The Universe Comes from an Eternal Source most call God.

Give up empty force. Not everyones brains work the same way. Most focus on the age old traditions of purposefully imposed negative thoughts made from a schizophrenic egotistical maniac named Socrates when they enter a discussion. Unwillingly taking advice from a man who could not keep himself alive in his own time thriving at in the minds of ego. Instead of making the "life" choice which prefers cognitive philology, they plunder around using negatives to prove negatives and in doing so only prove their ignorance of this strange and inhuman thought of words having to be disproven before their own will have a chance to last a lifetime. the people who most display this type of action intend to stop all concepts of "thought" and strive only for the purpose of convolution tied to superiority yielding only the ignorantly blissful.
 
Lady Historica said:
Give up empty force. Not everyones brains work the same way. Most focus on the age old traditions of purposefully imposed negative thoughts made from a schizophrenic egotistical maniac named Socrates when they enter a discussion. Unwillingly taking advice from a man who could not keep himself alive in his own time thriving at in the minds of ego. Instead of making the "life" choice which prefers cognitive philology, they plunder around using negatives to prove negatives and in doing so only prove their ignorance of this strange and inhuman thought of words having to be disproven before their own will have a chance to last a lifetime. the people who most display this type of action intend to stop all concepts of "thought" and strive only for the purpose of convolution tied to superiority yielding only the ignorantly blissful.
Click to expand...

this is formal debates and your post is "gibberish." also, it's ironic that you would call socrates schizo when your post is a flagrant example.
 
Lady Historica said:
Give up empty force. Not everyones brains work the same way. Most focus on the age old traditions of purposefully imposed negative thoughts made from a schizophrenic egotistical maniac named Socrates when they enter a discussion. Unwillingly taking advice from a man who could not keep himself alive in his own time thriving at in the minds of ego. Instead of making the "life" choice which prefers cognitive philology, they plunder around using negatives to prove negatives and in doing so only prove their ignorance of this strange and inhuman thought of words having to be disproven before their own will have a chance to last a lifetime. the people who most display this type of action intend to stop all concepts of "thought" and strive only for the purpose of convolution tied to superiority yielding only the ignorantly blissful.
Click to expand...



I Feel up for a Challenge.

Peace.
 
EmptyForceOfChi said:
For What reason Must we or the universe in its physical state/s, live for ever simply because it was created to observe?. Does a Person Sketch a Doodle In His school book with the intention of it being eternal and forever to be enjoyed by his eyes?. Most likely not he does it for a brief 10 second enjoyment to look at.

MAthematics is a language, A Language is for Communication this is true. Does it have any point in refuting My Claim that mathematics Can be used as a tool to go beyond Observational studies of the known Universe?

Peace.
Click to expand...

you simply have no evidence that the universe was created to be observed by anyone or anything. things usually exist for it's own sake, not for the observation of something else.

you simply don't make any sense. you are projecting romantic notions and your personal whims which is fine as conjecture but it can't be taken seriously as a fact.
 
birch said:
you simply have no evidence that the universe was created to be observed by anyone or anything. things usually exist for it's own sake, not for the observation of something else.

you simply don't make any sense. you are projecting romantic notions and your personal whims which is fine as conjecture but it can't be taken seriously as a fact.
Click to expand...

Sentient Beings were Designed To Be able to Feel/Love/Hate/Appreciate/Taste/Smell and endulge in The Sensory Beauty that is bestowed upon "Optical Stimuli".


Do you suggest That A Universe Created the Sensory Organs and Geometrical Beauty along with the Emotions to appreciate them out of Sheer Chaotic Random Evolution?
 
let's use an example. why do we have eyeballs to "see" or observe? why do we have any senses? is it just for the sake of observation or is there a reason behind it? for instance, if we can't see then it is more difficult to navigate the environment we find ourselves in. just the fact that we developed sight and other senses rather than be fluidly attached to our surroundings indicates a separation possibly at 'root' or disparate element from what we would consider 'life' and the 'system' or environment or universe/container. but that's going off on another tangent.

if we have eyes to see or observe it's because we need them. the universe does not 'need' us so it does not need us to observe it. it matters not if we exist or don't exist to this universe in reality. it makes no difference whatsoever.

so, your hypothesis that the universe was created soley to be observed leans more on the side of fantasy and is rather backward in logic.
 
birch said:
let's use an example. why do we have eyeballs to "see" or observe? why do we have any senses? is it just for the sake of observation or is there a reason behind it? for instance, if we can't see then it is more difficult to navigate the environment we find ourselves in. just the fact that we developed sight and other senses rather than be fluidly attached to our surroundings indicates a separation possibly at 'root' or disparate element from what we would consider 'life' and the 'system' or environment or universe/container. but that's going off on another tangent.

if we have eyes to see or observe it's because we need them. the universe does not 'need' us so it does not need us to observe it. it matters not if we exist or don't exist to this universe in reality. it makes no difference whatsoever.

so, your hypothesis that the universe was created soley to be observed leans more on the side of fantasy and is rather backward in logic.
Click to expand...



So Why would an Organism strive to "better itself" and not just accept extinction instinctively. This is another good point. "instinct" What is your chaotic reasoning regarding "Animal Instinct" or "The Will of DNA" and its mission to better itself in accordance to adapt within the rules of Survival of the fiittest.


What would be the Root Source and Reason for a single celled Organism to evolve a better Array of Survival Tools, What is its cause and effect Process leading up to the very Root reason for The striving of Life To reproduce and grow?.
 
You Shall Beg For This Thread To be closed due to Religious reasons Before You better The Student Of The most high in debate about his universe.


Peace and Health to you all.
 
EmptyForceOfChi said:
So Why would an Organism strive to "better itself" and not just accept extinction instinctively. This is another good point. "instinct" What is your chaotic reasoning regarding "Animal Instinct" or "The Will of DNA" and its mission to better itself in accordance to adapt within the rules of Survival of the fiittest.


What would be the Root Source and Reason for a single celled Organism to evolve a better Array of Survival Tools, What is its cause and effect Process leading up to the very Root reason for The striving of Life To reproduce and grow?.
Click to expand...

you should know this can't be answered at this time. there can only be conjectures.

these are questions that no one knows the answers to but can only be wondered at. but there are some discrepancies to chew on though.

you might also recall that what drives us physically on one level is not necessarily what we consciously may desire or want ourselves. it's the case of 'who am i really?' for instance, a person may be addicted to drugs or alcohol on a cellular and physical level though it's hurting them and they wish they could stop, for instance. so even on a cellular level, there is a struggle and duality there. you are assuming that it's always to 'better' itself. what better itself? are you sure it's trying to better you? or is it trying to propogate it's own survival? what is driving the addiction and what is against it? what makes you think an enemy couldn't be hidden in your dna?understand the dichotomy there?

this could also get into philosophical areas such as separation or distinction of spirit vs flesh etc which may not be philosophical at all but it is for now due to lack of knowledge.

i've already mention the conjecture of disparate elements that exist in the universe.

still, for the topic of this debate, the production and proliferation of cellular life doesn't indicate that the universe exists for it's observation. there are vast stretches of space that have no life and from what we know it doesn't have much in comparison to it's size. it's just a matter of odds whether life exists.
 
birch said:
you should know this can't be answered at this time. there can only be conjectures.

these are questions that no one knows the answers to but can only be wondered at. but there are some discrepancies to chew on though.

you might also recall that what drives us physically on one level is not necessarily what we consciously may desire or want ourselves. it's the case of 'who am i really?' for instance, a person may be addicted to drugs or alcohol on a cellular and physical level though it's hurting them and they wish they could stop, for instance. so even on a cellular level, there is a struggle and duality there. you are assuming that it's always to 'better' itself. what better itself? are you sure it's trying to better you? or is it trying to propogate it's own survival? what is driving the addiction and what is against it? what makes you think an enemy couldn't be hidden in your dna?understand the dichotomy there?

this could also get into philosophical areas such as separation or distinction of spirit vs flesh etc which may not be philosophical at all but it is for now due to lack of knowledge.

i've already mention the conjecture of disparate elements that exist in the universe.

still, for the topic of this debate, the production and proliferation of cellular life doesn't indicate that the universe exists for it's observation. there are vast stretches of space that have no life and from what we know it doesn't have much in comparison to it's size. it's just a matter of odds whether life exists.
Click to expand...

I tell You truly that the answer has been Revealed to many, Using Mathematics and Observational computer generated Simulations is a credible way of piecing together a probability factor to run basic analasys.

The length of time before Humans were created does not matter, if the creator has a plan and system then you would obviously place the painting in the gallery before you bring the people to appreciate the Art would you not?


Do you not know of this type of Testing and study, I can explain to you in further detail if you request.


Peace.
 
The length of time before Humans were created does not matter, if the creator has a plan and system then you would obviously place the painting in the gallery before you bring the people to appreciate the Art would you not?
Click to expand...

i disagree with your psychological take on that. i think that people do art as a self-expression to understand themselves better and showing it to others is for similar reasons. we don't show art to our dogs or monkeys, for instance, because we know they are not like us to understand it so in the end it's really about us.
 
birch said:
i disagree with your psychological take on that. i think that people do art as a self-expression to understand themselves better and showing it to others is for similar reasons. we don't show art to our dogs or monkeys, for instance, because we know they are not like us to understand it so in the end it's really about us.
Click to expand...

God is not allowed To create Works of art as a way to enjoy or better understand new things that he manifests?, Everything He creates He knows so he is knower of all things. Creator of all things.


You can do nothing but manipulate. where as he can do all things he wills.

It is all about him, not us.
 
birch said:
i disagree with your psychological take on that. i think that people do art as a self-expression to understand themselves better and showing it to others is for similar reasons.
Click to expand...

.
A further Rebuttle For Specifically "Art"


Where Does Art Originate?, The Answer is Nature, We try to Copy Gods Art And Form our own Replicas of his master-pieces. No human has ever created anything, we only use the tools we were given and manipulate thoughts and visions according to the spectrums of the most highs favour.

"Bring to he who is that which you have created, If your art is truly worthy and beautiful then give it life and a soul"



Regarding sculptures of animals and people.
 
This is not a Formal Debate. Please read the rules of the Formal Debates subforum before posting in that forum. See the sticky threads at the top of the forum list.

Thread moved.
 
EmptyForceOfChi said:
God is not allowed To create Works of art as a way to enjoy or better understand new things that he manifests?, Everything He creates He knows so he is knower of all things. Creator of all things.


You can do nothing but manipulate. where as he can do all things he wills.

It is all about him, not us.
Click to expand...

you said the creator made the universe so that it can be observed by "us", not it.

now you are even contradicting your own arguments.
 
Moderator note: I now note that inadequate credit was given to the original author of the article quoted in full by EmptyForceOfChi.

This is very close to plagiarism. Also, reproducing the whole article without permission of the original author may be a breach of copyright.

The original post has been edited.
 
James R said:
Moderator note: I now note that inadequate credit was given to the original author of the article quoted in full by EmptyForceOfChi.

This is very close to plagiarism. Also, reproducing the whole article without permission of the original author may be a breach of copyright.

The original post has been edited.
Click to expand...


I gave sources and credit to all involved from the original source, Stated That is was not my own work also I was not publishing it for profits and is in my right to spread under the freedoms of information acts and all copyright laws linked in accordance with fore-mentioned freedoms granted.


I accept you moving the thread, no complaints if you do not accept Probability based on mathematical Simulations then so be it.



Could I humbly request this be moved to General Philosophy?, Religious people will come in now :(


Peace.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top