• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Question for Theists

atanu

Member
Premium Member
It is more than that. It is a contradiction in terms and definitions.
A square has four corners by definition.
A circle by definition does not.
Even if they were concepts we had never seen, touched or otherwise encountered it would be a logical contradiction to say they can be one and the same at the same time.

No disagreement there.

I think you are going to have to explain a bit more about what exactly you mean by that before I can reply. :)

Primary definition of God is that it is beyond Mind and Word but that it is the Seer and it is the knower. It is evident that Seeing and Knowing are fundamental processes in existence. From this definition can we not say that a world without a god is a logical contradiction?

Can anyone sincerely say that one is seer of the seer and knower of the knower?

Can anyone sincerely proclaim that eyes are the seers and brain is the knower?

If eyes are the seer then who are you and if the brain is the knower then who are you?
...
 
Last edited:

Primordial Annihilator

Well-Known Member
But there are plenty of phenomena that are reported by a significant number of people that we still dismiss without investigation, mainly because we have satisfying explanations for them, which is also the case for the majority of UFO sightings.

You are talking out of your arse..no offence ;)

Dismissing something without investigation and assuming there is a 'satisfying explanation' is illogical in extremis.
I have had enough of this convo with you JOF, you are I imagine a very young person...you have a lot to learn.

Good luck!
 

jarofthoughts

Empirical Curmudgeon
You are talking out of your arse..no offence ;)

Dismissing something without investigation and assuming there is a 'satisfying explanation' is illogical in extremis.
I have had enough of this convo with you JOF, you are I imagine a very young person...you have a lot to learn.

Good luck!

So, instead of presenting an argument or evidence, you decide to do an ad hominem attack? :sarcastic

Duly noted.
 

jarofthoughts

Empirical Curmudgeon
Primary definition of God is that it is beyond Mind and Word but that it is the Seer and it is the knower. It is evident that Seeing and Knowing are fundamental processes in existence. From this definition can we not say that a world without a god is a logical contradiction?

It can be said that knowing and seeing is fundamental to OUR existence, and even then, only tentatively so. But I do not agree that knowing and seeing is fundamental to existence as such. The Universe would still be here if we had never been born.

Can anyone sincerely say that one is seer of the seer and knower of the knower?

Can anyone sincerely proclaim that eyes are the seers and brain is the knower?

If eyes are the seer then who are you and if the brain is the knower then who are you?
...

I do not hold to ideas of souls or ghosts in the machine. When I die I fully expect that to be the end. Does that answer your question?
 

atanu

Member
Premium Member
It can be said that knowing and seeing is fundamental to OUR existence, and even then, only tentatively so. But I do not agree that knowing and seeing is fundamental to existence as such. The Universe would still be here if we had never been born.

How do you know that? Even if I assume that Universe will go on, still it will go on through Seeing and Knowing.

I do not hold to ideas of souls or ghosts in the machine. When I die I fully expect that to be the end. Does that answer your question?

No.

...
 
Last edited:

jarofthoughts

Empirical Curmudgeon
How do you know that? Even if I assume that Universe will go on, still it will go on through Seeing and Knowing.

The universe was around for a long time before we arrived on the scene, heck before there was any form of life here, and there is nothing to indicate that we in any way are important in relation to the universe.
At this point I think it is necessary to ask you to clarify what exactly you mean by "Seeing and Knowing".


Alright. I'll try to clarify. I do not think that we are anything except physical. So, to the question of who I am, well, I am the sum of my parts combined with the experience these parts have endured.
 

Primordial Annihilator

Well-Known Member
So, instead of presenting an argument or evidence, you decide to do an ad hominem attack? :sarcastic

Duly noted.


You simply dont 'listen'...as I said: Dismissing something without investigation and assuming there is a 'satisfying explanation' is illogical in extremis.

(Talking to you btw is like talking to very closed minded person who knows that they are closed minded and astonishingly is proud of it...that is highly annoying...sorry.)

That was the argument even though you ignored it entirely and just cried that I was mean....righto.

PS I guess I was right that you are a young person...enjoy your bubble kiddo. :D

PPS I really meant no offence JOT it annoys me that someone who posts with such clarity and obvious wit yet has such an irrational approach to dealing with the unknowns..as if we knew everything already...a mistake often made by the naive and the young...quite normal I guess...but still irritating as hell.

Peace!
 
Last edited:

atanu

Member
Premium Member
The universe was around for a long time before we arrived on the scene, heck before there was any form of life here, and there is nothing to indicate that we in any way are important in relation to the universe.
At this point I think it is necessary to ask you to clarify what exactly you mean by "Seeing and Knowing".
---
Alright. I'll try to clarify. I do not think that we are anything except physical. So, to the question of who I am, well, I am the sum of my parts combined with the experience these parts have endured.

Your clarification does not answer any of my questions, though.

...
 

jarofthoughts

Empirical Curmudgeon
You simply dont 'listen'...as I said: Dismissing something without investigation and assuming there is a 'satisfying explanation' is illogical in extremis.

I thought I had already responded to that and that you were simply restating what had already been said.

Very well, I'll reply (again?).

1. I am not dismissing it. I am merely not buying the explanation that these are alien spacecraft visiting us.
2. For many of these cases we have adequate explanations and I am perfectly comfortable stating "I don't know" in the cases where we do not.
3. Injecting an "explanation" that has no basis in evidence and then suggesting that people "buy" it is illogical in the extreme.
4. There is a saying in medicinal science that goes: "When you hear hoof-beats, think horses, not zebras". This is taken to mean that when a symptom arises you should first rule out the more common and plausible reasons for that symptom rather than postulate something rare and implausible. As for aliens we have exactly no evidence that they ever visited us which means that we should postulate every other explanation that we know has and can happen BEFORE we even consider the "alien" explanation. This goes for every other unknown phenomenon as well.

When scientific evidence that we have been/are being visited by aliens is presented I'll have no problems accepting that fact. Until then, not so much.

Good enough? ;)

(Talking to you btw is like talking to very closed minded person who knows that they are closed minded and astonishingly is proud of it...that is highly annoying...sorry.)

Well, I do consider myself to be an Empiricist, which means that unless a concept/idea/theory has empirical scientific evidence to back it up I do not consider it a part of reality. That means that souls, alien visitations, ghosts, unicorns, gods, angels, demons, magic, and many many other things are not even under consideration. I can entertain the concept as a thought-experiment, but I do not consider them to be a part of reality. Period.

PS I guess I was right that you are a young person...enjoy your bubble kiddo. :D

My age is of no relevance.

PPS I really meant no offence JOT it annoys me that someone who posts with such clarity and obvious wit yet has such an irrational approach to dealing with the unknowns..as if we knew everything already...a mistake often made by the naive and the young...quite normal I guess...but still irritating as hell.

I've never claimed we know everything. That would, indeed, be highly irrational and illogical as well as demonstrably wrong. I just get a bit annoyed when people want to inject their pet-notions into anything we do not know. That doesn't mean that we should not investigate the unknown, and that is indeed what science is all about, but when random people post their "theories" based on a misconception of M-Theory on pages that advocate crystal healing, I am unlikely to take them seriously. ;)

Peace![/QUOTE]
 

atanu

Member
Premium Member
Happily.

Primary definition of God is that it is beyond Mind and Word but that it is the Seer and it is the knower. It is evident that Seeing and Knowing are fundamental processes in existence. From this definition can we not say that a world without a god is a logical contradiction?

Can anyone sincerely say that one is seer of the seer and knower of the knower?

Can anyone sincerely proclaim that eyes are the seers and brain is the knower?

If eyes are the seer then who are you and if the brain is the knower then who are you?

...
 

atanu

Member
Premium Member
Rephrase... Not repost... :)

Thanks jarofthoughts. I am dropping the questions, since I cannot rephrase the following questions any better.

Primary definition of God is that it is beyond Mind and Word but that it is the Seer and it is the knower. It is evident that Seeing and Knowing are fundamental processes in existence. From this definition can we not say that a world without a god is a logical contradiction?

Can anyone sincerely say that one is seer of the seer and knower of the knower?

Can anyone sincerely proclaim that eyes are the seers and brain is the knower?

If eyes are the seer then who are you and if the brain is the knower then who are you?

Thanks for your time.:)

...
 

Primordial Annihilator

Well-Known Member
Well, I do consider myself to be an Empiricist, which means that unless a concept/idea/theory has empirical scientific evidence to back it up I do not consider it a part of reality. That means that souls, alien visitations, ghosts, unicorns, gods, angels, demons, magic, and many many other things are not even under consideration. I can entertain the concept as a thought-experiment, but I do not consider them to be a part of reality. Period.

Empiricist?

You CLEARLY do not understand the meaning of empiricality....as validated photos/images of UFOs are exactly that....empirical evidence.

I am afraid you are not an empiricist....:no:

You are a believer....in your own ignorance ;)

Good luck with that.

I cant talk to people like you...you annoy the p*ss out of me too much...when you grow up...maybe then we can talk. ;)

Soz..Later.
 
Last edited:

jarofthoughts

Empirical Curmudgeon
Empiricist?

You CLEARLY do not understand the meaning of empiricality....

More ad hominem? :D

as validated photos/images of UFOs are exactly that....empirical evidence.

Oh, no question, although there aren't many "validated" photos of UFOs and the like. Also, we seem to disagree on the subject of exactly WHAT these photos are empirical evidence of... ;)

I am afraid you are not an empiricist....:no:

Again with the personal attacks...
Don't you have any real arguments?
How about evidence?
No? :sarcastic

You are a believer....in your own ignorance ;)

:facepalm:

I cant talk to people like you...you annoy the p*ss out of me too much...when you grow up...maybe then we can talk. ;)

Soz..Later.

It's not my fault that you have no evidence for your claims and very few valid arguments... ;)
 

Primordial Annihilator

Well-Known Member
More ad hominem? :D

No that is what we call an observation...I have observed you do not know the meaning of empiricality.


Oh, no question, although there aren't many "validated" photos of UFOs and the like. Also, we seem to disagree on the subject of exactly WHAT these photos are empirical evidence of... ;)

They are empirical evidence of intelligently constructed vehicles of some kind...any idiot can see that.
Your systematic denials of everything are illogical...not the theory that UFOs are some kind of spacecraft if not owned by us then the only other plausible scientific explantion is that they are owned and constructed ny non human ie alien entities...backed up the fact that alien life DOES in fact exist everywhere in the universe according to most cosmologists..something you cant deny but pathetically attempt to worm out of anyway..saying that they might exist but they havent visted here...ON WHAT GROUNDS DO YOU MAKE THAT REMARKABLE ASSERTION?

Don't think that because people get annoyed with your ironically concieted and non scientific paradigm that makes them wrong by default...because it doesnt...talking to you is like headbutting a wall...you are far worse than many christians I have had the displeasure to meet in this respect.


It's not my fault that you have no evidence for your claims and very few valid arguments... ;)

I have made countless arguments...such as the Drake Equation and others but you are a classic evader and refuse to go into the Drake Equation in detail (you just denied it has any relevance...just more denial denial denial...)

You remember that PM you sent me congratulating me on my succesful 'cold reading' experiment...that explained everything about your views in a nutshell...don't PM me again please...I have my blood pressure to consider sweetheart.
 
Last edited:

jarofthoughts

Empirical Curmudgeon
No that is what we call an observation...I have observed you do not know the meaning of empiricality.

Just because you say it doesn't make it so. ;)
Unless you can show why this is the case, it is just an ad hominem.

They are empirical evidence of intelligently constructed vehicles of some kind...any idiot can see that.

Really? Please show me some of this evidence that speaks to intelligently constructed vehicles.

Your systematic denials of everything are illogical...

I'm not denying everything. Just your assumption that these phenomenon HAVE to be little green men. :D

not the theory that UFOs are some kind of spacecraft if not owned by us then the only other plausible scientific explantion is that they are owned and constructed ny non human ie alien entities...

First of all... why would you think that they are not owned by us?
Secondly...what makes you so sure they are indeed spacecraft?

backed up the fact that alien life DOES in fact exist everywhere in the universe according to most cosmologists..

Plausible, sure. Affirmed fact? Far from it.

something you cant deny but pathetically attempt to worm out of anyway..saying that they might exist but they havent visted here...ON WHAT GROUNDS DO YOU MAKE THAT REMARKABLE ASSERTION?

Distance.

Don't think that because people get annoyed with your ironically concieted and non scientific paradigm that makes them wrong by default...because it doesnt...talking to you is like headbutting a wall...you are far worse than many christians I have had the displeasure to meet in this respect.

Well, considering that I'm unwilling to accept what amounts to an assumption lacking in evidential backing, I'd say my...paradigm...is very scientific indeed.
Again, it's not my fault that you don't have the required evidence...

I have made countless arguments...such as the Drake Equation and others but you are a classic evader and refuse to go into the Drake Equation in detail (you just denied it has any relevance...just more denial denial denial...)

I merely pointed out that the Drake Equation is lacking in statistical backing seeing as we do not, in fact, know with any reasonable certainty how common life is in the universe. Have a look: Drake equation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You remember that PM you sent me congratulating me on my succesful 'cold reading' experiment...that explained everything about your views in a nutshell...don't PM me again please...I have my blood pressure to consider sweetheart.

As you wish.

But do you claim that what you were doing was not cold reading?
Cause... It sure looked like it.
I've done it myself on several occations and it can be a lot of fun. :D
 
Top