Nothing is created

@Rickoshay75,

I agree. We only have the ability to "create" by meshing together many things that we've already experienced.

Sort of like, you can't create a new color, because the mind is not capable of experiencing it.

2 Replies

@Shionyx,

I agree too. There is no Creator in the theological sense. An old Jehova's Witness came to my door one day with what appeared to be his elderly wife and young great grand daughter. When I told him I was not a believer he asked what he thought was the rhetorical question: But you DO believe you were created, don't you? Not wanting to embarrass him in front of the child I saidl with as humble a voice as I could fake, "I think I grew like a tree; I don't think I was made (created) like a house. He thanked me and left.
But there is also no creator in the non-theological mundane sense: I don't create my paintings. They simply emerge (sometimes quickly and easily, and sometimes very slowly and laboriously) on the easle before my eyes. Of course, I apply the paint with a brush, but this description of the subject ("I") applying paint on the canvas ("object") is phrased as such because of overwhelming grammatical convention. There is no actual ontological distinction between the subject ("creator") and object ("creation"), only a wonderous unitary process of Emergent Reality.

1 Reply

@Shionyx,

I agree too. There is no Creator in the theological sense. An old Jehova's Witness came to my door one day with what appeared to be his elderly wife and young great grand daughter. When I told him I was not a believer he asked what he thought was the rhetorical question: But you DO believe you were created, don't you? Not wanting to embarrass him in front of the child I saidl with as humble a voice as I could fake, "I think I grew like a tree; I don't think I was made (created) like a house. He thanked me and left.
But there is also no creator in the non-theological mundane sense: I don't create my paintings. They simply emerge (sometimes quickly and easily, and sometimes very slowly and laboriously) on the easle before my eyes. Of course, I apply the paint with a brush, but this description of the subject ("I") applying paint on the canvas ("object") is phrased as such because of overwhelming grammatical convention. There is no actual ontological distinction between the subject ("creator") and object ("creation"), only a wonderous unitary process of Emergent Reality.

0 Replies

we create nothing

we discover everything

2 Replies

@north,

On the other hand, when I encounter something, I interpret its meaning; it doesn't come with meaning. We confer meaning upon it. I should stress that we do that as members of a meaning creating and conferring culture. We create our world inter-subjectively with other people.

1 Reply

@JLNobody,

JLNobody wrote:

On the other hand, when I encounter something, I interpret its meaning; it doesn't come with meaning. We confer meaning upon it.

sure , but when " confer " a meaning its a natural thing other wise we would have no starting point on which to start to learn about it ( assuming when you mean confer you mean giving a property or characteristic to something or someone )

Quote:

I should stress that we do that as members of a meaning creating and conferring culture. We create our world inter-subjectively with other people.

I see your point

by my point is that this " meaning " that you think you create is really a discovery of a possiblity that was already there

1 Reply

@north,

And I see your point. "the discovery of a possibility that was already there" does refer to the fact that we cannot define everything in a completely free manner. Our interpretative process is limited by the world as we engage it.

3 Replies

@JLNobody,

JLNobody wrote:

And I see your point. "the discovery of a possibility that was already there" does refer to the fact that we cannot define everything in a completely free manner. Our interpretative process is limited by the world as we engage it.

yes

which limits our discovery of certain things and therefore our knowledge of the world

0 Replies

@JLNobody,

The only thing I don´t understand is the use of the term "completely" here...it leaves the impression that you did n ´t get it at all...
(not to pick on you I am just curious on what you meant)

...to my reasoning whatever is truly possible is done, or not possible at all...(this was one of my major disagreements with Kennethamy long time ago) I don´t use the word "possible" epistemologically to describe what I can or cannot know from what I suppose might happen but quite literally for whatever is the case that comes to be fulfilled in the future...while some things certainly look possible, they are n´t, once we lack crucial information on why they won´t, and we speculatively super impose that they are possible while not certain, just as in the same sense as others that look improbable eventually and surprisingly come to happen for the same lack of control we super impose they impossibility...probable or improbable don´t mean or apply to the same object as possible or impossible, and to my seeing chance as nothing to do with it, whether something is possible or not, is not a problem on what we can know but a problem on what will be the case...(its not about us)

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

...the word (possible) onto itself is dubious on what it addresses because it claims truth and uncertainty simultaneously...those who know me from the old forum must well remember my issues with the word and its common usage...it casts confusion and a shadow upon the very meaning of Truth !
(...One thing about truth that always should be present on the back of ours heads its that its Eternal ! )

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

further must be clarified that such confusion arises by not distinguishing that the usage of the word epistemologically targets not any particular event but rather the typology or the class of an event which did already was observed happening in the world...while for some the usage of the word should target particular events as it seams, grammatically speaking, it intends to...

0 Replies

@north,

north wrote:

we create nothing

we discover everything

Yeah, but we still have a long way to go.

0 Replies

@JLNobody,

Quote:

There is no Creator in the theological sense.

You know this for a fact...or is it a guess?

If you know it for a fact...would you explain how you know it.

(I hope the explanation is better than the explanation a friend recently gave me for how he knows for a fact that a GOD exists.)

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

I don't know this "for a fact". I "believe" it in the total absence of any evidence to the contrary. Remember, my atheism is not a belief; it is the absence of a theistic belief. I simply--as I use to tell you--manifest a "soft" non-ideological atheism in the passive form of turning away from it. I do not advocate a "hard" ideological atheism which believes in a No-God and worships Him as do the professional atheists of our day.

1 Reply

I agree with the idea that we create nothing. Humans are limited by our biology and senses as to what we can "discover." All knowledge is based on learning, and the limits of life spans and environment are all we can achieve. That man is able to record history is our advantage over other life forms.

0 Replies

@JLNobody,

Quote:

I don't know this "for a fact". I "believe" it in the total absence of any evidence to the contrary. Remember, my atheism is not a belief; it is the absence of a theistic belief.

In other words, it is a belief that is not a belief????

And how would you recognize "evidence to the contrary?"

Quote:

I simply--as I use to tell you--manifest a "soft" non-ideological atheism in the passive form of turning away from it. I do not advocate a "hard" ideological atheism which believes in a No-God and worships Him as do the professional atheists of our day.

Not even sure what that means, but it appears to be a belief.

1 Reply

@JLNobody,

JLNobody wrote:

And I see your point. "the discovery of a possibility that was already there" does refer to the fact that we cannot define everything in a completely free manner. Our interpretative process is limited by the world as we engage it.

Dictionaries and encyclopedias are our only records of things we know, things we don't know, and the extent of our recorded knowledge. That doesn't mean they are books of fact, only that they are the conventional interpretations of facts.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

I don't know why I bother, Frank, but if I tell you that you should BELIEVE that there is a three-headed dragon hiding from all humans would you just ignore this insanity or would you declare yourself a "believer" in the non-existence of three-headed dragons? Drunk

2 Replies

@JLNobody,

Quote:

I don't know why I bother, Frank, but if I tell you that you should BELIEVE that there is a three-headed dragon hiding from all humans would you just ignore this insanity or would you declare yourself a "believer" in the non-existence of three-headed dragons?

I would tell you I do not do "believing."

3 Replies

Nothing is created

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know