Get Email Updates • Email this Topic • Print this Page
Bhaktajan;102015 wrote:All that is taught should not be learned, but when systems teach they teach the system... When forms teach they teach the form, and etc...This statement is semantics for poetry's sake.
Reality is not all about "Conceive-ablity". Reality is taught and learned via a chain-of-command. That is commonly called, the 'Educational System'.
Quote:If you apply for a job with resume in hand to one of countless Businesses listed in the Telephone Books' pages . . . "Personal Conceptions of Reality" will not be enough to get the job [except maybe in graphic novels ---yet the initiative to do such work does require mastery of self-marketing to an agree-able clientele for a cost that reflects the continent's acceptablly respected, regarded, and universally recognised, albeit fluxuating cash price] to pay the landlord the going rate. That's reality by any other name.
A job is just one aspect of life...If your personal conception of reality does not conform to the general conception of reality, people will not only not hire you, but will try to throw a net over you...The object is to keep ones mind free even while conforming ones behavior to an accepted norm... It is possible that Aristippus broke with far many more norms than Socrates, but the norms Socrates attacked were considered more sacred, and he simply was no as cool as Aristippus... Aristippus did or said something and everyone wished they had his wit...With Socrates, people just shook their heads and bidded their time, and let him hang himself with his tongue...
Quote:
Yes. You have the same as I and the same as any common person anywhere!
Omniscient, all-powerfull, eternal, the first-person, creator of the cosmos, the primeval spirit source of all the aggregate elements of matter and energy, the supreme soul and source of all avatara(s), the richest, the most famous, strongest, most beautiful, the most intelligent and the most renounced, . . . but, what OUR Knowledge may not be privy to, abd this may cause much personal consternation for the mundanely engaged instant-sense-gratifier types who live a life without much reason to surrender to haplessness, is . . . God, by definition [weather we have direct or indirect or very bad or very aboriginal teachers], is, with His own name, fame, form, personality, paraphenalia, entourage and pastimes in His own abode which we are seperate from while living in a "world of forms" ---a world that reflects a state where "Forms are all in their primeval relation to the FIRST FORM, God".
What ever God may be if be he may, is beyond human conception... We must believe the prophets of God revealed, or deny the ability of ourselves to know, and to define with our concepts the nature of The God... Does that sound too suffi of me???People are inclined to believe, and there may be no cure for that, and we know that the more ignorant a person is the more inclined they are to faith...Do we need God to be moral??? Only in a particular sense is this true...Does the acceptence of the being of God make anyone more moral??? How many believers have killed believers using any excuse and the greatest cruelty??? I want to be clear here... I see that your understanding of forms is old, metaphysical, and out dated...Believing all imperfect examples were created with the blue print of the perfect form by the perfect form of being is wrong, and crazy... Forms exist only in our minds, but through them we can share all experience...In a sense, all forms are perfect, and no example fits perfectly into its form... So what??? As a mental device, an idea would have no use if it were not perfect.....We know our dogs are not the perfect dog because such absolutes only exist as quasi forms or concepts; but the presumption that it is perfect because god created all imperfection with an idea of perfection cannot possibly be defended...
Quote:
We just DO NOT claim to agree on why He ignores us so much. Especially when we want something we saw in a shop window.
If I were to suggest a possibility it would be this: If we desire what we need not, it is not The God we desire.........
This is bogus. Reality is Real. Real things must pass with time, during which transition, a person along with other persons make use of 'The Ten-Thousand Things' for a purpose that rises to the level of "refined-Culture".
The Gladiators lot in life was a benefit for the running of civil life for the labor classes.
Working systems are always greased with nasty lard-like sub-systems . . . get used to it and rise to your level and assume the position and perform your part self-lessly for the good of the whole and for the cultivation of future positions in civic life weather in the material world, heavenly world, or the transcendant abodes or even if, at best, for the future camaraderie of the sub-human/sub-terranian/sub-mariner's schools of fish.
"Absolute Zero" indicates/defines/verbalises/points to/is an onomatopoeic term/numerical standard of measurement/bench-mark/a zero sum quanity . . . of NOTHING-NESS.
NOTHING-NESS is Absolute. The world is constructed of Absolutes. The construct of the Cosmos are predicated upon absolutes. The plumbing in your Bathroom is predicated upon absolute principles. Chemical reactions are predicated upon absolute responses.
Inter-personal Affairs are predicated upon absolutes ---that one MAY OR MAY NOT be privy to thus one MAY OR MAY NOT garner the same fruits of enjoyment as an other person may be entitiled to as a reward for services rendered.
First I shall start with the three laws of thermodynamics.
1. First law of thermodynamics mandates the conservation of energy.
2. The second law of thermodynamics, which states that the entropy of an isolated macroscopic system never decreases, or (equivalently) that perpetual motion machines are impossible.
3. The third law of thermodynamics, which concerns the entropy of a perfect crystal at absolute zero temperature, and implies that it is impossible to cool a system all the way to exactly absolute zero.
So by this law, or thus proven and has not been disproven thus far, matter cannot be created. If God had created the earth from energy that had never previously been in existence, he could not have. The earth had been created billions of years ago, but as we observe daily, light and matter from distant stars that lived billions of years ago, follow the same rules of basic physics that still exist today. So, we can therefore state that any creation of the world from nothing, was physically and theoretically impossible.
No offense, but this is one of the most ridiculous theories I've ever heard.
I believe in what I call "God", and I have no knowledge nor care about the origin of the world.
Nevertheless, I find many obvious flaws in your arguments:
1) You quote the "Laws of Thermodynamics" as if they were absolute truth.
Where would your argument have been before these "laws" existed?
Also, why do you accept these "laws" as true? -- If you do so because they are widely accepted, that's a logical fallacy: Argument From Consensus.
2) You state: "So by this law, or thus proven and has not been disproven thus far, matter cannot be created." -- This goes back to my first argument: you're acting as if human theory is absolute.
Is it absolute? -- If so, I'd love to hear your argument to this effect.
He never made that claim. The usage is to point towards observational evidence. Why ignore something in which we can rely upon? If the math makes predictions for certain outcomes then it in fact can be relied upon. Therefore the theory of thermal dynamics is something by which our reality can use as tool. It would never be considered absolute truth, instead you gave it that title.
The laws of thermal dynamics have existed before they were observed. We didn't invent the laws, they are a reflection of what we understand to be reality. Maybe you think they were made up, but if that is the case, you would be mistaken.
It is a logical fallacy to accept something because it is widely accepted? Are you serious? Then pretty much all things are logical fallacies. Because I can't think of any single thing that isn't widely accepted in some way. The names of colors must also be a logical fallacy, huh, go figure.
If you truly want to use this as an argument then all arguments you make are subject to this statement you made.
If human theory (what ever that is) is not absolute then nothing you believe could be absolute.
So are you sure you want to play this game?
I think you are already convinced that people think theories are absolute. But that shouldn't have even been the case here since you completely ignored what he was pointing out with the laws of thermal dynamics.
If matter can not be destroyed then it also can not be created. You can't create something that can not be destroyed.
Matter is only exchangeable but maybe you empower your god to have the ability to craft the non-destructible.
We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly- Joseph Smith
The Articles Of Faith
I can't stand all this science crap anymore. We still can't cure the common cold yet we are debating this! There is such a low probability that earth was not created by god. Think about this. Life needs a very precise list of things to survive. now it just so happens there are massive pools of these things every were (water) and it literly falls out of the sky. Something as complicated as the universe is to complecated to just create itself. Also think about this. Photosynthesis and resperation are processes that complement eachother. like gears. When they start spinning they spin eachother kind of. but gears must be set in place and spun. They can't just start spinning.
I can't stand all this science crap anymore. We still can't cure the common cold yet we are debating this! There is such a low probability that earth was not created by god. Think about this. Life needs a very precise list of things to survive. now it just so happens there are massive pools of these things every were (water) and it literly falls out of the sky. Something as complicated as the universe is to complecated to just create itself. Also think about this. Photosynthesis and resperation are processes that complement eachother. like gears. When they start spinning they spin eachother kind of. but gears must be set in place and spun. They can't just start spinning.
