The Creatororientation

[manden]

Can't you see , what a huge human fantasy that is ? They know almost nothing !

[Sam26]

The creator of the universe exists .

His existence can be recognized at his creation .

All other follows out of his existence .

(please only one logical question with one post - the topic is difficult)

One of the problems Manden with the argument to design, is that if it's true, it doesn't mean the designer is the Christian God. For all you know it was created by 10 super-beings. Thus to conclude that design = the Christian God, doesn't follow. It only follows if you start out believing that it has to be the Christian God. However, that would make your argument circular.

[thedoc]

Can't you see , what a huge human fantasy that is ? They know almost nothing !

I can see that your fantasy is quite large, and I've encountered others with large fantasies before. Very amusing to watch you flail about trying to say something intelligent.

[manden]

The creator of the universe exists .

His existence can be recognized at his creation .

All other follows out of his existence .

(please only one logical question with one post - the topic is difficult)

One of the problems Manden with the argument to design, is that if it's true, it doesn't mean the designer is the Christian God. For all you know it was created by 10 super-beings. Thus to conclude that design = the Christian God, doesn't follow. It only follows if you start out believing that it has to be the Christian God. However, that would make your argument circular.

What I say , has nothing to do with any God of the religions !

[manden]

Can't you see , what a huge human fantasy that is ? They know almost nothing !

I can see that your fantasy is quite large, and I've encountered others with large fantasies before. Very amusing to watch you flail about trying to say something intelligent.

I say only , what I can recognize with exact simple logic ! What the mankind says is not so important ! The mankind made and makes nonsense

enough ! You must only able to open your eyes .

[Obvious Leo]

The mankind made and makes nonsense

Presumably you don't define your own bullshit as nonsense so obviously you are not of the mankind. What species of being are you?

[thedoc]

The mankind made and makes nonsense

Presumably you don't define your own bullshit as nonsense so obviously you are not of the mankind. What species of being are you?

Fictional, as is everything he has posted.

[FlashDangerpants]

I just spend 10 minutes in the bathroom and "created" something truly terrible to behold. Am I now the dark lord of that little toilet Hell?

[thedoc]

I just spend 10 minutes in the bathroom and "created" something truly terrible to behold. Am I now the dark lord of that little toilet Hell?

So you created something objective? Was the smell objective as well, or was that strictly subjective?

Did you remember to flush?

[Obvious Leo]

So you created something objective? Was the smell objective as well, or was that strictly subjective?

This is a revisit of the tree falling in the forest. Does your shit still stink if nobody is there to smell it?

The answer is NO.

[Arising_uk]

It is eqal , which gender I use . We don' know about a gender ! But in human language it is not other possible .

Yes it is you can call 'it' "it".

My sentence about the unimaginable superior logic is clear . That you don't know what that means , is sad . I say what human logic is : all has a cause . Perhaps it helps you . Without thinking it does not function ,

Do you include 'it' in this all?

[thedoc]

So you created something objective? Was the smell objective as well, or was that strictly subjective?

This is a revisit of the tree falling in the forest. Does your shit still stink if nobody is there to smell it?

The answer is NO.

Interesting, if a tree falls the vibrations are still in the air, and if you shit in the forest the aromatic products are still in the air, even if there is no-one to perceive them. So it all comes down to your definition of a sound or a smell, and apparently your's is different than mine, semantics rather than objective reality. The correct answer is, Yes.

[Obvious Leo]

Vibrations in the air are not sound, just as molecules in the air are not smells. It requires an observer with an information processing network before such raw data can be said to have a meaning. This is not only mainstream philosophy but it is also mainstream neuroscience.

[thedoc]

Vibrations in the air are not sound, just as molecules in the air are not smells. It requires an observer with an information processing network before such raw data can be said to have a meaning. This is not only mainstream philosophy but it is also mainstream neuroscience.

That depends on your definition, and it seems that we do not share a common definition.

So you claim. I disagree.

[Obvious Leo]

I got kicked out of a physics forum for claiming that an observation is an act of cognition, doc, but I'm on very safe ground in a philosophy forum. No philosopher worthy of the name would make such a basic error as to confuse Noumenal with Phenomenal reality.