ThatGirlAgain wrote:Susma wrote: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 to 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.
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
If you wish to hold me to those words (whatever that means
), go to the thread I referenced in the Philosophy subforum, read the full explication of what I mean and answer there.
I am no longer on this thread.
Please do not make reference elsewhere for people to look them up, that is just an evasion to bring the issue outside the thread.
The thing to do is to produce the short but relevant texts you want people to read there, and give the link.
You say you are no longer on this thread, that is indicative of fickleness, when the discussion gets serious then you execute an exit routine.
That is the trouble with a lot of posters: they want to enter an issue but when they find themselves out of their depths they execute an exit routine, which is a waste of people's time who take the initiative to start a thread.
On the other hand, do you readers notice the huge number of threads abandoned by their authors?
This forum can become notorious for a cemetery of abandoned threads, because people don't want to think but to just repeat like a recorder/player other people’s thoughts.
As soon as the discussion takes a serious turn requiring people to do original personal thinking, that is when they flee with a whiff of air that they are bored with the issue, but in fact to disguise their confusion, in reality they have boarded up their brains.
I want people to continue talking with me with original thoughts instead of conducting themselves exactly like recorder/players, delivering nothing they really know in the way of comprehension and intelligent assimilation, but dropping words and names and links to show readers that they have things inside their skulls, but it is all recorder/player behavior.
Back to TGA, I am asking her whether she will take back her words:
- Everything that is logically possible exists.
And her knee-jerk reaction is that "I am no longer on this thread."
Those are cue words to readers that she is not going to do real thinking but to shun that serious work in a forum, and run away hoping she still have people admiring her for her pseudo-thinking, but there is no thinking but pure regurgitation of words hoping to display learning and pithy view but it is all vacuity and vanity.
Time and again posters here are into that routinized behavior in a paltry maze with the utmost limited number of routes and no exit, and they feel so learned with their theolog-ese, philosoph-ese, and other 'eses'.
That is the tragic way they employ their mind, as miserable recorder/player in a routinized paltry maze of a brain with no exit to fresh horizons of thought and insight.
If people don't feel self-congratulating with this post from yours truly, then it is about time they do some serious genuine self-initiated thinking and writing instead of making of themselves recorder/players.
No, I am not out of this forum, because I just love to observe the non-thinking of posters here; not all of them though, but the ones who don’t think but insist instead on their acquired credentials of dubious quality, they are the ones most enjoyable for me to meditate on as paradyms of human foibles.
Now, dear readers, let us sit back and witness what will happen.
Susma