461 replies to this topic

[Mr Right Wing]

Etu Malku, on 07 December 2012 - 09:41 PM, said:

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.

Name me one thing which is objective.

I'll jump straight to the end and assume you believe atoms are objectively real. Enjoy -

Now for another example. I see a blue sky and a colour blind person sees a green one. This is possible because colour isnt real but perception. Yet the problem for you is the blue or green sky exists outside of our heads.

There is no difference between reality and the mind as they are the same thing. They are not seperate things which is why colour appears to exist outside of your head despite it being perception.

Edited by Mr Right Wing, 07 December 2012 - 10:32 PM.

[Mr Walker]

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.

The problem is that this dichotomy or paradox is a human construct and based on human understandings. My answer to it has aalwys been. "Who really knows." The answers might be yes and yes. A being with the power/ technology of a god may be both able to create  an object it canot lift and then find a way of lifting it by altering its mass structure etc.

Also the concpet that stone is only a word and has no weight is correct  in a philosophical sense. While a real stone has weight the stone in your mentally constructed paradox does not it is a label and so can be interpreted or understood by differnt peole in differnt ways.

And so, within the verbal paradox, it carries no weight. (pun intended) I actually agree that a real physical god cannot be omipotent but it can be extremely powerful Powerful enough, for example to create life, construct a galaxy or more from  the manipulation energy and matter. A class 3 civilization could do all these things. One day humans will have such power, if we survive, so why not a god.

[Mr Right Wing]

Mr Walker, on 07 December 2012 - 10:13 PM, said:

The problem is that this dichotomy or paradox is a human construct and based on human understandings. My answer to it has aalwys been. "Who really knows." The answers might be yes and yes. A being with the power/ technology of a god may be both able to create  an object it canot lift and then find a way of lifting it by altering its mass structure etc.

Also the concpet that stone is only a word and has no weight is correct  in a philosophical sense. While a real stone has weight the stone in your mentally constructed paradox does not it is a label and so can be interpreted or understood by differnt peole in differnt ways.

And so, within the verbal paradox, it carries no weight. (pun intended) I actually agree that a real physical god cannot be omipotent but it can be extremely powerful Powerful enough, for example to create life, construct a galaxy or more from  the manipulation energy and matter. A class 3 civilization could do all these things. One day humans will have such power, if we survive, so why not a god.

There is no thing called a stone that exists independantly from perception.

When it comes to mass it isnt a property of subjective objects. Even physics says its caused by the Higgs Field not a property of atoms.

The idea that God cant lift a subjective object with infinite mass is non-sensical because the object doesnt exist to begin with.

Edited by Mr Right Wing, 07 December 2012 - 10:27 PM.

[scowl]

Mr Walker, on 07 December 2012 - 10:13 PM, said:

The problem is that this dichotomy or paradox is a human construct and based on human understandings.

That is not a problem. They are correct and proved constructs and understandings. "Human" does not mean "wrong". Unless you can prove it wrong, which you did not, it stands as correct.

Quote

A being with the power/ technology of a god may be both able to create  an object it canot lift and then find a way of lifting it by altering its mass structure etc.

Then the god couldn't create an object it couldn't lift therefore the god is not omnipotent! That's like saying 2 X 3=7 because you can add one afterwards.

Is this really that complicated to understand? This proof is simpler than 90% of the proofs I had to learn in 9th grade geometry!

[Mr Right Wing]

scowl, on 07 December 2012 - 10:46 PM, said:

That is not a problem. They are correct and proved constructs and understandings. "Human" does not mean "wrong". Unless you can prove it wrong, which you did not, it stands as correct.

Then the god couldn't create an object it couldn't lift therefore the god is not omnipotent! That's like saying 2 X 3=7 because you can add one afterwards.

Is this really that complicated to understand? This proof is simpler than 90% of the proofs I had to learn in 9th grade geometry!

Once again perceptions arent real.

You are taking the human condition and are determined to lower God to the same level. Then claiming a perception you have means he isnt real.

Edited by Mr Right Wing, 07 December 2012 - 10:53 PM.

[scowl]

Mr Right Wing, on 07 December 2012 - 09:21 PM, said:

1. Your argument was about using an idea to prove the non-existance of God.

Jezus Christ on a Popsicle stick, I used it to prove that omnipotence doesn't exist, not God. I know you don't believe in anything but could you do me a favor and read what I write?

Quote

As has been shown to you ideas arent real.

Actually ideas about my ideas prove they exist.

Quote

2. The concepts of hot and cold are human perceptions not things which exist outside of your head.

Iron will melt at 2,800F. It will not melt because of my perception.

Quote

3. Whats a cannonball? Yet another idea.

It's something made of iron.

Quote

4. Sound is a human perception not something which exists outside of your head.

It is? You know what? God heard Moses speak. If sound is a human perception that you have just proved that God is human therefore he can't be omnipotent.

I like my proof more but yours works too. Thank you! You're a genius!

[scowl]

Mr Right Wing, on 07 December 2012 - 10:53 PM, said:

Once again perceptions arent real.

If they aren't then...

Quote

You are taking the human condition

The human condition isn't real. It's just a human perception. What you're saying means nothing. Sorry.

Quote

and are determined to lower God

God isn't real. It's just a human idea.

Quote

to the same level.

Level is just a human perception therefore it can't be real.

So everything you said was wrong. Sorry.

[minera]

it is like asking what came first. the chicken or the egg. Logically the egg would come before the chicken, but then who or what made the egg and where did it come from??? Maybe our whole cosmos is just a part of something bigger and made up of many such cosmos like ours, something like cells in our bodies. Similarly we can go backwards in our own bodies  into the cells, atoms etc. If any of those atoms are self aware do they know they are a part of a larger group that is part of a living organism? The whole thing is basically unanswerable with our limited knowledge. Maybe we ARE just living in a MATRIX and none of this is even real.

[Etu Malku]

Mr Right Wing, on 07 December 2012 - 09:56 PM, said:

Name me one thing which is objective.

1 + 1 = 2  . . . I am talking about principles of the material universe that are measurable. I understand your *Eastern outlook here, but I am talking about principles and laws of the objective universe that don't need our existence for them to exist. For instance, when YOU die, the world will continue, doesn't matter if you still perceive it or not, therefore it remains while you don't.
Let me ask you . . . how would you remain even after your death?

Quote

Now for another example. I see a blue sky and a colour blind person sees a green one. This is possible because colour isnt real but perception. Yet the problem for you is the blue or green sky exists outside of our heads.

First off, the reason why we see the color blue is because it the only color being reflected back to us, in other words the object reflecting has absorbed ALL the other colors except blue. The idea whether Your blue is the same as My blue is always up for debate.

Quote

There is no difference between reality and the mind as they are the same thing. They are not seperate things which is why colour appears to exist outside of your head despite it being perception.

Objective reality is governed by laws of physics e.g. I jump off a building, I fall down, probably die . . . in our subjective universe/reality, I jump off a building I bounce, then fly, then turn into a the sky, except now I'm the color red.

Get it?

[scowl]

Etu Malku, on 08 December 2012 - 12:12 AM, said:

First off, the reason why we see the color blue is because it the only color being reflected back to us, in other words the object reflecting has absorbed ALL the other colors except blue. The idea whether Your blue is the same as My blue is always up for debate.

Or in Right Wing's case of the blue sky, the sky is blue because blue light acts differently from other colors. Unlike the other colors from the sun it scatters in the atmosphere and bounces down to our eyes giving the sky its familiar blue tint. The other colors just don't do that.

Color can be measured objectively by wavelength, photon energy level and other attributes. These are independent of our perception of color.

Once case where our color perception fails us somewhat is violet. It looks kind of like purple but it's not really red and blue light mixed together. Our eyes are fooling us into seeing it that way.

[Etu Malku]

scowl, on 08 December 2012 - 12:51 AM, said:

Or in Right Wing's case of the blue sky, the sky is blue because blue light acts differently from other colors. Unlike the other colors from the sun it scatters in the atmosphere and bounces down to our eyes giving the sky its familiar blue tint. The other colors just don't do that.

Color can be measured objectively by wavelength, photon energy level and other attributes. These are independent of our perception of color.

Once case where our color perception fails us somewhat is violet. It looks kind of like purple but it's not really red and blue light mixed together. Our eyes are fooling us into seeing it that way.

The blue color of the sky is due to Rayleigh scattering. As light moves through the atmosphere, most of the longer wavelengths pass straight through. Little of the red, orange and yellow light is affected by the air.
However, much of the shorter wavelength light is absorbed by the gas molecules. The absorbed blue light is then radiated in different directions. It gets scattered all around the sky. Whichever direction you look, some of this scattered blue light reaches you. Since you see the blue light from everywhere overhead, the sky looks blue.

The objective universe triumphant!!

[Beckys_Mom]

Etu Malku, on 08 December 2012 - 12:12 AM, said:

1 + 1 = 2  . . .

It can also = 3

[Etu Malku]

Beckys_Mom, on 08 December 2012 - 01:32 AM, said:

It can also = 3

How so?

[C235]

Beckys_Mom, on 07 December 2012 - 08:35 PM, said:

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



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 ...



You then say...


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 ) ?

Its very simple there is no conflict in my statements You claimed the attempts were futile in HISTORY. It proved History has shown no progress in this certain field, not future, History. say it N O T F U T U R E well done.  I still say maybe that's possible in future but still limited within creation. Its hard to continue debating if You confuse everything so fast

Edited by C235, 08 December 2012 - 04:33 AM.

[Mr Walker]

Mr Right Wing, on 07 December 2012 - 10:19 PM, said:

There is no thing called a stone that exists independantly from perception.

When it comes to mass it isnt a property of subjective objects. Even physics says its caused by the Higgs Field not a property of atoms.

The idea that God cant lift a subjective object with infinite mass is non-sensical because the object doesnt exist to begin with.

This is untrue. In "a galaxy far away"   there exists a stone no sapient self aware entity has ever seen. It exists without any perception at all. Perception is one of the last evolved forces in the galaxy/universe. It only came about because non perceived objects and entities preceded it. Of course i accpet that if a tree falls in a forest with nothing to hear it it still makes a sound . Whether the sound is perceived or not has no bearing on the reality of the sound.

Philosophically and mentally, anything is possible. In "reality " also, anything MAY be possible. We do not have a good enough understanding of the laws of physics in the universe to know. Heck we dont even know that gravity is a  universal constant.

So, to address your paradox, if god created an object in a part of the universe without gravity, the paradox would not even exist because the stone would have no weight. It might have inertia but it might not, also.

Thus while it sounds like a real paradox it is actually a false paradox or non paradoxial statement,  because we do not know or understand all the parameters which can be applied to it either in a mental construct or in the physical world. No one HAS to accept the parameters  given by the person who constructed the paradox, as inflexible or unalterable.

Edited by Mr Walker, 08 December 2012 - 04:59 AM.