Age and ''irrefutable''

[Peter Kropotkin]

Age: ''Well considering the ''irrefutable'' fact that there is only
one mind, which in a sense, is thee invisible one spirit, itself
and which both are just words denoting god''

and the crux of Age argument is this word, ''irrefutable''...

well, my handy dandy dictionary says this:

Irrefutable: impossible to deny or disprove. Irrefutable evidence...

now, for some people, the word irrefutable means god.. as apparently
does Age and yet, we have, as human beings, argued about god
and his nature for over 5000 years and have yet come across an
argument, either way, to prove or disprove god's existence...
god as being impossible to deny or disprove, is simply not true...

but I think that the bigger argument comes down to the
word itself ''irrefutable''.. I can't think of a single argument that
is ''irrefutable'', well, Kropotkin, the sky is blue... and yet, I have
seen the sky be orange, red, black, and one rare occasion, purple...
but Kropotkin, on the whole, the sky is blue... that is irrefutable...
but in reality, the earth's sky is really bluish violet...because of our
eyes, we see that as blue...our own eyes make the sky blue....
and thus, some may actually see the sky as being of different colors...
those who are color blind for example...or another example is
that sunlight is made up of all the colors we know, it appears to be white
when all the colors are together... and before there was oxygen...
the sky was orange... about 2.5 billion years ago... with different
chemicals in the air, the sky color changes...
and at no point, have we hit the sky being blue as being irrefutable...

so, what argument can we claim that is irrefutable?

all men die... that is irrefutable, and yet it isn't...
to know that all men have died, we have to know the fate
of all men/human beings... if one person has lived for thousand
of years, then it isn't not true that all men/human beings die....
and we cannot know if all human beings born have died...
that is simply information outside of our ability to get....

so, even a pretty clearly ''irrefutable'' statement becomes not
so irrefutable... I have brought this up before, but I shall do so again...
well, Kropotkin, one plus one equal two.. that is irrefutable...
and not so fast... take one stick, take another stick.. put them on the
ground....laying next to each other, do we have two sticks? no...
we have one stick lying next to another stick..
and how does a stick lying next to another stick create two sticks?

mathematically, the formula is 1 + 1 = .....

so far, so good.... but the tying together of the two sticks,
the plus sign is not within nature... there is no plus sign in nature..
the plus, the connection of two sticks happens inside our head...
the plus word is actually a mental action connecting two separate sticks..
and we have the word equal... that is not found within nature...
the equal sign is a human construct, as is the plus sign...
and thus 1 + 1 = 2 is really a human construct...

we mentally have connected the two sticks into a word we call two....
there is really no such thing as 1 + 1 = 2... one stick is just one stick
and the stick next to it, is still just one stick.. the connection between
the two is done within our head, mentally... thus one plus one equals two,
is not irrefutable...because it doesn't exists... outside of our own thinking....

so, what else is ''irrefutable?"....

nothing as far as I can tell... ummmm, physical objects exists...
ok, they exist as of right now... we human are physical objects...
and of right now, I exist... but soon, I will not.. I will no longer exist...
physical objects come and go all the time...that comes from entropy...
we travel from order to disorder and enough disorder, and we no longer
exist and our bodies in a continued state of entropy/disorder,
dissolve into basic cells... we become worm food... or as a book
says: ''dust to dust, ashes to ashes"... as words to
signify our continuous journey from order to disorder, dust to dust...
if there was an ''irrefutable'' aspect of life, it is this, and yet, and yet,
we even in this, we may be wrong.....if anything in life/existence is
irrefutable it is this notion of entropy... but we maybe wrong...
we can't be sure...thus even entropy, which seems to impact everything
in the universe, may not impact everything, we can't be sure...
thus, even entropy, may not be ''irrefutable''' we just can't be sure, as of now...

and yet, one might say, gravity or electromagnetisms...
as scientific principles, perhaps, but we may be seriously wrong
in our scientific theories... we just don't know yet.... we can hope
they are right, but we certainly can't say as theories, they are
''irrefutable''

So, what else might be ''irrefutable?" the problem is that every single
possible irrefutable thing in the universe, may not be ''irrefutable''
and in fact, it may have holes in it to drive a semi truck into it....
so, we cannot, in good conscience, hold to this idea of any
idea or thought as being ''irrefutable''....

Kropotkin

[Peter Kropotkin]

so let us take this idea of god, as being ''irrefutable''

again, Irrefutable: impossible to deny or disprove...
''irrefutable evidence''

so, some may believe that the idea of god is irrefutable....
and yet, the truth, as always, is something different....

and honest look at the universe show us that there is no physical
god in the universe and even believers hold that god is spirit...
as I understand spirit, it is not physical, not in the world
physically... thus it is not within the evidence of the world...

we don't see god with our eyes, we feel him in our heart....
that is spirit... nothing physical....as we say, 1 + 1 = 2...
the connection between 1 and 1 is the plus sign... which doesn't
actually exists within the world.. it is, to coin a phrase, it is spirit...
the plus sign is really just spirit... as is the equal sign... they don't exists
within the physical universe, but as mental constructs within our own mind...
so, what does the lesson of 1 + 1 = 2, mean in regard to god?
if god is spirit, as is the plus sign and the equal sign, then god is
actually a spirit, which is to say, it is a mental construct,
found only in our head... god as an idea, a mental construct
within our head... god, the plus sign, the equal sign all exists
within our own minds, as mental constructs, not physically existing...

and just as easily we can remove mental constructs, we can remove
the idea of god, the plus sign, the equal sign.... but I must admit
the mental idea of the plus sign and the equal sign, actually have
some value in the world, whereas the idea of god being a mental construct,
has no value, no worth in the world... it is pointless as an idea, as a
mental construct...at least we can do something with the plus sign
or the equal sign... but we can't do anything with this mental construct
of god... it is a pointless as nipples on guys...

so, is god irrefutable? god isn't even a necessary idea in our lives, little
less ''irrefutable''....

Kropotkin

[bahman]

He confuses the mind with God, the mind is a substance with the ability to experience and cause while God is the creator. Mind is needed for change so God cannot create without the mind.

[Peter Kropotkin]

He confuses the mind with God, the mind is a substance with the ability to experience and cause while God is the creator. Mind is needed for change so God cannot create without the mind.

K: so, is this idea of ''god being the creator'' irrefutable?
please lay out the argument that god/the creator is ''irrefutable"
if, if that is your argument....

Kropotkin

[bahman]

He confuses the mind with God, the mind is a substance with the ability to experience and cause while God is the creator. Mind is needed for change so God cannot create without the mind.

K: so, is this idea of ''god being the creator'' irrefutable?
please lay out the argument that god/the creator is ''irrefutable"
if, if that is your argument....

Kropotkin

Here please find my recent argument for the existence of God.

[Iwannaplato]

so, is god irrefutable? god isn't even a necessary idea in our lives, little
less ''irrefutable''....

Those belong in different categories: necessary and irrefutable. They're certainly not opposites.

But, in any case, not necessary to whom or for what?

[Iwannaplato]

Age: ''Well considering the ''irrefutable'' fact that there is only
one mind, which in a sense, is thee invisible one spirit, itself
and which both are just words denoting god''

and the crux of Age argument is this word, ''irrefutable''...

well, my handy dandy dictionary says this:

Irrefutable: impossible to deny or disprove. Irrefutable evidence...

now, for some people, the word irrefutable means god.. as apparently
does Age and yet, we have, as human beings, argued about god
and his nature for over 5000 years and have yet come across an
argument, either way, to prove or disprove god's existence...
god as being impossible to deny or disprove, is simply not true...

but I think that the bigger argument comes down to the
word itself ''irrefutable''.. I can't think of a single argument that
is ''irrefutable'', well, Kropotkin, the sky is blue... and yet, I have
seen the sky be orange, red, black, and one rare occasion, purple...
but Kropotkin, on the whole, the sky is blue... that is irrefutable...
but in reality, the earth's sky is really bluish violet...because of our
eyes, we see that as blue...our own eyes make the sky blue....
and thus, some may actually see the sky as being of different colors...
those who are color blind for example...or another example is
that sunlight is made up of all the colors we know, it appears to be white
when all the colors are together... and before there was oxygen...
the sky was orange... about 2.5 billion years ago... with different
chemicals in the air, the sky color changes...
and at no point, have we hit the sky being blue as being irrefutable...

so, what argument can we claim that is irrefutable?

all men die... that is irrefutable, and yet it isn't...
to know that all men have died, we have to know the fate
of all men/human beings... if one person has lived for thousand
of years, then it isn't not true that all men/human beings die....
and we cannot know if all human beings born have died...
that is simply information outside of our ability to get....

so, even a pretty clearly ''irrefutable'' statement becomes not
so irrefutable... I have brought this up before, but I shall do so again...
well, Kropotkin, one plus one equal two.. that is irrefutable...
and not so fast... take one stick, take another stick.. put them on the
ground....laying next to each other, do we have two sticks? no...
we have one stick lying next to another stick..
and how does a stick lying next to another stick create two sticks?

mathematically, the formula is 1 + 1 = .....

so far, so good.... but the tying together of the two sticks,
the plus sign is not within nature... there is no plus sign in nature..
the plus, the connection of two sticks happens inside our head...
the plus word is actually a mental action connecting two separate sticks..
and we have the word equal... that is not found within nature...
the equal sign is a human construct, as is the plus sign...
and thus 1 + 1 = 2 is really a human construct...

we mentally have connected the two sticks into a word we call two....
there is really no such thing as 1 + 1 = 2... one stick is just one stick
and the stick next to it, is still just one stick.. the connection between
the two is done within our head, mentally... thus one plus one equals two,
is not irrefutable...because it doesn't exists... outside of our own thinking....

so, what else is ''irrefutable?"....

nothing as far as I can tell... ummmm, physical objects exists...
ok, they exist as of right now... we human are physical objects...
and of right now, I exist... but soon, I will not.. I will no longer exist...
physical objects come and go all the time...that comes from entropy...
we travel from order to disorder and enough disorder, and we no longer
exist and our bodies in a continued state of entropy/disorder,
dissolve into basic cells... we become worm food... or as a book
says: ''dust to dust, ashes to ashes"... as words to
signify our continuous journey from order to disorder, dust to dust...
if there was an ''irrefutable'' aspect of life, it is this, and yet, and yet,
we even in this, we may be wrong.....if anything in life/existence is
irrefutable it is this notion of entropy... but we maybe wrong...
we can't be sure...thus even entropy, which seems to impact everything
in the universe, may not impact everything, we can't be sure...
thus, even entropy, may not be ''irrefutable''' we just can't be sure, as of now...

and yet, one might say, gravity or electromagnetisms...
as scientific principles, perhaps, but we may be seriously wrong
in our scientific theories... we just don't know yet.... we can hope
they are right, but we certainly can't say as theories, they are
''irrefutable''

So, what else might be ''irrefutable?" the problem is that every single
possible irrefutable thing in the universe, may not be ''irrefutable''
and in fact, it may have holes in it to drive a semi truck into it....
so, we cannot, in good conscience, hold to this idea of any
idea or thought as being ''irrefutable''....

Kropotkin

Was this argument irrefutable?

[Peter Kropotkin]

I am heading out to watch the football games, go niners..
responses will come if sober enough tonight, or more likely tomorrow...
 
Kropotkin

[Peter Kropotkin]

Age: ''Well considering the ''irrefutable'' fact that there is only
one mind, which in a sense, is thee invisible one spirit, itself
and which both are just words denoting god''

and the crux of Age argument is this word, ''irrefutable''...

well, my handy dandy dictionary says this:

Irrefutable: impossible to deny or disprove. Irrefutable evidence...

now, for some people, the word irrefutable means god.. as apparently
does Age and yet, we have, as human beings, argued about god
and his nature for over 5000 years and have yet come across an
argument, either way, to prove or disprove god's existence...
god as being impossible to deny or disprove, is simply not true...

but I think that the bigger argument comes down to the
word itself ''irrefutable''.. I can't think of a single argument that
is ''irrefutable'', well, Kropotkin, the sky is blue... and yet, I have
seen the sky be orange, red, black, and one rare occasion, purple...
but Kropotkin, on the whole, the sky is blue... that is irrefutable...
but in reality, the earth's sky is really bluish violet...because of our
eyes, we see that as blue...our own eyes make the sky blue....
and thus, some may actually see the sky as being of different colors...
those who are color blind for example...or another example is
that sunlight is made up of all the colors we know, it appears to be white
when all the colors are together... and before there was oxygen...
the sky was orange... about 2.5 billion years ago... with different
chemicals in the air, the sky color changes...
and at no point, have we hit the sky being blue as being irrefutable...

so, what argument can we claim that is irrefutable?

all men die... that is irrefutable, and yet it isn't...
to know that all men have died, we have to know the fate
of all men/human beings... if one person has lived for thousand
of years, then it isn't not true that all men/human beings die....
and we cannot know if all human beings born have died...
that is simply information outside of our ability to get....

so, even a pretty clearly ''irrefutable'' statement becomes not
so irrefutable... I have brought this up before, but I shall do so again...
well, Kropotkin, one plus one equal two.. that is irrefutable...
and not so fast... take one stick, take another stick.. put them on the
ground....laying next to each other, do we have two sticks? no...
we have one stick lying next to another stick..
and how does a stick lying next to another stick create two sticks?

mathematically, the formula is 1 + 1 = .....

so far, so good.... but the tying together of the two sticks,
the plus sign is not within nature... there is no plus sign in nature..
the plus, the connection of two sticks happens inside our head...
the plus word is actually a mental action connecting two separate sticks..
and we have the word equal... that is not found within nature...
the equal sign is a human construct, as is the plus sign...
and thus 1 + 1 = 2 is really a human construct...

we mentally have connected the two sticks into a word we call two....
there is really no such thing as 1 + 1 = 2... one stick is just one stick
and the stick next to it, is still just one stick.. the connection between
the two is done within our head, mentally... thus one plus one equals two,
is not irrefutable...because it doesn't exists... outside of our own thinking....

so, what else is ''irrefutable?"....

nothing as far as I can tell... ummmm, physical objects exists...
ok, they exist as of right now... we human are physical objects...
and of right now, I exist... but soon, I will not.. I will no longer exist...
physical objects come and go all the time...that comes from entropy...
we travel from order to disorder and enough disorder, and we no longer
exist and our bodies in a continued state of entropy/disorder,
dissolve into basic cells... we become worm food... or as a book
says: ''dust to dust, ashes to ashes"... as words to
signify our continuous journey from order to disorder, dust to dust...
if there was an ''irrefutable'' aspect of life, it is this, and yet, and yet,
we even in this, we may be wrong.....if anything in life/existence is
irrefutable it is this notion of entropy... but we maybe wrong...
we can't be sure...thus even entropy, which seems to impact everything
in the universe, may not impact everything, we can't be sure...
thus, even entropy, may not be ''irrefutable''' we just can't be sure, as of now...

and yet, one might say, gravity or electromagnetisms...
as scientific principles, perhaps, but we may be seriously wrong
in our scientific theories... we just don't know yet.... we can hope
they are right, but we certainly can't say as theories, they are
''irrefutable''

So, what else might be ''irrefutable?" the problem is that every single
possible irrefutable thing in the universe, may not be ''irrefutable''
and in fact, it may have holes in it to drive a semi truck into it....
so, we cannot, in good conscience, hold to this idea of any
idea or thought as being ''irrefutable''....

Kropotkin

Was this argument irrefutable?

K: once again, playing word games instead of thinking...
no surprise there...

and Niners won... on to the super bowl...

Kropotkin

[Iwannaplato]

Was this argument irrefutable?

K: once again, playing word games instead of thinking...
no surprise there...

and Niners won... on to the super bowl...

Kropotkin

Wow, direct to insult.

It wasn't a word game. You are concerned, it seemed, that Age is presenting his position as irrefutable. Fine.
I am pointing out that it seemed like you considered your own argument and position on arguments as irrefutable. I say 'seemed' since it seemed that way, but it might not be. So, I asked if this was the case. Do you also consider it possible that your position on arguments in the OP might not be correct?

And then in my other post, the first one, I asked about your use of the term necessary.

There is what can be rhetorical trick, where one presents one's own position as objective, rather than subjective. This might or might not be going on in the OP. You present the existence God or belief in God as not necessary, period. In objective speak.
But needs, like wants, are related to individuals. Individuals have different needs.

Hence, I asked a question about this. Necessary to whom?

So, while insulting me and my posts is always an option, you could have answered the questions.

If I remember correctly your goal is to be a great philosopher. It seems to me a great philosopher would find questions to be opportunities to learn and communicate.

But I could be wrong about that.

[Age]

Age: ''Well considering the ''irrefutable'' fact that there is only
one mind, which in a sense, is thee invisible one spirit, itself
and which both are just words denoting god''

and the crux of Age argument is this word, ''irrefutable''...

What are you on about here "peter kropotkin"?

I have never ever, yet, presented absolutely any argument here.

So, you have, once again, began with False and misinformation here.

well, my handy dandy dictionary says this:

Irrefutable: impossible to deny or disprove.

Thank you for bringing this to the attention of others here.

Irrefutable evidence...

This just then means, 'proof', which is a lot easier and simpler to say, and write.

now, for some people, the word irrefutable means god..

Does the word 'irrefutable' mean 'god' for absolutely anyone here?

If no, then who are these 'some people' "peter kropotkin"? I have never heard have nor hold this view, ever.

as apparently
does Age

Well you are certainly keeping with your previous False and Wrong claims about me "peter kropotkin".

and yet, we have, as human beings, argued about god
and his nature for over 5000 years and have yet come across an
argument, either way, to prove or disprove god's existence...

This is only because I have been waiting for, just as long, it feels, for any one of you human beings to have a Truly Honest and OPEN discussion with me. Then, and only then, can the actual and irrefutable Truth be found, and thus come-to-light.

god as being impossible to deny or disprove, is simply not true...

If you say and believe so, then this must be so, to you, right "peter kropotkin"?

but I think that the bigger argument comes down to the
word itself ''irrefutable''..

Why 'argue' about a word? Why not just pick a definition that 'works', instead?

I can't think of a single argument that
is ''irrefutable'',

Well obviously you cannot, at the moment anyway, think of a sound and valid argument. Because, obviously, there is not a human being who could refute a sound and valid argument.

well, Kropotkin, the sky is blue... and yet, I have
seen the sky be orange, red, black, and one rare occasion, purple...

1. There was no actual 'argument' here, obviously. Just saying, 'The sky is blue', is obviously not 'an argument'.

2. So, why say a Truly absurd thing as you just did here?

but Kropotkin, on the whole, the sky is blue...

Has absolutely anyone ever said 'this' to you?

Either way, what you are saying here has absolutely nothing at all to do with 'actual arguments'.

Unless, of course, you somehow believe it does.

that is irrefutable...

Now this is a Truly absurd and silly thing to say here now, especially how you just pointed out that 'that' was refutable.

you really do say some of the weirdest and strangest things here sometimes "peter kropotkin".

but in reality, the earth's sky is really bluish violet...

Are you here talking to "yourself" "peter kropotkin"?

Or, have you created some 'imagined being', who would somehow say the most absurd, weirdest, and/or strangest of things, which then helps you feel somehow good or better about your own 'currently' held beliefs and presumptions, which you do not want to let go?

because of our
eyes, we see that as blue...our own eyes make the sky blue....

Is this what you would say and claim? Or, is this what your 'imagined friend' would say and claim?

and thus, some may actually see the sky as being of different colors...
those who are color blind for example...or another example is
that sunlight is made up of all the colors we know, it appears to be white
when all the colors are together... and before there was oxygen...
the sky was orange... about 2.5 billion years ago... with different
chemicals in the air, the sky color changes...
and at no point, have we hit the sky being blue as being irrefutable...

Well considering the irrefutable Fact that absolutely no one here has said nor claimed that the sky being blue is irrefutable, (besides except for you and/or your 'imaginary friend' here), reaching 'that point' could only ever happen with 'you', alone, or with 'you' and 'your' 'imaginary friend' here.

so, what argument can we claim that is irrefutable?

The actual arguments that cannot be refuted. Or, put into other words, a 'sound and valid argument'. Which, again, is just another thing that could not be refuted.

all men die... that is irrefutable,

But even 'this' is not even actually Correct "peter kropotkin". But, because you believe otherwise, do not let this, irrefutable, Fact get in the way of what you are trying to convey here.

and yet it isn't...
to know that all men have died, we have to know the fate
of all men/human beings... if one person has lived for thousand
of years, then it isn't not true that all men/human beings die....

Why did you single out so-called 'men' before, but now you included all 'human beings'?

and we cannot know if all human beings born have died...

Well when you, also, find out what the words 'human beings' mean and/or are referring to, exactly, then you will, also, come-to-know and understand, as well what the actual and irrefutable Truth is here, exactly.

that is simply information outside of our ability to get....

Is this an irrefutable Fact?

If yes, then how do you know, for sure?

But if no, then why present it like it is?

so, even a pretty clearly ''irrefutable'' statement becomes not
so irrefutable...

But you have not yet presented absolutely any so-called 'pretty clearly irrefutable statement' at all.

So, what are you actually referring to here, exactly?

I have brought this up before, but I shall do so again...

you have brought 'what' up before, supposedly?

well, Kropotkin, one plus one equal two.. that is irrefutable...

Is 'this' 'your' 'imaginary friend' talking and speaking to you again "peter kropotkin"?

and not so fast... take one stick, take another stick.. put them on the
ground....laying next to each other, do we have two sticks? no...
we have one stick lying next to another stick..
and how does a stick lying next to another stick create two sticks?

mathematically, the formula is 1 + 1 = .....

so far, so good.... but the tying together of the two sticks,
the plus sign is not within nature... there is no plus sign in nature..

So, is it 'you', "peter kropotkin" or 'your' 'imaginary friends' who is thinking or believing that the plus sign, which you human beings made up and created, exists outside of 'Nature', Itself?

I am just wondering, so I can then ask 'that one', 'Where, exactly, is 'in nature' and where, exactly, is 'out of nature'?

the plus, the connection of two sticks happens inside our head...

Ah okay, so you believe what happens within those heads is not 'in nature' at all.

the plus word is actually a mental action connecting two separate sticks..
and we have the word equal... that is not found within nature...

Is 'this' irrefutable "peter kropotkin"?

the equal sign is a human construct, as is the plus sign...
and thus 1 + 1 = 2 is really a human construct...

Besides 'your' 'imaginary friend' did absolutely anyone else here think otherwise?

we mentally have connected the two sticks into a word we call two....
there is really no such thing as 1 + 1 = 2...

If this is the case, then there really is no such thing as 'stick', either, correct?

one stick is just one stick
and the stick next to it, is still just one stick..

And, neither is 'a stick', they are just 'things', but then 'things' is a human construct also. Therefore, there is

the connection between
the two is done within our head, mentally... thus one plus one equals two,
is not irrefutable...because it doesn't exists... outside of our own thinking....

Are you here now trying to suggest that what happens in thought or thinking is not real or does not actually exist?

Also, let us not forget that 'refuting' or 'not being able to refute' happens mentally, within those human heads, and, well according to "peter kropotkins" so-called "logic", what happens mentally with human heads does not exist, 'in nature'.

So, what this 'definitely' means is

so, what else is ''irrefutable?"....

Again, 'that', which cannot be refuted. And/or a 'sound and valid argument'.

nothing as far as I can tell...

So, well according to what "peter kropotkin" the words 'refutable' and 'irrefutable' are just redundant.

ummmm, physical objects exists...
ok, they exist as of right now... we human are physical objects...
and of right now, I exist... but soon, I will not.. I will no longer exist...
physical objects come and go all the time...that comes from entropy...

So, to "peter kropotkin" anyway, 'physical object come because of entropy.

Also, "peter kropotkin" how long have you been talking to 'you', like 'you' are showing 'us' here?

we travel from order to disorder and enough disorder, and we no longer
exist and our bodies in a continued state of entropy/disorder,
dissolve into basic cells... we become worm food...

So, is 'this' 'refutable' or 'irrefutable'?

And, how does this 'fit in with' your claim before about not knowing whether 'men' 'die' or not?

or as a book
says: ''dust to dust, ashes to ashes"... as words to
signify our continuous journey from order to disorder, dust to dust...
if there was an ''irrefutable'' aspect of life, it is this,

Ah ok, so it looks like "peter kropotkin" has actually found some 'thing', which is actually 'irrefutable', well to "peter kropotkin" anyway.

and yet, and yet,
we even in this, we may be wrong.....if anything in life/existence is
irrefutable it is this notion of entropy... but we maybe wrong...

So, even the 'things' that this one states and claim is irrefutable, 'if anything is', then this one and others may still be wrong anyway.

we can't be sure...thus even entropy, which seems to impact everything
in the universe, may not impact everything, we can't be sure...

But what the actual, and irrefutable, Truth is here is, also, already known. Well by some of 'us' anyway.

thus, even entropy, may not be ''irrefutable''' we just can't be sure, as of now...

So, it 'now' appears that this one has said and written quite some words to try to say and claim something here, but which 'it' cannot be sure of anyway.

and yet, one might say, gravity or electromagnetisms...
as scientific principles, perhaps, but we may be seriously wrong
in our scientific theories... we just don't know yet....

you and some others may not yet be sure and thus not know, in the days when this is being written, but 'we' certainly do know, for sure, and thus irrefutably as well.

As can and will be proved True.

we can hope
they are right, but we certainly can't say as theories, they are
''irrefutable''

Well considering the actual definition of 'theory', and what 'theories' are, essentially, then, of course, each and every 'theory' is not irrefutable.

The whole purpose of 'theory' is more or less to just guess what could be true and/or right.

So, what else might be ''irrefutable?" the problem is that every single
possible irrefutable thing in the universe, may not be ''irrefutable''

Again, well of course every 'possibly' 'irrefutable thing' could be irrefutable.

The 'possibly' word gave this away, absolutely.

But what is also just as blatantly obvious is, every 'actual' 'irrefutable thing' could not be refuted.

All of this really is just this simple and just this easy.

It is like these people, back in those 'olden days', did not think about, fully, the actual consequences of and from the words that they had 'chosen'.

In other words, these people really did not choose their words to carefully, at all.

and in fact, it may have holes in it to drive a semi truck into it....
so, we cannot, in good conscience, hold to this idea of any
idea or thought as being ''irrefutable''....

Kropotkin

So, even this and absolutely every other idea or thought of "peter kropotkin" could be refuted.

Which, from what 'we' have seen here is very, very True.

Also, what we have here is another example of another who has not yet seen the hypocrisy and self-refuting contradiction in claiming something as though 'it' is absolutely true while at the exact same time claiming that no truth could ever been found nor known, for sure.

[Age]

so let us take this idea of god, as being ''irrefutable''

What idea of God?

again, Irrefutable: impossible to deny or disprove...
''irrefutable evidence''

Just so 'we' all become clear here, absolutely any 'thing' can be denied. But, not absolutely every 'thing' can be disproved.

Can you see and recognize the difference here?

so, some may believe that the idea of god is irrefutable....
and yet, the truth, as always, is something different....

So, to you, is it just 'the idea of god is irrefutable', which 'the truth' of is, as always, supposedly something different "peter kropotkin"?

Or, is it 'any particular idea of god', which is, as always, something different from irrefutable?

Or, is 'any idea of anything', which is, as always, something different from irrefutable?

Or, did you mean some thing else here?

and honest look at the universe show us that there is no physical
god in the universe and even believers hold that god is spirit...

Why do you use a small for the word 'God'?

And, I have already explained, a number of times, how, exactly, the physical God actually exists. And, this is for absolutely anyone to look at, and discuss about.

as I understand spirit, it is not physical, not in the world physically...

When you say and use the words 'the world', what, exactly, is 'that' meaning, and/or referencing?

thus it is not within the evidence of the world...

Here we have another one who can only believe things are true which are physical and thus who cannot understand absolutely anything else.

Maybe it is within this very 'little world' what this one means by 'the world'.

we don't see god with our eyes, we feel him in our heart....

So, now this one is saying and claiming that 'god' does actually exist.

Also, what can be clearly seen is another extremely illogical, irrational, and nonsensical use of words.

But, this was a very common practice among human beings, back, in the 'olden days' when this was being written.

that is spirit... nothing physical....as we say, 1 + 1 = 2...

Who, exactly, is the 'we', which would say something like 'this', in relation to what you just previously said and claimed.

As far as I can tell the only one who would say, 1 + 1 = 2, here would be 'you' and 'that friend' of yours you were talking with, in the preceding post to this one of yours here.

the connection between 1 and 1 is the plus sign... which doesn't
actually exists within the world.. it is, to coin a phrase, it is spirit...
the plus sign is really just spirit... as is the equal sign... they don't exists
within the physical universe, but as mental constructs within our own mind...

So, absolutely anything, which is a 'mental construct', within some now called 'own mind', which is obviously not a material thing itself, and thus means that is classed as some sort of 'spirit' like thing, which is therefore 'nothing physical' as well, and thus is also not within the so-called 'evidence of the word, which means that the so-called 'human mind', as well as absolutely everything with 'human beings' minds' do not even actually exists within the physical Universe.

So, once again, this makes one wonder, 'Where do these things actually exist, if not 'in Nature' nor within the physical Universe, Itself?

so, what does the lesson of 1 + 1 = 2, mean in regard to god?
if god is spirit, as is the plus sign and the equal sign, then god is
actually a spirit, which is to say, it is a mental construct,
found only in our head... god as an idea, a mental construct
within our head... god, the plus sign, the equal sign all exists
within our own minds, as mental constructs, not physically existing...

Well not existing physically is more or less the actual definition of a 'mental construct', well for some people anyway.

and just as easily we can remove mental constructs, we can remove
the idea of god, the plus sign, the equal sign.... but I must admit
the mental idea of the plus sign and the equal sign, actually have
some value in the world, whereas the idea of god being a mental construct,
has no value, no worth in the world...

Did you end up explaining, before, what the words 'the world' actually mean and/or are referring to, exactly, to you, when you use them?

Because you could well be irrefutably Correct that 'the idea of god being a mental construct' really and Truly does have absolute no value and no worth at all in 'that world'.

it is pointless as an idea, as a
mental construct...at least we can do something with the plus sign
or the equal sign... but we can't do anything with this mental construct
of god... it is a pointless as nipples on guys...

But 'nipples', it could be said or argued, do 'point' on so-called 'guys', just as they do on so-called 'guys', But, 'nipples' on some human bodies might well be absolutely 'useless', relatively as how 'useful' they are on other human bodies, at times.

so, is god irrefutable? god isn't even a necessary idea in our lives, little
less ''irrefutable''....

Kropotkin

And how, exactly, is any of 'this' related to 'me'?

Or, is the 'Age' word in the thread title here in relation to something else, exactly?

[Age]

He confuses the mind with God, the mind is a substance with the ability to experience and cause while God is the creator.

So, to "bahman" as 'we' can clearly see, God is of no substance, and also lacks the ability to experience, and cause. Which is a very, very different from what some others would say, and claim.

Also, what is the 'actual substance' of 'the mind', exactly, "bahman"?

And, if 'the mind' is made a 'substance', then why has no one seen 'it'?

Mind is needed for change so God cannot create without the mind.

So, to "bahman" for 'now' anyway, God, of all things, needs some substance, which has the ability to experience and cause, because God cannot create absolutely anything without 'that substance'.

Which implies 'this substance' existed even before God came-into-existence, and/or before God, Itself, was caused or created.

By the way, is what you are saying and claim here 'refutable' or 'irrefutable'?

Because if it is the latter, then I think you will find that the one here known as "peter kropotkin" will not agree with you.

So, which one are 'we' to agree with and accept here? 'your' or "peter kropotkin"?

[Age]

Age: ''Well considering the ''irrefutable'' fact that there is only
one mind, which in a sense, is thee invisible one spirit, itself
and which both are just words denoting god''

and the crux of Age argument is this word, ''irrefutable''...

well, my handy dandy dictionary says this:

Irrefutable: impossible to deny or disprove. Irrefutable evidence...

now, for some people, the word irrefutable means god.. as apparently
does Age and yet, we have, as human beings, argued about god
and his nature for over 5000 years and have yet come across an
argument, either way, to prove or disprove god's existence...
god as being impossible to deny or disprove, is simply not true...

but I think that the bigger argument comes down to the
word itself ''irrefutable''.. I can't think of a single argument that
is ''irrefutable'', well, Kropotkin, the sky is blue... and yet, I have
seen the sky be orange, red, black, and one rare occasion, purple...
but Kropotkin, on the whole, the sky is blue... that is irrefutable...
but in reality, the earth's sky is really bluish violet...because of our
eyes, we see that as blue...our own eyes make the sky blue....
and thus, some may actually see the sky as being of different colors...
those who are color blind for example...or another example is
that sunlight is made up of all the colors we know, it appears to be white
when all the colors are together... and before there was oxygen...
the sky was orange... about 2.5 billion years ago... with different
chemicals in the air, the sky color changes...
and at no point, have we hit the sky being blue as being irrefutable...

so, what argument can we claim that is irrefutable?

all men die... that is irrefutable, and yet it isn't...
to know that all men have died, we have to know the fate
of all men/human beings... if one person has lived for thousand
of years, then it isn't not true that all men/human beings die....
and we cannot know if all human beings born have died...
that is simply information outside of our ability to get....

so, even a pretty clearly ''irrefutable'' statement becomes not
so irrefutable... I have brought this up before, but I shall do so again...
well, Kropotkin, one plus one equal two.. that is irrefutable...
and not so fast... take one stick, take another stick.. put them on the
ground....laying next to each other, do we have two sticks? no...
we have one stick lying next to another stick..
and how does a stick lying next to another stick create two sticks?

mathematically, the formula is 1 + 1 = .....

so far, so good.... but the tying together of the two sticks,
the plus sign is not within nature... there is no plus sign in nature..
the plus, the connection of two sticks happens inside our head...
the plus word is actually a mental action connecting two separate sticks..
and we have the word equal... that is not found within nature...
the equal sign is a human construct, as is the plus sign...
and thus 1 + 1 = 2 is really a human construct...

we mentally have connected the two sticks into a word we call two....
there is really no such thing as 1 + 1 = 2... one stick is just one stick
and the stick next to it, is still just one stick.. the connection between
the two is done within our head, mentally... thus one plus one equals two,
is not irrefutable...because it doesn't exists... outside of our own thinking....

so, what else is ''irrefutable?"....

nothing as far as I can tell... ummmm, physical objects exists...
ok, they exist as of right now... we human are physical objects...
and of right now, I exist... but soon, I will not.. I will no longer exist...
physical objects come and go all the time...that comes from entropy...
we travel from order to disorder and enough disorder, and we no longer
exist and our bodies in a continued state of entropy/disorder,
dissolve into basic cells... we become worm food... or as a book
says: ''dust to dust, ashes to ashes"... as words to
signify our continuous journey from order to disorder, dust to dust...
if there was an ''irrefutable'' aspect of life, it is this, and yet, and yet,
we even in this, we may be wrong.....if anything in life/existence is
irrefutable it is this notion of entropy... but we maybe wrong...
we can't be sure...thus even entropy, which seems to impact everything
in the universe, may not impact everything, we can't be sure...
thus, even entropy, may not be ''irrefutable''' we just can't be sure, as of now...

and yet, one might say, gravity or electromagnetisms...
as scientific principles, perhaps, but we may be seriously wrong
in our scientific theories... we just don't know yet.... we can hope
they are right, but we certainly can't say as theories, they are
''irrefutable''

So, what else might be ''irrefutable?" the problem is that every single
possible irrefutable thing in the universe, may not be ''irrefutable''
and in fact, it may have holes in it to drive a semi truck into it....
so, we cannot, in good conscience, hold to this idea of any
idea or thought as being ''irrefutable''....

Kropotkin

Was this argument irrefutable?

K: once again, playing word games instead of thinking...
no surprise there...

and Niners won... on to the super bowl...

Kropotkin

So, instead of just being Honest, this one tries to deflect and claim that it is the other one who is playing word games. Either what you said and wrote is 'irrefutable' or it is not.

And, considering the amount of words this one has written here in some sort of attempt to 'justify' the position or belief that it clearly has and is clearly trying to hold onto, trying to claim the other is so-called 'playing word games' seems very hypocritical and somewhat even very puzzling, especially considering that the only words used were just four, and which were asked in a very straightforward and very simple and easily way, for clarification, only.

[Age]

Was this argument irrefutable?

K: once again, playing word games instead of thinking...
no surprise there...

and Niners won... on to the super bowl...

Kropotkin

Wow, direct to insult.

It wasn't a word game. You are concerned, it seemed, that Age is presenting his position as irrefutable. Fine.
I am pointing out that it seemed like you considered your own argument and position on arguments as irrefutable. I say 'seemed' since it seemed that way, but it might not be. So, I asked if this was the case. Do you also consider it possible that your position on arguments in the OP might not be correct?

And then in my other post, the first one, I asked about your use of the term necessary.

There is what can be rhetorical trick, where one presents one's own position as objective, rather than subjective. This might or might not be going on in the OP. You present the existence God or belief in God as not necessary, period. In objective speak.
But needs, like wants, are related to individuals. Individuals have different needs.

Are you using the 'needs' word here in the 'objective' or 'subjective' sense? Or, in some other sense?

Hence, I asked a question about this. Necessary to whom?

So, while insulting me and my posts is always an option, you could have answered the questions.

If I remember correctly your goal is to be a great philosopher. It seems to me a great philosopher would find questions to be opportunities to learn and communicate.

But I could be wrong about that.