Rational Theists and Rational Atheists of the World, Unite!

[Syntax]

did I say everything is an illusion - it takes time and it took me a long time and search to find the known but hidden answers provided by Dr.Brunton - more later - twinc

No thanks, I am not interested. I have Christ. And since Brunton’s own New Age ideas are not the topic of the OP, maybe you can start another one of your own if you want to discuss them with others?

 

[Syntax]

What is it that the mind does when it searches for a meaning ? This question provides a philosophic task of the first magnitude and its answer is itself a mental triumph. When a man speaks or writes he reveals not only what he does know but also what he does not know.Only the sage can ever achieve an exact formulation of his knowledge,where others reveal the poverty of their thinking by the use of ambiguous,biased,inexact or empty linguistic constructions,for he alone has burrowed to the roots of his own ideas.Thus too only the sage can detect from the style of man’s speech,the character of his linguistic structures,the precise stage on the road to truth to which his intelligence and his knowledge have advanced[The worship of words by Dr.Brunton] - more later - twinc

This isn’t an argument. This is a completely groundless ideology. I am not interested unless you can argue your case with reason and intelligibility.

 

[twinc]

No thanks, I am not interested. I have Christ. And since Brunton’s own New Age ideas are not the topic of the OP, maybe you can start another one of your own if you want to discuss them with others?

wrong again - nothing at all to do with new age[of which I am well aware] more like old age,the ages of the seers and sages. For GOD he suggests some may wish to substitute MIND and so everything to do with this topic viz GOD for Rational Theists and MIND for Rational Atheists.Perhaps some others may check it out especially “The Hidden Teaching” and “The Wisdom of the Overself” which were his teaching on Philosophy.In my own case it explained my Catholic religion,my world and my God to me like no other had done - twinc

 

[Syntax]

wrong again - nothing at all to do with new age[of which I am well aware] more like old age,the ages of the seers and sages. For GOD he suggests some may wish to substitute MIND and so everything to do with this topic viz GOD for Rational Theists and MIND for Rational Atheists.Perhaps some others may check it out especially “The Hidden Teaching” and “The Wisdom of the Overself” which were his teaching on Philosophy.In my own case it explained my Catholic religion,my world and my God to me like no other had done - twinc

The point is that I just don’t care unless you can argue your point instead of just regurgitating whatever unoriginal ideology this, in fact, is.

What do you want me to do? Agree with you? Disagree with you? I hardly know what the heck this nonsense is supposed to mean unless you articulate it into a clear well-formed thesis for discussion in a public forum. And above all, you need arguments to make your position plausible, otherwise you’re just talking fluff. So saddle up and say something intelligible, otherwise you will continue to get ignored.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

when the blueness of the orange is diametrically opposed to the granduer of the watermelon, in the fifth house of the betelguesian hierarchy, the rose of the garden of the mind will open on the the plain of understanding, and all illusion will fall away as we truly behold the nothingness that we are on this plane of existence…pass me the cyanide laced kool-aid, ive got a flying saucer to catch.

 

[Syntax]

when the blueness of the orange is diametrically opposed to the granduer of the watermelon, in the fifth house of the betelguesian hierarchy, the rose of the garden of the mind will open on the the plain of understanding, and all illusion will fall away as we truly behold the nothingness that we are on this plane of existence…pass me the cyanide laced kool-aid, ive got a flying saucer to catch.

hahahahahaha!!! I’m trapped in boisterous laughter!!! That was SOOOOO funny!!!

that made my day

i can’t stop laughing…

 

[Syntax]

that even made nihilism look funny

 

[warpspeedpetey]

that even made nihilism look funny

so, has anything been settled on the idea that there can be an existent nothing?

 

[Syntax]

so, has anything been settled on the idea that there can be an existent nothing?

I interpret the silence as consent. The logical stuff was just a bunch of proposed absurdities anyway.

Astro resigned in disgust at my “merciless berating” (meaning, he couldn’t handle all the logical corrections).

It’s funny how quick a discussion will end when logical error is exposed. I knew that would happen too, of course.

So yeah, I would definitely say the discussion was settled that “nothing exists” resists any logical formulation at all. I guess one has the freedom to still believe in absurdities, but you might as well be put up in a straight-jacket for the rest of your life eating bricks and smelling lightning.

 

[hatsoff]

So yeah, I would definitely say the discussion was settled that “nothing exists” resists any logical formulation at all. I guess one has the freedom to still believe in absurdities, but you might as well be put up in a straight-jacket for the rest of your life.

Why would you say that? Astro’s point was to demonstrate that “nothing exists” is a self-contradictory statement, but as you so adeptly pointed out, he lost himself in a slew of logical errors and general nonsense. Indeed, “nothing exists” is a perfectly meaningful statement, albeit one which is false.

As for the concept of an “existent nothing,” that is an oxymoron.

 

[Syntax]

Why would you say that? Astro’s point was to demonstrate that “nothing exists” is a self-contradictory statement, but as you so adeptly pointed out, he lost himself in a slew of logical errors and general nonsense. Indeed, “nothing exists” is a perfectly meaningful statement, albeit one which is false.

“nothing exists” is meaningful, perhaps!, and definitely false. Moreover, it is not even capable of logical formulation that I know of. And to tell you the truth I am not sure what the heck Astro was trying to say anyway. One of his last posts was making the point that in the following statement his use of “the real” as a predicate was (according to him) allegedly NOT self contradictory as in:

(Rp and ~Rq)

As for the concept of an “existent nothing,” that is an oxymoron.

“Short giraffs” is an oxymoron perhaps. But an “existent nothing” is not even an oxymoron at all: it is completely absurd and senseless altogether.

So I would definitely say it was settled. Are you trying to extend this idea further, or what? I sure hope not.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

groovy.

 

[hatsoff]

“nothing exists” is meaningful, perhaps!, and definitely false.

Definitely false and definitely meaningful.

But to tell you the truth I am not sure what the heck he was trying to say. One of his last posts was making the point that in the following statement his use of “the real” as a predicate was (according to him) allegedly NOT self contradictory as in:

(Ex) (Rp and ~Rq)

Consider the following excerpt from his first post in this thread:

Is it possible that “nothing exists”, without producing a contradiction? If you are talking about the logical function of “exists” then yes, there is a logical contradiction.

Nothing exists: “For all x, there does not exist an x”. This can be devolved to: “For all x, x (identity)” and “there does not exist an x such that x.” The second statement can be reduced to “for all x, not x.” These, combined, form a logical contradiction: “for all x, x and not x”.

This is utter nonsense, of course, but as you can see, he was trying to show that the statement “nothing exists” implies a logical contradiction. This was in response to an earlier post:

when people pose the question …

**“why is there something rather than nothing?” **

they are assuming that “no-thing” can exist. which is an impossibility because it is a logical contradiction.

But the question in bold is meaningful, if interpreted sufficiently narrowly. Why does the universe exist? Why are we here? How did it happen that there is any reality to talk about? Why is there something rather than nothing?

These kinds of questions have driven many people to seek supernatural answers.

“Short giraffs” is an oxymoron perhaps. But an “existent nothing” is not even an oxymoron at all: it is completely absurd and senseless altogether.

Well of course it’s absurd and senseless. That’s what I mean when I call it an oxymoron.

So I would definitely say it was settled. Are you trying to extend this idea further, or what? I sure hope not.

I am not defending Astro, no. But warpspeedpetey’s original question was never settled.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

But the question in bold is meaningful, if interpreted sufficiently narrowly. Why does the universe exist? Why are we here? How did it happen that there is any reality to talk about? Why is there something rather than nothing?

the question “why is there something, rather than nothing” seems to indicate the highest domain. with no other qualifiers that narrow it down. it just assumes that “nothing” can exist, as though its an alternative to “something”, yet an existent nothing is a contradiction.

 

[Syntax]

Definitely false and definitely meaningful.

I’m not so sure about that. “to exist” is meaningful. “not to exist” is meaningful. But I seriously doubt “nothing exists” is meaningful. If it were, you would be able to define the subject “nothing” that acts as a noun purportedly desgnating an entity without using negation. People talk this way colloquially, of course. But when trying to make sense of it without using negation, I cannot.

Consider the following excerpt from his first post in this thread:This is utter nonsense, of course, but as you can see, he was trying to show that the statement “nothing exists” implies a logical contradiction. This was in response to an earlier post:

Then what on earth WAS he trying to demonstrate?? He was being inconsistent with his very own formulation of the problem then! In that other place I mentioned he was saying non-real existent entities are perfectly permissible! Do you deny that?

But the question in bold is meaningful, if interpreted sufficiently narrowly. Why does the universe exist? Why are we here? How did it happen that there is any reality to talk about? Why is there something rather than nothing?
These kinds of questions have driven many people to seek supernatural answers.

Sure. In fact, the answer’s best expression is given in the Argument from Contigency in the proof of God’s existence.

Well of course it’s absurd and senseless. That’s what I mean when I call it an oxymoron.

I don’t think so. Oxymorons just imply what appear to be two incompatible states of affairs. But they aren’t senseless, or meaningless. “Short giraffs” isn’t senseless because it clearly means something; it just seems odd to say it–hence oxymoronic. An “Existent nothing,” on the other hand, is meaningless because I can’t make sense of it at all.
In fact, this is precisely why we call it an “absurdity.” And oxymorons are not on the order of* logical *absurdities.

I am not defending Astro, no. But warpspeedpetey’s original question was never settled.

I know. I never said the forum provided an answer to Petey’s question.

 

[hatsoff]

the question “why is there something, rather than nothing” seems to indicate the highest domain. with no other qualifiers that narrow it down. it just assumes that “nothing” can exist, as though its an alternative to “something”, yet an existent nothing is a contradiction.

“Nothing” isn’t an object which can exist or not exist. When we utter the sentence “nothing exists,” we mean instead that there are no objects in existence.

Why is it the case, we might ask, that there is such a thing as the universe? What is the explanation for its existence? That is what we are asking when we utter the question, “why is there something rather than nothing?”

 

[1holycatholic]

the last time i took symbolic logic, the only computers on campus took floppies. can anyone tell me how your putting operators and statements in your posts?

+∃∄∅∆∇∈∉∊∋∌∍∎∏∐∑−∓∔
∗∘√∛∜∝∞∡∢∤∥∦∫∭∮∰∱
∵∶≌≋≉≊≝≬≟≻⊐⊅⊕⊰⊱⋘⋙
⨂⨊⨈⨇⋽⨷⨳⩿⩫⫅⫆⫒⦫
☜☞☨☧☩♰♱✙✚✛✜✞✟✠

Got Mac?

 

[twinc]

The point is that I just don’t care unless you can argue your point instead of just regurgitating whatever unoriginal ideology this, in fact, is.

What do you want me to do? Agree with you? Disagree with you? I hardly know what the heck this nonsense is supposed to mean unless you articulate it into a clear well-formed thesis for discussion in a public forum. And above all, you need arguments to make your position plausible, otherwise you’re just talking fluff. So saddle up and say something intelligible, otherwise you will continue to get ignored.

okay- lets get going - but I hope you and the others will have a squint at his two books mentioned - "Scientists will tell us after deep research that all physical substance is in incessant motion and its atoms are congeries of whirling energies,but all the same we really do see solid and stable things.No argument can do away with the plain fact of this everyday experience.We stand in the presence of a startling paradox.How can it be resolved ? Can we take two conceptions that stand so far apart,so widely opposite,and bring them together ? The answer is yes. First sight is not necessarily true sight.The senses can tell us something about things as they appear to be but little about things as they really are. We can learn through the investigation of illusions that it is perfectly possible to see different forms and shapes which have no other existence than mental existence.If we see a thing at perfect rest and science tells us that it is really in a state of perpetual restlessness,then we are entitled to conclude that the anomaly is caused by the limitations of our own perceptions which in the end are our own consciousness.The stability which we see cannot be anything else than a mentally constructed one.We are entitled to relegate the thing’s actuality to the realm where it must have, always been,namely,of the mind.This is the fundamental meaning of all changes of form as it is the fundamental explanation of all relativity.The paradox becomes rationally explicable and thus disappears if we realize that when our experience of the time-space-matter world is traced to its hidden origin,it reveals itself as mentally made.There is no physical world in the sense in which the unenlightened assumes there is.For every individual material object,from solid rock to fleecy cloud,resolves itself into a fragment of mind,i.e. an idea,The immense multitude of such fragments whose totality forms the Unoverse are nothing else than modifications of this single original element - Mind. We must glimpse this great truth that Mind,as a non-material essence,is the ultimate being out of which both energy and matter have been born[Dr.Paul Brunton]- more later - twinc

 

[warpspeedpetey]

+∃∄∅∆∇∈∉∊∋∌∍∎∏∐∑−∓∔
∗∘√∛∜∝∞∡∢∤∥∦∫∭∮∰∱
∵∶≌≋≉≊≝≬≟≻⊐⊅⊕⊰⊱⋘⋙
⨂⨊⨈⨇⋽⨷⨳⩿⩫⫅⫆⫒⦫
☜☞☨☧☩♰♱✙✚✛✜✞✟✠

Got Mac?

nope, wish i did.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

“Nothing” isn’t an object which can exist or not exist. When we utter the sentence “nothing exists,” we mean instead that there are no objects in existence.

yet the empty set is still a set. having no members still leaves the set itself. that is something.

colloquially, most people speak of ‘nothing’ as a ‘void’ or ‘empty space’ or as a universe with no beings. which is just the empty set. which is still something. just as an empty box, is still a box.

so

when we say ‘nothing’, we literally mean ‘no-thing’, not an empty box, not a void, not even an empty set.

so when the question. “why is there something rather than nothing?” is raised. it is based on a false assumption. that there can be a literal empty set, that qualifies as ‘nothing’ an alternative to ‘something’. clearly this is a false idea

ergo,

there is something rather than nothing because there is no such thing as ‘no-thing’