First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next  Last
Nature of Existence
2546 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Sydney, Australia
Offline
Posted 1/18/08 , edited 4/18/08

Bonta_Kun wrote:

WTF....now that's one loooooooooonnnnnnnnng essay. even though i didn't read it... but you guys sure do have a lot of time on your hands....


Agreed, I don't think I'll ever get to reading and comprehending it. My head exploded a few posts back and now I have math homework in front of me.
And I want to DotA.

I saw Kant in Eros' post, and funny that I'm just reading about him in my book. I don't know much but I agree with his, or someone's usage of space and time factors to disprove empirical philosophy. I like space.


Kieutie wrote:

i'm catholic
but i hate it.
so i guess i'm a big sinner.

but i don't care

cus my church is so hypocritical
it's sickening.


I'm in the same boat as you. I was brought up Catholic, and my parents are still trying to get me to go to church with them on Sundays, but the more I read up on what Christians and stuff think about, the more I'm repelled by it.
Though I haven't noticed anything about the church I go to or anything, and I've thought "too logically" for some/most of the teachings of Catholicism.
But at times I feel like I've done something wrong, and I've let God down...can't help how I've been brought up.
: (
(Not that I do anything about it)
4933 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Lethbridge Alberta
Offline
Posted 1/18/08 , edited 4/18/08

excalion wrote:

So before you mods delete this thread on the basis that it is probably retarded not to mention a duplicate, consider this.

We have in the past argued on various occasions the validity of the existence of a certain being called God. That is not the point in this topic. The point however is to argue the nature of this existence. (if such an existence exists)

Now before we get caught into the vicious cycle of pondering whether existence actually exists, I'd like to make my first and foremost argument:

God Exists

...but I'm an athiest, how can this be so?

Here are my premises:

1. What is the definition of existence? To the best of my ability I am able to say existence is something that is 'there'

2. The ontological argument presented by Anselm considers this, but there is one point of great difference in our beliefs. While Anselm believed that the a physical form triumphs over an ethereal form, I believe the opposite. We can go into detail for why I believe so but unfortunately, we do not have all day. So my second premise will simply say 'the ethereal is a higher form of existence than the physical'

3. When you explain the nature of this 'God' fellow to anyone in the world, they are able to comprehend, given comprehension is limited to uncertain degrees amongst people with different levels of mental capabilities, but comprehend to a point nontheless.

Given these premises and assuming they are true, we now apply deductive reasoning, but first, let me simplify.

1. Existence is something that is 'there'
2. Ethereal existence is a higher form than physical existence
3. Everyone in the world, believers and nonbelievers alike, are able to comprehend 'God'

The logical conclusion would be:

God exists, but only in the minds of people.

What does this mean exactly? Well you see its quite simple. For centuries the human race has been asking the wrong question,'is there a God?' or 'does God exist?'; the answer to those questions are simple and can be summed up into one word, Yes.

However the most important question is rarely addressed. In what form does this 'God' exist? Through my contemplation I have arrived at the existence of God being purely in the land of imagination.

Any questions?


You asked how you could be an atheist but believe.. its called agnaustic basically fence sitters in this argument, and your explanation of god is slightly contradicting. You seem to be indecisive. God being in the imagination, hmm basically a god is something that seems to have a superior understanding then everyone, is basically what people believe. So what occurs is the ass kissing of something bigger then you (metaphorically).

1. Existence is something that is 'there'? No in my point of view, because we are beings who have constant thought no matter what. Even when you think your not thinking your still thinking. So its a hallucination of thoughts that are jumbled up.
2. Ethereal existence is a higher form than physical existence? No because as an atheist i believe in physically existence. Ethereal existence is usually mistaken for thoughts and insight into things.
3. Everyone in the world, believers and nonbelievers alike, are able to comprehend 'God'? People feel the need they have to have something over them that guides them, In my point of view i find this valid because the morals associated with God and such help society stay "civilized"


Quote me on it if you wanna go further into it!!!
9997 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / F / Oregon, USA / Can...
Offline
Posted 1/18/08 , edited 4/18/08
i love this post.
but in my opinion,
it doesn't matter.
fuck the concept.

im athiest, but im sure god exists in the minds of others.
s/he's an image, and it's cool that people look up to God, and have something to believe in.
might even keep them sane, for fear of what is called a "sin".

but i really think the question should just be dropped.
no way to prove he does or doesn't.
so lets stop asking, eh?

Love the post.
Love your thoughts.

Very intellegent.
4933 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Lethbridge Alberta
Offline
Posted 1/18/08 , edited 4/18/08

excalion wrote:


qweruiop wrote:


excalion wrote:

But rather than thinking about that, consider this.

The image that pops into your head when you first decide to paint, would you consider that image as an existence? Along with the feelings that come with it. (majestic, elegant etc.)

If you do, how does that existence compare with the existence of your finished painting?


It depends on your definition of existence. You said that it is something that's "there."
Does that mean it is something you see? Or something you hear?...Touch? ...Smell? ...Taste? Or is does it have to be all of these in order to be called an existence.

..........Or perhaps, none of these?

As for me, I think that something only exists fully when one believes in it fully.

-----------------------------------------------------------------



EDIT: I just realized I didn't completely answer the question you asked me.

So let us say that I do consider the image in my head as an existence. When I compare the mental vision to the one that I see before me, how can I believe in the one in my head more than the one that I can see, feel, touch, smell, taste? (I wouldn't taste it though )



Do you believe the existence of the internet?

I'm not talking about the machines that keep it running, I'm talking about the actual entity known as the internet.

Can you see/hear/touch/smell/taste it?


The internet has been shown to us by its creator. Stating that another point that the internet is another entity is falty because its man made. Majority of deity's in the world are much more supreme and all knowing. A program made to connect the world and make life easier is only as smart as the programmer. The internet in all is electricity run and is the machines that keep it running. part of the reason people can turn it off and on.
2546 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Sydney, Australia
Offline
Posted 1/18/08 , edited 4/18/08

Chaoticraven wrote:


excalion wrote:


qweruiop wrote:


excalion wrote:

But rather than thinking about that, consider this.

The image that pops into your head when you first decide to paint, would you consider that image as an existence? Along with the feelings that come with it. (majestic, elegant etc.)

If you do, how does that existence compare with the existence of your finished painting?


It depends on your definition of existence. You said that it is something that's "there."
Does that mean it is something you see? Or something you hear?...Touch? ...Smell? ...Taste? Or is does it have to be all of these in order to be called an existence.

..........Or perhaps, none of these?

As for me, I think that something only exists fully when one believes in it fully.

-----------------------------------------------------------------



EDIT: I just realized I didn't completely answer the question you asked me.

So let us say that I do consider the image in my head as an existence. When I compare the mental vision to the one that I see before me, how can I believe in the one in my head more than the one that I can see, feel, touch, smell, taste? (I wouldn't taste it though )



Do you believe the existence of the internet?

I'm not talking about the machines that keep it running, I'm talking about the actual entity known as the internet.

Can you see/hear/touch/smell/taste it?


The internet has been shown to us by its creator. Stating that another point that the internet is another entity is falty because its man made. Majority of deity's in the world are much more supreme and all knowing. A program made to connect the world and make life easier is only as smart as the programmer. The internet in all is electricity run and is the machines that keep it running. part of the reason people can turn it off and on.


I think you're touching on what is known as "hyperreality". It is a "reality" that only exists in peoples minds, collectively,
An example of hyperreality would be some/many factors of todays society. Money for example. Physically, a 10 dollar bill is only a piece of coloured paper/materials stuff whatever. But we humans have come to believe that this piece of paper is worth the coffee, cake and newspaper that you use this 10 dollar bill to buy. So basically, money ONLY exists if both I AND the shopkeeper recognize the piece of paper as "money" and that is has some kind of value to it.
Can't be bothered going in any deeper.


xLorrainex wrote:


Gabcom wrote:


lol its u


lol well hello again!

(i tend to get involved with forums a lot.)


So do I, as you can see. Nice way to kill time, even though I've got math homework on my lap.



EDIT: Okay, heres where Kant's (I think) philosophy comes in. There are two kinds of reality (or something). There is the reality that we perceive with our senses, something similar to empiricism, but with just our experience/senses, we cannot conceive things such as space, time, anything to do with hyperreality, as we cannot really sense these things. So Kant brought in our intuition. Our intuition is speculations which help us find the connection and interact with the things that we perceive. Hence, things such as money and the internet exist only because of our intuition.
I guess, if humans didn't exist, money would cease to exist, whereas if all matter ceased to exist, time would not exist, nor would space.
Dunno if this contributes anything but yeah..actually I'm not too sure with this, can someone clarify? (Didn't finish reading about Kant.)
4933 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Lethbridge Alberta
Offline
Posted 1/18/08 , edited 4/18/08

Gabcom wrote:


Chaoticraven wrote:


excalion wrote:


qweruiop wrote:


excalion wrote:

But rather than thinking about that, consider this.

The image that pops into your head when you first decide to paint, would you consider that image as an existence? Along with the feelings that come with it. (majestic, elegant etc.)

If you do, how does that existence compare with the existence of your finished painting?


It depends on your definition of existence. You said that it is something that's "there."
Does that mean it is something you see? Or something you hear?...Touch? ...Smell? ...Taste? Or is does it have to be all of these in order to be called an existence.

..........Or perhaps, none of these?

As for me, I think that something only exists fully when one believes in it fully.

-----------------------------------------------------------------



EDIT: I just realized I didn't completely answer the question you asked me.

So let us say that I do consider the image in my head as an existence. When I compare the mental vision to the one that I see before me, how can I believe in the one in my head more than the one that I can see, feel, touch, smell, taste? (I wouldn't taste it though )



Do you believe the existence of the internet?

I'm not talking about the machines that keep it running, I'm talking about the actual entity known as the internet.

Can you see/hear/touch/smell/taste it?


The internet has been shown to us by its creator. Stating that another point that the internet is another entity is falty because its man made. Majority of deity's in the world are much more supreme and all knowing. A program made to connect the world and make life easier is only as smart as the programmer. The internet in all is electricity run and is the machines that keep it running. part of the reason people can turn it off and on.


I think you're touching on what is known as "hyperreality". It is a "reality" that only exists in peoples minds, collectively,
An example of hyperreality would be some/many factors of todays society. Money for example. Physically, a 10 dollar bill is only a piece of coloured paper/materials stuff whatever. But we humans have come to believe that this piece of paper is worth the coffee, cake and newspaper that you use this 10 dollar bill to buy. So basically, money ONLY exists if both I AND the shopkeeper recognize the piece of paper as "money" and that is has some kind of value to it.
Can't be bothered going in any deeper.


xLorrainex wrote:


Gabcom wrote:


lol its u


lol well hello again!

(i tend to get involved with forums a lot.)


So do I, as you can see. Nice way to kill time, even though I've got math homework on my lap.


hyper reality? I stated that The internet is a program run by machines and comparing it to a god existing argument doesn't measure up. Materialism is something that is taught and basically molded into ppls minds and is a huge degrading and flaw in education, because of the things it causes.
2546 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Sydney, Australia
Offline
Posted 1/18/08 , edited 4/18/08

Chaoticraven wrote:

hyper reality? I stated that The internet is a program run by machines and comparing it to a god existing argument doesn't measure up. Materialism is something that is taught and basically molded into ppls minds and is a huge degrading and flaw in education, because of the things it causes.


Probably more aimed at the last quote that you quoted, something about things you can't smell/taste/whatever and yeah.
Though bringing in the internet IS kind of weird, I agree.
Materialism, to me, doesn't explain much at all, either that or I don't fully understand it. It doesn't really aid in comprehending the causes of thoughts and stuff in our minds, and yeah. Kinda smells like empiricism to me. Flawed.

EDIT: Actually yeah, very aimed at the other quotes lol, sorry =3
1433 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / New York
Offline
Posted 1/19/08 , edited 4/18/08

excalion wrote:

PS: also read Regulus' first post in here. Some of the points he brings up is a direct opposite standpoint of the scientific process.


Yes, on the basis of certainty, which is the only thing I care about when it comes to these matters. I consider myself a logical person, but I recognize that, as a system, it excludes areas of difference if they exist. From a logical perspective, of course, those areas of difference are immediately seen as errors of perception. Derrida would say we could give it up altogether or simply continue on with an awareness of its shortcomings so that we do not delude ourselves in our pursuit of knowledge. But I brought up the troubles of language, too, because a lot of words are being thrown around that mean different things to different people. (When don't they?)

I'm far more interested in deconstruction than with philosophies of this nature because it offers something more legitimate than an opinion. Even Descartes's basic "Cogito ergo sum," the beginning of his attempt to create a foundation for certainty in knowledge, has been broken down. Philosophy is dead, as they say, in that its purpose has been revealed to be impossible. Sure, it's functional enough when you're using it within a system already, but we're after the nature of existence here - the starting point.

This thread began with an opinion rather than a logical synthesis of facts to form a conclusion, so what are we to do with it? You asked what I believe your purpose to be, but I still can't say I know. Care to enlighten me?




1433 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / New York
Offline
Posted 1/19/08 , edited 4/18/08

Chaoticraven wrote:


You asked how you could be an atheist but believe.. its called agnaustic basically fence sitters in this argument, and your explanation of god is slightly contradicting. You seem to be indecisive. God being in the imagination, hmm basically a god is something that seems to have a superior understanding then everyone, is basically what people believe. So what occurs is the ass kissing of something bigger then you (metaphorically).



Maybe I'm too concerned with details, but I should point this out. Agnosticism concerns itself with knowledge (agnostic means to not know) while atheism concerns itself with belief. I, then, am an agnostic atheist because I 1.) do not have any knowledge regarding God's existence one way or another, and 2.) do not believe. You could call it the default position, I guess, since I have no reason to believe in something without evidence but "an absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." The term "agnostic" has taken on this colloquial (and insulting) meaning of fence-sitter, but that isn't really the case. It is certainly more intellectually sound than its counterpart, gnosticism (not the Christian offshoot, or whatever you want to call it), as it does not presume to know these things with certainty.

20259 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / The centroid of a...
Offline
Posted 1/19/08 , edited 4/18/08

Chaoticraven wrote:

You asked how you could be an atheist but believe.. its called agnaustic basically fence sitters in this argument, and your explanation of god is slightly contradicting. You seem to be indecisive. God being in the imagination, hmm basically a god is something that seems to have a superior understanding then everyone, is basically what people believe. So what occurs is the ass kissing of something bigger then you (metaphorically).

1. Existence is something that is 'there'? No in my point of view, because we are beings who have constant thought no matter what. Even when you think your not thinking your still thinking. So its a hallucination of thoughts that are jumbled up.
2. Ethereal existence is a higher form than physical existence? No because as an atheist i believe in physically existence. Ethereal existence is usually mistaken for thoughts and insight into things.
3. Everyone in the world, believers and nonbelievers alike, are able to comprehend 'God'? People feel the need they have to have something over them that guides them, In my point of view i find this valid because the morals associated with God and such help society stay "civilized"


Quote me on it if you wanna go further into it!!!



ok..so

Other than what regulus already pointed out.

1. What exactly are you implying here? How does our thoughts being a hallucination have anything to do with existence being something that is 'there'?
2. I'm changing the word ethereal here as it has way too many definitions and a lot of them has nothing to do with what I'm actually trying to say.
3. I quote "People feel the need they have to have something over them that guides them, In my point of view i find this valid because the morals associated with God and such help society stay "civilized""
^^^^^ That's almost what I'm trying to say, unless you mean something completely different from what you actually said.

20259 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / The centroid of a...
Offline
Posted 1/19/08 , edited 4/18/08

Regulus133 wrote:

This thread began with an opinion rather than a logical synthesis of facts to form a conclusion, so what are we to do with it? You asked what I believe your purpose to be, but I still can't say I know. Care to enlighten me?



The purpose of this thread is to examine varying degrees of existence and to probe others on their opinions on those degrees of existence.

So far we have physical and imaginary, and briefly touched on empirical existence.

So far I myself have defined physical and imaginary existence as perceived by humans to be one and the same (or close).

So far I have also defined empirical existence and empirical truth as information that is impossible for us to obtain, and thus should not be included in this discussion.

But, to be completely honest, the main purpose of this topic was, and still is, to ease my boredom.
20259 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / The centroid of a...
Offline
Posted 1/19/08 , edited 4/18/08

Chaoticraven wrote:
The internet has been shown to us by its creator. Stating that another point that the internet is another entity is falty because its man made. Majority of deity's in the world are much more supreme and all knowing. A program made to connect the world and make life easier is only as smart as the programmer. The internet in all is electricity run and is the machines that keep it running. part of the reason people can turn it off and on.


I only brought up the internet as an example of something that exists as more of an 'idea' than as a physical 'thing'. Yes yes I know about the electrons moving around that make up the internet, if you argue that then you obviously failed to see my actual point.

Btw, entity doesn't mean anything celestial, its just...ugh go look up the definition will you?

20259 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / The centroid of a...
Offline
Posted 1/19/08 , edited 4/18/08

xLorrainex wrote:

i love this post.
but in my opinion,
it doesn't matter.
fuck the concept.

im athiest, but im sure god exists in the minds of others.
s/he's an image, and it's cool that people look up to God, and have something to believe in.
might even keep them sane, for fear of what is called a "sin".

but i really think the question should just be dropped.
no way to prove he does or doesn't.
so lets stop asking, eh?

Love the post.
Love your thoughts.

Very intellegent.


O.O

That is by far the most intelligent post I have seen so far.

ok I'm lying

but it was still very entertaining to see um...what do you call this? spunk? in a post in this kind of topic

there are some things that I could poke holes in in your post but due to the creativity of expression and the fact that this post has actually brought me more happiness than headaches *cough*cough*regulus*eros*cough, I'm not going to bother.
1433 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / New York
Offline
Posted 1/19/08 , edited 4/18/08

excalion wrote:

The purpose of this thread is to examine varying degrees of existence and to probe others on their opinions on those degrees of existence.

So far we have physical and imaginary, and briefly touched on empirical existence.

So far I myself have defined physical and imaginary existence as perceived by humans to be one and the same (or close).

So far I have also defined empirical existence and empirical truth as information that is impossible for us to obtain, and thus should not be included in this discussion.

But, to be completely honest, the main purpose of this topic was, and still is, to ease my boredom.


A noble pursuit, that easing of boredom.

We have physical, imaginary, and your synthesis of the two. What else is there? I suppose non-physical and non-imaginary could be used, but that would be little more than playing with words. If it can be perceived by the senses, we call it physical; if it cannot, we call it imaginary. Thus the non-physical would have to be imaginary and the non-imaginary would have to be physical. Your system represents the only alternative apparent to me, though I think that's a word game as well.

This thread is already pretty slow, so if you have other ideas but are waiting for someone else to bring them up, you might want to state them now.

4933 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Lethbridge Alberta
Offline
Posted 1/19/08 , edited 4/18/08

Regulus133 wrote:


Chaoticraven wrote:


You asked how you could be an atheist but believe.. its called agnaustic basically fence sitters in this argument, and your explanation of god is slightly contradicting. You seem to be indecisive. God being in the imagination, hmm basically a god is something that seems to have a superior understanding then everyone, is basically what people believe. So what occurs is the ass kissing of something bigger then you (metaphorically).



Maybe I'm too concerned with details, but I should point this out. Agnosticism concerns itself with knowledge (agnostic means to not know) while atheism concerns itself with belief. I, then, am an agnostic atheist because I 1.) do not have any knowledge regarding God's existence one way or another, and 2.) do not believe. You could call it the default position, I guess, since I have no reason to believe in something without evidence but "an absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." The term "agnostic" has taken on this colloquial (and insulting) meaning of fence-sitter, but that isn't really the case. It is certainly more intellectually sound than its counterpart, gnosticism (not the Christian offshoot, or whatever you want to call it), as it does not presume to know these things with certainty.



oh if i insulted you i didn't mean to, i my self am a agnaustic but i lean really close to atheism (basically only reason i am agnaustic is because of gravity and such).
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.