The Morality of God

[iambiguous]

@James S Saint

@iambiguous

Is there or is there not an extant God able to make the final determination regarding which human behaviors are moral or immoral?

Is there or is there not truth?
You have stated that you believe in an “objective reality” (aka “truth”), although by your ranting, it wouldn’t seem that you believe in truth.

Well, the example I often use here is the presidency.

Is it true objectively that Barack Obama is president of the United States? Yes, I think that this is true objectively. I think one can conclude that this is a part of our objective reality. The hard evidence for this is simply, well, overwhelming. But it’s not like I have actually been to the Oval Office and seen the man at work.

But is it true that Obama’s political policies are at times objectively immoral?

How do we go about determining that? Instead of invoking [as I propose] dasein and conflicting goods and political economy?

How about you and RM? Is there or is there not a way for you to determine the objective truth about the moral parameters of his presidency? Or will that always revolve instead around the conflicting [subjective] points of views of individuals unable to devise an argument that does in fact resolve their conflicting goods?

[b][u]Same with God[/b][/u]. We are able to note objectively how different folks here believe in different Gods. Or, with respect to Jews, Christians and Muslims, believe in the same God through different…scripts.

But what we [they] can’t seem to do is to demonstrate the actual existence of this God. Other than [as I noted elsewhere] through 1] their personal experiences 2] what they think and feel “in their head” 3] how they define God or 4] by way of an argument they give, the meaning of which is self-contained in words that are predicated on the meaning they give to other words.

And then we go on to the relationship between their particular belief in their particular God and the manner in which they propose particular moral prescriptions regarding particular behaviors. How is this related?

@James S Saint

Which is probably why you never recognize when someone is agreeing with you.

What does this mean, my firend?

Who is agreeing with me? About what?

I know that you often make a distinction [as did von rivers] between objective morality and universal morality. Are you agreeing with me that “right” and “wrong” IS rooted only in particular worlds – in particular historical and cultural and experiential contexts?

Or are you arguing that a proponent of RM is able to derive an objective morality from context to context?

And how “in the world” is that related to this:

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = “The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is”.

In the context of conflicting value judgments.

[iambiguous]

While I’m waiting for James to respond to my post above I thought I’d explore further the manner in which he construes the “morality of God”.

He says:

The Morality of God (for those who can read words), is simply this;
“There are things which you don’t bloody want to do to yourself, so don’t do them or suffer the consequences.”

First of all, what specifically does this have to do with what each of us as individuals don’t want to do to ourselves [i.e. how we construe this morally from a subjective narrative] and how God [the Real God] will react to this [to what we think, feel, do]…objectively?

Secondly, consider it existentially:

Bill may sincerely believe that he does not want to live in the modern world without arming himself against those out to do him [or his family] criminal harm. He does not want to suffer the consequences of being unarmed when he needs to be.

Bob on the other hand believes that with 250 million guns in the hands of his fellow citizens [here in America] there is a far greater likelihood we will suffer the consequences of all the terrible accidents that can [that do, that will] occur. Or all of the terrible incidents in which crimes of passion occur in which we end up using the guns on each other rather than on “the bad guys”.

So, from both a legal and a moral perspective Bill and Bob take opposing points of view regarding the value judgments that swirl around the issue of “gun control”.

But what does this have to do with the manner in which different folks here construe religion and God?

Do their Gods play any role at all in conflicts like this? Is there a way [through their understanding of God] for them to derive what they construe to be the objective truth about this?

Or do they just come up with their own point of view [and ecumenically allow other denominations to come up with theirs] and then take their chances on Judgment Day?

In other words, to what extent do they really think these relationships through “down here” in their interactions with others?

[James_S_Saint]

@iambiguous

In other words, to what extent do they really think these relationships through “down here” in their interactions with others?

If you “down there” would “think”, your Dasein dilemma wouldn’t exist.
But to you “down there”, thinking is just someone’s trick on you, so you avoid it all cost.
… and suffer the consequences.

[iambiguous]

@James S Saint

@iambiguous

In other words, to what extent do they really think these relationships through “down here” in their interactions with others?

If you “down there” would “think”, your Dasein dilemma wouldn’t exist.
But to you “down there”, thinking is just someone’s trick on you, so you avoid it all cost.
… and suffer the consequences.

James, this is just twaddle again.

You created this thread [I would imagine] to point out to others my own shortcomings with respect to the morality of God. And yet you have succeeded [once again] only in exposing your own. To wit: Your own flagrant refusal to situate the “Real God” out in the world of human interaction. Likewise your refusal to situate RM/AO out in the world of conflicted human interactions.

Now, you love this sort of exchange:

@James S Saint

@Arminius

But would the actualization of affect also take place then, if the potential to affect were identical?

Nothing can affect anything if it is being equally affected in return by that same thing. So if the potential to affect is exactly similar (“identical”) everywhere, then there is no potential to affect anywhere. The affecting would be absolutely zero = nothingness (which is why it is important to treat everyone exactly the same, so that society (or at least the lower class of it) will become nothing = nihilation).

@Arminius

@JSS

As affect occurs between adjacent potentials, waves of affect propagate randomly in both direction and magnitude.

Why randomly? Probably because of the different adjacent potentials, directions, and magnitudes, right?

Right, until there is something to establish a pattern or order, there is only disorder or randomness, “Nothing is possible until something is impossible”.

@Arminius

@JSS

When propagating waves of affect act upon the same point, their affects are added.

It’s like speed everywhere - except speed of light. But does your RM:AO accept the “law” that the speed of light is the limit of speed in the universe?

The speed of Affect, is a logical derivation lacking any alternative regardless of what anyone measures and in Science is called “the speed of light in a (total) vacuum”, even though a truly total vacuum can’t really exist. The actual maximum speed of light in a total vacuum can never be measured, only derived. But there is a different kind of speed involving the mind that can be faster than light.

The mind defines objects and can do so such as to conclude that the object in question is actually moving faster than light. I ran across that problem when I emulated RM:AO, as my PC kept detecting particles moving faster than affect/light. I eventually discovered that it was reporting particles as a clump of noise, just as I had told it to do. But the center of the clump was moving faster than any of the affects that made it up. This turned out to be interesting, but not really of much value. What it amounted to was the speed of something depends on how you define that something.

The speed of simple affect is a similar derivation to that involving why the universe exists in the first place. It involves the powers of infinity and infinitesimals and is as follows:

The Speed of Affect/Light
The smallest distance possible is 1/(the Largest distance possible, or “Largest number possible”) ≡ “Smallest”.
The shortest time possible is also 1/(the greatest change rate possible, or “Largest number possible”) ≡ “Smallest”.
The largest distance possible is simply the Largest number possible ≡ "Largest.

The fastest speed is the Largest Distance / Smallest Time, which is not possible because that is a number larger than the largest possible number.

So the fastest speed possible can only be expressed as either;
1/Smallest = Largest, or
Largest/1 = Largest.

Affect propagates by affecting the next closest point (Smallest distance) in the shortest possible time (Smallest). Or the velocity (v) going from point A to the next point B is;
v = d/t, or
v = Smallest / Smallest = 1, because they are the exact same power and magnitude of infinitesimal. And that is a finite number even though derived by infinite numbers. The finite is derived by the infinite.

And 1 infinitesimal, I refer to as “0+”, is
0+ = Smallest * (Largest / infinity) = (Smallest*Largest) / infinity = 1/infinity

Which is to say that in order for an affect to propagate even one infinitesimal (0+) distance, it must affect the “Largest/infinity” number of points in the Smallest amount of time each, which takes 0+ time. And to reach a distance of 1, it must do that an infinite number of times (0+ * infinity = 1, again because they are the same power and magnitude of infinity).

So even though Affect is affecting at the Largest possible infinite rate, it still takes a finite amount of time to gain a distance of merely 1. And in RM:AO, I refer to that distance as “1 toe”. And the time it takes for the fastest possible affect to travel one toe distance is, “1 tic” (both by definition).

So the maximum speed of affect is 1 toe/tic, a finite number, which concurrent physics defines (very relevant) as 299,792,458 m/s. So,
1 toe/tic = 299,792,458 m/s by definition.

And if physics would more exactly define its sizes of particles, mass, energy, or other relevant elements in their ontology and I could get the more sophisticated mathematics worked out involving affectance particle sizes, amount of affectance, or notable speeds, I could tell them the perfectly exact length required of one meter and one second according their their own definitions. Or if they define other elements exactly, I could tell them if their speed of light was actually perfectly accurate (or anyone else could for that matter).

The bottom line is that Definitional Logic dictates truth. Scientific observation can merely confirm it.

And btw, when it comes to affects crossing each other’s path, I mentioned that they slow each other. It should be obvious now that the reason they must slow is that their intersection point is already changing at the Largest possible rate merely by one of them. When there are two, that point must either change at twice the Largest possible rate, or the affecting must divide its propagation speed. Since there can be no “twice the Largest possible”, the only logical alternative is that the propagation rate of the two affects is slowed.

And that is occurring at every point throughout the entire universe. Because that is occurring literally everywhere, the actual speed of affect or of light can never be the ideal maximum. All of space is filled with conflict and thus all things are delayed from the ideal. And when too much gets into conflict, a stable “traffic jam” occurs. A “Particle of Matter” forms out of the Logic of simply the necessary existence of Affect upon Affect, “Affectance”.

Why do you love it?

Because you can go on and on with your technical language…your autodidactic assumptions about the definition and the meaning of the words comprising the argument. Words that basically go around and around in circles defending each other…words insisting that the other words are true by definition. Always yours. And to the extent they can be demonstrated empirically, scientifically, mathematically etc. they are in accordance with objective reality. Well, to the extent mere mortals can ever really grasp that.

But once the discussion shifts to conflicting value judgments derived from the subjective narratives of individuals [or to God] all that sort of technical depth goes out the window. Then, just like all the rest of us, you huff and you puff morally about this or that issue but the arguments are just political.

You refuse to link these political harangues to RM or the Real God.

And thus, in my view, you represent the worst of the objectivists: the abstractionist. And, again, this sort of authoritarian mentality can be quite dangerous when embodied in folks who actually have access to power “down here”.

[James_S_Saint]

So Bigus, are you saying that you disagree with the Morality of God as stated in the OP, or are you merely continuing your conspicuous intent of pestering me individually (despite your pretense of really only being interested in attacking something that I am not, your strawman)?

You have a thread properly in the rant section for that, ya’know.

And as far as your “down here” and “Dasein dilemma”, you might want to consider this post a bit more;

@James S Saint

@Arminius

Would you please name the other three levels?

0) Reality itself; determining how the entire universe behaves.

1) Ontological Architects; choosing which concepts are going to be allowed into the minds of men, “which angels are allowed on Earth”, choosing the “gods” of Man, and providing for that void between above and below, doing all things indirectly. Sometimes referred to as the “ascended” or “lords”.

2) Religious Architects and Leaders; choosing how the “gods”/principles are to be obeyed through governing/maintaining thoughts and emotions, regulating the Perception of Hopes and Threats through subtle methods; value assignments (“money”), pestilence/diseases, and communication; “Media Networks”, “Social Networks”, “Rumor Mills”, “Secret Orders”, “Banking”, and “Medical Treatments”.

3) Government Architects and Leaders; governing/maintaining actions, militarily regulating constraints and freedoms, the “Laws of the Land”.

4) Masses; suffering in ignorance of what is going on above and around them, blinded in the confusion and on occasion, saved by the order.

When (2) and (3) are combined, you get a Pharaoh King and lustful “Godwannabe” having far too much power for his degree of discipline and understanding.

Note that I didn’t say that any of them are particularly good at what they do. Frankly I prefer that the top and bottom get stitched a lot closer together so as to quail and prevent the malignancy that leads to so very much needless suffering.

I’m sure in your trolling of my posts, you didn’t miss it.

[iambiguous]

@James S Saint

So Bigus, are you saying that you disagree with the Morality of God as stated in the OP, or are you merely continuing your conspicuous intent of pestering me individually (despite your pretense of really only being interested in attacking something that I am not, your strawman)?

I’m merely curious to understand how your argument regarding the morality of god [the Real God] is applicable to the lives that we live. And, in particular, when those lives come into conflict over value judgments.

You either can explain that or you cannot. And you either will make the attempt to or you will not. That’s up to you.

In other words, how can I possibly attack something that you have not yet even given me?

@James S Saint

You have a thread properly in the rant section for that, ya’know.

You started this thread, my friend, not me. And I challenge anyone to note how I have not provided you with substantive arguments regarding the relationship between morality and beliefs in God. Arguments you continue to ignore.

@James S Saint

And as far as your “down here” and “Dasein dilemma”, you might want to consider this post a bit more;

@James S Saint

@Arminius

Would you please name the other three levels?

0) Reality itself; determining how the entire universe behaves.

1) Ontological Architects; choosing which concepts are going to be allowed into the minds of men, “which angels are allowed on Earth”, choosing the “gods” of Man, and providing for that void between above and below, doing all things indirectly. Sometimes referred to as the “ascended” or “lords”.

2) Religious Architects and Leaders; choosing how the “gods”/principles are to be obeyed through governing/maintaining thoughts and emotions, regulating the Perception of Hopes and Threats through subtle methods; value assignments (“money”), pestilence/diseases, and communication; “Media Networks”, “Social Networks”, “Rumor Mills”, “Secret Orders”, “Banking”, and “Medical Treatments”.

3) Government Architects and Leaders; governing/maintaining actions, militarily regulating constraints and freedoms, the “Laws of the Land”.

4) Masses; suffering in ignorance of what is going on above and around them, blinded in the confusion and on occasion, saved by the order.

When (2) and (3) are combined, you get a Pharaoh King and lustful “Godwannabe” having far too much power for his degree of discipline and understanding.

Note that I didn’t say that any of them are particularly good at what they do. Frankly I prefer that the top and bottom get stitched a lot closer together so as to quail and prevent the malignancy that leads to so very much needless suffering.

I’m sure in your trolling of my posts, you didn’t miss it.

Again, allow me to state my “dasein dilemma”:

If I am always of the opinion that 1] my own values are rooted in dasein and 2] that there are no objective values “I” can reach, then everytime I make one particular moral/political leap, I am admitting that I might just as well have gone in the other direction instead…Then “I” begins to fracture and fragment to the point there is nothing able to actually keep it together at all. At least not with respect to choosing sides morally and politically.

Now, how is your argument above an intelligent rebuttal to mine? Again, your argument is “logical” only to the extent that everyone agrees with the definitions [meaning] you give to the words in the argument. It reads like The Republic take 2. Governance by way of thought experiment. Social, political and economic reality deduced succinctly “in your head”

Only here made applicable to the entire fucking universe!!

Meanwhile, my argument is that we need to test this by bringing these definitions down to earth and exploring them in the context of actual moral and political conflicts we are all familiar with. I am more than willing to do situate “dasein”, “conflicting goods” and “political economy” into any discussion [and with anyone] pertaining to value judgments well know to provoke opposing points of view.

And, James, there are dozens and dozens of your posts that I have not engaged here at all. Or read at all. As much as you post I would need to spend the entire day just keeping track of them all.

Again, my interest here [on this thread] revolves around a belief in God, morality, identity and conflicting goods. And to the extent that they can be understood existentially. To me, you are just a particular example of an objectivist who relies almost entirely on abstractions. I simply try to steer others away from autodidactic “reasoning” of this sort.

And, sure, I am fasicnated by minds that are actually able to think like this; to think like this when, in my estimation, it has almost no relevance to the lives we do live.

Other then as the embodiment of this: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296

[James_S_Saint]

@iambiguous

Again, allow me to state my “dasein dilemma”:

No, how about you just answer the question of this topic and cut the sales pitch;

@James S Saint

So Bigus, are you saying that you disagree with the Morality of God as stated in the OP

[iambiguous]

@James S Saint

@iambiguous

Again, allow me to state my “dasein dilemma”:

No, how about you just answer the question of this topic and cut the sales pitch;

@James S Saint

So Bigus, are you saying that you disagree with the Morality of God as stated in the OP

In a way it is sad that you allow yourself to be reduced down to feckless folly like this, my friend.

On some subjects, you obviously have a considerably more sophisticated narrative. But you have nothing substantive to say at all regarding the relationship between religious belief, morality and objectivity. Existentially, you flop about and then [eventually] are able only to offer up twaddle.

The morality of what God, James? Of what human behaviors? And how does your own political narrative meld with “the reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = ‘The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is’”. What on earth does that mean, my friend?!

And the Real God? A concept you invented tautologically by way defining it into existence? Part and parcel of the psychological defense mechanism that [ultimately] is RM/AO?

Well, in my own opinion of course. After all, I’m not inside that head of yours.

[James_S_Saint]

So you are not interested in answering the question or addressing this topic at all (since you have done neither)?

… still only interested in your trolling pestilence helping to ruin someone’s website for sake of your personal vendettas and issues?

[iambiguous]

@James S Saint

So you are not interested in answering the question or addressing this topic at all (since you have done neither)?

… still only interested in your trolling pestilence helping to ruin someone’s website for sake of your personal vendettas and issues?

No, from time to time I will take a chunk of it and respond. But all I can do, my friend, is to “answer the question” and “address the topic” subjectively [and subjunctively] as dasein. What you seem to want though are folks who will vigorously nod their heads and concur that the only objective manner in which this can be done is as you do it.

As for “ruining someone’s website for the sake of personal vendettas”…huh?

Again: YOU created this thread in order to expose/attack MY shortcomings with respect to the relationship between morality and God. Or so it seems to me.

Let’s explore this, okay? How are my posts above not aimed substantively at the OP but at, what, ruining you?

[James_S_Saint]

@iambiguous

Again: YOU created this thread in order to expose/attack MY shortcomings with respect to the relationship between morality and God. Or so it seems to me.

Let’s explore this, okay? How are my posts above not aimed substantively at the OP but at, what, ruining you?

The OP suggests a Morality of God.
The obvious question is whether you agree with it.
And yet, despite the numerous attempts to get you to directly and honestly answer any question, you go into your sales pitch proselytizing your Dasein god.

Why can’t you just answer the question rather than preach your hatred of the wicked “James S Saint” and ALL presumed “objective moralists, whether they really are or not”?

[iambiguous]

@James S Saint

@iambiguous

Again: YOU created this thread in order to expose/attack MY shortcomings with respect to the relationship between morality and God. Or so it seems to me.

Let’s explore this, okay? How are my posts above not aimed substantively at the OP but at, what, ruining you?

The OP suggests a Morality of God.

The OP says this:

[b]The Morality of God (for those who can read words), is simply this;

“There are things which you don’t bloody want to do to yourself, so don’t do them or suffer the consequences.”[/b]

Okay, how is that related to this:

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = “The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is”.

And how are both relevant to the question I have asked elsewhere:

What can your understanding of RM/AO and the Real God tell us about the objective morality of John and Mary and their dead baby? Or any other moral conflict most are familiar with? Can they be used to determine objective morality or not? What are the limits of rational metaphysics and the Real God? What can’t they provide us with respect to the relationship between philosophy and ethics?

@James S Saint

The obvious question is whether you agree with it.

I don’t agree that a God exists. And until I can grasp what you mean by the OP as it pertains to God and the moral interactions between actual flesh and blood human beings what exactly am I being asked to agree with?

I suspect this: that, given the manner in which you understand the meaning of the words used in the OP, this is the manner in which any and all rational [logical] minds would understand it too.

But then we never get to the relationship between the words and the world that we interact in until we are able to convince you that we truly do understand the meaning of the words. And you know where that leads: up.

To me, it is only a question of what motivates you to pursue these relationships in that manner: is it more philosophical or psychological?

You know my own presumption.

@James S Saint

And yet, despite the numerous attempts to get you to directly and honestly answer any question, you go into your sales pitch proselytizing your Dasein god.

I neither preach nor proselyze dasein as God, James. I situate the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein, conflicting goods and political economy “out in the world” of actual conflicted human behaviors. And then I ask others to do the same regarding the words they use in their own moral narratives.

@James S Saint

Why can’t you just answer the question rather than preach your hatred of the wicked “James S Saint” and ALL presumed “objective moralists, whether they really are or not”?

I don’t hate you, my friend. And I certainly don’t see you as “wicked”. I am simply trying to understand what you mean existentially when you speak of RM/AO and the Real God – pertaining to human behaviors that come into conflict over value judgments.

And then to explore in turn why you believe my “dasein dilemma” is not a reasonable manner in which find oneself entangled in moral conflicts.

Also, how is this viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296 not relevant to your arguments about RM and the Real God?

In fact, I am curious to explore these things with regard to anyone here who claims to believe in either God or objective/universal morality.

[James_S_Saint]

@iambiguous

I don’t agree that a God exists.

What do you mean when you say “God”?

[iambiguous]

@James S Saint

@iambiguous

I don’t agree that a God exists.

What do you mean when you say “God”?

Well, first of all James, let me thank you for finally answering all of my questions. I was beginning to think that in our exchanges it was always only my obligation to answer yours.

I’m sorry but shaming you is the only option you leave folks like me. Right?

What do I mean by God?

Again, let’s start with the dictionary:

God/gäd/noun

[b]1.
(in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.

synonyms: the Lord, the Almighty, the Creator, the Maker, the Godhead; More: Allah, Jehovah, Yahweh;
(God) the Father, (God) the Son, the Holy Ghost/Spirit, the Holy Trinity; the Great Spirit, Gitchi Manitou;
humorousthe Man Upstairs “a gift from God”

(in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity.
“a moon god”

synonyms: deity, goddess, divine being, celestial being, divinity, immortal[/b]

Now, with respect to the relationship between objective morality and God, I would be more inclined toward the first definition.

In other words, to me, God means the Creator – the Creator of the universe and then [eventually] us. But that to me is like saying what a unicorn mean. Just defining it does not in fact make it exist out in the world of actual flesh and blood human beings. Anymore then defining God makes Him real.

Okay, what does the Real God – The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = “The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is” – mean to you vis a vis, say, the Christian God? And how would you situate the Real God out in the world of conflicting human behaviors?

Oh, and all kidding aside my, friend, when ARE you going to answer my questions?

[James_S_Saint]

@iambiguous

What do I mean by God?

Again, let’s start with the dictionary:

God/gäd/noun

[b]1.
(in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.

synonyms: the Lord, the Almighty, the Creator, the Maker, the Godhead; More: Allah, Jehovah, Yahweh;
(God) the Father, (God) the Son, the Holy Ghost/Spirit, the Holy Trinity; the Great Spirit, Gitchi Manitou;
humorousthe Man Upstairs “a gift from God”

(in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity.
“a moon god”

synonyms: deity, goddess, divine being, celestial being, divinity, immortal[/b]

Now, with respect to the relationship between objective morality and God, I would be more inclined toward the first definition.

Yeah, but how do you say it, “Those are just words used to define words so that you can make your argument.”

So what does “God” really mean to you?

[iambiguous]

@James S Saint

Yeah, but how do you say it, “Those are just words used to define words so that you can make your argument.”

So what does “God” really mean to you?

If you can’t actually point to a God that you profess to believe in [like you can point to a tree or a dog or a boulder or a mountain that you say exist] what is left but words?

What God means to me is this: that I like others think about existence and wonder, “well, how did it all begin?” God is just a word-sound that was invented by the human species [in the English speaking world] as one possible explanation. “God created existence”.

But that just begs the question: Who or what created God?

Now, science is able to employ very, very sophisticated explanations regarding the evolution of life and the formation of the planet. They are said to exist because…and the reasons are given.

But what God does in fact exist? The one you experience personally? the one in your head? the one you define? the one you deduced into existence?

[size=150]Now, James, when are you going to at least make the attempt to answer my questions? You don’t even have the intellectual integrity and honesty to admit [even to yourself it seems] that you can’t. You simply ignore them time and time again.[/size]

Or so it seems to me.

[James_S_Saint]

@iambiguous

@James S Saint

Yeah, but how do you say it, “Those are just words used to define words so that you can make your argument.”

So what does “God” really mean to you?

If you can’t actually point to a God that you profess to believe in [like you can point to a tree or a dog or a boulder or a mountain that you say exist] what is left but words?

When I say that kind of thing, you rant endlessly about how I am merely trying to “trick” an audience into “Circular Definitional Logic”. I have asked for any example, but you just keep repeating the accusation.

@iambiguous

What God means to me is this: that I like others think about existence and wonder, “well, how did it all begin?” God is just a word-sound that was invented by the human species [in the English speaking world] as one possible explanation. “God created existence”.

But that just begs the question: Who or what created God?

Seriously???
You are THAT lost in the whole issue?
You think that a word is merely a sound???

So when you say “God”, you don’t really mean anything but the sound “Ghe-odd”, and nothing else?

Well, I guess it would be easy enough to prove that such a sound exists, just listen to the radio on a Christian channel.

[size=150]And Bigus, Realize that I have to know what you mean by the words you are using in order to answer your silly questions!![/size]

[iambiguous]

Again, James, it is only a question [to me] of how you manage to square your posts with actually answering my questions. And that [increasingly] you speak of me “trolling” you or of “ruining” you speaks volumes regarding just how disturbing the points I raise are becoming to you.

Yes, I do believe the dilemma that is dasein is applicable to you.

But, in my view, you have invested far too much of your life [psychologically] in your autodidactive tautologies and/or intellectual contraptions to let something like the world we live in [a world bursting at the seams with existential conflict] bring them crashing down.

Comfortably numb indeed.

[idioticidioms]

@iambiguous

Again, James, it is only a question [to me] of how you manage to square your posts with actually answering my questions. And that [increasingly] you speak of me “trolling” you or of “ruining” you speaks volumes regarding just how disturbing the points I raise are becoming to you.

No, it’s the fact that you just don’t get it, asshole. You have made 0 points here, all you’ve managed to do is fluster and piss him off. The only reason he’s suddenly doing better is because he’s been given proper motivation to do so, which was not given by you. Your way would never have worked, which is why you’ve modified it since talking to me. You made it better, but still all you do is torment people.

[James_S_Saint]

@iambiguous

of “ruining” you

It isn’t ME that you are ruining, but the website that is supposed to be about philosophy, not your personal issues and false accusations about everyone you mindlessly don’t like.

And you are far from “pissing me off”. I see you as just so, so incredibly lost in your dasein confusion and anger that talking to you is a bit pointless (as you have proven time and time again).

Speaking of which;

@James S Saint

So when you say “God”, you don’t really mean anything but the sound “Ghe-odd”, and nothing else?

It is equally pointless to talk to you or “answer” any questions from you when you don’t even know what you are asking, much less do I. You try to disallow any definitions that would clarify the issue. Yet you provide definitions of your own choosing when you think it is to your advantage.

To you it is entirely “I say whatever I want” and “You can’t say anything that I don’t like”.

…typical of the very thing that you claim to not like about everyone else = “Dorian Gray Syndrome”, seeing your sins as somewhere other than within you, a fear of judgment.