Discussion:
ONE proof of God, again
(too old to reply)
Dale
2014-01-01 05:22:51 UTC
Permalink
my ONE proof is as follows:

1) the brain is EXISTENTIAL
2) EVERY part of the brain is EXISTENTIAL
3) thoughts/thinking are PART of the brain
4) thoughts/thinking are EXISTENTIAL
5) things like God are AT LEAST thoughts/thinking
6) things like God are AT LEAST part of the brain
7) things like God are AT LEAST EXISTENTIAL as PART of the brain

I already realize this makes elves, fairies and Santa Claus EXISTENTIAL
too ...
--
Dale
Jeanne Douglas
2014-01-01 05:40:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dale
1) the brain is EXISTENTIAL
2) EVERY part of the brain is EXISTENTIAL
3) thoughts/thinking are PART of the brain
4) thoughts/thinking are EXISTENTIAL
5) things like God are AT LEAST thoughts/thinking
6) things like God are AT LEAST part of the brain
7) things like God are AT LEAST EXISTENTIAL as PART of the brain
I already realize this makes elves, fairies and Santa Claus EXISTENTIAL
too ...
And it proves how incredibly stupid you are.
--
JD

"If our country is going broke, let it be from
feeding the poor and caring for the elderly.
And not from pampering the rich and fighting
wars for them."--Living Blue in a Red State (seen on Facebook)
Dale
2014-01-02 05:30:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Dale
1) the brain is EXISTENTIAL
2) EVERY part of the brain is EXISTENTIAL
3) thoughts/thinking are PART of the brain
4) thoughts/thinking are EXISTENTIAL
5) things like God are AT LEAST thoughts/thinking
6) things like God are AT LEAST part of the brain
7) things like God are AT LEAST EXISTENTIAL as PART of the brain
I already realize this makes elves, fairies and Santa Claus EXISTENTIAL
too ...
And it proves how incredibly stupid you are.
is this just ad hominem , or do you have a point ...
--
Dale
Olrik
2014-01-02 05:31:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dale
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Dale
1) the brain is EXISTENTIAL
2) EVERY part of the brain is EXISTENTIAL
3) thoughts/thinking are PART of the brain
4) thoughts/thinking are EXISTENTIAL
5) things like God are AT LEAST thoughts/thinking
6) things like God are AT LEAST part of the brain
7) things like God are AT LEAST EXISTENTIAL as PART of the brain
I already realize this makes elves, fairies and Santa Claus EXISTENTIAL
too ...
And it proves how incredibly stupid you are.
is this just ad hominem , or do you have a point ...
It's not «ad hominem» if it's a fact.
--
Olrik
aa #1981
EAC Chief Food Inspector, Bacon Division
Dale
2014-01-02 17:48:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Olrik
Post by Dale
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Dale
1) the brain is EXISTENTIAL
2) EVERY part of the brain is EXISTENTIAL
3) thoughts/thinking are PART of the brain
4) thoughts/thinking are EXISTENTIAL
5) things like God are AT LEAST thoughts/thinking
6) things like God are AT LEAST part of the brain
7) things like God are AT LEAST EXISTENTIAL as PART of the brain
I already realize this makes elves, fairies and Santa Claus EXISTENTIAL
too ...
And it proves how incredibly stupid you are.
is this just ad hominem , or do you have a point ...
It's not «ad hominem» if it's a fact.
still doesn't make it valid debate
--
Dale
Sam Sung
2014-01-01 05:41:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dale
1) the brain is EXISTENTIAL
2) EVERY part of the brain is EXISTENTIAL
3) thoughts/thinking are PART of the brain
4) thoughts/thinking are EXISTENTIAL
5) things like God are AT LEAST thoughts/thinking
6) things like God are AT LEAST part of the brain
7) things like God are AT LEAST EXISTENTIAL
as PART of the brain
which is part of the spirit of the gone
Post by Dale
I already realize this makes elves, fairies and Santa Claus EXISTENTIAL
too ...
Dale
2014-01-02 05:31:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sam Sung
Post by Dale
1) the brain is EXISTENTIAL
2) EVERY part of the brain is EXISTENTIAL
3) thoughts/thinking are PART of the brain
4) thoughts/thinking are EXISTENTIAL
5) things like God are AT LEAST thoughts/thinking
6) things like God are AT LEAST part of the brain
7) things like God are AT LEAST EXISTENTIAL
as PART of the brain
which is part of the spirit of the gone
probably, but where and when it is stored and resurrected I don't know,
requires a whole new thread of input to me
Post by Sam Sung
Post by Dale
I already realize this makes elves, fairies and Santa Claus EXISTENTIAL
too ...
--
Dale
Olrik
2014-01-01 05:48:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dale
1) the brain is EXISTENTIAL
Define «EXISTENTIAL»
--
Olrik
aa #1981
EAC Chief Food Inspector, Bacon Division
Wizard-Of-Oz
2014-01-01 12:23:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Olrik
Post by Dale
1) the brain is EXISTENTIAL
Define «EXISTENTIAL»
I think perhaps he mean existent.

The proof is still nonsense, of course.
Dale
2014-01-01 17:19:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Olrik
Post by Dale
1) the brain is EXISTENTIAL
Define «EXISTENTIAL»
comes from the root of that which "exists", meaning to belong to the set
of that which exists
--
Dale
Peter Percival
2014-01-01 17:31:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dale
Post by Olrik
Post by Dale
1) the brain is EXISTENTIAL
Define «EXISTENTIAL»
comes from the root of that which "exists", meaning to belong to the set
of that which exists
So "the brain is EXISTENTIAL" means no more than "the brain exists"?
--
Madam Life's a piece in bloom,
Death goes dogging everywhere:
She's the tenant of the room,
He's the ruffian on the stair.
Sam Sung
2014-01-01 18:31:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Percival
Post by Dale
Post by Olrik
Post by Dale
1) the brain is EXISTENTIAL
Define «EXISTENTIAL»
comes from the root of that which "exists", meaning to belong to the set
of that which exists
So "the brain is EXISTENTIAL" means no more than "the brain exists"?
toatally right
Dale
2014-01-02 02:13:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Percival
Post by Dale
Post by Olrik
Post by Dale
1) the brain is EXISTENTIAL
Define «EXISTENTIAL»
comes from the root of that which "exists", meaning to belong to the set
of that which exists
So "the brain is EXISTENTIAL" means no more than "the brain exists"?
I'm a solipsist, I don't know
--
Dale
Sam Sung
2014-01-01 18:30:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dale
Post by Olrik
Post by Dale
1) the brain is EXISTENTIAL
Define «EXISTENTIAL»
comes from the root of that which "exists", meaning to belong to the set
of that which exists
rather than which insistst
Wisely Non-Theist
2014-01-01 07:02:17 UTC
Permalink
But of which god or gods?

There are hundreds, possibly thousands of mutually incompossible claims
of godly existence, of which at most one can be correct and all others
MUST be false.

And until theists can all agree on WHICH one, if any, of those many
mutually incompossible claims is valid, there are no claimed gods
acceptable to all theists.

And it is only when that impossibility (of all theists agreeing) has
actually happened that there is any point in trying to convince any
atheists of that of which theists cannot even convince other theists.
{:-])))
2014-01-01 13:52:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wisely Non-Theist
But of which god or gods?
There are hundreds, possibly thousands of mutually incompossible claims
of godly existence, of which at most one can be correct and all others
MUST be false.
Reminds me of the blind guys
talking about an elephant.
Post by Wisely Non-Theist
And until theists can all agree on WHICH one, if any, of those many
mutually incompossible claims is valid, there are no claimed gods
acceptable to all theists.
An ear is not a nose
nor is an eye afoot.
Post by Wisely Non-Theist
And it is only when that impossibility (of all theists agreeing) has
actually happened that there is any point in trying to convince any
atheists of that of which theists cannot even convince other theists.
Atheists who have no interest
will continue to have no interest.

Those atheists who might be interested,
without having any experience of an elephant,
even when in their living room, will remain unconvinced.

Some people are of the mind
that men never landed on the Moon.
And while proof might well exist, those
who disbelieve will continue to disbelieve.

Even if they were to set foot on the Moon themselves,
they would try to figure out how and why it was not so.

A blind man does not know green and blue.
One who cannot hear various tones, cannot hear.

Without a sense of touch, an elephant's ear
would not feel like anything.

Even if it was flapping in front of one's face,
one who was deaf, blind and untouched,
might not be able to be other than
how that one happens to be.
Christopher A. Lee
2014-01-01 18:01:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by {:-])))
Post by Wisely Non-Theist
But of which god or gods?
There are hundreds, possibly thousands of mutually incompossible claims
of godly existence, of which at most one can be correct and all others
MUST be false.
Reminds me of the blind guys
talking about an elephant.
Yet another stupid, pig-ignorant, nasty theist who should have
provided as much evidence for his god as there is for elephants, but
obviously has none otherwise he wouldn't resort to such dishonest
rudeness.
Post by {:-])))
Post by Wisely Non-Theist
And until theists can all agree on WHICH one, if any, of those many
mutually incompossible claims is valid, there are no claimed gods
acceptable to all theists.
An ear is not a nose
nor is an eye afoot.
So what?

Either provide the absent evidence for your god, or it remains merely
your pretend friend that you rudely and stupidly talk about where it
is irrelevant.
Post by {:-])))
Post by Wisely Non-Theist
And it is only when that impossibility (of all theists agreeing) has
actually happened that there is any point in trying to convince any
atheists of that of which theists cannot even convince other theists.
Atheists who have no interest
will continue to have no interest.
So why can't you shut the fuck about it when you know you can't put up
- AFTER BRINGING IT UP IN THE FIRST PLACE.
Post by {:-])))
Those atheists who might be interested,
without having any experience of an elephant,
even when in their living room, will remain unconvinced.
Why can't theists stop lying about atheists, to atheists?
Post by {:-])))
Some people are of the mind
that men never landed on the Moon.
And while proof might well exist, those
who disbelieve will continue to disbelieve.
SO PROVIDE AS MUCH EVIDENCE FOR YOUR HYPOTHETICAL GOD AS THERE IS FOR
NASA PUTTING MEN ON THE MOON.
Post by {:-])))
Even if they were to set foot on the Moon themselves,
they would try to figure out how and why it was not so.
Why can't you stop lying about atheists, to atheists, typically hasty,
narcissistic, sociopathic Christian?

You know perfectly well there isn't a shred of evidence for what
remains your pretend friend, because if there were you wouldn't need
to resort to lying about us to our faces.

And that we wouldn't demand proof/evidence/etc if believers kept it
inside their religion instead of rudely and stupidly talking as if it
were real, in the real world beyond your religion.
Post by {:-])))
A blind man does not know green and blue.
One who cannot hear various tones, cannot hear.
SO FRISKING WHAT?

Provide as much evidence for your pretend friend as there is for
colours and sound, instead of being so personally nasty towards those
who don't share your beliefs.

In the real world, your particular god-BELIEF is not substantively
different from Zeus-BELIEF, Odin-BELIEF, Krishna-BELIEF and all the
thousands of others.

And you don't persuade us that yours is any more real than the rest of
them by lying about us, to us.
Post by {:-])))
Without a sense of touch, an elephant's ear
would not feel like anything.
SO FUCKING WHAT?

All you have, is the dishonest analogy with something that isn't
disputed and for which there is objective evidence, which only begs
the same question that was originally asked.

When all we want you to do is live and let live, and to shut up when
you can't put up.
Post by {:-])))
Even if it was flapping in front of one's face,
one who was deaf, blind and untouched,
might not be able to be other than
how that one happens to be.
SO FUCKING WHAT?

Now either provide evidence for your hypothetical god or keep your
bullshit to yourself.
{:-])))
2014-01-01 23:38:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by {:-])))
Post by Wisely Non-Theist
But of which god or gods?
There are hundreds, possibly thousands of mutually incompossible claims
of godly existence, of which at most one can be correct and all others
MUST be false.
Reminds me of the blind guys
talking about an elephant.
Yet another stupid, pig-ignorant, nasty theist who should have
provided as much evidence for his god as there is for elephants, but
obviously has none otherwise he wouldn't resort to such dishonest
rudeness.
Post by {:-])))
Post by Wisely Non-Theist
And until theists can all agree on WHICH one, if any, of those many
mutually incompossible claims is valid, there are no claimed gods
acceptable to all theists.
An ear is not a nose
nor is an eye afoot.
So what?
So, when blind guys make an attempt
to describe an elephant, explanations vary.

It's a metaphor.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Either provide the absent evidence for your god,
For those who have no eyes to see,
no matter how much light is shed,
none of it will make a difference.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
or it remains merely
your pretend friend that you rudely and stupidly talk about where it
is irrelevant.
Nature is a word.
She could be said to exist.

One might pretend Earth is a thing.
A ball of rock. If one so chooses.

For those who have no eyes to see,
no matter how many pictures are presented,
there will never be any impression made.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by {:-])))
Post by Wisely Non-Theist
And it is only when that impossibility (of all theists agreeing) has
actually happened that there is any point in trying to convince any
atheists of that of which theists cannot even convince other theists.
Atheists who have no interest
will continue to have no interest.
So why can't you shut the fuck about it when you know you can't put up
- AFTER BRINGING IT UP IN THE FIRST PLACE.
Atheists who have no interest
would not be reading a thread about God.

Those who claim to have no interest
yet who appear to be offended
might be in denial in ways.

Dale cross-posted a message
into a Taoist newsgroup. Why, I don't know.

I am able to bring up a rock,
call it Behistun, for example, to begin
to set out a proof for those who have an interest.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by {:-])))
Those atheists who might be interested,
without having any experience of an elephant,
even when in their living room, will remain unconvinced.
Why can't theists stop lying about atheists, to atheists?
I don't know what you're talking about.

Atheists who have no interest in God or god or gods
would not be reading articles about God or god or gods.

It would be akin to someone who is asexual
reading articles in a Playboy magazine
for the information only. And then
being offended at how rude
the nude pictures are.

Or someone who is apolitical reading
what goes on in a House of Parliament
and getting upset at the stupidity.

A bit of a contradiction.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by {:-])))
Some people are of the mind
that men never landed on the Moon.
And while proof might well exist, those
who disbelieve will continue to disbelieve.
SO PROVIDE AS MUCH EVIDENCE FOR YOUR HYPOTHETICAL GOD AS THERE IS FOR
NASA PUTTING MEN ON THE MOON.
First, one would need to believe
there is a thing in the sky, called the Moon.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by {:-])))
Even if they were to set foot on the Moon themselves,
they would try to figure out how and why it was not so.
Why can't you stop lying about atheists, to atheists, typically hasty,
narcissistic, sociopathic Christian?
For those atheists who are interested in God,
they might begin by reading about God.

There are books, e.g. the Bible,
which have lots and lots
of stories in them.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
You know perfectly well there isn't a shred of evidence for what
remains your pretend friend, because if there were you wouldn't need
to resort to lying about us to our faces.
There is lots of evidence
for those who are willing to see it.

There is a place, it's called Rome.
It goes way back, a couple thousand years.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
And that we wouldn't demand proof/evidence/etc if believers kept it
inside their religion instead of rudely and stupidly talking as if it
were real, in the real world beyond your religion.
One might, if one were interested,
go to France, and find the relics of Mary,
and perhaps Martha, and Lazarus,
the guy who was raised from being dead.

There are plenty of areas to research
if one cares to do such a thing.

Evidence exists,
for those willing to open their eyes
and are able to see the metaphorical elephant.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by {:-])))
A blind man does not know green and blue.
One who cannot hear various tones, cannot hear.
SO FRISKING WHAT?
So it remains an exercise in futility.

Why Dale chose to take such a path
is beyond my knowledge at present.

Maybe he likes exercise. Or is simply a troll.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Provide as much evidence for your pretend friend as there is for
colours and sound, instead of being so personally nasty towards those
who don't share your beliefs.
I don't know why you are taking offense
and see what I say as personally nasty.

Everyone has his or her own beliefs.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
In the real world, your particular god-BELIEF is not substantively
different from Zeus-BELIEF, Odin-BELIEF, Krishna-BELIEF and all the
thousands of others.
For those not having experienced the Self,
Krishna might remain a mere myth.

As for whom Odin and Zeus may have been,
prior to being deified, stories also may be found.

Plenty of information is now online
for those who care to seek it out.

Paths are made by walking them.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
And you don't persuade us that yours is any more real than the rest of
them by lying about us, to us.
Persuading others is beyond my ability.
Most people I've met have their minds made up.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by {:-])))
Without a sense of touch, an elephant's ear
would not feel like anything.
SO FUCKING WHAT?
So one would be out of touch.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
All you have, is the dishonest analogy with something that isn't
disputed and for which there is objective evidence, which only begs
the same question that was originally asked.
I must have missed the original question.

My impression was that Dale had what he thought
was ONE proof of God. Which One? Apparently
is a question in there as well.

If some one made a promise to someone else,
and that promise was written down, then kept,
that might suffice as evidence the promise existed
and was kept.

Or, it may not.

One may dispute, for example, the existence
of the one who was said to have made
the promise in the first place.

Lots of disputes can be made
for those who like to dispute stuff.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
When all we want you to do is live and let live, and to shut up when
you can't put up.
Mostly I simply read and write.

Please feel free to live as you choose.

If you think I am stopping you
then perhaps you should seek help.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by {:-])))
Even if it was flapping in front of one's face,
one who was deaf, blind and untouched,
might not be able to be other than
how that one happens to be.
SO FUCKING WHAT?
So, there are those
who will not believe no matter what.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Now either provide evidence for your hypothetical god or keep your
bullshit to yourself.
If you are in alt.atheism and so say,
then I can trim that group out
next time a round. If that will help
you to live as you would like.

I can, and would, do that for you.

Magnanimity is among my virtues.

- future cheers!
walksalone
2014-01-02 01:31:47 UTC
Permalink
"{:-])))" <***@.... --- -- .> wrote in news:***@4ax.com:

Griff. Followups set.

Snipping will occur.



snip 1
Post by {:-])))
Nature is a word.
She could be said to exist.
She is also very handy. Without her, none of us would be here.
Post by {:-])))
One might pretend Earth is a thing.
A ball of rock. If one so chooses.
Or a cotton cany cone.
Post by {:-])))
For those who have no eyes to see,
no matter how many pictures are presented,
there will never be any impression made.
As opposed to those that pretend to see?
Post by {:-])))
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by {:-])))
Post by Wisely Non-Theist
And it is only when that impossibility (of all theists agreeing) has
actually happened that there is any point in trying to convince any
atheists of that of which theists cannot even convince other
theists.
Atheists who have no interest
will continue to have no interest.
So why can't you shut the fuck about it when you know you can't put up
- AFTER BRINGING IT UP IN THE FIRST PLACE.
Atheists who have no interest
would not be reading a thread about God.
They may well do so in the atheist newsgroup. If for no other reasdon
than to see what the current crop of trolls has to pimp.
Post by {:-])))
Those who claim to have no interest
yet who appear to be offended
might be in denial in ways.
Ah, I undserstand? So, you are here to do your song & dance & impress
others. or you live in an ivory tower where stepping n the shit others
leave behind is not your problem.
RTeally, you & yhose that like to pretend a superiority ikn matters
mystical would do well tyo go down to the nearest street corner where the
hookers hang pout. They too need need to realise that others are worse
off than they, & that some of those others believe that they are better
off than anyone else.
Post by {:-])))
Dale cross-posted a message
into a Taoist newsgroup. Why, I don't know.
Because he is an inconsiderate nuck that believes he has the right to a
captive audience?
Post by {:-])))
I am able to bring up a rock,
call it Behistun, for example, to begin
to set out a proof for those who have an interest.
But can you call Ba'al & have him do a dog & pony show for you?
Post by {:-])))
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by {:-])))
Those atheists who might be interested,
without having any experience of an elephant,
even when in their living room, will remain unconvinced.
Why can't theists stop lying about atheists, to atheists?
I don't know what you're talking about.
You are acting like a typical alt.atheism loser known as a troll. Did
not the Master tell you to be decent to others? Given the newsgroup
headers, no one here needs or is looking for a pet god.
Post by {:-])))
Atheists who have no interest in God or god or gods
would not be reading articles about God or god or gods.
They would if they have an interest in mythology. Or they are just fed
up with the prancing & dancing of the pimps for [insert proper name here]
known as god.
Post by {:-])))
It would be akin to someone who is asexual
reading articles in a Playboy magazine
for the information only. And then
being offended at how rude
the nude pictures are.
Different situation. the newsgrpoup was founded for atheists to discuss
matters of interest to them. From the best car to get your 16 year old
to how to act at a church wedding. Why, there is even a faq for the
darned place.

OTOH, if IOm did not filter out the pi,mps fpr gpd, aka members of the
blater brigade, instead of maybe 150 messages a day, I would see over
1000 on average. Weekends slightly less.
So some of have no problem with ramming it back up their ass, or asses as
the case may be.
Post by {:-])))
Or someone who is apolitical reading
what goes on in a House of Parliament
and getting upset at the stupidity.
Nothing wrong with being upset about stupidity. Sometimes it can be
corrected. Mostly not.
Post by {:-])))
A bit of a contradiction.
Only to intermitent individuals who are simply stopping long enough to
leave a dump on the carpet. I've been here since the mid 90's, & would
prefer to read & on occasion, comment on articles that interest me. When
90%+ is simply a bleater that is to arrogant to beleive they can't feed
us their bullshit & make us like it is the norm, it's beyond old.
Post by {:-])))
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by {:-])))
Some people are of the mind
that men never landed on the Moon.
And while proof might well exist, those
who disbelieve will continue to disbelieve.
SO PROVIDE AS MUCH EVIDENCE FOR YOUR HYPOTHETICAL GOD AS THERE IS FOR
NASA PUTTING MEN ON THE MOON.
First, one would need to believe
there is a thing in the sky, called the Moon.
Now you are using a theist routine. Believe as ion have faith without
evidence, or believe as in have faith based on evidence. & there is
evidence even when grandmother is asleep. The Great Lakes have tides for
one.
Post by {:-])))
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by {:-])))
Even if they were to set foot on the Moon themselves,
they would try to figure out how and why it was not so.
Why can't you stop lying about atheists, to atheists, typically hasty,
narcissistic, sociopathic Christian?
For those atheists who are interested in God,
they might begin by reading about God.
Therein is part of the problem. There are no oiginal manuscripts for the
copycat god of Judeah, & his impossible son. Bastards were not part of
his congregatioon, & he didn't chase human females. He had a shack job,
the same one él & ba'al had when they were in power. if you have read
the Hebrew Bible, you know when she was no longer a problem for the
priesthood. Hint, it was after the Babylonian vacation.
Post by {:-])))
There are books, e.g. the Bible,
which have lots and lots
of stories in them.
All by unkown authors.
Post by {:-])))
Post by Christopher A. Lee
You know perfectly well there isn't a shred of evidence for what
remains your pretend friend, because if there were you wouldn't need
to resort to lying about us to our faces.
There is lots of evidence
for those who are willing to see it.
Never been that drunk myself.
Post by {:-])))
There is a place, it's called Rome.
It goes way back, a couple thousand years.
That is only one place, & not the birthplace of the xioan mythology.
lewt alone "God" who is the Judaic version.
Post by {:-])))
Post by Christopher A. Lee
And that we wouldn't demand proof/evidence/etc if believers kept it
inside their religion instead of rudely and stupidly talking as if it
were real, in the real world beyond your religion.
One might, if one were interested,
go to France, and find the relics of Mary,
and perhaps Martha, and Lazarus,
the guy who was raised from being dead.
Relics, or claimed relics. Seems there is no reason to suppose that
could, let alone would happen. & yes, I know of the claims for Jesus the
Christ being married with children. Which would have to be the case if
he was a rabbi in first century Palestine.
Post by {:-])))
There are plenty of areas to research
if one cares to do such a thing.
Research, or chase shadows?
Post by {:-])))
Evidence exists,
for those willing to open their eyes
and are able to see the metaphorical elephant.
Imagination is not a synonym for evidence.
Post by {:-])))
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by {:-])))
A blind man does not know green and blue.
One who cannot hear various tones, cannot hear.
But they can learn of them. & some blind people can detect color, I
guerss by radiation from reflection. Meet opne. Shades would get him,
but primary colors in sunlight he couold nail every time. He told me he
learned as a bar bet. Dunno, but do it he could. He never made any
money at it. Viet Nam in 65 was a hard show to make money in.
Post by {:-])))
Post by Christopher A. Lee
SO FRISKING WHAT?
So it remains an exercise in futility.
Yet, the majority of the worlds population has the time & money to waste
trying to kiss some gods ass. Even some of the Buddhists chase the gods.
Post by {:-])))
Why Dale chose to take such a path
is beyond my knowledge at present.
You have heard of an exercise in futility, right?
Post by {:-])))
Maybe he likes exercise. Or is simply a troll.
Or is afraid of wee things & ghoulies tha' go bump in the night. Either
way, it's his problem & he is insisting on forcing it on others.
Post by {:-])))
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Provide as much evidence for your pretend friend as there is for
colours and sound, instead of being so personally nasty towards those
who don't share your beliefs.
I don't know why you are taking offense
and see what I say as personally nasty.
looks like he may have been talking to Dale. Or ar you anm alter ego of
Dale?
Post by {:-])))
Everyone has his or her own beliefs.
& most atheists keep them to themselves.
Post by {:-])))
Post by Christopher A. Lee
In the real world, your particular god-BELIEF is not substantively
different from Zeus-BELIEF, Odin-BELIEF, Krishna-BELIEF and all the
thousands of others.
For those not having experienced the Self,
Krishna might remain a mere myth.
Never diod drugs, so thjat is not a likely hood. Besidfes, I am familiar
with the backgeround for the blue smurf. You do know why he is blue,
right? You do know what part of India he is from, right? Riiigggght.
Post by {:-])))
As for whom Odin and Zeus may have been,
prior to being deified, stories also may be found.
<SEAG>Cites, as in academic cites you have? Share?</SEAG>
Post by {:-])))
Plenty of information is now online
for those who care to seek it out.
& not all of it is much better than opinion pieces.
Post by {:-])))
Paths are made by walking them.
Or getting scared enough to blaze new trails that work out to your
benefit.
Post by {:-])))
Post by Christopher A. Lee
And you don't persuade us that yours is any more real than the rest of
them by lying about us, to us.
Persuading others is beyond my ability.
Most people I've met have their minds made up.
The majority, & I agree. All, no way in thje so called hell of the
revealed gods of teh desert. Which is a question I'veasked believers.
If hunmanity found all of their other gods, why were those gods so weak
they had to find followers.
Add to that, the Judaic claim is for the god that was most popular in
Canaanmite society. A god so well known that he needed no temple. &
unlike the Judaic one, was a nice guy.
Post by {:-])))
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by {:-])))
Without a sense of touch, an elephant's ear
would not feel like anything.
SO FUCKING WHAT?
So one would be out of touch.
Seems theists may well be. Especially when they think our nice brand new
virtual white carpet is for thejm to dump on.
Post by {:-])))
Post by Christopher A. Lee
All you have, is the dishonest analogy with something that isn't
disputed and for which there is objective evidence, which only begs
the same question that was originally asked.
I must have missed the original question.
Got evidence is the norm. Not evidence of belief, but evidence for
whichever god concept is being pimped at the moment.
Post by {:-])))
My impression was that Dale had what he thought
was ONE proof of God. Which One? Apparently
is a question in there as well.
unavoidable. As spelled, the revealed gods of the desert are being
claimed.
But it gets worse. According to their literature, they never could hacve
existed as claimed.
Maybe Dale thinks he is a ma'lk?
Post by {:-])))
If some one made a promise to someone else,
and that promise was written down, then kept,
that might suffice as evidence the promise existed
and was kept.
Unless you're a lawyer.:::))))
Post by {:-])))
Or, it may not.
One may dispute, for example, the existence
of the one who was said to have made
the promise in the first place.
It can be made a matter of record, & there will always be someone who
says unh unh. But when the preponderece of evidence that should be there
is missing, say the exodus, you can mark that claim as bogus.
Post by {:-])))
Lots of disputes can be made
for those who like to dispute stuff.
& for those that like to waste their time arguing with them. And?
Post by {:-])))
Post by Christopher A. Lee
When all we want you to do is live and let live, and to shut up when
you can't put up.
Mostly I simply read and write.
Even then you can put up. Make a quote & ignore the source is a brand of
dishonesty that is very common amog "visitor" to the atheist news group.
Post by {:-])))
Please feel free to live as you choose.
I suspect he will.
Post by {:-])))
If you think I am stopping you
then perhaps you should seek help.
Stopping, why no. Irritatting by displaying inconsideration for others?
Now he may have a point there.
Post by {:-])))
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by {:-])))
Even if it was flapping in front of one's face,
one who was deaf, blind and untouched,
might not be able to be other than
how that one happens to be.
SO FUCKING WHAT?
So, there are those
who will not believe no matter what.
Yup, & quite a lot of them think everyone else should believe as they do.
Hence the troll population on the atheist news group.
Post by {:-])))
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Now either provide evidence for your hypothetical god or keep your
bullshit to yourself.
If you are in alt.atheism and so say,
then I can trim that group out
next time a round. If that will help
you to live as you would like.
Oh he will live as he likes with or without your help. But unless you
have something to offer the group or are holding a one on one, then one
wonders just why you are here.
Post by {:-])))
I can, and would, do that for you.
You can do it for yourself. The result would be the same.
Post by {:-])))
Magnanimity is among my virtues.
So, you wear a size 198Cm. hat?
Post by {:-])))
- future cheers!
& rtots of ruck & happy daze for you.

walksalone who has a passing interest in the world of humanitys gods.
Damn shame it appears to be unpopulated. in spite of humanity that world
has some good gods claimed for it. Baldur anyone?

APOSTATE, n. A leech who, having penetrated the shell of a
turtle only to find that the creature has long been dead,
deems it expedient to form a new attachment to a fresh turtle.
Devil's dictionary
Virgil
2014-01-02 02:40:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by {:-])))
Atheists who have no interest in God or god or gods
would not be reading articles about God or god or gods.
They might well when those postings are to any of
sci.math, alt.atheism, sci.skeptic, alt.atheism or alt.philosophy,
to all of which this was posted.

It is those theists posting their theism to these NGs who are the ones
posting out of place.

So if "walksalone" really wanted to walk alone, he wold not be posting
is nonsense to any of sci.math, alt.atheism, sci.skeptic, alt.atheism or
alt.philosophy
--
Dakota
2014-01-02 03:42:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Virgil
Post by {:-])))
Atheists who have no interest in God or god or gods
would not be reading articles about God or god or gods.
They might well when those postings are to any of
sci.math, alt.atheism, sci.skeptic, alt.atheism or alt.philosophy,
to all of which this was posted.
It is those theists posting their theism to these NGs who are the ones
posting out of place.
So if "walksalone" really wanted to walk alone, he wold not be posting
is nonsense to any of sci.math, alt.atheism, sci.skeptic, alt.atheism or
alt.philosophy
The only newsgroup I subscribe to is alt.atheism. I find walksalone's
posts to be interesting and informative. He demonstrate that the
majority of the theists who troll our newsgroup are mistaken when they
claim that there is one god and no others.

<one of the two alt.atheisms trimmed>
duke
2014-01-01 15:07:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wisely Non-Theist
But of which god or gods?
The almighty one.
Post by Wisely Non-Theist
There are hundreds, possibly thousands of mutually incompossible claims
of godly existence, of which at most one can be correct and all others
MUST be false.
Right, they are made up by man and are imaginary like a bottle of booze.
Post by Wisely Non-Theist
And until theists can all agree on WHICH one, if any, of those many
mutually incompossible claims is valid, there are no claimed gods
acceptable to all theists.
And it is only when that impossibility (of all theists agreeing) has
actually happened that there is any point in trying to convince any
atheists of that of which theists cannot even convince other theists.
duke, American-American
*****
When Obama was elected, he said he couldn't be more
proud for this country. Now, after 5 years, we Americans
will never be more disgusted with the mess he as created.
*****
{:-])))
2014-01-01 15:27:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by duke
Post by Wisely Non-Theist
But of which god or gods?
The almighty one.
Aka El Shaddai, then.
Post by duke
Post by Wisely Non-Theist
There are hundreds, possibly thousands of mutually incompossible claims
of godly existence, of which at most one can be correct and all others
MUST be false.
Right, they are made up by man and are imaginary like a bottle of booze.
El Shaddai was,
accordion to the story, known
by men, known as, for example, Abraham,
Isaac and Jacob.

If they did not exist,
then it would be as trying to prove the God
of Paul Bunyon or Pecos Bill or the some other fiction
exists. A fiction of a fiction might make for friction
but not ever get much traction.
Post by duke
Post by Wisely Non-Theist
And until theists can all agree on WHICH one, if any, of those many
mutually incompossible claims is valid, there are no claimed gods
acceptable to all theists.
And it is only when that impossibility (of all theists agreeing) has
actually happened that there is any point in trying to convince any
atheists of that of which theists cannot even convince other theists.
When semantics are at play, it may
be helpful to determine, to begin to begin,
what might constitute proof
in order to begin
to begin.

From El Shaddai, Being All Mighty (BAM),
to being known as YHWH, keeping promises,
there would first need to be various events
unfolded for the promises made to be kept.

When Moses spoke with one known as Jehovah,
he, Moses, was told that his (Moses') forefathers
knew of the All Mighty, but by this new name,
of keeping the promises, YHWH, they knew not.

If Moses did not exist,
then perhaps he needed
to be invented. His mother,
then, would have been
a mother of invention.

If Mother Nature were to speak,
out of the mouth of a babe,
many dudes would listen.

If She were
to attract
their attention.

Experiences vary.

When Ram Dass met his guru
he knew that he knew that he knew.

It's an interesting tail of a skeptic
who became a seeker and found
that which he was looking for.

- wagging the dog
duke
2014-01-01 22:04:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by {:-])))
Post by duke
Post by Wisely Non-Theist
But of which god or gods?
The almighty one.
Aka El Shaddai, then.
Post by duke
Post by Wisely Non-Theist
There are hundreds, possibly thousands of mutually incompossible claims
of godly existence, of which at most one can be correct and all others
MUST be false.
Right, they are made up by man and are imaginary like a bottle of booze.
El Shaddai was,
accordion to the story, known
by men, known as, for example, Abraham,
Isaac and Jacob.
My guess is no one has heard of el shaddai.
Post by {:-])))
Post by duke
Post by Wisely Non-Theist
And until theists can all agree on WHICH one, if any, of those many
mutually incompossible claims is valid, there are no claimed gods
acceptable to all theists.
And it is only when that impossibility (of all theists agreeing) has
actually happened that there is any point in trying to convince any
atheists of that of which theists cannot even convince other theists.
When semantics are at play, it may
be helpful to determine, to begin to begin,
what might constitute proof
in order to begin
to begin.
We have no proof. All we have is evidence.

duke, American-American
*****
When Obama was elected, he said he couldn't be more
proud for this country. Now, after 5 years, we Americans
will never be more disgusted with the mess he as created.
*****
Free Lunch
2014-01-01 22:20:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by duke
Post by {:-])))
Post by duke
Post by Wisely Non-Theist
But of which god or gods?
The almighty one.
Aka El Shaddai, then.
Post by duke
Post by Wisely Non-Theist
There are hundreds, possibly thousands of mutually incompossible claims
of godly existence, of which at most one can be correct and all others
MUST be false.
Right, they are made up by man and are imaginary like a bottle of booze.
El Shaddai was,
accordion to the story, known
by men, known as, for example, Abraham,
Isaac and Jacob.
My guess is no one has heard of el shaddai.
Post by {:-])))
Post by duke
Post by Wisely Non-Theist
And until theists can all agree on WHICH one, if any, of those many
mutually incompossible claims is valid, there are no claimed gods
acceptable to all theists.
And it is only when that impossibility (of all theists agreeing) has
actually happened that there is any point in trying to convince any
atheists of that of which theists cannot even convince other theists.
When semantics are at play, it may
be helpful to determine, to begin to begin,
what might constitute proof
in order to begin
to begin.
We have no proof. All we have is evidence.
You need to stop lying to yourself. You have no evidence.

You either know you are lying about having evidence or you are lying
about knowing what evidence is.
{:-])))
2014-01-01 23:55:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Free Lunch
Post by duke
Post by {:-])))
When semantics are at play, it may
be helpful to determine, to begin to begin,
what might constitute proof
in order to begin
to begin.
We have no proof. All we have is evidence.
You need to stop lying to yourself. You have no evidence.
You either know you are lying about having evidence or you are lying
about knowing what evidence is.
When semantics are at play
that which is at times is knot.

When someone has an experience,
that experience may be said to be evidence.

Evidently, in many spheres, experience
will simply not suffice.

And yet,
to interpret what goes on in a cloud
chamber within one's heart
emotionally can be
profound.

Emotions, for sum, don't really exist.
Nor do thoughts, for that matter, matter.

All that is are cells within
bodies within
environs.

Environments, many may say,
have no minds to make up what is made.
Yet minds are made up
all the same.
duke
2014-01-02 17:51:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Free Lunch
Post by duke
Post by {:-])))
Post by duke
Post by Wisely Non-Theist
But of which god or gods?
The almighty one.
Aka El Shaddai, then.
Post by duke
Post by Wisely Non-Theist
There are hundreds, possibly thousands of mutually incompossible claims
of godly existence, of which at most one can be correct and all others
MUST be false.
Right, they are made up by man and are imaginary like a bottle of booze.
El Shaddai was,
accordion to the story, known
by men, known as, for example, Abraham,
Isaac and Jacob.
My guess is no one has heard of el shaddai.
Post by {:-])))
Post by duke
Post by Wisely Non-Theist
And until theists can all agree on WHICH one, if any, of those many
mutually incompossible claims is valid, there are no claimed gods
acceptable to all theists.
And it is only when that impossibility (of all theists agreeing) has
actually happened that there is any point in trying to convince any
atheists of that of which theists cannot even convince other theists.
When semantics are at play, it may
be helpful to determine, to begin to begin,
what might constitute proof
in order to begin
to begin.
We have no proof. All we have is evidence.
You need to stop lying to yourself. You have no evidence.
Yes we do. Most things about us have no reason for existence except for the
work of almighty God. The very existence of our universe, age 13.7 billion
years, comes to us as creation by a supreme being.
Post by Free Lunch
You either know you are lying about having evidence or you are lying
about knowing what evidence is.
duke, American-American
*****
When Obama was elected, he said he couldn't be more
proud for this country. Now, after 5 years, we Americans
will never be more disgusted with the mess he as created.
*****
Free Lunch
2014-01-02 19:06:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by duke
Post by Free Lunch
Post by duke
Post by {:-])))
Post by duke
Post by Wisely Non-Theist
But of which god or gods?
The almighty one.
Aka El Shaddai, then.
Post by duke
Post by Wisely Non-Theist
There are hundreds, possibly thousands of mutually incompossible claims
of godly existence, of which at most one can be correct and all others
MUST be false.
Right, they are made up by man and are imaginary like a bottle of booze.
El Shaddai was,
accordion to the story, known
by men, known as, for example, Abraham,
Isaac and Jacob.
My guess is no one has heard of el shaddai.
Post by {:-])))
Post by duke
Post by Wisely Non-Theist
And until theists can all agree on WHICH one, if any, of those many
mutually incompossible claims is valid, there are no claimed gods
acceptable to all theists.
And it is only when that impossibility (of all theists agreeing) has
actually happened that there is any point in trying to convince any
atheists of that of which theists cannot even convince other theists.
When semantics are at play, it may
be helpful to determine, to begin to begin,
what might constitute proof
in order to begin
to begin.
We have no proof. All we have is evidence.
You need to stop lying to yourself. You have no evidence.
Yes we do. Most things about us have no reason for existence except for the
work of almighty God.
So you assert, but no evidence backs up your claim.
Post by duke
The very existence of our universe, age 13.7 billion
years, comes to us as creation by a supreme being.
Nothing we know about the universe requires a creator.
Post by duke
Post by Free Lunch
You either know you are lying about having evidence or you are lying
about knowing what evidence is.
Wisely Non-Theist
2014-01-02 19:26:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by duke
Post by Free Lunch
You need to stop lying to yourself. You have no evidence.
Yes we do. Most things about us have no reason for existence except for the
work of almighty God. The very existence of our universe, age 13.7 billion
years, comes to us as creation by a supreme being.
That is a claim made without any evidence whatsoever to support it.

Just like almost all of dumbgucko's claims.
linuxgal
2014-01-01 23:07:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by duke
We have no proof. All we have is evidence.
You don't even have that.
duke
2014-01-02 17:51:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by linuxgal
Post by duke
We have no proof. All we have is evidence.
You don't even have that.
There is no reason for your existence except for almighty God.

duke, American-American
*****
When Obama was elected, he said he couldn't be more
proud for this country. Now, after 5 years, we Americans
will never be more disgusted with the mess he as created.
*****
Virgil
2014-01-01 23:24:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by duke
We have no proof. All we have is evidence.
All the other religions claim to have evidence , too!
But until all religions can agree, there is no point in
choosing any one over all the others.

And as such agreement will clearly not happen in my lifetime,
there is no point in dumbgucko's propaganda war here.
--
{:-])))
2014-01-02 00:04:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Virgil
Post by duke
We have no proof. All we have is evidence.
All the other religions claim to have evidence , too!
But until all religions can agree, there is no point in
choosing any one over all the others.
For those who choose, they choose
whatever speaks to them.

Some lend an ear.
Some a hand.
Some give a rat's ass.
Post by Virgil
And as such agreement will clearly not happen in my lifetime,
there is no point in dumbgucko's propaganda war here.
There is no point in Usenet,
it often seams to me,
while many threads are woven,
as many waves at sea.

Hands wave and ears bend.
They wave to wave and end.
Only to return to a notion.
To wave again and break on shore.
For sure there are the coasting lines.
And what is read between them.
{:-])))
2014-01-01 23:49:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by duke
Post by {:-])))
Post by duke
Post by Wisely Non-Theist
But of which god or gods?
The almighty one.
Aka El Shaddai, then.
Post by duke
Post by Wisely Non-Theist
There are hundreds, possibly thousands of mutually incompossible claims
of godly existence, of which at most one can be correct and all others
MUST be false.
Right, they are made up by man and are imaginary like a bottle of booze.
El Shaddai was,
accordion to the story, known
by men, known as, for example, Abraham,
Isaac and Jacob.
My guess is no one has heard of el shaddai.
I've heard of some who have heard that name.

As for atheists who are not interested, prolly not.

For those who are interested in such matters,
there are plenty of resources available.
Post by duke
Post by {:-])))
Post by duke
Post by Wisely Non-Theist
And until theists can all agree on WHICH one, if any, of those many
mutually incompossible claims is valid, there are no claimed gods
acceptable to all theists.
And it is only when that impossibility (of all theists agreeing) has
actually happened that there is any point in trying to convince any
atheists of that of which theists cannot even convince other theists.
When semantics are at play, it may
be helpful to determine, to begin to begin,
what might constitute proof
in order to begin
to begin.
We have no proof. All we have is evidence.
Gideon was a skeptic for a spell.

Perhaps he was delusional, and yet
a very powerful individual as well.

Moses too, put his hand to his heart,
removed it, then put it back again.

Reality might be very strange.
And people have only scratched the surface.

It used to be thought the world was flat.
Now many would insist its shape is round.
Few would know it as a pale blue dot.

Perspective makes all the difference.

To claim what is really real can only be
that which can be replicated in a lab
can be to stake out a claim when
ever one is on the ropes.

For those having had an experience,
such as Abraham, Moses, Gideon or
Jesus or Paul, as well as many others,
there is little doubt remaining.

Reality appears to be strange for sure.

What happens might only happen once.

And yet, what happens really happens.
Les Hellawell
2014-01-02 08:37:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by duke
Post by {:-])))
Post by duke
Post by Wisely Non-Theist
But of which god or gods?
The almighty one.
Aka El Shaddai, then.
Post by duke
Post by Wisely Non-Theist
There are hundreds, possibly thousands of mutually incompossible claims
of godly existence, of which at most one can be correct and all others
MUST be false.
Right, they are made up by man and are imaginary like a bottle of booze.
El Shaddai was,
accordion to the story, known
by men, known as, for example, Abraham,
Isaac and Jacob.
My guess is no one has heard of el shaddai.
Post by {:-])))
Post by duke
Post by Wisely Non-Theist
And until theists can all agree on WHICH one, if any, of those many
mutually incompossible claims is valid, there are no claimed gods
acceptable to all theists.
And it is only when that impossibility (of all theists agreeing) has
actually happened that there is any point in trying to convince any
atheists of that of which theists cannot even convince other theists.
When semantics are at play, it may
be helpful to determine, to begin to begin,
what might constitute proof
in order to begin
to begin.
We have no proof. All we have is evidence.
Ah the infamous gap between "We have" and "here is"
that Duke cannot jump or bridge




--
Les Hellawell
Greetings from
YORKSHIRE - The White Rose County
duke
2014-01-02 17:52:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Les Hellawell
Post by duke
Post by {:-])))
Post by duke
Post by Wisely Non-Theist
But of which god or gods?
The almighty one.
Aka El Shaddai, then.
Post by duke
Post by Wisely Non-Theist
There are hundreds, possibly thousands of mutually incompossible claims
of godly existence, of which at most one can be correct and all others
MUST be false.
Right, they are made up by man and are imaginary like a bottle of booze.
El Shaddai was,
accordion to the story, known
by men, known as, for example, Abraham,
Isaac and Jacob.
My guess is no one has heard of el shaddai.
Post by {:-])))
Post by duke
Post by Wisely Non-Theist
And until theists can all agree on WHICH one, if any, of those many
mutually incompossible claims is valid, there are no claimed gods
acceptable to all theists.
And it is only when that impossibility (of all theists agreeing) has
actually happened that there is any point in trying to convince any
atheists of that of which theists cannot even convince other theists.
When semantics are at play, it may
be helpful to determine, to begin to begin,
what might constitute proof
in order to begin
to begin.
We have no proof. All we have is evidence.
Ah the infamous gap between "We have" and "here is"
that Duke cannot jump or bridge
Evidently you don't know the difference between evidence and proof.

duke, American-American
*****
When Obama was elected, he said he couldn't be more
proud for this country. Now, after 5 years, we Americans
will never be more disgusted with the mess he as created.
*****
Free Lunch
2014-01-02 19:06:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by duke
Post by Les Hellawell
Post by duke
Post by {:-])))
Post by duke
Post by Wisely Non-Theist
But of which god or gods?
The almighty one.
Aka El Shaddai, then.
Post by duke
Post by Wisely Non-Theist
There are hundreds, possibly thousands of mutually incompossible claims
of godly existence, of which at most one can be correct and all others
MUST be false.
Right, they are made up by man and are imaginary like a bottle of booze.
El Shaddai was,
accordion to the story, known
by men, known as, for example, Abraham,
Isaac and Jacob.
My guess is no one has heard of el shaddai.
Post by {:-])))
Post by duke
Post by Wisely Non-Theist
And until theists can all agree on WHICH one, if any, of those many
mutually incompossible claims is valid, there are no claimed gods
acceptable to all theists.
And it is only when that impossibility (of all theists agreeing) has
actually happened that there is any point in trying to convince any
atheists of that of which theists cannot even convince other theists.
When semantics are at play, it may
be helpful to determine, to begin to begin,
what might constitute proof
in order to begin
to begin.
We have no proof. All we have is evidence.
Ah the infamous gap between "We have" and "here is"
that Duke cannot jump or bridge
Evidently you don't know the difference between evidence and proof.
Should we care since it is clear that you have neither to support your
claims?
Wisely Non-Theist
2014-01-02 19:21:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by duke
Evidently you don't know the difference between evidence and proof.
Dumbgucko never provides any of either,
so who cares what the difference would be?
Dale
2014-01-01 17:20:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wisely Non-Theist
But of which god or gods?
all/any and anything else you can think or imagine
--
Dale
A Nony Mouse
2014-01-01 07:07:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dale
1) the brain is EXISTENTIAL
2) EVERY part of the brain is EXISTENTIAL
3) thoughts/thinking are PART of the brain
4) thoughts/thinking are EXISTENTIAL
5) things like God are AT LEAST thoughts/thinking
6) things like God are AT LEAST part of the brain
7) things like God are AT LEAST EXISTENTIAL as PART of the brain
I already realize this makes elves, fairies and Santa Claus EXISTENTIAL
too ...
But if the above by makes thoughts real, it also makes everything that
can be thought real, including a world without any gods.
Jason
2014-01-01 07:37:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by A Nony Mouse
Post by Dale
1) the brain is EXISTENTIAL
2) EVERY part of the brain is EXISTENTIAL
3) thoughts/thinking are PART of the brain
4) thoughts/thinking are EXISTENTIAL
5) things like God are AT LEAST thoughts/thinking
6) things like God are AT LEAST part of the brain
7) things like God are AT LEAST EXISTENTIAL as PART of the brain
I already realize this makes elves, fairies and Santa Claus EXISTENTIAL
too ...
But if the above by makes thoughts real, it also makes everything that
can be thought real, including a world without any gods.
If there was a world without a faith in God, the people would start
putting their faith in their government and as a result would become
totally dependent on the gov't to take care of them from the cradle to the
crave.

The problem with that sort of government is that eventually--that sort of
government runs out of money.

The Roman Empire; for U.S.S.R and Greece comes to mind.
niunian
2014-01-01 08:41:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by A Nony Mouse
Post by Dale
1) the brain is EXISTENTIAL
2) EVERY part of the brain is EXISTENTIAL
3) thoughts/thinking are PART of the brain
4) thoughts/thinking are EXISTENTIAL
5) things like God are AT LEAST thoughts/thinking
6) things like God are AT LEAST part of the brain
7) things like God are AT LEAST EXISTENTIAL as PART of the brain
I already realize this makes elves, fairies and Santa Claus EXISTENTIAL
too ...
But if the above by makes thoughts real, it also makes everything that
can be thought real, including a world without any gods.
Since there is no world without the thought of the world, it is the
thought that is making everything real, including a world without any
gods. Since all thoughts come from consciousness, the consciousness is God.
Jeanne Douglas
2014-01-01 09:23:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by niunian
Post by A Nony Mouse
Post by Dale
1) the brain is EXISTENTIAL
2) EVERY part of the brain is EXISTENTIAL
3) thoughts/thinking are PART of the brain
4) thoughts/thinking are EXISTENTIAL
5) things like God are AT LEAST thoughts/thinking
6) things like God are AT LEAST part of the brain
7) things like God are AT LEAST EXISTENTIAL as PART of the brain
I already realize this makes elves, fairies and Santa Claus EXISTENTIAL
too ...
But if the above by makes thoughts real, it also makes everything that
can be thought real, including a world without any gods.
Since there is no world without the thought of the world, it is the
thought that is making everything real, including a world without any
gods. Since all thoughts come from consciousness, the consciousness is God.
Wow, what a load of idiotic garbage. Do you actually believe such drivel?
--
JD

"If our country is going broke, let it be from
feeding the poor and caring for the elderly.
And not from pampering the rich and fighting
wars for them."--Living Blue in a Red State (seen on Facebook)
niunian
2014-01-01 11:29:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by niunian
Post by A Nony Mouse
Post by Dale
1) the brain is EXISTENTIAL
2) EVERY part of the brain is EXISTENTIAL
3) thoughts/thinking are PART of the brain
4) thoughts/thinking are EXISTENTIAL
5) things like God are AT LEAST thoughts/thinking
6) things like God are AT LEAST part of the brain
7) things like God are AT LEAST EXISTENTIAL as PART of the brain
I already realize this makes elves, fairies and Santa Claus EXISTENTIAL
too ...
But if the above by makes thoughts real, it also makes everything that
can be thought real, including a world without any gods.
Since there is no world without the thought of the world, it is the
thought that is making everything real, including a world without any
gods. Since all thoughts come from consciousness, the consciousness is God.
Wow, what a load of idiotic garbage. Do you actually believe such drivel?
Believe or not, it's your own consciousness that is making you get up in
the morning and go to sleep at night. There is your God, your personal
God regardless you like it or not.
x
2014-01-01 12:39:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by niunian
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by niunian
Post by A Nony Mouse
Post by Dale
1) the brain is EXISTENTIAL
2) EVERY part of the brain is EXISTENTIAL
3) thoughts/thinking are PART of the brain
4) thoughts/thinking are EXISTENTIAL
5) things like God are AT LEAST thoughts/thinking
6) things like God are AT LEAST part of the brain
7) things like God are AT LEAST EXISTENTIAL as PART of the brain
I already realize this makes elves, fairies and Santa Claus EXISTENTIAL
too ...
But if the above by makes thoughts real, it also makes everything that
can be thought real, including a world without any gods.
Since there is no world without the thought of the world, it is the
thought that is making everything real, including a world without any
gods. Since all thoughts come from consciousness, the consciousness is God.
Wow, what a load of idiotic garbage. Do you actually believe such drivel?
Believe or not, it's your own consciousness that is making you get up in
the morning and go to sleep at night. There is your God, your personal
God regardless you like it or not.
sounds about wrong enough to be correct.. it seems to be the case that
the truth is the inverse of what the world takes it to be. makes sense
if you consider the general stupidity of everyone.... you can kind of
make a safe bet that anything they think is true is exactly not the
truth. and what they think is ridiculous a good indication of where to
look for the truth. if they are looking for reality outside, turn back
and look inside. thoughts are generally regarded as a reflection of the
world. maybe that's exactly wrong then. maybe thoughts are the reality,
the world is their reflection. it is said in the bible that words came
before the world. if such is the case.... words had nothing to reflect,
except god himself. and the world reflected the words. so you couldn't
really go wrong if you were god. there was nothing to contradict him...
if he spoke nonsense then such is life... so blah blah. blah. blah blah
niunian
2014-01-01 13:05:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by x
Post by niunian
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by niunian
Post by A Nony Mouse
Post by Dale
1) the brain is EXISTENTIAL
2) EVERY part of the brain is EXISTENTIAL
3) thoughts/thinking are PART of the brain
4) thoughts/thinking are EXISTENTIAL
5) things like God are AT LEAST thoughts/thinking
6) things like God are AT LEAST part of the brain
7) things like God are AT LEAST EXISTENTIAL as PART of the brain
I already realize this makes elves, fairies and Santa Claus EXISTENTIAL
too ...
But if the above by makes thoughts real, it also makes everything that
can be thought real, including a world without any gods.
Since there is no world without the thought of the world, it is the
thought that is making everything real, including a world without any
gods. Since all thoughts come from consciousness, the consciousness is God.
Wow, what a load of idiotic garbage. Do you actually believe such drivel?
Believe or not, it's your own consciousness that is making you get up in
the morning and go to sleep at night. There is your God, your personal
God regardless you like it or not.
sounds about wrong enough to be correct.. it seems to be the case that
the truth is the inverse of what the world takes it to be. makes sense
if you consider the general stupidity of everyone.... you can kind of
make a safe bet that anything they think is true is exactly not the
truth. and what they think is ridiculous a good indication of where to
look for the truth. if they are looking for reality outside, turn back
and look inside. thoughts are generally regarded as a reflection of the
world. maybe that's exactly wrong then. maybe thoughts are the reality,
the world is their reflection. it is said in the bible that words came
before the world. if such is the case.... words had nothing to reflect,
except god himself. and the world reflected the words. so you couldn't
really go wrong if you were god. there was nothing to contradict him...
if he spoke nonsense then such is life... so blah blah. blah. blah blah
Thoughts are not a reflection of the world. Thoughts are the world
itself. They are one and the same.
x
2014-01-01 13:22:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by niunian
Post by x
Post by niunian
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by niunian
Post by A Nony Mouse
Post by Dale
1) the brain is EXISTENTIAL
2) EVERY part of the brain is EXISTENTIAL
3) thoughts/thinking are PART of the brain
4) thoughts/thinking are EXISTENTIAL
5) things like God are AT LEAST thoughts/thinking
6) things like God are AT LEAST part of the brain
7) things like God are AT LEAST EXISTENTIAL as PART of the brain
I already realize this makes elves, fairies and Santa Claus EXISTENTIAL
too ...
But if the above by makes thoughts real, it also makes everything that
can be thought real, including a world without any gods.
Since there is no world without the thought of the world, it is the
thought that is making everything real, including a world without any
gods. Since all thoughts come from consciousness, the consciousness is God.
Wow, what a load of idiotic garbage. Do you actually believe such drivel?
Believe or not, it's your own consciousness that is making you get up in
the morning and go to sleep at night. There is your God, your personal
God regardless you like it or not.
sounds about wrong enough to be correct.. it seems to be the case that
the truth is the inverse of what the world takes it to be. makes sense
if you consider the general stupidity of everyone.... you can kind of
make a safe bet that anything they think is true is exactly not the
truth. and what they think is ridiculous a good indication of where to
look for the truth. if they are looking for reality outside, turn back
and look inside. thoughts are generally regarded as a reflection of the
world. maybe that's exactly wrong then. maybe thoughts are the reality,
the world is their reflection. it is said in the bible that words came
before the world. if such is the case.... words had nothing to reflect,
except god himself. and the world reflected the words. so you couldn't
really go wrong if you were god. there was nothing to contradict him...
if he spoke nonsense then such is life... so blah blah. blah. blah blah
Thoughts are not a reflection of the world. Thoughts are the world
itself. They are one and the same.
yes. blah is real.
Jeanne Douglas
2014-01-02 07:06:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by niunian
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by niunian
Post by A Nony Mouse
Post by Dale
1) the brain is EXISTENTIAL
2) EVERY part of the brain is EXISTENTIAL
3) thoughts/thinking are PART of the brain
4) thoughts/thinking are EXISTENTIAL
5) things like God are AT LEAST thoughts/thinking
6) things like God are AT LEAST part of the brain
7) things like God are AT LEAST EXISTENTIAL as PART of the brain
I already realize this makes elves, fairies and Santa Claus EXISTENTIAL
too ...
But if the above by makes thoughts real, it also makes everything that
can be thought real, including a world without any gods.
Since there is no world without the thought of the world, it is the
thought that is making everything real, including a world without any
gods. Since all thoughts come from consciousness, the consciousness is God.
Wow, what a load of idiotic garbage. Do you actually believe such drivel?
Believe or not, it's your own consciousness that is making you get up in
the morning and go to sleep at night. There is your God, your personal
God regardless you like it or not.
More drivel.
--
JD

"If our country is going broke, let it be from
feeding the poor and caring for the elderly.
And not from pampering the rich and fighting
wars for them."--Living Blue in a Red State (seen on Facebook)
Bob Casanova
2014-01-02 18:52:00 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 01 Jan 2014 16:41:54 +0800, the following appeared
Post by niunian
Post by A Nony Mouse
Post by Dale
1) the brain is EXISTENTIAL
2) EVERY part of the brain is EXISTENTIAL
3) thoughts/thinking are PART of the brain
4) thoughts/thinking are EXISTENTIAL
5) things like God are AT LEAST thoughts/thinking
6) things like God are AT LEAST part of the brain
7) things like God are AT LEAST EXISTENTIAL as PART of the brain
I already realize this makes elves, fairies and Santa Claus EXISTENTIAL
too ...
But if the above by makes thoughts real, it also makes everything that
can be thought real, including a world without any gods.
Since there is no world without the thought of the world
BZZZZZTTT!!!! Assertion not demonstrated to be valid.
Post by niunian
, it is the
thought that is making everything real, including a world without any
gods. Since all thoughts come from consciousness, the consciousness is God.
--
Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov
Dale
2014-01-01 17:21:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by A Nony Mouse
Post by Dale
1) the brain is EXISTENTIAL
2) EVERY part of the brain is EXISTENTIAL
3) thoughts/thinking are PART of the brain
4) thoughts/thinking are EXISTENTIAL
5) things like God are AT LEAST thoughts/thinking
6) things like God are AT LEAST part of the brain
7) things like God are AT LEAST EXISTENTIAL as PART of the brain
I already realize this makes elves, fairies and Santa Claus EXISTENTIAL
too ...
But if the above by makes thoughts real, it also makes everything that
can be thought real, including a world without any gods.
yes, when you or ALL OF A COLLECTIVE are thinking that
--
Dale
x
2014-01-01 17:32:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dale
Post by A Nony Mouse
Post by Dale
1) the brain is EXISTENTIAL
2) EVERY part of the brain is EXISTENTIAL
3) thoughts/thinking are PART of the brain
4) thoughts/thinking are EXISTENTIAL
5) things like God are AT LEAST thoughts/thinking
6) things like God are AT LEAST part of the brain
7) things like God are AT LEAST EXISTENTIAL as PART of the brain
I already realize this makes elves, fairies and Santa Claus EXISTENTIAL
too ...
But if the above by makes thoughts real, it also makes everything that
can be thought real, including a world without any gods.
yes, when you or ALL OF A COLLECTIVE are thinking that
we are

a nony mouse
fom
2014-01-01 18:17:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dale
Post by A Nony Mouse
Post by Dale
1) the brain is EXISTENTIAL
2) EVERY part of the brain is EXISTENTIAL
3) thoughts/thinking are PART of the brain
4) thoughts/thinking are EXISTENTIAL
5) things like God are AT LEAST thoughts/thinking
6) things like God are AT LEAST part of the brain
7) things like God are AT LEAST EXISTENTIAL as PART of the brain
I already realize this makes elves, fairies and Santa Claus EXISTENTIAL
too ...
But if the above by makes thoughts real, it also makes everything that
can be thought real, including a world without any gods.
yes, when you or ALL OF A COLLECTIVE are thinking that
So, what you really want to say is that
the universe is conscious.

With the belief that you have a brain,
you conclude that your experience of
consciousness implies that the universe
of which you are a part is conscious.

Under the presumption that anything with
a brain similarly experiences consciousness,
you conclude that the consciousness of
the universe may be different from your
experience of consciousness.

To the extent that consciousness defines
existence, what is real follows from
existence defined by this means.

It is irrelevant that what is real for
the universal consciousness may be
contradictory for an individual consciousness,
unless, of course, there is only the
consciousness derived from your belief
that you have a brain.

And, as others -- if they actually have
brains distinct from the one of your
belief -- would seem to suggest, it
is questionable whether or not what is
real in the consciousness of that
possibly unique brain is non-contradictory.

Does this sum it up?

chuckle
Dale
2014-01-02 02:17:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by fom
Does this sum it up?
not really as it pertains to my original point
--
Dale
Peter Percival
2014-01-01 12:58:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dale
1) the brain is EXISTENTIAL
When you write "is existential" do you mean "exists"?
Post by Dale
2) EVERY part of the brain is EXISTENTIAL
3) thoughts/thinking are PART of the brain
4) thoughts/thinking are EXISTENTIAL
5) things like God are AT LEAST thoughts/thinking
6) things like God are AT LEAST part of the brain
7) things like God are AT LEAST EXISTENTIAL as PART of the brain
I already realize this makes elves, fairies and Santa Claus EXISTENTIAL
too ...
--
Madam Life's a piece in bloom,
Death goes dogging everywhere:
She's the tenant of the room,
He's the ruffian on the stair.
Dale
2014-01-01 17:23:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Percival
Post by Dale
1) the brain is EXISTENTIAL
When you write "is existential" do you mean "exists"?
I mean falling under the set of things that exist
Post by Peter Percival
Post by Dale
2) EVERY part of the brain is EXISTENTIAL
3) thoughts/thinking are PART of the brain
4) thoughts/thinking are EXISTENTIAL
5) things like God are AT LEAST thoughts/thinking
6) things like God are AT LEAST part of the brain
7) things like God are AT LEAST EXISTENTIAL as PART of the brain
I already realize this makes elves, fairies and Santa Claus EXISTENTIAL
too ...
--
Dale
Peter Percival
2014-01-01 17:32:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dale
Post by Peter Percival
Post by Dale
1) the brain is EXISTENTIAL
When you write "is existential" do you mean "exists"?
I mean falling under the set of things that exist
So "the brain is EXISTENTIAL" means "the brain exists." Why not write that?
--
Madam Life's a piece in bloom,
Death goes dogging everywhere:
She's the tenant of the room,
He's the ruffian on the stair.
Free Lunch
2014-01-01 18:07:54 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 01 Jan 2014 17:32:24 +0000, Peter Percival
Post by Peter Percival
Post by Dale
Post by Peter Percival
Post by Dale
1) the brain is EXISTENTIAL
When you write "is existential" do you mean "exists"?
I mean falling under the set of things that exist
So "the brain is EXISTENTIAL" means "the brain exists." Why not write that?
Of course the brain exists. Now we need to get people to understand that
the mind is merely the perceived conscious actions of the brain.
{:-])))
2014-01-01 22:40:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Free Lunch
On Wed, 01 Jan 2014 17:32:24 +0000, Peter Percival
Post by Peter Percival
Post by Dale
Post by Peter Percival
Post by Dale
1) the brain is EXISTENTIAL
When you write "is existential" do you mean "exists"?
I mean falling under the set of things that exist
So "the brain is EXISTENTIAL" means "the brain exists." Why not write that?
Of course the brain exists. Now we need to get people to understand that
the mind is merely the perceived conscious actions of the brain.
If apples were brains
then apple trees might bear many.

People might see brains as being a batch
of nerve cells all clustered as grapes.

As for grapes,
a vine might have many.

Some minds may see vines
and trees without seeing beyond any
physical properties of them.

Metaphorically, the Vine of Life
bears many fruits. Including some
having brains at times.

An apple and a grape
once walked into a farmer's market.
They were told by the shopper there
how they did not grow on trees
nor on vines but arrived
by truck, naturally.
Dale
2014-01-02 02:19:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Free Lunch
On Wed, 01 Jan 2014 17:32:24 +0000, Peter Percival
Post by Peter Percival
Post by Dale
Post by Peter Percival
Post by Dale
1) the brain is EXISTENTIAL
When you write "is existential" do you mean "exists"?
I mean falling under the set of things that exist
So "the brain is EXISTENTIAL" means "the brain exists." Why not write that?
Of course the brain exists. Now we need to get people to understand that
the mind is merely the perceived conscious actions of the brain.
the mind is the part of the brain that "minds" the senses and reports to
the conscious, sort or like a data flow event loop
--
Dale
Dale
2014-01-02 02:18:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dale
Post by Peter Percival
Post by Dale
1) the brain is EXISTENTIAL
When you write "is existential" do you mean "exists"?
I mean falling under the set of things that exist
So "the brain is EXISTENTIAL" means "the brain exists." Why not write that?
because existential is a bigger fancier word, therefore accepted by the
studious types more, just my crude attempt to appeal
--
Dale
linuxgal
2014-01-01 23:29:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dale
I mean falling under the set of things that exist
Having a set of things that don't exist is a disallowed operation, like
division by zero. However, there is a set of fictional creatures. God
is one of them.
{:-])))
2014-01-02 00:00:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by linuxgal
Post by Dale
I mean falling under the set of things that exist
Having a set of things that don't exist is a disallowed operation, like
division by zero. However, there is a set of fictional creatures. God
is one of them.
I fell under a swingset once.
A doctor kept me in stitches.
Until they were removed.
Now a scar remains.

I like division by zero.
As far as quotients go.
Their status could be most
any one of many things
for all I know.

Limits tend to limit one
in terms approaching infinity.
As if infinity exists within
one's reality.
Dale
2014-01-02 02:22:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by linuxgal
Post by Dale
I mean falling under the set of things that exist
Having a set of things that don't exist is a disallowed operation, like
division by zero. However, there is a set of fictional creatures. God is
one of them.
fictional characters, including God if he actually is one, which I don't
know, are material and existential in the material and existential brain

what is your point to my original assertion?

I already/originally said I realized this implies things like elves,
fairies and Santa Claus are EXISTENTIAL in the brain
--
Dale
linuxgal
2014-01-02 15:22:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dale
Post by linuxgal
Post by Dale
I mean falling under the set of things that exist
Having a set of things that don't exist is a disallowed operation, like
division by zero. However, there is a set of fictional creatures. God is
one of them.
fictional characters, including God if he actually is one, which I don't
know, are material and existential in the material and existential brain
what is your point to my original assertion?
It is impossible to have (even in principle) a set of things that do not
exist, because your imagination fails long before you run out of members
to include. Did you survey Arcturus III? So normal set operations like
"intersection" are suspect, because your set is not exhaustive, even in
principle.
Peter Olcott
2014-01-02 15:25:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by linuxgal
Post by Dale
Post by linuxgal
Post by Dale
I mean falling under the set of things that exist
Having a set of things that don't exist is a disallowed operation, like
division by zero. However, there is a set of fictional creatures. God is
one of them.
fictional characters, including God if he actually is one, which I don't
know, are material and existential in the material and existential brain
what is your point to my original assertion?
It is impossible to have (even in principle) a set of things that do not
exist,
Not at all, misconceptions exist.

because your imagination fails long before you run out of members
Post by linuxgal
to include. Did you survey Arcturus III? So normal set operations like
"intersection" are suspect, because your set is not exhaustive, even in
principle.
{:-])))
2014-01-02 15:49:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Olcott
Post by linuxgal
Post by Dale
Post by linuxgal
Post by Dale
I mean falling under the set of things that exist
Having a set of things that don't exist is a disallowed operation, like
division by zero. However, there is a set of fictional creatures. God is
one of them.
fictional characters, including God if he actually is one, which I don't
know, are material and existential in the material and existential brain
what is your point to my original assertion?
It is impossible to have (even in principle) a set of things that do not
exist,
Not at all, misconceptions exist.
Not physically.

There is no physical laboratory evidence
to prove the nonexistence of the nonexistence
of any misconception in the minds of those
who don't believe in misconceptions.

Experiments done have failed
to meet the litmus.
Peter Olcott
2014-01-02 15:34:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by linuxgal
Post by Dale
Post by linuxgal
Post by Dale
I mean falling under the set of things that exist
Having a set of things that don't exist is a disallowed operation, like
division by zero. However, there is a set of fictional creatures. God is
one of them.
fictional characters, including God if he actually is one, which I don't
know, are material and existential in the material and existential brain
what is your point to my original assertion?
It is impossible to have (even in principle) a set of things that do not
exist,
Elements of this set do not exist: {RoundSquares, SquareCircles}
Post by linuxgal
because your imagination fails long before you run out of members
to include. Did you survey Arcturus III? So normal set operations like
"intersection" are suspect, because your set is not exhaustive, even in
principle.
linuxgal
2014-01-02 15:55:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Olcott
Post by linuxgal
Post by Dale
Post by linuxgal
Post by Dale
I mean falling under the set of things that exist
Having a set of things that don't exist is a disallowed operation, like
division by zero. However, there is a set of fictional creatures. God is
one of them.
fictional characters, including God if he actually is one, which I don't
know, are material and existential in the material and existential brain
what is your point to my original assertion?
It is impossible to have (even in principle) a set of things that do not
exist,
Elements of this set do not exist: {RoundSquares, SquareCircles}
Also {BibleGod, HolyGhost, SonofMan, GlobalFlood, AfterLife}
Peter Olcott
2014-01-02 15:59:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by linuxgal
Post by Peter Olcott
Post by linuxgal
Post by Dale
Post by linuxgal
Post by Dale
I mean falling under the set of things that exist
Having a set of things that don't exist is a disallowed operation, like
division by zero. However, there is a set of fictional creatures. God is
one of them.
fictional characters, including God if he actually is one, which I don't
know, are material and existential in the material and existential brain
what is your point to my original assertion?
It is impossible to have (even in principle) a set of things that do not
exist,
Elements of this set do not exist: {RoundSquares, SquareCircles}
Also {BibleGod, HolyGhost, SonofMan, GlobalFlood, AfterLife}
The huge distinction between these two sets is the the former can be
known not to exist with 100% perfect complete certainty. The latter can
not be known not to exist with 100% perfect complete certainty.

The huge mistake of humanity is to confuse presumption with certainty, I
call this the fallacy of belief/disbelief.
linuxgal
2014-01-02 16:10:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Olcott
Post by linuxgal
Post by Peter Olcott
Elements of this set do not exist: {RoundSquares, SquareCircles}
Also {BibleGod, HolyGhost, SonofMan, GlobalFlood, AfterLife}
The huge distinction between these two sets is the the former can be
known not to exist with 100% perfect complete certainty. The latter can
not be known not to exist with 100% perfect complete certainty.
I can list the reasons why I included those elements in the set:

1. BibleGod - Omniscience and Omnipotence are mutually contradictory
attributes.

2. HolyGhost - A spirit, from the same root word that gives us
respiration, is the "breath of life", and is based on a faulty
understanding of what makes something alive. A beast breathes because
it lives, not lives because it breathes.

3. SonofMan - The atoms that comprised the Son of Man, like all other
sons of men who have lived and died, still exist, but the pattern no
longer exists. This is the same fate of all other patterns in this
universe, from mayflies to galaxies.

4. GlobalFlood - The atmosphere can only hold one inch of water as
vapor. Mt. Everest is 5.5 miles high. Nuff said.

5. AfterLife - Death is defined as the irreversible cessation of life.
If someone "comes back from the dead" they didn't die, by definition.
Peter Olcott
2014-01-02 16:24:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by linuxgal
Post by Peter Olcott
Post by linuxgal
Post by Peter Olcott
Elements of this set do not exist: {RoundSquares, SquareCircles}
Also {BibleGod, HolyGhost, SonofMan, GlobalFlood, AfterLife}
The huge distinction between these two sets is the the former can be
known not to exist with 100% perfect complete certainty. The latter can
not be known not to exist with 100% perfect complete certainty.
1. BibleGod - Omniscience and Omnipotence are mutually contradictory
attributes.
2. HolyGhost - A spirit, from the same root word that gives us
respiration, is the "breath of life", and is based on a faulty
understanding of what makes something alive. A beast breathes because
it lives, not lives because it breathes.
3. SonofMan - The atoms that comprised the Son of Man, like all other
sons of men who have lived and died, still exist, but the pattern no
longer exists. This is the same fate of all other patterns in this
universe, from mayflies to galaxies.
4. GlobalFlood - The atmosphere can only hold one inch of water as
vapor. Mt. Everest is 5.5 miles high. Nuff said.
5. AfterLife - Death is defined as the irreversible cessation of life.
If someone "comes back from the dead" they didn't die, by definition.
Possible fallacy of equivocation on all of these. Although you attempt
to define your terms to make you right, you may have the incorrect
definitions of these terms.

There is no possible way to know with 100% complete certainty that
science is not merely an elaborate hoax that attempts to convince us
that magic is not behind it all.
{:-])))
2014-01-02 16:41:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by linuxgal
Post by Peter Olcott
Post by linuxgal
Post by Peter Olcott
Elements of this set do not exist: {RoundSquares, SquareCircles}
Also {BibleGod, HolyGhost, SonofMan, GlobalFlood, AfterLife}
The huge distinction between these two sets is the the former can be
known not to exist with 100% perfect complete certainty. The latter can
not be known not to exist with 100% perfect complete certainty.
1. BibleGod - Omniscience and Omnipotence are mutually contradictory
attributes.
I once asked a Fundy if
God could create a rock so heavy,
such that it was, He could not lift.

My Fundy-friend said, He could,
but He would not.

The Universe is every where
and all power that exists within it is.

How aware the Universe might be
of how many hairs exist on your head
may or may not be known
at any given time.

Whether ore
knots any weather might
be a quibble width in a middle of Teh knights.
Post by linuxgal
2. HolyGhost - A spirit, from the same root word that gives us
respiration, is the "breath of life",
Ruach? Qi/Chi? Prana? Yama?

Within the blood?
Within oxygen?

Within, the Big Bang?

Myths, akin to moths, attract
those who are attracted.
Post by linuxgal
and is based on a faulty
understanding of what makes something alive.
To think some thing makes
may suggest there exists a maker.

Between being
alive and dead
there may be
an at which
is neither.
Post by linuxgal
A beast breathes because
it lives, not lives because it breathes.
To invoke a cause-effect paradigm
in the middle of the Big Muddy,
a big fool may press on.

To try and ionize one's eyes
sew as to sea a difference
between breath and being
a form of Life and a form of Death
could be to filter one's feeder mechanisms.

To reify
and then deny
that which was and yet
could not have been.
Post by linuxgal
3. SonofMan - The atoms that comprised the Son of Man, like all other
sons of men who have lived and died, still exist, but the pattern no
longer exists. This is the same fate of all other patterns in this
universe, from mayflies to galaxies.
The Son of Man, in terms of Daniel,
was a saying said by one who appeared
to appear to be God incarnate, as was foretold
in times ofolded up origami.

As an axis mundi, the proof is obvious.
Time turns and returns. Anno.

Lost sheep have found.

Not all are
of that flock.
Post by linuxgal
4. GlobalFlood - The atmosphere can only hold one inch of water as
vapor. Mt. Everest is 5.5 miles high. Nuff said.
Stories are taken and given.
What they are worth varies.
Post by linuxgal
5. AfterLife - Death is defined as the irreversible cessation of life.
Definitions vary.
Physical evidence is what it is.
Anecdotes vary.

Even if someone were to return
after having been dead and buried, e.g. Yukteswar,
there would be those who say it never happened.
Post by linuxgal
If someone "comes back from the dead" they didn't die, by definition.
If that is how you define Life after Death,
then, perhaps, you may prefer, Life after Life.

Yogananda was an eye witness.

Take it or leave it.

- fwiw
niunian
2014-01-02 19:23:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by linuxgal
1. BibleGod - Omniscience and Omnipotence are mutually
contradictory attributes.
I once asked a Fundy if God could create a rock so heavy, such that
it was, He could not lift.
That is the wrong question to ask. God is a Spirit. God's omnipotence is
a spiritual ability instead of a physical strength. Spiritually
speaking, God's omnipotence is the absolute ability to always defeating
evil with the absolute certainty. So there is no contradiction between
omniscience and omnipotence. God is an omnipotent God, God is not an
omnipotent Man. There is a difference.
duke
2014-01-02 17:57:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by linuxgal
Post by Peter Olcott
Post by linuxgal
Post by Peter Olcott
Elements of this set do not exist: {RoundSquares, SquareCircles}
Also {BibleGod, HolyGhost, SonofMan, GlobalFlood, AfterLife}
The huge distinction between these two sets is the the former can be
known not to exist with 100% perfect complete certainty. The latter can
not be known not to exist with 100% perfect complete certainty.
1. BibleGod - Omniscience and Omnipotence are mutually contradictory
attributes.
You failed to address "his purpose".
Post by linuxgal
2. HolyGhost - A spirit, from the same root word that gives us
respiration, is the "breath of life", and is based on a faulty
understanding of what makes something alive. A beast breathes because
it lives, not lives because it breathes.
Jesus sent him.
Post by linuxgal
3. SonofMan - The atoms that comprised the Son of Man, like all other
sons of men who have lived and died, still exist, but the pattern no
longer exists. This is the same fate of all other patterns in this
universe, from mayflies to galaxies.
God became flesh, the flesh died on the cross, God raised the flesh to new life.
Post by linuxgal
4. GlobalFlood - The atmosphere can only hold one inch of water as
vapor. Mt. Everest is 5.5 miles high. Nuff said.
At one time in the far past, Mt. Everest was just a small speed bump.
Post by linuxgal
5. AfterLife - Death is defined as the irreversible cessation of life.
If someone "comes back from the dead" they didn't die, by definition.
Not God's definition. Our very promise post death is the resurrection of our
own bodies as Jesus was raised to new life prior to his ascension to the Father.

duke, American-American
*****
When Obama was elected, he said he couldn't be more
proud for this country. Now, after 5 years, we Americans
will never be more disgusted with the mess he as created.
*****
Wisely Non-Theist
2014-01-02 19:41:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by duke
Post by linuxgal
4. GlobalFlood - The atmosphere can only hold one inch of water as
vapor. Mt. Everest is 5.5 miles high. Nuff said.
At one time in the far past, Mt. Everest was just a small speed bump.
That was well before any humans were around, about 60 million years ago,
which was well before anything even vaguely human was around to record a
flood.

So any claim of humans observing a flood that covered the world is false.
{:-])))
2014-01-02 16:21:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Olcott
Post by linuxgal
Post by Peter Olcott
Elements of this set do not exist: {RoundSquares, SquareCircles}
Also {BibleGod, HolyGhost, SonofMan, GlobalFlood, AfterLife}
The huge distinction between these two sets is the the former can be
known not to exist with 100% perfect complete certainty. The latter can
not be known not to exist with 100% perfect complete certainty.
The huge mistake of humanity is to confuse presumption with certainty, I
call this the fallacy of belief/disbelief.
If a RoundSquare was shown to exist
there would be some who would deny it.

Once up
on a time within time, aye,
while circling a block a round
the house in which I'd lived, a corner
was cut, and then there was
a square, so to speak,
which was not.

I'd ridden my bike, many times,
without any hands, so to speak, literally.

Coasting at times, free as the breeze.
As if freedom was something to be proven.

Exactly what is meant by what is said,
and exactly what took place,
might be subject
to objection.

When telepathy exists, it exists.
When walking on water exists, it exists.
To satisfy an Amazing Randi might not exist.

Exactly why that is might
have to dew with consensus
reality, such as it is.

Oar, then again, when
times are right, one is left,
two be, wandering in wonder.

- fwiw
{:-])))
2014-01-02 16:09:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by linuxgal
Post by Peter Olcott
Elements of this set do not exist: {RoundSquares, SquareCircles}
Also {BibleGod, HolyGhost, SonofMan, GlobalFlood, AfterLife}
As all wells as
{Taoism, atheism, theism, categories, etc.} end wells.

To equate physicalism/materialism
with metaphysical/mythological and toss
words ala mode, e.g. anecdotal, as evidently is,
might be a mite of a fictional mouse click.

Ore knot.

Experiences vary.
Interpretations of experiences vary.

Words and meanings vary.

Exactly what one means by one's words
could be sum Ting two determine.

If/when one is
interested in
sew doing.
kamerm
2014-01-02 16:44:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by linuxgal
Post by Peter Olcott
Post by linuxgal
Post by Dale
Post by linuxgal
Post by Dale
I mean falling under the set of things that exist
Having a set of things that don't exist is a disallowed
operation, like division by zero. However, there is a set of
fictional creatures. God is
one of them.
fictional characters, including God if he actually is one, which I
don't know, are material and existential in the material and
existential brain what is your point to my original assertion?
It is impossible to have (even in principle) a set of things that
do not exist,
Elements of this set do not exist: {RoundSquares, SquareCircles}
Also {BibleGod, HolyGhost, SonofMan, GlobalFlood, AfterLife}
all depends on context. cf:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperbolic_geometry
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squircle
for the first two

and memes for the others (else there'd be nothing to debate -
"alt.a-ghkfadjfda-ism" appears to not have previously existed)

-k
{:-])))
2014-01-02 16:03:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Olcott
Post by linuxgal
Post by Dale
Post by linuxgal
Post by Dale
I mean falling under the set of things that exist
Having a set of things that don't exist is a disallowed operation, like
division by zero. However, there is a set of fictional creatures. God is
one of them.
fictional characters, including God if he actually is one, which I don't
know, are material and existential in the material and existential brain
what is your point to my original assertion?
It is impossible to have (even in principle) a set of things that do not
exist,
Elements of this set do not exist: {RoundSquares, SquareCircles}
Fictional creatures, iow.

I can imagine that.
And see it now.
Obviously.

But what was meant
by what was written
might not be that.

Dale wrote of thoughts
which are said to exist.

As a thought, God exists.

As a thought, nations exist.
As is thought, money exists.

The fact of myths and their power
might increase or decrease one's faith
in the power of the myth.

Nations (mythical creatures)
go to war over what amounts to
money (a mythical creation) and people die,
as if they might inherit something, for the cause.

I can imagine there are nations
but that people aren't willing to die for them.

I can imagine money, and religion, and
that people are smart enough to know when
and how and what they're good for.

I might appear to be delusional at times.
As if such events would ever transpire.

Earth might always be
such as it is, in terms of a form of Life,
as if there were such things
such as Earth, or Life.

To reify can be the stuff
out of which great oaks grow,
metaphorically speaking.

Once there were said to be
Lost Sheep of a particular House.

Prior to being known as Caucasians,
they were there known as Sacasuni.
Sons of Isaac.

Already, by that time,
they had forgotten their name,
which was given to them, as Ephraim.

There is plenty of evidence, proof,
for those who like to have some.

Everclear is mighty pure
but not even that is 100 per cent.

The Behistun Inscription is written in stone.
Literally. Metaphorically it is the Rosetta.
For those who like theories.
Such as, evolution.
Ymmv.

Some may see an incarnation
as if it is the incarnation.

Experiences vary.

For those who find a guru,
strange phenomena occur.

Putting forth the proof
tends to be in the froth.
{:-])))
2014-01-02 15:46:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by linuxgal
Post by Dale
Post by linuxgal
Post by Dale
I mean falling under the set of things that exist
Having a set of things that don't exist is a disallowed operation, like
division by zero. However, there is a set of fictional creatures. God is
one of them.
fictional characters, including God if he actually is one, which I don't
know, are material and existential in the material and existential brain
what is your point to my original assertion?
It is impossible to have (even in principle) a set of things that do not
exist, because your imagination fails long before you run out of members
to include. Did you survey Arcturus III? So normal set operations like
"intersection" are suspect, because your set is not exhaustive, even in
principle.
Take the set, for instance,
consisting of blue and pink unicrons,
an elephino and a rhinopterous.

You can't have that set of things
because it does not exist.

The intersection of that set,
which does not exist, with any other
nonexistent set, does not exist either.

The union of them may.
The jury is out however and
is not expected to return any time soon.

Tis a skewed topic
two begin width at length.

Going in too depth
one might fathom knots.
duke
2014-01-02 17:58:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by linuxgal
Post by Dale
I mean falling under the set of things that exist
Having a set of things that don't exist is a disallowed operation, like
division by zero.
That's an infinity of things.

However, there is a set of fictional creatures. God
Post by linuxgal
is one of them.
duke, American-American
*****
When Obama was elected, he said he couldn't be more
proud for this country. Now, after 5 years, we Americans
will never be more disgusted with the mess he as created.
*****
Wisely Non-Theist
2014-01-02 19:28:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by duke
Post by linuxgal
Post by Dale
I mean falling under the set of things that exist
Having a set of things that don't exist is a disallowed operation, like
division by zero.
That's an infinity of things.
However, there is a set of fictional creatures. God
Post by linuxgal
is one of them.
Is dumbgucko conceding the fictonal nature of his god?
defaullt
2014-01-01 13:24:59 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 01 Jan 2014 00:22:51 -0500, Dale
Post by Dale
1) the brain is EXISTENTIAL
2) EVERY part of the brain is EXISTENTIAL
3) thoughts/thinking are PART of the brain
4) thoughts/thinking are EXISTENTIAL
5) things like God are AT LEAST thoughts/thinking
6) things like God are AT LEAST part of the brain
7) things like God are AT LEAST EXISTENTIAL as PART of the brain
I already realize this makes elves, fairies and Santa Claus EXISTENTIAL
too ...
And therefore elves, fairies, Santa, etc. are no less proven. That
still doesn't make gods "real." The religious nuts think god is real,
not just existing within the minds of the deluded.
x
2014-01-01 13:43:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by defaullt
On Wed, 01 Jan 2014 00:22:51 -0500, Dale
Post by Dale
1) the brain is EXISTENTIAL
2) EVERY part of the brain is EXISTENTIAL
3) thoughts/thinking are PART of the brain
4) thoughts/thinking are EXISTENTIAL
5) things like God are AT LEAST thoughts/thinking
6) things like God are AT LEAST part of the brain
7) things like God are AT LEAST EXISTENTIAL as PART of the brain
I already realize this makes elves, fairies and Santa Claus EXISTENTIAL
too ...
And therefore elves, fairies, Santa, etc. are no less proven. That
still doesn't make gods "real." The religious nuts think god is real,
not just existing within the minds of the deluded.
why do you think there is anything more to existence than that?
{:-])))
2014-01-01 14:30:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by defaullt
On Wed, 01 Jan 2014 00:22:51 -0500, Dale
Post by Dale
1) the brain is EXISTENTIAL
2) EVERY part of the brain is EXISTENTIAL
3) thoughts/thinking are PART of the brain
4) thoughts/thinking are EXISTENTIAL
5) things like God are AT LEAST thoughts/thinking
6) things like God are AT LEAST part of the brain
7) things like God are AT LEAST EXISTENTIAL as PART of the brain
I already realize this makes elves, fairies and Santa Claus EXISTENTIAL
too ...
And therefore elves, fairies, Santa, etc. are no less proven. That
still doesn't make gods "real." The religious nuts think god is real,
not just existing within the minds of the deluded.
Lots of people
may insist they exist
and think of themselves as being
somebody. Some body speaks and says
to some other body that it does not really exist.

And then semantics enter into play.

A tea party might be a party.
A body of minds so to speak.

When conditions exist, tea
is served, dumped in a harbor, or
a government shuts down for a spell.

Such a body
could be said to be made up.

Of semantics.

Some physical body said
to be made up of singular cells
can be said to exist by those who say so.

In a vacuum, things are said to be.
And also said not to exist.

To think Existence exists
might be to reify a concept.

To think of Existence as Being,
can be a fashion of thought.

All things can be said to exist
within some thought of Existence.

Some people think they know Earth
as other than a pale blue micro dot.
As if there were an absolute
frame of reference.
Really.

All things may be said
to be within
Being.

Call such a Being by any name, a rose,
for instance may rise to an occasion,
and it may stink or smell for one
with a nose who knows.

Metaphors.
For real. Really.

When an hair is out of place,
one may know its number.

Normally, how
ever hairs go unnoticed.

One could be said to be as God
to every hair on one's head.

But such a saying may fall
on ears unable to here
at any given time.

Existence as Being
a being known as Being
might know a thing or three.

As you may know you are
some body, and have a mind
to think such, as you may dew.

One is not other than Being,
not other than Existence itself,
all curled up into many dimensions,
mostly hidden from view.

As if Existence,
Being, is other than
a word.

Dreaming, one remains asleep.
Awakening, one knows of words.

What those words mean,
and what might or might not be,
might make a great difference, all of the.

Semantics at play.

Many antics go unchallenged.
Many are refused their day.

If Existence were to walk
up to one's face and say hey, I am
and shall now do what has not been done,
there would be some who would not believe it.

Whether it be a rose from a grave
or a rose by any other name,
some would insist it does
and did not exist.

When semantics are
at play.

Without an experience
there may be little one can say
to prove to any other body
of water it is other than
a notion.

Were an ocean to wave,
to carry one a way,
then one may
know one day.

Semantics are at play.
Jens Stuckelberger
2014-01-01 15:23:33 UTC
Permalink
[Drivel]
I already realize this makes elves, fairies and Santa Claus EXISTENTIAL
too ...
OK, now crawl back into your little hole of ignorance and
stupidity and stay there till the first day of 2015.
{:-])))
2014-01-01 15:58:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jens Stuckelberger
[Drivel]
I already realize this makes elves, fairies and Santa Claus EXISTENTIAL
too ...
OK, now crawl back into your little hole of ignorance and
stupidity and stay there till the first day of 2015.
Given QM, lots of lots may be drawn.
Maps and maps of maps might be mapped.

Having defined, in all CAPS, what exists,
further refined, they may be said to be.

As a pre-
positional phrase, an infinitive, to be
might be a verbal phase
shifting one's shape
in various ways.

Why Dale wants to prove, scientifically,
or by any other means, what he wants to
might be subect to a quest-
ion of sorts.

When someone gives
a gift, it may be said to be
in the Spirit of one Saint
Nick, so to speak.

Ho. Ho. Ho.

Such a Spirit can be said
to be alive and well, at times.

As one moves and breathes and says
what is said in that Spirit, One is.

Many myths are potent.

Nation-states are thought to exist.

And spoken of as if, they had minds
of their own.

As if Washington exists
and does strange things to Earth.
Or Great Britain. Or France. Or Germany.

Such myths are taken to be very real.
And when bombs fall they are all too.

At times, it appears, potentials
and actualities appear. And are.

Psychic phenomena occur.
Anecdotes abound.

The proof how
ever is within
the experience.

Reality can be said to be such that as
Heisenberg said, "The path comes into existence
only when we observe it."

Chuang Tzu said basically the same thing
when he was said to have said, "The path is made
by walking it."

When, in a lab, experiments are performed,
electrons and photons might not behave
as they do when forced to go through
either one option or another.

Reality, at times, if not often, conforms
to how one sets up a situation.

If, in Reality, some one walked on water,
or, for a few steps, two did, then,
that was Reality, for a spell.

Reality, Existence, Being.

Some may say there is One, ore
that they are One.

In being Being, Reality may be,
and say as it may, from time to time.
How it is, as One is, a, or the, Being.

As a singularity.
As a plurality.
Within one's imagination.
Within many.

Network clusters of neurons
may take charge of the basic
operating storage system (boss)
and think they are in charge, and
are being the boss of whom
One is said to be.

You think you are you.
And so you are. As you think.

A body. A member.
Of a family. Of a nation.
Such is your identity.

Your state
of consciousness.

Of a planet, an Earthling.

A form of Life itself. As if Life
actually exists, as other than a word.

Being as Life, you are a live form. Alive.

As Being, you are a form of.
As Existence, you exist,
as a form of.

Exactly what you might
be able to do in all your might
if you were able to do, such as Moses
or Jesus or Elijah or any of the others, and
to whom or what you would give credit,
might be similar to old Saint Nick,
so to speak, in the Spirit.

Of a form of
how Santa Claus is.

At times a Spirit is embodied.
At times it is afloat. Which reminds me.

The Parade is about to begin!

As if the Rose could be.
Florian Kutscherauer
2014-01-01 20:53:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dale
1) the brain is EXISTENTIAL
2) EVERY part of the brain is EXISTENTIAL
3) thoughts/thinking are PART of the brain
No, they are not. They are patterns of activity of neurons within the
brain. That's not the same, therefore thoughts have not the same
existential properties as the neurons themselves.

Read this for a detailed discussion:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_of_being

The rest of your argument relies on this error, so I'll just drop it.
--
Ceterum censeo Creationismum esse delendam.
{:-])))
2014-01-01 23:06:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Florian Kutscherauer
Post by Dale
1) the brain is EXISTENTIAL
2) EVERY part of the brain is EXISTENTIAL
3) thoughts/thinking are PART of the brain
No, they are not. They are patterns of activity of neurons within the
brain. That's not the same, therefore thoughts have not the same
existential properties as the neurons themselves.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_of_being
To think thought is other than
the activity of neurons in a brain
might be quite a thought to think.
Post by Florian Kutscherauer
The rest of your argument relies on this error, so I'll just drop it.
To take a part and say
this part is apart from that
could be to part with parts
in such a way as to make
what was a part of not.

To tie up all the parts and get
all caught up in knots, may be why
Tao was used, for a spell, way back when.

Things meant things.
Dale
2014-01-02 02:30:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Florian Kutscherauer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_of_being
The rest of your argument relies on this error, so I'll just drop it.
I pick this type:

via conceptual metaphors as arising from characteristics of human
cognition itself – categories are found via cognitive science and other
study of that biological system

so my argument is no longer in error with regards to your claim

please proceed ...
--
Dale
Dale
2014-01-02 05:25:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dale
Post by Florian Kutscherauer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_of_being
The rest of your argument relies on this error, so I'll just drop it.
via conceptual metaphors as arising from characteristics of human
cognition itself – categories are found via cognitive science and other
study of that biological system
so my argument is no longer in error with regards to your claim
please proceed ...
and I was talking about the physical, not the metaphysical
--
Dale
kamerm
2014-01-01 21:38:13 UTC
Permalink
[giving eternal-september a try]
[sci.logic and sci.skeptic dropped since aioe.org allows only
3-groups in crossposts.
Feel free to add them back]
Post by Dale
1) the brain is EXISTENTIAL
2) EVERY part of the brain is EXISTENTIAL
3) thoughts/thinking are PART of the brain
4) thoughts/thinking are EXISTENTIAL
5) things like God are AT LEAST thoughts/thinking
6) things like God are AT LEAST part of the brain
7) things like God are AT LEAST EXISTENTIAL as PART of the brain
I already realize this makes elves, fairies and Santa Claus
EXISTENTIAL too ...
Hi Dale,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memetics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meme
Having worked my butt off honoring the "Santa" meme for the kiddee's,
can attest to its potency ;-)
-k
Hi Dale,

one thing that might not match your notion..

Memetics is a branch of "Universal Darwinism" cf:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Darwinism
and there's a bit of Cartesian Dualism cf:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartesian_dualism
if not good old Platonic Idealism cf:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platonic_idealism
in your phrasing?

easy way to tell:
does the notion of a God, Santa, etc that evolves
bother you?

-k
{:-])))
2014-01-01 23:01:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by kamerm
does the notion of a God, Santa, etc that evolves
bother you?
According to the Old Testimony,
God was quite the ruler of things.

Accordion to the New Testimony,
the rules have changed a bit.

As well as the rulers.

Tis a relativity thing, may be.
When one travels thru
spacetime.

To create an epic historical drama,
for really real for real and all time,
tends to take at least one age.

When the God of Abraham began
to tell old Abe of many things, signs
and promises were made.

Assuming Abe existed, honestly,
and the legends be true as well,
then the promises have been kept.

The Brits were such that the Sun
never set. The Commonwealth exists.
People as numerous as the stars and sands
if they were to be counted all in all.

The proof is there for those who seek.
For those who choose to walk such a Path.

Promises passed down to Isaac, Jacob,
Joseph and Ephraim, kept. Hence the name
Jehovah, keeper of promises.

Yet, for those who refuse to enter a bubble
chamber, to learn the ropes and read the books,
a scattering of light on a screen means nothing.
No proof of quarks could ever suffice.
Their brains and minds having bins
already filled to the full.

While an ocean of Santas might evolve,
a notion of the Spirit, still, remains.

For those who are able to here
and hear a still small voice
might loom large.

One's notion of God could evolve
and revolve a round, many ideas.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahman

Brahman
don't take things personal.

Creator and Creation arise mutually.

Hence Tao may be said to be
a prior eye for those at sea who saw
how an uncarved block waves.
Dale
2014-01-02 02:27:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by kamerm
does the notion of a God, Santa, etc that evolves
bother you?
not as long as it pertains to God, etc., in the brain

outside the brain I hear from my sister that the tooth fairy charges 5
dollars a tooth now, if you can't shut it off it gets kind of irritating ...
--
Dale
Dale
2014-01-02 02:24:46 UTC
Permalink
[sci.logic and sci.skeptic dropped since aioe.org allows only 3-groups in
crossposts.
Feel free to add them back]
Post by Dale
1) the brain is EXISTENTIAL
2) EVERY part of the brain is EXISTENTIAL
3) thoughts/thinking are PART of the brain
4) thoughts/thinking are EXISTENTIAL
5) things like God are AT LEAST thoughts/thinking
6) things like God are AT LEAST part of the brain
7) things like God are AT LEAST EXISTENTIAL as PART of the brain
I already realize this makes elves, fairies and Santa Claus
EXISTENTIAL too ...
Hi Dale,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memetics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meme
Having worked my butt off honoring the "Santa" meme for the kiddee's,
can attest to its potency ;-)
-k
Hi kamerm, looks like fun
--
Dale
Sylvia Else
2014-01-02 10:55:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dale
1) the brain is EXISTENTIAL
2) EVERY part of the brain is EXISTENTIAL
3) thoughts/thinking are PART of the brain
4) thoughts/thinking are EXISTENTIAL
5) things like God are AT LEAST thoughts/thinking
6) things like God are AT LEAST part of the brain
7) things like God are AT LEAST EXISTENTIAL as PART of the brain
I already realize this makes elves, fairies and Santa Claus EXISTENTIAL
too ...
So God exists to the extent that people have thoughts about him.

I posit that that is the entire extent of his existence, and your proof
does not contradict that.

As proofs go, it seems rather limited.

Sylvia.
Dale
2014-01-02 17:47:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Dale
1) the brain is EXISTENTIAL
2) EVERY part of the brain is EXISTENTIAL
3) thoughts/thinking are PART of the brain
4) thoughts/thinking are EXISTENTIAL
5) things like God are AT LEAST thoughts/thinking
6) things like God are AT LEAST part of the brain
7) things like God are AT LEAST EXISTENTIAL as PART of the brain
I already realize this makes elves, fairies and Santa Claus EXISTENTIAL
too ...
So God exists to the extent that people have thoughts about him.
I posit that that is the entire extent of his existence, and your proof
does not contradict that.
As proofs go, it seems rather limited.
Sylvia.
yes, but it has a point

BUT

I will admit a way I could be wrong

thoughts might be "models" of what is true

for instance, a 4d animated model of a baby doll isn't a an EXISTENTIAL
baby, but to the mind, inside the mind, the effect is the same

so God may not exist when you think of him in your existential mind, but
a 4d model might be instantiated that effects the same thing TO THE
MIND, so God's influence exists
--
Dale
Dale
2014-01-02 17:48:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dale
1) the brain is EXISTENTIAL
2) EVERY part of the brain is EXISTENTIAL
3) thoughts/thinking are PART of the brain
4) thoughts/thinking are EXISTENTIAL
5) things like God are AT LEAST thoughts/thinking
6) things like God are AT LEAST part of the brain
7) things like God are AT LEAST EXISTENTIAL as PART of the brain
I already realize this makes elves, fairies and Santa Claus EXISTENTIAL
too ...
I will admit a way I could be wrong

thoughts might be "models" of what is true

for instance, a 4d animated model of a baby doll isn't a an EXISTENTIAL
baby, but to the mind, inside the mind, the effect is the same

so God may not exist when you think of him in your existential mind, but
a 4d model might be instantiated that effects the same thing TO THE
MIND, so God's influence exists
--
Dale
Free Lunch
2014-01-02 19:23:52 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 02 Jan 2014 12:48:22 -0500, Dale
Post by Dale
Post by Dale
1) the brain is EXISTENTIAL
2) EVERY part of the brain is EXISTENTIAL
3) thoughts/thinking are PART of the brain
4) thoughts/thinking are EXISTENTIAL
5) things like God are AT LEAST thoughts/thinking
6) things like God are AT LEAST part of the brain
7) things like God are AT LEAST EXISTENTIAL as PART of the brain
I already realize this makes elves, fairies and Santa Claus EXISTENTIAL
too ...
I will admit a way I could be wrong
thoughts might be "models" of what is true
for instance, a 4d animated model of a baby doll isn't a an EXISTENTIAL
baby, but to the mind, inside the mind, the effect is the same
so God may not exist when you think of him in your existential mind, but
a 4d model might be instantiated that effects the same thing TO THE
MIND, so God's influence exists
Models and reality are not the same.
Bob Casanova
2014-01-02 18:50:21 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 01 Jan 2014 00:22:51 -0500, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by Dale
Post by Dale
1) the brain is EXISTENTIAL
2) EVERY part of the brain is EXISTENTIAL
3) thoughts/thinking are PART of the brain
4) thoughts/thinking are EXISTENTIAL
5) things like God are AT LEAST thoughts/thinking
6) things like God are AT LEAST part of the brain
7) things like God are AT LEAST EXISTENTIAL as PART of the brain
I already realize this makes elves, fairies and Santa Claus EXISTENTIAL
too ...
...and is therefore proof of absolutely nothing other than
the ability to imagine things.
--
Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov
Loading...