Philosophy Now Forum

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Oct 18, 2025 1:29 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sat Oct 18, 2025 1:24 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sat Oct 18, 2025 1:12 pm

And, just as one has 'religious faith and belief' in a particular theological community people like "will bouwman" have an, unshakable, 'religious faith' in scientific community, as well. And, it does not matter how Wrong what some say in any of all of those communities people like "will bouwman" will just follow and abide by what is said and claimed. Again, no matter how False, Wrong, Inaccurate, or Incorrect what is said and claimed.

For example, it has already been proved absolutely True, Right, Accurate, and Correct that the Universe is not expanding and did not begin. However, because people like "will bouwman" have chosen to follow, religiously, the 'teachings' of some within a particular community they will continue to believe, religiously, what they do, until 'the one/s' that they worship, say otherwise.



The, laughably called, 'evidence' for the claim, and the story, that the Universe is expanding, and thus began, is actually a misinterpretation of data. But, instead of being open and curious anyway at all, again because of their 'current' belief, and story, they religiously, 'hold onto', and remain fixed on 'their current story'. Just like every other 'religious person' does.

Just imagine if 'the people', in the 'olden days', had not been holding onto their religious beliefs, and the story, that the earth is at the centre of the Universe, and how much quicker, simpler, and easier the actual irrefutable proof and Fact could have been explained, shown, seen, and recognized.

Well the exact same phenomena was happening in the 'olden days' when this was being written, as can be clearly seen from 'the likes' like "will bouwman" who religiously believe that the Universe began and is expanding. The irrefutable proof could not be seen and recognized because 'these people', religiously believed their 'current story'.

But, unlike previous 'believers', these ones would hold onto 'their stories' and beliefs much more religiously because they had and were deceiving, tricking, and fooling "themselves" more, because they believed that their chosen religious following was, laughably, more accurate and more.reliable. Which obviously is some thing all those with religious faith say and believe is true.

'These people' appear to never even consider that the very first, or following assumption/s, theories, or claimed facts from the outset onwards could be False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and/or Incorrect. Again, from the very beginning, but which then the following assumptions, theories, or claimed facts are based on or upon. Which all could be False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and/or Incorrect.

Another reason why none of these posters, here, had the courage to question and/or challenge me over my claims is because they were absolutely fearful that if I did end up proving my claims, which were in opposition to their chosen beliefs, or claims, then they would 'have to' retract and change their 'current' beliefs and stories, which they have been religiously holding onto and worshipping. And, acknowledging being Wrong, and changing, is some thing people who are 'followers', and not 'thinkers', do not want nor like to do. Unless, of course, those that they worship, and/or the community that they have a religious devotion to, changes 'their views', as well.

Why is it "irrefutable" that the "universe" did not begin and is not expanding?

Belinda wrote: ↑Sat Oct 18, 2025 3:40 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sat Oct 18, 2025 2:52 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Oct 16, 2025 11:34 am

Possibility is even more interesting than probability. The thing about God is that He can and does choose which possibility must be the case.What He chooses is what religionists call His "Word" . excuse the capital letter "He" ---it's convenient for marking the personal pronoun not as an honorific. God is the Measurer par excellence. Measuring is what He does for a living. Believers accept God's measurements as the only possibility to be actualised.

*Daoism paints a good allegorical picture:- the multitude of possibilities is female and the actualising event is male .

*Similarly God impregnated Mary.

*Similarly Zeus impregnated Leda and others.

Why do you 'try to' 'personify' what obviously could not be 'a person'?

The God of Abraham is a person (a personal god) because that particular deity experiences feelings and intentions as a person does . In other words God/Allah/Jahweh is not simply an abstract idea.

LOL 'your God' has gonads and a penis. The plausibility of 'this' is at absolute zero.

Belinda wrote: ↑Sat Oct 18, 2025 3:40 pm The invisible God the Father incarnated as a human man called Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is God in human form.
The above applies to Christianity, Islam holds that the invisible Allah was revealed via the Koran. Allah, unlike the Christian God, did not become incarnate .

Belinda wrote: ↑Sat Oct 18, 2025 3:40 pm Judaism holds that God is present in the world in the Shekinah. That is, God dwelling in the world. Shekinah is often understood as feminine.

Age wrote: ↑Sat Oct 18, 2025 5:27 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Oct 18, 2025 1:29 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sat Oct 18, 2025 1:24 pm

Why is it "irrefutable" that the "universe" did not begin and is not expanding?

Because no one, forever more, could refute it.

Belinda wrote: ↑Sat Oct 18, 2025 5:09 pm

seeds wrote: ↑Sat Oct 18, 2025 5:04 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Oct 18, 2025 1:55 pm
Are the answers to all my questions above, "yes" or are there specifically two that you are addressing. And if it is specifically two that you are addressing, which two are you addressing with the answer "yes" and "yes"? Or what does "Yes. And, Yes" mean or refer to?

Come on now, Gary, Age is no doubt responding to this question...

Gary Childress wrote:Is there such a thing as "perfect" knowledge? And if there is, could the one who had it predict EVERYTHING exactly as it will happen based on understanding all the possible variables that affect an event?

And the problem is that most "human beings"...

(in the days when this is being written)

...were simply not intelligent enough to realize that the two yeses are Age referring to himself as being the one who (yes) is in possession of "perfect knowledge" and therefore (yes) it is he who is capable of predicting "...EVERYTHING exactly as it will happen based on understanding all the possible variables that affect an event..."

You need to pay closer attention to the subtext of Age's M.O..

Btw, why are you even talking to someone who treats you like an idiot by thinking that he can get away with making such brazenly inconsistent statements as was witnessed in your earlier conversation with him, because just prior to stating this...

Age wrote:For example, it has already been proved absolutely True, Right, Accurate, and Correct that the Universe is not expanding...

...you guys had the following exchange...

Gary:
Why are galaxies moving further and further away from each other?
Age:
Because of what is called a big bang.
Gary:
Was there ever a point where all the galaxies were much closer to each other than they are now?
Age:
It appears there was. Infact it appears that all of the observed galaxies were together as one infinite compression of matter.

He will of course insist that the "Universe" is something wholly other than the totality of the galaxies of which he clearly admitted were once closer to each other when they were...

"...together as one infinite compression of matter..."

...yet are moving apart - (as in expanding away from each other) - due to what Age himself admits was a "big bang."

Age cannot seem to get it into his head that in modern cosmological parlance, what cosmologists refer to as being "The Universe" is represented by (and began with) that initial "...infinite compression of matter..." which, again, has been "E--X--P--A--N--D--I--N--G" ever since the alleged "bang" allegedly occurred 13.8 billion years ago.

However, and again, Age seems to have something "wholly other" in mind when it comes to the definition of the word "Universe."

And that's okay, but he completely lacks the ability (not to mention, the willful inclination) to clearly define what he means by "Universe."

All Age knows how to do is to lure suckers into his endless maze of never-ending requests to ask him "clarifying questions" that turn into more questions that lead to absolutely nowhere.

And why do they lead to nowhere?

Because Age is...

(I was going to say an insulting/bullying "troll" who loves to "LOL" at everyone else's ideas, but I don't think he's purposely being malicious)

...again, Age is what I believe to be a "sincere" (as in truly believes his own nonsense) individual, but in fact is an extremely confused person who (just like the rest of us) hasn't the slightest idea of what the ultimate truth of reality truly is.

Indeed, Age is just another poster child for the Dunning-Kruger Effect who, due to some unfortunate obsessive/compulsive disorder, tends to suck the oxygen out of almost every thread he participates in.
_______

I experience Age's contributions more like oxygenating the thread. When Age questions I feel curiosity about why I believe as I do, and that does me good.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Oct 18, 2025 4:16 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sat Oct 18, 2025 3:02 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Oct 18, 2025 1:55 pm

Are the answers to all my questions above, "yes" or are there specifically two that you are addressing.

What is 'going on' with you adult human beings, in the days when this is being written?

you only asked two questions, only.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Oct 18, 2025 1:55 pm And if it is specifically two that you are addressing, which two are you addressing with the answer "yes" and "yes"?

you only asked two questions, only.

How could the actual person who spoke and wrote, here, not even be aware of how many questions it actually asked?

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Oct 18, 2025 1:55 pm Or what does "Yes. And, Yes" mean or refer to?

'you' asked 'me' two questions, only, which 'i', obviously, answered, both, with a, 'Yes'.

Can you, really, not see that 'you' only asked two questions, only?

Fair enough. I thought you were maybe saying, "yes" to some of the points I was making and not necessarily to the questions.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Oct 18, 2025 4:16 pm So there is such a thing as perfect knowledge and knowing it would allow someone to predict the future, effectively nullifying quantum uncertainty as interpreted by some?

Belinda wrote: ↑Sat Oct 18, 2025 5:00 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sat Oct 18, 2025 4:46 pm

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Fri Oct 17, 2025 2:14 pm
What is more profound about a great dane than a chihuahua? It seems to me that it isn't the experience that is profound, rather the response.
Well, if that one thing is a god that can do anything, there is no limit to what that one possibility can do.

Ok, so let's look at some empirical facts.

It is an empirical fact that people across the world have experiences that they attribute to some god..

'This' is not necessarily an 'empirical fact' at all. And, the obviousness of this some can see, but which you obviously can not, yet.

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Fri Oct 17, 2025 2:14 pm It is also a fact that most will attribute their experience to a god that features in their cultural heritage.

In each case there is plenty of data to support the fact; I don't need any faith to empirically know that. .

Considering that it is you who claims that the only thing that can be known is 'awareness' what you say and write, here, appears contradictory

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Fri Oct 17, 2025 2:14 pm So no, all empirical knowing is not "a matter of data+faith". The faith is in the interpretation of the facts. How then are we to interpret the above two facts? Well, there are no limits to how they might be interpreted, but let's look at two: yours and mine. As I understand, you believe that people's cultural heritage blinds them to the accurate interpretation, the result being that the vast majority of people who have ever lived will spend eternity separated from your god, and that is a very bad thing. I, on the other hand, look at those two facts and interpret them as meaning people will attribute their experience to a god that features in their cultural heritage, because that god features in their cultural heritage.
Too vague, eh? Ok, so you assert that:
and:

According to which there are no special experiences that are necessary to believe in the same god as you. However, you also say:Which implies there are special "genuine" experiences that only some people have. So which is more probable: that your god reveals itself in day to day experiences, or that some small fraction of humanity is privileged with "genuine" experiences?
If an atheist is so because of "their lack of experience", why does your god favour some humans over others?

Lack of experience , intelligence , money, or education is lack of equality .

Belinda wrote: ↑Sat Oct 18, 2025 5:00 pm Some people are luckier than others.
God’s mercy transcends human calculations of fairness. See the parable of the Workers in the Vineyard

The huge example of unfairness ,according to human measurement ,is the horrific death of Jesus .

Age wrote: ↑Sat Oct 18, 2025 5:42 pm So, why after I pointed out that you only asked two questions, only, you then talked about 'your points'?

seeds wrote: ↑Sat Oct 18, 2025 5:04 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Oct 18, 2025 1:55 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sat Oct 18, 2025 1:45 pm Yes. And,

Yes

Are the answers to all my questions above, "yes" or are there specifically two that you are addressing. And if it is specifically two that you are addressing, which two are you addressing with the answer "yes" and "yes"? Or what does "Yes. And, Yes" mean or refer to?

Come on now, Gary, Age is no doubt responding to this question...

Gary Childress wrote:Is there such a thing as "perfect" knowledge? And if there is, could the one who had it predict EVERYTHING exactly as it will happen based on understanding all the possible variables that affect an event?

And the problem is that most "human beings"...

(in the days when this is being written)

...were simply not intelligent enough to realize that the two yeses are Age referring to himself as being the one who (yes) is in possession of "perfect knowledge" and therefore (yes) it is he who is capable of predicting "...EVERYTHING exactly as it will happen based on understanding all the possible variables that affect an event..."

seeds wrote: ↑Sat Oct 18, 2025 5:04 pm You need to pay closer attention to the subtext of Age's M.O..

Btw, why are you even talking to someone who treats you like an idiot by thinking that he can get away with making such brazenly inconsistent statements as was witnessed in your earlier conversation with him, because just prior to stating this...

seeds wrote: ↑Sat Oct 18, 2025 5:04 pm

Age wrote:For example, it has already been proved absolutely True, Right, Accurate, and Correct that the Universe is not expanding...

...you guys had the following exchange...

Gary:
Why are galaxies moving further and further away from each other?
Age:
Because of what is called a big bang.
Gary:
Was there ever a point where all the galaxies were much closer to each other than they are now?
Age:
It appears there was. Infact it appears that all of the observed galaxies were together as one infinite compression of matter.

He will of course insist that the "Universe" is something wholly other than the totality of the galaxies of which he clearly admitted were once closer to each other when they were...

seeds wrote: ↑Sat Oct 18, 2025 5:04 pm

"...together as one infinite compression of matter..."

...yet are moving apart - (as in expanding away from each other) - due to what Age himself admits was a "big bang."

seeds wrote: ↑Sat Oct 18, 2025 5:04 pm Age cannot seem to get it into his head that in modern cosmological parlance, what cosmologists refer to as being "The Universe" is represented by (and began with) that initial "...infinite compression of matter..." which, again, has been "E--X--P--A--N--D--I--N--G" ever since the alleged "bang" allegedly occurred 13.8 billion years ago

seeds wrote: ↑Sat Oct 18, 2025 5:04 pm However, and again, Age seems to have something "wholly other" in mind when it comes to the definition of the word "Universe."


And that's okay, but he completely lacks the ability (not to mention, the willful inclination) to clearly define what he means by "Universe."

seeds wrote: ↑Sat Oct 18, 2025 5:04 pm All Age knows how to do is to lure suckers into his endless maze of never-ending requests to ask him "clarifying questions" that turn into more questions that lead to absolutely nowhere.

seeds wrote: ↑Sat Oct 18, 2025 5:04 pm And why do they lead to nowhere?

Because Age is...

(I was going to say an insulting/bullying "troll" who loves to "LOL" at everyone else's ideas, but I don't think he's purposely being malicious)

...again, Age is what I believe to be a "sincere" (as in truly believes his own nonsense) individual,

seeds wrote: ↑Sat Oct 18, 2025 5:04 pm but in fact is an extremely confused person who (just like the rest of us) hasn't the slightest idea of what the ultimate truth of reality truly is.

seeds wrote: ↑Sat Oct 18, 2025 5:04 pm Indeed, Age is just another poster child for the Dunning-Kruger Effect who, due to some unfortunate obsessive/compulsive disorder, tends to suck the oxygen out of almost every thread he participates in.
_______

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Oct 18, 2025 5:24 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Sat Oct 18, 2025 5:19 pm

seeds wrote: ↑Sat Oct 18, 2025 5:03 pm
You're kidding, right?

The "creation story" told by the proponents of the "Many Worlds Interpretation" (MWI) is indeed literal to them, not allegorical.
_______

No I am not kidding. For a human to understand allegory certain conditions have to be in place. In today's US for instance, symbolic meanings are no longer instinctive as once they they were actually instinctive in days gone by and among native Americans. I can give you examples of what instinctive understanding of allegories is like.

On this forum there are posters who seem incapable of understanding symbolic interpretations of texts.

I haven't seen any logic classes on "how to have a correct symbolic interpretation of an allegory". If there are, then what is the correct interpretation of the story of Genesis? After reading it, what are we supposed to know that counts as an established fact?

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Oct 18, 2025 5:37 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sat Oct 18, 2025 5:27 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Oct 18, 2025 1:29 pm

Why is it "irrefutable" that the "universe" did not begin and is not expanding?

Because no one, forever more, could refute it.

Is it provable that the "universe" did not begin and is not expanding?

seeds wrote: ↑Sat Oct 18, 2025 5:41 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Sat Oct 18, 2025 5:09 pm

seeds wrote: ↑Sat Oct 18, 2025 5:04 pm
Come on now, Gary, Age is no doubt responding to this question...

And the problem is that most "human beings"...

(in the days when this is being written)

...were simply not intelligent enough to realize that the two yeses are Age referring to himself as being the one who (yes) is in possession of "perfect knowledge" and therefore (yes) it is he who is capable of predicting "...EVERYTHING exactly as it will happen based on understanding all the possible variables that affect an event..."

You need to pay closer attention to the subtext of Age's M.O..

Btw, why are you even talking to someone who treats you like an idiot by thinking that he can get away with making such brazenly inconsistent statements as was witnessed in your earlier conversation with him, because just prior to stating this...


...you guys had the following exchange...

He will of course insist that the "Universe" is something wholly other than the totality of the galaxies of which he clearly admitted were once closer to each other when they were...


...yet are moving apart - (as in expanding away from each other) - due to what Age himself admits was a "big bang."

Age cannot seem to get it into his head that in modern cosmological parlance, what cosmologists refer to as being "The Universe" is represented by (and began with) that initial "...infinite compression of matter..." which, again, has been "E--X--P--A--N--D--I--N--G" ever since the alleged "bang" allegedly occurred 13.8 billion years ago.

However, and again, Age seems to have something "wholly other" in mind when it comes to the definition of the word "Universe."

And that's okay, but he completely lacks the ability (not to mention, the willful inclination) to clearly define what he means by "Universe."

All Age knows how to do is to lure suckers into his endless maze of never-ending requests to ask him "clarifying questions" that turn into more questions that lead to absolutely nowhere.

And why do they lead to nowhere?

Because Age is...

(I was going to say an insulting/bullying "troll" who loves to "LOL" at everyone else's ideas, but I don't think he's purposely being malicious)

...again, Age is what I believe to be a "sincere" (as in truly believes his own nonsense) individual, but in fact is an extremely confused person who (just like the rest of us) hasn't the slightest idea of what the ultimate truth of reality truly is.

Indeed, Age is just another poster child for the Dunning-Kruger Effect who, due to some unfortunate obsessive/compulsive disorder, tends to suck the oxygen out of almost every thread he participates in.
_______

I experience Age's contributions more like oxygenating the thread. When Age questions I feel curiosity about why I believe as I do, and that does me good.

Ah, then perhaps the MWI is actually true after all.

For you seem to be experiencing a parallel universe in which Age doesn't ridicule and LOL, LOL, LOL at everyone else's ideas.

You're a rare bird, Belinda.
_______

Belinda wrote: ↑Sat Oct 18, 2025 5:19 pm

seeds wrote: ↑Sat Oct 18, 2025 5:03 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Sat Oct 18, 2025 4:35 pm Seeds, think it was ,who wrote:-



If a man can understand creation stories only literally and not as allegories then it''s not surprising they seem to the man to be nonsense.

You're kidding, right?

The "creation story" told by the proponents of the "Many Worlds Interpretation" (MWI) is indeed literal to them, not allegorical.
_______

No I am not kidding. For a human to understand allegory certain conditions have to be in place. In today's US for instance, symbolic meanings are no longer instinctive as once they they were actually instinctive in days gone by and among native Americans. I can give you examples of what instinctive understanding of allegories is like.

Belinda wrote: ↑Sat Oct 18, 2025 5:19 pm On this forum there are posters who seem incapable of understanding symbolic interpretations of texts.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Oct 18, 2025 5:51 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sat Oct 18, 2025 5:42 pm So, why after I pointed out that you only asked two questions, only, you then talked about 'your points'?

Because I wrongly thought at first that some of my other statements were posed as questions.

Age wrote: ↑Sat Oct 18, 2025 5:37 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Sat Oct 18, 2025 3:40 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sat Oct 18, 2025 2:52 pm

Why do you 'try to' 'personify' what obviously could not be 'a person'?

The God of Abraham is a person (a personal god) because that particular deity experiences feelings and intentions as a person does . In other words God/Allah/Jahweh is not simply an abstract idea.

What is some so-called 'God of Abraham' attributed with, exactly?

Age had replied to Immanuel Can:-

LOL 'your God' has gonads and a penis. The plausibility of 'this' is at absolute zero.

No ,Age , it is not implausible.

Belinda wrote: ↑Sat Oct 18, 2025 3:40 pm The invisible God the Father incarnated as a human man called Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is God in human form.
The above applies to Christianity, Islam holds that the invisible Allah was revealed via the Koran. Allah, unlike the Christian God, did not become incarnate .

Belinda wrote: ↑Sat Oct 18, 2025 3:40 pm Judaism holds that God is present in the world in the Shekinah. That is, God dwelling in the world. Shekinah is often understood as feminine.

seeds wrote: ↑Sat Oct 18, 2025 5:41 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Sat Oct 18, 2025 5:09 pm

seeds wrote: ↑Sat Oct 18, 2025 5:04 pm
Come on now, Gary, Age is no doubt responding to this question...

And the problem is that most "human beings"...

(in the days when this is being written)

...were simply not intelligent enough to realize that the two yeses are Age referring to himself as being the one who (yes) is in possession of "perfect knowledge" and therefore (yes) it is he who is capable of predicting "...EVERYTHING exactly as it will happen based on understanding all the possible variables that affect an event..."

You need to pay closer attention to the subtext of Age's M.O..

Btw, why are you even talking to someone who treats you like an idiot by thinking that he can get away with making such brazenly inconsistent statements as was witnessed in your earlier conversation with him, because just prior to stating this...


...you guys had the following exchange...

He will of course insist that the "Universe" is something wholly other than the totality of the galaxies of which he clearly admitted were once closer to each other when they were...


...yet are moving apart - (as in expanding away from each other) - due to what Age himself admits was a "big bang."

Age cannot seem to get it into his head that in modern cosmological parlance, what cosmologists refer to as being "The Universe" is represented by (and began with) that initial "...infinite compression of matter..." which, again, has been "E--X--P--A--N--D--I--N--G" ever since the alleged "bang" allegedly occurred 13.8 billion years ago.

However, and again, Age seems to have something "wholly other" in mind when it comes to the definition of the word "Universe."

And that's okay, but he completely lacks the ability (not to mention, the willful inclination) to clearly define what he means by "Universe."

All Age knows how to do is to lure suckers into his endless maze of never-ending requests to ask him "clarifying questions" that turn into more questions that lead to absolutely nowhere.

And why do they lead to nowhere?

Because Age is...

(I was going to say an insulting/bullying "troll" who loves to "LOL" at everyone else's ideas, but I don't think he's purposely being malicious)

...again, Age is what I believe to be a "sincere" (as in truly believes his own nonsense) individual, but in fact is an extremely confused person who (just like the rest of us) hasn't the slightest idea of what the ultimate truth of reality truly is.

Indeed, Age is just another poster child for the Dunning-Kruger Effect who, due to some unfortunate obsessive/compulsive disorder, tends to suck the oxygen out of almost every thread he participates in.
_______

I experience Age's contributions more like oxygenating the thread. When Age questions I feel curiosity about why I believe as I do, and that does me good.

Ah, then perhaps the MWI is actually true after all.

For you seem to be experiencing a parallel universe in which Age doesn't ridicule and LOL, LOL, LOL at everyone else's ideas.

You're a rare bird, Belinda.
_______