New debate proposal

[cckeiser]

Greetings!

Mind if I join the discussion? :D

But first I need to know how you define "God"?

[Epsilon=One]

Mind if I join the discussion?The more the better.

But first I need to know how you define "God"?I don’t understand how god can be defined as anything other than the creator.

However, the word god is not a very good choice of a word for referring to the creator; as, the word “god” has too many differing connotations to too many persons.

For instance, many connotations of the word “god” refer to anthropoidal qualities, which seems a bit ludicrous when one contemplates the Cosmos and subatomic structures.

[cckeiser]

However, the word god is not a very good choice of a word for referring to the creator; as, the word "god" has too many differing connotations to too many persons.

I agree, that is why I asked for a definition. From my experience, for everyone who believes in a god, there is a different god.

The term "Creator" insinuates divine intention of an Intelligent Designer. I believe that is as basic a definition of a god as we can get, except maybe for "First Cause"?
First Cause is pretty much nonsectarian. I can logically defend a First Cause, and I can even defend Intelligent Design if you wish, but I cannot champion a g-d of biblical proportions.


Originally Posted by Jameson

Debate proposal: Is there a proof of God?
or something of this nature.

Can we agree that First Cause is "something of this nature"? Or is that diluting the nature of the debate too much?

[Epsilon=One]

From my experience, for everyone who believes in a god, there is a different god.I concur.

The term "Creator" insinuates divine intention of an Intelligent Designer.I understand creator as having no such “divine intention” or qualities of “Intelligent Designer"; these are anthropoidal qualities, which cannot be qualities of a god that creates all manifestations. God can have no anthropoidal qualities; as, man is an evolutionary occurrence far removed from that which creates. That which creates is at the beginning of evolution, while anthropoidal qualities, such as "design," are the most advanced, known forms of evolution. To equate the two "ends" of evolution would appear to be the greatest form of blaspheme.

I believe that is as basic a definition of a god as we can get, except maybe for "First Cause"?If you so connote “creator,” First Cause would be better, except First Cause has a connotation of finality, which certainly can’t be applied to a meaningful concept of god, which meaning should connote an omnipresent quality.

First Cause is pretty much nonsectarian. I can logically defend a First Cause, and I can even defend Intelligent Design if you wish, but I cannot champion a g-d of biblical proportions.There is no way that I could possibly defend "First Cause" or “Intelligent Design.”

Applying the concepts of “Intelligent” or “Design,” when referring to god, are both implying anthropoidal qualities, which is as blasphemous as is possible.

I would think that the debate can begin with your definitions of god.

Can we agree that First Cause is "something of this nature"?I could never so agree.

Or is that diluting the nature of the debate too much?I would think that it sets the debate, rather than “diluting the nature” of the debate.

[cckeiser]

I sense your reply to be fairly emotionally charged and perhaps tinged with a bit of venom. I am somewhat reluctant to continue this debate. We have only just begun and already I worry if you're emotionally stable enough to have your illusions challenged without it causing palpations, or having it degenerate into hysterics?

I understand creator as having no such "divine intention" or qualities of "Intelligent Designer"; these are anthropoidal qualities, which cannot be qualities of a god that creates all manifestations. God can have no anthropoidal qualities; as, man is an evolutionary occurrence far removed from that which creates. That which creates is at the beginning of evolution, while anthropoidal qualities, such as "design," are the most advanced, known forms of evolution. To equate the two "ends" of evolution would appear to be the greatest form of blaspheme.

Such rhetoric I would expect from a Fundamentalist! The only things missing are the "Thee's" and "Thou's"!

You ask my definition of god,. I have already submitted it.

I am an Atheist and do not believe in any god or gods of biblical proportions. The closest concept I can equate would be the original source of all things; the First Cause.
First Cause is pretty much nonsectarian. It is deprived of doctrine, and devoid of dogma.
Yet, it is my contention, that no matter what it is you personally believe, you cannot logically deny a First Cause.
I call First Cause The Singularity.

[Jameson]

I sense your reply to be fairly emotionally charged and perhaps tinged with a bit of venom. I am somewhat reluctant to continue this debate. We have only just begun and already I worry if you're emotionally stable enough to have your illusions challenged without it causing palpations, or having it degenerate into hysterics?


For this reason forums have moderators. I will make sure no one on this site becomes uncivil or vulgar. I have not found Epsilon=One to be either of those however.

[cckeiser]

For this reason forums have moderators. I will make sure no one on this sight becomes uncivil or vulgar. I have not found Epsilon=One to be either of those however.

A confession.

"Epsilon=one" and I have been "communicating" on and off for years. I am just reminding my old friend this is a public forum. (And also needling him just a little!) :D
Chuck

[Epsilon=One]

I sense your reply to be fairly emotionally charged and perhaps tinged with a bit of venom.Please point out what you “sense to be fairly emotionally charged” and “tinged with a bit of venom.” There certainly was no such intent beyond a reserved conveyance of ideas. I will be glad to disavow or change that which you find objectionable in such a manner as you state, if only you will advise what comments you are referring to that you find offensive.

I am somewhat reluctant to continue this debate. We have only just begun and already I worry if you're emotionally stable enough to have your illusions challenged without it causing palpations, or having it degenerate into hysterics?Your reluctance, I cannot control; I am quite familiar with biased, unreasoned challenges; I don’t expect your arguments to have any noticeable effect on my emotional stability.

In general an ad hominem argument is used when one’s logic is bereft of said logic.

Such rhetoric I would expect from a Fundamentalist! The only things missing are the "Thee's" and "Thou's"!I define a fundamentalist as someone that believes in a literal interpretation of Scripture that is directly written by a god. My god is without anthropomorphic qualities . . . of any nature; thus, is unable to write Scripture . . . or for that matter, have any concern, whatsoever, for anyone’s concern.

You ask my definition of god,. I have already submitted it.

I am an Atheist and do not believe in any god or gods of biblical proportions. The closest concept I can equate would be the original source of all things; the First Cause.
First Cause is pretty much nonsectarian. It is deprived of doctrine, and devoid of dogma.Your definition of god, as submitted, is cause for much confusion. In fact, you seem to be quite confused yourself regarding that you are an atheist; which in itself, is an untenable position. I define atheist as a person that does not believe in a god or gods; which would mean: no “First Cause” with or without doctrine and dogma. Possibly, you are an agnostic???

Yet, it is my contention, that no matter what it is you personally believe…I believe in, and understand, a god more strongly than anyone that I have ever known. My god, the god which creates, is quite easily provable; one only has to look about; if there exists anything at all, than god is proven. Though, I detest the word god, as it has contrived anthropoidal connotations, which are used, most often, for manipulation of persons against their best interests. I much prefer “Infinity” (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=109) or “Oneness” as the omnipresent force that creates. See: My Creed (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=90).

…you cannot logically deny a First Cause.I do, logically, deny “a First Cause”; because, “a First Cause” strongly implies a single incident that is not ongoing . . . or, omnipresent throughout a perpetual eternity.

"First Cause" seems to imply something akin to the Big Bang, which exists only in the deluded minds of many theoretical physicists and their followers.

I call First Cause The Singularity.I have no idea what special meaning a “Singularity” with a capital “S” can possibly imply. A singularity can have no special connotations as the very definition connotes no other such thing.

For your general information:

Atheist
One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.

Agnostic
One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.

Or:

One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.

[Epsilon=One]

I am just reminding my old friend this is a public forum. (And also needling him just a little!)I am always well aware that this is a public forum; and that; the Search Engines will cache all comments for many years.

[Jameson]

For your general information:

Atheist
One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.

Agnostic
One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.

Or:

One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.


I have a nitpick here. ;) To the best of my knowledge, atheism/theism is a metaphysical view on the truth of God existing or not. The term agnostic is an epistemological view on whether God existing can be known or not. This does not mean however that an atheist cannot be agnostic as well. That just simply means that that person does not believe in God, but does not believe that this can be known for sure.

In common vernacular though, an agnostic is deemed to be a "weak atheist".

Jameson

[Jameson]

Just so you guys know, I split off the discussion now from the earlier debate between Epsilon=One and myself because we are branching off from the original topic into some different, which is great! I closed the thread because I felt it was concluded, but if you guys want to add more, just let me know and I'll open it back up! :)

Jameson

[Epsilon=One]

I have a nitpick here. ;) To the best of my knowledge, atheism/theism is a metaphysical view on the truth of God existing or not.Your definition, in general, works for me.

I may have overly relied upon the dictionary . . . often, a mistake.

Though in defense: If you consider god as highly speculative, I would agree with your argument; however, I do not, in the least, so consider god as speculative; as, god (that which creates) is easily proven.

The term agnostic is an epistemological view on whether God existing can be known or not.I concur.

This does not mean however that an atheist cannot be agnostic as well. That just simply means that that person does not believe in God, but does not believe that this can be known for sure.Your point is well taken; and, for many persons it is quite logical.

From my point of view, it is quite contradictory; as, I cannot accept that god cannot be “known for sure.”

In common vernacular though, an agnostic is deemed to be a "weak atheist".I can abide with this . . . though, with some effort.

And, yes; we are dancing about the point of a pin. :)

[Epsilon=One]

Just so you guys know, I split off the discussion now from the earlier debate between Epsilon=One and myself because we are branching off from the original topic into some different, which is great! I closed the thread because I felt it was concluded, but if you guys want to add more, just let me know and I'll open it back up! :)I'm slow; it took awhile to find you.

I think it was an excellent idea.

[cckeiser]

I agree it was an excellent idea. But now I am feeling badly for my long absences between replies.
I was actually looking forward to once again exchanging philosophical perspectives with my old friend, but no sooner had I posted my first contribution, I got really busy.
I apologize, but I am being stretched too thin and need to prioritize. Though I believe this debate would prove to be very enjoyable it has moved a bit down the list and there may be lengthy periods between my participation.
I do not wish to hold anyone back while you wait for me to reply, so please continue without me and I will attempt to join in as time allows.



Chuck

[Epsilon=One]

I agree it was an excellent idea. But now I am feeling badly for my long absences between replies.
I was actually looking forward to once again exchanging philosophical perspectives with my old friend, but no sooner had I posted my first contribution, I got really busy.
I apologize, but I am being stretched too thin and need to prioritize. Though I believe this debate would prove to be very enjoyable it has moved a bit down the list and there may be lengthy periods between my participation.
I do not wish to hold anyone back while you wait for me to reply, so please continue without me and I will attempt to join in as time allows.It is disturbing that god gets prioritized quite a way down your list of what is important.

If you can't find the time to point out a sentence or two of my dialogue that you disagree with, I must assume that you concur, in general, with all my statements concerning the qualities that I have assigned to a perception of god.

[cckeiser]

If you can't find the time to point out a sentence or two of my dialogue that you disagree with, I must assume that you concur, in general, with all my statements concerning the qualities that I have assigned to a perception of god.

Yes, I can agree they are your perceptions of a god. I have seen many statements of qualities assigned to many different gods, and I would have to agree that they too are just as valid perceptions of a god.

Originally Posted by cckeiser
From my experience, for everyone who believes in a god, there is a different god.


You and I are no exceptions in our own perceptions.
You use/prefer Creator, which to me implies the anthropoidal quality of sentience. Yet you protest:
I understand creator as having no such "divine intention" or qualities of "Intelligent Designer"; these are anthropoidal qualities, which cannot be qualities of a god that creates all manifestations. God can have no anthropoidal qualities; as, man is an evolutionary occurrence far removed from that which creates. That which creates is at the beginning of evolution, while anthropoidal qualities, such as "design," are the most advanced, known forms of evolution. To equate the two "ends" of evolution would appear to be the greatest form of blaspheme.

It would seem to me, unless you can define a "Creator" devoid the anthropoidal quality of sentience, you are contradicting yourself.

I define a fundamentalist as someone that believes in a literal interpretation of Scripture that is directly written by a god.
A Fundamentalist is anyone who demands strict adherence to any doctrine or philosophy. That includes the fundamentalist of Science as well as those who demand adherence to their own perceptions of Truth and Reality.
Anyone who has had a unique idea, no matter in what discipline, usually runs into a Fundamentalist condemning them of "blaspheme"!
It is always the fundamentalist that stands in the way of a Paradigm Shift in our thinking.

[Epsilon=One]

Yes, I can agree they are your perceptions of a god. I have seen many statements of qualities assigned to many different gods, and I would have to agree that they too are just as valid perceptions of a god.Nothing could possibly be further from the truth than such being "just as valid perceptions of a god." If god cannot be proven with the logic of IPSO (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=142), than such a god has no validity.

You and I are no exceptions in our own perceptions.You are quite wrong. You cannot speak for my “perceptions,” which in fact, are quite different from yours, if I am to understand your statements as presented within this forum.

I consider myself an exception, particularly, when compared to your “perceptions.”

You use/prefer Creator, which to me implies the anthropoidal quality of sentience.How can you draw such a conclusion when I have consistently stated, over and over, that god can have no anthropoidal qualities. Where, or how, have you missed this point? You can not, in good consciousness, arbitrarily assign connotations to my words after I have clearly stated my position.

Yet you (emotionally) protest:Emotion is in the mind of the beholder.

It would seem to me, unless you can define a "Creator" devoid the anthropoidal quality of sentience, you are contradicting yourself.I have so defined; from the very beginning. What has so mislead you?

A Fundamentalist is anyone who demands strict adherence to any doctrine or philosophy. That includes the fundamentalist of Science as well as those who demand adherence to their own perceptions of Truth and Reality.I have taken this position with you many times; as I have protested the harm from secular faith.

There is never a demand on my part that others should follow with faith; just the opposite; I appeal to IPSO (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=142) for my support; and, I encourage exchanges of ideas as a method of universally arriving at truth without the bias of preordained dogma.

Anyone who has had a unique idea, no matter in what discipline, usually runs into a Fundamentalist condemning them of "blaspheme"!What is your point concerning this observation?

It is always the fundamentalist that stands in the way of a Paradigm Shift in our thinking.I have not found this to be the most egregious problem; as the fundamentalist can be identified and dealt with. I am more concerned with the educated, rational person that is too unconcerned to become involved who is satisfied with the status quo; or, unable to see beyond their illogical biases.

[cckeiser]

Nothing could possibly be further from the truth than such being "just as valid perceptions of a god." If god cannot be proven with the logic of IPSO, than such a god has no validity.
What did you not understand here?:

Originally Posted by cckeiser Yes, I can agree they are your perceptions of a god. I have seen many statements of qualities assigned to many different gods, and I would have to agree that they too are just as valid perceptions of a god.
It clearly states they are "valid perceptions of a god"! That does not mean the god so perceived is valid. Only that the qualities so perceived would be those of a god. Anyone can perceive and assign qualities to a god, hell they do it all them time, they are all valid perceptions of a god, but does that god with those perceived qualities exists? Only in their mind.



Originally Posted by cckeiser You and I are no exceptions in our own perceptions.

You are quite wrong. You cannot speak for my "perceptions," which in fact, are quite different from yours, if I am to understand your statements as presented within this forum.

I consider myself an exception, particularly, when compared to your "perceptions."
I will let that statement speak for itself. :)


Originally Posted by cckeiser You use/prefer Creator, which to me implies the anthropoidal quality of sentience.

How can you draw such a conclusion when I have consistently stated, over and over, that god can have no anthropoidal qualities. Where, or how, have you missed this point? You can not, in good consciousness, arbitrarily assign connotations to my words after I have clearly stated my position.

Please read what I post a little more carefully. "which to me implies the anthropoidal quality of sentience."
The term "Creator" implies sentience. I am asking you if your perceptions assign the quality of sentience to your Creator?
I may be mistaken, but I don't believe I am, that anyone else seeing the term Creator would also feel that term implies sentience.
If you do not imply sentience with your use of the term Creator, than you are the exception, and need to clarify your terminology, and define your Creator sufficiently.


Originally Posted by cckeiser It would seem to me, unless you can define a "Creator" devoid the anthropoidal quality of sentience, you are contradicting yourself.

I have so defined; from the very beginning. What has so mislead you?
Simply stating "God can have no anthropoidal qualities." is not a sufficient disclaimer when you call your god the Creator and do not explain how your Creator does not have the anthropoidal quality of sentience. It is simply avoiding answering the question.
So here it is plain and simple:
Is your Creator sentient?

[Epsilon=One]

What did you not understand here?:

It clearly states they are "valid perceptions of a god"! That does not mean the god so perceived is valid. Only that the qualities so perceived would be those of a god. Anyone can perceive and assign qualities to a god, hell they do it all them time, they are all valid perceptions of a god, but does that god with those perceived qualities exists? Only in their mind.I understand your point now. However, my point is that such perceived qualities are not valid unless proven. As long as we so agree that the perceived qualities are not valid unless proven there is no merit in pursuing this point further.

Please read what I post a little more carefully. "which to me implies the anthropoidal quality of sentience."
The term "Creator" implies sentience.It does not so imply when I clearly define it as without anthropoidal qualities. Anyway, I probably stated “that which creates,” which is the usage I prefer. You cannot change what I state and then say that I am contradictory.

I am asking you if your perceptions assign the quality of sentience to your Creator?"Creator" with a capital "C" is your word; not mine. How many times must I state: “no” before you understand that I mean no?

I may be mistaken, but I don't believe I am, that anyone else seeing the term Creator would also feel that term implies sentience.I never use the term “Creator.” If you can find an instance, I will immediately correct it.

A steam locomotive creates smoke; does a steam locomotive have the “quality of sentience”?

If you do not imply sentience with your use of the term Creator, than you are the exception, and need to clarify your terminology, and define your Creator sufficiently.I have never knowingly used the term “Creator”; and, if I ever have I have certainly clearly defined it. Can you show otherwise? If so, I will immediately correct it; if not, you have misconstrued my thoughts.

Simply stating "God can have no anthropoidal qualities." is not a sufficient disclaimer when you call your god the Creator and do not explain how your Creator does not have the anthropoidal quality of sentience. I have never knowingly called my god the “Creator”; why do you keep so stating???

It is simply avoiding answering the question.What question have I avoided???

So here it is plain and simple:
Is your Creator sentient?”Creator” is your word, not mine. If you mean: Is my god sentient?; the answer is simple. It is: No!!!!

Can we move from pedantic nonsense to something of substance. In a limited forum such as this you can cavil unendingly over connotations.

It is difficult for me to believe that you do not precisely understand my overall position as I have not changed one iota in the ten some years that you have been quibbling for little reason beyond obfuscation.

[cckeiser]

"Creator" is your word, not mine.

Oh yes, I see my mistake now. I failed to recognize the vast philosophical differences between the term "creator" and "Creator." Just as I failed to comprehend the vast differences between the term God and the lower case god, and Singularity from singularity.
I apologize for my ignorance.


In a limited forum such as this you can cavil unendingly over connotations.
But isn't that the point when starting a dialog? Before any meaningful discussion can commence, all parties involved must come to an agreement over the "connotations" of all the terms used.
If not, we argue at cross purposes and end up battling what I term the "Unintentional Strawman."
Most of the problems with communicating are we each attach our own meanings to terms based upon our own experiences with them, and fail to consider the meaning that exist in our own mind may not be the same meaning that exists in another mind.
We need to define our terms if we are to actually communicate.
Otherwise I am arguing against Creator, when you actually meant creator!
How are we to know the difference if we do not "cavil unendingly over connotations"?
We must first learn each others language.


It is difficult for me to believe that you do not precisely understand my overall position as I have not changed one iota in the ten some years that you have been quibbling for little reason beyond obfuscation.

The reason is we are all fundamentally Solipsist.
We each are the Observer and sit in the center of our own universe collecting information and weaving it bit by bit into our perceptions of Reality. We each believe in our own self generated Reality, and because of our self-centered perspective we believe what we perceive must be perceived the same by everyone else.
If we fail to comprehend that other minds not only think differently, but perceive differently, we will have a difficult time understanding our differences.
And that is the reason we have been "quibbling" for so long. We have been dialoging, discussing and quibbling, but we have seldom communicated. My quibbling has not been to "obfuscate" as you prefer to call it, but to clarify.
As anyone with an interest can see from your web site, you are unique in your terminology. Not only have you invented new terms to which you attach meanings unfamiliar to most everyone, but you have also attached new meanings to existing terms. (Please don't bother to ask which ones. At this point it is a bit off subject and will only interfere reaching our inevitable destination)
You have attempted to define most of them on your web site, but because their meanings are so clear in your mind you often fail to recognize the definitions you have supplied may no be very clear to someone else.
There are no meanings in words. Words are only symbols we use to convey meanings, but the meaning of any word or symbol only exists in the mind of the person using that word or symbol, and the person reading that word or symbol may attach a completely different meaning than the one the writer intended.

It has taken us all this time, but I believe we both now have a fairly good understanding of each others vocabulary.
Whether or not anyone else reading this debate will understand either of us remains to be seen!
The whole preceding quibbling back and forth, both between you and I over the years, and our dialog here on this forum, has all been for one purpose; to finally address the subject of "substance."

Can we move from pedantic nonsense to something of substance.

Yes, lets cut to the chase! Well... actually we are going to move to "something" without "substance."
You and I both know that with our current debate we were headed to the same subject. Most of the preceding has only been somewhat orchestrated because this is a public forum and others here may be unfamiliar with where we both know the concept of God or god, Creator or creator, or First Cause must finally begin and end.
It must begin with The Singularity, or to use the spelling you prefer the singularity.. (Just to forestall any protest, for the reaming course of this debate I will acquiesce to your sensitivities by not using the upper case.)
You call it creator, I call it First Cause, but strip away the terminology and we both are referring to the singularity. It is the only concept that cannot be denied. For anything at all to exist their must "be" the Unbound Infinity of the singularity.
"Existence itself is proof of One!"
Ironically, we both have independently stated the very same thing in the very same words! Our only real difference is in our interpretations of the singularity.
And that is the non-substance we are here to debate, and I think it is going to be tricky because this is where our language fails us, because as you can attest, and have often protested, the singularity cannot exist, and we cannot use "be", "is" or even "exist" when referring to the singularity. It is going to be a little tricky, but if you will not protest the hypothetical use of these terms I will not either.

As you are the elder statesman, I will accede to your earned privilege to go first.

What is the singularity?

[Epsilon=One]

Oh yes, I see my mistake now. I failed to recognize the vast philosophical differences between the term "creator" and "Creator." Just as I failed to comprehend the vast differences between the term God and the lower case god, and Singularity from singularity.
I apologize for my ignorance.Apology accepted.

But isn't that the point when starting a dialog? Before any meaningful discussion can commence, all parties involved must come to an agreement over the "connotations" of all the terms used.Yes. You are quite correct. However, as Korzybski (http://www.kcmetro.cc.mo.us/pennvalley/biology/lewis/gs.htm) makes quite clear concerning General Semantics, there can never be absolute agreement. You seem to have raised quibbling to an art form in a manner that seems inappropriate in an informal forum.

If not, we argue at cross purposes and end up battling what I term the "Unintentional Strawman."
Most of the problems with communicating are we each attach our own meanings to terms based upon our own experiences with them, and fail to consider the meaning that exist in our own mind may not be the same meaning that exists in another mind.This may be your problem. Please don’t speak for me with your use of “we.” I make every effort to avoid misunderstanding your “meaning.”

We need to define our terms if we are to actually communicate.I consistently define my terms. In fact, that seems to be much of the problem as you perceive it.

Otherwise I am arguing against Creator, when you actually meant creator!What I actually meant is that god is without any anthropoidal qualities. What more must I do to make this clear to you in such a way that you will stop quibbling; and thus, we can get to something of substance. I’m sure that there are many viewers that would like to see the dialogue move along.

How are we to know the difference if we do not "cavil unendingly over connotations"?By sticking with the substance not the minutia.

For instance: Do you agree that god cannot have any anthroipoidal qualities?

We must first learn each others language.For the most part my language is American English as generally interpreted by most any dictionary. When I deviate you can tell because I use different punctuation or create a neologism. Should you have any doubt as to my use of a word, please ask a specific question.

The reason is we are all fundamentally Solipsist.In no way am I, in any manner, a “Solipsist.” Solipsism is an egocentric philosophy that has no place in the environment of Reality.

Please stop using the word “we.” I prefer to speak for myself.

We each are the Observer and sit in the center of our own universe collecting information and weaving it bit by bit into our perceptions of Reality.Why have you capitalized “Observer”? I can assure you that the Universe does not belong to any single anthropoid. It was here before anthropoids and it will be here long after. The Universe exists regardless of my existence. I am of no importance in the overall scheme of the Universe.

We each believe in our own self generated Reality…You may believe whatever you wish. However, I do not so believe. You cannot speak for my beliefs!!!

…and because of our self-centered perspective we believe what we perceive must be perceived the same by everyone else.I’m with Korzybski (http://www.kcmetro.cc.mo.us/pennvalley/biology/lewis/akbio.htm). I do not so believe. Please do not use “we”; it is presumptively hubristic.

If we fail to comprehend that other minds not only think differently, but perceive differently, we will have a difficult time understanding our differences.Your problems are not mine.

And that is the reason we have been "quibbling" for so long.Please, point out where I have ever quibbled; other than responding to your nonsense.

We have been dialoging, discussing and quibbling, but we have seldom communicated.Could this be because you are a Solipsist?

My quibbling has not been to "obfuscate" as you prefer to call it, but to clarify.I am not the one that can judge this point.

As anyone with an interest can see from your web site, you are unique in your terminology.Yes, this is true. There are well over 100 original thoughts which often require definitions. If you are aware of any concepts that are not clearly defined, please mention which ones you are having difficulty with and I will make every effort to clarify the matter for you.

The purpose of the websites are to stimulate thought and elicit questions. There is much that is incomplete or merely entered as a "placeholder." None of my detailed manuscripts, books, or formal writings are on the site. Most is ad hoc, as is this and other forums in which I participate. I have over 80 domain names, so I doubt if you have examined much of my public work. You have never, to my knowledge, in about fifteen years, ever questioned any specific web page or accepted any challenge on those pages.

Not only have you invented new terms to which you attach meanings unfamiliar to most everyone, but you have also attached new meanings to existing terms. (Please don't bother to ask which ones. At this point it is a bit off subject and will only interfere reaching our inevitable destination)I must assume you have no such “existing terms” if you use such a transparent ruse.

You have attempted to define most of them on your web site, but because their meanings are so clear in your mind you often fail to recognize the definitions you have supplied may no be very clear to someone else.Yes, this is always a possibility. It is for this very reason that I always ask for specific questions . . . not general quibbling.

There are no meanings in words. Words are only symbols we use to convey meanings…Which is it???

…but the meaning of any word or symbol only exists in the mind of the person using that word or symbol, and the person reading that word or symbol may attach a completely different meaning than the one the writer intended.I agree.

It has taken us all this time, but I believe we both now have a fairly good understanding of each others vocabulary.I have never had difficulty with your vocabulary . . . only your ideas.

Just what have you learned about my “vocabulary” that you didn’t know when your quibbling began?

Whether or not anyone else reading this debate will understand either of us remains to be seen!Judging from the hundreds of posting and thousands of views I have on this forum . . . and, very few questions; at this point, I have little concern with your concerns.

The whole preceding quibbling back and forth, both between you and I over the years, and our dialog here on this forum, has all been for one purpose; to finally address the subject of "substance."Nuts!!! What arrogance to so speak for myself; you couldn’t be more wrong concerning my purpose.

My purpose is to further an understanding of the environment in which we exist so that we may maximize our well being.

Yes, lets cut to the chase! Well... actually we are going to move to "something" without "substance."
You and I both know that with our current debate we were headed to the same subject. Most of the preceding has only been somewhat orchestrated because this is a public forum and others here may be unfamiliar with where we both know the concept of God or god, Creator or creator, or First Cause must finally begin and end.
It must begin with The Singularity, or to use the spelling you prefer the singularity.. (Just to forestall any protest, for the reaming course of this debate I will acquiesce to your sensitivities by not using the upper case.)
You call it creator…I prefer to refer to that which creates as: “Oneness” or “Infinity” or “UnReality.”

…I call it First Cause, but strip away the terminology and we both are referring to the singularity. It is the only concept that cannot be denied.You are correct. As an absolute, the singularity is the only provable; as it cannot be disproved.

For anything at all to exist their must "be" the Unbound Infinity of the singularity.No. The verb “is” and/or “be” cannot be used with the term “singularity.” You cannot connote existence to a singularity.

"Existence itself is proof of One!"Not sure what you are alluding to as “One.” Is this god or Kurt Gödel’s (http://mathworld.wolfram.com/GoedelsIncompletenessTheorem.html) “One”?

Ironically, we both have independently stated the very same thing in the very same words!The only irony that I am aware of is that you are wrong. Please drop “we” from this dialogue.

Our only real difference is in our interpretations of the singularity.Also, drop “our.”

Of all the words in the dictionary, I would think the word singularity has the least connotations to misinterpret. It means one of a kind. This would seem to limit the number of “interpretations”; to maybe . . . one.

And that is the non-substance we are here to debate, and I think it is going to be tricky because this is where our language fails us, because as you can attest, and have often protested, the singularity cannot exist, and we cannot use "be", "is" or even "exist" when referring to the singularity. It is going to be a little tricky, but if you will not protest the hypothetical use of these terms I will not either.You seem to understand the term singularity. I cannot understand why it should seem “a little tricky.”

As you are the elder statesman, I will accede to your earned privilege to go first.Thanks. However, you just have gone first. Finally.

What is the singularity?The singularity is a locus of a limit that can only be approached from Reality.

[cckeiser]

The singularity is a locus of a limit that can only be approached from Reality.

Wow! Fabulous! Fantastic! I absolutely love it!
What the ( expletive deleted )does it mean? :confused:

[Epsilon=One]

Wow! Fabulous! Fantastic! I absolutely love it!
What the hell does it mean? :confused:You might use the dictionary. I believe all the words are self-descriptive.

What word or words are causing you difficulty?

[Jameson]

Let's play nice everyone. :) And we'll all make sure to keep some formality. I, just as well as anyone, know how passionate one can become over a debate.

And I do have a question about your last statement, Epsilon=One.

The singularity is a locus of a limit that can only be approached from Reality.

I understand what a limit is in a mathematical terms, and I'm also aware of the term locus, but I must admit I've never heard them used to describe the singularity (I'll use your terminololgy). Could you please expand on what you mean by this? What does approaching from Reality mean?

[Epsilon=One]

…I do have a question about your last statement, Epsilon=One.

I understand what a limit is in a mathematical terms, and I'm also aware of the term locus, but I must admit I've never heard them used to describe the singularity (I'll use your terminololgy).

Could you please expand on what you mean by this? What does approaching from Reality mean?Good questions.

First: Reality is capitalized and italicized so as to indicate a precise meaning as used in Conceptualism (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=156), a universal philosophy. Reality is that which is not a singularity. In the vernacular, Reality connotes everything that exists. Thus, conversely, a singularity is that which does not exist.

Infinity (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=109) is a singularity; there is nothing else like it. Infinity (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=109) does not exist within Reality; it is a limit that can be approached from either the infinitesimal or the infinite; however, it is a locus that cannot be reached.

Infinity (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=109) is not a distance or a size; Infinity (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=109) is defined by speed . . . or the lack thereof.

[cckeiser]

The singularity is a locus of a limit that can only be approached from Reality.

First: Reality is capitalized and italicized so as to indicate a precise meaning as used in Conceptualism, a universal philosophy. Reality is that which is not a singularity. In the vernacular, Reality connotes everything that exists. Thus, conversely, a singularity is that which does not exist.

Infinity is a singularity; there is nothing else like it.
Infinity does not exist within Reality; it is a limit that can be approached from either the infinitesimal or the infinite; however, it is a locus that cannot be reached.

Infinity is not a distance or a size;
Infinity is defined by speed . . . or the lack thereof.

Excuse me for attempting to insert a little humor into this dialog. I see it failed miserably! ( I thought it was funny when I wrote it!) :p
Actually I do love it, and I did understand what it meant, and I do agree with it. I was just trying to elicit more of an in-depth explanation.

My translation: The singularity is an Infinity that cannot exist within Reality. From within Reality we can approach zero and Infinity, but we can never reach either. Since the singularity is an Infinity it must be the only one and no other Infinity or singularity can "exist."
The singularity cannot exist within Reality, but Reality is the product of the singularity. Therefore the singularity is First Cause. The singularity created Reality.
If we remove all the hysterical attributes assigned to a god, and extract only the very basic definition of a god as that from which all else emanates, then the singularity qualifies as god.

The only problem I have with the explanation is "Infinity is defined by speed...or the lack thereof."
But that is something besides the point right now. What is more to the point of the original question is: Can you prove it?

Can you prove the singularity is the creator of Reality?

[Epsilon=One]

Excuse me for attempting to insert a little humor into this dialog. I see it failed miserably! ( I thought it was funny when I wrote it!)No excuse necessary. Humor is always welcome.

Actually I do love it, and I did understand what it meant, and I do agree with it. I was just trying to elicit more of an in-depth explanation.With your training, I, obviously, was well aware you understood. Thus, my wry humor, that I’m sure was probably not well received.

I find nothing that you write offensive in the least; however, other Viewers may not be as generous as they cannot be aware of our decade long struggle, of epic proportion, concerning: Conceptualism (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=156) vs. Poly-Solipsism (http://userweb.nni.com/keiser/42d.html).

My translation: The singularity is an Infinity that cannot exist within Reality. From within Reality we can approach zero and Infinity, but we can never reach either. Since the singularity is an Infinity it must be the only one and no other Infinity or singularity can "exist."Excellent!

For emphasis: Infinity (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=109) and singularity are without any difference; that is their connotations are identical.

The singularity cannot exist within Reality, but Reality is the product of the singularity.Not quite; but the idea has correct implications.

The singularity shares a locus with Reality, which Reality is slightly different than the Universe. Reality is a spheroid; whereas, the Universe is ever so slightly an ellipsoid. This highly technical difference is of little practical consequence. Much like, at the opposite extreme of an ellipsoid: the speed of light is not quite constant as its internal geometry (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=110); is, like the Universe, that of an ellipsoid; an ellipsoid that approaches a straight line; whereas, the Universe's geometry approaches a spheroid.

The singularity cannot exist; however, within Reality it is omnipresent at every fundamental and extreme point. Thus, stating that: “The singularity cannot exist within Reality” could be misleading for some Viewers.

Stating that, “Reality is the product of the singularity.” Is OK; however, I prefer, “Reality is the consequence of the singularity.”

Therefore the singularity is First Cause.This statement may be partially true depending upon the definition of your special use of the term “First Cause.” However, I find the term “first cause” misleading; as, it implies a certain finality. I rationalize the consequence of the singularity as an unending process . . . that is: the Universe is forming “in perpetuity.” There can be no other rationalization that is consistent with logic Thus, there is no beginning or ending of Reality..

The singularity created Reality.If you express the consequence of the singularity as something "created"; then, I prefer the present tense “creates” rather than the past tense “created.”

Admittedly, I am now the one that is nitpicking. Probably, no one else is concerned with my fine “tweaking”; however, once the fundamentals are lined up like “ducks,” everything else easily follows.

If we remove all the hysterical attributes assigned to a god, and extract only the very basic definition of a god as that from which all else emanates, then the singularity qualifies as god.As I so interpret.

The only problem I have with the explanation is "Infinity is defined by speed...or the lack thereof."
But that is something besides the point right now.Yes, it is beside the point now; its importance has to do, mostly, with “speed” being more fundamental than other dimensional qualities.

What is more to the point of the original question is: Can you prove it?Excellent query. I wait years for such “a pitch to hit out of the park.”

Can you prove the singularity is the creator of Reality?Yes!!! That is, I can prove within the rational of IPSO (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=142) that Reality is the consequence of the singularity.

The answer is an essay of some length. Before I post the requested proof, I have a few issues with the public concerning the Elliptical Constant (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=107) and Triquametric motion (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=101) that must be settled. Time is of the essence, I am pursuing a settlement with all my energy.

[cckeiser]

...Thus, my wry humor, that I'm sure was probably not well received.

I quite enjoyed it! I actually did laugh out loud! :)

This statement may be partially true depending upon the definition of your special use of the term "First Cause." However, I find the term "first cause" misleading; as, it implies a certain finality.....
The singularity cannot exist; however, within Reality it is omnipresent at every fundamental and extreme point. Thus, stating that: "The singularity cannot exist within Reality" could be misleading for some Viewers.

Not in my mind. First Cause is simply that; the first cause and is still "within" Reality, just as the acorn is the first cause of the oak. The acorn is still within the oak.

I rationalize the consequence of the singularity as an unending process . . . that is: the Universe is forming "in perpetuity." There can be no other rationalization that is consistent with logic. Thus, there is no beginning or ending of Reality..

Yes, I agree. The singularity is an Infinity and therefore is also "in perpetuity"as you put it.

I find nothing that you write offensive in the least; however, other Viewers may not be as generous as they cannot be aware of our decade long struggle, of epic proportion, ...

Yes, our e-mail discussions have been quite enjoyable, sometimes frustrating, but always interesting. It looks like we are now taking it "on the road"! :)

I came to the singularity by observing that for anything at all to exist 'something' must have always existed. The reason is, we cannot have a true Nothingness that evolves into Somethingness unless there is a 'something' to disturb Nothingness into evolving. A true Nothingness would be completely satisfied, and being devoid of any and all properties is completely beyond entropy or perturbation ( anxiety ).
The Null Set is the most stable of all probabilities, and is devoid of potentials.
Since we know we exist, logically it must follow, the Null Set; Nothingness cannot have ever been the state. We cannot get 'something' from 'nothing' because there is no-thing in nothing to begin with, and thus there is no-thing to evolve into 'something.'
For anything at all to exist, there first must be the Infinity of the singularity.

[Epsilon=One]

Not in my mind. First Cause is simply that; the first cause and is still "within" Reality, just as the acorn is the first cause of the oak. The acorn is still within the oak.Analogies are no more than similar in some respects; they are not apropos for precise definitions. Your analogy does not apply to Reality; as, Reality has no beginning or ending; thus, no “acorn” or “First Cause.”

I came to the singularity by observing that for anything at all to exist 'something' must have always existed.Yes and no. Yes; “something” has “always existed.” And, no; your logic of existence cannot directly apply to a singularity as a singularity does not “exist.”

You are confusing two concepts.

The first concept is the singularity . . . which is the only percept that does not exist.

The second concept is Reality (slightly different than the Universe) . . . which always has and always will exist. It can be said that Reality is perpetual. Reality is a difficult concept to rationalize as its locus is congruent with Infinity (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=109); and yet, Reality exists. There is a certain duality of Reality as there is a duality of Infinity (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=109) and a duality of gravity (Infinite Dynamics).

The reason is, we cannot have a true Nothingness that evolves into Somethingness unless there is a 'something' to disturb Nothingness into evolving.No. There is no “something” that can disturb “Nothingness” if “Nothingness” is your word for the singularity. A singularity is a limit which cannot be reached by your “something”; thus, it cannot “disturb Nothingness”

Reality; is a phenomenon that is intrinsic to Infinity (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=109);it is not a consequence of “something.” I may seem to be nitpicking; however, if logic is not maintained with the fundamental concepts, there will be no solid base to build from the singularity to anthropoids, which would obviate a theory of everything.

A true Nothingness would be completely satisfied, and being devoid of any and all properties is completely beyond entropy or perturbation ( anxiety ).Gobbledygook.
The Null Set is the most stable of all probabilities, and is devoid of potentials.Gobbledygook

Since we know we exist, logically it must follow, the Null Set; Nothingness cannot have ever been the state. We cannot get 'something' from 'nothing' because there is no-thing in nothing to begin with, and thus there is no-thing to evolve into 'something.'More gobbledygook.

For anything at all to exist, there first must be the Infinity of the singularity.This statement is full of redundancies and lacks both logic and an understanding of Conceptualism (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=156).

[cckeiser]

Thank you Epsilon=One, I was wondering how to correctly spell the word "gobbledygook."


I think our problem is in how we each define the word "Exist."

But then we are getting ahead of ourselves here, and I would like to return to our present focus.
I was just waiting for you to return and "hit it out of the park."

"Batter up" when ever you are ready my friend.

[Epsilon=One]

Thank you Epsilon=One, I was wondering how to correctly spell the word "gobbledygook."There is more than one acceptable spelling. What is important is that you understand the precise meaning.

I think our problem….You continue to speak for me. This is a habit of yours that I deplore.

…is in how we each define the word "Exist."I have no “problem” or special connotations for the word “exist.” I am satisfied with most any dictionary’s definition.

I have no idea what you mean when you capitalize the word “Exist.” If you have a special meaning, please define it.

But then we are getting ahead of ourselves here… There you go again. Speak only for yourself.

, and I would like to return to our present focus.
I was just waiting for you to return and "hit it out of the park."

"Batter up" when ever you are ready my friend.Apparently, you do not read carefully or your retention is short.

My next to last reply on this thread, concerning the singularity's effect on Reality, titled “Humor is always welcome.” clearly stated:


The answer is an essay of some length. Before I post the requested proof, I have a few issues with the public concerning the Elliptical Constant (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=107) and Triquametric motion (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=101) that must be settled. Time is of the essence, I am pursuing a settlement with all my energy.The essay you request is titled, “The Unified Concept.” (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=119) When it is available for release you can find it under Pulsoid Theory (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=63) on this forum. The same is true for Triquametric motion (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=101) and the Elliptical Constant (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=107).