Why Atheism Cannot Be Logically Supported

Garycgibson;

Question, did you read my post # 313, Wayne O/1(n)

Plurality began as a result of a bump in the night.

Prior to said bump in the night Plurality was an Impossibility; After said bump in the night said Plurality became more than a mere Possibility, more even than a probability, Plurality became Absolute, Fact.-O


In answer to your question-no, I did not read the post. Unfortunately I haven't had many electrons this June to empower my computer.

On the monism into pluralism issue- a 'bump in the night' entails two objects colliding-and a pre-existing pluralism or dualism minimally speaking. We may learn from the venerable game of asteroids that there were many objects with potential for collision to defend against. Alternatively, in a system of pure monism we are searching for paradigms for explanation of how the appearance of pluralism arises.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Wayne wrote; Not True.



I answered that question in post #313

You almost answered the question yourself when you wrote; in a “system” of pure monism”; Instead of a system think in terms of a Static, a Steady State of Quantum Singularity, Individuality.

Prior to The Moment of Creation, the creation of the Reality of First Cause, the Reality of First Cause being the First Singularity to have relative, numerical value, the Reality of Everything existed as an Infinitely Large Singularity, said Singularity existing as a Static, a Steady State of Quantum State of Singularity, in which an Untold Number of Infinitely Finite Indivisible Singularities existed with none having relative, numerical value, each of the untold number of Individualities, indivisible Singularities existing alone in the Emptiness of it own personal Celestial Sphere..

I tend to go with the paradigm of Plotinus in The Enneads for describing 'The One'. Fundamentally it is not a paradigm that can be described well at all.

I have enjoyed reading Eco's 'Semiotics and the Philosophy of Language' lately. Signs or signals of meanings differ from symbols for meaning. A stop sign is a stop signal perhaps, while a symbol for a stop sign might be something else, somewhere else.

One has language that is comprised of a multi-dimensional field of word-meanings that have values that differ in different contexts-so that is a moving target for finding a static meaning for anything as improbable as the prospect for defining a role for God or The One as an 'other'. It is probably far too much of a temptation to avoid exploiting cosmological analogy for models for paradigm of creating an image or description of what God did or what God was employed doing before (the time exstasis is improbable) he issued a Universe, if there is such a thing as before for an eternal being.

I like physical cosmology quite a lot, yet it is a phenomenon within the experience of being provided for human cognition that is transcended by God. The language adaptations for theology aren't simple to use, and they too are evolving I suppose-if one means changing as a normal 4-dimensional egress rather than a simple Darwinian meaning. Even Biblical literalism has the problem that literal words are symbolic words too-people have trouble interpreting when the Flood occurred, where it happened and even what it was referring to. Words are symbols, and the interpretation of symbols has many variables multi-diemsnionally speaking.

Eco pointed out that originally the word 'symbol' meant to parts of a coin. One could have a half of something and if the other part was obtained the meaning could be gotten. The use of symbolism in language evolved to lose that paradigm of locating half of a meaning in its use for word and object. Etymologies became something more like permutating meanings based on prior meanings historically developed. Even the word 'symbol' was taken to be construed by many as a representation referring to a real thing for itself-even if the thing referred to is an abstract idea such as a political party (e.g. Hammer and Sickle, Swastika).

It becomes challenging to believe that one can select certain words as symbols that accurately represent God. It is simpler to find math symbols that are tools describing relations, proportions and structure of proximal strength of force that is energy or matter as a given for-itself. It is challenging though to point out to some that the abstract practice of mathematical and physical cosmology, though all one may discover through the senses is not all that can exist. Abduction of ideas from contexts may be a way to philosophically construct metaphysics that have some value-even if the meanings are better applied to teleology or eschatology than quantum mechanics.

Garycgibson


I tend to go with the paradigm of Plotinus in The Enneads for describing 'The One'. Fundamentally it is not a paradigm that can be described well at all. -------------------------------------

That's because the use of the term One, in giving definition to the Absolute, is a misnomer; most do not understand that Singularity is Trismegistus, that there is a difference between a Singularity of Zero-O and a Singularity of One-!, the difference between Singularity of One-1 and the Static Steady State of Quantum Singularity being even greater; all Three Singularities being the same, each a Singularity, each Singularity being totally, entirely, different.

Singularity is Three-fold, Trismegistus.

The Static Steady State of Quantum Singularity, a State consisting of an Untold, an uncountable, number of Individualities, Infinitely Finite Indivisible Singularities, having no relative, numerical value, each Singularity having a Numerical value of Zero-O; The Static Steady State of Quantum Singularity being Infinitely Great, is uncountable.

A Singularity having no relative, numerical value, having numerical value of Zero-O, existing as an Individuality, an Indivisible Infinitely Finite Singularity alone in the Emptiness, is uncountable. A Singularity having a numerical value of One-1 is relative, is Transfinite, countable.

The God of the early Old Testament was a physical presence not to be looked at directly, but his footsteps and his voice could be heard and his backparts viewed but as time has gone on, he has faded like the Cheshire cat, and by the time you get to Tillich, not even leaving a smile behind.

The old testament is a collection of stories created by different people at different times. Some are historical, many are 'rose-coloured' historical, and still others are intended to guide young tribes people. Each young human faces a roller coaster of desires and feelings which are the exact opposite of neatly rational logic. The older tribes people make up stories to help the youngsters manage their feelings. But the bible was closed 1600 years ago, and so it has become less and less relevant. We need to to look outside the bible for latter day 'prophets' such as J.S. Mill. Still, with perseverance and imagination, many of the old bible stories can give insight, as well as shocks. For example, the story about god telling men they will toil and eat dust and women they will have pain in child-birth is a way of saying 'suck it up' which still applies today.

I believe that man has a sense of Realities that man can not put into words, language being just so much Babel because of the use of Metaphors.

God, having a Physical Presents, being the only thing in existence prior to the moment of Creation, was not, is not, to be looked upon that means that Being, the State of the Universe, the Reality of Everything, appears to have been born of Nothingness.

The God of the early Old Testament was a physical presence not to be looked at directly, but his footsteps and his voice could be heard and his backparts viewed but as time has gone on, he has faded like the Cheshire cat, and by the time you get to Tillich, not even leaving a smile behind.

The old testament is a collection of stories created by different people at different times. Some are historical, many are 'rose-coloured' historical, and still others are intended to guide young tribes people. Each young human faces a roller coaster of desires and feelings which are the exact opposite of neatly rational logic. The older tribes people make up stories to help the youngsters manage their feelings. But the bible was closed 1600 years ago, and so it has become less and less relevant. We need to to look outside the bible for latter day 'prophets' such as J.S. Mill. Still, with perseverance and imagination, many of the old bible stories can give insight, as well as shocks. For example, the story about god telling men they will toil and eat dust and women they will have pain in child-birth is a way of saying 'suck it up' which still applies today.

Good and valid points that perhaps help to explain the vastly different interpretations religions can put on the same texts. Traditional Christianity sees original sin clearly presented in the Old Testament and necessitating the advent of Christ and his resurrection to save men. Judaism has no notion at all of original sin.

Christians insist that the Old Testament prophesies the advent of Christ, but Jews don't take it that way. Some Christians find scriptural justification for a triune God, but there have been many dissenters from this view besides the Unitarians and Quakers.

Whatever your theological needs the Bible can supply justification for their fulfillment.

Hello Groktruth.

There is a nation of many millions of people who have developed a modern successful society devoid of God, the word god does not exist in their language, this is a country called Japan. So this is adequate proof that a God concept is not required, and by western standards almost all Japanese are atheists. As to having a large amount of offspring, first quantity does not mean quality, and many thinking people understand that 7 billion is a very large number, and that it might be irresponsible to have large families.

Regards, John.

Japan's history as a successful country is very limited. But biblical theology asserts that God rains blessings on both the righteous and the unrighteous. The advantage of being righteous is that the blessings are more consistent. It is a sufficient condition, not a required one.

Irresponsible? Isn't that a theological concept? How might that have evolved?

Quality of offspring is measured evolutionarily by grandchildren, also well correlated with spirituality.

But, during a period of extreme population growth, I agree that bets are off. The large family bunch have to be at least average during the stabilization or decline periods to keep their advantage. Still, during all known human history, heavy investment in religious practices that assume spiritual beings has been the norm, never selected out as a waste of time, as one would might if it were all a myth. Yes, there are many ad hoc explanations for this, but none have ever been put to a falsifying test, that I know of. Did I miss something.

My understanding is that the Japanese do Worship something or someone; the Japanese, not believing in Spiritual Beings. worship their ancestors as though they were Gods, the ancestor having at one time been a material, physical being.

I always wanted to go astray as a teenager, but I never could find anyone to go with me. At least not all the way.

You fell at the first hurdle. There is no point to going astray if you need someone to go with you - it sort of negates the purpose of it, as all you would be doing is finding another person to conform with. 'True freethinking is finding your own way through the soup of other's false truths.

It wasn't thinking I was thinking of.

What meaning am I supposed to derive from your response?

That I was thinking of something other than thinking. Take a guess.

I guess that you are of limited cognitive ability from the evidence.

No doubt about it: evidence of your intellectual superiority eludes me yet.

Hi Pris and Chaz.

When I get my notification I look forward to finding a pearl of wisdom, but opening this one, repeatedly I have seen adults playing childish games. Please guys, say something funny or outrageous, Or heaven forbid, something worthwhile reading. The last number of posts cannot be logically supported.

Regards, John.

I always wanted to go astray as a teenager, but I never could find anyone to go with me. At least not all the way.

You fell at the first hurdle. There is no point to going astray if you need someone to go with you - it sort of negates the purpose of it, as all you would be doing is finding another person to conform with. 'True freethinking is finding your own way through the soup of other's false truths.

It wasn't thinking I was thinking of.

What meaning am I supposed to derive from your response?

That I was thinking of something other than thinking. Take a guess.

I guess that you are of limited cognitive ability from the evidence.

No doubt about it: evidence of your intellectual superiority eludes me yet.

Indeed, whenever you bring your wisdom upon a subject the result is anyone's 'guess'. No wonder you could never find another with whom to "go astray" - perhaps you were too far gone already?

I always wanted to go astray as a teenager, but I never could find anyone to go with me. At least not all the way.

You fell at the first hurdle. There is no point to going astray if you need someone to go with you - it sort of negates the purpose of it, as all you would be doing is finding another person to conform with. 'True freethinking is finding your own way through the soup of other's false truths.

It wasn't thinking I was thinking of.

What meaning am I supposed to derive from your response?

That I was thinking of something other than thinking. Take a guess.

I guess that you are of limited cognitive ability from the evidence.

No doubt about it: evidence of your intellectual superiority eludes me yet.

Indeed, whenever you bring your wisdom upon a subject the result is anyone's 'guess'. No wonder you could never find another with whom to "go astray" - perhaps you were too far gone already?

Is there any philosophy value here? Such a waste of time and possible intellect. Shame -

I always wanted to go astray as a teenager, but I never could find anyone to go with me. At least not all the way.

You fell at the first hurdle. There is no point to going astray if you need someone to go with you - it sort of negates the purpose of it, as all you would be doing is finding another person to conform with. 'True freethinking is finding your own way through the soup of other's false truths.

It wasn't thinking I was thinking of.

What meaning am I supposed to derive from your response?

That I was thinking of something other than thinking. Take a guess.

I guess that you are of limited cognitive ability from the evidence.

No doubt about it: evidence of your intellectual superiority eludes me yet.

Indeed, whenever you bring your wisdom upon a subject the result is anyone's 'guess'. No wonder you could never find another with whom to "go astray" - perhaps you were too far gone already?

Is there any philosophy value here? Such a waste of time and possible intellect. Shame -

Actually I think it is quite interesting to see how many nests of replies the forum takes before it has an error. With many Forums I use it will not allow more than 3 nests.

But if you really are complaining about the lack of philosophy, then can I ask what is the philosophical content of your own remark? Say something interesting and I'll be only too happy to say what I think.

As for my responses (above), I only asked him what he meant - he told me to guess. So that is what I have been doing!

Hello Chazwyman'

My guess is he was talking about sex.

Anyway, boys will be boys, so continue on with my blessing, of course!

Hello Chazwyman'

My guess is he was talking about sex.

Anyway, boys will be boys, so continue on with my blessing, of course!

ROTFL.

I never knew you could describe sex as "going astray"- what a sheltered life he must have been brought up into!!

Since he invited guesses - I suppose your guess is as good as any.

Hello Chazwyman'

My guess is he was talking about sex.

Anyway, boys will be boys, so continue on with my blessing, of course!

ROTFL.

I never knew you could describe sex as "going astray"- what a sheltered life he must have been brought up into!!

Since he invited guesses - I suppose your guess is as good as any.

I tried to guess but cannot decipher - ROTFL. ?