Z
Variable Constant
phildonnia said:
What about lifegazer's "X = A, therefore X = A U ¬A", where X is omnipotence, A = ability to do everything, and U is the Union sign?
What about lifegazer's "X = A, therefore X = A U ¬A", where X is omnipotence, A = ability to do everything, and U is the Union sign?
uruk
Philosopher
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2003
- Messages
- 5,311
You are going to die, pass on from this world, join the bleedin' choir invisibule. no amount of belief is going to change or prevent that. What does that say about your beliefs or what drives your beliefs, or what is driving the force behind reality?
Oh, you are so full of "appropriateness" now aren't you? Labels, labels, labels ....Piscivore said:This seems an appropriate point at which to link to an old parody of mine.
Well, what I would like to tell you is to pretend like you were never here, because this is all you have to look forward to. But then again, if such a thing doesn't exist, when the time comes, how can it pretend to do anything?uruk said:
Yes, but by virtue of the (alleged) fact that God's existence cannot be validated, it casts a tremendous shadow over the validation of materialism as well. Because if materialism were to maintain itself as a viable way to look at things, where nothing stands beyond or, outside of it, it must be able to establish with, absolute certainty, that materialism is all there is. And it simply cannot. The fact is, it is wholly contingent upon the facts as our minds present to us. Which is to say, there is no way of determining the origin of anything outside of this. So, would anyone care to further speculate?phildonnia said:
No.Iacchus said:Yes, but by virtue of the (alleged) fact that God's existence cannot be validated, it casts a tremendous shadow over the validation of materialism as well. Because if materialism were to maintain itself as a viable way to look at things, where nothing stands beyond or, outside of it, it must be able to establish with, absolute certainty, that materialism is all there is. And it simply cannot. The fact is, it is wholly contingent upon the facts as our minds present to us. Which is to say, there is no way of determining the origin of anything outside of this. So, would anyone care to further speculate?
(To save space, that one "no" applies to each of your sentences above, individually, and to your overal emergent point as well. Your understanding of materialism is as flawed as the logic in your own philosophy, which has holes in it big enough to float a barge through. What is worse, every single misconception you write here is one which has been explained to you patiently and in detail by more than one person on this forum. I am increasingly surprised at the willingness of some people here to--in the face of such posts--continue to assume that you must actually be an intelligent man with much to contribute. It speaks volumes about those people, especially when you tend to lash out at them personally yourself. Anyway...with regard to your understanding of logic, your understanding of materialism, your understanding of "mind", your understanding of origins, your understanding of damn near everything, I will, for clarity's sake, repeat my answer
No.
No, the fact is materialism cannot be proven, as a stand alone theory, unless it can be proven with absolute certainty that God does not exist. And such a thing is not possible. So, the most we could hope to do is address the illusion of materialism ... and so opens the door to Who or what is driving this illusion. At least that much we know is real, for even an illusion can't be sustained without something tangible behind it.Mercutio said:(To save space, that one "no" applies to each of your sentences above, individually, and to your overal emergent point as well. Your understanding of materialism is as flawed as the logic in your own philosophy, which has holes in it big enough to float a barge through. What is worse, every single misconception you write here is one which has been explained to you patiently and in detail by more than one person on this forum. I am increasingly surprised at the willingness of some people here to--in the face of such posts--continue to assume that you must actually be an intelligent man with much to contribute. It speaks volumes about those people, especially when you tend to lash out at them personally yourself. Anyway...with regard to your understanding of logic, your understanding of materialism, your understanding of "mind", your understanding of origins, your understanding of damn near everything, I will, for clarity's sake, repeat my answer
Piscivore
Smelling fishy
Iacchus said:
Explain why. You can't, can you?
Iacchus said:
Wow, maybe LG is gaining a convert.
Yes but when you're dead, you won't even be able to pretend like you were never here. Of course we're speaking of the qualities of one's mind which, according to some folks around here, never existed anyway. So, whatever ...uruk said:
But let me ask you this. Do you believe that you exist, right here and in the now? It certainly couldn't be more than a belief though, if it were to simply up and disappear when you die. So, what other choice do you have, but to accept that you are an illusion unto yourself? ... It sure doesn't feel like an illusion though does it?
I would just like to thank Iacchus for introducing me to something which I'd not previously realised... No, not that he's a raving loony... I mean that I'd not before paid enough attention to Schrodinger's Cat to realise that he actually was using it as a way of attacking nonsense like this.
Iacchus, you muddy funster, if either God exists or he does not, then it's entirely not a matter of belief, is it? He exists or doesn't exist indepedent of belief.
After all, you believe that God exists independent of the fact that we believe he doesn't exist, don't you? You assert his existance = 1 no matter what. So where does our beliefs come into this?
Honestly, you really must get this lying and self deception under control... You've obviously learnt a lot of bad habits after following Lifegazer around all these years. Time to get a better tutor, old chap.
Iacchus, you muddy funster, if either God exists or he does not, then it's entirely not a matter of belief, is it? He exists or doesn't exist indepedent of belief.
After all, you believe that God exists independent of the fact that we believe he doesn't exist, don't you? You assert his existance = 1 no matter what. So where does our beliefs come into this?
Honestly, you really must get this lying and self deception under control... You've obviously learnt a lot of bad habits after following Lifegazer around all these years. Time to get a better tutor, old chap.
Because our perception of the material world is all in our minds, and we can't experience it outside of that. If we weren't sentient and aware -- i.e., first things first -- we would know nothing about the material world.Piscivore said:
Ah, but since we can no more prove materialism than we can prove God, at least in the "empirical sense," the only place we have left to look is within our minds. Now, where exactly have I been telling you to look in this regard? ...Pahansiri said:
"The kingdom of God is within you."
Iacchus said:
And that statement directly contradicts this one;
Not if you believe it's not possible to know anything beyond we are sentient and aware, you don't. So which one's the fib?
I think it's the first line; I do accept that you believe in an absolute truth, which is God... and that of course directly contradicts your earlier statement that God's existance is a matter of belief. It's not in your logical world, is it? So you were lying when you said it was. But it was a lie which allowed you to strike a cute pose masquerading as an argument... oh, and post a smiley too.
The thing is though... we all believe there is an absolute truth, just as you do in fact. We just don't think it's God. So your cute pose doesn't work as an argument, as well as being a naughty fib too.
Tut tut, and what does God say he does to fibbers? And does he do it absolutely, would you say?
You are so close to being right, here, it is almost painful. Like a kidnap victim being held captive right next door to his own house, there is extra irony in being so close, yet so far away.Iacchus said:
The assumptions of materialism which cannot be proven are, as are any assumptions of monisms or dualism, axiomatic. That is, they are the assumptions without which the rest of the philosophy cannot progress. Although it is true these cannot be proven, this is not a fatal flaw; every philosophy has its axiomatic assumptions, and if you wish to reject materialism on these grounds, you must likewise reject idealism and dualism.
So your objection, while technically correct, is less than trivial. Your own dualistic view has far more logical obstacles in its way than this. If you were logically consistent, you would have rejected your own arguments long before you would reject materialism. (oops...I just saw the beginning of that sentence..."if you were logically consistent." Never Mind...)
So this is how approach things ythat ou don't understand, by attacking it huh? First it was lifegazer and now it's my turn, correct?P.S.A. said:
Of course.
As you suggest, belief has nothing to do with it, yet this is the best we could muster via our materialistic claims.
Actually, I have participated in relatively few lifegazer threads, except perhaps a little more recently. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if you have participated in more than I have.