The Debate of God.

[Thief]

You claim Reason and Science as your methodology, yet choose belief as your doctrine.

Science is method...true.
And so I believe.

 

[Thief]

"Know thyself" first, and the rest will fall into place of its own accord.

After all of this debate you dare cross over and say....know thyself.

You claim at length all of this is an illusion.
The concept of 'I' does not exist.....
and then you say to another.....know thyself.

Maybe you should go to a mirror and consider the word.....hypocrite.

 

[godnotgod]

Science is method...true.
And so I believe.

If something is true, there is no need for belief. Belief means it is not known whether it is true or not.

 

[godnotgod]

After all of this debate you dare cross over and say....know thyself.

You claim at length all of this is an illusion.
The concept of 'I' does not exist.....
and then you say to another.....know thyself.

Maybe you should go to a mirror and consider the word.....hypocrite.

Heh..heh..heh...look here, Thief: to know thyself means to know there is no knower.

 

[Thief]

Heh..heh..heh...look here, Thief: to know thyself means to know there is no knower.

And what then to look at?

You have now confessed you know nothing.

Or maybe you can't see your words as self contrary?

To KNOW oneself....but there is no KNOWER.......really?

 

[godnotgod]

And what then to look at?

You have now confessed you know nothing.

Or maybe you can't see your words as self contrary?

To KNOW oneself....but there is no KNOWER.......really?

Well, c'mon, now: bring forth this agent of knowing you call the 'knower' and show it to us. Where does it reside? No one has ever been able to produce such an animal. Even Thilly Thience can only surmise that the brain creates a critical mass it suggests it is the "I". Perhaps you have a leg up on them and can now reveal to the world your newfound discovery?

 

[Thief]

Well, c'mon, now: bring forth this agent of knowing you call the 'knower' and show it to us. Where does it reside? No one has ever been able to produce such an animal. Even Thilly Thience can only surmise that the brain creates a critical mass it suggests it is the "I". Perhaps you have a leg up on them and can now reveal to the world your newfound discovery?

I think....it was mentioned early in this thread.....maybe not....

'I' think.....therefore.....'I' am.

Perhaps that's to complicated?

 

[Ouroboros]

How do you determine that something is spiritual?

And I wonder if "matter v spirit" is a false dichotomy. How can we know there isn't something more or other than just "matter," or "energy," or "spirit." There can be spirit-stuff. Spirit-matter. Perhaps a spirit-natural-world that caused our world, like a boulder splashing in the water and creating waves, our world wasn't created by a being or a machine, but by an event in a different time-space. Who friggin' knows.

 

[Thief]

And I wonder if "matter v spirit" is a false dichotomy. How can we know there isn't something more or other than just "matter," or "energy," or "spirit." There can be spirit-stuff. Spirit-matter. Perhaps a spirit-natural-world that caused our world, like a boulder splashing in the water and creating waves, our world wasn't created by a being or a machine, but by an event in a different time-space. Who friggin' knows.

A shrug can be entertaining....

But would you go as far to choose....Spirit first?.....or substance?

 

[Ouroboros]

A shrug can be entertaining....

But would you go as far to choose....Spirit first?.....or substance?

Both or neither.
Both are integral parts of each other. What came first, the circumference or pi?

 

[Thief]

Both or neither.
Both are integral parts of each other. What came first, the circumference or pi?

Infinity.
For the singularity to be truly singular...no secondary point can be allowed.
No number system.

As soon as a secondary point comes forth so too infinity.
Between any two points there is an infinite number of more points.

The circle came much later.

Spirit first?.....or substance.
Creator?....or no?

 

[Ouroboros]

Infinity.
For the singularity to be truly singular...no secondary point can be allowed.
No number system.

Infinite sets of numbers and the numbers themselves are co-existing. Neither exists without the other. They both must be. Neither is "first".

As soon as a secondary point comes forth so too infinity.
Between any two points there is an infinite number of more points.

The circle came much later.

Spirit first?.....or substance.
Creator?....or no?

Historically, numbers came first. Sandskrit, one line, two lines, etc to represent number of cows, sheep, and such. Infinity wasn't really a concept yet. And infinite sets didn't exist.

Zero was invented in the 11th century or so.

Infinite sets are only a few hundred years old.


So by that logic, numbers came first. Infinite sets of numbers can't exist without numbers.

 

[edd87]

I have to first say, that I have no quarrel, no argument and wish to express no contempt for individual devours to god and that of religion, they're welcome to their sacraments and they're welcome to their faith and to the importance they place in it and to the comfort and the joy that they receive from it. All of that is absolutely fine by me. It would be impertinent and wrong of me to express any antagonism towards any individual who wishes to find any salvation through any faith, and that is very important.
Now, i have to agree with daviso452, i have never really been a relious peron, but i still considered myself an agnostic. i have since concluded that i decleard myself agnostic through my lack of knowledge rather than my actual beliefs. I am genuinely struggling to find a legitimate arguement from any religious person as to the existence of God, for me i feel that the church, whichever it may be, uses only 2 arguments, they are to quote from religious text, which i dont believe in, or input what i believe as frankly ludicrous theories, in grey areas scince has yet to discover. Can anyone shed some light, without using titles or number as to the existence of any "God" or higher entity or any spritual being that has a consciousness or interest in the human race or ability to punish or reward humans for there moral choices or that there is any reason - other than fear - to believe in any version of an afterlife

 

[godnotgod]

I think....it was mentioned early in this thread.....maybe not....

'I' think.....therefore.....'I' am.

Perhaps that's to complicated?

No, it's too dumb!

"I" exist because "I" think I am thinking there is an "I" that thinks it thinks.

"I" is self-created. It is an illusion; a hallucination. Boo! There is no such animal. It is egoic feedback, like the audio feedback loop you hear from a microphone in an auditorium.

Descartes, the dear, was deluding himself in the most serious of manners.

Q: So when you are not thinking, you are not-existing?
A: Yes! Proof that, since you are still here staring into empty space, "I" is purely a creation of thought. Stop thinking, and there is no such "I"; just pure, unadulterated consciousness.

 

[godnotgod]

Zero was invented in the 11th century or so.

ZERO TIMELINE

The first recorded zero appeared in Mesopotamia around 3 B.C. The Mayans invented it independently circa 4 A.D. It was later devised in India in the mid-fifth century, spread to Cambodia near the end of the seventh century, and into China and the Islamic countries at the end of the eighth. Zero reached western Europe in the 12th century.

What is the origin of zero? How did we indicate nothingness before zero?: Scientific American

 

[Ouroboros]

ZERO TIMELINE

The first recorded zero appeared in Mesopotamia around 3 B.C. The Mayans invented it independently circa 4 A.D. It was later devised in India in the mid-fifth century, spread to Cambodia near the end of the seventh century, and into China and the Islamic countries at the end of the eighth. Zero reached western Europe in the 12th century.

Thanks. That's news to me. I only knew about the zero reaching Europe (which I thought was the 11th century, well, close enough).

 

[Thief]

Infinite sets of numbers and the numbers themselves are co-existing. Neither exists without the other. They both must be. Neither is "first".


Historically, numbers came first. Sandskrit, one line, two lines, etc to represent number of cows, sheep, and such. Infinity wasn't really a concept yet. And infinite sets didn't exist.

Zero was invented in the 11th century or so.

Infinite sets are only a few hundred years old.


So by that logic, numbers came first. Infinite sets of numbers can't exist without numbers.

And a practice of numbers....an invention of Man...
takes away the Creator?

Which came first?

 

[Thief]

No, it's too dumb!

"I" exist because "I" think I am thinking there is an "I" that thinks it thinks.

"I" is self-created. It is an illusion; a hallucination. Boo! There is no such animal. It is egoic feedback, like the audio feedback loop you hear from a microphone in an auditorium.

Descartes, the dear, was deluding himself in the most serious of manners.

Q: So when you are not thinking, you are not-existing?
A: Yes! Proof that, since you are still here staring into empty space, "I" is purely a creation of thought. Stop thinking, and there is no such "I"; just pure, unadulterated consciousness.

As you are now....as "YOU" are now....
There is always a thought running through your head.
even as background noise.

The event you are leaning to could happen....at the hour of your last breath.

I believe we continue in mind and heart.
But only at the discretion of the angelic.

 

[Ouroboros]

And a practice of numbers....an invention of Man...
takes away the Creator?

Which came first?

As I said, neither or both. Neither can exist without the other.

 

[Thief]

As I said, neither or both. Neither can exist without the other.

As I said....God before all else..... so I believe....(high there!)

Creator before creation.
No numbers at the point of singularity.