Anthropism [Archive] - Physics Forums: Physics, Astronomy, Math, & Philosophy Forums!

Epsilon=One

11-15-2005, 10:42 PM

That responce of yours in ENTIRELY ANTHORPIC

Had you not noticed that I had asked you not to be Anthorpic in your responce?Yes, you are quite correct; your request is difficult as: we are two anthropoids that are attempting communication.

Please advise if you have a word that better connotes the concepts that I am expressing without using the specific “anthropoid” and its derivations.

Your request about not being “anthorpic (sic.) about it” with the condescending “……O.k.?” is somewhat analogous to requesting I speak truth by replying only with known untruths.

Still missing the point, aren't you ?Quite possibly I am. The logic of your argument is difficult for me to follow. Any elaboration upon how life preceded the Cosmos and subatomic phenomena would interest me.

The idea that there was existence before there was life to percieve it, well, tell us all, now what existed before there was life to percieve it, cause what you are saying is that everything was DEAD then life erupted onto the scene after the Matter was created/began/formed/selfdeveloped??Yes. You seem to understand my argument.

Somehow that line does NOT make any sense cause it implies existent life came after created(?) matter.....that's just enormously Confusing :confused: !Yes, you have correctly grasped the implication. Apparently, “sense,” logic, is a quality that is within the mind of the beholder.

Mr. Robin Parsons

11-16-2005, 10:26 AM

© Mr. Robin Parsons Kingston Ontario Canada MMV

Yes, you are quite correct; your request is difficult as: we are two anthropoids that are attempting communication.
Please advise if you have a word that better connotes the concepts that I am expressing without using the specific “anthropoid” and its derivations.
Your request about not being “anthorpic (sic.) about it” with the condescending “……O.k.?” is somewhat analogous to requesting I speak truth by replying only with known untruths.

What is condescending about a Question? as in O.K.?

You missed the point that everything is Anthropic in it's derivation as that is how we all communicate, there is no other way. Apparently you missed the intent of the Very first question I posed in this thread....no matter you will get it now.

As for the other part, you seem to think that in-animate matter gave rise to life, as opposed to life having given rise to in-animate matter.

Interesting notion, guess then you don't really believe in "God" or "Creator" reguardless of what you might be willing to type.

That is fine by me.

As for your statement of: "is somewhat analogous to requesting I speak truth by replying only with known untruths. " well, not really, cause there cannot be any "truths" in a World that is entirely Described by Anthropic beings, especially when it is known that all of them can just as easily lie, and the fact that the language isn't capable of describing any of those selfsame "Truths" without partiality.

So, your Lost, because what I had 'requested' is Impossible to fulfill, funny you didn't seem to figure that one out.

Epsilon=One

11-16-2005, 02:03 PM

What is condescending about a Question? as in O.K.?When the thought can be expressed just as well without the “O.K.,” the “O.K.,” becomes condescending, as it implies that the “target” is in agreement, which is usually known to be untrue. The “O.K.” if not repudiated leaves a misleading impression and attempts to strengthen a point that is usually weak. Patronizing is a form of ad hominem argument that is by its very nature of little persuasion.

…you seem to think that in-animate matter gave rise to life, as opposed to life having given rise to in-animate matter.Yes, that is my position. Further, I believe that “life” is, entirely, phenomena composed of “in-animate” matter. It has not been found to be anything other from scientific observation. No “soul” has ever been found that is not an illusionary “creation” of a person’s mind, which is a physical entity that includes its thoughtful concepts.

Interesting notion, guess then you don't really believe in "God" or "Creator" reguardless of what you might be willing to type.I do not believe that there is a god that is anthropic in any manner; however, everything that I observe ratifies that there is a fundamental “element” or phenomena from which it must have evolved that seems to reduce to a single “in-animate” manifestation. (See: CASA (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=149) and My Creed (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=90).)

That is fine by me.Nice to be in agreement on some part of this esoteric subject.

…there cannot be any "truths" in a World that is entirely Described by Anthropic beings, especially when it is known that all of them can just as easily lie, and the fact that the language isn't capable of describing any of those selfsame "Truths" without partiality.With such pessimism, I would find life very difficult. I am led by all those persons from the beginning of History that have thought otherwise.

So, your Lost, because what I had 'requested' is Impossible to fulfill, funny you didn't seem to figure that one out.No; you are erroneously speaking for me again. A habit, along with ad hominemism, that I deplore. I cannot agree with any part of your assumption.

Mr. Robin Parsons

11-17-2005, 12:56 PM

© Mr. Robin Parsons Kingston Ontario Canada MMV

Just read this post of yours and the other one in "Black Holes".

If it wasn't dis-respectfully I would type out for you, here, just how long those two posts, of yours, could/would keep me laughing. :p :D :p

It doesn't suprise me at all that so few would be willing to indulge in the time to talk to you.......no longer any surprise at all. :D :D :p

Perhaps later, since I have nothing better to do, I will attempt to 'splain it to you......then again, maybe not. :rolleyes:

Epsilon=One

11-17-2005, 02:33 PM

198 111905 145 11 17 05Just read this post of yours and the other one in "Black Holes".

If it wasn't dis-respectfully I would type out for you, here, just how long those two posts, of yours, could/would keep me laughing. :p :D :p

It doesn't suprise me at all that so few would be willing to indulge in the time to talk to you.......no longer any surprise at all. :D :D :p

Perhaps later, since I have nothing better to do, I will attempt to 'splain it to you......then again, maybe not. :rolleyes:No need to "'splain"; as your comments are without intellectual merit as long as they are ad hominem and without specifix arguments concerning my logic.

Your diatribes seem to indicate that you have no argument with the stated logic only with the "messenger."

Mr. Robin Parsons

11-17-2005, 03:17 PM

145 11 17 05No need to "'splain"; as your comments are without intellectual merit as long as they are ad hominem and without specifix arguments concerning my logic.

Your diatribes seem to indicate that you have no argument with the stated logic only with the "messenger."

Your "Stated Logic"?? ......where???

Epsilon=One

11-17-2005, 03:21 PM

155 111805Your "Stated Logic"?? ......where???You have succinctly made my point.

Mr. Robin Parsons

11-17-2005, 03:38 PM

© Mr. Robin Parsons Kingston Ontario Canada MMV

2:24 PM 17/11/2005

When the thought can be expressed just as well without the “O.K.,” the “O.K.,” becomes condescending, as it implies that the “target” is in agreement, which is usually known to be untrue. The “O.K.” if not repudiated leaves a misleading impression and attempts to strengthen a point that is usually weak. Patronizing is a form of ad hominem argument that is by its very nature of little persuasion. It is a Question, O.K.?

You go a long way to twist a simplicity into a complexity as to serve your BELIEF that it is Somehow other then the Obvious ='s (which is) your error of Mis-interpretation

Yes, that is my position. Further, I believe that “life” is, entirely, phenomena composed of “in-animate” matter. It has not been found to be anything other from scientific observation. No “soul” has ever been found that is not an illusionary “creation” of a person’s mind, which is a physical entity that includes its thoughtful concepts.

So then why don't we still see the early stages of those kinds of activities, in-animate matter animating itself, re-occuring presently?

I do not believe that there is a god that is anthropic in any manner; however, everything that I observe ratifies that there is a fundamental “element” or phenomena from which it must have evolved that seems to reduce to a single “in-animate” manifestation. (See: CASA (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=149) and My Creed (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=90).) Again 'self reference' as evidence, HOOOOWHHEEEE your comical....And again with your Dead as a Rock, Ooopps it is a Rock/Stone "God"....don't you wonder why the rocks never answer you?

Nice to be in agreement on some part of this esoteric subject.
So it pleases you to see that I agree that you believe in a Rock/Stone God? Strange you are....

With such pessimism, I would find life very difficult. I am led by all those persons from the beginning of History that have thought otherwise.
Pessimism? try REALITY or REALISTIC, ALL KNOWLEDGE IS ANTHROPIC, which seemingly you still haven't figured out yet, sad is what that is...not terribly smart either.

No; you are erroneously speaking for me again. A habit, along with ad hominemism, that I deplore. I cannot agree with any part of your assumption. Speaking for you? How? this is what I had stated...
So, your Lost, because what I had 'requested' is Impossible to fulfill, funny you didn't seem to figure that one out.

Where do you see me speaking for you?? and what assumption? that it is impossible to communicate in any manner other then Anthropically, that is a Simple (HUMAN) truth!

As for your "deploring the Habit of ad Hominemism's" Well stop useing them then!

If you would wish to respond further please address the Intial Question Otherwise it becomes all to obvious that all you are doing is attacking Me, little else.

Have you ever stayed "on Topic" in a thread?

Mr. Robin Parsons

11-17-2005, 03:39 PM

155 111805You have succinctly made my point.
So you agree your logic is Completely Absent

Good move! :D :cool:

Epsilon=One

11-17-2005, 04:35 PM

206 111905It is a Question, O.K.?There you go . . . again.

You go a long way to twist a simplicity into a complexity as to serve your BELIEF that it is Somehow other then the Obvious ='s (which is) your error of Mis-interpretationQuite often the obvious is mistaken; often, because of its lack of detail.

So then why don't we still see the early stages of those kinds of activities, in-animate matter animating itself, re-occuring presently?Such activity is seen. You probably are unaware of it because you do not understand the subtleties of fundamental physics and complex, analog, self-adjustment. You can probably acquire some insight by carefully studying Pulsoid Theory (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=63) with an open mind.

Again 'self reference' as evidence, HOOOOWHHEEEE your comical....And again with your Dead as a Rock, Ooopps it is a Rock/Stone "God"....don't you wonder why the rocks never answer you?Again, you use the weak position of ad hominemism.

I suppose that if I thought a rock could "answer" that I would also expect god to "answer"; I see little difference between the two. My god excludes nothing from "its" influence; as, it is has no limitation as an anthropic god must.

When thoughts are original there are no other persons to reference. If you are so upset with the thoughts, attack their logic. You are strong in attacking my person, while hardly a whimper is heard concerning my logic. Apparently, you have difficulty concerning finding specific points of logic which we can debate.

So it pleases you to see that I agree that you believe in a Rock/Stone God? Strange you are....Candidly . . . yes. I find it rather pleasing to know my effort occasionally has some effect on your thoughts.

I respond, not in the hope of changing your mind, but in the hope some alternative thought may stimulate the minds of the many Viewers.

Pessimism? try REALITY or REALISTIC, ALL KNOWLEDGE IS ANTHROPIC, which seemingly you still haven't figured out yet, sad is what that is...not terribly smart either.You are entitled to your opinion concerning my person. I hope it is not shared by many. Concerning “ALL KNOWLEDGE IS ANTHROPIC“; consider that: all anthropoids are evolved manifestations of a non-anthropic god. (I use your word "god" that I do not much care for because of all of its misunderstood connotations.)

If you would wish to respond further please address the Intial Question Otherwise it becomes all to obvious that all you are doing is attacking Me, little else.I answered the initial question, quite succinctly, in my first post on this thread. Since then, my replies have always been led by your comments.

Should you be in doubt, please study all the above posts.

I am not “attacking” you as a person; I am disagreeing with your ideas, which you have a right to express. My disagreement is that I can not in good conscious let the expressed thoughts influence others without a response. This thread has many Viewers and your comments are a great foil to my concepts.

Have you ever stayed "on Topic" in a thread?I go only where others lead.

Mr. Robin Parsons

11-22-2005, 06:15 PM

© Mr. Robin Parsons Kingston Ontario Canada MMV

5:17 PM 22/11/2005 (earlier actually)

"All of the Fundamental Postulates are wrong" *A so you Think that things like the Periodic Table of Elements, thereafter > atoms > Protons, Electrons and Neutrons > Breaking down further into Quarks > Up & Down, Top & Bottom, Strange and Charm, Virtual Particle Cloud Surrounding the Nucleus > electromagnetic Properties of Atomic Structures, (Governed By Rules which are, of themselves, metaphysical 'things') Thermal Properties, and Values, Structural Properties as resultant of Known effects of Forces, known from the Observable Workings in the Universe....General relativity that has met with Predicted Successes, Special Relativeity as well, QED that has fans of it's abilty to describe certain levels of functions, interactivities/interations of matter and energies, Quantum Mechanics, that has been APPLIED from 'theory' to PRACTICALITY in Magnetic Resonance Imaging machines, as to give forth, Via Fournier transforms, Beautiful Portraits of the Human anatomy, from Within itself, without Cut.....All based upon the Very Arrangements of the Elementals of Chemistry (being the Atoms) as they demonstrate their Individual Properties, from Said arrangements, Carbon Being either 'Planar' in it's presentation as Graphite, or "Hedral" in it's Other presentation of Solid State Arrangement as Diamond, Differing from Oxygen, the gas, that demonstrates reactivity that carbon could only envy, forming as O2 in a gaseous state, But differing only in a small quantity of some Neutrons/Protons/Electrons, yet completely different in Physical Presentation/Representation, to things like Uranium wherein the Neutron Count has populated at near twice the Proton rate, (Little Bit less actually ) and we find Radio-activity and Explosive Possibilities precursored by Thermal Generators Magnatudes ahead of more conventional Thermal Sources, ALL of that leads' us to things Like, well, Pluto, or Neptune, A Quasar, Saturn, a Galaxy, Stellar Bodies One Hundred Times, in Size, of our Local Star, Neutron Stars, Black Holes, The Beginning of the Existence of Things, as Matter, from energy, Mercury, From Sol, these are the Very Fundamental Principals, OF "Mainstream" (if I do Say, or express, my-self/my-expression as so)

So what is Wrong with the Primary, or Secondary, Or in Some cases, even the tertiary 'Theories' in all of that? as The VAST Majority of ALL of that WORKS REALLY WELL!

Beneath all of that are Baseline Philosophicals which involve ideas like:

How does a Perfection Generate all of this, when this all appears as so Imperfect? to everyone, still, though, strangely Beautiful?

Whence is time? in a Universe governed by an *C Asynchronus Atom?

From whence is the Very Idea of Idea?

How does a Rock or a solid things generate an idea? (It can, but ONLY in a Living thing will the Idea exist)

You seem to find In-amination (in-animate things) creating/begatting Animate things, and you think it is "still going on" (Just 'read your work' "with an open mind") *B and you seem to believe that Rocks/Stones have "knowledge"

Well, not to split hairs but, Humans can find Knowledge, from a Rock, we find them to be "Ordered Structures" that are completely absent of any ability, or sense, or Cause of action(s) as to be able to Control anything, even them very selves, no View of ANYTHING that could have cause, or justification, in Begatting the Eruption, in Living things, of the Abilties of "Free Will" Choises as to actions, and especially they, Rocks/Stones are obviously absent of (possession of) any and ALL KNOWLEDGE though Clearly WE Anthropiods Can Derive KNOWLEDGE fROM THEM, THEY HAVE NONE, AND CANNOT USE ANY!

I have read Your "Creed ...You Identify Your-self very Well

Somehow you seem to think that Order Sprang, from what? Disorder?

As A Matter of Fact, the Very Idea that the rocks are ordered is Proof that it was knowledge that Made it so, hence we should all know that Knowledge HAD to Precede Matter, so there MUST have been Knowledge Existent preceeding the Big Bang Event.

*A Which you have now changed (Or, are trying to) to "All of the Secondary postulates are wrong"

*B (life begatting Life Yes, rocks begatting Life NO)

But if the People (Mainstream) believe in those postultes, and you claim them as "All Wrong!" then how can it be that you will not agree that you are saying that 'All of those people are wrong!'....no Logic there, either, from you!!!!

That was actually the one thing that I had thought was Wrong With Dr. Hawkings' Work, the Idea that, somehow? the Universe had "lost information" the Idea that a Virutual Particle's Pair, would Separate, one falling into/across the Black Holes Event Horizon, the Other 'Fleeeee's' the scene, as to never be able to re-combine with it's "Birth-twin" as to Ensure "No Information is lost" Well, it is only an exchanging of energies going on, NOT a "Meeting of Minds".

Makes NO Difference to a Black Hole where it's Lunch..er..err...Uhmmm I mean Energy Comes from, Right? O.K?

Oh Yes
To adress you
and your responce
style of
'Slit'
slat
'Slice'
responce "Quotitatively" style that
Seems to always
Editorially Extirpate
Whatever
little slice of my writting that
You, thereafter, use to "go your own way"
(It's a Song I tell
Ya)
in the ensueing
Verbosity your indulgences
require as to permit you the self estimation of
Nike
yet you reveal only yourself
in all your accusation
and mannerismsmsmsmsms''
and confirm to me
the adage of: "A Man
Without a Belief in
an Exteriorized God/Life/Spirit/Knowledge
Thinks Himself God
And you can Quote me on that.

Oh Yes, and BTW you do recall how you had been so adamant About me NOT emboldening selected Lines of My COMPLETE Quotation of you? AAaaaNd yet Here we Find YOU, well, Not emboldening (Just) "a line" in Context oh Nooooo!, Here we Find you Extirpating it like it was fodder for your Cannon, selecting it OUT OF Context, Citing It Selectively out of Step as Well, Answering to an Answer, wretched methods of Responce to Conversation, pathmannerisms' of One who believes in only their ability to 'tell the truth' as if "Only they know" and "Everyone else is Wrong", or their "Postulates are all wrong" or "The universe is Wrong" everything BUT them is wrong

....as for; "did I not see the If?", well, Yes! I did! I wrote it!....if Only

*C 'Proof' of an Asynchronus Atom? All of the Neutrons have Birthdays!

Epsilon=One

11-23-2005, 03:00 AM

"All of the Fundamental Postulates are wrong" *AYes. That is exactly what I believe. It is difficult for me to understand how anyone can possibly think otherwise when considering that not one paradigm reconciles internally . . . or with any other paradigm. As with religion: If only one can be true, most likely they are all false.

[QUOTE=Mr. Robin Parsons]So what is Wrong with the Primary, or Secondary, Or in Some cases, even the tertiary 'Theories' in all of that? as The VAST Majority of ALL of that WORKS REALLY WELL!If the fundamentals are false, all that follows is with error.

Whence is time? in a Universe governed by an *C Asynchronus Atom?Time is a cyclic function with a linear manifestation of the regulation of infinite energy by limiting the continuous pulses of seminal energy by the Elliptical Constant (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=107), which is a phenomena of complex energy loci.

From whence is the Very Idea of Idea?

How does a Rock or a solid things generate an idea? (It can, but ONLY in a Living thing will the Idea exist)Pleased to note that you are aware that ideas are physical. I believe you have answered your first question with your comment following the second question.

You seem to find In-amination (in-animate things) creating/begatting Animate things, and you think it is "still going on" (Just 'read your work' "with an open mind") *B and you seem to believe that Rocks/Stones have "knowledge"Yes. Something like that; but, not quite so crudely expressed.

… Humans can find Knowledge, from a Rock, we find them to be "Ordered Structures" that are completely absent of any ability, or sense, or Cause of action(s) as to be able to Control anything, even them very selves, no View of ANYTHING that could have cause, or justification, in Begatting the Eruption, in Living things, of the Abilties of "Free Will" Choises as to actions, and especially they, Rocks/Stones are obviously absent of (possession of) any and ALL KNOWLEDGE though Clearly WE Anthropiods Can Derive KNOWLEDGE fROM THEM, THEY HAVE NONE, AND CANNOT USE ANY!Be aware that all inanimate objects have the same salient fundamental composition as all living objects.

I have read Your "Creed ...You Identify Your-self very WellThank you. That is my intent. (For the interested Viewer: My Creed (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=90).)

Somehow you seem to think that Order Sprang, from what? Disorder?No. In fact, quite the opposite.

As A Matter of Fact, the Very Idea that the rocks are ordered is Proof that it was knowledge that Made it so, hence we should all know that Knowledge HAD to Precede Matter, so there MUST have been Knowledge Existent preceeding the Big Bang Event.Logically, all complexity must have evolved from that which is simplest. If you believe that which is simplest has knowledge, then such is your belief. It is not mine.

…the People (Mainstream) believe in those postultes, and you claim them as "All Wrong!" then how can it be that you will not agree that you are saying that 'All of those people are wrong!'....no Logic there, either, from you!!!!The postulates are wrong. I have no judgment concerning the ability of other persons.

Makes NO Difference to a Black Hole where it's Lunch..er..err...Uhmmm I mean Energy Comes from, Right? O.K?There you go again with your irritating “O.K?” It is not “O.K” with me.

Mr. Robin Parsons

11-23-2005, 07:16 AM

If the fundamentals are false, all that follows is with error. Wrong!

Time is a cyclic function with a linear manifestation of the regulation of infinite energy by limiting the continuous pulses of seminal energy by the Elliptical Constant (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=107), which is a phenomena of complex energy loci. Wrong again!

Pleased to note that you are aware that ideas are physical. I believe you have answered your first question with your comment following the second question. Wrong again! and apparently you cannot even comprehend what you read!

Yes. Something like that; but, not quite so crudely expressed. Wrong!

Be aware that all inanimate objects have the same salient fundamental composition as all living objects. WRONG AGAIN!

Thank you. That is my intent. (For the interested Viewer: My Creed (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=90).) So you admit it you are a Blasphemer! Good! First, and only(?) thing you haven't gotten wrong again

No. In fact, quite the opposite. Yes well I agree that you seem lost too, not just Backwards.

Logically, all complexity must have evolved from that which is simplest. If you believe that which is simplest has knowledge, then such is your belief. It is not mine. Wrong again!

The postulates are wrong. I have no judgment concerning the ability of other persons. Wrong AGAIN!

There you go again with your irritating “O.K?” It is not “O.K” with me. O.K.! (is that O.K.? with you? :p )

Mr. Robin Parsons

11-23-2005, 09:52 AM

Mr. Robin Parsons Kingston Ontario Canada MMV

9:02 AM 23/11/2005

Oh Yes, BTW there "bud" in your obvious Confusion about your last read of My work, well, it shows, inasmuch as you seemed to wish to acknowledge that I had been able/capable (Smart enough) as to see that there was "Knowledge" in material things.....Makes me laugh this one, (Uproariously too) see, the Funniest thing happened when you did that, you did something that that Rock/Stone with "Knowledge" can Never do you lied, BTW it/that was a "Free Willed" Choise you made....

.....Oh Yes! Rumor Has it that the Rock/Stone Believed you!!

BTW Rocks/Stones CANNOT LIE.

(But you can, to yourself, First...can you see it yet?)

Me? I never heard that 'Rumor' Communicated from any 'Rock' other then the "Rock of the Knowledge of the Truth" and that IS God/Knowledge/Spirit...but NOT A Stone/Rock...Matter/mass

Epsilon=One

11-23-2005, 11:23 AM

Oh Yes, BTW there "bud"Again, you are making unwarranted assumptions on my part

...in your obvious Confusion about your last read of My work, well, it shows, inasmuch as you seemed to wish to acknowledge that I had been able/capable (Smart enough) as to see that there was "Knowledge" in material things.....Makes me laugh this one, (Uproariously too) see, the Funniest thing happened when you did that, you did something that that Rock/Stone with "Knowledge" can Never do you lied,To lie requires some intent. In your comment, “How does a Rock or a solid things generate an idea? (It can, but ONLY in a Living thing will the Idea exist),” What part of “It can” did I misinterpret?

Lie seems a strong word in a forum where ideas are exchanged. Do you believe physicists lie when they promote metaphysical beliefs? Do religious persons lie when they promote gods that they know nothing about?

If you must make comments, can you try, just once, to write without a single ad homenism while proposing logical alternatives to a specific point. Possibly then, we can proceed to some discovery. Your methods, besides being tiresome, do not advance discovery and these methods tend to waste everyone’s time. Your opposition to my person is well known; your logic for your position is much obfuscated by your method of debate.

Mr. Robin Parsons

11-23-2005, 12:44 PM

BTW haven't taken the time to read your responce, just yet...Maybe Later who! Knows....

© Mr. Robin Parsons Kingston Ontario Canada MMV

11:40 AM 11/23/2005

One other thing you forgot about your 'Material' Knowledge, it is Limited, Exceedingly limited, and Never-Ever Does it Grow, as YOURS was Supposed to have.....Have you? Yet?

Open the 'Box' find Crystals, made of Elements, made of Atoms, Made of Quarks, Made of Energy ....end of Story.

Human, "Born" = as Begatted from Previously Existent Life, Origins of Originatorial Essence(s) Unknown, lineage of Knowledge in Material matter Growing and Learning as self evident in the Histroy of the Chromosonal Structure Known as Deoxyribonucliec-acid Double Helix development over time, absent Completely as to the How's and Why's of Directions evidenced from Terrestrial Experiences that would reason out the Idea of Knowledge as having originated from anything other then a Greater Form of Knowledge, something that is NOT found in Rocks No Matter how large as if the 'Knowledge' they contain (Anthropically Observed) is Isomorphic in Element (Roughly) it is Exceedingly Limited Again! Hence it is Easily Known/knowable/seeable/viewable/obvious(?) that in the Entirety of the Universes "Available Knowledge (As Derivable from Matter and Energy) there is NOT a Singular Incedence of it Lying....that is Exclusively An Anthropic thing, as is ALL KNOWLEDGE.....O.K.?

Oh Yes, again BTW when you talk to the Rocks/Stones as to Transfer Knowledge with them, do You realize that you are addressing your ancestors? you are respectful of that I would Hope.....Hee hee hee hee heeeeeeee hehehehehehehehehehehehhehehehehehe.... :p :p

Mr. Robin Parsons

11-24-2005, 11:05 AM

© Mr. Robin Parsons Kingston Ontario Canada MMV

10:19 AM 11/24/2005

Again, you are making unwarranted assumptions on my part Logically You "missed the Boat" completely!

To lie requires some intent. In your comment, “How does a Rock or a solid things generate an idea? (It can, but ONLY in a Living thing will the Idea exist),” What part of “It can” did I misinterpret? Yours is obvious enough....as for what part of "it can" again a Partiallity to use lie/deception/deceptive technique(s) to advance your point, FALSEHOOD

Lie seems a strong word in a forum where ideas are exchanged. Do you believe physicists lie when they promote metaphysical beliefs? Do religious persons lie when they promote gods that they know nothing about?
You mean no one on/in Internet forums Ever Lies???

A physicist promoting a metaphysical belief Must admit that it is Un-provable respective of "Physics" and the methodologies of Proving that Physics and Physicists' employ, otherwise, you know they (try to) LIE/decieve

If you must make comments, can you try, just once, to write without a single ad homenism while proposing logical alternatives to a specific point. Possibly then, we can proceed to some discovery. Your methods, besides being tiresome, do not advance discovery and these methods tend to waste everyone’s time. Your opposition to my person is well known; your logic for your position is much obfuscated by your method of debate.

All Knowledge is Anthropic. (No Alternatives!)

Opposition to your person?? Huh? if I was that opposed to "your person" I wouldn't be answering/talking to you, at all....you do exactly what you accuse me of doing, Ad Hominism, the quote of you above PROVES IT as you do nothing towards the logic of the Conversation, but you do attack me personally....your opinion is "Specious Dribbling" little else....

Discovery? use the mind you have, and see if you can figure out just what has been shown (Discover what is there already) to you, so far.

Mr. Robin Parsons

11-24-2005, 08:15 PM

© Mr. Robin Parsons Kingston Ontario Canada MMV

7:07 PM 24/11/2005

Hey! "bud" Have you figured it out yet?

It's a Lie, told of/by Free Will.

Don't you Know anything about Philosophy?

Yikes! You still don't get it .....do you?

That's O.K.! With me!

(Am I being Rude yet? How? Didn't you realize, {'you' the reader, this time, not "bud"} from the outset, that I asked a Question that I knew NO ONE could answer, or at least 'get around' as in No Solidity of Answer as there is No Proof, there never will be any proof, as that is all that has ever been proven....to you, personally....from Your In'sides, so all you 'see' is a truth you recognize from inside of yourself, you just, perhaps don't recognize just exactly What that, Actually Proves!)

(i)D(i)Dot TyyyyyyypiiissssstT!

Tell me please, which is worse, to deal with (from a Person/People) the Truth? (AKA 'Best Honesty' {As in You[?]}) or a Partiallity of it? (AKA "Well could be Lying, maybe, some truth, too, maaaaaaay'be")

If you listen to everything you say, then the very First person you tell a Lie (aloud) to, is Yourself ....The Universe has NEVER ever lied to you, and that is a PROVABLE (Scientifically) FACT .....but (Some/Most/all) 'People' will try to, sometimes.......Sooner, or Later.

Mr. Robin Parsons

11-26-2005, 12:54 PM

© Mr. Robin Parsons Kingston Ontario Canada MMV

Would love to know though, is this "New to you?" cause this is Old Hat to Me, God's Grace I have known about that "little piece" for, well, Years Now....

All Knowledge is Anthropic, as are, All Lies....and BTW all Lies are Metaphysical By there very Nature, no 'Proving/Proof' that they exist (No Substantability) as anything other then Vibrations in Space (Spoken Word{s}) or a False/In-apropriate Description (Written or typed Word{s}) of reality.

So...... Go Figure! :eek:

Its' Cool-Its' Gravity! :cool:

Mr. Robin Parsons

11-27-2005, 12:58 PM

© Mr. Robin Parsons Kingston Ontario Canada MMV

This thing about "am I being Rude?" (yet) Well, this 'Person' Epsilon=One or "bud" or (Insert Avatar *Here*) Mentioned that He had Known a G.U.T. (Grand Unified {field} Theory) from Before I was Born! and Yet when it is Something that He apparently Has Known of For Longer then I have been alive, So Fifty Years, Minimium, He Hasn't Yet Known How to Connect the Two? He Apparently Understands How All of the Universe Works as one BUT He Still Cannot Connect? He Either Does NOT know Himself (as well as he can Portray) or He Does NOT know a G.U.T. Or BOTH! > So > Then, the 'Best Test' (Scientifically?) of Manners Is How well you Deal With someone With Bad Manners(ism's)...

So you tell Me! What's the 'Score'?

Do you think, that I think, that I am Losing? Or Winning?

(Or telling/sharing ergo Enriching(?) all who CAN Understand/Withstand it? :cool: O.K.?)

Mr. Robin Parsons

11-27-2005, 04:24 PM

© Mr. Robin Parsons Kingston Ontario Canada MMV

This thing about Lies, well if you can figure it out you can realize that all lies are "Non-Existent" as in: having no aptitude to being a descriptor of the event(s)/Subject(s)/or topic(s)/Or Thing(s) that is Harmonic in it's relation to the Actuallity that is , or was, existent at the time of the event(s)/Subject(s)/or topic(s)/Or Thing(s) experiencing....They are Imaginary Ergo metaphysical and Exclusively(?) {No, Not in Spiritual 'knowing(S)'} Human/Anthropic/ofthemindsofbothsexes.

As For "bud" well, see he already Knew, he just didn't realize what it was that he already knew, Proof? *Here* (http://physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=199&highlight=negative+numbers) He Well Recognized the Principal, He just didn't realize what it Proved ...O.K.?

Hey! It's COOL It's Gravity! :cool:

Mr. Robin Parsons

12-01-2005, 08:07 PM

© Mr. Robin Parsons Kingston Ontario Canada MMV

Gotta say, find it rather funny(?) Ironic? inasmuch as, firstly how many people would there actually be who are qualified as to determine if what I have said concerning the Union of Metaphysics, and Physics, is a valid responce? after all, event the Current Prime Minister of Canada studied Philosophy, but I don't know if he is 'qualified' (knowledgable enough) to answer that question....after that, the irony, 'here' is a piece of evidence/proof of the metaphysical nature of humanity, probably the Closest thing that will/can ever be, aptly, considered as Proof of God's Existence, and the very thing that is the proving of it is your ability to deny that very quality, proof.

Neat eh!

Mr. Robin Parsons

12-04-2005, 01:54 PM

© Mr. Robin Parsons Kingston Ontario Canada MMV

1:03 PM 04/12/2005

Funny, these Evolutionary People, Darwinists', they follow along the path of living things, not able to explain the 'Why' of the separation of "Vegetable" & "Animal" as Realms of the Living there-following they then tell that (Outer) 'Space' it'self, is Known to have the essentials of the living Organism, inasmuch as the elements of Arrangements of Amino acids, requisite to the Initiation(?) Existence(!) of Life, FROM outer Space no less, yet they, knowing that Evidence, do NOT accede to the Idea of the Possibility that whatever Metaphysical Entity (As it, "knowledge" was here, prior to the Solidity) Created this Place acted that it had that elemental of Metaphysical Carriage Already in Place, (as Planned) from the Very Beginning, the BIG BANG....See, when the "Big Bang" happened Solidity erupted out into a 'Space' we are, collectively, Within that solidity, we call it collectively the Universe, or Cosmos, but the 'space' that was present at the Intial Instant of the Beginning of Solidity (surrounding where Matter/Energy erupted) is still present, today, as a 'Permeant' of all of this space, a Metaphysical 'Permeant'....from whence you erupt/arise/withinyou/are.

So, when all is said and done, if you do not believe that life is a Metaphysical State, then simply prove it by lieing (Denying) about it.

If it is so Provable as a Metaphysical State, then The 'Religious Stories' that are Cultural Histories of the ensconcement of Moral Consciouness and attributes of Living Genetic Inheritances' cannot be Denied as Valid for the Purpose of teaching, even if only as History, Philosophy, Anthropology, Sociology, and Metaphysical Science alongside of the Furthered History (Darwinist EVolution) of the Acts of "The Ceator"/"Metaphysical Source" of The metaphysical experiance that is Living as presented to us by the/this Existent (Solid/Energy) Experience.

Isn't that Beautiful? if you say "it isn't" you prove it is, if you say "it is" well, O.K.!

Mr. Robin Parsons

12-05-2005, 12:28 PM

© Mr. Robin Parsons Kingston Ontario Canada MMV

Epsilon=One apparently someone seems to want to make fun of your 'God', perhaps you should consider sueing them for this Blasphemey (http://www.comics.com/creators/rubes/archive/rubes-20051202.html)

Check it out, personally I thought it was Hilarious, myself.....

Mr. Robin Parsons

01-03-2006, 12:51 PM

© Mr. Robin Parsons Kingston Ontario Canada MMV

Tell me please, what is the name of the form of Humor that is a Person telling you that there is "No anthropic God" and then proceeding to try to tell you that they have PROOF of God?

Please (simply) tell me the name of that kind of Proof? Endogenous? InDodgeinus? NON Antropic Anthorpims? Truth? by any other name, but what does that Prove?

If there is no living God, then there is NO Meaning in Living/Life.

.....other then whence replaced by the Inner 'God' of a Man, Anthropic, then the Self Deception Springs life.

God is ......and Begat, Us.

(means: ALL Living Things!)

Epsilon=One

01-03-2006, 04:42 PM

Tell me please, what is the name of the form of Humor that is a Person telling you that there is "No anthropic God" and then proceeding to try to tell you that they have PROOF of God?

Please (simply) tell me the name of that kind of Proof?The name of the proof that you seek would seem to be a combination of philosophical logic, scientific method, and observation.

It is difficult to logically believe that god could be anthropic when creations of god were evident much before any scientific observations of anthropoids, which were an evolutionary phenomenon that occurred only recently as determined by the presumed age of the Universe.

To think that anything anthropic could have created the Cosmos or subatomic environment would seem to be quintessential blaspheme.

If there is no living God, then there is NO Meaning in Living/Life.A person must find their own meaning. For those that, for any reason, cannot contribute to a personal or general welfare with an emphasis on improving wisdom, then, they should be responsible and not impede those that are trying.

God is ......and Begat, Us.If your meaning is that god's creations are everywhere, then your observation would seem to be quite evident; however, it certainly does not require an anthropic god.

I am confused as to your beliefs.

When I inquired as to your definition of god, you recently replied at:

This forum; topic, Quantum Physics; thread, “bridging physics and “metaphysics”; 16th Post; dated, 12-31-05; as follows:

O.K. Then We will use yours! there is NO ANTROPIC GOD!Do you or do you not believe in a non-anthropic god? From other of your posts, you seem to believe concepts such as the Big Bang and the existence of black holes. Did an anthropic god create such??

Mr. Robin Parsons

01-03-2006, 11:04 PM

© Mr. Robin Parsons Kingston Ontario Canada MMV

Your definition is 'No Anthropic God' or have you forgotten yourself....

The name of the proof that you seek would seem to be a combination of philosophical logic, scientific method, and observation.
Anthropically delivered, hence an "Anthropic Description" which you have already told me is Dis-Qualified!
(Except when you tell it? is that it? is that what I appear to be missing?)

When I inquired as to your definition of god, you recently replied at:
This forum; topic, Quantum Physics; thread, “bridging physics and “metaphysics”; 16th Post; dated, 12-31-05; as follows:
FUNNY cause your post #15 states:

Obviously, the problem must be with your definition of god. Otherwise, simple logic would solve your problem.
Simple logic already has, it tells me not to talk with you concerning your misnomered/erroneous/mis-leading/flawed Ideas/Concepts Concerning God, after that, it also tells me of the true God and why there is NO provability to that Gods' Existence...Feel Free, Do you? haven't you? all of your life? everyone else too?

(I) DO!

(Please, spare me the typing ....don't answer)

Epsilon=One

01-04-2006, 02:58 PM

Your definition is 'No Anthropic God' or have you forgotten yourself....Yes, that is my contention. And, you agreed with using it in our discussion in said Post 16 (see my above post). I thought you were indicating that you were in agreement. Do you now disagree and contend that god is anthropic; or, that god has anthropic qualities?

Anthropically delivered, hence an "Anthropic Description" which you have already told me is Dis-Qualified!
(Except when you tell it? is that it? is that what I appear to be missing?)I see no lapse in logic when an anthropoid describes something that is not anthropoidal.

Simple logic…tells me of the true God and why there is NO provability to that Gods' Existence...It is difficult for me to understand how one can strongly believe in a god that can’t be proven.

I am secure in the truth of my belief of god for the very reason that everywhere I look, and everywhere I imagine, I can see and imagine my god’s creations with my god's creations. If god were to be anthropomorphic, it would be difficult for me to believe that god could have created the Cosmos, subatomic environment, and the very mechanism of my imagination.

Pulsoid Theory (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=128) provides the reconciliation of philosophical logic (including theology), scientific method, and observation to believe that god is provable.

Mr. Robin Parsons

01-07-2006, 11:27 AM

© Mr. Robin Parsons Kingston Ontario Canada MMVI

10:17 AM 07/01/2006

Funny Guy, we have already run through this (Meaningless) answer of yours, It is a God that you cannot Hear/see/touch (or taste or smell) which is, simply, you, setting yourself up, as that God, (Your NOT!) inasmuch as, you are the only one who can describe that God .....so what you are doing is called Self-deception and (I) am, Simply, NOT going to play along with it, or you.

As (I) had asked before, Please! SPARE ME THE TYPING!

It is either a (The) Living God, or, it is simply you, trying to get me, to go along with, your, self-deception.

A Living God CAN be known Anthropically, "as Told of, By Humans" and is clearly the God that provides us all with all of our 'foodstuffs' as all of them (Except Salt) come from living/LIFE sources.

Once again, Please! SPARE ME THE TYPING! :eek: :cool:

Mr. Robin Parsons

01-07-2006, 02:20 PM

© Mr. Robin Parsons Kingston Ontario Canada MMVI

1:25 PM 1/7/2006

The Word Anthropic (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=anthropic) is defined as; "As Coming from Man" what part of ANY DESCRIPTION that you can give is NOT as Having Come "from a Man"?

From that page;

{Greek anthrpikos, from anthrpos, human being.}

Epsilon=One

01-09-2006, 06:53 PM

…we have already run through this (Meaningless) answer of yours, It is a God that you cannot Hear/see/touch (or taste or smell) which is, simply, you, setting yourself up, as that God, (Your NOT!) inasmuch as, you are the only one who can describe that God .....so what you are doing is called Self-deception and (I) am, Simply, NOT going to play along with it, or you.I am unable to discern either your point or logic.

My point is simply that the creator of all that which exists has no highly evolved mannerisms such as consciousness. That which is most fundamental must, by definition, be quite simple. That is: without features of higher evolution as is the case with anthropoids.

Design and consciousness are the result of a high degree of evolution. Anthropoids are quite late arrivals in the Universe as it is currently understood by science.

As (I) had asked before, Please! SPARE ME THE TYPING! Your typing is beyond my control. I suspect that only you have the ability to limit your typing.

It is either a (The) Living God, or, it is simply you, trying to get me, to go along with, your, self-deception.How are you defining “Living”? I am quite sure that neither a god nor myself is concerned with whether you “go along” with anything.

A Living God CAN be known Anthropically, "as Told of, By Humans" and is clearly the God that provides us all with all of our 'foodstuffs' as all of them (Except Salt) come from living/LIFE sources.This seems to also apply to a god which creates that which exists.

Depending upon your definition of “Living,” we might be in agreement. My only concern is that god have no anthropic qualities that are associated with design and consciousness.

Mr. Robin Parsons

01-10-2006, 02:26 PM

© Mr. Robin Parsons Kingston Ontario Canada MMVI

The only answer you, or anyone else, can give, is a subjective attestament, ergo proof of your own opinion.

And, even that, is Anthropic.

If you will stop "pooofing' into the wind" I will have no need of typing, anything further ......O.K.? :D :p :D

:cool: ?

Epsilon=One

01-10-2006, 06:34 PM

The only answer you, or anyone else, can give, is a subjective attestament, ergo proof of your own opinion.

And, even that, is Anthropic.I am not certain if you are agreeing with my previous post or disagreeing.

What is your point?

Is your god anthropic . . . designing and conscious?

Is your god provable?

Mr. Robin Parsons

01-12-2006, 06:58 PM

© Mr. Robin Parsons Kingston Ontario Canada MMVI

I am not certain if you are agreeing with my previous post or disagreeing. Doesn't surprise me.....

What is your point? Doesn't surprise me.....

Is your god anthropic . . . designing and conscious? Doesn't surprise me.....

Is your god provable? Doesn't surprise me.....

O.K.? :p

Epsilon=One

01-12-2006, 07:58 PM

Doesn't surprise me.....

O.K.?Not quite in agreement with your presumptive "O.K."

I would prefer some idea as to your position, or insight, concerning the questions that you have "brushed off" unless of course, you agree with my position.

Jameson

01-13-2006, 06:49 PM

I hope this thread continues to spark a productive debate, but in order to do so it must stay civil. Any post directly attacking or slandering another member will be deleted. Thanks.

Mr. Robin Parsons

01-14-2006, 11:32 AM

© Mr. Robin Parsons Kingston Ontario Canada MMVI

10:35 AM 1/14/2006

So, you are trying to prove God and you cannot do anything other then prove your own personal opinion...

That is not now, nor will it ever be, a Proof of God, to anyone, other then YOU.

The rest is a waste of typing time, as you do not seem to accept that point.

All of what exists, seen and un-seen is only a proof of God, to those who accept it, as such, (The rest deny it) it can never be any other way.....and, as you so Hate, Faith IS required.

Epsilon=One

01-14-2006, 05:42 PM

So, you are trying to prove God and you cannot do anything other then prove your own personal opinion.We must be defining god differently. It seems you are relying upon concepts of whimsical faith. I am defining god as the creator of all that exists. Do you have a definition that differs from mine; or, that does not include the concept of creation?

If my proof is “personal opinion” than it would seem that all that exists is also my “personal opinion.” If such is the case, then our opinions cannot reconcile.

However, there may be some room for accommodation between absolute faith and philosophical logic if you can concede that if a proof should exist that it must be as rational as possible, account for observation, and be universal in its scope.

All of what exists, seen and un-seen is only a proof of God, to those who accept it, as suchI agree.

...and, as you so Hate, Faith IS required.You are correct in that I try to minimize faith whenever possible. Understanding is a large component of tolerance; and, understanding requires wisdom, which thrives upon logic. Faith is the antithesis of logic. And, as such, faith foments much intolerance that begets much evil.

Faith is the foundation of organized religion. It is organized religion that realigns the connotation of god from the Natural to the anthropoidal.

I would like to think of god as a concept of creation before there was such as organized religion.

Mr. Robin Parsons

01-15-2006, 04:20 PM

© Mr. Robin Parsons Kingston Ontario Canada MMVI

3:18 PM 15/01/2006

I am defining god as the creator of all that exists.
That definition requires Faith ....otherwise Point out to me your god, it's 'existent' thing.

(pointing at 'everything' {Matter/energy} Does NOT explain the Origin of it, All)

If my proof is “personal opinion” than it would seem that all that exists is also my “personal opinion.” If such is the case, then our opinions cannot reconcile.

All that exists is only told/tellable by "your personal Opinion" and how that was TRAINED into you..

Understanding is a large component of tolerance; and, understanding requires wisdom, which thrives upon logic.

Understanding requires faith in the recantence of Knowledge (based upon experience) when learned outside of the actuality of experience, in life, such that, almost all of physics requres some faith, in it's deeper understandings ....because....

Faith is the antithesis of logic

That, simply, is not true. The antithesis of Logic is Illogic, and Faith is NOT Illogical, it is (Going/gone) Beyond Belief/Believing.. (Trust).....even Science requires that you 'believe' in what you are told, (Some faith? "Trust me it will all work out") and are shown, as being some 'form' of truthfullness as verbally or graphically described.

You have already told me that you (nor anyone else, for that matter) can neither hear, nor see, nor experience, your "god" so there is no conclusion left open to anthying other then the Idea that that God is Simply of YOUR OWN Invention, as only 'you' seem to be able to Know of it, without any sensation of it, (also) I MUST add...that is NOT the case, in My case, (I) simply follow all of what has been previously ascribed as having flowed from the Living God.

That is why (I) would prefer that this conversation ceases, Milking isn't something that can be easily done here, so unless you can demonstrate some kind of Other then Normally Human ability, you know, something from a More Spiritual Side of the Living God's Truth, then perhaps you should cease attempting to fool me into Believeing in YOU (Ergo Your "God") as (I) have clear insight into the reality of the Pathway your following, as Logic, it's only conclusion is that you think yourself Consciously (Egocentric) or UnConsciously (Non-Egocentric...sort-of....'self decieved' is what that really is) as Being that God.

Talking to you doesn't Make me think (I) am talking to God, but (I) none the less know that God Could be Listening, to both/either of us, just the same....

So, will you agree to that? ceasation of this conversation? Now.

Thank You! In advance?

Epsilon=One

01-15-2006, 05:57 PM

That definition requires Faith ....otherwise Point out to me your god, it's 'existent' thing.This thread began with your first post asking: If there is No anthropic God, then how can we (even/ever) know that there is, or isn't, a God?At this point your concern was not a definition of god; but, whether or not god existed.

I have continually asked you to define your god so that our discussion can proceed on a firm foundation. If you have so offered a definition of god, I have missed it.

You say my definition requires faith; however, I don’t believe my proof requires faith beyond that there is existence. If you believe that existence requires either anthropoids or faith, then we must agree to disagree as such a conclusion lies beyond logic

(pointing at 'everything' {Matter/energy} Does NOT explain the Origin of it, All)At this point, I am not attempting to explain the “Origin of it, All” which requires a much more complex argument. I am merely discussing a “proof of god” that is consistent with IPSO. (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=142)

All that exists is only told/tellable by "your personal Opinion" and how that was TRAINED into you.I am not certain as to your point; however, I am certain that “All that exists” is not dependent upon my existence . . . or anyone else’s.

Understanding requires faith in the recantence of Knowledge (based upon experience) when learned outside of the actuality of experience, in life, such that, almost all of physics requres some faith, in it's deeper understandings ....because....My point is, simply, that whenever possible, faith must be minimized and logic must be maximized.

That, simply, is not true. The antithesis of Logic is Illogic, and Faith is NOT Illogical, it is (Going/gone) Beyond Belief/Believing.. (Trust).....even Science requires that you 'believe' in what you are told, (Some faith? "Trust me it will all work out") and are shown, as being some 'form' of truthfullness as verbally or graphically described.When logic (reason, understanding) fails, effort must not be replaced solely with faith. If such is the case, empirically, usually much suffering follows.

There are better palliatives than that which so often can lead to enslavement of the mind.

If all manner of faith, secular and religious, were served with caveats rather than as a tool of manipulation by those who proselytize for intolerant doctrines, I would not be so concerned.

You have already told me that you (nor anyone else, for that matter) can neither hear, nor see, nor experience, your "god" so there is no conclusion left open to anthying other then the Idea that that God is Simply of YOUR OWN Invention, as only 'you' seem to be able to Know of it, without any sensation of it,…You again seem to be confusing “proof” and “definition.” Until you can offer your definition of god and we can reconcile our disparate connotations, it seems pointless to discuss the concept of god.

…(also) I MUST add...that is NOT the case, in My case, (I) simply follow all of what has been previously ascribed as having flowed from the Living God.We may agree on this point. I have asked you what you mean by “Living” in the context of “God” and have not received your definition.

That is why (I) would prefer that this conversation ceases, Milking isn't something that can be easily done here, so unless you can demonstrate some kind of Other then Normally Human ability, you know, something from a More Spiritual Side of the Living God's Truth, then perhaps you should cease attempting to fool me into Believeing in YOU (Ergo Your "God") as (I) have clear insight into the reality of the Pathway your following, as Logic, it's only conclusion is that you think yourself Consciously (Egocentric) or UnConsciously (Non-Egocentric...sort-of....'self decieved' is what that really is) as Being that God.

Talking to you doesn't Make me think (I) am talking to God, but (I) none the less know that God Could be Listening, to both/either of us, just the same....

So, will you agree to that? ceasation of this conversation? Now.Ad hominem argument is the weakest of arguments. It takes two to continue a dialog. It is difficult to cease when my arguments are misrepresented and extended beyond my intentions.

Can we eliminate the spurious banter and return to the original question that you posed: “If there is No anthropic God, then how can we (even/ever) know that there is, or isn't, a God?”

Mr. Robin Parsons

01-16-2006, 11:12 AM

© Mr. Robin Parsons Kingston Ontario Canada MMVI

10:09 AM 1/16/2006

So, Once again, your usual "Snip, then Misrepresent & extend" style.

(Tripping over your own feet, too)

At this point your concern was not a definition of god; but, whether or not god existed.
Once again, wrong, it is a question that asks how could we prove it, as that is what Knowledge is, to any, and all, of us, a form of 'Proof' assembled within, spoken or written or typed or gestured, = expressed

After all what good is any proof if it only serves you?

Ad hominem argument is the weakest of arguments. It takes two to continue a dialog. It is difficult to cease when my arguments are misrepresented and extended beyond my intentions. Your third Line is a Perfect example of everything you do (To Me) everytime you respond

(I) see/notice too, my Not having faith in you responding, simply, to a Direct question, Was then, and is, now, Completely Justified.

That (I) pointed out that, in Logic, the Conclusions are obvious, Egocentric or Non-egocentric, and you use that to accuse me of an ad Hominem DEMONSTRATES this: 'It is difficult to cease when my arguments are misrepresented and extended beyond my intentions.' As Form YOU.

C-Ya

P.S. (I)'m Still :cool: ......Your Not.

Epsilon=One

01-16-2006, 03:52 PM

So, Once again, your usual "Snip, then Misrepresent & extend" style.What specific point of “style” has been misrepresented and extended. I “snip” to be specific; your generalizations are difficult to understand.

(Tripping over your own feet, too)This post (throughout) as most all of your posts on this thread continue to be ad hominem argument, which is not only weak argument; but, it is also most tiresome. Is it possible to stay on point and discuss only whether or not a non-anthropoidal god can be proven. Or, begin another thread concerning your apparent issue with a definition of god.

Once again, wrong, it is a question that asks how could we prove it, as that is what Knowledge is, to any, and all, of us, a form of 'Proof' assembled within, spoken or written or typed or gestured, = expressedHow can I be wrong in your mind when I am quoting you directly? In the first post of this thread you posed: “If there is No anthropic God, then how can we (even/ever) know that there is, or isn't, a God?” My response was to: how could “we” know that there is a god that is not anthropic. My reply was, generally, to simply look about . . . and, particularly, note what existed beyond and before the existence of anthropoids.

You have avoided responding to this logic for the entire thread. I would think that it is possible to argue this simple issue in a straight forward manner without the introduction of personalities.

After all what good is any proof if it only serves you?The answer to your rhetorical question is obvious. However, my arguments and their “good” are not intended for those that disagree “out-of-hand.”

The audiences that interest me are the larger audiences that read this forum from the internet search engines with open minds that are seeking alternative thoughts regarding one of the most important issues facing society today.

Your third Line is a Perfect example of everything you do (To Me) everytime you respondIf you are saying that I have “misrepresented and extended” your arguments, then I apologize for what was not intended. If you will cite specific examples, I will correct my errors.

(I) see/notice too, my Not having faith in you responding, simply, to a Direct question, Was then, and is, now, Completely Justified.I often have much difficulty with your style. If I have inadvertently missed a salient question, please point it out. I will make every effort to respond directly.

P.S. (I)'m Still :cool: ......Your Not.???

Jameson

01-16-2006, 08:42 PM

This has been a long thread. How do you guys feel about closing this one and starting another, or a bunch on different topics you two would like to debate?

Epsilon=One

01-17-2006, 03:47 PM

This has been a long thread. How do you guys feel about closing this one and starting another, or a bunch on different topics you two would like to debate?Good idea. This thread has gone no place since the second post.

If a thread's dialog is to add much to collective wisdom, discussions require a mix of ideas from varied contributors.

No contribution, by anyone, should be without merit and serious consideration; unless, of course, it is entirely repetitive, non-responsive, or ad hominem.

How ‘bout examining:

Why do living organisms possess individual consciousness . . . or, do they?

Hopefully, this may swing toward the original title of this thread.

Jameson

01-18-2006, 06:58 PM

How about this? One final post from each of you guys summing up your points, then we can all move on. Since Mr. Robert Parsons opened the thread, I thought he should go last. If there are no objections with you, Epsilon=One, then you can begin your last post in this thread.

Jameson

Mr. Robin Parsons

01-22-2006, 03:24 PM

So Post #5 (From this thread (http://physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=250))

(Titled) All knowledge is of Anthropic origin, soooo......

© Mr. Robin Parsons Kingston Ontario Canada MMVI

Quote: = Originally Posted by Epsilon=One
You seem to be implying anthropic concepts to what you consider god. End/Quote

That is what is wrong, so, pleeeeeeeeease tell me ANY (ALL!) concept(s) that is/(are) not Anthropic, in either it's origin, or it's exposition.

(BTW, No one can do that! as ALL 'knowledge' is of anthropic origin, or did some monkey try to tell you differently, cause that would still be of "Primate origin".....get it?)

If there are no Anthropic concepts applicable to God, then we cannot know of that God, as Anthropic Concepts are ALL we DO KNOW.

Otherwise, Tell me of a Concept that did NOT arise from a Human.

And this one post #6

(Titled) Origin of Consciousness?.....= Spirit.

© Mr. Robin Parsons Kingston Ontario Canada MMVI

2:13 PM 19/01/2006

Quote: = Originally Posted by Socratus
(SNIP) Question: when was there consciousness? (SNoP) End/Quote

If we conduct the "Test of Consciousness" that is the proving of it's Nature of Origin, We therefore tell a Free Willed Lie, we prove (at least to ourselves...?...) that we (Our Consciousness) are(is) Metaphysical in nature, and therefore we must conclude that that it is NOT of Particulate origin, and that it's therefore requisite energetic origins still escapes us, as we still cannot 'see' such (energy or Life-energy) 'leaving the Body' upon death, so it's Origin/timing is therefore way more open, including to times preceding the Big bang, possibly/probably preceding anything we DO know of.

For myself, the Origin of Consciousness is God, as God would be (and is) the originator of 'Consciousness'.....

It is as it has been told of for centuries now, Spiritual, in it's nature, Spirit that is an energy that is Unseen(?) unfelt(?) unknown(?) other then by admission by/of the Believer who claims/admits experience of such.

And that God Created All Anthropic Qualities, ALL of them, except the lie...he let the devil Start that.

BTW to have an idea in your mind, knowing you could Tell a Lie, is not the same thing as telling a lie, so God could have "thought it through" and realized that he would allow us to tell lies, that DOESN'T mean God invented Lieing, just that God knew How it would/could be done, the difference between knowing something, and practising it, Knowing you could move your foot forwards, and actually moving it forwards.....There is No darkness in Him, neither are there any lies....

Seems to have resolved the problem....

So, Can we close this thread, Now? (Please)

P.S. Yes! (I) Know what (I) have done. (Herein)