The universe as the totality of existence

Pointless Posts, Raves n Rants, Obscure Opinions

Moderator: Moderators

Susma
Under Probation
Posts: 205
Joined: Sun Sep 18, 2011 4:44 pm

The universe as the totality of existence

Post #1

Post by Susma »

Here is my concept of the universe:

I like to ask people who like myself love to think about concepts: their definitions and explanation:
  • What do you think of my concept of the universe?



Susma

Susma
Under Probation
Posts: 205
Joined: Sun Sep 18, 2011 4:44 pm

Post #11

Post by Susma »

Addressing readers:


I am really very excited with this thread.

Because I am going to be able to exchange ideas with people but first I have to open up the horizons of their minds, otherwise with their continuing in their routinized maze of a mind with the utmost limited number of routes and no exit whatsoever, how can they ever come to the biggest picture of reality, and come to exercise their sincerity and courage to embrace it?

And why should they embrace at all the biggest picture of reality?

Well, so that they will not be fools.


You don't agree with me that people who don't accept the biggest picture of reality are fools?


Well, that is your option, your choice based on your free will or abuse of free will to sink oneself in one's own routinized maze of a mind with the utmost limited number of routes and no exit whatsoever.


So, everyone who will not be a fool forever, come over here and join in the conversation!




Susma

User avatar
ThatGirlAgain
Prodigy
Posts: 2961
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2011 1:09 pm
Location: New York City
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: The universe as the totality of existence

Post #12

Post by ThatGirlAgain »

Susma wrote:
ThatGirlAgain wrote:
Susma wrote:Here is my concept of the universe:

I like to ask people who like myself love to think about concepts: their definitions and explanation:
  • What do you think of my concept of the universe?
"or at least can be the subject of man's imagination and discourse."

I have a problem with this part. I can imagine things that do not necessarily physically exist, e.g., pegasus/unicorn half breeds that play Spanish guitar. Are these things part of the universe? Does the universe you describe include some actually existing realm of ideas?

It would seem that 'universe = everything that exists' should be sufficient. My concept of the guitar playing quasi-horses exists in my mind, whatever that may ultimately mean, but the physical counterpart of that concept (and the concept is of physical things) may not exist anywhere in the universe. Whether concepts exist independently of minds is of course another question. If they do, they are part of the universe.


I like you to enumerate some of the things that exist in the totality of existence or everything that exists which according to you is your concept of universe which incidentally I also agree, but still I want you to enumerate some of the things and then some more and then some more and then some more, until you have exhausted all the things that make up everything that exists in the universe that is the totality of existence.


In the meantime I am still waiting for Mc to return, unless he can't find his way out of his depths.




Susma
Um...










...what?
Dogmatism and skepticism are both, in a sense, absolute philosophies; one is certain of knowing, the other of not knowing. What philosophy should dissipate is certainty, whether of knowledge or ignorance.
- Bertrand Russell

Susma
Under Probation
Posts: 205
Joined: Sun Sep 18, 2011 4:44 pm

Re: The universe as the totality of existence

Post #13

Post by Susma »

Addressing readers:

See the cue word unicorn of atheists in the post below of TGA.
ThatGirlAgain wrote:
Susma wrote:Here is my concept of the universe:

I like to ask people who like myself love to think about concepts: their definitions and explanation:
  • What do you think of my concept of the universe?
"or at least can be the subject of man's imagination and discourse."

I have a problem with this part. I can imagine things that do not necessarily physically exist, e.g., pegasus/unicorn half breeds that play Spanish guitar. Are these things part of the universe? Does the universe you describe include some actually existing realm of ideas?

[...]

There are other cue words of atheists, like flying spaghetti monster, celestial teapot.

Cue words are instructions to atheists to stop thinking and adopt the writing mode of mockery, parody, and evasions.


See?

If they continue to think further on whether an invisible pink unicorn is possible or not -- though not always accessible to atheists because they stop thinking, they will realize that the invisible unicorn is invisible to them only because they stop seeing and thinking.

As for the flying spaghetti monster there is no intrinsic impossibility of a flying spaghetti monster, a good worker of dough can produce such a monster.

But these entities are not really valid concepts to them but cue words to them to stop thinking, and to adopt the writing mode of mockery, parody, and evasions.



That is why I have said time and again that atheists don't think on the issue of God or no God, they engage in mockery, parody, and evasions.




Susma

Susma
Under Probation
Posts: 205
Joined: Sun Sep 18, 2011 4:44 pm

Post #14

Post by Susma »

Adamoriens wrote:Thanks for the message, Susma. I'm not optimistic about further discussion, so I'll leave it to you to comment on what I've already posted in the earlier thread.


With all due respect to your self-valuation.


I have not seen anything at all written by you in the previous thread on "The universe is the evidence for God's existence," of any usefulness, aside from your display of theolog-ese and philosoph-ese.



With all due respect to your self-valuation, I remain and invite you to come over here, and join in a real conversation,


Yours truly,

Susma

User avatar
ThatGirlAgain
Prodigy
Posts: 2961
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2011 1:09 pm
Location: New York City
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: The universe as the totality of existence

Post #15

Post by ThatGirlAgain »

Susma wrote:Addressing readers:

See the cue word unicorn of atheists in the post below of TGA.
ThatGirlAgain wrote:
Susma wrote:Here is my concept of the universe:

I like to ask people who like myself love to think about concepts: their definitions and explanation:
  • What do you think of my concept of the universe?
"or at least can be the subject of man's imagination and discourse."

I have a problem with this part. I can imagine things that do not necessarily physically exist, e.g., pegasus/unicorn half breeds that play Spanish guitar. Are these things part of the universe? Does the universe you describe include some actually existing realm of ideas?

[...]

There are other cue words of atheists, like flying spaghetti monster, celestial teapot.

Cue words are instructions to atheists to stop thinking and adopt the writing mode of mockery, parody, and evasions.


See?

If they continue to think further on whether an invisible pink unicorn is possible or not -- though not always accessible to atheists because they stop thinking, they will realize that the invisible unicorn is invisible to them only because they stop seeing and thinking.

As for the flying spaghetti monster there is no intrinsic impossibility of a flying spaghetti monster, a good worker of dough can produce such a monster.

But these entities are not really valid concepts to them but cue words to them to stop thinking, and to adopt the writing mode of mockery, parody, and evasions.



That is why I have said time and again that atheists don't think on the issue of God or no God, they engage in mockery, parody, and evasions.




Susma
Too bad I am not an atheist. Did you bother reading my usergroup list? Or any of my posts, like maybe my lengthy discussion of the need for an infinite first cause in the Philosophy subforum? Or my extensive knowledge of the scriptures? or even my willingness to consider non-physical realities in the above post? Or the absence of mockery, parody and evasions in any of my posts?

Is it that you are in fact the one who can only think in terms of cue words? Or do you really not have anything meaningful to say in response to my contribution to this thread and are seeking ot evade it instead? If I am wrong and it is something else, let me know.

But I can see this conversation is not going to go anyplace useful. Too bad. It could have been something.
Dogmatism and skepticism are both, in a sense, absolute philosophies; one is certain of knowing, the other of not knowing. What philosophy should dissipate is certainty, whether of knowledge or ignorance.
- Bertrand Russell

Susma
Under Probation
Posts: 205
Joined: Sun Sep 18, 2011 4:44 pm

Re: The universe as the totality of existence

Post #16

Post by Susma »

ThatGirlAgain wrote:
Susma wrote:Addressing readers:

See the cue word unicorn of atheists in the post below of TGA.
ThatGirlAgain wrote:
Susma wrote:Here is my concept of the universe:

I like to ask people who like myself love to think about concepts: their definitions and explanation:
  • What do you think of my concept of the universe?
"or at least can be the subject of man's imagination and discourse."

I have a problem with this part. I can imagine things that do not necessarily physically exist, e.g., pegasus/unicorn half breeds that play Spanish guitar. Are these things part of the universe? Does the universe you describe include some actually existing realm of ideas?

[...]

There are other cue words of atheists, like flying spaghetti monster, celestial teapot.

Cue words are instructions to atheists to stop thinking and adopt the writing mode of mockery, parody, and evasions.


See?

If they continue to think further on whether an invisible pink unicorn is possible or not -- though not always accessible to atheists because they stop thinking, they will realize that the invisible unicorn is invisible to them only because they stop seeing and thinking.

As for the flying spaghetti monster there is no intrinsic impossibility of a flying spaghetti monster, a good worker of dough can produce such a monster.

But these entities are not really valid concepts to them but cue words to them to stop thinking, and to adopt the writing mode of mockery, parody, and evasions.



That is why I have said time and again that atheists don't think on the issue of God or no God, they engage in mockery, parody, and evasions.




Susma
Too bad I am not an atheist. Did you bother reading my usergroup list? Or any of my posts, like maybe my lengthy discussion of the need for an infinite first cause in the Philosophy subforum? Or my extensive knowledge of the scriptures? or even my willingness to consider non-physical realities in the above post? Or the absence of mockery, parody and evasions in any of my posts?

Is it that you are in fact the one who can only think in terms of cue words? Or do you really not have anything meaningful to say in response to my contribution to this thread and are seeking ot evade it instead? If I am wrong and it is something else, let me know.

But I can see this conversation is not going to go anyplace useful. Too bad. It could have been something.

Okay, that is supposedly informative for obiter dicta.



Now, suppose you take up my request, tell me all the things that are everything and anything that is in the universe as the totality of existence or as everything that exists.

And also the opposite: all the things that do not belong to the universe.



Susma

User avatar
ThatGirlAgain
Prodigy
Posts: 2961
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2011 1:09 pm
Location: New York City
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: The universe as the totality of existence

Post #17

Post by ThatGirlAgain »

Susma wrote:
ThatGirlAgain wrote:
Susma wrote:Addressing readers:

See the cue word unicorn of atheists in the post below of TGA.
ThatGirlAgain wrote:
Susma wrote:Here is my concept of the universe:

I like to ask people who like myself love to think about concepts: their definitions and explanation:
  • What do you think of my concept of the universe?
"or at least can be the subject of man's imagination and discourse."

I have a problem with this part. I can imagine things that do not necessarily physically exist, e.g., pegasus/unicorn half breeds that play Spanish guitar. Are these things part of the universe? Does the universe you describe include some actually existing realm of ideas?

[...]

There are other cue words of atheists, like flying spaghetti monster, celestial teapot.

Cue words are instructions to atheists to stop thinking and adopt the writing mode of mockery, parody, and evasions.


See?

If they continue to think further on whether an invisible pink unicorn is possible or not -- though not always accessible to atheists because they stop thinking, they will realize that the invisible unicorn is invisible to them only because they stop seeing and thinking.

As for the flying spaghetti monster there is no intrinsic impossibility of a flying spaghetti monster, a good worker of dough can produce such a monster.

But these entities are not really valid concepts to them but cue words to them to stop thinking, and to adopt the writing mode of mockery, parody, and evasions.



That is why I have said time and again that atheists don't think on the issue of God or no God, they engage in mockery, parody, and evasions.




Susma
Too bad I am not an atheist. Did you bother reading my usergroup list? Or any of my posts, like maybe my lengthy discussion of the need for an infinite first cause in the Philosophy subforum? Or my extensive knowledge of the scriptures? or even my willingness to consider non-physical realities in the above post? Or the absence of mockery, parody and evasions in any of my posts?

Is it that you are in fact the one who can only think in terms of cue words? Or do you really not have anything meaningful to say in response to my contribution to this thread and are seeking ot evade it instead? If I am wrong and it is something else, let me know.

But I can see this conversation is not going to go anyplace useful. Too bad. It could have been something.

Okay, that is supposedly informative for obiter dicta.



Now, suppose you take up my request, tell me all the things that are everything and anything that is in the universe as the totality of existence or as everything that exists.

And also the opposite: all the things that do not belong to the universe.



Susma
Enumerating things is the wrong direction. Everything that is logically possible exists. Otherwise there must be an explanation of why certain possible things exist and others do not. Contradictory things are isolated in separate universes in an infinite multiverse.

Start reading here and continue down. If you have something to contribute please do so there. I do not work that hard without tokens. :lol:
Dogmatism and skepticism are both, in a sense, absolute philosophies; one is certain of knowing, the other of not knowing. What philosophy should dissipate is certainty, whether of knowledge or ignorance.
- Bertrand Russell

Susma
Under Probation
Posts: 205
Joined: Sun Sep 18, 2011 4:44 pm

Re: The universe as the totality of existence

Post #18

Post by Susma »

ThatGirlAgain wrote:
Susma wrote:
ThatGirlAgain wrote:
Susma wrote:Addressing readers:

See the cue word unicorn of atheists in the post below of TGA.
ThatGirlAgain wrote:
Susma wrote:Here is my concept of the universe:

I like to ask people who like myself love to think about concepts: their definitions and explanation:
  • What do you think of my concept of the universe?
"or at least can be the subject of man's imagination and discourse."

I have a problem with this part. I can imagine things that do not necessarily physically exist, e.g., pegasus/unicorn half breeds that play Spanish guitar. Are these things part of the universe? Does the universe you describe include some actually existing realm of ideas?

[...]

There are other cue words of atheists, like flying spaghetti monster, celestial teapot.

Cue words are instructions to atheists to stop thinking and adopt the writing mode of mockery, parody, and evasions.


See?

If they continue to think further on whether an invisible pink unicorn is possible or not -- though not always accessible to atheists because they stop thinking, they will realize that the invisible unicorn is invisible to them only because they stop seeing and thinking.

As for the flying spaghetti monster there is no intrinsic impossibility of a flying spaghetti monster, a good worker of dough can produce such a monster.

But these entities are not really valid concepts to them but cue words to them to stop thinking, and to adopt the writing mode of mockery, parody, and evasions.



That is why I have said time and again that atheists don't think on the issue of God or no God, they engage in mockery, parody, and evasions.




Susma
Too bad I am not an atheist. Did you bother reading my usergroup list? Or any of my posts, like maybe my lengthy discussion of the need for an infinite first cause in the Philosophy subforum? Or my extensive knowledge of the scriptures? or even my willingness to consider non-physical realities in the above post? Or the absence of mockery, parody and evasions in any of my posts?

Is it that you are in fact the one who can only think in terms of cue words? Or do you really not have anything meaningful to say in response to my contribution to this thread and are seeking ot evade it instead? If I am wrong and it is something else, let me know.

But I can see this conversation is not going to go anyplace useful. Too bad. It could have been something.

Okay, that is supposedly informative for obiter dicta.



Now, suppose you take up my request, tell me all the things that are everything and anything that is in the universe as the totality of existence or as everything that exists.

And also the opposite: all the things that do not belong to the universe.



Susma
Enumerating things is the wrong direction. Everything that is logically possible exists. Otherwise there must be an explanation of why certain possible things exist and others do not. Contradictory things are isolated in separate universes in an infinite multiverse.

Start reading here and continue down. If you have something to contribute please do so there. I do not work that hard without tokens. :lol:


You say:
  • Everything that is logically possible exists.

Do you want to take back your words?


That is a most concise, precise, and clear and simple and plain and everyday common words statement, everyone even guys in the streets understand that.

And you are definitely categorical.


Now, again are you going to take back your words or qualify them or put them on reservations?



Otherwise, I will hold you to them, and continue with this thread on my concept of the universe as:
  • Universe = the totality of existence where man lives in and is part and parcel of, as also everything else that exists or at least can be the subject of man's imagination and discourse.



Susma

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 18591
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 146 times
Been thanked: 214 times
Contact:

Post #19

Post by otseng »

Susma wrote:
In the meantime I am still waiting for Mc to return, unless he can't find his way out of his depths.
Moderator Comment

There is no obligation for anyone to participate in a thread unless there has been a mutually agreed upon decision to engage each other. And taunting someone is not going to get you anywhere either.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster.

Susma
Under Probation
Posts: 205
Joined: Sun Sep 18, 2011 4:44 pm

Post #20

Post by Susma »

otseng wrote:
Susma wrote:
In the meantime I am still waiting for Mc to return, unless he can't find his way out of his depths.
Moderator Comment

There is no obligation for anyone to participate in a thread unless there has been a mutually agreed upon decision to engage each other. And taunting someone is not going to get you anywhere either.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster.


Okay.



Susma

Locked