Will there ever be an apocalypse? — Vincent

To be honest, we are already in an apocalypse. Climate change is a big issue and it has changed how the earth works and so, our lives.
It is a silent apocalypse which will end up in lack of supplies as food and water.
It is not necessary to be in war to experience an apocalypse

They fit in actual existent — Hillary

How can you measure "God"? :yikes: so you have said this morning that measuring universe is wacky but at the same time time yeah, we can measure a subterfuge

Where does ‘God’ fit? — Possibility

In none of them :wink:

Question remains, where does that come from? — Hillary

(1) And our view may be corroborated by actual observation more effectively than by any sort of verbal argument.

(2) And this is to be proven, better than any demonstration through words [λόγοι], from the observable [ἐνάργεια] itself.

But it doesn't explain how the stuff got there in the first place. — Hillary

No? Are you aware of those theories of astrophysics which describes the beginning of out universe? What about Stephen Hawking's theories?

So, the universe is there and physics gives no explanation for it's existence. What's contradictory about that? — Hillary

It is so contradictory from a realism argument. Physical objects and elements do exist. Simple. If the universe is there and it makes some effects, then it does exist.

And eternal intelligences don't need no reason to exists. — Hillary

... what?

Yes. And? — Hillary

That you sound so contradictory! :smirk:

Why does the universe and all life in exist in the first place? What is the reason? — Hillary

The surprising fact here is that you are questioning both universe and human existence but you are blind towards God's one. That's the clue of our debate

The universe is there... — Hillary

You also said:

you would know it gives no explanation why the universe is there. — Hillary

I think you are not getting the point properly. What I defend is that thanks to knowledge we can prove, at least, our existence. This is due to the act of reasoning. It is a Cartesian thought. I think, therefore I am. Knowledge is one of the most solid proofs of humankind's existence.

Because I like to know why the universe is there. Why we are there. Gods offer an answer. — Hillary

And the answer is...? Because you said previously that God doesn't appear physically but we do so.
Then, we have more evidence of existence about ourselves than God.
Why are you asking more when we already exist thanks to our knowledge?

But if you would know fundamental physics, you would know it gives no explanation why the universe is there. — Hillary

If there is not an explanation of why the universe is there, then why you connect it with God's existence

The child would be right though. I believed in god when a child. — Hillary

I am sorry someone brainwashed you. Nevertheless, it is not so late to take part in this issue and improve your critical thinking

Gods can't make themselves appear physically. That would destroy the natural order. — Hillary

Another contradictory argument! You said you believe on him due to physics but, at the same time, you say God can't make appear physically

Like I said, it's exactly physics I base gods on. — Hillary

OK. Prove God's existence through physics as you can prove the damn X-rays

The gods just created the basics of the universe — Hillary

"Universe" is a complex astrophysical study which is based on laws of physics and mathematics. It takes years to understand what is going on there because it is so vast and it looks like unattainable for humans.
It sounds childish saying that the basics of universe comes from God.

Why? — Hillary

One is based on knowledge and criticism (science) the other is based on faith and worship (religion). I think they're so incompatible.

According to your own criteria:knowledge exists thanks to God...

That's wacky and flawed

It is exactly the laws of physics I base the existence of gods on. — Hillary

I respect your faith on God. But, please, don't mix up science with religion here. Both are incompatible

Only gods offer a reason for existence. — Hillary

You just killed all laws of physics, chemistry, maths, law, etc... in one flawed statement.
"God" is not a reason for existence neither a proof of knowledge. It is just a subterfuge based on faith. It is more simple than you believe

So you agree that God needs to be perfect? — Tobias

No, I have said that "something" needs to exists previously to be perfect. Because perfection is a characteristic we often use to describe some things or persons and these need to have existence.
For me, God is worthless. I mean I can't see why theists put on them so big characteristics.

Anselm's Ontological Argument — Agent Smith

Another wacky "ontological" argument to defend God's existence.
Why God has to be the "greatest" thing?

God due to his perfection does need to exist. — Tobias

This sounds so contradictory and even has no sense. Perfection needs to be connected to something that at least has existence because you can perceive it so accurately that you end up calling it "perfect"

Dads (well our parents as overall) tend to make efforts to be funny with us but they end up being cringe. I think this situation happens due to the collapse of different generations. What some would think it is funny, others would see it as "cringe"
I guess if I were a dad, I would make bad/ridiculous jokes in a unconscious way.

If truth isn't the first principle, one cannot really believe the second and third principles. — unenlightened

That's a good point but I guess the big issue here is that Hinduism tend to develop those elements separately.
Truth, good, aesthetics, beautiful, etc... are represented like in a circle. They are not hierarchical.
I even think we should not think on it as our "West" thought but what Buddhism really stands for.

I am agree with you. Wages or "low-paid" jobs are so connected with modern slavery. It is true that they have an "income" but it is ridiculous and I think it is far to have a minimum digit to live according the basic circumstances

What's the difference really between being paid $0 and a wage of $0.0001? — Agent Smith

"$0" is just the numerical representation of nothing. Zero was a creation of Muslim mathematicians.
"$0.0001" has at least a value but so poor. We philosophically calle it "nothing" to that digit because it doesn't represent the "minimum wage" according to Western markets and civilisation.

English doesn’t lend itself very well to this non-conceptual structure. Most English translations of the TTC have something of the translator’s own life experience and value structures in them, as well as their conceptualisation of Chinese history and culture - none of which can be found in the original text. It makes it difficult to get a clear sense of the text by comparing only one or two English translations. — Possibility

Joanna C. Lee and Ken Smith, who have a good translation and provide both characters and a Pinyin transcription (all but unheard of in other translations), simply break the Tao Te Ching into two separate little books, The Pocket Tao, Lao Tzu's Classic of the Way [A Museworks Book, Pocket Chinese Classics, 2012] and The Pocket Te, Lao Tzu's Classic of Virtue [A Museworks Book, Pocket Chinese Classics, 2013]. The order in which to read these is thus up to the reader.

Book I does begin with statements about the Tao, and Book II with statements about Te. Since the Tao might be thought to be more important than Te, the format that reverses the books may then simply reflect that judgment, with the treatment of Te as an introduction or preliminary to the Tao. It is not clear that reversing the order would really make any difference in the teaching.

Verse 1: "The Way that can be spoken of, Is not the constant way."

The quality or preconceptions of a translation of the Tao Te Ching can usually be determined from the rendering of these lines. Those determined to unpack the meaning of Taoism in the translation, according to their own interpretation of Taoist doctrine, will often render these terse sentences into a paragraph, sometimes with irrecognizable renderings of the key words. The affection of a translator for Taoism cannot excuse a method that only obscures the nature of the text itself.

• Most venerable of all is that of James Legge in 1891: "The Tâo that can be trodden [!!] is not the enduring and unchanging Tâo" [Dover, 1962, p.47].
• Then we have D.T. Suzuki and Paul Carus in 1913 & 1927: "The Reason that can be reasoned is not the eternal Reason" [Open Court, 1974, p.74].
• Charles Muller in 2005: "The Tao that can be followed [!!] is not the eternal Tao" [Barnes and Noble Classics, 2005, p.3].
• And finally let's try Joanna C. Lee and Ken Smith in 2012: "The Way that is speakable is not the constant Way." [Museworks Books, Hong Kong, 2012, p.17].

A serious question about translation is with tào as a verb. Since the noun can mean "road, way, path," Legge, Mair, Le Guin, and Muller are all tempted to produce a corresponding verb, "tred," "walk," "go," or "follow"… However, although Mathews' Chinese Dictionary [Harvard, 1972, pp.882-884] gives verbal meanings for the character as "speak, tell" (or even "lead, guide"), "tred," "walk," "go," or "follow" is not among them. Interestingly, no one has tried the translation, "The Tao that guides is not the constant Tao." The feeling seems to be that the Tao does guide. Indeed, in Chinese philosophy a "Way" means the actions recommended by any particular school or teaching, not just Taoism.

Language doesn't give a damn about logic!

Wether we like it or not, language is one the most complex barriers we have to face since we arevjust kids.

The world is my representation — Arthur Schopenhauer

Agree with Schopenhauer's quote. But that's representation is based on our language

- in which the rapscallion husband makes his wife think she's insane for his own personal gain! — Agent Smith

Oh wow! :sweat:

I quickly found out this definition:
Gaslighting is a colloquialism, loosely defined as making someone question their own reality.

Now, I know what you're talking about :rofl:

So...

I guess the concepts differ in the effects. While gaslight tend to be caused by the individual himself, scepticism comes from physical objects

gaslighting — Agent Smith

To be honest with you my dear friend, it is the first I ever read this word so I would check it out in my English-Spanish dictionary :sweat:

It's obviously invalid.

And yet, with a few bells and whistles, that is what Fumerton espouses. — Banno

I am agree that Furmeton uses very weak arguments to expose his scepticism. Nevertheless, I thought it was a good argument
when he said we are not acquainted if a physical object really exists itself. Like, supposedly, we tend to not make such questions because those exists because it is "obvious"

Some people hallucinating whether it be a sublime experience, a symptom of mental illness, or the result of psychedelics are not able to distinguish between the hallucinations and the real. In which case, these people are said to have "poor insight" particularly common in schizophrenics. — Josh Alfred

:100: :up:

I can distinguish between my hallucinations and my actual perceptions. One takes place in the brain without an external stimulus, while the others occur as a result of physical sensation. — Josh Alfred

I see your point. But I think that the big issue emerges when our physical world leads us in hallucination. I mean, when you are not able to really distinguish physical objects from brain senses.
Nevertheless, it is true that there is, at least, one basic point: objects itself do exist because they are "there" not mattering our thoughts.
I think we could say they exist independently from us.

The question is not whether what I perceive is real but what kind of thing is being perceived.

Good argument. I think we can answer your point through philosophy of language. I guess there are some objects that at least are real but how we perceive it depends on our perception of reality thanks to empiricism.

I see smoke in the distance. Is it smoke from a fire? Is it a cloud? Dust in my eye? It is something.

But we are not mistaken about what is the concept of smoke, right? Those characteristics are collateral

This is by far the best site for intellectual play I can easily find via Google. That's not flattery.

Completely agree. This is, by far, the only serious site Iever found in internet. Previously, I was in a Neon Genesis Evangelion forum and I ended up with a trauma.

This thread brings me a lot of nostalgia. Thanks for sharing all these comments on verse n⁰ 23. Yeah I remember that we had many debates about this one back in the day.

Religion: Faith is the foundation of things hoped for,
and the evidence of things not seen. :up:

What is that person doing to help? — Jackson

Nothing, but he is destroying my integrity and honor.

How do they impose? — Jackson

Through political lobbies and social media. Imagine: some individual records me not helping a homeless man in the train. What would you think of me? And the masses as an overall?