Philosophy Now Forum

Hey, mon.KEY to reaching the top is by being HONEST.

A T.O.E.


https://youtu.be/9WY9Os4z7PU

roydop wrote: ↑Sun Mar 03, 2019 9:46 pm A T.O.E.


https://youtu.be/9WY9Os4z7PU

The slow-talking dipshit on this utube piece started losing me at his first "if you will," and I quit entirely when he started his Bible thumping.

Please find a forum for morons and confine your postings to it. Thank you. Leave this thread, PLEASE!

GL

I have no problems in my life and do not experience suffering.

Care to share with me your life experience?

If I no longer suffer, and you do, then who is ultimately "correct?"

I'm here showing people the source, and cure, to all suffering. Your failure to understand makes me the moron? Hm.

You might wish to apply some introspection onto why you find this information so threatening.

@Greylorn Ell,

I looked at your OP and agree to a lot of your interpretation of the issue of origins. But I'd be pressed to read a lot to determine where everyone is at here. Can you personally summarize to me what you may have discussed from your perspective (versus other's opinions of your thread)? If I can get an idea what you covered and to what you proposed as any personal solution/resolution to the problem, I may be able to contribute.

Thank you.

Having just now read Greylorn's initial post I have a couple of questions before entering into any discussion.

What does this mean below?

and then made man, body and soul,

body and soul?

roydop wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2019 6:56 am I have no problems in my life and do not experience suffering.

Care to share with me your life experience?

If I no longer suffer, and you do, then who is ultimately "correct?"

I'm here showing people the source, and cure, to all suffering. Your failure to understand makes me the moron? Hm.

You might wish to apply some introspection onto why you find this information so threatening.

I initiated this thread to convey ideas of my own, which others are free to evaluate and to which contrary cogent arguments are welcome.

Sandbaggers and assholes who want to co-opt this thread as a vehicle for the snarky introduction of their own bullshit are not welcome. Go away. Start your own thread. Leave this one to the few who might find it of better value without your crap. Thank you. -GL

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2019 7:41 am @Greylorn Ell,

I looked at your OP and agree to a lot of your interpretation of the issue of origins. But I'd be pressed to read a lot to determine where everyone is at here. Can you personally summarize to me what you may have discussed from your perspective (versus other's opinions of your thread)? If I can get an idea what you covered and to what you proposed as any personal solution/resolution to the problem, I may be able to contribute.

Thank you.

I'm having a difficult time trying to get assholes to leave this thread. Unfortunately, the subject attracts idiots. Amod has been of little or no help in getting rid of them.

Best that I can suggest, peruse the two or three posts of mine that address my points. Ignore everything posted by Age, roydop, and the other dickheads. Unless the moderators stop embracing them, they'll not disappear, so you'll need to learn to identify them and ignore them-- on this and other threads as well. Without moderator assistance, no other option. Sorry about that, but I can only control what I write and do not have the time to do any sorting for you or anyone.

Contributions are welcome. Without them, I'll have no point in continuing this attempt at a real philosophy thread.

Greylorn

reasonvemotion wrote: ↑Wed Mar 06, 2019 5:36 am Having just now read Greylorn's initial post I have a couple of questions before entering into any discussion.

What does this mean below?

and then made man, body and soul,

body and soul?

I do not recall the context. Did I reference religious lore? Probably, so if you're ignorant of that I cannot help you understand the reference. -GL

Age wrote: ↑Sun Mar 03, 2019 8:55 pm Hey, mon.KEY to reaching the top is by being HONEST.

Age,
Please get your stupid and irrelevant self off this thread. Thank you. Sandbag someone else-- or even better, sandbag your self. -GL

Greylorn Ell wrote: ↑Mon Mar 11, 2019 12:00 am

roydop wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2019 6:56 am I have no problems in my life and do not experience suffering.

Care to share with me your life experience?

If I no longer suffer, and you do, then who is ultimately "correct?"

I'm here showing people the source, and cure, to all suffering. Your failure to understand makes me the moron? Hm.

You might wish to apply some introspection onto why you find this information so threatening.

I initiated this thread to convey ideas of my own, which others are free to evaluate and to which contrary cogent arguments are welcome.

Sandbaggers and assholes who want to co-opt this thread as a vehicle for the snarky introduction of their own bullshit are not welcome. Go away. Start your own thread. Leave this one to the few who might find it of better value without your crap. Thank you. -GL

From your OP:

But we will not until we can acknowledge that all current theories about the beginnings (except mine, of course) are illogical and non-scientific.

You are very confused. If you wish for a way out of the confusion, try thought free awareness.

I'll leave you to your path...

Greylorn Ell wrote: ↑Mon Mar 11, 2019 12:40 amI'm having a difficult time trying to get assholes to leave this thread. Unfortunately, the subject attracts idiots. Amod has been of little or no help in getting rid of them.

I'm not AMod. but I think I can help.

EVERYONE FUCK OFF OUT OF GREYLORN'S THREAD!!! ...UNLESS YOU SOMEHOW KNOW HOW TO WRITE SOMETHING HE WILL AGREE WITH.



APunk.

Greylorn Ell wrote: ↑Mon Mar 11, 2019 12:40 am

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2019 7:41 am @Greylorn Ell,

I looked at your OP and agree to a lot of your interpretation of the issue of origins. But I'd be pressed to read a lot to determine where everyone is at here. Can you personally summarize to me what you may have discussed from your perspective (versus other's opinions of your thread)? If I can get an idea what you covered and to what you proposed as any personal solution/resolution to the problem, I may be able to contribute.

Thank you.

I'm having a difficult time trying to get assholes to leave this thread. Unfortunately, the subject attracts idiots. Amod has been of little or no help in getting rid of them.

Best that I can suggest, peruse the two or three posts of mine that address my points. Ignore everything posted by Age, roydop, and the other dickheads. Unless the moderators stop embracing them, they'll not disappear, so you'll need to learn to identify them and ignore them-- on this and other threads as well. Without moderator assistance, no other option. Sorry about that, but I can only control what I write and do not have the time to do any sorting for you or anyone.

Contributions are welcome. Without them, I'll have no point in continuing this attempt at a real philosophy thread.

Greylorn

Okay, if I understand you correctly, you are arguing that the scientific paradigms that embraces the present cosmology or atomic physics is no different than the very same irrationality of the religious thinking the proponents of science holds against them in a hypocritical way, correct?

[Don't worry about the others. I'd rather people speak freely against me than to have my own content moderated similarly as is more often done should you raise this issue in a formal science forum!]

I happen to agree with your concern. I have argued with clarity the particular problems associated with the Big Bang theory versus its rival Steady State theory, for example, and am now confident that much of it is about politics than anything.

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Mon Mar 11, 2019 11:37 pm

Greylorn Ell wrote: ↑Mon Mar 11, 2019 12:40 am

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2019 7:41 am @Greylorn Ell,

I looked at your OP and agree to a lot of your interpretation of the issue of origins. But I'd be pressed to read a lot to determine where everyone is at here. Can you personally summarize to me what you may have discussed from your perspective (versus other's opinions of your thread)? If I can get an idea what you covered and to what you proposed as any personal solution/resolution to the problem, I may be able to contribute.

Thank you.

I'm having a difficult time trying to get assholes to leave this thread. Unfortunately, the subject attracts idiots. Amod has been of little or no help in getting rid of them.

Best that I can suggest, peruse the two or three posts of mine that address my points. Ignore everything posted by Age, roydop, and the other dickheads. Unless the moderators stop embracing them, they'll not disappear, so you'll need to learn to identify them and ignore them-- on this and other threads as well. Without moderator assistance, no other option. Sorry about that, but I can only control what I write and do not have the time to do any sorting for you or anyone.

Contributions are welcome. Without them, I'll have no point in continuing this attempt at a real philosophy thread.

Greylorn

Okay, if I understand you correctly, you are arguing that the scientific paradigms that embraces the present cosmology or atomic physics is no different than the very same irrationality of the religious thinking the proponents of science holds against them in a hypocritical way, correct?

[Don't worry about the others. I'd rather people speak freely against me than to have my own content moderated similarly as is more often done should you raise this issue in a formal science forum!]

I happen to agree with your concern. I have argued with clarity the particular problems associated with the Big Bang theory versus its rival Steady State theory, for example, and am now confident that much of it is about politics than anything.

Scott,
Actually, my concerns come as much from the philosophical level as from the technical/implementation level. Atomic physics is goofy, but that is the consequence of other problems that would be silly to try to explain on this forum. My issue is with cosmology.

It is not a function of any scientific paradigms that I know of--- rather, those paradigms are a function of an erroneous cosmology.

I've been working up to a point where I might explain that, so I'll give it a shot here.

The current silly cosmology is functionally identical to the religious notion that the universe was created by a single omnipotent entity. One thing at the beginning containing all the knowledge necessary to create a universe, and ultimately quasi-intelligent life.

Yet the universe in which we live is, at the level of basic physics, a cause-effect place. Two things, each with opposite forces, must interact before a physical event can take place. How does a single entity, in the absence of opposing forces, create such a universe?

I simply propose that our cause/effect universe could only have arisen as the consequence of two opposing forces.

Of course there's more to it.

Greylorn

Greylorn Ell wrote: ↑Wed Mar 13, 2019 3:37 am Yet the universe in which we live is, at the level of basic physics, a cause-effect place. Two things, each with opposite forces, must interact before a physical event can take place. How does a single entity, in the absence of opposing forces, create such a universe?

If this is your premise, Greylorn, then you would have to also believe that the creation-event was subject to natural laws, such as cause and effect. And while one can agree that this is how the universe functions NOW, it begs the key question, it seems to me. And you raise that question in your very next sentence:

I simply propose that our cause/effect universe could only have arisen as the consequence of two opposing forces.

If your real question is, "How could cause/effect have arisen?" then you can't posit cause/effect as a necessary precondition. If you posit cause/effect as a pre-existing condition, one in effect prior to and governing the creation event, then you no longer are offering an explanation for the "arising" of cause/effect.

But I think you have to pick one of those two horses, so to speak, and logically ride it. If cause/effect is something that "arose" as a result of something else, then it's by definition not itself the First Cause, and it it is not necessary any longer to suppose "opposing forces" are necessary, because clearly something can then create, even prior to the "arising" of cause/effect. If it didn't "arise," but rather was prior to the creation, then you've got no explanation for how cause/effect "arose" at all...you would have to say it didn't...and it would itself be the First Cause.

But traditionally, the First Cause explanation (whether we take the materialist or the monotheistic view) has to be an uncaused entity...because to suppose a cause prior to it would create an infinite regress -- and that is one thing, maybe the only thing, about which materialists and monotheists are in complete agreement. Being uncaused, it cannot itself be a product of cause/effect. Therefore, it does not need two entities in order to get going...and if it did, then we'd have an infinite regress again, because then the two beings would be contingent not necessary beings, each incomplete without the other, and thus not an Uncaused Cause, and not an answer to the question of how creation can get going. We'd have to keep searching further, to find that answer.

I might also suggest that Ockham would then dispense of the proposal for the necessity of two entities at the creation, because we'd be multiplying explanations beyond the necessary there. Really, if we want a final answer, we're looking for a single Uncaused Cause, or we once again simply have infinite regress.