Israel
BANNED
Is God...or no? Each man gives answer. And I must give answer for any of my presumptions if found in question, and that one specifically. I mean...who am I to ask? Who am I to query any man? Have I been made inquisitor...or is it sufficient I am limited to only those, like myself...who have found that the ultimate...and only real question? What has no care about it is well beyond my ability to cause to have care. And, if I am not content to be found speaking only to myself, I surely have no right of speaking to anyone else.
And rather than enter all the considerations of those things a man might observe to which he owes his own authorization for being and the doing of anything; (read: motive) whether religion, experience, tradition, intellect and/or education, emotion, willfulness, the subconscious and the whole scale of so called nobler and baser instincts that may constitute all or any man, let us forgo their assignment as his god.
It is easily argued that what exerts prime influence upon any man is to that man "his god", let us rather cut to the chase immediately and speak of being and beings...if the man exists in all comprised of the aforementioned (even as his own god)...is there another being (or form of it) whom (or that) is God? We are here, if granted, limiting ourselves to a person not ourselves.
And that "other" being (even if in such form of being comprehensible in the minutest sense as there) is totally removed and apart from man's experience of temporal and finite being, let us, if we can reduce to all yes or no for our purposes, consider God to be the supreme or supreme-est of being and Beings. One over all in omniscience, consciousness, presence, motive and/or purpose, power, consistency in both essence of action, and authority. The reason of, and for, everything...observed...and even not observed. The prime mover.
I know this is a big jump in such assignations for one could argue for an "idiot god", an un-self aware/unconscious god, some form of mindless energy (or even so called spirit) that moves in effect and affects all apart from any self known purpose. But, that might be the bigger leap to argue such. No?
But that argument could be made by any who might think "If one is going to assign total consciousness, one might just as well (and as easily) assign total un-self awareness/consciousness" for both are as far removed from man in his experience as any other. But if we agree consciousness is (i.e. exists) you can see the conundrum presented in such argument. If the prime mover, origin of being, supreme (of) being is without it, it is all and only a construct within the creation. Therefore no appeal to it, or even for it if only self constructed in the creation can hold any authority for appealing to.
This absurdity is made clearer if we consider this matter in term of reason...and reasoning. And one would surely include logic if we try to hold this as "the standard" (reason and logic) of determination. It is entirely like a governing principle of any data expression or data expressing apparatus which, if left to itself, must descend to chaos in entropy (and perhaps already has) if apart from any original calibration or even continued calibration/intervention to ensure data is interpreted according to some standard of accuracy. Which, for our purposes, we might call truth.
The gas pump doesn't know why it measures and "puts out" the recorded data of a gallon as it does...but you surely want to know the intention of both the fabricator and the calibrator is not caprice. (And more to the point...what would it take for you to trust a "self made" pump owing nothing to design except itself...and no knowledge of "gallon" except that which it has itself decided upon?) And do you really need explained how habits of use producing change require periodic renewal to an agreed standard? Any agreement to a concept of entropy, if applied to consciousness, would only mean it is subject to a degrading, in the creation if limited to it, not further, nor more refined, development.
The more clever of you already see the issue if we enter matters of stasis and change. What is "always the same" ( in stasis) even if inconceivable in experience (or experientially excluded) is nevertheless conceptually apprehended. So would be truth if established upon the same logic. Just as stasis can exist "in the mind" as concept but not found in experience, (except relatively) when we speak of the principle of truth as an unchanging matter, we are left with the same. Yet...who is not dogged (yes! in experience, even!) with the matter of "What is true"? With, and by, the concomitant assumption truth does exist.
But for our purposes (if we make any leap that there can even be...any purpose) I will not seek to establish any contention that because man is most often concerned with what is true this impetus must point to both its existence (truth) and the placement of such desire for knowing it as any argument that it has been placed (such desire to know)...by "a" something or someone. Wanting, even desperately, to see a pink unicorn could result in all futility. Except as one might only exist in mind...and it is not so silly a question as it may sound: "Isn't that enough?" For terms we use casually...mostly convinced of their verity until deconstructed to making no true display...even such as chaos or randomness. Order is required, and must be...for their determination.
It seems not a bad argument at all, but I am not seeking to maneuver to such end of agreement. For it is, at this point, just as easy and legitimate to say man just made it all up...the notion of truth, and the truth of things...and the desire to know it. Yet, no matter the extent we may agree (or disagree) he appears dogged by its acquisition. Seeking knowledge that is (need it be said?)...true. If self evidence is provably corrupted by that contention to any other man, of myself (if no other) I believe it...true. Self evidence often takes a bad rap, for it seems unprove-able to any consistency among men. Yet, isn't self evidence the starting point in man, any man...for knowing? If I "be not"...of what matter can anything be? No, I am (are you?) convinced of myself..."I am".
Now one might be as contrarian as he cares to be even saying "There is no such thing as truth" or, "Truth, if it exists, is not knowable", sounding vaguely atheistic in the first case and agnostic in the second. But one quickly sees the issue in such, for only an essential liar would seek to make a true statement that denies either the existence or know-ability of truth. Such self evidence should not be hard to understand. It is very much like a man saying "Everything I say is a lie." Of what use would it be to ask that man "Is that true?" Or even respond to him? Isn't it self evident the man that is saying "there is no ultimate truth" seeking to utter an ultimate truism?
But please, read no more into this than what I say. I am (specifically) not saying "Do not respond" but only asking the question if one can find any use in it. (Querying the man who declares himself liar) So the questions stands as it is "Of what use...?"...for either one believes there is a use and may by thinking on it come to it for response...or might say, "There is no use to it..." (Or even ignore all together) But, here again, the issue is not of any maneuvering to an agreement with me, per se.
The issue, if there is one (and you are already in the process of some agreement or disagreement) is to the matter of consistency and expression...does the man agree in himself? Does the man agree with himself? And if so, to what?
The matter of expression is already a completely settled thing, and that settled by existence. Is that true? Everything makes statement of its being by its being. Yet, might one ask "What is there (is there?) of man that seems unsatisfied by self evidence?" Not only so, but appears compelled to "add to" self evidence in such a way as to leave absurdity brazenly pointing at himself in his expression? And, perhaps rightly, you consider whether this writer is most absurd of all things. Trying to "prove" self evidence could be a foundation found for all lying.
"I think, therefore I am" on its surface may sound profound. (Talk about a mix...surface and profound!) And even though I am unable to ask of him whom that is first attributed as expressed, I nevertheless am provoked to the question of it. "What about the rock?" Do you see? Am I being contrarian? Absurd? If you cannot prove "thinking in a rock"...does it have less being than the thing claiming its existence is proved by it (thinking)?
The story of the philosophy professor thinking himself clever set a sign over the chair as class assignment "Prove the chair exists". Yet he was himself taken to school, and could not deny the student an A+ who responded "What chair?". Do you see? Do you also see the truth of it...regardless of whether you care to argue whether this "once" took place on a campus or is just "made up"? Do you begin to see that in all matters of truth...facts themselves (as we know them, call them...even call them the "true things") can be trumped? And perhaps not only "can be"...but in truth in fact...must be? Might a man consider what seems all obverse to his thinking (and if so, how?) that truth is in all what supports fact, and facts; and not the other way around?
I cannot, in fact, prove whether the rock thinks at all, but is that of any matter? Does it "be less", exist less, than myself...especially if I seek to establish my own being as "I am" because I believe I "think"? You can deny as fact that I think at all, (and I have little doubt some of you do) again, is that of any matter to my being? Is it made less...by what you think? Bump into me (as you are truly doing here) or the rock with your being, and find answer in yourself. The only question that remains, if there is one, is matter of expression. And whether the consistency of one's self (if one cares to give out response) is consistent in what is given out. For what man gives out in word may be real as fact in what he gives out of thoughts and intents...but, are they true?
Seeking to navigate these matters with reason, or any process of rational consciousness requires the most basic assumption often overlooked...which if ignored becomes presumption; that there is a thing as reason and that it is both real and in some fashion useful. Our own logic, though to us so inescapably self evident must bear examination. Not merely its end product of confirmation or rejection of interpretation of data to our own minds, but its very foundation of utility to that end.
Any presumption here, or simple assumption/assertion that reason must exist merely because it presents itself to my mind as self evident and existent...must bear examination. Especially if our assumption at all includes it as being a reliable process for the establishment of truth in ourselves. It's then seen as too far a leap till established, that it exists in every man; or, even if internally established and understood by any man...that it is therefore present in any other man.
The simplicity is absurd. If there is no reason to, nor for the universe, (here inclusive of all material matters including time and space man experiences in being) but the contention is that reason exists as a real matter of consideration (and for all considerations...of utmost utility as logic) whence its origin? In other words, if there be no logic to, nor for the universe, how does it exist as real (even if only agreed as found in man) in the universe? Agreeing man exists...in the universe.
And as much as this is a prior assumption; that is until it is settled to any man he exists, he obviously cannot go any further in considerations. Yes, this is required so we not proceed in presumption...as absurd sounding as it is perhaps, do I exist? And if to reason and if by reason I do establish that I do, my knowing of being is established upon reason. And this is where the question of its origin, source, nature, essence become paramount.
For were I to deny reason for the universe (as all things extant) but maintain there is reason in the universe, even if only that it is in me, how does a thing in a system acquire what is not given to the system...for the system? Or better...if denied as being given to, in, or for the system over all, can it be...in it "apart"? If by our reason we seek to, (in simplest terms make a step outside the system for examination of it, its nature and foundations of what is a given about it) reason must collapse the moment it is denied as being "there". If reason...at best, can only lead ultimately to "there is no reason", or "I find no reason nor see any"...it is self denying. Self abnegating. For, if reason is a function of consciousness (establish to yourself your axioms) but deny consciousness as reason for the universe (all matters extant)...ultimately consciousness is not only deniable...but denied. For how can one use a device/process (if we can reduce to that description) to establish its ultimate absence?
And rather than enter all the considerations of those things a man might observe to which he owes his own authorization for being and the doing of anything; (read: motive) whether religion, experience, tradition, intellect and/or education, emotion, willfulness, the subconscious and the whole scale of so called nobler and baser instincts that may constitute all or any man, let us forgo their assignment as his god.
It is easily argued that what exerts prime influence upon any man is to that man "his god", let us rather cut to the chase immediately and speak of being and beings...if the man exists in all comprised of the aforementioned (even as his own god)...is there another being (or form of it) whom (or that) is God? We are here, if granted, limiting ourselves to a person not ourselves.
And that "other" being (even if in such form of being comprehensible in the minutest sense as there) is totally removed and apart from man's experience of temporal and finite being, let us, if we can reduce to all yes or no for our purposes, consider God to be the supreme or supreme-est of being and Beings. One over all in omniscience, consciousness, presence, motive and/or purpose, power, consistency in both essence of action, and authority. The reason of, and for, everything...observed...and even not observed. The prime mover.
I know this is a big jump in such assignations for one could argue for an "idiot god", an un-self aware/unconscious god, some form of mindless energy (or even so called spirit) that moves in effect and affects all apart from any self known purpose. But, that might be the bigger leap to argue such. No?
But that argument could be made by any who might think "If one is going to assign total consciousness, one might just as well (and as easily) assign total un-self awareness/consciousness" for both are as far removed from man in his experience as any other. But if we agree consciousness is (i.e. exists) you can see the conundrum presented in such argument. If the prime mover, origin of being, supreme (of) being is without it, it is all and only a construct within the creation. Therefore no appeal to it, or even for it if only self constructed in the creation can hold any authority for appealing to.
This absurdity is made clearer if we consider this matter in term of reason...and reasoning. And one would surely include logic if we try to hold this as "the standard" (reason and logic) of determination. It is entirely like a governing principle of any data expression or data expressing apparatus which, if left to itself, must descend to chaos in entropy (and perhaps already has) if apart from any original calibration or even continued calibration/intervention to ensure data is interpreted according to some standard of accuracy. Which, for our purposes, we might call truth.
The gas pump doesn't know why it measures and "puts out" the recorded data of a gallon as it does...but you surely want to know the intention of both the fabricator and the calibrator is not caprice. (And more to the point...what would it take for you to trust a "self made" pump owing nothing to design except itself...and no knowledge of "gallon" except that which it has itself decided upon?) And do you really need explained how habits of use producing change require periodic renewal to an agreed standard? Any agreement to a concept of entropy, if applied to consciousness, would only mean it is subject to a degrading, in the creation if limited to it, not further, nor more refined, development.
The more clever of you already see the issue if we enter matters of stasis and change. What is "always the same" ( in stasis) even if inconceivable in experience (or experientially excluded) is nevertheless conceptually apprehended. So would be truth if established upon the same logic. Just as stasis can exist "in the mind" as concept but not found in experience, (except relatively) when we speak of the principle of truth as an unchanging matter, we are left with the same. Yet...who is not dogged (yes! in experience, even!) with the matter of "What is true"? With, and by, the concomitant assumption truth does exist.
But for our purposes (if we make any leap that there can even be...any purpose) I will not seek to establish any contention that because man is most often concerned with what is true this impetus must point to both its existence (truth) and the placement of such desire for knowing it as any argument that it has been placed (such desire to know)...by "a" something or someone. Wanting, even desperately, to see a pink unicorn could result in all futility. Except as one might only exist in mind...and it is not so silly a question as it may sound: "Isn't that enough?" For terms we use casually...mostly convinced of their verity until deconstructed to making no true display...even such as chaos or randomness. Order is required, and must be...for their determination.
It seems not a bad argument at all, but I am not seeking to maneuver to such end of agreement. For it is, at this point, just as easy and legitimate to say man just made it all up...the notion of truth, and the truth of things...and the desire to know it. Yet, no matter the extent we may agree (or disagree) he appears dogged by its acquisition. Seeking knowledge that is (need it be said?)...true. If self evidence is provably corrupted by that contention to any other man, of myself (if no other) I believe it...true. Self evidence often takes a bad rap, for it seems unprove-able to any consistency among men. Yet, isn't self evidence the starting point in man, any man...for knowing? If I "be not"...of what matter can anything be? No, I am (are you?) convinced of myself..."I am".
Now one might be as contrarian as he cares to be even saying "There is no such thing as truth" or, "Truth, if it exists, is not knowable", sounding vaguely atheistic in the first case and agnostic in the second. But one quickly sees the issue in such, for only an essential liar would seek to make a true statement that denies either the existence or know-ability of truth. Such self evidence should not be hard to understand. It is very much like a man saying "Everything I say is a lie." Of what use would it be to ask that man "Is that true?" Or even respond to him? Isn't it self evident the man that is saying "there is no ultimate truth" seeking to utter an ultimate truism?
But please, read no more into this than what I say. I am (specifically) not saying "Do not respond" but only asking the question if one can find any use in it. (Querying the man who declares himself liar) So the questions stands as it is "Of what use...?"...for either one believes there is a use and may by thinking on it come to it for response...or might say, "There is no use to it..." (Or even ignore all together) But, here again, the issue is not of any maneuvering to an agreement with me, per se.
The issue, if there is one (and you are already in the process of some agreement or disagreement) is to the matter of consistency and expression...does the man agree in himself? Does the man agree with himself? And if so, to what?
The matter of expression is already a completely settled thing, and that settled by existence. Is that true? Everything makes statement of its being by its being. Yet, might one ask "What is there (is there?) of man that seems unsatisfied by self evidence?" Not only so, but appears compelled to "add to" self evidence in such a way as to leave absurdity brazenly pointing at himself in his expression? And, perhaps rightly, you consider whether this writer is most absurd of all things. Trying to "prove" self evidence could be a foundation found for all lying.
"I think, therefore I am" on its surface may sound profound. (Talk about a mix...surface and profound!) And even though I am unable to ask of him whom that is first attributed as expressed, I nevertheless am provoked to the question of it. "What about the rock?" Do you see? Am I being contrarian? Absurd? If you cannot prove "thinking in a rock"...does it have less being than the thing claiming its existence is proved by it (thinking)?
The story of the philosophy professor thinking himself clever set a sign over the chair as class assignment "Prove the chair exists". Yet he was himself taken to school, and could not deny the student an A+ who responded "What chair?". Do you see? Do you also see the truth of it...regardless of whether you care to argue whether this "once" took place on a campus or is just "made up"? Do you begin to see that in all matters of truth...facts themselves (as we know them, call them...even call them the "true things") can be trumped? And perhaps not only "can be"...but in truth in fact...must be? Might a man consider what seems all obverse to his thinking (and if so, how?) that truth is in all what supports fact, and facts; and not the other way around?
I cannot, in fact, prove whether the rock thinks at all, but is that of any matter? Does it "be less", exist less, than myself...especially if I seek to establish my own being as "I am" because I believe I "think"? You can deny as fact that I think at all, (and I have little doubt some of you do) again, is that of any matter to my being? Is it made less...by what you think? Bump into me (as you are truly doing here) or the rock with your being, and find answer in yourself. The only question that remains, if there is one, is matter of expression. And whether the consistency of one's self (if one cares to give out response) is consistent in what is given out. For what man gives out in word may be real as fact in what he gives out of thoughts and intents...but, are they true?
Seeking to navigate these matters with reason, or any process of rational consciousness requires the most basic assumption often overlooked...which if ignored becomes presumption; that there is a thing as reason and that it is both real and in some fashion useful. Our own logic, though to us so inescapably self evident must bear examination. Not merely its end product of confirmation or rejection of interpretation of data to our own minds, but its very foundation of utility to that end.
Any presumption here, or simple assumption/assertion that reason must exist merely because it presents itself to my mind as self evident and existent...must bear examination. Especially if our assumption at all includes it as being a reliable process for the establishment of truth in ourselves. It's then seen as too far a leap till established, that it exists in every man; or, even if internally established and understood by any man...that it is therefore present in any other man.
The simplicity is absurd. If there is no reason to, nor for the universe, (here inclusive of all material matters including time and space man experiences in being) but the contention is that reason exists as a real matter of consideration (and for all considerations...of utmost utility as logic) whence its origin? In other words, if there be no logic to, nor for the universe, how does it exist as real (even if only agreed as found in man) in the universe? Agreeing man exists...in the universe.
And as much as this is a prior assumption; that is until it is settled to any man he exists, he obviously cannot go any further in considerations. Yes, this is required so we not proceed in presumption...as absurd sounding as it is perhaps, do I exist? And if to reason and if by reason I do establish that I do, my knowing of being is established upon reason. And this is where the question of its origin, source, nature, essence become paramount.
For were I to deny reason for the universe (as all things extant) but maintain there is reason in the universe, even if only that it is in me, how does a thing in a system acquire what is not given to the system...for the system? Or better...if denied as being given to, in, or for the system over all, can it be...in it "apart"? If by our reason we seek to, (in simplest terms make a step outside the system for examination of it, its nature and foundations of what is a given about it) reason must collapse the moment it is denied as being "there". If reason...at best, can only lead ultimately to "there is no reason", or "I find no reason nor see any"...it is self denying. Self abnegating. For, if reason is a function of consciousness (establish to yourself your axioms) but deny consciousness as reason for the universe (all matters extant)...ultimately consciousness is not only deniable...but denied. For how can one use a device/process (if we can reduce to that description) to establish its ultimate absence?