“I exist,therefore I am”

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
141

I am a philosopher reason4emotion.Philosophy is the foundation for all of the sciences.

+=- and -=+ philosophy is not the foundation for the sciences because it’s cognitively biased towards the atheistic religion.

+=+ and -=- philosophy is not the foundation for the sciences because it’s cognitively biased towards the theistic religion.

I believe in God because a fool says there is no God.

+/-=+/- philosophy is the foundation for all the sciences because it’s cognitively unbiased towards the teachings of God.

The biblical scriptures are totally clear in Matthew 7:21-23.Believers in God should not jump over the fence into the sheepfold with their good works.They should do as God instructs and go through the gate into the sheepfold without their good works in accordance with God’s will.

+/-=+/- philosophy when applied to science is totally clear.Attractive and Repulsive electromagnetic force interactions NN,NS,SN,SS are balanced out between all spinning particles (with N and S poles) in the cosmos which make up ALL matter.Hence N/S=N/S.This balancing of interactions holds all matter together and results in vibration of all matter.The frequency of vibration being regulated by the spin speed of the particles which in turn regulates the amount of electromagnetic energy waves emitted from the matter.These electromagnetic energy waves contain binary data 0/1=0/1.These varying frequency waves are received by the physical body senses and the internal mechanisms of the body converts these waves into digital signals and a language the individual can understand.The individual interprets varying frequency electromagnetic binary energy waves emitted from vibrating matter and therefore is not vibrating matter or the varying frequency electromagnetic binary energy waves emitted from it.

“The day science begins to study non-physical phenomena,it will make more progress in one decade than in all the previous centuries of its existence”..

Nikola Tesla

142

I came across someone who claims to be a graduate of philosophy and told me that God certainly does NOT exist which is the consensus among philosophers reflected by Philpapers survey. I asked him to elaborate and he responded with this (his actual words):

“Because rigorous investigation into the natural world by scientists as well as rigorous investigation into metaphysics by philosophers have found nothing to suggest that God exists, and if we have no reason to believe God exists, we should have no problem saying God doesn’t exist. If you want more justification for this, look into the evidential problem of evil, the problem of divine hiddenness, the problem of inconsistent revelations, as well as recent (post 18th century) developments in philosophy.”

So you get mostly atheists going into graduate school for philosophy, and thus among philosophers already have a selection bias.

Theists who are interested in philosophical type questions will often go into theology over philosophy. So it’s selection biases all around.

Is this your reason for belief? Seems rather paltry to me Jupiter 123.

In almost any field of philosophy, “God did it”, is an answer thats more or less laughed out of the room.

143

You are a believer in God who accepts false teachings reason4emotion.

Atheists adopt an incorrect cognitively biased +=- and -=+ starting philosophy so is it any wonder that atheistic philosophers claim there is no God?

There are many theologians who practice religion rather than what the bible actually says.

And? What’s your point?

144

We all know that mainstream science is an atheistic +=- and -=+ starting philosophy science.It has an anti God bias.There is no secret about that.We all know that it has become a total laughing stock as well by what it claims.We know it’s knowledge is derived from an inward only CONSCIOUSNESS biased meditative practice, the same type of meditative practice which Buddhism adopts which is why the religious cult of mainstream atheistic science has a statue of Shiva outside its HQ in CERN near Geneva.Mainstream atheistic science doesn’t understand consciousness (it’s this RELIGIONS hard problem) and never will because this religion denies a SELF that can understand psychology.We know about the atheism religion and its false starting philosophy;science and psychology.We are on to it big time now.It has a lot of questions to answer for all the lies it has been spreading.

The problem atheistic scientist have is they know nothing about REALITY!!! philosophy and how it works and how it’s related to the sciences.

145

Any science that is founded upon a starting philosophical bias of +=- and -=+ OR +=+ and -=- is false and will fail.

The foolish graduate of philosophy you spoke to clearly wasn’t aware of that.

A fool says there is no God.

Why will they fail?

Well, because science is founded upon +/-=+/- philosophy…..that’s why.

+/-=+/- philosophy is a UNITED combination of the two above biased starting philosophies.

Science balances the 4 off electromagnetic force interactions NN,NS,SN,SS into a united formula you see hence,N/S=N/S.

This is how all matter is held together and why it all vibrates.

Probably best not to debate with me reason4emotion….because you will be embarrassed.

Learn about reality philosophy,science and psychology before you post.

146

For example, you give Nikola Tesla as your shining example.

The man who claimed to have received extraterrestrial signals! LOL

147

You need to laugh and mock cognitively biased mainstream atheistic science reason4motion…because it adopts an incorrect starting philosophy of +=- and -=+.

You are so unaware.

The two main sciences that have catastrophically failed over night are,

Cosmology and Particle Physics because they have adopted the above false HALF LOGIC philosophy for science.

The sciences that do work adopt a FULL LOGIC starting philosophy which are,

Computer science
Motor technology (Nikola Tesla Invention)

Nikola Tesla warned the world about Einstein’s theories (which have all now failed) but it wouldn’t listen.

The religion of atheism is finished reason4emotion..,It’s BS is being exposed more and more.

Nikola Tesla was a scientists whose theories are proven.

Albert Einstein was a cognitively biased mathematician whose theories have all now failed.

So once again reason4emotion…what is your point?

“I exist,therefore I am” because I need to exist to claim that I don’t exist. I need to exist first to claim anything at all.I need to exist and have the thoughts before I can claim them.A thought doesn’t claim anything.

“I think,therefore I am” is philosophical atheistic nonsense.You need to be a binary processing machine at least if you claim things.Which bit of the binary data is the “I am”….lol

148

I’m pretty sure Rene Descartes Existed :laughing:

149

He did exist and he was a liar if he claimed otherwise because you need to exist to claim that you don’t exist so he didn’t cancel out and neither do you so mainstream sciences starting philosophy and all of its science is proven now to be incorrect.

150

Oh dear more people have canceled out, Jup? I haven’t really been following. How many we got now?

151

Nobody cancels out.We are all answerable for the deeds carried out whilst occupying the physical body.

152

Yeah, but what, exactly, is this “I” you keep referencing?

Describe the phenomenal features of this “I” you keep referring to and then tell us how this “I” acquired existence?

153

If i may, the gentlemen may never resolve this matter by talking about the subject - the ‘I’ - as if it were an object. Of course, grammatically speaking, this ‘I’ does function in language as a reflexive pronoun and can be part of meaningful statements (‘I’m going to the store’ or ‘myself, I don’t much care for mustard’) but talk about it as a metaphysical object is nonsense. Moreover, neither of the gentlemen could know if the thing the other meant by ‘self’ was the same thing he means by it, anyway, as you will see…

154

I’m afraid you got that backwards. To not talk about the “I” as being a metaphysical object is what is nonsense.

Btw, I’m still waiting for your answers to the following two questions…

Tell me what you mean by “reality”?

…and…

Please, my little homeboy, do tell me exactly what it is you think I believe?

155

And this is where Platonic idealism and the modern/postmodern insanity begins.

They begin with the meta-physical, even if it contradicts the physical.

They’ve already presumed the self is meta-physical.

Why?

Because ti comfort them…because they are infected by Abrahamism, even if some claim to be atheists…because they despise the physical, most of all their own body…..because they seek escape, an alternative to reality.

Reality = sum total of what CAN be perceptible and interacted with - that which causes effects - that which is independent from all subjective interpretations.

Emprical - that which is verifiable and falsifiable.

Alternate words referring to the same…world, existence, cosmos…

156

“I” is SELF who doesn’t cancel out because one needs to exist to claim that one doesn’t exist so one is a liar who exists if one claims that one doesn’t exist…..obviously.

Don’t confuse existence with possessing life.

A binary processing biological machine exists but doesn’t possess life which is why it claims that it exists and doesn’t exist.It exists because it needs to exist to claim that it doesn’t exist and it doesn’t exist because it doesn’t possess life.

So you are not a misrepresentation of reality (an illusion).You are a representation of reality (a non illusion) because you are binary processing biological machine who claims to exists and not exist because you don’t possess life.

157

How does the metaphysical contradict the physical when you have quantum physicists such as Nick Herbert…

(author of the book “Quantum Reality: Beyond the New Physics”)

…saying such things as the following…

“The entire visible universe,…rests ultimately on a strange quantum kind of being no more substantial than a promise.”

…???

Just as our little homeboy (prom75) doesn’t seem to understand what he is referencing when he uses the term “reality,” likewise, you don’t seem to understand what the word “physical” means,…

…in that in truth, it (the material / physical universe) is nothing more than a (“dream-like”) illusion whose foundation (as Herbert suggested) is “… no more substantial than a promise…”

Kallikantzaros wrote:

They’ve already presumed the self is meta-physical.

Why?

Because ti comfort them…

No. It’s because we can intuit the self’s existence.

However, because it (the self or the “I Am-ness”) cannot be accessed or “measured” in any tangible way…

(kind of like the Kantian “noumenon”)

…hardcore materialists therefore insist that it does not exist when, in fact, the “I Am-ness”…

(i.e., the “thinker” of thoughts / “dreamer” of dreams)

…is the one truly existent phenomenon as opposed to the (holographic-like) illusion of the multifarious configurations of what we call “physical matter.”

158

If one insists that they do not exist, then they are simply “confused” about their ontological status and are not “liars.”

Stop calling such people “liars.”

Jupiter 123 wrote:

A binary processing biological machine exists but doesn’t possess life…

If mine and the Berkeleyan theories are plausible,…

(that the universe is the MIND of a higher consciousness)

…then literally everything throughout the universe…

(from the fusion cores of the stars right down to the plastic keyboards we are typing on)

…are imbued (saturated) with the essence of life.

Thus, literally everything is alive, including your so-called “…binary processing biological machine…”.

Jupiter 123 wrote:

…which is why it claims that it exists and doesn’t exist.It exists because it needs to exist to claim that it doesn’t exist and it doesn’t exist because it doesn’t possess life.

Instead of repeating your mantra (bolded in the above quote) over and over and over, again and again and again in practically every post you make,…

…how about you answer the questions I asked you earlier?

Here they are again…

seeds wrote:

Yeah, but what, exactly, is this “I” you keep referencing?

Describe the phenomenal features of this “I” you keep referring to and then tell us how this “I” acquired existence?

And if you simply repeat the following once again…

“…It exists because it needs to exist to claim that it doesn’t exist…”

…you will demonstrate just how limited (and dismissible) your views on this issue truly are.

159

I didn’t say tat metaphysical ALWAYS contradicts physical, but if you start with the metaphysical, and not the physical, then your motive is not truth, but self–comforting.

Th physical is supposed to limit the nonsense you can imagine and then project into the metaphysical realm.

The fact that you’ve already decided the ‘self’ is metaphysical, tells me you are not interested in truth….but begin with a Platonic ideal. So define ‘self’ for us…metaphysically

We experience the self….in us and others…..we perceive the self, as a physical presence.

There’s the “illusion” again, of the metaphysical nihilist.

Matter is not an illusion….the senses did not evovle to trick us….unelss yo have contrary evidence….but to aid us. Matter is how we interpret existence.

An interpretation is not an illusion.

We interpret patterned energies as physical things…and depending no their rhythms they are interpreted as solid, liquid gaseous, or energy.

The self is not a thing…it is a amalgamation of progresses connected by memories…..

Self is a manifestation of past…..it is past made present, as presence…interpreted as an appearance.
The apparent is not an illusion….but an evolved method of interpreting existence…..So how things appear is not accidental nor illusory….but an interpretation of essence.

160

Don’t be silly,you need to exist to claim that you don’t exist and you are a liar if you claim that you don’t exist.You are no longer confused.