Philosophy Now Forum

Lacewing wrote:

The Inglorious One wrote:Ever consider the possibility that human personalities are the projection? That human personality is the time-space image-shadow cast by a Creator personality?

Sure... except I don't think of it in terms of there being a "creator".

Why do you insist that Creatorship and personhood is equivalent to a magical entity? How can the Unity be any less than you or I? Read the excerpts.

But there was no desire one way or the other.

You are fooling only yourself.

Of course not.

But you do, all the time.

The Inglorious One wrote:What if we simply do not know and cannot know what being is and use the word "God" to denote the mystery of its existence? Our existence?

That would make sense to me, except for the fact that so many absolute ideas have already been attached to the word "God", such that it seems permanently clouded. Words can be so powerful... and I don't want to think along the lines of any of the associations that the current definition of "God" inspires (because those do not make sense to me).

Plus... I don't want to assign an identity to the "mystery of existence" or all-that-is. So naming is tricky. I hope at some point, humans will respect all that is beyond themselves, and not try to personify it, which (I'm guessing) essentially reduces it down to our level and turns it into something else of our own making.

The Inglorious One wrote:

Lacewing wrote: Sure... except I don't think of it in terms of there being a "creator".

Why do you insist that Creatorship and personhood is equivalent to a magical entity? How can the Unity be any less than you or I? Read the excerpts.

I don't understand what you're asking. Can you re-phrase this another way?

The Inglorious One wrote:

Lacewing wrote: But there was no desire one way or the other.

You are fooling only yourself.

Why would you say this? You did not have the experience. Do you think it is not possible to be in a state of having no desire?

The Inglorious One wrote:

Lacewing wrote:Of course not.

But you do, all the time.

What are you talking about? Show me.

You're no different than anyone else, Lacewing.

The Inglorious One wrote:You're no different than anyone else, Lacewing.

I don't know if your statement above is meant to be an insult or a reminder. I've responded very thoughtfully to your questions/comments, and now you're throwing out snippy little remarks without explanation, and without answering my questions. Why has your tone changed? What do you think is going on here?

Obvious Leo wrote:Inglorious. Since you've never answered a single one of my previous questions I'm not optimistic that you'll bother to answer this one either but here goes:

Q. Do you believe (A) that you will continue to exist eternally in some non-material form after your current physical body of matter and energy dies? and (B) that such an eternal existence will be denied to me because I don't share this opinion.

Beats me and I don't care, respectively.

The Inglorious One wrote:

Obvious Leo wrote:Inglorious. Since you've never answered a single one of my previous questions I'm not optimistic that you'll bother to answer this one either but here goes:

Q. Do you believe (A) that you will continue to exist eternally in some non-material form after your current physical body of matter and energy dies? and (B) that such an eternal existence will be denied to me because I don't share this opinion.

Beats me and I don't care, respectively.

It doesn't sound like you've put a lot of thought into the properties of your invisible best friend.

Obvious Leo wrote:

The Inglorious One wrote:

Obvious Leo wrote:Inglorious. Since you've never answered a single one of my previous questions I'm not optimistic that you'll bother to answer this one either but here goes:

Q. Do you believe (A) that you will continue to exist eternally in some non-material form after your current physical body of matter and energy dies? and (B) that such an eternal existence will be denied to me because I don't share this opinion.

Beats me and I don't care, respectively.

It doesn't sound like you've put a lot of thought into the properties of your invisible best friend.

You need to brush up on your nursery school theology.

The Inglorious One wrote:You need to brush up on your nursery school theology.

Why? Has somebody done "god for grown-ups"?

Obvious Leo wrote:

The Inglorious One wrote:You need to brush up on your nursery school theology.

Why? Has somebody done "god for grown-ups"?

Because you're talking out your ass.

The Inglorious One wrote:

Obvious Leo wrote:Inglorious. Do you think your credibility will be hindered or advanced by quoting the half-baked opinions of an advocate for intelligent design who has no physics and even less philosophy?

Clara Szalai is a fundamentalist fruitloop.

What has that to do with the ideas presented?

That's just your trouble. You are so busy cheering on your opposition's opposition that you have not even noticed what Gustav is talking about.

I sort of don't blame you. Gustav's posts are so full of wind, finding meaning and a clear point of view is like looking for Duck al'orange in a large pink blancmange.

But I think you might want to more carefully consider the views of the person you are cheering on.

Hobbes. I have a feeling that even Gustav may not be all that thrilled about having to acknowledge his new best friend. His own credibility was problematic from the outset but it is hardly likely to to be enhanced with Inglorious as his cheerleader.

Obvious Leo wrote:Hobbes. I have a feeling that even Gustav may not be all that thrilled about having to acknowledge his new best friend. His own credibility was problematic from the outset but it is hardly likely to to be enhanced with Inglorious as his cheerleader.

Adversity makes strange bed fellows. They sort of suit each other.

You are a interesting bunch. So far, my impression of Inglorious is that he remains open to examining and exploring the idea of divinity and pushes back against a radical atheistic position, which is in its way a religious-like position. That position is really quite cogent and can hardly be considered radical or even strange. If I receive 2, 3 or 4 affirmations that someone reads my posts, and enjoys them, that works for me and I am thankful.

Hobbles wrote:Gustav's posts are so full of wind...

I think one would need to understand better what 'wind' means to you. What literature for example do you admire? Homer? Dante? The Greek Tragedies? I am especially interested to know what you think of Shakespeare. Do you read any modern novels? What novels and writers do you admire? Is Hobbes your preferred philosopher?

PS: I would also point out that at some point in these 'conversations', when the devolve to a certain point, people talk past each other and there is little to gain, either contributing or reading.