• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: JackARoe | Cheshire_Kat

lets list disproofs, or proofs, of a god.

A deified entity called God is likely impossible to prove or disprove.

However, the totality of Existence is the only thing that fits the common definition of God (omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence, and infinite in time). This is not pantheism though.
 
Self-evidence is often (ha, always) tautologous.
(But kudos for forcing a dictionary check; it's not often that happens. I love new words :)
 
That is true, but I don't feel that tautology is "self evident" enough to be considered axiomatic - the only thing self evident is the fact of Existence. You simply tautologized that with God, but God is an empty term if it is simply equivalent to Existence.
 
Well, that's why self-evidence is necessarily tautologous, but tautology is not necessarily self-evident (hehe).

Also, I disagree and believe that equating the two's equivalence as mooting the ideal is pessimistic. I am a firm realist, and the self-evident value of Existence (God) is all-encompassing in every Reality.
 
!!4iV4HF9R34g said:
Well, that's why self-evidence is necessarily tautologous, but tautology is not necessarily self-evident (hehe).

Also, I disagree and believe that equating the two's equivalence as mooting the ideal is pessimistic. I am a firm realist, and the self-evident value of Existence (God) is all-encompassing in every Reality.
Click to expand...

Why are there beings (existence) instead of nothing? That is the question.

So what's your position on hallucinations..caused by psychoactives..they do not have any external stimuli right? So should we say that they exist? Where is God in explaining its nature?
 
Last edited:
B9 said:
Whose Existence is empty ?
Click to expand...

I was not equating existence with emptiness, I was equating the application of the term God to existence meaningless (probably should have been more clear on that) if there is already a term perfectly adequate to describe the phenomenon (ie, existence)
 
!!4iV4HF9R34g said:
However, the totality of Existence is the only thing that fits the common definition of God (omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence, and infinite in time). This is not pantheism though.
Click to expand...

Why is it not pantheism ? Seems bang on to me.

I was equating the application of the term God to existence meaningless
Click to expand...


I see . If they're interchangeable terms you have a very different viewpoint to me.
 
Last edited:
Pindar said:
Why are there beings (existence) instead of nothing? That is the question.

So what's your position on hallucinations..caused by psychoactives..they do not have any external stimuli right? So should we say that they exist? Where is God in explaining its nature?
Click to expand...

Existence is comprised of the infinite presentation of choice to agent of free will and the constant reactions of decision, as well as all forces and inanimates. It is a naturally-occurring, self-perpetuating cycle, not unlike the water cycle or hydrogen cycle; it exists simply due to the fact that the elements necessary are present.

Also, the psychedelic experience is caused by stimuli, regardless of whether it is external or not. Originality of thought is the other side of the coin to accumulated experience.




Additionally, I would say that the two terms are not interchangeable.
This is due to the fact that the noun existence is not exactly synonymous with the pronoun Existence.
The latter is equated with the concept of god, and thus carries implication.
 
Last edited:
Double Post.

Still, B9, the ideas of Pantheism do not include the value of ALL contribution (positive, neutral, and negative).
 
Who wrote the rule book on pantheism - I've a horrible habit of taking an idea that seems to fit with my own experience/thinking/feeling and in my book it is everything, how could it be other ?
 
I suppose personal application of thought systems is individual, but the concept itself is usually constrained with philosophical and idealogical boundries; this allows for distinction of ideas and separates thought systems like Pantheism from various forms of Paganism and Naturalism.
 
Paganism & naturalism are I believe connected to the worship of nature, or rather the worship of aspects of nature, which seems a bit odd to me, a bit selective, a little like someone divided the good parts from the bad when surely postive & negative & neuteral are all part of the process which is nature. that doesn't make it any less awe inspiring or in fact it makes it moreso - an infinite & eternal process simply fucking amazing really.
 
!!4iV4HF9R34g said:
Existence is comprised of the infinite presentation of choice to agent of free will and the constant reactions of decision, as well as all forces and inanimates. It is a naturally-occurring, self-perpetuating cycle, not unlike the water cycle or hydrogen cycle; it exists simply due to the fact that the elements necessary are present.

Also, the psychedelic experience is caused by stimuli, regardless of whether it is external or not. Originality of thought is the other side of the coin to accumulated experience.




Additionally, I would say that the two terms are not interchangeable.
This is due to the fact that the noun existence is not exactly synonymous with the pronoun Existence.
The latter is equated with the concept of god, and thus carries implication.
Click to expand...

This isn't meant to offend, but I think you have a habit of either 1) clouding the presentation of your ideas with idiosyncratic jargon without explication of that jargon or 2) assume us to be much more educated than we are. Either way, you really need to be clearer in explaining exactly what you mean when you post because these terms aren't something I just know off the top of my head. For instance it is very unhelpful to say:

This is due to the fact that the noun existence is not exactly synonymous with the pronoun Existence.
The latter is equated with the concept of god, and thus carries implication.
Click to expand...

Can you please tell me what the "pronoun" Existence means? It should be pretty clear that we don't know what that is, so please tell us.

Furthermore, I don't know what your "implication" is - please enlighten as to that. I would love to debate some of these points more but to be honest I'm not really getting the full gist of what you're saying.

edit: A tad bit of humility might not hurt either :P
 
Last edited:
!!4iV4HF9R34g said:
Existence is comprised of the infinite presentation of choice to agent of free will and the constant reactions of decision, as well as all forces and inanimates. It is a naturally-occurring, self-perpetuating cycle, not unlike the water cycle or hydrogen cycle; it exists simply due to the fact that the elements necessary are present.
Click to expand...

I don't think the question of existence needs to be human centered...for there was an existence before Homo Sapiens, according to our modern theories of geology and evolution, which would imply that existence is independent from "an agent of free will". Does what exists happens ("occurs") or just "is"? And let us use forces as an example? The elements necessary to see its manifestation are just two masses with a distance, but where does the force of attraction comes from? Where does it exist? And there's many things in the human body itself that doesn't require "constant reactions of decision" like involuntary movements and so forth...Or maybe the sentence just threw me off lol


!!4iV4HF9R34g said:
Also, the psychedelic experience is caused by stimuli, regardless of whether it is external or not. Originality of thought is the other side of the coin to accumulated experience.
Click to expand...

I was specifically talking about hallucinations...perhaps neuron excitation are a condition for the psychoactive genre of them, but I wouldn't attribute them as cause, for wouldn't that imply that perception in itself is based on the totality of neuronal reactions that happen in the human brain and not a direct apprehension of things that exist exterior to us?


!!4iV4HF9R34g said:
Additionally, I would say that the two terms are not interchangeable.
This is due to the fact that the noun existence is not exactly synonymous with the pronoun Existence.
The latter is equated with the concept of god, and thus carries implication.
Click to expand...

Beings are not the same as Being, for the Being of beings is not itself a Being. :p
 
B9, pantheism is the worship of existence, but existence does not include all Thought Realities or any undiscovered reality.



IAmMe90, I am sorry, but I do believe that I am not speaking in jargon.. I admit that the complete ideas may a bit much to conceptualize, but I assure you that the words are as concise and direct as possible within the English language.

The implications were not important, they're my own philosophy, (but I can tell you in a moment). The simple fact that they carry implication is what distinguishes the noun from the pronoun.

As for the concept Existence.. I would describe Existence as the Totality of every conceivable and undiscovered reality. As of now, we know of two realities, the Physical Reality and the Thought Reality. However, I believe it is ignorant to surmise that these two realities compose all of Existence, especially as there is so obviously still so much to learn about both of these themselves.

I apologize if I come off as imperious.. I am used to didactic presentation.
I don't mean to be, and though I postulate assertively, I don't mean that I am absolutely correct.
I may very well be fallacious in some way, and if so, I would welcome anyone to show me.
I am simply stating my exact thought system.



Pindar, agents of free will are not solely human. Agents of free will are anything that reacts to choice.

The elements include Forces, a category which includes the force of attraction.

Involuntary movements are the result of the mind's direction. Most are not capable of direction of these thoughts, but it is not impossible. For example, many highly trained (para-)military personnel and spiritual practitioners can control their breathing and pain perception.

All perception is based on neural functions. This does not mean that the Physical Reality does not exist separately.

And exactly haha haha.
 
Last edited:
!!4iV4HF9R34g said:
B9, pantheism is the worship of existence, but existence does not include all Thought Realities or any undiscovered reality.
Click to expand...

This seems a peculiar thing to say, a thought reality most definitely is a part of existence, an undiscovered reality is potentially a part of existence which would, according to my feeling on the matter/energy/etc, have to be embraced as part of nature were it to be discovered.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top