Philosophy Now Forum

Notvacka wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:Not knowledge, but presumption, based upon archaic belief systems, not thinking outside the box provided by primitives.
Not knowledge, but presumption, based upon archaic belief systems, not thinking outside the box provided by primitives.
Not knowledge, but presumption, based upon archaic belief systems, not thinking outside the box provided by primitives.
Not knowledge, but presumption, based upon archaic belief systems, not thinking outside the box provided by primitives.

Do you think repeating that phrase over and over is somehow clever? (I remember somebody mentioning parrots before. )
One cannot parrot themselves. A parrot merely repeats what it's heard, 'someone else say,' without comprehension.

My use of the analogy has never been about repetitiveness, as sometimes it's required to penetrate thick skulls. I don't necessarily mean you. You actually seem to be one of the more intelligent ones here, that's capable of humility, usually. In that particular post I just saw you making the same mistake over and over again, which you normally don't do.

Besides being annoying, it shows that you have not understood me.
Then your wording was not clear.

I don't believe in knowledge and I don't make presumptions, only assumptions, if you can appreciate the difference.
Incorrect you did not coin those ideas you parroted! You seem to be incapable of discarding the box of thought, that archaic ideas has placed you in.

presumption - pre·sump·tion /prɪˈzʌmpʃən/ [pri-zuhmp-shuhn]
noun
1. the act of presuming.
2. assumption of something as true.
--Dictionary.com Unabridged
Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2012.--

And I'm not trying to "think outside the box" here,
I never said you were, I meant that your words displayed the incapability of doing so. Sorry, for the misunderstanding!

I'm trying to provide a box. (Not the kind of box you are talking about, thouh. )
Well it was said long before you ever said it.

You, obviously didn't understand the box I was referring to

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

chaz wyman wrote:If god is outside reality then he is not real.

QED god does not exist.

Case closed.
Not closed, empty headed!

Not knowledge, but presumption, based upon archaic belief systems, not thinking outside the box, as provided by primitives.

Assuming our reality is the only thing there is, is just that! What are you, a God, Chaz?

chaz wyman wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

chaz wyman wrote:If god is outside reality then he is not real.

QED god does not exist.

Case closed.
Not closed, empty headed!

Not knowledge, but presumption, based upon archaic belief systems, not thinking outside the box, as provided by primitives.

Assuming our reality is the only thing there is, is just that! What are you, a God, Chaz?

If you want to discuss a thing with me then please confront what I said,
I did!

not what you wanted me to say.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

Notvacka wrote:Besides being annoying, it shows that you have not understood me.

Then your wording was not clear.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

Notvacka wrote:I don't believe in knowledge and I don't make presumptions, only assumptions, if you can appreciate the difference.

Incorrect you did not coin those ideas you parroted! You seem to be incapable of discarding the box of thought, that archaic ideas has placed you in.

presumption - pre·sump·tion /prɪˈzʌmpʃən/ [pri-zuhmp-shuhn]
noun
1. the act of presuming.
2. assumption of something as true.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

Notvacka wrote:God is supposed to be the creator of our physical universe (reality).

Finally an inkling of truth (see red highlight above), pointing to the fact that it's not knowledge, but presumption, based upon archaic belief systems, not thinking outside the box provided by primitives.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:...
Not true, on a PBS documentary, Michio Kaku, an American theoretical physicist, the Henry Semat Professor of Theoretical Physics in the City College of New York of City University of New York, a co-founder of string field theory, that Stephen Hawking supports, saying that 'he believes that string theory is a step toward the correct fundamental description of nature.' said that recently physics pertaining to cosmology has been turned upside down such that some leading physicist's have looked to creationism (God) for answers. ...

Arising_uk wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:...
Not true, on a PBS documentary, Michio Kaku, an American theoretical physicist, the Henry Semat Professor of Theoretical Physics in the City College of New York of City University of New York, a co-founder of string field theory, that Stephen Hawking supports, saying that 'he believes that string theory is a step toward the correct fundamental description of nature.' said that recently physics pertaining to cosmology has been turned upside down such that some leading physicist's have looked to creationism (God) for answers. ...

But string-theory is currently just that? A mathematical theory that might or might not be a 'correct' description but at present is unprovable in physics.

Notvacka wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

Notvacka wrote:Besides being annoying, it shows that you have not understood me.

Then your wording was not clear.

That's the main problem with most philosophical discussions. We use exactly the same words, but we don't mean exactly the same thing. And that's what I meant by providing a box, by the way; narrowing down, rather than expanding the discussion, in order to bring more clarity: Focus on the misunderstandings and ambiguities.
I just think that it's the responsibility of the writer to try and do his best to negate the potential for misconception as much as possible, and not to be brief at the expense of clarity for the sake of time. Because at that point one might as well not comment at all.

(Godfree has demonstrated that he doesn't speak the language of science and doesn't understand the basics of physics. Nor does he want to. And he's welcome to his religion.)

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

Notvacka wrote:I don't believe in knowledge and I don't make presumptions, only assumptions, if you can appreciate the difference.

Incorrect you did not coin those ideas you parroted! You seem to be incapable of discarding the box of thought, that archaic ideas has placed you in.

presumption - pre·sump·tion /prɪˈzʌmpʃən/ [pri-zuhmp-shuhn]
noun
1. the act of presuming.
2. assumption of something as true.

Although "presume" and "assume" are used interchangeably now, to presume originally meant to assert that something is true without complete evidence. To assume, on the other hand, meant to acknowledge that not all evidence is in, but to act as though something is true. That's the difference I was referring to, and I hope you can appreciate it.

Particularly, I don't presume that my ideas are original. Very few ideas are. You seem obsessed with the notion of originality and "parroting".
Parroting I see as a real problem, because it tends to cause people to not think for themselves and it seems that often, when they do, It's usually in support of a bad idea, which they make worse. More power to them, but I like making a point of it, when they think they've reached gold.

Even if I come up with an idea that is completely new to me, chances are that lots of people have come up with the very same idea before. An idea is not necessarily better for being new, or worse for being old.
I agree 100% as to the potency of a great idea, it doesn't matter, but one should ensure that they don't present ideas of faith as though they are fact. And a creator can actually not be proven either way, nor it's link to reality. To make a statement that sounds of fact, when it's impossible to know, does little for one's argument, and in the face of one defending against many, I expect the many to at least be clear accurate, and kind in their onslaught.

Besides, I'm disappointed that you, who rejects dogma and authority, presumes that I'm "incorrect" based on a dictionary. It's not about being "correct", it's about understanding and being understood. I'm not here to "win" debates.
You miss my point, as to the use of a dictionary, which is 'all' about being understood, and I'm surprised, as you've covered it here, and at the top of this message as well, and still don't seem to see it. I see a dictionary as a standard, i.e., a standard is used in precise measuring to ensure that any two or more measuring devices, shall achieve the exact same value. This is what a dictionary is for, to ensure all parties are speaking the same language so as not to be misunderstood.

While I usually don't presume, I do assume a lot. One assumption that I constantly make is that people who read my posts will understand what I mean. I know that the assumption is faulty, and people misunderstand all the time. But without that assumption, I would not bother to post here at all.
This sounds as though you're saying that if you can't post as you want, with few words, that could lead to misinterpretation, that you'll take your crayons and go home. I truly hope we are experiencing another communication breakdown here.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

Notvacka wrote:God is supposed to be the creator of our physical universe (reality).

Finally an inkling of truth (see red highlight above), pointing to the fact that it's not knowledge, but presumption, based upon archaic belief systems, not thinking outside the box provided by primitives.

That which you call "an inkling of truth" is a mere courtesy. In context of what I'm trying to say, the meaning would be the same without it: God is the creator of our physical universe.
I disagree! there is a difference between the two, and I'm shocked that you consider clarification a courtesy.

Because in this context, it is not meant to be read as a statement of fact, nor as an expression of belief in God. It's just a clarification, like: When I now use the word "God" (which can mean a lot of things), I'm talking about the creator of the physical universe (who might or might not exist). "Truth" has nothing to do with it. "Knowledge" has nothing to do with it. The existence of God has nothing to to with it. And it's not "based upon archaic belief systems" or anything else. It's just the assumption of a premise, and it leads to a conclusion:
Then you should indicate as such, as I believe that most would see it as an assertion of fact. Are we trying to confuse and deceive people here, or do you really believe that getting an idea across is the most important thing as you have stated.

If God is the creator of reality, then God must exist outside reality.
God is said to be the creator of reality for 'us,' this does not necessarily mean that he is not contained within this same reality, that he did not create our reality within his realm. It is a false assumption. I would go so far as to say that as with anything that has to do with a god, all bets are off that any human would be capable of putting forth any ideas worth mentioning in an argument meant to actually make a point.

Now, please try to understand what I mean before you spout your usual accusations. I have spent several hours writing this reply. (Note that I have used the quote function correctly and all ) I expect you to put at least some effort into it if you wish to continue this discussion.

As if to say I don't, I'm sorry you feel bothered.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

Godfree wrote:Spheres ,,
"some leading physicists have looked to creationism for answers"
now that doesn't sound like you Spheres , god,? answers from god ,?
come on get real , tell me the truth ,
do you look to creationism for answers,???
do you look to god for answers Spheres,????
if so I have miss-judged you completely ,,!!!

I've told you before, though you seem to easily forget, "I HATE MAN'S GOD!"

But I believe in the possibility of a creator, whatever it's nature. I hate labeling but the closest one to my beliefs is agnostic.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:My point was about a connection between god and science not the science itself. It was just provided in case people were unfamiliar with Michio Kaku.

Arising_uk wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:My point was about a connection between god and science not the science itself. It was just provided in case people were unfamiliar with Michio Kaku.

And the link between this and creationism is what?

Godfree wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

Godfree wrote:Spheres ,,
"some leading physicists have looked to creationism for answers"
now that doesn't sound like you Spheres , god,? answers from god ,?
come on get real , tell me the truth ,
do you look to creationism for answers,???
do you look to god for answers Spheres,????
if so I have miss-judged you completely ,,!!!

I've told you before, though you seem to easily forget, "I HATE MAN'S GOD!"

But I believe in the possibility of a creator, whatever it's nature. I hate labeling but the closest one to my beliefs is agnostic.

You hate mans god but you like your one,,???????
or the idea that there is one , yes that sounds like agnostic ,
which is not the impression I got from you , I'm sure you have described yourself as an Atheist ,???
and thank you for your honesty , I wish Arising had the same courage and honesty , I think he is also agnostic , so despite your battle with him ,
your probably both agnostic , go figure,
for the record , just incase you have miss-read me ,
I don't imagine a creator of any sort , bb or god , creation is the wrong term,
if infinity is reality , and I don't believe there is another possibility ,
and you did say you think an infinite universe is reality ,
if infinity is reality , the universe always was and was never created,
so when do you imagine , creation took place,,??????

Godfree wrote:No! That is not what an agnostic is. According to the dictionary, an agnostic see's that either solution is possible, such that they're on the fence so to speak. In my case, I see that it's currently, virtually impossible, to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt, if either side is true or false. It's not for fear of a creator's retribution that I stand on this fence, with me it's all about truth, and the ability to know it! I have ping ponged back and forth throughout my years on this subject, but now find that I prefer to be perched upon this fence until absolute proof topples me from it. I find that there are good arguments supporting both possibilities, but in the end both are steeped in speculation and archaic rhetoric.

godfreebotherer wrote: I believe thats a Skeptic , sitting on the fence , not convinced either way ,
Skeptic , and it saddens me to hear you can't see a difference ,
between superstitious nonsense , and science , despite all it's flaws ,
science is at least attempting to discover reality ,
creation is pure fantasy , nothing to do with reality,
and rather than rave on about Skeptics , if you want my view ,
read page one of Atheists vrs Skeptics , !!!

chaz wyman wrote:

Godfree wrote:No! That is not what an agnostic is. According to the dictionary, an agnostic see's that either solution is possible, such that they're on the fence so to speak. In my case, I see that it's currently, virtually impossible, to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt, if either side is true or false. It's not for fear of a creator's retribution that I stand on this fence, with me it's all about truth, and the ability to know it! I have ping ponged back and forth throughout my years on this subject, but now find that I prefer to be perched upon this fence until absolute proof topples me from it. I find that there are good arguments supporting both possibilities, but in the end both are steeped in speculation and archaic rhetoric.

godfreebotherer wrote: I believe thats a Skeptic , sitting on the fence , not convinced either way ,
Skeptic , and it saddens me to hear you can't see a difference ,
between superstitious nonsense , and science , despite all it's flaws ,
science is at least attempting to discover reality ,
creation is pure fantasy , nothing to do with reality,
and rather than rave on about Skeptics , if you want my view ,
read page one of Atheists vrs Skeptics , !!!

A skeptic is a doubter. One who continues to doubt, in the view to finding the truth. An agnostic is an untenable position. For them the issue is decided. It is decided to be undecided. A skpetic continues to enquire, an agnostic has made up his mind to give up.
Skepticism is the only position to take on any issue as it enables one to keep the issue open to new facts and presentations of evidence. Even a person who accepts a position is best to maintain a skeptical stance never fully accepting the truth of a thing. They make the best scientists and thinkers. An agnostic has given up by declaring his position.

On the issue of god and creation however. This is not even wrong. It is just meaningless.