God

If God is really up there
If God is really true
Then how can I be down here getting hated on by you

Why should we pray
He never answers to what we say
It wastes time during the night and day

If I can't see him it means he's no really there
If he can see me I don't think it's fair

The "Bible" says Thou shalt not judge
He doesn't like music of hate so then he'd grudge

There isn't a God or he'd already been seen
There isn't a heaven or hell for me
there is only an in-between

Very deep...your 14, no?  Questioning already.  NEVER stop.

Some people say that instead of praying for things to get better, we ought to take responsibility and actually do something to make it better.  We are responsible for our own life.  It is ours not God's, and we don't need to sit around waiting for him to save us.  This is a basic tenet in humanism and you express it very deeply and noblely in your poem.

God to me is the fire of my heart which I recognize as the infinite and as the universal awareness within me..
Which I have tuned constant, perpetuating.... which I can always ladle hope and strength from... (without getting those dern mood swings)

There is...    nothing to worry or be really sad about (why, why waiste time? ... unless you want to spend your time in solitude so you can contemplate, restore or settle)
There is...    nothing to fear

And there is chocolate.

There is only you and this world that spin, however you put it 'in chaos' or 'in harmony' together...

If you embody both the yin and yang (symbolic belief consisting of all opposites- active/passive) you have no problems that will confront you at all, except the mundane ones.... if you mostly embody either yin or yang, which can be also represented as the opposite sexes, (which means you will need a relationship to feel complete) you may enjoy the company of good friends or the warmth of others.

'God' is within you. Recognize and be sated.


This is the belief system that works for me. All belief systems are neither 'true' or 'untrue', or 'right' or 'wrong'....

I hope I haven't confused you too much,
And I hope you have a nice life.

All my love,
+FCL

I really don't believe in God

I don't really believe in God either Hi-Top.  I was raised in Church...I spent most of my life, all but the last three years, learning about God and faith and duty and immortality...truly trying to find the peace that they all talked about.  It only drove me deeper into depresion and worse, repression.  Eventually it all became too much to believe and I lost my faith.  For the modern western mind, losing your faith feels like losing your soul, you feel so completely alone, without meaning, without hope or point of reference....a hole inside your chest that will never ever go away.  Unless you come from this cultural tradition, and walk it to its bitter end, it is very had to identify with why some of us are so despondent.

Tim, sounds like you would get along well with Marilyn Manson.  I also grew up and was schooled in mentally ill 'fundamentalist' communities punctuated by military-required transplantations.  Thank god my parents ran out of money and I got to go to public school for 3 years (although my social skills were hopeless at that point...gak).  My 'out' of the mental illness was accidental, as upon schmokin' weed in college I found (among other things) that the fundamentalist God (now understood as the superego image of their value system) was morally inconsistent and therefore devoid of believability.  It was downhill from there, schmokin' myself down the highway to hell and freedom.  
I know your pain
8)

Marilyn Manson..COOL! I still have to get their new CD, maybe tomorrow will be the day for it...

;D ;D ;D

If you read closely.. I wasn't only talking about God as a religious aspect.

I meant if there is a 'God', then 'God' is found within you to start off with and not above you.

We define 'God' for many things.. just as we define 'Love' for many things.. or the infinite.. etc....

I was basically supporting Timothys statement in detail.... although to me 'God' is not just 'God', as in the divine force that created life, is resonsible for his creation etc, etc, etc.....

It is up to you whether you give yourself credit for great achievements or thank a greater force.
It is up to you to blame the world, yourself or 'God'
It is up to you whether to define the ultimate finding of ultimate inner harmony/peace/restoration/salvation as God or not.
But 'God' alone won't help you find it.

You've got a brain and a heart, balance your temperamens and you'll find life alot easier. (and alot more fun too)

And this stuff doesn't come from a person who had a hunky-dory-sparkling life.

I think there have been some level - headed responses on this topic, without making those who do have a Faith feel stupid or silly.
AT the end of the day it is for each of us to choose our beliefs; yes, beliefs because we do not know.

I would only add that everybody should realise, that whilst we are most concerned about good and bad things that happen to us which we may have no control over, the good or bad things we choose to do that affect the kives of other people are equally important.
[I use the word 'everybody' so existing posters realise I am not referring to them].

Best regards, Bill [and his God].

i doupt the bible cuzz its hard to belive that some one can walk on water and stuff
the only reson i belive in god is so i no theres someone looking out for me
someone that cares! no one on this earth can do that.
so i ues my imaganation to make a person that does care   thats my god

I believe that there is a God. It can't just be a coincidence that we are all here; especially when we need each other.

Well and wisely spoken, James.

To those who believe, no explanation is necessary; to those who do not believe, no explanation is possible. 

I do not discuss my faith.  I live my faith, but it is much too important to me to argue about in public with strangers (nor is this the best place to discuss these matters, here in the replies to Amanda's poem).  My faith is precious to me, and I cherish it and treasure it in my heart.  I can live, and I have lived, without the love of women and of men, but I cannot live without the love of God; in the love of God is found the love of others which makes my life whole.  My wholeness, my completion comes from God.

I will say this, and this only, and I will say no more; the rest you must look for in my life and in my work:

I am a Christian in the Catholic tradition.

AMOR VINCIT OMNIA

Further discussion of this topic should continue in the Philosophy, Religion, and Spirituality forum, found elsewhere on these pages.  

All my love to all.

I like MM

+S, can you move this board over to the phil/rel forum so we can continue?  [img]http://brainmeta.com/YaBBImages/smilies/cwm35.gif[/img]

Timothy,
That's interesting what you said about the emptiness that the loss of beliefs causes in Western culture. I agree with you. I too lost my faith in the Fundamentalist Church I grew up in. And in that culture many people find it hard to talk about their faith because it is so personal.

There are two things you do not bring up at an American dinner party: Politics, and Religion.

It seems individual religious beliefs strike at the core of many in the United States. Dealing with the loss of your faith when it is placed at such a high priority is devistating.

It took a long time for me to realize that I created the Jesus that I prayed to. The whole conception, this gracious god-man that I loved was all in my head. When I realized I no longer believed in God I wept madly.

I killed God, or rather the conception thereof.

The "Bible" says Thou shalt not judge  

Where is this in the Bible? What passage?

DreadPirateRoberts,

Judging?

I found this on the web

[http://www.cust.idl.net.au/fold/teach/churches_theology/Thou_Shalt_Judge.html]

and append it for your perusal.

Thou Shalt Judge
One of the few teachings of Jesus that enjoys popularity today is "Judge not, that you will not be judged." The usual interpretation, however, seems to contradict everything else that Jesus said. And taken to the extreme, it would make human life impossible.

Even vision is impossible without judgment. A newborn baby sees only pieces of light and darkness until it learns to judge which shapes are worthy of its attention and which to ignore as mere background. This judgment is the beginning of meaningful vision.

We must do the same with spiritual things if we are not to become blind leaders of the blind. And we have judged the teachings of Jesus to be superior to anything else.

But what about his "Judge not" teaching? Bear in mind that punctuation was added to the original Bible. Jesus said, "Judge not that you will not be judged." (no comma) Could he be saying, "Don't think that you will not be judged"? It certainly fits with the next bit: "For you will be judged by the same standards that you have used in judging others." (Matthew 7:1-2)

It is not judging that is wrong; but rather judging by false standards. In John 7:24 Jesus says, "Judge not according to appearance, but judge righteous judgment," In other words, "thou shalt judge!"

There are scores of references to judgment and judging in the Bible. Almost all see judgment as good, and they see a lack of judgment as bad. In fact, the word hypocrite comes from two Greek words that mean with too little judgment.

The world in general, and the church in particular, is in the mess it is in today because of a lack of judgment. "Judge not" has become the cornerstone of an amoral world and a hypocritical church.

Everyone is not free to make up their own rules according to their own opinions.

Two plus two equals four. That is the truth. And if truth exists in little matters, it must exist in spiritual matters as well. And if truth exists, then it will just naturally expose (or "judge") the lies.

Jesus said his teachings will judge us in the last days (John 12:48). He says his teachings are the cornerstone on which our faith must be built if it is to survive (Matthew 7:24-25). He says church leaders have left his teachings out of their theology (Luke 12:17). And he says if we don't let his teachings judge us in this life, they will grind us to powder in the life to come (Luke 12:18).

Yes, we have passed judgment on the church. But we have done so on the basis of the teachings of Jesus, and not on emotional scare tactics or traditional measures of respectability (the bases on which people most often condemn us).

Let Jesus and his teachings be the final judge of us all. Because like it or not, they will be


best regards, Bill.
PS The smilies look down on some writings!!!

What Jesus was really saying was not to judge according to your own standards by according to God's. That becomes clear in the next few verses:

Matthew &:
1 1Judge not, that ye be not judged.

2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what 1measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

3 And why 1beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?

5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

In other words we judge our own selves first according to Scripture then we can talk to our brothers and sisters.  He confirms this later on;

Matthew 18:15 Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.

Just to clarify nowhere in the Christian Bible are we commanded never to judge but to judge according to Scripture starting with ourselves.

Rhymer,
Do you agree with that statement you posted off the website?
Snowflake

Hi Everybody,

I read that many women get sexually aroused when they pray to "God," since "he" is this all powerful entity of divine love and whatnot.  Has anyone else heard about this?

Anyway, I don't pray to God anymore since I found the Goddess.

-><- Hail Eris!

And why did Jesus have to be male?  I mean, if "God" really is a sexless entity as some Christians claim, then shouldn't Jesus be a hermaphrodite?  Furthermore, did Jesus have any testicles, and if so, what was the point?  

"if "God" really is a sexless entity as some Christians claim"

That's the problem-a LOT of christians claim something is true which isn't necessarily true. Let's see what the Bible says:

Genesis 5:1 This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;

2 Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.

Verse one says man was created in God's likeness and verse two says "male and female" created He them. If they were made in God's likeness AND made male and female then God must have male and female charecteristics. One of His names is "El Shadday" which is a feminine term.

DreadP said, "That's the problem-a LOT of christians claim something is true which isn't necessarily true."

An uneducated interpretation of the Bible falls directly into this category.

It sucks that doctors go through 6 years of school before they can start working with patients. A minister can say God told him to preach. He'll run out and tell people what the voice of God says to him in his head. If heaven and hell are real, the consequences of beliving something false are devistating. Wouldn't you rather have someone with a doctrate in theology telling you about God than some random person who said he heard God.

I wouldn't trust them farther than I could throw them.

QUOTE

Wouldn't you rather have someone with a doctrate in theology telling you about God than some random person who said he heard God. I wouldn't trust them farther than I could throw them.

I'd be pretty critical of both of them, since a doctorate can't prevent a person from outright lying, or distorting facts into a more sophisticated bias.

Meanwhile, a person who has no academic credentials to support their knowledge of god or what have you, may elucidate the most facinating mystical experience.  You know, the kind of religous euphoria that can be summoned up by countless means (singing may be the most obvious), often giving the people around them a sort of contact high.  

Education does not guarantee resonance, and that's fairly important with [sup]me[/sup].

I disagree. Being that the Bible is such an ancient piece of literature it is crucial that one spend tetious hours to learn how to interpret. Theology is indepth. It has changed consistently over the last two thousand years. If you want to be an extreme skeptic then I understand your arguement. Other than a skeptic's perspective there isn't reason to discredit educated as superior to uneducated.

Fundamentalists are the worst with this problem. They have no idea what the Bible is about.

A contact high from a worship service is a chemical reaction in the brain. You can get that from other things like meditation. No one needs to know God or open a sing holy book for that to take place. It's all a state of mind.

Religion isn't about feeling. It is about community.

****************
http://webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=resonance
T_Tom said, "Education does not guarantee resonance, and that's fairly important with me."

I don't get it.

"Fundamentalists are the worst with this problem. They have no idea what the Bible is about."

Please don't lump us all together like this. Some of us do know what the Bible is about.

I say that religion is psychotherapy.  The good thing about it is that it emerges in a natural/darwinistic fashion thus providing a stepping stone for hairless apes to evolve socially from scratch; the bad thing about it is that it presents limits to individual intelligence that actually become a detriment to the social evolution at some point.  'God the big bossman' had his place as the rainbow leading to the pot of gold, but eventually we hairless apes must realize that the only thing between us and oblivion is our own will.

[img]http://brainmeta.com/YaBBImages/smilies/cwm5.gif[/img]

QUOTE

but eventually we hairless apes must realize that the only thing between us and oblivion is our own will.

Do you believe only in the pyhsical then Dan; if you can't touch it, it is not real?

I don't think that is so, from what i've read of you, there's a spiritual side to your personality?

What do you believe in?  

I believe that anything that exists (i.e., any 'plane' such as 'ordinary physical' or 'astral' or whatever) is ultimately 'physical' in some sense.  I believe that there are more 'physical' layers than the current 4-force view of science, although I cannot measure them with non-brain instruments (but with my brain I may be able to, although this is difficult to determine in a reliable manner).  

I believe there is only one 'dude', and that 'dude' is 'time-division multiplexed' into all us 'separate' folks.  We think we have 'others', but all we have is phantoms.  not that phantoms are not good enough.......

[img]http://brainmeta.com/YaBBImages/smilies/cwm35.gif[/img]

I can relate  ;D

So why then are you against m-theroy and anything that has a basis in spacetime?

I'm against the concept of spatial continuum.  Einstein used it in his 4-D manifold theory called General Relativity.  Braniacs us it in their n-D manifold theories also.  The quantization of space is a result of the intrinsic quantization of reality; this is not due to continuous spaces in some kind of standing wave pattern but due to the intrinsic modularity of structure.

;D

So you deny a theory of Einstein who thought of things and developed ideas that are imposible for your mind to hint at. Before that you claimed that you can sense a varrying dimension. Evidently scientific evidence doesn't mean anything. You can sense these variations in space with your mind?

Do you have evidence? If there was evidence I'm sure it would be all over the news. Varifiable evidence is necessary.

You can prove space time exists. If you want to be a complete skeptic, then, of course, you can't prove anything. There is a time stamp above each of my posts. It tells the time and date of the post. I walk to the fridge to get a soda. You can't disagree that you don't have a concept of space and time. If you deny it then you can't change, nor exist. You wouldn't even be able to change a theory that you thought of to something else.

Perhaps I don't understand you. I don't think you're creating a good idea of your subject matter.

QUOTE

So you deny a theory of Einstein who thought of things and developed ideas that are imposible for your mind to hint at.

impossible for my mind to hint at?  where are you getting this?

QUOTE

Before that you claimed that you can sense a varrying dimension.

actually, I claimed that the mind may be involved in more than the ordinary dimensions  of known physics.  I did not claim that I can 'sense' them, only that whatever constitutes my mind ought to be accessible.

QUOTE

Evidently scientific evidence doesn't mean anything. You can sense these variations in space with your mind?

 I am stating that whatever constitutes my mind ought to be accessible through my brain-structure to some degree.  sounds pretty scientific to me

QUOTE

Do you have evidence? If there was evidence I'm sure it would be all over the news. Varifiable evidence is necessary.

Did I claim to have evidence?  All I claimed was to have an idea that should be testable given the proper technology (hopefully, through study of the brain at the atomic level)

QUOTE

You can prove space time exists.

if by 'spacetime' you mean the 4-D differentiable manifold that characterizes general relativity you can only compare features of the theory to observation.  What I am saying is that the very concept of a spatial continuum is itself in error, and thus any theory that takes this as an ontological basis is flawed.

QUOTE

There is a time stamp above each of my posts. It tells the time and date of the post. I walk to the fridge to get a soda. You can't disagree that you don't have a concept of space and time. If you deny it then you can't change, nor exist. You wouldn't even be able to change a theory that you thought of to something else.

Basically we agree that the universe does evolve in a sequential fashion, that's about it.  As for this indicating the 'spacetime' concept or relativity as proved, I disagree.

QUOTE

Perhaps I don't understand you. I don't think you're creating a good idea of your subject matter.

I think you are not so much misunderstanding me as jumping the gun in your criticisms.  I noticed some interesting emotionality in your response, especially at the beginning.  It seems you have an interest in keeping me honest

8)

QUOTE

Evidently scientific evidence doesn't mean anything. You can sense these variations in space with your mind?

QUOTE

I am stating that whatever constitutes my mind ought to be accessible through my brain-structure to some degree.  sounds pretty scientific to me

Your statement doesn't make sense. What constitutes your mind?
According to webster.com constitue has the following definitions:
1 : to appoint to an office, function, or dignity
2 : SET UP, ESTABLISH: as a : ENACT b : FOUND c (1) : to give due or lawful form to (2) : to legally process
3 : MAKE UP, FORM, COMPOSE <12 months constitute a year> <high school dropouts who constitute a major problem in large city slums -- J. B. Conant>
Soooo... whatever function your brain has should "...be available through your brain structure to some degree." You aren't making a clear statement.

QUOTE

Do you have evidence? If there was evidence I'm sure it would be all over the news. Varifiable evidence is necessary.

QUOTE

Did I claim to have evidence?  All I claimed was to have an idea that should be testable given the proper technology (hopefully, through study of the brain at the atomic level)

Well? Do you have evidence to back up your statement or not? If you have scientific evidence to back up your statement, then your arguement is valid. It's like you just made up something to believe. It's not intellectual or bound by any logic.

QUOTE

You can prove space time exists.

QUOTE

if by 'spacetime' you mean the 4-D differentiable manifold that characterizes general relativity you can only compare features of the theory to observation.  What I am saying is that the very concept of a spatial continuum is itself in error, and thus any theory that takes this as an ontological basis is flawed.

Ok, that's a big claim. How is it flawed? You haven't given any evidence. You've only claimed a conclusion.

QUOTE

Perhaps I don't understand you. I don't think you're creating a good idea of your subject matter.

QUOTE

I think you are not so much misunderstanding me as jumping the gun in your criticisms.  I noticed some interesting emotionality in your response, especially at the beginning.  It seems you have an interest in keeping me honest

Maybe jumping the gun means I can pick out an obvious falacy when I see one.

Honesty with yourself is primary.

QUOTE

Your statement doesn't make sense. What constitutes your mind?   According to webster.com constitue has the following definitions: 1 : to appoint to an office, function, or dignity 2 : SET UP, ESTABLISH: as a : ENACT b : FOUND c (1) : to give due or lawful form to (2) : to legally process 3 : MAKE UP, FORM, COMPOSE <12 months constitute a year> <high school dropouts who constitute a major problem in large city slums -- J. B. Conant>   Soooo... whatever function your brain has should "...be available through your brain structure to some degree." You aren't making a clear statement.

what constitutes my mind is a physical structure that binds a meaningful subjective state.  This structure is at least to a large degree 'unconsciously' causal which means I should be able to trigger 'mechanical' structural reactions (or 'functions') given access.  Conscious access should include 'external probing' via ordinary physical actions and (my assumption) 'internal sensing' via mental action.

QUOTE

Well? Do you have evidence to back up your statement or not? If you have scientific evidence to back up your statement, then your arguement is valid. It's like you just made up something to believe. It's not intellectual or bound by any logic. Â

1. I am a 'subject' whose experience is morphic to a physical structure I call a 'brain'
2. This 'brain' is constituted of physical elements which do not individually contain my mind; my mind appears to 'cohere' in an emergent sense in response to the organization of this 'brain' structure
3. I assume that all 'physical' elements of my brain structure are related to the coherence of my mind; this must include all elements, known or not (the proposition of other 'dimensions' means that there is more structure than meets the atom smasher's eye)
4.  I am not aware of a 'final word' on what constitutes physical structure; I am only aware of the 'latest word'.  Thus I can speculate without being scientifically incorrect.

QUOTE

Ok, that's a big claim. How is it flawed? You haven't given any evidence. You've only claimed a conclusion.

the continuum is a mathematical construct born of a perceptual 'intuition' of space (we call this 'geometry).  Physics, on the other hand, always finds a granularity at the smallest scales (planck length, time)  that suggests a breakdown of this concept as a correct ontology.  I'm saying that people who want to interpret physical facts on the basis of the spatial continuum concept (such as Braniacs) also claim a conclusion; one that is often not testable.  Continuum theories appeal to the intuition of 'geometry' and external space, thus they are believed to be true on the basis of 'intuitive truth'.

QUOTE

Maybe jumping the gun means I can pick out an obvious falacy when I see one. Â

Maybe!  who knows?  

QUOTE

2. This 'brain' is constituted of physical elements which do not individually contain my mind; my mind appears to 'cohere' in an emergent sense in response to the organization of this 'brain' structure 3. I assume that all 'physical' elements of my brain structure are related to the coherence of my mind; this must include all elements, known or not (the proposition of other 'dimensions' means that there is more structure than meets the atom smasher's eye)

This is a platonic theory. The soul and the body cohere to each other. The soul controls the body. Or as you put it, the mind controls the brain. Even though the brain, or body, seems to be working in order to create all the functions of the body, the mind, or soul, is ultimately in control.
This falls apart when you can't prove the soul exists. In your case, you can't prove that another sub-atomic element exists within the brain. The only partical that has been seen that is smaller than an atom is a neutron.

QUOTE

the continuum is a mathematical construct born of a perceptual 'intuition' of .... .... .... to be true on the basis of 'intuitive truth'.

This is a potently skeptical statement. You yourself have made an 'intuitive truth' claim on your own theory. Your claim was far more intuitively based than the 4-D theory.

QUOTE

Maybe!  who knows?

Ultimate skepticism says, no one knows. The world around us is all we can really dare to know. Your highly skeptical claims don't even aply your own theory, although, your theory is far more easy to discredit than the entire realm of mathematics and physics.
I'm quite a Kantian, in that, math is the only thing we can see as true, (not True, but true). Language itself is pliable and loses meaning all the time. Mathematics and physics are purely based on an objective logic. Logic is key.
You don't care about logic or inductive reasoning. You seem to have a desire to believe what you want to believe. Instead of making a faith claim on your theory, you try to discredit a geneous. Saying, "I don't know how but we have an existing scheme of reality that is unknowable," is one way to make a faith claim. To tell anyone that you know through your own speculation, as if you were inspired to know what no one else does, is a falacy of great degree.

Yikes! Looks like a board gremlin had a large snack this morning!  And I had written such a good response to this string for you, AS.  Oh well, I guess you'll just have to wait

8)

O vos omnes, qui transites per viam, attendite:  This entire big long thread started with an especially crappy poem by a little okie dokie girl, which poem was so bad and such a blatant grab for cheap attention that I moved it repeatedly from my poetry board to these nether regions; so here it is and all you philosophers argue and briggle and waste your mortal lives on nothing, nothing, nothing; be assured that your replies to this horrible poem are worth far more than the head of the thread itself: God is a big problem for you, eh?

I am only a poet.  I do not join in your hoedowns of philosophy.  

I just wanted to mention that this, your platform for all your high-flown bullshit, originated with a terrible and crappy poem which I moved here, because I could not bear it there.

Now don't attack me!  

Get a grip!  Get a life!

I am a poet, that is what I do.  An artist.

I handle the poetry board round here.

All I wanted to say is that I find it laughable that all your big long thread began with a horrible and crappy poem by a little okie girl who has been the greatest trial and problem imaginable to this site for many months... a poet she is not, philosophers are you?  

None of my business.

Read my poems; judge me as you will.

I am in unbreakable solidarity with you all, with you who honestly seek to learn, to grow; with you who seek to know.

Plus sign Steven, I hear ya.

QUOTE

All I wanted to say is that I find it laughable that all your big long thread began with a horrible and crappy poem...

I've seen worse.  

QUOTE

I am in unbreakable solidarity with you all, with you who honestly seek to learn, to grow; with you who seek to know.

Indeed.

QUOTE

Looks like a board gremlin had a large snack this morning!

I can't say how many times that has happened to me. I was at the libarary a couple of times and the computer loged out because I was on too long. I lost it all.  >:(
Beware.

That's very nice, Steve.
have a great day!
;D

QUOTE

This is a platonic theory. The soul and the body cohere to each other. The soul controls the body. Or as you put it, the mind controls the brain. Even though the brain, or body, seems to be working in order to create all the functions of the body, the mind, or soul, is ultimately in control. Â

what I am saying is that the 'coin' of reality can be understood in two senses: 'physical structure' (out there) and 'quality' (in here).  I'm saying that 'structure' and 'quality' are complementary, such as a 'brain' being associated with a particular 'mental state'.  I also say that 'quality' guides 'will' (and will 'forces' structure; called 'choice').  Thus, a brain of particular form implies a mind of particular quality; and a particular quality implies a particular will-vector.  Thus, we have what appears to be a 'subjective' cause of structure through will and an 'objective' cause of quality through structure.  a sort of 'wagging of the dog'.

QUOTE

This falls apart when you can't prove the soul exists. In your case, you can't prove that another sub-atomic element exists within the brain. The only partical that has been seen that is smaller than an atom is a neutron.

I don't speak in terms of 'soul', but of 'subject'.  I find it redundant to prove the existence of 'subject' to myself; I take this as truly self-evident (Descartes was alluding to this in his famous sound-bite "I think therefore I am").  Also, my ideas on the problem of what exists vs. what has been identified is relevant to the problem as 'what exists' is likely of importance whether or not it has been written into physics texts yet.

QUOTE

You yourself have made an 'intuitive truth' claim on your own theory. Your claim was far more intuitively based than the 4-D theory. Â

I believe you are referencing my statement that 4-D is a mathematical fantasy and not necessarily a physical reality?  I'm thinking that I have a good amount of acceptable evidence concerning the intrinsic discreteness of 'physical stuff' and the breakdown of 'continuum' at small space/time scales, thus I do not feel stranded on an island of blind 'intuition'.

QUOTE

Your highly skeptical claims don't even aply your own theory, although, your theory is far more easy to discredit than the entire realm of mathematics and physics. Â

I don't think you really know my 'theory' yet, and your claim that it is far more easy to discredit seems to be but a guess at best. (at worst, a faulty conclusion based on misinterpretation)

QUOTE

I'm quite a Kantian, in that, math is the only thing we can see as true, (not True, but true).

I'd like to hear what you mean by the True vs. true distinction.  Also, when boiled down, the only 'self evident' truth in math is that it assumes the 'object/property/relation' schema as its only universal axiom.

QUOTE

Mathematics and physics are purely based on an objective logic

anything beyond the simple 'object/property/relation' foundation requires a bit of 'intuition'.  Both mathematics and physics as descriptive systems assume 'intuitive' elements that are more than 'pure' objective logic.

QUOTE

You don't care about logic or inductive reasoning.

Yes I do!  ;D

QUOTE

You seem to have a desire to believe what you want to believe.

desire and want are the same action, thus your statement is tautologous.  think about it

QUOTE

Instead of making a faith claim on your theory, you try to discredit a geneous. Saying, "I don't know how but we have an existing scheme of reality that is unknowable," is one way to make a faith claim.

I'm not making any faith claim when I say that strings/brane theories are not provable, I'm referring to the physical fact that to probe the relevant details of the natural world that are uniquely described by these theories is waaaaaaay impossible for humans at present.  Thus, these theories are not only based in mathematical speculation but are completely untestable by any available technique.

QUOTE

To tell anyone that you know through your own speculation, as if you were inspired to know what no one else does, is a falacy of great degree. Â

If I told you that I was not inspired to know what no one else does, would that make my position any less fallacious?

8)

QUOTE

what I am saying is that the 'coin' of reality can be understood in two senses: 'physical structure' (out there) and 'quality' (in here).  I'm saying that 'structure' and 'quality' are complementary, such as a 'brain' being associated with a particular 'mental state'.  I also say that 'quality' guides 'will' (and will 'forces' structure; called 'choice').  Thus, a brain of particular form implies a mind of particular quality; and a particular quality implies a particular will-vector.  Thus, we have what appears to be a 'subjective' cause of structure through will and an 'objective' cause of quality through structure.  a sort of 'wagging of the dog'.

QUOTE

I don't speak in terms of 'soul', but of 'subject'.  I find it redundant to prove the existence of 'subject' to myself; I take this as truly self-evident (Descartes was alluding to this in his famous sound-bite "I think therefore I am").  Also, my ideas on the problem of what exists vs. what has been identified is relevant to the problem as 'what exists' is likely of importance whether or not it has been written into physics texts yet.

Let me break it down for you Bub, same theory, different vocabulary.

QUOTE

I'd like to hear what you mean by the True vs. true distinction.

Truth, (capital T), is something unwavering that is and always will be True. Some Christians say that God is True, in that God exists and that they can always believe that as True. This can't exist unless you are ignorant.
Truth, (lower-case t), is something that is true, but not pervasively true. Mathematics are true because you can always say that a current of electricity will run through copper at speed X as long as certain condition Y stays the same. Or more simply put, a sphere is perfectly round. The arc from one pole will always equal 180* degrees. By definition that is a sphere. But even without calling it a sphere that is always true. That particular object will always be have that charactaristic otherwise it would be something else.

QUOTE

I don't think you really know my 'theory' yet, and your claim that it is far more easy to discredit seems to be but a guess at best. (at worst, a faulty conclusion based on misinterpretation)

I'm not the one defending a farce.

QUOTE

desire and want are the same action, thus your statement is tautologous.  think about it

When did this become an arguement over symantics?

In conclusion: you have failed to show further evidence that this is a ligitimate arguement. You have attempted to explain theories in hopes of showing a falacy within it. This, I might add, has been quite a show. (I know I do not know the dynamic behind the 4-D theory. I seriously doubt you do.) There is no more reason to believe your theories than to believe there is a man on the moon. Which means, your theory is a myth that you have created. (I'm not saying you don't believe it.) Therefore, you can't prove your theory correct or anyone else's wrong on this subject.

Good day, sir.

QUOTE

Truth, (capital T), is something unwavering that is and always will be True. Some Christians say that God is True, in that God exists and that they can always believe that as True. This can't exist unless you are ignorant. Truth, (lower-case t), is something that is true, but not pervasively true. .

I'm afraid this sounds like philosophical doubletalk. how does pervasiveness change the quality of truth? why don't you just say "Truth is really true, while truth is just kind of true". It sounds just about as sensible. I'm thinking you are really assuming a distinction that divides truth into 'platonic' (or 'objective') and 'subjective' realms which sounds rather suspicious. The belief in 'platonic' truth is the sort of nonsense that leads people to believe that the universe is somehow a necessary result of abstract logic.

QUOTE

Mathematics are true because you can always say that a current of electricity will run through copper at speed X as long as certain condition Y stays the same.

that's physics, dude

QUOTE

Or more simply put, a sphere is perfectly round. The arc from one pole will always equal 180* degrees. By definition that is a sphere.

that's called a definition, which is trivially true (or, it is 'true' because we say it is)

QUOTE

But even without calling it a sphere that is always true.  That particular object will always be have that charactaristic otherwise it would be something else

these 'objects' only exists when we 'subjects' decide that they exist and describe what properties such objects must exhibit. They do not exist in some 'Platoland' or in the physical world but exist only as we make them exist in our minds. To call it 'true' is trivial; it's like saying 1 = 1

QUOTE

I'm not the one defending a farce.

no, you're the one claiming my statements to be a farce without offering a substantive argument. I call that a farce

QUOTE

When did this become an arguement over symantics?

when you said "you only want to believe what you want to believe" or something to that effect. To which I replied "duh!"

QUOTE

In conclusion: you have failed to show further evidence that this is a ligitimate arguement.

correction: I have failed to show further evidence that you can comprehend that this is a legitimate argument

QUOTE

You have attempted to explain theories in hopes of showing a falacy within it. This, I might add, has been quite a show. (I know I do not know the dynamic behind the 4-D theory. I seriously doubt you do.)

well it looks like we have some answers to your dilemma in this response. If you don't understand something, then how can you know whether or not I do? Intuition?

QUOTE

There is no more reason to believe your theories than to believe there is a man on the moon.

That's probably true for you!

QUOTE

Which means, your theory is a myth that you have created

why, because you don't understand it and 'intuitively' believe believe I can't understand it? Isn't that some kind of fallacy or something?

QUOTE

Therefore, you can't prove your theory correct or anyone else's wrong on this subject.

there is no Therefore. Your argument is based on the fact that you can't understand and that you believe I can't understand either. If you want a 'therefore', you're going to have to either learn how to prove that I don't understand or that I can't understand. As far as I can tell, you have yet to do either. Until then, all you have is 'intuition'

8)

[quote author=AmbientSnowflake link=board=7;threadid=388;start=0#msg13513 date=1063154078]In conclusion: you have failed to show further evidence that this is a ligitimate arguement. You have attempted to explain theories in hopes of showing a falacy within it. This, I might add, has been quite a show. (I know I do not know the dynamic behind the 4-D theory. I seriously doubt you do.) There is no more reason to believe your theories than to believe there is a man on the moon. Which means, your theory is a myth that you have created. (I'm not saying you don't believe it.) Therefore, you can't prove your theory correct or anyone else's wrong on this subject.

Good day, sir.
[/quote]

I said, Good day.

[quote]I said, Good day. [/quote]
yeah, I noticed that. Is there a particular reason why you are reminding me?
;D

QUOTE

If you want a 'therefore', you're going to have to either learn how to prove that I don't understand or that I can't understand.

There is no chance of proving anything to you. And I can't prove that statement either. What's the point of having a conversation with you?

So, good day.

oh, the irony!

I wonder how much online debate is actual disagreement rather than just personality conflicts. I can't decide if it is 47% or 8/3.

The world and what you see in it is only a reflection of what you are.

Hm, I think I see what you mean Joe. I am leaning towards 8/3 now.

47% or 8/3? I don't get it.

[quote author=joesus link=board=7;threadid=388;start=0#msg13837 date=1063738505]
The world and what you see in it is only a reflection of what you are.
[/quote]
The world as a reflection of one's own self makes me think nothing can exists except the self. And certainly you can read this, become self-conscience of yourself as a seperate intity from me, and prove otherwise.

That's a concept assuming projection of self is directed into everything someone would encounter from birth to death. It implies that I contain all possible knowledge inside me. If it's all a reflection of me then nothing can come from outside of me, can it?

Although, it is a problem that some have. One can project their problems and insecurities into others as if they belong to them.

[quote]Although, it is a problem that some have. One can project their problems and insecurities into others as if they belong to them. [/quote]

This is suffering, and it is a form co-dependence as well as the hallmark of the Ego.