The Hardest 2 questions you could ever ask a Christian.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
21-10-2012, 10:58 AM
RE: The Hardest 2 questions you could ever ask a Christian.
I would not ask these questions. They're boring.

I'd rather ask, "Can I have $100?" and "Can I fuck your wife?"

"All that is necessary for the triumph of Calvinism is that good Atheists do nothing." ~Eric Oh My
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-10-2012, 11:07 AM
RE: The Hardest 2 questions you could ever ask a Christian.
(21-10-2012 10:58 AM)Erxomai Wrote:  I would not ask these questions. They're boring.

I'd rather ask, "Can I have $100?" and "Can I fuck your wife?"

Ok, move along then.. Nobody is forcing you to join this discussion, much-less troll it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-10-2012, 11:13 AM
RE: The Hardest 2 questions you could ever ask a Christian.
(21-10-2012 11:07 AM)TheJackal Wrote:  
(21-10-2012 10:58 AM)Erxomai Wrote:  I would not ask these questions. They're boring.

I'd rather ask, "Can I have $100?" and "Can I fuck your wife?"

Ok, move along then.. Nobody is forcing you to join this discussion, much-less troll it.

Thanks for the advice. I'll take it under consideration.

"All that is necessary for the triumph of Calvinism is that good Atheists do nothing." ~Eric Oh My
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-10-2012, 11:17 AM
RE: The Hardest 2 questions you could ever ask a Christian.
Nice opening thread, Jackal. Thumbsup

It reminds me of Wheeler's Participatory Universe and Lanza's Biocentrism.

(21-10-2012 12:08 AM)TheJackal Wrote:  Hence some Pantheists see existence itself as the source origin, and as the Universal set of all sets to everything that is in and of existence.

Ah ... but is a set containing all sets that are not members of themselves a member of itself?

(21-10-2012 12:08 AM)TheJackal Wrote:  "I am" in and of existence, and so are you.

I don't admit that as self-evident and immediately obvious. I don't see it as axiomatic, but rather itself in need of argument.

(21-10-2012 08:37 AM)Vosur Wrote:  Cogito ergo sum.

Q.E.D.

Demonstrandum my ass, Vosur. The Cogito is so full of holes even a 19 yo could drive a fucking truck through them. And I did some 30 years ago at University now.

(21-10-2012 12:08 AM)TheJackal Wrote:  It's simple to understand since Existence is stated here as Causality just as it is Reality itself.

Neither do I admit causality as self-evident and inarguable.

Anywho, welcome aboard Jackal.

This is not my signature.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-10-2012, 12:51 PM (This post was last modified: 21-10-2012 01:13 PM by TheJackal.)
RE: The Hardest 2 questions you could ever ask a Christian.
Quote:Ah ... but is a set containing all sets that are not members of themselves a member of itself?

This is a good point, so I will try to explain with an example of why it works here Smile .. And for this we have to deal with capacity and volume of the system in question, and why no boundary can exist for this system in question. But before I get into it too deeply, we can state that if the system is infinite in capacity and volume, there is no requirement for the Universal set to be self-contained as it is the sum infinite total of what is and "where". And this to where there is no possible outside of this system, or boundary to the system simply because no such boundary can exist in terms of the capacity of the volume of the system. So if nothing / non-existence can not exist as a literal existing person, place, object, substance, or thing..., there can be no zero value for which could represent a boundary to the volume capacity of the system. Hence nothing can't contain or sustain an existence as it would have no capacity to do so, or a volume value to contain anything at all.. So a zero volume or capacity is literally impossible to exist. This is for the same reason why a quantized existence is the only possible existence one can live in or be a part of. So lets get deeper into this.. :

Quote:infinite-dimensional spaces are widely used in geometry and topology, particularly as classifying spaces, notably Eilenberg−MacLane spaces. Common examples are the infinite-dimensional complex projective spaceK(Z,2) and the infinite-dimensional real projective space K(Z/2Z,1).

If our universe is finite, it can not exist in a box, container, or volume with a capacity of literal zero. What ever volume it's in, will be infinite, or it could also be in another finite volume like that of our Universe. However, volume in general, and capacity in general are always considered infinite in this regard. If it weren't, you couldn't be here.

Example:

You have a brick, just a common brick. This brick as a physical 3D object can not be contained in a volume less than it's own (yes you could compress it, but that is missing the point as we are speaking of the brick as is). Should this volume that contains this brick be finite, itself is like the brick to where it also can not be contained in a volume to which has zero capacity, or a value of zero for volume..Meaning a zero volume and capacity value can not exist if we are to say anything is to exist at all. What this means is that in order for the brick, or the volume to which contains the brick to exist, Capacity and volume must be infinite without possible boundary or border. And what most people don't get is that the brick itself is literally apart of the volume to which it exists in. As in what makes up the volume also makes up the object within the volume. And this is the very energy to which is the capacity of both the volume and the brick itself. Or in accordance to the OP, the very essence of existence to which is the capacity of both the volume and the brick itself.

So anything you might consider finite is just an emergent property of the system. And under this context you can't convert something to nothing, or nothing to something. Hence just as energy can neither be created nor destroyed, neither can information. And even I is all the information that gives I and Identity. The meaning that there can only be a change of state, function, value, purpose, or meaning. So if I die and I am no longer consciously existent, I would still technically exist because the system that produced me as an emergent property of it would still exist. Hence it would be no different if a ball stopped bouncing and the bounce ceased to be an emergent property or phenomenon in regards to the ball. Or no different if you cut down a tree and burn it as firewood. Technically all that made the tree still exists even if it doesn't server the purpose of being a tree anymore. Hence there is no loss of information or energy in the system..There is only a change of state, function, purpose, process, form, value, or meaning ect.. So things like consciousness are emergent properties of the inertia of information in the system to which makes us subsets of the system to which we must be a part of, an exist in.

And it doesn't matter if we call it Reality or Existence.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-10-2012, 01:06 PM
RE: The Hardest 2 questions you could ever ask a Christian.
(21-10-2012 11:17 AM)GirlyMan Wrote:  Demonstrandum my ass, Vosur. The Cogito is so full of holes even a 19 yo could drive a fucking truck through them. And I did some 30 years ago at University now.
It was more of a tongue-in-cheek response. I've read that article long ago. Smile
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Vosur's post
21-10-2012, 01:09 PM
RE: The Hardest 2 questions you could ever ask a Christian.
Quote:Neither do I admit causality as self-evident and inarguable.

I would say anything is arguable just because we can argue.. However, the validity of the argument is more important. Smile However, the problem with the linked argument in this context is that no alternative to existence is given.. Hence what would exist and not be in or of existence? For example, if the system is infinite, what is the alternative? Hence if someone said there is more than one existence, it begs to answer where are they in relation to each other and what separates them. Hence does it matter how many dimensions, universes, places, or realms exist in Reality or in Existence? Hence, this gets into the infinite hotel analogy.. But even if we pretended there is more than one form of existence, or reality, the two questions are still valid in regards to those.. Hence, I can still apply those two questions regardless of how they want to define existence. So no matter what they will beg us to believe their GOD is in and of existence, and in need of it. And that brings other questions such as:

How does one create existence, or anything that which one's self is slave to require to exist or function at all? .. Well it can't, and nor could it know how to. And thus that alone invalidates the omni properties they love to attach to their GOD.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-10-2012, 01:13 PM
RE: The Hardest 2 questions you could ever ask a Christian.
(21-10-2012 10:57 AM)TheJackal Wrote:  Now see you're using the term Reality here, or "in Reality" to which is synonymous with Existence.

Only because you defined it for *yourself* that way. Not every one agrees with that. You have not demonstrated why that, of necessity is true.

"Existence" is a positive statement. "Something exists". If the word "existence" has linguistic content, it "means" something". You're sayong it "means everything". If the word "existence "means" something, (positive), then it participates only partially in Reality. You said "existence is the entity etc... " An "infinite entity" is an oxymoron, (as Kingsy tried to tell you).

A "universal that NEEDS to be anything. or IS anything participates participates in (a) structure, and is NOT THE structure.

Your definition of "entity:" is irrelevant. You are talking about an "entity" that you conflated with existence, and god(s). YOU brought up "entity", and used a common definition to attempt to refute a "special definition".

Your premise is false, (or not demonstrated, and certainly not proven), and you operational assumption is false. No Christian would even start down this path. So it's not going to do anything for their case or against their case. You have to agree on assumptions, and silent premises, BEFORE you present an argument. No Christian would agree with your OP, so your essentially talking to yourself. You have done nothing if they're not listening, or engaged in the conversation.

Quote:No you can't, unless non-existence and existence are the same thing.

(21-10-2012 10:57 AM)TheJackal Wrote:  Yes I can.., and I just did. And your argument here is incoherent as non-existence and existence would not be the same thing. Your argument is like trying to claim that for reality to be real, it must magically be the same as unreal or unreality. You're trying to appeal to ignorance.

No. I said they were different. Reality vs Unreality IS structure.

You can say anything you want.
Whether it's correct or it's content is meaningful is another matter.
And you just refuted yourself.
"non-existence and existence would not be the same thing."
EXACTLY. Existence is not the totality of Reality, and participates in only part of it.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein Certified Ancient Astronaut Theorist & Levitating Yogi
Sent by Jebus to put the stud back in Bible Study.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-10-2012, 01:25 PM (This post was last modified: 21-10-2012 01:37 PM by TheJackal.)
RE: The Hardest 2 questions you could ever ask a Christian.
Quote:Only because you defined it for *yourself* that way. Not every one agrees with that. You have not demonstrated why that, of necessity is true.

You keep saying this, but that is consistent with the definitions of both words. And you aren't providing alternatives to even infer otherwise. Hence what definition do you think you are going to use, or what they are going to use here?

Quote:"Existence" is a positive statement. "Something exists". If the word "existence" has linguistic content, it "means" something". You're sayong it "means everything". If the word "existence "means" something, (positive), then it participates only partially in Reality. You said "existence is the entity etc... " An "infinite entity" is an oxymoron, (as Kingsy tried to tell you).

No it would be a Universal set of all sets. It's not an oxymoron to say a rock is in and of existence. The rock is an existent thing, or entity, but it's a part of Reality itself / Existence itself. And you aren't going to say the rock exists nowhere, or not in existence under the premise that it exists.

And if you think existence is only partially in Reality, do tell us "where" in Reality we do not have existence, or where we can not find existence..? Hence, do I really need to change the word in my OP from existence to "Reality" ? .. Sorry but your statement holds no water while requiring existence to make such a statement. You can't use something against itself to argue against it in this context and have it make any coherent sense.

Quote: No. I said they were different. Reality vs Unreality IS structure.

And to be of reality you have to be in and of the structure of reality.. A structure of Unreality can not in the literal context actually exist in Reality.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-10-2012, 01:26 PM (This post was last modified: 21-10-2012 01:41 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: The Hardest 2 questions you could ever ask a Christian.
(21-10-2012 01:06 PM)Vosur Wrote:  
(21-10-2012 11:17 AM)GirlyMan Wrote:  Demonstrandum my ass, Vosur. The Cogito is so full of holes even a 19 yo could drive a fucking truck through them. And I did some 30 years ago at University now.
It was more of a tongue-in-cheek response. I've read that article long ago. Smile

You might've read it but 30 years ago Girly didn't have no Google or Wikipedia navigation shit for help, I drove that truck myself without their aid. One of the most instructive and formative truck rides of my life. Thumbsup

(21-10-2012 01:09 PM)TheJackal Wrote:  
Quote:Neither do I admit causality as self-evident and inarguable.

I would say anything is arguable just because we can argue.. However, the validity of the argument is more important.

The soundness of an argument is far more important than it's validity. Any fucking vulgar drunken hairless talking girly monkey can crank through the making and checking of an argument's validity. But if the premises ain't self-evident and indisputable, Girly's just getting off on mental masturbation. ... Not that there's anything wrong with that. Big Grin

This is not my signature.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: