Philosophy Now Forum

Veritas Aequitas wrote:

surreptitious57 wrote:

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Quantum Fluctuations [ QF ] is conditioned and concluded by the Scientific Framework and System
That is you cannot arrive at any conclusion on Quantum Fluctuations without complying with the
Scientific Framework thus QF is conditional thus impossible to be unconditional

Is absolute / eternal non existence conditioned and concluded by the Scientific Framework And System ?

I Absolute = totally unconditioned [ see dictionary ]
2 Scientific Framework = always conditional
3 Therefore absolute [ unconditional ] cannot be concluded by a conditional Scientific Framework

The Universe is defined as ALL THERE IS which is absolute / eternal by definition even if it can
not actually be concluded by a conditional Scientific Framework And System at this point in time

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Sat Dec 08, 2018 4:34 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote:

surreptitious57 wrote:
Is absolute / eternal non existence conditioned and concluded by the Scientific Framework And System ?

I Absolute = totally unconditioned [ see dictionary ]
2 Scientific Framework = always conditional
3 Therefore absolute [ unconditional ] cannot be concluded by a conditional Scientific Framework

The Universe is defined as ALL THERE IS which is absolute / eternal by definition even if it cannot actually be concluded by a conditional Scientific Framework And System at this point in time

Note you're a part and parcel of reality.
There is no way you can extract yourself away from reality to stand on a God's eye view to make any objective conclusion such as

surreptitious57: even if it cannot be conditioned and concluded by the Scientific Framework And System at this point in time

The above speculation is at best a guess.

I offer another alternative explanation, i.e. Know Thyself.
Why you are guessing is because of the subliminal psychological impulses from within that compel to make such claims from a God's-eye-view.
One aspect that is missing is what is happening in your brain that trigger such a guess to an impossible thing as 'Universe as ALL there is' as absolute.

You are imperatively part and parcel of 'Universe as ALL there is' - thus how can that be unconditional upon you. Thus cannot be absolute.

We can use the phrase 'Universe as ALL there is' but it always must be conditional and qualified.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Fri Dec 07, 2018 10:48 pm The supernatural doesn't exist by definition. As soon as you start to 'prove' god's existence with 'evidence' then he ceases to exist as 'god' anyway (I don't know why the Lane Craigs etc. and his ilk even bother). Religious leaders covered their arses in that respect millennia ago. It means they don't have to prove anything, and can just keep raking in the money.

But WHO would be silly enough to suggest that 'God' was supernatural?

For the very reason you have so simply and easily demonstrated, by definition, if some thing was supposedly 'super-natural', then it would be above, beyond, or not a part of what IS, natural.

Can any person name any thing that is above, beyond, not a part of, or super, natural?

If not, then let this rest in peace, once, and for ALL.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Dec 08, 2018 3:15 am

Age wrote: ↑Fri Dec 07, 2018 9:18 pm Unless of course we want to look at what the actual and real Truth IS here. That is; ALL of you, human beings, have NOT REALLY 'ARGUED' either way, from the perspective of 'argue' meaning logical reasoning, that is.

I agree you have ALL 'argued' from the disputing, disagreeing, and fighting for a side, perspective, and that you ALL have TRIED TO or have ATTEMPTED TO 'argue' from the logical reasoning, perspective, but the Truth IS NONE of you have successfully formed a sound AND valid argument either way, nor in reality ANY way whatsoever.

The above ''ALL of you, human beings" is an indication there is something VERY wrong with you.

VERY wrong, or, VERY different.

Unless you KNOW 100% SURE what IS Right, then if 'I' was 'you', which, by the way, I CERTAINLY am NOT, then I would be LOOKING at the second option instead. There is a whole lot MORE Truth in the second option, as is being proven, over and over again.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Dec 08, 2018 3:15 amIt sounds very "schizoic" that you are imagining you are an alien and we are ALL stupid human beings.

WHY do you IMAGINE that I am imagining that I am an alien?

Some might suggest that, for you to IMAGINE this, then that sounds VERY "schizoic", as you put it.

From WHAT words exactly, which I have written, did you make the ASSUMPTION that I was imagining such a thing?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Dec 08, 2018 3:15 amMore so, that is very arrogant and insulting to others who naturally are human beings.

If you can NOT see the purposeful agitation that I am creating in you, human beings, then you are once again MISSING the mark of what I am doing.

If you, human beings, get "insulted' by the Truth, then just maybe that saying, The Truth hurts, really does have MORE meaning to it, then first realized. We will have to wait and see hey?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Dec 08, 2018 3:15 amWhatever you are claiming as BELIEFS cannot be independent but always conditioned to the fact that you and everyone is a human being.

You really make me laugh, veritas. The blindness that you portray and SHOW is outstandingly amazing.

HOW could I be claiming anything as BELIEFS, especially considering what I have been claiming all along throughout this WHOLE philosophy forum?

Of course the 'you' is a human being/s, and if you want to define 'everyone' as a human being also, then so be it. You are free to choose whatever you like here regarding this.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Dec 08, 2018 3:27 am

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Fri Dec 07, 2018 10:48 pm The supernatural doesn't exist by definition. As soon as you start to 'prove' god's existence with 'evidence' then he ceases to exist as 'god' anyway (I don't know why the Lane Craigs etc. and his ilk even bother). Religious leaders covered their arses in that respect millennia ago. It means they don't have to prove anything, and can just keep raking in the money.

I agree.
Craig often uses scientific evidences to prove the existence of God which is self-defeating for his proof.
The far thinking theologicans claim an unconditional God is possible, but the fact is such an ontological God [unconditional] is an impossibility to be real.

My ultimate point here is;
Theists cannot claim to have the authority to kill non-believers nor impose their beliefs on others based on God commands when God is an illusion and impossibility.
The only grounds they have for their claims of commands from God is purely psychology and feelings.

Even IF God (whatever you think/BELIEVE that IS) were to command you, human beings, to do some thing, then that is, obviously STILL psychology anyway, which, by the way, includes internal feelings, (or emotions), also.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Dec 08, 2018 3:27 amThe fact and reality is at present [glaringly evident] there are millions perhaps billions of theists who believed there is a real God who sanctions the imposing/enforcement of God's divine law on and the killing of non-believers for merely disbelieving.

Do you really think/BELIEVE that a person who is non-believer, or non-follower, of PEACE, thus that is a person who does violent acts should NOT be punished, by some kind of law?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Dec 08, 2018 3:27 amRationally we have to deal with the psychology of the theists rather than allowing a belief in an illusory God [potentially malignant and evil] to persist.

LOL

And, HOW EXACTLY do YOU deal with psychology of the theists and prevent that from persisting?

You, veritas, really appear VERY delusional.

You COME ACROSS as though you really BELIEVE that you do HAVE ALL thee ANSWERS.

So, why do you, veritas, not just tell us WHAT the PROBLEM IS, and then tell us HOW to solve and thus fix IT, once, and for ALL?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Dec 08, 2018 4:16 am

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Sat Dec 08, 2018 4:05 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Quantum Fluctuations [ QF ] is conditioned and concluded by the Scientific Framework and System
That is you cannot arrive at any conclusion on Quantum Fluctuations without complying with the
Scientific Framework thus QF is conditional thus impossible to be unconditional

Is absolute / eternal non existence conditioned and concluded by the Scientific Framework And System ?

1. Absolute = totally unconditioned [see dictionary].
2. Scientific Framework = always conditional
3. Therefore absolute [unconditional] cannot be concluded by a conditional Scientific Framework.

And, neither could, should, nor would an Absolute [unconditional] be concluded by a, conditional scientific framework.
Science does NOT, and does NOT need to, LOOK AT thee Absolute, which is just what IS.
What IS, IS the Truth of ALL things.

The Truth does NOT need to be backed up nor supported by any thing else, especially some thing as silly as science.

Science only LOOKS AT what COULD BE the case, which I find a very rather silly thing to do, especially when one can just LOOK AT what IS, instead. Science does NOT, and does NOT need to, LOOK AT what IS the actual and Real Truth, which "speaks" for Itself anyway.

Once you learn HOW, and thus gain the KNOW-HOW, what IS the actual and Real Truth of ALL things is very quickly, simply, and easily KNOWN anyway. ALL answers are within 'you'. KNOWING ALL Answers also includes KNOWING HOW to LOOK from a Truly Objective perspective, in order to be able to SEE what IS and KNOW that It is the Absolute Truth, also.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Dec 08, 2018 4:24 am

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Sat Dec 08, 2018 4:19 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
The above ALL of you human beings is an indication there is something VERY wrong with you
It sounds very schizoic that you are imagining you are an alien and we are ALL stupid human beings

He is posting from the perspective of Gods Eye View where everything can be seen entirely objectively
Entirely objectively with absolutely no need to have any beliefs as what is real can simply be observed

That is the same with this boy who made similar claims.
His father sent him to see a psychiatrists and the appropriate medicines did change his thinking back to reality.
see;
The Temporal Lobes and God
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qIiIsDIkDtg

Did it actually show/say in the video that the boy was given "appropriate medicine that did change his thinking back to reality"?

What I got from the video was that when the boy had seizures, that that triggered episodes of God-like experiences. I did NOT hear anything about medicines changing thinking back to 'reality'. But maybe I missed some thing there. Maybe you could point us to at what time in the video this was talked about?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Dec 08, 2018 4:24 amThe same can happen to those who took drugs, hallucinogens, had brain damage, suffered from serious mental illness, etc.

My guess is 'Age' could be suffering from kind of Temporal Epilepsy or some brain aberrations.

'Could be', why be so kind? Is that what you really THINK?

Why do you NOT say what you really BELIEVE, is the truth here instead?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Dec 08, 2018 4:41 am

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Sat Dec 08, 2018 4:34 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
I Absolute = totally unconditioned [ see dictionary ]
2 Scientific Framework = always conditional
3 Therefore absolute [ unconditional ] cannot be concluded by a conditional Scientific Framework

The Universe is defined as ALL THERE IS which is absolute / eternal by definition even if it cannot actually be concluded by a conditional Scientific Framework And System at this point in time

Note you're a part and parcel of reality.
There is no way you can extract yourself away from reality to stand on a God's eye view to make any objective conclusion such as

Are you Absolutely 100% SURE of this?

By the way does one NEED to extract them self away from reality to have a God's eye view of things?

Seems a rather UNreal thing to expect.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Dec 08, 2018 4:41 amsurreptitious57: even if it cannot be conditioned and concluded by the Scientific Framework And System at this point in time

The above speculation is at best a guess.

I offer another alternative explanation, i.e. Know Thyself.

Why you are guessing is because of the subliminal psychological impulses from within that compel to make such claims from a God's-eye-view.
One aspect that is missing is what is happening in your brain that trigger such a guess to an impossible thing as 'Universe as ALL there is' as absolute.

You are imperatively part and parcel of 'Universe as ALL there is' - thus how can that be unconditional upon you. Thus cannot be absolute.

We can use the phrase 'Universe as ALL there is' but it always must be conditional and qualified.

Why MUST "it" always be conditional and qualified?

If you are TRYING TO suggest that by human beings using definitions, and/or meanings, to explain what they are saying, then that is form of conditional or qualifying, and therefore A framework or system within and of itself, and that 'unconditionally means such a thing is not conditioned by ANY Framework and System', then I guess, through your own logic, you have PROVED your own self correct. Your own conjecture, which became a BELIEF that;
God* is an unconditional impossibility.
God as an absolute is totally unconditional.

You have now just proved 100% correct means your BELIEF has therefore now become a Justified True Belief, which in and of itself IS an Absolute True FACT, which is unambiguous AND irrefutable.

Congratulations, you must be very happy now.

Just to make sure that i have this correct;
Every thing that is conditioned are possibilities.
God as an absolute is totally unconditional.
God is an unconditional impossibility.

Which one are your premises and which one is your conclusion. Your argument here looks VERY circular.

Also, if ALL words are given definitions and/or meanings by human beings, and by your very OWN logic 'you can use a phrase but it always must be conditional and qualified', was I right in thinking that if a phrase was conditioned and qualified by actual words with actual definitions and/or actual meanings, then this means that those phrases/words are not totally unconditional?

If that is right for a phrase, then can a word, itself, also be conditioned and/or qualified by a definition?

If yes, then why is the phrase/word 'God' NOT able to be conditioned and qualified also by (a) definition(s)?

If the word/phrase 'God' can NOT be conditioned and qualified, then how truly amazing, and coincidental, that by the use of your very OWN definitions AND very OWN logic you have proved with "logical reasoning' and "evidence" that your very OWN BELIEF was actually true, right, and correct all along.

If however the word/phrase 'God' can be conditioned and qualified, then we are back to the very beginning, where I have from just about, if not, the actual very onset of our discussions I have been asking you to DEFINE the word 'God', in your OWN words, so then as least I have some clue as to what you are actually talking about when you say "God is an impossibility".

If every thing that is conditioned are possibilities, as you say, AND 'God', Itself, can be conditioned and qualified by definitions, then that MUST MEAN 'God can be a possibility' also.

Now fancy that, after you continually using thousands upon thousands of words, in all different manner of ways, just TRYING TO "justify" your very OWN beliefs, we are back to WHERE I started, with just a couple of dozen words; If you are going to insist that God is an impossibility, then define the word 'God', in your OWN words, from your OWN perspective.

You can keep TRYING TO prove that your BELIEF is absolutely correct, but HOW God actually does exist will be PROVEN to thousands upon thousands of people BEFORE you even begin to come out of your disillusioned state that you are in now.

If you can NOT grasp what I am saying and meaning here, then just imagine quite a few years ago, from YOUR perspective, when some people were starting to realize that what one was saying about the earth revolves around the sun was actually thee Truth, while others, like your self, hang on to their BELIEFS and vehemently kept TRYING TO fight for those BELIEFS.

Age wrote: ↑Sat Dec 08, 2018 12:24 pm

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Fri Dec 07, 2018 10:48 pm The supernatural doesn't exist by definition. As soon as you start to 'prove' god's existence with 'evidence' then he ceases to exist as 'god' anyway (I don't know why the Lane Craigs etc. and his ilk even bother). Religious leaders covered their arses in that respect millennia ago. It means they don't have to prove anything, and can just keep raking in the money.

But WHO would be silly enough to suggest that 'God' was supernatural?

For the very reason you have so simply and easily demonstrated, by definition, if some thing was supposedly 'super-natural', then it would be above, beyond, or not a part of what IS, natural.

Can any person name any thing that is above, beyond, not a part of, or super, natural?

If not, then let this rest in peace, once, and for ALL.

But WHO would be silly enough to suggest that gods are natural?

You are right about one thing; no one can name anything that is above nature, because there isn't anything above nature.

I'm not arguing such a stupid topic with smug, superstitious god-botherers (it's unbearably futile), especially not one as delusional, self-important, and overcompensatingly condescending as yourself.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Sat Dec 08, 2018 6:34 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sat Dec 08, 2018 12:24 pm

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Fri Dec 07, 2018 10:48 pm The supernatural doesn't exist by definition. As soon as you start to 'prove' god's existence with 'evidence' then he ceases to exist as 'god' anyway (I don't know why the Lane Craigs etc. and his ilk even bother). Religious leaders covered their arses in that respect millennia ago. It means they don't have to prove anything, and can just keep raking in the money.

But WHO would be silly enough to suggest that 'God' was supernatural?

For the very reason you have so simply and easily demonstrated, by definition, if some thing was supposedly 'super-natural', then it would be above, beyond, or not a part of what IS, natural.

Can any person name any thing that is above, beyond, not a part of, or super, natural?

If not, then let this rest in peace, once, and for ALL.

But WHO would be silly enough to suggest that gods are natural?

I'm not arguing such a stupid topic with smug, superstitious god-botherers (it's unbearably futile), especially not one as delusional, self-important, and overcompensatingly condescending as yourself.

Anybody who would claim that gods interfere with reality.

For any detectable phenomenon is in the realm of scientific enquiry, and therefore ‘natural’.

Logik wrote: ↑Sat Dec 08, 2018 6:42 pm

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Sat Dec 08, 2018 6:34 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sat Dec 08, 2018 12:24 pm

But WHO would be silly enough to suggest that 'God' was supernatural?

For the very reason you have so simply and easily demonstrated, by definition, if some thing was supposedly 'super-natural', then it would be above, beyond, or not a part of what IS, natural.

Can any person name any thing that is above, beyond, not a part of, or super, natural?

If not, then let this rest in peace, once, and for ALL.

But WHO would be silly enough to suggest that gods are natural?

I'm not arguing such a stupid topic with smug, superstitious god-botherers (it's unbearably futile), especially not one as delusional, self-important, and overcompensatingly condescending as yourself.

Anybody who would claim that gods interfere with reality.

For any detectable phenomenon is in the realm of scientific enquiry, and therefore ‘natural’.

Indeed. Belief in gods is irrational because the whole concept is a contradiction in terms. No wonder they are so screwed up and impossible to reason with.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Sat Dec 08, 2018 6:45 pm Indeed. Belief in gods is irrational because the whole concept is a contradition in terms. No wonder they are so screwed up and impossible to reason with.

And yet we have to give our ignorance a name. Like 'gravity' - even though we don't know how/why it works...

Age wrote: ↑Sat Dec 08, 2018 2:48 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Dec 08, 2018 4:41 am

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Sat Dec 08, 2018 4:34 am

The Universe is defined as ALL THERE IS which is absolute / eternal by definition even if it cannot actually be concluded by a conditional Scientific Framework And System at this point in time

Note you're a part and parcel of reality.
There is no way you can extract yourself away from reality to stand on a God's eye view to make any objective conclusion such as

Are you Absolutely 100% SURE of this?

By the way does one NEED to extract them self away from reality to have a God's eye view of things?

Seems a rather UNreal thing to expect.

Note the general view of reality is 'ALL there is'.
Therefore you cannot claim 'you' and the rest of all humans are not part and parcel of 'ALL there is."
You dispute this?

If one does not extract oneself from reality to have a God's eye view then how can one claim to have an absolute independent objective view.
My claim is humans will always have a co-dependent objective view/beliefs/knowledge conditioned within an agreed Framework and System.

Since God is a belief, God cannot exists as an absolute independent entity. Rather God has to be co-dependent with human conditions, thus the basis of psychology.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Sat Dec 08, 2018 6:34 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sat Dec 08, 2018 12:24 pm

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Fri Dec 07, 2018 10:48 pm The supernatural doesn't exist by definition. As soon as you start to 'prove' god's existence with 'evidence' then he ceases to exist as 'god' anyway (I don't know why the Lane Craigs etc. and his ilk even bother). Religious leaders covered their arses in that respect millennia ago. It means they don't have to prove anything, and can just keep raking in the money.

But WHO would be silly enough to suggest that 'God' was supernatural?

For the very reason you have so simply and easily demonstrated, by definition, if some thing was supposedly 'super-natural', then it would be above, beyond, or not a part of what IS, natural.

Can any person name any thing that is above, beyond, not a part of, or super, natural?

If not, then let this rest in peace, once, and for ALL.

But WHO would be silly enough to suggest that gods are natural?

WHO suggests that there are gods?

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Sat Dec 08, 2018 6:34 pmYou are right about one thing; no one can name anything that is above nature, because there isn't anything above nature.

But I did NOT say that no one can name anything that is above nature. What I did say, however, was a clarifying question, which WAS and still IS;
Can any person name any thing that is above, beyond, not a part of, or super, natural?

I remain OPEN, awaiting an answer. For all I know there may in fact be a person who can name some thing like that. Not that I have seen any thing like that, and at the moment I can not even envision any thing like that. But I am still OPEN.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Sat Dec 08, 2018 6:34 pmI'm not arguing such a stupid topic

WHAT topic?

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Sat Dec 08, 2018 6:34 pmwith smug, superstitious god-botherers (it's unbearably futile),

WHO do you think is a god-botherer?

ALL I have asked is who/what is 'God' exactly?

I ask this to any person on any side of the debate about whether God exists or not.

I find it futile that any person debates such a ridiculous thing when they do NOT even have an idea of what God actually IS. In other words they, literally, do NOT know what they are actually talking about when discussing 'God's existence', or not, issue.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Sat Dec 08, 2018 6:34 pm especially not one as delusional,

What do you propose that I am actually delusional about exactly?

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Sat Dec 08, 2018 6:34 pmself-important, and overcompensatingly condescending as yourself.

Do you KNOW who 'I' am?

How is that for a "self-important and overcompenstaingly condescending" response?

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Sat Dec 08, 2018 6:45 pm

Logik wrote: ↑Sat Dec 08, 2018 6:42 pm

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Sat Dec 08, 2018 6:34 pm

But WHO would be silly enough to suggest that gods are natural?

I'm not arguing such a stupid topic with smug, superstitious god-botherers (it's unbearably futile), especially not one as delusional, self-important, and overcompensatingly condescending as yourself.

Anybody who would claim that gods interfere with reality.

For any detectable phenomenon is in the realm of scientific enquiry, and therefore ‘natural’.

Indeed. Belief in gods is irrational because the whole concept is a contradiction in terms. No wonder they are so screwed up and impossible to reason with.

Some might also say, Belief in no gods is irrational also, because the whole concept is a contradiction in terms. They might also say, No wonder they are so screwed up and impossible to reason with.

People can 'try to' argue any thing, especially when they are so dearly trying to hold onto their beliefs.