Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Namelesss]

(Nested quote removed.)

It is not, by definition!
Uni- = One! All is One!
One means ALL INCLUSIVE!
The 'multiverse' theory violates Occam's razor and is an ignorant statement that they are clueless, so, add a few more Universes to compensate for what they cannot explain!
Rather pathetic!
One (unchanging, ALL inclusive Universe. Irrefutable! *__-

How many times have we all seen people say online:...

I fear no insults from you or anyone else because you lucked out and I am indeed a rather clueless, ignorant and pathetic woman hence my presence on philosophy forums rather than philosophy departments. Still, I'm sure we can all do much better than pointless ad hominem attacks. We can leave that other forums and social media.

Perhaps, Greta, I caught you at an insecure moment? Feeling delicate?
There was nothing personal, at all.
I was referring to the so-called scientists who came up with the 'pathetic' theory of multiverse.
Not you, dear. No need to get your knickers all a twist.

My point was that there is another layer beyond just applying etymology (I took Latin too), because what we refer to as "the universe" is only an assumption - an assumption that this particular cluster of galactic superclusters is the sum total of reality.

All clusters, anywhere, ever... of whatever you ever find... and what you don't = ALL INCLUSIVE (caps for emphasis, don't get frightened! *__- )! Logically, definitionally!
One means ALL inclusive!
I really don't understand the difficulty understanding the One intellectually. Some actually experience/Know!

Who is to say there are not incredible voids between what we call "the universe" and other "universes" (which in that case would actually be a megacluster of galactic megaclusters, although in subjective terms they could perhaps be thought of as universes)? Perhaps the idea that our mega megacluster is the only one is naive? A century ago we believed that the Milky Way comprised most of the "universe", with just some random scattered stars around us. Meanwhile the ancients believed the Earth to be the centre of the universe.

Without the 'incredible voids' (and there are no true vacuums), one couldn't see your 'clusters' of any size! *__-
Yes, intellectually, all this leaves stretch marks on the brain, imagining distances and such of which you have no experience/Knowledge can leave one shaky and disturbed. So some imagine 'another UNI-verse' until can fill their dark ignorance with other than grant sucking crappola! *__-

Uni- = Omni- = One = ALL inclusive! Logically, experientially.

[Wayne92587]

God is not One-1, God has no relative numerical value, has a numerical Value of Nothing, Zero-0.
One-1 is not an absolute Singularity while a Singularity of Zero-0 is perfect, is absolute.

God does exist, it is just that the Knowledge of God is priori Knowledge.

When man attempts to speak of Piroir Knowledge, hidden, secret, sacred, the forbidden Knowledge of God, said speech is Blasphemous.

Nothingness, a Singularity having no relative numerical value, having a numerical value of Zero-0 is the only perfect, absolute Singularity.

There is not reason to give a Singularity a numerical value of One-1 unless there are many Singularities of equal value, A Singularity of One-1 is relative and exists as the First in a series, as the beginning of a continuum such as Space-Time, unless it exist as the beginning of a process such as the Evolutionary Process.

Tthe First Singularity to have relative a numerical value of One-1, the Un-caused Cause, is not God, the Reality of First Cause a Creation born of God.

[Atreyu]

I was referring to the so-called scientists who came up with the 'pathetic' theory of multiverse.

The multiverse model is one of the best recent achievements in modern science. It's the best way to explain the phenomenon of time.

The only thing perhaps 'pathetic' about the theory is the name. Unfortunately, in naming their idea the 'multiverse' model, and in imagining 'multiple universes', they have violated the established definition of 'Universe', which means 'All' or 'Everything'.

But the general idea that all moments of all possible pasts, presents, and futures exist concurrently and simultaneously is a quite practical and powerful idea. You must not really understand the concept...

[Namelesss]

God is not One-1, God has no relative numerical value, has a numerical Value of Nothing, Zero-0.
One-1 is not an absolute Singularity while a Singularity of Zero-0 is perfect, is absolute.

I'm uninterested in this pseudo- intellectual quibbling ("to speak is to lie" is understood);
As I and every other mystic with actual experience/Knowledge Know; "One" means ALL INCLUSIVE!
All existence is "The Singularity"! Here! Now!

-- Updated November 21st, 2017, 8:17 pm to add the following --

I was referring to the so-called scientists who came up with the 'pathetic' theory of multiverse.

The multiverse model is one of the best recent achievements in modern science. It's the best way to explain the phenomenon of time.

the difference between a scientist and a philosopher is that a philosopher is also a scientist, but not vice versa.
Scientists rarely examine their assumptions, thus go rattling off down dead ends, like explaining 'time' as if it were an inherent Universal.
The theory of 'time' is to explain the 'appearance' of 'motion'!
There is none, thus the futility and error of the 'multiverse theory', completely unsupportable logically or any other way.
It is NOT the 'best theory' re; Reality because it is a study in mirages by the blind!

The only thing perhaps 'pathetic' about the theory is the name. Unfortunately, in naming their idea the 'multiverse' model, and in imagining 'multiple universes', they have violated the established definition of 'Universe', which means 'All' or 'Everything'.

It is common to alter terminology when convenient. For instance when 'materialism' has been shown to be an obsolete theory, the 'believers' came up with 'physicalism'.
When our geniuses decided that 0.9999... = 1 (more emotional and psychological than intellectual), they clam up completely when asked about what a tangent is.
I guess that tangents conveniently vanish when arguing 'convergence'.
Etc...
Yes, they violated the logic of the original definition, but they never let that stop them.
Sometimes I come up with a better definition of things, but you can't improve on the Universal!

But the general idea that all moments of all possible pasts, presents, and futures exist concurrently and simultaneously is a quite practical and powerful idea. You must not really understand the concept...

If you actually read my writings for the last few decades, you'd see that I have brought forth the Here! Now! Holism of all moments of existence, already existing Here! Now!
I not only intellectually understand, but it is the reality that I experience, so not only do I understand, I Know!

[Spectrum]

God does exist, it is just that the Knowledge of God is priori Knowledge.

When man attempts to speak of Priori Knowledge, hidden, secret, sacred, the forbidden Knowledge of God, said speech is Blasphemous.

...

Aha.. "a priori" as made famous by Kant, one of the greatest philosopher of all time.

In the order of time, therefore, we have no Knowledge antecedent to Experience [a posteriori], and with Experience all our Knowledge begins.
But though all our Knowledge begins with Experience, it does not follow that it ALL arises out of Experience. [a priori] B1

• Empirical = based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic.

For anything to be real it has to be verifiable and justifiable within empirical-rational reality.

'God' is a priori but it is merely an idea arising out of pure logic without any empirical groundings at all. The idea of God is based on a transcendental illusion due to faulty reasoning when driven by desperate existential psychology.

Here is Kant explaining how the idea of God as an illusion arise [mine].
These points are supported by very detailed substantial arguments.

There will therefore be Syllogisms which contain no Empirical premisses, and by means of which we conclude from something which we know to something else of which we have no Concept, and to which, owing to an inevitable Illusion, we yet ascribe Objective Reality.

These conclusions [God, Soul, Whole Universe] are, then, rather to be called pseudo-Rational 2 than Rational, although in view of their Origin they may well lay claim to the latter title, since they are not fictitious and have not arisen fortuitously, but have sprung from the very Nature of Reason.

They are sophistications not of men but of Pure Reason itself. Even the wisest of men cannot free himself from them. After long effort he perhaps succeeds in guarding himself against actual error; but he will never be able to free himself from the Illusion, which unceasingly mocks and torments him. -B397

-- Updated Tue Nov 21, 2017 9:08 pm to add the following --

If you a[yid=][/yid]ctually read my writings for the last few decades, you'd see that I have brought forth the Here! Now! Holism of all moments of existence, already existing Here! Now!
I not only intellectually understand, but it is the reality that I experience, so not only do I understand, I Know!

Here are few points to burst the credibility bubble of your postulations.

Whilst the majority claimed they experienced God as real, there are doubts to these claims because it has been proven such similar god-liked experiences arose from psychological problems; e.g.

There are tons of research to support the above basis. The point is when these patients are cured by drugs, their duped experience and insistence of God disappear.


In addition an experience of 'God' [cosmic, unity consciousness] can arise from brain damage.
In this video below Jill Bolte a non-theist neuroscientist experienced cosmic, unity consciousness when she suffered a severe stroke.

There are so many other basis where people experienced God, cosmic consciousness, unity consciousness, god consciousness via drugs, hallucinogens, etc. There are tons of research on this subject.
Read the writings of Timothy Leary, Aldous Huxley,
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/123 ... ain_Is_God

I have had personal experiences of so-called cosmic consciousness but eventually I understood all these pleasant transcendental experiences arose from my brain and mind.

Thus the most likely grounds for a belief in God is the psychological, biological, neural and other empirical factors that drove theists to believe in an illusory groundless God generated by primal reasons.

[Namelesss]

If you a[yid=][/yid]ctually read my writings for the last few decades, you'd see that I have brought forth the Here! Now! Holism of all moments of existence, already existing Here! Now!
I not only intellectually understand, but it is the reality that I experience, so not only do I understand, I Know!

Here are few points to burst the credibility bubble of your postulations.

In your dreams.

Whilst the majority claimed they experienced God as real, there are doubts to these claims because it has been proven such similar god-liked experiences arose from psychological problems; e.g.
There are tons of research to support the above basis.

Blah, blah, blah! Blue isn't blue, it's green! There's a youtube that proves it!
Hahaha!
People, like you, with no Knowledge, and no ability to think for themselves need to reference all sorts of youtubes and other self-justifying crap.
If I'm the only one who Knows/experiences fire, and a hundred million of you all believe the same thing intellectually, you will all be wrong, no matter your psychological needs to hypothesize with no Knowledge.
Your puerile and sterile attempt to discredit my Knowledge/experience just shows me how closed and small your mind actually is.
Perhaps some day...
Until then, happy trails.

[Wayne92587]

Spectrum; Knowledge, to Know, to understand, to experience; to know a woman is to have interaction, to have intercourse with.

The problem is that "Absolute Bad Knowledge" is another story, Absolutely Bad Knowledge being mistaken to be Absolutely Good Knowledge, Absolutely Bad Knowledge having a dual quality, is a Rationalization, exists as priori Knowledge, should be forbidden, is the Nowledge of Good and Evil.

[Scribbler60]

People, like you, with no Knowledge, and no ability to think for themselves need to reference all sorts of youtubes and other self-justifying crap.
If I'm the only one who Knows/experiences fire, and a hundred million of you all believe the same thing intellectually, you will all be wrong, no matter your psychological needs to hypothesize with no Knowledge.
Your puerile and sterile attempt to discredit my Knowledge/experience just shows me how closed and small your mind actually is.
Perhaps some day...
Until then, happy trails.

Well.

Guess you told him, eh?

It's somewhat telling that you place so much faith in your own experience, and completely discount the experience of others. Which is, of course, exactly the thing that you accuse others of.

Had you ever considered that?

[Wayne92587]

THe story of Jill Bolte Taylor is Superb but she gets no cigar because the story has no conclusion.


To become a Spiritual Being, the Flesh Body, the Empircal Body, the left Brain must die, must be laid to Rest, placed in the Grave so as the Spiritual Body, the Left Brain, might rise up to the Heaven.

In the Prophecy of the Savior of Mankind, the prophecy is incomplete until the Flesh Body is laid to Rest.

Jesus the so called Christ had to die in the Flesh, the spiritual Body to then rise up to the Heaven and then return so as the Flesh Body could rise up to join the Spiritual Body.

The Savior of Mankind, the Christ, through the evolution of the Psychic, to walk the Planet Earth having both a Flesh Body and a spiritual Body in order to fulfill the Prophecy of the Coming Christ.

-- Updated November 22nd, 2017, 12:16 pm to add the following --

Error, Sorry.

It is the Right Brain, the Feminne Brain, the Spiritual, immortal, body that is to rise up to Heaven, the Stars.

Mankind; it is the Empirical, the Masculine, the Flesh, the animal, the mortal Body that is born of the dust of the ground, the
Emperical Body that is born of the Evolutionary Process, while Woman, Eve, Feminity is a Creation.

[Dark Matter]

The multiverse model is one of the best recent achievements in modern science. It's the best way to explain the phenomenon of time.

It's an ad hoc interpretation of QM with as many detractors as advocates.

-- Updated November 22nd, 2017, 7:55 pm to add the following --

"It’s pretty unsatisfactory to use the multiverse hypothesis to explain only things we don’t understand.” Graham Ross, an emeritus professor of theoretical physics at the University of Oxford.

[Steve3007]

Nameless:

It is not, by definition!
Uni- = One! All is One!
One means ALL INCLUSIVE!
The 'multiverse' theory violates Occam's razor and is an ignorant statement that they are clueless, so, add a few more Universes to compensate for what they cannot explain!
Rather pathetic!
One (unchanging, ALL inclusive Universe. Irrefutable! *__-

I was referring to the so-called scientists who came up with the 'pathetic' theory of multiverse.

Quite a bit of talk about this "multiverse" concept on this thread.

Nameless, could you tell us your understanding of why some of these "so-called scientists" decided to postulate a multiverse? Which experimental observations were they seeking to describe and predict using that particular model? You will then be able to tell us why the introduction of this model is an unnecessary complication and therefore violates the principle of Occam's razor, and what alternative, simpler model works better.

[Spectrum]

Blah, blah, blah! Blue isn't blue, it's green! There's a youtube that proves it!
Hahaha!
People, like you, with no Knowledge, and no ability to think for themselves need to reference all sorts of youtubes and other self-justifying crap.
If I'm the only one who Knows/experiences fire, and a hundred million of you all believe the same thing intellectually, you will all be wrong, no matter your psychological needs to hypothesize with no Knowledge.
Your puerile and sterile attempt to discredit my Knowledge/experience just shows me how closed and small your mind actually is.
Perhaps some day...
Until then, happy trails.

It would be very stupid of anyone to rely on whatever is from 'youtube,' 'wiki' or any other sources as a final proof of any proposition or knowledge without any verification. Both 'youtube' and 'wiki' provide convenient references that must be read with some degree of reservation depending the source.

Btw, I am not trying to convince you of any 'knowledge' rather I am merely throwing in clues for further references. For anything to be 'knowledge' or be rejected you have to verify it yourself with your own research.

Whatever I refer from Youtube or Wiki is merely a convenience but the relevant points are supported by tons of readings, research, analysis and thinking I have done on the subject.

"People, like you, with no Knowledge, and no ability to think for themselves "

The argument in this OP - 'God is an Impossibility' is unique and novel, i.e. my original thoughts but of course by standing on the shoulders of giants.

OTOH, you, I believe do not have done a thorough job to 'Know Thyself' [Socrates] to understand what is going on inside your brain/mind. On this issue and your belief of a God, you are actually compelled subliminally & psychological by a "zombie parasite" to be theistic - pantheistic.
Note this clue, Youtube again!

https://www.livescience.com/47751-zombi ... rains.html

Zombie-Ants:
New research at Penn State has revealed how infection by a parasitic fungus dramatically changes the behavior of tropical carpenter ants, causing them to become zombie-like and to die at a spot that has optimal reproductive conditions for the fungus. (29 July 2011)

To understand the emergence of "zombie parasite" in one's brain [actually it is inherent in ALL humans and active in the majority] one will need tons of reading on the subject.

-- Updated Wed Nov 22, 2017 7:49 pm to add the following --

Spectrum; Knowledge, to Know, to understand, to experience; to know a woman is to have interaction, to have intercourse with.

The problem is that "Absolute Bad Knowledge" is another story, Absolutely Bad Knowledge being mistaken to be Absolutely Good Knowledge, Absolutely Bad Knowledge having a dual quality, is a Rationalization, exists as priori Knowledge, should be forbidden, is the Knowledge of Good and Evil.

Not necessary personal interaction. Note Science for example where credibility of Scientific Knowledge is based on its objectivity and open invitation to test it yourself if not convinced.

Note the philosophical topic of Knowledge = 'Justified True Belief' with some limitations by Gettier.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/knowledge-analysis/

Here is Kant thesis on 'knowledge';

THERE can be no doubt that all our Knowledge begins with Experience.
..
In the order of time, therefore, we have no Knowledge antecedent to Experience, and with Experience all our Knowledge begins.
But though all our Knowledge begins with Experience, it does not follow that it ALL arises out of Experience. -B1

According to Kant, a priori basis rationalization without any empirical grounds is merely an illusion. Such do not qualify to be termed knowledge for it to be considered good or bad knowledge. The idea of God is such an illusion.

I'll quote Kant again on this issue [mine];

Kant in CPR wrote:
There will therefore be Syllogisms [rationalization] which contain no Empirical premisses, and by means of which we conclude from something which we know to something else of which we have no Concept, and to which, owing to an inevitable Illusion, we yet ascribe Objective Reality.

These conclusions [of an absolutely perfect God] are, then, rather to be called pseudo-Rational 2 than Rational, although in view of their Origin they may well lay claim to the latter title, since they are not fictitious and have not arisen fortuitously, but have sprung from the very Nature of Reason.

They are sophistications not of men but of Pure Reason itself. Even the wisest of men cannot free himself from them. After long effort he perhaps succeeds in guarding himself against actual error; but he will never be able to free himself from the Illusion, which unceasingly mocks and torments him. -B397

[Wayne92587]

Priori Knowledge is the knowledge of a Reality that can not be experience.

God, the Nothingness that existed prior to the beginning of the Evolutionary Process from which the whole of Reality, the Universe, emerged, existed as something that can not be experience.

Priori Knowledge, being the knowledge of a substance that had no mass; some referring to as being the Ether, Space, smoke, Emptiness, a Great Void, God Consciousness, Singularity.

Singularity existing as an Omnipresent Minute, Infinitely Finite, Indivisible Singularity, particle, but also as an omnipotent State of Singularity; spoken of as being the Transcendental (Metaphysical) Fully Ransom Quantum State of Singularity filled with the omnipresence of an untold Number, Quantity, of Singularities having no relative, numerical, value, Individual Singularities having a numerical value Zero-0

Knowledge of the individual Singularity and the State of Singularity, Nothingness, God existing as the Priori knowledge of a Reality that can not be experienced.

The Knowledge of a Reality that has no Substance, being called God Consciousness, simply because it exists as State or Condition of the mind of God.

The minute nature of a Singularity having no relative, numerical value, existing as an untold quantity, number, of Singularities of Zero-0 within an omnificent State of Singularity is representative of God.

[Spectrum]

Priori Knowledge is the knowledge of a Reality that can not be experience.

That is a truism. A priori means before experience. Note instincts are before the individual's experience but fundamentally it is based on past collective experiences.

God, the Nothingness that existed prior to the beginning of the Evolutionary Process from which the whole of Reality, the Universe, emerged, existed as something that can not be experience.

The above is bad logic.
You simply assert God exists without proving your claim/premise.
Thus whatever follow from that [God created this or that] has no grounds thus baseless and is not deductive.

I have no issue if you acknowledge you have no proofs for your assertion 'God exists' but nevertheless need such a belief for personal psychological reasons, i.e. to deal with an existential crisis.

[Wayne92587]

Wayne [quote] God, the Nothingness that existed prior to the beginning of the Evolutionary Process from which the whole of Reality, the Universe, emerged, existed as something that can not be experience.


Spectrum wrote;
The above is bad logic.
You simply assert God exists without proving your claim/premise.
Thus whatever follow from that [God created this or that] has no grounds thus baseless and is not deductive.

I have no issue if you acknowledge you have no proofs for your assertion 'God exists' but nevertheless need such a belief for personal psychological reasons, i.e. to deal with an existential crisis.

Ok, Try this on for size; First I said nothing about anything being created by God.

The subject of my post is the Nothingness that existed prior to the beginning of the Evolutionary Process, a substance that has no mass, exists as the Ether, the Great Void.

God being a metaphor for the Nothingness that existed prior to the beginning of the Evolutionary Process from which the whole of Reality, the Universe, emerged, existed as something that had no mass, the Nothingness that can not be experience.

Try this one; God, the Nothingness that existed prior to the beginning of the Evolutionary Process from which the whole of Reality, the Universe, emerged, existed as something that can not be experience.

Try this one;

(God ) The Nothingness that existed prior to the beginning of the Evolutionary Process from which the whole of Reality, the Universe, emerged, existed as something that can not be experience. Existed as a Priori Reality.