Thread: simple

Originally Posted by Bosco

damn people are ignorant, read what i have said maybe 4 times now, this is not supposed to be an agruement

2nd when i saw God i thought you may understand that i mean the force of life in general. Would you rather me say " The Almighty Creator" ?? God can mean 1000000 different things now a days

God doesnt need a religion, " It" just is

Take a step back and just think about what i said, No need to even discuss it

So a rhombus, then?

I think he is making a rhetorical statement.

BUT HOW CAN WE DISCUSS SOMETHING WHEN WE DON'T KNOW WHAT IT MEANS???


Can you blame us to be ignorant when you can't even supply the tiniest bits of details or information about what we're supposed to be discussing???

'balance is everything

'No religion,

Balance'

God is one with you,

you are one with God'

Now if I would actually UNDERSTAND, for just a little bit, what you MEANT by that, we COULD... In theory, start a discussion... Or we could just even start THINKING about it...
But since all you do is complain about how 'ignorant' people are in here (again, I wonder why that is), this thread isn't going to head somewhere, indeed... As stated in your second post...

Which begs for the question 'Why the hell did you post that in the first place'????????

Also: If one say's 'God' (with a capital letter), one AUTOMATICALLY assumes he/she is talking about the almighty creator featured in the bible.
If you had just said that 'God' (in your eyes), is in fact the 'force of life in general', then it would've been much clearer (as you've stated oh so nicely yourself, that 'God' has about 1000000 different meanings nowadays)...


PLEASE, If you want us to think about something, you'll have to come up with just a BIT more than 16 (at least seemingly) incoherent words, that string up something that is 'not an arguement' (which brings forth another question: What the hell is it anyway? A statement? O_o)...



Now, because you asked so nicely, I thought about it, and here are my thoughts about the statement in the first post:

-Balance is everything
Hmmm... I have no PROOF of this thing called 'balance'... Hell, I don't even understand what 'balance' means, in this context... Balance of what? Everything? And if so, what would there be to balance? Matter-Antimatter? Happiness - Sadness? Wealth - Poverty?
Hell, I don't know... I'd have to look at statistics for that, if it were those subjects... And I don't even know about the antimatter... How the hell are we supposed to prove that?

-'No religion'
That looks like gibberish... what do you mean 'no religion'?

-'Balance'
See the above subject... It looks like gibberish... BUT Maybe if I string them together... 'No religion... Balance'
So religion isn't the thing that matters, but balance?
Or maybe Balance IS religion???
Hmmm... I'd have to ask the original poster... but he won't answer...
Darn... I won't be able to think and discuss this without understanding this stuff... A bit more details would be nice... But again... He won't answer
He just complains about how 'ignorant' I am...
Darn...

-'God is one with you'
Okay, that sounds interresting... So I am one with god?

-'You are one with God'
See? told 'ya
Now what the hell does that mean?
Does it mean God is everywhere, and therefore part of me too? 'cause that's what alot of people say...
But wait! Here he says 'God' is in fact the 'force of life'...
But... What IS 'force of life'???
Is it just life itself? Does 'force of life' simply mean that 'I am alive'
'Cause that's pretty accurate, I'll tell you that...
Hmmmm...
But Oh! wait... Now he says that god doesn't need religion, and just is... hmmmm...
So.. the 'force of life' doesn't need religion... it just it... Alrighty then... No idea what that meant... But whatever...
I don't know... A few more details would be nice, so I could actually understand what it all means...
But alas, he won't give them... He'll just complain how ignorant we are...


Seriously, man... Give us some clues...
I have no idea what you're talking about, and therefore I won't be able to think of this stuff, and discuss it... (what you want so badly)

So PLEASE post us something more than complaints on our ignorance...
In stead: Think about whose fault it is why we don't know much about it...
And for god's sake: DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT

There...

I hope you understand (and know that I have nothing against you personally, so don't start your 'damn'-ing and complaining about ignorance again... 'cause it doesn't add ANYTHING... It just isn't constructive...)



Peace!!!

~ CD

whoever said i came up with this on a shroom trip, fuck off

How shall I fuck off O Lord?

Originally Posted by Bonsay

Ummm.

The opposite to existance is non-existance. I don't know what ethen wanted to say, but existance and non-existance are opposites.

whatever helps you sleep at night.

Originally Posted by CryoDragoon

Can you blame us to be ignorant when you can't even supply the tiniest bits of details or information about what we're supposed to be discussing???

'balance is everything

'No religion,

Balance'

God is one with you,

you are one with God'

You know, I think it's funny how he left spaces between each line. Maybe it implies reading between the lines! teehee! Instead of picking apart its syntax! heehee!


Ok ok. Less hostility....


Let's try this:

"God" = not a
no religion is more like: less

It's hard to have a common ground because our language lacks appropriate words.

Maybe I could put this discussion on a new track by saying...

Oneness.

(discuss)

Originally Posted by ethen

whatever helps you sleep at night.

Do opposites even exist, objectively? Aren't the 'opposites' we use just opposites if you look though the human, subjective spectrum?

I mean, what is the opposite of a elephant, REALLY? It could be a grain of salt. That's pretty opposite to an elephant, isn't it? Or is the opposite, just all atoms in mirror-image? Or is the opposite of an elephant, a universe filled with elephant, except for a tiny space with nothing-ness, the seize of an elephant?

I mean, only in Math is 'opposite' something easy to see. And even then, Is 10 the opposite of -10? Why isn't Sqr(2 the opposite of Sqr(0.5 ? Or something like that?

Bottom line: "opposite" is a human term. It doesn't really exist.

What also doesn't help, is that once you call something an 'elephant', you are already on an extremely subjective level. Why call Those specific atoms 'Elephant'. It's just a concept in our head. There certainly isn't an opposite to the brain-concept of elephant, is there? Yeah. Really. If you look at the elephant inside our head, ignoring the material elephant, try and find an opposite to it :0

-

Regardless of your opinion, does it really MATTER whether the opposite of 'existence' is 'non-existence'? I mean, existence exists. Mhkay. Non-existent also exist, in subjective ways. (but doesn't existence only exist in subjective ways?)...hmm

Actually, this is a really cool subject. You certainly made me think, ethen.

Yep. The "elephant" only exists on the conventional level - the same as existence and non-existence, right? So if ultimately there are no opposites is this what was meant by "balance" or does this term not fit?

Originally Posted by cygnus

Yep. The "elephant" only exists on the conventional level - the same as existence and non-existence, right? So if ultimately there are no opposites is this what was meant by "balance" or does this term not fit?

Oh, I wasn't talking about that mombo-jumbo pantheistic nonsense. I was just talking about opposites. If you want to conclude it has ANYTHING at all to do with balance, and especially the vague kind McSilly was talking about, please do. = )

cygnus you keeo taking the words right out of my mouth hahaha, im talking about what you said about balance

Originally Posted by Neruo

Do opposites even exist, objectively? Aren't the 'opposites' we use just opposites if you look though the human, subjective spectrum?

I mean, what is the opposite of a elephant, REALLY? It could be a grain of salt. That's pretty opposite to an elephant, isn't it? Or is the opposite, just all atoms in mirror-image? Or is the opposite of an elephant, a universe filled with elephant, except for a tiny space with nothing-ness, the seize of an elephant?

Well if you ask me, I'd say that an opposite of an elephant is an anti-elephant. So I mean matter - antimatter kind of thing. But you're right, it's quite a human concept. The opposite to an elephant could be an inside - out elephant etc.

But I'd really like to know what the non-existance thing is about. In "human terms" if you want it specifically.

Originally Posted by Bonsay

Well if you ask me, I'd say that an opposite of an elephant is an anti-elephant. So I mean matter - antimatter kind of thing. But you're right, it's quite a human concept. The opposite to an elephant could be an inside - out elephant etc.

But I'd really like to know what the non-existance thing is about. In "human terms" if you want it specifically.

What the crap is an anti-elephant? Is it worth -1 elephant?

Originally Posted by Bonsay

But I'd really like to know what the non-existance thing is about. In "human terms" if you want it specifically.

Ethen was saying that even though existence has a conceptual opposite, it does not have a real opposite. Nonexistence is conceptually the opposite of existence, but nonexistence does not actually exist.

Even though that is a really trippy idea, I have thought about it, and I have concluded that nonexistence does exist. It has no existence in itself, but it does have existence in other things. It as a lack of existence does exist. If a four man band has a drummer who does not show up for a show, then they lack one man. The lack of a man exists, even though the lack's nature is of something not there. The man does not exist at the show, but that does not mean the lack of him does not exist. The lack does exist, so the fact that his presence does not exist does not mean the lack of his presence does not exist. It is possible for a lack of existence to exist.

That is so damn hard to explain. The secret of the universe has to be somewhere in that issue.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

The secret of the universe has to be somewhere in that issue.

In before some blockhead says "42!!!" again.

Originally Posted by Mark75

What the crap is an anti-elephant? Is it worth -1 elephant?

elephant is matter. The opposite to matter is antimatter.

Ethen said that the opposite to existance doesn't exist, meaning it is nonexistant. Doesn't that prove that nonexistance exists?

Originally Posted by cygnus

You know, I think it's funny how he left spaces between each line. Maybe it implies reading between the lines! teehee! Instead of picking apart its syntax! heehee!


Ok ok. Less hostility....


Let's try this:

"God" = not a
no religion is more like: less

It's hard to have a common ground because our language lacks appropriate words.

Maybe I could put this discussion on a new track by saying...


Oneness.

(discuss)

You OBVIOUSLY haven't seen Robert Ince on Evo. vs. Creationism


'Creationists' theory "Urm... Um... heh.... MAGIC MAN DUN IT!"' xD. That's HILARIOUS!

And true...

Originally Posted by Mark75

What the crap is an anti-elephant? Is it worth -1 elephant?

Dark matter? Don't know. Could be.

And if you look at opposites in a sting-theory kind of way? I can't even imagen how complex an opposite of something would be, if you took in account you have in reverse the amount and kind of matter in each of the 10 dimensions...

Objective 'opposite' doesn't exist :0 Just subjective.

Originally Posted by Bonsay

Ethen said that the opposite to existance doesn't exist, meaning it is nonexistant. Doesn't that prove that nonexistance exists?

Doesn't the existence of non-existence prove its non-non-existence!? Haha! This is fun!

Interesting points Neuro and Universal, interesting indeed. I agree that, objectively speaking, it’s hard to determine what if anything is the opposite of something else. I mean, if you assume that nonexistence is indeed the opposite of existence, it could then be argued that the opposite of anything that exists, regardless of what, is nonexistence all the same. That sure would make things a lot simper in this case lol.

Anyway, words can be strung together in such a way as to create what seems to be valid notions, but otherwise suffer from underlying incompatibilities and paradoxes, for example:

nonexistence does exist

First and foremost, let me say that I do understand the point you were making, and I do understand why you made that point. If I am not mistaken, your argument was that nonexistence exists as an actual state of being, more specifically, the state of "not existing". On the surface this seems like a valid notion, but as soon as you penetrate the linguistic veneer, the notion stops making sense. It’s more or less wordplay, unfortunately the likes of which I will probably have to use in order to directly address it.

Saying that “nonexistence exists because of its actual lack of existence” is similar to a double-negative, but one that happens to contradict itself, yet appears not to by way of the double-negative. But if we were to reword that statement whilst keeping the same meaning, it would translate into something along the lines of “nonexistence exists because it doesn’t exist” which is just a nonsensical paradox. Sure, the concept of nothingness exists, but that concept has no actual counter part, by definition. That's all I was trying to get at.

goddamnit we're getting really baffled here. This thread is called "simple"!

Originally Posted by cygnus

goddamnit we're getting really baffled here. This thread is called "simple"!

Hahahaha...hilarious.

Being and nonbeing create each other.

- Lao Tzu, Tao Te Ching


The name that can be named is not the eternal name.

- Lao Tzu, Tao Te Ching

universal just proved my point after all of that