling is accomplished, or what it's useful for. In fact, most of the things children learn are not taught to them verbally; they simply obtain the bulk of their knowledge from direct experience, and often only later on do they end up associating words with things they already know.

In fact, the modern complexity of life in itself is a form of knowledge. You can think of the bioorganisms and biosystems as 'learning' about their world, becoming more and more capable of surviving and navigating within it as time passes, and thereby encoding information about the world within their structures and behaviors.

Ultimately, at its core, knowledge is simply information. It may be expressible verbally, but oftentimes it is not, and sometimes it even does not involve a conscious mind. The 'knowledge' carried by the Earth's biosphere is an encoding of information about this very biosphere, its environment, and its history. However, it is not knowledge inside a mind; it's simply information accumulated by biological processes. Similarly, when we talk about the collective knowledge of the modern civilization, we mean the <u>information</u> accumulated by humans around the world so far -- not knowledge possessed by any individual in particular, nor even knowledge that resides within a brain (for example, it may presently reside within a book, on a schematic, or within a computer database). When we talk about 'passing on knowledge', we imply transmission of information. This is where language really becomes useful -- one of its two primary goals is to serve as a medium of communication. (though it certainly is not the only possible medium; one could also communicate by drawing pictures, for example -- though it would be much less efficient.) The second major effect of language is that verbal representation of large sets of complex concepts certainly helps to increase complexity of thought itself. In this light, you can think of language as a method of compressing the overwhelming non-verbal information down to manageable size (sort of like forming an index, or a compilation of summaries, over a vast database), so that concepts can be manipulated faster, easier, and in greater quantities at a time.

<hr>

Hopefully, I have managed to show you that knowledge by far does not consist of just words (in fact, most of even human knowledge is non-verbal, and for every word there are a host of non-verbal mental concepts to provide it with meaning). And hopefully, you can now better understand the relationship between words, knowledge, and intelligence.

------------------
I am; therefore I think.

[This message has been edited by Boris (edited July 23, 1999).]

 

Hi Boris,

Yea, I got a new job. What a drag, I can't spend my whole day debating religion with you all anymore. Intuition is not physical; it is an "inherent" sense of knowing. It is "spirit talk" so to speak. I honestly believe that if you took a cave man, like literally a man who was born and raised in a cave, and had no human contact or influence for all of his life, he would still have an inherent sense of right and wrong. Not to say that he wouldn't ever DO anything that was wrong, but if he did, it would cause him pain or confusion or guilt. Now, where do you suppose that these feelings would come from? Another example of what I'm talking about comes from when I was agnostic. I didn't know if there was a God or not, and I really didn't care. Actually, I was probably more convinced that there was not. Anyway, I'm not sure if you were around when I posted this story on the old message board, so here it goes again. I had an abortion. And I had about 1000 really, really good reasons to have one. That is according to my own and others "relative" right vs wrong. Anything goes, as long as you can rationalize it, right? Well I could rationalize the hell out of it, and it wasn't hard. Here, let me give you some of them, and tell me how "relatively rational" this sounds. I was engaged, and cheating on my finance because I thought that he was cheating on me. It was a one-nighter, and I had no feelings for him, and he had no feelings for me. I wasn't quite sure who's child it was going to be, as my finance and I had "made up" and had sex within 1 week of my affair. I had a suspicion that the pregnancy was the result of the affair, though. Seeing as how the guy was a 19 year-old college freshman, who was cocky as hell, and on top of the world. So, there I was, just graduated from college, with no job yet, in the middle of the recession of 1991, living with my fiance and about to ruin the relationship for good, and break his heart, and ready to ruin the life of some poor little college freshman that's just trying to have the best time of his life. Going through the pregnancy alone, with everyone hating me, and not knowing til the birth, and insuing paternity testing who the father really is. And facing the rest of my life as a single mother. Sounds bad, huh? I thought so, so bad that I opted for the abortion. I felt very good and confident about the decision, and everyone that I asked for an opinion urged me to do so. So why, Boris, why in the hell did I end up feeling so much guilt and pain over what I had done? I didn't believe in God, so who cares, right? No big deal, right? I mean, we don't have souls, so what keeps YOU from killing someone? The reprocussion of possibly going to jail? If there's no God, then why not? That's how I got religion, Boris. It was undeniable, and ON THE INSIDE, in my heart. When you are born again, it changes your whole life, and there's nothing you can do about it.

------------------
God loves you and so do I!

 

Ultimately, you choose your own position on God's existence and the reality of Creation. As I've been arguing, it's a blind choice either way. (Though I must mention that God and Creation are only one of an infinity of explanations for how our universe came to be. And being so linear, paradoxical and humanly primitive, I doubt that the God+Creation explanation will stand the test of time.)

However, believing in God's existence is one thing; buying into an entire dogma is something else entirely.

Concerning comfort and well-being... You may view it as a gift from God, but I have an alternative theory. We all (save pathologically disturbed individuals) possess the ability to emphatise with each other. We are able to live vicariously through book and movie characters, and we are able to feel happy or sad for someone else. Such abilities and tendencies seem like natural derivatives of tribal evolutionary origins. When you are rewarded with a sense of well-being in return for following the Golden Rule, it simply means that you are a healthy individual who exhibits the normal, I'd even say instinctual, human behavior.

------------------
I am; therefore I think.

 

<font color="#000080">2X2, your post is appreciated. </font></p>

<font color="#000080">Abdu'l-Baha says:

&quot;For example, when you look at man, you see that he is weak.&quot; </font></p>

<font color="#000080">2x2 comments:

&quot;Weak!? What sweeter situation exists anywhere in the universe, than being a person.
And now, even &quot;commoners&quot; like me get a chance to see the big picture. Feel the
power as your brain grasps the new concept, as old beliefs vaporize when you shed them
like last years wardrobe.&quot; </font></p>

<font color="#000080">dumaurier responds:

Well, i think by &quot;weak&quot; is meant that we are weak in relationship to the
Creator. I agree with you that no greater creation exists in the universe than the human
being. In relationship to the material universe man is, indeed, complex, grande,
sophisticated, and beautiful.</font></p>

<font color="#000080"><strong>So far so good. But then......</strong></font></p>

<font color="#000080">But you will admit that despite this beauty and power conferred
upon us by our Creator,<strong>(I admit Nothing,especially any notion of 'Creators,or gods
of any sort!</strong>despite our wonderful capacities to build great ships that sail the
deepest seas or fly in remote and unknown corners of the darkest heavens, despite our
superb discoveries in biological and other sciences, you will agree<strong>(I DO NOT)</strong>that
when that tiniest of germ invisible to the human eye enters our biological system and
makes us sick, we are weak.<strong>(this is absurd! Our bodys immune system fights off
millions of unwanted cells daily, hourly...some get through, and this proves there is a
God</strong>??You will agree <strong>(NEVER!!)</strong> that we are totally dependent on
the elements such as water <strong>(water is not an element for crying out loud)</strong>to
quench our thirst, air for our lungs, and so on <strong>And so on....do you realize friend
that you have said abolutely nothing here above. You made no point. Can you see it?</strong>.
You will agree,<strong>(No I do not agree with this point either....</strong> too, that if
the sun were to cease shining the human creature would perish. We are, therefore,
essentially dependent creatures physically. We are weak in this respect.<strong>(look how
far you run to try and prove that you know what &quot;weak&quot; means....anyway, let me
try to make a point here: ...never mind, let me just say that you say that we are weak
because we need the sun and I say we are strong because we have the sun. You can't make
the sun go away, or the air change its composition, or the seas turn to liquid hydrogen.</strong></font></p>

<font color="#000080">Then, too, consider that if God were to cease sending us His Holy
Books through the intermediary of His Holy Manifestations (such as Abraham, Moses,
Zoroaster, Krishna, Buddha, Christ, Muhammad, Baha'u'llah), man would be spiritually weak
for of and by himself man has not the power to reveal such heavenly gems as to cause his
spiritual upliftment and, therefore, his spiritual progress. In relationship to the
material universe man is all weakness; then how much more weak is he in relationship to
God, the Creator of the material world and of the spiritual worlds! He is, indeed, the
All-Powerful! </font></p>

<font color="#000080"><strong>None of your above prophets wrote those books BTW, and
only the guys and gals in these cults ever read them. It was those persuasive beggers
going around telling you your fortune, and how to deal with your enemies and illnesses,
who even had third hand knowledge of what was in those books for centuries.</strong></font></p>

<font color="#000080">Abdu'l-Baha wrote:This very weakness of the creature is a proof
of the power of the Eternal Almighty One, because, if there were no power, weakness could
not be imagined. </font></p>

<font color="#000080"><strong>If there were no words, birds would not sing.</strong></font></p>

<font color="#000080">2x2 comments:&quot;If there were no &quot;words&quot; then
weakness or power could not be imagined. Plus I can imagine weakness, and I don't believe
in God.&quot; </font></p>

<font color="#000080">dumaurier responds:I believe you are taking the subject out of
context, 2x2. If a child is incapable of lifting a picnic table and you, standing beside
him, lifted it up for him, it would be a demonstrable and concrete example of the reality
of weakness and strength. Words are not necessary to see the reality of an adult's
strength verses the reality of a child's strength. Both are strengths, but one is more
powerful than the other; one is weaker than the other. God has power and man has power.
But when both are compared, man's power is weakness in comparison to God's power. After
all, He created the universe and we are but His creation! The created cannot be more
powerful than the creator otherwise it would have created itself without the need of a
creator. </font></p>

<font color="#000080"><strong>If there were no words, the sun would not shine.</strong></font></p>

<font color="#000080">Abdu'l-Baha wrote:In the contingent world there is ignorance;
necessarily knowledge exists, because ignorance is found; for if there were no knowledge,
neither would there be ignorance. Ignorance is the nonexistence of knowledge, and if there
were no existence, nonexistence could not be realized. </font></p>

<font color="#000080"><strong>Your guru is full of silly arguments IMHO. Ignorance is a
bad vocabulary. Knowledge is structured information (all in words), that is easily
retrievable by the individual who possesses it....</strong></font></p>

<font color="#000080"><strong>BTW, can you see how ridiculous, and meaningless this
statement is by Abdu'l-Baha, &quot;...if there were no existence, nonexistennce could not
be realized.&quot; It does not matter what argument that preceeds that, whatever it is, is
meaningless.</strong></font></p>

<font color="#000080">2x2 comments:Those are my italics...but see existence in the way
that you are speaking of again requires words. One can't think about concepts without
them. So nonexistence in the sense that you are using it depends on somebody thinking
about nonexistence. Follow me? JMHO's </font></p>

<font color="#000080">dumaurier responds:I follow you. However,existence is in nowise
dependent on you or i nor on words.It is wholly independent of you and i and words. If man
did not exist there would still be an existence.The proof of this is in the fact that when
you have finally put away your human physical body, and you lie 6-feet under, the world
continues to exist despite your absence--or your words!<strong>(REALLY? Well I think that
when you die, your universe disappears. Just like when you slowly became aware and
conscious as language developed in your head. But before you were born what was going
on...stories that have all been passed on to you through language. If you had not been a
human being swimming in an ever expanding sea of stories, but you had been born a cat say
with no stories of past catploits, then there would be no &quot;universe.&quot;All this
information, this knowledge is locked in words, and are passed on through the generations.
The languafe is growing. New words, new metaphors, new high speed languages. No words, no
existence. If it has no name, it ain't.</strong></font></p>

<font color="#000080">And if there were no existence we wouldn't have to die for there
would be no need for death, or no words. </font></p>

<font color="#000080"><strong>Now you really sound like </strong>Abdu'l-Baha.<strong>I
see you snorting at posters often...please say what you mean!</strong></font></p>

<font color="#000080">You yourself will testify to this truth<strong>(NO!)</strong>for
you see cemetaries where people are buried. For these dead souls existence is nomore, but
for you existence is real for you continue benefitting of God's boutiful gifts provided
for you in this life. No words are necessary for the dead. Thus we exist, and because of
this actuality, reality, presence, tangibility, materiality, life, being, continuance, in
brief, because of our existence we know there is an existence and words are not necessary
to prove this existence. But there is an existence, therefore it is realized. And if there
were no truth, truth could not be realized.Truth is not dependent on words; but words are
dependent on truth.</font></p>

<font color="#000080">&quot;No words are necessary for the dead. Thus we exist...&quot;<strong>Huh?</strong></font></p>

<font color="#000080"><strong>Then you say, </strong>&quot;...because of our existence
we know there is an existence and words are not necessary to prove this existence. But
there is an existence, therefore it is realized.&quot;</font></p>

<font color="#000080"><strong>dumaurier, this is hilarious. And in a way it proves that
you do need words not just to &quot;prove existence,&quot; but for there to BE existence.

</strong></font></p>

</font><font color="#000080">&nbsp;</font></p>

<p align="right"><font color="#800080" face="Verdana, Arial" size="1">IP: </font>

------------------
The landscape opened like a children's book...
It has the look of careful joy.John N Morris

 

2+2: </p>

I wish you to stopped pushing this silly position that knowledge = words.<strong> Well,
actually, that isn't what I am saying. Probably I did not speak clearly. My point is that
consciousness as we most commonly mean it (being aware of ourselves as a separate being,
and aware of a stream of thought in our head) is dependent on language.</strong> </p>

<hr>

Hopefully, I have managed to show you that knowledge by far does not consist of just
words (in fact, most of even human knowledge is non-verbal, and for every word there are a
host of non-verbal mental concepts to provide it with meaning). And hopefully, you can now
better understand the relationship between words, knowledge, and intelligence.</p>

<strong>Yes thanks. I agree with you about knowledge and intelligence. Of course if
there were no words, if we humans were not capable of remembering names that had been
given to things, and passing these memes along, there would be no &quot;knowledge.&quot;
We would be just like we were before we had language I guess. As the language grew, so did
the consciousness of those who used it. The knowledge base...knowledge is locked up in
these words. Of course there are many skills that appear pure motor skills, like a baby
learning too walk, and balance is the start of &quot;being conscious.&quot; But if we
taught Helen Keller to ride a skateboard, we'd first have to reach her with words.
Training a dog is teaching it words, gestures are body words, and mean words to us who are
trying to communicate. Do you really think that if words were not running through your
head, that you would still have all this knowledge?</strong></p>

&nbsp;</p>
</body>
</html>


------------------
The landscape opened like a children's book...
It has the look of careful joy.John N Morris

 

2X2

I think all you need is a real cold shower.

After your shower, come back and reason. You'll be welcomed.

------------------
dumaurier

 

2x2,

for the most part you are referring to epistomology. have you read 'the archeology of knowledge' by michel foucault? you will find it under sociology. while your points are not entirely incorrect, they are also not entirely correct. in fact, you are 'mixing' several distinct principals. perhaps something has come to light thru recent events or circumstances. break it down.
figure out what is interfering(or blending)
and understand their interaction as a sort of creation. you can will this to your expectations or you can see it for what it truly is.

 

It seems as if we are going in circles here.

 

dumaurier

It's funny...I only have cold water!! Perhaps that has some how boggeled my mind. So why don't you go on and answer my points above.

I'll try and think better, and you take your ad hominum arguments to some other place where they enjoy them.


------------------
The landscape opened like a children's book...
It has the look of careful joy.John N Morris

 

bedlanam

Thanks. I haven't read that, and I will try and check it out. I live in a country that has useless libraries, but I will track it down.

Isn't language a meme? If you can posses it, then you are conscious? And the better you are at it, the MORE conscious?

 

In responce to 2x2:


dumaurier
It's funny...no it's not!I only have cold water!! no you don't Perhaps that has some how boggeled my mind.i don't agree with you So why don't you go on and answer my points above.points? What does that mean? I don't agree with you!

I'll try and think better,think? what does that mean? and you take your ad hominum he's speaking Chinese againarguments to some other place where they enjoy them.like on Exoscience where i started this post in which 2x2 takes the liberty of involving himself, just like everybody else is welcomed to get involved in it...but one never knows; maybe 2x2 is the owner of Exoscience. I don't know, just asking.


------------------
The landscape opened like a children's book... i don't agree with you!
It has the look of careful joy what?

------------------
dumaurier

 

2x2, don't get offended. I was just being silly with that previous post (and the next one). It's just the way you objected to my post which sounded rather crude around the edges in places. I will, indeed, answer your every point.

Keep posting 2x2. Your ideas are as valid as anybody's. And don't allow anybody to tell you otherwise!

Hope you're having fun (because i am!)

A bientot

[This message has been edited by dumaurier (edited July 25, 1999).]

 

2X2, here is my feedback on your post that you wanted me to respond to:


But you will admit that despite this beauty and power conferred upon us by our Creator,
(I admit Nothing, especially any notion of Creators, or gods of any sort!)

...Well, what do you want me to answer to this, 2x2?

despite our wonderful capacities to build great ships that sail the deepest seas or fly in remote and unknown corners of the darkest heavens, despite our superb discoveries in biological and other sciences, you will agree (I DO NOT)

...okay, so you don't agree.

that when that tiniest of germ invisible to the human eye enters our biological system and makes us sick, we are weak. (this is absurd! Our bodys immune system fights off millions of unwanted cells daily, hourly...some get through, and this proves there is a God??)

...you miss the point, 2x2. For sure we have an extraordinary immune system. Can't argue with that now, can we. We do indeed get sick, however, n'est-ce pas? And we all die, too.

You will agree (NEVER!!) that we are totally dependent on the elements

...Okay! Okay! So DON'T agree. That's okay by me.


such as water (water is not an element for crying out loud)

...Have you every heard the expression, "There was an element of sarcasm in her voice"? Well, should we make a little effort at understanding our lovely English language or should we attack it by saying, "this is not an element for crying out loud!" ??? Of course, we know that an element is any of the 105 known substances (of which 93 occur naturally) that consist of atoms with the same number of protons in their nuclei. Then again, in ancient and medieval cosmology an element was thought of being earth, air, fire, water; these were thought to constitute the universe. No, really, 2x2, i wasn't using the word in the same sense you understood it.

to quench our thirst, air for our lungs, and so on (And so on....do you realize friend that you have said abolutely nothing here above. You made no point. Can you see it?)

....Actually, i think i said quite a lot and made quite a nice point. Why can't YOU see it? Baffling.

You will agree, (No I do not agree with this point either....

...Okay, 2x2. You have the right to disagree.

too, that if the sun were to cease shining the human creature would perish. We are, therefore, essentially dependent creatures physically. We are weak in this respect.
(look how far you run to try and prove that you know what "weak" means....anyway, let me try to make a point here: ...never mind, let me just say that you say that we are weak because we need the sun and I say we are strong because we have the sun. You can't make the sun go away, or the air change its composition, or the seas turn to liquid hydrogen.

...Agreed. But without the sun you would perish. Therefore, in a sense we are wholly dependent on it for life. Gosh! How physically weak is man!

Then, too, consider that if God were to cease sending us His Holy Books...Christ, Muhammad....

None of your above prophets wrote those books BTW,

...You'll have to convince the 750 million Christians, the 550 million Muslims, the...etc. about what you claim here, 2x2. Of course, if you know something these people don't, we'd like to hear about it.


and only the guys and gals in these cults ever read them.

...Hmmmm. This is quite an authoritative statement. Hmmm.

It was those persuasive beggers going around telling you your fortune, and how to deal with your enemies and illnesses, who even had third hand knowledge of what was in those books for centuries.

...Another authoritative statement. Hmmm.


Abdu'l-Baha wrote: This very weakness of the creature is a proof of the power of the Eternal Almighty One, because, if there were no power, weakness could not be imagined.

If there were no words, birds would not sing.

...But do birds have lyrics to their songs? Hmmm...Do you think this is where the Beatles got all their love songs from? "Love love me do. You know I love you." Hmmm.

If there were no words, the sun would not shine.

...Well, i have to be honest with you: i have never really listened carefully to what the sunshine was saying. Well, i might as well tell you the truth. You see, i feared being ridiculed by my peers if they ever saw me tending my ears toward the rays of light. They'd probably think such a posture strange and weird. Actually, so would i

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Abdu'l-Baha wrote:In the contingent world there is ignorance; necessarily knowledge exists, because ignorance is found; for if there were no knowledge, neither would there be ignorance. Ignorance is the nonexistence of knowledge, and if there were no existence, nonexistence could not be realized.

Your guru is full of silly arguments IMHO. Ignorance is a bad vocabulary. Knowledge is structured information (all in words), that is easily retrievable by the individual who possesses it....

...Again, you missed the point. It flew right by you. Maybe you were busy listening to the birds singing sweet lyrics? Who knows

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

BTW, can you see how ridiculous, and meaningless this statement is by Abdu'l-Baha, "...if there were no existence, nonexistennce could not be realized."
It does not matter what argument that preceeds that, whatever it is, is meaningless.

...Have you been listening to that sunshine again? Hmmm.

And if there were no existence we wouldn't have to die for there would be no need for death, or no words.

Now you really sound like Abdu'l-Baha. I see you snorting at posters often...please say what you mean!

...Sorry, i'm too busy trying to catch the words in that ray of light by my kitchen window. Shhh...I think it's saying something now...shhhh...

dumaurier, this is hilarious. And in a way it proves that you do need words not just to "prove existence," but for there to BE existence.

...Well, i don't know, 2x2. I really don't know.

There! I've answered all your points. Are you satisfied, 2x2? (Well, sorry if i didn't answer every little tiny bit....blame it on that damn sunshine. Gee, maybe tomorrow i'll hear it talking to me? Hmmm...)


Be good.

[This message has been edited by dumaurier (edited July 25, 1999).]