GENIUS FORUMS

Then you are defining the universe to mean something finite. God cannot be the All and yet be able to create something finite. It's not me who is defining that. I am representing a theory of the Islamics, who claim their theory to be Truth, just as you claim your theory to be truth. I am just tryin...

It's all in your head/mind/brain. We cannot have a billion of thoughts per second even if we want to. Our consciousness are limited because our physical conditions are limited, dependent on 'mass'. Even if you are a solipsist you also has to recognize the limitation of your mind. What about thought...

What does tangible mean? - Come on. Why don't you propose your own definition? As a non-native English speaker, I understood 'tangible' as 'perceivable' by the senses or possessing mass. Tangibility, therefore, must be linked with mass. Even photons or quarks are perceivable. Photon have no stable ...

David Quinn wrote: What is a physical object?

-

A tangible entity. A bundle of tangible entities. Or anything tangible.

The thing about an infinite regression is that the original question is never answered. For example, when the answer "God" is put forward to explain the existence of the Universe, it immediately begs the question: "Where did this God come from?" And so an infinite regression is ...

The destruction and recreation of everything in each moment by God is itself a continuous motion? - I don't know. I don't speak for God. Though, I was referring to the motion of objects, not of God. I myself do wonder if God thinks and acts in term of time, if time itself was created by God. Can we...

Doesn't the truth of cause and effect cut through all that? - But as I said before, the Islamic God is defined to be the cause of everything, and the universe is a recreation in every instant, because God destroyed and recreated it in every instant. Which means continuous motion of objects is not r...

Any portion of the ALL. - The Islamic beg to differ. They would say a thing is a physical object, and that God is not a thing, or things, that is, not a physical entity or something perceptible by the senses. It boils down to definition. But can we know whether the total sum of physical objects wer...

David Quinn wrote: As soon as they divide the All into the universe and the rest of God, they are already tacitly admitting that "things" are all there are. For they have divided the ALL into two things.

-

What is a thing?

Again, this comes down to definitions. Here the Islamics are defining the universe to be less than the ALL. That is their right, of course, but it is what they subsequently do with these defintions which matters. For example, if they now want to say that God and the universe are identical, then the...

And Liberty Sea, the wholesale social change you speak of in staying dedicated to your education will not come from the top-down. In other words, seeing yourself in a position of power (at the top) in order to effect the changes you seek is only to remain stuck in the very hierarchy you might be se...

It all boils down to definitions. Things only ever exist by definition, Gods included. Knowing this, why are you still seeking objective realities? It boils down to the inconsistency and messiness of a bunch of definitions. By asserting: "My view is subjective", I am already objective abo...

The God that is everything certainly exists. Aside from the matter of semantics such as existence, being, or wujud, I suppose that would make you a Pantheist, which is by nature a form of Spiritual Atheism anyway. I would consider myself a Pantheist as well, if I am to associate myself with any -is...

I suggest you read the introduction forum then tell me if you still think you are a "genius". I suppose your suggestion was directed to firefly. But I have not read it until now so allow me to post about my impression on it. By that definition, I am not only an original/natural genius, bu...

Hi there, Firefly. Viewing from a larger outlook, you are not alone at all. Cases like you are pretty common.Young people who dismiss university became more crowded since the day of of Edison and Einstein, more so after Bill Gates and Steve Jobs. We did not fail the system. The system failed us. Thi...

A thing needs a form to exist, but doesn't need a form to be. If "being" is defined as literally *all* things, then obviously any *thing*, which is not all things, is ruled out from "being". Well, and Allah is not a 'thing' either. Nor is 'he' the total sum of things/'all things...

If A is everything, where does not-A exist?

Jupivix and David, perhaps we need to make a distinction between existence and being. 'Exist' came from the Latin word existere, which means "to stand out". Thus anything that exists, exists in relation to other things, and by means of contrasts. For that reason an existent entity needs a ...

"Why is there Being at all, and not much rather Nothing? That is the question" - Martin Heidegger.

Okay, I will attempt to explain it again. If I experience that a chair is 1 meter away from me then I am also experiencing something called "me"(e.g my body). But what is it that from which the chair is 1 meter away? Since the chair is you, is your body, what is it that the chair is 1 mete...

I'm sorry but now you are being intellectually dishonest. When you said consciousness is directed or launched you weren't merely saying it is caused. Beside being caused, it is also launched from a center. When I say there is no director, I mean the absence of free will. If you can't understand thi...

Again, there is nothing that directs this thinking about something. Consciousness is consciousness of something, and that's the end of it. Thinking is directed because it is caused. There is the directing but no director. Either you are wrong, or you have a different definition of consciousness tha...

I've already shown that consciousness cannot be launched in the way you are describing. Neither is there any reason to assume a vantage point separate from consciousness. No, you have not, and we are still discussing that. Don't bother with location. A thinking is always a thinking about something ...

I don't understand how that is possible. If you think that it is you should be able to explain it in words instead of diagrams. This ego is a bare "vantage point", an empty "point of view" like a geometrical point, from which consciousness is launched. This ego is not psychologi...

So you are your vantage point but not your consciousness? This is getting really confusing. I don't think we are using the same definitions of these things. As I said before, consciousness doesn't have any separate vantage point other than itself. The consciousness of a thing is itself the vantage ...