If all perception ceases to be, what is left.
Within our universe there would be the same amount of matter and energy as there ever has been, merely in a form that does not have the ability to perceive.
Your lack of actually doing so suggests otherwise. All you do is make claims. Zero support. And then you simply claim "Already have" much as you simply claim "You're wrong".
Offer something, Jan. Anything would be a start as long as it is actual support.
Clearly they're not. God is part of "everything" - thus if "everything ceased to be"... you do the math this time, Jan.
In my world view, God is the cause of everything (including) perception, as opposed to stuff popping into existence by itself. So ''everything ceased to be'' is non different than ''If God decides to wrap every thing up''. That's what it would take to wrap everything up.
Fallacy of equivocation. The two are patently not the same. You are introducing assumptions when you say "If God decides..."
This is simply another example of you obfuscating, muddying the waters, filling the discussion with drivel.
It's not a red-herring, which is why you went on to try and answer the question, albeit pathetically.
Fallacy on your part, Jan. My willingness to humour you is no indication of it being a red-herring or not. Get an education in logic, Jan. It's painful reading the turgid nonsense you spout.
If you insist that it is, then show it. Don't just assert it.
Apologies, Jan, but I thought it was fairly obvious... the fact that you're claiming you can not spot the difference between "if everything ceased to be..." and "If God decides to..." then that speaks volumes for the lengths to which you're prepared to go in what you see as an effort to save face.
You mean you couldn't know it if you didn't exist.
So what? You've just accepted my point.
WTF?? We DO exist. We DO know it. You can't refute knowledge on the basis that if we didn't exist we wouldn't know it. Again - the depths to which you're prepared to go are staggering.
Once again. Stop being a douche, and pull yourself together. I am addressing your points from my world view, and you're doing a hopeless job of maintaining any credibility for your world view.
You're on the ropes Sarkus.
No, you're not addressing my points, Jan. You're merely restating the same thing again and again. Your only response is "you're wrong!" Your worldview is based on an a priori assumption that clearly dampens your ability to respond with any intellect. You put on blinkers and then like a toddler who's fed up with the game simply trashes it.
Grow up, Jan. Do us all a favour.
So basically you're asserting that things exist outside of perception?
Can you properly support this claim?
Yes, Jan, I am asserting that, and I have supported it - which you would realise if you're not so intent on simply destroying this thread.
But to repeat from post #210: "As to how we can know it: our perception can
only be of something that exists
prior to our perception (it does take time for our brain to receive any input from that thing). Whether we perceive that thing as it is in reality is a different matter - but that thing exists whether we perceive it or not."
Understand?
Note that you need a black box (something), to demonstrate that nothing is inside it.
No shit Sherlock, you're just reiterating my point.
If you really want to impress me, show me nothing without something having to be the star of the show.
...
Come with a demonstration of nothingness, no co dependency. Then we'll carry on this discussion.
Fallacy of false precision, Jan. It is not the metaphorical black box that is important but what is inside it: what you demand is simply not necessary to garner an understanding of what is inside. You surely know this, which is why I can only assume it is yet more effort to drag the discussion down.
The only demonstration of nothingness I can come up with for you, Jan, is your intellect in this regard.
I guess you won't accept that, thus I shall assume you have ended this discussion. Your further response to me, however, will show you unable to even hold to that, and confirm you to be the charlatan that you have already amply demonstrated to myself and others that you are.
