A thought: idealism, or the role of the mental in constructing (our?) reality, seems inevitable once you spend enough time philosophizing.

On the other hand, that mind is intrinsic and underlies everything, is exactly what creatures with minds would say. Especially after they spend a lot of time thinking.

"I am the center of the universe, and everything else moves around me." - how am I to disprove this to myself? — Pneumenon

self doubt or low self esteem.

I wouldn't recommend either. Self doubt and low self esteem usually mean misery. I guess we should all just try to find a balance.

take a look at what that guy who i was responding too ends every post he posts with.
— christian2017

Regards
DL
— Gnostic Christian Bishop

I'm lost. Is that a Gnostic cypher we should know about? — Banno

this is the usual for you Banno.

Did you see the post you made that started this whole conversation?

Regards

Not DL

take a look at what that guy who i was responding too ends every post he posts with. Note the bottom of all of his posts. Your kind of jumping in on the middle of a conversation.

Have a great week Gnostic Christian Bishop.
— christian2017

...and here's that nauseating two-faced self-righteous passive aggressiveness modern Christian that we all love. — Banno

i think the same of you Banno.

I don't understand the alliteration.
— christian2017

Me neither. Perhaps the point pertains to puritans.

True Scotsman eat their porridge with just salt - that McTagger, he eats his with honey; hence he's not a true Scotsman.

Presumably those Christians who's OPs remain are not true christians. — Banno

oh ok.

Perhaps
— christian2017

Perhaps?

How can you have the moral high ground while idol worshiping a genocidal god?

Would you agree that I have the moral high ground if I idol worshiped Hitler?

Hitler could not cure so killed. Your god can cure yet chooses to kill.

Which one is taking the moral low ground?

can you rephrase that sentence.
— christian2017

I like it as is.

Regards
DL — Gnostic Christian Bishop

I disagree. I'm done talking to you or atleast responding to your original posts/forum topics. This is the case for various reasons. Have a great week Gnostic Christian Bishop. Perhaps you are right in all of your opinions but it doesn't benefit me to argue with you.

That is a non-lethal inquisition which is a Christian forte. That was the royal you Christians BTW. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

can you rephrase that sentence. Like i said me and you have different ideas of right or wrong. In my opinion i have the moral high ground. Perhaps i'm wrong.

Two Christians arguing about atheism, :rofl:

True Christians typically get their OPs taken down quickly on this forum and any secular forum.
— christian2017

Would that this were so. Do they do that to True Scotsmen too? — Banno

I don't understand the alliteration.

You think your ethics are good. But my ethics are different from your ethics.
— christian2017

If push came to shove, I doubt that we would differ much.

If you want to go all over the place, issue wise, do it in P M.

Better still, start on O.P. on the morality of Christianity verses Gnostic Christianity.

I will clean your clock.

Genocidal satanic gods fall quite quickly.

Regards
DL — Gnostic Christian Bishop

True Christians typically get their OPs taken down quickly on this forum and any secular forum. If you would like to have discussion in private that would be fine with me. Like i said you have your sets of morals that i disagree with. And i have morals that you disagree with. Like you believe abortion among other things is ok. I don't see the two of us seeing eye to eye.

Communism/Atheism has killed far more than religion in alot less time. Just imagine the death toll in 500 years as far as Atheism goes. This doesn't even include abortion. How do you feel about Abortion?
— christian2017

Think of the numbers that religions have killed for the 4,500 years before that.

Abortion? Wrong issue here, but lest you forget, most were done by Christian women.

Regards
DL. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

Most religions aren't like Christianity and the other religions are far worse than Christianity.

Actually see as how communism and atheism is more prevalent today, its safe to say atheism is far more dangerous than religion.

Why do you say most abortions were done by Christian Women?

I'm probably never going to convince you of anything because you have different i idea of right and wrong than me. I think my ethics are good. You think your ethics are good. But my ethics are different from your ethics.

Probably not many. Not all of the Christian church participated in the Inquisition. Are you aware of all the killing done by Atheist/Socialist rulers?
— christian2017

Yes. All allowed and encouraged by governments. Including Christian governments, that all encouraged inquisitions and jihads.

Regards
DL — Gnostic Christian Bishop

Actually Europe had a pseudo-theocracy at that time in history. Feel free to educate yourself on the people's lack of say during the middle ages, renaissance, and also enlightenment period. This is why America was unique when America formed. You need to read more history books.

We all have preferences we can't change and that influence our judgements.

Imagine you see a naturally attractive person. They look attractive to you and to many others, but that doesn't make that person attractive, does it? It only means that majority of people agrees with your opinion on his appearance. Or more like you all have similiar preferences.

Now, you walk up to this person and give them a compliment. They thank you. But for what exactly? Are they thanking you for having a preference? You only say how you view their looks. Why should they be thanking you for that? Whatmore, it's their looks we're talking about. It's the way they were born. They didn't work hard to look this way. — Craiya

I very much agree with what you are getting at. Some people have to watch what they eat to stay thin so you could say the are putting some effort into staying thin.

But more or less the OP you provided is worth considering.

There's this notion of false awakening where a person believes s/he has woken up but is actually asleep and dreaming; hence false awakening.

The idea has another, philosophical, meaning - describing a person who believes s/he has grasped true reality but actually hasn't; maybe s/he misunderstands, or s/he has only a partial understanding of, true reality.

If we bring these two meanings of false awakening together we get the picture of a person who thinks s/he's awake and understands true reality but is actually asleep, dreaming and still in the grips of an illusion, stuck, as it were, in false reality.

Consider now what we take to be true reality - the world in which we spend our "waking" lives in. We distinguish it from dreams we experience in sleep and declare, quite adamantly in my view, that the "waking" life we go through is true reality and the dream is an ilusion.

Bring to bear on the above notion we have of what true reality is, the idea of false awakening and suddenly we're no longer in a position to claim that our "waking" lives constitute an experience of true reality. To entertain this possibility is not to say anything new - Descartes' evil demon and the brain in a vat are old and well-known thought experiments. What bothers me at this point is whether any amount of "awakening" is sufficient to permit us to make the claim this, for sure, is true reality.?

To give you a glimpse of the problem we're faced with imagine me as asleep, dreaming and I "wake up" and realize that I was dreaming. I sit up in my bed and then the thought that I could be a brain in vat crosses my mind. I'm now no longer certain that the bed I'm sitting on, the watch whose alarm woke me up, the toothbrush I'll use, etc. are real. Imagine now that I am a brain in a vat and "wake up" to that fact - I see myself, the brain, connected to a supercomputer simulating the world I thought was real and so on. What about this reality, myself as a brain in a vat, can assuredly prevent me from thinking this too might be an illusion? "Nothing" is the right word I suspect.

It seems that to whatever level of reality one "awakens" to, the same problem exists - it could be a false awakening and the specter of an illusory reality constantly looms over us. Bottomline, every awakening could be a false awakening and although true reality maybe within reach, we can never really know it is that.

Comments... — TheMadFool

The problem i have with this is it points to that we should accept post-modernism. I would argue if some one's awakening doesnt fully embrace practicality or close to practicality its not helping themselves nor others.

Noah Harrari (the book: Sapiens) addresses the human species practical need to believe false things such as money, legal fictions and also fictions such as Religion.

I couldn't paste the picture for some reason

but google or bing

The Death Toll of Communism.

Communism/Atheism has killed far more than religion in alot less time. Just imagine the death toll in 500 years as far as Atheism goes. This doesn't even include abortion. How do you feel about Abortion?

We also shouldn't assume everyone executed during the iquisition was relatively innocent.
— christian2017

What had they done, even if guilty, to deserve death?

When Christianity ran out of heretics to kill, they turned to killing witches.

How many of those do you think were real witches and deserved to die?

Regards
DL — Gnostic Christian Bishop

Probably not many. Not all of the Christian church participated in the Inquisition. Are you aware of all the killing done by Atheist/Socialist rulers?

i disagree. Why do you always post videos to back up what you say instead of articles? Do you have an article to back up your claim. I've never heard someone say Gnostic Christians are the good christians.
— christian2017

I do not know what part s you disagree with and to your last, it is not my fault that you have not gotten around enough to hear that.

Why do you think the inquisitions were used if not because we had an ideology that evil Christians could not argue against?

Regards
DL — Gnostic Christian Bishop

The inquisitions were done by the Roman Catholic Church. There was also the Orthodox church and later on the various Protestant churches. We also shouldn't assume everyone executed during the iquisition was relatively innocent.

I've never heard someone say Gnostic Christians are the good christians.
— christian2017

Certainly the Gnostic Christians themselves say that, otherwise they wouldn't stay Gnostic Christians.

Everyone thinks they are of the correct opinion and those who disagree are wrong, otherwise they would change their opinion to the one they think is correct. — Pfhorrest

true.

Let’s chat about the atheist religion.

Believers in the mainstream god religions often denigrate and discriminate against atheists, non-believers and rival religions on moral grounds. Godless mean without a moral sense to them.

I seek a solution to this problem, as the godless, statistically speaking, seem more moral, law abiding and peaceful than traditional mainstream religious believers who, ironically, claim a superior moral position, while having an inferior one. Statistics are quite clear on this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VdtwTeBPYQA

As a Gnostic Christian, I get it from both sides. From believers who see me as an atheist and from atheists who see me as a believer. Both sides are wrong, given that Gnostic Christians are esoteric ecumenist and free-thinking naturalist, --- who hold no supernatural beliefs, --- regardless of the lies put into history by the inquisitors who decimated us, --- but never annihilated us. We are a religion of perpetual seekers of knowledge and wisdom, who raise the bar of excellence whenever we think we have the best ideological position.

This prevents the idol worshiping of the immoral gods, that the mainstream religions are prone to follow. This makes Gnostic Christianity a superior ideology. Perhaps this open-mindedness explains the hate towards us from god believers, as well as towards atheists and other non-believers that believers target.

Solutions to this endless denigration and discrimination are hard to come by, given that governments are not promoting any kind of dialog between the various religions and non-believers and allow religions to continue promoting vile homophobic and misogynous teachings.

To my way of thinking, be you following a theology and named god, a philosophy of a named philosopher, a religion that puts man above god and focuses on knowledge and wisdom like mine, a political tribe like Democrats and Republican, statism or any other thinking system, --- all groups named are following an ideology, --- and can thus be seem and described as a religion.

It is thus proper English to call atheism a religion. In fact, given the stats, atheism is a more moral religion than most. I am thinking that if all atheist proudly took on the religion label, --- as their atheist churches are doing, --- more god believing religionist would likely opt for atheism as their religion so as to improve their moral sense.

Take your deserved bow my atheist friends. You are now second only to my own Gnostic Christianity. We Gnostic Christian did what I advise here before the inquisitors got to us and that may be why we were known as the only good Christians.

Regards
DL — Gnostic Christian Bishop

i disagree. Why do you always post videos to back up what you say instead of articles? Do you have an article to back up your claim. I've never heard someone say Gnostic Christians are the good christians.

Other than essentially not being allowed to be preachers, i don't think the Bible is misogynistic. There is a lot more suicide among men in our modern age than women.
— christian2017

I adlib the bible.
He will rule over you. Do not dare try to teach men. Need I say more. If so, do some googling before your reply.

What suicide rates have to do with it is beyond me. Perhaps men know that many women are brighter than them and they can't take it.

Why do you assume divorce benefits women? Women could divorce men if the man cheated.
— christian2017

Sure, and be branded as a fornicator to make it harder to find a new husband. Why do you assume a divorce would hurt women, when it allows then to find a loving partner instead of staying in a loveless relationship?

Where in the Bible did God/Jesus condone genocide? I already showed you before that Joshua didn't commit genocide.
— christian2017

No you did not as you forgot Noah.

As to Jesus, I thought I quoted this.

Luke 19:27 But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me.

Both Christianity and Islam are fascist regimes and both threaten to use genocide or inquisitions and jihads on everyone that does not follow them, should they ever get the power.

Why would you think otherwise given their vile murderous history?

Regards
DL — Gnostic Christian Bishop

ok.

ok

Not true, reread what he wrote.
— christian2017

Sorry, I already read it two or three times, and it just doesn't make any sense to me. It's quite plausible that my interpretation is "not true", but that's because I can't make any sense of it. — Metaphysician Undercover

youre right, i'm from the deep deep deep south, and i never made it past the 6th grade. My deepest apologies.

So you aren't entirely opposed to Kabbalah but you are opposed common Christianity?
— christian2017

Kabbalah does not put god above man and is a knowledge and wisdom seeking ideology or thinking system. It is almost extinct and few even know what it is. Further, they are not the homophobic and misogynous and are not victimizing half the planet today with discrimination without a just cause.

I've already showed you in other conversations we had that God/Jesus is not genocidal nor misogynistic.
— christian2017

He will rule over you --- be silent in church and do not dare try to teach men is scripture.
Jesus also supports a no-divorce policy for women. Who was more against women getting the vote more than Christian men?

Yahweh already showed his genocidal side often in scriptures and Jesus is going to genocide all who do not accept him when he returns.

All these belie your view. If you are going to make false statement, back them up.

Once again thanks for the book recommendation. I find videos take too much time to watch, in terms of trying to figure out if the video is true or false.
— christian2017

She is a scholar. Not a televangelist liar. Books are better, no argument.

Regards
DL — Gnostic Christian Bishop

Other than essentially not being allowed to be preachers, i don't think the Bible is misogynounistic. There is alot more suicide among men in our modern age than women.

Women in the Bible could own businesses and there is nothing barring a women in the Bible from being in secular leadership.

Why do you assume divorce benefits women? Women could divorce men if the man cheated.

Most people in America during the Women's suffrage movement were men so you don't have a point there.

Where in the Bible did God/Jesus condone genocide? I already showed you before that Joshua didn't commit genocide.

I'm sure we'll talk again, we can discuss your other issues later.

imperfect dna
— christian2017

Scriptures say that only perfection can flow from perfection. To think perfection would produce imperfection is linguistically impossible. Then again, the bible shows god's creating as merely good. Just another of many contradictions in the book of myths.

Gnosticism began with the belief in supernatural. Gnosticism at the very least began in the 1st or 2nd century AD if not before.
— christian2017

With it' present name perhaps. I think free thinkers have always existed. We know that esoteric system like kabbala started in about the 13th century BCE.

There are also older tradition that have sought wisdom and not some god before that. The oldest serpent shrine is what, 79,000 years old or so.
Your form of Gnosticism doesn't have alot of material available to all as Christianity has.
— christian2017

Understood, but Christianity is a stagnant religion that posits that a genocidal god is somehow good and cannot evolve away from that really stupid thinking. Their homophobia and misogyny is also out dated and should have been revised out of their ideology. Gnostic Christianity did evolve in the distant past and we continue to denigrate Yahweh for the prick that he is shown to be. We were never homophobic and misogynous as we tied god's righteousness to equality because we are a universalist religion with a heaven but no hell. Our heaven is also more as Jesus described. Here and now. He also indicated that only the enlightened would see it as he and I do. What do you see?

When people study Kabalah (spelling) the people who want to know more are very often required to sware an oath (similar to free masons) before they can get more information from the Kabalah sage..
— christian2017

Back then, religions/tribes liked to tie in their adherents. It was all about the cash even as it is just that today. That is why so many Christian sects and denominations hate each other so much.

In this day and age you are more likely to get ridiculed for being Christian than a gnostic, so I'm not sure why your type of Gnosticism doesn't have a lot of reading material associated with it.
— christian2017

Christianity and Islam have soured the soup, so to speak, and Gnostic Christianity, even though it is hands down the best ideology that I know of, will go the way of all religions, as secularism and laïcité take over the future.

I don't mind as it is close enough morally to Gnostic Christianity.

Secularism looses the esoteric part of religion but so few of us reach the enlightenment stage that few will do the work required to get to that deeper level. I can tell you that it is hard work, and the rewards are individually rewarding but does little for the masses. The limits of enlightenment are not rewarding to those who seek some supernatural unknowable god.

Here is what I found and this link shows how hard it is to express. I just call it a cosmic consciousness and even I do not agree 100% with the description given.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGQTstWVCIw

I can tell you that from within that cosmic consciousness and knowing of our Father Complex, it is impossible for me to know if I was within myself or within an outside cosmic consciousness. DNA research is showing that our DNA stores a lot more information than we thought. We know for a fact that it hold multi-generational information.

If interested in Gnosticism, I recommend you read the Gnostic Gospels by Elaine Pagels. She does a great job of analyzing Gnostic Christian thinking.

I also think there is a time limit for enlightenment. I was 39 when I suffered my apotheosis and I think I was a late bloomer because it took me that long to learn how to love or to find love.

Regards
DL — Gnostic Christian Bishop

If (if) God created the animals he gave them imperfect dna, the same is true for humans. Nurture(situations) versus nature(dna) is what decides what we do. See my above posts for clarification.

So you aren't entirely opposed to Kabbalah but you are opposed common Christianity?

Thanks for giving me that book to read, i'll look it up on amazon or request it at the library.

I've already showed you in other conversations we had that God/Jesus is not genocidal nor mysogynistic.

Well i forgot some of what you said above. We can discuss what i just responded with or you can expand on the other stuff.

Once again thanks for the book reccomendation. I find videos take too much time to watch, in terms of trying to figure out if the video is true or false.

Oh i went through that stuff. Like i've told you over and over again. I want reading material not videos. If i do watch those videos it won't be until next week if not indefinitely. If you dont want people to just dismiss your form of Gnosticism as just another Kabalah or Free mason group then you'll have to make documents public, just as many religions such as Christianity has public documents.

I might eventually watch those videos, but like i said i would prefer written documents.

How do you feel about Marcion?
— christian2017

I agree with some of his views but not others.

He was using our myths in a literal way to put against the literal reading Christians.

That is just using one set of invented lies against another set of lies.

That is why I stick to reality, which is the Gnostic Christian way as we only believe in things that can be known as true and real.

Ours is more of an ideology than a theology even as we use the god word. God to us is just the best set of rules to live life by. These can change over time depending on the moral maturity of any peoples.

You may have noted that secular law is a hell of a lot better than theistic laws.

The one uniting factor of all Gnostic sects is that we put man above god. We recognize that they are all man made.

Regards
DL — Gnostic Christian Bishop

oh ok.

If God can predict everything in 100% detail, but if he also allows room for error, wouldn't it make sense that really bad things would happen? And to go on further that he would know that these things would happen.
— christian2017

You propose what breaks the law of the excluded middle. If 100% is known, there is no room for error.

Things are 100% or not. One cannot have both options at the same time.

Gnosticism, but you wouldn't give me any reading material. There are different types of Gnosticism.
— christian2017

True, that is why it is better to ask specifics so that I do not have to explain the lies the inquisitors used to try to justify their murders of us.

All types of Gnosticism begin with one being a free thinker and being an esoteric ecumenists with no supernatural beliefs. We are naturalists and know that trying to know the unknown supernatural god is a waste of time. Our myths are just myths to us and were invented as talking points before Christianity went stupid and began to read their myths literally. I seldom use them, other than the more moral or esoteric terms and sayings.

I use the following to show our general modern thinking.

Modern Gnostic Christians name our god "I am", and yes, we do mean ourselves.

You are your controller. I am mine. You represent and present whatever mind picture you have of your God or ideal human, and so do I.

The name "I Am" you might see as meaning something like, --- I think I have grown up thanks to having forced my apotheosis through Gnosis and meditation.

In Gnostic Christianity, we follow the Christian tradition that Christians have forgotten that they are to do. That is, become brethren to Jesus.

That is why some say that the only good Christian is a Gnostic Christian.

Here is the real way to salvation that Jesus taught.

Matthew 6:22 The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light.

John 14:23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.

Romans 8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

Allan Watts explain those quotes in detail.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=alRNbesfXXw&feature=player_embedded

Joseph Campbell shows the same esoteric ecumenist idea in this link.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGx4IlppSgU

The bible just plainly says to put away the things of children. The supernatural and literal reading of myths.

Regards
DL — Gnostic Christian Bishop

What i was saying about the 100% predictability is that God/Jesus knew terrible things would happen when he gave us imperfect dna and also allowed us to be in bad or very bad situations. But at the same time he could predict everything in 100% detail.

Gnosticism began with the belief in supernatural. Gnosticism at the very least began in the 1st or 2nd century AD if not before.

I'll copy the rest of what you said in my journal and study it. You do realize its easier to scrutinize a document if it is known to all. Your form of Gnosticism doesn't have alot of material available to all as christianity has.

When people study Kabalah (spelling) the people who want to know more are very often required to sware an oath (similar to free masons) before they can get more information from the Kabalah sage..

In this day and age you are more likely to get ridiculed for being christian than a gnostic, so i'm not sure why your type of Gnosticism doesn't have alot of reading material associated with it.

Reread the previous posts or i can re-display them. I never said this hypothetical clock was not apart of the universe in this hypothetical situation.
— christian2017

But then it's not consistent with TheMadFool's hypothetical clock, which is running when there is no universe. That's the hypothetical clock which I had the problem with. — Metaphysician Undercover

Not true, reread what he wrote.

Firstly, please excuse my writing style, I'm not formally educated.

Now to the meat and potatoes. Ortega is a dead man, we can never know without asking the man himself. With the proverbial gun to my head though I think I can make an informed guess. He's referring specifically to the wager. If you subscribe to the wager you are not necessarily a good person. You're not a bad one either, but the crux is this. The wager, as well as the punishment of hell itself are a threat. A psychopath could easily live the Christian, or any, view of good if the outcome of not doing so is eternal suffering. It becomes a cold and logical choice to live well under such wager. It lacks genuine altruism, And therefor isn't a mark of a possible objective good. This isn't to say people who believe the wager or religion are bad. What it does say is the person who believes in nothingness at the end of life yet still acts in an altruistic fashion would be easier to peg as "good" if we assume such a thing is objective. From this perspective it's clear to say he doesn't "hate" Pascal, rather he is weary of him, his ideas, and there implications. This is why I have long since learned, as a measure of elementary hygiene, to be on guard when anyone quotes Pascal. — MyOwnWay

Who gets to decide who is a psycho path. Perhaps nurture versus nature decides who does psycho path type stuff. If pascal's wager helps a person make better decisions more often, that falls under nurture versus nature. All of our decisions are 100% based on particle collisions, and this also falls under situations versus dna (or nurture versus nature).

Not long ago a read an Quote from Ortega:

"I have long since learned, as a measure of elementary hygiene, to be on guard when anyone quotes Pascal."

I would like to know why he dislikes Blaise Pascal. — Rafael Rossi

my guess it is has something to do with Christians often quote pascal, and sometimes christians are associated with being d-bags. Right, Wrong, or indifferent.

I'm sure you've heard of Pascal's wager.

How do you feel about Marcion?

God created evil for his pleasure. Do you recognize the pleasure of creating and doing evil?

Rev 4;11 Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.

Some people have what has been termed, the problem of evil. Many cannot fathom why, if god is good, he would create evil. Yet the scriptures are clear that god created evil for his pleasure.

It may be due to my criminal mind and delinquent attitude, but I think I know why. I wondered if you ands others had also dithered out a reasonable answer to show why sin and evil are required for god’s plan and our mental and moral development.

This fact is likely why the ancient Christians determined that sin was necessary for our development. They sing that Adam furthered god’s plan by his sin.

To them, even as Christianity and I clash, and the intelligent position, is that to not sin or do evil, is to derail god’s plan.

In this, issue, I happen to agree with the scriptures and Christians who say the sin and evil is good and necessary to god’s plan.

Do you?

Regards
DL — Gnostic Christian Bishop

I'm half way familiar with verses that say something along the lines that God/Jesus created evil. Do you have those specific chapters so that we can examine them? I've read them but i haven't read them in a while.

If God can predict everything in 100% detail, but if he also allows room for error, wouldn't it make sense that really bad things would happen? And to go on further that he would know that these things would happen.

If God gives us even slightly imperfect dna and also puts us in slightly bad situations, situations compound on situations and dna problems can compound on dna problems (nurture(situations) versus nature(dna)), wouldn't extreme wickedness or extremely bad things happen?

To go on further he would predict all of this.

I however don't entirely disagree with your OP.

Your OP implies that you are open to there being a god(s), even though prior OPs of yours you said you were an atheist. I've asked you for reading material (not videos) pertaining to your type of Gnosticism, but you wouldn't give me any reading material. There are different types of Gnosticism.

This doesn't address the problem, which is the logical impossibility, of a clock which is outside the universe. A hypothetical, or hypothesis, which involves something that is logically impossible because of self-contradiction, ought to be rejected as worthless. — Metaphysician Undercover

Read the previous posts, i clearly said it was apart of the universe. The hypothetical clock was apart of this augmented hypothetical universe. The reason why i say augmented is because this hypothetical clock augments the rest of the hypothetical universe.

Reread the previous posts or i can re-display them. I never said this hypothetical clock was not apart of the universe in this hypothetical situation.

I always thought the idea of time being a dimension was flawed.

Anyone else has more to say about this, or any physicist? — Shawn

I could give you a boring explanation. A really interesting video is "10 dimensions explained" or "the 10 dimensions explained" on youtube. Its not a long video at all, and it is really entertaining.

You should understand now, why a hypothetical clock can be used in an argument like this." -me
— christian2017

No, I just don't know what is meant by "a hypothetical clock". Either the clock is supposed to be a real clock, keeping time as a real part of the universe, or it's a fictional clock, in which case it's irrelevant to the universe, as fiction. — Metaphysician Undercover

A hypothetical situation doesn't directly (directly) relate to fiction and here is why. I hope you can make the connection. The word hypothetical is used in scenario planning and also in science. After reading the definition for hypothetical, you are more than welcome to go back to the beginning of our conversation and see what was meant by "hypothetical clock". Or if you would like you can wait several days for me to list out the whole conversation. We can also do this in private if you would like.

Here is the defintion of hypothetical and why it doesn't directly (directly) relate to fiction:

1 -of, based on, or serving as a hypothesis.
"that option is merely hypothetical at this juncture"

synonyms:
exploratory · investigational · probing · fact-finding · trial and error · trial · test · pilot · speculative · conjectural · tentative · preliminary · probationary · prototype · under review · under the microscope · on the drawing board · empirical · observational · untested · untried
antonyms:
finished · theoretical

2 -supposed but not necessarily real or true.
"the hypothetical tenth planet"
synonyms:
theoretical · speculative · conjectured · imagined · notional · suppositional · supposed · assumed · presumed · putative · made up · unreal · academic
antonyms:
real · actual
logic

3 -denoting or containing a proposition of the logical form if p then q.
NOUN
(hypotheticals)
hypothetical (noun) · hypotheticals (plural noun)

4 -a hypothetical proposition or statement.
"Finn talked in hypotheticals, tossing what-if scenarios to Rosen"

All of these definitions are commonly understood by people who commonly use the word hypothetical in a phrase. Its not really a big word. A high school student who goes to a public library would have no problem mastering the use of the word "hypothetical".

I only have direct access to my own mental states and I can't think of a way that I can have the same access to anyone else's. I believe science in all its current methodologies has no direct access to private subjective mental states.

An analogy is if I gave a cook eggs, flour and sugar and told them go make me a fruit salad.

However, at the same time I think that our own access to our mental states is not very helpful either. — Andrew4Handel

I think we have to first figure out is if particle collisions is the only thing that effects feeling/awareness. We know that particle collision does have some or alot of effect on feeling/awareness, however is it the only thing that has an effect on feeling/awareness?

Until we answer that question, i don't think we can answer the OP.

As for the other question, i agree philosophy does atleast play some small role in physics.
— christian2017
That is beside the point. Time has mathematical, phenomenological, logical, and metaphysical aspects. It does not belong exclusively (or even primarily) to the subject matter of physics, but rather falls squarely within the purview of philosophy. — aletheist

true.

Well now that you finally acknowledged this is a philosophy forum and not a physics forum, thus implying that most of us are arm chair quarterback physicists ...
— christian2017
Where have I ever implied otherwise?

... i agree, your guess (guess) is probably only slight better than my guess (guess).
— christian2017
Are you suggesting that only physicists are qualified to provide definitions of time that are more than guesses? — aletheist

well i could go on and on about the first question, but we would both be making accusations not worth defending. Perhaps i'm just the typical jerk on this forum. There is a strong possibility i fall into that subset.

As for the other question, i agree philosophy does atleast play some small role in physics. Its just in my experience, i'll post an article as semi proof of a concept, and then someone will say thats just a pop sci article. But then they will post a pop sci article to defend what they believe.

This is typical banter on this forum.

I think Peirce is taking more of a philosophical approach rather than a practical approach such as what Einstein and later Physicists took.
— christian2017
Of course he is, because time is a metaphysical concept. Defining it as "the iteration of events" is no less philosophical. Besides, this is "The Philosophy Forum," not "The Physics Forum." — aletheist

Well now that you finally acknowledged this is a philosophy forum and not a physics forum, thus implying that most of us are arm chair quarterback physicists, i agree, your guess (guess) is probably only slight better than my guess (guess).

I think you understand the concept but you are just playing dead like a dog.
— christian2017

No, I really can't see how anyone can make sense of the concept of a clock outside the universe. It seems inherently contradictory.

if the universe was just two black holes really far apart from each other and then that hypothetical clock, was really far apart from the black holes, it would be the same situation. The hypothetical clock was put forth by another user. But there is no reason a hypothetical clock can't be used in an argument like this.
— christian2017

Again, I don't see how the concept "far apart" can be applicable outside the universe. The hypothetical clock in the example must be outside the universe. But "universe" is defined as the collection of all existing things, so how could a clock get outside of this? It's pure contradiction. — Metaphysician Undercover

my statement was based on the matter that exists or the hypothetical matter that exists in the universe. Even modern Physicists can't account for exactly 100% of all matter in the universe. If there is some object a trillion miles away as the "mad_guy" hypothetically proposed, that hypothetical situation he proposed is still not ridicoulous. You are trying to hard to make this hypothetical situation of his seem stupid.




On the comment you made about the 2 black hole hypothetical situation:

If two objects are far apart as i stated earlier (black hole or an apple or a clock) they are still apart of the same universe.

Once again, i stated those two black holes and the clock were all the matter in the universe. Reread the hypothetical situation i proposed to make "Mad_guy"'s hypothetical situation not seem obsurd.

There was nothing wrong with "mad_guy"s hypothetical situation and there is certainly nothing wrong with mine. I'll repost below my 2 black hole with a clock hypothetical universe situation, and if you reread it you'll see you are not complying with the way i listed that hypothetical situation. Once again you are trying to hard to say a hypothetical clock is not possible.

"if the universe was just two black holes really far apart from each other and then that hypothetical clock, was really far apart from the black holes, it would be the same situation. The hypothetical clock was put forth by another user. But there is no reason a hypothetical clock can't be used in an argument like this.

You should understand now, why a hypothetical clock can be used in an argument like this." -me

Where there is no heat, there is no movement, where there is no movement there is no time.
— christian2017
Time is the iteration of events.
— christian2017
Those are two possible definitions of time, but certainly not the only ones. For example ...
Time is that diversity of existence whereby that which is existentially a subject is enabled to receive contrary determinations in existence.
— Peirce, c. 1896
Time is a certain general respect relative to different determinations of which states of things otherwise impossible may be realized. Namely, if P and Q are two logically possible states of things, (abstraction being made of time) but are logically incompossible, they may be realized in respect to different determinations of time.
— Peirce, c. 1905 — aletheist

I think Peirce is taking more of a philosophical approach rather than a practical approach such as what Einstein and later Physicists took.