Philosophy Now Forum

attofishpi wrote:

chaz wyman wrote:Problem with you is that you are too scared to say anything because everything you have written so far is fucking bollocks.
This whole thread is a piece of shit and it has come out of you.

SINAI ?!?!?

You fucking moron!

I dont fuck morons but thanks for the offer.

I am the only one here going point for point. If i am so far off the mark (ooo sooo scared) why are YOU avoiding my points?

Do you always spit the dummy like a big baby when you cant win an argument?

Since you obviously lack the skills of basic comprehension, i will point out there are TWO questions here.

chaz wyman wrote:You are on your own.

attofishpi wrote:

John Kelly wrote: Because god spelled backwards is dog.

No, you need to go one step further.... There is a saying that '..a mans best friend is a dog'
So what is God?

attofishpi wrote:
Is God...panentheistic in nature?

Beyond Reasonable Doubt? ...an unnatural etymology revealed...

http://www.androcies.com

Thundril wrote:

attofishpi wrote:
Is God...panentheistic in nature?

Beyond Reasonable Doubt? ...an unnatural etymology revealed...

http://www.androcies.com

Atto; I took a glimpse inside. Not all that impressed.
The one-time Catholic theologian Mary Daly does a much more vibrant job of reconstructing English etymology to make manifest the mystical potential she perceived therein.
See, for example, Gyn/ecology, or The Websters' Wickedary. Or her first major work, the revolutionary Beyond God the Father.

Thundril wrote:The one-time Catholic theologian Mary Daly does a much more vibrant job of reconstructing English etymology to make manifest the mystical potential she perceived therein.
See, for example, Gyn/ecology, or The Websters' Wickedary. Or her first major work, the revolutionary Beyond God the Father.

lancek4 wrote:I find your art interesting. I would set aside the 'what if AI god' thing as science fiction; but sf is fun though.

I would put the interesting peculiarities in the category of consciousness functioning as it does to know the world. If you want to say evidence of God, great for you. I say that any God that I cannot interact with is unnecessary. If there is a god behind the scenes then he/it needs none of my attention for I am already doing It's will. Only a personal god has my attention, and then has no need to point out universal niftiness to get it, for we would likewise already be interacting.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

Notvacka wrote:Nice. And perfectly in line with my view, if you think about it.

The universe would exist within God, not the other way around. God would not be part of the universe, rather the universe would be part of God.

Yes I was really just countering the word 'outside,' because in my assertion it (creator), 'is' it (universe), only expanded. Further I see that it could be that the constituents that form our minds and consciousness (elements/compounds and electromagnetic energy) are the same as it's, which is why we have them in the first place, such that we are one in the same, yet somehow removed from it, as individuals, of it's intention.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

attofishpi wrote:Is GOD an AI? How unlikely is it that the very location where GOD advised us to abide by some commandments can be broken down to SIN AI...?

You've got to be kidding, right?

Are those the original characters, as used in the language, as it was coined?

If so, maybe it's true that...

...Artificial Intelligence is a SIN, watch out for AI, one day it shall come and take over the world! Yes the 3 Arnold Schwarzenegger movies about The Terminator, are actually the newest chapters in revelation written and directed by GOD through various humans.

Let's at least keep them in order:

SIN is Artificial Intelligence
SIN is Anti Intuitive
SIN is Altogether Ingenious
SIN is Altogether Iconoclastic

I believe you're grasping for straws such that:

Such Ignorance Negates All Intellect


Wait, I guess you're correct, he could be an artificial god after all!