Philosophy Now Forum

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Sat Nov 07, 2020 8:22 am

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Sat Nov 07, 2020 7:18 am

Name the ''whatever'' ?

Age wrote: ↑Sat Nov 07, 2020 8:15 amThee Universe.

So the universe is the writer of the book.

So why is it said that I write the book, when it is in fact the universe that writes the book?

REALLY?

BECAUSE thee 'I' IS thee Universe.

'I', in the visible sense, am thee, physically seen, Universe, Itself.

'I', in the non visible sense, am thee Mind, Itself.

Age wrote: ↑Sat Nov 07, 2020 9:47 am

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Sat Nov 07, 2020 8:22 am

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Sat Nov 07, 2020 7:18 am

Name the ''whatever'' ?

Age wrote: ↑Sat Nov 07, 2020 8:15 amThee Universe.

So the universe is the writer of the book.

So why is it said that I write the book, when it is in fact the universe that writes the book?

REALLY?

BECAUSE thee 'I' IS thee Universe.

'I', in the visible sense, am thee, physically seen, Universe, Itself.

'I', in the non visible sense, am thee Mind, Itself.

So the unseen seen is writing the book ...is that correct?

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Sat Nov 07, 2020 10:08 am

Age wrote: ↑Sat Nov 07, 2020 9:47 am

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Sat Nov 07, 2020 8:22 am



So the universe is the writer of the book.

So why is it said that I write the book, when it is in fact the universe that writes the book?

REALLY?

BECAUSE thee 'I' IS thee Universe.

'I', in the visible sense, am thee, physically seen, Universe, Itself.

'I', in the non visible sense, am thee Mind, Itself.

So the unseen seen is writing the book ...is that correct?

That would all depend on how you are defining the words, 'unseen seen'.

So, how do you define the term, 'unseen seen'?

Do you have any examples of an 'unseen seen'?

If yes, then will you provide it/them.

Dontaskme wrote

Believed Gods and their creations do not exist except as fictional stories, all quite silly fables absent of any real literal actual substance.

In truth, the very idea that there is a ''My God'' would be like holding on to the believed idea that the cartoon character Cinderellla has a biological father.

The human mind wants these characters to be real because they make us feel good, they stimulate the pleasure centres of the brain, but sadly these characters are not real, and we really do know that deep down, but still we cling on to the belief. And that clinging is what keeps the story spinning, the world of make belief becomes a never ending story, and it's an addiction that is hard to break free from.

Whatever is labeled a ''thing'' is really not what the label says it is, but since it is NOT KNOWN what anything is, a label will always suffice and make what is really not known.. known. And it's the lie we all fall for.

An argument made of straw. It is easy to dismiss God if you define this as something indefensible. Better to get to the existential core of religion itself, then ask what THIS is. Who cares about facile fictions like an anthropomorphized God! Better: what is in the world that gives religion its substance? What is a term like God a response to? this moves into metaphysics, or metaethics. Only then does the situation get interesting.

odysseus wrote: ↑Sat Nov 07, 2020 4:07 pm

Dontaskme wrote

Believed Gods and their creations do not exist except as fictional stories, all quite silly fables absent of any real literal actual substance.

In truth, the very idea that there is a ''My God'' would be like holding on to the believed idea that the cartoon character Cinderellla has a biological father.

The human mind wants these characters to be real because they make us feel good, they stimulate the pleasure centres of the brain, but sadly these characters are not real, and we really do know that deep down, but still we cling on to the belief. And that clinging is what keeps the story spinning, the world of make belief becomes a never ending story, and it's an addiction that is hard to break free from.

Whatever is labeled a ''thing'' is really not what the label says it is, but since it is NOT KNOWN what anything is, a label will always suffice and make what is really not known.. known. And it's the lie we all fall for.

An argument made of straw. It is easy to dismiss God if you define this as something indefensible. Better to get to the existential core of religion itself, then ask what THIS is. Who cares about facile fictions like an anthropomorphized God!

Great points. Simple AND precise.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Sat Nov 07, 2020 8:06 am Better: what is in the world that gives religion its substance?

Unity. Agreement.

EVERY one begins out wanting to live, and be, in peace and harmony with EVERY one "else".

The Unity made from and by wanting and agreeing on the EXACT SAME thing is what is IN the world, which gives religions its substance.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Sat Nov 07, 2020 8:06 am What is a term like God a response to?

Oneness.

What 'it' IS, which EVERY one agrees with, is what a term like 'God' is a response to.

An exception would PROVE this WRONG. Is there an exception.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Sat Nov 07, 2020 8:06 am this moves into metaphysics, or metaethics. Only then does the situation get interesting.

Age wrote: ↑Sat Nov 07, 2020 11:09 am
That would all depend on how you are defining the words, 'unseen seen'.

So, how do you define the term, 'unseen seen'?

Do you have any examples of an 'unseen seen'?

If yes, then will you provide it/them.

I'm defining the words from the exact same place that you are defining the words below in bold.

'I', in the visible sense, am thee, physically seen, Universe, Itself.

'I', in the non visible sense, am thee Mind, Itself.

Do you have any examples of a 'non-visible visible'? OR put another way a 'visible non-visible'?

If yes, then will you provide them.

odysseus wrote: ↑Sat Nov 07, 2020 4:07 pm
An argument made of straw. It is easy to dismiss God if you define this as something indefensible. Better to get to the existential core of religion itself, then ask what THIS is. Who cares about facile fictions like an anthropomorphized God! Better: what is in the world that gives religion its substance? What is a term like God a response to? this moves into metaphysics, or metaethics. Only then does the situation get interesting.

All arguments made for things EXISTING or not existing are STRAW.

Oneness has no argument with itself, who would it argue with .... a strawman?

Religion is a soothing balm applied by the mind upon itself to make the reality of it's myth more bearable.

Life is irrational and very stupid.

No word can define the word in and of itself, it's the absurdity of this conception.
No word can define 'what is', or every word defines 'it'.


A man willing to die for truth will get it.
A man not willing to die for truth will get it too, because this is it.

odysseus wrote: ↑Sat Nov 07, 2020 4:07 pmWho cares about facile fictions like an anthropomorphized God!

No thing cares, means every thing cares. It's a reflex action and reaction in the exact same instant. Can't know action without reaction.

Arguing with yourself is a strawman argument because there is no other self.

The head is an empty mirror ball.

odysseus wrote: ↑Sat Nov 07, 2020 4:07 pm
An argument made of straw. It is easy to dismiss God if you define this as something indefensible. Better to get to the existential core of religion itself, then ask what THIS is.

Even better to get to the existential core of the source of words.

The definer is also a word, and part of the problem.

It's incredible that symbols in the form of an alphabet appearing as squiggly lines on a blank screen can create an image of the imageless.. I can erase all the words on the screen but cannot erase the screen. Where did the words go? I just reach into the Nothingness and pull out an unlimited supply.

There is Something Unseen that makes all letters and words possible but that something cannot be seen, it is the seeing.

All fiction believed to be real, because the real likes making fiction.

What is this?

It's this. This is it.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Sun Nov 08, 2020 8:27 am

Age wrote: ↑Sat Nov 07, 2020 11:09 am
That would all depend on how you are defining the words, 'unseen seen'.

So, how do you define the term, 'unseen seen'?

Do you have any examples of an 'unseen seen'?

If yes, then will you provide it/them.

I'm defining the words from the exact same place that you are defining the words below in bold.

What?

I asked you; How do you define some 'words'? I did NOT ask you; What place are you defining words from?

If you concentrate ONLY on the ACTUAL words I say, and NOT concentrate on what you ASSUME I am saying, then this will speed up the process of understanding quite substantially.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Sun Nov 08, 2020 8:27 am

'I', in the visible sense, am thee, physically seen, Universe, Itself.

'I', in the non visible sense, am thee Mind, Itself.

Do you have any examples of a 'non-visible visible'? OR put another way a 'visible non-visible'?

NO. One reason I do NOT is because I do NOT speak that way, NOR in those terms.

That way of speaking is only the way the one known as "dontaskme" does.

All I did was just talk about some Thing and what 'It' IS in both the visible sense, and in the invisible/non visible sense.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Sun Nov 08, 2020 8:27 am If yes, then will you provide them.

This is MOOT.

If you can NOT explain what the term 'unseen seen' means, to you, then so be it. That is fine. Just let us know.

But considering that 'you' are the ONLY one that I have ever seen speak in that kind of way it would REALLY help ones, like me, to better understand 'you', if you did learn how to explain what the terms and phrases ACTUALLY mean, to you, when you say them.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Sun Nov 08, 2020 8:32 am

odysseus wrote: ↑Sat Nov 07, 2020 4:07 pm
An argument made of straw. It is easy to dismiss God if you define this as something indefensible. Better to get to the existential core of religion itself, then ask what THIS is. Who cares about facile fictions like an anthropomorphized God! Better: what is in the world that gives religion its substance? What is a term like God a response to? this moves into metaphysics, or metaethics. Only then does the situation get interesting.

All arguments made for things EXISTING or not existing are STRAW.

Oneness has no argument with itself, who would it argue with .... a strawman?

Are you AWARE that an 'argument' is NOT necessarily the same thing as an 'argument', WITH someone?

In FACT the two 'arguments' here have COMPLETELY different definitions as well as COMPLETELY OPPOSING definitions.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Sun Nov 08, 2020 8:32 am Religion is a soothing balm applied by the mind upon itself to make the reality of it's myth more bearable.

Life is irrational and very stupid.

But 'Life', Itself, IS just, simple, AND easy.

Human beings ONLY, and ONLY human beings, make Life, Itself, appear unjust, complex, AND hard.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Sun Nov 08, 2020 8:32 am No word can define the word in and of itself, it's the absurdity of this conception.

This is right, and this is WHY a STRING of words are used to define EACH and EVERY other word.

IF A word could define the word in and of itself, then there would be NO necessity for BOTH of those words. Obviously ONLY one of them would suffice.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Sun Nov 08, 2020 8:32 am No word can define 'what is', or every word defines 'it'.


A man willing to die for truth will get it.
A man not willing to die for truth will get it too, because this is it.

But what is 'this is it', here, EXACTLY?

If you can NOT explain what 'this is it' IS here, then how do you KNOW A 'man' "will get truth too"?

And if you are going to say, and thus ALLEGE and CLAIM that 'this is it' IS truth, then I am SURE you could find that SOME things human beings say REALLY ARE ACTUALLY NOT the truth AT ALL.

But I will AWAIT YOUR CLARIFICATION.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Sun Nov 08, 2020 9:00 am

odysseus wrote: ↑Sat Nov 07, 2020 4:07 pm
An argument made of straw. It is easy to dismiss God if you define this as something indefensible. Better to get to the existential core of religion itself, then ask what THIS is.

Even better to get to the existential core of the source of words.

The definer is also a word, and part of the problem.

But there is NO ACTUAL 'problem' ANYWHERE. Other than OBVIOUSLY ONLY those 'problems', which human beings make up and create.

By the way, for EVERY 'problem' there is a 'solution'.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Sun Nov 08, 2020 8:32 am It's incredible that symbols in the form of an alphabet appearing as squiggly lines on a blank screen can create an image of the imageless.. I can erase all the words on the screen but cannot erase the screen. Where did the words go? I just reach into the Nothingness and pull out an unlimited supply.

There is Something Unseen that makes all letters and words possible but that something cannot be seen, it is the seeing.

All fiction believed to be real, because the real likes making fiction.

What is this?

It's this. This is it.

Were you previously AWARE that 'amen' can also mean 'It is so. So be it'?

Age wrote: ↑Sun Nov 08, 2020 9:10 am

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Sun Nov 08, 2020 8:27 am

Age wrote: ↑Sat Nov 07, 2020 11:09 am
That would all depend on how you are defining the words, 'unseen seen'.

So, how do you define the term, 'unseen seen'?

Do you have any examples of an 'unseen seen'?

If yes, then will you provide it/them.

I'm defining the words from the exact same place that you are defining the words below in bold.

What?

I asked you; How do you define some 'words'? I did NOT ask you; What place are you defining words from?

How does that which only exists as a word define itself? ...oh I know, I don't know what I am so I'll just make something up in the form of a word. . then hey presto I know the definition of the I / You

I know that you like playing with words Age...yep yep yep, and so do I ..that is what's happening here in you and I

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Sun Nov 08, 2020 8:27 amDo you have any examples of a 'non-visible visible'? OR put another way a 'visible non-visible'?

Age wrote: ↑Sun Nov 08, 2020 9:10 amNO. One reason I do NOT is because I do NOT speak that way, NOR in those terms.

Yes that right, you there spoke in a different way to the I here.

I here just said same thing in a different way.

Age wrote: ↑Sun Nov 08, 2020 9:10 am'I', in the visible sense, am thee, physically seen, Universe, Itself.

'I', in the non visible sense, am thee Mind, Itself.

Who who who, who let the straw dogs out..who who?

Oh I know, I've got no idea, so I guess any idea will do spoke another useful idiot.


.

Age wrote: ↑Sun Nov 08, 2020 9:28 am

But there is NO ACTUAL 'problem' ANYWHERE.

Yes there is, it's here in black and white PROBLEM

Are you blind? maybe you should have gone to specsavers.

Age wrote: ↑Sun Nov 08, 2020 9:28 am
Were you previously AWARE that 'amen' can also mean 'It is so. So be it'?

It's different that's all, same difference.

Age wrote:
'I', in the visible sense, am thee, physically seen, Universe, Itself.

'I', in the non visible sense, am thee Mind, Itself.

Do you have any examples of a 'visible sense' and a 'non-visible sense'?

If yes, then will you provide it/them.

You are the one who claims it is writing a book, the onus is on you the author to make sense to the reader.

The one here,is not burdening itself with such nonsense. This one here does not have to write a book about a story that is already known. I have no copyright to imitate myself.