Philosophy Now Forum

attofishpi wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:Did you see that I said that it was impossible? Or did I merely say that I think it highly unlikely.

So you think it highly unlikely that IF there is a God, that one could know that it exists.....based on this:-

Anyone that says they know without providing 'proof' such that another can know, cannot provide 'proof' for themselves to know either, though obviously they may not admit it, such is the convenience that they enjoy!
Not at all, the main point is that those that say they know, almost always insist they speak to him, and of course they're always alone, yeah right! OK, I 'know' there are aliens. Are you OK with that? Do you now believe that there are aliens? Does the fact that I say I know, indicate such? Because you don't know, and I say I know, showing no proof, does it mean that I can't know? So where does both our stories get us? Anyone can say anything! And many usually do, usually for the sake of attention. Do you seek attention?


When considering that God is all dimensions...are you rational enough to see the obvious flaw in that logic?
My point, while I was not ready to call you insane, as you originally feared, know that the mind can do many things, dreams versus reality, and recall after much time and age comes to mind. Getting a bad mushroom, or being unknowingly dosed by a foolish practical joker, also comes to mind, but there are many others. You do know that people eating rye grain that was tainted with a purple glow, that as a result could do things ahead of their time, were burnt as witches, right? Of course, they might also have seen pink elephants, flying in the sky as well, I know some that say they have. The point being that there is no necessary accounting for what people may think they know. However, the more that witness any event, the more credible it becomes, barring some organized conspiracy.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:That to say one has talked to/seen/touched their god, usually comes with the convenience of either not being able, or saying one does not need to, have multiple fellow witness's of the only thing that I can see, as allowing for "knowledge" of such a god.

Believe me when i say that that there is NO convenience in not being able to have others 'witness' '''its''' existence.
Yes I've always characterized 'it' as an 'it,' but was unaware of your belief system.
I think you know what I meant, with regard to convenience. I have a funny feeling you shall never have witness's on any great scale, of course I could be wrong, but I doubt it.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:And don't you dare tell me this god of yours, really likes playing hide and go seek, and insists on blind faith. What could possibly be his motivation, and could he blame anyone but himself for non believers. If he's all wise and powerful, he understands the human psyche and how ones belief, or show of faith is dependent largely on learning, via experience, from/of those that tell you. Doesn't make much sense to hold someone accountable for that which they have no knowledge of, or exposure to.

I've never stated anyone is accountable for anything in relation to ''faith''.
I will state however that everyone is held in account for their actions...beyond what fellow man sees as justice. It truly is just ice in comparison.
I don't understand what ice represents to you.
I have a problem with actions too. As often they are hard to pin down as either right or wrong, especially when it comes to the mentally handicapped, to whatever degree. One could also argue as to psychological trauma, and it's offspring. I see nothing as black and white; there can always be extenuating circumstances, beyond ones control.

You raise a very good question, albeit in a roundabout way, as to why '''God''' doesnt make itself obvious to all. That is something i have pondered for many years and have come to a conclusion...that there is a reason for DOUBT....and that reason is in relation to ENTROPY.
Well I don't see the relationship.

What is this site below, yours?


http://www.androcies.com

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

attofishpi wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:Did you see that I said that it was impossible? Or did I merely say that I think it highly unlikely.

So you think it highly unlikely that IF there is a God, that one could know that it exists.....based on this:-

Anyone that says they know without providing 'proof' such that another can know, cannot provide 'proof' for themselves to know either, though obviously they may not admit it, such is the convenience that they enjoy!
Not at all, the main point is that those that say they know, almost always insist they speak to him, and of course they're always alone, yeah right! OK, I 'know' there are aliens. Are you OK with that? Do you now believe that there are aliens? Does the fact that I say I know, indicate such? Because you don't know, and I say I know, showing no proof, does it mean that I can't know? So where does both our stories get us? Anyone can say anything! And many usually do, usually for the sake of attention. Do you seek attention?


When considering that God is all dimensions...are you rational enough to see the obvious flaw in that logic?
My point, while I was not ready to call you insane, as you originally feared, know that the mind can do many things, dreams versus reality, and recall after much time and age comes to mind. Getting a bad mushroom, or being unknowingly dosed by a foolish practical joker, also comes to mind, but there are many others. You do know that people eating rye grain that was tainted with a purple glow, that as a result could do things ahead of their time, were burnt as witches, right? Of course, they might also have seen pink elephants, flying in the sky as well, I know some that say they have. The point being that there is no necessary accounting for what people may think they know. However, the more that witness any event, the more credible it becomes, barring some organized conspiracy.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:That to say one has talked to/seen/touched their god, usually comes with the convenience of either not being able, or saying one does not need to, have multiple fellow witness's of the only thing that I can see, as allowing for "knowledge" of such a god.

Believe me when i say that that there is NO convenience in not being able to have others 'witness' '''its''' existence.
Yes I've always characterized 'it' as an 'it,' but was unaware of your belief system.
I think you know what I meant, with regard to convenience. I have a funny feeling you shall never have witness's on any great scale, of course I could be wrong, but I doubt it.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:And don't you dare tell me this god of yours, really likes playing hide and go seek, and insists on blind faith. What could possibly be his motivation, and could he blame anyone but himself for non believers. If he's all wise and powerful, he understands the human psyche and how ones belief, or show of faith is dependent largely on learning, via experience, from/of those that tell you. Doesn't make much sense to hold someone accountable for that which they have no knowledge of, or exposure to.

I've never stated anyone is accountable for anything in relation to ''faith''.
I will state however that everyone is held in account for their actions...beyond what fellow man sees as justice. It truly is just ice in comparison.
I don't understand what ice represents to you.
I have a problem with actions too. As often they are hard to pin down as either right or wrong, especially when it comes to the mentally handicapped, to whatever degree. One could also argue as to psychological trauma, and it's offspring. I see nothing as black and white; there can always be extenuating circumstances, beyond ones control.

You raise a very good question, albeit in a roundabout way, as to why '''God''' doesnt make itself obvious to all. That is something i have pondered for many years and have come to a conclusion...that there is a reason for DOUBT....and that reason is in relation to ENTROPY.
Well I don't see the relationship.

What is this site below, yours?


http://www.androcies.com

SpheresOfBalance wrote:Did you see that I said that it was impossible? Or did I merely say that I think it highly unlikely.

attofishpi wrote:

attofishpi wrote:(and then SoB responded in blue)

So you think it highly unlikely that IF there is a God, that one could know that it exists.....based on this:-

Anyone that says they know without providing 'proof' such that another can know, cannot provide 'proof' for themselves to know either, though obviously they may not admit it, such is the convenience that they enjoy!
Not at all, the main point is that those that say they know, almost always insist they speak to him, and of course they're always alone, yeah right! OK, I 'know' there are aliens. Are you OK with that? Do you now believe that there are aliens? Does the fact that I say I know, indicate such? Because you don't know, and I say I know, showing no proof, does it mean that I can't know? So where does both our stories get us? Anyone can say anything! And many usually do, usually for the sake of attention. Do you seek attention?


When considering that God is all dimensions...are you rational enough to see the obvious flaw in that logic?
My point, while I was not ready to call you insane, as you originally feared, know that the mind can do many things, dreams versus reality, and recall after much time and age comes to mind. Getting a bad mushroom, or being unknowingly dosed by a foolish practical joker, also comes to mind, but there are many others. You do know that people eating rye grain that was tainted with a purple glow, that as a result could do things ahead of their time, were burnt as witches, right? Of course, they might also have seen pink elephants, flying in the sky as well, I know some that say they have. The point being that there is no necessary accounting for what people may think they know. However, the more that witness any event, the more credible it becomes, barring some organized conspiracy.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:That to say one has talked to/seen/touched their god, usually comes with the convenience of either not being able, or saying one does not need to, have multiple fellow witness's of the only thing that I can see, as allowing for "knowledge" of such a god.

Believe me when i say that that there is NO convenience in not being able to have others 'witness' '''its''' existence.
Yes I've always characterized 'it' as an 'it,' but was unaware of your belief system.
I think you know what I meant, with regard to convenience. I have a funny feeling you shall never have witness's on any great scale, of course I could be wrong, but I doubt it.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:And don't you dare tell me this god of yours, really likes playing hide and go seek, and insists on blind faith. What could possibly be his motivation, and could he blame anyone but himself for non believers. If he's all wise and powerful, he understands the human psyche and how ones belief, or show of faith is dependent largely on learning, via experience, from/of those that tell you. Doesn't make much sense to hold someone accountable for that which they have no knowledge of, or exposure to.

I've never stated anyone is accountable for anything in relation to ''faith''.
I will state however that everyone is held in account for their actions...beyond what fellow man sees as justice. It truly is just ice in comparison.
I don't understand what ice represents to you.
I have a problem with actions too. As often they are hard to pin down as either right or wrong, especially when it comes to the mentally handicapped, to whatever degree. One could also argue as to psychological trauma, and it's offspring. I see nothing as black and white; there can always be extenuating circumstances, beyond ones control.

You raise a very good question, albeit in a roundabout way, as to why '''God''' doesnt make itself obvious to all. That is something i have pondered for many years and have come to a conclusion...that there is a reason for DOUBT....and that reason is in relation to ENTROPY.
Well I don't see the relationship.

What is this site below, yours?


http://www.androcies.com

CBF

SpheresOfBalance wrote:PEACE, attofishpi (I've got it all figured out)!

Hjarloprillar wrote:There you go
attofishpie sounds exactly like some one i want to waffle on with at anytime of day or night.

if he is a she.. i would marry without a blink.

attofishpi wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:PEACE, attofishpi (I've got it all figured out)!

If I thought you did, i'd be the first to be pummeling you with questions.
No, I was saying that it's your sub-name, that it's you that thinks he's got it all figured out. But I was just teasing you, with a bit of sarcasm.

Instead i am provided waffle rather than rational debate, you like the sound of your own keyboard without the grey matter considering the actual topic and points made at hand.
Many see waffle, where they cannot tread, for fear.


This 'philosophy' forum is awash with waffle and attempts to score cheap points that are amplified over rational logical debate.
Sorry but I have always laughed at those that believe they can find some kind of mystical message in words of arbitrary origin, such that it can actually mean anything of significance, It has nothing to do with you, personally! You come along much after my understanding this, what I believe to be, fact! It is no necessary reflection on you, rather, the object of your insistence.

I've only had two maybe three decent debates with anyone on this forum and they were thanks to Chaz and Arising_uk where on the whole crap was left to the side and careful consideration of the topic at hand was at the forefront.
I don't see that careful consideration is required of such things as dissecting words, as to their roots, as they pertain to prefix and suffix as anything more than mans arbitrary construct of language. They certainly have nothing to do with a god, they are mans creation, which is why there are so many forms. You would only maybe be capable of convincing me otherwise if you could find correlation, in 'all' the various languages throughout time, that matched exactly that to which you have tried to correlate.

I was not making fun of your art, as I know that art appreciation is subjective, for instance, I hate Picasso and his cubism, and prefer the realists and idealists, over impressionistic forms, that's just me. You probably do better at art than I could, for any particular group of subjective art-form enthusiasts.

I only make fun of the correlation you try and insist, as if it could pertain to a god in some way.


Don't ever again even consider that i fear anything in relation to your keystrokes...judge me anything you like...IM INSANE

INSANE

...there you go.
I do not think you're insane. I think you see what you want to see, which is not insane, as many do this. I do too! When there are choices between two opposing ideas, we all choose the one that serves our predisposition, due to our programming, either by others or ourselves, but others always have influence, such is the nature of humankind's amassed knowledge. Once we have made up our minds, we dig in and oppose change, else we have lived a lie, and hate wasted time. Only the truly wise can always listen with open mind and change as new info presents itself, thus there are few that are truly wise.
Yes http://www.androcies.com/ is mine btw..

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

attofishpi wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:PEACE, attofishpi (I've got it all figured out)!

If I thought you did, i'd be the first to be pummeling you with questions.
No, I was saying that it's your sub-name, that it's you that thinks he's got it all figured out. But I was just teasing you, with a bit of sarcasm.

Instead i am provided waffle rather than rational debate, you like the sound of your own keyboard without the grey matter considering the actual topic and points made at hand.
Many see waffle, where they cannot tread, for fear.


This 'philosophy' forum is awash with waffle and attempts to score cheap points that are amplified over rational logical debate.
Sorry but I have always laughed at those that believe they can find some kind of mystical message in words of arbitrary origin, such that it can actually mean anything of significance, It has nothing to do with you, personally! You come along much after my understanding this, what I believe to be, fact! It is no necessary reflection on you, rather, the object of your insistence.

I've only had two maybe three decent debates with anyone on this forum and they were thanks to Chaz and Arising_uk where on the whole crap was left to the side and careful consideration of the topic at hand was at the forefront.
I don't see that careful consideration is required of such things as dissecting words, as to their roots, as they pertain to prefix and suffix as anything more than mans arbitrary construct of language. They certainly have nothing to do with a god, they are mans creation, which is why there are so many forms. You would only maybe be capable of convincing me otherwise if you could find correlation, in 'all' the various languages throughout time, that matched exactly that to which you have tried to correlate.

I was not making fun of your art, as I know that art appreciation is subjective, for instance, I hate Picasso and his cubism, and prefer the realists and idealists, over impressionistic forms, that's just me. You probably do better at art than I could, for any particular group of subjective art-form enthusiasts.

I only make fun of the correlation you try and insist, as if it could pertain to a god in some way.


Don't ever again even consider that i fear anything in relation to your keystrokes...judge me anything you like...IM INSANE

INSANE

...there you go.
I do not think you're insane. I think you see what you want to see, which is not insane, as many do this. I do too! When there are choices between two opposing ideas, we all choose the one that serves our predisposition, due to our programming, either by others or ourselves, but others always have influence, such is the nature of humankind's amassed knowledge. Once we have made up our minds, we dig in and oppose change, else we have lived a lie, and hate wasted time. Only the truly wise can always listen with open mind and change as new info presents itself, thus there are few that are truly wise.
Yes http://www.androcies.com/ is mine btw..

Hjarloprillar wrote:The facts as we know them..

Some 13+ billion years back there was a bang.
All this universe came to being.. it changed an EVOLVED.
generations of stars lived and died.
Coring our verse with heavy elements so fundamental to our small blue world.

Now we sit in comfy chairs squabbling over 'god'

What is not oft asked is.

Is this the only universe?
There is NO evidence it is not.

What existed before the bang?
No-one has any facts to make a position.

If The bang is singular or not. where do the rules that allow structure come from and where are they stored?

Just 3 questions.

They suggest to me that the bang came from somewhere. along with many others and rules were instilled in said event/s.

Prill

The VE scientist
-----------------------------

The question is by whom these rules were instilled

SpheresOfBalance wrote:PEACE, attofishpi (I've got it all figured out)!

attofishpi wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

attofishpi wrote:If I thought you did, i'd be the first to be pummeling you with questions.
No, I was saying that it's your sub-name, that it's you that thinks he's got it all figured out. But I was just teasing you, with a bit of sarcasm.

Instead i am provided waffle rather than rational debate, you like the sound of your own keyboard without the grey matter considering the actual topic and points made at hand.
Many see waffle, where they cannot tread, for fear.


This 'philosophy' forum is awash with waffle and attempts to score cheap points that are amplified over rational logical debate.
Sorry but I have always laughed at those that believe they can find some kind of mystical message in words of arbitrary origin, such that it can actually mean anything of significance, It has nothing to do with you, personally! You come along much after my understanding this, what I believe to be, fact! It is no necessary reflection on you, rather, the object of your insistence.

I've only had two maybe three decent debates with anyone on this forum and they were thanks to Chaz and Arising_uk where on the whole crap was left to the side and careful consideration of the topic at hand was at the forefront.
I don't see that careful consideration is required of such things as dissecting words, as to their roots, as they pertain to prefix and suffix as anything more than mans arbitrary construct of language. They certainly have nothing to do with a god, they are mans creation, which is why there are so many forms. You would only maybe be capable of convincing me otherwise if you could find correlation, in 'all' the various languages throughout time, that matched exactly that to which you have tried to correlate.

I was not making fun of your art, as I know that art appreciation is subjective, for instance, I hate Picasso and his cubism, and prefer the realists and idealists, over impressionistic forms, that's just me. You probably do better at art than I could, for any particular group of subjective art-form enthusiasts.

I only make fun of the correlation you try and insist, as if it could pertain to a god in some way.


Don't ever again even consider that i fear anything in relation to your keystrokes...judge me anything you like...IM INSANE

INSANE

...there you go.
I do not think you're insane. I think you see what you want to see, which is not insane, as many do this. I do too! When there are choices between two opposing ideas, we all choose the one that serves our predisposition, due to our programming, either by others or ourselves, but others always have influence, such is the nature of humankind's amassed knowledge. Once we have made up our minds, we dig in and oppose change, else we have lived a lie, and hate wasted time. Only the truly wise can always listen with open mind and change as new info presents itself, thus there are few that are truly wise.
Yes http://www.androcies.com/ is mine btw..

Well said Mr Spheres (and without waffle)
The website was my outlet for things i had 'sussed out' over the years of dealing with continued interaction of this 'non-existent' or rather extremely allusive God. I am not an attention seeker, i am only attempting to shed some light such that those that doubt its existence consider an alternative appreciation of the structure of this very complex reality. And second to that i guess it was an experiment to see what others thought of those 'clouds'..

I will state again that nothing on my site convinced me of God's existence...I knew God existed via other means, and then started looking at the strange quirks of reality that i could use to attempt to convince others...and then painted them for an Adelaide art festival.

In 2005 i was spoken to very clearly (from the ether) by an entity i assumed - or rather questioned 'are you God' and a reply was stated to me 'i am a sage.' To this day i have never met this 'sage' in person...(told you im insane!)

I am interested in what your position is in relation to God, from previous posts i dont think you are atheist.

attofishpi wrote:In 2005 i was spoken to very clearly (from the ether) by an entity i assumed - or rather questioned 'are you God' and a reply was stated to me 'i am a sage.' To this day i have never met this 'sage' in person...(told you im insane!)