What is "Nothing"

[Israel]

Ya can't think outside da box if there ain't any (thing) outside da box. Tryin' jes' won't do it.

 

[Israel]

For me, I felt I had to remove emotion ie, hope, wants, desires, fears etc etc from the equation as they will basically give you "false positives". Facts/science etc. was the best way I knew to do that.

Never had a "holy crap" moment. I was brought up to believe so never needed one.

I view it as a psychological event.

I simply go by statistics, (booooring as they are!) myself. 100% of everyone presently on the planet (and those that have gone before) believe me to be "someone else" although I know I am me. I can either argue or concede to their view, and so now go about (mostly) to grant them room for their belief, I am someone else.

 

[ambush80]

Ya can't think outside da box if there ain't any (thing) outside da box. Tryin' jes' won't do it.

Lots of things we know about now were just guesses because we didn't have the means to test them. We have to look at the methods of inquiry and judge them on their accuracy. Math and the sciences have thown themselves to be some of the most useful and reliable ways of understanding the universe.

 

[ambush80]

Go on line and look at the complete Summa, that is Gracyk's abbreviated version.



We all must do that. Hence my earlier statement, without a self sustaining eternal (whatever we choose to call it) everything would breakdown before it could get started. The characters of the book cannot write the book, there must be something external the author.

This is a guess. I'll grant that it may have some philosophical grounding but it's still a guess. I'm not sure I like the analogy of the universe or us as characters in a book. If you want to use that, one may just as easily say that "the story is eternal. It's nature is to change. That's what it does. It gets written over and over again in many forms".

We can name it anything we want. God = X

I don't understand "It reeks of "Man"". Is it because he has not shown intention?
He has not go into that here, he is simply showing 5 reasons for why he believes "God" exists. Other parts of the Summa cover that topic. I think there is over 3000 topics. Lot of reading.

"He was lonely". "He wanted someone to love Him". "He gets angry and jealous". Those descriptions reek of Man.

 

[Madman]

This is a guess. I'll grant that it may have some philosophical grounding but it's still a guess. I'm not sure I like the analogy of the universe or us as characters in a book. If you want to use that, one may just as easily say that "the story is eternal. It's nature is to change. That's what it does. It gets written over and over again in many forms".

The book had to be written to start with and it couldn't write itself. Heat death is a problem for the eternal matter theory. Calcs show the universe expanding at a rate to rapidl to "recollapse" into a reocurring big bang.

 

[ambush80]

The book had to be written to start with and it couldn't write itself. Heat death is a problem for the eternal matter theory. Calcs show the universe expanding at a rate to rapidl to "recollapse" into a reocurring big bang.

Yeah. I've read that. Who knows what happens?

Do you see that you're relying on what I'll call "Earth logic" as a proof about something that you declare doesn't follow "Earth logic"?

 

[Israel]

Lots of things we know about now were just guesses because we didn't have the means to test them. We have to look at the methods of inquiry and judge them on their accuracy. Math and the sciences have thown themselves to be some of the most useful and reliable ways of understanding the universe.

Mud cannot exceed mud.

 

[bullethead]

http://warp.povusers.org/grrr/kalam.html

 

[ambush80]

Mud cannot exceed mud.

Except when the mud receives Divine Inspiration? But it's only true for your mud guys, not their mud guys. Their mud guys were deceived by Satan, right?

 

[Israel]

Except when the mud receives Divine Inspiration? But it's only true for your mud guys, not their mud guys. Their mud guys were deceived by Satan, right?

Mud cannot exceed mud. What you add is on you...

 

[ambush80]

Mud cannot exceed mud. What you add is on you...

I think I agree with you.

 

[Madman]

Yeah. I've read that. Who knows what happens?

Do you see that you're relying on what I'll call "Earth logic" as a proof about something that you declare doesn't follow "Earth logic"?

Do you see that what you are relying on is supernatural as proof that there is no supernatural?

 

[Madman]

Yeah. I've read that. Who knows what happens?

Do you see that you're relying on what I'll call "Earth logic" as a proof about something that you declare doesn't follow "Earth logic"?

PS you need to drop "lunch note" one day. I travel to eat, Invite everyone, bullet will need about a 2 day head start.

 

[Israel]

Do you see that you're relying on what I'll call "Earth logic" as a proof about something that you declare doesn't follow "Earth logic"?

Do you see that what you are relying on is supernatural as proof that there is no supernatural?

I prayed for an outcome and the outcome I prayed for appeared (to me).

As a child I assumed "my prayers have been heard and prevailed with God". "I" have prevailed with God.

This led to a place of pride that then found this question "how do you know"? "How do you know it was your praying that was answered?"
"How do you know it was not the prayers of another for you, or with you (in that prayer) that did this?" I could not now presume to know.

And further, if in that position of prayer (in which you were pressed to pray in the "not seeing"/not believing to have presently the thing for which you asked) "how can you assume you saw rightly?"

How can I think my doing of prayer in that position of (presumption) of seeing "not presently" this certain thing, while imagining/presuming I did see certain others, that all that I did believe I saw was just all of the presumption? Suppose prayer didn't appear answered (to me) "because"...but actually in spite of? I could not know.

I ask for that stone to become bread. Suddenly it appears to me as bread! I cannot believe my eyes. But, the eyes I presently now cannot believe, yet how did I believe them when the thing did not "then" (previously) appear as bread?

So Christopher Hitchens did not unwisely (to my mind) say "your miracles will not do it (for me)". (

)

I believe I can receive him in that. Not necessarily as one scorning, (though he did appear at times not "above" that) but more in admission that the limits of my (and his) senses are too well known to being "up for illusion" (mistaken) to fulfill a complete and inner conviction. If I know that to myself even my own eyes are not most trustworthy, how much less then the trusting in what another says they have seen....or know?

No, I believe him...and receive (received) him as one saying "there must (for me) be a something that exceeds even my own sensing in the material to be convinced" Even if I can grant the seeming miraculous to occurring. And, at least to that time of my hearing of him, I believe he had not received such a convincing.

Whether or not this understanding of him (Hitchens) was implied or only inferred (by me) is entirely of no consequence, for I do know a man that can relate to that, regardless.

That he was speaking to and of "christianity" particularly, is again, from his standpoint perhaps, moot. I have little doubt he would (and did) summon requisite ammo when confronting any manner of what he may have called religious thinking. But I do not much question (or doubt) whether his particular objection to christianity (and as I have heard him speak of Jesus' teachings of themselves as being somewhat corrupt and even as against good "moral principle"), I am persuaded that there is a more central resistance (Jesus' teachings notwithstanding) that the assertion, as generally held and promulgated on its face by christianity (if such a thing even exists apart from the men claiming it) that the God who is above all, is benevolent.

A man receives all he has, knows, and all he will ever have or know from the unknown. If he has anything he now believes he knows he has received it as once being in the unknowing of it. From wives, to cars, to guns, to math or physics or picking his own nose, whatever knowledge or practice he now considers his own (along with possessions or relationships), they were all once unknown to himself as his own, coming to him out from the unknown. How can this be any less regarding knowledge of consciousness, which no man is able to see prior to? Cars were there, a woman to be had as wife was there, a gun to be purchased or traded for or received as gift was there, waiting to be appropriated as it were to "ownership". Even the child that once seemed "not"...there...

But consciousness?

All I have comes to me out from the unknown. And there was a time of unknowing that I could not have ever imagined agreeing with a man, and specifically as a "christian" as once I imagined myself to be according to what I believed I knew of "being one" that I could agree with a man like Hitchens. But, I, like him had to enter by summons this place where only what can be known must, and always come out from the unknown.

This is not the "why" I believe in Jesus Christ, that summoning to a place from which I believed I knew, was and is as much out of my hands as my original appearing there (or here, depending). I could no more will myself to be born "of the flesh" than will to any other thing. Even such a thing as "my will" comes to me out from the unknown. I don't know what it is...until I meet it. Oh, make no mistake, like you all, I believe I know it. And, no less like you all, I really don't know it, until I meet it.

I aim my consciousness (no less than you all, each and every one of you, every time for all time) at the unknown to apprehend it, to bring something out of it to make it "my own". To gain knowledge. But to see there was an aiming in which I had no part, that initiated it all, and by initiation as primary in all yet demonstrates I still have no part in control...manifestly. Knowledge of consciousness came without will or desire. That knowledge...was not sought. Not aimed at...but in complete reverse of all seeming. And in reverse of all seeming of how knowledge is apprehended. Something of knowledge (prior) willed me to consciousness. Where I think I aim (as do you all) my consciousness at knowing, knowing is aimed at my consciousness, also, no less, nor more, than you all.

Had I been able to meet Hitchens "in the flesh", that Hitchens who once said "your miracles will not do it" how I would have told him how much he would find in agreement with Jesus Christ. But I did not.
I would have told him of the Jesus who said this in truth of man, (even a man)appealing to Abraham who desired to so warn his brothers that he was sure if he could return from the dead to warn them...they would believe.

Jesus said this is Abraham's response "they have Moses and the prophets let your brothers listen to them", but the man protested "'No, father Abraham,' he said. 'But if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.'

And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.

So much for "that" miracle...to its sufficiency.


You all will know, not because of your own consciousness that you believe is in your will to aim at gathering (no more nor less than myself) but in spite of it.

Knowing is aimed at you and me. What invades our consciousness is nothing of our own will. The miracle (if one cares to call it that) of faith is the most self apparent thing to a man when seen but also the most profound thing he could never come to "of himself". Which is why till it is seen it is all of "cannot be".

That there exists a right one, a right thing, a righteousness...exceeding his own.

"If they hear not Moses and the prophets"...to a convincing "right" exists...not in them, but above them...neither will they believe if one come back from the dead. But, when one is convinced they are "not the right One", it's amazing what can be seen.

 

[Madman]

I prayed for an outcome and the outcome I prayed for appeared (to me).

As a child I assumed "my prayers have been heard and prevailed with God". "I" have prevailed with God.

This led to a place of pride that then found this question "how do you know"? "How do you know it was your praying that was answered?"
"How do you know it was not the prayers of another for you, or with you (in that prayer) that did this?" I could not now presume to know.

And further, if in that position of prayer (in which you were pressed to pray in the "not seeing"/not believing to have presently the thing for which you asked) "how can you assume you saw rightly?"

How can I think my doing of prayer in that position of (presumption) of seeing "not presently" this certain thing, while imagining/presuming I did see certain others, that all that I did believe I saw was just all of the presumption? Suppose prayer didn't appear answered (to me) "because"...but actually in spite of? I could not know.

I ask for that stone to become bread. Suddenly it appears to me as bread! I cannot believe my eyes. But, the eyes I presently now cannot believe, yet how did I believe them when the thing did not "then" (previously) appear as bread?

So Christopher Hitchens did not unwisely (to my mind) say "your miracles will not do it (for me)". (

)

I believe I can receive him in that. Not necessarily as one scorning, (though he did appear at times not "above" that) but more in admission that the limits of my (and his) senses are too well known to being "up for illusion" (mistaken) to fulfill a complete and inner conviction. If I know that to myself even my own eyes are not most trustworthy, how much less then the trusting in what another says they have seen....or know?

No, I believe him...and receive (received) him as one saying "there must (for me) be a something that exceeds even my own sensing in the material to be convinced" Even if I can grant the seeming miraculous to occurring. And, at least to that time of my hearing of him, I believe he had not received such a convincing.

Whether or not this understanding of him (Hitchens) was implied or only inferred (by me) is entirely of no consequence, for I do know a man that can relate to that, regardless.

That he was speaking to and of "christianity" particularly, is again, from his standpoint perhaps, moot. I have little doubt he would (and did) summon requisite ammo when confronting any manner of what he may have called religious thinking. But I do not much question (or doubt) whether his particular objection to christianity (and as I have heard him speak of Jesus' teachings of themselves as being somewhat corrupt and even as against good "moral principle"), I am persuaded that there is a more central resistance (Jesus' teachings notwithstanding) that the assertion, as generally held and promulgated on its face by christianity (if such a thing even exists apart from the men claiming it) that the God who is above all, is benevolent.

A man receives all he has, knows, and all he will ever have or know from the unknown. If he has anything he now believes he knows he has received it as once being in the unknowing of it. From wives, to cars, to guns, to math or physics or picking his own nose, whatever knowledge or practice he now considers his own (along with possessions or relationships), they were all once unknown to himself as his own, coming to him out from the unknown. How can this be any less regarding knowledge of consciousness, which no man is able to see prior to? Cars were there, a woman to be had as wife was there, a gun to be purchased or traded for or received as gift was there, waiting to be appropriated as it were to "ownership". Even the child that once seemed "not"...there...

But consciousness?

All I have comes to me out from the unknown. And there was a time of unknowing that I could not have ever imagined agreeing with a man, and specifically as a "christian" as once I imagined myself to be according to what I believed I knew of "being one" that I could agree with a man like Hitchens. But, I, like him had to enter by summons this place where only what can be known must, and always come out from the unknown.

This is not the "why" I believe in Jesus Christ, that summoning to a place from which I believed I knew, was and is as much out of my hands as my original appearing there (or here, depending). I could no more will myself to be born "of the flesh" than will to any other thing. Even such a thing as "my will" comes to me out from the unknown. I don't know what it is...until I meet it. Oh, make no mistake, like you all, I believe I know it. And, no less like you all, I really don't know it, until I meet it.

I aim my consciousness (no less than you all, each and every one of you, every time for all time) at the unknown to apprehend it, to bring something out of it to make it "my own". To gain knowledge. But to see there was an aiming in which I had no part, that initiated it all, and by initiation as primary in all yet demonstrates I still have no part in control...manifestly. Knowledge of consciousness came without will or desire. That knowledge...was not sought. Not aimed at...but in complete reverse of all seeming. And in reverse of all seeming of how knowledge is apprehended. Something of knowledge (prior) willed me to consciousness. Where I think I aim (as do you all) my consciousness at knowing, knowing is aimed at my consciousness, also, no less, nor more, than you all.

Had I been able to meet Hitchens "in the flesh", that Hitchens who once said "your miracles will not do it" how I would have told him how much he would find in agreement with Jesus Christ. But I did not.
I would have told him of the Jesus who said this in truth of man, (even a man)appealing to Abraham who desired to so warn his brothers that he was sure if he could return from the dead to warn them...they would believe.

Jesus said this is Abraham's response "they have Moses and the prophets let your brothers listen to them", but the man protested "'No, father Abraham,' he said. 'But if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.'

And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.

So much for "that" miracle...to its sufficiency.


You all will know, not because of your own consciousness that you believe is in your will to aim at gathering (no more nor less than myself) but in spite of it.

Knowing is aimed at you and me. What invades our consciousness is nothing of our own will. The miracle (if one cares to call it that) of faith is the most self apparent thing to a man when seen but also the most profound thing he could never come to "of himself". Which is why till it is seen it is all of "cannot be".

That there exists a right one, a right thing, a righteousness...exceeding his own.

"If they hear not Moses and the prophets"...to a convincing "right" exists...not in them, but above them...neither will they believe if one come back from the dead. But, when one is convinced they are "not the right One", it's amazing what can be seen.

Sorry I havent totally read and digested the above. As for prayer, I do not know if any of mine have been answered, and in retrospect I most assuredly hope that some have not, but, whether by an answer to prayer or good fortune, I have seen both my children grow into fine young men.

 

[ambush80]

Do you see that what you are relying on is supernatural as proof that there is no supernatural?

How so? I don't claim that I know anything about infinity or infinite matter/proto-matter. I'm still like a caveman looking at the stars and wondering what they're made of. But I've been convinced by evidence that the best way to find out about cosmological phenomena is with science and math. Religious and faith traditions have always failed to describe natural law accurately, indeed they all have an element that defies natural law. I don't see a use for it in my life or anyone else's.

 

[ambush80]

Sorry I havent totally read and digested the above. As for prayer, I do not know if any of mine have been answered, and in retrospect I most assuredly hope that some have not, but, whether by an answer to prayer or good fortune, I have seen both my children grow into fine young men.

From talking with you I get the feeling that they would have turned out just fine without prayer. My guess is that you took efforts to raise them well.

 

[Madman]

From talking with you I get the feeling that they would have turned out just fine without prayer. My guess is that you took efforts to raise them well.

Thanks. Their mother is 5'-2" of awesomeness.

 

[Madman]

How so? I don't claim that I know anything about infinity or infinite matter/proto-matter. I'm still like a caveman looking at the stars and wondering what they're made of. But I've been convinced by evidence that the best way to find out about cosmological phenomena is with science and math. Religious and faith traditions have always failed to describe natural law accurately, indeed they all have an element that defies natural law. I don't see a use for it in my life or anyone else's.

Just thinking about our earlier discussion on the belief of something eternal. That in itself defies natural law.

 

[ambush80]

Just thinking about our earlier discussion on the belief of something eternal. That in itself defies natural law.

We can't possibly know if anything is eternal, I can't imagine how we ever could. We can speculate about it and supposing it brings up some interesting questions, but since we don't really know anything about it, there's no reason to think that what we suppose about it is true.