Philosophy Now Forum

Posted: **Tue Nov 06, 2018 9:20 pm**

Presented Argument:

1) The argument about the existence of God is Divided between Existence and Non-Existence. These arguments are mere perspectives, premised in axioms that act as points of awareness, either giving definition to God or negating God.

2) These axioms are premised in Existence and Void. Existence, encomposes "the all" regardless of this nature being limited to empirical sensory phenomena or abstract intuitive or rational phenomena with "sense" being the definition of phenomena and exist as and through these phenomena.

"Void" is defined as "." for no definition can be given and "." is too much definition on its own terms with this definition being contradictory; hence unreal.

3) To argue "No God" is to argue God as absent of existence, however this negation requires some limit of God to exist. While arguing that "No God" requires a perpetual negation of the limits of God to exist, fundamentally inverting one definition of God to many, to argue "No God" equally requires a division in the nature of God where "God" as a typeless definition synonymous with "The All" and "I Am" observes "no" as part of that nature of existence for "no" and "void" are strict encapsulations of a "typeless" definition as well.

4) "God" and "Nothing/Void/No" are typeless definitions and as typeless are equal. However to argue a typeless definition as equal, can be equated to "0=0" or "nothing" being equivalent to "nothing" which makes little sense at first glance for nothingness cannot be multiplied/divided unless the act of multiplication/division is a thing in itself. "0=0" may be equivalent to infinity or strictly "0 = 0" dependent upon the respective argument. But these respective arguments go back in form and function to perspectives in point 1. However 0 exists as a statement of relation, where 0 as nothing cannot be observed except through "=" or "equality" which acts as a divider.

5) God as typeless and "Nothing/Void/No" as typeless are equal in this typeless nature with this equality being the only observable property which gives a division resulting in multiple "typeless" natures. However what is without definition can only be observed by that which has definition and any form of equality in nothingness observes equality as a phenomena in itself that exists as a from of unity.

6) All equality is a positive definition as a dividing line of "nothing" into "being" where any typeless quality gains a degree of quality and quantity by its equality, with "equality" being the definitive principle itself. Hence to say "God = Nothing" is to observe "=" as true where "God" and "nothingness" take on a quality of both typeless and beyond "typeless".

7) This "beyond" typeless occurs in the respect that while equality "exists" through typelessness, it fundamentally transcends itself in the respect is is merely an act of Division that while necessitating "being" stemming from it, exists as typeless itself. So "typelessness" in these respects, while existing through "Void" and "Being" is beyond "both" and beyond itself as a perpetual definition through division;

hence God as typeless reflects "no God" through this typeless nature as being true in the respect God is beyond existence and as being beyond existence reflects no existence.

God is beyond being, and in these respects is beyond "nothing" and "being" and as such is both.

Posted: **Wed Nov 07, 2018 3:43 am**

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 06, 2018 9:20 pm Presented Argument:

1) The argument about the existence of God is Divided between Existence and Non-Existence. These arguments are mere perspectives, premised in axioms that act as points of awareness, either giving definition to God or negating God.

2) These axioms are premised in Existence and Void. Existence, encomposes "the all" regardless of this nature being limited to empirical sensory phenomena or abstract intuitive or rational phenomena with "sense" being the definition of phenomena and exist as and through these phenomena.

"Void" is defined as "." for no definition can be given and "." is too much definition on its own terms with this definition being contradictory; hence unreal.
....

What do you mean 'no definition can be given'???

You are actually giving a definition when you stated,
"Void" is defined as "."

You are not aware you have also made an implied definition of the "void" i.e.
"void' is defined as "." which 'no definition can be given'.

Before you go further in taking a big leap of faith, you should pause and realize there is a real person 'the empirical-you' making all the above claims.
Philosophically you need to invoke Socrates' 'Know Thyself.'

Know thyself meant you need to understand why your empirical-you is trying to mess 'you' up with all these sorts of thoughts [ending with an illusory God] which cannot be proven.
The above meant you need to understand what is going inside your head[brain], mind and body, that drove you to a desperation to conjure the idea of an illusory God out of nothing.
I don't think you had even bothered to know yourself and what is going on inside.

If you have not understood the mechanisms that drive your thoughts and actions, how can you be so confident your conclusions are reliable, especially the unproven illusory God.

My thesis on why you jumped to the illusory idea of God is because you are more likely to be compelled by "zombie parasites" in your brain that control your thinking and pyschological state.
The analogy is the equivalence of zombie ants

Inside the ant, the worms turn deadly. Ants usually get multiple worms at once, and most stay inside the ant’s abdomen.
One worm, however, will takeover an ant’s brain, commanding it to essential seek death. At dusk, ants usually return to their nests.
But the infected zombie ants climb blades of grass and other vegetation, holding on to a plant by its jaws until it gets eaten.
Once it gets eaten, the parasite can then lay eggs in its new mammal host, and begin its dark cycle anew.
https://www.popularmechanics.com/scienc ... g-zombies/

Thus when you understand there are 'zombie parasites' that compel you to conjure the idea of God to soothe an existential crisis, you will disinfect and get rid of these parasites to promote a greater sense of well-being. Buddhism [& others] is doing just that. [btw, I am not a Buddhist per se].

Posted: **Wed Nov 07, 2018 3:59 am**

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Nov 07, 2018 3:43 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 06, 2018 9:20 pm Presented Argument:

1) The argument about the existence of God is Divided between Existence and Non-Existence. These arguments are mere perspectives, premised in axioms that act as points of awareness, either giving definition to God or negating God.

2) These axioms are premised in Existence and Void. Existence, encomposes "the all" regardless of this nature being limited to empirical sensory phenomena or abstract intuitive or rational phenomena with "sense" being the definition of phenomena and exist as and through these phenomena.

"Void" is defined as "." for no definition can be given and "." is too much definition on its own terms with this definition being contradictory; hence unreal.
....
What do you mean 'no definition can be given'???

You are actually giving a definition when you stated,
"Void" is defined as "."

You are not aware you have also made an implied definition of the "void" i.e.
"void' is defined as "." which 'no definition can be given'.

along with this defintion being contradictory and unreal as to define void is to see void in relation to somethingness, hence a dualistic statement. Pure void, is a contradiction in terms as it is a statement of relation, hence being.

Before you go further in taking a big leap of faith, you should pause and realize there is a real person 'the empirical-you' making all the above claims.
Philosophically you need to invoke Socrates' 'Know Thyself.'

And Socrates believed in the possibility of an after life and one God.

Know thyself meant you need to understand why your empirical-you is trying to mess 'you' up with all these sorts of thoughts [ending with an illusory God] which cannot be proven.

There is no nature to proof, without resorting to a list of fallacies, except being with all being existing through abstract or empirical form as directed movement. Proof is structure as being with all structure being form and function.

Give proof to the nature of proof outside this statement.

The above meant you need to understand what is going inside your head[brain], mind and body, that drove you to a desperation to conjure the idea of an illusory God out of nothing.
I don't think you had even bothered to know yourself and what is going on inside.

The head, body, etc are just hallucinations to you.

If you have not understood the mechanisms that drive your thoughts and actions, how can you be so confident your conclusions are reliable, especially the unproven illusory God.

I understanding everything and nothing about my origins, directed movement through the limits of the point, Line and circle.

My thesis on why you jumped to the illusory idea of God is because you are more likely to be compelled by "zombie parasites" in your brain that control your thinking and pyschological state.
The analogy is the equivalence of zombie ants

Analogies, synonymous to metaphors and allegories, are hallucinations to you.

Inside the ant, the worms turn deadly. Ants usually get multiple worms at once, and most stay inside the ant’s abdomen.
One worm, however, will takeover an ant’s brain, commanding it to essential seek death. At dusk, ants usually return to their nests.
But the infected zombie ants climb blades of grass and other vegetation, holding on to a plant by its jaws until it gets eaten.
Once it gets eaten, the parasite can then lay eggs in its new mammal host, and begin its dark cycle anew.
https://www.popularmechanics.com/scienc ... g-zombies/
Thus when you understand there are 'zombie parasites' that compel you to conjure the idea of God to soothe an existential crisis, you will disinfect and get rid of these parasites to promote a greater sense of well-being. Buddhism [& others] is doing just that. [btw, I am not a Buddhist per se].

Buddhists have no idea what there theology is, most disagree with it, and they suffer similar forms of sexual abuse in there monasteries just like the Catholics.

There is no proof of an existential crisis in the face of this existing statement along with the movements which progress further from it.

Your existential crisis is a hallucination, by your own logic.

Posted: **Wed Nov 07, 2018 4:16 am**

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Nov 07, 2018 3:59 am ...

Buddhists have no idea what there theology is, most disagree with it, and they suffer similar forms of sexual abuse in there monasteries just like the Catholics.

There is no proof of an existential crisis in the face of this existing statement along with the movements which progress further from it.

Your existential crisis is a hallucination, by your own logic.

How much time have you spent to understand Buddhism-proper?
You have no credibility on Buddhism unless you have spent at least 4000 hours in researching the relevant materials related to Buddhism.

The extent SOME theists are going to in this stats to avoid burning in Hell and yearning for eternal life in Paradise is the most obvious evidence of an existential crisis brewing within them;

The existential crisis generate other negative behaviors in different theists.
Nb: the existential crisis also generate net-negative behaviors in non-theists but that is a separate topic.

Posted: **Wed Nov 07, 2018 5:30 am**

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Nov 07, 2018 4:16 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Nov 07, 2018 3:59 am ...

Buddhists have no idea what there theology is, most disagree with it, and they suffer similar forms of sexual abuse in there monasteries just like the Catholics.

There is no proof of an existential crisis in the face of this existing statement along with the movements which progress further from it.

Your existential crisis is a hallucination, by your own logic.

How much time have you spent to understand Buddhism-proper?
You have no credibility on Buddhism unless you have spent at least 4000 hours in researching the relevant materials related to Buddhism.

The extent SOME theists are going to in this stats to avoid burning in Hell and yearning for eternal life in Paradise is the most obvious evidence of an existential crisis brewing within them;

The existential crisis generate other negative behaviors in different theists.
Nb: the existential crisis also generate net-negative behaviors in non-theists but that is a separate topic.

Buddhism has multiple factions, sexual abuse in the monasteries, as well as violent cults like any other religion, along with issues in metaphysics observed by nagarjuna and his predecessors. I will copy and paste the sources, respectively, when I am not on an I pad.

You do not seem to habe any notion about what you are talking about.

Posted: **Wed Nov 07, 2018 7:18 am**

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Nov 07, 2018 5:30 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Nov 07, 2018 4:16 am How much time have you spent to understand Buddhism-proper?
You have no credibility on Buddhism unless you have spent at least 4000 hours in researching the relevant materials related to Buddhism.

The extent SOME theists are going to in this stats to avoid burning in Hell and yearning for eternal life in Paradise is the most obvious evidence of an existential crisis brewing within them;

The existential crisis generate other negative behaviors in different theists.
Nb: the existential crisis also generate net-negative behaviors in non-theists but that is a separate topic.
Buddhism has multiple factions, sexual abuse in the monasteries, as well as violent cults like any other religion, along with issues in metaphysics observed by nagarjuna and his predecessors. I will copy and paste the sources, respectively, when I am not on an I pad.

You do not seem to have any notion about what you are talking about.

Did the Buddha in his original teaching condone sexual abuses in the monasteries or the formation of cults?

You need to focus on the core principles of Buddhism as taught by the Buddha.
Sexual abuses, cults, or even praying to statues of Buddha are not part of Buddhism-proper.

Posted: **Wed Nov 07, 2018 7:23 am**

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Nov 07, 2018 7:18 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Nov 07, 2018 5:30 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Nov 07, 2018 4:16 am How much time have you spent to understand Buddhism-proper?
You have no credibility on Buddhism unless you have spent at least 4000 hours in researching the relevant materials related to Buddhism.

The extent SOME theists are going to in this stats to avoid burning in Hell and yearning for eternal life in Paradise is the most obvious evidence of an existential crisis brewing within them;

The existential crisis generate other negative behaviors in different theists.
Nb: the existential crisis also generate net-negative behaviors in non-theists but that is a separate topic.
Buddhism has multiple factions, sexual abuse in the monasteries, as well as violent cults like any other religion, along with issues in metaphysics observed by nagarjuna and his predecessors. I will copy and paste the sources, respectively, when I am not on an I pad.

You do not seem to have any notion about what you are talking about.

I will post the links when I get in front of a computer. Also there is a thread somewhere about that here...I will try to find it and post it. Some scholars disagree if he promoted sexual abuse or not.

Did the Buddha in his original teaching condone sexual abuses in the monasteries or the formation of cults?

You need to focus on the core principles of Buddhism as taught by the Buddha.
Sexual abuses, cults, or even praying to statues of Buddha are not part of Buddhism-proper.

No Buddhist can agree on the core principles and this debate has went on for well over a thousand years.

Also the statement that nothing can be known negates that one can know the core principles.

The core principles are not interpreted the same. Some say it leads to sexism, others atheism, etc. They have there factions like every other religion.

You obviously have not read the full story on Buddhism. They had serious issues with religiously promulgated violence.

Posted: **Wed Nov 07, 2018 7:41 am**

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Nov 07, 2018 7:23 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Nov 07, 2018 7:18 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Nov 07, 2018 5:30 am
Buddhism has multiple factions, sexual abuse in the monasteries, as well as violent cults like any other religion, along with issues in metaphysics observed by nagarjuna and his predecessors. I will copy and paste the sources, respectively, when I am not on an I pad.

You do not seem to have any notion about what you are talking about.

I will post the links when I get in front of a computer. Also there is a thread somewhere about that here...I will try to find it and post it. Some scholars disagree if he promoted sexual abuse or not.

Did the Buddha in his original teaching condone sexual abuses in the monasteries or the formation of cults?

You need to focus on the core principles of Buddhism as taught by the Buddha.
Sexual abuses, cults, or even praying to statues of Buddha are not part of Buddhism-proper.

No Buddhist can agree on the core principles and this debate has went on for well over a thousand years.

Also the statement that nothing can be known negates that one can know the core principles.

The core principles are not interpreted the same. Some say it leads to sexism, others atheism, etc. They have there factions like every other religion.

You obviously have not read the full story on Buddhism. They had serious issues with religiously promulgated violence.

I am aware there are certain verses within some sutras that contain violent elements.
I had a debate with Averroes on this and these are not part of the main core of Buddhism proper.
Have you heard or read of any Buddhist layperson or monk killing non-Buddhists in the name of the Buddha?

Posted: **Wed Nov 07, 2018 7:49 am**

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Nov 07, 2018 7:41 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Nov 07, 2018 7:23 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Nov 07, 2018 7:18 am
Did the Buddha in his original teaching condone sexual abuses in the monasteries or the formation of cults?

You need to focus on the core principles of Buddhism as taught by the Buddha.
Sexual abuses, cults, or even praying to statues of Buddha are not part of Buddhism-proper.

No Buddhist can agree on the core principles and this debate has went on for well over a thousand years.

Also the statement that nothing can be known negates that one can know the core principles.

The core principles are not interpreted the same. Some say it leads to sexism, others atheism, etc. They have there factions like every other religion.

You obviously have not read the full story on Buddhism. They had serious issues with religiously promulgated violence.
I am aware there are certain verses within some sutras that contain violent elements.
I had a debate with Averroes on this and these are not part of the main core of Buddhism proper.
Have you heard or read of any Buddhist layperson or monk killing non-Buddhists in the name of the Buddha?

Will post sources.

The main core of Buddhism is subject to interpretation as self defense is a viable option within there faith.

Posted: **Wed Nov 07, 2018 7:54 am**

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Nov 07, 2018 7:49 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Nov 07, 2018 7:41 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Nov 07, 2018 7:23 am

You obviously have not read the full story on Buddhism. They had serious issues with religiously promulgated violence.
I am aware there are certain verses within some sutras that contain violent elements.
I had a debate with Averroes on this and these are not part of the main core of Buddhism proper.
Have you heard or read of any Buddhist layperson or monk killing non-Buddhists in the name of the Buddha?
Will post sources.

The main core of Buddhism is subject to interpretation as self defense is a viable option within there faith.

Sexual abuses is not self-defense.

Self-defense is not a core principle of Buddhism.
But if any Buddhist [past or present] recommend real genuine self-defense, I don't see any issue with that.

Posted: **Wed Nov 07, 2018 7:57 am**

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Nov 07, 2018 7:54 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Nov 07, 2018 7:49 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Nov 07, 2018 7:41 am
I am aware there are certain verses within some sutras that contain violent elements.
I had a debate with Averroes on this and these are not part of the main core of Buddhism proper.
Have you heard or read of any Buddhist layperson or monk killing non-Buddhists in the name of the Buddha?
Will post sources.

The main core of Buddhism is subject to interpretation as self defense is a viable option within there faith.
Sexual abuses is not self-defense.

Self-defense is not a core principle of Buddhism.
But if any Buddhist [past or present] recommend real genuine self-defense, I don't see any issue with that.

The thread is about violence and self defense, not sexual abuse. If you don't believe me then look at the Buddhist monks who practice martial arts...lol.

Wow...you seem to be embodying the hallucination theory you presents as true.

Posted: **Wed Nov 07, 2018 8:11 am**

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Nov 07, 2018 7:57 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Nov 07, 2018 7:54 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Nov 07, 2018 7:49 am
Will post sources.

The main core of Buddhism is subject to interpretation as self defense is a viable option within there faith.
Sexual abuses is not self-defense.

Self-defense is not a core principle of Buddhism.
But if any Buddhist [past or present] recommend real genuine self-defense, I don't see any issue with that.
The thread is about violence and self defense, not sexual abuse. If you don't believe me then look at the Buddhist monks who practice martial arts...lol.

Wow...you seem to be embodying the hallucination theory you presents as true.

If martial arts is the core practice of Buddhism, then ALL Buddhist monks and lay Buddhists would have adopted martial arts. But in reality that is not the case.

Posted: **Wed Nov 07, 2018 4:58 pm**

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Nov 07, 2018 8:11 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Nov 07, 2018 7:57 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Nov 07, 2018 7:54 am
Sexual abuses is not self-defense.

Self-defense is not a core principle of Buddhism.
But if any Buddhist [past or present] recommend real genuine self-defense, I don't see any issue with that.
The thread is about violence and self defense, not sexual abuse. If you don't believe me then look at the Buddhist monks who practice martial arts...lol.

Wow...you seem to be embodying the hallucination theory you presents as true.
If martial arts is the core practice of Buddhism, then ALL Buddhist monks and lay Buddhists would have adopted martial arts. But in reality that is not the case.

It is not a core, but many practice it without contradiction to there faith hence the faith allows it.

Pacifism is illogical as it cancels itself out in the face of violence and any stance against violence necessitates an enforcement against it..

Warmongering is illogical as it just cancels itself out over time and is predicated on some form of peace (pacifism) being derived from it.

Posted: **Thu Nov 08, 2018 5:08 am**

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Nov 07, 2018 4:58 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Nov 07, 2018 8:11 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Nov 07, 2018 7:57 am

The thread is about violence and self defense, not sexual abuse. If you don't believe me then look at the Buddhist monks who practice martial arts...lol.

Wow...you seem to be embodying the hallucination theory you presents as true.
If martial arts is the core practice of Buddhism, then ALL Buddhist monks and lay Buddhists would have adopted martial arts. But in reality that is not the case.
It is not a core, but many practice it without contradiction to there faith hence the faith allows it.

Pacifism is illogical as it cancels itself out in the face of violence and any stance against violence necessitates an enforcement against it..

Warmongering is illogical as it just cancels itself out over time and is predicated on some form of peace (pacifism) being derived from it.

You are blabbering out of point here.

What counts is within the "constitution" and no where else.
In the case of Buddhism, its constitution is represented by the core principles taught by Buddha, e.g.
Buddhism's 4NT-8FP is a Life Problem Solving Technique.
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=25193

Even it is allowed in certain places but if martial arts is not a core of Buddhism, then you cannot ascribe it as a standard practice of Buddhism.

Note the majority of Buddhists pray to statutes of Buddha and the monks allow it, but this is not a core of Buddhism. The Buddha do not agree with asceticism but many monks practice it without any one banning it.

Thus it is critical you need to understand the core principles of Buddhism and should not be swayed by its fringe and variable practices.

My original point is Buddhism directly addresses the psychological impulses [zombie parasites] that compel theists to cling to an illusory God [which is responsible for terrible evil acts beside good] which in turn generate more sufferings to the individuals and humanity.
Buddhism is dynamic and understand there are all sort of people thus allows for variations within its core principles.

Posted: **Thu Nov 08, 2018 6:21 am**

Consider the source of the knowings. Any individual or group can falsely denigrate a body of knowledge.

As far as God goes, if one sets up a terror to the unbelievers; God, then that God has to be considered useless. Conjuring a God is a very primitive and childish trick used to provoke fear in those whom are very unknowing.

How do you define God? I define God as a fear of the unknown, the logic that intelligence must pre exist for intelligent things to form, and the desire for eternal life. These are the three iron headed motives that are used in conjuring up God.

But perhaps what you mean by God is the prime source of all of reality. The initial force and cause of all that is real.

Is God bound by existence? Or is God boundless?

I cant conclude that an initial intellect does or does not exist.

It seems to me that God is bound to the shackles of existence.

To postulate God being real you would have to prove that existence has no end, and the infinite is real emanating in all directions. Conversely and also, if you could prove that the universe has an entire beginning, then you could move on to a prime mover.

The law of increasing entropy might suggest a very beginning because low entropy can only exist during a finite time period. Is there a state of ever increasing entropy, or does it cycle back to low from highest possible?

Infinity in all directions suggests infinite possibility as a given happening. And what if infinite possibility happens infinite times per second, what would be real?

But to clinch there being a God, you would have to prove intellect is eternal. And there is no way of doing that.

Aint it interesting to think that are atoms, and molecules of being could be eternal them very things. No beginning, and no end!

Is there power in having no beginning and no end? And what if all of infinity effects all of infinity in a sea of non locality?

If existence has eternal memory, then maybe its progressive, and advancing. And life is desperately anchored to our desperate planet.

Why should i have memory whatsoever? Memory serves a purpose, and so do eyes, as crude as they are.

I feel like a very rough draft of a crude conceptualization.

Other times i feel like a giant haphazard occurence.

Philosophy Now Forum

No God as a Quality and Quantity of God.

No God as a Quality and Quantity of God.

Re: No God as a Quality and Quantity of God.

Re: No God as a Quality and Quantity of God.

Re: No God as a Quality and Quantity of God.

Re: No God as a Quality and Quantity of God.

Re: No God as a Quality and Quantity of God.

Re: No God as a Quality and Quantity of God.

Re: No God as a Quality and Quantity of God.

Re: No God as a Quality and Quantity of God.

Re: No God as a Quality and Quantity of God.

Re: No God as a Quality and Quantity of God.

Re: No God as a Quality and Quantity of God.

Re: No God as a Quality and Quantity of God.

Re: No God as a Quality and Quantity of God.

Re: No God as a Quality and Quantity of God.