-->
@secularmerlin
This is a very undiscerning question.
And an offensively stupid one as well.
The Problem with Atheists
Posts
Total:
372
-->
@Mopac
Does that mean you don't have an answer?
-->
@Mopac
You don't like questions that you can't answer honestly.
-->
@secularmerlin
@disgusted
Maybe you both prefer rocks to REALITY.
Well, it should be obvious how loving one with every fiber of your being is different from loving the other. It doesn't take a particularly brilliant person to see the difference, but it does take a fool to see there is no difference.
-->
@Mopac
A rock is a part of reality and niether shows any observable sign of any emotion, love included, so yes I'm curious what the difference is. Let's say hypothetically that someone loves a rock with every fiber of his being and proudly proclaims rock=God, how is their relationship with the rock different from your relationship with reality?
-->
@Mopac
"Maybe you both prefer rocks to REALITY."
Rocks are real, you don't seem to realise that.
"Well, it should be obvious how loving one with every fiber of your being is different from loving the other."
Are you still talking of rocks? I wonder who the fool might be.
Witness how those who have put their faith in vain things have become vain themselves, unable to even discern the difference between loving The Truth that can save them, and a worthless stone.
-->
@Mopac
What do you mean by save? Save us from What? Also it isn't the rock and reality at large I don't see a difference between it is the relationships human holds with an inanimate nonliving object and a reality that appears likewise to be nonliving.
-->
@Outplayz
Let's try this. Instead of a canvas, let's imagine a gigantic piece of paper. This piece of paper stretches in every direction further than we could ever travel in a trillion lifetimes. This is similar to what you seem to be describing. Now my point on this is that if the paper only stretches out in two dimensions, then it is not truly unlimited or unbounded. So to explain what I'm trying to illustrate here, imagine millions of trillions of these gigantic pieces of paper stacked on top of each other. This would be the largest possible ream of paper. The observable cosmos is now paperverse.However, i still don't understand what you mean. You have to address why you don't think finite events could happen on an infinite platform.
There is no room in paperverse for anything other than paper. There can be no paint. There can be no painter. If the canvas is truly unbounded, it would expand, not only in two dimensions, but in three dimensions, and then four dimensions, and then five dimensions, and so on.
Here's another example. Imagine an empty box. What is in the box? Well, there's probably air in the box and maybe some dust. Ok, so let's remove the air and the dust, now is it empty? No, not really, there is still space-time in the box. In order to be truly empty, it would have to be so small as to not take up any space-time. How small would this empty box need to be? Smaller than the Planck length. Would it be fair to say that something smaller than the Planck length "exists"? Probably not. It also probably couldn't properly be described as a box.
"Nothing" literally doesn't exist.
-->
@3RU7AL
"Nothing" literally doesn't exist.
Incorrect as always.
Eternally existent, macro-infinite non-occupied space embraces/surrounds our eternally existent, finite, occupied space Universe.
You refuse to address this rational, logical common sense conclusion because of ego.
Ego is the greatest danger to humanity.
-->
@secularmerlin
Which student is going to do better in class? Which one is going to do be moved by their love?
The one who loves A ROCK?
The one who loves THE TRUTH?
It is shameful to even ponder this question, it is patently idiotic.
-->
@Mopac
The student that is smarter and or applies themselves better to their studies. What they love has little to do with it though it might factor in determining the better student in a small way.
You still haven't adequately explain the difference between the two relationships or addressed what you feel I need to be saved from.
-->
@Mopac
I'm going to hazard a guess that you don't know many geologists.Which student is going to do better in class? Which one is going to do be moved by their love?The one who loves A ROCK?The one who loves THE TRUTH?It is shameful to even ponder this question, it is patently idiotic.
-->
@mustardness
Please explain where I can find "nothing"."Nothing" literally doesn't exist.Incorrect as always.Eternally existent, macro-infinite non-occupied space embraces/surrounds our eternally existent, finite, occupied space Universe.You refuse to address this rational, logical common sense conclusion because of ego.Ego is the greatest danger to humanity.
And while you're at it, please explain what makes you think there is a macro-infinite-non-occupied-space.
I mean, if finite-occupied-space is contained within macro-infinite-non-occupied-space, wouldn't that make non-occupied-space technically occupied???
-->
@secularmerlin
Well stated.You still haven't adequately explained the difference between the two relationships or addressed what you feel I need to be saved from.
-->
@3RU7AL
Lol
-->
@3RU7AL
Macro-infinite non-occupied space is one infinite thing --or one non-thing-- depending on how we choose to define 'thing'.\You can't have two infinite things.
Irrespective of your refusal to accept the word 'set' you offer no other information, or rational, logical common sense conclusions, that, invalidate any of my conclusions. Why?The terms "infinite" and "set" are mutually exclusive.
Because none exist.
Three primary kinds of space exist:
1} concept of space ergo metaphysical1-, mind/intellect/concepts
2} macro-infinite space --only one of these exist---,
3} finite, occupied space --only one of these exist---.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
0} " U "niverse/" G "od is inclusive of 1, 2 and 3 above.
Universe/God is subset of " U "niverse/" G "od as only #3 above.
Outplaz's multiple local-universe scenarios attempt to do away with a unified, sum-total Universe, by saying the local universes are moving away from each other at speeds faster-than-the speed of radiation ergo faster than speed-of-gravity if not also dark energy.
That scenario is best considered in its own thread, that Ive done with OutP, however, after a time he never responds, here at DArt and DDO.
If you agree, that, we live a finite, occupied space Universe, then there can only be one rational, logical conclusion and that is what is outside, is macro-infinite non-occupied space.
There exist, no other rational, logical common sense to this conclusion, and the best I recall, you conceded that conclusion with me at DDO a year or so ago.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finite = wholistic integrity ergo systemic and structural integrity
Infinite = lack of wholistic integrity ergo lack of systemic and structural integrity
1} metaphysical-1 mind/intellect/concepts i.e. concepts of space, dogs, Toyotas, God/Universe and are;
......1a} absolute truths,
.......1b} neutral or relative truth i.e. true and not true at same time,
........1c} non-truths.
There is at least two or three cosmic subsets to the 0} primary cosmic trinity set.
....1} The above metaphysical-1 set of three,
....2} fermions, bosons and newly discovered 3rd catagory of physical/energy ergo Observed Time,
....3} Oh gee, it escapes now :--(
The problem with atheists and non-atheist is the same. Ego.
Ego is the biggest problem and danger facing humanity.
Loving a rock with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength will solve all your personal problems, the problems in your family, community, country, and even.... THE WORLD.
The Truth is just another rock in truthless arbitrary atheist land I guess. Nothing good comes from loving truth right? Yet here we are, reaping the benefits of science and technology. Talking to eachother from maybe thousands of miles away from eachother.
Well fellahs, if you think rubbing a stone over your body will better align your energies to the cosmic waves and help you find your navel, GO AHEAD.
But you'd be better off loving THE TRUTH over vanities and worthless things, putting your faith in a rock.
-->
@Mopac
But you'd be better off loving THE TRUTH over vanities and worthless things, putting your faith in a rock.
Sure, when you say stuff generally about "THE TRUTH" nobody is going to disagree with you (at least in the abstract).
The problem for me at least, is that many verifiably insane people thought they knew "THE TRUTH" and were like super confident and everything and they convinced a lot of people and it didn't really turn out so well.
So you're going to have to be a little more specific.
-->
@3RU7AL
Exactly what those words mean, and if I am wrong, me being wrong had no bearing on THE TRUTH. Throw me away before you throw away THE TRUTH.
The Truth is not what can be said of it. It is not what can be understood of it. It simply is what it is, and that is not the same as saying "a rock is a rock", because there is a spirit of truth, and a spirit of rock, and to recognize the difference is to see why drinking lava is not the same as drinking water.
So what do I mean by loving The Truth? I mean be sincere, be honest, embrace reality, and pay attention to the things going on in yourself that keep you from doing these things. There is inner motion in loving The Truth.
What is there in loving a rock? It's a fetish, a sick preoccupation. There is nothing good that can come from loving a rock more than The Truth.
Even geologists must love The Truth in order to be effective geologists.
-->
@Mopac
Yes it's what I see in godists continually.
-->
@Mopac
Rocks are real. Dispute that.
-->
@Mopac
Loving a god with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength ...
And then using what you have left to love everybody can't possibly happen. If you use every thing that you are to love a god, what do you have left to love anyone else? Thinking is a capacity beyond you.
-->
@mustardness
You can't have two infinite things.Macro-infinite non-occupied space is one infinite thing --or one non-thing-- depending on how we choose to define 'thing'.\
Macro-infinite-non-occupied-space would axiomatically and tautologically obliterate finite-occupied-space.
It is impossible for an infinite thing to co-exist with any other identifiable thing.
-->
@Mopac
You've convinced me.
I now love "THE TRUTH".
Now what?
-->
@Mopac
Loving a rock with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength will solve all your personal problems, the problems in your family, community, country, and even.... THE WORLD.
Nope, sure doesn't but loving the truth is unnecessary to accepting what appears to be true which is what garners all the benefits you included in your last post. Acceptance of the scientific method and practical application of the knowledge that we gain from science.
Unless I have misunderstood you when you say The Truth you do not necessarily mean what appears to be true so what you are reffering to is divorced from the practical benefits of accepting what is verifiable true.
-->
@3RU7AL
We really need to find out where i am not getting this bc i am all willing to concede if i am wrong, and being wrong in this would be the first time in a long time i have to re-think my beliefs... which to a surprise to some, i love being challenged. But again, i don't get it. lol.Let's try this. Instead of a canvas, let's imagine a gigantic piece of paper. This piece of paper stretches in every direction further than we could ever travel in a trillion lifetimes. This is similar to what you seem to be describing. Now my point on this is that if the paper only stretches out in two dimensions, then it is not truly unlimited or unbounded. So to explain what I'm trying to illustrate here, imagine millions of trillions of these gigantic pieces of paper stacked on top of each other. This would be the largest possible ream of paper. The observable cosmos is now paperverse.There is no room in paperverse for anything other than paper. There can be no paint. There can be no painter. If the canvas is truly unbounded, it would expand, not only in two dimensions, but in three dimensions, and then four dimensions, and then five dimensions, and so on.Here's another example. Imagine an empty box. What is in the box? Well, there's probably air in the box and maybe some dust. Ok, so let's remove the air and the dust, now is it empty? No, not really, there is still space-time in the box. In order to be truly empty, it would have to be so small as to not take up any space-time. How small would this empty box need to be? Smaller than the Planck length. Would it be fair to say that something smaller than the Planck length "exists"? Probably not. It also probably couldn't properly be described as a box."Nothing" literally doesn't exist.
I think i might be getting it a little though. So, you are saying bc these stacks of paper go in every direction, and also every height and width... that all you will have is stacking paper and no time for anything else... in that sense i am sorta getting it, but with something not physical like space-time it doesn't work. You have space-time stacked in every direction already, however this doesn't mean it's infinitely stacking... it just is. It has always existed therefore, not stacking. It's sorta finite in that it is done moving any direction. It's not expanding in any direction.. it already exists in any direction you can go. In which case, it is set for a person to write on it, or paint on it, bc it is the platform.
Now... saying it like this made me think of something... maybe saying infinite is a bad way to describe this. "Infinitely finite maybe?" See i don't think it is moving or growing... i think it just is the platform. It is everywhere already. Now, if i add my belief to this it makes it sorta different but makes sense of it a little more. If there is an "undying" consciousness. I won't say infinite, i'll just say immortal. If this source is everything... then space is as big as its mind. Technically not infinite, but the boundaries would be its imagination's end. And since it can continue to imagine, it's an endless space. But just like without a mind being added to this, the mind/platform is already set. It isn't moving in any direction, it's just conscious... so the platform is already there, all it needs to do is imagine finite events now.
I think that is where are disagreement might be... i don't think it is infinitely expanding. I think it is a set platform. That is why the only thing that can be infinite/endless would be this platform. If anything physical became infinite we would run into the problem you are mentioning.
-->
@Outplayz
Yes, here it is. Space-time is not properly and technically infinite because it is bounded/defined/limited to "non-physical". If space-time was truly unlimited and infinite, it would include all possible forms of existence, including physical/material existence.If anything physical became infinite we would run into the problem you are mentioning.
We live in an indefinite cosmos and there may (or may not be) be some sort of indefinite mind.
I would be somewhat interested in hearing your preferred definitions of "intelligence" and "mind".
What you are describing sounds a lot like Brahma. The Hindu's believe what we call "reality" is Brahma's dream.
I appreciate your civility.
-->
@3RU7AL
Don't stop.
Give up everything for it.
Stick with it. Be transformed.
It's a very personal thing, ones relationship with The Truth.
-->
@3RU7AL
I would be somewhat interested in hearing your preferred definitions of "intelligence" and "mind".
Well the best i can do is to anthropomorphize the definitions from what we see in humans and presuppose a higher intelligence has it in some form or another. I tend to think it's a different intelligence than that of humans however. Human intelligence is the ability to think, to imagine, to solve problems, to define reality and things around you, to create, to be conscious, sentience, etc. In humans it is different than in computers. A computer can solve problems too... so it is intelligent at doing that. It's a different form of intelligence. Humans seem to be able to learn it on their own, so it's a different intelligence in that way as well where a computer needs to be programmed.
A computer can be programmed to play chess. If it is programmed to also think for itself for solutions, like a recent study i saw taught a computer a Chinese game and it beat the top player. So a computer is more intelligent, or has the capability to be more intelligent than a human in certain things. It can access any information it seeks. Humans tend to forget and can't always access information on command. So they are different in these ways. I imagine the source of intelligence would be infinitely more intelligent than an A.I. Therefore, i imagine it would be different in that way. One attribute a higher intelligence would have i believe is that it would be simultaneously omniscient. It would know everything at once. Our entire history and future would be known to it. So, in that sense it would be different than a human and A.I.
A mind i define as the platform to give rise to intelligence. You need a brain to be intelligent. A computer needs hardware to solve problems. A higher intelligence likely just needs space and time to be realized... or some arrangement of space, time and energy to manifest. (I tend to favor a higher intelligence that has always been or one that evolved - can't be sure which is the right answer but they both lead to the same implications anyways). So i would say it is the platform that gives rise to intelligence.
The Hindu's believe what we call "reality" is Brahma's dream
Oh almost forgot to address this. That's interesting and i'll have to look it up. What i believe is happening is similar but not exactly a dream. Our higher selves or becoming one with the source would be more so the dream and living would be reality. Bc in the higher state or upon death, you also become omniscient. Bc of that you really aren't living since you will know everything. Every stories you have lived from beginning to end. I believe that state isn't sustainable or quite frankly boring. That is why creating mortality to live experiences seems like a genius creation a higher intelligence would manifest to actually live rather than stay all knowing.