Title says it. No, it can not be sinceeverexistant, or anything like that. There has to be day one for everything, and we are leaving Mr. Big Bang out of this.

inb4 how was teh big banging and da univers hapens?bsbsbs
edit:inb4 obbe

I do not believe God is bound to a line of time, I believe that all lines of time are bound to God.

I believe God simply is. There is no before or after.

I do not believe God is bound to a line of time, I believe that all lines of time are bound to God.

I believe God simply is. There is no before or after.

http://sp1.yt-thm-a01.yimg.com/image/25/f10/417896972

See "How to Know God," by Deepak Chopra, pages 31-32.

One key insight--"Because the pre-creation state has no time, it is still here."

DUH you guys,


He created himself :D

it can not be sinceeverexistant



Why can't he have always existed?
Can you not grasp that concept?
If people believe the universe has always existed, why is the possibility of "God always having existed" left out of your equation?

Fedex dropped him off as the walmart at the end of the universe

How did a hundred God's come to exist?

How did sasquatch, leprechans, unicorns, dragons, trolls, ogres, elves, sprites, dwarves, hobbits, wizards, magic, sea serpents, come to exist?

Writers of fiction over the years have come up a plethora of complex and interesting ideas. Why is it so hard to believe the bible is a work of fiction? I can understand how uncomfortable it makes a believer to believe this, but it should still not be hard to beleive the bible is a work of fiction.

See "How to Know God," by Deepak Chopra, pages 31-32.

One key insight--"Because the pre-creation state has no time, it is still here."

Lulz all two pages must explain all the worlds mysteries....

Why can't he have always existed?
Can you not grasp that concept?
If people believe the universe has always existed, why is the possibility of "God always having existed" left out of your equation?

If you believe "god has always existed," why not skip an entire step and just go to "the universe has always existed."

Why can't he have always existed?
Can you not grasp that concept?
If people believe the universe has always existed, why is the possibility of "God always having existed" left out of your equation?

You idiot piece of scum. It is impossible for the universe to always have existed. It has existed for gagillions of years, but there had to be day one. I can't explain how it was created, bur nothing can be everexistant (with the exception of stupidity, as I have noticed in this forum).

HOW DID GOD COME TO EXIST

Many say that their must be a beginning. A new day, intense light, death. Thus we have all these creation myths, the most recent of which being the "Big Bang".
Even those who believe in a "Big Bang" for the most part do not believe it came from nothing, so they made up the idea of a collision of 5th dimensional brynes, or something like that.
What I'm getting at is that it seems to be a nothingness that all came from, and indeed it is not a thing. From this so called nothingness is where came our (flawed as some would see it) Creator. But this Creator is not the Ultimate.
The Ultimate is the Infinite and Eternal Godhead.
It is the Source of the All Pervading massless energy, it is the Source of our thoughts and dreams, but it is not the All Pervading massless energy. The Source is not the same as the thing, but if you look deep enough within the thing, you will find the Source in essence.

God is infinite and eternal.

nothing can be everexistant

explain why.

HOW DID GOD COME TO EXIST

Many say that their must be a beginning. A new day, intense light, death. Thus we have all these creation myths, the most recent of which being the "Big Bang".
Even those who believe in a "Big Bang" for the most part do not believe it came from nothing, so they made up the idea of a collision of 5th dimensional brynes, or something like that.
What I'm getting at is that it seems to be a nothingness that all came from, and indeed it is not a thing. From this so called nothingness is where came our (flawed as some would see it) Creator. But this Creator is not the Ultimate.
The Ultimate is the Infinite and Eternal Godhead.
It is the Source of the All Pervading massless energy, it is the Source of our thoughts and dreams, but it is not the All Pervading massless energy. The Source is not the same as the thing, but if you look deep enough within the thing, you will find the Source in essence.

God is infinite and eternal.










Just think about it. Think about how it was before. And before that, and before that. Repeat until you either find out how it began, give up and realize it's really complex, or make up shit along the way.


If I had a heart monitor on while reading things here, It would certainly show an increase of heart rhythm and bp. I have now given up on trying to discuss here. As you may have noticed, unlike you, I don't get to say incoherences back to others. Reading such posts will only anger me more. Live blind guys.

nothing can be everexistant

Are you able to explain why?

Personally, I think either question (god or the universe) is inane. We are so deeply ingrained by inductive reasoning to believe that causality is a necessity (not saying this is wrong), so THE beginning of everything, whether it be god or the universe, will never make sense (to those people, of which I include myself). The only alternate explanation is quantum theory (material sub-atomic particles randomly popping into existence). Nonetheless, at this point, any "explanation" or rationalization of the beginning of "everything" is pure dogma and theory.

*Don't read this, it will only make you angry, if you desire to be angered*

Just think about it. Think about how it was before. And before that, and before that. Repeat until you either find out how it began, give up and realize it's really complex, or make up shit along the way.


Godhead, I already told you. If you want to humanize it and say it has a beginning go ahead, but know that any attempt personalize the infinite is futile.


If I had a heart monitor on while reading things here, It would certainly show an increase of heart rhythm and bp.


Wow man, a friendly suggestion if you don't mind. Chillax. Maybe you should try contemplative meditation, things and stuff, don’t let them bother you. You'll feel and display much less anger and hatred. Less anger and hatred, more chilling. . . a man can dream can't he.


I have now given up on trying to discuss here. As you may have noticed, unlike you, I don't get to say incoherences back to others.

I hate to be dick but. . .
Your first post:
"Title says it. No, it can not be sinceeverexistant, or anything like that. There has to be day one for everything, and we are leaving Mr. Big Bang out of this.

inb4 how was teh big banging and da univers hapens?bsbsbs
edit:inb4 obbe"

It seems to me you just want to make unharmonic and fragmented assumptions of how you think the universe and God has to be and not allow any other explanations.
You obviously don't want to hear anything outside of your beliefs, and when you do, it makes you furious.
ex: "You idiot piece of scum. It is impossible for the universe to always have existed. It has existed for gagillions of years, but there had to be day one. I can't explain how it was created, bur nothing can be everexistant (with the exception of stupidity, as I have noticed in this forum)."

I normally dislike reading thoughts like this.
But you did provide a great example of being incoherent with grief, and that makes me giggle.

Definition of incoherent:
1. Lacking cohesion, connection, or harmony; not coherent: incoherent fragments of a story.
2. Unable to think or express one's thoughts in a clear or orderly manner: incoherent with grief.


Reading such posts will only anger me more. Live blind guys.
lol
______

Answer me this:
Why must there be no Source?
Why must an infinite and eternal No-Thing not be?

Personally, I think either question (god or the universe) is inane.

Personally, I think avoiding such questions can be just as inane.

spontaneous life is given a chance of 1 in 32000000000000 or some bullshit number like that which is considered a scientifically impossibility (so many zeros} so you keep believing in science which changes its mind every decade or 500 and i'll keep believing in the possibility that this intricate universe ahh fuck that ,this intricate world and all its eccentricities does have some intelligent design .
Any man that has watched the birth of there child and not be in awe of the whole concept of life and its delicate balance and bueaty must surly be retarded to the concept of design.(Most women just want it the fuck out of them)

spontaneous life is given a chance of 1 in 32000000000000 or some bullshit number like that which is considered a scientifically impossibility (so many zeros}

Any source to back up that bullshit? No?

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html

Personally, I think avoiding such questions can be just as inane.

It is not 'avoiding' the question. It is the fact that science currently cannot fully answer the universe question and the god question is tautologically unanswerable since it is not empirical. If you want to look toward 'personal experience' with god to answer this, that's fine for you, but it won't answer it on any objective level. Therefore, for mankind, these questions are currently inane to be analyzed. At this time, just simply be agnostic on this issue and accept your ignorance...is that so hard?

... that's fine for you ...

Well yeah, thats why I said personally.

but it won't answer it on any objective level. Therefore, for mankind, these questions are currently inane to be analyzed.

For the people who are concerned with objectivity. Such 'sane' persons would rather avoid thinking about the Outside, I understand.

At this time, just simply be agnostic on this issue and accept your ignorance...is that so hard?

Why can't I have my own personal beliefs? Why should I lock-step with you?

At this time, you cannot verify that an objective reality actually exists! Accept your ignorance ... is that so hard?

Uh oh. Hope we're not straying too far into the Outside for ya.

At this time, you cannot verify that an objective reality actually exists!

Your statement asserts that there is an object, and that a property inheres in said object. In fact, all statements make such an assertion. You cannot make a statement without presupposing some objective order, and thus to assert that such an order does not exist commits you to contradiction. Essentially, then, you would have to resort to uttering nothing but exclamations and questions, if you wish to avoid being incoherent. But it seems like you have practically resorted to restricting yourself to uttering nothing but questions anyway, even though you don't seem to want an answer in earnest, and so you should be fine.

Enjoy wooing people with your sophistry while you can, anyone with sense will join me in ignoring your dribble.

Your statement asserts that there is an object, and that a property inheres in said object. In fact, all statements make such an assertion. You cannot make a statement without presupposing some objective order, and thus to assert that such an order does not exist commits you to contradiction. Essentially, then, you would have to resort to uttering nothing but exclamations and questions, if you wish to avoid being incoherent. But it seems like you have practically resorted to restricting yourself to uttering nothing but questions anyway, even though you don't seem to want an answer in earnest, and so you should be fine.

Enjoy wooing people with your sophistry while you can, anyone with sense will join me in ignoring your dribble.

Quoted in case of deletion.

Great job ignoring me there. Were you ignoring me the entire time you wrote that detailed analysis of how I post?

This is another great example of the characteristics of sanity: firm belief in the uselessness of thinking about anything you do not understand, and a pathological interest in other people.

Anyone who knows me, knows I'm far from sane. And that I think you are an idiot if you romanticize insanity.

Thats great man. Do you have anything to say about how God or reality came to exist, or verifications of objectivity, or why thinking about such things is inane?

Good to see you posting in My God again, btw. Have you decided its not so bad after all? :D

Why can't I have my own personal beliefs? Why should I lock-step with you?


Well I said you could, but the point of such a thread talking about this, would be to say something that is meaningful in an intersubjective fashion. There is no point to be on a thread talking about something that is so deeply personal as for it to be completely non-universal and unrelated to other people. That 'feeling' is so inane at this level, you might as well not even speak of it.

So Obbe, apart for those amazingly witty replies, is Hare correct or not?

I would hazard a guess that God was born in the imagination of an old bearded man sitting by a fire in some desert, and has been living in the imaginations of other people for thousands of years after.

How did a hundred God's come to exist?

How did sasquatch, leprechans, unicorns, dragons, trolls, ogres, elves, sprites, dwarves, hobbits, wizards, magic, sea serpents, come to exist?

Writers of fiction over the years have come up a plethora of complex and interesting ideas. Why is it so hard to believe the bible is a work of fiction? I can understand how uncomfortable it makes a believer to believe this, but it should still not be hard to beleive the bible is a work of fiction.

lol. u sound liek abraham

Enjoy wooing people with your sophistry while you can, anyone with sense will join me in ignoring your dribble.
I noticed that Obbe has a knack for steering threads into the direction of discussing "objective reality" when that wasn't the intent of the OP.

Most message boards that I belong to have rules against hi-jacking threads. I guess this one doesn't?

Title says it. No, it can not be sinceeverexistant, or anything like that. There has to be day one for everything, and we are leaving Mr. Big Bang out of this.

inb4 how was teh big banging and da univers hapens?bsbsbs
edit:inb4 obbe

existence can be eternal (natural) but "god" (supernatural) cant? how did space and time come to exist?

I dont care. "mine not to reason why. mine but to do and die." worrying about things like that is pointless, but atheists have no more argument than religious people do. Religious people believe "god" is magic, or eternal, just like atheists believe time and space is magic, or eternal. the way it is, is the way it is, so why spend your time thinking about something that you not only have no control over, but will never have a way of knowing as long as you are alive?

Most message boards that I belong to have rules against hi-jacking threads. I guess this one doesn't?

Nope. As long as you don't post personal information (e.g. pictures of another member when he hasn't given permission, an IP address, credit card numbers etc.), spam the forum, or post something that could get the forum in trouble (e.g. illegal material, child pornography, etc.) then it's pretty much aloud.

Very intense "high jacking" can sometimes be considered Spam though.

I dont care. "mine not to reason why. mine but to do and die." worrying about things like that is pointless, but atheists have no more argument than religious people do. Religious people believe "god" is magic, or eternal, just like atheists believe time and space is magic, or eternal. the way it is, is the way it is, so why spend your time thinking about something that you not only have no control over, but will never have a way of knowing as long as you are alive?

Why not? Its interresting. This is a forum designed for people to share there thoughts about personal and spiritual subjects and spark up an interresting discussion based on that. Theorizing is pretty much what this forum is build on.

Why not? Its interresting. This is a forum designed for people to share there thoughts about personal and spiritual subjects and spark up an interresting discussion based on that. Theorizing is pretty much what this forum is build on.

because it's the same thing everywhere, the same argument. only this guy is asking a question, then telling people who believe in god, they can only answer it in a way that doesn't discount his idea that he seems to think is original. to say one thing can be eternal, and to say something else cant be is stupid, specially when the one you are saying is eternal is supposed to be based on "science and logic", when in reality atheists beliefs are based in ignorance, and on faith just as much as most religious people who "know they are right".

the only religion i say is wrong is one that says that nature, and it's laws (obviously created by "god" if he exists) are evil, wich is 90% of religion. just like witches, they "convert" from christianity, then go on and on, explaining how their religion is EXACTLY LIKE CHRISTIANITY, only instead of praying to ghosts, they light candles, and throw some fairy dust to make their problems go away :rolleyes: these are the things i can say with certainty are wrong. any religion that doesn't contradict obvious truths are fine.

It certainly seems that the forum goes in circles from time to time. With the same arguments. But nontheless there are some interresting threads from time to time, and saying its futile to argue about is pretty ignorant. You dont have to 'prove' anything as fact to expand your mind.

There is no point to be on a thread talking about something that is so deeply personal as for it to be completely non-universal and unrelated to other people. That 'feeling' is so inane at this level, you might as well not even speak of it.

Again, a firm belief in the uselessness of thinking about what you do not understand and a pathological interest in other people.

Trying to 'uncover' an objective reality by comparing your subjective experience with another persons is little different then masturbation because you are assuming those people are a part of objective reality in the first place. That seems silly and pointless to me.

Speaking about anything is inane, nobody really knows what the fuck they are talking about. Why would talking with another person about my opinion on God be any more pointless then talking with another person about anything else? How is it less pointless to talk about anything else then it is to talk about the origins of existence, or the infinity of time and space?

So Obbe, apart for those amazingly witty replies, is Hare correct or not?

I don't know, can you objectively tell me?

You cannot make a statement without presupposing some objective order, and thus to assert that such an order does not exist commits you to contradiction.

Where have I stated that objective reality does not exist?

Why must I assume there is an objective oder to reality before I can make a subjective statement about it??

I noticed that Obbe has a knack for steering threads into the direction of discussing "objective reality" when that wasn't the intent of the OP.

Most message boards that I belong to have rules against hi-jacking threads. I guess this one doesn't?

Yeah, the OP intended this thread to discuss the origins of God, what the fuck could that possibly have to do with this "objective reality" bullshit? No way did the thread progress this way, no way was the OP just a troll in the fist place, he had honest intentions for this thread. Obbe deserves a smack upside the head.

Do you, Roxberry, have anything to say on topic? About the origins of God? Because you don't appear to have said anything about that ... you know, the topic.

I don't know, can you objectively tell me?


A question does not answer a question so I don't see any other option but to assume that you cannot answer him and therefore offered only those childish responses to him.

A question does not answer a question so I don't see any other option but to assume that you cannot answer him and therefore offered only those childish responses to him.

Answer him what? Nowhere in his posts do I see a question, just statements attempting to describe me.

Obviously I don't know if he is correct. His main point was:

You cannot make a statement without presupposing some objective order, and thus to assert that such an order does not exist commits you to contradiction.

... and I do not recall making such a statement, nor do I understand why I must first assume there is an objective oder to reality before I can make a subjective statement about it.

If you know the answer, feel free to share it.

Answer him what? Nowhere in his posts do I see a question, just statements attempting to describe me.

Obviously I don't know if he is correct. His main point was:

Answer what? His main point, just as you quoted right there.



... and I do not recall making such a statement,

Allow me to refresh your memory then:

"At this time, you cannot verify that an objective reality actually exists!"

-Obbe.


nor do I understand why I must first assume there is an objective oder to reality before I can make a subjective statement about it.

He already explained that,

"Your statement asserts that there is an object, and that a property inheres in said object."

- Hare.

If you don't agree the proper course of action is to ask him, not to ignore his point and make childish responses.

Allow me to refresh your memory then

Are you dense? How is that stating that there is no objective reality?

He already explained that

Thats not an explanation, thats a statement.

If you don't agree the proper course of action is to ask him, not to ignore his point and make childish responses.

According to what?

Are you dense? How is that stating that there is no objective reality?

Are you dense? Where did I say you stated there was no objective reality, so as to necessitate that I provide a statement that you did?

He said that to state that "to assert that such an order does not exist commits you to contradiction". Thus either you don't deny an order exists, or you do and contradict yourself, hence making the statement you did make quite relevant.


Thats not an explanation, thats a statement.

A statement that explains why he believes you're wrong.


According to what?

According to what would say are common courtesy practices in an argument. If you don't want to abide by them, the go right ahead. Not only can I then cease such courtesies with you if I so desire, but I would love nothing more than to make your childishness even more blatant.

Are you dense? Where did I say you stated there was no objective reality, so as to necessitate that I provide a statement that you did?

He said that to state that "to assert that such an order does not exist commits you to contradiction". Thus either you don't deny an order exists, or you do and contradict yourself, hence making the statement you did make quite relevant.

How does the statement "At this time, you cannot verify that an objective reality actually exists!" make the assertion that an objective reality does not exist?

Simply because you cannot verify something does exist does not mean it does not exist.

And again, I do not understand how making a subjective statement about reality means I have assumed an objective reality exists.

A statement that explains why he believes you're wrong.

Unfortunately I don't understand how.

According to what would say are common courtesy practices in an argument. If you don't want to abide by them, the go right ahead. Not only can I then cease such courtesies with you if I so desire, but I would love nothing more than to make your childishness even more blatant.

You would love nothing more? Thats pathetic dude.

I think its common courtesy to make sure your side of the argument is understood by the opposing side instead of writing up a pretentious paragraph before running off and ignoring the opposition, and deleting any further posts.

You want to use my childish antics with another poster as a justification for using childish antics on me yourself? Go ahead, make whatever kind of justifications you feel you need to. I'm just going to do it anyway.

How does the statement "At this time, you cannot verify that an objective reality actually exists!" make the assertion that an objective reality does not exist?

Whether it does or it doesn't is irrelevant since I didn't claim it did, and therefore I don't have a burden to show where it did, nor do you have a justification for implying (though I bet you'd sleazily say it was just a question) that I'm dense.


Simply because you cannot verify something does exist does not mean it does not exist.
Correct. Did I say otherwise?

You ignored the point:

"He said that to state that "to assert that such an order does not exist commits you to contradiction". Thus either you don't deny an order exists, or you do and contradict yourself, hence making the statement you did make quite relevant."

Either you don't deny an order exists or you do and contradict yourself. If you're claiming you didn't say objective order does not exist with your statement, then you're doing the former.


And again, I do not understand how making a subjective statement about reality means I have assumed an objective reality exists. All the more reason why you should ask him and not ignore his points.

Unfortunately I don't understand how.See above: that's an excellent reason for asking him instead of ignoring his points.


You would love nothing more? Thats pathetic dude.It was a figure of speech. You taking it as literal, not that is pathetic.

I think its common courtesy to make sure your side of the argument is understood by the opposing side instead of writing up a pretentious paragraph before running off and ignoring the opposition, and deleting any further posts.How do you expect him to know whether it's understood if you don't say anything regarding the argument? Telepathy? If you didn't understand it, then you should bring that up, not ignore his points and make childish comments that don't give any clue whether you understood his point or whether you need clarification.


You want to use my childish antics with another poster as a justification for using childish antics on me yourself? Go ahead, make whatever kind of justifications you feel you need to. I'm just going to do it anyway.

Huh? Please re-read what I said. I said I could cease the courtesies with you. Could. Not "want to". Could.

You try much too hard.

Whether it does or it doesn't is irrelevant since I didn't claim it did

Then why are you arguing it?

Either you don't deny an order exists or you do and contradict yourself. If you're claiming you didn't say objective order does not exist with your statement, then you're doing the former.

This should be obvious. Although, even if I had gone right out and asserted that there is no objective reality, I still do not understand how making such a statement is a contradiction.

All the more reason why you should ask him and not ignore his points.

Not really, because I don't really care.

If he removed his head form his ass long enough to explain it in more layman terms, maybe I would have asked him what he meant if I still didn't understand it. But seeing as he was planning on just ignoring whatever I responded with in the first place, it doesn't really make a difference what I said.

How do you expect him to know whether it's understood if you don't say anything regarding the argument?

I think not responding to the argument is a fair indication.

But thats beyond the point, because he wasn't planning on responding anyways. Apparently he ignores me. It doesn't really make a difference what I responded with.

Although, it seems to have got you all bothered.

Huh? Please re-read what I said. I said I could cease the courtesies with you. Could. Not "want to". Could.

Well aren't I a lucky one to experience these courtesies of Rust as you argue for another poster.

Not really, because I don't really care.

You don't care that someone may have finally answered one of your questions about objective reality, so that you can emerge from your (feigned) turmoil of doubt? I thought not. You just like to derail threads, don't you? And to play your sophistic games, right?

If he removed his head form his ass long enough to explain it in more layman terms, maybe I would have asked him what he meant if I still didn't understand it. But seeing as he was planning on just ignoring whatever I responded with in the first place, it doesn't really make a difference what I said.

I said I'd ignore your dribble, not you. And I thought I was writing in layman's terms.

You try much too hard/

If you think this is hard, then that's pretty pathetic.


Then why are you arguing it?

Arguing what? Care to clarify what you mean by "it"? You asked me where you had claim that objective reality doesn't exist and I'm explaining to you that I don't have to answer that question you asked me because I didn't claim you said that.

This should be obvious. Although, even if I had gone right out and asserted that there is no objective reality, I still do not understand how making such a statement is a contradiction.

Then your initial question doesn't discount the argument you were making it against. Wonderful. I'm glad we agree.

As for you not understanding how that is a contradiction, again, must I remind you that you can ask Hare a question?



Not really, because I don't really care.

If he removed his head form his ass long enough to explain it in more layman terms, maybe I would have asked him what he meant if I still didn't understand it. But seeing as he was planning on just ignoring whatever I responded with in the first place, it doesn't really make a difference what I said.


You don't care whether your questions regarding objective reality can finally be answered? How utterly childish of you.

As for him explaining it in "more layman terms", how is he supposed to know what's layman to you or what isn't. As far was I know, he's not psychic, so he'll always need you to request a clearer explanation.

Of course if you don't want clarification and want to deliberatly ignore his points, then that's fine too. That just exposes your childihsness to more people.



I think not responding to the argument is a fair indication.

But thats beyond the point, because he wasn't planning on responding anyways. Apparently he ignores me. It doesn't really make a difference what I responded with.

Although, it seems to have got you all bothered.


1. It is definately not a "fair indication" since "not responding to the argument" is the exact response we'd expect from someone that wants to ignore the points at hand.

How would we differantiate you - an honest Totse community member that sincerely wants to be clarified on the given subject - and, for example, a dishonest piece of shit that wants to ignore arguments that have just refuted his worldview?

2. How do you know he wasn't planning on responding?

3. How am I "all bothered"? If you're bothered by the conversation, or if you think this would bother you, then please don't project that on me. I'm quite unbothered by this.


Well aren't I a lucky one to experience these courtesies of Rust as you argue for another poster.

You consider that lucky? Well that's weird. Or was that a lame attempt at sarcasm?

Thought I'd post a link to an article some of you might find interesting.

The Stolen Concept (http://www.nathanielbranden.com/catalog/articles_essays/the_stolen_concept.html).

The Stolen Concept (http://www.nathanielbranden.com/catalog/articles_essays/the_stolen_concept.html).

That is a good article that is essentially getting at what I am getting at; being "dogmatically" Kantian, however, I cannot entirely agree with the writer's empiricism, nor can I hide my disdain for Randoids and their tendency to misrepresent anarchist theory by taking quotes out of context.

You don't care that someone may have finally answered one of your questions about objective reality, so that you can emerge from your (feigned) turmoil of doubt?

I was asking a question about objective reality?

No, actually I was asking kiko why thinking about the origins of the universe or God is any more inane then thinking about anything else. The inability to verify an objective reality was part of my point; its unfortunate that your assumption that I was denying the existence of an objective reality based solely on that inability has derailed this thread so much.

Oh, and tell me, when have I ever expressed turmoil over the inability to verify an objective reality?

I thought not. You just like to derail threads, don't you? And to play your sophistic games, right?

The thread never would have gotten this off topic if

a)kiko continued to respond

b)you didn't assume what I meant by that statement

c)rust's blood-lust for pointing out the shortcomings of others

I would love to go back to the discussion I was having with kiko, about the origins of God/the universe and why thinking about these things are inane, if only you would let it happen.

I said I'd ignore your dribble, not you. And I thought I was writing in layman's terms.

Hope you respond to this then. Unfortunately, I did not understand it as you wrote it. Even if I had gone right out and asserted that there is no objective reality, I still do not understand how making such a statement is a contradiction.

No, actually I was asking kiko why thinking about the origins of the universe or God is any more inane then thinking about anything else. The inability to verify an objective reality was part of my point; its unfortunate that your assumption that I was denying the existence of an objective reality based solely on that inability has derailed this thread so much.

Actually, I was pointing out the stupidity of declaring that we cannot know an objective order, because such a statement itself presupposes an objective order and asserts something as true. My statement that to deny an objective order is to commit a contradiction was a side comment.

Hope you respond to this then. Unfortunately, I did not understand it as you wrote it. Even if I had gone right out and asserted that there is no objective reality, I still do not understand how making such a statement is a contradiction.

If you want, I can make a thread explaining it. I just know you want to get back to your discussion, and try and convince kiko that he cannot know anything, don't you?

If you think this is hard, then that's pretty pathetic.

I think its a lot of wasted effort on your part. All your arguments always seem to turn into nit-picking over off topic points like: "Arguing what? Care to clarify what you mean by "it"?".

Actually, I was pointing out the stupidity of declaring that we cannot know an objective order, because such a statement itself presupposes an objective order and asserts something as true.

Well this I understand, but I don't mind. Its the same as saying "I don't know anything" could be a contradiction, because apparently the speaker "knows" they don't know anything. Of course, they don't.

Sure its a contradiction. That does not mean that the opposite becomes true; that you can verify an objective reality.

If you want, I can make a thread explaining it. I just know you want to get back to your discussion, and try and convince kiko that he cannot know anything, don't you?

Did I get it above? If not, go ahead and make that thread then.

Why would I try to convince kiko he cannot know anything? I just want to hear kiko's opinion on why thinking about God or the origins of reality is any more inane then thinking about anything else.

I think its a lot of wasted effort on your part. All your arguments always seem to turn into nit-picking over off topic points like: "Arguing what? Care to clarify what you mean by "it"?".

1. Asking you to clarify what you mean (i.e. Care to clarify what you mean by "it"?) is not neither "nitpicking" nor "off-topic".

2. I don't believe reading and writing take much effort; but maybe you do...

3. This "argument" of mine would have ended really quickly had you actually bothered replying to Hare or giving a good explanation why you did not. Instead, you accused him of being unclear without putting any fault on you for not asking for clarification or making it know that you needed it in the first place!

Speaking about anything is inane, nobody really knows what the fuck they are talking about. Why would talking with another person about my opinion on God be any more pointless then talking with another person about anything else? How is it less pointless to talk about anything else then it is to talk about the origins of existence, or the infinity of time and space?



Because it is exactly that, opinion. No fact, evidence, or support. It's like asking "what's the best flavor of ice cream" and you give your own opinion as if it were fact and applicable to all people. Yet, the answer to the beginning of the universe is not opinion, so why speak of it as if a baseless opinion would be of any value to the rest of us? Until there is some credible reason to believe in one theory or another, suspension of belief seems most reasonable. And I don't mean to say that thinking about this is pointless for all, some great scientists may be able to shed more light on this subject over time, but I am surely not one of those people, so I'd rather not waste energy.

I probably shouldn't have used the word 'inane' to begin with, more like...pointless.

Your statement asserts that there is an object, and that a property inheres in said object. In fact, all statements make such an assertion. You cannot make a statement without presupposing some objective order, and thus to assert that such an order does not exist commits you to contradiction.

I don't get this either, care to help me?

What I've gathered is this:

1. A statement about an object assumes certain properties that that object has.
2. A statement like this assumes an objective order.
3. To assume you cannot know an objective order is a contradiction.

But I don't quite understand 3. I mean, yes, when I look at something I see it as having certain properties, and to me these properties are constant (usually) and so I'm assuming a certain objectivity to it. But to accept the possibility that my perception of reality is not truly objective... How is this a contradiction, seems like a rational afterthought to me. I mean, yes, it doesn't lead us anywhere directly, but does it need to.

If I've got this super wrong... Well... Oops.

On another note, you guys really seem to take it personally when Obbe says he can't prove Objective reality. When I see it, I don't think,'Obbe is telling me nothing exists', I think ,'I can't prove anything exists, that something does exist is evident due to the fact I'm here. but at the same time everyone seems to see the world differantly to me, so I'm gonna keep in mind that no matter what I believe I may be wrong.' I think everyone takes things to absolutely. Maybe I'm just misinterpreting.

Obbe, when you say that you can't prove objective reality, what do you mean? I mean, I think more or less the same thing, but I want to know what you mean by it, and what the implcations are etc. .... If you don't mind :D

He is saying that "to assert that such an order does not exist commits you to contradiction" That is not equivalent to what you have in number 3. In fact, Hare went on to clarify: "My statement that to deny an objective order is to commit a contradiction was a side comment."

They very statement "You can't prove objective reality" is already assuming objective reality exists. So the statement is either contradictory - if it's asserting that objective reality does not exist i.e. Hare's side comment - or irrelevant/dishonest/silly.

It's the equivalent of saying: "I'm assuming P; you can't prove P.". Well... you are assuming P to begin with!

There was always space and time. God was created by man to explain what is unexplained in life. Such as how did the universe come to be? the big bang? how did that come about.


Physasist are working to solve these questions, dont try them on your own or you will drive yourself insane.

One word "Zeitgeist" watch the movie its coolio

zeitgeistmovie.com

One word "Zeitgeist" watch the movie its coolio

zeitgeistmovie.com

Goodness, that has absolutely nothing to do with where any god may have possibly come from. It has to do with the cult of Jesus of Nazareth.

Because it is exactly that, opinion.

What isn't? You cannot verify an objective reality exists, so anything a person could think or talk about is their subjective opinion.

How then is it more inane (or pointless, if you would prefer) to think about the origins of existence/God/whatever then about anything else?

It's like asking "what's the best flavor of ice cream" and you give your own opinion as if it were fact and applicable to all people.

Who did this? I certainly haven't. I don't think its possible to verify an objective reality.

Yet, the answer to the beginning of the universe is not opinion, so why speak of it as if a baseless opinion would be of any value to the rest of us?

If any other persons subjective perspectives of reality are of no value to us, then I suppose intersubjective conversations like this are pretty pointless, no?

How is a conversation about anything else less pointless then a conversation about God?

Until there is some credible reason to believe in one theory or another, suspension of belief seems most reasonable.

According to this since we cannot verify an objective reality, it must be most reasonable to suspend any belief in it.

Why then is it less pointless to think about anything else that could fall under the term 'reality' then about God?

Obbe, when you say that you can't prove objective reality, what do you mean? I mean, I think more or less the same thing, but I want to know what you mean by it, and what the implcations are etc. .... If you don't mind :D

I mean that I cannot verify the existence of an objective reality. That I do not know one exists.

They very statement "You can't prove objective reality" is already assuming objective reality exists.

How? Thats like saying the statement "You can't prove God exists" is already assuming God exists.

Or are you all hung up on the "you"? That by referring to someone else, the speaker must be assuming that person objectively exists?

If so, why must the speaker be assuming that?

What isn't? You cannot verify an objective reality exists, so anything a person could think or talk about is their subjective opinion.

An opinion is a personal judgment. A fact is something which can be verified intersubjectively. There is no "best flavored ice cream" as this is based on taste - a secondary quality. But the fact that the cone holding the ice cream has a definite shape is a primary quality - one that is not based on opinion.



If any other persons subjective perspectives of reality are of no value to us, then I suppose intersubjective conversations like this are pretty pointless, no?


I've answered this previously.

As for the whole "objective reality" thing, you obviously didn't read a word hare wrote or read the article on the Stolen Concept Fallacy.

How? Thats like saying the statement "You can't prove God exists" is already assuming God exists.

Or are you all hung up on the "you"? That by referring to someone else, the speaker must be assuming that person objectively exists?

If so, why must the speaker be assuming that?

Read the article on the Stolen Concept fallacy and I think things will make more sense. The point is that you're using concepts that are based on and imported from the notion of objective reality.

What isn't? You cannot verify an objective reality exists, so anything a person could think or talk about is their subjective opinion.

How then is it more inane (or pointless, if you would prefer) to think about the origins of existence/God/whatever then about anything else?
Because we can't say anything exists with 100% certainty, all discussions, thoughts, etc. have equal validity and are all equally pointless/important? Is there equal justification for searching for the invisible dragon in my garage as there is for a cure for disease?

An opinion is a personal judgment. A fact is something which can be verified intersubjectively. There is no "best flavored ice cream" as this is based on taste - a secondary quality. But the fact that the cone holding the ice cream has a definite shape is a primary quality - one that is not based on opinion.

My experience of the ice cream cones shape and the verification of its existence by others is all part of my subjective perspective of reality. I don't know if it is not objective reality any more then I know it really is.

How is it more pointless to think about what might be the origins of God/existence then my subjective experience of what might be objectively real?

I've answered this previously.

As for the whole "objective reality" thing, you obviously didn't read a word hare wrote or read the article on the Stolen Concept Fallacy.

Read the article on the Stolen Concept fallacy and I think things will make more sense. The point is that you're using concepts that are based on and imported from the notion of objective reality.

Alright, now I think I understand what they're hung up on: Stating that objective reality cannot be verified assumes an objective order itself; that it cannot be verified.

But I don't understand why that should matter ... the statement is part of my subjective experience, it cannot be objectively known any more then the rest of reality. I don't know if can be verified or not. I don't know if I really don't know that or not, and so on and so forth.

Because we can't say anything exists with 100% certainty, all discussions, thoughts, etc. have equal validity and are all equally pointless/important?

In the grand scheme of things, that is my opinion yes.

Is there equal justification for searching for the invisible dragon in my garage as there is for a cure for disease?

It depends on what I am more interested in.

i shit him out one boring thursday afternoon

God came to exist in the same way the loch ness monster, little green men, zombie elvis, and big foot did.

God came to exist in the same way the loch ness monster, little green men, zombie elvis, and big foot did.

Through God?

In the grand scheme of things, that is my opinion yes.
So people suffering are just as important as inane conversations in the grand scheme of things because you can not prove 100% that they exist?

Don't you think it's pretty likely that since you feel pain, the others that your senses tell you exist also feel pain? Sure, you can't prove they actually exist, but isn't there a darn good chance you exist because you were born of two parents and people are real and not an illusion? Doesn't the chance that others exist warrant caring about them more than, say, rocks? You do believe others actually exist, don't you?



It depends on what I am more interested in.

You asked earlier:


How then is it more inane (or pointless, if you would prefer) to think about the origins of existence/God/whatever then about anything else?
Most of us don't use lack of absolute proof to think whatever we're most interested in at the moment is most important. I don't believe you do either. We don't believe because there's no absolute proof of a bleeding child on the road that are senses perceive is just as important as scratching an itch on our back and moving along to do something fun. I don't believe you believe this either.

Congrats on another successful thread hijack. I looked at your past posts and you've been up to derailing conversations talking about the exact same thing for quite a while now. You'd never get away with this on 99% of message boards and I have no idea why you've been allowed to get away with it here.

So people suffering are just as important as inane conversations in the grand scheme of things because you can not prove 100% that they exist?

Why do you think otherwise? Why is one thing less pointless then another?

Don't you think it's pretty likely that since you feel pain, the others that your senses tell you exist also feel pain? Sure, you can't prove they actually exist, but isn't there a darn good chance you exist because you were born of two parents and people are real and not an illusion? Doesn't the chance that others exist warrant caring about them more than, say, rocks?

It really depends what you are more interested in.

You do believe others actually exist, don't you?

I believe that all exists. Or, you know, God.

Most of us don't use lack of absolute proof to think whatever we're most interested in at the moment is most important. I don't believe you do either. We don't believe because there's no absolute proof of a bleeding child on the road that are senses perceive is just as important as scratching an itch on our back and moving along to do something fun. I don't believe you believe this either.

During this moment of decision, what "absolute proof" would I have that I indeed have an itchy back, and that there are more fun activities to move on to? Why would these things be considered less pointless then helping a bleeding child?

Congrats on another successful thread hijack.

:rolleyes:

During this moment of decision, what "absolute proof" would I have that I indeed have an itchy back, and that there are more fun activities to move on to? Why would these things be considered less pointless then helping a bleeding child?
You said, "I believe that all exists". So fuck absolute proof. If you think scratching your back is as important as helping a bleeding child, you're just a dick. More likely you're enjoying the freedom to troll here without the consequences you'd have on other boards.

If you think scratching your back is as important as helping a bleeding child, you're just a dick.

How so?

How? Thats like saying the statement "You can't prove God exists" is already assuming God exists.

No, it's not like that. Your analogy is atrocious.

By claiming "You can't prove Objective reality" you're not only referring to someone else but you're making a statements that implies a certain impossibility to begin with! You're not just talking to someone else, you're assuming to know what's possible or impossible in the reality he is supposedly existing in!

My experience of the ice cream cones shape and the verification of its existence by others is all part of my subjective perspective of reality. I don't know if it is not objective reality any more then I know it really is.

How is it more pointless to think about what might be the origins of God/existence then my subjective experience of what might be objectively real?



Imagine this: you and group of people try to decide which is the best flavor of ice cream out there. Will there be a conclusive answer from this? No, ergo it is quite inane and pointless. But, if you and a group of people try to decide what characteristics of the cone's shape, an answer can be produced. Ergo, this endeavour is not inane or pointless. See what I'm getting at? Some endevours are worth while, others are not.

Through God?

Human imagination.

Imagine this: you and group of people try to decide which is the best flavor of ice cream out there. Will there be a conclusive answer from this? No, ergo it is quite inane and pointless.

You know that there can be no best flavor? You know that there cannot exist some orgasmic, objectively greatest flavor?

But, if you and a group of people try to decide what characteristics of the cone's shape, an answer can be produced. Ergo, this endeavour is not inane or pointless.

My experience of the ice cream cones shape and the verification of its existence by others is all part of my subjective perspective of reality. I don't know if it is not objective reality any more then I know it really is.

See what I'm getting at? Some endevours are worth while, others are not.

No, I'm not. I see both the above scenarios as pointless. How is one less pointless then the other? Why is it "worthwhile" to verify what is reality? Even though trying to verify my subjective experience is "correct" by comparing it to nothing but my own subjective experience, seems a little like masturbation...

God came to exist when humans needed a way to control other humans. :)

Gee, I guess this conversation must be considered too useless to continue. Better to distract yourself with interests in other people, right?

Better to hold 'your life' very close to your face like a nearsighted man reading the newspaper, so as to block out the reality of this existence. Right?