Amazing! Danke 180 Proof! From the bottom of my :heart: danke!

You ain't got a story about the origin. — Hillary

Last I checked, 'the vacuum' (Democritus' void) is physical
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/586447 :fire:

Vacuum is (scientifically) a region where the pressure is 0 Pa.

The next question what is pressure?

Pressure is the net force exerted by particles over a given area.

That means a vacuum

1. Is made of particles that don't exert a force

2. is a region where there are no particles

Nonphysical vs. Nonexistence!

Nonphysical vs. Nonexistence! — Agent Smith

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/693562

:ok:

@Agent, I can't get it. You refer to God as "being a nonphysical entity that exists". But according to the definition of "physical" and "existence" that you offer, only physical things exist. Isn't there a crying contradiction here?

Now, this is a good occasion to mention that the definition of the words "exist" and "existence" that dictionaries give, which also reflect the general view on these terms, is very limited and/or one-sided. There are millions of things that are not physical --at least in the sense of being perceivable through the senses-- and yet we say and agree that they exist, i.e. we accept their existence. I don't know where to start ... Facts, information/data, acts/actions, ... the list is endless. Even ideas exist, at least for the individuals who have them, as well as all sort of things that individuals experience. In that sense, we can say that God exists, at least for those who have experienced his presence (in whatever way) or even can prove his existence by reasoning.
So, maybe you should approach the subject in this way ...

The issue is, it seems, rather simple: We don't question the existence of mud, but we're unsure of the existence of Golems. Why? What's the reason for this differential treatment of mud & Golems (mud beings)?

Every well-educated citizen knows the vacuum is filled with "virtual" (a very unlucky and inconsequential misnomer) interacting Planck geometries. If these are part of a 4d bulk vacuum, and 3d space and TD-time emerged on it, the question obviously becomes: who the fuck brought thát on the scene? There's only one answer possible, and you bloody well know it. So free your thoughts and let the magic in. Who cares they made it?

Aren't we all creatures from the mud? The pussins are crawling on my head! Mud is real. But without us, does mud exist? Of course, if I touch myself tomorrow, the mud is still there. Persistent stuff. But does it really exist independently of us, even if we are made of it? If the mind is made from mud, is mud mind-independent then?

Good queries. I second a 2.5 k year old tehcnique for teaching/discussing philosophy - ask questions, ask more questions, then more and more questions. Don't stop...keep asking...questions. I believe it's called the Socratic method. From the little experience I've had, it should lead us directly to the doorsteps of aporia (bafflement/bewilderment), which is for me a very painful state to be in. Nevertheless, I'm an eager beaver as far as the next stage - ataraxia (equanimity) - is concerned!

Zen moments! You gotta love 'em, you gotta hate 'em. :confused:

. I believe it's called the Socratic method — Agent Smith

It's called, the method of the child. Look at its bafflement when it exams, still without method or well defined aim, the small piece of shit it finds on the street. "Don't touch that! Leave it there! It's dirty shit!" "It siiiiit, geat sit mama!"

The issue is, it seems, rather simple: We don't question the existence of mud, but we're unsure of the existence of Golems. Why? What's the reason for this differential treatment of mud & Golems (mud beings)? — Agent Smith

The difference lies in 1) their physicality and 2) the proof of their existence in the physical world.
However, as far as their existence is concerned, they both exist, although in different "universes": one is physical (objective) and the other is mental (subjective). OK, the second can easily be doubted. However, the first too can be doubted. For one thing, perceptions differ from one person to another. Also experiments can show different results based on different conditions etc. That is what I strongly maintain that there is no objective reality, hence the physical existence of something can also be questioned. And that is why I brought up the limitations of the definition of "existence".

See where all that leads? The term "existence" is relative. And it can be applied to both physical and non-physical things.

there is no objective reality — Alkis Piskas

Self-refuting? You want to make an objective claim, but you can't for the simple reason you'd have to eat your own words (I've done it my whole life, not recommended).

Also, I've been wondering. What's the difference between mass hysteria and objectivity? The psychiatric definition, from the likes of it, makes an exception for Lasègue–Falret syndrome i.e. if you have a quorum, insanity changes sign and becomes sanity. I guess the rule works in reverse as well.

t's called, the method of the child. Look at its bafflement when it exams, still without method or well defined aim, the small piece of shit it finds on the street. "Don't touch that! Leave it there! It's dirty shit!" "It siiiiit, geat sit mama!" — Hillary

:fire: That touches a chord! I like it!

Children go through a question phase!

Most interesting. — Ms. Marple

Didn't Friedrich Nietzsche say something about this:

"A man's maturity is to have rediscovered the seriousness he possessed as a child at play."

We could, in modern approach, add the woman to this.

Do you have any level of conviction that if an object manifests in human thought then it gains 'existence,' under any definitions of any 'labels' or words you choose, such as 'physical,' 'existence' etc

Do gods or unicorns gain 'physical' or 'metaphysical' existence 'FOR A PARTICULAR INDIVIDUAL OR GROUPS PERSONAL REALITY,' because their own imagination has conjured such?

I just spent 10 mins conjuring creatures and fables, sorry, truths, in my head. I started easy, from the 'duocorn' (two horned flying horse) to the 'bistat,' (a humanoid which can be in any one of two states, whenever it chooses, male or female). I will employ them in my 'creation revelations' at some point.
I also started to commlink with the 'first one!' I have just received this signal, It's been traveling for 26 billion years of our perception of linear time. I have only received it today as 'that's just how the physics involved works,' only I can understand this!
I will write about the 'truth,' I have received regarding the origin of ourselves, the Universe and everything in my book which I will call (oh I don't know?........) 'SCIgod,'The truely truely true revelations.'

All must accept SCIgod or be doomed to "ignorance of the true purpose of your life and you will suffer oblivion after you die.'
If any of you wish to become a SCIgodian then I can give you the details of the monthly subscription and send you the first sacred .truthatxt file which will explain the beginning of your astounding journey towards the truth of who and what you are.
This first revelation is the truth about how Scigod first created the mathaphys and combined it with its second creation of truth, the orga. This sacred combination created the first humanoid, which SCIgod named 'godseed.' Scigod then created his companion wogodseed.

Anyway my main question remains. Are there any 'labels' or philosophical definitions or theistic tenets (classical or current) which for you, adds or assigns any aspect of existence to my above suggestions?
Would such labels or definitions help me fool and con, sorry, I meant, to convince some/most people of the truth of my revelation, if I drew/painted some pictures of godseed and his wife and the place they were created? Do you think that would help?
I have lots of things I want, sorry again, have been commanded to go forth and perform so I need the cash to start to flow in!

"A man's maturity is to have rediscovered the seriousness he possessed as a child at play." — Hillary

Thanks for reminding me of that.

Check out this profile: Aryamoy Mitra

Pity! I hoped that my suggestion about seing existence from a different angle and its relativity/subjectivity aspect --both of which actually support your thesis, what an irony!-- would appeal to you. I feel that you have just ignore them ...

You get points for creativity.

All I can say is you manged to effectively highlight the point I wanted views on. What is a foolproof criterion to determine existence/nonexistence. Remember there are 4 things one has to possess the capability to affirm or deny:

1. Existence

2. Nonexistence

3. Physical

4. Nonphysical

Pity! I hoped that my suggestion about seing existence from a different angle and its relativity/subjectivity aspect --both of which actually support your thesis, what an irony!-- would appeal to you. I feel that you have just ignore them ... — Alkis Piskas

Apologies, my bad. I deliberately left out the parts we were on the same page on from my reply. I was afraid we might end up asinus asinum fricat (rationalization alert!).

My dear god, brother Uni... SCIgods? If you want to write a book about them and tell people that who don't want to believe in them are doomed, be my guest. It would only show that you prefer your own god and want everyone to accept them. It would expose tyrannical tendencies. "We all should believe in science, and all that don't are doomed!". We all have our dreams, stories, beliefs, etc. Your musings about the future, transhumans, endless pursuit, ad nauseam, of knowledge, extended lifespan, etc., is no different from my gods musings and cosmic models and dreams to prove them. You might say that your beliefs are in touch with the real world but so are mine. I don't need transhuman gods or extended lifespan to obtain a godlike status. So you as well as me, as well as everyone, crawls along in a magical life, provided to us by gods, whatever reasons they got. We can come to know heaven and the gods in it. The non-material heavens and the unphysical eternal gods, by examining the dual materialistic projection of it we see around us.

Consider this. Unicorns, dualcorns, pentacorns, etc. are nice fantasies but gods are no fantasy, which exist because we believe in them. We can project beliefs into the material world, like projecting a value belief into the the euro coin. The coin gets an intrinsic value in relation to these beliefs. The 10 euro coin is something different than a stone because of that. Would you throw a 10 euro piece in the river. Dunno. I would, but most won't. The piece has inherent value to some. Likewise for gods. With one difference. It's not our belief that brings them into existence. I know that's your vision, the gods being a fantasy. What's the problem if they are real? There is even a way for them to communicate with us. They can't appear in the flesh. The universe would collapse. But QM offers a subtle means to communicate with us mentally. The can project themselves onto the material world like that. You could see them in cloud shapes, for example, or see them in dreams, like I did. Why is that so hard to believe?

There are more users having this quote in their favorite section! And rightly so!

1. Existence

2. Nonexistence

3. Physical

4. Nonphysical — Agent Smith

If you think about it more deeply you would end up with the conclusion that all of those characteristics are contradictory towards God's existence. I cannot put an argument about existentialism if I am using, at the same time, that this object could be physical or nonphysical at the same time. Like you have to choose one or another. Not both.
Aristotle: contradictory propositions cannot both be true 'at the same time and in the same sense

The both have this one in common too:

"The tyrant dies and his rule is over; the martyr dies, and his rule commences"

Coincidental?

I also started to commlink with the 'first one!' I have just received this signal, It's been traveling for 26 billion years of our perception of linear time. — universeness

How can that be if the universe is no older than 13.8 billion years?

I just spent 10 mins conjuring creatures and fables, sorry, truths, in my head. I started easy, from the 'duocorn' (two horned flying horse) to the 'bistat,' (a humanoid which can be in any one of two states, whenever it chooses, male or female). I will employ them in my 'creation revelations' at some point. — universeness

Ten minutes to conjure up a coherent consistent heaven are not enough, brother Uni! You'll have to come up with something better than bistat fantasies, entertaining as they might be. The human gods, especially your god counterpart, will laugh about it in amusement! But I think the public sees through your trickery! But who knows... In the lhbtg community, your bistat god will be embraced!

RE: God and Existence
SUBTOPIC: Clear and Convincing
※→. et al,

I must have misunderstood the topic at hand. I'm still looking for some evidence of the Supreme Being.

[◈] Rationalist Proof.
. ✦ (Explanations for the existence of the things we encounter...)

[◈] Thornistic Proof.
. ✦ (The nature or essence of a discovery...)

[◈] Augustinian Proof.
. ✦ (The observation or decoction of abstract and generalized patterns...)

[◈] Neo-Platonic Proof.
. ✦ (The recognition of an end consequence by means of an exploded view.)

[◈] Aristotelian Proof.
. ✦ (Sensory perception of change, the logical sequence of nature, and the exceptions of a path...)

Much the the Principle of Uncertainty (Quantum Mechanics - Heisenberg) or the Principle of Sufficient Reason (Logic - Leibniz), I thought we would approach the topic from the perspective of the outside observer and moving towards the Proof that had the greater probability.

OR -- Am I completely off track?

Most Respectfully,
R

The recognition of an end consequence by means of an exploded view — Rocco Rosano

An exploded view of gods, how you imagine that?

Much the the Principle of Uncertainty (Quantum Mechanics - Heisenberg) or the Principle of Sufficient Reason (Logic - Leibniz), I thought we would approach the topic from the perspective of the outside observer and moving towards the Proof that had the greater probability. — Rocco Rosano

Why has the uncertainty principle offer a perspective on a proof that has greater probability? Do you mean a greater probability being true than the gods being true,?

If you think about it more deeply you would end up with the conclusion that all of those characteristics are contradictory towards God's existence. I cannot put an argument about existentialism if I am using, at the same time, that this object could be physical or nonphysical at the same time. Like you have to choose one or another. Not both.
Aristotle: contradictory propositions cannot both be true 'at the same time and in the same sense — javi2541997

Certum est, quia impossibile. — Tertullian

It's complicated! :confused:

You get points for creativity.
All I can say is you manged to effectively highlight the point I wanted views on. What is a foolproof criterion to determine existence/nonexistence. Remember there are 4 things one has to possess the capability to affirm or deny:
1. Existence
2. Nonexistence
3. Physical
4. Nonphysical — Agent Smith

Yeah, but what do you think about the existence of SCIgod. I don't need to convince all of the people all of the time but can I convince you, for starters?

Why are you giving me points for creativity when I am merely one of SCIgods relays. Will you accept my relayed data that SCIgod exists and can choose to be physical or nonphysical. If you become a SCIgodian and accept his love then he will physically appear to you when you are in a sanctified dreamstate!
Surely I can easily equal the validity of the Scientologists and with enough storytelling (which of course I will set way in the past.) I can even do better than L Ron Hubbard.

At the instant of the creation of our Universe, SCIgod had to employ a portion of his essence. He wanted to give humans freewill so he called upon the TauBal. TauBal was good but its sanctified use caused a tiny glitch in the singularities that SCIgod triggered from nonexistence. Although this interaction was needed to create Orga and Mathaphys, error or flaw became possible. Subatomic impurity became a threat to the sacred merging of Orga and Mathaphys. If the human race does not understand this threat by becoming SCIgodian and thus be able to know and live their lives in accordance with the love and the purity of intent as offered by the glory that is SCIgod, then our entire species could be damned to an oblivion of awareness of self after death but with no sensory input whatsoever, for eternity.
Do you think I could bite into some of that Christian cash, if I went in that kind of direction?

It would only show that you prefer your own god and want everyone to accept them — Hillary

Do you accept your gods and assign them existence? Am I not allowed to do the same by your rules of play? Are you denying the revealed word of the truth that is SCIgod. It's not my fault you don't understand the physics that demonstrates SCIgod is real!

It would expose tyrannical tendencies — Hillary

If you accept SCIgod then all your confusion will abate. SCIgodians reject all tyrannies, they offer you love, brotherhood, support, family, decency, and purity as long as you live as a SCIgodian.
Yeah, That sounds quite plausible. I am sure I can gain a few subscriptions from that.
Waddyafink?

Consider this. Unicorns, dualcorns, pentacorns, etc. are nice fantasies but gods are no fantasy — Hillary

There are no Unicorns, or Pentacorns, only deluded fools talk about such. There was in fact a Duocorn but the blessed story of the duocorn can only be understood by level 2 SCIgodians.
You my poor, poor, pain-filled lostboy who could gain so much love and support from your fellow SCIgodians, only have to agree to experience the glory of level 0 and level 1 to then be ready to receive the wondrous truth about the Duocorns.
Surely I can earn some dosh with that!