461 replies to this topic

[scowl]

Mr Right Wing, on 07 December 2012 - 06:50 PM, said:

1. Lets start by asking ourselves what exactly is a stone?

Oh my gosh...I understand exactly what people are saying about you!

I present a very simple three-step logical puzzle that proves my point and you are completely unable to understand it. To avoid this and to present yourself as some kind of genius, you start questioning the definitions of individual words in the puzzle, oblivious that this is completely irrelevant to the meaning of it!

I assume after we get to the precise definition of "stone" that you'll want to argue about what each individual letter in the word means!

[Mr Right Wing]

scowl, on 07 December 2012 - 08:03 PM, said:

Oh my gosh...I understand exactly what people are saying about you!

I present a very simple three-step logical puzzle that proves my point and you are completely unable to understand it. To avoid this and to present yourself as some kind of genius, you start questioning the definitions of individual words in the puzzle, oblivious that this is completely irrelevant to the meaning of it!

I assume after we get to the precise definition of "stone" that you'll want to argue about what each individual letter in the word means!

The philosophical point being made is that a stone is an idea in your head and ideas dont have mass.

Planets, humans, trees, stones and atoms are just ideas. Reality is just a collection of those ideas. You cant use something which doesnt exit (ideas) as proof that something else does or doesnt exist. Its nonsensical.

Edited by Mr Right Wing, 07 December 2012 - 08:59 PM.

[Beckys_Mom]

C235, on 07 December 2012 - 07:47 PM, said:

Science's all attempts were futile. what does it prove to you?

Sciences all attempts were futile ? I am not sure what it is you are trying to say.   To take a guess at what it is you are trying to say  is - All attempts science made were futile ?    IF so, then  I would suggest that, even if science has tried and failed, at least  trying is a step forward,  and that is still progress

Quote

"Science reaches its limits where When creation meets Its Creator (God)"   

How do you know this?    My point is simple - If we do not know what tomorrow will bring, then how can we be as arrogant to suggest  science will stop ?

You at one point posted this ...

C235, on 06 December 2012 - 04:50 PM, said:

Maybe science can go beyond natural one day. Who knows really? Everything is possible.

You then say...

Quote

In my theory science will stop not us! though in your theory you can go as far as you please.   

One min you think maybe science can go beyond the natural...Everything is possible The next you claim that the attempts were futile and your theory ( as you note in the above quote )is that science will stop !!!   Which is it? They will reach their limit and stop?  OR everything is possible  ( according to you ) ?

Edited by Beckys_Mom, 07 December 2012 - 08:54 PM.

[Etu Malku]

Mr Right Wing, on 07 December 2012 - 08:34 PM, said:

The philosophical point being made is that a stone is an idea in your head and ideas dont have mass.

Planets, humans, trees, stones and atoms are just ideas. Reality is just a collection of those ideas. You cant use something which doesnt exit (ideas) as proof that something else does or doesnt exist. Its nonsensical.

LMAO . . . getting all "deep" on us now? What dictionary are you using, Timothy Leary's?


stone: noun
1.the hard substance, formed of mineral matter, of which rocks consist.
2.a rock or particular piece or kind of rock, as a boulder or piece of agate.
3.a piece of rock quarried and worked into a specific size and shape for a particular purpose: paving stone; building stone.
4.a small piece of rock, as a pebble.

Edited by Etu Malku, 07 December 2012 - 09:06 PM.

[scowl]

Mr Right Wing, on 07 December 2012 - 08:34 PM, said:

The philosophical point being made is that a stone is an idea in your head and ideas dont have mass.

Nope, the point has absolutely nothing to do with stones or mass or ideas. It's about the impossibility of a single being possessing two abilities that contradict each other.

There are countless other pairs of abilities that contradict each other i.e. a fire so hot that God can't put it out, a cannonball so fast that God can't stop it, a sound so quiet that God can't hear it, two numbers so large that God can't add them without a calculator, and so on.

I learned this paradox when I was about ten years old.

[scowl]

Etu Malku, on 07 December 2012 - 09:05 PM, said:

LMAO . . . getting all "deep" on us now? What dictionary are you using, Timothy Leary's?

This person has no ability or motivation to understand anything we tell them. They feel that whatever they believe is more important than what is true.

Let them live in the Matrix or whatever make-believe world they've invented for themselves.

[Mr Right Wing]

Etu Malku, on 07 December 2012 - 09:05 PM, said:

LMAO . . . getting all "dep" on us now? What dictionary are you using, Timothy Leary's?

A dictionary does not dictate if something is real or not.

Lets use the example of a car.
1. If you remove a wheel is it still a car?
2. If you then remove the windscreen is it still a car?
3. If you then remove the exhaust is it still a car?
4. Etc, etc.

At what point does it cease to be a car?

For the car to be a real object it must have certain qualities yet you cant identify the stage at which it ceases to be a car. That point is a matter of personal opinion because it isnt an object but an idea.

Reality is a collection of ideas and even the atom is not a real object.

[Etu Malku]

scowl, on 07 December 2012 - 09:06 PM, said:

Nope, the point has absolutely nothing to do with stones or mass or ideas. It's about the impossibility of a single being possessing two abilities that contradict each other.

There are countless other pairs of abilities that contradict each other i.e. a fire so hot that God can't put it out, a cannonball so fast that God can't stop it, a sound so quiet that God can't hear it, two numbers so large that God can't add them without a calculator, and so on.

I learned this paradox when I was about ten years old.

How about this for the ultimate paradox!
God creates Adam & Eve, then creates Sin, has Eve commit the Sin, then sends His Son down to die for said Sin that He (God) created in the first place!

Nutty Bugger if you ask me, that God-dude

Edited by Etu Malku, 07 December 2012 - 09:16 PM.

[Etu Malku]

Mr Right Wing, on 07 December 2012 - 09:12 PM, said:

A dictionary does not dictate if something is real or not.

Lets use the example of a car.
1. If you remove a wheel is it still a car?
2. If you then remove the windscreen is it still a car?
3. If you then remove the exhaust is it still a car?
4. Etc, etc.

At what point does it cease to be a car?

For the car to be a real object it must have certain qualities yet you cant identify the stage at which it ceases to be a car. That point is a matter of personal opinion because it isnt an object but an idea.

Reality is a collection of ideas and even the atom is not a real object.

Further nuttery . . . try selling the car without a steering wheel.
As I have been saying, we assign meaning to the subjective universe through the objective universe.
The car has functionally stopped being a car when you removed the steering wheel.

[Mr Right Wing]

scowl, on 07 December 2012 - 09:06 PM, said:

1. Nope, the point has absolutely nothing to do with stones or mass or ideas. It's about the impossibility of a single being possessing two abilities that contradict each other.
2. a fire so hot that God can't put it out
3. a cannonball so fast that God can't stop it
4. a sound so quiet that God can't hear it
5. two numbers so large that God can't add them without a calculator

1. Your argument was about using an idea to prove the non-existance of God. As has been shown to you ideas arent real.
2. The concepts of hot and cold are human perceptions not things which exist outside of your head.
3. Whats a cannonball? Yet another idea.
4. Sound is a human perception not something which exists outside of your head.
5. Are numbers objects?

[Mr Right Wing]

Etu Malku, on 07 December 2012 - 09:18 PM, said:

Further nuttery . . . try selling the car without a steering wheel.
As I have been saying, we assign meaning to the subjective universe through the objective universe.
The car has functionally stopped being a car when you removed the steering wheel.

Whats an objective universe and how do you know one exists seeing as you've never experienced it?

[Mr Walker]

Mac E, on 07 December 2012 - 03:57 PM, said:

This is where my signature after my posts comes in handy.

With apologies to the author, that is the sort of Descartian mumbo jumbo which leads people to false conclusions. The universe existed before us. We came into existence as a result/consequence of the prior existence of the universe, which is how we are able to observe it.

The universe provided conditions which allowed us to evolve to a point  where we could not only physiclally see the universe, but also conceptually recognise its existence and understand its nature and our realtionship to it.

Without a prior existent universe, we would not be here to observe it. But without us, or any observer, the universe would  still exist.

[Mr Right Wing]

Mr Walker, on 07 December 2012 - 09:37 PM, said:

With apologies to the author, that is the sort of Descartian mumbo jumbo which leads people to false conclusions. The universe existed before us. We came into existence as a result/consequence of the prior existence of the universe, which is how we are able to observe it.

The universe provided conditions which allowed us to evolve to a point  where we could not only physiclally see the universe, but also conceptually recognise its existence and understand its nature and our realtionship to it.

Without a prior existent universe, we would not be here to observe it. But without us, or any observer, the universe would  still exist.

How can your perceptions have existed before you became conscious?

[Etu Malku]

Mr Right Wing, on 07 December 2012 - 09:25 PM, said:

Whats an objective universe and how do you know one exists seeing as you've never experienced it?

The Objective Universe (OU), is the world around you defined by time & space, and the Subjective Universe (SU), is essentially the world inside your head, incorporating the OU filtered through your sense and brain, and also anything you imagine. In mundane existence, the OU affects the SU, but it doesn’t work the other way around. However, there exists what is called a Magical Link between your SU and the OU, which allows the SU to affect the OU.

The objective universe as a whole is un-conscious and mechanical, it is not intelligent, not aware of itself, and is not in possession of Will. Man, while being biologically compatible with the objective universe, is contrasted against it because he possesses the ability to be intelligent, Self-Aware, and Wilful. As man develops these abilities, it enables him to have a non-natural perspective; he can distinguish between himself and all that he is surrounded by. This perspective leads to the development of individuality.

Bottom line:
1. Objective Universe (OU): Things are they "are." Time, space, matter, energy, etc.
2. Subjective Universe (SU): Our unique personal perspective and experience of the OU. What we interpret and perceive it as is our SU.

[Quaentum]

Mr Right Wing, on 07 December 2012 - 08:34 PM, said:

The philosophical point being made is that a stone is an idea in your head and ideas dont have mass.

Planets, humans, trees, stones and atoms are just ideas. Reality is just a collection of those ideas. You cant use something which doesnt exit (ideas) as proof that something else does or doesnt exist. Its nonsensical.

Actually your concept is incorrect.  Take for example a person blind and deaf from birth.  He is standing next to a building and someone drops a stone on him.  He doesn't know the stone is there but he reacts to it's contact and is hurt by it.  It couldn't happen if it were just an idea.