Thoughts about physical and metaphysical entities are both thoughts. Yet the subjects of said thoughts are inherently quite different.Fairy wrote: ↑Tue Jun 10, 2025 9:24 amThe mind being the map of the body, an object in mind. Can invent all sorts of objects, including flying spaghetti monsters.LuckyR wrote: ↑Tue Jun 10, 2025 1:05 amSo figuring out where in my brain I made up the Flying Spaghetti Monster is actually physically finding the FSM? Okay, I respect your opinion.Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Mon Jun 09, 2025 7:52 pm
Sounds like a distinction without a difference.
[Commutative, synonymous. You can only find those objects in the matter state of mind.]
Thought are things, and things will always exist if they are thought into existence, which they are. No proof is necessary.
Everything is, without doubt or error. It’s the disproof idea you should be more concerned and worried about.
God proof unnecessary.
Re: God proof unnecessary.
-
AlonsoAcevesMX
- Posts: 27
- Joined: Fri Sep 06, 2024 10:59 pm
- Contact:
Re: God proof unnecessary.
This reminds me of St. Anselm's argument—the very concept of God necessitates His existence.
Most of us equate existence with divinity; it's difficult to think otherwise. But are we correct?
Most of us equate existence with divinity; it's difficult to think otherwise. But are we correct?
-
Martin Peter Clarke
- Posts: 1617
- Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2025 9:54 pm
Re: God proof unnecessary.
Believers, aye. And, er, sorry, metaphysical entities only exist in minds, no? If g/G/ods were real t/T/hey wouldn't be metaphysical would they. If they had physical presence and influence. To believers such actual metaphysical entities are falsely truly transcendent. Or am I being all a tad Aspby here? Seeing ambiguity where none exists. Does 'those who disagree with us... have the opinion that [actual] metaphysical entities, like gods, have physical presence and influence' reconcile my tension? Hmmm. 'there are those who disagree with us and have the opinion that metaphysical entities, like gods, have physical presence and influence [and are therefore not metaphysical to them]'. I feel I'm absurdly in the wrong here, but you never know. Metaphysical entities cannot have physical presence but certainly have influence. I need to let go of this, but I'm stuck on it.LuckyR wrote: ↑Tue Jun 10, 2025 5:43 pmCorrect. But you are aware there are those who disagree with us and have the opinion that metaphysical entities, like gods, have physical presence and influence, right?Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Tue Jun 10, 2025 8:08 amEr, what else? Where else does it exist? Apart from the image spawned in my mind's eye? And associated ideas. No you don't. All metaphysical entities are instantiated in intentional, human and otherwise, brains.
Some of my best friends, in fact all of them, are believers. We never go there. I value the relationships too much.
[Ooh, and are you aware of how grandiosely presumptuous your question is?]
Last edited by Martin Peter Clarke on Thu Jun 12, 2025 8:30 am, edited 1 time in total.
Re: God proof unnecessary.
I trust only one thing. The creator.
The one animator emerging as this conscious self aware life form I call my life.
The one animator emerging as this conscious self aware life form I call my life.
-
Martin Peter Clarke
- Posts: 1617
- Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2025 9:54 pm
Re: God proof unnecessary.
No. Think about it.AlonsoAcevesMX wrote: ↑Tue Jun 10, 2025 9:28 pm This reminds me of St. Anselm's argument—the very concept of God necessitates His existence.
Most of us equate existence with divinity; it's difficult to think otherwise. But are we correct?
Re: God proof unnecessary.
You're a thought. Do you think a thought is going to occupy 'no thought'.AlonsoAcevesMX wrote: ↑Tue Jun 10, 2025 9:28 pm This reminds me of St. Anselm's argument—the very concept of God necessitates His existence.
Most of us equate existence with divinity; it's difficult to think otherwise. But are we correct?
The 'changeless' can be realised only when the ever-changing thought-flow stops.
Re: God proof unnecessary.
Natural versus Revealed Theology using a priori versus a posteriori. Contingent versus Necessary using modal logic. Logical versus physical possibility. Aquinas: Cosmological argument Ways 1 and 2. Descartes's Version: We conceive of the Greatest Conceivable Being. ∴ God exists is true.
-
Martin Peter Clarke
- Posts: 1617
- Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2025 9:54 pm
Re: God proof unnecessary.
Not even sophomoric is it. Lower 6th.puto wrote: ↑Thu Jun 12, 2025 9:07 am Natural versus Revealed Theology using a priori versus a posteriori. Contingent versus Necessary using modal logic. Logical versus physical possibility. Aquinas: Cosmological argument Ways 1 and 2. Descartes's Version: We conceive of the Greatest Conceivable Being. ∴ God exists is true.
Re: God proof unnecessary.
What? That was an ad hominem attack. Being, an academic response.
Re: God proof unnecessary.
Direct experience. I cannot refute, deny or experience the absence of direct experience.
This doesn’t necessarily need a label it is felt during absolute silence.
Re: God proof unnecessary.
Ah yes, a personal experience. I respect that, yet it has essentially zero relevance to anyone that's not you.
Re: God proof unnecessary.
Proof is deductive. So, what X are we going to deduce the existence of God from? Next, the atheists are going to ask us to deduce X itself from some X2. Hence, proof of God is an exercise in infinite regress.
Re: God proof unnecessary.
Because God exists as an absolute all proofs of God must fail.LuckyR wrote: ↑Fri Jun 13, 2025 5:55 pmAh yes, a personal experience. I respect that, yet it has essentially zero relevance to anyone that's not you.
Re: God proof unnecessary.
You’re a thought, a mental construction. Can “thought” ever occupy “ no thought”
Prior to thought is the direct experience of blank selfless awareness.
Just deconstruct the construction. No point in playing these mind games. No point in creating needless complexity. The truth of what you are is a BLANK. A selfless awareness....then that means there is NO OTHER, and everything you have ever perceived was JUST AN APPEARANCE, A MIRAGE, AN ILLUSION, IMAGINARY.