The need to fill the void of ignorance

reply to post by Condemned0625

Facts - I am, you are, this is, we share the same fundamental reality, and there is only one thing, or one supreme value of which everything is a variable. Facts.
The proof - look around you.

Originally posted by doubledutch
reply to post by Condemned0625

 

can you prove it otherwise?

sorry don't mean to but in on the discussion but I couldn't help it

edit on 11-1-2011 by doubledutch because: (no reason given)

The burden of proof is not on me. Nobody can possibly prove that a universal law of morality exists. If there was such a thing, everyone would be required to obey it. That's what a law is. He cannot justifiably assert that some unobservable universal law exists because that kind of assertion is contingent upon evidence, which there is none. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence before I believe them.

reply to post by Condemned0625


fair enough, but are laws not there to be broken?

Just because he claims these laws to be in place doesn't mean that you cant break them or that by them being there we have to abide by them. Who's to say they exist but your not aware of them...not yet anyway

reply to post by drkylefletcher


Now, how do you know that you know nothing? seems to me one might be incorrect in such a statement from the onset, or offset, or inset, or something or another or...

*brain explodes*

second freaking time this month!

reply to post by Condemned0625


The proof of a greater system than yourself is all around you. There is proof, now whether or not you see it.. thats something entirely else. You ask for proof, then say "You cannot know that which is not true nor can you know what you think is true." So how do you know? Some sort of "proof" catered to changing your perspective, which you have chosen? It seems you have filled your void of ignorance quite full, friend.. How would one quantify what happens every moment, just in your experience? Much less even the planet.. Much less the solar system.. Much less the galaxy.. Much less, well, ill stop there, already have had two brain explosions

Why do you feel the need for those quantitative numbers to be able to experience what they represent?

Why do you consider it so important to go against your brother (whether or not you see him as one is irrelevant) NAM? Even bringing up his name in a derogatory manner in threads in which he has yet to take part.

reply to post by doubledutch

If it was a universal law, or the cornerstone of a foundation of a base of reality, then it would not really be possible to break such a law, only be broken by it. The problem with any such law, is that it would have wholeness, and integrity, and thus, to break any part of it, would amount to breaking, or being broken, relative to the whole of it. In other words, none are righteous in the sight of the Lord (universal consciousness), and we all fall short of the ideal of perfection, wholeness and integrity described by such a law, which is not even a matter of outward appearance, but of the heart. And so such a law can only condemn mankind and prove our sins, and our sins always find us out in the end.

The "good news" is there is liberation from the law of should and shouldn't, but it comes not by expectation or according to human conceptions of justice and of right and wrong.

So you see I am a rebel too, but a rebel with a cause.

We cannot adhere to any such law, and could hardly know precisely what it is to begin with, and at the same time, to be free, we cannot be constrained by it, so there's a paradox and a dilemma there, which fortunately, has been resolved.

Originally posted by Condemned0625

Originally posted by doubledutch
reply to post by Condemned0625

 

can you prove it otherwise?

sorry don't mean to but in on the discussion but I couldn't help it

edit on 11-1-2011 by doubledutch because: (no reason given)

The burden of proof is not on me. Nobody can possibly prove that a universal law of morality exists. If there was such a thing, everyone would be required to obey it. That's what a law is. He cannot justifiably assert that some unobservable universal law exists because that kind of assertion is contingent upon evidence, which there is none. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence before I believe them.

It's quite the extraordinary that's for sure...

www.myspace.com...

You'll find information inside those blogs (click on the Celtic fingerprint as well).

As additional reference (youtube or google search terms):

Dale Pond - Keely, SVP
Marko Rodin - (look for a 44pt Lecture Series) Vortex Math Model
Nassim Haramein - Vector Based Geometry

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
reply to post by Condemned0625

 

Facts - I am, you are, this is, we share the same fundamental reality, and there is only one thing, or one supreme value of which everything is a variable. Facts.
The proof - look around you.

Duh. Of course factual information overrules false information, but you're trying to use that statement to justify your belief.

Common phrases describing one's own degree of belief:

I know that
I believe that
I think that
I feel that
I [would] guess that
I [would] bet/wager that
I [would] like to think/believe that
I have no reason to doubt that
I have no reason not to believe/think that

Common phrases describing the degree of believability of a statement of fact:

It is true
It is certainly true
It is surely true
It is almost certainly/surely true
It is most likely true
It is likely true
It is probably true
It is possibly true
It is perhaps true
It may be true
It might be true
It should be true
It can/could be true

In addition, most of the above statements could be negated in two different ways, giving rise to different connotations. For example, "It is not likely true" is different from "It is likely not true".

Link

Your claim of a universal "law of life" is a belief that you claim to be factual, without evidence to support it. You also claimed in the other thread that this "law of life" establishes absolute moralities concerning what is good, what is evil, what is right and what is wrong.

There's a problem with that statement. Here's a simple analogy: Suppose one guy murders his ex-friend because this ex-friend of his tried to beat his wife. One side thinks it was wrong to kill him, the other side thinks it was right. The only frame of reference for this scenario is opinionated perceptions from two different sides, one arguing for justification and the other arguing against it. A "law of life" is not the determining factor for his trial in court. The judge decides whether he was justified or unjustified and could have called the police. Although the judge is the appointed decision maker, that does not necessarily mean the judge is universally right or wrong for his/her decision.

If there was such a thing as a universal law of morality or law of life, everyone could observe it and everyone would be required to obey it. Your "law of life" assertion is nothing more than an unproven concept. "Look all around you!" you say. Why don't you look all around yourself? Do you see even a trace of a "law of life" or related pre-established constant? No, you don't. If all life ceased to exist, there would be nobody around to even conceive of such a concept, rendering the concept itself nonexistent. However, the nonexistence of this so-called law is not contingent upon the nonexistence of life, simply because of the existence of intelligences in the universe that can reject such a conceptual assertion.

If that doesn't get through your thick skull, I don't think anything else will. We're done.

Mod Edit: No Quote/Plagiarism – Please Review This Link.

Originally posted by sinohptik
reply to post by Condemned0625

 

The proof of a greater system than yourself is all around you. There is proof, now whether or not you see it.. thats something entirely else. You ask for proof, then say "You cannot know that which is not true nor can you know what you think is true." So how do you know? Some sort of "proof" catered to changing your perspective, which you have chosen? It seems you have filled your void of ignorance quite full, friend.. How would one quantify what happens every moment, just in your experience? Much less even the planet.. Much less the solar system.. Much less the galaxy.. Much less, well, ill stop there, already have had two brain explosions

Why do you feel the need for those quantitative numbers to be able to experience what they represent?

Why do you consider it so important to go against your brother (whether or not you see him as one is irrelevant) NAM? Even bringing up his name in a derogatory manner in threads in which he has yet to take part.

edit on 11-1-2011 by sinohptik because: quantified the format

I never said there was no greater system in existence. NewAgeMan is talking about a "law of life" as being some sort of external morality that already decides what is right and wrong, which is absurd.

My signature is what it is. Are you implying that somebody can know that a falsity is a fact? Are you implying that somebody can know their belief as a fact? You seem to have misunderstood me entirely. You and him both are arguing from belief and special pleading. How do you know you're right? This argument just keeps getting more and more ridiculous.

reply to post by Condemned0625


Why are you turning this into a thread about "morality?"
Try this one instead.

reply to post by Condemned0625

You missed my point. I am saying that reality itself defines a framework based on those established facts, wherein murder cannot be justified by anger, or it leads to catclysm, the opposite to life, where what we see is life meeting life in an ongoing creative process of which apparent death is only a part.
Ok, here's one - put yourself in the position of the person being killed, being robbed of their life before it's taken it's natural course, where the evil of murder is relative, to the victim. From that perspective, is the taking of your own life a violation of the law of life, which I would suggest gave birth to you in the first place (laws of physics even). Life is a free gift, and no one has the right to take that away from another, except in matters of extreme self defence against being robbed of one's life.
It's quite the predicament, but I don't think that the act of murder can be rationalized away nor justified by one's own anger, that's insane.
And I'm not talking here about mere human conceptions of justice.
It's interesting the lengths to which some will go to evade accountability for their actions. We all sin, or have sinned in some way or another, and this is why repentance relative to the Absolute is so vitally important. Absent that, indeed we are condemned.

reply to post by NewAgeMan



ok it's late and im now drunk so cant actually make sense of this. I will return tomorrow and try to understand what you are saying.

I just edited this bit after re-reading

thanks

Originally posted by sinohptik
reply to post by Condemned0625

 

Why are you turning this into a thread about "morality?"

Try this one instead.

Because that's what NewAgeMan asserted in another thread and now he's trying to keep the argument going in this one. I was addressing his argument in the first place, not yours.

reply to post by Condemned0625


You really missed the point..

If someone else is kind enough, perhaps they will expand. Im just too "lazy"

If im not mistaken, you posted in this thread before him, even calling him by "name." So, uh, you started it

reply to post by NewAgeMan

It's quite the predicament, but I don't think that the act of murder can be rationalized away nor justified by one's own anger, that's insane.

Do you know what that statement is? It's called an opinion. I've called you out on that several times but you failed to admit that your opinions are not factual and cannot be demonstrated.

It's interesting the lengths to which some will go to evade accountability for their actions. We all sin, or have sinned in some way or another, and this is why repentance relative to the Absolute is so vitally important.

Sin is a concept. You just keep bringing up conceptual beliefs that can't be proven. So, repentance relative to the "absolute", you say? What is this "absolute" you speak of and why do you believe it's important to ask of its forgiveness?

You're talking about something that sounds very similar to a god, which is a concept itself that has never been proven either.

Originally posted by Condemned0625
reply to post by Ralphy

 

Exactly my point. I've tried telling people that perception is the key when it comes to certain things like laws and morality. For instance, I've been arguing with a guy (NewAgeMan) who thinks a "law of life" exists, meaning that the universe or some separate entity somehow establishes laws of morality for everyone. Not only is that absurd, but it cannot be demonstrated by anyone. There are facts and then there are opinions, his being merely an opinion that cannot be demonstrated as a fact. I hate it when people try to rationalize things with beliefs instead of knowledge and facts.

Just to make sure you knew what i was talking about, of course

It seems this is some sort of personal crusade for you, if you "..cannot know that which is not true nor can you know what you think is true" then from what position do you judge others?

Originally posted by Ralphy
I think the two most solid truths in life is that we will die and that we are ignorant about where we came from and where we are going.

edit on 11-1-2011 by Ralphy because: (no reason given)

I hear what you are saying, I believe every person knows there own truth, if they are willing to look within them selves. But as for the die thing, we all have a choice as to whether we live or die. I will explain further when I reach my 20 posts, so as many people as possible can see. Keep Your eyes open.

Originally posted by Ralphy
Sometimes I think we fear the void or emptiness of ignorance and fill it with beliefs to make ourselves feel better. Whether it be how reality exists or what happens after death, no one knows for sure but we can create beliefs to replace not knowing. It's funny how some people talk like they know truth but don't realize they are blinded with the need to believe in something rather than accept ignorance.

I think the two most solid truths in life is that we will die and that we are ignorant about where we came from and where we are going.

edit on 11-1-2011 by Ralphy because: (no reason given)

I agree with you, but I have to also say that if one really tries to detach emotionally from the ramifications of what is revealed, and dedicates the examination to remain firmly within the very rigid confines of clean and unaffected logic, then getting a broad view of reality is possible. You can't determine every potential facet of possibility that may or may not find a way to exist within that very broad view - just as a photo of the Earth from the Moon wouldn't give you insight into the drama that may or may not exist within a specific household on the earth.

Still, the broad view is extremely instructive, and goes a long way toward eliminating what can't logically co-exist with what's been concretely determined to be real. And that can be very comforting as a person makes his/her way through life.

What is true, is that reality does exist as a constant and dependable existential fact. That alone is worth knowing.

reply to post by sinohptik


Everyone has the ability to judge others in accordance to what they believe. There is no "law of life" or universal constant that overrides it. What you think is true is entirely different from what you know is true. I'm not going to explain the differences between belief and knowledge again. Read a dictionary, review your beliefs and knowledge, separate them into the categories they belong in (Knowledge, Belief) and then move on from there.

I've explained the basics of objective logic and subjective logic. What is logical to you may not be logical to someone else, and vice versa. If neither of you can understand that, I've done all I could at this point. You can have the last words if you want (if that's what your goal is). I'm not running away or "admitting defeat" IF that's what you think. I've simply explained it all as best as I could, but both of you failed to understand me and instead decided to entirely dismiss it with subjective input and reject it in accordance to your belief system. We're done.

Originally posted by Condemned0625
reply to post by NewAgeMan

 

Asserting without evidence is not logical. Logical fallacy is as close to "logical" as your argument will ever get. I will ask you (again) one simple question: Can you prove it?

Can you prove what salt taste like? Some things cannot be proven by outside observation. They must be experienced or tasted.