Timing is everything

@Fido,

Fido;143442 wrote:

I don't know, but I will say you look foolish to me spouting off about my logical contradictions when that is my point, that no logic can apply to God,

On the contrary, YOU look foolish. If you are totally convinced God's nature is potentially contradictory from our own logical perspective (which I totally disagree with), then quit talking about God. There is no use in always stating what you know are contradictions if no one is going to grasp them anyway. What's the point? Do you just take great pleasure in asserting logical fallacies or something?:rolleyes:

Fido;143442 wrote:

that if you accept God you must accept that God is all, logic and illogic, time and space and matter, life and death and every opposite and antipod you can imagine, all the forces, and there is no reason to expect that God, if there is a God did not suffer obliteration in the process of creation

Great....more nonsense.

Fido;143442 wrote:

I can't believe it...I am an old fart sitting on my retired butt and I found some one with more time on their hands than myself... I am sorry you put so much time into a subject I rarely put even a moment into...

I don't talk about God exactly because as an infinite I can get none of my expected rules to apply...In fact it is a mistake to try to get human logic to fit nature at all because it blinds us, and in this vein I would offer a good book I am reading called Critique of Scientific Reason by Kurt Hubner... But I am not writing a book... ... There is enough of riddles within my sight, and I do not feel the need to penetrate the gloom of every infinite I encounter... I am responding only to the common conceptions I have experienced in regard to that infinite of which to speak with authority is folly, because just as I poke holes in the thoughts of others you seek to poke holes in my thoughts and when the day is won what is the prize??? Is it greater knowledge??? Dream on night train... Sorry you bit on so little bait, but I don't care; certainly not enough to read or write a book on the subject...So I guess that makes you the winner... Forgive me if I revisit and revise, and try to distill your thoughts down to some point of signifcance and reply... I don't even have the time for backspacing all you wrote...

Ha ha! Now that's pretty funny! Very Happy

I'm a philosopher by trade; it's what I do. And FYI, my post is pretty much about your misuse of technical philosophical vocabulary such as "define," "meaning," "concept," "language," and "number"--not about God or the infinite anyway. And your sloppy writing, total lack of precision, faulty generalizations, and numerous conceptual confusions are spoiling any coherent account you could even wish to give about these things. So you might find it helpful if you took your own advice and tried thinking before you write, otherwise you will only succeed in rolling conceptual nonsense off your tongue. And even if you foolishly think I am required to tolerate your errors, I guarantee I will continue to critique them.

@sometime sun,

Extrain;142800 wrote:

time=God
God=space
Therefore, time=space

This is a valid inference, but the conclusion is false. So one of your premises must be false.

all depends on what you think god is?

god is space and time sounds good to me

@Extrain,

Extrain;143463 wrote:

On the contrary, YOU look foolish. If you are totally convinced God's nature is potentially contradictory from our own logical perspective (which I totally disagree with), then quit talking about God. There is no use in always stating what you know are contradictions if no one is going to grasp them anyway. What's the point? Do you just take great pleasure in asserting logical fallacies or something?:rolleyes:

Great....more nonsense.

Ha ha! Now that's pretty funny!

I'm a philosopher by trade; it's what I do. And FYI, my post is pretty much about your misuse of technical philosophical vocabulary such as "define," "meaning," "concept," "language," and "number"--not about God or the infinite anyway. And your sloppy writing, total lack of precision, faulty generalizations, and numerous conceptual confusions are spoiling any coherent account you could even wish to give about these things. So you might find it helpful if you took your own advice and tried thinking before you write, otherwise you will only succeed in rolling conceptual nonsense off your tongue. And even if you foolishly think I am required to tolerate your errors, I guarantee I will continue to critique them.

You come across as a nasty person. You insult my friend in public. Did you study Old European Knighthoods ? That was steady morality. If U would be my teacher, I would leave school. Or rather get you fired.

You come across as a hostile person. I won't exchange pretty thoughts or ID's with U. It is funny. Even if U were Mozes himself I won't let U in to my Home. I dislike your appearence on this Forum. Maybe your here longer than me... Any how: pleurop (AMS dialect to shield of evil)

Do be nice.:devilish:

@Pepijn Sweep,

Pepijn Sweep;143469 wrote:

You come across as a nasty person. You insult my friend in public. Did you study Old European Knighthoods ? That was steady morality. If U would be my teacher, I would leave school. Or rather get you fired.

You come across as a hostile person. I won't exchange pretty thoughts or ID's with U. It is funny. Even if U were Mozes himself I won't let U in to my Home. I dislike your appearence on this Forum. Maybe your here longer than me... Any how: pleurop (AMS dialect to shield of evil)

Do be nice.:devilish:

You mistake my forthrightness and efficiency for hostility and nastiness. And your own false perception of me is not my concern.

@Extrain,

Extrain;143481 wrote:

You mistake my forthrightness and efficiency

is that what you call it?, maybe you need to check out your own perception:lol:

@Extrain,

Extrain;143481 wrote:

You mistake my forthrightness and efficiency for hostility and nastiness. And your own false perception of me is not my concern.

How can a perception be false ? May be in term of Philosophy you use it to say something is not true, but in common language it means not honest. I do not mistake you. What you see as forthrightness and efficiency I see as eager to score and not thinking of more complicated but better andwers to questions of life. You are stuck in your doctrines and it's not to me to free you from misconceptions and moral faults like rudeness and dis-respectfull behaviour.

This is a lay-platform; a pretty good one. We like it, you spoil it. You do remind me of Dr. Phil or Dr. Pill as we call him here. The mentality of 1/2 century ago, less Knowledge of a General Practitioner in GB and manners of a Cave-man. This sort of people turn my stomach, but I just switch. It's a dying breed, soon extict. Polar bear survives I hope.

Even if you ever had a lumineous Idea, you would not get support on your work a-lone. You would have allienated your co-workers and collega's and publication would be difficult. I wish you luck.

Apart from a tail I see little behavourial difference between Bush II and the lap-dog from another American Icon Paris Hilton. Doesn't it bug you that she's more famous wih 1/2 your IQ. Apparently you need more in live to be succesfull.

Pepijn Sweep's over and Out:a-thought:

@Extrain,

Extrain;143463 wrote:

On the contrary, YOU look foolish. If you are totally convinced God's nature is potentially contradictory from our own logical perspective (which I totally disagree with), then quit talking about God. There is no use in always stating what you know are contradictions if no one is going to grasp them anyway. What's the point? Do you just take great pleasure in asserting logical fallacies or something?:rolleyes:

Great....more nonsense.

Ha ha! Now that's pretty funny!

I'm a philosopher by trade; it's what I do. And FYI, my post is pretty much about your misuse of technical philosophical vocabulary such as "define," "meaning," "concept," "language," and "number"--not about God or the infinite anyway. And your sloppy writing, total lack of precision, faulty generalizations, and numerous conceptual confusions are spoiling any coherent account you could even wish to give about these things. So you might find it helpful if you took your own advice and tried thinking before you write, otherwise you will only succeed in rolling conceptual nonsense off your tongue. And even if you foolishly think I am required to tolerate your errors, I guarantee I will continue to critique them.

If you are a professional we are all in trouble...You define define... You tell me what meaning is... You tell me what concept is... You tell me what language is, and you tell me what number is...

I read philosophy, and better yet, the products and roots and branches of philosophy...I want you to tell me what you think you know, formally, and I will shine the light of understanding through them... Any one with a formal education learns the form...I know the substance... So tell me what you know...

Once more, I will tell you language preceeds number, and more than that, that the concept of one is the concept behind all number signs.. Aristotle says no less, that each number is in proportion to one, excepting zero, which in fact, is not a number sign at all -signifying nothing...But, it is because one is one, that one and one can be two; and this is contrary to the facts as they must have once seemed, yet, because conceptually all individuals are unitary and one dog is the equal, conceptually to another, that one is one...

No where but in math is one the equal of one, and the harder science looks, the less equality it can find... Two pennies are not equal, not if cut from the same sheet... Rather, equality is, like identity, a form, a social form as all forms are, and a form of relationship...

People are not equal, and yet as identities they are equal, and so it is the concept of number, based upon the single number, one, that preceeds numbers as signs... Now it is possible that people counted before writing, but I doubt that they started drawing symbols before talking, and it is possible that scratches in the dirt may have ended up in signs for numbers, but from my perspective it is hard to tell...

And it is because concepts are the essence of the thing, and because that essential quality is revealed in all primitive art from which pictographic writing descends, and, It is a presumption, but I think a fair one -that the idea preceeded the sign for the idea, and that words as signs preceeded numbers as signs because counting isn't much of an ability unless one can express what one is counting...

One must recognize identity, and every concept is an identity, and it is identity which makes counting a rational process... Does that make sense to you???Mr. Profesional thinker??? It is only perhaps in the last 3 K years that math has reached the level of an abstraction, and look at how many people still count on their fingers...

---------- Post added 03-25-2010 at 01:46 PM ----------

Extrain;143481 wrote:

You mistake my forthrightness and efficiency for hostility and nastiness. And your own false perception of me is not my concern.

I think you mistake your hostility and nastiness for forthrightness and efficiency... You might ask yourself why so many philosophers have been such failures at interpersonal relationships, especially with women... Hegal was married, and damned near slavish to the Prussian State... Kant who was a much better thinker than most in his time was all but neglected by the same state...Just look at how many of them could not manage a simple loving relationship...Maybe they were just too efficient... What does your girl friend think of your efficiency???

@Pepijn Sweep,

Pepijn Sweep;143513 wrote:

How can a perception be false?

The same way a stick appearing to be bent in a glass of water is mistaken. You are certainly free to believe your own perceptions are infallible unlike the rest of us, but you'd be an incredibly egotistical fool if you did.
[QUOTE=Pepijn Sweep;143513] May be in term of Philosophy you use it to say something is not true, but in common language it means not honest. I do not mistake you. What you see as forthrightness and efficiency I see as eager to score and not thinking of more complicated but better andwers to questions of life. [/quote]
Considering I am not the one making all these nonsensical and lazy-minded assertions about these deep philosophical topics like the rest of you, but pausing to actually critically think about the seriousness of these philosophical (life) questions, it is difficult to see your point.

[QUOTE=Pepijn Sweep;143513]You are stuck in your doctrines and it's not to me to free you from misconceptions and moral faults like rudeness and dis-respectfull behaviour.[/QUOTE]

What doctrines? And what misconceptions? Now you are actually inventing your own perceptions of me. You need your own reality check.

[QUOTE=Pepijn Sweep;143513]This is a lay-platform; a pretty good one. We like it, you spoil it.[/QUOTE]

Oh, I get it. You lay folk reserve the right not to be challenged by an actual practicing philosopher such as myself because we spoil your own ignorance when we perform a critical analysis on the conceptual trainwrecks you leave behind on these forums. Sorry, but that's not how philosophy actually works; nor is your continued failure to use your own critical thinking capacities (assuming you actually have them) my problem.

[QUOTE=Pepijn Sweep;143513]You do remind me of Dr. Phil or Dr. Pill as we call him here. The mentality of 1/2 century ago, less Knowledge of a General Practitioner in GB and manners of a Cave-man. This sort of people turn my stomach, but I just switch. It's a dying breed, soon extict. Polar bear survives I hope.[/QUOTE][QUOTE=Pepijn Sweep;143513]
Apart from a tail I see little behavourial difference between Bush II and the lap-dog from another American Icon Paris Hilton. Doesn't it bug you that she's more famous wih 1/2 your IQ. Apparently you need more in live to be succesfull.
[/QUOTE]

Wow! LOL! Listen to you go! In spite of your egotistical self-appointed moral high-ground, you sure pass a lot of judgments about me, pal. Your own position stinks of outright moral hypocracy. You might try a little of your own self-introspection before you incriminate my failure to observe your soft underbellied politically-correct standards.

[QUOTE=Pepijn Sweep;143513]Even if you ever had a lumineous Idea, you would not get support on your work a-lone. You would have allienated your co-workers and collega's and publication would be difficult. I wish you luck.[/QUOTE]

You haven't the slightest clue what the environment looks like in my academic department. We would all laugh at you for nit-picking forum trivilities like a little ol' house-wife who never gets out much. Lol!

---------- Post added 03-25-2010 at 12:26 PM ----------

I'm outta here. The three of you have no interest in engaging in actual philosophy, with zero intentions of maintaining your own intellectual integrity with respect to logical consistency, linguistic precision, and conceptual coherence; nor do any of you have any interest in imparting or advancing a further genuine understanding of the subject matter at all because you stubbornly insist on maintaining your invented incoherent conceptual frameworks whose distinctions no respectable philosopher would maintain anyway.

You belong on a post-modern site discussing how colors are truth, God is a narrative, people are concepts, and words are chickens--not on a philosophy forum. I refer you to where you will feel more at home. The title is fitting too.

The Postmodernism Generator Communications From Elsewhere

@sometime sun,

Well, Ironwork was my trade, and If I had ever given up so easily as you I would have starved to death... Look at how many times Plato swung his hammer, covering almost every subject... What have you done Mr. Extrain philosopher by trade...I am still waiting on some definitions... Did you lose your dictionary???

@sometime sun,

maybe he should read the definition of 'lounge'...and why stop there, how about 'general' and 'discussion'....

@sometime sun,

Hey; Salima is back!!! How you doing???

@Fido,

[CENTER]:bigsmile:
So I am a moral hypo-crat; does that mean I belang to the ruling Hypo-cratic Party, that I'm the Minister of Morals ?

Well, i'm trained for that. Won't be doing any-thing with it because I dis-like leaving home to make an Income.

I am definitely not lazy; I call it smart management of resourses. Who's doing your dark Laundery to-day ?

What can be a 'deep' question for you, might be utterly boring to most of us. Luckily All have own threads.

I just don't think the name of this thread is correct any-More.

Pepijn Sweep's Q a-way
[/CENTER]

@Fido,

Fido;143867 wrote:

Hey; Salima is back!!! How you doing???

recovering slowly but surely...and you? :bigsmile:

@salima,

salima;144013 wrote:

recovering slowly but surely...and you? :bigsmile:

Hit and run, as Extrain could tell you... I have time to say it and not much time to defend it... Which was hardly fair to him... But if he was a philosopher by trade, he should be able to figure some things out for his own self...Glad you are back...

@sometime sun,

Very interesting sometimes sun...I think of time as something man made up so as not to confuse the masses about "when"....I also think of God as something the masses made up as to not confuse "who/what"....they do have the being made up by man thing in common.

Lost1

@sometime sun,

actually i am convinced there isnt any time at all-only eternity. i dont know about space. maybe space is automatic when there are things, they have to take up space. even if space is infinite, it has to be there. time, on the other hand, is a totally made up concept. maybe that is why i never get jet lag problems.

@sometime sun,

Time is life and life is God...

Salima, there is no way to reckon space except by time, no measuring tape, only how long it takes in a constant like time... Yet we all know time is not a constant except when devices are created to make it seem so, and even the speed of the earth and the time of a day is always changing... And just as space is time, time is space, as if only time keeps things apart,,,

@Fido,

Fido;144600 wrote:

Time is life and life is God...

Salima, there is no way to reckon space except by time, no measuring tape, only how long it takes in a constant like time... Yet we all know time is not a constant except when devices are created to make it seem so, and even the speed of the earth and the time of a day is always changing... And just as space is time, time is space, as if only time keeps things apart,,,

god is everything that is and everything that is not...we know that (us two)

practically speaking, there is no way to reckon anything anyway is there? but if you say time and space are the same thing, that is ok with me. there is a name for it, the time/space continuum, and maybe that is the same thing as eternity-time and space all rolled into one. call it creation even...or maybe more aptly put, the name of where creation is located.

@sometime sun,

Regardless of the goal, the time to get there is what matters...How far is it??? Walking? By Jet??? On a beam of light??? Distance, space, is time, and what is time apart from space??? What is a year but distance, and without a year, what is a day, an hour, or a minute???

@Fido,

Fido;144628 wrote:

Regardless of the goal, the time to get there is what matters...How far is it??? Walking? By Jet??? On a beam of light??? Distance, space, is time, and what is time apart from space??? What is a year but distance, and without a year, what is a day, an hour, or a minute???

I changed the time involved in the firsy place. I try to make the trip pleasent within my finacials and promises made to people. I rather be 1/2 houre early than a minute late. A Tell in some languages.

Or a second counts I doubt. It is infinitely small. Sometime 59 seconds is long; holding U;R breath p.e.

Pepijn V/d BS Sweeps:brickwall:

Philosophy Forum

Timing is everything

Quick Links

My Account

able2know