Truth

@Permafrost,

"Knowledge is also the antithesis of God"

I dont think so

My opinion: Knowledge is also the antithesis of archetype of "God"

---------- Post added 03-29-2010 at 01:42 PM ----------

What this - true?

Truly only that exists.

@Permafrost,

There is no difference between "God" and "archetype of God". Both are concepts, ideas or things. We cannot refer to, or experience, an entity that is beyond experience (i.e. experience the metaphysical). To experience that which cannot be experienced is precisely a mystical experience. Funnily enough, that ultimately sums up the ENTIRE human experience. This universe cannot be but it is. Let's call a spade a spade, that's my point. Let's be honest.

@Permafrost,

Human experience. O.K. The Universe exists, we know from experience.

@Permafrost,

That experience itself is suspect.

@Permafrost,

word "transcendental" is not correct.

---------- Post added 03-29-2010 at 02:02 PM ----------

'That experience itself is suspect'.

Aha! Why? for example...?

---------- Post added 03-29-2010 at 02:16 PM ----------

Americans and all german nations believe in "human rights" too literally.
It is impossible to equate patients and odd fellows to usual people. The perception and experience of different people aren't equivalent. If work of one costs more expensively than work of another why not to assume, what experience of one - is more expensive than experience of other person? Experience of the best people also is Culture. Unless isn't present?

@Marat phil,

Because of the impossibility yet reality of knowledge. This thread began with a rigorous explanation of this fact. Go and read it. You're going off on a tangent. This is not about different points of views. It is about what is at the root of ALL different kinds of world views.

@Permafrost,

Permafrost;145690 wrote:

There is no difference between "God" and "archetype of God". Both are concepts, ideas or things. We cannot refer to, or experience, an entity that is beyond experience (i.e. experience the metaphysical). To experience that which cannot be experienced is precisely a mystical experience. Funnily enough, that ultimately sums up the ENTIRE human experience. This universe cannot be but it is. Let's call a spade a spade, that's my point. Let's be honest.

If God exists, then God is not a concept. No more than if elephants exist are elephant concepts. Let's call a concept a concept, but not what is not a concept, a concept too.

---------- Post added 03-29-2010 at 04:18 PM ----------

Marat;145695 wrote:

word "transcendental" is not correct.

---------- Post added 03-29-2010 at 02:02 PM ----------

'That experience itself is suspect'.

Aha! Why? for example...?

---------- Post added 03-29-2010 at 02:16 PM ----------

Americans and all german nations believe in "human rights" too literally.
It is impossible to equate patients and odd fellows to usual people. The perception and experience of different people aren't equivalent. If work of one costs more expensively than work of another why not to assume, what experience of one - is more expensive than experience of other person? Experience of the best people also is Culture. Unless isn't present?

And how, then, should we allocate human rights? By what principle? (Except for personal preference by someone who is influential)? Who are "the best people", and how is it to be decided?

---------- Post added 03-29-2010 at 04:19 PM ----------

Permafrost;145732 wrote:

Because of the impossibility yet reality of knowledge. This thread began with a rigorous explanation of this fact. Go and read it. You're going off on a tangent. This is not about different points of views. It is about what is at the root of ALL different kinds of world views.

How could something be both impossible and still real?

@kennethamy,

I didn't say God is an idea only. Stop putting words in my mouth. I said God exists as an [erroneous] idea or a [illusory] thing at least. But God as a supreme metaphysical being is nonsense for it is then, by definition, something beyond experience, something we cannot know. To pretend to to talk about something that we literally cannot talk about is madness.

---------- Post added 03-29-2010 at 03:44 PM ----------

"How could something be both impossible and still real?"

Precisely. It can't be that way. But on the face of the facts explained in my initial post, it is. Hence the illusory nature of the universe and everything that we think we know.

@Permafrost,

Permafrost;145757 wrote:

I didn't say God is an idea only. Stop putting words in my mouth. I said God exists as an [erroneous] idea or a [illusory] thing at least. But God as a supreme metaphysical being is nonsense for it is then, by definition, something beyond experience, something we cannot know. To pretend to to talk about something that we literally cannot talk about is madness.

Well, that is, of course your view. So, I suppose that what you want to say is that although there is the concept of God, there is no God (like, although there is the concept of unicorn, there are no unicorns). Fine, so, what else do you want to say about that? That the concept of God is "erroneous". Don't you just mean that, as I just said, there is a concept of God, but no God? Isn't that what you mean by saying that the concept of God is erroneous. If not, then what do you mean (or maybe, what else do you mean)?

@Permafrost,

Permafrost;145757 wrote:

I didn't say God is an idea only. Stop putting words in my mouth. I said God exists as an [erroneous] idea or a [illusory] thing at least. But God as a supreme metaphysical being is nonsense for it is then, by definition, something beyond experience, something we cannot know. To pretend to to talk about something that we literally cannot talk about is madness.

[CENTER]:bigsmile:
[/CENTER]

[CENTER]Not all madnessis in-sane. Mass is maddness; specialy with X-mas. Ask Santa How to become Populair; Madison has now no answer.

I'll would want to bet...

Is Physical Church needed for Meta-BeIng ? If Yes; how many ?
Where U want to put Church ? U mind Mosque in same Building ?

I think putting complex labels does't solve the business. As long as I, Pepijn, still enjoy people in the street, trust my transactions and is Muslim, feel save I am happy. I want to be gratefull for this happiness and I thank my community first of all.

In The Netherlands 40% of the People are "New Age", which doesn't mean they left religieus organisations. 30% of the population of my burough of Amsterdam is Muslim. First we are Amsterdammers.

The less we expect GOD to do, the more we can do together.

One for Humanity !
Kind Regards,
Pepijn Sweep
Magister PAX
[/CENTER]

@Permafrost,

Permafrost wrote:

What is knowledge and why it's impossible: Knowledge is nothing other than the belief This, not that; or only perceived discrimination between space-time events presumed to be nonidentical, without any scientific or otherwise conclusive evidence. [Knowledge is also the antithesis of God or Enlightenment for it is the fundamental rejection of monism or Unity - the principal characteristic of God or the very ideal of religion itself.] This is why:

First of all, knowledge is not only belief. It is justified belief that is true.

Second, we can have knowledge which doesn't refer to things which have spatial or temporal properties. For instance, I can know what the color red looks like, or I can know what justice is. I suppose you were thinking that we can only have knowledge which refer to things which have both spatial and temporal qualities. For instance, that the cat was on the mat at 11:00pm. But, as you know, that's not the only sort of thing we can have knowledge of.

---

So many conclusions, but I don't see much argument. But, let's start analyzing these, I suppose.

"Knowledge is a logical impossibility but it is all there is.".

Care to expound on this one? I really haven't a clue what you're getting at here.

"This world cannot be since it consists of knowledge only but it is".

This seems obviously false. The world cannot be? Well, I guess you were fooled somewhere down the line, because the world has been (for quite some time).

"We have no idea what is really going on.".

This is certainly true for some of us.

"The basic human experience consists of the fact that we do not determine a single aspect nor moment of it."

This seems obviously false, if you mean we do not choose anything by "we do not determine". I choose many things, so I'm presuming you are wrong.

@kennethamy,

This thread is about truth and reality. The other fellow made a distinction about God as a concept and God as a self-consistent reality, an extant supreme being. I said the distinction between the concept and the real thing is unfounded for we can only experience the concept of God OR something (material like thunder or Jesus) that we mistake for God -- but NOT the alleged real thing itself [a full-bodied metaphysical God as it were]. In other words, we human beings can only be talking about ideas or things that cannot be God for God is absolute, i.e. infinite and unlimited, and we're not. The lesser (us) cannot contain thus contemplate nor comprehend the ineffably greatest (God). This is merely an exercise in logic and clarity. I'm not trying to prove God's ultimate existence.

---------- Post added 03-29-2010 at 04:44 PM ----------

"First of all, knowledge is not only belief. It is justified belief that is true."

In answer, here's the relevant quote from my initial post:
"1.Before we can know something, we have to be able to distinguish it from other things it is not by pointing precisely and exclusively at its (and not something else's) space-time coordinates.
2.Before we can point to the precise and exclusive space-time coordinates of something, we have to know what it is and that necessitates knowing everything else that it is not.
3.Propositions #1 and #2 presuppose each other (i.e., neither can be realized before the other)."

When the propositions of an argument [which you formulated above as knowledge being justified belief that's true] contradict each other, that argument is not a sound argument and it's false. As my quote illustrates, knowledge presupposes itself thus knowledge is a false argument, logically speaking. It is an analytic falsehood.

You say: "we can have knowledge which doesn't refer to things which have spatial or temporal properties. For instance, I can know what the color red looks like, or I can know what justice is."

Answer: Red occupies a place (be it in your brain [physical] or mind [idea only]) that is not occupied by a concept (idea) or a neurological discharge (physical) that is not red. Ditto for justice. The basic nature of things or thoughts is not that they are ideas or material things: it is existential, whether they exist or not. Fundamentally, both ideas and things exist: existence is their common denominator. And existence itself is based on the basic yet unfounded notion of, This not that. Existence is unfounded discrimination between things or thoughts.

"Knowledge is a logical impossibility but it is all there is."

Refer to above AND your immediate experience. You exist, read and think. Yet logic says you shouldn't exist for the very building block of your existence, knowledge, is an absurd notion as per above.

You say: "...The world cannot be? Well, I guess you were fooled somewhere down the line, because the world has been (for quite some time)."

I'm saying the world is here and was here before EVEN THOUGH it shouldn't be. Refer to above.

"We have no idea what is really going on.".

You say: "This is certainly true for some of us." It is true for ALL of us. As demonstrated above.

You say: "...you mean we do not choose anything by "we do not determine". I choose many things, so I'm presuming you are wrong."

PROVE this by referring to ONE single instance of which you know where you actually decided to decide the nature of something that you decided to think or do. Are you this very moment deciding [choosing] to interpret the way you did what you just read? Yes or no.

@Permafrost,

Permafrost;145782 wrote:

This thread is about truth and reality. The other fellow made a distinction about God as a concept and God as a self-consistent reality, an extant supreme being. I said the distinction between the concept and the real thing is unfounded for we can only experience the concept of God OR something (material like thunder or Jesus) that we mistake for God -- but NOT the alleged real thing itself [a full-bodied metaphysical God as it were].

Do you think there is no distinction between the concept of a tooth fairy and a tooth fairy, also? In that case, you must believe that because a three year old has the concept of the tooth fairy, there must also be a tooth fairy. And therefore, you believe there is a tooth fairy, since a number of three year olds have the concept of the tooth fairy, In fact, come to think of it, I have the concept of the tooth fairy too!

@kennethamy,

The fellow suggests equivalency between God and a tooth fairy. God is supposed to be absolute and unlimited, there before reality itself existed, who will still be here if the universe disappeared. A tooth fairy refers to a creature with some extra-human attributes but one which still can be beheld and comprehended by the human mind, if it existed. What kind of a forum is this? I thought you were philosophers.

@Permafrost,

Permafrost;145940 wrote:

The fellow suggests equivalency between God and a tooth fairy. God is supposed to be absolute and unlimited, there before reality itself existed, who will still be here if the universe disappeared. A tooth fairy refers to a creature with some extra-human attributes but one which still can be beheld and comprehended by the human mind, if it existed. What kind of a forum is this? I thought you were philosophers.

[CENTER]:bigsmile:
So did I
However, waking Up with Permafrosted Fairies on my screen I start to Wonder...
Could a three year Old be more Righteaous than a Full Grown Lover of Sophia (not a Virgin anymore)

I ad mit. Never got through Decartes. Just glossies.

With Kind-ness
Pepijn' Sweep:letme-at-em:i.o.
[/CENTER]

@Permafrost,

"nd how, then, should we allocate human rights? By what principle? (Except for personal preference by someone who is influential)? Who are "the best people", and how is it to be decided?"

The Best people of society - is professionals. The doctor, the barman or the policeman sees the world differently, than it is arranged actually. Scientists rely not only on experience, but also on logic. It seems to the barman or any man that exists three measurements and time. It is their EXPERIENCE. But actually there is minimum 26
quantum measurements Calabi-Yau not accessible to first-hand experience. Therefore we should trust professionals, instead of private experience and ideas. It seemed long ago that Planet - flat.

@Marat phil,

[CENTER][/CENTER]

@Permafrost,

You all humans are certainly idiots!. Truth is a belief. It does not exist.

@Pepijn Sweep,

Truth is existence. To say that truth does not exist is to say that existence does not exist which is absurd.

@Permafrost,

Permafrost;145940 wrote:

The fellow suggests equivalency between God and a tooth fairy. God is supposed to be absolute and unlimited, there before reality itself existed, who will still be here if the universe disappeared. A tooth fairy refers to a creature with some extra-human attributes but one which still can be beheld and comprehended by the human mind, if it existed. What kind of a forum is this? I thought you were philosophers.

Everyone (except a three year old) believes that the concept of the tooth-fairy is only a concept. But many people (including you, I suppose) do not believe that the concept of God is only a concept.

---------- Post added 03-30-2010 at 10:53 AM ----------

pondfish;146089 wrote:

You all humans are certainly idiots!. Truth is a belief. It does not exist.

Then why are some beliefs true?

Philosophy Forum

Quick Links

My Account

able2know