So, God exists and stupid, ignorant immoral people exist and a dangerous world exists and God did not create the latter. See? Can't you see how that follows? And if you think that's a problem - that God somehow 'must' have created all other things - have the decency to provide an argument to that conclusion. This is a philosophy forum - do some. — Bartricks

Read my word, dear Tricks. If the gaps are closed there is nothing other to conclude the universe is created. I closed the gaps. My conclusion: Gods exists and the created the universe.

Goddamnit Bartricks! Are you comparing me with a urine soaked piece of bread? What kind of argument is that? The chef might not have created that piece, but he might have created that urine.

Even on my best days, lil D-Ker, — 180 Proof

WTF is lil D-ker?!?

Even on my best days, lil D-Ker, I'm not omnipotent, so the question is (charitably) missplaced — 180 Proof

I just don't understand why not being omnibenevolent means being a sadist, 180booze. :chin:

Consciousness is conscious being” makes little sense to me. I can’t make heads or tails of it. — Xtrix

Yeah it's confusing. In German "Bewustsein" ,(litterally
"aware being")cmeaning consciousness or awareness, and "Bewust", aware, are two different things. "Are you aware of that" has a dìfferent meaning than consciousness. "I'm aware of the situation" is active, consciousness is passive. I have consciousness, I am aware. So conscious being is passive while being aware is active.

Aware means conscious. Consciousness is conscious being. It's a small but important difference. Your view of the chair is being conscious of the chair. You are aware of that consciousness. You have created a distance to that consciousness by being aware of it.

I find it fascinating that something that feels like obvious nonsense to me can be believed by so many people — Dawnstorm

Likewise, I find it fascinating that something that feels like obvious sense to me cannot be believed by so many people

If you order toast in a restaurant and you receive a cold, urine soaked piece of mouldy bread, is it reasonable to conclude that the chef is the best chef in the world? No. — Bartricks

I'm convinced. Go ASAP! Call him or her now you still show some signs of sanity.

I think having an argument with you isn't good for my healh. I only can say, if the universe coexists eternally with the gods and they haven't created the universe, then the universe would be devoid of life.

As you might conclude one day for yourself, when the gap is closed, we can receive gods.

Let me explain. God not create anything. See? God exist. God not create anything. God exist. Other things exist. God not create the other things. See? Once again: God exists. Other things exist. God did not create the other things — Bartricks

You must go see a doctor... You clearly show the signs...

So, God exists and you exist and God didn't create you. — Bartricks

They only created the universe. Not the people in it.

Take you. God would not create a person like you. — Bartricks

Why not? Tell me your thoughts... I'll listen. Don't worry.

That's all personal opinion, while I know they created the world.

Of course, a deity that is not omnibenevolent is akin to negligent sadist, or devil, — 180 Proof

Are you omnibenevolent? If not, are you a sadist?

They created the universe. So indirectly me. We all evolve(d) in the universe.

no he didn't — Bartricks

Indirectly.

1.If God exists, he would have created the best possible world. — tryhard

Again, an unwarranted assumption. Which makes the argument invalid.

And suddenly I understand the atheist. It's the OOOO character that makes him repulsive.

Because God made me have a mouth.

1.If God exists, he would remove evil from the world — tryhard

This is an unwarranted premise. Which makes 2. a triviality and 3. a false conclusion.

If God is omnipotent he can do anything. That includes creating minds that are not created. He can be self contradictory and do contradictory things.

All things in formation in the physical world have a potential counterpart in our brain. The brain is a micro version of the macroscopic universe, actively shaping the appearance of that wonderful universe, created by the Logos, be it intelligently thoughtfully spoken or uttered in an accidental, divine curse.

Can a theist reject dualism? I do not believe so — Raymond Rider

What if the theist believes God had created matter only? But matter with a special property, namely containing a special ingredient? Is it still matter than? Or is there a dualism then? Matter and what's contained in it? Can't it be a new form of matter?

Why can't the top and bottom of the wheel roll in the same direction simultaneously? — Cuthbert

Then it's slipping.

On the other hand, time evolving to lower entropy is still time. Maybe the question is ill-stated. Time doesn't move forward or backward. Time just moves. The hand on the clock, that is. Or better, the pendulum. Why don't processes move opposite to the motion the actually have? It would still be time. The clock could still keep time. We wouldn't be constructing clocks but rather deconstructing them. Effects in the current universe would become causes.

Love thinking about love. Or the two love chameleons.

What people are willing to do trying to solve the problem of death...suffering...which is it? Let's all build this monastery, wear robes, tonsure ourselves, mumble mantras, and confuse the hell out of each other. — Agent Smith

A sensible idea! :rofl:

There are many here who will defend the claim that ideas are merely neurological states. — T Clark

That's just an idea, another neurological process running around. Their definition of an idea seems to harbor envy for people with real ideas. It's like the memes of Dawkins. He made them selfish and in control of human behavior because he has no better memes himself. To come up with a meme about memes is a very sneaky and sleazy procedure. Same for ideas.

The question of the thread may appear to be about time but may actually be about meanings. For example: "Why does the top of a revolving wheel always go in the opposite direction to the bottom?" Well, why? — Cuthbert

Because that's the way a wheel rolls. But it can roll in two directions. So can time. Why isn't the begin situation of the universe situated at the end? With all motion reversed?

Love can never take over the color of love. Love identifying with love is deemed to stay invisible perpetually, in eternal confusion.

That's how a typical day at a Zen monastery must be like, eh? — Agent Smith

Yes! That's why there are less and less monasteries. At the same time it could explain the mysterious sounds heard in the Himalayas once in a while...

Yes, exactly. My original point was that we shouldn't reject a useful theory just because it has limitations. So I think we're on the same page. — Theorem

I think so too. Is it the begin page or the end page? All theories have limitations on two sides. Only the fundamental theory has a one side limit.

Sorry, I don't follow. — Agent Smith

That's because you're no chameleon.

Not intending to be cynosure but wouldn't chameleons flip out when the world was a chameleon,?

Ha, very cheeky. I was thinking more along the lines of the Ptolemaic model of the universe, but fair enough. In any case, General Relativity has it's own well-known limitations. — Theorem

All theories have limitations. The fundamental theory might be gap-less, but its applicability is very limited. It might underlay and explain the fundamental workings of nature. And thats its virtue. Which physicist doesn't wanna know the fundamental workings? But when applied to higher level laws these workings are useless. So what's the use of knowing the fundamental workings? Satisfaction? Assurance? What good does it to me if I know these workings?

Humans do have the same neurosemiotic base as all other large-brain vertebrates. But then the add sociosemiosis on top of that. — apokrisis

I think the whole neocortical layer is added. That includes a semiosis that isn't fixed, like it is in large-brain mammals. The new cortical layer is shaped by the world and at the same time shapes that world.

A 1000 brains by Hawkins springs to mind.

Different things. You can be aware of conscious experiences. This awareness is not a conscious experience. Awareness is conscious, but consciousness is conscious being. You can be aware of a conscious being without the awareness being a conscious being.

So I can be aware of red. That awareness is not an experience but an observation of. The observation of red has no color. The consciousness of red is red.

:lol:

Reality kicking in... Thoughts can't be prevented. Although... there seems to be a way. Concentrate on the red pearl. Thoughts might fade away, sound and vision conflate into an amorphous blob of black. The noise of gas subsides. The lighter isn't noticed. The bang of explosion will be your last. Gone in a blaze of thoughtless but mindful glory.

mushin no shin (mind without mind). — Agent Smith

This state can be achieved by meditation, so it seems. Shut off thinking and focus on the central red pearl. Thinking fades. Sounds and visions fade. The body fades. What remains is the red pearl of pure shin, the pure mind, without the extra bagage of the other hand. The flash without the smoking pistol...

‘The soul is the form of the body’ ~ Aristotle — Wayfarer

Well, I'd rather say the body can express the soul, reach out to other souls, for whatever reason.The bodily form stands in unbreakable (?) contact with the soul, as far as I can see. Likewise it stands in unbreakable (?) contact with the outer part of the physical world. Matter and soul seem to play with each other continuously. Mutually tickling one another, with us, the bodies, mediating between them two.

In the limit' we can yank out a 'purified' or 'a-physical' content from what thereby become the instantiations or husks of this kernel-stuff, which I playfully call 'informagical' as a substitute for latex gloves. — lll

The husked kernel-stuff is the latex glove? Are the latex gloves doing the yanking of the a-physical kernel stuff out of the shell it's contained in?

You say there need to be two elements or essential substances - matter and soul. That is dualism. You might call the divide an epistemic cut, but it lacks the key bit - the bridge that connects what it also divides — apokrisis

The body is the bridge between the outer part of matter and the inner, soul-like part.