Olaf Doschke
Programmer
Hi folks!
This is a fun puzzle. What is this picture showing?
Bye, Olaf.
This is a fun puzzle. What is this picture showing?
Bye, Olaf.
Tek-Tips is the largest IT community on the Internet today!
Members share and learn making Tek-Tips Forums the best source of peer-reviewed technical information on the Internet!
-
Congratulations Mike Lewis on being selected by the Tek-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!
riddle picture 2
- Thread starter Olaf Doschke
- Start date
- Status
You didn't understand the question.
I didn't ask to define something based on whether or not you can prove (or believe) if it really exists.
Prove the "Big Bang" as not being just theory.
You cannot, but you can still define the theory, though with some variations even if basically the same.
You are throwing out an opinion as being fact. Because you calling the non-existence of a God as being fact, with-out giving facts. Therefore I will say this:
You must first be able to prove that God, or anything, doesn't exist in order to make this type of assumption (that it is non-existent) out as a fact, and before refuting those which do believe it.
We always here people talking about "those religious nuts who believe in something they cannot prove", and that they are so intolerant with their belief.
But you know what, those who say these things about others, and who make the opposite claims are then just as nuts and intolerant, probably then even more.
Therefore, this (non-existence) is just an opinion, because you have no facts for this type of claim. You cannot prove it.
If it is a theory, then define it, or say so. If it is just an opinion, or if you are also one those who (quoting you) "...choose to believe in despite there being no actual proof", then say that you also believe this only by your "faith" or opinion.
Well, as far as I'm concerned, there is a totality of all that exists that I call God or love or the universe or the Tao or whatever. I'm not separate or different from it. Nor have I any desire to prove or disprove this position. It is either true or not true, independent of what any of us may believe; a leaf does not have to believe in photosynthesis to be green, after all.
In the end, my point of view gives me the opportunity to embrace the corollary fact of my divinity. That opportunity pleases me (or perhaps frightens me less than alternative points of view), and in the end that is the only reason any of us really adopt any point of view that is unprovable. Which, of course, all points of view that use logic that is based upon assumptions that are themselves arguable are.
Bob
In the end, my point of view gives me the opportunity to embrace the corollary fact of my divinity. That opportunity pleases me (or perhaps frightens me less than alternative points of view), and in the end that is the only reason any of us really adopt any point of view that is unprovable. Which, of course, all points of view that use logic that is based upon assumptions that are themselves arguable are.
Bob
CajunCenturion
Programmer
==> Well, as far as I'm concerned, there is a totality of all that exists that I call God or love or the universe or the Tao or whatever.
Is it fair to say that you define the universe to more than that which exists physically? That the universe includes things beyond human comprehension?
--------------
Good Luck
To get the most from your Tek-Tips experience, please read FAQ181-2886
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein
Is it fair to say that you define the universe to more than that which exists physically? That the universe includes things beyond human comprehension?
--------------
Good Luck
To get the most from your Tek-Tips experience, please read FAQ181-2886
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein
I would say that I could definitvely answer your first question from an aspect of self of which I'm consciously unaware. Since I haven't conscious access to that aspect of self, I'll make do with speaking NON-definitively from that aspect of self that I call my conscious mind. From this viewpoint, I would answer your first question yes and no. 
Yes, because there are aspects of being which are not empricially verifiable, no because any and all of those aspects of being have a physical aspect to them, or a physical resonance.
To your second question, I will say that if "human" is that aspect of self which is consciously comprehensible, the answer is always. If "human" is that which I truly am, then the answer is no. I would tend to the former, however, given that what I truly am is beyond comprehension.
Bob
Yes, because there are aspects of being which are not empricially verifiable, no because any and all of those aspects of being have a physical aspect to them, or a physical resonance.To your second question, I will say that if "human" is that aspect of self which is consciously comprehensible, the answer is always. If "human" is that which I truly am, then the answer is no. I would tend to the former, however, given that what I truly am is beyond comprehension.
Bob
CajunCenturion
Programmer
==> Yes, because there are aspects of being which are not empricially verifiable, no because any and all of those aspects of being have a physical aspect to them, or a physical resonance.
That's a nice catch all, and certainly valid. Anything and everything that anyone feels, thinks, or believes by definition, exists. That person is the physical resonance behind that non-physical existence. Existence is whatever you believe it to be.
But what something like the Pythagorean relationship. Did that relationship exist before Pythagoras put it on paper?
--------------
Good Luck
To get the most from your Tek-Tips experience, please read FAQ181-2886
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein
That's a nice catch all, and certainly valid. Anything and everything that anyone feels, thinks, or believes by definition, exists. That person is the physical resonance behind that non-physical existence. Existence is whatever you believe it to be.
But what something like the Pythagorean relationship. Did that relationship exist before Pythagoras put it on paper?
--------------
Good Luck
To get the most from your Tek-Tips experience, please read FAQ181-2886
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein
Excellent question. I would guess that it did, given that it was a discovery rather than an invention. As did, say, the number four before it was discovered for the first time.
As for this:
<Anything and everything that anyone feels, thinks, or believes by definition, exists.
How about illusion? Does it exist? Maybe that's MY excellent question.
As for this:
<Anything and everything that anyone feels, thinks, or believes by definition, exists.
How about illusion? Does it exist? Maybe that's MY excellent question.
CajunCenturion
Programmer
But was the number 4 ever discovered? Or was it created by man as a by-product of the development of number systems? Is the notion of quantity an inherent property of existence, or has it been established by mathematical convention?
Does illusion exist? I say yes it does. It exists in the mind of the person who "sees" it. And it certainly fits in with your position that although it's not empricially verifiable, it has the physical aspect of being created by the proper set of electrial impulses withing the brain of the "illusionee". Shall we discuss existentialism?
----
You said, "Well, as far as I'm concerned, there is a totality of all that exists that I call God or love or the universe or the Tao or whatever."
I added the emphasis to frame the question, Is God infinite? If so, that how can you have a totality? If not infinite, then it is God -- a god perhaps -- but it is God?
Do the universe, as you have defined it, have a beginning?
--------------
Good Luck
To get the most from your Tek-Tips experience, please read FAQ181-2886
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein
Does illusion exist? I say yes it does. It exists in the mind of the person who "sees" it. And it certainly fits in with your position that although it's not empricially verifiable, it has the physical aspect of being created by the proper set of electrial impulses withing the brain of the "illusionee". Shall we discuss existentialism?
----
You said, "Well, as far as I'm concerned, there is a totality of all that exists that I call God or love or the universe or the Tao or whatever."
I added the emphasis to frame the question, Is God infinite? If so, that how can you have a totality? If not infinite, then it is God -- a god perhaps -- but it is God?
Do the universe, as you have defined it, have a beginning?
--------------
Good Luck
To get the most from your Tek-Tips experience, please read FAQ181-2886
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein
Well, I guess I define my overall cosmology a bit differently: At some level, we know everything. At this level, we also create everything, too. If that is a given, then in order to create experience and discovery, we also create the reality structure of inexperience and ignorance, to further create the process of movement into a state of self-awareness.
Now, I don't know that you have established that illusion exists, becuase by definition an illusion is something that doesn't exist. The true question is whether something is in fact an illusion if it exists as reality in someone's mind. I submit that it is not, so it may simply be that our semantics of the word illusion differ.
And no, we shan't discuss existentialism, unless you absolutely must. ;-)
<Is God infinite? If so, that how can you have a totality?
This implies to me that totality and infinity are mutually exclusive concepts, which I don't accept. I'm reminded of the beginning of the Tao Teh Ching, an approximate literal translation of which is "the Tao that can be Tao'd (or maybe "grokked") is not the true Tao." Well, the totality that is finite is not the true totality.
Of course the universe has a beginning, unless it doesn't...seriously, I think there was a big bang, but my subjective intuition tells me that there wasn't nonexistence "prior" to that big bang. One can't disprove the idea that the big bang always was, can one?
Finally:
Now, I don't know that you have established that illusion exists, becuase by definition an illusion is something that doesn't exist. The true question is whether something is in fact an illusion if it exists as reality in someone's mind. I submit that it is not, so it may simply be that our semantics of the word illusion differ.
And no, we shan't discuss existentialism, unless you absolutely must. ;-)
<Is God infinite? If so, that how can you have a totality?
This implies to me that totality and infinity are mutually exclusive concepts, which I don't accept. I'm reminded of the beginning of the Tao Teh Ching, an approximate literal translation of which is "the Tao that can be Tao'd (or maybe "grokked") is not the true Tao." Well, the totality that is finite is not the true totality.
Of course the universe has a beginning, unless it doesn't...seriously, I think there was a big bang, but my subjective intuition tells me that there wasn't nonexistence "prior" to that big bang. One can't disprove the idea that the big bang always was, can one?
Finally:
Back to the question as to whether God was the beginning or the universe was the beginning... God exists outside of time, therefore He cannot be bound by things like beginnings and endings; however the world we live in exists within the confines of time, and as such it has a beginning, and will have an end.
laws of cause and effect - no effect is ever quanitatively greater nor superior to its cause. the uncaused emergence of something has never been observed.
reasoning: therefore -
the first cause of limited space - must be infinate
the first cause of endless time - must be eternal
the first cause of boundless energy - must be omnipotent
the first cause of infinate complexity - must be omniscient
the first cause of life - must be living
reasoning: therefore -
the first cause of limited space - must be infinate
the first cause of endless time - must be eternal
the first cause of boundless energy - must be omnipotent
the first cause of infinate complexity - must be omniscient
the first cause of life - must be living
BillyRayPreachersSon
Programmer
Aaah... but can you prove that God even exists? My money is on it ("him"?) being a bit fat scam!
Dan
Coedit Limited - Delivering standards compliant, accessible web solutions
[tt]Dan's Page [blue]@[/blue] Code Couch
[/tt]
traingamer
Programmer
Your logic (if any) is highly flawed.
Even if you accept your premises (which I do not), there is no way to logically reach your conclusions.
Also endless time = eternal, so it you're not really saying anything with that one.
If God does exist out of time, She's probably infinitely amused by all of us.
Absence of proof is not proof of absence. Everything else is semantics.
If something exists out of time, how does it observe something constrained by time? Does it have to subject itself to time for the observation?
- Andrew
Text::Highlight - A language-neutral syntax highlighting module in Perl
also on SourceForge including demo
If something exists out of time, how does it observe something constrained by time? Does it have to subject itself to time for the observation?
- Andrew
Text::Highlight - A language-neutral syntax highlighting module in Perl
also on SourceForge including demo
I'm having a hard time justifying reading this rather then finding some code that I REALLY need right now, but I have to say that philosophy is always bound to the limits of language, not thought, and the bible says that God's knowledge has made mankinds knowledge absurd (definately you have all proved that beyond a doubt with this string of posts).
But I'd like to remind everyone that 1st John says "God Is Love". Love is the beginning of all thought (whether good or evil) and therefore you would then have to illiminate the one thing that all of you all have in common (the fact that you all love someone) to prove that there is no God.
But don't do that, the universe would implode exponetialy into another universe that doesn't have dialup or highspeed internet and I wouldn't get the code I need for this stupid access database I'm trying to make and that would REALLY piss me off...
But I'd like to remind everyone that 1st John says "God Is Love". Love is the beginning of all thought (whether good or evil) and therefore you would then have to illiminate the one thing that all of you all have in common (the fact that you all love someone) to prove that there is no God.
But don't do that, the universe would implode exponetialy into another universe that doesn't have dialup or highspeed internet and I wouldn't get the code I need for this stupid access database I'm trying to make and that would REALLY piss me off...
<the world we live in exists within the confines of time
I don't agree entirely. For example, I say that we live at least in part in the world we call dream state, and perception of time is very much attenuated there, even "at times" not present at all.
<God's knowledge has made mankinds knowledge absurd
I don't draw a distinction between the two, whether the Bible does or not.
I don't agree entirely. For example, I say that we live at least in part in the world we call dream state, and perception of time is very much attenuated there, even "at times" not present at all.
<God's knowledge has made mankinds knowledge absurd
I don't draw a distinction between the two, whether the Bible does or not.
BillyRayPreachersSon
Programmer
bvbowes said:
You sound just like the nutter who stands outside Hammersmith station most days...
Coedit Limited - Delivering standards compliant, accessible web solutions
[tt]Dan's Page [blue]@[/blue] Code Couch
[/tt]
You can't take three words out of one book and try and make that kind of chaining argument. Even if God is love, that doesn't mean that all love is God. Even assuming that, I'm not sure where the link between love and thought came from.
But that does kind of sound like the movie Dogma: prove God wrong and undo existence. In such a case, when the universe implodes, does that take heaven and hell with it? Are the part of the universe? If the universe is the physical world around us, does that mean there's a physical representation of the afterlife somewhere?
- Andrew
Text::Highlight - A language-neutral syntax highlighting module in Perl
also on SourceForge including demo
traingamer
Programmer
It's called work; it only seems to be hell.
![[hairpull3]](/data/assets/smilies/hairpull3.gif "[hairpull3] [hairpull3]")
Greg
"Personally, I am always ready to learn, although I do not always like being taught." - Winston Churchill
<Even if God is love, that doesn't mean that all love is God.
<You can't take three words out of one book and try and make that kind of chaining argument.
I really have trouble understanding the prevalence of the tendency to "back up" one's point of view on the subject of God with logic. Logic can be no more valid than the assumptions upon which it is based. For example, I have very often heard arguments of the type "the Bible says that....therefore....". This is all very well if one assumes the doctrine of Biblical inerrancy, but otherwise problematical.
So, I base my views on these assumptions:
1. God, all that is, love, intelligent infinity, are synonymous.
2. I exist.
Logical conclusions that can be drawn from these assumptions:
1. What is not God does not exist.
2. I am God.
3. What is not love does not exist.
So, given all that (yes, I know, that's a tall order for many), what about all the bad stuff in the world? I say that all of it has its basis in fear. Fear has its basis in illusion, since it isn't based in love. One could say that where love is the cardinal truth, fear is the cardinal illusion. And thus that love is the only truth, and fear is the only illusion. That statement pretty well sums up my world view.
Bob
<You can't take three words out of one book and try and make that kind of chaining argument.
I really have trouble understanding the prevalence of the tendency to "back up" one's point of view on the subject of God with logic. Logic can be no more valid than the assumptions upon which it is based. For example, I have very often heard arguments of the type "the Bible says that....therefore....". This is all very well if one assumes the doctrine of Biblical inerrancy, but otherwise problematical.
So, I base my views on these assumptions:
1. God, all that is, love, intelligent infinity, are synonymous.
2. I exist.
Logical conclusions that can be drawn from these assumptions:
1. What is not God does not exist.
2. I am God.
3. What is not love does not exist.
So, given all that (yes, I know, that's a tall order for many), what about all the bad stuff in the world? I say that all of it has its basis in fear. Fear has its basis in illusion, since it isn't based in love. One could say that where love is the cardinal truth, fear is the cardinal illusion. And thus that love is the only truth, and fear is the only illusion. That statement pretty well sums up my world view.
Bob
- Status