A better question that: "Does god exist"

Francis wrote:

snood wrote:
Personal right and wrong - to forgive or not, to care or not, to have faith or not, be kind or not, strive or not, hold resentments or not...

So, those who dont exercise these rights are non-existent?

Who said anything about "exercising" them? You're being silly. My assertion involved having those choices.

0 Replies

Circular reasoning..

Do I have the right of being silly? Or should one reason only according to Snood?

But that's typical of you, when your beliefs are under pressure...

Next step, send me post away...

0 Replies

It's a bit sad that no one takes my point... Well, maybe those french speaking folks did, but I have no way of knowing...

In asking the question "do I existe" it is not the aspect of existence I would like to question. It is the aspect of this "I" that is existing.
To find out just what this is we need to define it's contents, and in defining it's contents it should become clear what is not a part of it...

0 Replies

To answer your question, Cyracuz, it's pretty obvious that, if there is some existence, it can only be I.

Any other concept revolves around I. Even gods.

Those who have a problem with I, usually use gods as a derivative.

0 Replies

Francis wrote:

Circular reasoning..

Do I have the right of being silly? Or should one reason only according to Snood?

But that's typical of you, when your beliefs are under pressure...

Next step, send me post away...

Lemme see, how best to answer that in the spirit of the season and on a level with the tone of your approach? Hmmm..... so hard to come up with a fitting reply...

Ah yes! Bite me Francis.

0 Replies

Francis.

That isn't neccesarily true.

You say that if there is some existence, it can only be I, and in a way you are right, because the way you phrase it can be interpreted as "There is only I".

My point is that while it is fairly simple to determine that there is existence, it isn't so simple to go beyond that. The famous quote "I think, therefore I am" leans on one assumption. This assumption is that it is the agency referred to as I that is doing the thinking.
But is this really so, or is it merely the way this I functions that makes it seem that it is?
This whole thing boils down to perception.
There's what we see, and how we interpret it. Based on this we assign meaning to some concepts and not to others.
Those that maintain that god exists usually have trouble defining what god is, which is more or less the basis of their difficulty in getting others to see their point.
What I am saying here is that while most of us take for granted that the I has existence as an independent singularity, few of us can truly define what this I is.
But if we agree that there is no clear boundary between what pervieves and what is percieved, then we are forced to admit that this I is just another concept, as incoherently defined as god.

0 Replies

Cyracuz wrote:

But if we agree that there is no clear boundary between what pervieves and what is percieved, then we are forced to admit that this I is just another concept, as incoherently defined as god.

As far as I am concerned I do not agree that there's no clear boundary.

Let's say that I am at best a cluster of peculiarly ordinated atoms, which happens to have developed some means on sensory perception of what is straneous to his own.

Having achieved the perception of what is not I, I can now evolve to some state where a concept of I can be developed.

To make it short, the very concept of god is still very far away...

I have first to develop the concept of the unicity of the "not I"..

0 Replies

Physical form is the main reason that we retain the illusion that the I is an independent singularity.

But think of the multitudes of situations the I is active in, and think of how it alters according to what is needed.

When you think it divides itself. It is the I and the thought it relates to. Then the thought, otherwise seen as a part of the I, is something outside of it.
The boundaries are not clear. They shift and change continously.

There is nothing that is not I. Or I is nothing...

0 Replies

Re: A better question that: "Does god exist"

Cyracuz wrote:

A better question that "does god exist" is "do you exist".

Do you exist? Prove it.

I might take up this challenge, if you can prove that you posted it.

0 Replies

Real life

The proof that I posted it is equal to the proof that it is there at all. Which doesn't really prove anything. :wink:

0 Replies

Which is why NO one in their right mind should EVER go into business with a liberal. Cool

0 Replies

Cyracuz wrote:

Real life

The proof that I posted it is equal to the proof that it is there at all. Which doesn't really prove anything. :wink:

Ergo, proof is subjective

0 Replies

Re: A better question that: "Does god exist"

Cyracuz wrote:

A better question that "does god exist" is "do you exist".

Do you exist? Prove it.

If you exist, then you must be clearly distinguishable from the environment you exist in, isn't that right? If not, we would have to say that you exist, but we cannot find you anywhere. But how can we know you exist if we cannot find you.

So in order to say that you exist you must prove that you are separate from everything else...

The concept of self and the concept of god are equal in that they are both beliefs.

Your environment exist, therefore you exist. To what measure of one's environment does he owe up to? His entire environment. Every tangle facet of his surroundings becomes him. There is no air, there is no computer desk, it is all interpreted signals into one's cognition. Do colours in fact exist? No. Everything you perceive to be reality is affinate of you alone. Every element encountered is incorporated into your conceptual grand design of things. how do you know you exist? because you experience; because your perception does exist.

One axiom we can take without question is: perception is

the comparison of God is out of place. God is the immeasurable naught; Self is the indefinitely measurable ens.

0 Replies

Cyracuz,

You are having good fun here !

The straw man is "proof". "Existence" does not depend on it.

0 Replies

Nothing really depends on proof. Understanding and what qualifies as fact depends on proof. Aside from that, proof is something a sentient mind requires to feel better about itself...

But I do not mean prove "existence". I mean prove the existence of this notion called "self" as something independent from it's surroundings.

0 Replies

....the problem (as before) is that concepts "exist" merely by common agreement. The way to errode the boudaries of a concept like "self" is point out the tempral inconsistencies embodied in it....its committee nature....its nocturnal disappearance,etc., which may interfere with its functionality in certain circumstances.

0 Replies

Cyracuz wrote:

Nothing really depends on proof. Understanding and what qualifies as fact depends on proof.

Make up your mind.

If you can prove that it exists, that is. Laughing

0 Replies

fresco

Those things you mention are the things I discovered about the self when I tried to define it. When I tried to prove it's viability as a concept..

0 Replies

Cyracuz wrote:

fresco

Those things you mention are the things I discovered about the self when I tried to define it. When I tried to prove it's viability as a concept..

Under one interpretation of things, self is simply the area of reality we derive focus of our conscious from. Self is not necessarily separable from it's environment in the idea it is limited by a finite boundary; it still functions as the perceptual epicentre for a collective activity. (self = focused environment).

Self analysis is elusive and ambiguous at best. Self exists beyond conceptual reach (for the main reason that, once you understand "self", the concept is incorporated into its workings, thus evolving it beyond its original premise)

0 Replies

Do I exist?

what can I say? if I dont exist it would be a problem because who wrote this post then?

if we gota separate ourselves from our enviroment to exist then my computer doesn't exist!

0 Replies

A better question that: "Does god exist"

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know