The Philosophy Discussion Forum

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Wed Mar 05, 2025 3:54 am
Is it peer-reviewed, meaning read and reviewed by other scholars?

https://archive.org/details/@phil8659

There is a link to all my postings, several of which are simply Virtual Libraries one can use to learn

Peer review is used for publishing. Maybe you need to learn what that means.

No author, self published, gives a shit about anyone's opinions, especially since you can use any geometry and math program to verify the work, genius.
Who peer reviewed, Charles Darwin, or Charles Lyell?

I am working on making a virtual library of his work also. So far, over 200 pdf files.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Wed Mar 05, 2025 3:54 am
Is it peer-reviewed, meaning read and reviewed by other scholars?

You are really thick.
What is the definition of a scholar, look it up. Anyone who learns is a scholar.

So, are you implying that people download my work in order not to study it? Secondly, it would take most people years to go through it.

The peer review system is used by publishing companies run by people who do not know the field by use these reviews in order to decide if or if not they should publish it, as they have limited resources and it is a method of attempting to filter out complete bull shit.

iambiguous wrote: ↑Wed Mar 05, 2025 1:50 am Again, how on Earth are assessments like this applicable to our day-to-day interactions with others? And in a world bursting at the seams with literally hundreds and hundreds of Gods and religious pathways from which to choose.

Note to others:

How are his points not basically a bunch of words defining and defending other words.

Again, how on Earth are assessments like this applicable to our day-to-day interactions with others? And in a world bursting at the seams with literally hundreds and hundreds of Gods and religious pathways from which to choose.

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Wed Mar 05, 2025 3:08 am You use words like someone who watches too much television after they microwave their hair dry in the morning.

Say, what?!!

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Wed Mar 05, 2025 3:08 am Try long years of study before you think you have the right to waste peoples time with your whining.

Again, in my view, the only way we can waste anyone's time here is if they choose to waste it themselves by reading and responding to our posts.

As I noted right from the start, "okay, you are not interested in exploring God given my own set of assumptions above. No problem. That's always been a long shot for me here. And lots of other forums as well."

Then back to this:

This is all rather abstract to me. God and grammar? How would you intertwine your points here given your day-to-day interactions with others.

Instead, if you have any interest, assessments of God and religion [for me] revolve "for all practical purposes" around these four factors:

1] a demonstrable proof of the existence of your God or religious/spiritual path
2] addressing the fact that down through the ages hundreds of Gods and religious/spiritual paths to immortality and salvation were/are championed...but only one of which [if any] can be the true path. So why yours?
3] addressing the profoundly problematic role that dasein plays in any particular individual's belief in Gods and religious/spiritual faiths
4] the questions that revolve around theodicy and your own particular God or religious/spiritual path

Theodicy in particular. Why? Because how can a loving, just and merciful God [as many describe Him] be reconciled with this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_earthquakes
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_l ... _eruptions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_t ... l_cyclones
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tsunamis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_landslides
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fires
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_epidemics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_deadliest_floods
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_t ... ore_deaths
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_diseases
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_extinction_events

Which I suspect is why Harold Kushner's assessment that God is not omnipotent was so provocative. Otherwise, why, given all the terrible pain and suffering these "acts of God" cause, might it not make more sense to imagine an omniscient and omnipotent God to be a...sadist?

Instead, in my view, that's not your own idea of how a defense of God should be encompassed. In other words, in assessments that revolve almost entirely around words defining and defending other words.

As for this...

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Wed Mar 05, 2025 3:08 am If you want to see how far you can go with grammar, my work "The Art of Prophecy" on the Internet Archive is written in Geometry and Algebra, all grammar systems are designed to have some function in predictive behavior. The work is encyclopedic. All original. You should eventually understand that you can, with your own hand, draw any computational system, quite independent of any human being.

On the other hand, most people believe in a God, the God and defend their own because, if you do want access to moral commandments, immortality and salvation, He is basically the only show in town...

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Wed Mar 05, 2025 4:12 am

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Wed Mar 05, 2025 3:54 am
Is it peer-reviewed, meaning read and reviewed by other scholars?

You are really thick.
What is the definition of a scholar, look it up. Anyone who learns is a scholar.

So, are you implying that people download my work in order not to study it? Secondly, it would take most people years to go through it.

The peer review system is used by publishing companies run by people who do not know the field by use these reviews in order to decide if or if not they should publish it, as they have limited resources and it is a method of attempting to filter out complete bull shit.

Good luck with your project.

Fairy wrote: ↑Mon Mar 03, 2025 9:12 pm

Perspective wrote: ↑Mon Mar 03, 2025 8:36 pm
What does, “the word was God” mean? Borrowing the truth definition, do words help with truth?

The Word is not merely a spoken word but a person, as later verses reveal, who is active in the world. This phrase indicates a distinct yet intimate relationship between the Word and God. The preposition "with" suggests a face-to-face relationship, implying both distinction and unity.

True - in the Christian tradition.
However, I prefer a more psychological interpretation. I’ve found that chaotic emotions & deep rooted dysfunctional beliefs can best be transformed to manageable order through putting those feelings & beliefs into words. So I see how God/truth is the word.

I like how you pointed out the meaning of “with.” Something I’ll think about more.

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 03, 2025 9:31 pm The Bible, The Dialogs of Plato, and the Elements of Euclid are all examples of Grammar Books.

Interesting approach.

Grammar: "art of letters", from γράμμα (grámma), "letter", itself from γράφειν (gráphein), "to draw, to write"

I believe strongly in writing as we are now - formulating our thoughts and conveying them through words.

Perspective wrote: ↑Thu Mar 06, 2025 5:44 pm

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 03, 2025 9:31 pm The Bible, The Dialogs of Plato, and the Elements of Euclid are all examples of Grammar Books.

Interesting approach.

Grammar: "art of letters", from γράμμα (grámma), "letter", itself from γράφειν (gráphein), "to draw, to write"

I believe strongly in writing as we are now - formulating our thoughts and conveying them through words.

If what you say is true and relevant, perhaps you can direct the people here to your work in maintaining and promoting grammar, as I have mine on the Internet Archive.
My current project will probably be called something like Charles Lyell Virtual University, or something like that. Memory of important advancements in human understanding, I find important work to study and share.

We have two frontiers to master, the inner environment of the intelligible and the outer environment of the perceptible. Both of which center on mastering our own particular behavior.

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 07, 2025 12:04 pm

Perspective wrote: ↑Thu Mar 06, 2025 5:44 pm

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 03, 2025 9:31 pm The Bible, The Dialogs of Plato, and the Elements of Euclid are all examples of Grammar Books.

Interesting approach.

Grammar: "art of letters", from γράμμα (grámma), "letter", itself from γράφειν (gráphein), "to draw, to write"

I believe strongly in writing as we are now - formulating our thoughts and conveying them through words.

If what you say is true and relevant, perhaps you can direct the people here to your work in maintaining and promoting grammar, as I have mine on the Internet Archive.
My current project will probably be called something like Charles Lyell Virtual University, or something like that. Memory of important advancements in human understanding, I find important work to study and share.

We have two frontiers to master, the inner environment of the intelligible and the outer environment of the perceptible. Both of which center on mastering our own particular behavior.

Good for you!

When I teach grammar, I regularly use philosophy quotes for students to point out the different parts of speech. 2-for-1 deal!

Perspective wrote: ↑Mon Mar 10, 2025 4:36 pm
When I teach grammar, I regularly use philosophy quotes for students to point out the different parts of speech. 2-for-1 deal!

I am slowly working on a 4 in 1 deal for grammar teaching, a product of the result of binary processing which gives us a grammar Matrix: Common Grammar, Arithmetic, Algebra and Geometry. So that mankind becomes aware of, as Plato noted, the similar idea in the many examples.

Sorry. Sorry, Phil, I exalted.

That was uncalled for my apologies.

promethean75 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 10, 2025 11:48 pm Sorry. Sorry, Phil, I exalted.

That was uncalled for my apologies.

No problem, I know a lot of people cannot scrape up a thought of their own and just point to some pile of shit, thinking that because they stepped into it, it might be nice to share it.

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 11, 2025 2:13 am

promethean75 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 10, 2025 11:48 pm Sorry. Sorry, Phil, I exalted.

That was uncalled for my apologies.

No problem, I know a lot of people cannot scrape up a thought of their own and just point to some pile of shit, thinking that because they stepped into it, it might be nice to share it.

Who told you that?

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 03, 2025 1:03 pm In Defense of God

One of the first things sage via GOD (*aether) stated to me was "God needs nothing".

Thus, certainly doesn't need any defence.

Using, peer-reviewed material, you would know what the term god meant. Scholars go through rigorous learning, not just look-up and then pawn it off as your own (without any research and peer-review.) The internet is one big lie, for the most part. You only get what you pay for and put your time into is what you get out of it. The internet can give you 100,000 searches in an engine, a librarian can give you one, the correct one. Plus, the magazine has an internal search engine on terms, and if you read them-you may learn something. Remember that you only get out of it what you put into it. Academics is the truth a justification-why I am a sceptic-a belief is infallible that is most of the beliefs on this thread as well as the message board. "When you argue with an idiot, then there are two."