X-Ftn-To: Raan

"Raan" wrote:
>The universe being 4D cannot be said to even have a beginning or end.

It can have a beginning or an end even if it's 11D.

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

X-Ftn-To: jesse l nowells

jesse l nowells wrote:
>> This is a good example of bad logic, because you defined "The
>> Universe" as the primary reality. Doing that, you implied
>> non-existence of God, ...
>
>Saying the "Universe" is all that exists, does not *necessarily* imply
>that god doesn't exist. It doesn't necessarily follow that god couldn't
>create god's self.

True. Actually, if you define God as eternal, then he can't be
created, by definition, and a question "who created God" is a logical
fallacy.

>> 1. There is the most fundamental layer of the reality.
>> 2. This fundamental layer is either God, or the Universe, as we know
>> it.
>> 3. If this Universe has the reality index of n, and n-1 exists, n-1
>> might or might not be God, depending on whether n-1=0, or not.
>
>What if the universe & god are one & the same?

This implies nonexistence of God.

>> For a good disproof of the existence of God, you would need to prove
>> that this Universe is the most fundamental layer of the reality, or,
>> that n = 0. This cannot be done, because it isn't; this Universe came
>> to be at some point, and before that, the more fundamental layer of
>> the reality existed.
>
>The universe was defined above as everything that exists. What if there is
>an infinitude of layers?

There can be, but, you always have total reality and total illusion as
poles, between which something can exist.

>> Another problem with your definition 1 is the implicit premise that
>> "we perceive all that exists, and this doesn't include God". Actually,
>> we perceive only a small portion of the physical universe, which is
>> not a very good basis for conclusions about the origin of the entirety
>> of all physical existence (which is then, by definition,
>> non-physical).
>
>I don't know but I don't see any implicit premise in the premise "The
>Universe is all that exists" that "We perceive all that exists, & this
>doesn't include god". The presumption above is that if god created
>everything, it's impossible that god created god. But there is no real
>contradiction there.

Think about it. It is implied that everything that exists is subject
to causation, or, that it was created. Since any good definition of
God says that he isn't subject to causation, this implies that "all
that exists" doesn't include God, QED.

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

X-Ftn-To: Ian

"Ian" wrote:
>> :))))))) You obviously have very interesting ideas about creating and
>> creation. You mean, if God didn't create himself, then he's not the
>> ultimate creator? :))
>
>Yes, there cannot be an ultimate creator, ie. there cannot be a God, that's
>my point.

:))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

>> Sorry, wrong. A programmer can affect the running program, without
>> being a part of the program.
>
>If he effects it's running then he becomes part of it.

:)))))))))))))))

>In the "laws of
>physics" of the "universe" which is the program in the computer, the actions
>of the programmer must be part of those laws, or else those laws will not
>describe the "universe" of the program correctly. Therefore the programmer
>must be part of the laws of physics, therefore the programmer is part of the
>physical universe (just as gravity is part of the physical universe because
>it effects it, even if we cannot see or touch gravity).

I see that your ability to understand a simple analogy isn't better
than your ability to understand God.

>I do not accept your concept of existence.

OK, so when you dream about something, you must be contradicting your
own concepts, because none of what you perceive exists, and since you
perceive it, it is impossible. ;>
Likewise, this universe doesn't exist, although everybody perceives
it. It is merely a figment of God's creativity. It has no real
existence, like your dreams. You can perceive them, but they do not
exist.

>> But, you are perfectly
>> willing to describe unicorns as unreal, and universe as real, in spite
>> of the fact that you have no evidence whatsoever of its actual
>> existence, except perceiving it.
>
>I'm working on a "beyond reasonable doubt" basis.

For that, you need know what is reasonable, and for that, you need to
know the truth. If you don't know the truth, you can call any
consistent illusion "reasonable".

>Of course maybe unicorns
>do exist or maybe the planet Earth doesn't exist, we could all play that
>game.

And maybe unicorns don't exist in one way, and the Earth also doesn't
exist in some other way. People can imagine the unicorns, and God can
imagine the universe. You see one of those imagined things as real,
but to me, there's not much difference.

>> The things that you see as
>> real, are in fact only a bit more real than unicorns and elves.
>
>There's no such thing as "a bit more real", either something is real or it
>isn't,

:)) Nice concept, although not very sustainable. Does a virtual
reality within a videogame exist or not? If it doesn't exist, how come
you can become a part of it and play the game? However, the existence
of the physical universe is more fundamental, so the universe is more
real than a game, although you can identify with both. So, something
can exist and still be an illusion. Only God's existence is void of
illusion, and therefore, by definition, fundamental.

>either it exists or it doesn't. Existence isn't something that can be
>measured on a scale between one and ten, it is 0 or 1. Otherwise you could
>end up having the answer to the question "Does God exist?" being God
>32.1568% exists and he 67.8432% doesn't exist, which is about as meaningful
>as the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxies statement that the meaning of
>life, the universe and everything is 42 :).

This just proves your ignorance of the simplest aspects of philosophy,
elaborated in ancient Greece.

>> >Just because we can talk about unicorns,
>> >what they might eat etc. that doesn't mean that they exist.
>>
>> Exactly. And just because you perceive the universe, doesn't mean that
>> it exists.
>
>The fact that I perceive the universe does not prove that it exists, but
>with the universe defined as being the collection of all the things that
>exist the existence of the universe can be proved a priori, although of
>course that doesn't say anything much about what the universe actually is.

You can prove that _something_ exists, and for finding out what it
really is, you'll need different methods.

>> After all, if somebody erased your memory and plugged you
>> into a virtual reality device, you'd perceive lots of things that
>> don't exist. What would your "scientific" mind tell you, then?
>
>I would end up believing lots of things that are wrong.

You are doing that right now, so what.

>> Exactly. This is why God is defined as transcendental to causality. He
>> wasn't caused, or created. He's also transcendental to time, or
>> change.
>
>Well perhaps then he also transcends existence, maybe he doesn't exist :).

And maybe you just transcend intelligence.

>> else is new. Human mind is a very limited tool for understanding God.
>
>So we all just give up and believe a load of stuff that doesn't make sense
>then?

Well, as I said, you are doing that right now.

>> This is only because of the limitations of your mind; you work with a
>> narrow minded theory full of limitations, and when you find one, you
>> conclude that you found yourself something fundamental. You just
>> demonstrated that you can't define God as a part of the universe and
>> simultaneously claim that he created the entire universe. Basically,
>> you said that God didn't create himself, but since most people know
>> that anyways, you didn't tell us anything we didn't already know.
>
>That's how all purely logical proofs work, they tell you what you already
>knew but didn't realise.

:)))))))))))) You mean, you admit that made a logical fallacy in order
to create a false impression that you proved something, while in fact
you only drew a conclusion from a bad definition?

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

X-Ftn-To: Ian

"Ian" wrote:
>By the way my answers are;
>
>1) no
>2) no

I know what your answers are.

>I think you'll find that each of the other three possible combinations of
>answers lead to logical inconsistencies, try it and see :)

This is because you think in limited 1-dimensional patterns.

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

X-Ftn-To: Ian

"Ian" wrote:
>> Exactly, everything you write is nonsense.
>
>Ok then, answer two questions for me;
>
>1) Does God exist?

Yes.

>2) Did God create everything that exists?

No. Actually, only God exists, everything else is just an observable
illusion, just a possible way of seeing the totality of existence from
a certain perspective.

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

X-Ftn-To: Bill S

Bill S wrote:
>>Well, you can try, but, this definition is hard to sustain. Big Bang
>>had a cause; it came to be in a point of time. The Big Bang is not
>>even the origin of time, since time is just another name for a change
>
>Hmm. If you believe Einstein that spacetime is a four-dimensional
>vector space then, since time is one of those dimensions, it probably
>started with the Big Bang (assuming the theory is correct). Just like
>X, Y, Z started with the big bang (or re-started, if you believe the
>Breathing Universe idea).

Time in our physical universe is related with space, yes, because time
is just another way to measure change. But, cessation of change in our
local universe doesn't imply that there are no other things subject to
change, so, ...

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

X-Ftn-To: Daniel

"Daniel" wrote:
>Pocinitelj je uvijek daleko udaljen od dijela i razlicit je od njega.
>Ako ja nekoga prevarim, to neznaci da sam ja prevara, vec da sam se posluzio
>prevarom, necim sto je drugacije od mene.

Upravo je suprotno istina. Ako si se posluzio prijevarom, znaci da si
dao izjavu da to djelo odrazava Tvoju bit, odnosno, odredio si sebe
kao prevaranta. Odnosno, gresnik prijanja uz grijeh i robuje mu, narav
grijeha odredjuje narav gresnika, sve dok se gresnik ne pokaje i tako
odijeli od grijeha.

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

X-Ftn-To: Domagoj Klepac

Domagoj Klepac wrote:
>On Sun, 24 Jun 2001 10:53:52 +0200, "Zoran Ostric"
>bravely stated:
>>> Iliti mojim rijecnikom, covjek je svinja i budala.
>>
>>Koje li dubine misli iprofinjenosti jezika kod ovog naseg Danijela! :-)
>>Covjek odmah prepoznaje osobu koja je dosegla prosvjetljenje i spoznala
>>najdublje istine. :-)) Da, da, pravi Bodhisatva, ma tocno sam tako
>>zamisljao, da ce On govoriti. :-)))
>
>Bitno da ti znas kako prosvjetljeni izgleda i govori, pa onda mozes
>kompetentno suditi o tome i ne se zajebati na Putu.

Zapravo, ako mi netko navede jedan primjer prosvijetljenog covjeka
koji je bio ljubazan s kretenima, svaka mu cast. Naime, Krsna im je
rezao glava kolutom a Isus ih je tukao bicem i govorio im da su vrazja
djeca i da su gori od kurvi i lopova. Zen majstori su takodjer bili
poznati po velikoj uctivosti i ljubaznosti, kao i indijsko/tibetanski
buddhisticki ucitelji, npr. Tilopa i Marpa. Sve u svemu, volio bih
znati tko je izmislio laz da su duhovni ljudi neka vrsta sluzavaca s
staklastim ocima koji se znaju jedino smjeskati budalama.

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

X-Ftn-To: Ian

"Ian" wrote:
>> >> No, because the definition is bad and contradictory, but since you
>> >> insisted, I said OK, let's see where this'll take ya. God is not a
>> >> _part_ of everything that exists;
>> >
>> >So God doesn't exist then :)
>>
>> Wow, your logical skills amaze me. >;->
>
>I just had to put that in, you're playing fast and lose with the concept of
>existence. You are saying on the one hand that God is not part of that which
>exists, then on the other hand you're saying that he/she/it exists. That has
>to be nonsense.

Exactly, everything you write is nonsense.

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

X-Ftn-To: Ian

"Ian" wrote:
>> I just want to make a point to this statement before making my own
>> argument for the existence of a "Supreme Being". - If you define the
>> Universe as all of reality, all that exists, then you must redefine the
>> generally accepting scientific definition of "universe". You see, what
>> scientists have defined as the universe is the sum of all galaxies, solar
>> systems, and etc.
>
>Fine, but if you define God as being the creator of part of existence then
>he cannot be the ultimate creator.

:))))))) You obviously have very interesting ideas about creating and
creation. You mean, if God didn't create himself, then he's not the
ultimate creator? :))

>> You also seem to forget that the scientific community has also, if
>> rather infrequently, used the term "Multiverse", which is used to describe
>> all of the various universes that exist. Accounting for the existence of
>> separate planes, as well, you end up with a whole lot more than just "the
>> universe".
>
>I do not believe in this (although it has no effect on my previous
>argument). If something can have no effect on the physical universe then it
>does not exist, and if it can effect the physical universe then it is part
>of the physical universe (it's physical manifestation gives it physical
>existence).

Sorry, wrong. A programmer can affect the running program, without
being a part of the program.

>> There for, defining "the universe" as the highest level of
>> "stuff" (everything that there is, reality and otherwise all included), is
>> not including the vast majority of theoretical "stuff" (things that exist,
>> are real, or otherwise).
>
>Purely theoretical "stuff" does not exist. Unicorns do not exist.

They do exist, but form of their existence is not primary. Characters
in a dream do not exist as physical objects, but they exist in a sense
that you can perceive them while you dream. An imagined unicorn exists
within your imagination. This universe, too, exists only in God's
imagination, it is not the primary reality. But, you are perfectly
willing to describe unicorns as unreal, and universe as real, in spite
of the fact that you have no evidence whatsoever of its actual
existence, except perceiving it.

>Objects,
>forces etc in postulated scientific theories which do not describe the
>physical universe do not exist.

Science can work with what you perceive, but it can't tell you whether
it's just an event within someone's dream. The things that you see as
real, are in fact only a bit more real than unicorns and elves.

>Just because we can talk about unicorns,
>what they might eat etc. that doesn't mean that they exist.

Exactly. And just because you perceive the universe, doesn't mean that
it exists. After all, if somebody erased your memory and plugged you
into a virtual reality device, you'd perceive lots of things that
don't exist. What would your "scientific" mind tell you, then?

>> point and continues infinitely. The terminal point, the beginning, cannot
>> have anything before it and, for all intents and purposes, is a catalyst.
>> That terminal point, the beginning of the chain of existence/time, must be
>> something that could exist before/outside of all other things and,
>thereby,
>> set all other things into motion.
>
>But surely this simply creates another universe to embed the first one in
>and begs the question of this other universe's origins.

Exactly. This is why God is defined as transcendental to causality. He
wasn't caused, or created. He's also transcendental to time, or
change. Of course, human mind cannot accept or imagine that, but what
else is new. Human mind is a very limited tool for understanding God.

>You cannot postulate
>something "existing" outside the universe or outside all universes
>(depending on how many universes you believe there are).

This is only because of the limitations of your mind; you work with a
narrow minded theory full of limitations, and when you find one, you
conclude that you found yourself something fundamental. You just
demonstrated that you can't define God as a part of the universe and
simultaneously claim that he created the entire universe. Basically,
you said that God didn't create himself, but since most people know
that anyways, you didn't tell us anything we didn't already know.

>> That terminal point, whatever you want to call it, is greater than
>> anything that I can personally comprehend. It is, for all intents and
>> purposes, the Supreme Thing/Being/Event/ God.
>
>A terminal point is an event, it is certainly not a being. So then God is an
>event, doesn't sound like any God I've ever been told about.

I don't know what you've been told about, but fundamental logic would
indicate that the originator of the Universe, the one capable of
creating the initial event, must be at least smarter and more capable
than yourself, because he managed to do it, and you're not quite up to
the task of repeating it.

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