Did you see the example, how does that not prove that discrete positions in space are not a reality?
— christian2017
Sorry, I do not see how it does prove this. As I said, we artificially mark discrete positions for a particular purpose, such as measurement. — aletheist

If two objects with velocities both move away from a given position that proves there are discrete positions. No where in the book a "brief history of time" nor in Newtonian Physics is the idea of discrete positions refuted. If a galaxy moves away from where it was a million years ago and then two million years later is even further away, all that can be measured.

I'm actually in the middle of something right now. I'll get back to you later. I've been drinking a little bit so i can't quickly reply with a quick answer. Thanks for the reply.

As for discrete positions in space, if there was two galaxies or two asteroids roughly (roughly) in line with each other (hypothethical situation) and at at same time they were moving in opposite directions (roughly parallel to the original line that they form with each other), the speed with which they are moving and the distance traveled would be proof that discrete positions in space are not artificial creations.
— christian2017
The motion is real, but speed and distance are measurements facilitated by marking positions and instants, and then comparing them with arbitrary unit intervals. — aletheist

Did you see the example, how does that not prove that discrete positions in space are not a reality? Do you have a counter example? Relative time and relative positions are two different concepts. You might try to say that because time is relative that space is relative but it might seem counter-intuitive to you but that is not the case and certainly not in the strictest sense. Once again, do you have a counter example or perhaps you can use my example and show that is doesn't prove that there are absolute positions in space. Believe it or not but i am being very open minded about this.

As for McTaggart, i guess i'll have to read a 10 page essay to see how i feel about that paradox and then one month later, hypothetically me and you might (might) have a conversation about this subject.

Is the Devil unable, but willing to prevent good? Then he is incompetant.

Is the Devil able, but unwilling to prevent good? Then he is benevolent

Is the Devil both able and willing to prevent good? Then from where cometh good?

Is the Devil neither able nor willing? Then why call him "Devil"? — IvoryBlackBishop

There are Devils in many religions (Squanto was the name given to Squanto after he changed his name in New England), Squanto is the name of the devil in New England Native American pantheon. You'll find various gods in many mythologies and religions that somewhat fit the description of the devil

In most religions and theologies there are various forces at play whether it be angels fighting and opposing angels or gods fighting and opposing other gods. These gods or devils have to contend with other gods and/or devils to try to get what they want done.

I don't expect you to read the below but it is a possible description below why the holy book i attempt to adhere to is not dualistic.

_____________

On that professor's notion of is Jesus Christ schizophrenic?

Its hard to feel completely comfortable with why Satan was created and why (despite predestination doesn't directly directly directly directly contradict free will) he allowed us to make bad decisions. The Bible says the God/Jesus Christ doesn't think the way man does. I speculate that prior to the creation of the angels and the mortal non living gods that God perhaps some measure felt for whatever reason to start creating entities beyond the Trinity. While I personally am not opposed to the idea of the Holy Trinity and I do not fall out side of the orthodoxy of Trinitarianism, I do believe focusing on the theology of Trinitarianism as though it was core Christian belief, changes our focus from Jesus Christ's personality to some lesser Biblical truth. I don't believe Trinitarian theology is paganism but I feel the Christian church should focus on the personality of Jesus Christ as laid out in the old testament and the new testament. And once again a careful reading of the major prophets of the old testament will reveal a God and also a Jesus Christ that truly showed compassion to the people of the old testament and also to the people of the new testament. Now many will say that Jesus Christ wasn't alone before he created the angels and the other entities however perhaps my frailties make me fail to see beyond the idea that if i'm inclined to play a video game or build a tower out of a deck of cards, that there is either a sharp or dull impulse to push me towards that endeavor. We people have a God given dna and also a nurturing of our development (the situations we are put into) that sharply influence are predispositions. God/Jesus Christ I would argue based on the name Jehovah ("I_AM" or "I_AM_WHAT_AM", the latter being a questionable interpretation as far as I know) does not inherently know his origins nor can give a complex answer that caused him to have the personality that he has. We don't have that "problem". So let me speculate that when Jesus Christ decided to start creating the angels, mortal non living gods and other entities I believe under my understanding of what i consider rational, the actions of Jesus Christ/God in the beginning are sometimes attributed to what would commonly be called true randomness (as opposed to computer generated randomness or even the seemingly random nature of our Universe). I'm not saying that the personality of God/Jesus Christ is random but that due to my frailties I don't know how to describe this concept in a more accurate way.

So at some point he created entities that do not include the Trinity (I suppose the Trinity existed outside of time and forwards and backwards through eternity). I also speculate God/Jesus Christ spent time in the beginning just sitting there trying to understand what was going on before he started creating entities. I also speculate the time period prior to this "age" or self awareness loops around and some how pushes Jesus Christ into a sort of looping God/being that exists outside of time and thus you could say the time before time should more accurately be defines that substance or deity always has existed outside of time. Most of what i am writing in this post is my own speculation (perhaps shared by many Christians).

When he created the entities such as angels or mortal and non living gods, did he create them as spiritual or "physical" creatures (angels are created so you could say they are creatures). To my current understanding of the Bible the angels and mortal non living gods are spiritual. The question i ask is to what degree do these creatures have the tendency to mimic their creator. To what degree (1 to 100%) is their conduct predictable. Humans are 100% predictable but are gods or angels 100% predictable. And once again is 1% or 100% predictable? Satan was actually number 2 to Jesus Christ right from the beginning. Many of the demons to my understanding were in fact angels at one time. For now on i will refer angels (perhaps good servant gods) as angels and bad angels and also demons as "bad gods". So we have the Trinity, the angels and then the bad gods.

At some point Satan betrayed Jesus Christ/God and so on and so on.

Why do I say in the classical sense that Jesus Christ/God is not schizophrenic but at the same time Christianity is not a dualist religion. The Bible says
that God does not think at all like the way people do, so let me say this: I speculate the need to create Satan as to some degree inferior to the Trinity was in compliance to the basic logic that if you were an ancient warlord or ancient king, your ruling was not based on a hereditary nature but your kingship was attained through merit. This is not something you can say for modern kings. I speculate God/Jesus Christ gave Satan to some degree an inferior nature to the Trinity because this is not unkind but it is simply logical and rational. I would argue this could be said of all entities and it even carries over into the creation of people but I speculate that the relationship between the former concept and intended human frailty is atleast mildly close but it might not even qualify as a linear relationship (and ofcourse not one to one considering a one to one relationship is a type of linear relationship).

I would like to speculate and here i have much misgivings about this speculation (keyword speculation) that Satan surprised to some degree God/Jesus Christ considering his nature was spiritual rather than matter. I do believe perhaps matter and energy can be built from spiritual substance but perhaps we could say matter and energy is an extremely complex dancing of spiritual forces that vibrates continuously and makes matter and energy have the qualities that we witness on a daily basis. Perhaps dealing with Satan is like my brother playing me (the opponent) in chess, my brother is much smarter than me and will probably will win the match but he must stress slightly over the issue. I would argue if Jesus Christ played any human in chess, the match would in all practicality be over before it started considering the realities of Scientific determinism. Jesus Christ, I speculate, stresses to some degree when dealing with non living gods but when dealing with people the results of what would happen came in before anything took place. My last speculation is that to some small degree Jesus Christ acts as a sociopath only in the sense that he does a criminal profile of all the entities he ever created. In that sense (and i stress this is a very remote and vague relationship) to some very small degree that God/Jesus Christ can be said to have minor similarities to someone who has schizophrenia.

I will go on to further to say in the end each Christian will never worship another Christian, but we the Porcelain chess pieces on his chess board will be all worshiped by the living God. Is it lawful for God to love and adore his wife (The Christian Church). I speculate that it is. We the christians were used as living sacrifices to manipulate the great spiritual powers (angels and non living gods) that were in Heaven.

On why God/Jesus Christ gave us inferior and imperfect dna as opposed to perfect dna like himself, I speculate there are various reasons for that: going beyond the fact that Jesus Christ achieved his status as an ancient king or warlord achieves his status being not through heredity but through merit, I believe among many other reasons, Jesus Christ wanted to show love to an animal similar to him and to love an animal not because of what that animal can do for him but for what that he (Jesus Christ) can do for that animal. There is only one marriage or sexual relationship in heaven and for all eternity and that the marriage between Jesus Christ and the Christian Church. Once again just about all of this falls outside the pale of orthodoxy and is mostly speculation.

Thanks for your comments, but I am honestly not sure whether or how they bear on the thread topic. The fact that the speed of light in a vacuum is constant strikes me as consistent with my contention that continuous motion is the fundamental physical reality, while discrete positions in space and instants in time are artificial creations of thought to facilitate describing such motion. — aletheist

When you say continuous motion, who would argue with you on that? Perhaps i just don't know what you meant by that. I did read the OP carefully. As for discrete positions in space, if there was two galaxies or two asteroids roughly (roughly) in line with each other (hypothethical situation) and at at same time they were moving in opposite directions (roughly parallel to the original line that they form with each other), the speed with which they are moving and the distance traveled would be proof that discrete positions in space are not artificial creations. I understand that all objects form a line with each other (until you have 3 or more), but what i meant by that is if two objects have an original vector to their motion, I meant the original line formed prior to the vectors of the two objects changing. This is assuming the vectors of the objects change anytime soon anyway.

As for instants in time, well Calculus would teach that for calculation purposes, the concept of instances in time are real in the extent that they are used by engineers and physicists. If you want to elaborate on why you think instances in time is a ridicoulous concept i would be more than happy to hear what you say.

I'm not sure i have any suggestions for Commensurabilism. Seems more valid then most of the typical alternatives.

ok

I really don't get where you're coming from. — boethius

Next time just tell him "great job little buddy!"

One of the things Einstein argued with the theory of special relativity is that time is hard to measure accurately unless the measurement is done to a very small subset of the universe (such as inside a car or on an airplane). This has been proven with tests in P-3 airplanes flying over the chesapeake bay (P-3 can stay in the air for a very long time). The clocks on the plane were much slower than the clock on the ground in maryland. As a clock is thrown through space over a long period of time at a high speed or simply if it approaches the threshold of the speed of light (C) its components that are in the clock slow down and thus the clock slows down. Time is really just an iteration of events such that particles collide with each other and move around. Time can be said to not be relative only in a very small subset of the universe.

I would argue part of this is due to the fact that the vectors of a particles motion (vector X, vector Y, and vector Z) when combined can never exceed C (speed of light). So when you increase the particles velocity in vector Z, vector X and vector Y in many cases will have to slow down (only true when velocities approach the threshold of C).

I would argue that the ability to feel pain or pleasure is proof of either a divine (or soul) or its proof that the entire universe is one living organism and each of us including bacteria are just subset or should a cell with in that giant organism. Are you familiar with the notion of collective conscieeeeeence or collective soul? Its like the entire universe has phantom leg syndrome.

Distance is relative it was theorized by Einstein and proven by modern science astronomers use it all the time to calculate the distance between celestial bodies. — Kratos1

time is relaive, that was proven by einstein. Try again my friend. If an electron or marble takes up a finite space and you line up (same size marbles) 100 marbles next to each other they will always have the same length in relation to a 12 inch ruler. Lets say hypothetically you are right about distance being relative, you would have to try much harder to prove it. Read the book "A brief history of time" by Stephen Hawkings. Or get a book on relativity and also start with Newtonian physics before moving on to more advanced subjects. Believe it or not most modern conveniences are built using either Newtonian physics or a 19th century (1800s) understanding of Physics or physical science.

Just a conversation. This entire forum is just banter, ridiculing (i don't care about the spelling), and conversation.

So what your implying is distance is relative?

You misunderstood my post iam not trying to say god is infinite that's not the point iam making I saying god has to be infinite, to be god but then God becomes meaningless as whatever or anyone god creates is also infinite. And I dont think you truly grasp what Infinity is. Their is no 1 Infinity or 2 Infinity their is only Infinity within it there are infinite Infinities and within those there are infinite Infinities and it goes on for Infinity.

Also are you aware your using limits to describe or explain or contemplate Infinity. E.g. like a number 12 is limited but it not limited if you drive in deep that 12 can be infinite itself. — Kratos1

Is there an infinite space between two bugs that are 1 inch apart? The answer is no. There is a greek parable that addresses this problem. While 10 and 11 have an infinite "decimal" numbers between them is really just a way of saying it can be broken up into an infinite parts but on most levels there is not an infinite between 10 and 11. Its you doesn't understand infinite. On any given issue or relationship, there are many levels that you must or possibly could describe the relationship with. I don't know what you mean by god is infinite when you ask the question "if god is infinite then.....". See my previous post if you would like.

After skimming the article and looking at the diagram, my summary of your philosphy is just to be rational and approach things methodically and also ignore alot of the triteness of alot of other "philosophers".

This thread is a continuation of the multi-thread project begun here.

In this thread we discuss the essay Commensurablism, in which I finally stop arguing against things and put together what's left after the four previous essays into an overview of my general philosophy. Everything after this will be going into details on particular philosophical topics, with this as the foundation of each of those.

Reminder: I'm looking for feedback both from people who are complete novices to philosophy, and from people very well-versed in philosophy. I'm not so much looking to debate the ideas themselves right now, especially the ones that have already been long-debated (though I'd be up for debating the truly new ones, if any, at a later time). But I am looking for constructive criticism in a number of ways:

- Is it clear what my views are, and my reasons for holding them? (Even if you don't agree with those views or my reasons for holding them.) Especially if you're a complete novice to philosophy.

- Are any of these views new to you? Even if I attribute them to someone else, I'd like to know if you'd never heard of them before.

- Are any of the views that I did not attribute to someone else actually views someone else has held before? Maybe I know of them and just forgot to mention them, or maybe I genuinely thought it was a new idea of my own, either way I'd like to know.

- If I did attribute a view to someone, or gave it a name, or otherwise made some factual claim about the history of philosophical thought, did I get any of that wrong?

- If a view I espouse has been held by someone previously, can you think of any great quotes by them that really encapsulate the idea? I'd love to include such quotes, but I'm terrible at remembering verbatim text, so I don't have many quotes that come straight to my own mind.

And of course, if you find simple spelling or grammar errors, or just think that something could be changed to read better (split a paragraph here, break this run-on sentence there, make this inline list of things bulleted instead, etc) please let me know about that too! — Pfhorrest

You lost your innocense? Are you good at profiling people? You said in the above to form a new opinion based on what everyone sees. I would argue to see what other people sees, a huge part of you must die. Are you familiar with the comedy series on television called "Psych"? The good news you can refind yourself without looking, just simply be kind to people. Some people lose their innocense from being put through too much stress.

Are you a Libertarian as in of the philosophy of Libertarianism and/or the political party?

What I meant by Meaningless is to have no meaning or insignificant or pointless because Infinity has infinite Infinity so that make us infinite as we are part of the Infinity. And when you this part t"here is a god" we can't say this as it categorise god in the existence section which basically says god is just another being who is not a god.
And thank you very much for you reply. — Kratos1

I understand that theologians say that god is infinite but i don't even know that they know how to explain themselves. This concept in theology is rarely explained because of a lack of understanding Proverbs chapter 1 (subtlety and spectrum). Time might be infinite (might be) but just because time is infinite, does that mean god is infinite? Are you aware that there may have been more than one big bang. If you roll a trillion sided die a trillion times you are likely to roll a 10003 atleast on time. (a brief history of time by Stephen Hawkings).

ESV, KJV, New Arabic Version and Hebrew all point to an old earth.

If we are part of Infinity.
Let's say god is infinite and created (something contains us and everything we dont know yet) (iam temporarily accepting creationism that every religion uses, to point how it make no sense. Iam not saying god created us, you can't say he created us, as Infinity has no beginning or end.) That something will be infinite as god can't create something finite due to the nature of god is infinite. The creature in the something god created will be infinite so the whole god concept will go out the window making it meaningless. — Kratos1

when you say meaningless, do you actually mean contradictory or a irrational concept because of the nature of infinity in its relation to whether there is a god?

I think a terrible person can be reformed and even redeemed. I don’t think this is the case for everyone, though. As examples, Ghengis Khan and Adolf Hitler. They could never “erase” the harm they did. It is up to others to make a better world in spite of their evil.

Mike Tyson was convicted of rape. A horrible crime. I believe he can be reformed and redeemed. I don’t know enough about his life to say whether or not he has been, though. — Noah Te Stroete

Hitler was bad, however Ghengis Khan did alot of good. Many of the nations he conquered were known for raping women, murdering people and oppressing the poor. That is a very overly simplistic analysis of Ghengis Khan. The people Temujin conquered were terrible and attrocius people. Perhaps it was evil conquering evil. The poor weren't any worse off under Ghengis Khan. Look up the history of religions originating out of Saudi Arabia and their relationship to rape.

Topics which start with an appeal to dogmatic theology belong in a theology forum. Philosophy of religion is a different matter but this ain’t that. — Wayfarer

Nope. You're wrong.

It's a question for a theology forum, not a philosophy forum. — Wayfarer

not according to what this forum includes as topics. Don't be ridiculous.

If any philosophy is BS, then it is all BS. But BS is BS, philosophy is philosophy. Some people - well, even some people here on TPF - can't tell the difference.

I think of philosophy in the broadest sense as organized thinking about the organized thinking about a determinate subject matter. That cannot be BS, though it can be badly done. Organized thinking is just another way of saying Science - again in the broadest terms. Though it may be possible to try to think in an organized - scientific - way about religion, that effort is doomed to failure as religion is not a science or susceptible to scientific thinking.

Theology, depending on how that's defined, may be a proper subject for a philosophy of theology. — tim wood

which is why i replied to your initial response to the OP the way i did.

But here's the thing: if it's real it doesn't make sense, and if it isn't real, then it isn't real. Attempting to reason about either the unreasonable or the unreal can be hazardous to your health. — tim wood

lol. Why is that Tim Wood? Alot of philosophy is B.S.. And there are plenty of philosophers (Stalin) that have done terrible things.

It is stated especially in the Westminster confession that some people are by God predestined to be saved while others not.However i have come up across some precepts that are mandatory for salvation in Calvinism like true faith repentance etc.Of course that is contrasted greatly to the dogma of predestination.Is my syllogism right or am i missing something contained in the calvinsit dogma(to whcih my knowledge is restricted i must add) — rhudehssolf

A summary of below is that scienfific determinism (nurture/situations versus nature/dna) determine all of our actions. We made our decisions 10 billion years ago (Jesus Christ predicted all of them) and just now our decisions are playing out. I don't expect you to read the below but its there if you would like.

On that professor's notion of is Jesus Christ schizophrenic?

Its hard to feel completely comfortable with why Satan was created and why (despite predestination doesn't directly directly directly directly contradict free will) he allowed us to make bad decisions. The Bible says the God/Jesus Christ doesn't think the way man does. I speculate that prior to the creation of the angels and the mortal non living gods that God perhaps some measure felt for whatever reason to start creating entities beyond the Trinity. While I personally am not opposed to the idea of the Holy Trinity and I do not fall out side of the orthodoxy of Trinitarianism, I do believe focusing on the theology of Trinitarianism as though it was core Christian belief, changes our focus from Jesus Christ's personality to some lesser Biblical truth. I don't believe Trinitarian theology is paganism but I feel the Christian church should focus on the personality of Jesus Christ as laid out in the old testament and the new testament. And once again a careful reading of the major prophets of the old testament will reveal a God and also a Jesus Christ that truly showed compassion to the people of the old testament and also to the people of the new testament. Now many will say that Jesus Christ wasn't alone before he created the angels and the other entities however perhaps my frailties make me fail to see beyond the idea that if i'm inclined to play a video game or build a tower out of a deck of cards, that there is either a sharp or dull impulse to push me towards that endeavor. We people have a God given dna and also a nurturing of our development (the situations we are put into) that sharply influence are predispositions. God/Jesus Christ I would argue based on the name Jehovah ("I_AM" or "I_AM_WHAT_AM", the latter being a questionable interpretation as far as I know) does not inherently know his origins nor can give a complex answer that caused him to have the personality that he has. We don't have that "problem". So let me speculate that when Jesus Christ decided to start creating the angels, mortal non living gods and other entities I believe under my understanding of what i consider rational, the actions of Jesus Christ/God in the beginning are sometimes attributed to what would commonly be called true randomness (as opposed to computer generated randomness or even the seemingly random nature of our Universe). I'm not saying that the personality of God/Jesus Christ is random but that due to my frailties I don't know how to describe this concept in a more accurate way.

So at some point he created entities that do not include the Trinity (I suppose the Trinity existed outside of time and forwards and backwards through eternity). I also speculate God/Jesus Christ spent time in the beginning just sitting there trying to understand what was going on before he started creating entities. I also speculate the time period prior to this "age" or self awareness loops around and some how pushes Jesus Christ into a sort of looping God/being that exists outside of time and thus you could say the time before time should more accurately be defines that substance or deity always has existed outside of time. Most of what i am writing in this post is my own speculation (perhaps shared by many Christians).

When he created the entities such as angels or mortal and non living gods, did he create them as spiritual or "physical" creatures (angels are created so you could say they are creatures). To my current understanding of the Bible the angels and mortal non living gods are spiritual. The question i ask is to what degree do these creatures have the tendency to mimic their creator. To what degree (1 to 100%) is their conduct predictable. Humans are 100% predictable but are gods or angels 100% predictable. And once again is 1% or 100% predictable? Satan was actually number 2 to Jesus Christ right from the beginning. Many of the demons to my understanding were in fact angels at one time. For now on i will refer angels (perhaps good servant gods) as angels and bad angels and also demons as "bad gods". So we have the Trinity, the angels and then the bad gods.

At some point Satan betrayed Jesus Christ/God and so on and so on.

Why do I say in the classical sense that Jesus Christ/God is not schizophrenic but at the same time Christianity is not a dualist religion. The Bible says
that God does not think at all like the way people do, so let me say this: I speculate the need to create Satan as to some degree inferior to the Trinity was in compliance to the basic logic that if you were an ancient warlord or ancient king, your ruling was not based on a hereditary nature but your kingship was attained through merit. This is not something you can say for modern kings. I speculate God/Jesus Christ gave Satan to some degree an inferior nature to the Trinity because this is not unkind but it is simply logical and rational. I would argue this could be said of all entities and it even carries over into the creation of people but I speculate that the relationship between the former concept and intended human frailty is atleast mildly close but it might not even qualify as a linear relationship (and ofcourse not one to one considering a one to one relationship is a type of linear relationship).

I would like to speculate and here i have much misgivings about this speculation (keyword speculation) that Satan surprised to some degree God/Jesus Christ considering his nature was spiritual rather than matter. I do believe perhaps matter and energy can be built from spiritual substance but perhaps we could say matter and energy is an extremely complex dancing of spiritual forces that vibrates continuously and makes matter and energy have the qualities that we witness on a daily basis. Perhaps dealing with Satan is like my brother playing me (the opponent) in chess, my brother is much smarter than me and will probably will win the match but he must stress slightly over the issue. I would argue if Jesus Christ played any human in chess, the match would in all practicality be over before it started considering the realities of Scientific determinism. Jesus Christ, I speculate, stresses to some degree when dealing with non living gods but when dealing with people the results of what would happen came in before anything took place. My last speculation is that to some small degree Jesus Christ acts as a sociopath only in the sense that he does a criminal profile of all the entities he ever created. In that sense (and i stress this is a very remote and vague relationship) to some very small degree that God/Jesus Christ can be said to have minor similarities to someone who has schizophrenia.

I will go on to further to say in the end each Christian will never worship another Christian, but we the Porcelain chess pieces on his chess board will be all worshiped by the living God. Is it lawful for God to love and adore his wife (The Christian Church). I speculate that it is. We the christians were used as living sacrifices to manipulate the great spiritual powers (angels and non living gods) that were in Heaven.

On why God/Jesus Christ gave us inferior and imperfect dna as opposed to perfect dna like himself, I speculate there are various reasons for that: going beyond the fact that Jesus Christ achieved his status as an ancient king or warlord achieves his status being not through heredity but through merit, I believe among many other reasons, Jesus Christ wanted to show love to an animal similar to him and to love an animal not because of what that animal can do for him but for what that he (Jesus Christ) can do for that animal. There is only one marriage or sexual relationship in heaven and for all eternity and that the marriage between Jesus Christ and the Christian Church. Once again just about all of this falls outside the pale of orthodoxy and is mostly speculation.

Only in your mind, because you're considering the possible presence of apples on the table. Suppose there were oranges and bananas on the table. The negative fact (there are no apples on the table) provides no information about what DOES exist on the table.

There are no more truths than those entailed by the conjunction of all positive truths, so negative truths are redundant. — Relativist

If there are 2 apples on the table, but not 0 or 3 apples on the table then 0 and 3 still exist. What can be applied to 3 can also be applied to 0 atleast in this case.

If one apple exists on a table there is one apple. If zero apples exist on a table there are zero apples. zero exists.

As for infinite, there are infinite real numbers and only time will tell whether infinite exists. How much do you want to bet that infinite exists? A penny?

A pretty strange axiomic system seeing how many times it contradicts itself (check the difference between Meccanic and Medinaic verses). Go on alcantali! — Nobeernolife

I actually see alot of similarities between the way the Koran was written and the book of Mormon. It almost appears they have the same author. However for various reasons i do see most Mormons as actual christians.

.

The notion of Christ, as conceived in such a way as to accord entirely with the field to which tradition applies, and thus the whole of the matter itself, by which I mean those elements of the theological that throughout the course of time, and from the outset, assume a role of primacy by virtue of there having been drawn a consensus as to the truth thereof, between generations, is unfounded; though I restrain myself, and grow hesitant, in speaking of him as if to imply that his life, the events of which its appearance consisted, as they are perceived to have been, and generally believed, bore no basis in fact at all, on account of such claims differing with great starkness, from what amounts to an established truth of history, so far as those well-versed in its study, are concerned. Yet, idolatry is blind in all cases, and leaves one prone to the same fault in equal proportion to its effect; that is to say, the degree to which its quality holds sway over one during periods of reflection, corresponds without fail, to how far oneself becomes distanced from an understanding, and awareness, of the objective, during such times as those described when the subject for which it had been given, pertains distinctly, to what was held in question, before. A force of acknowledgement must be granted also, of the myriad ways by which our experiences of the world remain conditioned by prejudice; by that air of lifeless admiration that as of present, has shown itself to serve as an instrument of the misjudged, and aids in the execution of amorality, and now pervades throughout many nations, with respect to the political sphere, in particular, and that compels one to cast praise upon any other, without due cause, and without due reason, and which by extension, further detracts from the value carried to the fore by any achievement one might find in their lifetime, and consequently, renders an already tainted purpose, worthless; devoid of all that is to impart, substance, and weight. By this line of phrase, I provide reference to the shallowness in nature of those ambitions which seem to have taken hold, and have hitherto amassed an ever-broader following, an audience of sorts, keen to spread the teachings of which they are expressive, in a gilded gloss; to conceal from view the emptiness lying beneath the outer shell of their words, and depictions of fortune. Only in the negative sense can one garner sight of the true state of things; the whole of the world as it is truly, not merely as one wishes it to be, eludes often, our ability to recognize, to determine; this, being of merit also in the case of what ought to stand as the pillar of our striving; as the ideal toward which, we choose to aspire, and which by similar means, we hope to obtain, in testament to such ability. Only when deprived of those freedoms that are found, universally, and to which we have grown accustomed, are we able to appreciate that privilege which they themselves, both individually, and in sum, came to represent. Otherwise, as the continuance of their effect endures, without any measure of loss, our lives as we see them continue, also, undisrupted by the hardship, and despair that while confined elsewhere, is scarcely beyond our reach. Though, it is doubtful that as regards what pattern of social and moral decay has emerged, a return to those virtues which characterized previous eras, may at all be encountered, in practice. My fear is that amidst our descent toward the delusion of acting in good-faith, of providing expression to those actions which are indistinguishable from the prejudicial, and the partisan, yet, in appeal to falsity are claimed to differ from each, of touting ignorance as if it lent strength, even of our own past and that of none other, or of one being exempted from the consequences that one's own misjudgment entails, we are made blind even toward the fact of these lapses having occurred, and in the face of them, disconsider almost by intention, the possibility that anything besides our most heartfelt, and cherished of convictions, may at all be true. We needn't await entry into the abyss, for its touch is already known, and too its grasp. — Vessuvius

A 5 paragraph essay of entirely very very long run on sentences. (without paragraphs). If your going to have very long run on sentences you should limit your essay to 5 or so sentences.

Summary of what i took the time to decipher so far:

Jesus was a good guy as described but this ideal nor the christian ideal ever existed. Lets avoid going back to the way things used to be.
_____________________________
How do you feel about modernized significantly reduced zoning laws, Sub-blue laws (not religious whatsoever) and electric trike lanes? This is the path to true fiscal conservatism.

Imagine an empty digital photo, say 800x600 pixels. You could take a camera and potentially go to every single point in the universe and take as many photos from any point in any direction, even using a telescope and microscope, and infrared, ultraviolet, any filter you like… and you can also add to that every frame of every movie ever made, and every page of every book that was written, that will be written, and even those pages that will never be written… also add to that illustrations of every thought and dream, and every scene every man has seen and will ever see....

That single empty photo potentially contains all there is, was, and all that will ever be, and more, even things that can not and will never be. Yet the number of all those possible photos is not infinite. Therefore, if the universe / space is infinite, it can only be due to repetition since the number of unique things that can exist is apparently finite. — Zelebg

I'm not saying your wrong, but something to note when you change the space between two particles or two eye balls you also change the appearance and also the behaviors of that object/ball of mass/or human face. The structures of atoms is effected by distances (as well as other things) between any given "sub" particles or sub atomic particles that make it up. So once again i'm not saying you are wrong however when you change a pattern even slightly or change distances even slightly you are also changing alot of other things. So it is possible for an infinte different variations or patterns.

I am not able to establish unshakable beliefs. Are you?

Help me out! — Monist

1 + 1 = 2. There you go, there is an unshakeable belief.

Sounds great! Thanks alot friend.

Did you take down the Caller Id of the Creator when he called you? Or did make a note of his email address? This could be valuable information for, among other people, the Pope, Kevin Kavanagh, Jordan Peterson, and last but not least, me.

I'd sell the contact information to the highest bidder on eBay, if I were you.
— god must be atheist

:rofl: I was too shocked to think of taking down numbers. All I did was note down what he said about our faulty intuitions of the self.

For the issue of calling names, i feel its just a quicker way of saying something so you don't have to say 8 words you can just say 2.
— christian2017

Indeed, you're right and that's the big mistake isn't it? When convenience replaces truth as a priority it leads to erroneous thinking as my, the creator's, example shows and these linguistic short-cuts perpetuate and reinforce our misconceptions. Disaster is inevitable. — TheMadFool

It is unfortunate. the Holy book i adhere to has the "613" laws and then over 1050 laws in the next section. How does your creator feel about complacency and apathy?

i agree. In my opinion racism is a spectrum that most people fall on. For the issue of calling names, i feel its just a quicker way of saying something so you don't have to say 8 words you can just say 2. All people have a breaking point and if you stick any person in the wrong circumstances they'll make really bad decisions or grow bad beliefs.

Are you an engineer or a math major?
— christian2017

A software engineer. Math is more of a hobby, actually. I would never have studied it at uni. Math is fun, intriguing, and surprising but not vocational enough as a profession.

You can actually discover alot of stuff about mathematical principles by studying how 3d engines are made such as Blender.
— christian2017

I am impossibly lousy at visual mathematics, especially, at the visual puzzling of classical Euclidean geometry ("Elements"). I can only do algebraic geometry, to a better extent, but I don't like it all that much either. I prefer symbol manipulation only. So, I pretty much never choose a math topic that is fundamentally visual. It reminds me too much of technical drawings we had to do at high school. I could never "see" the thing ... — alcontali

Cool! You ever use Spring (a java technology)? I have to head out now. ttyl

Well, you did, by turning it into a personal affair. It is not a personal affair
— alcontali

Pointing out the implications your general principles would have on you specifically is not a personal attack, it is drawing your attention to the concrete consequences of your abstract ideas.

But if you want to talk about getting things personal...

How many times do we need to repeat to the plebs that personal attacks are never the solution to a problem? The only thing that you achieve by attacking people personally, is to reveal your lower social class and trailer-park origins.
— alcontali

This kind of classist bullshit makes me reconsider my opinion on guillotines. Maybe a few stuck up asshats like you should get their heads paraded around on pikes until the rest of you get the fucking message that this kind of thing is not acceptable.

Makes me reconsider religious tolerance too. Maybe I’ll go doodle Mohammed and then wipe my ass with it just to spite you. I’d tell your God that you’re the instigator behind that too, except he doesn’t exist and I try not to talk to myself.

I previously assumed your right-libertarianism was nominally a matter of anti-authoritarian principle and you were just happy to overlook or rationalize the anti-egalitarian consequences of it, like most internet techie manchildren, but now it’s clear that you’re simply someone who thinks he’s inherently better than others and only opposes authorities that challenge your own power. — Pfhorrest

This is definitely one of the worst cases on this forum of people acting this way. I guess we need to make his sandwich quicker next time.

Most of the discussions on this forum are fairly banal and then you jump to something that can actually be proven and also at the same time has alot of depth.

Are you an engineer or a math major? You can actually discover alot of stuff about mathematical principles by studying how 3d engines are made such as Blender. A relationship can be made between any two objects/ideas if you attach a complex (or simple sometimes) equation to it. (one to one, linear, exponential, inverse exponential, logarithmic) and ofcourse you have your coefficients and constants in the equation which add even more depth to the relationship. Reality is similar to a 3d topographical map except reality is like hundreds of these 3d topographical maps all intertwined at the same time.

i addressed that with the post i made right after the above post.