Welcome to the Philosophy Forums! If you already are a member, please log in. If you are not a member, please join the forums now. It's completely free, and all viewpoints are welcome.
| View previous topic :: View next topic :: |
James S Saint
Joined: 14 Oct 2009
Posts: 668
|
Post: #46  Posted: Sat Dec 19, 2009 9:58 am Post subject: |
  |
|
|
| lifegazer wrote: |
| James S Saint wrote: |
| lifegazer wrote: |
It is not possible to define 'existence' unless one is privy to the truth. Why else do you suppose that I keep mentioning 'X'?
The definition of existence is THE CONCLUSION of the correct philosophy, NOT the basis for a correct philosophy  |
HAha.. and you ACCUSE ME of choosing a definition to suit my conclusion!!?!! ...wow. 
|
It's obvious. One cannot define existence unless one has reasoned what existence is.
Existence is synonymous with 'reality'. Asking me to define reality requires a philosophical argument, not a Collins dictionary.
| Quote: |
"I'll tell you what this word means, but you have to agree to my conclusion first." ..hahaha ...geeez
|
Don't be silly. There are only two ways to define existence:
1. Present a reasoned argument that explains what it is.
2. Blurt out your beliefs.
Keep blurting mate.  |
Well I guess you should write a letter to Merriam Webster;
| Quote: |
Main Entry: ex·is·tence
Pronunciation: \ig-ˈzis-tən(t)s\
Function: noun
Date: 14th century
1 a obsolete : reality as opposed to appearance b : reality as presented in experience c (1) : the totality of existent things (2) : a particular being <all the fair existences of heaven — John Keats> d : sentient or living being : life
2 a : the state or fact of having being especially independently of human consciousness and as contrasted with nonexistence <the existence of other worlds> b : the manner of being that is common to every mode of being c : being with respect to a limiting condition or under a particular aspect
3 : actual or present occurrence <existence of a state of war>
|
Of course in that letter, you will have to "just blurt out your opinion" (once again the guilt accusing itself).
Logic reveals that in order to have said "existence" the quintessential feature to determine an existence is that it must have potential to affect another existence thus yielding a "realm of existence".
Your dreams are a realm of existence. The physical universe is a realm of existence. Concepts and principles are a realm of existence referred to as "the Divine" or "supernatural".
Reality includes ALL realms of existence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lifegazer
Joined: 08 Jul 2009
Posts: 499
Location: meaningless concept
|
| Post: #47 Posted: Sat Dec 19, 2009 11:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| James S Saint wrote: |
Logic reveals that in order to have said "existence" the quintessential feature to determine an existence is that it must have potential to affect another existence thus yielding a "realm of existence".
|
Utter nonsense. Self fulfilling bias. Dragging logic where you want it to be.
Never mind. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
James S Saint
Joined: 14 Oct 2009
Posts: 668
|
| Post: #48 Posted: Sat Dec 19, 2009 1:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| lifegazer wrote: |
| James S Saint wrote: |
Logic reveals that in order to have said "existence" the quintessential feature to determine an existence is that it must have potential to affect another existence thus yielding a "realm of existence".
|
Utter nonsense. Self fulfilling bias. Dragging logic where you want it to be.
Never mind. |
Well since my definition and Webster's are compatible and you have none at all and claim that there can't be any, I guess that means that you have no case.
As of yet, you have not answered a single pertinent question other than to repeat your assumptions.
What is your "rationale"?
Why can't you cause me to be different?
What is YOUR evidence?
What are the definitions of the words you are using?
I don't have a problem providing such things, why can't you?
Yes, "nevermind" is probably your best response.
{but I DID warn you} |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Belinda
Contributor
Joined: 10 Jul 2008
Posts: 3807
|
| Post: #49 Posted: Sat Dec 19, 2009 6:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| lifegazer wrote: |
| James S Saint wrote: |
Logic reveals that in order to have said "existence" the quintessential feature to determine an existence is that it must have potential to affect another existence thus yielding a "realm of existence".
|
Utter nonsense. Self fulfilling bias. Dragging logic where you want it to be.
Never mind. |
I agree with James if I understand him. For anything to exist it has to be different from some other thing, even if the only difference between the two things is their relative places on the space time continuum.If A and B are identical including that they have the same place on the space time continuum they are indeed identical. If every thing is identical to every other thing in every respect nothing would exist.But things can be told apart from each other therefore they are within a 'realm of existence'.
Existence may be made by consciousness, or existence may be made by material substance , or it may be Cartesian, or it may be double aspect monistic, but how can existence itself be denied?
True, Descartes's Cogito is not foolproof, but at least anyone can say 'there is thinking going on'.
_________________
Socialist |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lifegazer
Joined: 08 Jul 2009
Posts: 499
Location: meaningless concept
|
| Post: #50 Posted: Sat Dec 19, 2009 7:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Belinda wrote: |
I agree with James if I understand him. For anything to exist it has to be different from some other thing, even if the only difference between the two things is their relative places on the space time continuum.
If A and B are identical including that they have the same place on the space time continuum they are indeed identical. If every thing is identical to every other thing in every respect nothing would exist.But things can be told apart from each other therefore they are within a 'realm of existence'.
|
You say: "If every thing is identical to every other thing in every respect nothing would exist".
... But that is logically incorrect: if 'everything' is reducible to singularness, then one thing exists, not 'nothing'.
Don't agree with James. His metaphysical stance is determined by the Merriam-Webster dictionary. What more needs to be said? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
James S Saint
Joined: 14 Oct 2009
Posts: 668
|
| Post: #51 Posted: Sat Dec 19, 2009 7:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| lifegazer wrote: |
| Don't agree with James. His metaphysical stance is determined by the Merriam-Webster dictionary. What more needs to be said? |
Hahaha 
lifegazer, you're a trip. But hey, your philosophy doesn't allow you to study metaphysics. "There is no physical" so there can't be any metaphysical to study. 
But I'm curious;
| lifegazer wrote: |
| if 'everything' is reducible to singularness, then one thing exists, |
Within what does that one thing "exist"?
And what determines that it exists? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lifegazer
Joined: 08 Jul 2009
Posts: 499
Location: meaningless concept
|
| Post: #52 Posted: Sat Dec 19, 2009 8:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| James S Saint wrote: |
lifegazer, you're a trip. But hey, your philosophy doesn't allow you to study metaphysics. "There is no physical" so there can't be any metaphysical to study.
|
Dude, "There is no physical" is a conclusion of my metaphysics, not the onset of it.
The bottom-line is that metaphysics is concerned with actual reality, as opposed to 'experience'. And science is concerned with 'experience'. Though, unfortunately, very few scientists understand this. And even a guy of your intelligence has failed to acknowledge this, so I guess I shouldn't be surprised.
| Quote: |
But I'm curious;
| lifegazer wrote: |
| if 'everything' is reducible to singularness, then one thing exists, |
Within what does that one thing "exist"?
And what determines that it exists? |
Your questions make no sense. The first one [reducibly] asks: within what does existence exist? The question makes no sense whether existence is singular or fragmented - within what does a fragmented existence exist?
Your second question asks for the cause of existence of something that has never not existed.
C'mon James, put your fuggin Merriam-Webster away and start using your undoubted intelligence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
James S Saint
Joined: 14 Oct 2009
Posts: 668
|
| Post: #53 Posted: Sat Dec 19, 2009 9:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| lifegazer wrote: |
| James S Saint wrote: |
lifegazer, you're a trip. But hey, your philosophy doesn't allow you to study metaphysics. "There is no physical" so there can't be any metaphysical to study.
|
Dude, "There is no physical" is a conclusion of my metaphysics, not the onset of it. |
Without even bothering any more to go through your entire list of non-sense, I will ask again;
What is your "logic", your "rationale", that led you to that conclusion? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
OTavern
Joined: 27 Jan 2008
Posts: 413
|
| Post: #54 Posted: Sat Dec 19, 2009 11:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Belinda wrote: |
#38 (James S Saint)
| Quote: |
| Yes, the intended conclusion has always been that YOU are God. If not for that inherent conclusion, solipsism would never have gained any attention at all. |
I think that the fallacy of solipsism is not that YOU Are GOD but the reductionist fallacy that God is nothing but YOU. God is not only consciousness but also the material world and maybe a lot besides that we can know nothing of.Consciousness and the material world have to be interdependent because without some objects of sense experience consciousness would be impossible. |
If I may interject a few thoughts on behalf of lifegazer. (Lifegazer feel free to correct me if I have misunderstood your position.)
My sense is that lifegazer is claiming that "consciousness" is a larger reality than just one's "self." Consciousness is a kind of "projector" that launches reality into our awareness. The awareness that each of us might have is the result of a kind of participation in the larger reality of consciousness.
I think something like this idea is what is meant in the Gospel of John when he speaks of the "Word" as the light that shines in the dark and through which "all things came to be."
God's consciousness (the Word) is the source of all reality and the "light" that enlightens all men. The Word is the source of our conscious awareness but also the source of all reality.
This cannot be just a figure of speech, it must be ontologically real to have the kind of meaning that John and later Paul insist it does. What else could "light" be but the fullness of conscious reality?
Think of this "reality" as a kind of projector coming from "Being" or "Existence" Itself that projects through our self the reality of our experience from the depths of existence. Our "self" acts as a kind of filter for our experiences, but consciousness itself is not within our power to "turn on." Consciousness is not "self" but something that self participates in. It is something beyond (but within) us that projects reality through us into our awareness. The reason we have only a limited awareness of "all reality" is because our "false self" filters and blocks out what "really" is. The Word of God shines in our darkness, but is blocked by this "fallen self" because we do not want to know or experience the complete truth.
Lifegazer is not claiming that the "self" is God but that God - that is, the "ground" of Being or Existence - that we participate in is the source of our true self. Existence is "consciousness itself." Jesus said something very similar: "On that day you will understand that I am in my Father and you in me and I in you." (John 14:20)
| Quote: |
These are the very things that God has revealed to us through the Spirit, for the Spirit reaches the depths of everything, even the depths of God. After all, the depths of a man can only be known by his own spirit, not by any other man, and in the same way the depths of God can only be known by the Spirit of God. Now instead of the spirit of the world, we have received the Spirit that comes from God to teach us to understand the gifts that he has given us....
An unspiritual person is one who does not accept anything of the Spirit of God: he sees it all as nonsense; it is beyond his understanding because it can only be understood by means of the Spirit. A spiritual man, on the other hand, is able to judge the value of everything, and his own value is not to be judged by other men. As Scripture says: Who can know the mind of the Lord, so who can teach him? But we are those who have the mind of Christ. (1 Corinth 2:10-16)
"Didn't you realize that you were God's temple and the Spirit of God was living among you? (1 Corinth 3:16) |
If our destiny is to "know" God then this cannot be as an "object" outside of our "self" but as the source of all shining within and through the very consciousness of being that is our true "Self" - Christ. "...and now the life you have is hidden with Christ in God. But when Christ is revealed - and he is your life - you too will be revealed in all your glory with him." (Col 3:1-4)
This is not the simple solipsism you are dismissing, this is the dissolution of the "unspiritual self" (Romans 8:1-13) to reveal the "larger" reality of consciousness of which our own consciousness is only a "pale fragment." The consciousness we participate in is the capacity to reflect the fullness of God. That does not mean that self = God, but that God enlightens self through the reality of consciousness. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
James S Saint
Joined: 14 Oct 2009
Posts: 668
|
| Post: #55 Posted: Sun Dec 20, 2009 1:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
Christianity accepts and claims a faithful worship of a deity hidden within words such as "the word", "consciousness", "omniscience", infinitude", "the light", "the way", and "God".
Christianity doesn't claim to have understanding, logic and rationale backing up its claim. They claim it to be a matter of faith. For that reason alone, I let them be.
Lifegazer has stated that he only believed after his rationale led him to his "conclusion".
I await this "rationale". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
OTavern
Joined: 27 Jan 2008
Posts: 413
|
| Post: #56 Posted: Sun Dec 20, 2009 3:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| James S Saint wrote: |
Christianity accepts and claims a faithful worship of a deity hidden within words such as "the word", "consciousness", "omniscience", infinitude", "the light", "the way", and "God".
Christianity doesn't claim to have understanding, logic and rationale backing up its claim. They claim it to be a matter of faith. For that reason alone, I let them be.
Lifegazer has stated that he only believed after his rationale led him to his "conclusion".
I await this "rationale". |
I think reason leads us to the doorstep and faith through the door. This is the way it must be because Christianity is all about "birth" to an entirely new way of being. Moving beyond one's present "self" of necessity means leaving the old one behind. Analogically that would be like "hatching" out of one reality into an entirely unknown one. It is not possible to "reason" our way into the new life because the very basis by which one reasons must be left behind to enter into a new state of being. A hatchling has nothing inside the egg that will be an indication of what awaits outside. A fetus used to living in a womb would know nothing of life outside of the womb.
If Christianity means becoming an entirely new being and every indication in Scripture says that - then the implications are that faith is required to step into the new life, but reason can get us to the staging area. This is true of any endeavour that is exploratory or transforming in nature. What is known gives way to what has yet to be found out. If that "new" entity is our very self then that means giving up the old way of thinking and being to have it replaced by an entirely new "Self" which could not have been known beforehand. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
James S Saint
Joined: 14 Oct 2009
Posts: 668
|
| Post: #57 Posted: Sun Dec 20, 2009 3:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| OTavern wrote: |
| James S Saint wrote: |
Christianity accepts and claims a faithful worship of a deity hidden within words such as "the word", "consciousness", "omniscience", infinitude", "the light", "the way", and "God".
Christianity doesn't claim to have understanding, logic and rationale backing up its claim. They claim it to be a matter of faith. For that reason alone, I let them be.
Lifegazer has stated that he only believed after his rationale led him to his "conclusion".
I await this "rationale". |
I think reason leads us to the doorstep and faith through the door. This is the way it must be because Christianity is all about "birth" to an entirely new way of being. Moving beyond one's present "self" of necessity means leaving the old one behind. Analogically that would be like "hatching" out of one reality into an entirely unknown one. It is not possible to "reason" our way into the new life because the very basis by which one reasons must be left behind to enter into a new state of being. A hatchling has nothing inside the egg that will be an indication of what awaits outside. A fetus used to living in a womb would know nothing of life outside of the womb.
If Christianity means becoming an entirely new being and every indication in Scripture says that - then the implications are that faith is required to step into the new life, but reason can get us to the staging area. This is true of any endeavour that is exploratory or transforming in nature. What is known gives way to what has yet to be found out. If that "new" entity is our very self then that means giving up the old way of thinking and being to have it replaced by an entirely new "Self" which could not have been known beforehand. |
So you are saying that he should give up his old way of thinking? I couldn't argue with that, but I wanted to hear it first. It might do him some good to hear himself say it too. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lifegazer
Joined: 08 Jul 2009
Posts: 499
Location: meaningless concept
|
| Post: #58 Posted: Sun Dec 20, 2009 9:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| OTavern wrote: |
I think reason leads us to the doorstep and faith through the door. This is the way it must be because Christianity is all about "birth" to an entirely new way of being. Moving beyond one's present "self" of necessity means leaving the old one behind. Analogically that would be like "hatching" out of one reality into an entirely unknown one. It is not possible to "reason" our way into the new life because the very basis by which one reasons must be left behind to enter into a new state of being. A hatchling has nothing inside the egg that will be an indication of what awaits outside. A fetus used to living in a womb would know nothing of life outside of the womb.
|
Yes, I've found the reasoning part quite easy compared to the repercussions part. The reasoning path to God leads only to the beginning of the spiritual path, not the end.
I enjoyed what you had to say in your first post. I liked the biblical quotes. Have you ever read the gospel of Thomas? Mind-blowing stuff.
Edit, for James:
| James S Saint wrote: |
| lifegazer wrote: |
| James S Saint wrote: |
lifegazer, you're a trip. But hey, your philosophy doesn't allow you to study metaphysics. "There is no physical" so there can't be any metaphysical to study.
|
Dude, "There is no physical" is a conclusion of my metaphysics, not the onset of it. |
Without even bothering any more to go through your entire list of non-sense, I will ask again;
What is your "logic", your "rationale", that led you to that conclusion? |
You shrug and condemn my posts without any semblance of rational justification, yet would expect me to spend a significant amount of time presenting a detailed proof for God? Do you think I'm crazy or something? Oh, I forgot, yes, you do.
You told me that you like productive conversation, yet several times within this thread you either ignored significant blocks of my reasoning text, or have just called me a nutter. Since when has such behaviour been synonymous with productive conversation?
Anyway, it's difficult to take you seriously now that I know your metaphysics is founded upon definitions within the W-B dictionary.
But I'm sure we'll 'dance' again, soon. Good luck to ya. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
James S Saint
Joined: 14 Oct 2009
Posts: 668
|
| Post: #59 Posted: Sun Dec 20, 2009 2:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| lifegazer wrote: |
You shrug and condemn my posts without any semblance of rational justification, yet would expect me to spend a significant amount of time presenting a detailed proof for God? Do you think I'm crazy or something? Oh, I forgot, yes, you do. |
Not at all. I asked for YOUR rationale, not God's. You said that you came to a conclusion after logical thought. I just asked what your logic was.
| lifegazer wrote: |
You told me that you like productive conversation, yet several times within this thread you either ignored significant blocks of my reasoning text, or have just called me a nutter. Since when has such behaviour been synonymous with productive conversation? |
You seem quite imaginative too. I don't recall telling you that "I enjoy productive conversation", although I certainly prefer it to merely spouting opinions without any rationale behind them. And certainly more than those who practice the guilt that they preach of others.
I gave you my evidence and reasoning, my "rationale". Once again, you merely dodge, giving no rationale for your "conclusions" at all.
| lifegazer wrote: |
Anyway, it's difficult to take you seriously now that I know your metaphysics is founded upon definitions within the W-B dictionary.
But I'm sure we'll 'dance' again, soon. Good luck to ya. |
Dodge.
Next time try not to be presumptuous as to who might have more reasoning behind what they say. "Presumption is the seed of ALL sin." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Belinda
Contributor
Joined: 10 Jul 2008
Posts: 3807
|
| Post: #60 Posted: Sun Dec 20, 2009 6:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Quote: |
| But that is logically incorrect: if 'everything' is reducible to singularness, then one thing exists, not 'nothing'. |
(Lifegazer)
A singularity (I dont mean the astrononical sort) is not a thing that exists, it's existence itself. Our minds are so constituted that we have vast systems for telling things apart and sorting them into patterns,or relationships to each other. We are pattern makers. This is a survival strategy. If two things cannot be told apart they are the same thing. If every thing cannot be told apart from everything else you have the eternal here-and-now.
_________________
Socialist |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
|
|
|
