uruk
Philosopher
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2003
- Messages
- 5,311
I know that I exist, and I can prove to myself that I exist. (now wether I am actually something else as LG suggests is irrelevent to me. I can't know that for sure) It is all that I can know for sure. I can only go on by what I know and what I can know. Can I prove to you that I exists? probably not. Because you can only know that you exist and you can't prove to your self that I exist. But that's irrelevent. All we have to go on is what we can percieve, and my perceptions tell me that you exist because I am interacting with you. Wether I believe you actualy exist or not is irrelevent. You still exist to me wether I want you to or not. There is only us and the things we percieve. wether they actaully exists or not is irrelevent.
You can refuse to believe that an onrushing vehicle is not real and wont harm you but that will not change the out come. There are things we have no control over whatsoever.
Well, I agree, it's kind of hard to deny that we exist.uruk said:
Yes, but what difference would it make if you were dead and no longer capable of "experiencing" it? Do you think the guy upstairs is going to let us off that easily? I could smell those hot dogs cooking already.
... Just kidding!uruk
Philosopher
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2003
- Messages
- 5,311
once you r dead, your dead. what's after that you can't know untill you experiance it. God is something we have no perception of. If I cannot perceive god I cannot say that he exists. I can only believe that he exists. But that's pretending, right?
uruk
Philosopher
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2003
- Messages
- 5,311
Where's the perception of the "passed on"? The problem is convincing others of the veracity of the interaction. We both know an object exists if the description of our perceptions of it agrees.
But if you perceieve something I cannot percieve, the burden is on you to prove to me that it exists. If I cannot percieve it, I cannot say that it exists. I only have your word for it's existance. At that point, I cannot know that it exists, I can only "believe" that it exists. But that would be pretending, wouldn't it?
Assuming animals do not believe in the absolute, humans would be inferior to animals when it comes to the absolute.
Both humans and animals sense pain.
Only humans dwell on pain, they feel pain like no other animal.
Humans can also imagine prolonged or infinite pain (e.g. Hell).
Because of this, they have invented the idea of no pain and continuous pleasure (God, the absolute).
However, because humans continue to dwell in pain, the absolute is useless to him. It simply serves to keep him miserable.
It also keeps him in a delusional state of prolonged pain.
This is delusional because there is nor pleasure nor pain from the animal point of view.
So the idea of the absolute contradicts the essence of being human and animal.
Both humans and animals sense pain.
Only humans dwell on pain, they feel pain like no other animal.
Humans can also imagine prolonged or infinite pain (e.g. Hell).
Because of this, they have invented the idea of no pain and continuous pleasure (God, the absolute).
However, because humans continue to dwell in pain, the absolute is useless to him. It simply serves to keep him miserable.
It also keeps him in a delusional state of prolonged pain.
This is delusional because there is nor pleasure nor pain from the animal point of view.
So the idea of the absolute contradicts the essence of being human and animal.
Iacchus said:To call me a liar for something you (allegedly) can't ascertain for yourself is just a bit absurd don't you think?
Cretin. We CAN assertain the truth of my claim... My claim merely being that you DO believe in an absolute truth, which is God, and therefore you are a liar. Simple.
Iacchus said:
Silly, silly person. I do understand your arguments. They are honk. That is why I attack them.
But good to see you've at least dropped part of your own set of lies, the one which claims I'm obsessed with Lifegazer.
Then your earlier argument about there being nothing more than belief was rubbish, we agree. You were lying when you made that claim. Good. Perhaps there's hope for you yet!
Oh, and you were doing so well! But here comes the deliberate (self?) deception again. I didn't state any such thing. This is just another example of your own hideous biases; I state two mutually contradictory positions in order to make a point to you, and you automatically assume you've heard what you want to hear.
What I said; The existance of God is not dependent on whether you believe he's there or not. And nor is his non-existance.
What You Wanted To Hear: God exists absolutely, but materialism can only offer Belief in him, not proof.
In the meantime, my washing machine still works.
Why are you so ashamed to admit that everywhere we look online and find Lifegazer, there you are too? It's not as if it's even a particularly hard lie to disprove. I don't even need to do a JREF search to find my own past proof... I just need to say the 3 magic words "Google", and "Lifegazer Iacchus". Oh look, 7 pages worth of hits.
Really Iacchus, it's all very very simple... asserting something in a cute way doesn't make it true. Just like having a dream which you can interpret in a cute way doesn't mean it's a message from God.
It's too bad you can't see past your own subjectivity, eh?P.S.A. said:
So, do you believe that there's an absolute basis for reality? If not, then what is it exactly that holds everything together? What's to keep the computer on my desktop from morphing into an orange let's say or, something that's never been heard of before? So it really isn't necessary to take it any further than this, since you are obviously incapable of taking it to the next step. Albeit it is important that we are capable of acknowledging absolute truth does exist.
Iacchus said:
Why don't YOU tell ME what my belief is? I've already given you enough information to take an educated guess at what it is. But if you'd prefer to just continue twirling around and around and singing "I'm so wise, God loves me, la la laa" then be my guest. Everyone else will just be standing over here, pointing at you and laughing at how silly you make yourself look.
Piscivore said:This seems an appropriate point at which to link to an old parody of mine.
Oops, I missed this first time around. Well, well, well.... so Iacchus, you dare repeat the lie about not paying any attention to Lifegazer when there's a reference to how other posters knew you were doing so in a post made in September last year, in the very same thread as your lie, do you?
Truly unbelievable...
ReasonableDoubt
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2002
- Messages
- 287
The term "absolute truth" is literally worthless; to say that proposition {x} is the absolute truth conveys nothing more of worth than does the assertion that proposition {x} is true.