The Philosophy Discussion Forum

Posted: **Mon Mar 03, 2025 1:03 pm**

As Plato pointed out, the greatest ignorance of a person is thinking that they know what they do not know.
Take the word God.
How many types of equality do we have using Grammar, by which to find an identity with that word? How many types of identity do we have?
As Plato noted, as the computer demonstrates, as some grammarians remind us, we have two, and only two which have various names, Arithmetic and Geometric, or again, Absolute and Relative. Literal and Metaphorical, etc.
Thus our intelligence is displayed by how we use them, for they are commensurate with the only two parts of speech possible, Too many times people assume that a word is somehow, magically associated with, and here are two more names for our ability to establish an equality, intelligible and perceptible, that God refers only to one or the other and from there blooms their heap of words on a topic. But let us go back to the parts of speech, the noun does not define the verb nor does the verb define the noun. i.e., as Plato noted, definition requires both. So, when we are talking about the power of existence, we have to go back to our own definition

What is the only thing a mind is designed to do, and can do? What is the only power we can actually recognize? Now we might see a loop. A definition depends, as Plato pointed out, on our ability to name the elements of a thing, i.e. our ability to recognize a naming convention, not definition, but our behavior with grammar. Our power, our behavior towards the foundation of grammar. Our ability to recognize what we are doing and why we are doing it.
All a mind can do is manage information. Language is Universal and Intelligible while Grammar is Particular and Perceptible. IN short, the Universal which defines us, as an individual is intelligence, while the particular to which that intelligence is applied to, is our particular behavior with constructing and using grammar systems.
So, let us begin, as Plato suggested. We can only name the elements of a thing, i.e., the definition of a thing, the two parts of a thing, i.e., a binary relationship as demonstrated by the computer. We combine these two names as the definition of some one thing, i.e., Noun equals noun and verb. I.e. A container of names equals the name of a container and the contained. Tom is A Cat.
Biblically before Plato, it was put into a simple metaphor.
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
The above statement is mysticism to most, but it is simply one way to denote what your computer demonstrates, binary recursion, the same binary recursion used to create the metaphorical story of Adam and Eve.

Adam and Eve were a Conjugate Binary Pair by which Complete Induction and Deduction produced the life of mankind.

Same definition a computer uses.
Absolute and Relative are a Conjugate Binary Pair by which Complete Induction and Deduction produces the produces of any computer. All behaviors.

As, you should know by now, relation to self is inadmissible, we can not recognize any other power than Language as expressed through Grammar systems or in metaphor
The Word.
God is the Word, and the Word is God. It is simply the primitives of our own power as a life support system.

Posted: **Mon Mar 03, 2025 1:07 pm**

In short; It is wholly a sign of stupidity to claim a distinction between religion and science when you use the very same grammar systems for both, i.e., it is a self referential fallacy.

Develop our understanding and use of grammar before f****** the our self and the world up.

Posted: **Mon Mar 03, 2025 2:19 pm**

Posted: **Mon Mar 03, 2025 8:36 pm**

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 03, 2025 1:03 pm As Plato pointed out, the greatest ignorance of a person is thinking that they know what they do not know.
Take the word God…

Biblically before Plato, it was put into a simple metaphor.
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
The above statement is mysticism to most, but it is simply one way to denote what your computer demonstrates, binary recursion, the same binary recursion used to create the metaphorical story of Adam and Eve.

Adam and Eve were a Conjugate Binary Pair by which Complete Induction and Deduction produced the life of mankind…

God is the Word, and the Word is God. It is simply the primitives of our own power as a life support system.

Good stuff!
Discussions about God fascinate me, particularly with people who acknowledge the common lack of proper definitions & are not dogmatically clinging to theism or atheism. Eg., “God is truth.” Why deny truth?

What does, “the word was God” mean? Borrowing the truth definition, do words help with truth?

I see the parable of Adam & Eve as, partly, explaining our tendency towards fearing truth, fearing the “fruit of the tree of knowledge of good & evil.” The garden of Eden represents blissful ignorance that is not meant for us for any longer than we can manage a bit more truth.

And I believe this story is like Jung’s collective unconscious - having sprung up in different religions & cultures.

Chinese language is older than Hebrew & look at Chinese characters that suggest were later borrowed by the Bible…

https://i.pinimg.com/236x/26/db/9d/26db ... 6a1546.jpg

Posted: **Mon Mar 03, 2025 9:12 pm**

Perspective wrote: ↑Mon Mar 03, 2025 8:36 pm
What does, “the word was God” mean? Borrowing the truth definition, do words help with truth?

The Word is not merely a spoken word but a person, as later verses reveal, who is active in the world. This phrase indicates a distinct yet intimate relationship between the Word and God. The preposition "with" suggests a face-to-face relationship, implying both distinction and unity.

Posted: **Mon Mar 03, 2025 9:31 pm**

What does, “the word was God” mean? Borrowing the truth definition, do words help with truth?

As Plato pointed out, words, names, in of themselves have no meaning. Your Question is an anthropomorphism.
What do we mean is indicated when we state an equality, be it past, present or future.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Word = verb and noun.
Noun "Word"
Verb " Was with"
Noun " God"
Noun = Verb and noun.

Convention of Grammar. Slow down and think about words, names in themselves and how we, by the recognition of grammatical principles make and learn to kept this association.
The foundation of grammar is contingent upon a convention of names, i.e., learn to give and keep the associations you have agreed upon.

This is how we effect binary recursion in the four possible expressions of Grammar, we form a grammar matrix.
The intelligible binary multiplied by the perceptible binary of a grammar equals four possible systems of basic grammar with traditional names:
Common Grammar, Arithmetic, Algebra and Geometry. This is our given Grammar Matrix we learn to master.
Both the Bible and Plato tell you how to learn all of these by using your own hand by using that grammar which forms a one to one correspondence between the intelligible and the perceptible using your own hand. It is called Geometry or errantly Euclidean Geometry.

The Bible, The Dialogs of Plato, and the Elements of Euclid are all examples of Grammar Books.

Posted: **Mon Mar 03, 2025 11:50 pm**

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 03, 2025 1:03 pm As Plato pointed out, the greatest ignorance of a person is thinking that they know what they do not know.
Take the word God.
How many types of equality do we have using Grammar, by which to find an identity with that word? How many types of identity do we have?
As Plato noted, as the computer demonstrates, as some grammarians remind us, we have two, and only two which have various names, Arithmetic and Geometric, or again, Absolute and Relative. Literal and Metaphorical, etc.
Thus our intelligence is displayed by how we use them, for they are commensurate with the only two parts of speech possible, Too many times people assume that a word is somehow, magically associated with, and here are two more names for our ability to establish an equality, intelligible and perceptible, that God refers only to one or the other and from there blooms their heap of words on a topic. But let us go back to the parts of speech, the noun does not define the verb nor does the verb define the noun. i.e., as Plato noted, definition requires both. So, when we are talking about the power of existence, we have to go back to our own definition

What is the only thing a mind is designed to do, and can do? What is the only power we can actually recognize? Now we might see a loop. A definition depends, as Plato pointed out, on our ability to name the elements of a thing, i.e. our ability to recognize a naming convention, not definition, but our behavior with grammar. Our power, our behavior towards the foundation of grammar. Our ability to recognize what we are doing and why we are doing it.
All a mind can do is manage information. Language is Universal and Intelligible while Grammar is Particular and Perceptible. IN short, the Universal which defines us, as an individual is intelligence, while the particular to which that intelligence is applied to, is our particular behavior with constructing and using grammar systems.
So, let us begin, as Plato suggested. We can only name the elements of a thing, i.e., the definition of a thing, the two parts of a thing, i.e., a binary relationship as demonstrated by the computer. We combine these two names as the definition of some one thing, i.e., Noun equals noun and verb. I.e. A container of names equals the name of a container and the contained. Tom is A Cat.
Biblically before Plato, it was put into a simple metaphor.
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
The above statement is mysticism to most, but it is simply one way to denote what your computer demonstrates, binary recursion, the same binary recursion used to create the metaphorical story of Adam and Eve.

Adam and Eve were a Conjugate Binary Pair by which Complete Induction and Deduction produced the life of mankind.

Same definition a computer uses.
Absolute and Relative are a Conjugate Binary Pair by which Complete Induction and Deduction produces the produces of any computer. All behaviors.

As, you should know by now, relation to self is inadmissible, we cannot recognize any other power than Language as expressed through Grammar systems or in metaphor
The Word.
God is the Word, and the Word is God. It is simply the primitives of our own power as a life support system.

This is all rather abstract to me. God and grammar? How would you intertwine your points here given your day-to-day interactions with others.

Instead, if you have any interest, assessments of God and religion [for me] revolve "for all practical purposes" around these four factors:

1] a demonstrable proof of the existence of your God or religious/spiritual path
2] addressing the fact that down through the ages hundreds of Gods and religious/spiritual paths to immortality and salvation were/are championed...but only one of which [if any] can be the true path. So why yours?
3] addressing the profoundly problematic role that dasein plays in any particular individual's belief in Gods and religious/spiritual faiths
4] the questions that revolve around theodicy and your own particular God or religious/spiritual path

Posted: **Tue Mar 04, 2025 2:59 am**

iambiguous wrote: ↑Mon Mar 03, 2025 11:50 pm

Actually, some peoples lack of ability with grammar is so blatantly obvious, that there is no need to comment upon anything they say.

The formula for binary recursion is given in the Bible, by Plato, by Euclid, by the computer, often presented in many works on math, that if one cannot grasp its fundamentals immediately or almost immediately when pointed out that person is congenitally doomed to a life of gibberish.

from that point one should realize that the so called countless problems of humanity are not many, but one, and only one. How does one teach a mind literacy knowing that a great number of people are incapable of it. The majority of humanity are simply parrot who parrot what they do not know is simply gibberish.

Posted: **Tue Mar 04, 2025 3:26 am**

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 04, 2025 2:59 am
iambiguous wrote: ↑Mon Mar 03, 2025 11:50 pm
Actually, some peoples lack of ability with grammar is so blatantly obvious, that there is no need to comment upon anything they say.

The formula for binary recursion is given in the Bible, by Plato, by Euclid, by the computer, often presented in many works on math, that if one cannot grasp its fundamentals immediately or almost immediately when pointed out that person is congenitally doomed to a life of gibberish.

from that point one should realize that the so called countless problems of humanity are not many, but one, and only one. How does one teach a mind literacy knowing that a great number of people are incapable of it. The majority of humanity are simply parrot who parrot what they do not know is simply gibberish.

Okay, you not interested in exploring God given my own set of assumptions above. No problem. That's always been a long shot for me here. And lots of other forums as well.

Posted: **Tue Mar 04, 2025 4:28 am**

iambiguous wrote: ↑Tue Mar 04, 2025 3:26 am

Okay, you not interested in exploring God given my own set of assumptions above. No problem. That's always been a long shot for me here. And lots of other forums as well.

You really are thick. One doe3s not explore a word. Plato wrote a whole dialog shooting down etymologist a long time ago.

The word God is a name which names something intelligible. A fundamental in Grammar. If you are incapable of participating in that convention of the name, then you are incapable of being literate. The quotes you run across simply have gone so far over your head, you are puzzled.

You simply missed every thing I wrote.

As Aristotle pointed out: names can name both the perceptible and intelligible, but if one has no recourse to the perceptible, they really cannot acquire the ability to directly participate in that things naming convention. There are approximations, however to most perceptible things. Almost the same for when names are assigned to the intelligible, however, one has to have the intelligence to do so. As the purpose of our grammar systems are the modification of our own behavior, if one has not the intelligence to use the intelligible, then one constructs mythologies as Plato demonstrated which defer to a person's emotions, which go back to simple memories of pleasure and pain.

Posted: **Wed Mar 05, 2025 1:50 am**

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 04, 2025 4:28 am
iambiguous wrote: ↑Tue Mar 04, 2025 3:26 amOkay, you not interested in exploring God given my own set of assumptions above. No problem. That's always been a long shot for me here. And lots of other forums as well.
You really are thick. One doe3s not explore a word. Plato wrote a whole dialog shooting down etymologist a long time ago.

The word God is a name which names something intelligible. A fundamental in Grammar. If you are incapable of participating in that convention of the name, then you are incapable of being literate. The quotes you run across simply have gone so far over your head, you are puzzled.

Again, how on Earth are assessments like this applicable to our day to day interactions with others? And in a world bursting at the seams with literally hundreds and hundreds of Gods and religious pathways from which to choose.

You simply missed every thing I wrote.

That's because, in my view, nothing you wrote above seems relevant to the manner in which I approach God and religion...existentially.

Instead, it's just more of the same...

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 04, 2025 4:28 amAs Aristotle pointed out: names can name both the perceptible and intelligible, but if one has no recourse to the perceptible, they really cannot acquire the ability to directly participate in that things naming convention. There are approximations, however to most perceptible things. Almost the same for when names are assigned to the intelligible, however, one has to have the intelligence to do so. As the purpose of our grammar systems are the modification of our own behavior, if one has not the intelligence to use the intelligible, then one constructs mythologies as Plato demonstrated which defer to a person's emotions, which go back to simple memories of pleasure and pain.

Note to others:

How are his points not basically a bunch of words defining and defending other words.

But if you think you understand the relevance of his/her arguments above, how for all practical purposes are they applicable to your own social, political and economic relationships.

Posted: **Wed Mar 05, 2025 3:08 am**

iambiguous wrote: ↑Wed Mar 05, 2025 1:50 am

Note to others:

How are his points not basically a bunch of words defining and defending other words.

You use words like someone who watches too much television after they microwave their hair dry in the morning.

Try long years of study before you think you have the right to waste peoples time with your whining.

If you want to see how far you can go with grammar, my work "The Art of Prophecy" on the Internet Archive is written in Geometry and Algebra, all grammar systems are designed to have some function in predictive behavior. The work is encyclopedic. All original. You should eventually understand that you can, with your own hand, draw any computational system, quite independent of any human being.

You come off as someone who is a deep as dew.

Now, it is a fact this world is crowded with people who are really thick, but this means that when someone is really thick and pestering others for attention, those people are going to give the same foot as any dog that rides a leg. If you do not want to get a boot, don't ride a leg.

Posted: **Wed Mar 05, 2025 3:45 am**

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Wed Mar 05, 2025 3:08 am
iambiguous wrote: ↑Wed Mar 05, 2025 1:50 am

Note to others:

How are his points not basically a bunch of words defining and defending other words.
You use words like someone who watches too much television after they microwave their hair dry in the morning.

Try long years of study before you think you have the right to waste peoples time with your whining.

If you want to see how far you can go with grammar, my work "The Art of Prophecy" on the Internet Archive is written in Geometry and Algebra, all grammar systems are designed to have some function in predictive behavior. The work is encyclopedic. All original. You should eventually understand that you can, with your own hand, draw any computational system, quite independent of any human being.

You come off as someone who is a deep as dew.

Has your work been peer-reviewed? I googled the title "The Art of Prophecy" and it said it was a "martial arts fantasy novel" written by an author named Wesley Chu. Is that you?

Posted: **Wed Mar 05, 2025 3:52 am**

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Wed Mar 05, 2025 3:45 am
Phil8659 wrote: ↑Wed Mar 05, 2025 3:08 am
iambiguous wrote: ↑Wed Mar 05, 2025 1:50 am

Note to others:

How are his points not basically a bunch of words defining and defending other words.
You use words like someone who watches too much television after they microwave their hair dry in the morning.

Try long years of study before you think you have the right to waste peoples time with your whining.

If you want to see how far you can go with grammar, my work "The Art of Prophecy" on the Internet Archive is written in Geometry and Algebra, all grammar systems are designed to have some function in predictive behavior. The work is encyclopedic. All original. You should eventually understand that you can, with your own hand, draw any computational system, quite independent of any human being.

You come off as someone who is a deep as dew.
Has your work been peer-reviewed? I googled the title "The Art of Prophecy" and it said it was a "martial arts fantasy novel" written by an author named Wesley Chu. Is that you?

Really?

Still don't put forth the effort. I titled my work long before Chu wrote children's books.

Secondly, If you view my work, you will find I have no peers as it is not only original, but the foundation is historical.

Posted: **Wed Mar 05, 2025 3:54 am**

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Wed Mar 05, 2025 3:52 am
Gary Childress wrote: ↑Wed Mar 05, 2025 3:45 am
Phil8659 wrote: ↑Wed Mar 05, 2025 3:08 am

You use words like someone who watches too much television after they microwave their hair dry in the morning.

Try long years of study before you think you have the right to waste peoples time with your whining.

If you want to see how far you can go with grammar, my work "The Art of Prophecy" on the Internet Archive is written in Geometry and Algebra, all grammar systems are designed to have some function in predictive behavior. The work is encyclopedic. All original. You should eventually understand that you can, with your own hand, draw any computational system, quite independent of any human being.

You come off as someone who is a deep as dew.
Has your work been peer-reviewed? I googled the title "The Art of Prophecy" and it said it was a "martial arts fantasy novel" written by an author named Wesley Chu. Is that you?
Really?

Still don't put forth the effort. I titled my work long before Chu wrote children's books.

Secondly, If you view my work, you will find I have no peers as it is not only original, but the foundation is historical.

Is it peer-reviewed, meaning read and reviewed by other scholars?

The Philosophy Discussion Forum

In Defense of God

In Defense of God

Re: In Defense of God

Re: In Defense of God

Re: In Defense of God

Re: In Defense of God

Re: In Defense of God

Re: In Defense of God

Re: In Defense of God

Re: In Defense of God

Re: In Defense of God

Re: In Defense of God

Re: In Defense of God

Re: In Defense of God

Re: In Defense of God

Re: In Defense of God