Originally posted by twhiteheadNo, no! We agree that the past is just as real as the future, and furthermore I argue that both the past and the future lack of inherent existence. But, in my opinion, regardless of our predictions about the (outcome/ events that will finally be established thanks to our awareness alone in the) future, the future would be still as empty as the past because it would still be established solely by our own awareness alone and thus it would still lack of inherent existence. On the other hand, I argue that our knowledge of the future (of specific events that will be monitored by our awareness, that is) consists of specific elements of reality waiting to be established by us as soon as they will be manifested.
As always, I am not certain what you are saying exactly. However, it appears you are suggesting the future is less 'real' than the past. And that is what I am saying is not the case.
If the future was more predictable, then it would be as solid to us as the past. It is, even now, possible to know something about the future, just as it is possible to know ...[text shortened]... whether it is fixed or includes all possible pasts, or some other strange phenomena.
So I understand your thesis; however I disagree, because even if we knew what exactly will be manifested in a given future as well as we know what happened in given past, our knowledge would still be related to specific changes within the illusionary mind-only realm of time because otherwise these events cannot be established by us orthogonally and thus they would be equal to hypothetical non-manifested -thus non-existent- probabilities. This is the reason why I proposed earlier that the illusion of the time flowing can be discarded solely if we lock permanently our point of attention on the constantly-in-flux nature of the reality that takes place regardless of the non-inherently existent time and its dimensions
šµ
Originally posted by AgergYou do not have proof that God does not exist.
So many time we atheists (or non-believers) have been hit with the old fundie chestnut:
"Until you prove God doesn't exist, your belief is as much a position of faith as mine"
(or derivatives of such) and usually we then try to convince the fundie who said this that we could apply the same reasoning to the tooth fairy, Gandalf, the FSM, and so on... ...[text shortened]... too shy/scared to share it with anyone
[b]Can you prove I don't have such a proof?[/b]
That I know is a Lie.
God exists because His Word exists to tell me so.
His creations exists to show us all He exists.
His universal physical laws exists, which we can not
change, as proof of His existance.
Even His Son came from Heaven to this earth and
walked among men, doing many miracles, healing the blind
and the lame, bringing the dead back to life as proof God
exists. While the Son of God was on this earth He told man
that His Father existed and He even died for three days and
three nights and came back to life just as He said He would
to prove God's power over life and death. Even God's life-giving
spirit within us testifies of His existence. As the Holy Bible says,
"Man is without excuse."
3 edits
Originally posted by RJHindsYou are mistaken. I do have such a proof your "God" doesn't exist, and it is valid, I checked it! ;]
You do not have proof that God does not exist.
That I know is a Lie.
God exists because His Word exists to tell me so.
His creations exists to show us all He exists.
His universal physical laws exists, which we can not
change, as proof of His existance.
Even His Son came from Heaven to this earth and
walked among men, doing many miracles, healing th rit within us testifies of His existence. As the Holy Bible says,
"Man is without excuse."
Can you actually prove otherwise? (no, simply reiterating that you think I'm lying isn't a proof, nor does the Bible have any more juristiction over what is true than the Beano - I proved that also šµ )
Originally posted by AgergHow many times are you going to repeat the same lie.
You are mistaken. I do have such a proof your "God" doesn't exist, and it is valid, I checked it! ;]
Can you actually prove otherwise? (no, simply reiterating that you think I'm lying isn't a proof, nor does the Bible have any more juristiction over what is true than the Beano - I proved that also[hidden](not that that even needs a proof of course)[/hidden] šµ )
Show your proof if you can. I dare you!
Go ahead prove God a liar.
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsIt isn't a lie, and moreover I could show you, but I have to think about the wider reaching consequences of demonstrating to half the world they've wasted their lives - and so I must decline your dare for the greater good.
How many times are you going to repeat the same lie.
Show your proof if you can. I dare you!
Go ahead prove God a liar.
Btw way, proving God doesn't exist doesn't prove God is a liar since there would be no God to lie in the first place! ;]
Originally posted by twhiteheadQuote: "If the future was more predictable, then it would be as solid to us as the past. It is, even now, possible to know something about the future, just as it is possible to know something about the past. When I said 'predictable' I did not mean 'related to elements of reality that are not yet established', but rather 'knowledge of future events that will take place' and therefore could be considered 'elements of reality that are established'.
As always, I am not certain what you are saying exactly. However, it appears you are suggesting the future is less 'real' than the past. And that is what I am saying is not the case.
If the future was more predictable, then it would be as solid to us as the past. It is, even now, possible to know something about the future, just as it is possible to know ...[text shortened]... whether it is fixed or includes all possible pasts, or some other strange phenomena.
"It is my claim that if more such elements existed in the future to the extent that they do in the past, then the illusion of time would disappear"
2 comments:
1. In parallel with the increase in such elements, the usefulness of that illusion (organizing mode of thought?) would decrease. Which would be cause, which would be effect?
2. Take it the other way around. Suppose instead of imagining our knowledge of future events becoming like our knowledge of past events, imagine our knowledge of past events becoming like our knowledge of future events. This might be the case for some organisms. Time becomes a useful mode of organizing experiences, as consciousness, memory and foresight are selected for, in fact, they evolve together.
Originally posted by RJHindsYou are missing his implicit point.
How many times are you going to repeat the same lie.
Show your proof if you can. I dare you!
Go ahead prove God a liar.
If we atheists have to prove "God" doesn't exist to be able to assert that he doesn't exist then, to be fair and also logically consistent, theists have to prove "God" does exist to be able to assert that he does exist.
But, of course, we don't even have to prove "God" doesn't exist to be able to assert that he doesn't exist for the same reason why we don't have to prove the tooth fairy doesn't exist to be able to assert that he doesn't exist.
Originally posted by black beetleI am not sure if I am understanding you there. Are you saying we go through time regardless of our awareness? That is what I am disputing. I am saying there is only the here and now, and only certain number of possible pasts and possible futures none of which can truly be said will be/ have been realized.
This is the reason why I proposed earlier that the illusion of the time flowing can be discarded solely if we lock permanently our point of attention on the constantly-in-flux nature of the reality that takes place regardless of the non-inherently existent time and its dimensions
šµ
You memory that you existed a few moments ago is just that - a memory of a past. It is no more real than your future (which you cannot remember so well due to the one sided favoritism of time and entropy.)
Your point of attention is not 'constantly-in-flux'. That is an illusion created by said time/entropy.
Originally posted by JS357Many equations in physics are time neutral. ie they work just as well which ever way time is taken to be flowing. What is not time neutral is entropy - which always increases. It is this that makes the future harder to predict/remember than the past.
Which would be cause, which would be effect?
If a photon is absorbed by an atom, you can usually figure out what direction it came from (especially if your atom is in a pinhole camera). However, if a photon is emitted from the same atom, it is nearly impossible to know where it went, unless it is later detected by some detector.
1 edit
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonDo we agree that God exists as a concept? I don't mean reality but the understanding of the concept. If so:
You are missing his implicit point.
If we atheists have to prove "God" doesn't exist to be able to assert that he doesn't exist then, to be fair and also logically consistent, theists have to prove "God" does exist to be able to assert that he does exist.
But, of course, we don't even have to prove "God" doesn't exist to be able to assert that to prove the tooth fairy doesn't exist to be able to assert that he doesn't exist.
(1) Suppose that God exists in the understanding alone.
(2) Given our undestanding and definition, this means that a being than which none greater can be conceived exists in the understanding alone.
(3) But this being can be conceived to exist in reality. That is, we can conceive of a circumstance in which theism is true, even if we do not believe that it actually obtains.
(4) But it is greater for a thing to exist in reality than for it to exist in the understanding alone.
(5) Hence we seem forced to conclude that a being than which none greater can be conceived can be conceived to be greater than it is.
(6) But that is absurd.
(7) So (1) must be false. God must exist in reality as well as in the understanding.
I've shown you mine, now you show me yours
Originally posted by twhiteheadEdit: "I am not sure if I am understanding you there. Are you saying we go through time regardless of our awareness? That is what I am disputing."
I am not sure if I am understanding you there. Are you saying we go through time regardless of our awareness? That is what I am disputing. I am saying there is only the here and now, and only certain number of possible pasts and possible futures none of which can truly be said will be/ have been realized.
You memory that you existed a few moments ago is ...[text shortened]... nt of attention is not 'constantly-in-flux'. That is an illusion created by said time/entropy.
I am not saying that. I am saying that we appear to go through time because we are deep into the illusion of the time flowing, and also because we delusionally consider that time has inherent existence although it is merely an invention of our mind;
Edit: "I am saying there is only the here and now, and only certain number of possible pasts and possible futures none of which can truly be said will be/ have been realized."
Of course, but I would add two words after the verb "realized": "...in full". Furthermore, I argue that the sole bond between the "reality" and the "herenow" we perceive, Is Only Us -and not some kind of "absolute truth" that exists out there separated from our own awareness;
Edit: "You memory that you existed a few moments ago is just that - a memory of a past. It is no more real than your future (which you cannot remember so well due to the one sided favoritism of time and entropy.)"
Amazing. It seems to me you are becoming a hardcore Madhyamika. I bowšµ
Edit: "Your point of attention is not 'constantly-in-flux'. That is an illusion created by said time/entropy."
No. Everybody's point of attention is constanty in flux, otherwise we would be dead in the water. On the other hand, I still haven't see the same man entering the same river twice
šµ
Originally posted by AgergThat's why I knew you could not prove it. God does exist.
It isn't a lie, and moreover I could show you, but I have to think about the wider reaching consequences of demonstrating to half the world they've wasted their lives - and so I must decline your dare for the greater good.
Btw way, proving God doesn't exist doesn't prove God is a liar since there would be no God to lie in the first place! ;]
God said, "I am."
7 edits
Originally posted by DowardFor starters I reject (2) of your rephrasing of Anselm's argument. I have no reason to assume that the being you would refer to as God is the greatest thing that can be conceived, or more importantly, I can conceive. To put it another way, I have no more reason to suppose I could conceive of an entity for which no other is greater than I could conceive of a number for which no other is larger.
Do we agree that God exists as a concept? I don't mean reality but the understanding of the concept. If so:
(1) Suppose that God exists in the understanding alone.
(2) Given our undestanding and definition, this means that a being than which none greater can be conceived exists in the understanding alone.
(3) But this being can be conceived to exis ...[text shortened]... t in reality as well as in the understanding.
I've shown you mine, now you show me yours
Indeed, my conception, or your conception, or anyone elses conception of this entity might be refined tomorrow such that it is greater tomorrow than it is today.
I don't accept (3) either (reasons after discussing (2)), and (4) certainly doesn't *necessarily* follow from (3) (and in this case I could argue it certainly doesn't -perhaps later). From all this you haven't got (5) yet ;]
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonYou don't have to prove anything to make your assertions.
You are missing his implicit point.
If we atheists have to prove "God" doesn't exist to be able to assert that he doesn't exist then, to be fair and also logically consistent, theists have to prove "God" does exist to be able to assert that he does exist.
But, of course, we don't even have to prove "God" doesn't exist to be able to assert that ...[text shortened]... to prove the tooth fairy doesn't exist to be able to assert that he doesn't exist.
I am only pointing out that the assertion that God does not exist
is a lie. And I gave the proof for that earlier. Since God does
exist you can not prove He does not exist. Any attempt would
be futile.