Maybe "God" will turn you into a real boy. — Pro Hominem

There might be, but I don't know it. As — Pro Hominem

Must be lonely. — Pro Hominem

God on the other hand, does not correlate to the "real" world, and is not reflected in human interaction. It is a concept that was invented to concentrate power — Pro Hominem

Love is a specious label that we've attributed to various brain states and as a (problematic) descriptor for interpersonal relationships — Pro Hominem

math actually correlates to observable reality. — Pro Hominem

. What is required for survival of the fittest is for there to be organisms, and for the environment to shape those organisms such that some traits survive and others do not. Don't even see how you got here from math, but ok. — Pro Hominem

But by all means, tell me about math... :roll: — Pro Hominem

But if one day someone tries to 'clean up' language so as to remove all the contradictions built into it, and then proceeds to provide a consistent dogmatic theory about God, then do you guys think this will suffice as a proof for the existence of God, albeit only as an abstract concept similar to our concepts of numbers/mathematics today? — TrespassingAcademia

Oh, well, that clinched it. — Pro Hominem

A partial list of philosophical ideas and topics? Perhaps you're confused what the word "evidence" means? Or are you asserting that, say, all math is about the Christian God? Because if you are, you're just talking crazypants! :D — Pro Hominem

Not sure what exactly you are claiming here, but you're going to need to cite some evidence. I suspect you don't have any. — Pro Hominem

No. If you are using "God" as a synonym for "causation" you are distorting both terms beyond recognition. — Pro Hominem

Yes, along with all sorts of other delusions and disorders. — Pro Hominem

He's usually depicted as a tall thin pale-skinned guy, often with some facial hair — Pro Hominem

No it didn't. Again, you aren't reading.
I'm saying that this whole misconception is based on a language issue in English (and other languages that contract "logical not" and "something").

That's the polar opposite of trying to construct an argument based on language, which is what you just did. — Mijin

something indeed can be compared to nothing. — Mijin

The point is that we don't need an opposite in the sense of "sadness" and "happiness" (which you considered opposite) or positive and negative. (Implicitly) comparing things to their absence is the normal standard. — Mijin

Once again: a lifetime is not timeless or eternal. It's typically 70-80 years. So I have no idea what you're getting at with this. — Mijin

What's language got to do with it? — Mijin

What you previously said was that consciousness seeks equilibrium, which is a baseless assertion. — Mijin

So, what part of either analogy is incorrect? What are you disagreeing with? — Mijin

This is possibly the least clear thing you've said so far. How is a human lifespan "timeless and eternal"? — Mijin

The flying spaghetti monster works just as well. — Pro Hominem

You are letting your personal emotions impact the conversation. An even temperment would examine the point I made, not the point your emotions are leading you to think I made. An intellectual lets their emotions compliment their thoughts, not the other way around. — Philosophim

The temptation to belittle others is the trap of a budding intellect, because it gives you the illusion of power and superiority your mind craves. Resist it. It will make you intellectually lazy as you seek "easy marks" to fuel that illusion, a terrible human being to be around, and ultimately, miserable. There is no shame in realizing you have fallen for this trap, only shame on continuing along that path. — Philosophim

Also people seek simplified explanations for things that doesn't have one. — batsushi7

Don't count on it. As I'm beginning to realize - taking into account Einstein and what you said about how temporal perception changes with our state of mind - it appears to be the case that, at least within the framework of our discussion, time lacks an objective existence. Just saying... — TheMadFool

Just because I prefer to focus on non-conceptual relations, does not mean I’m denying physical relations. — Possibility

But no, mosquitoes are not essential to the system. And neither are physical relations essential to the phenomena we call Love. — Possibility

Your partner doesn’t need to consciously wonder why she’s aroused by specific visual elements of the act for her relation to be metaphysical - that is, to be more about her own experiences, ideas, feelings and thoughts in relation to you or love-making in general, than about your actual junk or hers. — Possibility

Time then is very much like a private, personal, experience having no existence beyond. — TheMadFool

Plato demonstrated that this type of opposition does not apply to emotions. Pleasure is not the opposite of pain, nor is happiness the opposite of sadness. They are distinct emotions, not dependent on each other. He demonstrated this by bringing into the discussion, pleasures which are not a release from pain. — Metaphysician Undercover

his may be true, but the point I am making is that these things, something/nothing, happy/sad, are not binary opposites. — Metaphysician Undercover

How is this relevant to the subject? — Metaphysician Undercover

like if I had said you can't square a circle, and your retort is that the analogy is invalid because you can't square a circle. You are repeating back what I said, as if it's a refutation, and, importantly, ignoring the actual point. — Mijin

Sorry I don't follow what you're saying. Can you break this down? — Mijin

There are activities that might give us joy our entire lives — Mijin

I don't see how this would rule out the possibility of a brain that could only experience various levels of sadness + neutrality, or various levels of happiness + neutrality. After all, a consciousness can experience various levels of itchiness + neutrality...there is no opposite to itching. — Mijin

This is what I mean. What do you mean "incorrect"? I said we don't need an anti-chair and can compare a chair to the absence of a chair. What are you disagreeing with? — Mijin

The point is, that many things, probably most things, do not have a perfect opposite, only their own absence. — Mijin

We can talk about 3 states; positive charge, its opposite: negative charge, and finally, neutrality; no net charge at all.
Most things are not like this though; we can only talk about 2 states; the phenomenon is present to some degree or it is not. — Mijin

that I would be ambivalent about and others that might make me happy. — Mijin

There's no reason in principle a brain couldn't be constructed that could only experience one state and not the other. — Mijin

summary, we (well, some) think that human experience includes an extra phenomenal experience that is beyond the computational mechanics. — Malcolm Lett

But why we abandon them so easily are they unanswerable or are we lazy? — philosopher004

Perhaps then if you are interested in the dissolution of the Eternalist/Presentist debate you could read this. — substantivalism

, as I say there is no proper way to oppose the subject, only to claim falsity or lack of correspondence, which is not the same as opposition. — Metaphysician Undercover

There is no valid procedure by which the subject can be opposed, or negated. — Metaphysician Undercover

Do you see the difference between "something" and "anything"? — Metaphysician Undercover

That is your mistake, you are trying to represent them as predications, a binary concept, when they are not. — Metaphysician Undercover

that a thing is less than perfect, but less than perfect is still good. — Metaphysician Undercover

; I can compare a chair to the absence of a chair. — Mijin

"anti-chair" — Mijin

And likewise I don't believe that we need evil for the concept of "good" to make sense, or that whatever is least good we would necessarily call "evil" any more than there needs to be an opposite of an itch, and the most non-itchy I ever feel must be labelled as some discrete concept in itself. — Mijin

And in comparison to this example, "something" would be like temperature, neither hot nor cold, with no opposite — Metaphysician Undercover

, so talking this analogy, upward and downward are opposing directions. In the case of "something", it would refer just to "direction", not any particular direction, so there would be no opposite.direction. — Metaphysician Undercover

I'm afraid all that you and yours are worth is f*** you! And barely that. And I can remove the asterisks too. — tim wood

It will seem harsh, but given your style of discussion, it is actually just right: Fuck you, stupid! — tim wood

Fuck you, 3017. — tim wood

Please get back to the rest of us when you have the answer. — EricH