Philosophy Now Forum

chaz wyman wrote:The language part of your argument is evidence of a lack of mental discrimination. You have a empty collection of phonic co-incidences........these only form a small range of syllables that are euphonic to the language and it is these that you abuse in your mangled and twisted interpretations - all of which can be used to find any dumb meaning you want.

Chaz...for the second time, i will give you the opportunity to prove that point. Provide your alternate interpretation of the 20 words i have provided...or provide another twenty of your own choice. Simple.
Lets see if they convey the same level of rationale (to their parent word) as mine.

attofishpi wrote:

chaz wyman wrote:The language part of your argument is evidence of a lack of mental discrimination. You have a empty collection of phonic co-incidences........these only form a small range of syllables that are euphonic to the language and it is these that you abuse in your mangled and twisted interpretations - all of which can be used to find any dumb meaning you want.

Chaz...for the second time, i will give you the opportunity to prove that point. Provide your alternate interpretation of the 20 words i have provided...or provide another twenty of your own choice. Simple.
Lets see if they convey the same level of rationale (to their parent word) as mine.

Prove it? It's what they call a no-brainer.

ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOP.

Limited.

Dog
Chein
Canis
reun
mannetjie
macho
samec
hunde
argevikos
isane
koira
male
pseci
kan
jantan
hunda
maschio
mascul


The connection between the signifier and the signified is arbitrary.


"Provide your alternate interpretation of the 20 words i have provided"
The point is that you are interpreting nothing, signifying nothing.

Kayla wrote:

attofishpi wrote:The language part of my argument was taught to me by a sage.

this sage?

Probably this sage:


I think he smoked it!

chaz wyman wrote:

attofishpi wrote:

chaz wyman wrote:The language part of your argument is evidence of a lack of mental discrimination. You have a empty collection of phonic co-incidences........these only form a small range of syllables that are euphonic to the language and it is these that you abuse in your mangled and twisted interpretations - all of which can be used to find any dumb meaning you want.

Chaz...for the second time, i will give you the opportunity to prove that point. Provide your alternate interpretation of the 20 words i have provided...or provide another twenty of your own choice. Simple.
Lets see if they convey the same level of rationale (to their parent word) as mine.

Prove it? It's what they call a no-brainer.

ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOP.

Limited.

Dog
Chein
Canis
reun
mannetjie
macho
samec
hunde
argevikos
isane
koira
male
pseci
kan
jantan
hunda
maschio
mascul


The connection between the signifier and the signified is arbitrary.


"Provide your alternate interpretation of the 20 words i have provided"
The point is that you are interpreting nothing, signifying nothing.

That was a Chaz cop out!!! English Chaz...LAN_GAUGE

Kayla wrote:

attofishpi wrote:The language part of my argument was taught to me by a sage.

this sage?

I have never seen my sage.

ah , an invisible sage

attofishpi wrote:

chaz wyman wrote: Prove it? It's what they call a no-brainer.

ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOP.

Limited.

Dog
Chein
Canis
reun
mannetjie
macho
samec
hunde
argevikos
isane
koira
male
pseci
kan
jantan
hunda
maschio
mascul


The connection between the signifier and the signified is arbitrary.


"Provide your alternate interpretation of the 20 words i have provided"
The point is that you are interpreting nothing, signifying nothing.

That was a Chaz cop out!!! English Chaz...LAN_GAUGE

WHich language, are you saying that the universe is written in English - ir is that the language of god?
THere is no cop out here, except the lack of your brain engaging.

attofishpi wrote:

Kayla wrote:

attofishpi wrote:The language part of my argument was taught to me by a sage.

this sage?

I have never seen my sage.

AH - you mean THIS sage!

chaz wyman wrote:...
WHich language, are you saying that the universe is written in English - ir is that the language of god? ...

Well of course it is! As we all know that 'God' is an Englishman. James Mason's voice probably but I like to think Noel Coward's more likely. Would that not be great!

Arising_uk wrote:

chaz wyman wrote:...
WHich language, are you saying that the universe is written in English - ir is that the language of god? ...

Well of course it is! As we all know that 'God' is an Englishman. James Mason's voice probably but I like to think Noel Coward's more likely. Would that not be great!

More like Arthur Daley.

I call God the Infinite.

Why try to put the face of that which is finite on that which is Infinite? All truth is found within the Infinite. Why look for it in another place?
Life is made up of a complex arrangement of mass particles, the whole being greater than the sum of its parts. I believe this is true of the Infinite. The void connects all matter and all movement. The Infinite is enhanced by time. The finite is limited by time. The Infinite is connected to everything. The finite, given choice, connects to the Infinite by its own will and capabilities. The Infinite places preference and choice above all, for it has given a preference of movement to every particle of mass. All mass moves in ways of increasing complexity.
The Infinite creates possible directions of movement or, shall we say, the Infinite is that which gives choice. The Infinite is that which creates the opportunity for mass particles to slow down and form the universe we perceive, with the promise that they would one day return to their own universe. This universe is governed by that agreement.

The Infinite must be singular, it is alone in its oneness. The Infinite is that which has no fear, for nothing fears itself. The Infinite knows no want, for it is everything. The Infinite is that which has no malice.
R.I.W.
The philosophy of an old boat builder at theinfinitemind.org

If God is infinite, this makes him beyond human comprehension.

reasonvemotion wrote:If God is infinite, this makes him beyond human comprehension.

Yes, unless God is a human creation, then God would be a human comprehension.

RIW wrote:I call God the Infinite.

Why try to put the face of that which is finite on that which is Infinite? All truth is found within the Infinite. Why look for it in another place?
Life is made up of a complex arrangement of mass particles, the whole being greater than the sum of its parts. I believe this is true of the Infinite. The void connects all matter and all movement. The Infinite is enhanced by time. The finite is limited by time. The Infinite is connected to everything. The finite, given choice, connects to the Infinite by its own will and capabilities. The Infinite places preference and choice above all, for it has given a preference of movement to every particle of mass. All mass moves in ways of increasing complexity.
The Infinite creates possible directions of movement or, shall we say, the Infinite is that which gives choice. The Infinite is that which creates the opportunity for mass particles to slow down and form the universe we perceive, with the promise that they would one day return to their own universe. This universe is governed by that agreement.

The Infinite must be singular, it is alone in its oneness. The Infinite is that which has no fear, for nothing fears itself. The Infinite knows no want, for it is everything. The Infinite is that which has no malice.
R.I.W.
The philosophy of an old boat builder at theinfinitemind.org

If god were infinite, then how would you know? One can't even count half way to infinity. Besides, there are many different types of infinities. There are as many even numbers as there are odd and even numbers combined, as an example, which would make the infinities equal. However, we know some infinities are larger than others. Draw a circle, two inches in diameter. Now, how many lines would it take, originating from the center of that circle to cover all points on the circumference? It would have to be an infinite number. Now, draw another circle, using the same center, but make it four inches in diameter. If you were to draw the lines that would cover every point on the smaller circle's circumference, to the larger circle's circumerence, you would find gaps. That means that even an infinte number of lines cannot cover all the points on the larger circle. So, some infinites are larger than others. So, when you say god is infinite, what size infinity are we speaking of?

Dear Reasonvemotion

Total comprehension yes beyond us. But anything you comprehend is an understanding of the infinite I hope to spend the rest of my life trying to comprehend as much of the infinite as I can. Calling the Infinite a he or a she will not lead to understanding but connecting to that which is good will, connecting to that which loves without need or want will. The infinite hides nothing we need only to opine our hart and our eyes and to look for understanding.