I close my eyes and see a flock of birds. The vision lasts a second or perhaps less; I am not sure how many birds I saw. Was the number of birds definite or indefinite? The problem involves the existence of God. If God exists, the number is definite, because God knows how many birds I saw. If God does not exist, the number is indefinite, because no one can have counted. In this case I saw fewer than ten birds (let us say) and more than one, but did not see nine, eight, seven, six, five, four, three or two birds. I saw a number between ten and one, which was not nine , eight, seven, six, five, etc. That integer -- not-nine, not-eight, not-seven, not-six, not-five, etc. -- is inconceivable. Ergo, God exists.

So, you saw a number of birds between 1 and 10, yet you didn't see a number of birds between 1 and 10? Sorry, that makes no sense.

If something is inconceivable, God must exist? You didn't tell us why and your conclusion did not follow from its premise (a (non sequitur) making it a fallacious argument.

The Ratio of all we'll ever know is not the same as when we know more.

What nonsense.

I do not see how this would verify God exists or not. Sorry.

At least give some credit to Borges... Geez...

I close my eyes and see a flock of birds. The vision lasts a second or perhaps less; I am not sure how many birds I saw. Was the number of birds definite or indefinite? The problem involves the existence of God. If God exists, the number is definite, because God knows how many birds I saw. If God does not exist, the number is indefinite, because no one can have counted. In this case I saw fewer than ten birds (let us say) and more than one, but did not see nine, eight, seven, six, five, four, three or two birds. I saw a number between ten and one, which was not nine , eight, seven, six, five, etc. That integer -- not-nine, not-eight, not-seven, not-six, not-five, etc. -- is inconceivable. Ergo, God exists.

This problem also depends on whether or not "God" determines yr perception, if so, well perception determines yr cognitive reality. If so, there is no "I" which you can claim, there is only an infinite God which controls yr actions, thoughts, emotions, and perceptions.

Look more closely and you'll stare at the birds and wonder - where does one start and one end? And then you'll realize there is no way to separate anything from anything else and yr question will implode in upon itself only leads birds flying, a heart singing, and a complete lack of control while being head of the universe.

Just in case you guys don't know, that is actually a poem by Jorge Luis Borges. It's not meant to be a philosophical proof of god(s). It's in fact meant as sort of a parody and critique of these types of arguments.

Hell not only was Borges blind - making the continual allusions to seeing a flock of birds playful/ironic not to mention of epistemological importance - but he also didn't believe in god ("Ernesto Sabato: - But tell me Borges, if you don't believe in God, Why do you write so many theological stories? Borges: I believe in theology as fantasy literature. It's the perfection of the genre." [1] (http://usuarios.lycos.es/elpoeta/borges/charla.htm))

Look more closely and you'll stare at the birds and wonder - where does one start and one end? And then you'll realize there is no way to separate anything from anything else and yr question will implode in upon itself only leads birds flying, a heart singing, and a complete lack of control while being head of the universe.

I honestly can't believe you can write that load of crap with a straight face. Holy shit.

I honestly can't believe you can write that load of crap with a straight face. Holy shit.

what makes you think I've got a straight face? :)

I close my eyes and see a flock of birds. The vision lasts a second or perhaps less; I am not sure how many birds I saw. Was the number of birds definite or indefinite? The problem involves the existence of God. If God exists, the number is definite, because God knows how many birds I saw. If God does not exist, the number is indefinite, because no one can have counted. In this case I saw fewer than ten birds (let us say) and more than one, but did not see nine, eight, seven, six, five, four, three or two birds. I saw a number between ten and one, which was not nine , eight, seven, six, five, etc. That integer -- not-nine, not-eight, not-seven, not-six, not-five, etc. -- is inconceivable. Ergo, God exists.

This is called confusion/ignorance. If a camera saw the same thing, you could go back, watch the tape, and then know how many there were. This piece of knowledge is contingent. So then, god exists one moment and not the next? That is to say, before watching the tape, no one knew how many you saw and god did not exist. The next, you watched the tape and you know how many birds there had been, and therefore god did exist. Awesome!!!!

So, you saw a number of birds between 1 and 10, yet you didn't see a number of birds between 1 and 10? Sorry, that makes no sense.

If something is inconceivable, God must exist? You didn't tell us why and your conclusion did not follow from its premise (a (non sequitur) making it a fallacious argument.

Well said.

IMHO, we create our own reality, which is what is meant by the Vedic saying "We are not in the world--the world is in us."

Well said.

IMHO, we create our own reality, which is what is meant by the Vedic saying "We are not in the world--the world is in us."
Thanks for the compliment, but- huh? Our minds don't create what's real. There is either a computer monitor on my desk or there isn't. Whether or not I believe it's there or it's an illusion or I'm dreaming, etc., does not change what's real or not.

Whether or not I believe it's there or it's an illusion or I'm dreaming, etc., does not change what's real or not.

Certainly, but are you able to verify what is real and not?

Certainly, but are you able to verify what is real and not?
That has zero to do with my point or ArmsMerchant's claim.

That has zero to do with my point or ArmsMerchant's claim.

It does, because I think Arms was talking about subjective perception of reality, not what is objectively reality.

And really, is there an objective reality?

So, you saw a number of birds between 1 and 10, yet you didn't see a number of birds between 1 and 10? Sorry, that makes no sense.

Not that this was intended as a philosophical proof in the first place - like I said it was a poem - but at no point in time does he state that "he didn't see a number of birds between 1 and 10". He explicitly states he did, and not otherwise.

It does, because I think Arms was talking about subjective perception of reality, not what is objectively reality.
It didn't sound like it. He said we "create our own reality". I've heard claims like this before and folks making it are usually saying something other than our perceptions being different. That our perceptions are subjective is usually agreed upon by most people.

And really, is there an objective reality?
I think I made my views about reality clear using my monitor on my desktop example.


but at no point in time does he state that "he didn't see a number of birds between 1 and 10". He explicitly states he did, and not otherwise.

I saw a number between ten and one, which was not nine , eight, seven, six, five, etc. That integer -- not-nine, not-eight, not-seven, not-six, not-five, etc. -- is inconceivable. Ergo, God exists.
I take the etc. part to mean he is counting down to "not-one". If he wasn't using "etc." to count down to one, then there's nothing inconceivable about seeing seeing certain number of birds between one and ten.

It didn't sound like it. He said we "create our own reality". I've heard claims like this before and folks making it are usually saying something other than our perceptions being different. That our perceptions are subjective is usually agreed upon by most people.


I think I made my views about reality clear using my monitor on my desktop example.

Maybe subjective perception is reality. Maybe thats what arms was getting at.

You made it quite clear that you believe the monitor is objectively real based on your subjective perception of it existing. Unfortunately that does not mean you have confirmed it does.

You made it quite clear that you believe the monitor is objectively real based on your subjective perception of it existing. Unfortunately that does not mean you have confirmed it does.
How did I make that clear? I made it clear that the monitor either exists or doesn't regardless of my beliefs. I never claimed the monitor is "objectively real".

I take the etc. part to mean he is counting down to "not-one". If he wasn't using "etc." to count down to one, then there's nothing inconceivable about seeing seeing certain number of birds between one and ten.

What think the poem refers to by "inconceivable" is the indefinite nature of the number of birds seen. He doesn't know what number it is. When he saying "not-nine, "not-eight... etc." he is representing his doubt - his reticence - in asserting it was one of them specifically. Remember, it's a poem.

Thanks for the compliment, but- huh? Our minds don't create what's real. There is either a computer monitor on my desk or there isn't. Whether or not I believe it's there or it's an illusion or I'm dreaming, etc., does not change what's real or not.

It's a computer monitor if you tell yrself it is, but if you don't tell yrself what it is, you have no idea what it is.

What think the poem refers to by "inconceivable" is the indefinite nature of the number of birds seen. He doesn't know what number it is. When he saying "not-nine, "not-eight... etc." he is representing his doubt - his reticence - in asserting it was one of them specifically. Remember, it's a poem.
Rust, you said the following:

"but at no point in time does he state that "he didn't see a number of birds between 1 and 10". He explicitly states he did, and not otherwise."

I showed you that he did indeed say otherwise. "Inconceivable" means inconceivable. Unable to be conceived. The author is saying a number between one and ten that is not between one and ten is inconceivable. Of course it is. The author did say what I claimed he did and you claimed he didn't.

It's a computer monitor if you tell yrself it is, but if you don't tell yrself what it is, you have no idea what it is.
No, it's either a computer monitor or it isn't; what I tell myself is irrelevant.

I showed you that he did indeed say otherwise.

No you did not. You showed how he said "not-nine", "not-eight" etc. And I told you how that could mean that he is showing doubt in each number. The fact that it's a poem, the fact that the guy doesn't believe in god, the fact that the treats theological writing as fantasy, should tell you this isn't a proper philosophical proof of god, but merely a literary work which uses literary devices in its writing.

What you're doing is tantamount to reading a Shakespearean Sonnet and saying he literally means what he says in his similes and/or metaphors.

No you did not. You showed how he said "not-nine", "not-eight" etc. And I told you how that could mean that he is showing doubt in each number.
It's not about doubt. "but did not see nine, eight...". He's saying that a number between one and ten that isn't between one and ten is inconceivable.

If what he was saying can be translated as, "I'm not sure if I saw nine, eight..." then the ending would not make sense:

"I saw a number between ten and one, which was not nine , eight, seven, six, five, etc. That integer -- not-nine, not-eight, not-seven, not-six, not-five, etc. -- is inconceivable"

Nothing about seeing a flock of birds ranging between one and ten but not being sure of the exact number is inconceivable and the author knows that, as that's not the message he's trying to convey. He's attempting to show that a paradox exists in that he saw a number between one and ten that's not between one and ten.




What you're doing is tantamount to reading a Shakespearean Sonnet and saying he literally means what he says in his similes and/or metaphors.
No, that's not what I'm doing at all. I don't have difficulty understanding similes and metaphor when it's intended.

Nothing about seeing a flock of birds ranging between one and ten but not being sure of the exact number is inconceivable

Yet that reasoning only follows if he's defining "inconceivable" as you are! If he means "inconceivable" as in "he cannot conceive of the exact number it is", then it does make sense.



No, that's not what I'm doing at all. I don't have difficulty understanding similes and metaphor when it's intended.

No, that's precisely what you're doing.

You keep using the statement as if he meant it literally and when posed with the possibility that he did not, you - somehow - conveniently determined that he didn't.

By the way, I'm not pulling this out of my ass. Philosophers and writers, agree that this is his meaning:

"Borges procura confundir al lector. Sabe que el numero tiene que ser finito, id est, definido. Sin embargo, para continuar la broma literaria, explica que tal numero es "inconcebible". Por inconcebible entiende indefinido. Cual es el fundamento de esta afirmacion? Su ignorancia del numero, tal como se lee en las lineas 8, 9 y 10"



"[I]Borges seeks to confuse the reader. He knows that the number must be finite, id est, defined. However, in order to continue the literary joke, he explains that the number is "inconceivable". By inconceivable, he means indefinite. What is the foundation of this affirmation? His ignorance of the number, just as it is read in lines 8, 9 and 10".

http://www.enfocarte.com/3.21/filosofia.html


The author goes on to examine the logic of the argument as if it were serious.

How did I make that clear? I made it clear that the monitor either exists or doesn't regardless of my beliefs. I never claimed the monitor is "objectively real".

I was mistaken then.

That is what I think Arms meant though.

Yeah, this is just a dry theological joke from Borges the Armchair Knifefighter. Not really a poem, although it was from The Maker which is mostly prose-poetry. He's poking fun at a few different theist stances... you can see similar logic in Aquinas' annoyingly circular take on the cosmological argument. It's interesting to see how people react to this -- for some reason, there are many who take it as a serious proof (I suppose Borges is not exactly known for his sense of humor). Of course Rust had to be all literate and ruin my fun.