JPLosman0711
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 Apr, 2012 09:11 am
@Cyracuz,
I only speak of what I know, of course that should be obvious. How could I even speak of something which I didn't know?

Your being stuck on this should be all the evidence you need.

PS: Admitting(to yourself) that you don't know what you're talking about is beneficial!
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 Apr, 2012 09:54 am
@JPLosman0711,
It's also obvious to most of us that you are unawares of your protagonist, JLN.
0 Replies
 
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 Apr, 2012 09:59 am
@JPLosman0711,
Quote:
PS: Admitting(to yourself) that you don't know what you're talking about is beneficial!


It always cracks me up when people give advice they clearly don't follow themselves. Good advice though.
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 Apr, 2012 06:03 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Yes, I'm always aware of that dynamic. Have you noticed how rarely I attack the individual in a debate?
But thanks for the reminder.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 Apr, 2012 06:17 pm
@JLNobody,
Don't mention it. Mr. Green
JPLosman0711
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 Apr, 2012 07:50 pm
@cicerone imposter,
I think I see a spot on his shirt, why don't you get that while you're at it?
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 Apr, 2012 07:52 pm
@JPLosman0711,
Since you're the one who sees the "spot," why don't you "get it?"
0 Replies
 
JDSNZ141
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 Apr, 2012 07:59 pm
@CarolA,
Everything is in existence because we want it to be.

Our purpose is to absorb information, to experience reality, to grow and evolve. Our consciousness is unbiased, does not feel hate or love, it only craves experiences and information.

Though the ultimate goal eludes me, not knowing it is what keeps me learning.
JLNobody
 
  3  
Reply Sat 21 Apr, 2012 10:34 pm
Messier3184 and JDSNZ141, welcome to A2K. You've both made interesting and provocative statements. Hope to hear more from you.
0 Replies
 
JPLosman0711
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 Apr, 2012 08:27 am
@JDSNZ141,
You said:

"Everything is in existence because we want it to be."

First of all, there are no 'things', nor is there any 'existence' for them all to be 'contained' somehow there-in. Also, there isn't anyone who could 'want' them to be there. There is only you, Be-ing.

You also said:

"Our purpose is to absorb information, to experience reality, to grow and evolve. Our consciousness is unbiased, does not feel hate or love, it only craves experiences and information."

There is no 'purpose', that's a word you use when you are trying to prove to yourself and others your own point-of-view. 'Purpose' is just a word, a word which YOU have derived from you, the same from which this word had been derived is its subsequent 'proof'. Same goes for 'reality'. You cannot 'grow' or 'evolve' into that-which you already are, that's like telling a cow to become a cow, ridiculous. Your last sentence is semi-accurate, however I am disgusted by your choice of words.

Using words like 'our consciousness' only abstracts the statement which you are trying to get across. You also use words like these because you know they are familiar and will be 'acceptable' to most who read them(in other words, you're selling out).

Again, there is only you, Be-ing.

Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 Apr, 2012 09:17 am
@JPLosman0711,
Quote:
First of all, there are no 'things', nor is there any 'existence' for them all to be 'contained' somehow there-in. Also, there isn't anyone who could 'want' them to be there. There is only you, Be-ing.


This is consistent with a statement like "Everything is in existence because we want it to be."

JPLosman0711
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 Apr, 2012 09:36 am
@Cyracuz,
No, actually, it isn't.
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 Apr, 2012 09:53 am
@JPLosman0711,
Care to elaborate on that?
JPLosman0711
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 Apr, 2012 10:18 am
@Cyracuz,
The plaintiff has the burden of proof, not the defendant.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 Apr, 2012 11:07 am
@JPLosman0711,
Actually, the prosecution and defense must prove their case; it's a two-sided affair. That's the reason it's called a 'trial.'
JPLosman0711
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 Apr, 2012 11:24 am
@cicerone imposter,
Only in criminal cases, besides, I wasn't aware that anyone here was 'on trial'.
0 Replies
 
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 Apr, 2012 12:06 pm
@JPLosman0711,
Quote:
The plaintiff has the burden of proof, not the defendant.


This is not a trial. It is not a competition. We are not adversaries or enemies. There is no judge. You should be grateful for this.

Quote:
Only in criminal cases, besides, I wasn't aware that anyone here was 'on trial'.


You insinuated that someone is on trial by calling up the imagery.
JPLosman0711
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 Apr, 2012 12:32 pm
@Cyracuz,
The only thing I meant by my original statement is that YOU are the one who 'called me out' by saying I said something which simultaneously proved with the 'sham' of dis-proving that "Everything in existence is there because we want it to be."

What are your grounds for this assumption? You did not make it clear in your original post.
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 Apr, 2012 01:25 pm
@JPLosman0711,
I understand the statement "Everything in existence is there because we want it to be" as saying that everything we know is a matter of defining our perceptions.
JPLosman0711
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 Apr, 2012 01:40 pm
@Cyracuz,
I think of perception to be something which is more 'automatic', all that there is to do is to 'think' about them or not.
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
DOES NOTHING EXIST??? - Question by mark noble
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
Copyright © 2017 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 10/23/2017 at 02:34:02