GOD is...
GOD
nothingness. It necessarily follows that whomever or whatever is
prerequisite to everything else MUST BE GOD.
Cethiesus
*I hesitated to put this part of the statement in.
()xxxxxxxxxxxx():::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::>
Ceth...@aol.com
<:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::()xxxxxxxxxxxx()
Al
Alex
alan kong
Then God must be Chaos since the very first things created are from
chance and chaos.
Matt
>
> GOD is whomever or whatever created the very first things from absolute
> nothingness. It necessarily follows that whomever or whatever is
> prerequisite to everything else MUST BE GOD.
Can nothingness be anything less than absolute, considering that the
concept of nothingness is only a hypothetical thought game?
Also, in the supposition of nothingness a god can not have existed.
GOD
can be less than absolute, it could be defined to include only physical
things. I am including in the definition that I am providing that ABSOLUTE
NOTHINGNESS even includes the concept of <Nothingness> itself. In other
words the beginning of time is when not even nothing existed. Given that
this time existed, then whatever caused this state to change must be GOD, as
everything else would necessarily have existence contingent upon this one.
Matt wrote in message <36613894...@ukc.ac.uk>...
GOD
Although many <False Ideas Of GOD> exist, GOD himself is exactly as he is,
and is utterly unaffected by any of these mere <False Ideas>.
Cethiesus wrote in message <19981128181523...@ng137.aol.com>...
calingdl
Matt wrote in message <36613894...@ukc.ac.uk>...
>GOD wrote:
>>
>> GOD is whomever or whatever created the very first things from absolute
>> nothingness. It necessarily follows that whomever or whatever is
>> prerequisite to everything else MUST BE GOD.
>
>
>Can nothingness be anything less than absolute, considering that the
>concept of nothingness is only a hypothetical thought game?
>Also, in the supposition of nothingness a god can not have existed.
But what is nothingness can you truly say there is such a thing as there is
always something no matter how small it maybe.
David
And the name is - ENERGY.
Best regards,
Michael
eni...@radiant.net
GOD wrote in message <2AV72.36$QB3.1...@news.rdc1.ne.home.com>...
GOD
calingdl wrote in message <73vuh1$f7...@iccu9.ipswich.gil.com.au>...
>
>Matt wrote in message <36613894...@ukc.ac.uk>...
>>GOD wrote:
>>>
>>> GOD is whomever or whatever created the very first things from absolute
>>> nothingness. It necessarily follows that whomever or whatever is
>>> prerequisite to everything else MUST BE GOD.
>>
>>
Richard Scott
will destroy mankind. Man can never control nature because nature is in
everything in the universe.
Nature is simple, and if we pay attention to it, we might actually move
into the third millenium as enlightened beings.
Al <e4a...@yahoo.com> wrote in article
<01be1b36$abfb2720$144c3181@fastcars>...
> So it is nature?
>
> Alex
>
Gematria
>
> Nothingness is very simple to define, it is the contents of the empty set.
Yes. Yes. Very good. Here's something to ponder:
x divided by zero equals empty set.
GOD
gets bigger, thus when the denominator becomes ZERO, the "number" is
infinity.
Gematria wrote in message <36646021...@home.com>...
Aidan Ryder
Natch.
--
Aidan Ryder
Paul gate
GOD wrote....
>Not Actually, just the opposite. As the denominator gets smaller, the number
>gets bigger, thus when the denominator becomes ZERO, the "number" is
>infinity.
I`m no mathematician, but is this right?
I`m trying to envisage spliting a value up into zero peices
Arggghhhh (brain bleed)
I don`t think the concept makes any sense...there is no answer
I may be wrong about the above but zero divided by zero must
have no meaning
Paul gate
GOD wrote in message ...
>Zero Divided by Zero is Zero...
Anything divided by itself = 1?
rob
>
the empty set.
>
Nothing is the empty set.
Nothingness is more Nothing than the empty set.
Nothingness is a degree or extent of Nothing.
As in, "it was SO Nothing".
In fact the degree or extent of Nothingness at some moment
may have caused the creation of the Universe.
To clarify;
Once a Nothing did exist,
Nothing to be found,
Nothingness did next occur,
now Nothingness all around.
As little as there were,
All was quite a stir,
Nothingness begot of Nothing,
begot the universe.
rob
Candice Brady
: There is no absolute nothigness.It existed forever - only changes the form.
: And the name is - ENERGY.
nothingness exists.... but it doesn't.
that paradox is "god"
-c
--
candice l. brady, amateur writer/abstract thinker
brad...@jupiter.rowan.edu
http://travel.to/TheGateway **newly updated**
...she looked at me as if i were a side dish she hadn't ordered
Candice Brady
: We need to pay MUCH more attention to nature. We need to honor it or it
: will destroy mankind. Man can never control nature because nature is in
: everything in the universe.
define nature. it's such an ambiguous term.
and why should we pay attention to it? we never have before, why start
now? to save ourselves? would saving ourselves really be a good thing?
(just playing devil's advocate)
: Nature is simple, and if we pay attention to it, we might actually move
: into the third millenium as enlightened beings.
it's a nice fuzzy thought... but uh, this is humanity we are talking
about. enlightened beings we will never be.
-c
"of course, SOME of us could be enlightened."
Gematria
>
> GOD wrote in message ...
> >
> > Nothingness is very simple to define, it is the contents of
> the empty set.
> >
>
> Nothing is the empty set.
>
> Nothingness is more Nothing than the empty set.
> Nothingness is a degree or extent of Nothing.
> As in, "it was SO Nothing".
>
> In fact the degree or extent of Nothingness at some moment
> may have caused the creation of the Universe.
No. God created it as a deliberate act of His will.
>
> To clarify;
>
> Once a Nothing did exist,
> Nothing to be found,
> Nothingness did next occur,
> now Nothingness all around.
>
> As little as there were,
> All was quite a stir,
> Nothingness begot of Nothing,
> begot the universe.
>
How idiotic.
GOD
GOD
should function within. There are two fundamental categories of TRUTH: (1)
ABSOLUTE TRUTH (Kant's "A Priori") and (2) Empirical Truth (Kant's "A
Posteriori"). GOD is the absolute ruler over only the latter one, yet this
latter one is all of what is referred to as "Nature".
Candice Brady wrote in message
JMichaeI
>GOD wrote in message ...
>>Zero Divided by Zero is Zero...
>
>
>Anything divided by itself = 1?
>
According to my compiler, zero divided by zero is equal to a "DIVIDE BY ZERO"
error.
------------------------------
<A HREF="http://members.aol.com/jmichaei/">Catch 23</A><BR>
http://members.aol.com/jmichaei/
<P>
<I>The devil loves nothing more than the intolerance of reformers. . ." James
Russell Lowell
</B></I><BR>
alan kong
> Nature is merely the set of rules by which GOD determined that everything
> should function within.
you are assuming there is God.
There are two fundamental categories of
TRUTH: (1)
you are asssuming there is truth. I agree on this one.
> ABSOLUTE TRUTH (Kant's "A Priori")
you are assuming there is absolute truth. I don't agree on this one.
and (2) Empirical Truth (Kant's "A
> Posteriori").
I don't know about this.
GOD is the absolute ruler over only the latter one, yet this
> latter one is all of what is referred to as "Nature".
What is nature? It really depends on how people define it. Before we can
decide on the definition, it is pointless to argue about it. I can make up
a word, "lkherelkrehlrkwhklrlk" and it can mean "i".
Alan
>
>
>
peter...@yahoo.com
"Paul gate" <ga...@dial.pipex.com> wrote:
>
> GOD wrote in message ...
> >Zero Divided by Zero is Zero...
>
> Anything divided by itself = 1?
>
>
Division by zero is not defined for any dividand, including zero.
--
Regards,
Peter D Jones
Brighton, UK
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
GOD
No I am Not, I AM HIM !!!
>you are asssuming there is truth. I agree on this one.
Truth IS the correspondance (mathematical mapping) between statements
pertaining to actuality and actuality itself.
>you are assuming there is absolute truth. I don't agree on this one.
ABSOLUTE TRUTH exists independently of minds that know it, and is thus
utterly unaffected by your disbelief. It is known by COMPREHENSION and not
belief. Could it possibly be a mere false opinion that existence exists ???
If NOT then this forms one example of ABSOLUTE (not RELATIVE and thus
depending on anything outside of itself) TRUTH.
>What is nature? It really depends on how people define it. Before we can
>decide on the definition, it is pointless to argue about it. I can make up
>a word, "lkherelkrehlrkwhklrlk" and it can mean "i".
Actually "Nature" does not depend upon how it is defined by mere humans, it
exists independendently of human misconceptions.
You could "define" a cup-of-coffee to be a motor-boat, but then you would
merely be WRONG !!!
freed...@my-dejanews.com
jmic...@aol.compost (JMichaeI) wrote:
> "Paul gate" <ga...@dial.pipex.com> wrote:
>
> >GOD wrote in message ...
> >>Zero Divided by Zero is Zero...
> >
> >
> >Anything divided by itself = 1?
> >
> error.
>
> ------------------------------
whose right?
> <A HREF="http://members.aol.com/jmichaei/">Catch 23</A><BR>
> http://members.aol.com/jmichaei/
> <P>
> <I>The devil loves nothing more than the intolerance of reformers. . ." James
> Russell Lowell
> </B></I><BR>
>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
Anthony Buckland
>
> GOD wrote in message ...
> >Zero Divided by Zero is Zero...
>
> Anything divided by itself = 1?
All you can say is that, if what you are dividing
is non-zero, then as what you divide by approaches
closer and closer to zero, the result increases in
magnitude without limit. This does _not_ mean that
anything nonzero divided by zero "equals" "infinity".
Division by zero is still undefined.
If you want to get in a good fight about this, try
sci.math
Paul gate
Anthony Buckland wrote in message <3666CD...@direct.ca>...
>Paul gate wrote:
>>
>> GOD wrote in message ...
>> >Zero Divided by Zero is Zero...
>>
>> Anything divided by itself = 1?
>
> Division by zero is not defined.
>
That makes sense
Its funny though that all the symbols in "0/0"
have meaning and yet the "0/0" doesn`t have a value itself
alan kong
>
> No I am Not, I AM HIM !!!
ohh shit, sorry God, i didn't know it was you ;) I hope I can go to heaven
for saying sorry.
>
> >you are assuming there is absolute truth. I don't agree on this one.
> ABSOLUTE TRUTH exists independently of minds that know it,
this is the absolute problem. Since we are always within our body, there is
no possible humanly way to find this absolute truth Hence it is pointless
to say this int he first place.
and is thus
> utterly unaffected by your disbelief. It is known by COMPREHENSION and
not
> belief. Could it possibly be a mere false opinion that existence exists
???
> If NOT then this forms one example of ABSOLUTE (not RELATIVE and thus
> depending on anything outside of itself) TRUTH.
we believe in existence. Is there existence? That is another story...
>
> Actually "Nature" does not depend upon how it is defined by mere humans,
yes it does. Listen, what you must first understand God is that we humans
are not that smart. We can't know anything that is outside our bodies. So
as long we remain humans, we always have definitions of nature. And as long
as we are humans, we may be wrong of this definition.
God since we are talking can i ask you a question,
Since you are so powerful, can you create a stone which you cannot lift? ;)
I either way, i think it is Godly impossible.
Alan
GOD
>no possible humanly way to find this absolute truth Hence it is pointless
>to say this int he first place.
Circles are Round, this is an actual fact, and thereby one example of
ABSOLUTE TRUTH, thus proving that the generic category of ABSOLUTE TRUTH
exists.
>we believe in existence. Is there existence? That is another story...
Since your reply forms one example of a thing that exists, this reply
categorically validates the statement that "Existence Exists".
>Since you are so powerful, can you create a stone which you cannot lift? ;)
>I either way, i think it is Godly impossible.
YES I can do this and have already done this. This question is merely
analogous to asking {Is it possible for a being that can do anything to
give up some of this power?} By definition the answer is YES, since this
being can do {anything at all}, and {giving up some of this power} is one
element within the set of {anything at all} the answer is unequivocally YES
!!!
Rex Bennett
>
>GOD wrote in message ...
>>Zero Divided by Zero is Zero...
>
>
>Anything divided by itself = 1?
And that's how God created the Universe, division by zero.
Gematria
God spoke the universe into being.
GOD
invented, and were not among the first things to be invented, more
literally, GOD thought the very first things into existence.
Gematria wrote in message <3669AB0E...@home.com>...
alan kong
GOD <iam...@home.com> wrote in article
<YLca2.53$L52...@news.rdc1.ne.home.com>...
> >this is the absolute problem. Since we are always within our body, there
is
> >no possible humanly way to find this absolute truth Hence it is
pointless
> >to say this int he first place.
>
> Circles are Round, this is an actual fact, and thereby one example of
> ABSOLUTE TRUTH, thus proving that the generic category of ABSOLUTE TRUTH
> exists.
>
You may have something there...but i am still not sure. Please explain
more. This sounds interesting.....
> >we believe in existence. Is there existence? That is another story...
>
> Since your reply forms one example of a thing that exists, this reply
> categorically validates the statement that "Existence Exists".
jesus, your arguments are different from what i heard from other people.
You may be right God. But isn't this only playing around with words? We
still can't prove that existence exists. We don't even know that there is
existence, we only assume it.
>
> >Since you are so powerful, can you create a stone which you cannot lift?
;)
> >I either way, i think it is Godly impossible.
> YES I can do this and have already done this. This question is merely
> analogous to asking {Is it possible for a being that can do anything to
> give up some of this power?} By definition the answer is YES, since this
> being can do {anything at all}, and {giving up some of this power} is one
> element within the set of {anything at all} the answer is unequivocally
YES
> !!!
>
ohhh, man, you are the first to answer this with such confidence. I will
have to think about this :) If You can create a stone which you cannot
lift, then ain't you not that powerful since you can't lift that
stone??????? If you can't create that stone, then you are not powerful to
create that stone. So what you are saying is that you allow youself to be
not able to lift that stone. But soemone cannot allow oneself to not able
to do that thing if that thing can be done. Hence, given one is not faking,
one has to lift the stone of one can. Man, this is confusing.,
Alan
>
>
Aidan Ryder
<iam...@home.com> writes
>>this is the absolute problem. Since we are always within our body, there is
>>no possible humanly way to find this absolute truth Hence it is pointless
>>to say this int he first place.
>
>Circles are Round, this is an actual fact, and thereby one example of
>ABSOLUTE TRUTH, thus proving that the generic category of ABSOLUTE TRUTH
>exists.
No. Circles being round is a mathematical assumption.
>
>>we believe in existence. Is there existence? That is another story...
>
>Since your reply forms one example of a thing that exists, this reply
>categorically validates the statement that "Existence Exists".
>
>>Since you are so powerful, can you create a stone which you cannot lift? ;)
>>I either way, i think it is Godly impossible.
>YES I can do this and have already done this. This question is merely
>analogous to asking {Is it possible for a being that can do anything to
>give up some of this power?} By definition the answer is YES, since this
>being can do {anything at all}, and {giving up some of this power} is one
>element within the set of {anything at all} the answer is unequivocally YES
>!!!
>
>
--
Aidan Ryder
Daniel Sjolie
> And that is a _very_ different statement!
Of course, such a statement is pointless without some
definition of the scope of the will in question...
A ant might be able do anything it wants...
God wants to do everything that is in some sense
good/holy/perfect... This is what he can do...
God _can_not_ lie! (or even say what is not true)
Which leads me to believe that You are not God... :p
/Daniel
--
Now take a deep breath, smile and don't take life so seriously... :)
Daniel Sjolie
I thought that I would take Your side for once! :)
In article <YLca2.53$L52...@news.rdc1.ne.home.com>,
"GOD" <iam...@home.com> writes:
>>this is the absolute problem. Since we are always within our body, there is
>>no possible humanly way to find this absolute truth Hence it is pointless
>>to say this int he first place.
>
> Circles are Round, this is an actual fact,
it is??
> and thereby one example of
> ABSOLUTE TRUTH, thus proving that the generic category of ABSOLUTE TRUTH
> exists.
Circles exist only as a definition...
A definition made by humans...
It might be logically true but that
does _not_ mean that it is absolute true...
>>we believe in existence. Is there existence? That is another story...
>
> Since your reply forms one example of a thing that exists, this reply
> categorically validates the statement that "Existence Exists".
Where do You mean that this reply exists?
I my mind?
In Your mind?
On the net?
On Your screen?
>>Since you are so powerful, can you create a stone which you cannot lift? ;)
>>I either way, i think it is Godly impossible.
> YES I can do this and have already done this. This question is merely
> analogous to asking {Is it possible for a being that can do anything to
> give up some of this power?} By definition the answer is YES, since this
> being can do {anything at all}, and {giving up some of this power} is one
> element within the set of {anything at all} the answer is unequivocally YES
> !!!
To me, that sounds like one huge pile of bullshit!
Hehehe... That doesn't mean that I don't love You... :)
I say:
There is no such thing as being able to do anything...
What matters is that You can do anything You _want_...
And that is a _very_ different statement!
/Daniel
Daniel Sjolie
Aidan Ryder <Ai...@broomlee.demon.co.uk> writes:
>
> No. Circles being round is a mathematical assumption.
No, it's a definition... :p
At least in math...
A circle is the set of all points with
equal distance to a "centrepoint"
If I was not in a picky mood I wouldn't care... :)
I'm just having some fun... :)
Hope You don't mind...
Feel free to retaliate... :)
Hmm... When I think about it You might have an
opening right here (above)...
I'll leave it...
Take it if You see it (and want it)... :)
/Daniel - sorry if I went over the edge :)
Aidan Ryder
<dee...@acc.umu.se> writes
>In article <BBCoCJAN...@broomlee.demon.co.uk>,
> Aidan Ryder <Ai...@broomlee.demon.co.uk> writes:
>>
>> No. Circles being round is a mathematical assumption.
>
>No, it's a definition... :p
>At least in math...
> A circle is the set of all points with
> equal distance to a "centrepoint"
>
>If I was not in a picky mood I wouldn't care... :)
>I'm just having some fun... :)
>Hope You don't mind...
>Feel free to retaliate... :)
>
>Hmm... When I think about it You might have an
>opening right here (above)...
>I'll leave it...
>Take it if You see it (and want it)... :)
>
>/Daniel - sorry if I went over the edge :)
>
Well, to clarify:
Circles may be absolutely round. However if none exist in relity then
you cannot use them as an example of absolute values in the realm of
reality. Do YOU know of any perfect circles outside of mathematics?
--
Aidan Ryder
alan kong
> you cannot use them as an example of absolute values in the realm of
> reality. Do YOU know of any perfect circles outside of mathematics?
> --
> Aidan Ryder
hey,
i have read something pretty intersted descartes used to prove the
existence of God. Something similar along this line. An artist have a
perfect picture in his head. That is reality in understandings. He then
draws it. that becomes a reality in reality. If we define God as the "most
powerful being." then it is a reality in understandings. BUT since it has
to be the most powerful being, it has to exist inorder to make the
statement not contradictory, so, it must exist. :)
Funny hey? I can't believe that philosophy can do this.!! This is cheating.
:)
Alan
>
benn beaton
alan kong <ak...@student.monash.edu.au> wrote in article
<01be218c$12c522c0$2e3dc282@monash>...
> i have read something pretty intersted descartes used to prove the
> existence of God. Something similar along this line. An artist have a
> perfect picture in his head. That is reality in understandings. He then
> draws it. that becomes a reality in reality. If we define God as the
"most
> powerful being." then it is a reality in understandings. BUT since it has
> to be the most powerful being, it has to exist inorder to make the
> statement not contradictory, so, it must exist. :)
> Funny hey? I can't believe that philosophy can do this.!! This is
cheating.
> :)
>
> Alan
the arguemnt sounds like 1+1=7 to me
The reality of understanding says that god has to be all powerful but it
doesn't say that everything imagined has to exist i can imagine a huge
roaring dragon but this doesn't mean that it exists. Also by defining god
as a being it leaves open that there could be something more powerful than
a being.
Also does the concept of perfection exist at all surely something can only
be perfect untill something better comes along.
Isn't it interesting that when ever descartes decides that god has to do
something nasty he becomes an evil genius
Aidan Ryder
<ak...@student.monash.edu.au> writes
>> Circles may be absolutely round. However if none exist in relity then
>> you cannot use them as an example of absolute values in the realm of
>> reality. Do YOU know of any perfect circles outside of mathematics?
>> --
>> Aidan Ryder
>
>
>hey,
>
>existence of God. Something similar along this line. An artist have a
>perfect picture in his head. That is reality in understandings. He then
>draws it. that becomes a reality in reality. If we define God as the "most
>powerful being." then it is a reality in understandings. BUT since it has
>to be the most powerful being, it has to exist inorder to make the
>statement not contradictory, so, it must exist. :)
>Funny hey? I can't believe that philosophy can do this.!! This is cheating.
>:)
>
>Alan
>
>
>>
Descartes said that because God must be perfect, it is more perfect to
exist than not. However that is several major assumptions - that (a) God
is perfect (b) existence is more perfect than nothingness and (c) that
God exists in the first place. He assumes that he is right in order to
prove his argument.
But anyway, we need to draw the line between existence as a concept and
existence in reality.
--
Aidan Ryder
Anthony Buckland
> ... [big clip] ...
> Circles may be absolutely round. However if none exist in relity then
> you cannot use them as an example of absolute values in the realm of
> reality. Do YOU know of any perfect circles outside of mathematics?
sections, perfectly circular orbits, or perfect
circles drawn on paper. But there do exist in many
human minds concepts of perfect circularity, and these
minds and their activities constitute part of reality.
alan kong
> Descartes said that because God must be perfect, it is more perfect to
> exist than not. However that is several major assumptions - that (a) God
> is perfect (b) existence is more perfect than nothingness and (c) that
> God exists in the first place. He assumes that he is right in order to
> prove his argument.
>
> But anyway, we need to draw the line between existence as a concept and
> existence in reality.
> --
> Aidan Ryder
true. I agree. I thought there was something wrong with descartes argument
but i never could pinpoint it. now you have.,
Alan
>
alan kong
sorry to hear that.
>
> The reality of understanding says that god has to be all powerful but it
> doesn't say that everything imagined has to exist i can imagine a huge
> roaring dragon but this doesn't mean that it exists.
no, but descartes says that inorder for one thing to be all powerful, it
has to exist. That is one of the assumption.
Also by defining god
> as a being it leaves open that there could be something more powerful
than
> a being.
God is defined as the most powerful. There can't be more powerful one.
> Also does the concept of perfection exist at all surely something can
only
> be perfect untill something better comes along.
true. But i think it has all got to do with wordings. IF god is the All
powerful and All perfect for which none is more powerful or perfect then it
then then it has to exist inorder to remain true.
>
> Isn't it interesting that when ever descartes decides that god has to do
> something nasty he becomes an evil genius
hehehehhe, right.
Alan
>
>
GOD
mathematical identity. The meaning of the word "circle" logically entails
<round>.
Aidan Ryder wrote in message ...
>In article <YLca2.53$L52...@news.rdc1.ne.home.com>, GOD
><iam...@home.com> writes
>>>this is the absolute problem. Since we are always within our body, there
is
>>>no possible humanly way to find this absolute truth Hence it is pointless
>>>to say this int he first place.
>>
>>Circles are Round, this is an actual fact, and thereby one example of
>>ABSOLUTE TRUTH, thus proving that the generic category of ABSOLUTE TRUTH
>>exists.
>
>No. Circles being round is a mathematical assumption.
>
>>
>>>we believe in existence. Is there existence? That is another story...
>>
>>Since your reply forms one example of a thing that exists, this reply
>>categorically validates the statement that "Existence Exists".
>>
>>>Since you are so powerful, can you create a stone which you cannot lift?
;)
>>>I either way, i think it is Godly impossible.
>>YES I can do this and have already done this. This question is merely
>>analogous to asking {Is it possible for a being that can do anything to
>>give up some of this power?} By definition the answer is YES, since this
>>being can do {anything at all}, and {giving up some of this power} is one
>>element within the set of {anything at all} the answer is unequivocally
YES
>>!!!
>>
>>
>
>--
>Aidan Ryder
GOD
Daniel Sjolie wrote in message <74dusj$ej$1...@studium.student.umu.se>...
>In article <BBCoCJAN...@broomlee.demon.co.uk>,
> Aidan Ryder <Ai...@broomlee.demon.co.uk> writes:
>>
>> No. Circles being round is a mathematical assumption.
>
>No, it's a definition... :p
>At least in math...
> A circle is the set of all points with
> equal distance to a "centrepoint"
>
>If I was not in a picky mood I wouldn't care... :)
>I'm just having some fun... :)
>Hope You don't mind...
>Feel free to retaliate... :)
>
>Hmm... When I think about it You might have an
>opening right here (above)...
>I'll leave it...
>Take it if You see it (and want it)... :)
>
>/Daniel - sorry if I went over the edge :)
>
GOD
portion of the whole of reality.
Aidan Ryder wrote in message ...
>In article <74dusj$ej$1...@studium.student.umu.se>, Daniel Sjolie
><dee...@acc.umu.se> writes
>>In article <BBCoCJAN...@broomlee.demon.co.uk>,
>> Aidan Ryder <Ai...@broomlee.demon.co.uk> writes:
>>>
>>> No. Circles being round is a mathematical assumption.
>>
>>No, it's a definition... :p
>>At least in math...
>> A circle is the set of all points with
>> equal distance to a "centrepoint"
>>
>>If I was not in a picky mood I wouldn't care... :)
>>I'm just having some fun... :)
>>Hope You don't mind...
>>Feel free to retaliate... :)
>>
>>Hmm... When I think about it You might have an
>>opening right here (above)...
>>I'll leave it...
>>Take it if You see it (and want it)... :)
>>
>>/Daniel - sorry if I went over the edge :)
>>
>
>Well, to clarify:
>
>Circles may be absolutely round. However if none exist in relity then
>you cannot use them as an example of absolute values in the realm of
>reality. Do YOU know of any perfect circles outside of mathematics?
>--
>Aidan Ryder
GOD
exist, whether this supreme being is GOD may merely be an assumption.
alan kong wrote in message <01be218c$12c522c0$2e3dc282@monash>...
>> Circles may be absolutely round. However if none exist in relity then
>> you cannot use them as an example of absolute values in the realm of
>> reality. Do YOU know of any perfect circles outside of mathematics?
>> --
>> Aidan Ryder
>
>
GOD
this message forms examples of this...
alan kong wrote in message <01be20f4$b02b7660$223dc282@monash>...
>
>
>GOD <iam...@home.com> wrote in article
><YLca2.53$L52...@news.rdc1.ne.home.com>...
>> >this is the absolute problem. Since we are always within our body, there
>is
>> >no possible humanly way to find this absolute truth Hence it is
>pointless
>> >to say this int he first place.
>>
>> Circles are Round, this is an actual fact, and thereby one example of
>> ABSOLUTE TRUTH, thus proving that the generic category of ABSOLUTE TRUTH
>> exists.
>>
>
>You may have something there...but i am still not sure. Please explain
>more. This sounds interesting.....
>
>
>> >we believe in existence. Is there existence? That is another story...
>>
>> Since your reply forms one example of a thing that exists, this reply
>> categorically validates the statement that "Existence Exists".
>
>
>
>jesus, your arguments are different from what i heard from other people.
>You may be right God. But isn't this only playing around with words? We
>still can't prove that existence exists. We don't even know that there is
>existence, we only assume it.
>
>
>>
>> >Since you are so powerful, can you create a stone which you cannot lift?
>;)
>> >I either way, i think it is Godly impossible.
>> YES I can do this and have already done this. This question is merely
>> analogous to asking {Is it possible for a being that can do anything to
>> give up some of this power?} By definition the answer is YES, since this
>> being can do {anything at all}, and {giving up some of this power} is one
>> element within the set of {anything at all} the answer is unequivocally
>YES
>> !!!
>>
>
GOD
>A definition made by humans...
>It might be logically true but that
>does _not_ mean that it is absolute true...
Actually it does, the fact that circles are round does not depend upon
anything outside of the defitnion of a circle. In other words it is not
relative to anything. I am ONLY referring to the definition of {absolute}
that has {relative} as its antonym.
>
>>>we believe in existence. Is there existence? That is another story...
>>
>> Since your reply forms one example of a thing that exists, this reply
>> categorically validates the statement that "Existence Exists".
>
>Where do You mean that this reply exists?
>I my mind?
>In Your mind?
>On the net?
>On Your screen?
Where it exists is irrelevant, that it exists at all completely proves my
point.
>>>Since you are so powerful, can you create a stone which you cannot lift?
;)
>>>I either way, i think it is Godly impossible.
>
>> YES I can do this and have already done this. This question is merely
>> analogous to asking {Is it possible for a being that can do anything to
>> give up some of this power?} By definition the answer is YES, since this
>> being can do {anything at all}, and {giving up some of this power} is one
>> element within the set of {anything at all} the answer is unequivocally
YES
>> !!!
>
>To me, that sounds like one huge pile of bullshit!
>Hehehe... That doesn't mean that I don't love You... :)
What I have stated here is analytic truth, with every instance of this type
of truth, one either comprehends or fails to comprehend, disagreement is
merely incorrect. IFF it is given that a being can do anything, then giving
up some of this power is logically entailed.
GOD
made with insufficient information. If sufficient information is available
then the word is knowledge, rather than belief. In other words ERROR is
entailed by the concept of belief.
It is far better to refrain from judgement until all of the facts are in,
and hold no beliefs.
Daniel Sjolie wrote in message <74du61$mpe$3...@studium.student.umu.se>...
>> What matters is that You can do anything You _want_...
>> And that is a _very_ different statement!
>
>Of course, such a statement is pointless without some
>definition of the scope of the will in question...
>A ant might be able do anything it wants...
>
>God wants to do everything that is in some sense
>good/holy/perfect... This is what he can do...
>God _can_not_ lie! (or even say what is not true)
>Which leads me to believe that You are not God... :p
>
>/Daniel
>
Daniel Sjolie
"GOD" <iam...@home.com> writes:
>>Circles exist only as a definition...
>>A definition made by humans...
>>It might be logically true but that
>>does _not_ mean that it is absolute true...
>
> Actually it does, the fact that circles are round does not depend upon
> anything outside of the defitnion of a circle. In other words it is not
> relative to anything. I am ONLY referring to the definition of {absolute}
> that has {relative} as its antonym.
The definition is created...
It is relative to that with which it
was created...
It is relative to logic...
Logic exists in my mind...
>>>>we believe in existence. Is there existence? That is another story...
>>>
>>> Since your reply forms one example of a thing that exists, this reply
>>> categorically validates the statement that "Existence Exists".
>>
>>Where do You mean that this reply exists?
>>I my mind?
>>In Your mind?
>>On the net?
>>On Your screen?
>
> Where it exists is irrelevant, that it exists at all completely proves my
> point.
Are You telling me that the fact that I exist in
my very own mind as a physical human being is proof
of my existence?!
>>>>Since you are so powerful, can you create a stone which you cannot lift?
> ;)
>>>>I either way, i think it is Godly impossible.
>>
>>> YES I can do this and have already done this. This question is merely
>>> analogous to asking {Is it possible for a being that can do anything to
>>> give up some of this power?} By definition the answer is YES, since this
>>> being can do {anything at all}, and {giving up some of this power} is one
>>> element within the set of {anything at all} the answer is unequivocally
> YES
>>> !!!
>>
>>To me, that sounds like one huge pile of bullshit!
>>Hehehe... That doesn't mean that I don't love You... :)
>
> What I have stated here is analytic truth, with every instance of this type
> of truth, one either comprehends or fails to comprehend, disagreement is
> merely incorrect. IFF it is given that a being can do anything, then giving
> up some of this power is logically entailed.
Let me refrase:
It sounds like a completely meaningless statement!
I'm not saying that You are wrong...
Even the logically incorrect
should be considered...
I don't trust logic all that far...
Logic exists in my mind and I certalinly
don't trust my mind to be correct...
By definition the impossible can not be
done... Thus there are no such thing as being
able to do the impossible... (by definition)
The claim then would be that for God, nothing
is impossible...
That is, the set of {impossible things} for God
would be empty...
What would be the meaning of such a statement?
It's easy to find things that is logically impossible,
(to lift a stone that You cannot lift)
thus the statement above would lead to the invalidity
of logic...
Why would I want to trade logic for this assumtion?
(I might, given sufficient reason)
Daniel Sjolie
"GOD" <iam...@home.com> writes:
> Belief is an inherently fallible process, which by definition, judgments are
> made with insufficient information. If sufficient information is available
> then the word is knowledge, rather than belief.
Assuming the information is correct...
There is no such thing as certain information...
Everything is uncertain...
Our input-channels are imperfect...
> In other words ERROR is
> entailed by the concept of belief.
> It is far better to refrain from judgement until all of the facts are in,
> and hold no beliefs.
Since we can never get all the facts in we can choose between
belief and nothing...
There is only belief...
You should refrain from judgement until You have sufficient
input to gain reason and then form a belief...
GOD
input. Kant referred to this as "A Priori" and Carnap called it Analytic.
Daniel Sjolie wrote in message <74ioqb$p6o$2...@studium.student.umu.se>...
Daniel Sjolie
"GOD" <iam...@home.com> writes:
> Not At All... There is a category of knowledge that does not depend upon
> input. Kant referred to this as "A Priori" and Carnap called it Analytic.
I'm not convinced...
I'll have to look into that... :)
What thread should I pull to get the conclusion?
What's Your comment on this:
There are no theories that does not depend
on axioms that can not be proven within that theory...
I believe this has been proven...
At least in math...
GOD
(self-evident truth) there is merely a mathematical mapping from the
self-existent truth to its representation within language. In other words
the meaning of the words themselves prove that existence exists, and the
statement remains true even if the words do not exist, as in the time before
language was invented.
Daniel Sjolie wrote in message <74jh6b$3s8$1...@studium.student.umu.se>...
GOD
>It is relative to that with which it
>was created...
>It is relative to logic...
>Logic exists in my mind...
definition that I am referring to means that regardless of anyone's contrary
opinion or misconception, {circles remain round}. This forms am immutable
truth, it is the immutability of a TRUTH that makes it {absolute}.
Here is an empirical example... Bill Clinton is presently the President of
the United States, is you disagree, then you are merely WRONG.
>Are You telling me that the fact that I exist in
>my very own mind as a physical human being is proof
>of my existence?!
The fact that you exist ANYWHERE proves conclusively that you do indeed
exist SOMEWHERE. Proof by counter-example.
The example of your existence categorically refutes the universal statement
that {you do not exist}.
>Let me refrase:
>It sounds like a completely meaningless statement!
If a being has {ALL "Y"} then the fact that this being has {SOME "Y"} is
logically entailed.
If a being can {do anything at all} then it is logically entailed that this
same being can do any particular thing such as giving up the ability to {do
anything at all}.
>The claim then would be that for God, nothing
>is impossible...
Merely Hype, and not actually true...
Some things (that are logically impossible) are impossible for even GOD,
although GOD can easily do anything that would otherwise be physically
impossible.
Daniel Sjolie
"GOD" <iam...@home.com> writes:
> In some cases truth exists independently of language. In these cases
> (self-evident truth) there is merely a mathematical mapping from the
> self-existent truth to its representation within language. In other words
> the meaning of the words themselves prove that existence exists, and the
> statement remains true even if the words do not exist, as in the time before
> language was invented.
I'll try to cover this in the parallel thread...
In order to "unite" them...
Daniel Sjolie
"GOD" <iam...@home.com> writes:
>>The definition is created...
>>It is relative to that with which it
>>was created...
>>It is relative to logic...
>>Logic exists in my mind...
> That is not the definition of {relative} that I am referring to. The
> definition that I am referring to means that regardless of anyone's contrary
> opinion or misconception, {circles remain round}. This forms am immutable
> truth, it is the immutability of a TRUTH that makes it {absolute}.
You are saying that the circle exists independantly of all
humanity... That the circle is not a construction but a discovery...
Am I right?
On what do You base this?
You are telling me what it is like, but not
why I should believe You...
Did Newton discover gravity?
What about the General Theory of Relativity?
I say it's all models!
Models created by the human mind...
Models that have no existence in reality...
Science has little to do with truth...
I think this covers the parallel thread...
As far as I care to cover it now at least... :)
I think You'll find enough to bark at in this post... :)
> Here is an empirical example... Bill Clinton is presently the President of
> the United States, is you disagree, then you are merely WRONG.
How is that?
We have no certain input indicating that Bill even exists...
I might be wrong but not merely... :)
Whether I am wrong is philosophically irrelevant since
we can never know that I am...
Of course, IRL I would be merely WRONG, but I don't
think real life should be mixed with philosophy...
Real life has very little to do with truth...
>>Are You telling me that the fact that I exist in
>>my very own mind as a physical human being is proof
>>of my existence?!
>
> The fact that you exist ANYWHERE proves conclusively that you do indeed
> exist SOMEWHERE. Proof by counter-example.
> The example of your existence categorically refutes the universal statement
> that {you do not exist}.
The fact that the idea of me exists ANYWHERE seems to give
that the idea of me exists SOMEWHERE...
But that is what my mind is telling me...
My mind is imperfect... (that I think we can agree on :)
>>Let me refrase:
>>It sounds like a completely meaningless statement!
> If a being has {ALL "Y"} then the fact that this being has {SOME "Y"} is
> logically entailed.
> If a being can {do anything at all} then it is logically entailed that this
> same being can do any particular thing such as giving up the ability to {do
> anything at all}.
Have You considered that the problem
might be "outside" the scope logic?
Is meaningless logic logical? :)
I still don't see how a being that can do
{anything at all} can be logically meaningfull...
You seem to argee (below) that God is not such a being...
>>The claim then would be that for God, nothing
>>is impossible...
>
> Merely Hype, and not actually true...
> Some things (that are logically impossible) are impossible for even GOD,
> although GOD can easily do anything that would otherwise be physically
> impossible.
Yes... and no...
God can not do things that are physically impossible...
God can only do things that seem to be impossible within
our current modell of physics...
Quantum physics gives some nice pointers here...
That is: there is uncertainty in everything...
The laws of physics are not laws, they simply
reflect the _probable_ behaviour of reality...
This gives God plenty of maneuvering space...
Now...
If God can "only" do {all things possible}
that probably does not include
{creating a stone which he himself can not lift}
alan kong
GOD <iam...@home.com> wrote in article
<c21b2.559$L52...@news.rdc1.ne.home.com>...
> Look up Rudolf Carnap's <analytical truth> Everything that I have said in
> this message forms examples of this...
>
Where the hell is that God?
alan
GOD
opposed to semantics within linguistics).
alan kong wrote in message <01be2324$bee18c80$203dc282@monash>...
GOD
>humanity... That the circle is not a construction but a discovery...
>Am I right?
>On what do You base this?
>You are telling me what it is like, but not
>why I should believe You...
As I already stated, and now will state more bluntly, ALL Belief is Error
!!!
A circle is a discovery, and not a construction, as is all of mathematics.
>Did Newton discover gravity?
No, it was there (for him) all the time, he just noticed it one day.
>How is that?
>We have no certain input indicating that Bill even exists...
Bill's existence is logically entailed by our discussion of him, regardless
of whether the form of his existence is actual or fictional.
>Have You considered that the problem
>might be "outside" the scope logic?
>Is meaningless logic logical? :)
>I still don't see how a being that can do
>{anything at all} can be logically meaningfull...
>You seem to argee (below) that God is not such a being...
Mathematical concepts can be constructed (or discovered) and dealt with,
regradless if these exist physically. Geometry forms a concrete example of
this, {a being that can do anything} forms another. Think of this as a named
set of attributes.
>Yes... and no...
>God can not do things that are physically impossible...
>God can only do things that seem to be impossible within
>our current modell of physics...
GOD can do (and has done) things that are physically impossible for anyone
besides GOD.
For example bringing someone back to life that has been dead for thousands
of years.
>Quantum physics gives some nice pointers here...
>That is: there is uncertainty in everything...
>The laws of physics are not laws, they simply
>reflect the _probable_ behaviour of reality...
>This gives God plenty of maneuvering space...
This is merely the point of view of ignorance. The actual truth (as
determined by the one that designed the laws of physics) is not this...
For further understanding look into Chaos Theory...
Einstein
creation,
whose purposes are modeled after our own -- a God, in short, who is but a
reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual
survives the
death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear
or
ridiculous egotisms."
Albert Einstein, obituary in New York Times
GOD wrote in message <2AV72.36$QB3.1...@news.rdc1.ne.home.com>...
>GOD is whomever or whatever created the very first things from absolute
>nothingness. It necessarily follows that whomever or whatever is
>prerequisite to everything else MUST BE GOD.
>
>
Daniel Sjolie
"GOD" <iam...@home.com> writes:
>>You are saying that the circle exists independantly of all
>>humanity... That the circle is not a construction but a discovery...
>>Am I right?
>>On what do You base this?
>>You are telling me what it is like, but not
>>why I should believe You...
>
> As I already stated, and now will state more bluntly, ALL Belief is Error
> !!!
All belief is _uncertain_...
That is: The probability of my beliefs being
totally correct is negligable...
That does not mean that it does not exist...
My input is uncertain, my mind is uncertain,
my reasoning is uncertain, my logic is uncertain...
When all that I can ever know is uncertain -
how can I have anything _but_ belief...
> A circle is a discovery, and not a construction, as is all of mathematics.
I beg to differ... :)
>>Did Newton discover gravity?
> No, it was there (for him) all the time, he just noticed it one day.
I'd say that's a Yes... :)
Then what about the General Theory of Relativity?
Do You mean to say that gravity is subjective?
Maybe it has subjective existence?
>>How is that?
>>We have no certain input indicating that Bill even exists...
> Bill's existence is logically entailed by our discussion of him, regardless
> of whether the form of his existence is actual or fictional.
As a figure...
Then all characters in all stories exist in the same manner...
Are You not abusing the concept of existence here?
Your certainly taking it a lot further than most would do...
By what justification are You doing this?
(I'm not saying that You don't have one)
> Mathematical concepts can be constructed (or discovered) and dealt with,
> regradless if these exist physically. Geometry forms a concrete example of
> this, {a being that can do anything} forms another. Think of this as a named
> set of attributes.
Is there not logical statements without meaning?
>>Yes... and no...
>>God can not do things that are physically impossible...
>>God can only do things that seem to be impossible within
>>our current modell of physics...
> GOD can do (and has done) things that are physically impossible for anyone
> besides GOD.
> For example bringing someone back to life that has been dead for thousands
> of years.
Probably true, but not in principle...
It is not impossible for You to find Yourself
president of the USA tomorrow...
The probability is negligable though...
(I guess quite a few laws had to go out the window)
Luckily... :p
I _might_ be able to do miracles, but for
now I choose to neglect that possibility...
Impossible is a word I rather not use...
>>Quantum physics gives some nice pointers here...
>>That is: there is uncertainty in everything...
>>The laws of physics are not laws, they simply
>>reflect the _probable_ behaviour of reality...
>>This gives God plenty of maneuvering space...
> This is merely the point of view of ignorance. The actual truth (as
> determined by the one that designed the laws of physics) is not this...
Who designed the laws of physics?
> For further understanding look into Chaos Theory...
Some other day...
GOD
>That is: The probability of my beliefs being
>totally correct is negligable...
>That does not mean that it does not exist...
>My input is uncertain, my mind is uncertain,
>my reasoning is uncertain, my logic is uncertain...
>When all that I can ever know is uncertain -
>how can I have anything _but_ belief...
Once one "believes" (or "disbelieves") a particular assertion, then the mind
closes to the possible alternatives. Within this definition of "belief", the
entire process of "belief" is erroneous. The problem with most "beliefs" is
that there is emotional attachment to them, this emotional attachment tends
to irrationally ignore new information when it is presented.
>Then what about the General Theory of Relativity?
Same thing, a mere discovery, rather than construction. Think of this...
Imagine when GOD thought of the idea of a {CIRCLE}, once this discovery was
made (by GOD) exactly how much choice did he have in the value of PI ?
Could he (for example) decide that PI would be 1/3 (one third, 0.3333) or
was this value already "predetermined" as an integral component of the
concept of ROUNDNESS ?
>Do You mean to say that gravity is subjective?
>Maybe it has subjective existence?
Not at all, Since Newton was not floating around in outer space when he made
his discovery, this proves that it was a mere discovery rather than
construction (by Newton). Gravity was constructed by GOD, however.
>Then all characters in all stories exist in the same manner...
>Are You not abusing the concept of existence here?
Not at all, I am merely precisely delineating the various forms of
existence.
(1) Some things exist physically
(2) Some things exist conceptually
(3) Some things (with mutually exclusive attributes) exist neither
conceptually, nor physically. Although the thing itself does not exist, it
can still be named, such as a {square circle}.
>Your certainly taking it a lot further than most would do...
>By what justification are You doing this?
>(I'm not saying that You don't have one)
TRUTH itself forms my entire justification. TRUTH is the correspondence
between (mathematical mapping) representations of actuality, and actuality
itself. Copyright by Iam...@Home.com 1998 (former copyright notices were
by IAM...@aol.com)
>> GOD can do (and has done) things that are physically impossible for
anyone
>> besides GOD.
>> For example bringing someone back to life that has been dead for
thousands
>> of years.
>
>Probably true, but not in principle...
GOD can bring a person back from the dead that has been cremated, is it
conceivable that humans will ever do this ?
The current definition of the term {Human} categorically excludes this as a
possibility. Anyone with this power would not be human.
>Who designed the laws of physics?
Apparently either ME or my creatures. It seems that GOD would create a
created process that creates. This is verified in the mathematical validity
of genetic algorithms. In other words the "theory" of evolution is actually
a genetic algorithm (cosmic computer program) by which GOD delegates the
process of creation to a created process.
alan kong
Anthony Buckland <buck...@direct.ca> wrote in article
<366C96...@direct.ca>...
> Aidan Ryder wrote:
> > ... [big clip] ...
> > Circles may be absolutely round. However if none exist in relity then
> > you cannot use them as an example of absolute values in the realm of
> > reality. Do YOU know of any perfect circles outside of mathematics?
>
> There may be no objects with perfectly circular cross
> sections, perfectly circular orbits, or perfect
> circles drawn on paper. But there do exist in many
> human minds concepts of perfect circularity, and these
> minds and their activities constitute part of reality.
I have a concept of flying pigs. This mind image and their activities
consittute part of reality. Hence, i can bring anything into life.
Alan
>
alan kong
GOD <iam...@home.com> wrote in article
<gknb2.594$L52...@news.rdc1.ne.home.com>...
thanks God. :)
I bring out biscuit and milk out tonight for you :)
Alan
>
GOD
alan kong wrote in message <01be24b8$2709f920$2a3dc282@monash>...
alan kong
GOD <iam...@home.com> wrote in article
<WE0c2.651$L52...@news.rdc1.ne.home.com>...
> Thus these form one example of purely conceptual reality.
>
o.k., it is a comceptual reality, but then won't it stays there? It can't
then come into reality? So if God is a conceptual reality, why does
everyone trying to bring God into reality?
Alan
GOD
reward and punish the objects of his creation, humans mostly make their own
fate. Man is modeled after GOD, not the other way around, and yet
infallibility is not logically entailed by every possible self-consistent
conception of GOD...
Einstein wrote in message <74lpjb$q07$1...@remarQ.com>...
GOD
and physically manifest GOD.
alan kong wrote in message <01be255f$f59bc5a0$3d3dc282@monash>...
Daniel Sjolie
"GOD" <iam...@home.com> writes:
>>All belief is _uncertain_...
>>That is: The probability of my beliefs being
>>totally correct is negligable...
>>That does not mean that it does not exist...
>>My input is uncertain, my mind is uncertain,
>>my reasoning is uncertain, my logic is uncertain...
>>When all that I can ever know is uncertain -
>>how can I have anything _but_ belief...
>
> Once one "believes" (or "disbelieves") a particular assertion, then the mind
> closes to the possible alternatives. Within this definition of "belief", the
> entire process of "belief" is erroneous. The problem with most "beliefs" is
> that there is emotional attachment to them, this emotional attachment tends
> to irrationally ignore new information when it is presented.
Ok...
I see that Your definition of belief is pretty much
the opposite of mine...
I say: Once You _know_ something, _then_ You won't lissen to
new input... Since You know the truth what I say must obviously
be false...
I, on the other hand, admit that I know nothing and that all I
have is mere beliefs... Belief is uncertain...
>>Then what about the General Theory of Relativity?
>
> Same thing, a mere discovery, rather than construction.
But if both these theories are discoveries (with an existence
independent of the discoverer) and they don't
say the same thing... How do You fit that together?!
> Think of this...
> Imagine when GOD thought of the idea of a {CIRCLE}, once this discovery was
> made (by GOD) exactly how much choice did he have in the value of PI ?
> Could he (for example) decide that PI would be 1/3 (one third, 0.3333) or
> was this value already "predetermined" as an integral component of the
> concept of ROUNDNESS ?
I don't know...
But I guess You do... :p
How can You say anything about how logic was created!?!
The concept of the circle was no limitation when it was
created since it did not exist!
I say that the concept probably is eternal
But only because (if) God has this concept...
It is not a concept that is independent of God...
Nothing is independent of God...
God is the one who exists... (YHWH)
>>Do You mean to say that gravity is subjective?
>>Maybe it has subjective existence?
>
> Not at all, Since Newton was not floating around in outer space when he made
> his discovery, this proves that it was a mere discovery rather than
> construction (by Newton). Gravity was constructed by GOD, however.
Gravity is not real...
Newton "discovered" the _effect_
He constructed a model to describe this effect...
Einstein constructed a _new_ model -
rendering the old model invalid...
The process of refuting old models is
at the very heart of science...
These models might exist conceptually as You say...
I say these concepts exists only in our minds...
Newton _constructed_ a model...
He did not discover his theory...
Thus, conceptual existence is not real...
>>Then all characters in all stories exist in the same manner...
>
>>Are You not abusing the concept of existence here?
>
> Not at all, I am merely precisely delineating the various forms of
> existence.
> (1) Some things exist physically
> (2) Some things exist conceptually
> (3) Some things (with mutually exclusive attributes) exist neither
> conceptually, nor physically. Although the thing itself does not exist, it
> can still be named, such as a {square circle}.
1 - in a extended definition of physically...
For ex. including reality outside spacetime...
2 - exists only as patterns in our minds...
thus it does not exist in any meaningful sense...
The concepts is part of reality in the form of our thoughts...
The meaning of the concept is in many cases not...
3 - existence is irrelevant here...
>>Your certainly taking it a lot further than most would do...
>>By what justification are You doing this?
>>(I'm not saying that You don't have one)
>
> TRUTH itself forms my entire justification. TRUTH is the correspondence
> between (mathematical mapping) representations of actuality, and actuality
> itself. Copyright by Iam...@Home.com 1998 (former copyright notices were
> by IAM...@aol.com)
That is a definition of TRUTH that I refuse to accept...
For now... :)
> GOD can bring a person back from the dead that has been cremated, is it
> conceivable that humans will ever do this ?
Yes, it is conceivable...
> The current definition of the term {Human} categorically excludes this as a
> possibility. Anyone with this power would not be human.
Not by my definition of human...
>>Who designed the laws of physics?
>
> Apparently either ME or my creatures. It seems that GOD would create a
> created process that creates. This is verified in the mathematical validity
> of genetic algorithms. In other words the "theory" of evolution is actually
> a genetic algorithm (cosmic computer program) by which GOD delegates the
> process of creation to a created process.
Bullshit...
There are no laws...
Concepts are not real...
There are no algoritms that control
the universe....
The patterns of regularity that we
see in spacetime are an expression
of the stability of Gods will...
"A man with faith can indulge in the luxury of skepticism" - X-Files
KY MTB
more mathematical. i think god is one long mathematical equation that does
have a purpose but also has a lot of chaos covering it and you can only see the
direction it is going when you step back and look at the results as a whole.
much like you can't look at a human and know exactly what we looked like 100
million years ago, or what we will look like in 100 million years. that is why
some people see religion as mysterious, its because you are looking at it in
the moment, and can't see where its going. if you looked at one of us and the
first hominid you could probably fill in the gaps of what we looked like in
between.
god is chaos with very vague boundarys.
GOD
>independent of the discoverer) and they don't
>say the same thing... How do You fit that together?!
If they are mutually exclusive, then at least one of them is incorrect,
otherwise the disagreement is merely paradoxical, and can be reconciled with
additional information
>How can You say anything about how logic was created!?!
>The concept of the circle was no limitation when it was
>created since it did not exist!
I can say (from my thought experiment) that logic must have been discovered
rather than created, as GOD necessarily had no choice in the value of PI
after ROUND CIRCLES were discovered, and PRIOR to the concept of PI. Your
error is one of imprecision, as you state that circles did not exist, AFTER,
they were discovered.
>I say that the concept probably is eternal
>But only because (if) God has this concept...
>It is not a concept that is independent of God...
>Nothing is independent of God...
>God is the one who exists... (YHWH)
It is as if it was independent of GOD, since GOD himself has absolutely no
discretionary choice in this matter.
>Gravity is not real...
Gravity (the force that keeps everything from flying off into space) is
entirely real, even though the understanding of this force may be incomplete
or inconsistent.
>1 - in a extended definition of physically...
>For ex. including reality outside spacetime...
Physical existence ONLY exists within space-time, otherwise it is not
physical existence. If a thing is not possibly physically perceivable by one
or more sense organs, then this thing is not physical...
>2 - exists only as patterns in our minds...
>thus it does not exist in any meaningful sense...
Actually just the opposite all of meaning is entirely derived from thoughts
within minds.
>> TRUTH itself forms my entire justification. TRUTH is the correspondence
>> between (mathematical mapping) representations of actuality, and
actuality
>> itself. Copyright by Iam...@Home.com 1998 (former copyright notices
were
>> by IAM...@aol.com)
>
>That is a definition of TRUTH that I refuse to accept...
>For now... :)
One is free to disagree with absolute truth (at least for now), but that
does not affect it immutability at all...
>> GOD can bring a person back from the dead that has been cremated, is it
>> conceivable that humans will ever do this ?
>
>Yes, it is conceivable...
The delineate the conception without making any self-contradictory
statements...
>> The current definition of the term {Human} categorically excludes this as
a
>> possibility. Anyone with this power would not be human.
>
>Not by my definition of human...
One can "define" a {coffee pot} to be a "motor boat", yet I would not take
this for a ride in the water...
>Bullshit...
>There are no laws...
>Concepts are not real...
I {define} real to be the attribute of a thing such that it exists. Anything
that exists is {REAL}.
If there actually are no concepts, then these words upon this screen NEVER
EXISTED since these words form concepts...
>There are no algoritms that control
>the universe....
>The patterns of regularity that we
>see in spacetime are an expression
>of the stability of Gods will...
So you are saying that it is categorically impossible for GOD to create any
algorithms ???
That statement would be self-contradictory.
GOD
change this Fact !!!
KY MTB wrote in message <19981212151814...@ng06.aol.com>...
Daniel Sjolie
>>But only because (if) God has this concept...
>>It is not a concept that is independent of God...
>>Nothing is independent of God...
>>God is the one who exists... (YHWH)
>
> discretionary choice in this matter.
God, quite possibly, has no free will...
>>Gravity is not real...
> Gravity (the force that keeps everything from flying off into space) is
> entirely real, even though the understanding of this force may be incomplete
> or inconsistent.
Why would it be a force?
Einstein perhaps does not say that
there is no force but his theory opens
up for speculation...
What is a force really?
The word "force" is, in my opinion, a human abstraction...
We can only observe effects...
In the old days these effects were described
with spirits...
I think that the force-model is no more true...
>>1 - in a extended definition of physically...
>>For ex. including reality outside spacetime...
> Physical existence ONLY exists within space-time, otherwise it is not
> physical existence. If a thing is not possibly physically perceivable by one
> or more sense organs, then this thing is not physical...
Then what is God?
What is our souls?
What is a story?
These are things I say exists as more that concepts...
But they are not physical in nature...
>>2 - exists only as patterns in our minds...
>>thus it does not exist in any meaningful sense...
> Actually just the opposite all of meaning is entirely derived from thoughts
> within minds.
Yes, that is not what I said...
I say: No meaningful existence...
The meaning of existence might be derived from thought...
That does not mean that thought gives meaningful existence...
>>> GOD can bring a person back from the dead that has been cremated, is it
>>> conceivable that humans will ever do this ?
>>
>>Yes, it is conceivable...
> The delineate the conception without making any self-contradictory
> statements...
Huh?
>>> The current definition of the term {Human} categorically excludes this as
> a
>>> possibility. Anyone with this power would not be human.
>>
>>Not by my definition of human...
>
> One can "define" a {coffee pot} to be a "motor boat", yet I would not take
> this for a ride in the water...
Yes, but I have good reason to define human as I do...
>>There are no laws...
>>Concepts are not real...
> I {define} real to be the attribute of a thing such that it exists. Anything
> that exists is {REAL}.
> If there actually are no concepts, then these words upon this screen NEVER
> EXISTED since these words form concepts...
The words might come from concepts
and contain concepts
but they are not concepts...
A book is not a story...
>>There are no algoritms that control
>>the universe....
>>The patterns of regularity that we
>>see in spacetime are an expression
>>of the stability of Gods will...
> So you are saying that it is categorically impossible for GOD to create any
> algorithms ???
Algorithms that are not executed are irrelevant...
What would execute if not God?
I'm not certain...
Maybe I'll find out when studying AI... :)
What are angles?
> That statement would be self-contradictory.
Why? I say God can not do the impossible...
alan kong
GOD <iam...@home.com> wrote in article
<TWlc2.681$L52...@news.rdc1.ne.home.com>...
> It seems (from significant empirical evidence) That I myself am this
actual
> and physically manifest GOD.
you not serious? Why are you the powerful God doing in this small NG? does
GOD stands for something?
Alan
GOD
Apparently any GOD that is separate from me indeed has no free will, thus I
conclude that I am him.
>>>Gravity is not real...
Gravity is WHATEVER keeps everything from flying off into outer space, thus
gravity is REAL...
>Then what is God?
>What is our souls?
>What is a story?
>These are things I say exists as more that concepts...
>But they are not physical in nature...
They are metaphysical, then transcendent origin of physicality.
>That does not mean that thought gives meaningful existence...
Thought is the only source of any possible meaning anywhere, without thought
all meaning ceases to exist, and becomes chaos.
>
>>>> GOD can bring a person back from the dead that has been cremated, is it
>>>> conceivable that humans will ever do this ?
>>>
>>>Yes, it is conceivable...
>> The delineate the conception without making any self-contradictory
>> statements...
>
>Huh?
If it is conceivable that humans could raise back from the dead humans that
have been cremated, explain how this could be done, without refining the
term "human" to include attributes that are exclusively the domain of GOD.
For example by what scientific technology could a human raise a dead person
from ashes ??? Genetic engineering could not work because the best
possible case would only result in an identical twin to the original, and
not the original person himself.
GOD
ALL KNOWING is merely a popular misconception.
2 COR 12:9 My power is made perfect in weakness...
alan kong wrote in message <01be26a2$20b8ec20$363dc282@monash>...
TaiKenpo
ABSOLUTE TRUTH, thus proving that the generic category of ABSOLUTE TRUTH
exists.::
Kant's positing of Euclidean geometry as representing a priori necessities was
undercut by to development of non-Euclidean geometries such as (I hope I get
the spelling right) Lobachevskian and Riemannian geometries.
Ron Morales
TaiKenpo
>>> categorically validates the statement that "Existence Exists".<<
"Existence" doesn't exist. "Existence" is the state of existing. "Exists"
means "to have actual being". Stating "Existence exists" is like saying
"Thinking is thought". This is just one of Ms. Rand's nonsensical slogans.
Ron Morales
Rex Bennett
>
>Furthermore, not being able to do the logically impossible does not confer
a
>limitation on an entity's power. For something to be a limitation on an
>entity's power entails that there is something which the entity cannot do.
But
>since there can be no actual or possible self-contradictory state of
affairs,
>then saying that God "cannot" do such a nonsensical thing places no
limitation
>on his powers.
>
>Ron Morales
It may or may not say something about God, but it definitely says
something about the concept of "omnipotence." It shows that it
is a false concept.
Rex
Rex Bennett
>lift?<<
>
>
> I love this question... for it stumps the rigid of mind. If god is all
>powerful, then he should be able to create such a rock. But in doing so he
>intentionally limits his power, and thus doing so becomes less than an all
>powerful being. So ofcourse God knows this.
> Since God is a Taoist ( hehehe ), he solves that little riddle in the
>following manner. He can create that rock, but he chooses not to. Since
he
>is all powerful, he even has the power to limit his own power voluntarily,
>but choose not to. Thus he doesn't contend, and none can contend with him
>(he remains all powerful).
How is it that you can speak for God?!
Rex
TaiKenpo
The question (presumably applied to God) is meaningless. Since God by
hypothesis is omnipotent, then such a God could lift any stone. For such a God
to make a stone bigger that such a God can lift is for such a God to create a
state of affairs that is logically self-contradictory. But a
self-contradictory state of affairs is meaningless, since it has no actual nor
possible being. Thus, what precisely are you asking God to do? The question
"Can God make a stone bigger than he can lift?" ends up being a string of words
with a question mark, but no conceptual application, and hence is meaningless.
ccdrogan
lift?<<
I love this question... for it stumps the rigid of mind. If god is all
powerful, then he should be able to create such a rock. But in doing so he
intentionally limits his power, and thus doing so becomes less than an all
powerful being. So ofcourse God knows this.
Since God is a Taoist ( hehehe ), he solves that little riddle in the
following manner. He can create that rock, but he chooses not to. Since he
is all powerful, he even has the power to limit his own power voluntarily,
but choose not to. Thus he doesn't contend, and none can contend with him
(he remains all powerful).
Tao Te Ching #66
Because she contends with no one,
no one can contend with her.
ccdr...@aol.com
ICQ#17547500
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Aegean/7201/index.html
Taoist Circle Organization: Providing FREE: Weekly Chats, Bi - weekly
Taoist Newsletter, Message Board, Mailing List, Correspondence list, Book
Store, and one of the best sources of links to other Taoist information on
the net.
GOD
Semantics}, the mathematics of the meaning of words...
TaiKenpo wrote in message <19981213185156...@ng139.aol.com>...
GOD
identity. Remember the subject matter here is {Pure Semantics} (as opposed
to and contrasted with Semantics within Linguistics)
TaiKenpo wrote in message <19981213185630...@ng139.aol.com>...
GOD
any all powerful being to choose a particular point in time to limit this
power. Actually omnipotence logically entails the possibility of
self-limitation.
TaiKenpo wrote in message <19981213190442...@ng139.aol.com>...
>>>>Since you are so powerful, can you create a stone which you cannot
lift?<<
>
GOD
could also make a stone too heavy to lift (exactly as you have said) AND
lift this stone without violating the rule that it can not be done. On the
surface this seems logically impossible, yet this is the heart of the
paradox... Since I specifically know HOW this would be done, I also know
that it CAN be done, and that it (metaphorically) HAS been done.
ccdrogan wrote in message <751p2j$k...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>...
>TaiKenpo wrote in message <19981213190442...@ng139.aol.com>...
>>>>>Since you are so powerful, can you create a stone which you cannot
>lift?<<
>
>
TaiKenpo
confer a
limitation on an entity's power. For something to be a limitation on an
entity's power entails that there is something which the entity cannot do. But
since there can be no actual or possible self-contradictory state of affairs,
then saying that God "cannot" do such a nonsensical thing places no limitation
on his powers.<<
Rex responds:
>
>It may or may not say something about God, but it definitely says
>something about the concept of "omnipotence." It shows that it
>is a false concept.
I don't see how. It just goes to show that the notion that "omnipotence"
includes the power to do the inconceivable is an incoherent notion. One can
just conclude that omnipotence doesn't entail such a notion.
>
Ronald A. Morales
GOD
subtle...
Rex Bennett wrote in message ...
>TaiKenpo wrote in message <19981213190442...@ng139.aol.com>...
>>
>>Furthermore, not being able to do the logically impossible does not confer
>a
>>limitation on an entity's power. For something to be a limitation on an
>>entity's power entails that there is something which the entity cannot do.
>But
>>since there can be no actual or possible self-contradictory state of
>affairs,
>>then saying that God "cannot" do such a nonsensical thing places no
>limitation
>>on his powers.
>>
>>Ron Morales
>
>It may or may not say something about God, but it definitely says
>something about the concept of "omnipotence." It shows that it
>is a false concept.
>
>Rex
>
>
>
ccdrogan
>ccdrogan wrote in message <751p2j$k...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>...
>>lift?<<
>>
>>
>> I love this question... for it stumps the rigid of mind. If god is
all
>>powerful, then he should be able to create such a rock. But in doing so
he
>>intentionally limits his power, and thus doing so becomes less than an all
>>powerful being. So ofcourse God knows this.
>> Since God is a Taoist ( hehehe ), he solves that little riddle in the
>>following manner. He can create that rock, but he chooses not to. Since
>he
>>is all powerful, he even has the power to limit his own power voluntarily,
>>but choose not to. Thus he doesn't contend, and none can contend with him
>>(he remains all powerful).
>
>
>
>Rex
How is it that you think I can't speak of God?!
GOD
TaiKenpo wrote in message <19981213230434...@ng123.aol.com>...
>TaiKenpo>>Furthermore, not being able to do the logically impossible does
not
>confer a
>limitation on an entity's power. For something to be a limitation on an
>entity's power entails that there is something which the entity cannot do.
But
>since there can be no actual or possible self-contradictory state of
affairs,
>then saying that God "cannot" do such a nonsensical thing places no
limitation
>on his powers.<<
>
>Rex responds:
>>
>>It may or may not say something about God, but it definitely says
>>something about the concept of "omnipotence." It shows that it
>>is a false concept.
>
rob
>
> I love this question... for it stumps the rigid of mind.
If god is all
> powerful, then he should be able to create such a rock.
> Since God is a Taoist ( hehehe ), he solves that little
riddle in the
> following manner. He can create that rock, but he chooses
>
[snip]
> Tao Te Ching #66
>
> Because she contends with no one,
> no one can contend with her.
>
ccdrogan later wrote ....
>
> How is it that you think I can't speak of God?!
>
since your protocol is a snippet, let us start with the
beginning
Tao Te Ching #1
The name that can be named
is not the eternal Name.
for ye short on patience, that roughly translates as
Describe the indescribable...
so....
speak of/for God if you must, be it known though, that any
God
you might imagine or speak of is not the true God.
rob
Aekarr
What if, as Hawking et al suggest, there was no moment of creation, but matter
has always been? Then there need be no first cause.
*Be sure to delete "NOSPAM" from e-mail address before sending e-mail to me.*
Thanks.
Arnold E. Karr
Greenville, SC
Aekarr
Is GOD affected by anything?
If so, then it is not absolute, but contingent being & therefore subject to
some higher or prior being.
If not, then it is incapable of interaction with anything not itself.
That leaves us with the choice between a GOD that is wholly unknowable to us
and a GOD that is not what we mean by the word (if we even know what we mean).
Aekarr
Division by zero is undefined under the laws of arithmetic - it's as futile as
trying to extract the square root of -1.
Aekarr
The empty (or null) set is not nothing. It is the set that contains no
elements, but as a set it is itself something.