X-Ftn-To: Alex Vange

"Alex Vange" wrote:
>White people invented just about everything
>important.

Actually, the Chinese invented just about everything important; the
Whites were a couple of millenia late.
;)

--
Homepage: http://www.danijel.org

X-Ftn-To: quibbler

quibbler wrote:
>> quibbler wrote:
>> >And you can't accept the non-existence of god as a pre-existing condition.
>>
>> I can, but then there is suddenly no existence and possibility of
>> existence, and since we observe our own existence, this doesn't hold
>> water.
>
>That is simply because you have defined existence in such a way that it requires
>a creator. There are a myriad other possible ways to account for existence other
>than special creation.

None of those "possible ways" is compatible with my experience.

>> >I believe that a small set of impersonal
>> Whatever it is, it is not impersonal. Rather, it is more personal than
>> you and me, because it right now creates our personalities.
>
>No. Just because one thing thing creates another does not mean that it is
>necessarily more sophisticated. Is the hammer used to create my house more
>sophisticated that the house it was used to build?

No, but the mind that designed the house is more sophisticated than
the house itself.

>> >Normally the universe is defined as the sum total of everything that exists.
>> Normally, the universe is defined as the physical universe.
>
>Material reality is a good, unambiguous way to define this.

Yes, and since your concept of reality seems to be limited to that, in
a conversation with you I limit the concept of universe to the
material reality.

>> >> The God
>> >> that you believe in doesn't exist. A much better one does exist.
>> >I have heard this line many times. But this supposed better
>> >definition is never forthcoming.
>> You have an advantage over everybody. You can choose to disbelieve much more
>> than anybody could possibly explain.
>
>Actually, this is based on the faulty assumption that belief is a volitional
>act. In fact we belief things because there is sufficient reason for us to
>recognize them as such.

In fact, that is very seldom so. More often, people want to see the
world in a certain way, and they accept only the things that fit that
concept, rejecting everything else regardless of the quality of proof.
People used to reject evidence which said that the Earth isn't the
center of the universe, and they didn't do it because the evidence was
flawed, but because they didn't like the consequences. Human worldview
is never rational, but it is most often rationalized.

>> So, you can always win
>> every argument. If that pleases you, oh well.
>
>I remain skeptical of a great many things because I want to know things as well
>as I can. Blindly accepting answers can often prevent this search.

Skepticism can be even worse than blind faith. Try this: leave your
home and go to the store. Then, be skeptical about your memory. You no
longer see your home. The memory of it, and its location, is merely
memory, and it could be a result of some delusion. There is no reason
to believe that you have a home, or that it is on the place where you
remember it to be. Trying to find it would be futile, because there's
no reason to believe that it exist, and why would anyone try to find
something that obviously doesn't exist. If it did exist, you would
already see it.

Then apply this to God. You cannot find him because you don't believe
that he exists. If you did believe, you would try, but now, I guess
you will never believe because you will never try and therefore never
find the evidence. People who believe and try, find the evidence,
because spirituality can be a scientific discipline. Everybody with
certain qualifications, who approaches the research in a defined way,
will obtain the results of the same quality.

>> >Umm. No. Not there. Try the expanding singularity.
>> Oh, the one without time,
>
>Nope. That was the singularity before it expanded. The expanding singularity
>does have time.

:)))

>> and therefore without space, and therefore
>> without matter, and therefore without any aspect of physical
>> existence?
>
>No. Again. That was the singularity before it expanded.

If it has no time, no space, and no matter, it also has no existence,
and it is therefore nothing. Something does not get created from
nothing, so there is no expansion. Without God, you can have no
universe. The only reasonable questions are: what is God's nature, can
God be reached, and how. Everything else is irrational denial.

--
Homepage: http://www.danijel.org

X-Ftn-To: Denis Simoda

"Denis Simoda" wrote:
>Nisam ni pitao iz pozicije HK teologije, nego iz perspektive Gite.
>Krishna jasno kaze, tko jednom dodje u moje vjecno prebivaliste,
>nece se vise vracati! Mozda ne ovim rijecima, ali smisao je taj.

:)) Je, a stih prije toga pise:
"Da bih izbavio pravednike i uništio zlotvore,te ponovno uspostavio
na?ela dharme,ra?am se vijek za vijekom."
:)) Ocito po tom kriteriju slobode ni sam Krsna nije oslobodjen, cim
se mora radjati. ;)))

--
Homepage: http://www.danijel.org

X-Ftn-To: Denis Simoda

"Denis Simoda" wrote:
>Nisam ni pitao iz pozicije HK teologije, nego iz perspektive Gite.
>Krishna jasno kaze, tko jednom dodje u moje vjecno prebivaliste,
>nece se vise vracati! Mozda ne ovim rijecima, ali smisao je taj.

:)) Je, a stih prije toga pise:
"Da bih izbavio pravednike i uni?tio zlotvore,te ponovno uspostavio
na?ela dharme,ra?am se vijek za vijekom."
:)) Ocito po tom kriteriju slobode ni sam Krsna nije oslobodjen, cim
se mora radjati. ;)))

--
Homepage: http://www.danijel.org

X-Ftn-To: Robert Keith Elias

REMOVE.keliasTHIS@clic.and.this.net (Robert Keith Elias) wrote:
> If the mind can survive the brain then the mind must be independent of
> the brain.
>
> If the mind is independent of the brain, then things that affect the
> brain will not affect the mind. For example:
>
> - When I hit you over the head with a baseball bat (or cricket
> wicket) you will not loose consciousness.

If you smash a radio receiver with a baseball bat, you will not be
able to listen to music, in spite of the fact that the radio waves are
still around.

--
Homepage: http://www.danijel.org

X-Ftn-To: Suzi

Suzi wrote:
>> nisi moj tip.
>
>hvala na komplimentu

:))))) LOL :))))

--
Homepage: http://www.danijel.org

X-Ftn-To: quibbler

quibbler wrote:
>And you can't accept the non-existence of god as a pre-existing condition.

I can, but then there is suddenly no existence and possibility of
existence, and since we observe our own existence, this doesn't hold
water.

>I believe that a small set of impersonal

Whatever it is, it is not impersonal. Rather, it is more personal than
you and me, because it right now creates our personalities.

>Normally the universe is defined as the sum total of everything that exists.

Normally, the universe is defined as the physical universe.

>> The God
>> that you believe in doesn't exist. A much better one does exist.
>
>I have heard this line many times. But this supposed better
>definition is never forthcoming.

You have an advantage over everybody. You can choose to disbelieve
much more than anybody could possibly explain. So, you can always win
every argument. If that pleases you, oh well.

>Umm. No. Not there. Try the expanding singularity.

Oh, the one without time, and therefore without space, and therefore
without matter, and therefore without any aspect of physical
existence?

--
Homepage: http://www.danijel.org

X-Ftn-To: quibbler

quibbler wrote:
>I could see that you tried, rather pathetically, to make an analogy.

Calling it pathetic doesn't refute it; in fact, it is another logical
fallacy.

--
Homepage: http://www.danijel.org

X-Ftn-To: Aco Momcilovic (a.k.a. Never)

"Aco Momcilovic (a.k.a. Never)" wrote:
>>>Komentari?
>>
>>Jao. :))
>
>Ti si nesto suzdrzan danas? :)))))

Ma, "jao" je vise nego rjecito. :)))
Boze dragi. :))))
(za one koji nisu bili: komentar se odnosi na Radenkovo stanje duha,
odnosno odsustvo istog :)

--
Homepage: http://www.danijel.org

X-Ftn-To: Foo Fighter

Foo Fighter wrote:
>In article ,
>dturina@geocities.com says...
>
>Samo si potvrdio moje rijeci. Iz tvojih usta samo pogrde i uvrede. Nemas
>nista bolje za ponudit?

Imam, samo kao sto rekoh, Ti si totalni idiot.

--
Homepage: http://www.danijel.org