Creative Thinking

[marleylinguistics]

i chose to put this is philosophy because it dosent actually pertain to any religion just an idea of god...


the other day i heard something. it was a reasoning for the "existance" of god. it said:::

you can think of god therefore he exists.

at first glance its easily arguable. but after i thought about it for a while i thought not. it said anything you can think of must exist. i know that sounds farfetched, but in a more ominous approach its kind of true. you can think of pink elephants,and even though pink elephants dont exist, pink exists and so do elephants. just like you cant make up a sound that doesnt exist.., you can make a machine that creates sounds never heard before but then you have created a sound and it now exists

just something that made me think, and id like to know all your takes on it

[Trevor Salyzyn]

you can think of god therefore he exists.
I think this something Descartes said before he wrote his Meditations. It is only true in one sense: as far as God is the same thing as "Reality", then it is necessarily true (and then the argument is almost identical to "I think therefore I am", the only difference being that the former is slightly more general and doesn't assume the existence of the cogito.)

However, considering how it is meant to be interpreted, and also the way you are interpreting it, is by using the Christian conception of God (essentially, an all-knowing all-powerful alien entity). In that case, it is quite simply false. It proves nothing.

The considerations you made only go to show that everything we imagine exists as imagined in our imagination. It is not necessary for something we imagine to exist in any other form. Indeed, some things we can imagine cannot exist because of internal contradictions (for instance, an invisible pink unicorn or a square circle).

[Michael]

God is the inspiration. We are the inspired. The manifest is the expression. An idea can be more powerful than a gun, it could be an idea for a bomb, a bacterium or the cure for cancer. The pink elephant could be god or satan or just a pink elephant. It's a very strange circle. Kinda like a mobious strip. More a mobious dance. And that pink elephant, is it good, bad , a psychotic, a layabout? You have to flesh your creations out a bit. For some, pink elephants are not so very abstract. So yeagh, you think of god and he exists for you, but does that god exist for anyone else? Do you think god or does god think you? Or do you both think each other? Does anyone have the answer? No. And that's a contradiction, because that presumes to answer. There are no answers and we just think we need them.

[...]

..praise the Lord for Roisin and Moloko:

Where is the what if the what is in why ?

What is a god of phoney creation,
Where am I going with no destination,
What if the fish came from the sea,
What if my lover made me feel free,
What if my intake caused revelation,
What if the point was reincarnation,
What if my shoes do'nt match my jacket,
If it's not working why don't you smack it,
What if your mamma said you were fat,
If you are lost find where your at,
What is a number without any time,
You can't get higher with nothing to climb,
Why have a body if you ain't got a mind,
What is a searcher with nothing to find,
Why is the traffic refusing to stop,
Why climb the ladder if you can't reach the top,
Where is the what if the what is in why,
Where is the what if the what is in why
Where is the what if the what is in why,
What do you dream of when you sleep at night,
Wee how the blind man fills up with light,
What is a bird with nowhere to fly,
How can you leave and not say goodbye,
What is a hunter with nothing to find,
What is the goodness without the unkind,
When did the outfit fall out of fashion,
When did the lover run out of passion,
My reincarnation time a phoney creation rhyme,
With no destination mine my information's fine,
Why did the voice say don't step on the floor,
Why did the sign say so float through the door,
What is a god of phoney creation,
Where am I going with no destination,
What if the fish came from the sea,
What if my lover made me feel free,
What if my intake caused revelation,
What if the point was reincarnation,
What if my shoes don't match my jacket,
If it's not working why don't you smack it,
What if your mamma said you were fat,
If you are lost find where you're at,
Where is the what if the what is in why,
Where is the what if the what is in why,
Where is the what if the what is in why,
How did the loser get to be rich,
What is a saleman with nothing to pitch,
When did the fool het to be king,
Why did you leave when they asked you to sing,
Why loose belief if you got a dream,
What is a train that ran out of steam,
what is a spy with no-one to spy,
On who do you sleep with nothing to lie on,
What if the fruit don't fall from the tree,
What if these questions just won't let you be,
Why waste your time looking for proof,
What if the answer is never the truth.

psyche here, my apologies]

[CSwriter1]

"What is a searcher with nothing to find,"

I think God is very important to us, and that it is a mistake to think anyone knows God.

In the west we can easily see all the gods as myth, except the God of Abraham, but the stories that go with the God of Abraham translated Surmian stories of many Gods. It was a sad day when mass consciouessness decided humans could know the one true God, because this one true God, had special people who were privileged with a special relationship and therefore knowledge of this God that others didn't have.

However, when we think we can know absolute truth and are the ultimate, with no God above us, things are far worse, because than we stop searching for a greater reality, and start climbing down the ladder.

[bito]

God cannot be thought about or defined because God is omniescience and how can omniescience be displayed through thought, which arrives via its linear nature, that is, one thought at a time? We correctly intuit infinity or omniescience, but we can never say what 'This' is.

We are living the divine comedy.

:lol:

[Trevor Salyzyn]

bito,
God cannot be thought about or defined because God is omniescience
You obviously don't believe that because not only are you thinking about God right there, you are defining him. Your argument defeats itself by internal contradictions.

[Michael]

You obviously don't believe that because not only are you thinking about God right there, you are defining him. Your argument defeats itself by internal contradictions.

Just as is yours. Sophist.

:lol:

[marleylinguistics]

i like what cswriter saiand i agree, if we narrow our search to one idea, you are essentially climbing back down the ladder. and I in no way meant to limit my idea of god to the christian perspective as trevor said, i only meant god as a reality, withput stipulations.

and as far invisible pink unicorns go. we have all the materials to create an unicorn. just because a pink unicorn dosent exist dosent mean that we couldnt, through some sick expirament, create one. :uhoh:

[Trevor Salyzyn]

and as far invisible pink unicorns go. we have all the materials to create an unicorn. just because a pink unicorn dosent exist dosent mean that we couldnt, through some sick expirament, create one.
"Invisible pink unicorns can't exist" is a staple of philosophy, like "All men are mortal, Socrates is a man, therefore Socrates is mortal", or "All bachelors are unmarried men."

It refers to internal contradictions (where the other two I mentioned refer to the syllogism and the definition, respectively). Pink is in the visible spectrum; "invisibility" is, by definition, not. Two contradictory adjectives cannot be in the same definition.

[Michael]

Why is it, Trevor, that your standards of philosophical discourse and command of logic are considerably higher for others than they are for yourself? As I said, and to which you didn't respond, your own argument in your response to bito had the same internal contradictions. Yet off you go and attack Marley on the same grounds. I repeat. Sophist ( and not a very good one).

[Trevor Salyzyn]

AA,
Why is it, Trevor, that your standards of philosophical discourse and command of logic are considerably higher for others than they are for yourself? As I said, and to which you didn't respond, your own argument in your response to bito had the same internal contradictions. Yet off you go and attack Marley on the same grounds. I repeat. Sophist ( and not a very good one).
Pardon? I saw no internal contradictions in my response to bito, let alone the same one he used. I thought you were name-calling, because your charge didn't make any sense.

His mistake was along the same lines as "I don't believe that anyone can doubt anything." He was performing an act that he was simultaneously saying was impossible.

Can you describe how I contradicted myself? I made no statements that I simultaneously said were impossible to make. Nor did I claim that one thing has two mutually exclusive properties. I pointed out a contradiction in someone's belief system [he said he believed one thing while doing the opposite], which is a perfectly logical course of action.

Also, I did not attack Marley on the same grounds. I was explaining what I meant when I said something earlier about one possible way to disprove an argument. Not everyone immediately understands the problem with invisible pink unicorns. I did not at any time claim that Marley had a single argument that was internally inconsistent.

(I'm happy that I make a poor Sophist, because I'm not one at all.)

Why is it, Trevor, that your standards of philosophical discourse and command of logic are considerably higher for others than they are for yourself?
It's easier to see another person's mistakes than your own. I'm aware of most mistakes a person can make, but that does not make me immune to occasionally slipping up. But when I do slip up, I would appreciate if it's after I commited a real mistake, and not just someone's over-active imagination dying to slap me across the face.

[Michael]

Trev, you define God by calling him a 'he'. Or perhaps you do believe that your God is a he with a capital 'g'? In which case you wouldn't be contradicting yourself and I will apologise with suitable grace. Also, if my God had a capital 'g' I would give 'him' a capital 'h''.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

AA,
Trev, you define God by calling him a 'he'. Or perhaps you do believe that your God is a he with a capital 'g'? In which case you wouldn't be contradicting yourself and I will apologise with suitable grace. Also, if my God had a capital 'g' I would give 'him' a capital 'h''.

I missed a capital letter. Or, rather, missed a lower-case one. I thought it was common form to refer to god as he, rather than it.

[Michael]

'he' predicates sexuality and has serious anthropomorphic implications. It certainly is not a 'set' that any serious philosopher, or even such an ant as myself, would consider as having any given value.
The issue then, is not about grammatical nouances. All of which you should have full awarness, particularly in the light of your self-proclaimed 'enlightenment'. Your missive made profound assumptions about the nature of god or God. It is, by any standards, except utterly unsubstantiated belief (most probaly in one's own ego)invalid.

And when I call you a sophist, I mean an intellectual bully who picks on others you suspect may be vulnerable enough, or peacable enough to make you look good. I'm not.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

AA,
'he' predicates sexuality and has serious anthropomorphic implications. It certainly is not a 'set' that any serious philosopher, or even such an ant as myself, would consider as having any given value.
'He' is used throughout literature to refer to God. It does not necessarily have anthropomorphic implications. Mostly, it's used because it's more comfortable than always referring to God as It.

The issue then, is not about grammatical nouances. All of which you should have full awarness, particularly in the light of your self-proclaimed 'enlightenment'. Your missive made profound assumptions about the nature of god or God. It is, by any standards, except utterly unsubstantiated belief (most probaly in one's own ego)invalid.
You said it was internally contradictory. That is entirely different than what you are saying here.

If you need me to define what I mean when I use God in my sense of the term, I can easily do so. I assure you there is nothing anthropomorphic about it; it is synonymous with Reality (which I do have a definition for). You are making false assumptions that my beliefs are unsubstantiated, and that my beliefs are founded in my ego. You don't even know what my beliefs on this issue are, or my rationale for them.

And when I call you a sophist, I mean an intellectual bully who picks on others you suspect may be vulnerable enough, or peacable enough to make you look good. I'm not.
That's not what a sophist is. A sophist is a person whose arguments are intentionally vague and are not well-grounded, because he has no interest in truth -- but only in being convincing.

When you called me a sophist, I interpreted you to mean that I have no interest in truth. That is preposterous.

As to your thinking I'm a big mean bully who needs to look good, I don't really care how you perceive me. I've said it before: if everyone hates me at the end of the day, that's fine, so long as they learned what I was trying to teach them.

---

So, if you want to know my beliefs on God, by all means ask. Your failure to ask earlier has resulted in you making a bunch of incorrect assumptions. By all means call me a bully who takes cheap shots, but don't lie and say that I'm not correct when I am.

[Michael]

i'm outa here.

But hey, don't let me stop you hoisting that petard. :D