View Full Version : Can any container hold an Omnipotent Being?
Lazarus
11-23-2002, 12:22 AM
Well?
If not, then what words can bind Him?
If so, then how large is the box?
;D
Ed Edwards
11-23-2002, 04:58 AM
Let us not make the box excessively big.
It is PC=politically correct to "think outside
the box". So if we make the box to big,
we can't think outside the box
and hense won't be able to be PC :)
Lazarus
11-23-2002, 11:09 AM
Could Jesus contain Him all?
???
tileman
11-23-2002, 12:09 PM
How'd I know I'd find you here?.. ;D
Everybodies being nice to you cuz they think you're a chick. (Hope I didn't blow anything you had going on with Ed there bud) ;D
What's up with the pic?
Ed Edwards
11-23-2002, 12:55 PM
;DEverybodies being nice to you cuz they think you're a chick. ;DHis profile says he is a guy.
His early picture was a stock pix of a guy from the front page.
Ed Edwards
11-23-2002, 12:55 PM
Could Jesus contain Him all?
???
Sure Jesus could.
JohnS
11-23-2002, 02:56 PM
Hi Laz! So, you're enjoying being a virgin again? What does it take to loose your virginity on NoPC?
No container could hold an omnipotent God becaues he would then have limits and would not be omnipotent.
Hey Ed, I liked ykou page. I noticed that you are Southern Baptist. The church I attend is located a block away from where the Sothern Baptists were founded.
JS
Lazarus
11-23-2002, 11:31 PM
Could Jesus contain Him all?
???
Sure Jesus could.
All of God (i.e., an Omnipotent Being) could be crammed into a space no larger than a human being (i.e., Jesus)?
Interesting.
If so, then was that, in fact, the case? (It would seem logical that if ALL of God died on a cross, then there would remain no part of God left alive to resurrect the dead--or Jesus). :-\
Lazarus
11-24-2002, 12:02 AM
Hi Laz! So, you're enjoying being a virgin again? What does it take to loose your virginity on NoPC?
No container could hold an omnipotent God becaues he would then have limits and would not be omnipotent.
Hey Ed, I liked ykou page. I noticed that you are Southern Baptist. The church I attend is located a block away from where the Sothern Baptists were founded.
JS
First question: frequently. 8)
Second question: I imagine that it takes the ability to post messages in a sufficient quantity that it triggers anpther phrase to appear. ;)
"No container could hold an omnipotent God becaues he would then have limits and would not be omnipotent."
Can an Omnipotent Being do an impossible thing? Or, is the thing impossible becuase an Omnipotent Being cannot even do it?
For two examples of potentially impossible things (ignore perceptions):
A square circle.
A round square.
* * *
Now please consider:
1. Is everything literally possible?
2. Or, are there some things such that it would be impossible even for an Omnipotent Being to create or do?
If the #1 is answered affirmatively and #2 negatively, then it must also be possible for some container to hold an Omnipotent Being (all things being literally possible). But, as you have pointed out, that would mean that the Omnipotent Being would be limited and unable to breach the container (unable to do all things).
* * *
On the other hand, if the answer to #1 is "no" and #2, is "yes," then it may NOT be possible for a container to hold an Omnipotent Being. In such a case, some things are not possible even for an Omnipotent Being (creating such a container).
* * *
So, it appears that there must be SOME things that are impossible--even for an Omnipotent Being! ;D
Lazarus
11-24-2002, 12:34 AM
How'd I know I'd find you here?.. ;D
Everybodies being nice to you cuz they think you're a chick. (Hope I didn't blow anything you had going on with Ed there bud) ;D
What's up with the pic?
Ain't I a looker? ::)
Ed Edwards
11-24-2002, 06:19 AM
LAZARUS lives!!!: "3 sorts of lies: Lies, Damned Lies & Statistics"
LAZARUS lives!!!: "Ain't I a looker?"
Yes, within one sigma :)
LAZARUS lives!!!: "All of God (i.e., an Omnipotent Being)
could be crammed into a space no larger than
a human being (i.e., Jesus)?"
I'm scratching my head on this.
All i've come up with so far is dandruff :)
I'm scratching my head on this.
All i've come up with so far is dandruff :)
Me too. ???
I'm scratching my head on this.
All i've come up with so far is dandruff :)
Me too. ???
Love your picture, we were all wondering about Scarlet's son and what he looked like. ;D
I think the question is misleading as God -if he is in everything - can not be limited to anything.
Everything denotes infinity. Infinity can not be limited. No begining - no end.
A box - a body - are physical (worldly) items. They are contradictory to God (even Jesus's body) as they have limits.
My 2cents.
Are we gonna make a new thread on our predestination discussion? Thanks for the email and your answer.
Lazarus
11-24-2002, 09:21 AM
I think the question is misleading as God -if he is in everything - can not be limited to anything.
Everything denotes infinity. Infinity can not be limited. No begining - no end.
A box - a body - are physical (worldly) items. They are contradictory to God (even Jesus's body) as they have limits.
My 2cents.
Are we gonna make a new thread on our predestination discussion? Thanks for the email and your answer.
Hello, Tiger.
Everything denotes infinity. Infinity can not be limited. No begining - no end.
==>I have not been to infinity or everything, so I am not sure that I can say, for sure. ;) Is a "being" a thing? Infinity is freqently defined as endlessness or limitlessness.
"A box - a body - are physical (worldly) items."
==>Granted.
"They are contradictory to God (even Jesus's body) as they have limits."
==>I think that may be an answer to the question of whether "Can ALL of God might be fit within Jesus?" I believe that it is counter to the Christian doctrine of the Trinity to believe that the corporeal Jesus was "all" of God to the exclusion of the Father and the Holy Spirit.
"Are we gonna make a new thread on our predestination discussion?"
==>Well, is there a point to it? See, if God knows everything, then everything is predestined to happen. But if God does not know everything (by His Omnipotent choice), then we are free and there is no predestination. So either we have free will, or it is an irrelevant discussion. ;D
"Thanks for the email and your answer. "
==>You are welcome. :)
The problem as I see it is your theory that God 'chooses' not to know certain things.
Sure he could do that - being Omnipotent and all - he can do anything - that is not contradictory to his nature.
Which brings us to Omniscience. All-knowing.
Either He is or He isn't.
If he choosed AT ANY TIME not to know something - at that specific time - or for that specific incident He is not Omniscient.
He can not be both.
Like saying God can sin. Is He perfect or not?
If HE is - He can not sin.
You may say that if He is Omnipotent He can do whatever he pleases. Sure - but then he would not be perfect if He chose to sin.
Therefore if God IS Omniscient then He can Not choose NOt to KNOW.
Lazarus
11-24-2002, 05:57 PM
The problem as I see it is your theory that God 'chooses' not to know certain things.
Sure he could do that - being Omnipotent and all - he can do anything - that is not contradictory to his nature.
Which brings us to Omniscience. All-knowing.
Either He is or He isn't.
If he choosed AT ANY TIME not to know something - at that specific time - or for that specific incident He is not Omniscient.
He can not be both.
Like saying God can sin. Is He perfect or not?
If HE is - He can not sin.
You may say that if He is Omnipotent He can do whatever he pleases. Sure - but then he would not be perfect if He chose to sin.
Therefore if God IS Omniscient then He can Not choose NOt to KNOW.
"Either He is or He isn't. "
I look at it this way. A bunch of people made up the meanings of the words in the language, assigning definitions to those words. BUT, it is not neceesarily the case that EVERY word that is defined really defines a thing that exists in reality. For example. "unicorn." We know that it means a horse with a single horn, but so far as I know, there is no such animal.
So, when somebody defines "Omnipotence" as the ability to do ANYTHING (possible and impossible), then it defies logic. I think that I fairly well established that there are SOME things that are even impossible for an Omnipotent Being to do earlier in this thread--in response to JohnS.
So, when a person trots out "Omniscience" and defines it as "knowing all things" (even things that have not happened yet or even impossble things), then don't you suppose that if there are some things that are impossible, that there would be things that are impossible to know? For example, isn't it impossible to know whether an Omnipotent Being CAN create a container that can completely hold an Omnipotent Being? If Omnipotence means the ability to create such a container, then Omnipotence must mean the inability to break free of such a container. On the other hand, if Omnipotence implies the power to break free of any container, then it must also mean the inability of the Omnipotent to create a container that could contain the Omnipotent..
It is paradoxical, and impossible for us to know, but my larger point is that just becuase a person defines "Omniscience" in a certain way, or "Omnipotence" in another way, it does not necessarily make it so, The reality may not meet the definition that the person makes. It is an error of reasoning to assume that even an Omnipotent God can resolve an impossible-to-resolve paradox.
So, to me, being Omnipotent would mean being able to do anything that was possible to do, but not impossible things.
Likewise, being Omnscient would mean knowing all things that were possible to know--and that "possibility" of knowing is subject to the imposition of self-imposed LIMITS by an Omnipotent Being.
"Therefore if God IS Omniscient then He can Not choose NOt to KNOW."
If God is Omnipotent, then God can impose limitations upon His own Omniscience. If not, then God is not Omnipotent.
An Omnipotent Being can choose not to know all things. Of course, at any time, an Omnipotent Being can choose to know anything. Omniscience is thus dependendent upon Omnipotence, and vice versa.
The real problem is that the definitions of these words spring from the imaginings of people and may have no basis in fact.
A definition of words, maybe, but those words carry certain concepts in the 'here and now'.
When I use the word 'Omniscience' - I mean - all knowing.
When you use the word 'Omnipotent" I assume you mean "all-powerful".
Fine. They can both be true. But if they are - free will is a fantasy.
To interject that God 'chooses' not to be a facet of himself is stretching. I think it is apoligizing for what is not understood. I have thought about this a very long time - thanks to YOU!
If God exhibits any trait showing he is not Omnipotent (all - powerful) then He no longer is.
The same with Omniscience. If He exhibits ANY trait that shows he does not AT ALL TIMES know ALL = then he is no longer Omnipotent.
I really do not think it can be any other way.
Lazarus
11-24-2002, 08:42 PM
A definition of words, maybe, but those words carry certain concepts in the 'here and now'.
When I use the word 'Omniscience' - I mean - all knowing.
When you use the word 'Omnipotent" I assume you mean "all-powerful".
Fine. They can both be true. But if they are - free will is a fantasy.
To interject that God 'chooses' not to be a facet of himself is stretching. I think it is apoligizing for what is not understood. I have thought about this a very long time - thanks to YOU!
If God exhibits any trait showing he is not Omnipotent (all - powerful) then He no longer is.
The same with Omniscience. If He exhibits ANY trait that shows he does not AT ALL TIMES know ALL = then he is no longer Omnipotent.
I really do not think it can be any other way.
"A definition of words, maybe, but those words carry certain concepts in the 'here and now'. "
==>Am Omnipotent Being is not confined to time, the here and now. It would be a container or a "box".
"When I use the word 'Omniscience' - I mean - all knowing."
==>Another attempt to place an Omnipotent Being within a box. Would not an Omnipotent Being get to say just what "Omniscience" really means? You have your "understanding of it" BUT IF your understanding of it contains even a smidge of something that is KNOWN to be "false" then whatever follows from your assumption is invalidaed--becuase anything can follow from it. Perhaps "Omniscience" merely means the ability to know anything and not necessarily having all facts simultaneously in consciousness.
==>The crux of the problem is that there may not really exist any being that meets the requirements of YOUR definition. However, that does not mean that there is no Supreme Being CAPABLE of Omniscience. I know what a horse is, and I know what a horn is, but knowing these two things does not mean that there must be a horse with a single horn called a "Unicorn." It is merely somebody's imaginatiion that put the two ideas together in a creative way. Similarly, I know what it is to be aware of a fact, and I understand the idea of a Supreme Being. But, armed with these two ideas, it does not necessarily follow that the Supreme Being is aware of all facts at all times. Indeed, in order for predestination to hold, then an Omniscient Being must have held all facts in awareness ahead of those events having transpired.
==>Perhaps an Omniscient Being did do such a thing (hold all facts about the future in awareness), but what evidence exists to support such a theory? If one simply assumes that "Omnsiceince" MEANS just that, then it is tantamount to assuming one's conclusion--"by definition". Thus it begs the question. If one suggests that Omniscience means the ability to know all of the facts--but not necessarily availaing Oneself of that opportunity--then where is the logical absurdity with there being "free will"?
"When you use the word 'Omnipotent" I assume you mean "all-powerful"."
==>No. I mean the ability to do all possible things. If it also meant the power to do impossible things, then it would be logically absurd--known to be false.
"Fine. They can both be true. But if they are - free will is a fantasy. "
==>If an Omniscient Being has availed Himself of the opportunity to hold all facts beforehand in His awareness, then there is no such thing as free will. But, if an Omnipotent Being has chosen to NOT hold all facts in His awareness beforehand, then there CAN be such a thing as free will. That's the point. The argument that would need to be made is that an Omnipotent Being cannot bind Himself and permit human beings to have free will. There is absolutely no question that IF an Omniscient Being had held all facts in awareness befirehand, then there is no such thing as free will. Why MUST an Omnipotent Being do anything? ::)
"To interject that God 'chooses' not to be a facet of himself is stretching."
==>Hold on. What makes you think that you have a monopoly on what are the "facets" of God? IF you have conceded that God is an Omnipotent Being, then God gets to say what He will do--or not do (what He will call to mind or not). What is "stretching" is your demand that an Omnipotent Being be bound by YOUR 'box' if a definition.
" I think it is apoligizing for what is not understood."
==>God is not completely understood. If God were completely comprehensible, than the Being doing the comprehending would be Omniscient. ;)
"I have thought about this a very long time - thanks to YOU!"
==>Keep thinking!
"If God exhibits any trait showing he is not Omnipotent (all - powerful) then He no longer is."
==>I disagree. Being God means never having to show your muscles.
"The same with Omniscience. If He exhibits ANY trait that shows he does not AT ALL TIMES know ALL = then he is no longer Omnipotent."
==>Again, this is just you trying to superimpose what you would like God to be over what God may really be--and your desires about Him and His reality may not be one and the same thing. For example, your statement impies that God is bound by "time." What evidence exists that God is bound by "time"? You are making an assertion that states what God must be, but simply asserting something does not make it so. It is your opinion, surely, but your opinions are not necessarily the facts. You may be correct, but why should anyone just take your word for it? If an Omnipotent Being blots out your transgressions from His memory, then are you willing to stand before Him and say, "You are not God! Lo! You are no longer Omniscient for you have blotted out from your memory all recollection of my transgressions!" Somehow, I don't you see you making that argument in His presence, since he just might recall to His memory all of your transgressions--and hold you to account for them. If God cannot forget, then God help us all to be perfect at all times!
"I really do not think it can be any other way."
==>You are FREE to think what you please, if you have free will. But, if an Omniscient Being knows everything that you will do, then you are quite correct that you could not think it could be any other way. However, it has not been established, logically, or by any evidence presented that an Omniscient Being has foreknown everything that you will do. What evidence or argument do you possess that it cannot possibly be any other way?
I just thought I'd point out that illogical two-dimensional objects such as a square circle or a round square are possible in three dimensions.
Let's say you've got a cylinder that's just as wide as it is tall. Now stand it up. If you look at it from the top, it's a circle. If you look at it from the side, it's a square. Neat huh? ;D
LAZARUS,
There are a couple of things that do not make sense to me from your post.
First you suggest that my definition of the word "omniscient' is not compatable with God's intrepretation. I simply define it as the dictionary does - as 'all-knowning'.
But if it is a concept that is in question then where can we turn for a better understanding? How about the bible? I am not sure if you believe in the bible or not but as it is the basis of a large religion we could at least use it to define what 'omniscient' means within the framework of the bible. Then if you want to discard that source as invalid - fine.
If the bible has validity there are some passages that support MY definition of omniscience.
For instance:
Let’s read Psalm 139:1-6 together:
O Lord, you have searched me and you know me. You know when I sit and when I rise; you perceive my thoughts from afar. You discern my going out and my lying down; you are familiar with all my ways. Before a word is on my tongue you know it completely, O Lord. You hem me in—behind and before; you have laid your hand upon me. Such knowledge is too wonderful for me; too lofty for me to attain.
Pay special note to the fact that he said God knew EXACTLY what he would say before he even spoke it. It denotes not only, omniscience, but lack of freewill. IMO.
Then, take a look at
1 John 3:20
For if our heart condemn us *, God is greater than our heart, and knoweth all things.
All things it claims. Omniscience. But if your theory that He 'chooses' not to know all things is correct - then the bible isnt'.
And here :
Psalms, 147:5
Great is our Lord, and of great power: his understanding is infinite.
That again suggests 'no limit' For your theory to be correct - God must be limited.
So maybe you are right, and maybe God IS limited. But, if so, the bible is errant.
But, if the bible is correct than God IS omniscient - in the way both it and I defined omniscient. If that is true then predestiny is a very real possibility. For God (as David noted) would know our actions and words BEFORE we were ever created - and he created us anyway.
No freewill - at least not in any important sense.
Your only defense is based on "ifs, ands, and buts" with no evidence to support your theory. "God might......." but no evidence whatsoever that "God actually does.....".
Descartes
11-25-2002, 10:22 AM
Even assuming validity of the bible. . . the words are those of man expressing his interaction with the divine. These descriptions will always be limited by the understanding and knowledge of man. As such it takes a divine concept and puts it in human words and is therefore potentially lacking in Truth. Much like the the discussion of viewing 3D objects in 2D. The 2D description of the 3D object is lacking. Not entirely wrong, but lacking. As such almost any discussion of the divine or supernatural will fail logical tests or proofs, but doesn't necessarily prove them false.
nightmareonelmst.
11-25-2002, 10:43 AM
Why is the concept of Predestination such a threatening thing for some people? We all rely on people behaving in a certain way given certain stimuli. For example with some folks you can 100% assume that being cut off in traffic will result in prolonged use of the horn, taking the Lord's name in vain and an extended middle finger (two if the drop the cell phone). Does the utter predictability of their behavior negate their personal responsibility????
Or for those who are parents- Have you ever ordered one of your kids to do something when you absolutely knew in advance that they would refuse to obey and that chastisement would be the end result? If so were you somehow being unfair/unjust? Or where you perhaps doing what needed to be done at that point in time for the child's ultimate Good?
IMHO we often for a time mistake God's arrangements for our Good just as we were unable to understand as kids why a spanking REALLY was for our ultimate good if not immediate pleasure.
Slipped Mickey
11-25-2002, 11:14 AM
God is the box, all inside and all outside and the comparison between the two, more than the concept of your posing the question.
Lazarus
11-25-2002, 06:08 PM
I just thought I'd point out that illogical two-dimensional objects such as a square circle or a round square are possible in three dimensions.
Let's say you've got a cylinder that's just as wide as it is tall. Now stand it up. If you look at it from the top, it's a circle. If you look at it from the side, it's a square. Neat huh? ;D
==>Perception is NOT reality.
==>Perception is NOT reality.
Could you explain that? I would say that reality is ONLY perception.
Per*cep"tion\, n. [L. perceptio: cf. F. perception. See Perceive.] 1. The act of perceiving; cognizance by the senses or intellect; apperhension by the bodily organs, or by the mind, of what is presented to them; discernment; apperhension; cognition.
Lazarus
11-25-2002, 07:33 PM
LAZARUS,
There are a couple of things that do not make sense to me from your post.
First you suggest that my definition of the word "omniscient' is not compatable with God's intrepretation. I simply define it as the dictionary does - as 'all-knowning'.
But if it is a concept that is in question then where can we turn for a better understanding? How about the bible? I am not sure if you believe in the bible or not but as it is the basis of a large religion we could at least use it to define what 'omniscient' means within the framework of the bible. Then if you want to discard that source as invalid - fine.
If the bible has validity there are some passages that support MY definition of omniscience.
For instance:
Let’s read Psalm 139:1-6 together:
O Lord, you have searched me and you know me. You know when I sit and when I rise; you perceive my thoughts from afar. You discern my going out and my lying down; you are familiar with all my ways. Before a word is on my tongue you know it completely, O Lord. You hem me in—behind and before; you have laid your hand upon me. Such knowledge is too wonderful for me; too lofty for me to attain.
Pay special note to the fact that he said God knew EXACTLY what he would say before he even spoke it. It denotes not only, omniscience, but lack of freewill. IMO.
Then, take a look at
1 John 3:20
For if our heart condemn us *, God is greater than our heart, and knoweth all things.
All things it claims. Omniscience. But if your theory that He 'chooses' not to know all things is correct - then the bible isnt'.
And here :
Psalms, 147:5
Great is our Lord, and of great power: his understanding is infinite.
That again suggests 'no limit' For your theory to be correct - God must be limited.
So maybe you are right, and maybe God IS limited. But, if so, the bible is errant.
But, if the bible is correct than God IS omniscient - in the way both it and I defined omniscient. If that is true then predestiny is a very real possibility. For God (as David noted) would know our actions and words BEFORE we were ever created - and he created us anyway.
No freewill - at least not in any important sense.
Your only defense is based on "ifs, ands, and buts" with no evidence to support your theory. "God might......." but no evidence whatsoever that "God actually does.....".
"There are a couple of things that do not make sense to me from your post."
==>Excellent.
"First you suggest that my definition of the word "omniscient' is not compatable with God's intrepretation."
==>it MAY be. Why MUST it be?
" I simply define it as the dictionary does - as 'all-knowning'. "
==>And God is all-knowing in that He may know how to find out anything He wants--without having to keep track of every last particle, photon and quark. Which of course raises the issue of quantum mechanics--and the basic randomness of things at that level of understanding. But that's another discussion (sort of) except that the physical evidence in the universe at the quantum level tends to support the idea that there is a randomness inherent within the universe that defies "pre-planning" all things out to the nth degree. As for dictionaries, they are written by people who have their prejudices. Clearly, if there is an Omnipotent Being, then only His definition--whatever it may be--counts.
==>The problem of LOGIC that you are experiencing arises because your definition assumes the conclusion that you seek to reach--begging the question. Dictionary or no dictionary, assuming your conclusion as a premiss is forbidden by the rules of logic.
"But if it is a concept that is in question then where can we turn for a better understanding? How about the bible?"
==>The bible has its limitations, being a book.
"I am not sure if you believe in the bible or not but as it is the basis of a large religion we could at least use it to define what 'omniscient' means within the framework of the bible."
==>Why not find the truth, first, then determine if the bible confirms it or if it denies the truth?
" Then if you want to discard that source as invalid - fine."
==>Actually, I am prepared to accept ANY definition you wish just so long as it does not ASSUME the very thing that you are seeking to establish. For example, suppose I was seeking to establish the existence of God and I defined "God" as the Supreme Being, then asserted that because God was a "Being," then God must exist? Can you see the problem with THAT argument? The definition ASSUMES the conclusion. It is the same criticism when you seek to establish that "God knows all things" by claiming that "God is Omniscient." The problem is that it begs the question. I really don't know how I might make it any plainer. You are using circular logic. Because God knows all things (you say), God is Omniscient, therefore God knows everything in advance, and there is no free will. While I may grant that an Omnipotent God is ABLE to know all things, if He desres NOT to know all things in advance, then He is ABLE to have arranged that situation. If not, the an Omnipotent being is not Omnipotent even over Himself--a contradiction and an absurdity.
"If the bible has validity there are some passages that support MY definition of omniscience."
==>The bible and your interpretation and translations of it are not relevant to the errors in your reasoning.
"For instance:
Let’s read Psalm 139:1-6 together:
==>Wonderful how God has the power to know just whatever He wants to know, right?
"Pay special note to the fact that he said God knew EXACTLY what he would say before he even spoke it. It denotes not only, omniscience, but lack of freewill. IMO."
==>Again, wonderful how God has the power to know just whatever He wants to know, right?
"Then, take a look at 1 John 3:20"
==>The context may allow for a multiplicity of interpretations. It is not entirely clear at what point in time it is being asserted that God knows all things, for example. Surely there will be a point when God knows all things about a person, but to suggest that God tracks every electron, photon and nuetron throughout the universe seems to be the burden that you must carry in order to make your case. For if there is anything anywhere that escapes His prior notice, then there is freedom. After the fact, God knows all things. But before the fact? Make your best argument.
"All things it claims. Omniscience. But if your theory that He 'chooses' not to know all things is correct - then the bible isnt'."
==>Again, context is key. The bible states, in the present tense, in that verse, that God knows all things. It makes no claim (at that point) to fore-knowledge. It may be your interpretation of the passage, but the claim (such as yours) simply is not made there.
"And here :
Psalms, 147:5"
==>It is good that God has infinite understanding, for I like all sinners are in need of that understanding and His mercy. It does not necessarily apply to this discussion, however.
"That again suggests 'no limit' For your theory to be correct - God must be limited."
==>God is Omnipotent--therefore unlimited except by what is possible for an Omnipotent Being. And, so long as it is possible for an Omnipotent Being to decide to not know what choices a human being will make in advance, then that human being is free to choose.
"So maybe you are right, and maybe God IS limited. But, if so, the bible is errant. "
==>I have never stated that the Bible was inerrant. It is filled with errors by devils and evil human beings. Do you suppose that trashing the Bible helps your argument? If you believe that it is in error, then why quote it?
"But, if the bible is correct than God IS omniscient - in the way both it and I defined omniscient."
==>The Bible does not use the word "Omniscient" (Certainly not in the King James Version. If you want you can run a search for the word at this site:
"No dictionary results available for Omniscient "
http://www.blueletterbible.org/
==>It is therefore an open question whether the way YOU choose to use the term even approaches the way in which the Bible means that "God knows all things." I don't believe that you will find the answer to this issue in the Bible, becuase the issue is really about the way you are trying to use circular logic and assume the very thing that you are trying to conclude.
1. If God knows all things in advance, then humans have no free will.
2. God knows all things in advance.
Therefore, humans have no free will.
If the premisses are true, then the conclusion cannot help but follow, so it is a VALID argument. However, it cannot be considered a SOUND argument UNLESS the premisses ARE IN FACT TRUE. That is where you are having your difficulty, because, so far, all I have heard from you is that it is true because "I say so" or it is true because "The Bible says so." Establish that it is a FACT that "God knows all things in advance" and you have hit a home run, but recall that you are trying to establish "predestination" or "that God knows all things in advance." Consequently, if you assume it, then you fail to make your case.
Again, for the umpteenth time: I am requestions that you show the absurdity of the negation of premiss 2:
"It is NOT the case that 'God knows all things in advance.'"
==>You may take it from there. Keep in mind that you have already conceded that it is within the power of an Omnipotent Being to decide not to know all things in advance. Just to remind you, you conceded that here:
"Sure he could do that - being Omnipotent and all - he can do anything - that is not contradictory to his nature."
So now you have two premisses:
1. "It is NOT the case that 'God knows all things in advance.'"
2. "Sure he could do that - being Omnipotent and all - he can do anything - that is not contradictory to his nature."
3. ....
4. ....
(etc.)....
Conclusion: Therefore it is impossible for God NOT to know everything in advance (Premiss 1 is absurd).
(FIll in the missing premisses that will take us all (validly and soundly) to the conclusion that you seek to establish provided above). My skepticism is that it cannot be done. That has been and remains my challange to you--since YOU claim that it is the case that human beings have no free will. If you are not happy with those premisses, that I spotted you, then you may replace them with those of your own choosing.
==>BUT, IF YOU CONTINUE TO ASSUME THE VERY THING THAT YOU ARE TRYING TO PROVE, THEN I WILL POINT OUT THAT YOUR ARGUMENT IS INVALID. And that is all that I have done.
"If that is true then predestiny is a very real possibility."
==>Who said that it was not POSSIBLE, or even THAT IT HAS NOT HAPPENED in some cases. The burden you carry is to establish that it is the case in ALL cases since you claim that there is "no free will" (not even that of or by an Omnipotent God?)
"For God (as David noted) would know our actions and words BEFORE we were ever created - and he created us anyway."
==>It is not beyond the power of Omnipotent God to know anything He desires to know, but it seems beyond your power of persuasion to put forward an argument that does not assume that which it seeks to establish as its conclusion.
"No freewill - at least not in any important sense. "
==>For some, perhaps, but you have stated "No freewill." It is a claim that does not stand by your arguments.
"Your only defense is based on "ifs, ands, and buts" with no evidence to support your theory."
==>I don't have to support my theory since it is you who has made the claim that there is no free will. The person who makes the claim gets to support it with evidence, or watch it fall to pieces for lack of support. My counter argument is this: if we don't have free will, then discussing it is futile. Nothing matters if we are not free.
If we aren't free, then nothing matters. Therefore, because you continue to argue the matter, it indicates that you are not even convinced of the merits of the position that you have espoused. If it did not matter to you, then you would not argue it. Therefore, your actions belie your words.
" "God might......." but no evidence whatsoever that "God actually does.....".
==>You are the one who is stating that God MUST know everything in advance. Since you make the claim, you carry the burden of proof. I am simply pointing out that there are OTHER possibilities--and you have not answered them adequately.
Lazarus
11-25-2002, 07:47 PM
Even assuming validity of the bible. . . the words are those of man expressing his interaction with the divine. These descriptions will always be limited by the understanding and knowledge of man. As such it takes a divine concept and puts it in human words and is therefore potentially lacking in Truth. Much like the the discussion of viewing 3D objects in 2D. The 2D description of the 3D object is lacking. Not entirely wrong, but lacking. As such almost any discussion of the divine or supernatural will fail logical tests or proofs, but doesn't necessarily prove them false.
You have made a number of valid observations. Your last sentence seems a bit unsupported however. I will say that I can agree that it is difficult to apply logic to abstract ideas like "God" or Omnipotence or Omniscience because these are too often "loaded" terms that must be clearly defined in terms of the discussion in order for the discussion to maintain validity.
Appeals to authority may be warranted at times, but if "Omnipotence" also means the ability to do "impossible things," then it is a tem that it "loaded" with absurdity. I am under NO obligation to accept a definition that is "loaded" with something that is absurd or otherwise known to be false, nor a definition that "assumes" the very thing that is trying to be established. Them dogs won't hunt.
Even assuming validity of the bible. . . the words are those of man expressing his interaction with the divine. These descriptions will always be limited by the understanding and knowledge of man. As such it takes a divine concept and puts it in human words and is therefore potentially lacking in Truth. Much like the the discussion of viewing 3D objects in 2D. The 2D description of the 3D object is lacking. Not entirely wrong, but lacking. As such almost any discussion of the divine or supernatural will fail logical tests or proofs, but doesn't necessarily prove them false.
You have made a number of valid observations. Your last sentence seems a bit unsupported however. I will say that I can agree that it is difficult to apply logic to abstract ideas like "God" or Omnipotence or Omniscience because these are too often "loaded" terms that must be clearly defined in terms of the discussion in order for the discussion to maintain validity.
Appeals to authority may be warranted at times, but if "Omnipotence" also means the ability to do "impossible things," then it is a tem that it "loaded" with absurdity. I am under NO obligation to accept a definition that is "loaded" with something that is absurd or otherwise known to be false, nor a definition that "assumes" the very thing that is trying to be established. Them dogs won't hunt.
Perhaps we should ask the Guardian to add a philosophy thread since most of what you post borders between theology and philosophy and has little to do with faith.
Not that I don't find your stuff interesting, I do, but sometimes you get too deep for simple little faith hungry minds like mine. :)
Lazarus
11-25-2002, 08:03 PM
Why is the concept of Predestination such a threatening thing for some people? We all rely on people behaving in a certain way given certain stimuli. For example with some folks you can 100% assume that being cut off in traffic will result in prolonged use of the horn, taking the Lord's name in vain and an extended middle finger (two if the drop the cell phone). Does the utter predictability of their behavior negate their personal responsibility????
Or for those who are parents- Have you ever ordered one of your kids to do something when you absolutely knew in advance that they would refuse to obey and that chastisement would be the end result? If so were you somehow being unfair/unjust? Or where you perhaps doing what needed to be done at that point in time for the child's ultimate Good?
IMHO we often for a time mistake God's arrangements for our Good just as we were unable to understand as kids why a spanking REALLY was for our ultimate good if not immediate pleasure.
"Why is the concept of Predestination such a threatening thing for some people?"
==>I am not threatened by it at all if it is in fact the case becuase if it is in fact the case, then I am personally absolved of all responsibility for my actions--having been directed inexorably to do the things that I have done that may have been harmful to others. It is a tremendous cop-out and is desireable for those who do not wish to take responsibility for their own lives. Mass murderers? No problemo, it was "God's will."
::)
==>Those of us who would like to avoid becoming victims of those who are on a mission from God, however, might desire that some light go on that God will hold people to account for the actions of their free will rather than absolve all evil because it was all just "an illusion" perpetrated upon us by a "mocking creator."
"We all rely on people behaving in a certain way given certain stimuli. For example with some folks you can 100% assume that being cut off in traffic will result in prolonged use of the horn, taking the Lord's name in vain and an extended middle finger (two if the drop the cell phone). Does the utter predictability of their behavior negate their personal responsibility????"
==>If God predestined the actions, then the people could not possibly do anything else, right? Just because behavior is sometimes predictable does not mean that it is lacking in freedom of choice.
"Or for those who are parents- Have you ever ordered one of your kids to do something when you absolutely knew in advance that they would refuse to obey and that chastisement would be the end result? If so were you somehow being unfair/unjust? Or where you perhaps doing what needed to be done at that point in time for the child's ultimate Good?"
==>Two wrong's never make a right.
"IMHO we often for a time mistake God's arrangements for our Good just as we were unable to understand as kids why a spanking REALLY was for our ultimate good if not immediate pleasure."
==>Be that as it may, why would say, God, direct the Israelites to do one thing or another only to have them willfully disobey Him? It would seem that if God had predestined everything, then disobedience would not be an option--unless God is directing evil--but that would tend to contradict the idea that God was completely good, would it not? So, what remains is that people are free to disobey God--at their own peril and risk.
Lazarus
11-25-2002, 08:11 PM
God is the box, all inside and all outside and the comparison between the two, more than the concept of your posing the question.
"God is the box,..."
==>Does God contain "evil" when God is considered to be "the box"?
"...all inside and all outside and the comparison between the two, more than the concept of your posing the question."
==>Cute. Quite clever, really. Just one theing though, WTF does it mean? :o
Lazarus
11-25-2002, 08:17 PM
==>Perception is NOT reality.
Could you explain that? I would say that reality is ONLY perception.
Per*cep"tion\, n. [L. perceptio: cf. F. perception. See Perceive.] 1. The act of perceiving; cognizance by the senses or intellect; apperhension by the bodily organs, or by the mind, of what is presented to them; discernment; apperhension; cognition.
Well, OEJ defined a "reality"--a cylinder wher the height was the same length as the diameter of the 3-D object. He then offered one perspective where a 'circle' might be perceived, and another perspective where a "square" might be perceieved. Consequently, the reality was that the object was a cylinder. The perceptions of the square and the circle were not the reality. Therefore, "Perception is NOT reality." It was an illusion.
Lazarus
11-25-2002, 08:30 PM
Even assuming validity of the bible. . . the words are those of man expressing his interaction with the divine. These descriptions will always be limited by the understanding and knowledge of man. As such it takes a divine concept and puts it in human words and is therefore potentially lacking in Truth. Much like the the discussion of viewing 3D objects in 2D. The 2D description of the 3D object is lacking. Not entirely wrong, but lacking. As such almost any discussion of the divine or supernatural will fail logical tests or proofs, but doesn't necessarily prove them false.
You have made a number of valid observations. Your last sentence seems a bit unsupported however. I will say that I can agree that it is difficult to apply logic to abstract ideas like "God" or Omnipotence or Omniscience because these are too often "loaded" terms that must be clearly defined in terms of the discussion in order for the discussion to maintain validity.
Appeals to authority may be warranted at times, but if "Omnipotence" also means the ability to do "impossible things," then it is a tem that it "loaded" with absurdity. I am under NO obligation to accept a definition that is "loaded" with something that is absurd or otherwise known to be false, nor a definition that "assumes" the very thing that is trying to be established. Them dogs won't hunt.
Perhaps we should ask the Guardian to add a philosophy thread since most of what you post borders between theology and philosophy and has little to do with faith.
Not that I don't find your stuff interesting, I do, but sometimes you get too deep for simple little faith hungry minds like mine. :)
If God has predestined all things, then your faith or lack of it is irrelevant since you would have no choice in that matter. But, this is a side-bar discussion continued from another forum. The issue here was whether any container could hold an Omnipotent Being.
On that matter, it has been fairly well established that an Omnipotent Being could not create such a "box." This, in turn, has led to the rather startling idea that there are even some things that God cannot do. :o
==>Perception is NOT reality.
Could you explain that? I would say that reality is ONLY perception.
Per*cep"tion\, n. [L. perceptio: cf. F. perception. See Perceive.] 1. The act of perceiving; cognizance by the senses or intellect; apperhension by the bodily organs, or by the mind, of what is presented to them; discernment; apperhension; cognition.
Well, OEJ defined a "reality"--a cylinder wher the height was the same length as the diameter of the 3-D object. He then offered one perspective where a 'circle' might be perceived, and another perspective where a "square" might be perceieved. Consequently, the reality was that the object was a cylinder. The perceptions of the square and the circle were not the reality. Therefore, "Perception is NOT reality." It was an illusion.
Reality is from the perspective of the observer. An illusion does not become an illusion until you are aware of it. Both observers perceived different things yet both were correct, or both were incorrect, until they knew otherwise. Hence reality is ONLY perception.
I think it would be fair to say that our perceptions reflect reality, however imperfectly. The point I was trying to make is that if you go beyond dimensional boundaries (i.e. think outside the box), what seems impossible to us may in fact be possible for someone who isn't limited to those same boundaries.
Descartes
11-26-2002, 05:06 AM
I think it would be fair to say that our perceptions reflect reality, however imperfectly. The point I was trying to make is that if you go beyond dimensional boundaries (i.e. think outside the box), what seems impossible to us may in fact be possible for someone who isn't limited to those same boundaries.
Exactly. That pretty much sums it up. Since we are limited in or understanding of the True Nature of anything, it could be very easy for us to think something impossible or illogical that on some other level really isn't.
Now about the logical absurdity of an Omnipotent Being creating a container that could hold himself. I think that is a very good tool to use against some very powerful evil demon. If you get into a scratch with one, you argue that he couldn't possibly create a container that could hold even you. He will respond that he could create a container that could hold anything that exists. You then say, that he could not possibly create a container that could hold himself, he's not that powerful. . . He will argue that he could, then you ask him to prove it. When he does, you get to walk a way. ;D
Descartes
11-26-2002, 05:18 AM
Could an omnipoten being create an unstoppable force and an immovable object in the same reality? Similar question to the thread topic. By definition an unstoppable force and an immovable object can not exist simultaneously. Could an omnitpotent being make it so? If so, what are the consequences if the unstoppable force meets an immovable object? Does this really mean there cannot be an omnipotent being? It becomes a logical absurdity in itself. If limited in any way the omnipotent being is no longer, by definition, omnipotent. Did we just prove that if God does exist he is not omnipotent?
Slipped Mickey
11-26-2002, 06:57 AM
God is beyond our ability to conceive the concept. IF God is omnipotent God is everything and more. Merely the thought of what God might be is limiting as you must compare God to what isn't. That is limiting as it suggests that there is something God is not. How is it possible to compare to ALL?
The world IS as we perceive it. We create our own reality. How are you, you? Are you who you see or are you who I see? The perceptions are not the same. Are you the same person you were when you were born? How? What is the same about you? If you want to change your world you have the power. In fact you do change your world and thus your reality, though often times we'd prefer it to remain as we perceive it. Nothing is permanent but somethings never change.
Reality is from the perspective of the observer. An illusion does not become an illusion until you are aware of it. Both observers perceived different things, yet both were correct or both were incorrect, until they knew otherwise. Hence reality is ONLY perception.
That's really quite interesting, nomad, and it falls well within my acceptance level of "how things are," but I have a slight problem with the differences between "perception" and "illusion" and which is reality and which is not. As we all know, no two people can view the same object, concept, feeling, sensation the exact same way. The end result is that only the one is experiencing reality (within our bounds of understanding), which means the other is not, which means the other is experiencing false data, which makes them a liar...in our humble opinions, and hence we argue, debate, fight, scream, shriek...for what? To convince the other that they are wrong because they don't see things the same way as we do, which leads to anger, fear, resentment, strife, war and death.
That's my reality.
Slipped Mickey
11-26-2002, 07:31 AM
I think I agree with that. All things on earth are made of the same elements. Beyond that it is perception. No two sentient being can perceive anything the exact same way.
I think I agree with that. All things on earth are made of the same elements. Beyond that it is perception. No two sentient being can perceive anything the exact same way.
Yep, which begs the question:
Which is reality and which is illusion?
The problems begin when we realize that maybe...just maybe, just a teensy weensy bit, that perhaps maybe we, individually, are wrong.
Who's man enough to admit that to themselves?
I say very few.
Descartes
11-26-2002, 07:40 AM
I think I agree with that. All things on earth are made of the same elements. Beyond that it is perception. No two sentient being can perceive anything the exact same way.
Yep, which begs the question:
Which is reality and which is illusion?
The problems begin when we realize that maybe...just maybe, just a teensy weensy bit, that perhaps maybe we, individually, are wrong.
Who's man enough to admit that to themselves?
I say very few.
Count me one of the few. (not to brag ;)). I've followed Descartes reasoning and am left with Knowing only that I exist. Cogito Ergo Sum. That's it. All else is speculation. I still speculate and have opinions on what may or may not be true or True, but all I really Know is that in some way shape or form my existence is a certainty.
Further: No two of us an agree completely on the taste of an orange, the description of the color purple (I use these as illustrative purposes for simplicity), and we have the fucking gall to wonder if God lives in a fucking box?
I guess my self-realization of my own stupidity has set me free. <shrugs>
Carry on. Let me know when you have reached total enlightenment...with any luck, you all won't confuse it with gas.
I think it would be fair to say that our perceptions reflect reality, however imperfectly. The point I was trying to make is that if you go beyond dimensional boundaries (i.e. think outside the box), what seems impossible to us may in fact be possible for someone who isn't limited to those same boundaries.
I think this is an excellent and valid point. We currently perceive things from a limited-dimensional perception.
So they SEEM real to us. LAZ has the problem of not being able to understand anything 'outside the box' as it does not fit neatly into his perception of the rules of logic.
However, 'reality' is on a lesser plane 'what is real for us'. Your example of the circle and cylinder are very good because although the different perceptions do no channge the reality of the object - those perceptions have become real for each viewer.
I think I agree with that. All things on earth are made of the same elements. Beyond that it is perception. No two sentient being can perceive anything the exact same way.
Yep, which begs the question:
Which is reality and which is illusion?
The problems begin when we realize that maybe...just maybe, just a teensy weensy bit, that perhaps maybe we, individually, are wrong.
Who's man enough to admit that to themselves?
I say very few.
Which is what leads me to believe that ALL is illusion. ALL we see and experience physically anyway, through our bodily senses.
But there is a reality - somewhere - we know we have something about us that is real - because we function and think and perceive - but what IS that reality?
So we have determined that just because we experience something does not make it real. We seem to be experiencing this life - but it is not real.
The Great Dream, and we, the one dreamer who are experiencing the dream as many dreamers.
Descartes
11-26-2002, 09:39 AM
Further: No two of us an agree completely on the taste of an orange, the description of the color purple (I use these as illustrative purposes for simplicity), and we have the fucking gall to wonder if God lives in a fucking box?
I guess my self-realization of my own stupidity has set me free. <shrugs>
Carry on. Let me know when you have reached total enlightenment...with any luck, you all won't confuse it with gas.
I don't consider it gall. I think it is more because people have inquiring minds. My self-realization of my own stupidity hasn't led me to apathy. I find discussions like this interesting and insightful. If not on the True nature of reality at least on how different people perceive it.
I don't consider it gall. I think it is more because people have inquiring minds. My self-realization of my own stupidity hasn't led me to apathy. I find discussions like this interesting and insightful. If not on the True nature of reality at least on how different people perceive it.
Perhaps "gall" is an incorrect word. I'm thinking more appropriately it would be "arrogance" that we mortals have the balls to even begin to comprehend the origins, meanings and mysteries of time immemorial. There are some things that we simply are NOT meant to understand, and by furthering our search on THIS level, while fascinating and fixating, the answer remains within, while we look without.
And, yes, I agree with you, that my realization of my own stupidity does not lead to apathy, I have reached a personal conclusion that bantering back and forth and arguing about the meaning of God and the Universe and why we are here, in the end, won't make a bit of difference.
I do like to contemplate my navel as well as the next, but I must draw a line somewhere in the sand and say "badnews, you are ONE stupid mother fucker...who in the hell do you think you are to question why about anything?"
Well, that's it. :)
Descartes
11-26-2002, 10:04 AM
Bad,
While I will have to agree with you to a point, I guess we differ in that I truly enjoy bantering back and forth on the nature of god and the universe even though I know it really won't make a difference. (Sometimes though discussions such as this lead me to further introspection and inward searching; so maybe it really does make a difference to me.) Either way, I enjoy it. To me that's enough. It's not arrogance, that I think I'm going to discover any Truth this way. I know you can't know the unknowable, but I'm quite content to ponder the unponderable. What if dog really spelled cat? ;D
Bad,
While I will have to agree with you to a point, I guess we differ in that I truly enjoy bantering back and forth on the nature of god and the universe even though I know it really won't make a difference. (Sometimes though discussions such as this lead me to further introspection and inward searching; so maybe it really does make a difference to me.) Either way, I enjoy it. To me that's enough. It's not arrogance, that I think I'm going to discover any Truth this way. I know you can't know the unknowable, but I'm quite content to ponder the unponderable. What if dog really spelled cat? ;D
I understand. I hope you don't feel I was critiquing you for searching for answers and examining ideas. This is how some learn. I never took the course, and if I did, I failed it. Somewhere along the trail I came up with the concept that man's opinion about anything is less important than a pissant's fart. <shrugs>
Descartes
11-26-2002, 10:19 AM
Just trying to make sure I'm not painted as arrogant. I get defensive about that. Maybe a little arrogant too :)
I want you to know I think I'm as stupid as you think you are ;D
I want you to know I think I'm as stupid as you think you are ;D
That would make an excellent footer message. :D
Lazarus
11-26-2002, 06:41 PM
==>Perception is NOT reality.
Could you explain that? I would say that reality is ONLY perception.
Per*cep"tion\, n. [L. perceptio: cf. F. perception. See Perceive.] 1. The act of perceiving; cognizance by the senses or intellect; apperhension by the bodily organs, or by the mind, of what is presented to them; discernment; apperhension; cognition.
Well, OEJ defined a "reality"--a cylinder wher the height was the same length as the diameter of the 3-D object. He then offered one perspective where a 'circle' might be perceived, and another perspective where a "square" might be perceieved. Consequently, the reality was that the object was a cylinder. The perceptions of the square and the circle were not the reality. Therefore, "Perception is NOT reality." It was an illusion.
Reality is from the perspective of the observer. An illusion does not become an illusion until you are aware of it. Both observers perceived different things yet both were correct, or both were incorrect, until they knew otherwise. Hence reality is ONLY perception.
Absolutely invalid reasoning. Consider the electromagnetic spectrum. There are certain wavelengths that are beyond unassisted human perception (but not necessasrily beyond animal perception). If your assertion is correct, then there is no such thing as, say, radio waves. Perception is not necessarily reality. In the example, OEJ offered the "objevtive" perspective and stated the reality that was misperceived as a circle and a square, respectively. The reality that it was a cylinder was a given premiss of the example. Just because you do not perceive your aging from one second to the next does not mean that you are not getting older.
Lazarus
11-26-2002, 07:15 PM
God is beyond our ability to conceive the concept. IF God is omnipotent God is everything and more. Merely the thought of what God might be is limiting as you must compare God to what isn't. That is limiting as it suggests that there is something God is not. How is it possible to compare to ALL?
The world IS as we perceive it. We create our own reality. How are you, you? Are you who you see or are you who I see? The perceptions are not the same. Are you the same person you were when you were born? How? What is the same about you? If you want to change your world you have the power. In fact you do change your world and thus your reality, though often times we'd prefer it to remain as we perceive it. Nothing is permanent but somethings never change.
"God is beyond our ability to conceive the concept."
==>God cannot be entirely comprehended. However, God is not completely beyond the range of human perception and partial understanding. Why? In the first case, the complete comprehension of God in the entirety implies knowledge aproaching Omniscience. In the second case, if God were completely bewond our comprehension, then statements like "God cannot be entirely comprehended" would be false--meaning that our knowledge would approach Omnisicence.
"IF God is omnipotent God is everything and more."
==>NOT necessarily. IF God is Omnipotent, then God CAN make things separate and apart from Himself. If God CAN'T, then God is NOT Omnipotent, is He?
"Merely the thought of what God might be is limiting as you must compare God to what isn't."
==>I am afraid that thought is too sublime. ;)
"That is limiting as it suggests that there is something God is not. How is it possible to compare to ALL?"
==>Why must everyone assume that their version of God is the only correct one? ;D
"The world IS as we perceive it."
==>It is more than we can possibly perceive. I have not perceived the core of the earth, yet I understand that it is there and that it exists. I have not directly perceived radio or microwaves yet I can perceive that there are invisible forces in the universe--otherwise, why is mu cup of water heated? Why is there sound coming from my amplifier/receiver and speakers? Dogs have a more sensitive sense of hearing and smell than humans. There are countless examples where our senses, our perceptions, are demonstrated time and time again to be inadequate to describe "reality". The world is more than mere perception, since there is an objective reality that exists apart from our perceptions of it or our opinions about it. Therefore, broadcast television (and myriad other phenomena and applications or the use of things beyond human perception).
"We create our own reality."
==>We are created in this reality.
"How are you, you?"
==>Just ducky.
"Are you who you see or are you who I see?"
==>I am what I am regardless of what any may see but God.
"The perceptions are not the same."
==>So, neither perception is the objective reality. Okay.
"Are you the same person you were when you were born?"
==>I am the physical continuation of that person.
"How?"
==>There has been a continuity of physical matter in this same discrete human body, subject to growth and injury.
"What is the same about you?"
==>My identitiy.
"If you want to change your world you have the power."
==>Of course, but so what?
"In fact you do change your world and thus your reality, though often times we'd prefer it to remain as we perceive it."
==>The reality of the universe is continual change. To the extent that I intereact with the external world, I may alter the course of the future events--by exercising my free will. Even my inaction is a free will choice that has consequences. Some may die if I fail to act in their behalf.
"Nothing is permanent but somethings never change. "
==>So far as I know, the only 'thing' that does not change is God. Everything else is in continual motion and change.
Lazarus
11-26-2002, 07:18 PM
I think it would be fair to say that our perceptions reflect reality, however imperfectly. The point I was trying to make is that if you go beyond dimensional boundaries (i.e. think outside the box), what seems impossible to us may in fact be possible for someone who isn't limited to those same boundaries.
Many things that seem impossible are really just very improbable. For example, a pot of boiling water on a lit stove spontaneously freezing. VERY unlikely but NOT impossible.
Lazarus
11-26-2002, 07:22 PM
I think it would be fair to say that our perceptions reflect reality, however imperfectly. The point I was trying to make is that if you go beyond dimensional boundaries (i.e. think outside the box), what seems impossible to us may in fact be possible for someone who isn't limited to those same boundaries.
Exactly. That pretty much sums it up. Since we are limited in or understanding of the True Nature of anything, it could be very easy for us to think something impossible or illogical that on some other level really isn't.
Now about the logical absurdity of an Omnipotent Being creating a container that could hold himself. I think that is a very good tool to use against some very powerful evil demon. If you get into a scratch with one, you argue that he couldn't possibly create a container that could hold even you. He will respond that he could create a container that could hold anything that exists. You then say, that he could not possibly create a container that could hold himself, he's not that powerful. . . He will argue that he could, then you ask him to prove it. When he does, you get to walk a way. ;D
Thanks, for your further examples of things that are impossible even for an Omnipotent Being to do. ;D
Lazarus
11-26-2002, 07:28 PM
Could an omnipoten being create an unstoppable force and an immovable object in the same reality? Similar question to the thread topic. By definition an unstoppable force and an immovable object can not exist simultaneously. Could an omnitpotent being make it so? If so, what are the consequences if the unstoppable force meets an immovable object? Does this really mean there cannot be an omnipotent being? It becomes a logical absurdity in itself. If limited in any way the omnipotent being is no longer, by definition, omnipotent. Did we just prove that if God does exist he is not omnipotent?
Thanks again for the examples. ;)
Lazarus
11-26-2002, 07:35 PM
I think I agree with that. All things on earth are made of the same elements. Beyond that it is perception. No two sentient being can perceive anything the exact same way.
Yep, which begs the question:
Which is reality and which is illusion?
The problems begin when we realize that maybe...just maybe, just a teensy weensy bit, that perhaps maybe we, individually, are wrong.
Who's man enough to admit that to themselves?
I say very few.
Count me one of the few. (not to brag ;)). I've followed Descartes reasoning and am left with Knowing only that I exist. Cogito Ergo Sum. That's it. All else is speculation. I still speculate and have opinions on what may or may not be true or True, but all I really Know is that in some way shape or form my existence is a certainty.
==>I really hate to burst your bubble or Descartes, but I believe that God, had Descartes beat by a few thousand years:
Exodus 3:14, "And God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM."
==>Therefore, clearly, God is an existentialist. ;D
fine LAZ, just DONT respond to MY post then.
Humpf,,,,
<pouting>
Ed Edwards
11-26-2002, 07:46 PM
\o/ Glory to the Lord \o/
\o/ Praise be to Jesus \o/
One Eyed Jack: " ... if you go beyond
dimensional boundaries (i.e. think outside the
box), what seems impossible to us may in fact
be possible for someone who isn't limited to
those same boundaries."
Makes sense to me.
Of course, i'm the ol' geometry teacher.
If you think outside the geometry of Euclid,
there are geometries where a circle is the
same as the square.
Here circle is defined as all points equidistant
from a give point.
Here square is a four sided figure with
equal sides.
And there are geometries in which the circle
turns out to be the same as the square.
These geometries are not always as useful
for practical purposes as the the geometry
of Euclid.
Howerver, such a geometry would be useful
for something like, say a checker board.
The "squares" define as points.
The circle and square define as above.
And the circle is the same as the square,
in this limited geometry.
Anyway, I still can't answer the original question.
And i'm not even sure the answer would have
any practicle application if it were answered.
ANother thing, the Bible does suggest God is
omnipotent. But i think we hardly understand what
"omnipotent" means. It surely doesn't mean that
such an all powerful being can do that which is
against it's nature to do.
So rather thank worrying about boxing up
an omnipoetent God, i spend more of my time
thinking about why such an omnipotent God
would ever be interested in me personally.
Which is probably the subject of 12 other topics.
Ain't that a lick? A God powerful enough to
create a bounded but infinite universe
(or is it unbounded yet finite?) knows my
name and my hair count. I do note on the
hair count thing that God has to be less
and less potent earch year to keep up with
the count :)
Lazarus
11-26-2002, 07:55 PM
I think it would be fair to say that our perceptions reflect reality, however imperfectly. The point I was trying to make is that if you go beyond dimensional boundaries (i.e. think outside the box), what seems impossible to us may in fact be possible for someone who isn't limited to those same boundaries.
I think this is an excellent and valid point. We currently perceive things from a limited-dimensional perception.
So they SEEM real to us. LAZ has the problem of not being able to understand anything 'outside the box' as it does not fit neatly into his perception of the rules of logic.
However, 'reality' is on a lesser plane 'what is real for us'. Your example of the circle and cylinder are very good because although the different perceptions do no channge the reality of the object - those perceptions have become real for each viewer.
think it would be fair to say that our perceptions reflect reality, however imperfectly. The point I was trying to make is that if you go beyond dimensional boundaries (i.e. think outside the box), what seems impossible to us may in fact be possible for someone who isn't limited to those same boundaries.
"I think this is an excellent and valid point. We currently perceive things from a limited-dimensional perception."
==>Yet we have understanding that there is more than three spatial dimensions--although we do not directly perceive them--unless one counts NOT flying off at a tangent line to the orbit of the Earth around the Sun as a "perception." That would definitely be something that I would not want to perceive,
"So they SEEM real to us."
==>Perception is not necessarily reality.
"LAZ has the problem of not being able to understand anything 'outside the box' as it does not fit neatly into his perception of the rules of logic."
==>Actually, my only "problem" is with people who insist that things are they way they "perceive" them to be or "want" them to be--contrary to the evidence and contrary to reasoned logic. It is perfectly fine with me if you perceive that the moon is made of green cheese. It is not alright with me when you insist on dogmatically cramming that view down everyone else's throat simply because it is your "faith" that it is as you claim it is. You don't want there to be free will, so you insist that everyone else accept your point of view. When that point of view is challanged you offer no evidence and no logical defense of your views. Yes, It MAY be the case. It COULD be the way you say it is. But WHY must I accept YOUR OPINION as the "truth"? Now, if your argument is that I must accept your views because your views are "illogical," then I can rest my case that you have no case to offer us. Call me "orthodox" if you wish, but appeals to emotion are nothing but another invalid form of reasoning.
Tiger, you believe what you believe--and you believe it because it pleases you to believe it--but that does not give me the slightest REASON to accept what you assert as "true." Emjoy your beliefs and understand that my opinion of them is that they are not founded upon the truth, nor upon reason, but upon the comfort that they provide to you, much lie a teddy-bear provides comfort to a small child. If you believe that you are predestined and on a mission from God, then I pity the poor slob who gets in your way. :o
"However, 'reality' is on a lesser plane 'what is real for us'. Your example of the circle and cylinder are very good because although the different perceptions do no channge the reality of the object - those perceptions have become real for each viewer."
==>Stop scratching the surface layers of perception and dig down deep to find the bedrock upon which to build the foundation for the rest of your life! :)
Lazarus
11-26-2002, 08:00 PM
I think I agree with that. All things on earth are made of the same elements. Beyond that it is perception. No two sentient being can perceive anything the exact same way.
Yep, which begs the question:
Which is reality and which is illusion?
The problems begin when we realize that maybe...just maybe, just a teensy weensy bit, that perhaps maybe we, individually, are wrong.
Who's man enough to admit that to themselves?
I say very few.
Which is what leads me to believe that ALL is illusion. ALL we see and experience physically anyway, through our bodily senses.
But there is a reality - somewhere - we know we have something about us that is real - because we function and think and perceive - but what IS that reality?
So we have determined that just because we experience something does not make it real. We seem to be experiencing this life - but it is not real.
The Great Dream, and we, the one dreamer who are experiencing the dream as many dreamers.
If this is all an illusion, then your argument is also an illusion. Therefore, your conclusion must be false and not a true description of reality. ;D
Lazarus
11-26-2002, 08:14 PM
\o/ Glory to the Lord \o/
\o/ Praise be to Jesus \o/
One Eyed Jack: " ... if you go beyond
dimensional boundaries (i.e. think outside the
box), what seems impossible to us may in fact
be possible for someone who isn't limited to
those same boundaries."
Makes sense to me.
Of course, i'm the ol' geometry teacher.
If you think outside the geometry of Euclid,
there are geometries where a circle is the
same as the square.
Here circle is defined as all points equidistant
from a give point.
Here square is a four sided figure with
equal sides.
And there are geometries in which the circle
turns out to be the same as the square.
These geometries are not always as useful
for practical purposes as the the geometry
of Euclid.
Howerver, such a geometry would be useful
for something like, say a checker board.
The "squares" define as points.
The circle and square define as above.
And the circle is the same as the square,
in this limited geometry.
Anyway, I still can't answer the original question.
And i'm not even sure the answer would have
any practicle application if it were answered.
ANother thing, the Bible does suggest God is
omnipotent. But i think we hardly understand what
"omnipotent" means. It surely doesn't mean that
such an all powerful being can do that which is
against it's nature to do.
So rather thank worrying about boxing up
an omnipoetent God, i spend more of my time
thinking about why such an omnipotent God
would ever be interested in me personally.
Which is probably the subject of 12 other topics.
Ain't that a lick? A God powerful enough to
create a bounded but infinite universe
(or is it unbounded yet finite?) knows my
name and my hair count. I do note on the
hair count thing that God has to be less
and less potent earch year to keep up with
the count :)
I was aware of the non-Euclidian geometry examples. We live in a non-Euclidian universe.
For example, why DOESN'T the earth move in a tangent line to its orbit?
Answer: space is curved around the Sun, and the Earth IS movong in a stright line through the space-time continuum. It just happens that space "curves" or warps around massive objects like the earth and the Sun. From the vantage point of the surface of this planet, our perception is that the Sun goes around the Earth. Our knowledge of science teaches us to disregard our perceptions and accept the euqally plausible explanation that the earth spins on its axis as it traverses its orbit around the Sun.
If perception is reality, then the Sun goes around the Earth. Just ask my three year old. He will tell you what he truthfully perceives. The idea that the people standing on the equator are travelling faster than the speed of sound at about 1000 MPH is just not what perception will tell you is happening. ;D
Satan
11-26-2002, 08:34 PM
Laz, if you played your cards just right, you could quite possibly make this The Longest Thread in BB history. ;D
==>Perception is NOT reality.
Could you explain that? I would say that reality is ONLY perception.
Per*cep"tion\, n. [L. perceptio: cf. F. perception. See Perceive.] 1. The act of perceiving; cognizance by the senses or intellect; apperhension by the bodily organs, or by the mind, of what is presented to them; discernment; apperhension; cognition.
Well, OEJ defined a "reality"--a cylinder wher the height was the same length as the diameter of the 3-D object. He then offered one perspective where a 'circle' might be perceived, and another perspective where a "square" might be perceieved. Consequently, the reality was that the object was a cylinder. The perceptions of the square and the circle were not the reality. Therefore, "Perception is NOT reality." It was an illusion.
Reality is from the perspective of the observer. An illusion does not become an illusion until you are aware of it. Both observers perceived different things yet both were correct, or both were incorrect, until they knew otherwise. Hence reality is ONLY perception.
Absolutely invalid reasoning. Consider the electromagnetic spectrum. There are certain wavelengths that are beyond unassisted human perception (but not necessasrily beyond animal perception). If your assertion is correct, then there is no such thing as, say, radio waves. Perception is not necessarily reality. In the example, OEJ offered the "objevtive" perspective and stated the reality that was misperceived as a circle and a square, respectively. The reality that it was a cylinder was a given premiss of the example. Just because you do not perceive your aging from one second to the next does not mean that you are not getting older.
Okay, whatever. I'm just making this shit up as I go along anyway. Kinda like you huh?
Lazarus
11-26-2002, 09:42 PM
Laz, if you played your cards just right, you could quite possibly make this The Longest Thread in BB history. ;D
What was the record at newsmax?
Anyway, I have no cause for envy. ;D
Satan
11-26-2002, 09:45 PM
You got a LONG way to go to top ALOHA RONNIE. ;D
Lazarus
11-26-2002, 09:54 PM
==>Perception is NOT reality.
Could you explain that? I would say that reality is ONLY perception.
Per*cep"tion\, n. [L. perceptio: cf. F. perception. See Perceive.] 1. The act of perceiving; cognizance by the senses or intellect; apperhension by the bodily organs, or by the mind, of what is presented to them; discernment; apperhension; cognition.
Well, OEJ defined a "reality"--a cylinder wher the height was the same length as the diameter of the 3-D object. He then offered one perspective where a 'circle' might be perceived, and another perspective where a "square" might be perceieved. Consequently, the reality was that the object was a cylinder. The perceptions of the square and the circle were not the reality. Therefore, "Perception is NOT reality." It was an illusion.
Reality is from the perspective of the observer. An illusion does not become an illusion until you are aware of it. Both observers perceived different things yet both were correct, or both were incorrect, until they knew otherwise. Hence reality is ONLY perception.
Absolutely invalid reasoning. Consider the electromagnetic spectrum. There are certain wavelengths that are beyond unassisted human perception (but not necessasrily beyond animal perception). If your assertion is correct, then there is no such thing as, say, radio waves. Perception is not necessarily reality. In the example, OEJ offered the "objevtive" perspective and stated the reality that was misperceived as a circle and a square, respectively. The reality that it was a cylinder was a given premiss of the example. Just because you do not perceive your aging from one second to the next does not mean that you are not getting older.
Okay, whatever. I'm just making this shit up as I go along anyway. Kinda like you huh?
I am making stuff up about the electromagnetic spectrum? ::)
http://imagers.gsfc.nasa.gov/ems/ems.html
http://imagers.gsfc.nasa.gov/ems/waves3.html
==>Hardly.
==>Perception is NOT reality.
Could you explain that? I would say that reality is ONLY perception.
Per*cep"tion\, n. [L. perceptio: cf. F. perception. See Perceive.] 1. The act of perceiving; cognizance by the senses or intellect; apperhension by the bodily organs, or by the mind, of what is presented to them; discernment; apperhension; cognition.
Well, OEJ defined a "reality"--a cylinder wher the height was the same length as the diameter of the 3-D object. He then offered one perspective where a 'circle' might be perceived, and another perspective where a "square" might be perceieved. Consequently, the reality was that the object was a cylinder. The perceptions of the square and the circle were not the reality. Therefore, "Perception is NOT reality." It was an illusion.
Reality is from the perspective of the observer. An illusion does not become an illusion until you are aware of it. Both observers perceived different things yet both were correct, or both were incorrect, until they knew otherwise. Hence reality is ONLY perception.
Absolutely invalid reasoning. Consider the electromagnetic spectrum. There are certain wavelengths that are beyond unassisted human perception (but not necessasrily beyond animal perception). If your assertion is correct, then there is no such thing as, say, radio waves. Perception is not necessarily reality. In the example, OEJ offered the "objevtive" perspective and stated the reality that was misperceived as a circle and a square, respectively. The reality that it was a cylinder was a given premiss of the example. Just because you do not perceive your aging from one second to the next does not mean that you are not getting older.
Okay, whatever. I'm just making this shit up as I go along anyway. Kinda like you huh?
I am making stuff up about the electromagnetic spectrum? ::)
http://imagers.gsfc.nasa.gov/ems/ems.html
http://imagers.gsfc.nasa.gov/ems/waves3.html
==>Hardly.
Knowledge of radio waves neither proves nor disproves anything, except maybe that radio waves exist.It is true that perception is not necessarily reality, but it is also true that your reality cannot be anything other than what you as an individual can perceive. If you are not aware of something, in some way, it cannot exist.
:P
Lazarus
11-27-2002, 04:30 PM
==>Perception is NOT reality.
Could you explain that? I would say that reality is ONLY perception.
Per*cep"tion\, n. [L. perceptio: cf. F. perception. See Perceive.] 1. The act of perceiving; cognizance by the senses or intellect; apperhension by the bodily organs, or by the mind, of what is presented to them; discernment; apperhension; cognition.
Well, OEJ defined a "reality"--a cylinder wher the height was the same length as the diameter of the 3-D object. He then offered one perspective where a 'circle' might be perceived, and another perspective where a "square" might be perceieved. Consequently, the reality was that the object was a cylinder. The perceptions of the square and the circle were not the reality. Therefore, "Perception is NOT reality." It was an illusion.
Reality is from the perspective of the observer. An illusion does not become an illusion until you are aware of it. Both observers perceived different things yet both were correct, or both were incorrect, until they knew otherwise. Hence reality is ONLY perception.
Absolutely invalid reasoning. Consider the electromagnetic spectrum. There are certain wavelengths that are beyond unassisted human perception (but not necessasrily beyond animal perception). If your assertion is correct, then there is no such thing as, say, radio waves. Perception is not necessarily reality. In the example, OEJ offered the "objevtive" perspective and stated the reality that was misperceived as a circle and a square, respectively. The reality that it was a cylinder was a given premiss of the example. Just because you do not perceive your aging from one second to the next does not mean that you are not getting older.
Okay, whatever. I'm just making this shit up as I go along anyway. Kinda like you huh?
I am making stuff up about the electromagnetic spectrum? ::)
http://imagers.gsfc.nasa.gov/ems/ems.html
http://imagers.gsfc.nasa.gov/ems/waves3.html
==>Hardly.
Knowledge of radio waves neither proves nor disproves anything, except maybe that radio waves exist.It is true that perception is not necessarily reality, but it is also true that your reality cannot be anything other than what you as an individual can perceive. If you are not aware of something, in some way, it cannot exist.
:P
"Knowledge of radio waves neither proves nor disproves anything, except maybe that radio waves exist."
==>It "proves" that there are things that you cannot perceive (unaided). It demonstrates that perception is NOT reality. Rather conclusively, I might add.
"It is true that perception is not necessarily reality,...."
==>Ah, I see you have conceded my point. Thank you.
"... but it is also true that your reality cannot be anything other than what you as an individual can perceive. "
==>Rubbish. If you are murdered, then the reality is that you are dead--and you cannot perceive anything. Stop looking at the world through the prism of your subjective existence.
"If you are not aware of something, in some way, it cannot exist."
==>Incorrect. You may, one day, no longer exist, but that does not change the reality of your having lived and died. You might not care, but it does not alter the OBJECTIVE FACTS of the matter.
==>Perception is NOT reality.
Could you explain that? I would say that reality is ONLY perception.
Per*cep"tion\, n. [L. perceptio: cf. F. perception. See Perceive.] 1. The act of perceiving; cognizance by the senses or intellect; apperhension by the bodily organs, or by the mind, of what is presented to them; discernment; apperhension; cognition.
Well, OEJ defined a "reality"--a cylinder wher the height was the same length as the diameter of the 3-D object. He then offered one perspective where a 'circle' might be perceived, and another perspective where a "square" might be perceieved. Consequently, the reality was that the object was a cylinder. The perceptions of the square and the circle were not the reality. Therefore, "Perception is NOT reality." It was an illusion.
Reality is from the perspective of the observer. An illusion does not become an illusion until you are aware of it. Both observers perceived different things yet both were correct, or both were incorrect, until they knew otherwise. Hence reality is ONLY perception.
Absolutely invalid reasoning. Consider the electromagnetic spectrum. There are certain wavelengths that are beyond unassisted human perception (but not necessasrily beyond animal perception). If your assertion is correct, then there is no such thing as, say, radio waves. Perception is not necessarily reality. In the example, OEJ offered the "objevtive" perspective and stated the reality that was misperceived as a circle and a square, respectively. The reality that it was a cylinder was a given premiss of the example. Just because you do not perceive your aging from one second to the next does not mean that you are not getting older.
Okay, whatever. I'm just making this shit up as I go along anyway. Kinda like you huh?
I am making stuff up about the electromagnetic spectrum? ::)
http://imagers.gsfc.nasa.gov/ems/ems.html
http://imagers.gsfc.nasa.gov/ems/waves3.html
==>Hardly.
Knowledge of radio waves neither proves nor disproves anything, except maybe that radio waves exist.It is true that perception is not necessarily reality, but it is also true that your reality cannot be anything other than what you as an individual can perceive. If you are not aware of something, in some way, it cannot exist.
:P
"Knowledge of radio waves neither proves nor disproves anything, except maybe that radio waves exist."
==>It "proves" that there are things that you cannot perceive (unaided). It demonstrates that perception is NOT reality. Rather conclusively, I might add.
"It is true that perception is not necessarily reality,...."
==>Ah, I see you have conceded my point. Thank you.
"... but it is also true that your reality cannot be anything other than what you as an individual can perceive. "
==>Rubbish. If you are murdered, then the reality is that you are dead--and you cannot perceive anything. Stop looking at the world through the prism of your subjective existence.
"If you are not aware of something, in some way, it cannot exist."
==>Incorrect. You may, one day, no longer exist, but that does not change the reality of your having lived and died. You might not care, but it does not alter the OBJECTIVE FACTS of the matter.
Well, I can see that you're not perceiving a whole lot outside of your own imagination.
Well, I can see that you're not perceiving a whole lot outside of your own imagination.
Rats. I was hoping to watch Laz pull the dildo out of his butt. :D
Well, I can see that you're not perceiving a whole lot outside of your own imagination.
Rats. I was hoping to watch Laz pull the dildo out of his butt. :D
Hey! You weren't supposed to see that. ::)
Hey! You weren't supposed to see that. ::)
Like I tell the attorneys..."You say it, you've bought it." :)
Lazarus
11-27-2002, 06:17 PM
==>Perception is NOT reality.
Could you explain that? I would say that reality is ONLY perception.
Per*cep"tion\, n. [L. perceptio: cf. F. perception. See Perceive.] 1. The act of perceiving; cognizance by the senses or intellect; apperhension by the bodily organs, or by the mind, of what is presented to them; discernment; apperhension; cognition.
Well, OEJ defined a "reality"--a cylinder wher the height was the same length as the diameter of the 3-D object. He then offered one perspective where a 'circle' might be perceived, and another perspective where a "square" might be perceieved. Consequently, the reality was that the object was a cylinder. The perceptions of the square and the circle were not the reality. Therefore, "Perception is NOT reality." It was an illusion.
Reality is from the perspective of the observer. An illusion does not become an illusion until you are aware of it. Both observers perceived different things yet both were correct, or both were incorrect, until they knew otherwise. Hence reality is ONLY perception.
Absolutely invalid reasoning. Consider the electromagnetic spectrum. There are certain wavelengths that are beyond unassisted human perception (but not necessasrily beyond animal perception). If your assertion is correct, then there is no such thing as, say, radio waves. Perception is not necessarily reality. In the example, OEJ offered the "objevtive" perspective and stated the reality that was misperceived as a circle and a square, respectively. The reality that it was a cylinder was a given premiss of the example. Just because you do not perceive your aging from one second to the next does not mean that you are not getting older.
Okay, whatever. I'm just making this shit up as I go along anyway. Kinda like you huh?
I am making stuff up about the electromagnetic spectrum? ::)
http://imagers.gsfc.nasa.gov/ems/ems.html
http://imagers.gsfc.nasa.gov/ems/waves3.html
==>Hardly.
Knowledge of radio waves neither proves nor disproves anything, except maybe that radio waves exist.It is true that perception is not necessarily reality, but it is also true that your reality cannot be anything other than what you as an individual can perceive. If you are not aware of something, in some way, it cannot exist.
:P
"Knowledge of radio waves neither proves nor disproves anything, except maybe that radio waves exist."
==>It "proves" that there are things that you cannot perceive (unaided). It demonstrates that perception is NOT reality. Rather conclusively, I might add.
"It is true that perception is not necessarily reality,...."
==>Ah, I see you have conceded my point. Thank you.
"... but it is also true that your reality cannot be anything other than what you as an individual can perceive. "
==>Rubbish. If you are murdered, then the reality is that you are dead--and you cannot perceive anything. Stop looking at the world through the prism of your subjective existence.
"If you are not aware of something, in some way, it cannot exist."
==>Incorrect. You may, one day, no longer exist, but that does not change the reality of your having lived and died. You might not care, but it does not alter the OBJECTIVE FACTS of the matter.
Well, I can see that you're not perceiving a whole lot outside of your own imagination.
"Well, I can see that you're not perceiving a whole lot outside of your own imagination."
==>I am simply informing you that "life goes on"--"within you and without you." If you say that you are nothing but my imagination, then who am I to argue?
:D
chandaldaldaldldobababaoboblaoandala~!!
http://www.gifs.net/animate/drunkenmouse.gif
Satan
11-27-2002, 09:02 PM
Still fascinated with all the gizmos, eh?
Still fascinated with all the gizmos, eh?
Yes. I haven't even started yet. This is a lot more fun than newsmax. Technology is great.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.