Tab wrote:Whoo, English lesson, feels like work.
Ok, 'believe' is a verb, as in "I believe I can fly, I believe I can touch the sky." A verb is a 'doing' word. As in "Hey Arc, what do you do in the mornings..?" "Well Tab, I - insert verb here, for example 'wake up' or 'watch' (the news)."
A noun is the name of something. Tab is a noun, so is Arcturus. Verbs also have noun forms. Usually they are just the verb+ing, like the names of activities such as 'playing tennis' which is handy. For example, I like ice-cream (noun), my wife (noun), and playing tennis (noun form of verb). Sure, I could just say "I like Tennis." But maybe I don't like Tennis much to watch, but I do like to play, so saying " I like playing Tennis." is closer to the truth for me. Sometimes nouns are different from the verbs though. Think-> (a) thought. Or know-> (some) knowledge. Or Believe-> (have/hold a) belief.
So 'belief' is a noun form of believe. As in Joe believes that 1) fairies exist. 2) fairies have wings. 3) Tinkerbell is a popular fairy name. So Joe has 3 beliefs about fairies. Think of them as 3 bits of paper with 'wings' 'exist' and 'Tinkerbell' written on them and Joe has them in his pocket. Except the pocket is in his brain. It's a fairy brain pocket.
Joe however, is sceptical about Trolls. He doesn't believe that 1) trolls exist in the wild. 2) or that bridges have trolls. 3) or that there used to be a troll under his bed that stole his socks even though his mum told him that once.
Joe's Troll brain pocket has 3 pieces of paper with 'don't exist' 'not under bridges' and 'not under beds' written on them. 3 beliefs about trolls.
“I would rather live my life as if there is a God and die to find out there isn't -- than live my life as if there isn't (a God) and die to find out there is”
surreptitious75 wrote:Omnibenevolence is generally not included with the other three omnis and so cannot be the most important one
They are all however assumed values with no real awareness of the relationship that exists between them at all
Else it would be quickly realised that omnipotence and omnibenevolence for example are actually incompatible
Ecmandu wrote:
Actually, omnibenevolence is THE very most important one —- which is why it’s not mentioned. It’s the most important and can be immediately falsified by even a fucking stone on the ground!
Actually, it is mentioned in EVERY religion is “god is good”
tentative wrote:
The problem with labels is that they create edges and boundaries
Camus wrote:
I do not believe in God and I am not an atheist - Notebooks I95I - I959
Ecmandu wrote:Iambiguous,
To me, immortality is a given. God has no part in this given, just like god didn’t create a triangle.
It’s been said that the whole point of philosophy is to teach us how to die... I disagree. The whole point is to teach us how to live forever.
surreptitious75 wrote:Believing in immortality does not of course make it true no matter how strong the belief is
But if it is really that strong then you have already convinced yourself that it must be true
Ecmandu wrote:surreptitious75 wrote:Believing in immortality does not of course make it true no matter how strong the belief is
But if it is really that strong then you have already convinced yourself that it must be true
It’s basic logic.
If we ever cease to exist in the future, we would cease to exist now, as the we now is a subset of our we forever.
Think about it: YOU die a trillion years from now. That means YOU’D be dead right now as now is a subset of the totality of YOU.
God didn’t create this and god can’t destroy it.
tentative wrote:Ecmandu wrote:surreptitious75 wrote:Believing in immortality does not of course make it true no matter how strong the belief is
But if it is really that strong then you have already convinced yourself that it must be true
It’s basic logic.
If we ever cease to exist in the future, we would cease to exist now, as the we now is a subset of our we forever.
Think about it: YOU die a trillion years from now. That means YOU’D be dead right now as now is a subset of the totality of YOU.
God didn’t create this and god can’t destroy it.
Ummm... Your basic logic depends heavily on your assumptions that YOU have to exist in an afterlife. There just might be a different immortality assuming that YOU cease to exist upon death and yet remain immortal. Every atom, every particle of what was YOU can never be destroyed because all that was YOU is a subset of the universe no matter what forms those atoms may take a trillion years from now. The universe may not recognize any such YOU, only the ebb and flo of energy/material states over billions of years.
It's basic logic.
My old friend Tentative wrote:So how's that? I do enjoy babbling now and then.
Ecmandu wrote:Actually, I want to expound upon my last post:
viewtopic.php?p=2761045#p2761045
If continuity of consciousness ever dies for YOU!!! You wouldn’t be here right now, as the YOU right now is merely a subset of that continuity of consciousness.
Obviously, if we just become atoms that disperse, we are no longer a continuity of consciousness. Which means that our past is erased as well. But! From that perspective we are in our past right now, and we’re still here.
I don’t think you understand what true death is:
We!!!!!!!! Never existed!!!
Tab wrote:My old friend Tentative wrote:So how's that? I do enjoy babbling now and then.
We always pretty much agreed on stuff, don't see any reason to stop now.![]()
So I've had 5 years to mull over what little of the Dao managed to sink into my bones from back in the day. Now the kids have grown up a bit, and my son has read the Dao as well, he turned to me after he'd finished and said "I kinda get it now, why you've let me make up my own mind on a lot of stuff, not bullshitted me about the big stuff and not really set a lot of rules. You were being non-coercive."
I really hadn't thought about it much to be honest - I'm not really the kind of person to ever have sat down and said to myself, "Hah, now to carry out my plan to raise Daoist superchild." But seems like that's what I've been doing lol. I can't take much of the credit, beyond paying attention, not shirking the hard conversational topics, and letting them run and fall on their asses. My kids were always good kids. For which I am eternally grateful.
tentative wrote:Ecmandu wrote:Actually, I want to expound upon my last post:
viewtopic.php?p=2761045#p2761045
If continuity of consciousness ever dies for YOU!!! You wouldn’t be here right now, as the YOU right now is merely a subset of that continuity of consciousness.
Obviously, if we just become atoms that disperse, we are no longer a continuity of consciousness. Which means that our past is erased as well. But! From that perspective we are in our past right now, and we’re still here.
I don’t think you understand what true death is:
We!!!!!!!! Never existed!!!
I really don't know how to get through to you that your logic is built on sand. I'm sure that you believe in something called "a continuity of consciousness" but forgive me, I and a lot of other folks aren't convinced based on your say so. When you can summon someone from your spirit world with tangible proof of an afterlife then perhaps I'll believe as you do. Until then, I'm quite comfortable saying "I don't know."
Hopefully, you can see that we are playing the "I say potato, you say...." game. It is the ultimate in futility so I'll just bow out. Have a nice day.
Tab wrote:Must admit Ecmandu, I've never really gotten a grasp of your - eh can't even think of a name that fits - theory.
Do you mean somehow that as we age, or if that's a contextually meaningless concept, move through time, all the past iterations of our consciousness, all those momentary holographic 'me-nows' are somehow stored and embodied..? And that our 'deaths' or otherwise 'ceasings to be' would obviously obliviate these and yet we still constantly experience these me-nows in every moment and from this we must somehow deduce that we can't possibly have died in some future 'yet to be' because we are still here in the present, experiencing me-nows already stored and embodied by some still existent future self..?
Plz more explains plz.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users