totse.com | My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by Niceguy:

Edit: reply to rust

God is infinite, therefore god is everything, therefore god is reality...and everything else as well.

imperfect circle is not infinite, reality is just one of the many things he isnt.

well, thats how i read it anyway

Read my post again. I never once mentioned the word "infinite", and neither did imperfectcircle (at least in what I'm quoting, which is what I am specifically replying to); you shouldn't either.

I'm saying that simply because something is not equal to reality, doesn't mean that it isn't something or part of reality, which is what I seemed imperfectcircle was saying.

In other words, just because she said that Abrahim should reconsider that "God =Reality" doesn't mean that the conclusion is necessarily that god isn't something. That's ridiculous. I'm not equal to reality, but I'm certainly something.

#12

2006-07-01, 00:35

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by imperfectcircle:

Hello Captain Pedantic Semantic

Thanks for the greeting, Captain "Says stupid things and then gets angry when someone calls him on it".

The fact is that what she said does not mean that god must not be something, as you so ridiculously claimed. That has absolutely nothing with Semantics, or with being pedantic. That's accurate reading of what was stated. Does saying that X does not equal reality, mean that X is not something? Of course not.

P.S. Spare me your excuses. I don't give a shit why you don't reply.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 07-01-2006).]

#13

2006-07-01, 00:38

imperfectcircle imperfectcircle is offline

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

Thanks for the greeting, Captain "Doesn't say what he really means and then gets angry when someone calls him on it".

Good call

We'd have a fucking great time getting shitfaced together man

quote:It's not my fault if you're not writing what you actually mean. The fact remains that what she said does not mean that god must not be something, as you so ridiculously claimed.

I'm philosophically repressed, what can I say?

quote:P.S. Spare me your excuses. I don't give a shit why you don't reply.

Yeah you do

#14

2006-07-01, 01:04

Abrahim

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

I left a story in the other thread,

I love imperfect circle so much, the post above shows that you have grasped the concept I am trying to tell these people when you said:

"So infinity must be unchanging. It must simply be everything - this is the hardest thought I have EVER wrapped by head around. It must be everything in the past, everything in the future, everything in the present, everything that ever existed, will exist, everything that could conceivably exist and all of that is simply a teardrop in the ocean compared to what must be possible yet incomprehensible to an imagination that is bound by the arbitrary laws of logic that govern our universe, not to mention the computational ability of our brain. EVERYTHING. If god is infinite, there is nothing that he is not. There is nothing that is not a part of "infinity", or else "infinity" could not exist. And if "infinity" cannot exist, God cannot be infinite.And if God cannot be infinite, something is conceivably greater than him - so how can he be "God" ?"

And what an excellent journey!

I would like to add you to my MSN Messenger or AIM, Yahoo Messenger lists if possible because I really tremendously appreciated all your comments on my behalf and I hope to see more, you are wonderful! Thank you SO Much!

[This message has been edited by Abrahim (edited 07-30-2006).]

#15

2006-07-01, 01:07

Abrahim

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by potentgirt:

You are taking the word "infinite" too far. I stated God as being an infinite being, not infinite in EVERY ASPECT. If we look at it through your eyes, then God is infinitely cruel, evil, and heartless, as well as infinitely kind...quite contradicting.

Because God created all things, He is before all things and beyond all things. He is not reality, He can't be confined to our definition of "real,"as in having to touch or feel Him.

"So infinity must be unchanging. It must simply be everything - this is the hardest thought I have EVER wrapped by head around."

I apologize that this is so hard to understand for you. But this is the mathematical definition more or less... God has no beginning or end, therefore He is infinite in that aspect.

And also, to claim that God IS the universe, or is IN the universe, says that God is not one being, and is not self-aware, which is obviously not true.

Catholicism is 100% AGAINST pantheism, and panentheism.

I call it Reality, then I define it in a long post, but the reason the posts are long is because they attempt to explain and clearify what I mean by Reality, because I don't mean the universe only, or what you can feel and touch, but also everything you know and don't know, can possibly think and can never even imagine, all being encompassed by God, made of God, existing only by God, God essentially being what is was and ever will be, God is One, nothing is seperate, all is within, nothing is without.

#16

2006-07-01, 02:18

potentgirt potentgirt is offline

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by Abrahim:

I call it Reality, then I define it in a long post, but the reason the posts are long is because they attempt to explain and clearify what I mean by Reality, because I don't mean the universe only, or what you can feel and touch, but also everything you know and don't know, can possibly think and can never even imagine, all being encompassed by God, made of God, existing only by God, God essentially being what is was and ever will be, God is One, nothing is seperate, all is within, nothing is without.

What religion do you consider yourself to be?

And if that is what you truly consider reality, even still, God CANNOT BE REALITY. I'm waiting to see what religion you are to go any further. Please do reread my post though.

Oh, and Rust, it's a T not an L (I'm a male

)

#17

2006-07-01, 02:45

Abrahim

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by potentgirt:

What religion do you consider yourself to be?

And if that is what you truly consider reality, even still, God CANNOT BE REALITY. I'm waiting to see what religion you are to go any further. Please do reread my post though.

Oh, and Rust, it's a T not an L (I'm a male

)

My definition of Reality is not "The Universe" only, but what the Universe is within, what the big bang was within. Something can not occur in nothing, nothing has no capacity to hold an event or allow it to occur. The universe is within Reality, this Reality and all Realities are within Ultimate Reality, All are made of and dependant on God completely, God is the Ultimate Reality, One.

#18

2006-07-01, 02:57

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by Abrahim:

...can possibly think and can never even imagine, all being encompassed by God...

I can think that God doesn't exist. Therefore, "God not existing" is part of reality according to your definition. God doesn't exist.

Your idiotic proposition has just refuted itself.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 07-01-2006).]

#19

2006-07-01, 03:02

Abrahim

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

)

Potentgirt, I want you to come to a realization about God then I want you to explain what about Catholicism, if You're Catholic, you will hold on to, to deny the truth? I've, in Theophany's post, posted a long thing about the Blasphemy and Misleading statements in Christianity which you might like to read.

I'd like you to completely understand, I am not claiming God is what came after the big bang (The Universe) I am claiming The Big Bang Occured within God, and everything is within God. Tell me how you like the story I wrote in the other thread, I can copy paste it here as well, it might be relevant here: Sometimes I like to copy paste something in topics where it also applies, rather than linking people who then have to scroll and look for it, if someone has already read it, they can ignore it, if someone would like to read it there then they can:

A long time ago there was a civilization, a community of men and women: They in the center of their city had a structure and within it was an idol. A wizard came upon this city, I must say, he was dashingly handsome, a beautiful man...he walked through the city and came to the structure with the idol in it. The Wizard asked a man walking by "What is that idol in there?" The man replied "That is God" the Wizard then asked "How is that God?" the man replied after examining the statue "well you see, it has those eyes all around its head, that means it can see all, and it has those arms with different things in it, that means it controls all" The Wizard asked "Do you really believe that's God?" the man replied "No! That's just what my ancestors called God, they built the statue, I don't really believe in any God"

The Wizard smiled and thanked the man for his time and walked closer to the structure, he examined this massive statue that stood at a tremendous height, it looked heavy, firm. The Wizard noticed a man dressed strangely walk from behind the statue, the Wizard smiled at the man and asked "What is this statue here?" the man answered "That is the King, the Controller of All, The Father of Worlds, The Mighty, Some call him Tothar, Others call him Ufolith, and yet some others call him Redorax" The Wizard then asked "What is he?" The man replied "Well that is the supreme being, nothing is mightier than it, look at its eyes, they go around his mighty head and see all, look at his arms, they are the control of all things" The Wizard said "And where is he?" The man replied pointing at the statue "Well he is right there!" The Wizard looked up at the statue, the statue frozen seemed to look down with a grin, the Wizard said "Do you believe THIS is the Supreme Being?" The man replied "Well no, I don't believe in this statue, it is what we all call God though, but no, no I don't believe there is such a thing."

The Wizard thanked the man for his time and continued away from the statue, across from it was a beautiful courtyard, gardens, and a well crafted structure, the Wizard walked towards it but saw infront of him a little child all alone, the Wizard asked "Are you alright?" The Child replied "Alright" the Wizard asked "Are your parents nearby? Are you lost?" The Child Replied "Nearby" The Wizard asked "What are you doing out here away from your parents?" The child replied "Away!" The Wizard looked at the child strangely, the child was beginning to scare him with his strange responses, the Wizard asked pointing back to the statue behind him "Do you see that statue over there?" The child said "There!" pointing, the Wizard asked "What is that?" The child didn't reply, but bent to the earth under him and grabbed it in his hand and showed it to the Wizard. The Wizard smiled and asked "What does your parent call that statue?" The Child replied "Parent!" The Wizard asked "Why?" The child replied with a shrug, then the Wizard asked "What is God?" The child began to spin with his arms widespread and ran away. The Wizard got a shiver down his spine from the strange child, but continued on his way into the beautiful courtyard to the well crafted structure.

In the beautiful courtyard garden there was an elderly person tending to the flowers and the trees, the Wizard said "I'm sorry to bother you but may I ask you a few questions?" The Elder turned and smiled peacefully "Yes." The Wizard thanked the Elder and asked pointing backwards to the statue "What is that?" The Elder replied "A Story made of Stone" The Wizard asked "What is the story?" The Elder replied "That it is God" The Wizard asked "Is it God?" The Elder replied "That is what my fathers said" The Wizard asked "Did they believe what they said?" The Elder replied "I couldn't tell" The Wizard asked "Do you believe that is God?" The Elder replied "I spend my time in this garden, if not here then in the forest. Sometimes when I walk and the wind rustles in the trees and the breeze so gently comes over me, I say a word" The Wizard asked "What is that word?" The Elder replied with a smiling, peaceful sigh "God..."

The Wizard smiled and thanked the Elder and walked into the well crafted structure, inside, a portion of the building was dark, a portion was brightly lit, the Wizard walked on the floor which was tremendously cold, he began to hear some raised voices and then saw an opening to portion of the building which he entered. He saw inside a large circular room that had seats winding down low to the center, men and women sat on most of the seats, and were yelling down to a man in the center who was yelling up, what they were saying was barely distinguishable, nor were any words that the Wizard managed to hear, recognizable. The Wizard walked down a set of stairs that were before him down to the center where the man in the center turned and tired from screaming walked towards the Wizard saying something indistinguishable and with a sore throat, he patted the Wizard on the back and walked up the stairs, the Wizard entered the center, all the commotion stopped. The Wizard said "I am a traveler and" one of the men in the audience interrupted "A traveler from the stairs, yes we saw" and laughed. The Wizard continued "I had some questions" a woman interrupted "Don't we all?" and laughed. The Wizard wondered if this was the temple of the self amused, and then continued "I want to know about the Statue that is in the structure outside and I" a child interrupted "There are many statues outside in structures, I'm sure you know this" A man asked "Which statue do you mean?" a woman said "This world is full of statues and men who do not move" another man spoke "I had a statue once, then we divorced!" Another spoke "The statue under my robe is the only one that counts!" Another screamed "There is no Statue! This man is imagining things!" Another screamed "Will you tell us which Statue?" The Wizard was disturbed by this audience and nervously thought how he might answer to them, and while he did they continued to scream at him and one another, laughter, and anger could be heard as a wind sweeping round the arena. The Wizard said "I mean to say the Statue called God!" One replied in a scream "There is no Statue that is God!" Another screamed "There is no God!" Another screamed in a muffled voice "I am God!" The Wizard said "What is God?" They screamed in unison "The Statue Outside!" The Wizard said "Is it true?" A portion screamed "Yes!" a portion screamed "No!" One then screamed "What is God, Traveler?" The Wizard thought for a moment, he looked around the room at the frowns and the grins, the wind eyes, the circle, the roof, and around the seats, he was spinning, becoming dizzy, he said in a sigh as he felt faint "God..." and slowly made his way up the stairs and out of that temple of the self amused.

The Wizard saw a man with many scrolls walking briskly towards another end of the structure, the Wizard said "I'm sorry to bother you but may I ask you some questions?" The man with the scrolls replied "No, I'm sorry, but I'm on my way to the House of Laws and Decrees" The Wizard asked "May I come along? I am new here" The man with the scrolls began to walk and said "Yes yes, sure"

The Wizard walked with long paces keeping in line with the fast walking man with scrolls. Finally they reached the enterance to the house of Laws and Decrees, portions of it darkened, contrasted, like most of the structure, with bright and glorius portions. Many old men and women sat inside writing things, and reading things. The Wizard approached one from behind and noticed the elder was only pretending to read, his finger going back and forth over the same line of text while the elder looked at something on the table. The Wizard asked politely in a whisper "What are you looked at?" The elder jumped in his seat being surprised and saying somewhat loudly "God!" The Wizard said "I'm sorry to startle you, I noticed you were looking at something on the table other than that scroll." The elder turned and point to the table "Take a closer look, its an ant!" The Wizard smiled and said "Wow! That is a beautiful ant" the elder said "and I was thinking, as it came to my attention, I am a maker of the laws of the World, the World I live in, yet ruler or not, I can not even make an ant aware of my Laws, and I thought of how long it has been, that I have been in this House of Laws and Decrees, reading and writing, I havent even seen the sun rise or set, this ant has told me this." The Wizard said "How long have you been here?" The elder replied "So long that my last clear memory is that old mans face" He pointed to an elder snoring with his hand and pen still moving. The Wizard smiled "May I ask you a few questions?" The elder replied "Yes! It has been so many years since yesterday that I have been asked a question by something I didn't write!" he removed his finger from the scroll. the Wizard said "Can you tell me of the statue that is in the structure outside?" The elder thought to himself for a moment and then seemed to remember "Yes!" he said "I recall now that it was built many many years ago, that one from when I was a boy, believe it or not, my father was large part of the production of that statue! I used to ask him what it was for, and he would say "For people to see" and because I was little I used to say "How does it make them see? Can't they already see?" and he would say "To make them see what they can't see" and I would say "Why can't they see?" and he would say "In some things, people are blind" Then as a young man before my permanent station here I would eat my food outside looking at that massive statue and wondering what it was that people saw in it, so I would ask people who passed by, some said it was God, some said it was just a Statue, others said it was the King, others said it was nothing!" The Wizard asked "What do you think it is" The elder replied "It must be what my father told me! Something to help blind people to see! I don't know how though! There is a law about it somewhere here in fact, let me find it" The elder got up, a new kind of energy seemed to be in him and he quickly scanned his surroundings and then ran over to a pushable ladder and scrolled it to a shelf, climbed, and brought down a scroll, running back to the table. He spread the scroll, it had a large text which read "BY LAW AND COMMON DECISION OF MEN OF CIVILIZATION THIS IS GOD" under it were a few lines of description and then a drawing of the statue!

The Wizard asked the elder "Do you agree with this law?" The elder said "Yes, because it is, as it reads here" the elder put his finger on the scroll "a law of the common decision of men of civilization" he continued "If I didn't agree, I would be an outcast!" The Wizard asked "May I take this outside to examine it in the sunlight?" The elder looked around and said "Yes" and the Wizard asked "Would you like to come with me?" The elder replied "Yes!" So they left the House of Law and Decrees and passed the still shouting Temple of the Self Amused and walked through the corridor a portion dark, a portion light, and the elder had tears in his eyes as he walked bravely towards the exit, and finally upon entering the courtyard, a sigh of relief, he had to shut his eyes at first, the light was so bright, and then slowly he opened them and upon opening he saw a familiar face, the elder of the garden, and he smiled and shouted "My Brother!" The Elder of the garden turned and shouted in joy and ran as fast as he could manage towards his brother! The Wizard laughed at this sight he was filled with joy, he could feel it as though it was coming from his heart and filling his chest, through his head and down his legs, his whole body was joy. Then came running by the child, spinning his way towards the reunion, the Elder of the Garden said "This is my grandson!" The elder of the House of Laws and Decrees smiled and bent to the bow saying "It's very nice to meet you!" then breathing the fresh air said "How much I've missed consumed by text" the Elder of the Garden said "How much I've missed consumed by nature" the child said "Missed!" and ran across the courtyard towards the statue, the Wizard followed, in his hand the law, and he walked firmly and upright towards the statue, in a noble fashion, he stopped at the statue, looked up, and then turned around, infront of him was the child, the elderly brothers, and some others walking by, the Wizard opened the scroll and said loudly "You have seen a God, that is not This God, but greater." They looked at him in question, a crowd slowly gathered to wonder at this loud stranger, he continued "Each of you, has seen a God that is not this God but Greater, some of you in things smaller than this statue, the size of an ant, or in the might of the wind which makes the leaves rustle, which can bring both peace and serenity, destruction" a wind blew violently rattling the scroll, the crowd had increased" "You think this stone of your own creation stands firm due to its foundation, and indeed, the foundation is strong, but what is stronger?" a mild rumbling in the Earth could be felt by some, perhaps their legs were shaking due to the wind becoming stronger "Call all your men and women to bear witness to this" A messenger from the audience ran into the well crafted structure "Today is a day when your eyes will be opened, only some will see" Those from inside the well crafted structure, including the self amused, walked in congregation through the courtyard and towards the statue, they stood, recognizing the Wizard one of them screamed in jest "God is a dizzy man!" and laughed. The Wizard said "Bear Witness to Your Law of your own Invention" He rose up the law "and what are you without it?" He tore the scroll as a violent wind swept through and blew the two pieces away, the elders of the house of laws and decrees screamed in horror and tried their best to capture the papers as they swirled on the ground like serpents in the sea. The Wizard continued "This God of yours, most of you do not believe in it, but it stands firm, there is no other God in your minds, and because of it, no God at all" The Wizard placed his hand on the statue and said "How firm with might it is, how large, how agreed upon by the law of common man in civilization!" The Wizard pushed with little force, and the statue began to tilt backwards and forwards "How easy does it fall!" The statue began to tilt violently forward and backwards, hitting a pillar on one side and losing balance, the crowd began to scatter, the Wizard jumped from the structure and ran a distance from the range, all stood and witnessed the Idol move, imbalanced, they were in awe, they had known it firm for so many years, and their fathers before them, and none believed, though they never pushed it, finally it cracked through a pilled and fell towards the people smashing into the ground with a tremendous noise that shook the Earth they stood on, lifting dust into the air. The Wizard spoke "Full of might, can it make itself stand?" the Wizard continued "That is not God!"

Many in the crowd looked lost, confused, dazed, some smiling, some frowning, some crying, some nervously laughing, some shouting, some somber, some distressed, some sighing with relief.

"That God was of your own invention, within a form, within a structure, within the world, within the universe, and what is the Universe within? That is God. Infront of you, behind you, around you, within you, without you, Did you invent it? Did it invent you? Is there anything more powerful? Can you make it fall? You can see it everywhere, you can not escape it. What control did this statue have, it could not even save itself from falling, but the True God is what all are dependant on, utilizing every moment, waking and sleeping, there is no God greater, there is no God but that, can you not see?"

The elder from the House of Laws and Decrees seemed to recieve a spark and said "That is what my Father was trying to say!"

The Elder from the garden said "That is the God I met in the forest!"

The Child spun happilly saying "God!"

The Wizard smiled.

One of the Temple of the Self Amused screamed "That is Meaningless! That is not God! There is no God! What shall we do about your God! What Can we Do?"

The Wizard replied "Open your Eyes, Your Ears, Your Heart, Your Mind, Submit, let it come over you, and you will find peace"

The elderly brothers and the child bowed down in prostration, not towards a statue, or the wizard, or the sun or the moon or the sky, but they submitted, within themselves, and the peace came over them, they were of those who understand, the believers.

The Wizard too bowed, and some of the crowd followed, and others turned away, walking.

The sun had set now, and the city lit up with lanterns and fires, and when the Wizard rose up from prostration, and so did the elder brothers and the boy, the crowd had dispersed and continued on with how they used to be. The Message was at least given, and they did bear witness.

The Wizard enjoyed the rest of his stay there, teaching what he could to the two brothers and the boy, and in the morning he was gone on his way to continue his travels.

As he walked, and a warm breeze came past him, and the rustling of the trees in the distance, and a feeling of peace from within, The Wizard sighed and smiled saying "God...

And now, since it might be hard to find in Theophany's long topic, I will copy paste my Christianity Blasphemy Article for those who wish to read it and find it here:

To Theophany and All Christians: Please Read the Following with an Open Mind, Do not Close your eyes or ears or mind or heart to this, this is for your life, be wise.

Christianity promotes OPEN Blasphemy against the Sublime and Supreme nature of the One God. They say God came to Earth as a Man, God is in the image of Man, God had a Begotten Son who is Him, God is 3 in 1, God was a baby, God had a Mother, God died, The blood of Jesus forgives the sins of all people, etc.

Firstly, God is One, One whole, Essentially God is all there is and ever was, God is here there and everywhere within without you are dependant on it.

Secondly, God is not a man, nor is God in the image of Man, Men are not the Children of God, God does not have Children, Men are Men, they are part of God, existing within God and only By God.

Thirdly, Jesus is not a God, Jesus was in the image of a man because he was a man, I do not believe Jesus ever claimed to be God or the son of God despite what the New Testament invents about him. Jesus was a man, born as a baby, grew into age, he was a part of God as much as a tree or a grain of sand, he was no more than a human, he brought the people a message, the message was ignored as it is now.

Fourthly, Blood does not forgive sins, nor does someone ELSE dying, the Jewish tradition of Scapegoat does not apply, it was the tradition to kill a lamb or goat and forgive the sins of a village, Jesus is called the Lamb of God for this reason, to say that the death of something can forgive those who do not ask for forgiveness is a blasphemy, Jesus is not a Savior, No man can save another man, we can only save ourselves, we are our own saviors, it is up to us to communicate with the Supreme God and ask for forgiveness, there are no intermediaries, Jesus Jonas Jack and Jill can not forgive you, not by dying, not by living, not by anything, they have no power, to God is all the power.

Christians would be wise to CEASE and DESIST in the promotion of BLASPHEMY against the ONE GOD by inventing LIES about the NATURE of GOD and REALITY.

Science should have no conflict with the True God, The True God is where all things inside and out of this universe came from.

Do not be Stubborn, You are wise enough to understand that there is a God, you should be wise enough to accept the true nature of God and not to BLASPHEMY repeatedly about the SUPREME AND ULTIMATE Nature of God.

Their arguments are to make you lose God, Do not Lose God, God is not what you have been imagining or inventing in your imagination, nor is God a man or a woman or a thing created, God is infront of you at all times, open your eyes and see, you are living God, existing because of God, and it is to God you return. There is no Escape, Jesus is nothing but a man and a servant of God, one who submitted himself and accepted the Truth, he made no claims to divinity, he was not a Blasphemer, Cease and Desist.

They can break your idols, so break your idols for them, God is not an Idol, nor does God have an image, but all images are within God.

You are not the Children of God, you are the Creation of God, God in all majesty and wonder manifested you, and developed you slowly, and this earth, and evolved you, Do you not see the intricacy and beauty, will you not submit to the Reality of which you are completely dependant?

God is the originator of all things, Do not say that God did not Create some things, God manifested all things, existing and non existing, seen and unseen, known and unknown, there is NO creator but God, all men can do is manipulate what they have available, invent what is possible, the possibilities provided and manifested by God.

Drop the Blasphemous Book, the New Testament, Which Invents lie after lie about God and Jesus. You do not lose God by dropping a book full of blasphemy, Go on a journey to find the truth, or come to me and I will show you the truth, abrahimesker@hotmail.com on MSN, abrahim_esker@yahoo.com, abrahimesker on AIM.

There is one Religion and there has always been one Religion, with One God, and man repeatedly mutates it into something new, go to the root and it is one truth.

For the sake of your own being, and for your own benefit in this life and the next, cease and desist in uttering blasphemy about God with little knowledge and understanding, you are only harming yourself by promoting blasphemy, God is far beyond what many invent, but God should not be beyond understanding, God is apparent for those who choose to see, and that is a minority.

There is no Being in the Sky that is Worthy of Worship, the only worthy of Submission is the One God, Not some man in an alternate dimension but the Ultimate Reality which holds your very existance and the existance of all things with all might. All Power Belongs to God. God is not 3, God is One, Nor does God have 3 parts, If you will make divisions, then Divide God for all God's innumerable aspects, and All that is within God. God is One, Reality is One, All is One, Submit.

I am not a promoter of an Evil Word, I am not a servant of blasphemy, I wish for you to Cease and Desist in Blasphemy, if you have even a fraction of good and sense in you, you will see what I am saying as the truth. I am not Satan or the Enemy of God or Jesus. I am the enemy of Blasphemy.

#20

2006-07-01, 05:47

Aft3r ImaGe Aft3r ImaGe is offline

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

A pattern I see.

People state a belief, do not present evidence of said belief, and when all else fails refuse to respond to questions regarding said belief, avoid the question, give misleading statements that do not regard said question, or/then leave entirely.

Note I reread what Abrahim wrote and he does not appear to be going along with what I'm saying, but since I don't feel like erasing what I just wrote, here it is anyways.

"I think I do understand the "logic" behind Abrahim's weird belief.

Correct me if I'm wrong, your saying:

God (1 god no other spirits etc) created all of existance withen it's self. So we are all in god? Meaning reality exists withen god, so we are all part of god. So hitler existed in god, ghandi existed in god, my shoes are made in god, my urine is in god? We all are withen god? Is that what your saying?

In the respect that everything is in god, I do not see how this is any less likely as wether or not god exists, it is also equally likely god is a giant flying spaghatti monster.

Interesting idea to play with but I don't see anything coming from it other than mental masterbation. It makes no difference wether god encompases reality or exists withen reality. Both ideas (one being yours and one being the accepted one) are useless if god exists. Thats right if god exists it does not matter wether reality is withen god or not. If god doesn't exist it is equally useless.

I guess technically he could still be catholic and have his irrelevant belief, due to the fact, it is irrelevant."

That was before I relized he said drop the new testement etc, because he can't be catholic without the new testement.

I personally think he is a troll, or crazy.

[This message has been edited by Aft3r ImaGe (edited 07-01-2006).]

#21

2006-07-01, 06:51

potentgirt potentgirt is offline

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by Aft3r ImaGe:

It makes no difference wether god encompases reality or exists withen reality. Both ideas (one being yours and one being the accepted one) are useless if god exists. Thats right if god exists it does not matter wether reality is withen god or not. If god doesn't exist it is equally useless.

First, neither of those ideas you spoke of are accepted in the Church. But yes, both are useless if God exists, which He does. Actually, a lot of your post just made no sense/contradicted itself/repeated nonsensically.

quote:

That was before I relized he said drop the new testement etc, because he can't be catholic without the new testement.

I personally think he is a troll, or crazy.

Now that, I believe in^^^ (troll or crazy)

And Abrahim, you didn't answer my question, instead you just posted a massive story, which most likely supports your heretic ideals. That is, if you are Catholic. So please, just in case you missed it earlier...

What is your religious affiliation, dear Abrahim?

#22

2006-07-01, 07:14

Fundokiller Fundokiller is offline

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

^^

quote:Originally posted by Omar Abd Al-Qaadi:

he calls himself muslim

#23

2006-07-01, 09:48

AngryFemme AngryFemme is offline

Moderator

Deep South

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

^^ Although he doesn't possess many Muslim characteristics. I think he's trying to create his own Religion. And I think he is counting on the evangelical tune of his posts to collect followers.

In my four years at these forums, I've never witnessed another poster put more time, effort and aggression into converting others.

#24

2006-07-01, 11:15

Abrahim

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by Aft3r ImaGe:

A pattern I see.

People state a belief, do not present evidence of said belief, and when all else fails refuse to respond to questions regarding said belief, avoid the question, give misleading statements that do not regard said question, or/then leave entirely.

Note I reread what Abrahim wrote and he does not appear to be going along with what I'm saying, but since I don't feel like erasing what I just wrote, here it is anyways.

"I think I do understand the "logic" behind Abrahim's weird belief.

Correct me if I'm wrong, your saying:

God (1 god no other spirits etc) created all of existance withen it's self. So we are all in god? Meaning reality exists withen god, so we are all part of god. So hitler existed in god, ghandi existed in god, my shoes are made in god, my urine is in god? We all are withen god? Is that what your saying?

In the respect that everything is in god, I do not see how this is any less likely as wether or not god exists, it is also equally likely god is a giant flying spaghatti monster.

Interesting idea to play with but I don't see anything coming from it other than mental masterbation. It makes no difference wether god encompases reality or exists withen reality. Both ideas (one being yours and one being the accepted one) are useless if god exists. Thats right if god exists it does not matter wether reality is withen god or not. If god doesn't exist it is equally useless.

I guess technically he could still be catholic and have his irrelevant belief, due to the fact, it is irrelevant."

That was before I relized he said drop the new testement etc, because he can't be catholic without the new testement.

I personally think he is a troll, or crazy.

I find that it is quite important, the difference between God being something WITHIN Reality (Reality being what it is confined within) or God being the Ultimate Reality in which this Reality is part of and within.

Yes I'm saying Hitler, Your Shoelace, Urine, and every single thing, including your thoughts, "thunk and unthunk", all possibilities, everything exists within Ultimate Reality and that it is God.

Furthermore that there is NO God but this God, the most powerful. No it is not a Spaghetti Monster, A Spaghetti Monster is confined to a form, within Reality, so a Spaghetti Monster can never be the ultimate God, only God is the ultimate God.

Am I a heretic? Maybe to some Churches, but I find them to be the Heretics, claiming things that God is far beyond such as "God is a Father" "God has a Son" "God is in the image of man" "God lived as a man" and much more. Loyalty to a Church won't save you on Judgement Day, nor will any priest or pastor, not even Jesus can save you, Religion is meant to be a connection, directly, between God and the Individual, no intercessors and middle men.

I am saying strip everything and it will be in the image of Nothing, but it isn't Nothing, It is Reality, God. The Proof is Us, Existance, the FACT that we exist, that the Universe Exists and appeared. Something can not come from or exist within or appear by Nothing. Nothing is and always will be Nothing, and it has never existed, if it did, so too would it still be nothing. What has and always will exist is what all things are currently within, Ultimate Reality: You are made of it, completely dependant on it, and you would find peace by submission to it. It is not a flying spaghetti monster, but what allows the idea of a flying spaghetti monster to exist!

My God is limitless and infinite, all limits are within it, its space is boundless, all things exist within it, and the possibilities are infinite, we will never encompass them, only it can.

#25

2006-07-01, 14:41

imperfectcircle imperfectcircle is offline

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by AngryFemme:

^^ Although he doesn't possess many Muslim characteristics. I think he's trying to create his own Religion. And I think he is counting on the evangelical tune of his posts to collect followers.

In my four years at these forums, I've never witnessed another poster put more time, effort and aggression into converting others.

Imagine a lantern made of many different pieces of colored glass.

If you looked at it from one angle, it would appear to be one color. And if you looked from another angle, it would be a different color.

But the source of the light itself is just one thing, white.

I think Abrahim's position is not in fact religious, he's simply trying to convey the core message common to all religions.

Personally I have the same view. I don't consider myself religious, though.

#26

2006-07-01, 15:59

Aft3r ImaGe Aft3r ImaGe is offline

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by potentgirt:

First, neither of those ideas you spoke of are accepted in the Church. But yes, both are useless if God exists, which He does. Actually, a lot of your post just made no sense/contradicted itself/repeated nonsensically.

Well since we contradict ourselves etc. then can you give me proof? You just stated god exists. It is only fair to want to believe the truth so present evidence of your claim.

Also please point out where I just contradicted myself, since apparently I do all the time, or did you group me in with every other poster on totse?

[This message has been edited by Aft3r ImaGe (edited 07-01-2006).]

#27

2006-07-01, 17:04

Aft3r ImaGe Aft3r ImaGe is offline

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by imperfectcircle:

Imagine a lantern made of many different pieces of colored glass.

If you looked at it from one angle, it would appear to be one color. And if you looked from another angle, it would be a different color.

But the source of the light itself is just one thing, white.

I think your describing reality not religion.

#28

2006-07-01, 17:14

imperfectcircle imperfectcircle is offline

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by Aft3r ImaGe:

I think your describing reality not religion.

You can take it as a metaphor for subjectivity of perspective, but that's not the point I was making

#29

2006-07-01, 17:33

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

I can think that God doesn't exist. Therefore, "God not existing" is part of reality according to your definition. God doesn't exist.

Your idiotic proposition has just refuted itself.

#30

2006-07-01, 18:11

Aeroue

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

Rust FTW

How could you all look right over this, Abrahim's theory is blatantly wrong.

#31

2006-07-01, 18:32

AngryFemme AngryFemme is offline

Moderator

Deep South

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by imperfectcircle:

I think Abrahim's position is not in fact religious

I'd suggest re-reading all his posts, visiting with him further on messenger, and then re-thinking that statement.

He is actively converting people to follow his beliefs and realize the current error in their thinking. I see what you're saying, though. He's a swell guy with only the purest of intentions. If he weren't so damned likeable and easy to converse with, we could easily mistake him for just another naked internet religious zealot.

#32

2006-07-01, 21:36

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by Abrahim:

Am I a heretic? Maybe to some Churches, but I find them to be the Heretics, claiming things that God is far beyond such as "God is a Father" "God has a Son" "God is in the image of man" "God lived as a man" and much more. Loyalty to a Church won't save you on Judgement Day, nor will any priest or pastor, not even Jesus can save you, Religion is meant to be a connection, directly, between God and the Individual, no intercessors and middle men.

ONce more a threat: "Loyalty to a Church won't save you on Judgement Day, nor will any priest or pastor, not even Jesus can save you".. What version of reality is this, is Judgement day a reality? What do we need to be saved from? God's wrath? Then one would worship from fear, and perhaps the bs hell you preach would be preferable to spending the same eternity in the presence of tyranny!

quote:Originally posted by Abrahim:

I am saying strip everything and it will be in the image of Nothing, but it isn't Nothing, It is Reality, God. The Proof is Us, Existance, the FACT that we exist, that the Universe Exists and appeared. Something can not come from or exist within or appear by Nothing. Nothing is and always will be Nothing, and it has never existed, if it did, so too would it still be nothing. What has and always will exist is what all things are currently within, Ultimate Reality: You are made of it, completely dependant on it, and you would find peace by submission to it. It is not a flying spaghetti monster, but what allows the idea of a flying spaghetti monster to exist!

My God is limitless and infinite, all limits are within it, its space is boundless, all things exist within it, and the possibilities are infinite, we will never encompass them, only it can.

Take God from your statement and one arrives at this: we, the universe, the all, exists because it is impossible for nothing to exist. Therefore existence is the imperative, being cannot come from non-being, neither can existence come from non-existence. Being cannot become non-being, existence cannot become non-existence. We have being, we cannot have come from non-being, being has always been, it is eternal and self existent, infinite for there can not be ever non-being. There is no beginning, there is no ending, for there cannot be nothing. We exist because we must, there is no alternative, our being is infinite and eternal. What need then of Allah? What difference between the ultimate reality you espouse and the reality of this moment? There is no division, there cannot be, in the absence of an alternative to existence, existence stands alone, 'one', there is but one existence, one reality. What need do you have to divide that by adding the term "ultimate reality" and calling that god?

You seem to make the same error as so many others in needing to give identity to the mystery of life. In so doing your mind seems to be bound by the past and the future, and these inform your version of reality. Sweep those things away, clear your mind, focus your senses on this one moment, become aware of the input of all your senses in this one moment. Observe, you are the awareness, that which remains when thought has gone. Can you put a name to that, an identity, no that would take thought, but the awareness, the observer is only present when thought is not, therefore it is indescribable, indefinable. IN this context there is oneness, the infinite nature of mind, and the 'empty/full' state of awareness. This can not be spoken, it is beyond words, it brings self-realisation of the oneness of all.

Namaste

#33

2006-07-01, 21:49

imperfectcircle imperfectcircle is offline

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

I can think that God doesn't exist. Therefore, "God not existing" is part of reality according to your definition. God doesn't exist.

That's correct.

God/reality does not exist, and god/reality does exist.

Something defined as infinity neccessarily transcends our petty universe with it's arbitrary laws, and thus the logic that our monkey brains derived according those arbitrary laws is not a constraint upon it.

The Buddhist concept of shunyata deals with specifically this issue, of non-existence as the principle of existence. The philosopher Nagarjuna developed a philosophy that partially explains this:

quote:As for Nagarjuna's fundamental message in his philosophical works, it is important first to realize the object toward which his criticism is directed--namely, the notion of independent being, or self-existence (svabhava). The fact that his doctrine has been termed the doctrine of insubstantiality (nihsvabhavavada, literally, 'the doctrine that refutes svabhava') emphasizes Nagarjuna's characteristic rejection of the notion of self- existence. Nagarjuna rejects self-existence by examining relativity, or interdependent origination, in a critical, dialectic way, beginning with the idea of self-existence, going on to the idea of relativity or the absence of self-existence, and terminating with the idea of emptiness (shunyata). These three steps--from self-existence to non-self-existence, and finally to emptiness--are developed through three types of investigation: (1) the investigation of causality, (2) the investigation of concepts, and (3) the investigation of knowledge.

quote:Let us first look at the Madhyamaka critique of causality. Madhyamaka philosophy arrives at the insubstantiality and relativity of all phenomena through an examination of interdependent origination. In this context it is shown that, insofar as all things exist dependent on a combination of causes and conditions, they have no independent self- existence and are therefore empty. The classical example is that of the sprout, which exists dependent on the seed, earth, water, air, and sunlight. Inasmuch as the sprout depends on these factors for its existence, it has no self-existence and is therefore without self-existence. And being without self-existence, it is empty. This is the simplest and most direct Madhyamaka investigation of causality, and it leads us straight to the notion of emptiness. But for the Madhyamaka, emptiness also means non-origination, non-production. In the Perfection of Wisdom literature, as we saw in the Heart Sutra, the idea of non-origination and non-cessation occurs very frequently. Here, too, in the Madhyamaka philosophy, emptiness means non-origination--the non-arising in reality of all phenomena. Nagarjuna explains this particular consequence of emptiness through the dialectic method. Here we see again the fourfold dialectical analysis that appeared in the fourteen inexpressible propositions which the Buddha rejected.

quote:There is also a Madhyamaka critique of concepts--the concepts of identity and difference, existence and nonexistence, and so forth. All these concepts are relative; they are mutually conditioning. Let us take the concepts of short and long. The ideas of short and long are relative one to the other. We say that A is shorter than B or that B is longer than C, so the concepts of long and short are relative. If I put two fingers side by side, we can say that one finger is longer than the other, but if I put out a single finger, unrelated to anything else, we cannot say anything about it being long or short. This is another kind of interdependence. Just as we have material dependence in the origin of a sprout that is dependent on a seed, the earth, sunlight, and so on, here we have conceptual dependence, the dependence of one concept on another. And just as short and long are dependent one upon another, so identity and difference are dependent, or relative, to each other. Identity only has meaning in relation to difference, and difference only makes sense in relation to identity. The same is true of existence and nonexistence. Without the idea of existence, nonexistence has no meaning, and without nonexistence, existence has none. This is also true of the three divisions of time--past, present, and future. Depending on the past, the ideas of the present and future are conceived; depending on the past and future, we speak about the present; and depending on the present and the past, we speak about the future. The three moments of time--like short and long, identity and difference, and existence and nonexistence--are all concepts that are interdependent, relative, and empty.

quote:Finally, the analysis of relativity is applied to knowledge, or to the means of acquiring knowledge. This is an important application of the Madhyamaka critique because ordinarily we accept the reality of phenomena on the basis of perception. For example, we say that this cup which I have before me undoubtedly exists because I perceive it--I can see and touch it. We have knowledge of things through the means of knowledge. Traditionally, in India, there were four means of knowledge: (i) perception, (ii) inference, (iii) testimony, and (iv) comparison. For the sake of simplicity, let us take the case of perception. Suppose something is established by perception, that it is through perception that we accept the existence of the cup: What, then, is it that proves the existence (or truth) of the perception itself (i.e., the means of knowledge itself)? One might say that perception is proved by itself. In that case it would not require proof, but since when can something be accepted without proof? Alternatively, one might say that perception is established or proved by other means of knowledge, but in that case we have an infinite regress, as in the old story of the philosopher who, when asked what the earth stood on, replied that it stood on a great tortoise, and when asked what the great tortoise stood on, said that it stood on four great elephants, and so on and so forth. Nowhere can we find a firm foundation for perception if perception is proved by other means of knowledge. Finally, if perception is established by the object of perception, then perception and its object are mutually established and interdependent. This is, in fact, the case: The subject and object of perception are interdependent. They are mutually conditioned. Perception is therefore in no position to prove the existence of its object, and that object is in no position to prove the existence of perception, since they depend on each other. Thus knowledge--like cause and effect and mutually related concepts--is interdependent. It lacks self-existence, and is therefore empty.

http://www.ecst.csuchico.edu/~dsantina/tree/ch18.txt

#34

2006-07-01, 21:52

imperfectcircle imperfectcircle is offline

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by redzed:

ONce more a threat: "Loyalty to a Church won't save you on Judgement Day, nor will any priest or pastor, not even Jesus can save you".. What version of reality is this, is Judgement day a reality? What do we need to be saved from? God's wrath? Then one would worship from fear, and perhaps the bs hell you preach would be preferable to spending the same eternity in the presence of tyranny!

You couldn't have misunderstood his point more spectacularly.

The notion that loyalty to a Church is necessary to save us from some terrible judgement day is the fundamentalist point of view, which he is rebutting.

I'm astonished at how misunderstood Abrahim is.

Edit: by the way, according to the Gospel of Thomas, Jesus said pretty much the same thing as the bit you quoted from Abrahim

[This message has been edited by imperfectcircle (edited 07-01-2006).]

#35

2006-07-01, 21:56

imperfectcircle imperfectcircle is offline

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by AngryFemme:

I'd suggest re-reading all his posts, visiting with him further on messenger, and then re-thinking that statement.

Abrahim and myself actually have a remarkably similar attitude towards spirituality.

It is a PHILOSOPHICAL one, not a religious one.

quote: If he weren't so damned likeable and easy to converse with, we could easily mistake him for just another naked internet religious zealot.

What makes him different from a religious zealout is the fact that he is willing to question and discuss his beliefs in an open minded fashion with people who disagree, and respond with a smile when people attack his beliefs rather than evade the question or spout dogma.

#36

2006-07-01, 22:07

Eric

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

Not everyone believes that redshift equals distance.

#37

2006-07-01, 22:48

imperfectcircle imperfectcircle is offline

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by Eric:

Not everyone believes that redshift equals distance.

Because they believe it equals acceleration.

#38

2006-07-01, 23:22

Eric

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

Lol you got me.

I don't want to start a scientific debate in the religion forum. We all know how that always ends up.

[This message has been edited by Eric (edited 07-01-2006).]

#39

2006-07-02, 00:36

Abrahim

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by Eric:

Lol you got me.

I don't want to start a scientific debate in the religion forum. We all know how that always ends up.

Yeah, with me naked!

#40

2006-07-02, 01:49

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by imperfectcircle:

That's correct.

God/reality does not exist, and god/reality does exist.

Something defined as infinity neccessarily transcends our petty universe with it's arbitrary laws, and thus the logic that our monkey brains derived according those arbitrary laws is not a constraint upon it.

You might as well just smashed your face into the keyboard, as the outcome would have been the same. In other words, his ridiculous beliefs are so ridiculous, that we need to abandon all logic and reason. It's not that his idiotic comment is self-refuting, but that I'm foolishly using logic and reason, and he is not! My fault, I'm sorry!

If you lack an impetus to use logic and reason when making your claims, then so does anyone else. Therefore, I'll retort in the same inane manner:

You and Abrahim are wrong, because God told me that you're wrong. What evidence do I have of this? That I say so.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 07-02-2006).]

#41

2006-07-02, 02:15

Abrahim

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

You might as well just smashed your face into the keyboard, as the outcome would have been the same. In other words, his ridiculous beliefs are so ridiculous, that we need to abandon all logic and reason. It's not that his idiotic comment is self-refuting, but that I'm foolishly using logic and reason, and he is not! My fault, I'm sorry!

If you lack an impetus to use logic and reason when making your claims, then so does anyone else. Therefore, I'll retort in the same inane manner:

You and Abrahim are wrong, because God told me that you're wrong. What evidence do I have of this? That I say so.

True Nothing does not Exist or We would not Exist. Strip away all that is within Ultimate Reality and you are left with Ultimate Reality, in the image of nothing, posessing no images, but it is still what all things originate from, can originate from, exist within, can exist within, etc.

I believe it is more illogical to say The Universe Sparked out of no where within Nothing. If there was Nothing first, so too would there be Nothing now, because Something can not Occur Within Nothing.

I am saying that the Originator and Manifestor, the place of Manifestation, was what encompasses all possibilities, Ultimate Reality. That nothing has no ability to manifest, nothing can only be nothing and nothing can exist while there is nothing, nor can anything happen.

My God is Ultimate Reality, Infinite, within it are all realities, all things, all possibilities, everything, innumerable and un ending. My God is what you are completely dependant on and should be indebted to, but little appreciation do many have, and my God does not require anything from you, my God sustains itself and always has and always will, nothing can harm it or benefit it. You can harm yourself, and benefit yourself, and it would be better for you and your mind to benefit yours, to be thankful and submit to God, you will find peace from within and without. Ignorance is not Bliss, Bliss is in the Truth, an understanding.

I'm not denying the beauty of the Universe or all the magnificent mechanisms within it, I am trying to show you the Originator, right infront of you, behind you, around you, within you, you are completely dependant, fall prostrate and appreciate.

#42

2006-07-02, 02:46

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by Abrahim:

True Nothing does not Exist or We would not Exist.

We're discussing if something, not "nothing", exists or not. Your illogical beliefs would mean that something does not exist.

quote:I believe it is more illogical to say The Universe Sparked out of no where within Nothing. If there was Nothing first, so too would there be Nothing now, because Something can not Occur Within Nothing.

1. There is nothing illogical about the belief you just cited, as that belief does not break any rules of logic in and of itself. Saying that something can both exist and not exist at the same time, which are mutually exclusive concepts, does violate a rule of logic.

"Something does not come from nothing" may be a rule of Nature, and you can certainly argue that (even though it would be futile since the Big Bang would be a catyclismic event where the laws of Nature as we know them might have been null and void) but it is not a rule of logic.

2. Whether I, or anyone else here, believes that "the universe came out of nothing" is irrelevant, as that is not being debated.

3. Even if all of us had that belief, and that belief were illogical (which it isn't, at least not inherently) it would not change the fact that your ridiculous statements are self-refuting, unreasonable, unsubstantiated and illogical. Your beliefs must stand on their own merit, not on other unrelated beliefs failing.

---

The rest of your post is nothing but a rehash of the same rants you keep spamming across the board. They still remain unsubstantiated, they still remain illogical, and they still remain meaningless.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 07-02-2006).]

#43

2006-07-02, 06:17

lollercoaster lollercoaster is offline

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

*Sticks my robot penis in Rust's robot butt*

#44

2006-07-02, 06:27

Abrahim

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

1. There is nothing illogical about the belief you just cited, as that belief does not break any rules of logic in and of itself. Saying that something can both exist and not exist at the same time, which are mutually exclusive concepts, does violate a rule of logic.

"Something does not come from nothing" may be a rule of Nature, and you can certainly argue that (even though it would be futile since the Big Bang would be a catyclismic event where the laws of Nature as we know them might have been null and void) but it is not a rule of logic.

2. Whether I, or anyone else here, believes that "the universe came out of nothing" is irrelevant, as that is not being debated.

3. Even if all of us had that belief, and that belief were illogical (which it isn't, at least not inherently) it would not change the fact that your ridiculous statements are self-refuting, unreasonable, unsubstantiated and illogical. Your beliefs must stand on their own merit, not on other unrelated beliefs failing.

---

The rest of your post is nothing but a rehash of the same rants you keep spamming across the board. They still remain unsubstantiated, they still remain illogical, and they still remain meaningless.

When did I state that my God doesn't Exist, I state repeatedly that it is the only that that Exists, and though I repeat it, that concept has still not penetrated?

"(even though it would be futile since the Big Bang would be a catyclismic event where the laws of Nature as we know them might have been null and void)"

A Big Bang Can Not Occur in Absolute Nothing, Only Nothing can Occur in Absolute Nothing, Nothing does not have the capacity to hold any such event or allow it to occur. For the big bang to occur, first there would need to be a system which allows it to occur.

Why is "Something Coming From Nothing" Not the debate? It is a good part of the debate, because I am state that Ultimate Reality, God, Imageless, Formless, Limitless, Infinite, possessing all Realities within it, made from it, is what the big bang occured within and allowed it to occur. That if there was absolute nothing, still would there be absolute nothing, because something can't happen in nothing, nor can it allow anything to happen. You and I are proof that nothing doesn't exist.

When did I ever say to abandon logic? Logic is wonderful, my God is fully compatible with Logic. Is it logical to say that from absolute nothing, something occured? No, because absolute nothing doesnt have the capacity to allow anything to occur.

Perhaps you still imagine God as some being which needs to be created, but I'm not telling you to worship any such thing, you are a being, God is what all beings exist within. God is what is and always was and will ever be, there is nothing BUT God.

#45

2006-07-02, 08:25

AngryFemme AngryFemme is offline

Moderator

Deep South

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by imperfectcircle:

What makes him different from a religious zealout is the fact that he is willing to question and discuss his beliefs in an open minded fashion with people who disagree, and respond with a smile when people attack his beliefs rather than evade the question or spout dogma.

He claims that other religions are blasphemy to his God. He's gotten better about answering questions without copying and pasting from the Qur'an, and sure - he's more fun than a barrel fulla Christians. But dogma is present, and it's been spouted.

#46

2006-07-02, 10:54

Abrahim

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by AngryFemme:

He claims that other religions are blasphemy to his God. He's gotten better about answering questions without copying and pasting from the Qur'an, and sure - he's more fun than a barrel fulla Christians. But dogma is present, and it's been spouted.

Dogma!? I prefer Cutema!

[This message has been edited by Abrahim (edited 07-02-2006).]

#47

2006-07-02, 16:49

imperfectcircle imperfectcircle is offline

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

You might as well just smashed your face into the keyboard, as the outcome would have been the same. In other words, his ridiculous beliefs are so ridiculous, that we need to abandon all logic and reason. It's not that his idiotic comment is self-refuting, but that I'm foolishly using logic and reason, and he is not! My fault, I'm sorry!

If you lack an impetus to use logic and reason when making your claims, then so does anyone else. Therefore, I'll retort in the same inane manner:

You and Abrahim are wrong, because God told me that you're wrong. What evidence do I have of this? That I say so.

That's the worst response I've ever seen you make to one of my posts.

1) I never said that logic should be abandoned, kindly remove your words from my mouth.

I said that the laws of logic cannot apply to something existing beyond our universe.

Is it theoretically impossible for even a single universe to exist with different natural laws than our own?

No.

If it had different natural laws than ours, in particular causality, would they even comprehend our logic?

No.

So are the laws of our logic a constraint on the possibility of anything that could exist in such a universe?

No.

Now ask if it makes even the slightest bit of sense to assume that our logic should be a constraint on something that is conceptually infinite, the sum of all possible universes and everything they contain, etc.

2) You didn't even bother addressing my point about the Buddhist philosophical concept of shunyata. I expect it is beyond your intellectual capabilities, pedantic and petty as they are.

The Buddhist philosophers who have developed this notion of Emptiness being the source of existence have done so THROUGH REASON AND LOGIC, clearly you did not even bother to read the passages on Nagarjuna that I quoted or read up on the topic.

I believe that god/infinity/etc simultaneously exists and does not exist.

quote:Originally posted by F. Scott Fitzgerald:

The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function.

3) Your supposed proof against god's existence has the merit of the ontological argument FOR god's existence. What a weak effort.

#48

2006-07-02, 18:49

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by Abrahim:

When did I state that my God doesn't Exist, I state repeatedly that it is the only that that Exists, and though I repeat it, that concept has still not penetrated?

Had you bothered reading the whole thread, and not just the posts that masturbate your ego, you'd know why I said what I did.

If you define reality as anything we can possibly think of, and even that which we cannot imagine, then "God doesn't exist" is part of reality, because it is something that we can definitely think of (or if you believe it is somehow impoissible to think that, then it would be something we cannot imagine). As such, your own definition makes it so that God doesn't exist in reality.

It allows for reality to include that which makes your definition of god impossible. It contradicts itself.

quote:

A Big Bang Can Not Occur in Absolute Nothing, Only Nothing can Occur in Absolute Nothing, Nothing does not have the capacity to hold any such event or allow it to occur. For the big bang to occur, first there would need to be a system which allows it to occur.

Why is "Something Coming From Nothing" Not the debate? It is a good part of the debate, because I am state that Ultimate Reality, God, Imageless, Formless, Limitless, Infinite, possessing all Realities within it, made from it, is what the big bang occured within and allowed it to occur. That if there was absolute nothing, still would there be absolute nothing, because something can't happen in nothing, nor can it allow anything to happen. You and I are proof that nothing doesn't exist.

It's not part of the debate, because it has nothing to do with whether your own theory stands or not. If the Big Bang theory falls, yours doesn't magically gain acceptance. It has to stand on its own merits, not on whether other theories, superfluous ones, fall or not.

Moreover, that you keep saying "You and I are proof that nothing doesn't exist" shows quite nicely how you either haven;t bothered to read what I said, or have failed miserably in understanding it. I'm not saying that nothing exists.

quote:

When did I ever say to abandon logic? Logic is wonderful, my God is fully compatible with Logic. Is it logical to say that from absolute nothing, something occured? No, because absolute nothing doesnt have the capacity to allow anything to occur.

1. Again, it is not illogical to say that, because that does not break a rule of logic.

2. Your theory is not compatible with logic because it refutes itself by allowing reality to be something which contradicts the existence of god. A contradiction is illogical by definition.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 07-02-2006).]

#49

2006-07-02, 19:03

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by imperfectcircle:

1) I never said that logic should be abandoned, kindly remove your words from my mouth.

You may have not said that, because it makes the idiocy of you beliefs even more blatant, but that's the only possible conclusion given that you deem it possible to violate the fundamental law of logic, the law of non-contradiction.

If the law of non-contradiction falls, then the system of logic as we know it falls. Just because you decide not to follow this to its ultimate conclusion, doesn't mean that it is not the conclusion of your statements.

quote:

Is it theoretically impossible for even a single universe to exist with different natural laws than our own?

No.

If it had different natural laws than ours, in particular causality, would they even comprehend our logic?

No.

So are the laws of our logic a constraint on the possibility of anything that could exist in such a universe?

No.

All which is irrelevant to the issue at hand.

1. You've yet to show that we're actually dealing with something outside our universe. Speaking hypothetically doesn't prove anything.

2. "Existence" and "non-existence" are defined in this universe, as mutually exclusive concepts. Whether they are defined differently in another universe is wholly irrelvant because it is in this universe where the contradiction lies!

3. His ridiculous "theory" would mean that even mundane things would exist and not exist at the same time. Mundane things, that are not supernatural in the least; things which exist in this universe. As such, the point still stands regardless of the possible universes your mind may day-dream of.

quote:

Now ask if it makes even the slightest bit of sense to assume that our logic should be a constraint on something that is conceptually infinite, the sum of all possible universes and everything they contain, etc.

It doesn't make sense, hence why it is illogical to assume that such a thing exists. You abandon logic in order to allow for such a thing to exist in the first place, which is exactly what I said.

quote:

2) You didn't even bother addressing my point about the Buddhist philosophical concept of shunyata. I expect it is beyond your intellectual capabilities, pedantic and petty as they are.

I didn't bother addressing them because they are utterly meaningless in determining whether what you're saying is true or false, hence irrelevant to my desires.

Thank you for proving once again that you're severely allergic to logic, since you see no problem in making such wonderfully ridiculous allegation against me, one which is nothing but a pathetic logical fallacy. Just because I decided not to respond to your irrelevant quotations doesn't mean I didn't read them or that I did not understand them; it means that I decided not to respond to them. Given that your theory must stand on its own merits, and not on ther Buddhist concepts standing (whether they actually stand to scrutiny or not is yet to be determined), I see absolutely no reason why I should formulate a reply to those quatations.

quote:That's the worst response I've ever seen you make to one of my posts.

Given your penchant for abandoning logic and reason at any moment it inconveniences you and your silly beliefs, I take that as a compliment. Thank you.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 07-02-2006).]

#50

2006-07-02, 19:06

King_Cotton King_Cotton is offline

Moderator

My mind.

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by Abrahim:

If god is infinite, there is nothing that he is not.

What about Satan and hell? If God is in everything, yet hell is a place with the complete absence of God, and Satan is the being with a complete absence of God, then something is amiss here...

#51

2006-07-02, 19:40

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by King_Cotton:

What about Satan and hell? If God is in everything, yet hell is a place with the complete absence of God, and Satan is the being with a complete absence of God, then something is amiss here...

Which is the point I'm trying to make. It doesn't even have to deal with Satan or Hell. His definition of "reality" includes that which would make his definition of reality impossible!

#52

2006-07-02, 21:18

imperfectcircle imperfectcircle is offline

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by King_Cotton:

What about Satan and hell? If God is in everything, yet hell is a place with the complete absence of God, and Satan is the being with a complete absence of God, then something is amiss here...

Either infinity is something that exists, or not. I don't mean this in the emptiness/existence sense earlier, I mean in simple terms.

If it does exist, then God, Satan, and so on MUST exist, not just in some other universes, but in an infinite amount of universes (just like there must be an infinite amount of universes identical to this one).

That means there are universes where "God" (in the Christian sense, or that of any other monistic representation) and Satan play the banjo in a titty bar, universes where Satan rocked up to Heaven and killed "God", universes where Satan crossed into another universe, etc and so on, in an endless set of permutations.

As for the existence of alternate universes, there's a very compelling case made for an infinite number of them made by a physicist called David Deutsch, arguing his case on quantum mechanical, evolutionary, computational and epistemological grounds. The book is called "The Fabric of Reality : The Science of Parallel Universes and Its Implications", here's the Amazon link:

http://tinyurl.com/lyx2h

I know nobody is going to rush out and buy it (although it's a fantastic read), so here is an academic article laying out some of the arguments for the existence of parallel universes:

http://www.hep.upenn.edu/~max/multiverse.pdf

#53

2006-07-02, 21:35

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by imperfectcircle:

You couldn't have misunderstood his point more spectacularly.

The notion that loyalty to a Church is necessary to save us from some terrible judgement day is the fundamentalist point of view, which he is rebutting.

I'm astonished at how misunderstood Abrahim is.

Edit: by the way, according to the Gospel of Thomas, Jesus said pretty much the same thing as the bit you quoted from Abrahim

I'm obviously not alone in 'misunderstanding' Abrahim, he is so full of missionary zeal he disrespects others by making assumptions on what they believe based upon his understanding of the catholic faith. It seems that those Roman concepts have been tattooed on his brain and he does not understand how radically different many people view the message of Christ. He relies on hypothesis for which he has not presented logical and reasonable proofs.

The Gospel of Thomas directly contradicts Abrahims message: Jesus said, "It is I who am the light which is above them all. It is I who am the all. From me did the all come forth, and unto me did the all extend. Split a piece of wood, and I am there. Lift up the stone, and you will find me there." (Gspl Thomas 77) To understand this passage understand the gnostics who wrote it thought of the all as the 'substantial reality' similar to Abrahims concept of 'ultimate reality:

quote:"THAT which is the Fundamental Truth-the Substantial Reality-is beyond true naming, but the Wise Men call it THE ALL." -The Kybalion.

"In its Essence, THE ALL is UNKNOWABLE." -The Kybalion.

"But, the report of Reason must be hospitably received, and treated with respect." - The Kybalion.

The human reason, whose reports we must accept so long as we think at all, informs us as follows regarding THE ALL, and that without attempting to remove the veil of the Unknowable:

(I) THE ALL must be ALL that REALLY IS. There can be nothing existing outside of THE ALL, else THE ALL would not be THE ALL.

(2) THE ALL must be INFINITE, for there is nothing else to define, confine, bound, limit or restrict THE ALL. It must be Infinite in Time, or ETERNAL,-it must have always continuously existed, for there is nothing else to have ever created it, and something can never evolve from nothing, and if it had ever "not been," even for a moment, it would not "be" now,-it must continuously exist forever, for there is nothing to destroy it, and it can never "not be," even for a moment, because something can never become nothing. It must be Infinite in Space-it must be Everywhere, for there is no place outside of THE ALL-it cannot be otherwise than continuous in Space, without break, cessation, separation, or interruption, for there is nothing to break, separate, or interrupt its continuity, and nothing with which to "fill in the gaps." It must be Infinite in Power, or Absolute, for there is nothing to limit, restrict, restrain, confine, disturb or condition it-it is subject to no other Power, for there is no other Power.

Im sure you see the similarities and you will understand that I cannot agree that Abrahims theory agrees at all with The Gospel of Thomas which has Jesus say quote:"It is I who am the light which is above them all. It is I who am the all.

Blasphemy according to Abrahim, what say you?

One more thing re 'emptiness': understood as empty of form, or formlessness, lack of division, unity, egolessness, the paradox is understood -- the universe is both full and empty.

Namaste

#54

2006-07-02, 22:36

imperfectcircle imperfectcircle is offline

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by redzed:

The Gospel of Thomas directly contradicts Abrahims message: Jesus said, "It is I who am the light which is above them all. It is I who am the all. From me did the all come forth, and unto me did the all extend. Split a piece of wood, and I am there. Lift up the stone, and you will find me there." (Gspl Thomas 77)

Yes, and he also said this:

quote:The Gospel of Thomas

Jesus said, `I am not your master. Because you have drunk, you have become drunk from the bubbling stream which I have measured out.... 12

He who will drink from my mouth will become as I am: I myself shall become he, and the things that are hidden will be revealed to him.' 13

The point of the Gospel, like the gnostic faith, is that knowledge of the divine should be a direct, unmediated personal experience.

Which is the exact thing Abrahim was saying in the original post I quoted from you.

#55

2006-07-02, 23:20

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

#56

2006-07-02, 23:23

Aft3r ImaGe Aft3r ImaGe is offline

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

You didn't answer the problem he points out, which was prety much exactly mine, except he's seeing it strictly from a Christian perspective.

He's saying that if Hell is an absence of god, then god cannot be hell (or exist within hell) which would be a consequence of what Abrahim is saying. Thus, he's pointing out, as I did, how illogical his statements are.

Christian perspective or not reality can't be god, because if evil exists and god can't be evil then god can't be reality.

I only say that because they could say well exists outside or reality.

[This message has been edited by Aft3r ImaGe (edited 07-02-2006).]

#57

2006-07-02, 23:25

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

That's if you define a god as strictly benevolent, which Abrahim apparently does not.

#58

2006-07-02, 23:45

imperfectcircle imperfectcircle is offline

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

He's saying that if Hell is an absence of god, then god cannot be hell (or exist within hell) which would be a consequence of what Abrahim is saying. Thus, he's pointing out, as I did, how illogical his statements are.

No, "Hell" is the absence of a Christian "god", which is certainly something that can exist in a possible universe. Quite possibly this one, as it happens.

When I say "god", and I suspect Abrahim will agree, I am using it as shorthand for "infinity" or "the sum total of all possible universes and everything they contain at all points in their timeline".

To say that a "hell" must exist as the counterpoint to this is equal to saying "god" does not exist as I use the term - which I have already said is true.

To deny that "infinity" exists is to deny that this world exists for a start. It also denies a number of plausible theories in modern physics.

[This message has been edited by imperfectcircle (edited 07-02-2006).]

#59

2006-07-02, 23:52

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

The point being that he's not asking whether or not hell exists, but merely pointing out how illogical it is for god to be within (or actually be) a place which is absent from god!

In other words, he's pointed out the exact same logical inconsistency I have, which while you have admitted to it, you have yet to reconcile your beliefs with it save for basking in absurdity by doing away with logic all together.

Convinetly doing away with logic when you want to "prove" your statements, isn't a valid reply. If it is, I will redirect you to my initial reply, in which I tell you that you're wrong because god told me so - an equally illogical statement. You cannot expect to constraint someone who has been chosen as god's messenger with logic... It makes no sense!

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 07-03-2006).]

#60

2006-07-03, 00:08

imperfectcircle imperfectcircle is offline

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

The point being that he's not asking whether or not hell exists, but merely pointing out how illogical it is for god to be within (or actually be) a place which is absent from god!

Again this is a monistic "god".

The question does not arise with my use of the term "god", because if a place exists, it is a part of the sum of existence.

"Hell" only makes sense with reference to a monistic "god".

quote:Convinetly doing away with logic when you want to "prove" your statements, isn't a valid reply. If it is, I will redirect you to my initial reply, in which I tell you that you're wrong because god told me so - an equally illogical statement. You cannot expect to constraint someone who has been chosen as god's messenger with logic... It makes no sense!

Give me a logical rational explanation for why God has told you this which is as convincing as the logical rational explanation for the existence of an infinite number of parralel universes, and then your objection will have two legs to stand on.

#61

2006-07-03, 00:18

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by imperfectcircle:

Again this is a monistic "god".

The question does not arise with my use of the term "god", because if a place exists, it is a part of the sum of existence.

"Hell" only makes sense with reference to a monistic "god".

Which is why I said he was looking at this through a Christian perspective. However, the problem it exposes is the same. It still points out how the statements are illogical as they would require that something exist and not-exist at the same time (what he's referring to as an absence of god and presence of god in a Christian perspective).

quote: Give me a logical rational explanation for why God has told you this which is as convincing as the logical rational explanation for the existence of an infinite number of parralel universes, and then your objection will have two legs to stand on.

That's not how this works at all. Not only have you made the claim in the first place, but you're deliberately ignoring conclusion of your statements which would require that everything (not just god) both exist and not-exist at the same time (since these are 'things we can think of', or if you believe that's impossible, 'things that we can never imagine'); they would result in a total abandonment of logic. You've given absolutely no resolution to that problem save for implying that logic doesn't apply in that case, which is not a valid argument at all.

Either give a resolution to that problem, or my statement remains as logical as yours. Like I said, if you lack an impetus to use logic as a restraint in your arguments, then so does anyone else. If you're allowed to hold a blatantly contradictory statement as true, then I can use circular logic at will.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 07-03-2006).]

#62

2006-07-03, 00:26

IanBoyd3

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by imperfectcircle:

Either infinity is something that exists, or not. I don't mean this in the emptiness/existence sense earlier, I mean in simple terms.

If it does exist, then God, Satan, and so on MUST exist, not just in some other universes, but in an infinite amount of universes (just like there must be an infinite amount of universes identical to this one).

That means there are universes where "God" (in the Christian sense, or that of any other monistic representation) and Satan play the banjo in a titty bar, universes where Satan rocked up to Heaven and killed "God", universes where Satan crossed into another universe, etc and so on, in an endless set of permutations.

As for the existence of alternate universes, there's a very compelling case made for an infinite number of them made by a physicist called David Deutsch, arguing his case on quantum mechanical, evolutionary, computational and epistemological grounds. The book is called "The Fabric of Reality : The Science of Parallel Universes and Its Implications", here's the Amazon link:

http://tinyurl.com/lyx2h

I know nobody is going to rush out and buy it (although it's a fantastic read), so here is an academic article laying out some of the arguments for the existence of parallel universes:

http://www .hep.upenn .edu/~max/ multiverse.pdf (http: //www.hep. upenn.edu/ ~max/multi verse.pdf)

Why MUST they exist? Infinity is a concept, a function of the mind, it doesn't have material existence. It's like saying either love exists or it doesn't, and if it does, it means that every life form in existence MUST love every other life form in existence. How exactly do you know this?

#63

2006-07-03, 00:31

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

He doesn't know.

Given an infinite amount of time, a random number generator will produce an infinite amount of numbers, arguably it could produce all the number in the number line. It however, will never produce a letter.

If it is impossible for Satan and Hell (or anything else for that matter) to exist in the first place, then not even an infinite amount of universes or an infinite amount of attempts, is going to result in Satan or Hell existing. He's assuming that it is not impossible, which he bases on absolutely nothing.

#64

2006-07-03, 00:52

imperfectcircle imperfectcircle is offline

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

your statements which would require that everything (not just god)

By saying "not just god" you demonstrated that you are not talking about my definition of "god".

There cannot be a notion of "everything" that does not include god.

#65

2006-07-03, 00:53

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by imperfectcircle:

By saying "not just god" you demonstrated that you are not talking about my definition of "god".

There cannot be a notion of "everything" that does not include god.

It demonstrates that I don't accept it as a meaningful disctinction if it merely serves as a placeholder for the word "reality".

The point stills stands. It would require that my car both exist and not exist.

#66

2006-07-03, 00:55

imperfectcircle imperfectcircle is offline

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by IanBoyd3:

Why MUST they exist?

Frankly I've become more involved in this thread than I wanted to become. I have my own views on this subject that are similar but very different to Abrahim's. In fact I'm writing a book about it, whether it will ever be finished or not I don't know because I'm still exploring the question. But not only am I not ready to go into detail about my views more than I already have, the ideas aren't fully formed yet themselves, so I'll probably bow out at this point since the debate is focusing more on my views than Abrahim's.

#67

2006-07-03, 00:57

imperfectcircle imperfectcircle is offline

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

It demonstrates that I don't accept it as a meaningful disctinction if it merely serves as a placeholder for the word "reality".

The point stills stands. It would require that my car both exist and not exist.

You win, congratulations.

#68

2006-07-03, 00:59

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

Win what exactly? You've just wasted my time by making ridiculous allegations an then leaving before you back them up. That's not a win. You've successfully fucked me out of quite a few minutes of my immensely valuable life.

#69

2006-07-03, 01:08

imperfectcircle imperfectcircle is offline

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

You've successfully fucked me out of quite a few minutes of my immensely valuable life.

Then I win. Awesome.

#70

2006-07-03, 01:55

AngryFemme AngryFemme is offline

Moderator

Deep South

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by imperfectcircle:

This should be good. I've been working on a monster reply to Rust that I might was well just post here.

quote: Frankly I've become more involved in this thread than I wanted to become.

Look, Rust! Your time was not entirely wasted.

#71

2006-07-03, 02:03

Alveric

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

Had you bothered reading the whole thread, and not just the posts that masturbate your ego, you'd know why I said what I did.

#72

2006-07-03, 02:04

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by AngryFemme:

Look, Rust! Your time was not entirely wasted.

Double K.O.!

#73

2006-07-03, 02:04

imperfectcircle imperfectcircle is offline

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by AngryFemme:

Look, Rust! Your time was not entirely wasted.

That's something else, the points that I made in the B&M thread were based on three subjects:

- the correspondence theory of truth

- the coherence theory of truth

- aspects of kantian metaphysics, specifically his theory of judgement

the response I mentioned earlier is still being written, I'm simply expanding my previous points in terms of their formal arguments. It's taking a little longer to write than your average post.

Edit: btw I'm studying philosophy in university, so this won't be a copy and paste

Edit2: I'm not fucking around, if I don't have the response up by this time next week I'll post my password in SG.

Rust is going to get an ass fucking.

He'd get one here, except that arguing the issue is exponentially more time consuming than the thread in B&M.

If I ever do get my book published, you'll be in the acknowledgements though Rust.

[This message has been edited by imperfectcircle (edited 07-03-2006).]

#74

2006-07-03, 02:43

potentgirt potentgirt is offline

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

Thanks for taking over since I left, Rust. Everytime I saw imperfectcircle's response, I was about to post something, only to find you had said the same thing I planned to.

uhh High Five?

#75

2006-07-03, 02:49

lollercoaster lollercoaster is offline

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

Rust eats poop.

#76

2006-07-03, 02:56

imperfectcircle imperfectcircle is offline

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by lollercoaster:

Rust eats poop.

God's poop

#77

2006-07-03, 03:07

Abrahim

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by King_Cotton:

What about Satan and hell? If God is in everything, yet hell is a place with the complete absence of God, and Satan is the being with a complete absence of God, then something is amiss here...

I don't believe there is any place in any dimension that is absent of God, God is what everything is made of and exists within. Nothing can exist without God. Satan is completely dependant on God, so is Hell.

#78

2006-07-03, 03:13

Abrahim

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by Aft3r ImaGe:

Christian perspective or not reality can't be god, because if evil exists and god can't be evil then god can't be reality.

I only say that because they could say well exists outside or reality.

All that is "Good" and All that is "Evil" and All that you Know, and What You do Not: Exists within God, is Made of God entirely, Can not exist without God, From God it is that you originated and all you send for, From God it will be that you return, and all you sent forth.

[This message has been edited by Abrahim (edited 07-03-2006).]

#79

2006-07-03, 03:29

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by Abrahim:

I don't believe there is any place in any dimension that is absent of God, God is what everything is made of and exists within. Nothing can exist without God. Satan is completely dependant on God, so is Hell.

Yet if we can think of such a dimension, then it exists as part of reality according to your ludicrous definition. Hence, the logical contradiction.

#80

2006-07-03, 03:30

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by lollercoaster:

Rust eats poop.

You're not entertaining.

#81

2006-07-03, 03:32

Abrahim

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

I say there is no such thing as No Thing, because clearly there are things, and if there ever was a time there was No Thing, there was still God, not some being, but the plain in which all things exist, including us.

The Universe exists within it and is dependant on it and the limitations which are part of this universe.

There could be an infinite number of alternate realities and universes and laws that are completely different than the laws of our universe, all are still within Ultimate Reality.

Ultimate Reality, stripped of everything within it and made of it, would be in the image of Nothing, nor would it have a form save "infinite" but it is not really pure "Nothing" if it was, it still would be nothing. Why? Why would it still be nothing? Because true nothing can't do anything, nor can allow anything to happen, nor can anything exist within it, there is no such thing as Nothing, the only thing that is and ever was and will be is Ultimate Reality, infintie Knowledge which allows for everything to exist, manifestor of all possibilities, but there is no possibility that exists without it, because it is what all things exist within, it is the Ultimate, It is the only thing worthy of being called God.

#82

2006-07-03, 03:43

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

That's right, ignore the problems that have been presented, and ramble on with even more incoherent nonsense. Trolling at its finest.

#83

2006-07-03, 03:47

imperfectcircle imperfectcircle is offline

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

I eat god's poop

I always knew you were a kinky one

#84

2006-07-03, 04:34

Abrahim

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

That's right, ignore the problems that have been presented, and ramble on with even more incoherent nonsense. Trolling at its finest.

What problems? That if my God exists so too does my God not exist according to my definition? My God's definition isnt some being within and confined to reality but what all beings and realities are confined within.

That God and Nothing can't exist at the same time? Yeah, that's right, because there is no such thing as Nothing, there is only God.

What other problems have people presented or could present: How can hell exist of hell is the absence of God? Hell isn't the absence of God, there is no such thing as the absence of God.

Any other problems? God Can't be Reality because Reality is just a concept for the universe we exist within: What does the Universe exist within, where did the big bang occur? Within Reality, this Reality is within and made of and existing by and dependant on God, the Ultimate Reality of which all are within and nothing is without.

Any other problems presented other than the statements: Your theories are absurd, you're crazy, your theories are illogical, to accept what you are saying is to defy logic, etc.

I don't find that anything I say about the nature of God and Reality is absurd, illogical, or crazy.

I repeatedly state simple concepts which should be easy for most to grasp:

There is no God Greater than My God: Not a man or a woman or a being confined to an image within Reality: God is what all images are within, God is the Ultimate Reality the Originator. Go to the top top top top top top top of the hierarchy of all things and that is God, there is nothing higher or greater, all is within it, it is all there is.

There is no such thing as Nothing, if there was, there would be nothing.

No single Thing within Reality can be God, because if it exists, it is dependant on the True God in order to exist, that is Reality.

By the term Reality I don't mean perception or this Universe alone, but what it all exists within, what allows you to exist, think, what gives you all the possibilities you have available, what has all the possible things you could possibly think or do available.

Why must this be God? Because there is nothing greater than what I say is God.

Why must we worship it? You don't have to if you don't want to, but it would be better if you did.

Why? Peace through understanding and submission, following the path of the Tao, the eightfoldpath to Nirvana, the straight path, if you don't want it, you don't have to follow it, but following it would be best for you.

What is it? It is something that has been mentioned over and over in history.

The concept is not a new one, in fact it is very ancient found in some of the earliest religions and repeated around the World.

Any other bullet point issues you want to bring up? Feel free! I think I missed them again probably. Many of the issues people find with what I'm saying may be from a misunderstanding of the words I'm using.

[This message has been edited by Abrahim (edited 07-03-2006).]

#85

2006-07-03, 04:51

Abrahim

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

So what is the problem?

#86

2006-07-03, 04:55

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by Abrahim:

What problems? That if my God exists so too does my God not exist according to my definition? My God's definition isnt some being within and confined to reality but what all beings and realities are confined within.

... which is another way of saying you have absolutely no answer to the problem, so instead you've repeated a bunch of non-sense.

The fact remains that if we take your absurd definition of reality as true, then we can imagine a set of circumstance (X) which contradict your theory as a whole and according to you, that set of circumstances, X, would exist in reality, effectively refuting all that you have just said.

Your definition of reality makes it so that god isn't reality; it makes it so that everything you've said is wrong. You haven't even begun to justify that, but instead, you keep making nonsensical replies that desperately avoid the issue at hand.

#87

2006-07-03, 05:10

Regular

South Texas

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

Reality is not God.

Reality is not an entity. Reality is not conscious. Reality does not create nor destroy. Reality does not love nor hate. Reality does not reward nor punish. Reality is not God.

Reality is simply All That Exists.Reality is not self-aware.Reality requires the presence of a sentient being to recognize it's existance. Merely because living beings exist within reality does not imply that reality is alive any more than a fish bowl would be alive because the fish within it are .

Reality is not aware, therefor it cannot be a God.

#88

2006-07-03, 05:13

kenwih

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

#89

2006-07-03, 05:21

Abrahim

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by truckfixr:

Reality is not God.

Reality is not an entity. Reality is not conscious. Reality does not create nor destroy. Reality does not love nor hate. Reality does not reward nor punish. Reality is not God.

Reality is simply All That Exists.Reality is not self-aware.Reality requires the presence of a sentient being to recognize it's existance. Merely because living beings exist within reality does not imply that reality is alive any more than a fish bowl would be alive because the fish within it are .

Reality is not aware, therefor it cannot be a God.

This is why I copy paste:

I have a document that answers those statements.

Do you mind if I copy paste it here? I think its relevant to what you said!

It uses many of the words you used if you scroll down:

"God is The Reality, there is no God but this. People say they will believe when they see some large being come down from the sky? Yet any large being that may come down from the sky is within reality, made of reality, limited by reality, thus Reality remains the True and Ultimate God.

The Ultimate Reality is where we exist, where this universe is, essentially it is the only thing, that ever was or will be.

Nothing does not exist, what I mean to say as, True, Absolute Nothing, does not exist, as something (this) can not come from Nothing. Nothing always remains as Nothing, it has no capability to manifest.

On the other hand, Ultimate Reality has always existed, there is nothing beyond it, it is all there is and ever was, it is the manifestor of all possibilities, all realities, including this one.

It is "alive" if it were dead, inactive, then so too would we be non active, incapable, non existant, All things are in motion constantly.

God is The Reality, all things are part of the Reality, made up of the Reality, dependant on the Reality. You can call it anything, from God, Allah, The Tao, The Force, The Brahman, its one thing, all of the above were words to describe it but some ended up humanizing it. It is not a human, it has no form, it is infinite, it has no limits, it is the only power, the ultimate power.

Why would one deny evolution and the processes of this universe? They are made manifest and clear. But to deny Reality would be the mistake, and Reality is the only God, the Ultimate God. The sustainer of Worlds, the Supreme "King", The Provider of all things.

Prove to me Reality does not exist? You can't without blatant denial of yourself and all that is within and without you. Reality is God, the Only God. We are all within it, and Nothing is without it.

Originally posted by truckfixr:

I can agree with you up to a point. Reality exists. Beyond that, you are stretching things a bit.

Reality is not a sentient being, thus it honestly cannot qualify as being a God. You're calling it so is based on your opinion/belief. Not on emperical evidence.

I'm not saying it is sentient in the way we are sentient:

Here is the definition from www.dictionary.com (http://www.dictionary.com)

sen·tient ( P ) Pronunciation Key (snshnt, -sh-nt)

adj.

Having sense perception; conscious: The living knew themselves just sentient puppets on God's stage (T.E. Lawrence).

Experiencing sensation or feeling.

____________________________________________

Everything is made of Reality, including our feelings, and our ability to be sentient. Everything is within Reality, everything is in constant motion. Reality is not "dead" or else that would mean it would be nothing and not exist at all, nor would any thing manifest, exist, or manipulate, or even have a plain on which to exist, nor would or could anything manifest, appear or even move.

Reality is "Alive"

a·live ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-lv)

adj.

Having life; living. See Synonyms at living.

In existence or operation; active: keep your hopes alive.

Full of living or moving things; abounding: a pool alive with trout.

Full of activity or animation; lively: a face alive with mischief.

Main Entry: alive

Pronunciation: &-'lIv

Function: adjective

: having life : not dead or inanimate

Clearly Reality is Animate, we and everything is proof of this.

Ultimate Reality is "Aware" of all things existing within it, the proof of this is in the manifestation of all the available possibilities for us and our ability to execute them, furthermore our personal Awareness being proof of "Reality posessing Awareness". Besides all that, if Reality were not "Aware" those things it is "Unaware" of would not exist.

Aware

adj 1: (sometimes followed by `of') having or showing realization

We and everything around us are the Realization of Reality.

re·al·i·za·tion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (r-l-zshn)

n.

The act of realizing or the condition of being realized.

The result of realizing.

Manifestation:

man·i·fes·ta·tion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (mn-f-stshn)

n.

The act of manifesting.

The state of being manifested.

An indication of the existence, reality, or presence of something: A high fever is an early manifestation of the disease.

man·i·fes·ta·tion (mn-f-stshn)

n.

An indication of the existence, reality, or presence of something...

Main Entry: man·i·fes·ta·tion

Pronunciation: "man-&-f&-'stA-sh&n, -"fes-

Function: noun

: a perceptible, outward, or visible expression

There is your "Creation" The Manifestation of this Reality which is within Ultimate Reality, which is the Manifestor. To call it the "Manifestor" is not innacurate as clearly, we are manifest and here to prove it.

The funny thing is "We are witnesses unto ourselves" what I mean to say is "we are the proof against ourselves" So is everything else!

So to Recap, We and All that is, ever will be, ever was, ever can or will be, in this or any other reality, belongs within Ultimate Reality. Ultimate Reality is what we are "Manifest" within. There is no Diety or God greater or mightier than this, and it is not a humanoid or anything of the sort, nor does it operate or think like us, it is infinite, the proof of its life is in the movement of all things, the proof of its awareness is in our being manifest. If it did not "know" we would be "dead" or inactive in it. know ( P ) Pronunciation Key (n)

v. knew, (n, ny) known, (nn) know·ing, knows

v. tr.

To perceive directly; grasp in the mind with clarity or certainty.

To regard as true beyond doubt: I know she won't fail.

To have a practical understanding of, as through experience; be skilled in: knows how to cook.

dead ( P ) Pronunciation Key (dd)

adj. dead·er, dead·est

No longer in existence, use, or operation.

We are the proof amazingly, yet we look everywhere for something that doesn't exist, when "God" is right infront of us, we are operating through it. We are sufficient proof of it. The Ultimate Reality, we are within it, it is without us, self sufficient, be it that we exist or not, it is ever living, before and after. Call it what satisfies you, it is one undeniable thing, to deny it is to Deny the Truth, Yourselves, The Reality which you exist within.

ex·ist ( P ) Pronunciation Key (g-zst)

intr.v. ex·ist·ed, ex·ist·ing, ex·ists

To have actual being; be real.

It is one God that has appeared throughout history, constantly mutated by the minds of men which belong to it completely, for their form to the possible thoughts they can possibly think. Even the most ancient hunter gatherer societies have this most ancient concept ingrained into their personal religions, even so, athiests deny it due to their definitions of God which they base of the corruptions of humans. God is and has always been "The Ultimate Reality" Never has "God" been a man in the sky, some being with a form, or anything possible within Ultimate Reality because it, itself is Ultimate Reality and all things are within it, not without it.

Its been called many things, though it is one thing, and so too are we, who all belong in it and exist only within it and because of it, are one with it, yet we deem ourselves self sufficient, we are completely dependant. We are under its controls by its limitations. It is beneficent in its gamut of options which it has bestowed us, to do what we wish, and all things having their cause and effect.

People claim that this world is IMPERFECT, do they see glitches? Does your computer screen suddenly dissapear forever with no explanation right before your eyes? The System is Perfect, This Reality is Perfect, Ultimate Reality is Perfect, if it is incapable of one thing it is Imperfection, as Imperfection is Nothing, it can not manifest.

All Religions are an attempt to explain this truth in a way people can understand. Many get close. Christianity tries in its own way but its humanizations mislead.

The first beliefs understood this, it was understood all was a part of Reality, then each part, to explain the phenomena was accounted a spirit of action, originally accepted as part of the One, but later misrepresented through alagory and explanation as its own part, and all beliefs have this core, as does human existence, since it is undeniable.

Each Religion from the most ancient to the new says it in their own Way and tries to make the message clear. It is one Message. There is only One Religion.

The only dispute and matter of "Faith" should be in an afterlife or ressurection.

But even so, that concept is there, once again reflecting ultimate Truth, that to everything there is a Cycle, even so to this universe, it expands and will collapse and restart. The Night and the Day and the Night and the Day. The land grows dry and dead and then rains bring out the life again. A million metaphors to represent the ultimate cycles within Reality.

Please read the above post if you havent!

Reality is obviously not aware in the way we are but Reality is aware, the fact that we exist being that awareness manifest. If not we would not exist, but true that to us sounds humanization, but I don't mean it that way AT ALL.

en·ti·ty ( P ) Pronunciation Key (nt-t)

n. pl. en·ti·ties

Something that exists as a particular and discrete unit: Persons and corporations are equivalent entities under the law.

The fact of existence; being.

The existence of something considered apart from its properties.

If anything, in that case, Reality would be the only Entity, what we all exist within, what only exists, what we are all made of. That would only be according to definition 2 of the word. In any case, everything is within and part of one thing, and that is Reality, it is infinite, essentially it is all there is.

in·fi·nite ( P ) Pronunciation Key (nf-nt)

adj.

Having no boundaries or limits.

Immeasurably great or large; boundless: infinite patience; a discovery of infinite importance.

Mathematics.

Existing beyond or being greater than any arbitrarily large value.

Unlimited in spatial extent: a line of infinite length.

Of or relating to a set capable of being put into one-to-one correspondence with a proper subset of itself.

I thought it was relevant since the word Manifestation was used, Creationists can simply say that the Bible uses metaphor to teach in the case of the story of our creation. Then they can take science as the fact, the story as the metaphor representing the science. I don't know why they would defend something untrue when they can just as easy take it as metaphor.

I'd LOVE to talk to you on an IM program! Which one do you use? I am MSN, AIM, and Yahoo. Which do you use? How can I add you?

Yeah I didn't understand what the phycedelics was reffering to:

did you mean:

psy·che·del·ic ( P ) Pronunciation Key (sk-dlk)

adj.

Of, characterized by, or generating hallucinations, distortions of perception, altered states of awareness, and occasionally states resembling psychosis.

Hope to see you soon on one of the IM's I'll add you, or you could add me at abrahimesker@hotmail.com , abrahimesker , or abrahim_esker@yahoo.com

Originally posted by truckfixr:

We are aware. Reality is not.

Consider this. If all life in the universe were to cease to exist, any and all awareness would also cease to exist. Reality would remain. There would simply be no one to observe.

If we are Aware, Reality "posesses" Awareness. If it did not, we would not be Aware. Its language trickery maybe, but its literal too.

You are right about the second part, Reality would remain.

Most of what happened yesterday is unknown and unremembered, unverifiable, unproveable.

Were we created?

Were we manifested?

Were we molded by evolution?

Why can't people understand whatever the case, they are all the same, and the proof is that we are here.

We are manifestations, manifested within Reality and this Universe, and molded/created by evolution, a process which was originally manifested as a possibility within Reality and this Universe. The argument goes into semantics, language, and philosophy. There is only One God worthy of Worship, Understanding, Submission. There is no Being within this Universe or outside it worthy of worship save the one thing.

The one thing has been described in a billion ways over history by different people, and it is always an attempt to explain the one thing which EVERYONE knows willingly or unwillingly. There is no Elephant, Bearded man, Spirit Being, or any other explanation of the One thing.

The One Thing is not seperate from anything, or any of us, we are within it, a part of it, manifested by it, within it, and are completely dependant on it.

Some call it "What is Real" some give it other images and forms, thus limiting it in peoples minds and ruining the original concept.

Hinduism, Taoism, Islam, they all talk about the one thing and describe it in various fashions. Even Zoroastrianism, even Athiests can't deny the One Thing, they all call it by different names, it has no name save a name we give it.

Even the oldest religions, the most ancient hunter gatherer beliefs try to describe this one thing and mention it in their various fashions.

I call it "Reality" what encompasses all of us, objective, subjective.

Hindu's call it brahma (nominative singular), brahman (stem) (neuter[1] gender) means the concept of the Supreme transcendent and immanent Reality or the One Godhead or Cosmic Spirit in Hinduism; this is discussed below.

The Vedas depict Brahman as the Ultimate Reality, the Absolute or Universal Soul (Paramātman) [6]. It is the ultimate principle who is without a beginning, without an end, who is hidden in all and who is the cause, source, material and effect of all creation known, unknown and yet to happen in the entire universe.

Bhuddists include this belief as well as other religions that have sprung from Hinduism.

"Ishvara (ईश्वर in devanagari script, pronunciation /ī:sh vərə/), also variously transliterated (romanized) as Īshvara, Īshwara, Īshwar, Īśvara, etc. (Sanskrit: "the Supreme Lord, and hence the Cosmic Controller") is a Hindu philosophical concept of God meaning that entity or the Supreme Being which is the lord and the ruler of everything. It is also used in Buddhism to mean 'lord' or 'master', eg, Avalokiteshvara."

The same goes for "The Tao" in Taoism.

The same with "Allah" in Islam, it is a description of Ultimate Reality.

Everyone from the beginning of our attempts to explain things, have been attempting to explain one thing, which we exist within, interact with, are controlled by, has an infinite potential of aspects (manifestations) but is One, call it what you want, Reality, Tao, The Brahman, Allah, God. It is one thing, and it is One. Nothing is outside of Reality, it is infinite and all encompassing, the most powerful thing. No big man in the sky, beast, or alien creature is worthy of Worship, the most powerful thing is this Reality. It is one Religion, it has always been one Religion, people have tried to describe one thing over and over and people tend to misunderstand it over and over again: They seek what can only exist within their minds, and EVEN THAT is within the bounds of the One Reality, The Ultimate Reality.

"Pantheism (Greek: pan = all and Theos = God) literally means "God is All" and "All is God". It is the view that everything is of an all-encompassing immanent God

Debate

Some critics argue that pantheism is little more than a redefinition of the word "God" to mean "existence", "life" or "reality". Many pantheists reply that even if this is so, such a shift in the way we think about these ideas can serve to create both a new and a potentially far more insightful conception of both existence and God."

This forum is for religious debate, it has a name that is very cute: My God can beat the Shit out of Your God, while both are attempts to describe one singular thing.

The other point people can debate on is the afterlife, something which no one has proof or knowledge about or for, what we know is now, and we should use it to the best of our advantage.

Understand: New and Old, attempts have been repeatedly made to describe one thing, there is nothing else we know but Reality, it was what we live in and are made of and are completely dependant on.

The Qur'an says it, Hinduism says it at its core, and Taoism said it too.

It has no name so call it what you want, it is one thing and it is undeniable.

There is no Diety or God but the Reality we exist within. There is no man sitting in the sky waiting for you, there is no man who is God, there is One Ultimate Reality, all that is within it is a part of it equally.

You are all manifestations within Ultimate Reality, this is obvious because here we are, debating what is obvious.

Nothing can threaten the True Religion, and it is one, and nothing can destroy it either because it is True. You can attempt to deny the undeniable, but it is futile because even to deny it you utilize it to do so and are completely dependant. The best you can do for yourself is to humble yourself to it, submit to it, attempt to become one with it, at peace with it, do right: Islam, Taoism, Hinduism, Bhuddism all suggest the same thing. Judaism and Christianity also attempt to describe the path of becoming at peace with Reality.

Do what you know is right, and good for you, good for others, you know it, I know it, we may do it differently. What is wrong is bad for us and others, what is right is good for us, and good for others. Use common sense.

Being human and living in Reality is an automatic religion, you breath, you walk, you talk, you fight, you write, you laugh you cry, you argue about one thing with different names.

All Polytheistic Religions from the past were originally an attempt to describe what is known, and what is unknown. To describe Reality which is one, they gave it aspects, which became known as spirits or Gods, which controlled each aspect, but are all part of the "Creator" or "King" or the "Master" God which is Reality, and all were manifestations of it.

The One Truth, Reality exists, internal or external, we are all here and manifested by it, dependant on it completely.

Why call it God? Because thats the only thing worthy of submission, the strongest ultimate factor in your life, there is no Man or Being so why would you believe in such a thing or even consider for a moment that some THING can be God when God encompasses ALL Things, all THINGS dependant on God.

If it can "appear" in a singular form in reality, it is NOT God, but a part of God as much as a doorknob or a molecule or a thought.

How much more apparent do you want it? But you act deaf and blind and without senses when you have your senses, you can't see it? Can't you hear it? Won't you understand?

"No, that's not God" they say "God is not Reality it is just an idea people created to feel good" Really? Reality was created by human thought? If you stripped the entire universe and all that is within it, there would be nothing, nothing but Reality, which is what we exist within, it is in the image of nothing if you strip it of all that it is within, but it is not nothing, it is the Manifestor of Worlds.

Nothing can only do nothing, if there was ever pure nothing, so too would there now be absolute nothing. Nothing has no capacity to hold anything, have anything manifest, or basically do anything.

Is Reality Dead? Inanimate? Senseless? Can you not see how what is within it is in constant animation every moment, that if it was dead it would not exist and so too would nothing exist? It has no sense? Are you senseless? You're the proof against yourselves, it is the posessor of "Sense".

Every thought you can possibly think is possible because of it held within it, manifested by it, you utilize it and are dependant on it every moment of your life. But someone told you a man who was a baby is God? So you fight it, and rightly so, but then you're so stuck on the idea that you blind yourself to the Reality, to the Real God, the Original, and the Originator.

Its so easy and so obvious and so clear. There is no God but the God I am telling you about, and there is nothing greater than it, it is what you should submit to, the submission will bring inner peace.

Its easy to say there is no God when you've invented some idol to break. When you say it to me its like you're speaking something completely absurd, like saying "We exist in Nothing, and Nothing only Exists" A Lie. Prove it? You are the proof, I am the proof, Everything is the Proof.

There was no Being molding things like a man, nor is God in your image, but you are images within God.

Science and Religious Truth has NO CONFLICT save those who lie and make conflict. To deny what is Real to Defend a False Idol, Christianity has really made an error, and so to have the other religions eventually when at their core their message should be essentially be the same.

From the most ancient hunter gatherer religions and polytheistic religions the idea is one idea which becomes mutated by people. "There is Reality, It has Many Aspects, It is where we come from, All things are dependant on it but it is self sufficient" Then from the One True God does it slowly evolve, each aspect is named, then metaphorically described to help people understand in a humanistic way and soon a whole pantheon of Gods develop from the One, Hinduism still has this history of how its religion evolved and that its root is monotheistic and its God is Reality.

People did not Develop the original idea of God, it was an understanding of what is Real and True which later in explanation transformed into something very misleading and false.

God makes the rain fall, no the weather does, All in the same.

God makes the universe expand, no thats just an effect due to certain aspects of the universe, All in the same.

Exchange the word God for Reality as it should be, it is one word.

But how can God be Omnipotent?

om·nip·o·tent ( P ) Pronunciation Key (m-np-tnt)

adj.

Having unlimited or universal power, authority, or force; all-powerful. See Usage Note at

Reality is. You are completely dependant on it, as is everything in this universe and all possible universes.

But how can God be omniscient?

om·nis·cient ( P ) Pronunciation Key (m-nshnt)

adj.

Having total knowledge; knowing everything: an omniscient deity; the omniscient narrator.

And of Knowledge, All things are Made. Information, Mathematics, What Knows everything other than what Everything is within and made of?

This is God, You are the Witness, You are the Proof, You are the one that testifies.

[This message has been edited by Abrahim (edited 07-03-2006).]

#90

2006-07-03, 06:25

Regular

South Texas

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by kenwih:

but yet that concept is quite central from an eastern perspective. you are looking at it from a western/monotheistic perspective so of course it doesn't make any sense.

No, I'm looking at it from a logical standpoint.

Until such time as emperical evidence is presented to indicate that reality is self-aware, there is no reason to assign to it such qualities.

Abrahim, the concept of god=reality is interesting(mildly). The problem is that you provide nothing more to support your assertions than Christianity, or any other religion does. Why should I accept your perception of reality over over my own? You have repeated the same rant over and again, without providing any evidence that your assertions are any more valid than any made by other religions.

It is irrelevant that the concept is not a new one. Being an old concept does not give it merit. The earth being the center of the universe is an old concept. Old and wrong.

What real evidence can you provide to show that you are correct and every other religion is wrong? Quotes from a holy text are not proof , by the way.

#91

2006-07-03, 08:47

kenwih

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

god, religion, and really any kind of spiritualism is not within the realm of science.

except that we have isolated specific regions of the brain that coorelate with religious experiences and can reproduce them with specialized equipment.

so stop asking for physical proof of god, it is not possible. everybody knows this.

religion is something generally outside of the realm of science and logic. so just because you can not prove a certain point of view is 99% likely to be true, does not invalidate or nullify other peoples religious or spiritual experiences. just because we can categorize and label religious experiences does not make them without value either.

#92

2006-07-03, 10:01

Abrahim

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by truckfixr:

No, I'm looking at it from a logical standpoint.

Until such time as emperical evidence is presented to indicate that reality is self-aware, there is no reason to assign to it such qualities.

Abrahim, the concept of god=reality is interesting(mildly). The problem is that you provide nothing more to support your assertions than Christianity, or any other religion does. Why should I accept your perception of reality over over my own? You have repeated the same rant over and again, without providing any evidence that your assertions are any more valid than any made by other religions.

It is irrelevant that the concept is not a new one. Being an old concept does not give it merit. The earth being the center of the universe is an old concept. Old and wrong.

What real evidence can you provide to show that you are correct and every other religion is wrong? Quotes from a holy text are not proof , by the way.

The reason my statements are true is because I am stating that whatever is and should be "God" can not be limited to a form and many other repeated things I have stated which is why Christianity and other religions which believe in form Gods are wrong and I am right. This is an opinion though, as you can call a dollar God, or anything else, but it is not the Supreme and One True God worthy of Worship which all is within. Then I explain what All is within.

I said Reality Posesses Awareness, if it didn't, you wouldn't be able to be aware.

What knows everything? What can possibly know everything? Really know it, completely...

Only what Everything is Within and Made of Entirely and Existing By can Know absolutely Everything.

You want proof? You're the proof. You're not satisfied with that? Then Logic is the proof: That something can not happen by for or within Nothing, and Nothing remains Nothing always. Think about it for a while, how can anything happen within nothing? Nothing only has the capacity to hold nothing. So I am saying Go beyond that, What was there when there was nothing? What is still here? What can not be destroyed? What was before you and will be after you? Reality. The Reality which allowed the big bang to occur and which the universe is made of and exists within. What is that Reality in if there are other possible Realities? Ultimate Reality, what all is within and nothing is without, that is the ultimate thing, there is nothing Greater, that is the only thing worthy of being God, what all your inventions and invented Gods are dependant on and existing by and within.

Not good enough? You still want proof? The proof is everywhere, but how can you see with your eyes closed? Plug your ears? When you block your mind?

What proof do you want? You want me to show you God? I'm showing it to you, and you're seeing it, everywhere all the time, sleeping and waking, in constant relation and experience utilizing God. But that's not God right? You would rather I prove to you an idol that is not worthy of worship?

#93

2006-07-03, 17:48

Regular

South Texas

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

Originally posted by kenwith:

quote:god, religion, and really any kind of spiritualism is not within the realm of science.

except that we have isolated specific regions of the brain that coorelate with religious experiences and can reproduce them with specialized equipment.

so stop asking for physical proof of god, it is not possible. everybody knows this.

Electrochemical reactions within the brain do not equate to evidence of the supernatural. Also, where exactly did I ask for physical proof of a god?

quote:religion is something generally outside of the realm of science and logic. so just because you can not prove a certain point of view is 99% likely to be true, does not invalidate or nullify other peoples religious or spiritual experiences. just because we can categorize and label religious experiences does not make them without value either.

The problem with religion is that you cannot prove it to be even 1% true, much less 99%. Religion is based on faith, which requires the abandonment of logic and reason. Having faith in that which defies logic and reason is foolish, to say the least. Logic and reason are the only tools you have available to determine what is truth.

Originally posted by Abrahim:

quote:The reason my statements are true is because I am stating that whatever is and should be "God" can not be limited to a form and many other repeated things I have stated which is why Christianity and other religions which believe in form Gods are wrong and I am right. This is an opinion though, as you can call a dollar God, or anything else, but it is not the Supreme and One True God worthy of Worship which all is within. Then I explain what All is within.

This is in no way evidence that you are correct and that others are wrong. All you provided was your opinion of what constitutes a god.

quote:I said Reality Posesses Awareness, if it didn't, you wouldn't be able to be aware.

What knows everything? What can possibly know everything? Really know it, completely...

Only what Everything is Within and Made of Entirely and Existing By can Know absolutely Everything.

Reality does not possess awareness. Awareness is possessed by sentient beings. Sentient beings existing within reality do not make reality aware any more than fish in a bowl make the bowl alive.

Nothing or no one knows everything. Knowledge is possessed by individuals. Each having their own portion .Reality does not know anything, as it is not a sentient being.

quote:You want proof? You're the proof. You're not satisfied with that? Then Logic is the proof: That something can not happen by for or within Nothing, and Nothing remains Nothing always. Think about it for a while, how can anything happen within nothing? Nothing only has the capacity to hold nothing. So I am saying Go beyond that, What was there when there was nothing? What is still here? What can not be destroyed? What was before you and will be after you? Reality. The Reality which allowed the big bang to occur and which the universe is made of and exists within. What is that Reality in if there are other possible Realities? Ultimate Reality, what all is within and nothing is without, that is the ultimate thing, there is nothing Greater, that is the only thing worthy of being God, what all your inventions and invented Gods are dependant on and existing by and within.

Reality does not allow anything to happen. The fact that things happen is reality. Reality is not an entity, therefore is not something worthy of worship. What is the point of submitting to and worshipping that which cannot be aware of your worship?

quote:Not good enough? You still want proof? The proof is everywhere, but how can you see with your eyes closed? Plug your ears? When you block your mind?

Your interpretation of your environment is in no way proof. Your assertions of reality = god is based on emotion. Not reason. Your argument is not sound.

quote:What proof do you want? You want me to show you God? I'm showing it to you, and you're seeing it, everywhere all the time, sleeping and waking, in constant relation and experience utilizing God. But that's not God right? You would rather I prove to you an idol that is not worthy of worship?

Sorry, but you have failed miserably in your effort to deify reality. Unless you can show evidence that reality (not beings within reality) is self-aware, your argument is worthless.

#94

2006-07-03, 18:18

King_Cotton King_Cotton is offline

Moderator

My mind.

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by kenwih:

except that we have isolated specific regions of the brain that coorelate with religious experiences

When I've taken mushrooms/LSD/any hallucinogen there have been reactions in isolated specific regions my brain, but that doesn't make the hallucinations and images I see real.

Just a thought.

#95

2006-07-03, 19:20

spoonhead

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

fun fact: the big band was not big and it was not a bang

#96

2006-07-03, 20:09

Abrahim

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by truckfixr:

Originally posted by kenwith:

Sorry, but you have failed miserably in your effort to deify reality. Unless you can show evidence that reality (not beings within reality) is self-aware, your argument is worthless.

I think you completely misunderstood the statement: "What can know everything save everything itself" "What can be everywhere that is not everywhere?" "What can truly, completely, know something, understand it, encompass it better than anything save what it is, exists within, is made of entirely"

These are basic concepts for your understanding.

There is no being or sentient entity within Reality worthy of Worship or Submission. There is nothing greater than what I call God.

#97

2006-07-03, 20:40

Regular

South Texas

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by Abrahim:

...There is no being or sentient entity within Reality worthy of Worship or Submission.

At last. Something that we can agree on!

quote: There is nothing greater than what I call God.

What you call God is not a sentient entity. This negates the possibility of it being God. Therefore it is unworthy of worship or submission.

#98

2006-07-03, 21:31

kenwih

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by truckfixr:

Electrochemical reactions within the brain do not equate to evidence of the supernatural. Also, where exactly did I ask for physical proof of a god?

"physical proof" by which i meant scientific or emperical data in laymans terms. sorry if that was unclear.

i am not trying to argue one side or the other. i am just saying that we all know there is no proof of god and spirituality. the only evidence we can draw on are our own experiences, which could be dismissed as hallucinations, delusions, and insanity if we desire.

my point wasn't that brain activity proves there is a god, i was just pointing out that cat scans and epilectics are about as close as science can come at this time to understanding the religious experiences.

quote:

The problem with religion is that you cannot prove it to be even 1% true, much less 99%. Religion is based on faith, which requires the abandonment of logic and reason. Having faith in that which defies logic and reason is foolish, to say the least. Logic and reason are the only tools you have available to determine what is truth.

faith is very important to religion.

however, you can not deny that people do have certain experiences that they interprete in certain ways. just because you have not had such experiences, presumably because you have not sought them through meditation, does not mean others do not have them.

most spiritual experiences, in any case, are self-validating. you can go into it just like a science experiment. "well, i don't know about these religious nutjobs, but i want to see if there is something to it after all. let's see, this guy says that if i learn to meditate i will start to have some crazy shit happen. i guess i'll try it in the interest of science and see what happens..."

if you don't seek, you will never find.

fyi, i'm an athiest.

quote:Originally posted by King_Cotton:

When I've taken mushrooms/LSD/any hallucinogen there have been reactions in isolated specific regions my brain, but that doesn't make the hallucinations and images I see real.

Just a thought.

my point wasn't that it proves there is a god, only that it is as close as science can come to analyzing religious experiences at this time. sorry i can see how that was unclear.

besides, drugs are not analogous to religious experiences. except mabye dmt, but i've never done that so i don't have enough data to make a judgement on that.

[This message has been edited by kenwih (edited 07-03-2006).]

#99

2006-07-04, 01:54

potentgirt potentgirt is offline

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by Abrahim:

"What can know everything save everything itself"

"What can be everywhere that is not everywhere?"

"What can truly, completely, know something, understand it, encompass it better than anything save what it is, exists within, is made of entirely"

These are basic concepts for your understanding.

If by basic concepts you mean complete nonsense. I'm trying not to look to deep into those quotes, so forgive me for not "understanding" them...

quote:There is no being or sentient entity within Reality worthy of Worship or Submission. There is nothing greater than what I call God.

Are you saying that what you call "God" isn't worthy of worship? Or are you saying that because God is not sentient, then we should submit to it.

What does your God DO?

ANYTHING? What does it want from us?

That's one huge part I haven't seen you explain about your "God"

#100

2006-07-04, 02:33

Abrahim

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by truckfixr:

What you call God is not a sentient entity. This negates the possibility of it being God. Therefore it is unworthy of worship or submission.

Why is a non sentient not worthy of worship?

sen·tient ( P ) Pronunciation Key (snshnt, -sh-nt)

adj.

Having sense perception; conscious: The living knew themselves just sentient puppets on God's stage (T.E. Lawrence).

Experiencing sensation or feeling.

con·scious ( P ) Pronunciation Key (knshs)

adj.

Having an awareness of one's environment and one's own existence, sensations, and thoughts. See Synonyms at aware.

Mentally perceptive or alert; awake: The patient remained fully conscious after the local anesthetic was administered.

Capable of thought, will, or perception: the development of conscious life on the planet.

Subjectively known or felt: conscious remorse.

Intentionally conceived or done; deliberate: a conscious insult; made a conscious effort to speak more clearly.

I believe that if God were not conscious, nothing would exist or be able to happen, because God is what we exist within and what we utilize and operate by, if it were not Awake or On, then there would be nothing, nothing would move, nothing would happen, nothing would exist.

It is the ultimate Sentient, the only Sentient in that it, having all within it and made of it, is the only thing that can claim to know, experience, and feel everything, if you want to humanize it to that degree.

You are saying that it may be Alive but it is not Aware of itself:

I'm saying that it is completely aware of everything, not as a limited form through the looking glass, but in that it exists, is alive, and that everything is in motion and operating perfectly, the All Aware. A Synonym to Aware is Awake.

#101

2006-07-04, 02:48

Abrahim

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by potentgirt:

Are you saying that what you call "God" isn't worthy of worship? Or are you saying that because God is not sentient, then we should submit to it.

What does your God DO?

ANYTHING? What does it want from us?

That's one huge part I haven't seen you explain about your "God"

My God does absolutely everything, and it is to my God you are completely indebted for every thought you can possibly think, every action you can possibly perform, your freedom and your limitations, your existance and your life in every aspect.

My God has no need for you, nor is it dependant on you. My God is self sufficient, nothing can harm it or impede it, nothing can benefit it. My God doesn't need you, you need it.

You Submit to my God: Willingly or Unwillingly. You should come to terms with it and submit willingly, with understanding, perhaps you will find peace, perhaps there will be benefit in it for you.

To my God, you are nothing more than a tree or an ant or any other creation, you are made of the same stuff, but how you walk the Earth with arrogance, full of pride.

It would be best for you to be thankful to My God, Submit to my God, let it come over you, the Ultimate and Most Powerful, Destroy your False idols, they can do nothing to harm or benefit you, my God is the one in which the control of all things rests.

Send forth what is good and have it come back on you, advice and a warning, submit to my God, it is the only God.

#102

2006-07-04, 03:19

potentgirt potentgirt is offline

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by Abrahim:

My God does absolutely everything, and it is to my God you are completely indebted for every thought you can possibly think, every action you can possibly perform, your freedom and your limitations, your existance and your life in every aspect.

My God has no need for you, nor is it dependant on you. My God is self sufficient, nothing can harm it or impede it, nothing can benefit it. My God doesn't need you, you need it.

You Submit to my God: Willingly or Unwillingly. You should come to terms with it and submit willingly, with understanding, perhaps you will find peace, perhaps there will be benefit in it for you.

To my God, you are nothing more than a tree or an ant or any other creation, you are made of the same stuff, but how you walk the Earth with arrogance, full of pride.

It would be best for you to be thankful to My God, Submit to my God, let it come over you, the Ultimate and Most Powerful, Destroy your False idols, they can do nothing to harm or benefit you, my God is the one in which the control of all things rests.

Send forth what is good and have it come back on you, advice and a warning, submit to my God, it is the only God.

Weak. I find your "god" incredibly heartless. At least stop using the word "God." You are absolutely butchering the accepted definition of the word.

You say that your "god" has no need for us and doesn't care about us. You say that nothing can harm it or impede it, yet we need to submit to it, for what reason? Since we are nothing to him, and obviously have no effect on him, would he notice that we weren't "accepting" him? This is all assuming, on your behalf, that he is self-aware, which many of us have pointed out, that it is an impossible/illogical quality of a non-living idea...and more.

Quit copy pasting things, quit saying the same thing over and over again, and quit trying to explain your god without logic or at least rationality. Actually take in what others are saying, as we have already pointed out several reasons why your "religion" not only is illogical/impossible, but contradicting, and finally, useless.

#103

2006-07-04, 03:34

Regular

South Texas

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by Abrahim:

Why is a non sentient not worthy of worship?

Is a rock worthy of worship? It is rediculous to worship or submit to anything non-living and non-sentient.

quote:Blah,blah blah...[b]

quote:[b] More ranting nonsense...

quote:You are saying that it may be Alive but it is not Aware of itself:

No.That is not what I am saying at all. Please pay attention. It's really not difficult to comprehend:

Reality is not a living being. It cannot be self aware because it is not alive.

Merely bacause living beings exist in reality does not mean that reality is alive, or possesses life. Like I've said before, the fish bowl is not alive just because the fish within it are alive.

Anything inanimate,non-living,and non self-aware does not fit the critera as to what constitutes a god.

quote:I'm saying that it is completely aware of everything, not as a limited form through the looking glass, but in that it exists, is alive, and that everything is in motion and operating perfectly, the All Aware. A Synonym to Aware is Awake.

Think again of the fish in the bowl.

Containing life and motion does not give the attributes of life to the container, and at the basest level, reality is simply that- a container. It's not a god.

#104

2006-07-04, 03:37

Regular

South Texas

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

#105

2006-07-04, 03:43

Abrahim

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by truckfixr:

Think again of the fish in the bowl.

Containing life and motion does not give the attributes of life to the container, and at the basest level, reality is simply that- a container. It's not a god.

Reality isn't a bowl: If it were the opposite of alive, it would be dead, if it were dead, not a thing would exist.

#106

2006-07-04, 03:45

potentgirt potentgirt is offline

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by Abrahim:

Reality isn't a bowl: If it were the opposite of alive, it would be dead, if it were dead, not a thing would exist.

the opposite of living is technically non-living

dead implies previous life...

#107

2006-07-04, 03:47

Abrahim

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by potentgirt:

the opposite of living is technically non-living

dead implies previous life...

It is ever living, it can not die.

#108

2006-07-04, 03:59

potentgirt potentgirt is offline

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by Abrahim:

It is ever living, it can not die.

No, I wasn't talking about your god-thing, I was simply backing up trukfixr's fishbowl analogy. And disproving your reply to that as well

#109

2006-07-04, 04:20

Abrahim

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by potentgirt:

No, I wasn't talking about your god-thing, I was simply backing up trukfixr's fishbowl analogy. And disproving your reply to that as well

Why are you against my superior God?

#110

2006-07-04, 04:24

potentgirt potentgirt is offline

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by Abrahim:

Why are you against my superior God?

You have yet to prove to anyone WHY he is superior, first off. You also have yet do DISprove the huge contradictions and just plain nonsense dealing with what you have named "god."

#111

2006-07-04, 04:36

Regular

South Texas

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by Abrahim:

Reality isn't a bowl: If it were the opposite of alive, it would be dead, if it were dead, not a thing would exist.

Sorry man, but you blew it again.

There is an immeasurable amount of non-living matter which exists within reality. If all life were to cease to exist, the non-living matter would still remain. It would not cease to exist. The motion would continue. Stars would continue to form and time would continue to pass.Rivers would continue to flow and the sun would continue to shine. There would simply be no one present to observe it.

Life is not necessary for things to be real.

#112

2006-07-04, 04:39

Abrahim

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by potentgirt:

You have yet to prove to anyone WHY he is superior, first off. You also have yet do DISprove the huge contradictions and just plain nonsense dealing with what you have named "god."

Could you repeat in bullet point form what the huge contradictions are?

My God is not a being within Reality, but what all Realities are within, and made of, and existing by. Any being constrained to a form within Reality, and not Consisting of Reality is limited, not everywhere, not worthy of worship.

My God is the Ultimate God, there is no greater God, it is what all imaginary Gods that you can possibly think of exist within and by, it is what allows you to think walk and breath, it is the most powerful and it has no partners. There is nothing greater than my God.

#113

2006-07-04, 04:45

Navicalist Navicalist is offline

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

Okie dokie. I see a peaceful solution for all this.

From now on, Abrahim and his followers call their reality god "Reality" with the capital R, and the leftovers call it God if they refer to the Christian god, Allah of the muslim, and each accordingly.

I personally think Abrahim was wiping his ass one day and pulled a steel chain out of his ass. Very miraclish.

#114

2006-07-04, 04:56

Regular

South Texas

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by Abrahim:

...There is nothing greater than my God.

Nothing except your lack of reasoning ability.

#115

2006-07-04, 05:02

Abrahim

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by Navicalist:

Okie dokie. I see a peaceful solution for all this.

From now on, Abrahim and his followers call their reality god "Reality" with the capital R, and the leftovers call it God if they refer to the Christian god, Allah of the muslim, and each accordingly.

I personally think Abrahim was wiping his ass one day and pulled a steel chain out of his ass. Very miraclish.

Allah is my God, Ahuramazda, The Brahman, The Tao, God, there is no God but this.

022.006

This is so, because Allah is the Reality: it is He Who gives life to the dead, and it is He Who has power over all things.

Some people have reffered to my concept of God as somewhat alien also stating "That is not God" "You are redefining God"

as if they have some predefined concept of God that God must fit into.

My Personal Concept of God comes from the Qur'an. God is Reality. God is Encompassing Everything. Surrounding Everything.

022.006

This is so, because Allah is the Reality: it is He Who gives life to the dead, and it is He Who has power over all things.

022.062

That is because Allah - He is the Reality; and those besides Him whom they invoke,- they are but vain Falsehood: verily Allah is He, Most High, Most Great.

023.116

Therefore exalted be Allah, the King, the Reality: there is no god but He, the Lord of the Throne of Honour!

031.030

That is because Allah is the (only) Reality, and because whatever else they invoke besides Him is Falsehood; and because Allah,- He is the Most High, Most Great.

069.001

The Reality!

069.002

What is the Reality?

069.003

Ah, what will convey unto thee what the Reality is?

003.120

If aught that is good befalls you, it grieves them; but if some misfortune overtakes you, they rejoice at it. But if ye are constant and do right, not the least harm will their cunning do to you; for Allah Compasseth round about all that they do.

008.047

Be not as those who came forth from their dwellings boastfully and to be seen of men, and debar (men) from the way of Allah, while Allah is surrounding all they do.

041.054

How! Are they still in doubt about the meeting with their Lord? Lo! Is not He surrounding all things?

004.126

But to Allah belong all things in the heavens and on earth: And He it is that Encompasseth all things.

005.054

O ye who believe! if any from among you turn back from his Faith, soon will Allah produce a people whom He will love as they will love Him,- lowly with the believers, mighty against the rejecters, fighting in the way of Allah, and never afraid of the reproaches of such as find fault. That is the grace of Allah, which He will bestow on whom He pleaseth. And Allah encompasseth all, and He knoweth all things.

011.092

He said: "O my people! is then my family of more consideration with you than Allah? For ye cast Him away behind your backs (with contempt). But verily my Lord encompasseth on all sides all that ye do!

017.060

Behold! We told thee that thy Lord doth encompass mankind round about: We granted the vision which We showed thee, but as a trial for men,- as also the Cursed Tree (mentioned) in the Qur'an: We put terror (and warning) into them, but it only increases their inordinate transgression!

#116

2006-07-04, 05:14

Abrahim

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by truckfixr:

Nothing except your lack of reasoning ability.

Why is it unreasonable to say what I am saying?

#117

2006-07-04, 05:15

Regular

South Texas

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

Ok , so now we are down to *My holy book can beat the shit out of your holy book*.

Religious texts are not evidence in support of your claims.

#118

2006-07-04, 05:19

KING G

Regular

Sea of Noise

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by potentgirt:

I've told you this several times, but not thoroughly enough I guess, seeing the thread in B&M.

You cannot believe that God is reality, and call yourself a Christian/Catholic. Simply because, as Catholics, we believe that God created our reality, and most believe that that was the "Big Bang."

Now, a LOT of evidence goes toward the Big Bang theory, so much as it is almost fact in many minds, and I'm guesssing yours as well. Now being that God is an infinite being, as we Catholics believe, stating that God is reality, or just the clash of Catholicism and Pantheism is flawed. For there was a time when there was nothing but God. Yet if God was reality, then there would have been no God, thus rendering him non-infinite. Infinity has no beginning or end, but we believe reality does have both....

Please, reconsider all that you believe about God=reality.

My dear potentgirt,

i 've knowen abrahim for a long time,and i all ways read his thread and in all of the topics he made he never said he was a Christian or a Catholic so before you start to talk make sure you know what are you talking about because as far as i know abrahim is a fine moslem.

P.S:a Christian/Catholic dont belive in the bing bang theroy

G - man

#119

2006-07-04, 05:20

potentgirt potentgirt is offline

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by truckfixr:

Ok , so now we are down to *My holy book can beat the shit out of your holy book*.

Religious texts are not evidence in support of your claims.

nor rationality behind your (Abrahim) rambling.

#120

2006-07-04, 05:20

Abrahim

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by truckfixr:

Ok , so now we are down to *My holy book can beat the shit out of your holy book*.

Religious texts are not evidence in support of your claims.

Navicalist should understand the book in which Allah is mentioned says the same thing I am saying.

[This message has been edited by Abrahim (edited 07-04-2006).]

#121

2006-07-04, 05:24

Regular

South Texas

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by Abrahim:

Why is it unreasonable to say what I am saying?

The answer to this question has been presented to you in all of the posts in this thread. Go back and reread them. I, unlike you, have little desire to flood this thread with repetitive copy/paste responses .

#122

2006-07-04, 05:28

potentgirt potentgirt is offline

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by KING G:

My dear potentgirt,

i 've knowen abrahim for a long time,and i all ways read his thread and in all of the topics he made he never said he was a Christian or a Catholic so before you start to talk make sure you know what are you talking about because as far as i know abrahim is a fine moslem.

P.S:a Christian/Catholic dont belive in the bing bang theroy

G - man

I've known Abrahim for awhile now too, and I recall him first introducing himself and debating on the part of a Catholic. I was just wondering about that part.

P.S. You are an idiot, we DO believe in the Big Bang because it supports our theory that life began at creation. God was behind the Big Bang. That is where we tend to differ from science

#123

2006-07-04, 05:30

potentgirt potentgirt is offline

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by truckfixr:

The answer to this question has been presented to you in all of the posts in this thread. Go back and reread them. I, unlike you, have little desire to flood this thread with repetitive copy/paste responses .

I second this. Abrahim, You seem to glance over OUR posts, and not answer them, yet you copy paste massive stories that we most likely have NO interest in reading/don't answer our question/have nothing to do with the question presented.

edit: and you expect us to read them^

[This message has been edited by potentgirt (edited 07-04-2006).]

#124

2006-07-04, 05:43

kenwih

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

to understand the consciousness of a rock...

#125

2006-07-04, 05:47

Regular

South Texas

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

It's easier to side step the issue at hand when you shotgun information. One must sift through the irrelevant and the nonsense to find whether any valid argument is included.

This has been fun, but us old guys require at least a little sleep. I'm done for tonight.

#126

2006-07-04, 08:42

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by Abrahim:

017.060

Behold! We told thee that thy Lord doth encompass mankind round about: We granted the vision which We showed thee, but as a trial for men,- as also the Cursed Tree (mentioned) in the Qur'an: We put terror (and warning) into them, but it only increases their inordinate transgression!

So .. Allah sets up trials for men, "puts terror (and warning) into them",

........

"but it only increases their inordinate transgression!"

Your God seems to be a little unsuccessful in the application of omnipotence.

Namaste

#127

2006-07-04, 11:25

Abrahim

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by potentgirt:

Weak. I find your "god" incredibly heartless. At least stop using the word "God." You are absolutely butchering the accepted definition of the word.

You say that your "god" has no need for us and doesn't care about us. You say that nothing can harm it or impede it, yet we need to submit to it, for what reason? Since we are nothing to him, and obviously have no effect on him, would he notice that we weren't "accepting" him? This is all assuming, on your behalf, that he is self-aware, which many of us have pointed out, that it is an impossible/illogical quality of a non-living idea...and more.

Quit copy pasting things, quit saying the same thing over and over again, and quit trying to explain your god without logic or at least rationality. Actually take in what others are saying, as we have already pointed out several reasons why your "religion" not only is illogical/impossible, but contradicting, and finally, useless.

Why? Can your God be harmed? Can you benefit your God? What kind of God is that? Using its creation as Crutches? My God doesn't need you, but you need it, it is best for you to submit, why is it best for you? Because it is beneficial to come to a proper understanding, to find peace and become one, just as suggested in Chinese Philosophy, becoming one with the Tao, or in Islam, Submitting to God, or in Bhuddism, following the eightfold path to Nirvana...Why? Because its good, its best for you, it will help you.

Do you believe in a God that needs you? That is dependant on you? What needs is not worthy of worship, it is a thing dependant. My God is Self Sufficient, You are not. You are completely dependant on my God waking and sleeping.

My God is not Dead, if it were Dead, so would there not be a single thing in motion or existing.

If My God were not Aware, there would not be a motion made in the entire universe, nor would a single thing manifest.

Is the Bowl with the fish in it what manifested the fish? No. Nothing can create or manifest save my God. My God is the originator of Everything subjective and objective. Every thought you can possibly think, every action that can possibly occur, is possible only because the possibility was manifested and is available within this Reality, This Universe, which is within my God, the Supreme, the Infinite, the Only, The One.

Explain your God reasonably if your God is not my God, my God is superior to every and all Gods, any image, any being that can possibly exist. There is no God greater, it is without partner or comparison.

Am I butchering the definition of God? Or am I smashing false idols invented by Man with little understanding.

Name a God greater than mine, there is none, mine is the greater.

Is it dead? Are not all things in motion?

Is it unaware? Can those without thought, think?

For my God it is simply Be and it is, Manifestor of Realities, Systems, Ideas, Worlds.

Controller of every single aspect of life, not a thought can be thought without my God.

My God is far beyond having Children and Begetting a "Son" which dies for the sins of men. For Every man is his own responsibility, and to submit to my God is a triumph, to be one with it, to follow what is right and good, to be an upright man.

It is all absurd? Insane? Crazy? These concepts are mad? Illogical? Unreasonable?

Show me a God that is Greater that I shall worship and submit myself to. There is none that I know of Greater than my God. Submit and you will find peace.

#128

2006-07-04, 11:29

Abrahim

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by redzed:

Originally posted by Abrahim:

017.060

Behold! We told thee that thy Lord doth encompass mankind round about: We granted the vision which We showed thee, but as a trial for men,- as also the Cursed Tree (mentioned) in the Qur'an: We put terror (and warning) into them, but it only increases their inordinate transgression!

So .. Allah sets up trials for men, "puts terror (and warning) into them",

........

"but it only increases their inordinate transgression!"

Your God seems to be a little unsuccessful in the application of omnipotence.

Namaste

All things are from God, the good, the bad, God is the originator of everything, God is what expands the Universe, what makes and allows the leaf to fall from the tree, what gives you vision and thoughts. How? God is what everything is made of, God is what manifested all possibilities for this Reality, God is what it is all within.

#129

2006-07-04, 12:12

Abrahim

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

Imperfectcircle, you don't need to bow out for these people! I so appreciated your input, you belong here and your posts are welcome! What do you think about what I'm saying? I liked when you would explain how they are misunderstanding my simple statements as if they are flying right over their heads lol.

#130

2006-07-04, 12:18

AngryFemme AngryFemme is offline

Moderator

Deep South

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by Abrahim:

It is all absurd? Insane? Crazy? These concepts are mad? Illogical? Unreasonable?

All that, except insanity and craziness seems to be the norm around here, so that's just a given. I'd suggest punctuating that sentence with "Unnecessary", since that best captures it for those of us who are getting a bit accustomed to the absurdity of religious convictions sweeping away the reason and logic of thinking human beings.

I can't believe we're still kicking this dead horse around.

#131

2006-07-04, 12:20

Abrahim

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by AngryFemme:

All that, except insanity and craziness seems to be the norm around here, so that's just a given. I'd suggest punctuating that sentence with "Unnecessary", since that best captures it for those of us who are getting a bit accustomed to the absurdity of religious convictions sweeping away the reason and logic of thinking human beings.

I can't believe we're still kicking this dead horse around.

I find it is necessary to a better understanding of life and the universe and beyond, a better concept of God to incorporate into what I find a more reasonable spirituality.

#132

2006-07-04, 13:05

imperfectcircle imperfectcircle is offline

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by Abrahim:

What do you think about what I'm saying? I liked when you would explain how they are misunderstanding my simple statements as if they are flying right over their heads lol.

Well I share similar convictions to you, as I have already said, although the details are different.

I personally haven't presented my beliefs like you have, because as I said I am writing about them and there is far too much to say for me to paraphrase, and I'm still figuring things out.

But if I can give some advice, I think that people are reacting negatively to you because of the way you present your ideas, not so much the ideas themselves.

For instance, saying things like this:

quote:You Submit to my God: Willingly or Unwillingly. You should come to terms with it and submit willingly

can ONLY provoke a negative reaction to what you're saying. I think many people hear your tone as arrogant and fundamentalist, which I know is not true, but when you make comments like the one I quoted it's how they perceive you.

Also, I think that people react negatively because you describe your ideas in religious terms. There are many reasons why this is unlikely to be well received, which is a shame because I believe your views are more philosophical than religious. But people see that you claim to be religious, and you are attempting to make people accept your point of view - to they instantly label you as an evangelist, and they stop listening to your message, instead focusing on the words (lol, which is like yous message about religion itself!)

Lastly, I think that people react negatively because you are very verbose in your explanations. I understand that you do this to properly articulate your views, but most people will not take the time to properly read through something lengthy if they are already convinced they won't like it anyway. I think you would be much more successful focusing on questions, and short directive observations, because this would be immensely more effective.

I don't mean any of this as a criticism, not in the slightest because I understand and value your contributions here greatly. These are just my suggestions that I think could help you get your message across more effectively.

#133

2006-07-04, 13:29

Abrahim

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

Thank you for the suggestions, I think if I take your advice it will help to make the message more effective, but the reasons my posts get lengthy is because while writing I seem to get caught up in it all and tend to enjoy what I'm saying to the point where in a matter of minutes I have a large essay typed out lol, really I loved your contributions to these posts though and I've missed you since you said you bowed out so I'd like it if you continue to contribute and maybe be my voice of reason here? Perhaps you could assist to interpret what im saying to clearify it for these folks? I really appreciate everything you've done so far and I hope to see more from you in here! Don't let them frustrate ya, you were awesome and making sense too!

#134

2006-07-04, 13:33

imperfectcircle imperfectcircle is offline

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by Abrahim:

the reasons my posts get lengthy is because while writing I seem to get caught up in it all and tend to enjoy what I'm saying to the point where in a matter of minutes I have a large essay typed out lol

I know what you mean, I often do the same thing myself.

I haven't been on MSN recently but I'll be adding you next time I go on.

#135

2006-07-04, 13:55

imperfectcircle imperfectcircle is offline

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by truckfixr:

The problem with religion is that you cannot prove it to be even 1% true, much less 99%.

I just want to interject with a brief comment about that.

The problem with the mind is also that you cannot prove it to exist. And yet you believe it is true that it does exist. Why? Intuitive recognition of the fact.

Descartes, the father of Western scientific thought as we know it, faced the same problem when asked how he could PROVE the "I exist" part of cogito ergo sum. He responded the same way, that it was an intuitive recognition.

For people with spiritual, rather than dogmatic religious, convictions the existence of a supreme being is an equally obvious intuitive fact, it is something felt.

I agree though that attempting to justify this recognition rationally is an extremely hard task.

But do you believe it is true that other people possess a mind?

[This message has been edited by imperfectcircle (edited 07-04-2006).]

#136

2006-07-04, 14:02

King_Cotton King_Cotton is offline

Moderator

My mind.

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by kenwih:

besides, drugs are not analogous to religious experiences. except mabye dmt, but i've never done that so i don't have enough data to make a judgement on that.

This is true, drugs aren't the same as religious experiences, but they're both reactions that occur in the brain that alter ones perception and convictions.

I'm a strong believer in my God, but that includes the belief that faith is faith, not objective fact, and there is no objective way of proving this faith, and anyone who tries to do so is farting in the wind.

#137

2006-07-04, 14:19

Abrahim

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by King_Cotton:

This is true, drugs aren't the same as religious experiences, but they're both reactions that occur in the brain that alter ones perception and convictions.

I'm a strong believer in my God, but that includes the belief that faith is faith, not objective fact, and there is no objective way of proving this faith, and anyone who tries to do so is farting in the wind.

What is your God?

#138

2006-07-04, 17:00

potentgirt potentgirt is offline

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by Abrahim:

Why? Can your God be harmed?

No, He cannot be harmed.

quote:

Can you benefit your God?

Yes, miracles being a large part of that benifit. And as many people need love and acceptance, they find it in my God.

quote:

What kind of God is that? Using its creation as Crutches?

Crutches? God is Love, and He created us in order for Him to teach us Love, and to Love Him in return.

quote:

My God doesn't need you, but you need it, it is best for you to submit, why is it best for you? Because it is beneficial to come to a proper understanding, to find peace and become one, just as suggested in Chinese Philosophy, becoming one with the Tao, or in Islam, Submitting to God, or in Bhuddism, following the eightfold path to Nirvana...Why? Because its good, its best for you, it will help you.

Sure, it will help you be at peace in this life, but by "accepting" that something huge is there isn't neccessarily going to make you at peace for the rest of your life. Especially something that can benefit you in no way (other than YOUR OWN HAPPINESS, DERIVED FROM YOUR OWN PEACE FROM YOUR OWN UNDERSTANDING, none of that truly comes from your god), or something that could care less if you didn't submit to it.

[/b] [/quote]

quote:

Do you believe in a God that needs you? That is dependant on you? What needs is not worthy of worship, it is a thing dependant. My God is Self Sufficient, You are not. You are completely dependant on my God waking and sleeping.

my God isn't dependant on me, or anyone else. He creates to love, and for us to love Him back. His nature and essence IS love, so it is against His nature, not to love us and be concerned for us. There is a difference between relying on and being concerned about. For those that love Him back, he has created a reward known as heaven.

quote:

Is the Bowl with the fish in it what manifested the fish? No. Nothing can create or manifest save my God. My God is the originator of Everything subjective and objective. Every thought you can possibly think, every action that can possibly occur, is possible only because the possibility was manifested and is available within this Reality, This Universe, which is within my God, the Supreme, the Infinite, the Only, The One.

Just because you steal nicknames for your "god" from other religions, does not give it the same meaning, or power. And you do realize by saying all of that, that your "god" is becoming more evil everyday? I think any one of us would agree that the world is full of sin right now, and is only getting worse. Being that your "god" manifests everything, it seems that he is getting worse by the second as well. All analogies break down, so bringing up manifestation in the Fish Bowl example is irrelevant.

quote:

Explain your God reasonably if your God is not my God, my God is superior to every and all Gods, any image, any being that can possibly exist. There is no God greater, it is without partner or comparison.

If my God is not your "god", then your "god" is greater? That is being closed-minded at its finest.

quote:

Am I butchering the definition of God? Or am I smashing false idols invented by Man with little understanding.

HA! False idols invented by man with little understanding? To me, it seems like you have created the idea of your "god" from other religions. You're saying that you are wiser than Man? Because I doubt your "god" has told you anything on the matter of himself, being that he doesn't communicate with us. Your "god" is the ultimate falsehood. Just because you take different views from different religions, and mix them together, it doesn't make it right! Religion is NOT like philosophy in the fact that you cannot think of a type of god, and reason for its existence, and then make it out to be the true religion. Religion requires faith, and faith requires at least SOME guidance and/or reasonable evidence. We have the Bible, Muslims have the Qu'ran, you have your own thoughts and irrationality to guide you. Your "god" consists of your own flawed thoughts.

Name a God greater than mine, there is none, mine is the greater.

quote:

Is it dead? Are not all things in motion?

I can throw a rock, does that make it living?

quote:

Is it unaware? Can those without thought, think?

No they cannot, and your "god" is without thought or awareness. And "Because you say so" isn't valid proof that your "god" is sentient

quote:

My God is far beyond having Children and Begetting a "Son" which dies for the sins of men. For Every man is his own responsibility, and to submit to my God is a triumph, to be one with it, to follow what is right and good, to be an upright man.

So your "god" creates everything, yet has no control? Can he intervene with our lives? Or does he only manifest?

quote:

It is all absurd? Insane? Crazy? These concepts are mad? Illogical? Unreasonable?

It's really all just sad for you becoming so caught up in your ego, and calling it a religion. Philosophy? Maybe, but that still doesn't make it correct.

quote:

Show me a God that is Greater that I shall worship and submit myself to. There is none that I know of Greater than my God. Submit and you will find peace.

Peace in this life is useless, as we have to work hard to attain any type of religious reward. Your "god" seems to be a figment of your imagination, inflated so much as to make it your own personal religion. It seems that your own ego is so big, having conceived this "god" that it fills up all of the cracks in logic, and most importantly, blocks the flaws pointed out to you by others, and also blocks the true God from your sight.

#139

2006-07-04, 17:02

potentgirt potentgirt is offline

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

Oh, and imperfectcircle, good job on that post regarding Abrahim's stuff

#140

2006-07-04, 17:48

Aft3r ImaGe Aft3r ImaGe is offline

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

This is literally a myy god can beat the shit our of your god thread. Argueing about which god provides the most benifits. This is pathetic.

You don't even know if a god exists much less wether god is a personal god or not. Yet you argue as if you know you god personally and your god's personal spokesman.

And worst of all wether or right or wrong, argueing cannot prove it. No matter how much you debate which god is better it is time wasted. Think about it even if one of you are right it makes no difference that you argued about it. And if god doesn't exist then it is still a waste of time.

Besides like stated earlier if god does exist you don't know gods thoughts or anything about god for that matter. Your not god's personal spokesman. None of you can know wether or not your right, and even if you think you do, (this is just your ego talking by the way) there is no way to prove your right.

This debate is pointless so stop wasting your time.

#141

2006-07-04, 18:20

potentgirt potentgirt is offline

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

The debate is NOT pointless, and your "arguement" presented loses a lot of its power by misusing YOU'RE, not your.

The debating IS helpful, in knowing our own gods more, but more importantly bringing others into our faith, the one that we feel is the one true faith. Of course, there is no way to prove our religions true, other than evidence, and arguing in defense of our own.

Oh, and what is so bad about having a literal "My God can beat the shit out of your "god"" thread, when it happens to be in the forum with the same name?

Many do know God personally, and many are called to be His personal spokesman.

Are you saying that you have NEVER changed your mind on something after having it proved wrong in an argument or debate? If we argue about it, and prove our point, then it obviously wasn't wasted time. I agree that if a God doesn't exist, that it would be a waste of time....but what have we got to lose if we are wrong? Time. What about those who are wrong, or don't put any time into religion? Maybe they will repent and stuff, but chances are, they lose their soul, and not only this little bit of time "wasted" on argueing, but they lose their whole life.

If God exists, then chances are He has shown us through different ways that He does exist, also showing his nature, and also, what He wants from us.

It isn't our ego talking, in my case at least, lol ABRAHIM. Obviously there is no way to prove our faiths 100% true. But I know that Catholicism can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. So little doubt is left, that it actually takes MORE faith NOT to believe that it is true. (I Don't Have Enough Faith To Be an Atheist, I recommend at least YOU read this book, check it out at the library or something)

A life without God is pointless, so sotp wasting your time.

#142

2006-07-04, 19:19

Aeroue

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

A greater God?

Surely the creator God is greater than the 'god' which is reality. Surely in saying God IS the reality you leave open to debate where did that reality come from? Something cannot bring about its own existence. Nor can something become that which it created. If God can only be either reality as you claim or a creator as most religions do, the creator is blatantly superior.

Anyway Abrahim you need to hurry up and accept that your argument did in fact die on the first page. It cannot overcome logical contradiction. Logic is the ultimate, it applies to everything equally. Logic even applies to God. God cannot transcend logic as imperfectircle was saying. God cannot add 1 and 1 and get 3. It is rationally impossible.

You also need to keep your posts concise, stop the bullshit and repetition. It only cheapens your theory. Makes it look like your trying to pad it out and obscure the actual argument behind a wall of crap.

Hope this makes sense I kinda skimmed over half of it, and Abrahim doesn't exactly write in an accessible way.

#143

2006-07-04, 19:48

potentgirt potentgirt is offline

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

#144

2006-07-04, 20:03

Aft3r ImaGe Aft3r ImaGe is offline

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by potentgirt:

The debate is NOT pointless, and your "arguement" presented loses a lot of its power by misusing YOU'RE, not your.

The debating IS helpful, in knowing our own gods more, but more importantly bringing others into our faith, the one that we feel is the one true faith. Of course, there is no way to prove our religions true, other than evidence, and arguing in defense of our own.

Oh, and what is so bad about having a literal "My God can beat the shit out of your "god"" thread, when it happens to be in the forum with the same name?

Many do know God personally, and many are called to be His personal spokesman.

Are you saying that you have NEVER changed your mind on something after having it proved wrong in an argument or debate? If we argue about it, and prove our point, then it obviously wasn't wasted time. I agree that if a God doesn't exist, that it would be a waste of time....but what have we got to lose if we are wrong? Time. What about those who are wrong, or don't put any time into religion? Maybe they will repent and stuff, but chances are, they lose their soul, and not only this little bit of time "wasted" on argueing, but they lose their whole life.

If God exists, then chances are He has shown us through different ways that He does exist, also showing his nature, and also, what He wants from us.

It isn't our ego talking, in my case at least, lol ABRAHIM. Obviously there is no way to prove our faiths 100% true. But I know that Catholicism can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. So little doubt is left, that it actually takes MORE faith NOT to believe that it is true. (I Don't Have Enough Faith To Be an Atheist, I recommend at least YOU read this book, check it out at the library or something)

A life without God is pointless, so sotp wasting your time.

The fact that you attacked my grammer, only to hypocritically spell stop wrong shows alot about your character. Over looking the faults of your self and your beliefs only to immediately attack the faults of others and thier beliefs.

You are basing everything on your belief system not logic.

And what are you wasting? There is alot at stake if there is no god. Maybe your life wouldn't be worth living if god isn't real. I'm very sorry if thats the case. Thats why you need to live life to it's fullest, not follow rules based on blind faith.

Also you claim it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. It can't, and if it can you are more than welcome to do so for us all now. It is no more likely than any other religion or belief. It is just as likely the greek gods created the world, and that is not very likely.

Religion is fundementally flawed, and if you say I should believe because otherwise I will be eternally punished in cruel vial ways when I have done nothing other than not believe something that there is no proof for, then your religous ruler is a cruel insane tyrant.

Perhapse if you took time to read your own bible and see what jesus was saying about helping people, you too would consider doing it, instead of just preaching that you believe in doing it.

What makes you assume I'm athiest? The post you so eagerly attempted to attack without making one valid point was stating this arguement is pointless wether or not god exists, and instead of debating something as pointless to debate as this, maybe you should go positivly change the world. Feed the hungry, volunteer, help people, not preach to them, but actually help them. End some suffering? You don't need a religion to do that.

Why you hate that message so much that you feel the need to attack spelling as a pathetic attempt to dismantle that idea, only to make the same mistake in your post, really shows us all alot about your hypocritical ideals. It is people like you that draw thinking people away from your religion in the first place.

#145

2006-07-04, 20:05

imperfectcircle imperfectcircle is offline

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by Aeroue:

God cannot transcend logic as imperfectircle was saying. God cannot add 1 and 1 and get 3. It is rationally impossible.

I've got one point to make about that.

If God did exist, in the monistic sense, and he created the universe, he also created the laws of logic and mathematics.

If he created those laws, he could change them as well, and make 1 + 1 = 3 (thus he transcends logic, by necessity).

Going back to Descartes again, he believed this was possible. The problem is also similar to the paradox of whether God could create a stone that he could not lift, for which there are philosophical arguments saying he could. In both cases the arguments are complicated so I'll only type them out if you seriously wish to read them.

#146

2006-07-04, 20:09

imperfectcircle imperfectcircle is offline

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by Aft3r ImaGe:

Religion is fundementally flawed, and if you say I should believe because otherwise I will be eternally punished in cruel vial ways when I have done nothing other than not believe something that there is no proof for, then your religous ruler is a cruel insane tyrant.

That's an objection to only a few particular religions.

I think any belief system based on fear instead of love shouldn't be called a religion.

I also believe that the Christian church, as it has existed for at least a millenia, is ANTI spiritual.

But the flaws of past so-called religions doesn't mean religion itself is a flawed concept.

The goal of any religion, above ALL else, should be to improve quality of life. Such a religion may yet come along.

#147

2006-07-04, 20:17

Aft3r ImaGe Aft3r ImaGe is offline

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by imperfectcircle:

That's an objection to only a few particular religions.

I think any belief system based on fear instead of love shouldn't be called a religion.

I also believe that the Christian church, as it has existed for at least a millenia, is ANTI spiritual.

But the flaws of past so-called religions doesn't mean religion itself is a flawed concept.

The goal of any religion, above ALL else, should be to improve quality of life. Such a religion may yet come along.

Thats exactly what I'm saying. If you believe god wants you to do good, go help people. There are so many starving people in the world, so many homeless, the potential to do good is there.

I think most people use their faith as an excuse to not do those things.

Besides even if god does not exist, which is equally possible as god existing, then thats still no excuse not to help your fellow man. Everyone goes through hardship, why not ease that hardship for someone else?

I don't think someone should think they are rightous enough to not help other people just because they still think they are going to whatever salvation they feel they deserve.

#148

2006-07-04, 20:22

Aeroue

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by imperfectcircle:

I've got one point to make about that.

If God did exist, in the monistic sense, and he created the universe, he also created the laws of logic and mathematics.

If he created those laws, he could change them as well, and make 1 + 1 = 3 (thus he transcends logic, by necessity).

Going back to Descartes again, he believed this was possible. The problem is also similar to the paradox of whether God could create a stone that he could not lift, for which there are philosophical arguments saying he could. In both cases the arguments are complicated so I'll only type them out if you seriously wish to read them.

I thought you would call that.

However, personally I am not sure that logic is something create-able or or changeable.

I am not sure how to express it, but I see it as more of a necessary constant. Maybe it could be different in one of your other parallel universes but surely in changing 1+1 to = 3 would change a universe beyond recognition, it would be a different universe.

EDIT:

But more to the point, how could it ever be conceivably possible for God to change logical contradiction into something other than blatant falsification?

It simply is completely inconceivable.

Which is why no one who follows a rational line of thought will ever accept this theory.

[This message has been edited by Aeroue (edited 07-04-2006).]

#149

2006-07-04, 20:27

imperfectcircle imperfectcircle is offline

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by Aft3r ImaGe:

Thats exactly what I'm saying. If you believe god wants you to do good, go help people. There are so many starving people in the world, so many homeless, the potential to do good is there.

Well that's definitely a good thing, but it's not what I meant.

Religion should improve quality of life for YOU if you read what it says, and think about its ideas, and so on.

What good does the Christian church do for 90% of people? They're told that their true nature is that they're sinful maggots that will go to hell, unless someone saves them. They sit through mass for an hour and try their best not to fall asleep while an old man recites the words of people who have been dead for a couple thousand years. They are told to say prayers to a God who doesn't reply, and doesn't grant wishes 99% of the time (sometimes people must get what they pray for, if it's not a coincidence then God doesn't like answering prayers too much). Etc etc. Where's the value to the life of each individual?

#150

2006-07-04, 20:29

Aft3r ImaGe Aft3r ImaGe is offline

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

#151

2006-07-04, 20:29

imperfectcircle imperfectcircle is offline

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by Aeroue:

However, personally I am not sure that logic is something create-able or or changeable.

Logic and reason depend on two things - causality and the properties of space and time (Kant explored this deeply in "A Critique of Pure Reason).

Since those two things are parameters of the physical universe, they could be changed.

WE are the ones who created logic.

#152

2006-07-04, 20:36

imperfectcircle imperfectcircle is offline

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by Aft3r ImaGe:

Then you create an issue of where the creater god came from.

I'll just back that up by pointing out that the common definition of God is that he is uncreated, so the objection doesn't hold.

Think about it, if something is eternal, you can keep on going back in time for an infinite amount without reaching an end.

#153

2006-07-04, 20:37

Aft3r ImaGe Aft3r ImaGe is offline

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

If you read what I just posted on page 3, the very same things potentgirt agreed too logically contradict his own religion.

Also which religions don't have eternal punishment. The only ones I can think of are ones with incarnation, which leaves many logical issues it's self.

#154

2006-07-04, 20:38

Aeroue

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

If we created logic then God cannot change it then can 'he' as it is our creation.

As a result of free will he would not be able to change the way we perceive the world.

Aft3r ImaGe- I know it does bring that question up however I was just answering the question what God would be greater? As posed by Abrahim.

I would answer your questions but I cannot be bother as it is not relevant to this topic, nor am I a Christian so have no reason to defend God. I just don't like Abrahim's theory.

Imperfectcircle- do you disagree that the creator God is better?

#155

2006-07-04, 20:53

Eloquence

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

Hey Abrahim,

I just thought I would compliment you for being so happy. That's good.

#156

2006-07-04, 20:55

Eloquence

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

IT'S GOOD THAT YOU ARE A HAPPY PERSON

ABRAHIM. I LIKED YOUR MY SPACE.

#157

2006-07-04, 20:57

Aft3r ImaGe Aft3r ImaGe is offline

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by imperfectcircle:

I'll just back that up by pointing out that the common definition of God is that he is uncreated, so the objection doesn't hold.

Think about it, if something is eternal, you can keep on going back in time for an infinite amount without reaching an end.

But then heaven and hell cannot be eternal considering they were made by god. By that definition they would also have to have been uncreated, and they are not.

Also that doesn't apply to the the other point I made.

#158

2006-07-04, 21:11

Aft3r ImaGe Aft3r ImaGe is offline

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by Aeroue:

If we created logic then God cannot change it then can 'he' as it is our creation.

As a result of free will he would not be able to change the way we perceive the world.

Aft3r ImaGe- I know it does bring that question up however I was just answering the question what God would be greater? As posed by Abrahim.

I would answer your questions but I cannot be bother as it is not relevant to this topic, nor am I a Christian so have no reason to defend God. I just don't like Abrahim's theory.

Imperfectcircle- do you disagree that the creator God is better?

You may have just been answering the question and feel no need to defend your responce but potentgirt agreed with you, which I find ironic considering the results of that decision.

Besides if god cannot alter logic he is not all powerful, and it has to be in order to prevent the collapse of the religions people think it wanted.

Abrahim's theory was very flawed and most of us would have left it at that if he didn't keep posting it everywhere, as he did, so I can see where you're coming from.

Also I wasn't asking you to defend those ideals, I was asking a religous person to, more specifically potentgirt, who is going to explain to us all beyond a reasonable doubt, why his religion is right and everyone else is wrong.

#159

2006-07-04, 21:30

imperfectcircle imperfectcircle is offline

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by Aft3r ImaGe:

But then heaven and hell cannot be eternal considering they were made by god. By that definition they would also have to have been uncreated, and they are not.

This is not my definition of "god".

But according to the Christian definition, God created heaven and hell, so they are not eternal.

quote:Also if god cannot become something he created, and jesus was the product of god, assuming mary was a virgin, then jesus could not be god. Yet he was?

First point - this is not my definition, this is the Christian definition. I believe Jesus was just a human being. Although again, in the Christian account, God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit exist as a trinity, like the three sides of a triangle. So for Christians, God didn't BECOME Jesus, he WAS Jesus.

Second point - still with the Christian definition, God is supposed to be omnipresent. This means he is in all things. He doesn't need to "become" anything. This creates the obvious problem about how he can exist in Hell/Satan, since Christians say they are evil and God cannot be evil, etc.

But as I have said, I do not accept these beliefs.

You should be asking this to Digital Saviour or something, I also find the Christian religion illogical. I just believe Jesus had some good things to say about reality, and the Church warped everything around to suit themselves.

[This message has been edited by imperfectcircle (edited 07-04-2006).]

#160

2006-07-04, 21:44

potentgirt potentgirt is offline

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by imperfectcircle:

I've got one point to make about that.

If God did exist, in the monistic sense, and he created the universe, he also created the laws of logic and mathematics.

If he created those laws, he could change them as well, and make 1 + 1 = 3 (thus he transcends logic, by necessity).

Going back to Descartes again, he believed this was possible. The problem is also similar to the paradox of whether God could create a stone that he could not lift, for which there are philosophical arguments saying he could. In both cases the arguments are complicated so I'll only type them out if you seriously wish to read them.

Afterimage, if this is what you thought I agreed with in the other post, then I screwed up. I was simply talking about Abrahim keeping his posts short, and all of that stuff. I guess I forgot about the 1+1=3 being impossible to change part, because, I do disagree with that.

And please do, read that book I mentioned, or tell me to start a new thread, in which you just ask questions...it's up to you

oh and I spelled "stop" wrong on purpose. And you spelled "grammar" wrong. Let's keep little things out of this though.

#161

2006-07-05, 02:43

Regular

South Texas

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by imperfectcircle:

I just want to interject with a brief comment about that.

The problem with the mind is also that you cannot prove it to exist. And yet you believe it is true that it does exist. Why? Intuitive recognition of the fact.

Descartes, the father of Western scientific thought as we know it, faced the same problem when asked how he could PROVE the "I exist" part of cogito ergo sum. He responded the same way, that it was an intuitive recognition.

Simply because you cannot see something does not mean that you cannot prove(beyond a reasonable doubt) that it exists. The functions which are attributed to the mind can be tested. Reasoning ability can be tested. Creativity can be tested. Logic can be tested. Thus , the existence of the mind is fairly well proven.

quote:For people with spiritual, rather than dogmatic religious, convictions the existence of a supreme being is an equally obvious intuitive fact, it is something felt.

It is also quite possible that their spiritual intuition could be attributed to their being slightly delusional, and that they are willing to readily accept metaphysical explanation for naturally occurring phenomena.

quote:I agree though that attempting to justify this recognition rationally is an extremely hard task.[QUOTE]

I agree.

[QUOTE]But do you believe it is true that other people possess a mind?

Normally I would say yes, but a few of the posters in this forum cause me to question the notion.

#162

2006-07-05, 03:13

imperfectcircle imperfectcircle is offline

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by truckfixr:

Simply because you cannot see something does not mean that you cannot prove(beyond a reasonable doubt) that it exists. The functions which are attributed to the mind can be tested. Reasoning ability can be tested. Creativity can be tested. Logic can be tested. Thus , the existence of the mind is fairly well proven.

I'm afraid not, the behavioural responses of the brain can be tested and the synaptic activity of the brain can be measured, but the existence of consciousness is simply a hypothesis.

This is a fiercely debated issue in philosophy, illustrated by the "philosophical zombie":

quote:Zombies are exactly like us in all physical respects but have no conscious experiences: by definition there is nothing it is like to be a zombie. Yet zombies behave like us, and some even spend a lot of time discussing consciousness. This disconcerting fantasy helps to make the problem of phenomenal consciousness vivid, especially as a problem for physicalism.

Few people think zombies actually exist. But many hold they are at least conceivable, and some that they are logically or metaphysically possible. It is argued that if zombies are so much as a bare possibility, then physicalism is false and some kind of dualism must be accepted. For many philosophers that is the chief importance of the zombie idea. But the idea is also of interest for its presuppositions about the nature of consciousness and how the physical and the phenomenal are related. Use of the zombie idea against physicalism also raises more general questions about relations between imaginability, conceivability, and possibility. Finally, zombies raise epistemological difficulties: they reinstate the other minds problem. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/zombies/

There has been no resolution of this problem, it basically comes down to whether you side with the physicalists or the anti-physicalists.

Here are a number of papers on the subject if you're curious: http://consc.net/online1.html#zombies

#163

2006-07-05, 03:36

Abrahim

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by potentgirt:

Peace in this life is useless, as we have to work hard to attain any type of religious reward. Your "god" seems to be a figment of your imagination, inflated so much as to make it your own personal religion. It seems that your own ego is so big, having conceived this "god" that it fills up all of the cracks in logic, and most importantly, blocks the flaws pointed out to you by others, and also blocks the true God from your sight.

"No, He cannot be harmed."

My God can not be harmed either.

"Yes, miracles being a large part of that benifit. And as many people need love and acceptance, they find it in my God."

Anything that has occured and possibly can occur, from miracles to thoughts, are under the jurisdiction of my God, the provider of all things.

"Crutches? God is Love, and He created us in order for Him to teach us Love, and to Love Him in return."

Within God there is the possibility for Love, Hate, Good, Bad, Right, Wrong, Up, Down, Left, Right, and everything else. Are you exclusive? Do Animals have souls? Man deludes themself in their pride: You are only a creation of God, it would be best for you to submit and find peace, for the good you send forth, so it shall be sent back, God is the Ultimate, God has no Son who can die or did die for your sins, how can something die for something elses sins? You are completely responsible for yourself and what you do, no one can save you other than you, you are your own savior.

"Sure, it will help you be at peace in this life, but by "accepting" that something huge is there isn't neccessarily going to make you at peace for the rest of your life. Especially something that can benefit you in no way (other than YOUR OWN HAPPINESS, DERIVED FROM YOUR OWN PEACE FROM YOUR OWN UNDERSTANDING, none of that truly comes from your god), or something that could care less if you didn't submit to it."

From my God are all benefits, turning away is your own loss.

"my God isn't dependant on me, or anyone else."

My God isn't dependant on anything either.

"He creates to love, and for us to love Him back."

My God does not require your love if you do not provide it. It would be better for you to do right and submit and follow the straight path, if not, then you will be rewarded likewise for your turning away from the message.

"His nature and essence IS love, so it is against His nature, not to love us and be concerned for us. There is a difference between relying on and being concerned about. For those that love Him back, he has created a reward known as heaven."

Within God is Love and Hate, to say God is Love is to limit God the infinite the all encompassing, there is much more than Love in God.

"Just because you steal nicknames for your "god" from other religions, does not give it the same meaning, or power. And you do realize by saying all of that, that your "god" is becoming more evil everyday? I think any one of us would agree that the world is full of sin right now, and is only getting worse. Being that your "god" manifests everything, it seems that he is getting worse by the second as well. All analogies break down, so bringing up manifestation in the Fish Bowl example is irrelevant."

The world is full of sin right now, and has been full of it for a long time, but why, if your God is love and concern, does he make and allow it to happen? Life is for you to witness, to test yourself, and to follow the straight path to the ultimate triumph. My God knows all possibilities past present and future, there are no surprises as all is from my God, this life is for you to live, to learn, to know yourself, to witness yourself, so that you can not deny. You can think of it as The Terms of the Contract when you entered this life, and now see how you turn away from the message and believe in a limited falsehood of a God, an Idol, a Graven Image.

"If my God is not your "god", then your "god" is greater? That is being closed-minded at its finest."

If your God is limited, and my God is unlimited, your God is limited by my God, my God is far superior as it encompasses all, even your God, the truth is, My God, is the only God. Your God is a limited concept. Denying my God is to deny the supreme power of the Ultimate God.

"HA! False idols invented by man with little understanding? To me, it seems like you have created the idea of your "god" from other religions."

All religions started with the proper understanding which was later corrupted by the inventions and metaphors of man and then believed as true in later years, you can find the history of how it happened in Hinduism even. Originally it started with Brahma

brahma (nominative singular), brahman (stem) (neuter[1] gender) means the concept of the Supreme transcendent and immanent Reality or the One Godhead or Cosmic Spirit in Hinduism; this is discussed below. Also note that the word Brahman in this sense is exceptionally treated as masculine (see the Merrill-Webster Sanskrit Dictionary). It is called "the Brahman" in English.

My god. Then later in order to explain various aspects of the universe and life other dieties were created by the people as an explanation of the Singular One God.

"You're saying that you are wiser than Man? Because I doubt your "god" has told you anything on the matter of himself, being that he doesn't communicate with us."

My God is in constant communication with everything, some of us listen and learn, some of us turn away, plugging our ears, covering our eyes, and closing our minds. My God has told you about My God since you were in the womb and every moment waking and sleeping till today and will continue to tell you, but will you ever listen?

"Your "god" is the ultimate falsehood. Just because you take different views from different religions, and mix them together, it doesn't make it right! Religion is NOT like philosophy in the fact that you cannot think of a type of god, and reason for its existence, and then make it out to be the true religion. Religion requires faith, and faith requires at least SOME guidance and/or reasonable evidence."

We have the Bible, Muslims have the Qu'ran, you have your own thoughts and irrationality to guide you.

The Qur'an, the book of the muslims, speaks of the same God as me, all encompassing, The Reality, Surrounding all things, infinite, limitless, originator of all.

Here is what the Qur'an says about your God:

004.171

O People of the Book! Commit no excesses in your religion: Nor say of Allah aught but the truth. Jesus the son of Mary was a messenger of Allah, and His Word, which He bestowed on Mary, and a spirit proceeding from Him: so believe in Allah and His messengers. Say not "Trinity" : desist: it will be better for you: for Allah is one Allah: Glory be to Him: above having a son. To Him belong all things in the heavens and on earth. And enough is Allah as a Disposer of affairs.

004.172

The Messiah does by no means disdain that he should be a servant of Allah, nor do the angels who are near to Him, and whoever disdains His service and is proud, He will gather them all together to Himself.

005.073

They do blaspheme who say: Allah is one of three in a Trinity: for there is no god except One Allah. If they desist not from their word, verily a grievous penalty will befall the blasphemers among them.

005.074

Why turn they not to Allah, and seek His forgiveness? For Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.

005.075

Christ the son of Mary was no more than a messenger; many were the messengers that passed away before him. His mother was a woman of truth. They had both to eat their (daily) food. See how Allah doth make His signs clear to them; yet see in what ways they are deluded away from the truth!

005.076

Say: "Will ye worship, besides Allah, something which hath no power either to harm or benefit you? But Allah,- He it is that heareth and knoweth all things."

019.035

It is not befitting to Allah that He should beget a son. Glory be to Him! when He determines a matter, He only says to it, "Be", and it is.

019.036

Verily Allah is my Lord and your Lord: Him therefore serve ye: this is a Way that is straight.

112.001

Say: He is Allah, the One and Only;

112.002

Allah is on Whom all depend.

112.003

Allah begetteth not, nor is Allah begotten;

112.004

And there is none comparable unto Allah.

"Your "god" consists of your own flawed thoughts."

My God is Allah of the Qur'an, Ahura Mazda of Zoroastrianism, Brahma of Hinduism, The Tao of Taoism, The Ultimate Reality of Truth, God of All, The One. What is your God? If it is not my God, The Only God, then it is nothing but dust in the wind.

#164

2006-07-05, 03:44

Abrahim

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by Aft3r ImaGe:

This is literally a myy god can beat the shit our of your god thread. Argueing about which god provides the most benifits. This is pathetic.

You don't even know if a god exists much less wether god is a personal god or not. Yet you argue as if you know you god personally and your god's personal spokesman.

And worst of all wether or right or wrong, argueing cannot prove it. No matter how much you debate which god is better it is time wasted. Think about it even if one of you are right it makes no difference that you argued about it. And if god doesn't exist then it is still a waste of time.

Besides like stated earlier if god does exist you don't know gods thoughts or anything about god for that matter. Your not god's personal spokesman. None of you can know wether or not your right, and even if you think you do, (this is just your ego talking by the way) there is no way to prove your right.

This debate is pointless so stop wasting your time.

This forum is called My God can Beat the Shit out of Your God, this is where these debates are supposed to occur, I am very happy that we are discussing this here, it isn't a waste of time, I find that we can derive some enjoyment from it. You can sit back, relax, and watch the fireworks if you don't feel like contributing.

When you say God doesn't exist, to me its like saying nothing exists, not even me, because I find that it is God which all things are dependant on and relying on in order to exist, that if there was nothing there would still be nothing.

#165

2006-07-05, 03:47

Abrahim

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

#166

2006-07-05, 03:52

Abrahim

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by Aeroue:

A greater God?

Surely the creator God is greater than the 'god' which is reality. Surely in saying God IS the reality you leave open to debate where did that reality come from? Something cannot bring about its own existence. Nor can something become that which it created. If God can only be either reality as you claim or a creator as most religions do, the creator is blatantly superior.

Anyway Abrahim you need to hurry up and accept that your argument did in fact die on the first page. It cannot overcome logical contradiction. Logic is the ultimate, it applies to everything equally. Logic even applies to God. God cannot transcend logic as imperfectircle was saying. God cannot add 1 and 1 and get 3. It is rationally impossible.

You also need to keep your posts concise, stop the bullshit and repetition. It only cheapens your theory. Makes it look like your trying to pad it out and obscure the actual argument behind a wall of crap.

Hope this makes sense I kinda skimmed over half of it, and Abrahim doesn't exactly write in an accessible way.

God created this Reality, God is the Ultimate Reality in which all possible Realities exist. My God has always existed, my God is essentially all there is and ever was, the One, Originator of everything, there is nothing but God.

Strip my God of all images within it and it is in the image of nothing.

I am not stating that my God created itself, nothing created my God nor was it ever created, nor is it a "thing" but the manifestor of all things. There is nothing outside of God, God is infinite, limitless, understand, God created time and the limitations of this reality you live in, everything is made of God entirely, nothing is seperate or without God, God is what allows what exists to exist. I find that my God is logical, the most logical. It didn't BECOME what it created, what is created, it created within itself, nothing can exist outside of it, everything is made of it, there is only God.

#167

2006-07-05, 03:57

Abrahim

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

#168

2006-07-05, 04:00

Abrahim

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by imperfectcircle:

That's an objection to only a few particular religions.

I think any belief system based on fear instead of love shouldn't be called a religion.

I also believe that the Christian church, as it has existed for at least a millenia, is ANTI spiritual.

But the flaws of past so-called religions doesn't mean religion itself is a flawed concept.

The goal of any religion, above ALL else, should be to improve quality of life. Such a religion may yet come along.

Islam and Bhuddism are both religions which attempt to guide people to improve their quality of life by prescribing various things and reccomending certain restrictions on things for ones own betterment.

The Qur'an clearifies that what good they do is for their own benefit, and avoiding harm for their own benefit.

#169

2006-07-05, 04:08

Abrahim

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by Eloquence:

IT'S GOOD THAT YOU ARE A HAPPY PERSON

ABRAHIM. I LIKED YOUR MY SPACE.

THANK YOU! I'M VERY GLAD YOU READ IT! DID YOU LIKE THE MUSIC!? I STILL WANT TO TALK TO YOU ON MSN OR AIM MAY I PLEASE ADD YOU NOW?

#170

2006-07-05, 04:11

Abrahim

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by Aft3r ImaGe:

But then heaven and hell cannot be eternal considering they were made by god. By that definition they would also have to have been uncreated, and they are not.

Also that doesn't apply to the the other point I made.

Paradise and Punishment, wherever it appears, even in ancient mongolia, has always been a creation of the Chief creator God, for those who enter either one, it is forever according to all those which have it included in their belief system. In ancient Mongolia and China even, a fiery hell like place was created by the Chief God in order to punish the evil doers.

#171

2006-07-05, 04:30

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by imperfectcircle:

I'm afraid not, the behavioural responses of the brain can be tested and the synaptic activity of the brain can be measured, but the existence of consciousness is simply a hypothesis.

It is also a "hypothesis" that the sun will rise tomorrow, yet virtually nobody suggests that this "hypothesis" is wrong. Why? Because we have physical evidence that, at the very least, suggests that it will rise tomorrow. Of course, we could take an extremely skeptic position and argue the possibility that a humongous pink troll wearing a tight purple thong is going to eat the sun tonight; however, the evidence supporting the initial "hypothesis" still stands.

The same cannot be said of a "supreme being". While you may recognize it as intuitive fact, you lack any meaningful form of physical evidence that, at the very least, strongly suggests that your "hypothesis" is true.

Moreover, you don't just want us to admit the remote possibility that a supreme being might exist, as you want us to do with the problem of conscious thought in others. You presumably want us to believe in that supreme being which you suggest, in which case the burden is far more than just analogy of yours. So even if we admit that others might not possess conscious thought, the analogy is worthless in support of your argument if it is coupled with an absence of evidence.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 07-05-2006).]

#172

2006-07-05, 04:39

potentgirt potentgirt is offline

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

Ok, I'm making a response in notepad, so I can reply to all your posts at once Abrahim...do the same, lol, Mr. 5 posts in a row.

quote: originally posted by Abrahim:Within God there is the possibility for Love, Hate, Good, Bad, Right, Wrong, Up, Down, Left, Right, and everything else. Are you exclusive? Do Animals have souls? Man deludes themself in their pride: You are only a creation of God, it would be best for you to submit and find peace, for the good you send forth, so it shall be sent back, God is the Ultimate, God has no Son who can die or did die for your sins, how can something die for something elses sins? You are completely responsible for yourself and what you do, no one can save you other than you, you are your own savior.

No, animals do not have souls, God gave us power over all animals in the beginning, it is not a matter of pride, but privilege. Giving one's life for another IS the greatest act of love possible, so it is only fitting for God to send His son down to earth, suffering and dying for our sins. sacrifice is what it is. It is up to us to accept that from God, his gift of forgiveness. That is only through Jesus, however. The wages of sin is death. Though Jesus never sinned, He bore all of our sins in his body on the cross. Instead of God making us pay for our sins, He did it Himself by becoming one of us.

quote:

My God does not require your love if you do not provide it. It would be better for you to do right and submit and follow the straight path, if not, then you will be rewarded likewise for your turning away from the message.

I seem to be misunderstanding the "reward." You also keep saying that it would be best to submit. What happens if we don't? Or have you not thought of that?

quote:

Within God is Love and Hate, to say God is Love is to limit God the infinite the all encompassing, there is much more than Love in God.

God is love, but God also punishes the sinner and hates all who do iniquity. God is not one sided. He is not simply an infinitely loving God. He is also infinitely just. He must deal with sin. He must punish the sinner.

quote:

The world is full of sin right now, and has been full of it for a long time, but why, if your God is love and concern, does he make and allow it to happen?

I'm not one to clutter my posts, so here is copy+paste potential. http://www.carm.org/questions/whydidGodcreateus.htm

quote:

if your God is limited, and my God is unlimited, your God is limited by my God, my God is far superior as it encompasses all, even your God, the truth is, My God, is the only God. Your God is a limited concept. Denying my God is to deny the supreme power of the Ultimate God.

my God is not limited.

quote:

019.035

It is not befitting to Allah that He should beget a son. Glory be to Him! when He determines a matter, He only says to it, "Be", and it is.

If you read that God creating us thing, this should be proven false for the most part. Jesus needed to be born of a woman, in order to become a genuine man.

quote:

If God was a man who was lifting stones, God would not be God. God is what the man lifting stones exists within, and lifts the stone by. God is one.

Tossing that God is one in there made me laugh. But why can't God be a man lifting stones? God can do anything right? So what stops Him from becoming part man, and part divine?

You still are posting the same things, unless you were refreshing someone's memory...

#173

2006-07-05, 04:43

Abrahim

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

It is also a "hypothesis" that the sun will rise tomorrow, yet virtually nobody suggests that this "hypothesis" is wrong. Why? Because we have physical evidence that, at the very least, suggests that it will rise tomorrow. Of course, we could take an extremely skeptic position and argue the possibility that a humongous pink troll wearing a tight purple thong is going to eat the sun tonight; however, the evidence supporting the initial "hypothesis" still stands.

The same cannot be said of a "supreme being". While you may recognize it as intuitive fact, you lack any meaningful form of physical evidence that, at the very least, strongly suggests that your "hypothesis" is true.

Moreover, you don't just want us to admit the remote possibility that a supreme being might exist, as you want us to do with the problem of conscious thought in others. You presumably want us to believe in that supreme being which you suggest, in which case the burden is far more than just analogy of yours. So even if we admit that others might not possess conscious thought, the analogy is worthless in support of your argument if it is coupled with an absence of evidence.

Why is not existence:

"ex·is·tence ( P ) Pronunciation Key (g-zstns)

n.

The fact or state of existing; being.

The fact or state of continued being; life: our brief existence on Earth.

All that exists: sang the beauty of all existence.

A thing that exists; an entity.

A mode or manner of existing: scratched out a meager existence.

Specific presence; occurrence: The Geiger counter indicated the existence of radioactivity."

proof enough that we are within reality:

"re·al·i·ty ( P ) Pronunciation Key (r-l-t)

n. pl. re·al·i·ties

The quality or state of being actual or true.

One, such as a person, an entity, or an event, that is actual: the weight of history and political realities (Benno C. Schmidt, Jr.).

The totality of all things possessing actuality, existence, or essence.

That which exists objectively and in fact: Your observations do not seem to be about reality."

which is what the Universe:

"u·ni·verse ( P ) Pronunciation Key (yn-vûrs)

n.

All matter and energy, including the earth, the galaxies, and the contents of intergalactic space, regarded as a whole.

The earth together with all its inhabitants and created things.

The human race.

The sphere or realm in which something exists or takes place.

Logic. See universe of discourse.

Statistics. See population."

is Existing within and by, and that God:

"god ( P ) Pronunciation Key (gd)

n.

God

A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions.

The force, effect, or a manifestation or aspect of this being.

A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality.

An image of a supernatural being; an idol.

One that is worshiped, idealized, or followed: Money was their god.

A very handsome man.

A powerful ruler or despot."

Is the Ultimate Reality which all Things:

"thing ( P ) Pronunciation Key (thng)

n.

An entity, an idea, or a quality perceived, known, or thought to have its own existence.

The real or concrete substance of an entity.

An entity existing in space and time.

An inanimate object.

Something referred to by a word, a symbol, a sign, or an idea; a referent.

A creature: the poor little thing.

An individual object: There wasn't a thing in sight.

Law. That which can be possessed or owned. Often used in the plural: things personal; things real.

things Possessions; belongings: packed her things and left.

An article of clothing: Put on your things and let's go.

things The equipment needed for an activity or a special purpose: Where are my cleaning things?

An object or entity that is not or cannot be named specifically: What is this thing for?

An act, deed, or work: promised to do great things.

The result of work or activity: is always building things.

A thought, a notion, or an utterance: What a rotten thing to say!

A piece of information: wouldn't tell me a thing about the project.

A means to an end: just the thing to increase sales.

An end or objective: In blackjack, the thing is to get nearest to 21 without going over.

A matter of concern: many things on my mind.

A turn of events; a circumstance: The accident was a terrible thing.

things The general state of affairs; conditions: Beneath the smooth surface of things, something was wrong (Tom Wicker).

A particular state of affairs; a situation: Let's deal with this thing promptly.

Informal. A persistent illogical feeling, as a desire or an aversion; an obsession: has a thing about seafood.

Informal. The latest fad or fashion; the rage: Drag racing was the thing then.

Slang. An activity uniquely suitable and satisfying to one: Let him do his own thing. See Synonyms at forte1."

is what we Exist within.

[This message has been edited by Abrahim (edited 07-05-2006).]

#174

2006-07-05, 04:46

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

I asked for evidence, not meaningless bullshit that a troll keeps spamming in order to avoid answering any questions. Try harder.

#175

2006-07-05, 04:48

potentgirt potentgirt is offline

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

Proof that you stop using the word "God"

in the definition that you posted (which was completely useless, and in this case screwed you) it said that "God" was the ruler of the Universe. So your "god" rules Himself? That doesn't make much sense to me. Why would that be needed?

#176

2006-07-05, 04:54

Abrahim

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by potentgirt:

Proof that you stop using the word "God"

in the definition that you posted (which was completely useless, and in this case screwed you) it said that "God" was the ruler of the Universe. So your "god" rules Himself? That doesn't make much sense to me. Why would that be needed?

My God rules himself, and My God is not "The Universe" but what the Universe is made of, and within, what all universes and realities are within, The Ultimate Reality, God.

#177

2006-07-05, 05:09

Abrahim

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by potentgirt:

"No, animals do not have souls, God gave us power over all animals in the beginning, it is not a matter of pride, but privilege."

You are only an animal, but man does have abilities which have allowed us to invent cars and computers, I believe even a plant has a soul, as my definition of soul is life force: what is your definition of soul?

"Giving one's life for another IS the greatest act of love possible, so it is only fitting for God to send His son down to earth, suffering and dying for our sins."

A Loving human would not kill his son for any reason, but protect his son from harm. How can another die and suffer for YOUR sins? You are responsible for your own sins!

"sacrifice is what it is. It is up to us to accept that from God, his gift of forgiveness. That is only through Jesus, however."

I believe God, your originator, who you were created by, and who you will return to, is the only one who can forgive your sins.

"The wages of sin is death. Though Jesus never sinned, He bore all of our sins in his body on the cross. Instead of God making us pay for our sins, He did it Himself by becoming one of us."

The Wages of Sin is Hellfire, and no man or "son of God" can bare the sins of another man, all the responsibility is your own to do right and earn your reward in life and after life, and only the Ultimate God can forgive your sins.

"I seem to be misunderstanding the "reward." You also keep saying that it would be best to submit. What happens if we don't? Or have you not thought of that?"

If you do not submit, the loss is only your own, you will live your life as you live it, and then you will die. On judgement day, when you will be asked why you didn't submit when the message came to you, what will your answer be? That you were told that God had a son who died for your sins, so you shut your eyes to the truth? Transgression and Rebellion and Breaking the Covenant "I hear and I obey", but what you did was invent a lie and took it for the truth.

"God is love, but God also punishes the sinner and hates all who do iniquity. God is not one sided. He is not simply an infinitely loving God. He is also infinitely just. He must deal with sin. He must punish the sinner."

So stop sinning and lying about the nature of God, inventing children, and making graven images, stop disobeying the law and follow the straight path!

"my God is not limited."

Then your God is what everything is within and existing by, and your God has no need for a son to sacrifice.

"If you read that God creating us thing, this should be proven false for the most part. Jesus needed to be born of a woman, in order to become a genuine man."

Jesus was a man. Mary was a woman. God is only God. Jesus is not God, nor is any man the son of God. God is far beyond having sons, you are all the manifestation of God the Creator, the Originator.

"Tossing that God is one in there made me laugh. But why can't God be a man lifting stones? God can do anything right? So what stops Him from becoming part man, and part divine?

You still are posting the same things, unless you were refreshing someone's memory..."

Everything in existence is within God and part of God. No one singular part is the Whole, God is the Ultimate, All Encompassing.

[This message has been edited by Abrahim (edited 07-05-2006).]

#178

2006-07-05, 05:25

potentgirt potentgirt is offline

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

Seriously, quit it with the tossing nicknames after mentioning your "god." It's gotten pathetic and annoying. I take it you didn't read that link I posted, because several of your rebuttals should have been proven invalid by it.

In Sacred Scripture the term "soul" often refers to human life or the entire human person. But "soul" also refers to the innermost aspect of man, that which is of greatest value in him, that by which he is most especially in God's image: "soul" signifies the spiritual principle in man. <---CCC

How is there a judgement day with your "god?"

He is not a personal "god," and since he is everyone, why is there a need for judgement? You should return that belief to us, where it makes sense.

My God is not limited, but that does not require Him to BE everything that He created.

Jesus was God, was God's son, and was a man.

No one singular part is the Whole, God is the Ultimate, All Encompassing.

manifestation of God the Creator, the Originator. only the Ultimate God

just how many nicknames you tacked on ^^^

The things I didn't reply to, check them against the article I posted. Most of it having to do with the significance of sacrifice and forgiveness.

#179

2006-07-05, 05:58

Abrahim

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by potentgirt:

Seriously, quit it with the tossing nicknames after mentioning your "god." It's gotten pathetic and annoying. I take it you didn't read that link I posted, because several of your rebuttals should have been proven invalid by it.

In Sacred Scripture the term "soul" often refers to human life or the entire human person. But "soul" also refers to the innermost aspect of man, that which is of greatest value in him, that by which he is most especially in God's image: "soul" signifies the spiritual principle in man. <---CCC

How is there a judgement day with your "god?"

He is not a personal "god," and since he is everyone, why is there a need for judgement? You should return that belief to us, where it makes sense.

My God is not limited, but that does not require Him to BE everything that He created.

Jesus was God, was God's son, and was a man.

No one singular part is the Whole, God is the Ultimate, All Encompassing.

manifestation of God the Creator, the Originator. only the Ultimate God

just how many nicknames you tacked on ^^^

The things I didn't reply to, check them against the article I posted. Most of it having to do with the significance of sacrifice and forgiveness.

The Article agreed with me that God is self sufficient and unlimited. No everyone is not God, everyone is completely dependant on God and existing only because of God by God. A Singular Part is not the Whole. The Whole is within God, made of God. God is One, there is nothing but God. Nothing can exist outside of God.

#180

2006-07-05, 06:03

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by Abrahim:

The Wages of Sin is Hellfire, and no man or "son of God" can bare the sins of another man, all the responsibility is your own to do right and earn your reward in life and after life, and only the Ultimate God can forgive your sins.

This means we're all screwed. If one sins in any way there is no way for God to forgive, cause the law is the law, and if I kill another human no amount of forgiveness by god, or any other, will change that event and erase that sin.

On the other hand if a human being created a robot and it was supposedly programmed to obey certain laws, but instead it ran amok causing destruction, the creator would be held responsible. For example Ralph Nader and the work he has done to hold resposnible the big corporations and make them pay fines, compensation, and clean up costs. This is the way fallible human justice deals with offenders/sinners. The analogy of course is to an omnipotent, omnsicient creator god, an infallible justice. If the creator of the sinner is the one who is responsible, then why should the creator not pay the fine? If the fine is death, then the creator can only pay that fine by dying.

Namaste

#181

2006-07-05, 06:20

potentgirt potentgirt is offline

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

Uhh, what about dogs killing humans? Do the owners get killed? I mean, they raised the dogs to be nice...

And Abrahim, I thought you said your "god" is what we all consist of, and that he is within and of everyone. Am I missing something?

#182

2006-07-05, 06:21

Abrahim

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by redzed:

This means we're all screwed. If one sins in any way there is no way for God to forgive, cause the law is the law, and if I kill another human no amount of forgiveness by god, or any other, will change that event and erase that sin.

On the other hand if a human being created a robot and it was supposedly programmed to obey certain laws, but instead it ran amok causing destruction, the creator would be held responsible. For example Ralph Nader and the work he has done to hold resposnible the big corporations and make them pay fines, compensation, and clean up costs. This is the way fallible human justice deals with offenders/sinners. The analogy of course is to an omnipotent, omnsicient creator god, an infallible justice. If the creator of the sinner is the one who is responsible, then why should the creator not pay the fine? If the fine is death, then the creator can only pay that fine by dying.

Namaste

I believe that God doesn't need to make blood sacrifice to make something happen, thus the True God can Forgive anything or nothing simply "Be" and it is. I'm against the concept of God having sons who need to die for OTHER people's sins.

#183

2006-07-05, 06:24

potentgirt potentgirt is offline

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

You seem very selfish then. Giving up your own life/watching your own son suffer is an incredible act of love on God's part.

#184

2006-07-05, 07:09

Daz

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:I'll just back that up by pointing out that the common definition of God is that he is uncreated, so the objection doesn't hold.

The universe - also could have existed for an infinite amount of time going from big bang to big crunch in perpetual motion.

quote:Think about it, if something is eternal, you can keep on going back in time for an infinite amount without reaching an end.

Which is why there is no need for a creator of the universe.

quote:As a result of free will he would not be able to change the way we perceive the world.

1 - We do not have freewill

2 - If there is something God can not do he is not omnipotent.

quote:I also find the Christian religion illogical.

ANY religion of belief involving the existence of a supreme being or supernatural entities are illogical.

quote:Descartes, the father of Western scientific thought as we know it, faced the same problem when asked how he could PROVE the "I exist" part of cogito ergo sum. He responded the same way, that it was an intuitive recognition.

Descartes was wrong. He never realised that he can't prove that 'i' exists because 'i' has the presupposed hidden premise that the thoughts are being generated by himself. In reality all we can know beyond any doubt is that 'there are thoughts'. Descartes also used circular logic later on in his same hypothosis but that is getting off topic.

quote:Simply because you cannot see something does not mean that you cannot prove(beyond a reasonable doubt) that it exists.

Nothing except for the fact that there are thoughts can be proven beyond reasonable doubt.

quote:For people with spiritual, rather than dogmatic religious, convictions the existence of a supreme being is an equally obvious intuitive fact, it is something felt.

Descartes was wrong about intuitive facts - as i have already proven, therefore to base the validity of a religious conviction of Descartes error would be invalid reasoning.

quote:When you say God doesn't exist, to me its like saying nothing exists

That is because you have defined God as reality...

quote:because I find that it is God which all things are dependant on and relying on in order to exist, that if there was nothing there would still be nothing.

What if there was always something??

quote:God created this Reality

Prove it - the burden of proof is on you, now back up your claim or state it as your opinion and not fact.

quote:My God has always existed, my God is essentially all there is and ever was, the One, Originator of everything, there is nothing but God.

Prove it. The burden of proof is on you to backup your claims. Either that or admit that you can't and that these ramblings are just your opinion.

quote:I find that my God is logical

Oh no. The very assumption that your conscious reality of a God exists has no place in logic, don't ever claim that and do not ever be so dishonest as to assume it.

quote:The problem is also similar to the paradox of whether God could create a stone that he could not lift

There is something that annoys me about this 'paradox' and that is that it assumes that God would create the rock in an environment where it would have weight - as opposed to the rock having no weight do to there being no gravity... essentially it compares Gods ability to closely to that of man... but anyways...

quote:It is also a "hypothesis" that the sun will rise tomorrow, yet virtually nobody suggests that this "hypothesis" is wrong. Why? Because we have physical evidence that, at the very least, suggests that it will rise tomorrow.

Empirical evidence placed into a logially inductive argument - i'm sure i do not need to tell you that inductive arguments are invalid.

quote:The same cannot be said of a "supreme being". While you may recognize it as intuitive fact

Intuitive fact is in no way a criterion of truth anyways - whether they can come up with empirical evidence (which they can't)

quote:No, animals do not have souls, God gave us power over all animals

Humans are animals.

quote:No, animals do not have souls, God gave us power over all animals ... nstead of God making us pay for our sins, He did it Himself by becoming one of us.

You can not back any of that up without refering to scripture (which would be circular logic) so propose it all as your opinion or fufill the burden of truth.

quote:my God is not limited.

I'm going to assume that your God is omnipotent and omniscient - in which case your god is limited. The two are mutually exclusive and the argument against this is flawless - if your god knows what it will do it can only do that and so is not omnipotent... therefore limited. Either change the definition or accept the logical reality.

quote:Jesus needed to be born of a woman, in order to become a genuine man.

Why didn't your omnipotent God just make him a man - he did not need a women.

quote:I asked for evidence, not meaningless bullshit that a troll keeps spamming in order to avoid answering any questions. Try harder.

Couldn't agree more.

Infact - i'm sick of everyone making claims about things without backing a single thing up with any kind of evidence, quoting scriptures would be circular logic and that is all you have... either fufill the burden of proof or stop professing what is in actuality your opinion as fact.

#185

2006-07-05, 07:28

potentgirt potentgirt is offline

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

The Bible, and the Qu'ran should serve as decent proof to you, unless you can find an inaccuracy or contradiction in the source. If you are not willing to take them with a grain of salt for debate's sake, then GTFO

#186

2006-07-05, 10:49

Abrahim

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by Daz:

Couldn't agree more.

Infact - i'm sick of everyone making claims about things without backing a single thing up with any kind of evidence, quoting scriptures would be circular logic and that is all you have... either fufill the burden of proof or stop professing what is in actuality your opinion as fact.

What evidence are you looking for if all you know for sure is "There are thoughts".

"The universe - also could have existed for an infinite amount of time going from big bang to big crunch in perpetual motion."

That is exactly what I believe in happening, but I do not believe that can happen nor can any physical matter occur nor can a motion be made without the base which is God, alternatively Reality or Ultimate Reality.

"Which is why there is no need for a creator of the universe."

There is need for what allows this and the perpetual motion to exist. I am calling this thing that allows and what all is within and existing by God.

"1 - We do not have freewill

2 - If there is something God can not do he is not omnipotent."

"I'm going to assume that your God is omnipotent and omniscient - in which case your god is limited."

People often imagine God as some being "Doing" things, while God is what all things are done by and within.

"Oh no. The very assumption that your conscious reality of a God exists has no place in logic, don't ever claim that and do not ever be so dishonest as to assume it."

If it didn't exist and was not conscious, not a thing would exist or be able to move.

"There are thoughts" Those are Gods.

"I think therefor I am"

but I say "God thinks, therefor I am"

These are the thoughts manifest, this is only one possibility playing itself out within it many more possibilities.

If God was dead, unconscious, not living, then there would not be anything, nor would there be a movement. God is ever living and has always lived and so to have all possibilities, the ripe plain of infinite knowledge un ending which makes up all things known and unknown (to us).

What evidence do you want? You can find doubt in everything, and a life wasted away with only a question mark to say.

The message is for simply those who will believe it, to give them understanding, to rise them up from confusion and give them an answer.

For me, and maybe Potentgirt too now, this topic is designed for sorting out.

We have sides here too:

The Athiests: There is no God stop hallucinating!

The Semi Athiests: You will never know if there is a God or not so Who cares?

The We Can't Know Anything Guy: All I know is that I don't know.

The Christian: Jesus is your Lord and Savior, simple as that!

Abrahim: Look at your hand! Get it?

and more!

Join in! This is Ragnarok!

[This message has been edited by Abrahim (edited 07-05-2006).]

#187

2006-07-05, 13:03

Aeroue

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by Abrahim:

People often imagine God as some being "Doing" things, while God is what all things are done by and within.(edited 07-05-2006).]

So in reading that I have found out your 'god' does everything.

If he does everything how do we have free will?

If we don't have free will how is it that you're listening to your 'god' but others are not.

[This message has been edited by Aeroue (edited 07-05-2006).]

#188

2006-07-05, 13:15

Abrahim

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by Aeroue:

So in reading that I have found out your 'god' does everything.

If he does everything how do we have free will?

If we don't have free will how is it that you're listening to your 'god' but others are not.

There is no process that can occur or exist without God. Can you walk across the street or pick a flower from a garden instead? Look up, look down, look left, look right: You are the one looking up and down and left and right, God is what provided those possibilities, enables you to exist, and what you utilize in order to make those decisions and perform those actions.

#189

2006-07-05, 14:17

imperfectcircle imperfectcircle is offline

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

It is also a "hypothesis" that the sun will rise tomorrow, yet virtually nobody suggests that this "hypothesis" is wrong. Why? Because we have physical evidence that, at the very least, suggests that it will rise tomorrow.

This exact question was explored by David Hume, who used the same example himself. He argued that there is no RATIONAL basis to expect the run to rise tomorrow, only an intuitive feeling that it will. Because there is nothing in any a posteriori truth about the causal relationship between two events that is necessarily true, all we can say is that we have frequently observed two certain events coinciding sequentially in the past. This type of problem has nothing to do with the existence of the mind, it's a question for epistemology.

From David Hume's "Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding"

quote: ALL the objects of human reason or enquiry may naturally be divided into two kinds, to wit, Relations of Ideas, and Matters of Fact. Of the first kind are the sciences of Geometry, Algebra, and Arithmetic; and in short, every affirmation which is either intuitively or demonstratively certain. That the square of the hypothenuse is equal to the square of the two sides, is a proposition which expresses a relation between these figures. That three times five is equal to the half of thirty, expresses a relation between these numbers. Propositions of this kind are discoverable by the mere operation of thought, without dependence on what is anywhere existent in the universe. Though there never were a circle or triangle in nature, the truths demonstrated by Euclid would for ever retain their certainty and evidence.

Matters of fact, which are the second objects of human reason, are not ascertained in the same manner; nor is our evidence of their truth, however great, of a like nature with the foregoing. The contrary of every matter of fact is still possible; because it can never imply a contradiction, and is conceived by the mind with the same facility and distinctness, as if ever so conformable to reality. That the sun will not rise to-morrow is no less intelligible a proposition, and implies no more contradiction than the affirmation, that it will rise. We should in vain, therefore, attempt to demonstrate its falsehood. Were it demonstratively false, it would imply a contradiction, and could never be distinctly conceived by the mind.

quote: All reasonings concerning matter of fact seem to be founded on the relation of Cause and Effect. By means of that relation alone we can go beyond the evidence of our memory and senses. If you were to ask a man, why he believes any matter of fact, which is absent; for instance, that his friend is in the country, or in France; he would give you a reason; and this reason would be some other fact; as a letter received from him, or the knowledge of his former resolutions and promises. A man finding a watch or any other machine in a desert island, would conclude that there had once been men in that island. All our reasonings concerning fact are of the same nature. And here it is constantly supposed that there is a connexion between the present fact and that which is inferred from it. Were there nothing to bind them together, the inference would be entirely precarious. The hearing of an articulate voice and rational discourse in the dark assures us of the presence of some person: Why? because these are the effects of the human make and fabric, and closely connected with it. If we anatomize all the other reasonings of this nature, we shall find that they are founded on the relation of cause and effect, and that this relation is either near or remote, direct or collateral. Heat and light are collateral effects of fire, and the one effect may justly be inferred from the other.

If we would satisfy ourselves, therefore, concerning the nature of that evidence, which assures us of matters of fact, we must enquire how we arrive at the knowledge of cause and effect.

I shall venture to affirm, as a general proposition, which admits of no exception, that the knowledge of this relation is not, in any instance, attained by reasonings a priori; but arises entirely from experience, when we find that any particular objects are constantly conjoined with each other. Let an object be presented to a man of ever so strong natural reason and abilities; if that object be entirely new to him, he will not be able, by the most accurate examination of its sensible qualities, to discover any of its causes or effects. Adam, though his rational faculties be supposed, at the very first, entirely perfect, could not have inferred from the fluidity and transparency of water that it would suffocate him, or from the light and warmth of fire that it would consume him. No object ever discovers, by the qualities which appear to the senses, either the causes which produced it, or the effects which will arise from it; nor can our reason, unassisted by experience, ever draw any inference concerning real existence and matter of fact.

quote: And as the first imagination or invention of a particular effect, in all natural operations, is arbitrary, where we consult not experience; so must we also esteem the supposed tie or connexion between the cause and effect, which binds them together, and renders it impossible that any other effect could result from the operation of that cause. When I see, for instance, a Billiard-ball moving in a straight line towards another; even suppose motion in the second ball should by accident be suggested to me, as the result of their contact or impulse; may I not conceive, that a hundred different events might as well follow from that cause? May not both these balls remain at absolute rest? May not the first ball return in a straight line, or leap off from the second in any line or direction? All these suppositions are consistent and conceivable. Why then should we give the preference to one, which is no more consistent or conceivable than the rest? All our reasonings a priori will never be able to show us any foundation for this preference.

In a word, then, every effect is a distinct event from its cause. It could not, therefore, be discovered in the cause, and the first invention or conception of it, a priori, must be entirely arbitrary. And even after it is suggested, the conjunction of it with the cause must appear equally arbitrary; since there are always many other effects, which, to reason, must seem fully as consistent and natural. In vain, therefore, should we pretend to determine any single event, or infer any cause or effect, without the assistance of observation and experience.

http://eserver.org/18th/hume-enquiry.html

#190

2006-07-05, 14:58

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by imperfectcircle:

This exact question was explored by David Hume, who used the same example himself. He argued that there is no RATIONAL basis to expect the run to rise tomorrow, only an intuitive feeling that it will. Because there is nothing in any a posteriori truth about the causal relationship between two events that is necessarily true, all we can say is that we have frequently observed two certain events coinciding sequentially in the past. This type of problem has nothing to do with the existence of the mind, it's a question for epistemology.

We can say much more than that. We can use Physics, Geometry, and Algebra (what Hume calls Relations of Ideas) to substantiate the "hypothesis" that the sun will rise tomorrow. Again I, like Hume, admitted to the remote possibility of it that potentially proving to be false; but that, in and of itself, is irrelevant.

I'm arguing the fact that the hypothesis still has physical evidence to substantiate it, and in doing so, I am contrasting that with your "hypothesis" about the existence of a supreme being, which lacks that physical evidence. Whether that evidence can or cannot remove all possible doubts about another event - in order to make it a contradiction in terms so as to remove all doubt of its possibility - does not change that evidence still exists, which is much more than what we can say of your proposition.

#191

2006-07-05, 15:07

imperfectcircle imperfectcircle is offline

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by Daz:

The universe - also could have existed for an infinite amount of time going from big bang to big crunch in perpetual motion.

Yes, in which case from our point of view there has been an infinite number of universes that existed in the past, and an infinite number that existed in the future.

Since hard determenism is hard to reconcile with quantum theory it's very unlikely that all those universes were and will be indentical to our own.

Even assuming that the laws of physics remain the same each time the universe starts with a Big Bang, given an infinite number of cycles then the permutations of events relative to our world would be overwhelmingly diverse. Anything conceivable within the constraints of physics and logic has already occured, and will occur again an infinite number of times.

However as far as I know, there is are more compelling cases to be made for the origin of this universe. If it was something like an anomalous interaction between virtual particles, or something more exotic like the ekpyrotic scenario, this universe will only have run once.

And if it happened once with our universe by chance, then over an infinite amount of time it will necessarily happen an infinite number of times.

Hence the infinite alternate universes I referred to earlier.

The difference with these alternate universes from the ones earlier is that the would not have the same starting conditions as ours, the total quantity of energy would be the first obvious thing to be variable. Next, why should we assume that every single constant should be identical? There's no reason to assume this, one way or the other. Same thing goes for the laws of physics.

Even Leonard Susskind, the creator of string theory, believes there are an unimaginable number of alternate universes, which have different laws of physics:

quote:Why are physicists taking the idea of multiple universes seriously now?

First, there was the discovery in the past few years that inflation seems right. This theory that the universe expanded spectacularly in the first fraction of a second fits a lot of data. Inflation tells us that the universe is probably extremely big and necessarily diverse. On sufficiently big scales, and if inflation lasts long enough, this diversity will produce every possible universe. The same process that forged our universe in a big bang will happen over and over. The mathematics are rickety, but that's what inflation implies: a huge universe with patches that are very different from one another. The bottom line is that we no longer have any good reason to believe that our tiny patch of universe is representative of the whole thing.

Second was the discovery that the value of the cosmological constant - the energy of empty space which contributes to the expansion rate of the universe - seems absurdly improbable, and nothing in fundamental physics is able to explain why. I remember when Steven Weinberg first suggested that the cosmological constant might be anthropically determined - that it has to be this way otherwise we would not be here to observe it. I was very impressed with the argument, but troubled by it. Like everybody else, I thought the cosmological constant was probably zero - meaning that all the quantum fluctuations that make up the vacuum energy cancel out, and gravity alone affects the expansion of the universe. It would be much easier to explain if they cancelled out to zero, rather than to nearly zero. The discovery that there is a non-zero cosmological constant changed everything. Still, those two things were not enough to tip the balance for me.

What finally convinced you?

The discovery in string theory of this large landscape of solutions, of different vacuums, which describe very different physical environments, tipped the scales for me. At first, string theorists thought there were about a million solutions. Thinking about Weinberg's argument and about the non-zero cosmological constant, I used to go around asking my mathematician friends: are you sure it's only a million? They all assured me it was the best bet.

But a million is not enough for anthropic explanations - the chances of one of the universes being suitable for life are still too small. When Joe Polchinski and Raphael Bousso wrote their paper in 2000 that revealed there are more like 10500 vacuums in string theory, that to me was the tipping point. The three things seemed to be coming together. I felt I couldn't ignore this possibility, so I wrote a paper saying so. The initial reaction was very hostile, but over the past couple of years people are taking it more seriously. They are worried that it might be true. This is his in an interview with New Scientist:

Steven Weinberg recently said that this is one of the great sea changes in fundamental science since Einstein, that it changes the nature of science itself. Is it such a radical change?

In a way it is very radical but in another way it isn't. The great ambition of physicists like myself was to explain why the laws of nature are just what they are. Why is the proton just about 1800 times heavier than the electron? Why do neutrinos exist? The great hope was that some deep mathematical principle would determine all the constants of nature, like Newton's constant. But it seems increasingly likely that the constants of nature are more like the temperature of the Earth - properties of our local environment that vary from place to place. Like the temperature, many of the constants have to be just so if intelligent life is to exist. So we live where life is possible.

For some physicists this idea is an incredible disappointment. Personally, I don't see it that way. I find it exciting to think that the universe may be much bigger, richer and full of variety than we ever expected. And it doesn't seem so incredibly philosophically radical to think that some things may be environmental. http://tinyurl.com/pb38q

#192

2006-07-05, 15:09

Navicalist Navicalist is offline

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

Well, transitive property, which is quite logical, says if a = b, b = c, then a = c.

If God is infinite, everywhere, and whatever other property he/she/it has, and reality has the same, God = Reality.

Then again, by calling God reality I hope you realize you're basically creating a lifeless matter and considering all the books to be written about some mindless, basic happenings.

Me, I'm agnostic.

#193

2006-07-05, 15:18

imperfectcircle imperfectcircle is offline

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

We can say much more than that. We can use Physics, Geometry, and Algebra (what Hume calls Relations of Ideas) to substantiate the "hypothesis" that the sun will rise tomorrow.

What??

The "relation of ideas" are a priori facts, which is why geometry and the like are used to explore them. They cannot be used to substantiate the idea that the sun will rise tomorrow, because it is a "matter of fact", not a "relation of ideas".

quote:The most perfect philosophy of the natural kind only staves off our ignorance a little longer: as perhaps the most perfect philosophy of the moral or metaphysical kind serves only to discover larger portions of it. Thus the observation of human blindness and weakness is the result of all philosophy, and meets us at every turn, in spite of our endeavours to elude or avoid it.

Nor is geometry, when taken into the assistance of natural philosophy, ever able to remedy this defect, or lead us into the knowledge of ultimate causes, by all that accuracy of reasoning for which it is so justly celebrated.

quote:I'm arguing the fact that the hypothesis still has physical evidence to substantiate it, and in doing so, I am contrasting that with your "hypothesis" about the existence of a supreme being, which lacks that physical evidence.

1) If you have read Hume, you wouldn't have said that your physical evidence gives you any rational basis for claiming truth about such a hypothesis.

2) If you had read my posts, you would have seen that I am backing up my notion of "god" with the theories of physicists, who have exprapolated their theories from physical evidence.

#194

2006-07-05, 15:37

Graemy

Regular

gloucesterVA US

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by Abrahim:

"So infinity must be unchanging. It must simply be everything - this is the hardest thought I have EVER wrapped by head around.

It must be everything in the past, everything in the future, everything in the present, everything that ever existed, will exist, everything that could conceivably exist and all of that is simply a teardrop in the ocean compared to what must be possible yet incomprehensible to an imagination that is bound by the arbitrary laws of logic that govern our universe, not to mention the computational ability of our brain.

EVERYTHING.

If god is infinite, there is nothing that he is not. There is nothing that is not a part of "infinity", or else "infinity" could not exist. And if "infinity" cannot exist, God cannot be infinite.

And if God cannot be infinite, something is conceivably greater than him - so how can he be "God"?"

ok i know i am quoting an old post but i saw a fatal flaw whe you said everything in the past and present and future must be infinity is reality or existence

that means god created himself and if he decides that he wants to destroy existence he destroys himself so he would no longer exist because you say he is reality. so logically if reality is destroyed god is destroyed

i think you are trying to equate god with infinity you say that if infinity doesn't exist then god isn't infinite that is like saying if omnipotence doesn't exist(not in our reality) then god isn't omnipotent god can be what he wants he is god

#195

2006-07-05, 15:58

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by imperfectcircle:

What??

The "relation of ideas" are a priori facts, which is why geometry and the like are used to explore them. They cannot be used to substantiate the idea that the sun will rise tomorrow, because it is a "matter of fact", not a "relation of ideas"

That's if I accept what Hume is saying as completely true, which should be obvious that I do not.

quote:1) If you have read Hume, you wouldn't have said that your physical evidence gives you any rational basis for claiming truth about such a hypothesis.

2) If you had read my posts, you would have seen that I am backing up my notion of "god" with the theories of physicists, who have exprapolated their theories from physical evidence.

1. What a truly moronic thing to say. One doesn't have to agree with Hume by simply reading his writings. It's obvious that I do not agree with the notion that Physics cannot be used to substantiate (note, I'm not saying "prove beyond any doubt") the notion that the sun will rise tomorrow.

2. No, what you're doing is providing evidence that some theoretical Scientists believe in other universes. That hardly substantiates a "supreme being"; certainly not to the degree in which other things being debated here - be it the sun rising tomorrow, or others possessing conscious thought, are.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 07-05-2006).]

#196

2006-07-05, 16:05

Abrahim

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by Graemy:

ok i know i am quoting an old post but i saw a fatal flaw whe you said everything in the past and present and future must be infinity is reality or existence

that means god created himself and if he decides that he wants to destroy existence he destroys himself so he would no longer exist because you say he is reality. so logically if reality is destroyed god is destroyed

i think you are trying to equate god with infinity you say that if infinity doesn't exist then god isn't infinite that is like saying if omnipotence doesn't exist(not in our reality) then god isn't omnipotent god can be what he wants he is god

Alright, that quote that was says it was mine was me requoting Imperfectcircle.

I, Abrahim Esker, say that God is the Ultimate Reality, which all things exist within, and if you stripped God of all that is within it, all things, it would be in the image of nothing, not black or white voids, but pure and absolute nothing, but only in image because God is infinite, and the infinite knowledge is what makes up this Reality which is just one of an infinite number of other realities which exist within the Infinite singular God.

God didn't create himself, God has always existed and will always exist, God is all there is and ever was, God manifested the concepts of this reality and this universe including linear time.

I don't mean reality as the universe, I mean it as what the universe exists within, what the big bang occured within. God is what encompasses everything.

#197

2006-07-05, 16:08

Abrahim

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by Navicalist:

Well, transitive property, which is quite logical, says if a = b, b = c, then a = c.

If God is infinite, everywhere, and whatever other property he/she/it has, and reality has the same, God = Reality.

Then again, by calling God reality I hope you realize you're basically creating a lifeless matter and considering all the books to be written about some mindless, basic happenings.

Me, I'm agnostic.

Lifeless matter? If it was lifeless, so too would you be without a life, and nothing would exist or move.

#198

2006-07-05, 16:10

imperfectcircle imperfectcircle is offline

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

That's if I accept what Hume is saying as completely true, which should be obvious that I do not.

That's not my objection.

My objection is that what you said doesn't make any sense, you cannot be familiar with Hume's terms.

quote: 1. What a truly moronic thing to say. One doesn't have to agree with Hume by simply reading his writings. It's obvious that I do not agree with the notion that Physics cannot be used to substantiate (note, I'm not saying "prove beyond any doubt") the notion that the sun will rise tomorrow.

If you want to make such a claim, justify it rationally.

The buren of proof is on you to explain why he is incorrect, he has already presented elaborate arguments for his beliefs, you have simply stated an opinion.

quote:2. No, what you're doing is providing evidence that some theoretical Scientists believe in other universes. That hardly substantiates a "supreme being";

Yes it does, according to the definition of "supreme being" that I have presented.

Your objection wasn't about anything else in this thread, you specifically said it was against MY hypothesis about a supreme being.

#199

2006-07-05, 16:11

Abrahim

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by potentgirt:

Uhh, what about dogs killing humans? Do the owners get killed? I mean, they raised the dogs to be nice...

And Abrahim, I thought you said your "god" is what we all consist of, and that he is within and of everyone. Am I missing something?

My God is what everything is made of and exists by. What is it that you thought you might be missing?

#200

2006-07-05, 16:18

Graemy

Regular

gloucesterVA US

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by Abrahim:

Alright, that quote that was says it was mine was me requoting Imperfectcircle.

but you said that was what you were trying to say you said that he grasped what you were trying to tell everybody. then what about the second part of my post talking about omnipotence

i think you are trying to equate god with infinity you say that if infinity doesn't exist then god isn't infinite that is like saying if omnipotence doesn't exist(not in our reality) then god isn't omnipotent god can be what he wants he is god

#201

2006-07-05, 16:47

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by imperfectcircle:

That's not my objection.

My objection is that what you said doesn't make any sense, you cannot be familiar with Hume's terms.

Then you should read what I said again. I never once say that Hume agrees with what I am saying; I mention physics, Geometry and Algebra, and comment that these are what Hume calls "relation of ideas". That's it. Had I said that Hume said, or agreed, that "relation of ideas" could substantiate "matters of fact" you would have a point.

As it stands though, I only express my position, not Humes. You have no point.

quote:If you want to make such a claim, justify it rationally.

The buren of proof is on you to explain why he is incorrect, he has already presented elaborate arguments for his beliefs, you have simply stated an opinion.

Sorry, but just because you quoted Hume, and I said I disagreed with him, doesn't mean that I have a burden of proof to explain myself. Why I disagree with what Hume said (to some extent), is not in question.

Moreover, the fact of the matter is that I agree with the vast majority of what Hume said, and that which is most relevant to this debate. Hume never argues that inductive reasoning (which is at the heart of this debate) should be done away with completely, never to be accepted. He argues that we cannot say, to use the sun example again, that it is a logical necessity that the sun rise tomorrow. I accept that. I already told you this. I agree that we can take such an extreme form of skepticism that allows for the existence of a magical pink troll that might eat the sun tonight.

quote:Yes it does, according to the definition of "supreme being" that I have presented.

Your objection wasn't about anything else in this thread, you specifically said it was against MY hypothesis about a supreme being.

Yet my point is that it doesn't have the level of substantiation that the other things being debated here do. Or are you suggesting that the unproven assertions that these theoretical scientists are making have more credibility than the laws of Geometry and Physics which govern the rotation of the planets?

#202

2006-07-05, 17:06

Abrahim

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

So you would like, if anything, this concept of God to be proven through mathematics?

#203

2006-07-05, 17:25

imperfectcircle imperfectcircle is offline

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

We can use Physics, Geometry, and Algebra (what Hume calls Relations of Ideas) to substantiate the "hypothesis" that the sun will rise tomorrow.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

I mention physics, Geometry and Algebra, and comment that these are what Hume calls "relation of ideas".

As I already posted in this thread:

quote:From Hume's "Enquiry"

ALL the objects of human reason or enquiry may naturally be divided into two kinds, to wit, Relations of Ideas, and Matters of Fact. Of the first kind are the sciences of Geometry, Algebra, and Arithmetic

quote: Matters of fact, which are the second objects of human reason, are not ascertained in the same manner

To recap, you are wrong about the following things:

1) Hume's "relation of ideas" are not geometry or algebra, geometry and algebra (for instance) are the methods by which a "relation of ideas" is verified.

"relation of ideas" are a priori truths.

2) You also said that Hume's "relation of ideas" are:

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

Physics, Geometry, and Algebra

On top of the fact that you were wrong in the first place as I showed in my first point, only geometry and algebra could be used to verify Hume's "relation of ideas".

Physics could only be used to verify his "matters of fact", which are a posteriori truths.

3) As well as being wrong about what his "relation of ideas" are, you were wrong about what falls into their domain.

You claimed that whether the sun will rise tomorrow or not falls into the category of "relation of ideas" (although you stated it wrongly when you claimed that the methods of verifying "relation of ideas" are the same thing as "relation of ideas"), when you said that the methods of verifying "relation of ideas" can be used to:

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

substantiate the "hypothesis" that the sun will rise tomorrow.

Again, as I already posted in this thread, Hume said the opposite (in Part 1 of Section 4, when he is talking about "matters of fact"):

quote:From Hume's "Enquiry"

The contrary of every matter of fact is still possible; because it can never imply a contradiction, and is conceived by the mind with the same facility and distinctness, as if ever so conformable to reality. That the sun will not rise to-morrow is no less intelligible a proposition, and implies no more contradiction than the affirmation, that it will rise. We should in vain, therefore, attempt to demonstrate its falsehood. Were it demonstratively false, it would imply a contradiction, and could never be distinctly conceived by the mind.

#204

2006-07-05, 17:51

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by imperfectcircle:

To recap, you are wrong about the following things:

1) Hume's "relation of ideas" are not geometry or algebra, geometry and algebra (for instance) are the methods by which a "relation of ideas" is verified.

"relation of ideas" are a priori truths.

Really? You should tell that to Hume then:

"ALL the objects of human reason or enquiry may naturally be divided into two kinds, to wit, Relations of Ideas, and Matters of Fact. Of the first kind are the sciences of Geometry, Algebra, and Arithmetic; and in short, every affirmation which is either intuitively or demonstratively certain. "

They are "relations of ideas". They are examples of them; not the only ones of course, since Hume considers "relations of ideas" to be any 'affirmation which is either intuitively or demonstratively certain', but they are still examples of "relations of ideas".

quote:As well as being wrong about what his "relation of ideas" are, you were wrong about what falls into their domain.

You claimed that whether the sun will rise tomorrow or not falls into the category of "relation of ideas" (although you stated it wrongly when you claimed that the methods of verifying "relation of ideas" are the same thing as "relation of ideas"), when you said that the methods of verifying "relation of ideas" can be used to:

I never claimed such a thing. I suggest you read what I say before you continue to make a fool out of yourself. I actually said the oppossite when I said the hypothesis (i.e. "the sun will rise tomorrow") was not a logical necessity. By allowing it to be potentiably false in the future, I'm automatically categorizing it as a "matter of fact".

quote:Again, as I already posted in this thread, Hume said the opposite (in Part 1 of Section 4, when he is talking about "matters of fact"):

Hume says that it is impossible to determine, as a logical necessity (please take note of this), that the sun will rise tomorrow. I agree. A pink troll might come and eat the sun, thus making it so that it doesn't rise tomorrow. As such, it is not a logical necessity that the sun rise tomorrow, and I agree.

What I am doing is making a distinction between proving that something must happen (i.e. that it is a logical necessity), and that something is substantiated (i.e. that there is evidence that suggests this is what would happen - though there exists the potential that this would prove to be incorrect).

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 07-05-2006).]

#205

2006-07-05, 19:25

imperfectcircle imperfectcircle is offline

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

When you're in a hole, stop digging Rust

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

Really? You should tell that to Hume then:

"ALL the objects of human reason or enquiry may naturally be divided into two kinds, to wit, Relations of Ideas, and Matters of Fact. Of the first kind are the sciences of Geometry, Algebra, and Arithmetic; and in short, every affirmation which is either intuitively or demonstratively certain. "

They are "relations of ideas". They are examples of them; not the only ones of course, since Hume considers "relations of ideas" to be any 'affirmation which is either intuitively or demonstratively certain', but they are still examples of "relations of ideas".

You'll notice I already quoted this when I was proving you wrong, odd choice of thing to throw back in my face, odder still that you compound your incompetence with it.

Look real close at the words, and read the following sentence closely:

"relation of ideas" are "every affirmation which is either intuitively or demonstratively certain"

Do you know what the word "affirmation" means? Here's the dictionary entry for it:

quote:affirmation

SYLLABICATION: af·fir·ma·tion

PRONUNCIATION: fr-mshn

NOUN: 1. The act of affirming or the state of being affirmed; assertion. 2. Something declared to be true; a positive statement or judgment. 3. Law A solemn declaration given in place of a sworn statement by a person who conscientiously objects to taking an oath.

An affirmation is a PROPOSITION of truth.

When Hume says that "Geometry, Algebra, and Arithmetic" are "OF "relation of ideas", it is the same as saying "geometry is an a priori discipline" - saying that "geometry is AN A PRIORI doesn't make sense.

When Hume talks of the "relation of ideas" / "matters of fact" dichotomy he is using his own terms to describe the a priori / a posteriori distinction:

quote:Hume further distinguished between two sorts of belief. (Enquiry IV i) Relations of ideas are beliefs grounded wholly on associations formed within the mind; they are capable of demonstration because they have no external referent. Matters of fact are beliefs that claim to report the nature of existing things; they are always contingent. (This is Hume's version of the a priori / a posteriori distinction.) Mathematical and logical knowledge relies upon relations of ideas; it is uncontroversial but uninformative. The interesting but problematic propositions of natural science depend upon matters of fact. www.philosophypages.com/hy/4t.htm (http://www.philosophypages.com/hy/4t.htm)

You clearly learned all you know about Hume from scanning through my link to the Enquiry after I posted it.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

I never claimed such a thing. I suggest you read what I say

OK.

I'll divide what you said into two parts to prove why you were wrong:

"We can use [-], Geometry, and Algebra" - what Hume said is used to verify "relation of ideas"

"to substantiate the "hypothesis" that the sun will rise tomorrow." - which Hume said is a "matter of fact"

quote:before you continue to make a fool out of yourself.

I'm the one who has had university lectures on Hume, you're the one who has a feeble grasp of what he said.

That makes you the fool.

#206

2006-07-05, 19:50

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by imperfectcircle:

When Hume says that "Geometry, Algebra, and Arithmetic" are "OF "relation of ideas", it is the same as saying "geometry is an a priori discipline" - saying that "geometry is AN A PRIORI doesn't make sense.

When Hume talks of the "relation of ideas" / "matters of fact" dichotomy he is using his own terms to describe the a priori / a posteriori distinction:

"Hello Captain Pedantic Semantic"!

When one says that Arithmetic is a priori, then obviously what is meant is that it is an a priori discipline!

Either we consider the discipline itself a "relation of ideas" or a grouping of many different "relation of ideas". The result is the same. Your objection is merely a pathetic grasp for straws, as it is ultimately meaningless in that it fails to refute my argument.

quote:OK.

I'll divide what you said into two parts to prove why you were wrong:

"We can use [-], Geometry, and Algebra" - what Hume said is used to verify "relation of ideas"

"to substantiate the "hypothesis" that the sun will rise tomorrow." - which Hume said is a "matter of fact"

Which you've yet to show how it was an erroneous statement given that:

1. I've repeatedly said that I don't agree with every single thing Hume said. Thus, what Hume categorized them as is rendered irrelevant.

2. I've repeatedly told you that I am making a distinction between "substantiate" and proving something to be a logical necessity, which is what Hume argued was impossible.

quote:I'm the one who has had university lectures on Hume, you're the one who has a feeble grasp of what he said.

They obviously proved worthless because your main objection has been a pathetic one; and this against someone who supposedly just read over a website, as you so stupidly claimed!

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 07-05-2006).]

#207

2006-07-05, 19:56

imperfectcircle imperfectcircle is offline

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

If I ever admit being wrong my head will crack open

I'm done flogging this dead horse.

#208

2006-07-05, 20:05

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

The irony is hilarious. Thank you for that.

#209

2006-07-06, 00:09

Abrahim

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

Alot of Intellectual Masturbation,

No Intellectual Ejaculation.

#210

2006-07-06, 01:23

Real.PUA

Regular

Cuntville

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

If I had to guess who was drunk during that debate....

#211

2006-07-06, 02:13

Abrahim

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by Real.PUA:

If I had to guess who was drunk during that debate....

Woshod wofush yod gez?

#212

2006-07-06, 06:04

Daz

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:The Bible, and the Qu'ran should serve as decent proof to you, unless you can find an inaccuracy or contradiction in the source.

If you are talking to me and my request for proof - how the fuck are the Bible and Qu'ran proof of anything?? If you think they are proof of God then you are using circular logic, what proofs are in either volume of fraud??

quote:What evidence are you looking for if all you know for sure is "There are thoughts".

It is all you know for sure aswell - therefore you can not give me proof can you?? Therefore you should stop professing things as 'fact' when they are only your opinion.

quote:but I do not believe that can happen nor can any physical matter occur nor can a motion be made without the base which is God, alternatively Reality or Ultimate Reality.

Why does reality have to be a conscious God?? I know you can not back up any answer you make to that question but i will wait anyway...

quote:I am calling this thing that allows and what all is within and existing by God.

That is fine - don't claim that your God is conscious though - you are commiting the fallacy of equivocation when you talk of God being reality and then God being the conscious being of the Qu'ran. You should be saying God = a conscious reality. Then explain why reality needs to be conscious because if it is not necessary then Occam's razor will do away with it.

quote:People often imagine God as some being "Doing" things

Does God ever do anything in the Qu'ran?

quote:If it didn't exist and was not conscious, not a thing would exist or be able to move.

Why not?

quote:"I think therefor I am"

but I say "God thinks, therefor I am"

'I think therefore i am' is false...

quote:If God was dead, unconscious, not living, then there would not be anything, nor would there be a movement.

Why??

quote:What evidence do you want? You can find doubt in everything, and a life wasted away with only a question mark to say.

Atleast i am being totally intellectually honest about my ability to 'know' things - which is more than anyone who follows a God can ever say.

quote:The message is for simply those who will believe it

Those nieve ones who you would hope to convert.

As for Hume - Inductive arguments are always logically invalid in structure, by making predictions about future a posteriori events from observations of past a posteriori events. However, this does mean that we should (or even could) do away with inductive reasoning. I agree with Rust that it is more likely that the sun will rise tommorow than there is a supreme being - even if the only evidence is an invalid inductive argument, it is more than we can say for God.

Imperfectcircle - all you achieved in that long post was to indicate that there is a possibility of multiple universes...??I'm not sure if that was your intention or not but the post of mine that you replied to was just offering an alternate universe to the finite one.

#213

2006-07-06, 07:04

IanBoyd3

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

Abrahim: In every one of your arguments you have defined reality as God, then proved that if you define god as reality, certain things are true, and god exhibits the characteristics of reality (because you defined him as such).

Why? Just why? What does defining God as reality do? What does it mean?

How is your religion any different from atheism (except for what name you use for reality)?

#214

2006-07-06, 07:39

Kleenex

Regular

Niggerland: Land of the Negroe

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

I hate to suck dicks but I have to say, Abrahim I think you are actually really smart.

#215

2006-07-06, 11:24

Abrahim

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by Daz:

Those nieve ones who you would hope to convert.

"It is all you know for sure aswell - therefore you can not give me proof can you?? Therefore you should stop professing things as 'fact' when they are only your opinion."

and since all that can be known, according to you is that "there are thoughts" what is a fact in anything, but if all you believe in are thoughts, that there are only thoughts, I agree, and those thoughts, I call it: God.

"Why does reality have to be a conscious God?? I know you can not back up any answer you make to that question but i will wait anyway..."

because if something is dead, it doesn't exist, it doesn't move, and it doesn't think: I am stating that it is ALIVE, that "There are Thoughts" and those "Thoughts" that there are, that make up everything, I am calling it God.

If it was dead, there would be no thoughts, "Why?" because dead things can't produce thoughts, and according to you "there are thoughts" so it is concious and alive.

"Does God ever do anything in the Qu'ran?"

What do you mean?

To Ian: My religion isn't much different from Athiesm in some senses but I want to fill in the holes, bring athiests to a more spiritual meditative understanding that grasps what is beyond, to destroy the false idols created by people for their religions...

What it means? Its the first lesson in submission, peace, humility: That there is one thing you are all part of, meaning you are no greater than anything.

I am trying to filter out "Those nieve ones who you would hope to convert." for the next steps. I am seeing who is receptive to this concept, who comprehends it, and who might be willing to take the next steps in what I believe in the right direction.

#216

2006-07-06, 11:25

Abrahim

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by Kleenex:

I hate to suck dicks but I have to say, Abrahim I think you are actually really smart.

Thanks man, I really appreciate that!

Do I have you on MSN yet?

#217

2006-07-06, 13:10

Daz

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:and since all that can be known, according to you is that "there are thoughts" what is a fact in anything

Exactly.

quote:but if all you believe in are thoughts, that there are only thoughts, I agree, and those thoughts, I call it: God.

It is not a 'belief' it is the only logical certainty beyond any doubt. Don't lower it to a 'belief'. What is the difference between refering to them as thoughts and referring to them as God?? It is a nasty trick of equivocation and it is dishonest - you first take something (such as reality) then you redefine it as 'God' which is fine, only, in the process you sneak in the consciousness of God into the originally inanimate object (Reality) and then ignore my questions of why reality must be conscious... for if there is a scenario where reality can exist and not be conscious then Occam's razor would refute your scenario of a conscious reality.

quote:because if something is dead, it doesn't exist,

Been to a morgue??

quote:it doesn't move, and it doesn't think

True.

quote:I am stating that it is ALIVE, that "There are Thoughts" and those "Thoughts" that there are, that make up everything, I am calling it God.

So now you have changed 'conscious' with 'alive'... Saying that reality is alive - by strict definition of the word reality can be alive and not conscious and therefore reality can be alive and not God.

quote:If it was dead, there would be no thoughts, "Why?" because dead things can't produce thoughts, and according to you "there are thoughts" so it is concious and alive.

There is a logical fallacy at the base of your beliefs - it is called the fallacy of division. You are reasoning that if 'reality' is not conscious then nothing that is part of it can be conscious - this is logically invalid and it could be the case that 'reality' is not conscious and yet we, as part of it, are conscious.

Your argument was that 'reality' must be conscious because we are - it has just been refuted.

I don't think anything else matters 'till you can backup your reasoning for reality having to be alive/conscious. This is the base of your beliefs and yet you continue to fail in giving any reasons for it to be so.

[This message has been edited by Daz (edited 07-06-2006).]

#218

2006-07-06, 13:22

Abrahim

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by Daz:

There is a logical fallacy at the base of your beliefs - it is called the fallacy of division. You are reasoning that if 'reality' is not conscious then nothing inside it can be conscious - this is logically invalid and it could be the case that 'reality' is not conscious and yet we, inside it, are conscious.

Your argument was that 'reality' must be conscious because we are - it has just been refuted.

I don't think anything else matters 'till you can backup your reasoning for reality having to be alive/conscious. This is the base of your beliefs and yet you continue to fail in giving any reasons for it to be so.

"It is not a 'belief' it is the only logical certainty beyond any doubt. Don't lower it to a 'belief'. What is the difference between refering to them as thoughts and referring to them as God?? It is a nasty trick of equivocation and it is dishonest - you first take something (such as reality) then you redefine it as 'God' which is fine, only, in the process you sneak in the consciousness of God into the originally inanimate object (Reality) and then ignore my questions of why reality must be conscious... for if there is a scenario where reality can exist and not be conscious then Occam's razor would refute your scenario of a conscious reality."

I am stating that if it were not conscious there would be no "thoughts", since there are only thoughts, I am calling that, God then.

"Been to a morgue??"

When you stop thinking, does anything exist? This is why I say that God is Conscious.

"So now you have changed 'conscious' with 'alive'... Saying that reality is alive - by strict definition of the word reality can be alive and not conscious and therefore reality can be alive and not God."

It is alive, it is conscious.

a·live ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-lv)

adj.

Having life; living. See Synonyms at living.

In existence or operation; active: keep your hopes alive.

Full of living or moving things; abounding: a pool alive with trout.

Full of activity or animation; lively: a face alive with mischief.

con·scious ( P ) Pronunciation Key (knshs)

adj.

Having an awareness of one's environment and one's own existence, sensations, and thoughts. See Synonyms at aware.

Mentally perceptive or alert; awake: The patient remained fully conscious after the local anesthetic was administered.

Capable of thought, will, or perception: the development of conscious life on the planet.

Subjectively known or felt: conscious remorse.

Intentionally conceived or done; deliberate: a conscious insult; made a conscious effort to speak more clearly.

Inwardly attentive or sensible; mindful: was increasingly conscious of being watched.

Especially aware of or preoccupied with. Often used in combination: a cost-conscious approach to further development; a health-conscious diet.

How do I know this? Because There are Thoughts.

If there were no thoughts, none of us would be here to discuss how there are only thoughts.

"There is a logical fallacy at the base of your beliefs - it is called the fallacy of division. You are reasoning that if 'reality' is not conscious then nothing inside it can be conscious - this is logically invalid and it could be the case that 'reality' is not conscious and yet we, inside it, are conscious."

Could be the case isn't enough, as what we both know is that there are thoughts, that is all we know, so I am calling it God. Conscious and alive, no divisions, One.

For those who believe in facts more than just thoughts, then I say that thoughts are what make up all realities within ultimate Reality the one, and it is God, the God, the only God, there is no God but it, nothing worthy of calling God other than it, the One, encompassing the whole.

I do fully believe that if it was without thought that not a single thing would operate or exist, nor would we have thoughts, as there are only thoughts, and it is all one.

#219

2006-07-06, 14:03

Daz

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:I am stating that if it were not conscious there would be no "thoughts", since there are only thoughts, I am calling that, God then.

That is your statement but you do no provide any reasoning behind it - you just jump to the conclusion. You are calling 'thoughts' 'god', which is fine but then you say that 'god (thoughts/reality)' is alive and conscious - you give no reasoning for this. Why must 'god (thoughts/reality)' have to be conscious??

I am well aware of the definitions of the two words which is why i stated that reality could be considered 'alive' but not necessarily 'conscious'; the two are not mutually exclusive. Yet you claim that 'god' is conscious and you evidence to back that statement up. Your argument is a conclusion with no premises.

quote:How do I know this? Because There are Thoughts.

There could be thoughts with a non-conscious 'god'.

quote:Could be the case isn't enough

Could be the case is precisely enough, you have stated that 'god' is conscious and assumed that to be the truth without backing it up at all. I merely gave one possible scenario that contradicted your conclusion. So, now, your hypothesis is wrong untill you back up your claims that 'god' must be conscious.

quote:as what we both know is that there are thoughts, that is all we know, so I am calling it God. Conscious and alive, no divisions, One.

Calling it 'god' is fine - but you are yet to answer why 'god' must be conscious. In your attempts you commit the fallacy of division stating that if 'god' was not conscious we could not be either; this is not true as 'god' doesn't have to be conscious for us, as parts of 'god' to be conscious.

quote:I do fully believe that if it was without thought that not a single thing would operate or exist, nor would we have thoughts

Numerous times now you have dodged any attempt to say why it is necessary for 'god' to be conscious for us to be - why do you believe this to be so??

All of my posts are now centered around the question: "Why must 'god' be conscious for us to be conscious, when our consciousness is not dependant on 'gods'???"

#220

2006-07-06, 16:02

Abrahim

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

How does something that is not conscious think? There are thoughts.

#221

2006-07-06, 18:19

imperfectcircle imperfectcircle is offline

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by Daz:

I agree with Rust that it is more likely that the sun will rise tommorow than there is a supreme being - even if the only evidence is an invalid inductive argument, it is more than we can say for God.

Yet Hume showed that this belief is still one not founded upon reason. For that matter you cannot even prove rationally that yesterday existed.

The best you can do is stick your head in the ground like an ostrich and make a blunt assertion that these things are Moorean facts, explained by Lewis as:

quote:We know a lot. We have all sorts of everyday knowledge, and we have it in

abundance. To doubt that would be absurdIt is a Moorean fact that we know a lot.

It is one of those things that we know better than we know the premises of any

philosophical argument to the contrary

Believing that the sun will rise tomorrow is no more a rational belief than believing in the existence of a god.

quote:Imperfectcircle - all you achieved in that long post was to indicate that there is a possibility of multiple universes...??

Not simply multiple universes, but an infinite number of multiple universes that are not necessarily bound by logic in any way.

This is all that I claimed "god" is in my view, in this thread anyway.

The spiritual side of my beliefs is where I try to connect the above idea with the notion of a consciousness created by, and sustaining, all things in existence, which from its perspective exist as an unchanging infinity of being. It's very similar to the panentheistic notion of god, or the Hindu Brahman. But I'm just saying that as a sidenote, I'm not trying to justify it here.

#222

2006-07-06, 18:33

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by imperfectcircle:

Yet Hume showed that this belief is still one not founded upon reason. For that matter you cannot even prove rationally that yesterday existed.

What he said was that you cannot prove it to be a logical necessity. Nobody is arguing against that.

But if we take a radical skeptic position on the problem of induction, then you'd freely drink poison because you can't prove that poison is bad for you now, simply because it was bad for you yesterday...

Simply because we cannot prove that it is a logical necessity that the sun rise tomorrow, doesn't mean that we should adopt the opposite position. It means we should look at it as rationally as we possibly can; which certainly does not mean abandoning the physical evidence we have suggesting that the sun will rise tomorrow.

#223

2006-07-06, 20:54

imperfectcircle imperfectcircle is offline

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

What he said was that you cannot prove it to be a logical necessity.

Do you even understand what "logical necessity" means? It simply means that it is a certain fact. You're saying nothing by using the term "logical necessity" except rephrasing what I have already stated.

Hume said that the belief the sun will rise tomorrow is SIMPLY A BELIEF. It is not founded in reason, but rather is a product of the imagination.

The following passage is from Bertand Russell's "History of Western Philosophy" (page 605)

quote: Hume is thus led to the view that, when we say 'A causes B', we mean only that A and B are constantly conjoined in fact, not that there is some necessary connection between them. 'We have no other notion of cause and effect, but that of certain objects, which have been always conjoined together... We cannot penetrate into the reason of the conjunction.'

He backs up this theory with a definition of 'belief', which is, he maintains, 'a lively idea related to or associated with a present impression'. Through association, if A and B have been constantly conjoined in past experience, the impression of A produces that lively idea of B which constitutes belief in B. This explains why we believe A and B to be connected: the percept of A is connected with the idea of B, and so we come to think that A is connected with B, though this opinion is really groundless. 'Objects have no discoverable connexion together; nor is it from any other principle but custom operating on the imagination, that we can draw any inferences from the appearance of one to the experience of another.'

I expect I've taught you a lot about Hume in this thread, but I'll be generous and not charge you for the tuition.

[This message has been edited by imperfectcircle (edited 07-06-2006).]

#224

2006-07-06, 21:13

Aft3r ImaGe Aft3r ImaGe is offline

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by potentgirt:

Afterimage, if this is what you thought I agreed with in the other post, then I screwed up. I was simply talking about Abrahim keeping his posts short, and all of that stuff. I guess I forgot about the 1+1=3 being impossible to change part, because, I do disagree with that.

And please do, read that book I mentioned, or tell me to start a new thread, in which you just ask questions...it's up to you

oh and I spelled "stop" wrong on purpose. And you spelled "grammar" wrong. Let's keep little things out of this though.

The fact that you tried to discredit an entire post because of a spelling is the point I'm making. Spelling is not a measurment of intellegence. By the way you are still welcome to prove beyond reasonable doubt your religion is right.

#225

2006-07-06, 21:25

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by imperfectcircle:

Do you even understand what "logical necessity" means? It simply means that it is a certain fact. You're saying nothing by using the term "logical necessity" except rephrasing what I have already stated.

...

Hume said that the belief the sun will rise tomorrow is SIMPLY A BELIEF. It is not founded in reason, but rather is a product of the imagination.

I understand what a "logial necessity" is just fine, which is why I am capable of noticing the difference between something being a logical necessity (i.e. that it must happen) and something not being a logical necessity yet still being supported by physical evidence. A distinction which you seem incapable of grasping.

Again, while the "sun rising tomorrow" is not a logical necessity, we can still say that it is the suggested outcome with the physical evidence we have. Whether Hume agrees or not is not important since I'm not basing this on Hume's views (yet another thing you fail to grasp).

Your position is that of an extremely ridiculous form of skepticism which would ultimately be your death (as the example I said shows) - one which Hume never suggests. If physical evidence were meaningless in our human understanding -- if we fell victim to such a ridiculous resolution to the problem of induction -- we'd be drinking poison because we'd fail consider the fact that it had killed people in the past.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 07-06-2006).]

#226

2006-07-06, 21:25

potentgirt potentgirt is offline

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by Aft3r ImaGe:

The fact that you tried to discredit an entire post because of a spelling is the point I'm making. Spelling is not a measurment of intellegence. By the way you are still welcome to prove beyond reasonable doubt your religion is right.

Spelling IS a measurement of intelligence.

I'm really not in the mood to copy paste or write out an entire novel...please check out this (http://tinyurl.com/s6x43) book from your library, or even buy it...it's well worth it, and I would be glad to answer any questions you have anyways.

#227

2006-07-06, 21:59

Aft3r ImaGe Aft3r ImaGe is offline

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by potentgirt:

Spelling IS a measurement of intelligence.

I'm really not in the mood to copy paste or write out an entire novel...please check out this (http://tinyurl.com/s6x43) book from your library, or even buy it...it's well worth it, and I would be glad to answer any questions you have anyways.

There are far more reliable measurements of intellegence and many of the greatest minds would not have appeared bright by these methods due to the fact some people speacalize in specific skills and are less well rounded than other people. For example some people may be great with computers but horrible at literature, or someone could be great at physics but horrible at history. So if I say well history is a measure of intellegence, this would be true, but inaccurate, it would not accuratly measure the intellegence of the general population, and would fail to identify a large number of otherwise intellegent people.

Also the fact that you are judging my intellegence alone on spelling could be underminded if I used a spell checker, but because I don't believe spelling is all that important, or in anyway nessessary for portraying ideas as long as the message is still readable and understandable, and if it is unreadable, and not understandable you have the right to ask me to spell check it instead of childeshly saying hehehe im right your wrong because you spelled onomatopoeia wrong, or something to that effect. (yes I did spell Onomatopoeia from memory)

As for that book, if you have proof of god I think it would be revolutionary enough and such a break through it would be worthy of being posted on a website. Most people don't believe as of lack of proof, and some people don't believe because they have their own religion. Even someone who reviewed the book said that the book has further convinced them that gods are the construct of the human mind.

[This message has been edited by Aft3r ImaGe (edited 07-06-2006).]

#228

2006-07-06, 23:28

crazed_hamster crazed_hamster is offline

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by IanBoyd3:

Abrahim: In every one of your arguments you have defined reality as God, then proved that if you define god as reality, certain things are true, and god exhibits the characteristics of reality (because you defined him as such).

Why? Just why? What does defining God as reality do? What does it mean?

How is your religion any different from atheism (except for what name you use for reality)?

Abrahim, I have asked you this EXACT FUCKING QUESTION so many times. Damn it, answer in an intelligent FUCKING MANNER. No drool. No lame wit. Just why is it so important to define reality as god. IanBoyd asked the question better than I did.

#229

2006-07-06, 23:42

Daz

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Believing that the sun will rise tomorrow is no more a rational belief than believing in the existence of a god.

Wrong. Hume advcated rational skepticism which is skeptical of claims unless they can be repeatably empirically tested - otherwise, as Hume said, we would all starve to death.

Furthermore, we can apply a probabilistic property as a premise to an inductive propsition about the world which makes the argument valid and therefore rational. This probability is initially low and then strengthens everytime the proposition is verified empirically - in the case of the sun the probability would be extremely strong and therefore the belief that the sun will rise tommorow is more rational than believing in the existance of God.

This is the commonsense position.

quote:Not simply multiple universes, but an infinite number of multiple universes that are not necessarily bound by logic in any way.

I think i understand.

quote:please check out this book from your library, or even buy it...it's well worth it, and I would be glad to answer any questions you have anyways.

I read the synopsis - haha.

quote:All worldviews, including atheism, require faith.

This is the first premise of this book and it is wrong.

Atheism does not require faith, the position of atheism can be justified through the refutation of theist arguments, the implication of occam's razor - also, atheism is better defined as the lack of belief and therefore is a position that is defendible by simply refuting theist arguments.

quote:I Dont Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist argues that Christianity requires the least faith of all because it is the most reasonable.

Haha, you read, and believed this??

Let's see - talking snakes, a flood that never happened, a sea split in half, turning water into wine, walking on water, ressurection... How the fuck is that in anyway whatsoever reasonable??? Logically explain to me how these things are reasonable, logically explain to me how the belief in the christian God is reasonable despite the contradictions that exist within the christian God's definition...

quote:Geisler and Turek provide a firm challenge to the previous beliefs of doubters of all sorts.

Show me in a the format of a logical argument how it is reasonable to believe in the Christian God.

To Abrahim -

quote:How does something that is not conscious think? There are thoughts.

Still the fallacy of division. Reality itself does not have to be conscious for things that are contained within it or that are part of it to be.

You are trying to state that for us tobe conscious the whole of reality must be conscious and this is false.

[This message has been edited by Daz (edited 07-06-2006).]

#230

2006-07-06, 23:57

potentgirt potentgirt is offline

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by Daz:

the position of atheism can be justified through the refutation of theist arguments

Just because I can prove something wrong, that doesn't make my argument right. Tell me how we are here today, form a logical, atheist point of view.

#231

2006-07-07, 00:30

Abrahim

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by Graemy:

but you said that was what you were trying to say you said that he grasped what you were trying to tell everybody. then what about the second part of my post talking about omnipotence

i think you are trying to equate god with infinity you say that if infinity doesn't exist then god isn't infinite that is like saying if omnipotence doesn't exist(not in our reality) then god isn't omnipotent god can be what he wants he is god

I do think Imperfectcircle grasped what I was saying.

I'm stating that Reality, Ultimate Reality in which all realities and universes and dimensions and possibilities are within is Infinite.

#232

2006-07-07, 00:35

Abrahim

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by crazed_hamster:

Abrahim, I have asked you this EXACT FUCKING QUESTION so many times. Damn it, answer in an intelligent FUCKING MANNER. No drool. No lame wit. Just why is it so important to define reality as god. IanBoyd asked the question better than I did.

It is important to define God as the Ultimate Reality which Encompasses everything, rather than a being within Reality, because a being within Reality is limited, but Ultimate Reality which all limited realities exist within is the limiter, what everyone utilizes, what everyone exists by, what no one can be without, that is why it is important. This just the first step though, the next is how to understand, submit, and find peace with this God and living a good productive positive life. Can a person live a good productive positive life without ever submitting to this diety? I guess so, but submitting to this diety is part of becoming humble and peaceful and one with the tao, following the eightfold path to nirvana, the straight way.

#233

2006-07-07, 00:37

Aeroue

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

While parallel universes may exist I still do not think any of them could ever fully defy logic.

I mean a priori logic in language such as a bachelor being un-married making it logically impossible to have a married bachelor.

While language, concepts, pretty much everything could be different, there are still going to be things like the word bachelor which make certain statements logically impossible through that concept alone.

Besides if logic did not exist in one of these parallel universes what meaning would anything have? Without logic a necessary being would not necessarily have to exist. Without logic God would not have to be the most powerful thing around.

However I have smoked too much today and this is confusing. It is hard to imagine what it would be like without logic having experienced it so long.

PS

Abrahim- I have read you wrote several times now that roughly, 'That the universe is made of god/reality but is not god/reality.

How so?

#234

2006-07-07, 00:45

Abrahim

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by Daz:

Still the fallacy of division. Reality itself does not have to be conscious for things that are contained within it or that are part of it to be.

You are trying to state that for us tobe conscious the whole of reality must be conscious and this is false.

"This is the first premise of this book and it is wrong.

Atheism does not require faith, the position of atheism can be justified through the refutation of theist arguments, the implication of occam's razor - also, atheism is better defined as the lack of belief and therefore is a position that is defendible by simply refuting theist arguments."

Well if they know anything more than "There are thoughts" they are deluded, right?

"Still the fallacy of division. Reality itself does not have to be conscious for things that are contained within it or that are part of it to be.

You are trying to state that for us tobe conscious the whole of reality must be conscious and this is false."

You say that, yet you don't know of such a thing called reality, all you know is that there are thoughts, I am calling those thoughts God, the thoughts are what make up "reality", only the conscious can think.

You don't know about any container, all you know is that "there are thoughts", and I know the conscious think, so I'm stating God is those thoughts, in order for thoughts, any thoughts, and the manifestation of those thoughts to occur and be realized, there is consciousness.

Let me repeat it one more time:

"Reality itself does not have to be conscious for things that are contained within it or that are part of it to be."

But you don't know if there is such a thing as that container, all you know is that "there are thoughts", I am calling those thoughts God. I am saying it is conscious because "there are thoughts" if "there were no thoughts" then we would not even be aware.

So for you, as far as your logic allows you to go, you can only allow yourself to know for certain "there are thoughts" I'm calling that God. It is still accurate in applying to other people too who believe and think they "know" more such as the universe and all that stuff, but since the top of the top for you is "there are thoughts" I am stating those thoughts are God.

#235

2006-07-07, 00:51

Abrahim

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by Aeroue:

While parallel universes may exist I still do not think any of them could ever fully defy logic.

I mean a priori logic in language such as a bachelor being un-married making it logically impossible to have a married bachelor.

While language, concepts, pretty much everything could be different, there are still going to be things like the word bachelor which make certain statements logically impossible through that concept alone.

Besides if logic did not exist in one of these parallel universes what meaning would anything have? Without logic a necessary being would not necessarily have to exist. Without logic God would not have to be the most powerful thing around.

However I have smoked too much today and this is confusing. It is hard to imagine what it would be like without logic having experienced it so long.

PS

Abrahim- I have read you wrote several times now that roughly, 'That the universe is made of god/reality but is not god/reality.

How so?

We're stating that in an alternate reality, in one of the infinite possibilities, the laws of that reality will be completely different, so unrecognizable that we can't even comprehend it, nor will we be able to process it, as we can only understand as much as we can, this Reality and this Universe and its laws which we are part of and have the ability to comprehend it. There are an infinite amount of things human beings will never be able to think of, if they can think of it, then the possibility for them to be able to think of it was already part of this reality.

The reason I say the Universe and all that is within it is made of God, existing by God, dependant on God, but is not God is because I believe God is the Ultimate Reality in which all universes and realities exist within, so I don't believe the universe is the whole of it, not even a fraction of the infinite all encompassing.

#236

2006-07-07, 02:20

Regular

South Texas

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by Abrahim:

We're stating that in an alternate reality, in one of the infinite possibilities, the laws of that reality will be completely different, so unrecognizable that we can't even comprehend it, nor will we be able to process it, as we can only understand as much as we can, this Reality and this Universe and its laws which we are part of and have the ability to comprehend it. There are an infinite amount of things human beings will never be able to think of, if they can think of it, then the possibility for them to be able to think of it was already part of this reality.

The reason I say the Universe and all that is within it is made of God, existing by God, dependant on God, but is not God is because I believe God is the Ultimate Reality in which all universes and realities exist within, so I don't believe the universe is the whole of it, not even a fraction of the infinite all encompassing.

Alternate realities/universes/demensions are theoretical possibilities. There is no way to determine if they actually exist. As there is no way of observing said realities/universes/demensions, it is ludicrous to state that (if the were to exist)any of them would be be governed by physical laws any different than our own. There could just as easily be an infinite number of realities/universes/dimensione that behave exactly as our's.

Any reality/universe/demensions other than the one we exist in is totally irrellevant to discussion in this forum.The only reality/universe/demensions we can observe are our own. Logic and reason funciton quite well in this reality, and for a claim to be true, it must meet the requirements of logic.

The question now is: Is our reality a self aware, living, conscious God?

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, and the burden of proof falls on those making such claims.

Unless such evidence can be presented to support your assertions that reality is a living, self aware entity, your assertions are without value and should be discarded as worthless.

Please present falsifiable evidence supporting your claims or kindly cease your ranting.

[This message has been edited by truckfixr (edited 07-07-2006).]

#237

2006-07-07, 03:19

imperfectcircle imperfectcircle is offline

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by Daz:

Wrong. Hume advcated rational skepticism which is skeptical of claims unless they can be repeatably empirically tested - otherwise, as Hume said, we would all starve to death.

Furthermore, we can apply a probabilistic property as a premise to an inductive propsition about the world which makes the argument valid and therefore rational. This probability is initially low and then strengthens everytime the proposition is verified empirically - in the case of the sun the probability would be extremely strong and therefore the belief that the sun will rise tommorow is more rational than believing in the existance of God.

This is the commonsense position.

(unlike Rust, you're responding to my points as someone interested in debate rather than winning arguments, I'm just saying that so you don't think my tone is personal etcyada)

1) That doesn't address my point that you can't rationally prove the existence of the past in the present.

2) Hume's comment that one would starve to death without relying on inductive reasoning is no different to the Moorean facts I mentioned earlier. The fact that we do not starve is not support for the truthfulness of inductive arguments.

G.E. Moore was a champion of common sense. Did he prove the existence of the external world when he presented his two hands? Certainly not, it is an unsuccessful argument against idealism. Does this mean that if you tried to shake his hand it would not be there? Certainly not.

You made a good point about probability, clearly youre familiar with his ideas. He said that when repeatedly observing an event, two ideas will be held in the mind, one for each contrary outcome. And each time a person sees one of the outcomes, it strengthens the corresponding idea and makes it more vivid, which in his epistemology makes it more true, specifically truer than anything that the persons imagination could create.

But here is something youre not likely to know, unless youve read his Treatise on Human Understanding all the way through. The problem is not which idea is more probably true, since this has nothing to do with the imagination. The problem is how we choose the right idea because this IS determined by the imagination:

quote:From Hume's "Treatise"

Probability arises from an opposition of contrary chances or causes, by which the mind is not allowed to fix on either side, but is incessantly tost from one to another, and at one moment is determined to consider an object as existent, and at another moment as the contrary. The imagination or understanding, call it which you please, fluctuates betwixt the opposite views; and though perhaps it may be oftener turned to the one side than the other, it is impossible for it, by reason of the opposition of causes or chances, to rest on either. The pro and con of the question alternately prevail; and the mind, surveying the object in its opposite principles, finds such a contrariety as utterly destroys all certainty and established opinion.[/b] http://tinyurl.com/jaj5k

So as I said, believing the sun will rise tomorrow is just as irrationally founded as believing in the existence of god.

Accepting this as fact isnt very conducive to sanity.

#238

2006-07-07, 03:29

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by imperfectcircle:

(unlike Rust, you're responding to my points as someone interested in debate rather than winning arguments

Says the moron who was boasting about supposedly proving me wrong in another thread.

--

You keep ignoring the whole point of what we're trying to say. While the fact that we don't starve to death isn't proof of the inductive argument about then nutritious value of food, it is however support for a common-sense position when concerning problems of induction.

So while we cannot say that it is a logical necessity for food to be nutritious this time because it was so in the past, we can say that this assertion is, at the very least, something suggested by our past experiences. That they might turn out wrong? Of course; but we take the common-sense position of relying on our past experiences in order to not starve to death.

The point being that simply because something is not a logical necessity doesn't mean we abandon the weight we give to physical evidence supporting something occurring.

Both the existence of a god and the belief that the sun will rise tomorrow are not logical necessities. However, just like "food being nutritious", one is suggested by a humongous amount of physical evidence and the other is not. So, just like Hume argues that it is ludicrous to take the position of not eating food because we can't conclude, as a matter of necessity, that food is nutritious now, so is it ridiculous to argue that the sun will not rise tomorrow.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 07-07-2006).]

#239

2006-07-07, 04:01

imperfectcircle imperfectcircle is offline

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

Says the moron who was boasting about supposedly proving me wrong in another thread.

Check the thread again.

LOL

(I'm going for a cigarette, I'll read the rest of your consistently mediocre writing afterwards)

#240

2006-07-07, 04:19

imperfectcircle imperfectcircle is offline

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

You keep ignoring the whole point of what we're trying to say.

If I were Daz I wouldn't want you speaking for me, he seems to be rather more intelligent than yourself.

quote:While the fact that we don't starve to death isn't proof of the inductive argument about then nutritious value of food, it is however support for a common-sense position when concerning problems of induction.

So while we cannot say that it is a logical necessity for food to be nutritious this time because it was so in the past, we can say that this assertion is, at the very least, something suggested by our past experiences. That they might turn out wrong? Of course; but we take the common-sense position of relying on our past experiences in order to not starve to death.

The point being that simply because something is not a logical necessity doesn't mean we abandon the weight we give to physical evidence supporting something occurring.

Both the existence of a god and the belief that the sun will rise tomorrow are not logical necessities. However, just like "food being nutritious", one is suggested by a humongous amount of physical evidence and the other is not. So, just like Hume argues that it is ludicrous to take the position of not eating food because we can't conclude, as a matter of necessity, that food is nutritious now, so is it ridiculous to argue that the sun will not rise tomorrow.

Did you not read my post?

Or did you not understand it?

Since you seem to have gotten considerably more stupid since when we used to debate months ago, my money's on the latter.

#241

2006-07-07, 06:27

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

I understood your post just fine, which is why I know that you consistently avoided answering the argument I've given, just as you did now.

Again,

You keep ignoring the whole point of what we're trying to say. While the fact that we don't starve to death isn't proof of the inductive argument about then nutritious value of food, it is however support for a common-sense position when concerning problems of induction.

So while we cannot say that it is a logical necessity for food to be nutritious this time because it was so in the past, we can say that this assertion is, at the very least, something suggested by our past experiences. That they might turn out wrong? Of course; but we take the common-sense position of relying on our past experiences in order to not starve to death.

The point being that simply because something is not a logical necessity doesn't mean we abandon the weight we give to physical evidence supporting something occurring.

Both the existence of a god and the belief that the sun will rise tomorrow are not logical necessities. However, just like "food being nutritious", one is suggested by a humongous amount of physical evidence and the other is not. So, just like Hume argues that it is ludicrous to take the position of not eating food because we can't conclude, as a matter of necessity, that food is nutritious now, so is it ridiculous to argue that the sun will not rise tomorrow.

#242

2006-07-07, 22:06

Daz

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Just because I can prove something wrong, that doesn't make my argument right.

Unless your argument is that what you proved wrong is wrong.

Atheists do not believe in a diety and so therefore - disproving arguments that support a diety do make the atheist position stronger. Theism and Atheism are mutually exclusive, they can not both be correct - and there is no inbetween it is one or the other, therefore disproving the other sides arguments strengthens your side.

quote:Tell me how we are here today, form a logical, atheist point of view.

I do not know. But that in no way helps your argument for the existence of God because unlike the previous situation where there is only thiesm and atheism as options the question of where we come from has so many possibilities that because we can not answer it just yet does not make the hypothosis of 'God' any stronger.

I hope you see the difference between the two situations.

Also - you abstained from answering the rest of my post

quote:Well if they know anything more than "There are thoughts" they are deluded, right?

I am quite happy to argue on others peoples preconcieved assumptions about how the world is. reducing every argument to 'there are only thoughts' whilst logically true - does not get us anywhere, which is why i also referred to 'reality' etc in my reply to you.

However, we can do this debate on my terms if you wish.

quote:"there are thoughts", and I know the conscious think, so I'm stating God is those thoughts

So God is the one who creates/is the thoughts, How do you know this?? How do you know it is not just a large machine inserted into our brains?? You still can not back up your hypothosis of 'thoughts being God' and most of my other arguments now apply to this 'thoughts are God' statement - you have not solved any problems, just shifted the point of topic.

Not to mention the question of 'How do you know that it is your God??'

I'll be gone of a day so won't get the chance to reply to imperfectcircle/Rust.

#243

2006-07-07, 23:20

Abrahim

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by Daz:

So God is the one who creates/is the thoughts, How do you know this?? How do you know it is not just a large machine inserted into our brains??

Alright, lets say its a large machine inserted into our brains, and what is the plain in which the possibility of a large machine being inserted into our brains is possible? But then you'll say we can know nothing other than "there are thoughts", the thoughts that make up everything: it is alive, animated, but I don't believe the one is conscious in the way we might be, but it is certainly not dead, non existant, or not active, it is actively in operation.

Ok could you explain my idea of God back to me from how you've understood it?

You understood it at one point, it seemed, as a container in which all things exist, now as the thoughts which all things consist of.

I am stating that whatever is the greatest thing is God, in my mind the greatest thing is the Ultimate Reality in which all realities and universes exist. This is an imaginary concept for something that is all encompassing and supreme. I believe in objective and subjective realities, but by objective I mean that the sun and the moon, though perhaps a grand illusion, do exist, and so do I, and so do you, so I don't subscribe to total solipsism.

I agree with your statement "There are thoughts" as a completely reductionist and basic statement which applies to my version of reality too, that these are the manifestations, the thoughts, of what I call God.

I imagine God as not a man or a woman or a thing sitting on a cloud but rather an infinite in which everything exists, every possibility, a ripe plain of infinite knowledge and information which makes up every possible realities (and the possibilities never end).

My intention wasn't to remove God obviously, but to replace many people's idea of God with something older and in my opinion more sensible and powerful and likely (in my opinion).

I disliked tremendously hearing statements like "If some big thing came down from the sky and said it was God, I'd believe" and "If God came to me and said he was God I'd believe": To me both of those kinds of statements I find to be really silly. Why? Because people, most probably because of Christian influence, are imagining God as some sort of man who comes and talks to people, I wanted to clearify to the religiously minded that that is not how it is, but rather that God is what all beings operate with and exist by. That God is no single being or man here or there, but that God is the all encompassing, everyone and everything everywhere is made of it, it is ever present at all times, that not a thing can exist or occur without the use of it.

So then the atheists waltz in and say various things such as: "Your God is no different than a Spaghetti Monster" and I say "A spaghetti monster has a form and can only exist within a reality and its possibility must be available so my God is greater" This is because my God is what all forms are within and existing by, imaginary and real, the possibilities provided by what I'm calling God.

Then they say "Your God is useless, whats the point of it if its not a being?" I don't really understand what they mean by that, just like an explanation of air, I am trying to explain what might be greater than the universe allowing us to exist.

Then they say "Prove it" and "If we can't measure it then it is pointless to talk about" I can only make it sound sensible, but you will probably disagree that I've made it sound sensible, and if you could measure it, it would be limited and a factor within your reality rather than what your reality is within.

I think alot of poeple have misunderstood what I'm trying to say but I don't mind because a few people here did understand. My God is for the religiously minded, to clearify their understanding of God so that they stop imagining false idols and beings in the sky. For the athiest, they can choose to come to this semi spirituality or not, those who will understand and believe (who you might call the weak minded) will understand and believe, those who can not comprehend what I'm saying, then to them their own way. I think people are still misunderstanding God and imagining it in a certain way and form which is making it difficult for them to understand what I'm trying to say. I think Imperfectcircle, Kleenex, Purple, Sumerian Dildo, and some others from totse understood my concept and may have accepted it to a degree, and for that, it was worth all the repetition: I want to put my message out there for those who will read it, and those who will understand it. This will bring them to what I feel is a much better understanding of God than believing in a singular image, furthermore it is an early step in what I feel is the right direction towards a balanced life between spirituality and realism/daily life understanding. I don't find it healthy to say to people "We can't know anything" or "All we know is there are thoughts" or "Life is chaotic meaninglessness" or "Live life to the fullest there are no reprecussions for anything after you die" and other things. I want to keep religion alive, make it a healthier and more productive way of thinking, I wanted to break the false idol and replace it with what I feel is better.

#244

2006-07-07, 23:45

Regular

South Texas

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

Abrahim, I have no problem understanding what you are saying. I simply don't agree with you. I might add also, that I don't believe in any other god either. I find it irrational to deify that which can be explained by natural causation, when no evidence can be found to support said deification.

It's not that I don't understand your assertions. I simply reject them as being without merit.

#245

2006-07-08, 20:08

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by Abrahim:

Then they say "Your God is useless, whats the point of it if its not a being?" I don't really understand what they mean by that, just like an explanation of air, I am

.

Your god is useless because... "if its not a being, how does one have a personal relationship? How may one ever hope to know god without a personal relationship?

You connect your 'teachings' with Islam, and contradict yourself by promoting a factionalised image of god. Understand it is not so much your presentation. Its all very well to speak of your god in terms of Tao, Brahmin etc., however; how does one, rationalise that with Allah, as presented by the Koran, and by the actions of those who call themselves muslim.

Perhaps your failure to understand, comes from your failure to effectively communiate your concepts in terms cognisable by all. Yes you may have reached some minds, but you seem to dodge the difficult questions, spamming your posts with verses from the Koran as though you expect others will automatically see the 'divine' authority and promptly repent.

"trying to explain what might be greater than the universe allowing us to exist" seems an admirable yet naive statement

How is it possible? In terms of the universe, our earth is no more than the smallest quantum particle on the screens in front of us. Do you think those quantum particles know what they are a part of?

Yet your mind seems caught up in a vision of the 'ultimate reality', which you teach as being the objective reality, when in fact it is entirely subjective. Thoughts are influenced by many things beyond the conscious mind, ideas implanted before one becomes self aware, thoughts from our subjective interpretations of the bible, koran, et al, and the world around us.

This, 'your subjective reality', you present as "ultimate reality", it seems real to you, and it seems feasible to some, however I just don't get it. You see that there cannot have ever been nothing as clearly as any other, yet then you feel the need to postulate a god/saviour. Yes, despite your denial of the role of saviour, you still turn to Allah too save you! Why?

Namaste

#246

2006-07-09, 02:28

Abrahim

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

"Your god is useless because... "if its not a being, how does one have a personal relationship? How may one ever hope to know god without a personal relationship?"

Who has said you can't have a personal relationship with God just because God is Ultimate Reality all Encompassing?

"You connect your 'teachings' with Islam, and contradict yourself by promoting a factionalised image of god. Understand it is not so much your presentation. Its all very well to speak of your god in terms of Tao, Brahmin etc., however; how does one, rationalise that with Allah, as presented by the Koran, and by the actions of those who call themselves muslim."

Allah is described in the same was as the Brahman and is similar to the Tao as well.

"Perhaps your failure to understand, comes from your failure to effectively communiate your concepts in terms cognisable by all. Yes you may have reached some minds, but you seem to dodge the difficult questions, spamming your posts with verses from the Koran as though you expect others will automatically see the 'divine' authority and promptly repent."

I'm not sure what difficult questions have been dodged, the spam are usually what in my mind seem like answers to those questions.

""trying to explain what might be greater than the universe allowing us to exist"[/b] seems an admirable yet naive statement

How is it possible? In terms of the universe, our earth is no more than the smallest quantum particle on the screens in front of us. Do you think those quantum particles know what they are a part of?"

I believe all those quantum particles are within Reality, the ripe base plain of knowledge which the universe is existing by, and that that is, if not the ultimate, within the Ultimate Reality which contains all possible realities and universes and possibilities.

"Yet your mind seems caught up in a vision of the 'ultimate reality', which you teach as being the objective reality, when in fact it is entirely subjective. Thoughts are influenced by many things beyond the conscious mind, ideas implanted before one becomes self aware, thoughts from our subjective interpretations of the bible, koran, et al, and the world around us."

All the possible things that can possibly exist, past present and future, and all the possible things you can possibly think even, are only possible because the possibility exists, those possibilities are within the realm of Reality which is my word for what encompasses the subjective and objective possibilities of this Universe.

"This, 'your subjective reality', you present as "ultimate reality", it seems real to you, and it seems feasible to some, however I just don't get it. You see that there cannot have ever been nothing as clearly as any other, yet then you feel the need to postulate a god/saviour. Yes, despite your denial of the role of saviour, you still turn to Allah too save you! Why?"

You the individual are the only one who can save yourself in this life by doing right and sending forth positivity.

"Namaste

#247

2006-07-09, 22:53

Daz

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:but I don't believe the one is conscious in the way we might be

What way is it conscious?

quote: but it is certainly not dead, non existant, or not active, it is actively in operation.

It can be alive, active and existant whilst not being conscious. Active operation does not equate consciousness.

quote:Ok could you explain my idea of God back to me from how you've understood it?

God = everything.

quote:so I don't subscribe to total solipsism.

Yet you can not disprove it.

quote:but rather an infinite in which everything exists, every possibility, a ripe plain of infinite knowledge and information which makes up every possible realities

You forgot to mention that you believe it is also conscious. It seems extremely ad hoc for you to add 'conscious' to that definition, especially with no reasoning behind it.

quote:Because people, most probably because of Christian influence, are imagining God as some sort of man who comes and talks to people,

Yet you believe that God wrote the Qu'ran, your beliefs contradict.

quote:This is because my God is what all forms are within and existing by, imaginary and real, the possibilities provided by what I'm calling God.

That is fine - except you still assume consciousness. I would probably be satisfied with your definition of God if it excluded any form of consciousness.

quote:so that they stop imagining false idols and beings in the sky

What if it is you who holds the false idol??

quote:I don't find it healthy to say to people "We can't know anything" or "All we know is there are thoughts" or "Life is chaotic meaninglessness" or "Live life to the fullest there are no reprecussions for anything after you die"

Unhealthy?? What is more healthy than knowing and understanding our limitations to do with knowledge?? What is more healthy than honesty??

What is unhealthy to people is being dishonest, lieing about dieties and afterlifes. Being deliberatly decietful for ones own personal gain. Subscribing to a system of belief that is repressive. These are things that are unhealthy.

quote:I want to keep religion alive, make it a healthier and more productive way of thinking, I wanted to break the false idol and replace it with what I feel is better.

Religion is the false idol.

quote:From Hume's "Treatise"

Probability arises from an opposition of contrary chances or causes, by which the mind is not allowed to fix on either side, but is incessantly tost from one to another, and at one moment is determined to consider an object as existent, and at another moment as the contrary. The imagination or understanding, call it which you please, fluctuates betwixt the opposite views; and though perhaps it may be oftener turned to the one side than the other, it is impossible for it, by reason of the opposition of causes or chances, to rest on either. The pro and con of the question alternately prevail; and the mind, surveying the object in its opposite principles, finds such a contrariety as utterly destroys all certainty and established opinion.[/b]

From the way i understood that - Hume has a problem with the addition of probability to an inductive argument because it provides no certainty - to be honest, i don't find the lack of certainty to be a problem. If we accept the premises that we can't rationally prove the existence of the past then i see no problem with having an object determined to be existant at one point in time and then non existant at another point. Hume assumes that nature is uniform and that something can't be existant at one moment and non existant at the next.

#248

2006-07-10, 05:00

prozak_jack prozak_jack is offline

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

All of you are running around in the same stupid circle.

#249

2006-07-10, 08:05

Daz

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

So do olympic athletes.

#250

2006-07-10, 13:21

Abrahim

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Daz:

"Capable of thought, will, or perception: the development of conscious life on the planet."

"having mental faculties"

What I mean by Conscious is that it thinks, these are its thoughts, innumerable.

The reason I deny the statement "It is not Conscious" is that I believe that these are its thoughts manifest, if it did not think, nothing would exist or be able to exist or occur.

"Yet you believe that God wrote the Qu'ran, your beliefs contradict."

I believe the Qur'an speaks the truth but also that every possible sentence, book, or word that can ever exist in this universe is possible only because the possibility is available in this reality and I give credit to...you know what.

"That is fine - except you still assume consciousness. I would probably be satisfied with your definition of God if it excluded any form of consciousness."

I can't exclude consciousness for the reason that "There are thoughts"...but if you want to say it "thinks" but it is not "self aware" (Though I do believe it posesses the ultimate awareness since all is within it made of it.)

I don't mean to say it has a brain and is distantly looking upon itself, but that it is the only thing that truly "knows all" completely, and also thinks, these being its thoughts.

"What is unhealthy to people is being dishonest, lieing about dieties and afterlifes. Being deliberatly decietful for ones own personal gain. Subscribing to a system of belief that is repressive. These are things that are unhealthy."

There are lyrics to a song in the Curious George soundtrack "It's only true, if you believe"

"Religion is the false idol."

Give me something better along with a feeling of safety and protection.

#251

2006-07-11, 02:07

Daz

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:I believe that these are its thoughts manifest, if it did not think, nothing would exist or be able to exist or occur.

That is the claim that you can not back up, why would there be nothing?? Why is it necessary for it to be conscious??

You are going to answer 'because occurrances and existance are it's thoughts' - and then i'm going to say that these are our thoughts, maybe not consciously generated by us but ours non-the less.

You will say that these are given to us by 'God' and then i will say that you can not prove that these were given to us by 'god'.

quote:I believe the Qur'an speaks the truth

My point was that you claimed the Qu'ran was written by 'God' and then elsewhere you claimed that "God is not a man who does things but is the reason things are able to be done".

quote:but if you want to say it "thinks" but it is not "self aware"

More acceptable, especially if the definition of "thinks" is skewed a little.

quote:that truly "knows all" completely

Do you mean this in an omniscient way?? It knows everything that is happening and will happen?? Therefore destroying freewill. If, of course, you subscribe to freewill to begin with.

quote:There are lyrics to a song in the Curious George soundtrack "It's only true, if you believe"

When did song lyrics become a reliable source of information?? If belief is a criterion for truth then anything and everything becomes true; including contradictions etc... Belief is not a criterion of truth, despite what Jack Johnson may think.

quote:Give me something better along with a feeling of safety and protection.

You would forsake the truth if it didn't provide safety and protection?? You accept a lie just to gain a false sense of safety and protection?? Isn't a false sense of security just wrapping yourself in cotton wool and lieing on a traintrack?? Atleast the truth lets you know that the train is coming.

#252

2006-07-11, 10:16

Abrahim

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

It is too little for most, perhaps, to live with only one certain truth "There are thoughts" because they believe there is Wind, and Water, and a Universe full of galaxies.

"It Knows Everything" because absolutely everything including the possible things that can possibly happen and whatever there is subjectively or objectively is, according to me, made of it and existing by it, within it...Knows it truly in the sense that since everything is made of it and existing by it that nothing can know it more thoroughly. Like to say you can never know a rock as well as a rock, to be a rock, to feel as a rock, to know completely a rock (lol yes of course we don't believe a rock has any consciousness it is just an example.)

What train is coming? The Death Train...So then I die, and I don't return, big deal, the scary part is if I do, and then I don't feel it is sufficient to say "Oh Daz told me it couldn't be proven true".

You already know how it goes, I repeat the same old stuff about God, you repeat the same old stuff about knowing nothing.

Its fun though despite, and makes this topic full of meat.

#253

2006-07-11, 21:11

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by Abrahim:

Who has said you can't have a personal relationship with God just because God is Ultimate Reality all Encompassing?

Personal means just that, a person to person relationship, how does one have that with your version of "Ultimate Reality" -- 'it's not a person, it's not self aware? It's not anything within reality, it is what contains reality or is the ground of being' -- if I understand you correctly, the above are your thoughts, how does one have a person to person relationship with "Ultimate Reality"

quote:Originally posted by Abrahim:

I believe all those quantum particles are within Reality, the ripe base plain of knowledge which the universe is existing by, and that that is, if not the ultimate, within the Ultimate Reality which contains all possible realities and universes and possibilities.

.....

All the possible things that can possibly exist, past present and future, and all the possible things you can possibly think even, are only possible because the possibility exists, those possibilities are within the realm of Reality which is my word for what encompasses the subjective and objective possibilities of this Universe.

Apart form you illogical acceptance and preaching of Islam, you sound like a pantheist, or panentheist:

The belief statement of the WPM

1. We revere and celebrate the Universe as the totality of being, past, present and future. It is self-organizing, ever-evolving and inexhaustibly diverse. Its overwhelming power, beauty and fundamental mystery compel the deepest human reverence and wonder.

2. All matter, energy, and life are an interconnected unity of which we are an inseparable part. We rejoice in our existence and seek to participate ever more deeply in this unity through knowledge, celebration, meditation, empathy, love, ethical action and art.

3. We are an integral part of Nature, which we should cherish, revere and preserve in all its magnificent beauty and diversity. We should strive to live in harmony with Nature locally and globally. We acknowledge the inherent value of all life, human and non-human, and strive to treat all living beings with compassion and respect.

4. All humans are equal centers of awareness of the Universe and nature, and all deserve a life of equal dignity and mutual respect. To this end we support and work towards freedom, democracy, justice, and non-discrimination, and a world community based on peace, sustainable ways of life, full respect for human rights and an end to poverty.

5. There is a single kind of substance, energy/matter, which is vibrant and infinitely creative in all its forms. Body and mind are indivisibly united.

6. We see death as the return to nature of our elements, and the end of our existence as individuals. The forms of "afterlife" available to humans are natural ones, in the natural world. Our actions, our ideas and memories of us live on, according to what we do in our lives. Our genes live on in our families, and our elements are endlessly recycled in nature.

7. We honor reality, and keep our minds open to the evidence of the senses and of science's unending quest for deeper understanding. These are our best means of coming to know the Universe, and on them we base our aesthetic and religious feelings about reality.

8. Every individual has direct access through perception, emotion and meditation to ultimate reality, which is the Universe and Nature. There is no need for mediation by priests, gurus or revealed scriptures.

9. We uphold the separation of religion and state, and the universal human right of freedom of religion. We recognize the freedom of all pantheists to express and celebrate their beliefs, as individuals or in groups, in any non-harmful ritual, symbol or vocabulary that is meaningful to them. http://www.pantheism.net/manifest.htm

Anything sound familiar? Do you agree or disagree with the above?

quote:Originally posted by Abrahim:

You the individual are the only one who can save yourself in this life by doing right and sending forth positivity.

"Namaste

"

Yes, however by your preaching of reliance on Allah and the alleged words of Allah, are in you, in "reality", relying on the teachings of Islam to save you?

Namaste

#254

2006-07-11, 23:09

Abrahim

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by redzed:

Yes, however by your preaching of reliance on Allah and the alleged words of Allah, are in you, in "reality", relying on the teachings of Islam to save you?

Namaste

My beliefs can be found in a number of religions including Islam: I find Islam to be the most complete and easy guide, the Qur'an to be pretty straightforward, so that is why I reccomend it to people as it tells you what to do and what not to do and how to include spirituality in your life while not going too far in any direction.

Allah is described as the same thing as The Brahman, The Tao, and more!

If it helps, you can think of it as "The Force" in Star Wars, how did they have a personal relationship with it?

#255

2006-07-12, 15:19

Iam

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by Abrahim:

There are lyrics to a song in the Curious George soundtrack "It's only true, if you believe"

Funniest argument ever.

#256

2006-07-12, 21:03

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by Abrahim:

Allah is described as the same thing as The Brahman, The Tao, and more!

Abrahim, you seem to continue in twisting things to match with your skewed version of reality. Allah cannot be seen as Tao if one considers the words of Lao-Tzu:

The Tao that can be trodden is not the enduring and unchanging Tao. The name that can be named is not the enduring and unchanging name.

(Conceived of as) having no name, it is the Originator of heaven

and earth; (conceived of as) having a name, it is the Mother of all

things.

Always without desire we must be found,

If its deep mystery we would sound;

But if desire always within us be,

Its outer fringe is all that we shall see. (v. 1)

*

The Tao is (like) the emptiness of a vessel; and in our employment of it we must be on our guard against all fullness. How deep and unfathomable it is, as if it were the Honoured Ancestor of all things!

We should blunt our sharp points, and unravel the complications of things; we should attemper our brightness, and bring ourselves into agreement with the obscurity of others. How pure and still the Tao is, as if it would ever so continue!

I do not know whose son it is. It might appear to have been before God. (v. 4)

Two major contradictions to your assertion that Allah/God = Tao.

1."The name that can be named is not the enduring and unchanging name."

2."It might appear to have been before God."

Namaste

#257

2006-07-13, 03:59

imperfectcircle imperfectcircle is offline

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by imperfectcircle:

That's something else, the points that I made in the B&M thread were based on three subjects:

- the correspondence theory of truth

- the coherence theory of truth

- aspects of kantian metaphysics, specifically his theory of judgement

the response I mentioned earlier is still being written, I'm simply expanding my previous points in terms of their formal arguments. It's taking a little longer to write than your average post.

Edit: btw I'm studying philosophy in university, so this won't be a copy and paste

Edit2: I'm not fucking around, if I don't have the response up by this time next week I'll post my password in SG.

Rust is going to get an ass fucking.

K.

Well I was working on a response to Rust, but I've spent the last two weeks heavily drunk and stoned due to the World Cup.

However, to be fair, circumstances are irrelevant. I said I'd respond to Rust in a week or post my password in SG.

And if nothing else, I value honor. I failed my promise, so my word means nothing (don't try and convince me otherwise, this is how I was raised).

So I'll take this opportunity to say farewell to TOTSE, I don't plan on returning but there are a number of you that I greatly appreciated and shall be emailing in the near future.

There are one or two of you who might miss me, but don't bother trying to convince me and whatnot. I broke my word. Might not seem like much, but to me the fact that I've broken it is as serious an event as if I'd shot a slug through my palm.

That's life!

I'll be in touch with those of you that mattered to me. As for the rest, rock on, etc.

#258

2006-07-13, 04:09

imperfectcircle imperfectcircle is offline

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

Btw!

I'll post my password in SG on friday. The reason I'm not posting it now is that I have to email a few people whose opinion is important to me, so they know that it's not mr who's posting after I give up my password.

If you want to nab my account you'll have to refresh SG regularly on friday, I'll post it at a random time, but I've calculated a 2 hour window when the number of posts hits a maximum. Meh I'm going out in a mess, I'll make it as messy as possible bitches! I'M IRISH!!!!

: D

: D: D

lol jimbean

#259

2006-07-13, 04:15

Overman

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

Rust hasn't had his ass fucking... You fail.

[This message has been edited by Overman (edited 07-13-2006).]

#260

2006-07-13, 04:27

Abrahim

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by redzed:

Abrahim, you seem to continue in twisting things to match with your skewed version of reality. Allah cannot be seen as Tao if one considers the words of Lao-Tzu:

The Tao that can be trodden is not the enduring and unchanging Tao. The name that can be named is not the enduring and unchanging name.

(Conceived of as) having no name, it is the Originator of heaven

and earth; (conceived of as) having a name, it is the Mother of all

things.

Always without desire we must be found,

If its deep mystery we would sound;

But if desire always within us be,

Its outer fringe is all that we shall see. (v. 1)

*

The Tao is (like) the emptiness of a vessel; and in our employment of it we must be on our guard against all fullness. How deep and unfathomable it is, as if it were the Honoured Ancestor of all things!

We should blunt our sharp points, and unravel the complications of things; we should attemper our brightness, and bring ourselves into agreement with the obscurity of others. How pure and still the Tao is, as if it would ever so continue!

I do not know whose son it is. It might appear to have been before God. (v. 4)

Two major contradictions to your assertion that Allah/God = Tao.

1."The name that can be named is not the enduring and unchanging name."

2."It might appear to have been before God."

Namaste

"Before God" is a reference to a conceptualized humanized God which yes, there can be a before. The Tao is a reference to the same power I speak of, the names are fleeting and mean little. So is calling it the Tao, Allah, God, The Brahman, these names are fleeting.

#261

2006-07-13, 04:45

imperfectcircle imperfectcircle is offline

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by Overman:

Rust hasn't had his ass fucking... You fail.

Welcome to reading comprehension 101. Professor Nietzsche has declared you a fail.

#262

2006-07-13, 04:48

Abrahim

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by imperfectcircle:

Welcome to reading comprehension 101. Professor Nietzsche has declared you a fail.

Going out in a bang! If I could get you to get MSN Messenger and possibly if you could please email me at abrahimesker@hotmail.com I'd really appreciate it...

Also, feel free to, before you go, post a response if you will to Rust, no harm in it!

I don't think anyone here actually feels much in that you are keeping your word, nor would people perhaps remember it for long if you didnt, also...if you were me, and I were you, I'd post my old password after changing to a new password THUS KEEPING MY WORD AND TRICKING PEOPLE TOO, RIGHT? RIGHT?

Besides all that I want to keep in contact with YOU!

#263

2006-07-13, 05:05

Regular

South Texas

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

imperfectcircle, I must say that I respect your integrity. People of character are few and far between these days.

You shall be missed.

#264

2006-07-13, 05:08

imperfectcircle imperfectcircle is offline

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by Abrahim:

[BI don't think anyone here actually feels much in that you are keeping your word, nor would people perhaps remember it for long if you didnt[/B]

I know what you're saying, but it's not about anyone else, for me it's an internal issue. I made a promise, and I didn't meet it. It doesn't matter what anyone else says, I've never broken my word and I won't start now.

I may post the reponse to Rust in the B&M forum, I have to decide whether it would be petty or a good parting shot.

Anyhow, I'll be keeping in contact with you my friend.

#265

2006-07-13, 10:35

Abrahim

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by imperfectcircle:

I know what you're saying, but it's not about anyone else, for me it's an internal issue. I made a promise, and I didn't meet it. It doesn't matter what anyone else says, I've never broken my word and I won't start now.

I may post the reponse to Rust in the B&M forum, I have to decide whether it would be petty or a good parting shot.

Anyhow, I'll be keeping in contact with you my friend.

Alrighty thanks, also keep in mind that you can keep your word without losing your account by changing your password and posting your old password thus outsmarting the promise!

#266

2006-07-14, 10:04

Abrahim

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

So that's the story of this wonderful topic, it was fun! Special thanks to all who participated in the debate, it was very enjoyable and full of information, I hope others learn from the various perspectives and ideas put out there.

#267

2006-07-14, 21:22

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by Abrahim:

Alrighty thanks, also keep in mind that you can keep your word without losing your account by changing your password and posting your old password thus outsmarting the promise!

Or he can just not post his password, as I don't think anyone was going to hold him to that idiotic "promise" of his.

Not that it will change anything, as he can make another account whenever he wants...and we all know he's not opposed to that in the least.

#268

2006-07-16, 22:58

Twisted_Ferret Twisted_Ferret is offline

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

and we all know he's not opposed to that in the least.

We do?

#269

2006-07-19, 19:51

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by Twisted_Ferret:

We do?

Well, you do now.

Go read this thread:

http://www.totse.com/bbs/Forum31/HTML/004239.html

You'll see that imperfectcircle finally admits that he's Deep_Anger after having praised himself by using another account through out the whole thread.

He was caught red-handed using another account in the same thread Deep_Anger (i.e. imperfectcircle) was allegedly coming clean about having used multiple accounts in the past.

Like I said, it's obvious he's not opposed to creating other accounts, making his "fulfillment" of this idiotic promise of his completely meaningless.

#270

2006-07-20, 11:13

AngryFemme AngryFemme is offline

Moderator

Deep South

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

There truly is no integrity to be had, after all that. Could imperfectcircle be Abrahim, as well?

What an eye-opener this is.

#271

2006-07-20, 11:50

Abrahim

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

#272

2006-07-20, 16:15

AngryFemme AngryFemme is offline

Moderator

Deep South

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

Suddenly it all becomes so clear.

#273

2006-07-20, 17:39

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by AngryFemme:

Could imperfectcircle be Abrahim, as well?

I wouldn't be surprised.

#274

2006-07-20, 19:08

AngryFemme AngryFemme is offline

Moderator

Deep South

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by Twisted_Ferret:

instead I'll have it changed and emailed to Twisted_Ferret, he can vouch for it.

Wait... you're Twisted_Ferret also?

This is ridiculous.

#275

2006-07-20, 19:31

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

... but it's definitely a stretch of the imagination to somehow think that he's been using different accounts!

Regardless of whether he does or not (although I still don't believe his bullshit explanation), he's shattered any integrity he had to begin with. He's also proven my point: his "fulfillment" of that ridiculous promise of his is meaningless; he's not only still reading totse but also replying to posts well after he had supposedly left. Pathetic.

#276

2006-07-20, 19:55

AngryFemme AngryFemme is offline

Moderator

Deep South

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

It is completely unfathomable to me how one could manage to put that effort much into a trick, for their own amusement. I could live to be a thousand and would still not understand it.

*shakes head*

#277

2006-07-20, 20:55

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

So he deleted his post now? I wonder what his explanation is going to be.

#278

2006-07-20, 22:18

Twisted_Ferret Twisted_Ferret is offline

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

So he deleted his post now? I wonder what his explanation is going to be.

wtf? is this a joke? no fucking way... Rust = AngryFemme = imperfectcircle?!?!

#279

2006-07-20, 22:57

Abrahim

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by Twisted_Ferret:

Originally posted by Rust:

So he deleted his post now? I wonder what his explanation is going to be.

wtf? is this a joke? no fucking way... Rust = AngryFemme = imperfectcircle?!?!

Wait till you find out everyone on Totse is one person.

#280

2006-07-21, 01:24

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by Twisted_Ferret:

wtf? is this a joke? no fucking way... Rust = AngryFemme = imperfectcircle?!?!

It ceased to be funny a long time ago, now it's just pathetic.

#281

2006-07-21, 04:30

Regular

South Texas

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by truckfixr:

imperfectcircle, I must say that I respect your integrity. People of character are few and far between these days.

You shall be missed.

It appears that people of character are fewer and farther between than I thought.

Obviously, my earlier opinion was wrong, and he is not deserving of any respect.

[This message has been edited by truckfixr (edited 07-21-2006).]

#282

2006-07-22, 01:09

Abrahim

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

Why is everyone talking about people other than me! It's my birthday and I'll cry if I want to, cry if I want to, you'd cry too if it happened you!

#283

2006-07-22, 05:26

fullcircle fullcircle is offline

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

*lightening strikes, thunder booms, and smoke erupts out of thin air*

It is I! ImperfectAbraFerreMerchenGoldenAngerETC!!!

Time to let the cat out of the bag.

I am the poster formerly known as imperfectcircle, PFKAIC to friends (pronounceable only by Slavic friends unfortunately)

As amusing as all of this has been, I did not orchestrate an elaborate spiderweb of alternate egos that Rust masterfully exposed.

But part of that last sentence is true. Rust *did* expose something. But it wasnt the kind of unveiling he intended.

In the following post Ill give the reasons why I have only ever been imperfectcircle to settle the controversy, both to exonerate the other posters implicated in this affair but equally to rectify the mistaken beliefs of those totes members that I have grown to respect.

When Ive gotten that out of the way, Ill explain whats been going on.

#284

2006-07-22, 05:27

fullcircle fullcircle is offline

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

-> The defense

OK, so here are a few of the ways I can prove that I am not Abrahim/Twisted_Ferret/Dark_Merchant/Deep_Anger/Jake_golding

1) I invite any mod to a group MSN chat where I will be present along with Abrahim and Twisted_Ferret. I know that at least these two will be happy to participate, because theyve been open about sharing their MSN nicknames on totse in the past. I recall Deep_Anger mentioning MSN before, he might be willing to join in too. And if necessary I can track down Jake_golding to invite him too.

2) I invite any mod to phone me here in Ireland, Ill email the phone number so you see the international access code locates me in Ireland. Again, I expect Abrahim and Ferret would do the same thing, simply to preclude any further accusations that we are all alter egos of one person. I know already that Ferret lives in America, and although Im not sure where Abrahim is from I highly doubt it happens to be Ireland.

3) If there is *any* question of Ferret being banned on the basis of being a double account, Ill happily give any admin access to my gmail account. In it they will first of all see our dialogue over 15 messages or so when I asked him to post a message of mine using his screenname, which was purposefully organized. Theyll also see that weve been emailing each other a whole lot in the past couple of months. Not only that, but I happen to seriously like and respect Ferret, which is reflected in my emails to him. Nobody could possibly believe that we are on person just fucking around, after reading through my gmail account.

4) Naturally checking the IP addresses of the various accounts in question would be the simplest method. Ive been on totse a year and a half, Ferret has been here longer, even though the other accounts are newer, the IPs could be checked at any point in time. And not just that, but using our IP addresses its easy to check what country that IP originated in. At least in my case Ive never used a proxy to post on totse, so my IP no matter when you check it should always originate in Ireland. Ferrets in America, Deep_Anger/Deep_Merchant is in Canada, and Ive no idea where Abrahim is from, but ask him and hell say it. Even if we were all just alternate accounts for one person, and that person used proxies, why would any person go to the lengths of using account-specific proxies linked to each account *every* single time they posted, and not just that but they *never* fucked up? You can search my posts as imperfectcircle back as far as you like, and 100% of them should be from Ireland.

Well those are the 4 best ways I could think of, but Im open to any other suggestions.

In fact I explained point number 4 in the message I got Twisted_Ferret to post for me, and then delete as soon as Rust replied. It fucking backfired on me again, just like the That Crazy Man thread, because this time I *did* expect Rust to make a screenshot but apparently he didnt.

In the next post, Ill copy the entire email I sent him asking to do that. The part in italics wasnt posted, only the part in bold. As I said before, Ill let an admin access my gmail account to verify that I really emailed this to him before he posted it on totse.

#285

2006-07-22, 05:28

fullcircle fullcircle is offline

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

-> The email

quote: Yeah, shame about that. But I made the promise, however minor the circumstances, and I can't break my word about it. If I did anything else I'd lose credibility with myself every time I posted.

Which makes Rust's final accusations deliciously amusing. Or frustrating, to tell the truth. Because I most definitely am *not* Deep_Anger, nor any of his alternate accounts.

Based on what I've told you in emails and stuff I hope you've gotten a sense that I haven't bullshitted you about anything. So maybe you can just take my word that I'm honest about the Deep_Anger thing. And if not, thats OK.

But I'd really appreciate it if you do me a favor, kind of a farewell present from totse. Post this following message in the "My dear Abrahim, your theories are flawed" thread, and delete it as soon as Rust either replies or anybody else replies and quotes you. I want to fuck with people's heads a little bit on the way out. Here's the message:

The truth is that I posted the message saying "Nope, I already told you that I only use one ego at a time. I most certainly am not Imperfect Circle" I was fucking around. My idea was to wait until somebody quoted me in a reply, and then I'd delete my post and accuse them of being Deep_Anger, like I'd accused Jake_golding..

If you look at the words I used:

"Nope," was used by Deep_Anger

" I most certainly am not" was used by Jake_golding

"Imperfect Circle" was the name Jake_golding spelled my name

Also look back on the first page at 00:54 , and the post I made when Jake_golding accused me of being Deep_Anger.

When I quoted Jake_golding, I edited his name to say "jake_Golding". I did that to insinuate that he was Dark_Merchant/Deep_Anger, because when Deep_Anger referred to that alter ego at 21:21 he spelled it "Deep_merchant". Since Jake_golding is spelled in the same style, with a capital first letter on the first word and a lower case first letter on the second word, I drew attention to Jake_golding's name by inverting the order.

I did this because I figured Jake_golding really *is* Dark_Merchant, but didn't want this secret to be revelead, so I trying to send him a signal saying "I know, but I won't bust you".

You can try and come up with an explanation that makes more sense than that, but good luck.

Anyhow I left the response up for a while but nobody seemed to notice so I deleted it and went to bed, I knew I couldn't leave it up for too long without checking in case more than one person quoted it in a reply.

Then I thought that was the end of it, until Rust appeared with a screenshot, anal retentive as he is. Well I called him Deep_Anger anyway, although I'd been counting on a quote rather than screenshot. If anybody reads the joking tone of my replies from that point on, they won't be surprised when I say that I thought it was obvious I was joking around.

But you can never underestimate Rust's innate lack of a sense of humor. He's like the Tin Man in the Wizard of Oz, except instead of JUST lacking a heart he also lacks humor. I guess the rust is from all the times I've pissed on his robotic face.

If he had any human contact with the other mods he could have easily gotten them to check the IPs of Jake_golding, Dark_Merchant, Deep_Anger and myself in the various threads we've spoken as well as other places. Straight away he'd have seen I'm the only one who has ever used this IP.

And yes, people can use proxies, but is this conceivable:

- I've racked up over 5 thousand posts on totse, and the other 3 names have about a thousand posts between them. Would one person use a particular different proxy EVERY SINGLE TIME they posted, without ever making a mistake?

- I'm from Ireland, and if you do a whois on my IP you'll see it originates in Ireland. DA/DM say they come from Canada, do a whois on their IP. JG says he comes from the UK, do a whois in his IP. If you show me a screenshot of our IPS ever coming from the same country, I'll give you a hundred bucks.

So I wouldn't have gone to this bother, except this is my farewell note and I wanted to settle the score rather than leave people with the mistaken idea that I ever posted under those accounts or am still posting on totse under a different name.

I decided not to post my password in SG, because I don't want to make my last action something that just pisses off the mods who manage SG, so instead I'll have it changed and emailed to Twisted_Ferret, he can vouch for it.

Cya totse, I'll miss some of you, had a blast

Edit: formatting

[This message has been edited by fullcircle (edited 07-22-2006).]

#286

2006-07-22, 05:29

fullcircle fullcircle is offline

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

-> Why did I ask Twisted_Ferret to do that?

First of all, and its important that some of you believe this, but it was not to deceive anyone in a sadistic or cavalier way. Frankly I dont really know AngryFemme, so when she followed Rusts lead it didnt bother me too much. But I knew truckfixr from lurking in the Gearheads forum, my impression of him was that of a fellow truth-seeker, and Id also appreciated his warm words when I announced my departure; so when I read his cold retraction, it bothered me and I realized some other posters who I also respect might have felt similarly. It made me almost doubt my plan. And if anybody who Ive gotten on well with feels pissed at me, I seriously apologize, please email me.

Essentially I saw an opportunity to make my totse swansong humorous, and also let Rust demonstrate the reasons why he has singularly pissed me off more than any other totse member. Now in saying that, Rust has also been one of my favorite posters on totse. He reminds me of an old friend of mine that years ago was like a brother to me. Quite possibly Ive just been giving him too much credit, but as much as Rust has FUCKING pissed me off, Ive always seen an actual person inside that steel shell just waiting to be freed.

Hell I remember the first major flamewar we had, it was in a thread about communism, splitting semantic hairs about what Marx really predicted for something like 6 fucking pages. I respected him even though the argument was ridiculous, because he appeared very intelligent and gave elaborate logical arguments for why he was right. Basically the intellectual equivalent of a mate youd want with you in a street fight.

But as I saw more and more of his posts, I started to dislike him. It built up for a while, until I saw a B&M thread someone made about Rust being constantly on his period. So it all unleashed, and I raped him without lube for pages on end until he wet his pants not from piss, but from the torrent of tears flowing from his eyes.

Hes a potentially cool guy. But he behaves like a faggot.

#287

2006-07-22, 05:31

fullcircle fullcircle is offline

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

-> My masterplan

So what was my plan in this thread?

Two things:

1) Let Rust demonstrate his *mind boggling* lack of humor

2) Let Rust demonstrate all the reasons why I hate his behavior on totse.

OK so in more detail:

1) Im consistently amazed by Rusts posts when humor is involved, because hes living proof of at least one thing: either a human being can be born without a sense of humor, or the military has developed a cyborg that somehow gained access to the internet.

As I explained in the message I got Twisted_Ferret to post, I genuinely believed it was obvious I was joking around in the That Crazy Man thread:

- When Jake_golding accused me of being Deep_Anger I replied Shh... they mustn't know!

- When Rust posted his screenshot, I replied

Lies! Scandalous! Etc!

Rust = Deep_Anger.

Not only was the tone obviously playful, but anybody familiar with my posts will see that I posted it with the sunglasses icon at the top of the post, which I only do when Im either saying something bad ass or saying something totally ludicrous.

- I then also said

Well spotted though. I left that post up for a few days but nobody noticed.

Or did I

And *again* I even used the sunglasses icon.

Now frankly I thought Rust had enough wit to recognise I was clearly joking around. But I realized otherwise when I saw him post in this thread, after I announced my departure from totse, that I use other accounts and linking to the That Crazy Man thread. Honestly it was a surprise. But then intelligence and humor are not necessarily linked. And ON TOP of that, he accused me of being Abrahim.

Well I had a good laugh, but obviously I also had to take action.

So I asked Twisted_Ferret to post that message for me. On the one hand, it was a logical explanation for my posts in the That Crazy Man thread and should have settled the issue. And it was also a perfect test of Rusts humor, because the accusations of me using all the alternate accounts was bordering on ludicrous, so I expected this would tip things over into the domain of the impossible.

Apparently not.

But even then, when Rust replied to the ruse seriously, I pushed things EVEN further. Here is my email to Twisted_Ferret about it, again Ill happily let an admin verify this on my gmail account:

quote: Idea - quote Rust saying "so he deleted his post now etc", and say something like "wtf? is this a joke? no fucking way... Rust = AngryFemme = imperfectcircle?!?! "

Do you think using the sunglasses icon at the top of the post would be pushing it too far? Because that's what I did in the "That Crazy Man" thread when I was accused of being Deep_Anger.

On the one hand I think it would be making things just TOO fucking obvious, but on the other hand Rust's lack of a sense of humor verges on legendary.

Btw I'm going to make a surprise reappearance soon to settle this whole laugh riot.

But He still didnt get it.

2) So why has Rust consistently pissed me off on totse?

Its very simple, once you see through the illusionary identity he maintains.

The best way to dispel that illusion is to ask the following questions:

Does Rust ever convey emotion? Does Rust ever present an original idea of his own to defend? Does Rust ever help or encourage the efforts of those less capable than him? Does Rust ever encourage debate itself, when it has nothing to do with his own views? Does Rust ever make friendly comments to other posters? When another poster presents a belief different to Rusts, does he ever acknowledge that it might be valid even though he personally disagrees with it? Does Rust argue with people like someone interested in discovering something new?

No no no NO!

He doesnt interact personally with anyone, and his standard method of interaction is to become a mechanical debating machine. And god help you if you thought he liked you, because when the debating machine comes out youll feel the temperature drop.

He only berates, attacks, and clinically dissects other peoples beliefs, he never positively supplies anything new himself.

He barely recognizes ANY poster unless they are an ally or an enemy. I know of at least one popular poster who used to practically worship him, always back him up in arguments, even made a thread or two about him. But when I raped Rust in the B&M thread, and that poster came to Rusts defense, he didnt even have a clue who they were.

But worst of all, he only pulls other people down when he argues, and the only apparent motive is to *win* arguments. He appears to be a textbook narcissist (clinically, not pejoratively). A bully who cloaks himself in a self-righteous garb, though in reality his motives are narcissistic and lacking in virtue.

He just attacks other people, thats all he does.

Occasionally it benefits the totse community indirectly, when he attacks people like Digital Saviour. But these clashes are analogous to society benefiting when one sociopathic gang member attacks a rival. Because Rust is essentially identical to Digital Saviour and her kind, he just happens to be armed with logic and scientific knowledge.

And his illusory persona is convincing, because his application of logic and scientific knowledge often appears to be done out of the selfless pursuit of truth. The selfless part is right, since he lacks any discernable personality. But pursuit of truth? No.

Again, and again, and again, someone presents a belief and Rust attacks THE WAY ITS EXPRESSED, not the content of the belief. He locates some semantic ambiguity, and he refuses to discuss anything further until his opponent has responded to his linguistic nitpicking. Most of the time people just give up, because they cant match the relentless assault of verbose (though typically frivolous) objections. Its just no fun debating when he joins in, hes like one of those kids who never understood how to *play* with others.

The other ugly side of Rusts attitude is the hypocrisy. How often he makes reference to something like Occams razor when he argues why he is right and his opponent is wrong. And yet in my case, he was willing to believe in a ludicrously elaborate scenario rather than the vastly more probably case that I was just one person joking around. Its a perfect illustration of his approach. He decides what he believes before he engages in debate.

There is a whole shitload more I could elaborate on here, but it wouldnt be interesting, Ive basically stated my general feelings already. Rust, Im sorry for being so harsh but I sincerely want to get through to you. Youre a person just like everybody else. Try acting like one. Or maybe I should say that others are just as real as you. I dont fucking know. Just stop acting like a douche for your sake, youd be cool.

#288

2006-07-22, 05:32

fullcircle fullcircle is offline

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

-> In conclusion

Hope you guys now understand my point of view. And if any of you understood before I had to explain things, rock on.

Obviously I could stick around totse but frankly its time to move on, and I think this is a good note to do it on, as long as the people who mattered understand that Ive told the truth here.

Ive genuinely observed myself growing in certain ways from my time on totse. Its a fucking wonderful haven for strangeness, and it hasnt just been some internet forum to me. Ill stop posting, but Ill still be reading.

#289

2006-07-22, 06:23

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

1. I have a sense of humor. I only wish you could be here so that you could see me laughing my ass off at this whole childish debacle.

2. I frankly never gave a shit whether you used multiple accounts or not. Though I did believe it was a good possibility that you had done so, it was ultimately meaningless to me. That's why I didn't ask other moderators to check your IP, why I never sent that thread to the administration, and why I didn't keep pressing the issue in that thread (or any other thread besides this one). In fact, I was playing along with your joke, which is evident from my reply in that thread of yours - yet you conveniently ignore this.

The reason why I brought it up here was to emphasize the uselessness of fulfilling this "promise" of yours. You can make new accounts whenever you wish making your "promise" ultimately trivial - and the remote possibility that you had used multiple accounts in the past was worth mentioning.

Also, there is no proper way to apply Occam's Razor in this case which makes your ad-hominem all the more amusing. Occam's Razor asks us to find the simplest explanation that fits the evidence. The only evidence we have is that you posted a message that seemed to indicate that you were someone else. That it might be a joke? Certainly, but it's not conclusive in the least. Someone who has just been caught using multiple accounts might do that as well - which apparently was the impression AngryFemme has after reading that thread.

Now, if you're going to accuse me of not having a sense of humor, then please accuse AngryFemme and truckfixr of the same (you can probably add Real.PUA to the list as well). They had the same evidence that I had at their disposal, and it seems they reached the conclusion that you were using multiple accounts.

3. It's funny that you bring up that thread in B&M (where you supposedly raped me) since it was basically just you incessantly whining about my persona for the whole thread. Why would you be so preoccupied with me, how I handle myself, and whether or not I have a sense of humor, is beyond me.

Moreover, it ended with a silly comment about being high or drunk (which is your own special way of excusing your stupidity. You can see the thread in Humanities for an example - a thread in which you still owe me a reply... do you only feel the need to updhold certain promises?) and wanting to be friends, making this notion of you "raping" me pretty much hilarious.

As for the poster who "worshiped me" I assume you mean Paradise Lost, who participated in the thread in question. If that's who you are talking about, then I don't see what the problem was. I remember quite well that there was no problem between us, and that she explicitly stated such, after I asked her if what I said (which I don't recall that well) offended her since I didn't mean it that way. She replied that it did not.

Anything else you want me to deal with?

--

Since you analyzed me then please allow me to do the same:

The whole reason why you have your panties up in a bunch is because I offended you after you were under the impression that we were friends or on good terms. You even started defending me in B&M, and not because I had magically changed my evil ways - I hadn't - but probably because I hadn't offended you in some time. So when I attacked you in Humanities/My God... your precious feelings were hurt. You now had the childish impulse of getting me back no matter what; even to the point of boasting in other threads about how you had 'kicked my ass'. But you felt disgusted that I had gotten to you so deeply that you decided to leave. It has nothing to do with your honor. Nobody had noticed that silly "promise" of yours (not even I) and more importantly, nobody was going to hold you up to it. You left because you felt awful. You're an idealist who feels self-loathing any time you feel angry about something - although not immediately of course, only after the anger subsides enough.

Anyway, I can't imagine how anyone here can see you in a positive light after having proven yourself to be not only childish, but obsessed about me to such an extent that you're willing to plot a silly "prank" (which didn't even work) via e-mail, so I don't think you succeeded, but who knows.

P.S. I did take a picture of Ferret's post, but I was expecting you to be waiting for me to post the picture, which is why I didn't post it.

If you want, I can post it now.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 07-22-2006).]

#290

2006-07-22, 11:18

AngryFemme AngryFemme is offline

Moderator

Deep South

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

I fail to see any humor in it, and believe me - I've tried. Perhaps it's only funny to those who were in the loop of this hare-brained scheme to begin with.

I realize you don't know me, thus you really don't care how I perceived the ruse, but from one poster to another, I tell you: to an outsider, your "swansong" wasn't the least bit humorous. I'm not sure how the posters whose screen monikers you were linked to feel about this, but don't you think it's kinda wrong to implicate them in the "game" you created that makes so glaringly obvious your internet obsession with Rust?

You've made it apparent that you harbour serious issues towards Rust, and if anyone stands to be the slightest bit shaken by all this tomfoolery, it's him. Not because you *raped* him, not because you *tricked* him, and not because you plotted all this tomfoolery around him - but because it appears as though you're genuinely obsessed with cracking his personna. No one can say that you didn't try, though. Unfortunately, it backfired on you.

Rust must have a sense of humor to reply to you in such a level-headed, matter-of-fact fashion ... just about anyone else would probably take offense - even be a little freaked out - at you putting forth so much time and effort trying to pick them apart.

You failed, because he doesn't seem at all shaken by it. Him not getting bent over all this silliness you created must have been the straw that broke the camel's back, and why you decided to say farewell to totse. You could have saved yourself a few thousand keystrokes trying to explain yourself. Anyone with an ounce of reading comprehension can clearly see that your professed loathing of him really translates into a kind of neurotic infatuation.

And that's how you'll always be remembered: "that guy who had a severely unhealthy obsession with Rust".

#291

2006-07-22, 15:40

Twisted_Ferret Twisted_Ferret is offline

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by AngryFemme:

I'm not sure how the posters whose screen monikers you were linked to feel about this, but don't you think it's kinda wrong to implicate them in the "game" you created that makes so glaringly obvious your internet obsession with Rust?

I for one don't mind. imperfectcircle is someone I'd consider a good friend of mine, and I was glad to help him in his final "game" on Totse.

quote: Anyone with an ounce of reading comprehension can clearly see that your professed loathing of him really translates into a kind of neurotic infatuation.

Perhaps so, but I can tell you that his e-mails display no such infatuation - merely a kind of bewilderment and frustration with Rust's inability to be anything other than a humorless debating machine. I, personally, like and admire Rust as well; however, I'd noticed that he tends to be rather cold as well. But maybe you're right... it's just the internet. If he has a fault here, it's caring too much about others and trying to help them even if they profess to neither want nor need any help.

#292

2006-07-22, 18:28

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by Twisted_Ferret:

- merely a kind of bewilderment and frustration with Rust's inability to be anything other than a humorless debating machine.

I have a sense of humor. That I don't show it to you or others here on totse, doesn't mean that I don't have one. Maybe your life is different than mine, but I speak with my friends pretty much on a daily basis. If I'm not talking to them in real life, then I'm doing so in WoW, e-mails, on the phone or IM. So when I come to totse, I don't come to prove that I have a sense of humor. I don't come to make more friends and I don't come to make jokes for your amusement; I do enough of that outside of totse. I come to totse because I can get a chance to do what I don't get enough of outside of it, which is not humor, but serious debate. Discussions of politics, economics, law and religion.

Your reason for being on totse might be completly different. Great! That's why I don't go whining about what I may feel to be a "bad" use of Totse, why I don't go around plotting my revenge in such a childish manner, and why I frankly don't give a fuck about your posting habits or mannerisms.

quote: If he has a fault here, it's caring too much about others and trying to help them even if they profess to neither want nor need any help.

Plotting a childish prank via e-mail in order to hummilate someone else is "caring too much about others"? Please. I know you two might be friends, but don't try to sugar-coat this sick behaviour of his as "caring for others".

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 07-22-2006).]

#293

2006-07-23, 02:15

Abrahim

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

God damnit! Riverdance is stealing my show!

I've gotta save this sucker before its too late *runs to loud speaker*

"Hey Everyone, God isn't some Maaan in the sky, God isn't some Wooooman in the Earth, man, God aint your Momma or Your Papa, God aint some bearded due, tho that'd be sweet...God aint any of that shizzle, but God is the knowledge that makes up all things including this reality, this possibility playing itself out, God is what encompasses everything, essentially the only thing, and OREO cookies are 50% off in isle 5 thank you." *click*

#294

2006-07-23, 02:35

Abrahim

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

I guess Rust sends out the "Stank" what I mean by that is apparently he somehow manages to get people to admire him and respect him through his Totse personality. One of my first encounters with Rust was when he said something like "Your God is Disgusting for allowing such atrocities" to a Christian and I responded "Your Reality is disgusting for allowing such atrocities" and he told me (Something like) "Never fucking direct any reply to him again" lol I don't remember the exact words I think it was in that one thread about the lion that killed the guy who claimed God would save him.

I don't know, I guess its ok that people develop emotional attachments to other members on this forum, good or bad.

Since everyone is telling their motivations and life stories I might as well tell you all why I'm on Totse too.

I actually never intended to be a member of Totse, nor did I ever want to join. A guy named FourMullatoes made me an account and had planned to steal it from me to post under my name and post my comedy article about "How to deal with Flamingz". I let 4m make the account but then decided to post the article myself so that other things wouldnt be posted under my name.

So I posted my article in HB and SG, and then posted a self promotional post in Found on the Web about all my different comedy websites. Then someone suggested I visit this God forum because most people on my MSN call me Jesus.

I posted 3 topics here which you might all be familiar with "What is God?" "The True Religion" and "Interested in Islam?"

I posted them with the intention of not only educating people but also finding those who would be willing to learn more or adopt my views, people to add to MSN Messenger also, and also the underlying intention of finding girls because boy o boy do I love girls. Rrrricooo Suaveee.

Anyway, All 3 of those topics seemed to set on fire, and I loved the activity and the attention and I wanted to keep them alive for a long time so I kept bumping them and fishing for more people to add to them.

I feel lots of people, even Muslims have a very non Qur'anically based view on Isam and wanted to provide a Qur'an only kind of session in "Interested in Islam?".

Eventually I got into the whole energy of self righteous posting, it feels so darn good, and started to heavilly preach my God is Reality beliefs to bring an (old) new idea to these forums which seemed obsessed with the Christian idea of God.

Here was my wishlist priority list

1.Find Gurlz.

2.Read my own posts and smile.

3.Read replies and smile.

4.Convert people.

5.Educate people.

The last two would switch from up and down, at first it was about education, but then it became much more fun and exciting to preach which I love to do on MSN too sometimes.

I didn't actually expect to convert anyone but even getting through to one person even a little bit or to see "I agree" feels nice sometimes!

So thats my story! I had planned on leaving totse after my promotional posts but decided to stay. Sometimes totse gets a wee bit repetative and boring especially in here, its like almost everything has been discussed over and over and over but I'm still sticking around a bit for new people and to try to see if I can get them on MSN.

Hey Rust, what do you play as in WoW?

#295

2006-07-24, 07:26

fullcircle fullcircle is offline

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

1. I have a sense of humor.

There is also a china teapot in orbit around the Sun.

quote:In fact, I was playing along with your joke, which is evident from my reply in that thread of yours - yet you conveniently ignore this.

"That" thread of mine?

Not only am I unaware of which thread you are referring to, I am unaware of you ever "evidently" playing along with anything. Quote the instances to which you are referring and then I'll comment on them.

quote:The reason why I brought it up here was to emphasize the uselessness of fulfilling this "promise" of yours. You can make new accounts whenever you wish making your "promise" ultimately trivial - and the remote possibility that you had used multiple accounts in the past was worth mentioning.

For my promise to be useless, it must have failed to live up to its intended goal. The goal was to give credibility to my post when I said I was working on a philosophically robust rebuttal in Abrahim's B+M thread.

I did so after AngryFemme ignorantly quoted my allusion to that rebuttal, then quoted me withdrawing from *this* thread, and implied a connection between the two comments, to which Rust replied that he had beaten me in both arguments (which all occured on page 2 of this thread).

When I made that promise I had no reason to expect I'd break it, so it was a better choice of response than either not objecting to their foolish claims or alternatively making a statement lacking credibility that I would respond to Abrahim's B+M thread at a later point in time. However I wasn't thinking of the World Cup when I made that promise, which started a few days later, resulting in a solid two weeks of alcohol and drug fuelled debauchery.

But even though the promise was trivial, I staked my credibility when I made the promise and then I broke it. What anyone else thinks is irrelevant, my word is something I never break. So I kept my word, even though it saddened me to lose the only account I've had on totse in my year and a half as a member.

Anyone who thinks that decision was stupid and meaningless must have no respect for integrity.

And obviously I could still stay on totse, that wasn't on the line. Throwing away my account wasn't something "meaningless" for me, and I doubt anyone who's used the same account regularly for over a year would feel otherwise. The fact that I'm leaving totse just happens to coincide with all of this. I'd been planning to leave for a while, as much as I've loved this place it's been quite an addiction and has taken up *way* too much of my time. I may end up posting on the odd occasion now and then, but my time here as a regular is over.

quote:Also, there is no proper way to apply Occam's Razor in this case which makes your ad-hominem all the more amusing.

You're wrong on two counts.

First of all there certainly is a proper way to apply Occam's razor here. Not as formulated ontologically by Occam to support his nominalist views, not as formulated by philosophers of science to evaluate rival scientific theories, but formulated for epistemic simplicity to choose the most reasonable explanation among competitors.You were confronted with two possible explanations of what you had seen.

The first explanation: I was a single poster, who was fucking around and not being serious. I had in given this explanation myself, and although I was still fucking around when I did so with the help of Twisted_Ferret, I left plenty of clues to show that I was still playing (which can be illustrated if you somehow fail to recognise them even now), on top of the fact that my explanation was both simple and plausible.

The second explanation: I was pretending to be half a dozen people with distinct personalities, who collectively had about 6,000 posts between them, some of whom had been active here for over a year and chatted regularly with other totse users on MSN and so on, that I had used individual proxies for at all times, in a number of cases I had posted lengthy replies to myself while pretending to be all these people, and so on, and so on, and so on.

One of those explanations is staggeringly more complex and unneccessarily speculative than the other, no points for guessing which one it is.

Secondly you incorrectly labeled my comment as an ad hominem. Were it guilty of containing an ad hominem fallacy, it would have criticised your character instead of criticising your argument. But instead I criticised your argument, and used the example as support for criticising your character. This is yet another example of how you incorrectly but conspicuously use intellectual language to make vacuous statements that less intelligent people will assume to be correct.

quote: Occam's Razor asks us to find the simplest explanation that fits the evidence.

Of course the explanation must fit the evidence, it is frivolous to emphasise that point since it is a basic condition. What use would the simplest explanation be if it *didn't* fit the evidence?

Occam's razor assumes that there are an infinite number of possible explanations for some given data. But it goes without saying that any optimal explanation rendered by it must fit the data. The point of Occam's razor is that among the explanations that fit the data, the one requiring a minimum of hypothetical entities is the preferable one.

quote: The only evidence we have is that you posted a message that seemed to indicate that you were someone else. That it might be a joke? Certainly, but it's not conclusive in the least.

Yes, this is a valid conclusion if you're *only* considering the "That Crazy Man" thread.

quote: Someone who has just been caught using multiple accounts might do that as well - which apparently was the impression AngryFemme has after reading that thread.

After a cursory glance how AngryFemme comments in a thread where you have posted, she appears to be a cheerleader for you. So I'm sceptical about whether she got that impression "after reading that thread", or after reading *your* comments in this one. In any case, her impressions are irrelevant to the validity of your arguments.

quote:Now, if you're going to accuse me of not having a sense of humor, then please accuse AngryFemme and truckfixr of the same (you can probably add Real.PUA to the list as well). They had the same evidence that I had at their disposal, and it seems they reached the conclusion that you were using multiple accounts.

Would they have reached the same conclusion without reading your own previous allegations? Since I don't know what they would have independently concluded, I won't accuse them of lacking a sense of humor. Naturally if someone sees a member who they respect (despite the fact that I believe you to be a pseudointellectual narcissist) making ostensibly valid claims, they will take those claims at face value. They'll be even more likely to do so if they see those claims endorsed by another established poster (AngryFemme). I don't blame them for it, I could have made the same mistake in different circumstances.

quote:3. It's funny that you bring up that thread in B&M (where you supposedly raped me) since it was basically just you incessantly whining about my persona for the whole thread.

Nice try. One poster referred to my verbal assassination as "hardcore ownage", none save Paradise Lost criticised my posts, and you yourself said my words were cruel.

Magilla Gorilla's posts in that thread were certainly wining. But mine were razor sharp knives that carved your contrived mask to shreds.

quote: Why would you be so preoccupied with me, how I handle myself, and whether or not I have a sense of humor, is beyond me.

I've mocked and attacked you because you fucking pissed me off, is that so hard to understand? Though you flatter yourself thinking that I was ever preoccupied with *you*. I've only ever been focused on how you *behave*, partially because your cultivated image is a fraud, but mostly because you bully those who are less intelligent than you, and on the balance you have taken far more from totse than you have ever added to it.

Any spontaneous amicability on my part was because I always thought you reminded me of the old friend that I've mentioned. I never got an idea of what you're like as a person, but in retrospect the comparison may have been an insult to him. It definitely was an insult to his sense of humor at least, ha!

quote:Moreover, it ended with a silly comment about being high or drunk (which is your own special way of excusing your stupidity.

No, I said that the Sun was coming up, I'd been drinking whisky and smoking spliff while arguing with you solidly for hours, so I'd had enough and was going to sleep. In fact it *ended* with me saying to take it easy, and I don't hate you or anything you just act like a flaming bastard.

Being drunk, high, or stoned has seldomly been mentioned to explain my stupidity, and even then I have always proclaimed my foolishness as the main factor. The only two times I recall apologising for acting like an idiot when I was seriously shitfaced was after I called pillpig a narc in BLTC, and when I flamed Glitterpunk in S&A after confusing her with someone else, and both times I made it up to them later. But I have no problem accepting responsability after fucking up, since *I'm* the one to blame, not some chemical substance. And under normal circumstances I can hold my shit together remarkably well when I'm high/etc.

Hell I rarely posted on totse when I *wasn't* drunk, high, stoned, or some combination of the three. Last summer I even posted on totse a few times while I was tripping on mushrooms.

For that matter I was high and drunk when I wrote the previous stuff that I later posted as "fullcircle". I then smoked a joint before revising it, and in a stoned haze decided to make it less harsh than before, the first draft was more brutal. And I've been high the entire time writing this, how the fuck do you think I pump out these monster posts in one night?

I've always been open about my love of mind altering substances, but they have nothing to do with the merit of my arguments. Look up something called the "ad hominem fallacy", and pay attention this time.

quote: You can see the thread in Humanities for an example - a thread in which you still owe me a reply... do you only feel the need to updhold certain promises?)

Presumably you're referring to the thread on sexual selection.

I "owe" you a reply? Excuse me? At one point in the thread I promised to reply at a later date once I'd found a book that I wanted to quote from, and I kept my word about that. I never promised anything else though.

As for why I didn't continue the argument afterwards, it's because I lost interest. It would have been easy to carry on since your arguments were weaker than a moist Kleenex, but it's just no fun arguing with you.

You really want a reply? Here is the condensed version:

My source was an evolutionary psychologist, who got an undergrad degree from Columbia and PhD from Stanford in 1993, and I quoted passages from a book he wrote about sexual selection in 2000, "The Mating Mind".

Your sources were:

- No author specified. You quoted a passage from a website designed to teach high school teachers about evolution.

- An entomologist who got his PhD from the University of Kansas in 1957. You quoted a passage from a bird watchers guide that he co-wrote in 1988, "The Birders Handbook".

- A lecture handout

- A lecture handout

Of those four sources, only the last two are remotely respectable. But they remain irrelevant, as they are for biology students (see my first point below).

You were arguing against me because of two things I had said:

1) That sexual selection is generally treated as a minor aspect of evolution. Its lack of mainstream acceptance was supported by my quote from the book saying that despite its recent rediscovery sexual selection remains " hidden from most areas of psychology and the humanities, and largely unrecognized by the public".

2) That you were wrong about sexual selection when you said that you "consider it (rightfully so) an aspect of Natural Selection". However I quoted a passage from the same book showing it was Darwin's view that it is an autonomous process of at least as much importance as natural selection. This was also the very thesis of thesis of the book I cited from. You never defended why this point is incorrect, you just changed the subject to how it is taught currently in universities.

quote:and wanting to be friends, making this notion of you "raping" me pretty much hilarious.

When did I say I wanted to be friends?

I said I thought you were cool at first, though my opinion rapidly changed after seeing that you behave like an egotistical bully.

I said you *remind me* of a guy who is an old and very good friend of mine, though he wouldn't be pleased to hear it. But I never said I wanted to be friends with you.

In fact I find it strange that you even suggest it, you won't be surprised to hear that you're not the kind of person I socialise with based on how I've seen you post. I'd be curious what you're like shitface drunk on a night out, since that's the only way I can imagine you dropping all the fake egoistic bullshit and acting like a person, but I have yet to witness some kind of actual personality that you possess.

quote:As for the poster who "worshiped me" I assume you mean Paradise Lost, who participated in the thread in question. If that's who you are talking about, then I don't see what the problem was. I remember quite well that there was no problem between us, and that she explicitly stated such, after I asked her if what I said (which I don't recall that well) offended her since I didn't mean it that way. She replied that it did not.

Even if that happened privately, it has nothing to do with my point.

In that thread I gave you shit because you didn't even acknowledge her despite the fact that she stood up in your defense. When you replied you didn't even know who she was.

quote:Since you analyzed me then please allow me to do the same:

Finally, a personal point of view!

quote:The whole reason why you have your panties up in a bunch is because I offended you after you were under the impression that we were friends or on good terms. You even started defending me in B&M, and not because I had magically changed my evil ways - I hadn't - but probably because I hadn't offended you in some time.

I certainly was not under the impression that we were friends, nor that we were on good terms, simply that we had avoided contact whether intentionally or not since the B+M thread. However I *was* under the mistaken impression that you had changed. I even said as much in the B+M thread made by "book em dano" where I defended you, I said you *used* to have permanent PMS but that was back in the day.

And here is part of an email I sent Twisted_Ferret, which again can be verified by an admin if necessary:

quote:About a year ago I used to clash swords with him a lot, until things finally melted down in a B&M thread someone started about why he was such a cranky bitch. It was the mother of all flame wars, I was writing my posts in Word because they were so long that I was afraid of the computer crashing and losing a thousand words or so.

Ever since then we've kept our distance from each other, didn't even acknowledge each others posts until a few weeks back. Looks like we're back to the old animosities again, lol.

My opinion of him is that I respect his intellect a lot, but I despise his attitude.

quote: So when I attacked you in Humanities/My God... your precious feelings were hurt.

No, it pissed me off though.

quote:You now had the childish impulse of getting me back no matter what; even to the point of boasting in other threads about how you had 'kicked my ass'.

I did kick your ass. Repeatedly.

quote:But you felt disgusted that I had gotten to you so deeply that you decided to leave.

Wow... that's mind-blowingly egotistical even for *you*.

You honestly think that after being on totse a year and a half, despite the fact that I've only spoken to you in a dozen or so threads at most in that time, and those occasions consisted of arguing, that I spontaneously decided to leave because you argued with me now?

You need to turn down the narcissism dial a notch or twelve.

quote: It has nothing to do with your honor. Nobody had noticed that silly "promise" of yours (not even I) and more importantly, nobody was going to hold you up to it.

I know nobody mentioned it, and I expect nobody would have made an issue out of it.

That's why I brought the issue up *myself*.

Because the fact that I broke a promise mattered to *me*, not anyone else.

quote:You're an idealist

That is the only correct thing you said in your entire "analysis".

quote: who feels self-loathing any time you feel angry about something - although not immediately of course, only after the anger subsides enough.

I like the fact that you ended a third-rate attempt at analysis with a statement so ludicrously unfounded yet suspiciously particular.

How the fuck did you come up with that?

quote:Anyway, I can't imagine how anyone here can see you in a positive light after having proven yourself to be not only childish, but obsessed about me to such an extent that you're willing to plot a silly "prank" (which didn't even work) via e-mail, so I don't think you succeeded, but who knows.

You think that getting Ferret pretend to post as me is evidence of me being obsessed with you? My god, there's no end to your narcissism.

I was going to post that message myself (which took about 10 minutes to write), and while I was writing it I got the idea to involve Twisted Ferret. How much effort did that take on my behalf? It took more time and energy when I went and bought a pack of cigarettes a few hours ago.

And even if it had been planned from the start, it wouldn't have been an elaborate plan.

It is amusing that someone with such delusions of grandeur should be mod of a forum called Paranoid Delusions.

#296

2006-07-24, 07:27

fullcircle fullcircle is offline

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by AngryFemme:

I fail to see any humor in it, and believe me - I've tried.

You're under the mistaken assumption that it was supposed to be for your benefit.

quote:You've made it apparent that you harbour serious issues towards Rust

Serious issues? No.

He seriously pisses me off? Yes.

quote:Rust must have a sense of humor to reply to you in such a level-headed, matter-of-fact fashion

He must have a sense of humor... because he replied to me in a serious way. That makes no sense.

quote:just about anyone else would probably take offense - even be a little freaked out - at you putting forth so much time and effort trying to pick them apart.

So much effort?

The only effort I put into this thread has been for my posts as "fullcircle".

I'll show you a couple more examples of what I'm like when I make an effort:

1) In this very forum, have a look at my response to one of Digital Saviours threads: http://www.totse.com/bbs/Forum15/HTML/005167-2.html

It's a 2,500 word detailed analysis of her claim that the Bible accurately calculated Pi.

2) In the Humanities forum, have a look at my response to a thread Spockcarolla made about his schizophrenia and desire for alternative treatments: http://www.totse.com/bbs/Forum31/HTML/004142.html

It's a 4,000 word explanation of two alternative theories of schizophrenia, detailing the dysfunction at a neuronal level, explaining why one of the theories might explain his particular case based on the information he gave, and presenting a dozen research abstracts on the theory to give to his doctor since it's relatively unknown. I didn't even know the guy who made this thread. But when a poster who I like a lot joined the thread, and said they have a similar but different problem, I wrote another thousand words or so and researched a new set of research abstracts that would be useful to him.

3) In the S&A forum, go ask arquin how much I've written to him giving advice about the girl of his dreams. Again, I didn't know him before I started posting in one of his threads, but his story struck a chord with me and I don't even know how many thousand words I've written in his threads (advice which incidentally got him from friend, to friends with benefits, to relationship). Here is one example of such a thread, the first one isn't there anymore: http://www.totse.com/bbs/Forum4/HTML/020376.html

When I'm interested enough in a debate, or high enough, I put a lot of thought into it. Sometimes it's lengthy pieces of advice for people in S&A, sometimes it's explanations of the psychopharmacology of drugs or the functioning of the brain for peope in BLTC, but generally I have no idea who the poster is that I'm writing it to. For someone less intelligent and articulate (and with less of a predeliction for stimulants) posting at a similar level probably would require effort. But personally I don't make an effort very often.

quote:Anyone with an ounce of reading comprehension can clearly see that your professed loathing of him really translates into a kind of neurotic infatuation.

What a generic accusation.

If you had come up with something more original, it might have amused me. And if I had any idea who you are, I might have been insulted that you put so little thought into your criticism.

In fact CarbonB leveled exactly the same charge against me. Any regulars of the S&A forum, where I spent most of my time, will laugh at that notion. Anybody who doesn't know him, his photos are on the totse gallery http://www.ekahn.com/totsepics/thumbnails-4.html and he has a personality that matches his looks.

CarbonB is one of the top 3 posters who pissed me off on totse, the other two being Rust and The_Rabbi, in each case because I have no tolerance for people who shit on others simply to fuel their narcissistic needs. Here is an example of me flaming The_Rabbi by the way, not much different from the way I've flamed Rust, I just flamed The_Rabbi reguarly instead of flaming Rust intensely on 2 occasions. http://www.totse.com/bbs/Forum4/HTML/020327.html

I flamed CarbonB a hundred times more than I ever flamed Rust (apart from this thread and the B&M thread months ago I don't recall ever flaming him elsewhere, the rest of my encounters were arguing over some topic or other). Why? Because he acts like a douche. A serious fucking douche.

But just like I said to Rust, I don't hate him as a person, I just hate the way he acts. I don't hate *anyone* as a person for that matter, I think everyone has a good heart. I even told him as much too, here's a screenshot:

http://img80.imageshack.us/my.php?image=carbonb1mx4.png http://www.totse.com/bbs/Forum4/HTML/020405.html

And here's a screenshot of when he accused me of a similar infatuation, followed by my response:

http://img80.imageshack.us/img80/8962/carbonb2va2.png http://img206.imageshack.us/img206/1617/carbonb3it5.png http://www.totse.com/bbs/Forum4/HTML/021211.html

quote:And that's how you'll always be remembered: "that guy who had a severely unhealthy obsession with Rust".

Good God, that would be depressing if it were true of the posters that I like.

But since I have no idea who you are, and you've demonstrated a comparable understanding of who I am, your opinion of me isn't a big concern.

#297

2006-07-24, 10:03

Abrahim

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

While you're here do you want to give that mondo super duper rust remover reply that you had promised, you kept the promise that you would give up the account for the delay, but what is it you were going to say! I can't wait for the citrus smell!

#298

2006-07-24, 13:40

AngryFemme AngryFemme is offline

Moderator

Deep South

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by fullcircle:

But since I have no idea who you are, and you've demonstrated a comparable understanding of who I am, your opinion of me isn't a big concern.

If you aren't concerned, why did you feel the need to post a lengthy illustration of who you really are, by giving examples of your *exemplary* posting methods in other threads?

Then you accuse someone else of being a narcissist. That's funny. I change my mind... this is starting to become amusing, after all!

#299

2006-07-24, 14:13

fullcircle fullcircle is offline

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by AngryFemme:

If you aren't concerned, why did you feel the need to post a lengthy illustration of who you really are

I wrote my posts to refute your defamatory accusations, for the benefit of everyone who read them.

I wasn't making all that effort because of *you*, don't cry though.

quote: by giving examples of your *exemplary* posting methods in other threads?

Why thank you for the complement. But "exemplary" is not the way I described those examples myself, not just because "exemplary example" sounds weird.

You may recall claiming that the "amount of time and effort" I put into my previous posts was shocking. In reponse, I denied making any such effort, and cited examples of how I post when I *am* making an effort.

Let's have a wander down memory lane, to way back when I explained it to you earlier:

quote:Originally posted by fullcircle:

So much effort?

The only effort I put into this thread has been for my posts as "fullcircle".

I'll show you a couple more examples of what I'm like when I make an effort

Got any other questions I can answer by quoting myself? It makes responding so much easier for me.

#300

2006-07-24, 15:35

AngryFemme AngryFemme is offline

Moderator

Deep South

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

Well, there's the B&M thread too, alot of effort seemed to have placed there as well.

Color me interested, but I do have one more question ...

Why is it so important for everyone here to know how you feel about Rust? I just wondered what it meant to you, is all. I don't know him personally, so I certainly don't *cheerlead* for him - but just for the sake of satisfying an onlooker's curiosity - why does it matter so much?

Edit: Ditto, to what Abrahim requested. I too am curious to read that.

[This message has been edited by AngryFemme (edited 07-24-2006).]

#301

2006-07-24, 18:10

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by fullcircle:

There is also a china teapot in orbit around the Sun.

Thank you for setting the tone of your reply since the beginning: childishness.

quote:"That" thread of mine?

Not only am I unaware of which thread you are referring to, I am unaware of you ever "evidently" playing along with anything. Quote the instances to which you are referring and then I'll comment on them.

The thread in humanities. I'm sorry, I mistakenly called it "that thread of yours".

I made a joke after I had posted the picture of you, when I could just as easily decided to press the issue of you using multiple account harder if I actually believed that was the case.

quote:For my promise to be useless, it must have failed to live up to its intended goal. The goal was to give credibility to my post when I said I was working on a philosophically robust rebuttal in Abrahim's B+M thread.

Then it was useless, because it did fail in that regard. Or are you suggesting that a promise, which you yourself admitted nobody cared about, was somehow successful in giving your post some credibility?

Moreover, you did end up breaking both promises. You failed to post the password in SG.

quote:Presumably you're referring to the thread on sexual selection.

I "owe" you a reply? Excuse me? At one point in the thread I promised to reply at a later date once I'd found a book that I wanted to quote from, and I kept my word about that. I never promised anything else though.

As for why I didn't continue the argument afterwards, it's because I lost interest. It would have been easy to carry on since your arguments were weaker than a moist Kleenex, but it's just no fun arguing with you.

You really want a reply? Here is the condensed version:

My source was an evolutionary psychologist, who got an undergrad degree from Columbia and PhD from Stanford in 1993, and I quoted passages from a book he wrote about sexual selection in 2000, "The Mating Mind".

Your sources were:

- No author specified. You quoted a passage from a website designed to teach high school teachers about evolution.

- An entomologist who got his PhD from the University of Kansas in 1957. You quoted a passage from a bird watchers guide that he co-wrote in 1988, "The Birders Handbook".

- A lecture handout

- A lecture handout

Of those four sources, only the last two are remotely respectable. But they remain irrelevant, as they are for biology students (see my first point below).

You were arguing against me because of two things I had said:

1) That sexual selection is generally treated as a minor aspect of evolution. Its lack of mainstream acceptance was supported by my quote from the book saying that despite its recent rediscovery sexual selection remains " hidden from most areas of psychology and the humanities, and largely unrecognized by the public".

2) That you were wrong about sexual selection when you said that you "consider it (rightfully so) an aspect of Natural Selection". However I quoted a passage from the same book showing it was Darwin's view that it is an autonomous process of at least as much importance as natural selection. This was also the very thesis of thesis of the book I cited from. You never defended why this point is incorrect, you just changed the subject to how it is taught currently in universities.

1. I said you "owe" me the reply because you said that you were going to make it. Was I wrong in taking your word?

2. Deliberately underplaying my sources isn't going to make your point any more valid.

The sources:

a. Paul Ralph Ehrlich. The Bing Professor of Population Studies in the department of Biological Sciences at Stanford University.

His awards:

* The John Muir Award of the Sierra Club

* The Gold Medal Award of the World Wildlife Fund International

* A MacArthur Prize Fellowship

* The Crafoord Prize of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences

* ECI Prize winner in terrestrial ecology in 1993

* A World Ecology Award from the International Center for Tropical Ecology, University of Missouri in 1993

* The Volvo Environmental Prize in 1993

* The United Nations Sasakawa Environment Prize in 1994

* The Heinz Award for the Environment in 1995

* The Tyler Prize for Environmental Achievement in 1998

* The Dr. A. H. Heineken Prize for Environmental Sciences in 1998

* The Blue Planet Prize in 1999

* The Eminent Ecologist Award of the Ecological Society of America in 2001

* The Distinguished Scientist Award of the American Institute of Biological Sciences in 2001

b. Nicola S. Clayton

Professor of Comparative Cognition

Director of Studies in Natural Sciences (Biological) for Clare College (Cambridge).

c. Dr. Bruce Goldman

Professor, Physiology and Neurobiology

University of Connecticut

d. Dr. Kevin M. O'Neill, Department of Land Resources and Environmental Sciences

3. Where those statements come from is irrelevant. They could be written in toilet paper and found on the ground, and that would still not mean they are wrong. So unless you're suggesting that these professors are deliberately lying to their students, you have absolutely no point.

4. You're creating a strawman. I agreed through out the thread that it was less understood than the general definition of Natural Selection. What I was arguing against was the notion that it was currently being neglected in Academia. You've yet to prove otherwise.

5. I already dealt with your quote from Darwin. Like I said in the Sexual Selection thread itself, what Darwin said is ultimately irrelevant. I never said that Darwin agreed with what I said, and more importantly, the theory of evolution is much more than just what Darwin said.

So I don't need to defend myself against that quote, because Darwin doesn't govern how a term is defined now. If anyone was changing the subject, it was you; you were creating a strawman by claiming that somhow Darwin's belief refuted what I said when it

If this was that "rape" of yours, then you should be ashamed; I didn't feel a thing!

quote:When did I say I wanted to be friends?

You said it at the end of that thread in B&M after you made the usual comment of being drunk/high (after making a fool out of yourself of course). I even remember other posters commenting on the fact that the thread was you whining through all the thread, only to have it end that way.

quote:Even if that happened privately, it has nothing to do with my point.

In that thread I gave you shit because you didn't even acknowledge her despite the fact that she stood up in your defense. When you replied you didn't even know who she was.

Pray tell, how the fuck do you know who I know and who I don't? Please spare me your bullshit allegations.

I was quite aware of who she was; in fact, I liked her posts a lot. She posted mainly in Humanities and My God (not in Politics because she wasn't into politics that much) and she was quite apt at refuting the usual bullshit posted in those forums.

The fact that I didn't acknowledge her defense doesn't mean that I didn't know who she was. I suppose you should stupidly claim that I don't know who AngryFemme is because I haven't acknowledge her posts here...

quote:Finally, a personal point of view!

More childishness?

quote: However I *was* under the mistaken impression that you had changed. I even said as much in the B+M thread made by "book em dano" where I defended you, I said you *used* to have permanent PMS but that was back in the day.

Same shit. You got pissed because I didn't follow your friendly exchanges and feigned kindness.

quote:Wow... that's mind-blowingly egotistical even for *you*.

Sorry, but it's not my problem that you readily admit that I am among the top 3 people who "piss you off". It's not egotistical if it's the truth. You were pissed off and you were angry with yourself because it had gotten to you that much (that you had gotten pissed off so strongly).

quote:I did kick your ass. Repeatedly.

Even more childishness?

quote:You think that getting Ferret pretend to post as me is evidence of me being obsessed with you? My god, there's no end to your narcissism.

Again, it's not narcissism if it's the truth.

You not only planned a "prank" via-email on someone who posts on a message board, but you conversed about how that person made you feel more than once. You were also bothered with his mannerisms and supposed lack of humor. Hell, the fact that someone on the internet "pisses you off" alone is disturbing. What should we call that? An obsession. And it seems I'm not the only one who sees it that way.

quote:It is amusing that someone with such delusions of grandeur should be mod of a forum called Paranoid Delusions.

You've opened with childishness, and you've ended with childishness. Bravo!

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 07-24-2006).]

#302

2006-07-26, 00:29

fullcircle fullcircle is offline

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by Abrahim:

While you're here do you want to give that mondo super duper rust remover reply that you had promised, you kept the promise that you would give up the account for the delay, but what is it you were going to say! I can't wait for the citrus smell!

I wasn't going to bother finishing it since my promise was to either post it or get rid of my account. And as I said recently in this thread, I don't bother making an effort for something unless there's a good reason, I have a PhD in being a lazy motherfucker.

But since I think you're cool I'll to post it anyway. It should be finished by tomorrow night.

#303

2006-07-26, 00:30

Abrahim

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by fullcircle:

I wasn't going to bother finishing it since my promise was to either post it or get rid of my account. And as I said recently in this thread, I don't bother making an effort for something unless there's a good reason, I have a PhD in being a lazy motherfucker.

But since I think you're cool I'll to post it anyway. It should be finished by tomorrow night.

Thanks a million man!

If its not too much trouble http://messenger.msn.com

#304

2006-07-26, 01:28

fullcircle fullcircle is offline

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by AngryFemme:

Well, there's the B&M thread too, alot of effort seemed to have placed there as well.

Not really, I'm familiar with the philosophical reasons behind my arguments from lectures on epistemology I had last year and a basic grasp of Kant from personal reading. However expanding those arguments with explicit reference to the theories requires sitting down and laboring on it for a few hours.

quote:Color me interested, but I do have one more question ...

Why is it so important for everyone here to know how you feel about Rust? I just wondered what it meant to you, is all. I don't know him personally, so I certainly don't *cheerlead* for him - but just for the sake of satisfying an onlooker's curiosity - why does it matter so much?

At first I was going to just give the following answer:

I never intended for my exit music to be a tune about my opinion of Rust.

Originally I was going to just post my password in SG and exit stage left.

But then when Rust accused me of using multiple accounts I decided to post one last message to refute that, because I didn't want certain people's memories of me to be tainted by such an untruth.

And then it turned out that not only did nobody recognise my ploy, but it only seemed to reinforce Rust's accusations, and on top of that Abrahim became implicated. So instead of posting a short message to say it had been a joke, I decided to sit down and write a comprehensive explanation to conclusively settle the entire issue.

But I got a bit too fucked up while I was writing it, and while I meant 100% of what I said, I went into more detail than necessary and essentially rehashed the B&M thread where I owned him months ago.

However

I prepared that response in my head yesterday after logging on briefly to check this thread. But today when I was thinking about it again, I started thinking about it from another angle - why *does* Rust piss me off so much?

This is a valid question. Because seriously he *pisses* *me* *off*, but I realised how odd that is considering that I don't even know him.

So I genuinely tried to figure out what it is.

Pretty much, he represents a lot of the things I find most contemptable about human nature. I remember saying something similar in the B&M thread when Paradise Lost asked me a similar question, there was something else about how he exemplifies the obstacles that are holding back our species from living in a much better world. As I have already said, I am an idealist, and I passionately want our descendents to overcome the petty ego games which have held us back from achieving utopia. And I am equally passionate about my hatred of the self-serving mentalities that whisper fuck over your brothers and sisters man, youve gotta get yours.

Basically my hatred of Rust isnt a hatred of *Rust*, its a hatred of everything he represents to me. How could it be anything more personal, since he has never displayed a personality on totse? All Ive seen is a persona that epitomises ego, and ego is *not* the source of humanity, humanity comes from the soul. To be human is to feel, not to think.

#305

2006-07-26, 02:06

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

Does anyone else find it immensely amusing that he dares accuse someone else of epitomizing "ego" when he has essentially littered totse with his ego-caressing remarks?

He claims that he is capable of "boning" others, he goes around boasting of having "owned" other people, and he so callously (and egotistically) compares one of his posts to "raping" someone else. Apparently, the idealism that makes him want humanity 'to overcome the petty ego games which have held us back from achieving utopia', goes right out the window when he feels the need to boast about his (alleged) "ownage".

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 07-26-2006).]

#306

2006-07-26, 02:34

AngryFemme AngryFemme is offline

Moderator

Deep South

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by fullcircle:

seriously he *pisses* *me* *off*, but I realised how odd that is considering that I don't even know him.

You should recognize that that is indeed your ego that causes you to get so pissed at Rust for not being the feeling, caring, warmfuzzy person you think he has the potential to be. You let him disappoint you. Your ego can't take it that he won't bond with you, or act sensitive like you do. Therefore you lash out at him.

quote:All Ive seen is a persona that epitomises ego, and ego is *not* the source of humanity, humanity comes from the soul. To be human is to feel, not to think.

That's all we've seen from your personna! You orchestrate your "exit", you create ploys, and calculate drama centered around yourself ... is that not a bit egotistical? You made a spectacle out of what could have been a well thought-out parting, and managed to center Abrahim's thread around all this you have concocted.

quote: To be human is to feel, not to think.

But it's not always good to just let your feelings (ego) think FOR you. Sometimes you have to not wear your emotions on your sleeve. Appreciate Rust for who he is, not who your ego romanticizes him to be.

I stand firm by the statement that I am not *cheerleading* for Rust. A rhesus monkey on crack could recognize that it is your ego at work here - not his.

#307

2006-07-26, 05:20

fullcircle fullcircle is offline

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

Thank you for setting the tone of your reply since the beginning: childishness.

No. Thank YOU for opening the post with an illustration of your superficial knowledge of philosophy, as well as offering an example of how you label anything I say as childish when you dont understand it or cant refute it.

"There is also a china teapot in orbit around the Sun" refers to an analogy made by Bertrand Russell, known as "Russell's teapot".

quote: Bertrand Russell:

If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense.

Need me to explain the joke for you? Need me to explain who Bertrand Russell is?

Is water wet?

quote:The thread in humanities. I'm sorry, I mistakenly called it "that thread of yours".

I made a joke after I had posted the picture of you, when I could just as easily decided to press the issue of you using multiple account harder if I actually believed that was the case.

Aha. So you *were* making a joke then? That's what I had thought at first, that you *had* in fact understood I was playing around.

Then explain why you said the exact opposite in this thread:

quote: Originally posted by Rust:

You'll see that imperfectcircle finally admits that he's Deep_Anger after having praised himself by using another account through out the whole thread.

He was caught red-handed using another account in the same thread Deep_Anger (i.e. imperfectcircle) was allegedly coming clean about having used multiple accounts in the past.

That's what they call a "glaring contradiction".

quote:Then it was useless, because it did fail in that regard. Or are you suggesting that a promise, which you yourself admitted nobody cared about, was somehow successful in giving your post some credibility?

If you insist on claiming it was useless, and you've implicitly accepted my definition of its intended use, you have to support your claim by proving that the majority of people who read it did not believe I was sincere in saying that I would write a rebuttal at a later point in time.

Ugh... this is an example of why it's so tiresome and boring to debate with you. What's the purpose of arguing this particular issue? You cannot realistically prove that it was useless, and I cannot realistically prove that it served its purpose, since neither of us could conceivably take a survey of people's responses.

This is an intractable disagreement, and since it's not even an interesting or important point most people wouldn't bother making an issue out of it. But it's exactly the kind of tactic you use in an argument, you focus on tiny inconsequential details one after the other, I don't know why you do it but if it's to wear your opponent down it's very effective.

Who gives a shit about whether my promise was "useful" according to my definition or not? What significance does this have?

It has no significance, which is the point. Its a very subtle strategy that Ive seen you use regularly. When you make a line of argument that is successfully refuted, you rarely concede the point. Instead you resume the issue, but focus on another aspect of what your opponent said, typically something semantic about the way they phrased their statement rather than its meaning. And you can repeat the process if youre refuted once again.

On the surface it appears to be a continuous argument, which is why most people think they are solid arguments; and at the same time most opponents will give up, either because it looks as if you keep attacking anything they say, or they just give up because youre willing to keep arguing the point until the end of time. As a strategy, I must admit its very effective, its the linguistic equivalent of krav maga. But dirty tactics should only be used in desperate situations, not as standard.

Im willing to bet that a *lot* of people read what Im saying and realised that I just articulated something they observed too, but just felt something was sketchy about your debating style although they werent sure what it is. Ill use this thread as a perfect example.

At first, you said this:

quote:He was caught red-handed using another account in the same thread Deep_Anger (i.e. imperfectcircle) was allegedly coming clean about having used multiple accounts in the past.

Like I said, it's obvious he's not opposed to creating other accounts, making his "fulfillment" of this idiotic promise of his completely meaningless.

You called my promise meaningless because I was using multiple accounts.

Then I proved you were wrong, because I have never used multiple accounts.

So you pretended your argument had been about something else, when you said this:

quote:The reason why I brought it up here was to emphasize the uselessness of fulfilling this "promise" of yours. You can make new accounts whenever you wish making your "promise" ultimately trivial

Now you pretended my promise was useless because I could create another account.

Then I explained why your objection was bullshit, because nobody who has used the same account for over a year would say its meaningless to lose that account.

So you pretended your argument had been about something else, when you said this:

quote:Then it was useless, because it did fail in that regard. Or are you suggesting that a promise, which you yourself admitted nobody cared about, was somehow successful in giving your post some credibility?

Now you are pretending that my promise was useless because it didnt lend credibility to my claim that I genuinely intended to post a philosophically detailed rebuttal later on.

Its like the scam where street hustlers shuffle three shells around and you have to guess which one has the pea under it, but theyve actually removed the pea so its impossible for you to win. He keeps pretending that his objection is about something else, until you just give up, but on the surface it looks like he was arguing fairly.

quote:Moreover, you did end up breaking both promises. You failed to post the password in SG.

Only the most petty and pedantic person would claim that I failed to keep my promise when the fact of the matter is that I no longer have access to my account. Are you saying I didnt fulfil the meaning of my promise just because I didnt literally post the password in SG?

It's out of my hands now, I can't access my old account even if I want to. I didn't want to potentially cause problems for Ferret by making my imperfectcircle profile have the same email address as his in case you went crying to the admins, so I changed my email address to a disposable hushmail account that I was going to give him access to when I was ready to say goodbye to the account.

But the password never arrived in the inbox, I've used totse's "forgotten your password?" form twice but the inbox remains empty. I even created a random account to make sure I hadn't mistyped the email address before, the account is called circularimperfection, same address, and the password never arrived there either.

You can check for yourself, as a mod I presume you can see the email address registered for imperfectcircle. The address is auto474635@hushmail.com and you can have the password, I created the account simply for transferring imperfectcircle.

quote:1. I said you "owe" me the reply because you said that you were going to make it. Was I wrong in taking your word?

I didn't give my word, I said I'd explain in the next 24 hours when I had nothing better to do. Turned out I had better stuff to do.

quote:2. Deliberately underplaying my sources isn't going to make your point any more valid.

On the contrary, your sources were so lacking in value that you never had a valid point in the first place.

quote:

a. Paul Ralph Ehrlich. The Bing Professor of Population Studies in the department of Biological Sciences at Stanford University.

His awards:

* The John Muir Award of the Sierra Club

* The Gold Medal Award of the World Wildlife Fund International

* A MacArthur Prize Fellowship

* The Crafoord Prize of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences

* ECI Prize winner in terrestrial ecology in 1993

* A World Ecology Award from the International Center for Tropical Ecology, University of Missouri in 1993

* The Volvo Environmental Prize in 1993

* The United Nations Sasakawa Environment Prize in 1994

* The Heinz Award for the Environment in 1995

* The Tyler Prize for Environmental Achievement in 1998

* The Dr. A. H. Heineken Prize for Environmental Sciences in 1998

* The Blue Planet Prize in 1999

* The Eminent Ecologist Award of the Ecological Society of America in 2001

* The Distinguished Scientist Award of the American Institute of Biological Sciences in 2001

I never contested his achievements outside of evolutionary biology. They have nothing to do with the following problems:

1) You quoted a tiny little one page note about sexual selection from a book that has nothing to do with the subject

2) That book was a fucking *bird watchers guide*

3) The book was written in 18 years ago in 1988, but sexual selection only *started* getting taken seriously in the 80s, and only became properly established in the last decade.

quote:

b. Nicola S. Clayton

Professor of Comparative Cognition

Director of Studies in Natural Sciences (Biological) for Clare College (Cambridge).

c. Dr. Bruce Goldman

Professor, Physiology and Neurobiology

University of Connecticut

d. Dr. Kevin M. O'Neill, Department of Land Resources and Environmental Sciences

Who these people are has *nothing* to do with anything I said. You are playing the shell game again.

They are all biology professors, and I never said that sexual selection is neglected in university biology teaching. I said it is neglected in the mainstream, which you have not so much as commented on. In fact, *you* are the only person who ever brought up the idea that it is neglected in modern day biology, I never said otherwise. Ive pointed this out to you twice already, in the original thread *and* in this one:

quote:Originally posted by imperfectcircle:

No, you said that it's what YOU believe: "Sexual Selection, is a specific aspect of the greater concept we call Natural Selection."

quote:Originally posted by fullcircle:

2) That you were wrong about sexual selection when you said that you "consider it (rightfully so) an aspect of Natural Selection". However I quoted a passage from the same book showing it was Darwin's view that it is an autonomous process of at least as much importance as natural selection. This was also the very thesis of thesis of the book I cited from. You never defended why this point is incorrect, you just changed the subject to how it is taught currently in universities.

You might have missed me saying it the first time, but its very unlikely that you missed me saying it twice. So I suspect you conveniently ignored it, and kept repeating an objection that I never made in the first place so that youd appear credible to other posters.

quote:3. Where those statements come from is irrelevant. They could be written in toilet paper and found on the ground, and that would still not mean they are wrong. So unless you're suggesting that these professors are deliberately lying to their students, you have absolutely no point.

What a ludicrous thing to say! If those statements were written in toilet paper and found on the ground they would not prove *you* are right, yet youre using them as evidence for your argument.

Where those statements come from is *absolutely* relevant, because a minimum of one other poster took them at face value as supporting your case, obviously because they did not give them much inspection.

I made two points that you had to respond to: that sexual selection is a distinct process from natural selection, and that sexual selection is neglected by the mainstream outside of biology.

One source is not only 20 years old, but was written at a time when the theory *was* neglected by the mainstream even within biology. And the other sources are not from the mainstream outside of biology.

If those biology professors described sexual selection as a type of natural selection, it has nothing to do with either of my points. You have simply conjoined the two and distorted them, then pretended its what I said. To prove that sexual selection is *not* a distinct process from natural selection, give an argument for why that is the case. Because Darwin gave solid arguments for why it *is* a distinct process, and they have never been refuted, they were just ignored because academics preferred the idea that sexual selection is a part of natural selection even though nobody ever presented a reason why. The fact that some modern day academics still hold the same position is not an argument.

The thing is, you cant respond to either of my points honestly because no evidence to the contrary exists. Thats why you have to pretend my points were talking about something else, otherwise youd have nothing to say.

quote:4. You're creating a strawman. I agreed through out the thread that it was less understood than the general definition of Natural Selection. What I was arguing against was the notion that it was currently being neglected in Academia. You've yet to prove otherwise.

You were arguing against that? Then why were you the one who suggested it, and I never said such a thing?

Heres your own words, which Ive already quoted in this post:

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

Or are you suggesting that Sexual Selection is treated as trivial in academia or the current scientific community?

quote:5. I already dealt with your quote from Darwin. Like I said in the Sexual Selection thread itself, what Darwin said is ultimately irrelevant. I never said that Darwin agreed with what I said, and more importantly, the theory of evolution is much more than just what Darwin said.

If what Darwin said is irrelevant, explain why. And if the theory of evolution is much more than just what he said, explain why. They are very big claims, so justify them.

quote:So I don't need to defend myself against that quote, because Darwin doesn't govern how a term is defined now. If anyone was changing the subject, it was you; you were creating a strawman by claiming that somhow Darwin's belief refuted what I said when it

You still havent given any reasons for why Darwins arguments are flawed.

And you did contradict Darwin when you said that sexual selection is rightfully so an aspect of natural selection, so how was I being misleading exactly?

quote:If this was that "rape" of yours, then you should be ashamed; I didn't feel a thing!

Not my fault you have a twelve gauge asshole.

quote:You said it at the end of that thread in B&M

Didnt happen.

quote:after you made the usual comment of being drunk/high

Happened.

quote:(after making a fool out of yourself of course).

Your opinion.

quote: I even remember other posters commenting on the fact that the thread was you whining through all the thread, only to have it end that way.

Didnt happen.

What happened at the end of the thread was that I called it a night, then said that you should take it easy and that I dont hate you etc, and said some cheerful shit to end on a positive note. Partly it was to fuck with your head because immediately prior to that wed been in full flame battle, partly it was because I had no more anger left to burn and in any case I dont hate you personally.

The next day I read three comments that were made after I had left. The first one was you saying WTF just happened?, next someone said they didnt know either, and the last was Paradise Lost saying something to the effect of Yay, a happy ending after all that negativity.

quote:Pray tell, how the fuck do you know who I know and who I don't?

Its not rocket science, when I berated you for not even acknowledging Paradise Lost you called her a *him*, and said I was pathetic for resorting to a comment about your response to what he or anybody else happens to say about you. Only after I berated you even more harshly for being so heartless towards a *15 year old girl*, who clearly admired you, did you address her directly. Of course she said it was no big deal, but for fucks sake have you never even gone out with a girl or something? In any case she stopped flaming me in your defense.

I felt guilty for playing that card, because I *knew* damn well you probably wouldnt have a clue who she was, I had even told her as much previously. She had made a thread in HB about you being her hero for defending her in some My God/Humanities thread because youd started attacking someone who had been flaming her. I posted in her thread that I doubted you had intended to defend her, you just attacked the guy because he seemed fair game. She didnt believe me though.

I didnt dislike her, but in the B+M thread she was constantly posting against me and I didnt have the energy to keep arguing on two fronts the whole time, so I had to get rid of her the only way I could think of. She stopped posting in the thread right after your response to my barb made it overwhelmingly obvious that you had no idea who she was. I felt guilty straight away though, because it wasnt worth it.

You disappeared from totse when the server melted down Paradise Lost, but I strongly suspect you just started fresh with a new account since you always expressed regret at letting people know you were a girl. If you happen to be reading this, Im sorry about that.

quote:Sorry, but it's not my problem that you readily admit that I am among the top 3 people who "piss you off". It's not egotistical if it's the truth.

No, its not your problem that you piss me off.

But the fact that you piss me off so much doesnt mean your opinion of me is *more* likely to matter, it means its *less* likely to matter.

And the fact that you piss me off so much doesnt mean Im *more* likely to be deeply affected by fighting with you, it means Im *less* likely to be affected.

So when you claimed I wanted to leave totse as a result of fighting with you, the fact that you piss me off so much is not an explanation. The only other conceivable reason would be that the fighting affected me because of how *important you are*. And *that* is egotistical.

Which argument were you referring to by the way? Because the only recent ones I can remember involved me not only beating you, but demonstrating that you had no idea what you were talking about.

quote:You were pissed off and you were angry with yourself because it had gotten to you that much (that you had gotten pissed off so strongly).

So youre saying that:

I was very angry with myself because I had gotten very angry with you.

What possible reason would cause me to feel that way? Either I would need to have a deep psychological aversion to anger, or else have an aversion getting angry with *you*.

Obviously I have no qualms about losing my temper, so that leaves the other alternative.

But what would explain having an aversion to getting angry with *you*, unless you were someone fantastically special and important? Again, *that* is egotistical.

Im chilled out 90% of the time, but I have a godawful temper and I dont have much control over it. Even still, its impossible to experience full on anger sitting in front of a computer screen, you certainly do piss me off but if you want to find out what its like when Im *really* angry first youd have to visit Dublin and second youd have to push me very far.

quote:You not only planned a "prank" via-email on someone who posts on a message board

Planning a prank via email is evidence of obsession?

If it been a sophisticated prank that required extensive planning and preparation, then it might have supported such a charge, though frankly itd be more a sign that someone has too much spare time on their hands.

However I already demonstrated how trivial it was to organise. I emailed the suggestion to Ferret, he replied to double check the instructions, and I replied to give the go ahead. After that the dialogue consisted of us laughing our asses off about it, and one suggestion about what he should post after deleting the original message. Sounds like a genius fucking masterplan, huh?

As I have demonstrated in this thread already, I have put astronomically more effort into posts for other totse members on a number of occasions when I didnt even *know who they were*.

quote:but you conversed about how that person made you feel more than once.

The only relevant time you could be referring to was the quote I posted from one of my emails to Ferret, saying that I thought you had changed, but now you were pissing me off again.

I was replying to an email *he* sent *me*, saying he had noticed I was debating with you, and asked me what my opinion of you was. As usual this can be verified by an admin if you want to be childish about it, and Ferret will tell you that its the truth as well.

And as I told CarbonB, dont flatter yourself.

quote: You were also bothered with his mannerisms and supposed lack of humor.

I was bothered by his *shitty attitude*. As for his lack of humor, it was only ever a source of amusement and bewilderment.

Btw, do you regularly talk about yourself in the third person?

quote:Hell, the fact that someone on the internet "pisses you off" alone is disturbing.

LOL! I see youre new to the intarwebs.

And a number of people on the internet piss me off, while I really like a number of people on the internet. In fact if anyone who spent much time on totse claimed that *nobody* either pisses them off or is liked a lot by them, Id wonder if they were a psychopath.

quote: What should we call that? An obsession.

No, thats what *I* call yet another very weak attempt to justify your wish, to believe that someone is obsessed with you.

You keep trying to prove that Im obsessed with you, even though Ive repeatedly refuted your irrational fantasy, and whats more Ive laughed at the idea.

How could I conceivably be OBSESSED with someone I have shown to be intellectually inferior, quite possibly emotionally retarded judging by their grasp of humor, who as far as I know seems to lack a human personality, and who Ive only ever had contact with through the exchange of written words on an internet discussion forum?

Why are you trying so hard to argue that I'm obsessed with you? Are you that lonely? Wish for at least someone who is obsessed about you, to replace a lack of friends? It would explain why you pretended I ever wanted to be friends with you.

Maybe youre so desperate to believe it because youre not getting pussy and kisses in real life, and crave some form of personal attention? Though since I'm a guy that would mean you're not getting wang and kisses in real life, personally I'm straight but you can be as gay as Christmas I don't give a shit.

But for fuck's sake, find someone else to paint your delusions onto. Theres probably someone just right for you in that forum you moderate.

#308

2006-07-26, 05:48

fullcircle fullcircle is offline

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by AngryFemme:

You should recognize that that is indeed your ego that causes you to get so pissed at Rust for not being the feeling, caring, warmfuzzy person you think he has the potential to be.

I'd ask if you even *read* my post, but since it wasn't very long I'll assume you just didn't process it.

quote:You let him disappoint you. Your ego can't take it that he won't bond with you, or act sensitive like you do. Therefore you lash out at him.

I see now, suddenly it all becomes clear.

If this attempt to explain my mental processes was any less simplistic and amateurish I'd mock you, but after your cringeworthy attempt to interpret my posts any further insults to your intelligence would be redundant.

Here's an idea to save us a bit of typing: you can reply to this with a quote from one of your Dr Phil books, and I'll quote this post back to you, repeat ad infinitum.

quote:That's all we've seen from your personna!

I haven't fabricated a persona on totse, I've just been myself. Maybe you should look up the meaning of "persona"? I'll save you a few days of confused searching in the dictionary, it's spelled with only one "n".

quote:You orchestrate your "exit", you create ploys, and calculate drama centered around yourself ... is that not a bit egotistical? You made a spectacle out of what could have been a well thought-out parting, and managed to center Abrahim's thread around all this you have concocted.

quote:Originally posted by fullcircle:

I'd ask if you even *read* my post, but since it wasn't very long I'll assume you just didn't process it.

quote:Originally posted by fullcircle:

Got any other questions I can answer by quoting myself? It makes responding so much easier for me.

quote: But it's not always good to just let your feelings (ego) think FOR you. Sometimes you have to not wear your emotions on your sleeve. Appreciate Rust for who he is, not who your ego romanticizes him to be.

Christ, how fucking stupid are you?

Feelings are not the same as ego, never mind the fact that anyone with a 4th grade reading level would have understood I explained that in my last post, but it's not even a complicated concept.

As for the rest:

quote:Originally posted by fullcircle:

Basically my hatred of Rust isnt a hatred of *Rust*, its a hatred of everything he represents to me. How could it be anything more personal, since he has never displayed a personality on totse?

quote:Originally posted by fullcircle:

Got any other questions I can answer by quoting myself? It makes responding so much easier for me.

#309

2006-07-26, 06:12

fullcircle fullcircle is offline

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

Does anyone else find it immensely amusing that he dares accuse someone else of epitomizing "ego" when he has essentially littered totse with his ego-caressing remarks?

Ego caressing remarks? I don't make ego caressing remarks. If you want to understand the words I use, look them up in more detail instead of ignorantly applying their popular connotations.

I'm not egotistical, I'm *cocky*. And you'd be fucking cocky if you were me too.

You want to hear the reasons why? The reasons are shit I never bring up, because I don't boast.

But here's what I'm like being *egotistical*: I can guarantee you that my IQ is higher than yours, based on statistics, though also based on the intellectual content of your posts. I can also guarantee you that my dick is bigger than yours, based on statistics. And even though I have no idea what you look like, I'm probably better looking than you too. And those are just the *physical* aspects about me that make me cocky.

I predict AngryFemme will make a dumb fucking comment about how this is proof that I'm egotistical, etc, yawn. Don't bother, you'll just embarrass yourself again.

#310

2006-07-26, 06:56

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by fullcircle:

No. Thank YOU for opening the post with an illustration of your superficial knowledge of philosophy, as well as offering an example of how you label anything I say as childish when you dont understand it or cant refute it

What part of what I said suggested that I didn't know where the analogy came from? Absolutely none.

I know where analogy comes from, which is why I know that it is ultimately an insult. In case you didn't know, Russell suggests that it is ridiculous to believe that a teapot orbits around the Sun, which you equate to believing that I have a sense of humor. Thus, to say that "There is also a china teapot in orbit around the Sun" in reply to me saying that I have a sense of humor, is a childish insult.

Thanks for this sad attempt at a reply; it only showed how you have absolutely no aversion to using logical fallacies which ends up being an endless source of amusement as you dare quote Bertrand Russell in the same breath you use them.

quote:Aha. So you *were* making a joke then? That's what I had thought at first, that you *had* in fact understood I was playing around.

Then explain why you said the exact opposite in this thread:

That's what they call a "glaring contradiction".

That's not a contradiction. I said I made a joke, which I did. I also said that I didn't really give a shit if you actually were using two accounts or not, which is why I made a joke and didn't press the issue. I didn't say that I held any position one way or another, just that I didn't give a shit one way or another. I later linked to that thread in humanities in here in order to point out that you might have done so. There is no contradiction, just a glaring lack of reading comprehension on your part.

quote:Ugh... this is an example of why it's so tiresome and boring to debate with you. What's the purpose of arguing this particular issue? You cannot realistically prove that it was useless, and I cannot realistically prove that it served its purpose, since neither of us could conceivably take a survey of people's responses.

If you don't like this sort of discussion, them you shouldn't have started it with a reply about how your promise was useful in that it gave credibility to your claim. I never questioned that possible "use".

When I used the word "useless" I was obviously referring to the meaningless act of carrying out the promise. Since you can create another account, it is meaningless or "useless" to me.

quote:Its like the scam where street hustlers shuffle three shells around and you have to guess which one has the pea under it, but theyve actually removed the pea so its impossible for you to win. He keeps pretending that his objection is about something else, until you just give up, but on the surface it looks like he was arguing fairly.

There is no scam, just your inability to to follow what I meant.

1. I made the statement suggesting that you had used multiple accounts, because there was evidence suggesting that you had. Whether you actually had or not was unimportant to me since the point was valid nonetheless.

2. Since you then started claiming that you hadn't, I pointed out that even if you truly had not used multiple accounts, the possibility alone - now tangible by the "evidence" there was - would be worth mentioning. The possibility of you making an another account still makes your "promise" meaningless.

That you consider your username meaningful doesn't change this opinion of mine, because I don't, and I don't quite trust that you do either. A username is meaningless to me.

3. I only mentioned that it might not have gave credibility to your claim because you said that it did first in the same thread where you suggest that nobody took your promise seriously.

quote:Only the most petty and pedantic person would claim that I failed to keep my promise when the fact of the matter is that I no longer have access to my account. Are you saying I didnt fulfil the meaning of my promise just because I didnt literally post the password in SG?

Again, I don't give a shit about your promise. I was merely pointing out a fact, which it undoubtedly is a fact.

quote:I didn't give my word, I said I'd explain in the next 24 hours when I had nothing better to do. Turned out I had better stuff to do.

This isn't petty and pedantic? You said that you would post a reply. Was I wrong in taking that as a implicit promise that you would?

quote:On the contrary, your sources were so lacking in value that you never had a valid point in the first place.

So you're suggesting that the numerous professors I've provided are have less value than your lonely professor? How ridiculous.

quote:I never contested his achievements outside of evolutionary biology. They have nothing to do with the following problems:

1) You quoted a tiny little one page note about sexual selection from a book that has nothing to do with the subject

2) That book was a fucking *bird watchers guide*

3) The book was written in 18 years ago in 1988, but sexual selection only *started* getting taken seriously in the 80s, and only became properly established in the last decade.

1. His achievements are not outside of evolutionary biology, at least not all of them.

2. Like I said, whether it was in a bird watchers guide or not is irrelevant. It could be written in the ground or tattooed on somebody's asshole. The fact of the matter is that simply because it is in a bird watchers guide doesn't mean that the information is wrong. Again I ask, you dare quote Bertrand Russell when you use that piss-poor logic of yours?

3. Only knowledge of what Sexual Selection entails is what is needed in order to define what it is. That had been known for decades; long before 1988. The date is irrelevant.

quote:They are all biology professors, and I never said that sexual selection is neglected in university biology teaching. I said it is neglected in the mainstream, which you have not so much as commented on. In fact, *you* are the only person who ever brought up the idea that it is neglected in modern day biology, I never said otherwise. Ive pointed this out to you twice already, in the original thread *and* in this one:

1. The fact that they are biology professors already shows that Sexual Selection is defined as an aspect of Natural Selection, which was my main argument.

2. I did in fact comment on Sexual Selection in the mainstream. In fact, I said that I agreed that the mainstream audience understands the general definition of Natural Selection, more than they do the definition of specific aspects of Natural Selection, like Sexual Selection:

"The same could be said for many other scientific concepts. It's not that they are neglected per se, but that they are not crucial to teach in the curriculum basic High School courses.

Understanding the concept of Natural Selection is absolutely crucial to understanding evolution, understanding Sexual Selection is not."

The fact is that I have manage to substantiate my claim that Sexual Selection is defined as an aspect of Natural Selection.

quote:What a ludicrous thing to say! If those statements were written in toilet paper and found on the ground they would not prove *you* are right, yet youre using them as evidence for your argument.

Where those statements come from is *absolutely* relevant, because a minimum of one other poster took them at face value as supporting your case, obviously because they did not give them much inspection.

There is a humongous difference between examining where they come from to get credibility (or a lack of it) from the text, and actually dismissing what is said as untrue as you are doing.

Like I said, unless you are suggesting that these Professors are deliberately lying to their students, then where they come from doesn't change the validity of the statements made.

quote:I made two points that you had to respond to: that sexual selection is a distinct process from natural selection, and that sexual selection is neglected by the mainstream outside of biology.

I did respond to those points.

1. I responded in agreement that sexual selection was not as known in the mainstream as Natural Selection, thought stating that it did not necessarily mean a "neglect":

"The same could be said for many other scientific concepts. It's not that they are neglected per se, but that they are not crucial to teach in the curriculum basic High School courses.

Understanding the concept of Natural Selection is absolutely crucial to understanding evolution, understanding Sexual Selection is not."

2. I provided evidence supporting the claim that Sexual Selection is considered an aspect of Natural Selection;, thus not a "distinct process". Sexual Selection is still Natural Selection at work.

quote:You were arguing against that? Then why were you the one who suggested it, and I never said such a thing?

If you actually bothered reading the thread, and not taking things out of context, you would know why.

You said, "The point isn't that sexual selection isn't taught in classrooms, the point is that sexual selection is still treated as an almost trivial aspect of evolution."

I responded by saying that while it might me treated trivially in High school, it isn't treated that way in Academia. By doing so, I'm agreeing that it is treated that way in certain venues, but not others. That's where Academia came into play.

quote:If what Darwin said is irrelevant, explain why. And if the theory of evolution is much more than just what he said, explain why. They are very big claims, so justify them.

I'm not here to do your homework for you. You made the appeal to authority by citing Darwin as a refutation of what I had said. Prove that what Darwin said in the past must be how a concept is defined now or shut up.

quote:ou still havent given any reasons for why Darwins arguments are flawed.

And you did contradict Darwin when you said that sexual selection is rightfully so an aspect of natural selection, so how was I being misleading exactly?

You're being misleading by making Darwin the ruler of the theory of evolution. You are suggesting that how the scientific community defines a particular concept cannot change from what Darwin said. Prove that. If you fail to do so, and admit that it can definitely change, then what Darwin says refutes nothing.

quote:Not my fault you have a twelve gauge asshole.

Childish as always.

quote:Didnt happen....Happened....Your opinion. [...]

I'm not going to bother with this bullshit.

You and I have very different recollections of what happened because I remember you saying something to that effect. I also don't remember confusing Paradise Lost with a "him" (which only proves that I wasn't familiar with her gender, if that was indeed the case, and not that I wasn't familiar with her as a poster on totse).

If you happen to have that thread saved, the by all means post it. If you don't, then this only serves to highlight the irony of your previous complaints about "intractable disagreements".

quote:So when you claimed I wanted to leave totse as a result of fighting with you, the fact that you piss me off so much is not an explanation. The only other conceivable reason would be that the fighting affected me because of how *important you are*. And *that* is egotistical.

It is an explanation if you, like any sane person would, consider "being pissed off by" related to "being affected by". Or do you not consider the fact that what I say/do causes those feelings in you to mean that what I say/do "affects" you...

quote:What possible reason would cause me to feel that way? Either I would need to have a deep psychological aversion to anger, or else have an aversion getting angry with *you*.

Obviously I have no qualms about losing my temper, so that leaves the other alternative.

It's not just "losing your temper" but losing it in such a manner that you actually end up feeling "hatred" for someone. That's what I meant. You've said numerous times that "hatred" isn't justified, hence my observation.

quote:Planning a prank via email is evidence of obsession?

It's part of it yes. I'm not claiming that it was elaborate. Even a trivially set up prank suggests an obsession when coupled with the rest of the evidence.

quote:I was bothered by his *shitty attitude*. As for his lack of humor, it was only ever a source of amusement and bewilderment.

The point still stands.

quote:

Btw, do you regularly talk about yourself in the third person?

I was doing so to prevent you from jumping to the idiotic conclusion that I'm an egomaniac; since you've prove you have no aversion to logical fallacies, I'm trying to prevent you being an idiot all by yourself. I was making this apply to anyone, because it would apply to anyone if you had demonstrated the same level of obsessive behavior.

quote:LOL! I see youre new to the intarwebs.

And a number of people on the internet piss me off, while I really like a number of people on the internet. In fact if anyone who spent much time on totse claimed that *nobody* either pisses them off or is liked a lot by them, Id wonder if they were a psychopath

Then by all means, call my a psychopath by that piss-poor psychological analysis. I don't get "pissed off" by what someone on the Internet says. At worse, I'd get annoyed; but pissed off? Not really; their opinions of me are ultimately meaningless.

quote:No, thats what *I* call yet another very weak attempt to justify your wish, to believe that someone is obsessed with you.

I'm not trying to justify anything. I'm trying to point out how it looks.

Being pissed off by someone on totse to the level that you plan a prank (however trivial) against that person because, and de-railing a whole thread to center the discussion around that person, certainly does look like an obsession. Like I said, I'm not the only one who sees it that way.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 07-26-2006).]

#311

2006-07-26, 07:06

fullcircle fullcircle is offline

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

Yawn.

I'll read through your post later, though purely out of curiosity, because I'm done debating with you in this thread.

Hey here's a suggestion: declare it a victory.

Oh! I know what you decided to do after reading my suggestion, now you have to call my decision childish as well.

One more! Gotta call it all meaningless too.

I won't bother explaining why I have no further interest in communicating with you, since anyone who has read through the past page or two either is intelligent and can figure it out for themselves, or is an idiot and I don't mind what they think.

I'll still post that response to Abrahim's B+M thread though, and if anything you said in your reply was uncharacteristically interesting I may reply to it but I don't expect it will be required.

Etc, bla, so on.

#312

2006-07-26, 07:06

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by fullcircle:

Ego caressing remarks? I don't make ego caressing remarks. If you want to understand the words I use, look them up in more detail instead of ignorantly applying their popular connotations.

I'm not egotistical, I'm *cocky*. And you'd be fucking cocky if you were me too.

You want to hear the reasons why? The reasons are shit I never bring up, because I don't boast.

But here's what I'm like being *egotistical*: I can guarantee you that my IQ is higher than yours, based on statistics, though also based on the intellectual content of your posts. I can also guarantee you that my dick is bigger than yours, based on statistics. And even though I have no idea what you look like, I'm probably better looking than you too. And those are just the *physical* aspects about me that make me cocky.

Notice how you ignore the fact that all that I mentioned were instances of you boasting. You boasted that you had "raped" me, you boasted that you were going to "bone" me, and you boasted that you had "owned" me.

You do in fact boast and that is evident in this very own thread, even before this pathetic response of yours.

But I really need to thank you for making this hilarious post. This is all I needed to hear. If anyone still respects anything you've said - if the people that "matter" to you still see you in a positively light after reading this spectacle - then there is no reason in pointing out your stupidity anymore.

#313

2006-07-26, 11:41

AngryFemme AngryFemme is offline

Moderator

Deep South

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by fullcircle:

I predict AngryFemme will make a dumb fucking comment about how this is proof that I'm egotistical, etc, yawn. Don't bother, you'll just embarrass yourself again.

Worse than you've embarrassed yourself? I doubt it. I don't think any further comments need to be made about you being egotistical to a fault. Everything you've posted here has clearly illustrated that.

Here's you:

"I am intellectually superior to Rust! My cock is bigger than Rust's! Everyone likes me better than Rust!"

...(long, self-serving explanation)...

"I am not egotistical!"

Who would need to crack a psychology book to figure that one out?!

#314

2006-07-26, 19:49

Abrahim

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

Once I was typing in pink font telling everyone how I loved decorating in The Sims, and someone ELSE got called gay!

#315

2006-07-27, 19:46

Twisted_Ferret Twisted_Ferret is offline

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by AngryFemme:

Here's you:

"I am intellectually superior to Rust! My cock is bigger than Rust's! Everyone likes me better than Rust!"

Here's you:

"I didn't actually read any of fullcircle's posts! I like to use personal attacks and meaningless psychobabble to make my 'points'! Rust is perfect and anyone who disagrees with him must be mentally ill!"

#316

2006-07-27, 19:53

Twisted_Ferret Twisted_Ferret is offline

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

But I really need to thank you for making this hilarious post. This is all I needed to hear. If anyone still respects anything you've said - if the people that "matter" to you still see you in a positively light after reading this spectacle - then there is no reason in pointing out your stupidity anymore.

Do I think that imperfect probably should've just dropped the whole thing? Yes. Do I think he could benefit from being more objective and less emotional? Sure. Do I still like and admire him? Of course! Nearly every post of his that I've seen has been well-written and entertaining in some way, and in every debate I've seen him engage in he acquits himself remarkably well. He's a good friend, a good person, and a good debater as well.

#317

2006-07-27, 20:15

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

Thank you for proving my point. There is no real reason to continue pointing out his stupidity because no matter how stupid, unreasonable or childish his posts become (and we've seen first hand how he is willing to go deep into the depths of childishness) you'd still praise and "admire" his posts, even to the point of delving into similar childishness in the quest of defending him, as your post to AngryFemme shows.

#318

2006-07-28, 02:32

AngryFemme AngryFemme is offline

Moderator

Deep South

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

Sticks and stones, Twisted_Ferret!

It's both sweet and noble that you stick up for your boy fullcircle to help him try to scrap some dignity out of this whole botched spectacle. Friends like you surely are a rarity.

#319

2006-07-28, 04:08

Twisted_Ferret Twisted_Ferret is offline

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

Thank you for proving my point. There is no real reason to continue pointing out his stupidity because no matter how stupid, unreasonable or childish his posts become (and we've seen first hand how he is willing to go deep into the depths of childishness) you'd still praise and "admire" his posts, even to the point of delving into similar childishness in the quest of defending him, as your post to AngryFemme shows.

What, your only reason for arguing with him was to point out his stupidity to me? If his posts truly became stupid or childish, though, of course I wouldn't admire them; however, I'd still admire the man himself (if only for his awesome displays of intellectual might in other threads

). Besides, I don't even see any stupid posts; I think he should've let the whole thing go, but I can understand why he'd be unwilling to leave without defending himself, and though you may think you have refuted everything he said - and I make no judgement here - I don't think you can deny that the posts were well-written and display at least some knowledge of philosophy and debating skill. Or actually, you can; but I wouldn't agree, and not because I'm a mindless imperfectcircle fanboy (which is apparently what you think I am

).

quote:Originally posted by AngryFemme:

Sticks and stones, Twisted_Ferret!

It's both sweet and noble that you stick up for your boy fullcircle to help him try to scrap some dignity out of this whole botched spectacle. Friends like you surely are a rarity.

Botched spectacle is right! Even imperfectcircle admitted in an email that he shouldn't just said what he wanted to and left instead of dragging it out like this. Anyway, though, I would suspect mockery in this post... but since I'm feeling good at the moment, I'll take it and face value and thank you.

I am surprised and gratified that you did not respond with vemon, and - if you're sincere - apologize for my harsh post(s?) earlier.

[This message has been edited by Twisted_Ferret (edited 07-28-2006).]

#320

2006-07-28, 04:12

Twisted_Ferret Twisted_Ferret is offline

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

Bloated ego? Maybe, but at least a few other people like him enough to notice his absense... (http://www.totse.com/bbs/Forum4/HTML/022000.html)

#321

2006-07-28, 04:38

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by Twisted_Ferret:

What, your only reason for arguing with him was to point out his stupidity to me?

Not at first, and not only to you but to others who might hold him in high regard.

It was pretty clear to me that he'd end up leaving the discussion (he has done so in the past numerous times) so following the discussion took a back seat to showing how he himself was egotistical and childish.

quote: If his posts truly became stupid or childish, though, of course I wouldn't admire them; however, I'd still admire the man himself (if only for his awesome displays of intellectual might in other threads

).

If you cannot concede that bringing up penis size, his "good looks", and I.Q. is stupid, or that claiming that his posts amount to "raping", "boning" or "owning" someone else is equally stupid and childish, then what else should we call you instead of a 'mindless fan-boy'?

I'm not saying that every single thing he has ever posted is stupid, far from it, I am, however, stating that he acted stupidly and in an immature manner in this thread; that should be obvious to anyone who bothers reading his ridiculous remarks.

quote:Bloated ego? Maybe, but at least a few other people like him enough to notice his absense...

I don't remember anyone claiming that nobody would notice his absence, or that nobody could possibly like his posts. You bringing this up for no apparent reason isn't really helping your "I'm not a mindless fanboy" argument...

#322

2006-07-28, 04:58

Twisted_Ferret Twisted_Ferret is offline

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

If you cannot concede that bringing up penis size, his "good looks", and I.Q. is stupid, or that claiming that his posts amount to "raping", "boning" or "owning" someone else is equally stupid and childish, then what else should we call you instead of a 'mindless fan-boy'?

I would call it pretty stupid if all of his arguments rested upon such things; however, I doubt that his mention of any of that was supposed to win an argument. Without seeing the posts wherein he mentions all of that, I might even go so far as to say he was being facetious and/or trying to illustrate your percieved lack of humor.

As for "raping", "boning", etc. - it's crude, but I wouldn't dismiss an entire post just for his method of referring to previous victories (though, obviously, you don't consider them victories at all; I can't offer an opinion, since this is the only Rust vs. IC thread I've looked at).

quote: I don't remember anyone claiming that nobody would notice his absence, or that nobody could possibly like his posts.

Not in so many words, but when he brought up that he was a well-liked and respected poster I recall that being sneered at. You several times claimed that no one would really care what he did. Or was that just referring to his password thing? No matter; I was trying to illustrate his helpful postings elsewhere to show anyone else who might be reading this.

#323

2006-07-28, 05:03

AngryFemme AngryFemme is offline

Moderator

Deep South

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by Twisted_Ferret:

Bloated ego? Maybe, but at least a few other people like him enough to notice his absense... (http://www.totse.com/bbs/Forum4/HTML/022000.html)

Waitttt! Risky P.R. move on your part! Why would you direct his thrall of admirers to the one thread where he really let's his self-induced drama get the best of him?

#324

2006-07-28, 05:18

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by Twisted_Ferret:

[...]

As for "raping", "boning", etc. - it's crude, but I wouldn't dismiss an entire post just for his method of referring to previous victories (though, obviously, you don't consider them victories at all; I can't offer an opinion, since this is the only Rust vs. IC thread I've looked at).

I'm not dismissing his posts because of these completely idiotic and ridiculously childish statements, nor am I saying that you (or anyone else for that matter) should do so; what I am doing is noticing that they are idiotic, and that they are childish. It seems that you're even incapable of even doing that.

quote:

Not in so many words, but when he brought up that he was a well-liked and respected poster I recall that being sneered at. You several times claimed that no one would really care what he did. Or was that just referring to his password thing? No matter; I was trying to illustrate his helpful postings elsewhere to show anyone else who might be reading this.

Could you please quote where someone sneered at the notion that the was a well-liked poster? Making these statements (which are untrue as far as I know), is not helping your "I'm not a mindless fanboy" case either.

I said that he fulfilling his promise (which, as he himself points out, does not include leaving totse for good - which is how someone would end up missing his posts) was meaningless. I said it was meaningless because losing an username is a trivial thing, at least for me. Sure, he might actually feel other wise, but I'm not going to judge how I personally perceive a silly promise by whether or not he would actually lose some sleep over a name on the Internet.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 07-28-2006).]

#325

2006-07-28, 12:56

Abrahim

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

Anyway I reread some of this and here is a rundown.

Potentgirt says: You aren't a Catholic, Abrahim!

Abrahim says: Your idea of God is limited and blasphemous.

Potentgirt says: Your idea of God is useless and impersonal.

Abrahim says: I don't think so. What's more personal?

Potentgirt says: Jesus Christ died for our sins, is our Lord and Savior.

Abrahim says: Jesus Christ agrees with me, there is only one God to worship and its not Jesus!

Potentgirt says: If God was the Universe then God would be nothing before the Universe!

Abrahim says: The Universe and Reality and Absolutely everything is within God and made of God entirely.

Potentgirt: No! Your Pantheistic views are wrong.

Imperfectcircle says: God is infinite and therefor, if God doesn't include everything then God is not infinite. Abrahim is saying that God is infinite and singular, that everything is included inside, that there is nothing and nowhere that God is not. Infinity is not expanding, it is one infinite stable thing.

Rust says: Abrahim your definition of God doesn't fit into the the widely accepted definition of what a God is or should be and therefor doesn't qualify as a God. Furthermore you have offered no proof to your claims.

Daz says: Abrahim, you fail to provide evidence to your claims. All we KNOW for sure is that "there are thoughts" anything else we can not know beyond a reasonable doubt.

Abrahim says: Then those thoughts, the thoughts that make up absolutely everything are what I'm calling God.

Truckfixr: You keep repeating the same stuff and you never offer proof.

Abrahim says: What proof do you want? My proof is everything. That if there was ever absolute true nothing, that there still would be absolute true nothing, because nothing can't have anything occur within it, or by it. Nothing is and will always be nothing, and has never existed! The proof is us!

Red says: Saying what you said is not proof of anything.

Abrahim says: What proof do you want?

Rust says: Provide evidence.

Imperfectcircle says: I'm going to blow you out of the water Rust! Or I'll post my password.

Rust says: Claiming that adds nothing to what you say nor does it help anyone to respect you.

Imperfectcircle says: I got drunk and wasn't able to blow you out of the water as planned, I could, but I have to keep my promise so I'm posting my password.

Abrahim says: You don't need to. Just change your password and post the old password.

Rust says: No One Cares.

Imperfectcircle says: I care.

Rust says: You have multiple accounts its not even a substantial loss for you.

Angryfemme says: Maybe he's Abrahim!? Is he Abrahim?!

Rust says: Wouldn't surprise me.

Fullcircle says: I'm back! I'm not Abrahim, I only use one account at a time. I think Rust should get a sense of humor and be nicer.

Rust says: No one cares.

Angryfemme says: I think you're obsessed with Rust.

Abrahim says: Talk about me!

Fullcircle says: Rust is a jerk.

Rust says: You're childish.

Twistedferret says: Imperfectcircle is a nice guy.

Abrahim says: I'm going to give you all a rundown of this topic here.

TO PUT IT SIMPLY I WILL STATE MY INTERPRETATION OF EVERYONES PERSONAL BELIEFS WHICH I DONT ACTUALLY KNOW.

Abrahim: God is all encompassing and infinite, not a man or a woman or a thing in a sky, but rather, the Ultimate Reality, all powerful, all are dependant. I believe in Judgement, that negative/destructive things and positive/productive things get reflected back on the performer after death.

Potentgirt: There is One God, Jesus Christ is his Son, and his vessle on Earth. Jesus died for our sins and is our savior, the only way to get to heaven is to believe in Jesus and be a Christian.

Imperfectcircle: I'm starting to understand Abrahim's concept of God and what he is trying to say.

Rust: There is no God, there is no proof of God, there is no proof of life after death. I don't believe in God or an afterlife. I believe in what has sufficient evidence. God was invented by Man.

Daz: I do not believe in God because there is no proof of God or what Abrahim claims. All that I can say with sureness is that There are thoughts.

Truckfixr: There is no God, there is no proof of God, there is no proof of an afterlife.

Red: I have come to the conclusion that there is no God, it is an invention of people. I do not believe there is any proof of a God or an afterlife.

Angryfemme: There is no proof of any God, it is an invention of people. I don't believe in any afterlife.

#326

2006-07-28, 14:21

AngryFemme AngryFemme is offline

Moderator

Deep South

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by Abrahim:

TO PUT IT SIMPLY I WILL STATE MY INTERPRETATION OF EVERYONES PERSONAL BELIEFS WHICH I DONT ACTUALLY KNOW.

Can't speak for everyone else, but that seemed like a pretty fair assessment of my beliefs, in a nutshell. I am glad to know that all of our swapped dialogue did not result in you misunderstanding me.

No fair to you that the topic got off-subject. I truly wish potentgirt would join back in and the two of you could hammer it out point-by-point. I really could use something to read during my downtime at work today.

#327

2006-07-28, 14:30

Abrahim

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by AngryFemme:

Can't speak for everyone else, but that seemed like a pretty fair assessment of my beliefs, in a nutshell. I am glad to know that all of our swapped dialogue did not result in you misunderstanding me.

#328

2006-07-28, 16:46

AngryFemme AngryFemme is offline

Moderator

Deep South

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

Accounting. And shame on you for not remembering!

#329

2006-07-28, 23:37

Abrahim

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by AngryFemme:

Accounting. And shame on you for not remembering!

What the! I remembered! For some reason I thought your post was Redzed's post!?

I think I saw the smile and thought he wrote it. lol

I remember your job! I thought I was talking to Redzed, I read your post thinking it was him at around 6 AM in the morning!

#330

2006-07-29, 00:01

Abrahim

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

Does anyone have anything to add to the general debate?

If we've gotten off track here is a basically what it is about:

The Topic's title is My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories, and was written by potentgirt. This is a continuation in a way of the original bitch and moan topic about me by another user.

The Original user claimed that my definition of God can not and does not fit into the generally accepted definition of God, and thus does not qualify as God.

Potentgirt's argument is that my definition of God does not fit into the generally accepted definition of God, and can not be included in a Christian belief system.

My definition of God can be found in the thread entitled "What is God?" and many more topics.

To put it basically it is that God is one, singular, infinite, all encompassing. That everything is made of it, existing only by it, and is completely dependant on it. Furthermore that it is the Ultimate Reality, encompassing all possible universes, realities, alternatives, possibilities that we can't even imagine. That this is what limits our reality and is what has provided all the possibilities of what we can possibly think or do.

I believe my definition is a proper definition of God and my intention is to remove the "God in Man's Image" God from people's imagination and replace it with this much more ancient idea.

Religions didn't start out polytheistic, in my belief, people started out with a basic understanding of Reality, and appointed eventually, names and aspects to the one Reality in order to explain things. Each of those names were later given metaphorical images in order to better explain their meaning, those images were given names and in later generations thought to be individual dieties.

The history of this process can be found in the history of the development of Hinduism, where originally starting out with The Brahman (my God, the One Reality in which everything) it developed into an entire army of Gods based on aspects of the One God. Hinduism is still considered Monotheistic by many educated members because they explain that all the Gods are simply aspects or manifestations of the One God.

#331

2006-07-29, 00:18

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

Add to the debate? Sure thing.

You said:

quote:Originally posted by Abrahim:

...by Reality... I don't mean the universe only, or what you can feel and touch, but also everything you know and don't know, can possibly think and can never even imagine...

To which I replied:

"I can think that God doesn't exist. Therefore, "God not existing" is part of reality according to your definition. God doesn't exist."

You've yet to answer this. You've also yet to answer in this thread. (http://www.totse.com/bbs/Forum15/HTML/005708.html)

#332

2006-07-29, 11:26

Abrahim

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

Add to the debate? Sure thing.

You said:

To which I replied:

"I can think that God doesn't exist. Therefore, "God not existing" is part of reality according to your definition. God doesn't exist."

You've yet to answer this. You've also yet to answer in this thread. (http://www.totse.com/bbs/Forum15/HTML/005708.html)

The possibility for you to think that God doesn't exist, as well as the possibility for you to first imagine what a God might be in order to imagine it not existing all exist as possible things you can think in this universe, which is within this reality. Obviouslaaay!

Since you might imagine God as some being within Reality (not real but if it did exist) then it makes sense to you to say "since I can think of the possibility that God doesn't exist, then God doesn't exist". But I'm saying that God is the Ultimate Reality encompassing all realities including this which provides you the possibility to think that thought, that you thought, if God didn't exist, there would be nothing, because I say God is what absolutely everything is made of and dependant on entirely, what all realities, possibilities, universes exist within.

The one possibility that doesn't exist is "Nothing exists" because there is no such thing as nothing, nor do I believe nothing could have ever existed! If there was ever absolute/true nothing, since nothing can't allow anything to happen within it, then there would still be nothing always. Something can't happen in or with absolute nothing. I don't believe in time exactly, I believe that with God, the ever existing, infinite, there was never a beginning and will never be an end, that with God came the ripe and infinite plain of knowledge which allows for all possibilities to occur, the one possibility that can not, is Nothingness, it has never existed and can not exist. I believe that forever this universe and all universes, and all things have been collapsing, and expanding and collapsing and expanding, and that infinite possibilities mean that there is no limite. For us to imagine it we would follow lines in all directions never ending. God the infinite is not expanding, even though the universe might be (for its next collapse and re expansion) but I don't mean to state God is the universe, but rather this universe, this reality, and all realities, are within God the infinite all encompassing.

#333

2006-07-29, 19:11

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

As always, you failed to answer the problem at hand and instead replied with your usual convoluted bullshit.

You did not say that the possibility of it being true exists in reality, but that what I think of exists in reality.

You said that "everything you know and don't know, can possibly think and can never even imagine" exists in reality. That not only includes the possibility of me thinking 'X', but that 'X' itself.

#334

2006-07-29, 21:28

Abrahim

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

As always, you failed to answer the problem at hand and instead replied with your usual convoluted bullshit.

You did not say that the possibility of it being true exists in reality, but that what I think of exists in reality.

You said that "everything you know and don't know, can possibly think and can never even imagine" exists in reality. That not only includes the possibility of me thinking 'X', but that 'X' itself.

Everything you know right now, and those things that you don't know yet and may never know, what you can possibly think and can never even imagine, exist within Ultimate Reality. I don't see what the big deal about that is?

Everything that you know

Things you don't know

What you can possibly think

What you can never imagine

All exist within Ultimate Reality.

When I say what you POSSIBLY THINK I mean literally, the thoughts you can possibly think. If the possibility for you to think those thoughts didn't exist, you wouldn't be able to think them. Perhaps you took that as meaning what you can imagine will manifest into this physical reality, but I never intended to say that to you! I literally meant the thoughts themselves.

I believe Ultimate Reality encompasses absolutely every possibility, possible reality, things we can't image, and this Reality is just one of an infinite number. The one possibility that can't and doesn't obviously exist is "no possibilities" or "nothing".

Also the thing about your thoughts is talking specifically about this Reality, in which I believe that whatever you can possibly think and possibly do is available for you to think and available for you to do within this Reality. There are thoughts you can't think and those thoughts you will never know, but this is because they are not available options to think of in this reality. Some things you might be able to think of, but can't do, that is because the option for you to be able to do them isn't available in this reality.

So I hope that clearified what I was saying a little bit.

When I say what you can possibly think, I literally mean the possible thoughts you can possibly have.

#335

2006-07-29, 21:56

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

Well, that does resolve that problem; not the convoluted rambling you provided earlier.

Next time though, you should be more clear. There were a number of people who agreed with what I said, which suggests others were also interpreting that the same way I was.

#336

2006-07-29, 22:03

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by Abrahim:

I believe Ultimate Reality encompasses absolutely every possibility, possible reality, things we can't image, and this Reality is just one of an infinite number. The one possibility that can't and doesn't obviously exist is "no possibilities" or "nothing".

Therefore the xian 'triune' god must exist in one of those infinite realities! How about Zeus, Isis,etc.?

Namaste

#337

2006-07-29, 22:23

AngryFemme AngryFemme is offline

Moderator

Deep South

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

Why not, red? Anything you could manifest in your head could exist. And since the ideas connected with it could shape your policies, your morals and alter your lifestyle on many, many levels - it makes it just as equally powerful as Abrahim's God.

He will argue that your imagined God exists within his God, but you could argue and say no, HIS God exists within YOUR God. Don't worry about offering any evidence of it, because he doesn't. So all is fair. He who is most long-winded and full of dogged tenacity alone wins this argument.

#338

2006-07-29, 22:32

Abrahim

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

Well, that does resolve that problem; not the convoluted rambling you provided earlier.

Next time though, you should be more clear. There were a number of people who agreed with what I said, which suggests others were also interpreting that the same way I was.

Yes, alot of people also were under the impression that I worship the Universe among other misinterpreted things.

Also to Red and Angry the reason God's like Isis and the Christian triune are denied by me is because they have singular images and forms, if they existed, it would be my God that allows them to exist, since they would be within and dependant on whatever reality in order to exist. What I try to describe as God is what all Realities are dependant on and existing by and within, not a form within a reality.

[This message has been edited by Abrahim (edited 07-29-2006).]

#339

2006-07-29, 22:35

Abrahim

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by AngryFemme:

Why not, red? Anything you could manifest in your head could exist. And since the ideas connected with it could shape your policies, your morals and alter your lifestyle on many, many levels - it makes it just as equally powerful as Abrahim's God.

He will argue that your imagined God exists within his God, but you could argue and say no, HIS God exists within YOUR God. Don't worry about offering any evidence of it, because he doesn't. So all is fair. He who is most long-winded and full of dogged tenacity alone wins this argument.

What kind of evidence are you looking for? Could you give some examples of evidence that could possibly be provided (if it could) I mean what would be evidence?

#340

2006-07-29, 23:18

AngryFemme AngryFemme is offline

Moderator

Deep South

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

That's just it. There is no "evidence". It's an idea. They are abstract thoughts and you could no more prove them to me than I could prove to you the different hues of red and orange I can imagine in my head at any given time.

You use the Qur'an to validate your beliefs, and others may use the Bible. It's a recommended guide for living, is it not? So you believe in a certain standard of living and red believes in another standard. You believe in your version of the afterlife, and red believes in his (if any).

They are ideas, manifested inside your heads. They would not exist without a human head to reside in. How could they? You will say that Reality makes it possible for these ideas to exist in someone's head, but how do you know that definitively? How do you know that the idea, first thought by man and manifested into a *belief*, did not come first?

I'll tell you what I think came first: The belief in belief did. Not the thing believed in.

#341

2006-07-30, 01:02

Abrahim

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by AngryFemme:

That's just it. There is no "evidence". It's an idea. They are abstract thoughts and you could no more prove them to me than I could prove to you the different hues of red and orange I can imagine in my head at any given time.

You use the Qur'an to validate your beliefs, and others may use the Bible. It's a recommended guide for living, is it not? So you believe in a certain standard of living and red believes in another standard. You believe in your version of the afterlife, and red believes in his (if any).

They are ideas, manifested inside your heads. They would not exist without a human head to reside in. How could they? You will say that Reality makes it possible for these ideas to exist in someone's head, but how do you know that definitively? How do you know that the idea, first thought by man and manifested into a *belief*, did not come first?

I'll tell you what I think came first: The belief in belief did. Not the thing believed in.

I think you might have misunderstood what I mean when I talk about thoughts. I am not saying that all thoughts you can think of literally physically exist in this reality, alot of things you can imagine don't exist in a form more than a thought. I am saying that every thought you can possibly think, is available to think, if it wasn't, you wouldn't be able to think it. I am saying if this Reality doesn't have the option to think it, you can't think it, if you can then obviously this reality has the option for you to think of it. Not all the things one can think are manifest in this physical reality.

#342

2006-07-30, 01:34

AngryFemme AngryFemme is offline

Moderator

Deep South

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

Okay. Everything exists within reality. Isn't it quite a leap to tie that to the Qur'an, the ressurection, and an afterlife? Really and truly. Why even call it God?

#343

2006-07-30, 01:50

Regular

South Texas

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

Abrahim, you have made post after post asserting that all that exists , does so within reality. That all things exist within reality has never been the problem with your assertions. No reasoning individual could disagree with this idea.

Claiming that reality is god is where the problems arise. You have yet to show any legitimate logical argument to support your belief.

That "we exist", or "something doesn't come from nothing" are not valid arguments supporting your claim , as the origin of matter/energy cannot possibly be determined. Attributing existance to a god is an emotional, not a logical proposition.

Your definition of god has no more to support it than does that of the Christian God.

[This message has been edited by truckfixr (edited 07-30-2006).]

#344

2006-07-31, 00:12

Abrahim

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by AngryFemme:

Okay. Everything exists within reality. Isn't it quite a leap to tie that to the Qur'an, the ressurection, and an afterlife? Really and truly. Why even call it God?

Because in my belief there is absolutely no God greater than that all encompassing, and nothing else is worthy of being called a God, that is the original definition of God from even the ancient times, it can even be found in ancient hinduism and more. All I wanted to do was clearify something to people, especially believers, that this humanized idea of a being is somewhat more modern and in my opinion not accurate for the reason that if it is existing in a singular seperate form WITHIN Reality, it is not the greatest all encompassing One. Also other reason of how all is one and more.

#345

2006-07-31, 02:24

suck my dick suck my dick is offline

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

http://www.apostatesofislam.com

http://www.faithfreedom.org

http://www.apostatesofislam.com/forum/index.php

http://www.faithfreedom.org/forum/index.php

http://www.faithfreedom.org/holiday/phpBB2/index.php

http://www.activistchat.com/phpBB2/index.php

http://www.masada2000.org/islam.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2829059.stm

http://www.fomi.nu/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=1627

http://www.homestead.com/prosites-prs/

http://www.atcoalition.net/

http://www.tellthechildrenthetruth.com/gallery/

http://www.tellthechildrenthetruth.com/gallery/pages/6-Mein%20Kampf_jpg_jpg_jpg.htm

http://www.papillonsartpalace.com/moslem.htm

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

http://atheism.about.com/cs/islamandviolence/

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/asiapcf/southeast/08/17/martyr.culture/index.html

http://muslim-quotes.netfirms.com/jihad.html

http://www.domini.org/openbook/home.htm

http://www.persecution.org

http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=9583

http://www.danielpipes.org/

http://www.angelfire.com/hi5/kafirdomunity/action.htm

http://www.geocities.com/khola_mon/BTaliban/Bangla_Taliban_Photos.html

http://www.bwoi.cjb.net

http://www.chechentruth.cjb.net/

http://www.anti-cair-net.org/

http://www.arabsforisrael.com/pages/1/index.htm

http://www.rotter.net/israel/

http://www.geocities.com/khola_mon/Islam.html

http://www.geocities.com/milkmandan2003/TalibanOnline1.html

http://www.truthtree.com/Debating/posts/755.html

http://www.isralert.com/archives/2005/03/deceit_thy_name.php

http://www.factsandlogic.org

http://massgraves.info/

http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d191/zakirnaik/zakicaptured.gif

http://www.prophetofdoom.net/

http://www.venusproject.com/prophet_of_doom/toc.html

http://www.venusproject.com/prophet_of_doom/quotes1.html#terrorism

http://www.pmw.org.il/

#346

2006-07-31, 06:24

Digital_Savior Digital_Savior is offline

Regular

.:six degrees of synesthesia:.

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

Abrahim, remember the Muslims that rioted over the depiction of Mohammed in the comics ?

Funny, that. (http://tinyurl.com/d38gv)

Also, remember when you claimed that Islam wasn't sexist and oppressive to women, calling me a blasphemer for believing that to be true ? These paintings, done by Muslims, really contradict my opinion of the Qur'an....don't they ?

#347

2006-08-01, 18:26

Abrahim

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Abrahim, remember the Muslims that rioted over the depiction of Mohammed in the comics ?

Funny, that. (http://tinyurl.com/d38gv)

Also, remember when you claimed that Islam wasn't sexist and oppressive to women, calling me a blasphemer for believing that to be true ? These paintings, done by Muslims, really contradict my opinion of the Qur'an....don't they ?

Thanks for that link I enjoyed viewing all the various pages! I don't understand the connection you were making though! There is a tremendous amount of Medieval Christian artwork as well depicting various things including hell, I don't believe Medieval Christian artwork really accurate reflects on the teachings of the Old or New Testament.

What individuals do is their own business, people had no need to riot over drawings but if they chose to then so they did. If artists claiming to be one religion or another created artwork, so they did.

The Qur'an is not sexist or oppressive towards women, it gives women a tremendous amount of individual rights which Judaism and Christianity do not. A woman has total freedom and equal rights with a man. She has the right to choose who she marries, if she wants a divorce, and all other legal rights equal with men. The Qur'an is not sexist, it does not even hold human beings as any greatly superior creature nor does it differentiate much between men and women except in specific laws and dictations related to one sex or the other such as when it prescribes that women cover their breasts and private parts.

I don't really see what those paintings prove by your standards but they were produced several centuries after Muhammed in Turkey and Baghdad and other nations like Persia, have heavy asian influences, and are not at all based on the Qur'an. I reccomend you actually read the Qur'an with an opened mind and realize that it is not a sinful book in the least, nor does it blasphemy against God, nor is it confusing or hard to understand.

The paintings are artwork not based on the Qur'an and barely based on Arab/Asian/Zoroastrian/Hadith mythology and stories. I don't know what point you were attempting to illustrate! Please clearify your point!

If your point is "Look they used to make Muhammed's face" my response is "Ya."

If your point is "Look at those paintings they are so sexist and oppressive!" I'll say "Ya?"

If your point is "Muslims Rioted over depictions of Muhammed why don't they riot about century old turkish and persian artwork!" my answer is "I dunno"

But the Qur'an never asks people to riot over drawings, nor was it the inspiring force behind the depictions in those paintings.

But you already know that since you've read the Qur'an!

In Ancient Persia, while Islam was taking hold, Christians and Zoroastrians replaced Christ and Zoroaster with images of Muhammed (looking like Zoroaster). The Christians of Persia soon converted and created the Shi'a Sect of Islam. Many Shi'ites become Christians when moving from Iran. If you were to look up art of Zoroaster you would see the similarity between him and the Muhammed paintings from Persia, just how you would see a similarity in art depicting Mithra and Jesus.

ht tp://www.n ear-death. com/experiences/origen048.html (http: //www.near -death.com /experienc es/origen0 48.html)

[This message has been edited by Abrahim (edited 08-02-2006).]

#348

2006-08-02, 04:41

Abrahim

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

Does anyone else have anything to add? Any questions? Comments?

#349

2006-08-02, 06:14

fullcircle fullcircle is offline

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

scratches chin

thinks to self: "is *she* fucking with *my* head now? Does she have a sense of humor after all?"

scans through the thread

quote:Originally posted by Abrahim:

What work do you do?

quote:Originally posted by AngryFemme:

Accounting.

thinks to self: "no, she really is that fucking stupid"

PmsBitch, you really you should have taken my advice when I advised you not to further embarass yourself.

quote:Originally posted by AngryFemme:

Here's you:

"I am intellectually superior to Rust! My cock is bigger than Rust's! Everyone likes me better than Rust!"

There's really no sport in this. Your attacks are so fucking weak that it's like shooting fish in a barrel.

1) I *am* intellectually superior to Rust, that's simply a fact. As if further proof were necessary, wait til I post my rebuttal to Abrahim's thread (which I haven't posted yet because I've been out of the country, and additionally it's turning into more of an essay than a mere post, I've spent quite a few hours in the Trinity library researching various subjects to support my case). And unless Rust has a 10 inch dick, I *do* have a bigger cock than he does. As for how well liked he is, I have no idea.

2) While it was flattering that you went to the effort of assembling all 17 of the neurons in your brain to attempt the task of paraphrasing my posts in this thread, you should have saved yourself such strenuous exertion.

I'll explain it to you slowly, perhaps you'll understand it if I do that although I'm not overly optomistic. There are two different parts of your mimickery that must be addressed separately:

quote:"I am intellectually superior to Rust! My cock is bigger than Rust's! "

I'll try and use as few polysyllabic words as possible (that means words that "ain't 2 long").

You were commenting on my previous post, where I made such claims. I *did* make such claims, good job on reading that part of my post properly, you stupid bitch! But you clearly failed to read the entire post, so here it is again, I suggest pointing at each word on the screen and reading it out loud so you process them better this time:

quote:Originally posted by fullcircle:

You want to hear the reasons why? The reasons are shit I never bring up, because I don't boast.

But here's what I'm like being *egotistical*: I can guarantee you that my IQ is higher than yours, based on statistics, though also based on the intellectual content of your posts. I can also guarantee you that my dick is bigger than yours, based on statistics. And even though I have no idea what you look like, I'm probably better looking than you too. And those are just the *physical* aspects about me that make me cocky.

K, now do you see the part that is blacker than the rest? It's right before the part that's all "forward slanty-like". That part in bold was when I explained the following words were going to be intentionally egotistical in nature, in the aim of contrasting them with the tone I had adopted previously.

Do you understand now? Maybe the words I used were too long? I can't explain things in more simple terms.

quote:"Everyone likes me better than Rust!"

Why the hell did you say *this*? When the fuck did I ever suggest that I am more popular than Rust?

The first part of your comment that I quoted was at least comprehensible, since you had simply failed to turn on your brain when your read the words of my post.

But the second part of your comment you just plucked from thin air. That would be stupid enough on it's own, but what makes it worse is that you didn't even realise I would notice it and call you on it. Weak effort.

quote:"I am not egotistical!"

Who would need to crack a psychology book to figure that one out?!

YOU obviously need to crack a fucking psychology book to figure my posts out, because you've repeatedly displayed a complete ignorance of psychological theory.

In fact you've not only displayed your ignorance of psychology, you've trumpeted it! Shall I explain why I say that? Obviously I need to, since you lack the cognitive capabilities to figure it out on your own.

Once again, I'll explain it slowly piece by piece in the hope that you manage to grasp what I'm saying in even a general sense.

1) You called me egotistical, but you cited me... saying... that I was going to speak... in an intentionally... egotistical manner. Do you comprehend why that was a meaningless example to refer to?

I expect that you don't. Because you made *exactly the same error* earlier in this thread. I also expect you can't remember. So I'll refresh your memory.

Go back to page 6 of this thread, and look at the post I made at 07:27. You had claimed that I had put "so much time and effort" into commenting about Rust. I responded to your claim by explaining how trivial the effort had been, and gave examples of times when I have put *far* more time and effort into commenting on posters who were unknown to me at the time.

Then at 13:40 you answered me. Read your post, showing that you had completely failed to understand the simple point I had made. You asked me:

quote:why did you feel the need to post a lengthy illustration of who you really are, by giving examples of your *exemplary* posting methods in other threads?

It wasn't a complex fucking point I had made, but you somehow managed to miss it. And you just did the *exact same thing* again. Fucking hell... I have better reading comprehension than you when I'm so drunk that I'm seeing triple.

2) I'm *not* egotistical. Once again... I already explained this. I'm *cocky*.

Did I ever say that a person should *lack* ego to be a good person? Did I ever say that I am *without* ego? Do you actually understand what "ego" means as a psychological term?

Try cracking a psychology textbook and reading about the terms that I'm using, it's a much better strategy than responding to my words when you're using a vague and ignorant conception of what they mean.

Here are a few suggestions to start off with, if you don't have access to a library that has introductory psychological texts, Jungian psychology in particular:

http://tinyurl.com/gbmee

http://tinyurl.com/cbpj8

http://tinyurl.com/hwfol

http://tinyurl.com/kxyae

Make your next post at least *vaguely* informed and competent, for both our sakes.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I had no intention of picking a fight with you, in fact if you read back over the end of page 6 I mistakenly believed your tone had changed to a civil one, and I responded non-agressively because I don't wish to fight with anyone. I wish you hadn't been so petulant and anagonistic, but there you have it.

#350

2006-08-02, 06:27

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

This is fucking hilarious! Thank You. Please continue making a fool out of yourself.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 08-02-2006).]

#351

2006-08-02, 06:43

fullcircle fullcircle is offline

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

This is fucking hilarious! Thank You.

No problem.

#352

2006-08-02, 10:16

Abrahim

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

I really look forward to the essay! While Fullcircle makes his essay, does anyone else have anything to comment on or add to this topic?

#353

2006-08-02, 12:10

AngryFemme AngryFemme is offline

Moderator

Deep South

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by fullcircle:

Go back to page 6 of this thread, and look at the post I made at 07:27.

No. This is so last week. Your story is tired. Your drama is boring. Everyone has exhausted their enthusiasm at discussing your exploits. Can't you see that?

#354

2006-08-02, 15:45

Abrahim

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by AngryFemme:

No. This is so last week. Your story is tired. Your drama is boring. Everyone has exhausted their enthusiasm at discussing your exploits. Can't you see that?

This topic IS about me afterall! *smiles + tooth sparkle + pin drop sound effect*

#355

2006-08-02, 18:07

Graemy

Regular

gloucesterVA US

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

ha ha Abrahim you're wrong...i just wanted to be cool

#356

2006-08-02, 20:41

Abrahim

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by Graemy:

ha ha Abrahim you're wrong...i just wanted to be cool

lol! Thanks for that!

#357

2006-08-03, 07:51

fullcircle fullcircle is offline

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by Abrahim:

I really look forward to the essay! While Fullcircle makes his essay, does anyone else have anything to comment on or add to this topic?

Sorry for derailing your thread Abrahim. But I'll make that essay worth all the inconvenience. For one thing, it should silence a few of the criticisms I've seen people make about your ideas.

In the meantime I just have one minor comment to make, it's about your paraprasing of the thread (which was quite humorous btw):

quote:Imperfectcircle: I'm starting to understand Abrahim's concept of God and what he is trying to say.

That's not quite accurate. I already understood your concept of God in the first place, because it's very similar to my concept of God. I recognised that similarity first time I read you talking about God, in your wonderfully written "Interested in Islam?" thread.

#358

2006-08-04, 02:40

Abrahim

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by fullcircle:

That's not quite accurate. I already understood your concept of God in the first place, because it's very similar to my concept of God. I recognised that similarity first time I read you talking about God, in your wonderfully written "Interested in Islam?" thread.

I'm glad you understand the concept! Have you managed to aquire http://messenger.msn.com yet?

I based my impression off of the quote "So infinity must be unchanging. It must simply be everything - this is the hardest thought I have EVER wrapped by head around."

I'm extremely pleased that you completely grasp the concept and have helped to defend it very well! Thank you so much for all of what you said throughout this topic. I hope to talk to you on msn someday soon hopefully!

[This message has been edited by Abrahim (edited 08-04-2006).]

#359

2006-08-04, 03:08

Zinkovich

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

Abrahim, have you heard of Spinoza? From glancing over your posts, your idea of God is very similar. To quote: "Spinoza argued that God and Nature were two names for the same reality, namely the single substance (meaning "to stand beneath" rather than "matter") that underlies the universe and of which all lesser "entities" are actually modes or modifications. The argument for this single substance runs something as follows:

1. Substance exists and cannot be dependent on anything else for its existence.

2. No two substances can share an attribute.

Proof: If they share an attribute, they would be identical. Therefore they can only be individuated by their modes. But then they would depend on their modes for their identity. This would have the substance being dependent on its mode, in violation of premise 1. Therefore, two substances cannot share the same attribute.

3. A substance can only be caused by something similar to itself (something that shares its attribute).

4. Substance cannot be caused.

Proof: Something can only be caused by something which is similar to itself, in other words something that shares its attribute. But according to premise 2, no two substances can share an attribute. Therefore substance cannot be caused.

5. Substance is infinite.

Proof: If substance were not infinite, it would be finite and limited by something. But to be limited by something is to be dependent on it. However, substance cannot be dependent on anything else (premise 1), therefore substance is infinite.

Conclusion: There can only be one substance.

Proof: If there were two infinite substances, they would limit each other. But this would act as a restraint, and they would be dependent on each other. But they cannot be dependent on each other (premise 1), therefore there cannot be two substances.

Spinoza contended that "Deus sive Natura" ("God or Nature") was a being of infinitely many attributes, of which extension and thought were two. His account of the nature of reality, then, seems to treat the physical and mental worlds as two different, parallel "subworlds" that neither overlap nor interact. This formulation is a historically significant panpsychist solution to the mind-body problem known as neutral monism. The consequences of Spinoza's system also envisage a God that does not rule over the universe by providence, but a God which itself is part of the deterministic system of which everything in nature is a part. Thus, God is the natural world and has no personality." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spinoz..._his_philosophy

Of course, Spinoza and all the other theologisms concerning God are merely speculation. Nothing we have gained through knowledge has lead to anything conclusive ot the nature of such a God if he does exist, nor has it been proven that he, indeed, exists at all. All I've been trying to illustrate is that there are many possibilities. To further name some of the general ones for added specificity:

1.)The universe sprung from energy that has always existed/is infinite/random came from nothing

2.)The universe IS God. He is some sort of galactic conciousness.

3.)God is a sentient entity residing outside the universe.

4.) We are in the matrix(For lols)

None of which can be substantiated, thus, neutrality is my position on such things.

#360

2006-08-04, 03:48

Abrahim

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by Zinkovich:

Abrahim, have you heard of Spinoza? From glancing over your posts, your idea of God is very similar. To quote: "Spinoza argued that God and Nature were two names for the same reality, namely the single substance (meaning "to stand beneath" rather than "matter") that underlies the universe and of which all lesser "entities" are actually modes or modifications. The argument for this single substance runs something as follows:

1. Substance exists and cannot be dependent on anything else for its existence.

2. No two substances can share an attribute.

Proof: If they share an attribute, they would be identical. Therefore they can only be individuated by their modes. But then they would depend on their modes for their identity. This would have the substance being dependent on its mode, in violation of premise 1. Therefore, two substances cannot share the same attribute.

3. A substance can only be caused by something similar to itself (something that shares its attribute).

4. Substance cannot be caused.

Proof: Something can only be caused by something which is similar to itself, in other words something that shares its attribute. But according to premise 2, no two substances can share an attribute. Therefore substance cannot be caused.

5. Substance is infinite.

Proof: If substance were not infinite, it would be finite and limited by something. But to be limited by something is to be dependent on it. However, substance cannot be dependent on anything else (premise 1), therefore substance is infinite.

Conclusion: There can only be one substance.

Proof: If there were two infinite substances, they would limit each other. But this would act as a restraint, and they would be dependent on each other. But they cannot be dependent on each other (premise 1), therefore there cannot be two substances.

Spinoza contended that "Deus sive Natura" ("God or Nature") was a being of infinitely many attributes, of which extension and thought were two. His account of the nature of reality, then, seems to treat the physical and mental worlds as two different, parallel "subworlds" that neither overlap nor interact. This formulation is a historically significant panpsychist solution to the mind-body problem known as neutral monism. The consequences of Spinoza's system also envisage a God that does not rule over the universe by providence, but a God which itself is part of the deterministic system of which everything in nature is a part. Thus, God is the natural world and has no personality." h ttp://en.w ikipedia.o rg/wiki/Spinoz..._his_philosophy (http: //en.wikip edia.org/w iki/Spinoz ..._his_ph ilosophy)

Of course, Spinoza and all the other theologisms concerning God are merely speculation. Nothing we have gained through knowledge has lead to anything conclusive ot the nature of such a God if he does exist, nor has it been proven that he, indeed, exists at all. All I've been trying to illustrate is that there are many possibilities. To further name some of the general ones for added specificity:

1.)The universe sprung from energy that has always existed/is infinite/random came from nothing

2.)The universe IS God. He is some sort of galactic conciousness.

3.)God is a sentient entity residing outside the universe.

4.) We are in the matrix(For lols)

None of which can be substantiated, thus, neutrality is my position on such things.

I go a little bit further than Spinoza with my ideas, that not only is this universe, nature and reality within God, but all natures, realities, possibilities, and realities, unknown to us, are within God, made of God entirely, completely dependant on God. That God is essentially the Ultimate All Encompassing Reality encompassing absolutely everything infinitely and is without beginning or end but is what there was is and always will be: One Singular.

I don't limit my idea of God to this nature or universe alone, furthermore I make sure to not say that this nature and universe IS God, but that this nature and universe and reality is PART of God, Within God, Made of God, Existing By God, and so are all possible others (and the possibilities are infinite).

#361

2006-08-04, 06:44

Zinkovich

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

Perhaps someone already asked this question, but why do you call your concept God?

My apologies if I am making you repeat yourself. This thread is a bit of a mess and is difficult to scan through.

#362

2006-08-04, 10:23

Abrahim

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by Zinkovich:

Perhaps someone already asked this question, but why do you call your concept God?

My apologies if I am making you repeat yourself. This thread is a bit of a mess and is difficult to scan through.

I find that it is the original explanation and definition of God and also that there is nothing greater than Ultimate Reality All Encompassing nor could God or should God be anything else, furthermore I dislike people imagining some sort of man like being in some alternate dimension as compared to my concept which can be found in Islam, Hinduism, and was often the original God in ancient religions which later developed into polytheistic religions.

#363

2006-08-04, 16:17

fullcircle fullcircle is offline

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by Zinkovich:

Perhaps someone already asked this question, but why do you call your concept God?

I'll be explaining this in pretty extensive detail soon, he's got a valid basis for doing it.

#364

2006-08-04, 23:32

Abrahim

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

!Does anyone else have any questions or anything they would like to ask about my ideas or anything they would like me to clear up?

[This message has been edited by Abrahim (edited 08-04-2006).]

#365

2006-08-05, 06:26

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

I'm interested in what you've been saying but it's 2:00 am and I'm having trouble understanding this... please explain this like you would to a two year old, in simple sentences. I will pose a question and answer it in parentheses. Please show me where I am wrong.

1.) What is Reality vs. Ultimate Reality (I only know what Reality is. Reality is different for every person. There is no one 'reality.' each thought, experience and memory that goes through me is what reality is made up of. You have your own reality. Many people believe that there is a being, GOD, that can perceive each person's reality. [all the thoughts that ever were, etc.] but you have stated that your god is not sentient, therefor cannot perceive)

#366

2006-08-06, 10:36

Abrahim

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by W:

I'm interested in what you've been saying but it's 2:00 am and I'm having trouble understanding this... please explain this like you would to a two year old, in simple sentences. I will pose a question and answer it in parentheses. Please show me where I am wrong.

1.) What is Reality vs. Ultimate Reality (I only know what Reality is. Reality is different for every person. There is no one 'reality.' each thought, experience and memory that goes through me is what reality is made up of. You have your own reality. Many people believe that there is a being, GOD, that can perceive each person's reality. [all the thoughts that ever were, etc.] but you have stated that your god is not sentient, therefor cannot perceive)

Hi little W, you're looking good today, that's a nice hat you have there, what is your favorite color?

Wow that's a mighty big question for a boy your age, only 2, wondering about the meaning of all things! You're awesome little W!

Reality vs. Ultimate Reality:

Abrahim's Definitions:

When I say Reality I mean what this Universe and all the possible things we can possibly think and possibly do are within.

When I say Ultimate Reality I mean what ever other possible Reality, Universe, and Possibility is within, the Ultimate All Encompassing Reality that is infinite and Encompasses this Reality which is only one possibility.

My God is not Sentient in the way human beings are sentient, but I've explained that it is alive and active, if it were not, nothing would exist or be active.

My God is the one thing that could truly know absolutely everything in every possible way. Truly "Know", "Be". Because everything is a part of it, within it, made of it, existing by it, dependant on it.

So Basically Reality = Our Everything, Ultimate Reality = Truly Everything Infinite and never ending in possibilities.

#367

2006-08-07, 08:40

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by Abrahim:

!Does anyone else have any questions or anything they would like to ask about my ideas or anything they would like me to clear up?

Yes. Why do you use the term "My God", surely this ought to be OurGod? That is, if what you are saying can be physically, scientifically, demonstrated to be true, in reality that is

As has been said(by truckfxr?) there is no problem with accepting what you are saying of reality(it is not very different to Hermeticism), however when you connect it to Islam/Koran/Allah, and try to proselitise for that anthropomorphic vision of God, you lose credibility -- IMHO.

Namaste

#368

2006-08-07, 09:02

Abrahim

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by redzed:

Yes. Why do you use the term "My God", surely this ought to be OurGod? That is, if what you are saying can be physically, scientifically, demonstrated to be true, in reality that is

I mention Islam and Hinduism as well as Taoism in some of my posts to show that the ideas occur elsewhere, it is mainly for informational purposes.

My God as in My concept of God which I promote as compared to other ideas of God which others promote, since not everyone agrees with my idea of God, such as Potentgirt, but perhaps he doesn't yet understand it.

#369

2006-08-08, 00:26

Abrahim

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

Does anyone else have anything to add to this topic or does anyone have any questions for me about my ideas and theories?

#370

2006-08-08, 01:33

fullcircle fullcircle is offline

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by redzed:

however when you connect it to Islam/Koran/Allah, and try to proselitise for that anthropomorphic vision of God, you lose credibility -- IMHO.

Anthropomorphic vision of God?

quote:Originally posted by Abrahim:

God is not a man, nor is God in the image of Man

Edit: btw the reason my rebuttal is taking so long is that I'm currently reading through a SHITLOAD of stuff about it, it's becoming a much more complex post than I previously intended.

There are four entire books I'm reading through at the moment:

God, the mind's desire : reference, reason and Christian thinking / Paul D. Janz.

God in the act of reference : debating religious realism and non-realism / Erica Appelros.

Philosophical relativity / Peter Unger.

Correspondence and disquotation : an essay on the nature of truth / Marian David.

And I've got somewhere around 100 pages of photocopies on other subjects on top of that.

Believe me, my response is going to shut down a lot of the objections people have made to Abrahim's beliefs.

[This message has been edited by fullcircle (edited 08-08-2006).]

#371

2006-08-08, 20:56

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by fullcircle:

Anthropomorphic vision of god?

Collins Concise Dictionary:

Anthropomorphic 1. of or relating to anthropomorphism

Anthropomorphism = the attribution of human form or behaviour to a deity

Koranic descriptions of the behaviour of the god depicted therein are obviously anthropomorphic. This is not restricted to the Koran however, it seems apparent that all human descriptions of god are made from the subjective human experience and thus the attribution of human behaviour to the deity seems to be an inevitable consequence. Personally, the behaviours attributed to god by the koran, anger, retribution, punishment, reward, etc., are so obviously human that it beggars the mind to believe that the being described can be anything other than a human construct.

Namaste

#372

2006-08-09, 15:39

Abrahim

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by redzed:

Collins Concise Dictionary:

Anthropomorphic 1. of or relating to anthropomorphism

Anthropomorphism = the attribution of human form or behaviour to a deity

Koranic descriptions of the behaviour of the god depicted therein are obviously anthropomorphic. This is not restricted to the Koran however, it seems apparent that all human descriptions of god are made from the subjective human experience and thus the attribution of human behaviour to the deity seems to be an inevitable consequence. Personally, the behaviours attributed to god by the koran, anger, retribution, punishment, reward, etc., are so obviously human that it beggars the mind to believe that the being described can be anything other than a human construct.

Namaste

"What big ears you have Grandma!"

"The better to hear you with!"

#373

2006-08-09, 19:17

fullcircle fullcircle is offline

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by redzed:

it seems apparent that all human descriptions of god are made from the subjective human experience and thus the attribution of human behaviour to the deity seems to be an inevitable consequence.

That is true of theism.

But that is untrue of the monistic conceptions of divinity, which Abrahim has explicitly identified his "God" with a number of times, for example:

quote:Originally posted by Abrahim:

Allah is my God, Ahuramazda, The Brahman, The Tao, God, there is no God but this.

His beliefs are essentially pantheistic, and this is not incompatible with Islam in the sense he has spoken of Allah:

quote:Originally posted by Abrahim:

[quote]"Ishvara (ईश्वर in devanagari script, pronunciation /ī:sh vərə/), also variously transliterated (romanized) as Īshvara, Īshwara, Īshwar, Īśvara, etc. (Sanskrit: "the Supreme Lord, and hence the Cosmic Controller") is a Hindu philosophical concept of God meaning that entity or the Supreme Being which is the lord and the ruler of everything. It is also used in Buddhism to mean 'lord' or 'master', eg, Avalokiteshvara."

The same goes for "The Tao" in Taoism.

The same with "Allah" in Islam, it is a description of Ultimate Reality.

He also identified his "God" with Spinoza's "Nature", another pantheistic conception. In fact in his "Ethics", Spinoza raised the same point that you did. He said that since we must use our imagination to conceive of "God", we must anthropomorphise him to some extent in doing so. So in formulating his conception of "God", he used reason, and sought to describe an impersonal entity. He used the term "God", but it has a meaning very different to traditional theistic conceptions. God need not necessarily be anthropomorphised, and Abrahim has been very explicit that his use of the term God does not refer to a personal being.

quote: Personally, the behaviours attributed to god by the koran, anger, retribution, punishment, reward, etc., are so obviously human that it beggars the mind to believe that the being described can be anything other than a human construct.

But Abrahim has not claimed to hold such a literalist interpretation of the Koran.

If he was claiming to be Christian, you could level the same charges against him based on the God of the Old Testament. On the Christian God described by the gnostics and in the Gospel of Thomas is vastly different.

The question really is how he conceives of Allah. I have never seen him say he believes Allah is a personal God, even if that is how most Muslims conceive of him. Rather, he has said that his notion of Allah *comes from the Koran*, which is not the same thing. In his references to the Koran, the has cited conceptions of Allah as the same Absolute Reality/etc that he says he believes in, rather than any personal deity:

[quote]Originally posted by Abrahim:

My Personal Concept of God comes from the Qur'an. God is Reality. God is Encompassing Everything. Surrounding Everything.

022.006

This is so, because Allah is the Reality: it is He Who gives life to the dead, and it is He Who has power over all things.

022.062

That is because Allah - He is the Reality; and those besides Him whom they invoke,- they are but vain Falsehood: verily Allah is He, Most High, Most Great.

023.116

Therefore exalted be Allah, the King, the Reality: there is no god but He, the Lord of the Throne of Honour!

031.030

That is because Allah is the (only) Reality, and because whatever else they invoke besides Him is Falsehood; and because Allah,- He is the Most High, Most Great.

069.001

The Reality!

069.002

What is the Reality?

069.003

Ah, what will convey unto thee what the Reality is?

003.120

If aught that is good befalls you, it grieves them; but if some misfortune overtakes you, they rejoice at it. But if ye are constant and do right, not the least harm will their cunning do to you; for Allah Compasseth round about all that they do.

008.047

Be not as those who came forth from their dwellings boastfully and to be seen of men, and debar (men) from the way of Allah, while Allah is surrounding all they do.

041.054

How! Are they still in doubt about the meeting with their Lord? Lo! Is not He surrounding all things?

004.126

But to Allah belong all things in the heavens and on earth: And He it is that Encompasseth all things.

005.054

O ye who believe! if any from among you turn back from his Faith, soon will Allah produce a people whom He will love as they will love Him,- lowly with the believers, mighty against the rejecters, fighting in the way of Allah, and never afraid of the reproaches of such as find fault. That is the grace of Allah, which He will bestow on whom He pleaseth. And Allah encompasseth all, and He knoweth all things.

011.092

He said: "O my people! is then my family of more consideration with you than Allah? For ye cast Him away behind your backs (with contempt). But verily my Lord encompasseth on all sides all that ye do!

017.060

Behold! We told thee that thy Lord doth encompass mankind round about: We granted the vision which We showed thee, but as a trial for men,- as also the Cursed Tree (mentioned) in the Qur'an: We put terror (and warning) into them, but it only increases their inordinate transgression!

#374

2006-08-09, 20:27

Regular

Re: My dear, Abrahim, you are flawed in your theories...

quote:Originally posted by Abrahim:

"What big ears you have Grandma!"

"The better to hear you with!"

What the?

#375

2006-08-09, 20:34