The Nazi in this story obviously wasn't a logician. The Nazi committed the fallacy of denying the antecedent. He fallaciously went from, "what is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor", to "what is not hateful to you, do to your neighbor. Bad logic can lead to immoral behavior.

"not one jot of it is to be changed " was spoken by Jesus Christ, who fullfilled the law itself, who was not a Christian, who was under the law himself, and who abolished the law and the deeds of the law. Read what I suggested for more info on this subject, and glad your a fan of Christianity.

Not being a Christian makes it real hard for you to put things together from the Word specifically because the Word is spiritually discerned. Meaning you have to have holy spirit to understand it. You can read it and compare things, memorize things also but to actually understand it, you have to have spirit..

Which brings me to this question. If your a fan of it, that means it works, so why not believe in it? It only seems nutty because you don't understand it and you don't understand it because your not a Christian, you don't have holy spirit which is required to understand it. The bible is made up of words but they are spiritual words and can only be understood by those who have spirit.

If you don't believe me thats ok, but I can't help you understand something that requires you have something you dom't have ... namely holy spirit.

I don't mean this to be a slight or an attack, I am just explaining the futility in our conversation.

By the way, most Theologians are not Christians, they just study the bible. Not all but tons of them, especially those who are heads of and directing may of the denominations.... Again, I don't expect you will believe me, but I am telling the truth.

Theology is the science of the bible. You can't go to a seminary and become a Christian, you usually go to a seminary and believe less of the bible when you come out. Theologians are like blind people discussing a painting.

If you assume the conclusion, then the conclusion will naturally follow.

Pork and the Old Testament and nothing . lol

It is fatuous to assume that the Old Testament is negated through Christ for in practicum; the Decalogue is a guide for refurbishment of the human soul, undeniable.

The matter resolves when it is seen that the individual man progresses in ability as apposed to the past being destroyed ala pork. Humankind in evolution has progressed through an atavistic consciousness in which he was immersed, at least partially within the supersensible or in common parlance the "spiritual' world. This word brings forth all types of nonsense, pro and con, during our times, but nonetheless it should be spoken to.

This atavistic consciousness did not allow for "freedom" for in truth the individual soul was within a state of "ego suppression", not as a deed of evil but as Man's movement into the future. The ego of the individual man was progressing through a learning curve, a development, and subsequently was released as a "free being" 2100 years ago.

Prior to this release the "commandments" arose with an implied threat of punishment for during these times and prior to, the human soul was given guidance from higher realms, that of the spiritual world. this was and is a preparation for Man's "release" in which the individual ego became immersed within the throes of "good and evil", again a progressive improvement of the abilities of each and every one of us.

This atavism, can better be understood by projecting back into the Persian times which predated our cultural epoch by about 7900 years. When a man performed what we may call an invidious deed the consciousness at that time didn't hold the individual responsible but understood that a higher being or spirit of darkness ruled over the man and he was comprehended as such. In actuality "the devil made me do it", or "the devil made him do it".

The Persians were reminded by their great leader, Zarathustra, that working the earth was a penetration into the darkness and he presented the God of Light, Ahura Mazdao who is in opposition to Angra Mainyu, that same god of darkness, the earthly darkness.

The man who performed the invidious deed literally was under an enchantment( better word I know), but in essence the responsibility was not as we might judge today. This is the difficulty with projecting one's present mores into the past , a past of different developments. Man is in a dynamic , thankfully the creative dynamic but it still is difficult.

And so, 2100 years ago the human ego was released and became responsible for his works, much to our chagrin, it appears to be better a baby in the heavens than steadfast on the earth. lol

We are now responsible and the commandments appear to us differently for now, we are the masters of our own destiny as many in the world and this forum advocate individual moral capabilities which is probably why we are in so much contention. Yuk and yuk.

We have progressed to the better, hopefully, for we are able to bring forth judgement and knowledge in our progression within the earthly state. If I look at the Decalogue or the prohibition against pork it has become our individual judgment as to the appropriateness of our moral tenor.

To deflect the abstract "moral relativism", this statement is too sweeping and lacking in comprehension as world knowledge and knowledge of Man plays into the the moral tone of the individual and each and every one of us can progress along a moral path and in truth not have to beat the other into submissiveness along the way.

Mankind is in progression into the "free man" and in this he can see his brothers in freedom and those who work to this futuristic state.
this is the work of the Christ Being who does work within the unconscious of all men (hello Veedz) and in he giving of the Holy Spirit (consider thinking and thought) brings forth cosmic knowledge , or Christ Knowledge morphing into the knowledge of Man.

I again will repeat, ad nauseaum, that man, as individual soul and spirit, can only progress through repeated lives, thusly reincarnation and karma, for otherwise we are all lost in a perdition a state of abject decadence.

Finis.

True. But I don't see Pletho doing this in the quote.

I'm reading a lot of assertions here, but virtually no reasons given to believe that anything you say is true.

You claim, for example, that "man...can only progress through repeated lives, thusly reincarnation and karma, for otherwise we are all lost in a perdition a state of abject decadence." That's a rather bold claim, so it might help to actually provide reasons why you think that this is true.

Your reason does not allow for reincarnation and karma for you know what you know and I've offered something that you don't know . It does speak to reason but the first beginnings of a higher knowledge is an open mindedness which you need .

This means that you have to leave in abeyance that to which you stand on, not to believe but to see if the platform I've presented is a rational look at life and the living irrespective as to what you believe. You don't have to agree or to follow blindly but i will not or cannot offer "proof" based upon your perceptions or lack thereof .

Reason is looked upon as justification but it is more like an a thoughtful following of perceptions, earthly and spiritually within the past , present and future. You are asking that I "reason" my "scheme" much like a theoretical presentation with justifications. This is not theory and the truth thereof stands within the thinking and thoughts presented.

I have no scheme to be tested as progression in truth is multifaceted , not simple, but wonderfully " ", fill in the blank.

I'll speak to the decadence or perdition for if you live one life and your fellow man lives one life look around you and note the abject conditions of an earthly mankind.

If one looks, then the only inescapable conclusion is that all is lost, the demiurge has his day .You and I if only seeing the earth live within this demiurge who is gleeful that we do not recognize the spiritual we then can become his minions.

On a more personal note if one is born into a salutary family condition or geographical place the rest of them are born into pain and suffering what hope is there ? You tell me, how I justify the differences in personal abilities, family and national incarnations racial destinies and still speak of the God of Love ? How do i speak of Love at all. Give me your scheme, tell me what you've got.

How do you know that my reason does not allow for reincarnation and karma? How can you possibly even know what my reason is or what it can allow for?

You are correct in your assertion that you've offered something that I don't know. Please give me a rational argument so that I may possess your alleged knowledge. (By the way, knowledge is[minimally] a true, justified belief.)*

Please justify your assertions so that we can have an intelligent dialogue. Thanks.

*If anybody wants to we can start a thread in the Philosophy forum on Gettier counterexamples.

This is not about justified true belief as the basis for truth. this is about thinking as an exploration ,"in thinking I experience myself united with the stream of cosmic existence".

Just as a particle physicist can offer knowledge of his work, based upon experimentation, the thinking traveler can offer to you the same level of truth which is contained within the thinking, in and of itself.

I ask, does it fit a rational approach to the topic in hand or not ? You are living within the Humean and Kantian doubt in which nothing is true, only the ersatz schemes which the pragmatist thinks up until the next folly appears.

If you said to me that reincarnation and karma makes no sense in the perspective I've offered then that would be an intellectual conversation . Tellingly you say give to me the basis for your assumptions which you will agree with which is really your particular predilections.

I get it, a blowing wind makes more sense; my purpose is to offer something which mandates that Man is a spiritual being and in the knowledge of reincarnation and karma this "spiritual being" will come to clarity. You cannot speak to reincarnation and karma unless you have some comprehension of any sort that man is not just a physical body and one can go from there. Man is a soul and spiritual being.

My basis is the soul and spiritual being, Man who at present has his eyes and senses perfixed upon the mineral world and therefore only comes to grip with mineralo thinking, that very thinking associated with the doubters of knowledge, knowledge of the spirit.

I believe I warned in my earlier post that the idea of "spirit" is befuddling within our present times but none the less it has to be breached in a clarity of conscious thinking.

Yada, yada, yada but consider this: the corpse of a man has all the essences and activities of the mineral kingdom yet our science only speaks to the corpse. Does anybody see that the corpse that lies on the anatomists table is not the man . can you not see that prior to death the man was alive and therefore there must have been something which gave the man life other than the sodium's, potassium's and adjunct minerals of the corpse.

I have a basis as above, can you see it ? The problem is that there is no simple answer such as F=MA but the truths of this realm are earned but they do allow themselves to be corrected even if another has not done the work of comprehension but not through an approach which denies based upon one's particular predilections, which of course is what you have presented a a demur. The best to you. Finis.

1. How did you deduce from my few posts that I am "living within the Humean and Kantian doubt in which nothing is true?" I actually believe that there are truths to be discovered that myself and others can know. I am not a pragmatist, and I don't have any idea why on earth you thought that I was.

2. What is a "soul,", what is a "spiritual being", and why do you believe that men are (at least in part) these things?

3. The best to you, too!

How convenient

True nevertheless...... thats why all you guys argue so much also, you have no shot at understanding the Word of God, because you dont even have spirit, your like blind people trying to describe and evaluate a masterpiece painting, it's futile. You can read it but you can't put it together and make sense of it because your missing the key ingredient, holy spirit.

If we have no shot, and its futile, then it seems unfair to be punished for it.

Which explains why people who do have the spirit are all in agreement on the Word of God.

Hi Everyone:

I just read some stuff about this very issue because work is being done at CERN on this exact topic. Apparently the question isn't that something comes from nothing, but why at the exact moment of the big bang, where something apparently did come from nothing, there seems to be an excess of matter relative to anti-matter.

Based on the article I read, when matter and anti-matter are produced in the collider, it's always the same amount on each side, and of course when matter and anti-matter collide, nothing is produced.

Best wishes,
Mason

This has to do with something and nothing :

If the scientist looks at the earth he can see that from the center of the earth outwardly there is a progression from the solid, to the liquid (the fluid realm which reaches to the clouds) to the realm of the air or gaseous and finally to outer space which appears as as more of a "nothing' relative to the center of the earth.

Now the salient perspective of the "solid' realm of the earth is "pressure" for if one were to understand the earthly or solid "pressure" arises and this is spoken to in modern science which denotes a gravity of "pressure" found consequential to what may be called the "solid' but of course there is an intermixing of the states of nature within the earth in and of itself.

Traveling into space and in particular the realm of the sun the perspective changes for if the sun is studied we find the outer layer of the sun to be the most "solid" or material as per our instrumentality. the "corona" is best seen and there is a corresponding decrease of notability of the layers of the sun via our instruments . The modern scientific exegesis therefore, as expected, theorizes as to what is contained within the sun by transferring earthly maxims into the center of the sun. The instruments cease to be effective.

The progressive thinking which perceives the sun in and of itself sees the layers of the sun as a progression of matter into an attenuated matter unto a loss of matter and in fact to a realm of the polarity of matter .

It may seem that the word "anti matter" is appropriate here but this is not what i'm referring to but as "pressure" decreases there comes a realm of absolute loss of pressure which continues into the polaric comprehension of a "suction", a realm to which one can not even mention matter or "pressure", a total qualitative leap into another realm not subscript to the earthly laws.

Just a one can go into debt without having physical money and so the being of the sun is not a type of gaseous, or nuclear explosion, or hydrogen ions in space but the sun is a great "suction" device which has nothing to do with materiality as per our earthly existence though it certainly has place in the universal entelechy which countenances "material" and denies a total immersion in the same but does countenance the idea of the "material' as the outer sense bound projection of a spiritual striving the striving of the universal beings in movement.

Last paragraph is somewhat fluffy but I'll stick with it . If the modern scientist could indeed travel to the sun he would be able to experience the sun as a great "suction device" which in our thought process appears in appropriateness

https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/s...r-anatomy.html

I'm no particle physicist, but I believe pure energy is produced in the form of energetic photons. So it doesn't solve the something from nothing problem.

You're on the right track though. The zero energy universe posits that the universe is something like your quantum fluctuation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-energy_universe

Essentially, the negative energy of gravity balances the positive energy of mass. It's just a theory and I don't know if it's a good one but we'll probably eventually end up with some result like that explaining the universe.

OMFG, the absolute lack of understanding of some relativley simple physics concepts here is just crazy.

Not everyone, but most everyone should stop trying to shoehorn physics into your religious debates, you don't understand it, you read half an article and try and insert some philosophical mumbo jumbo in to fit your ideas.

If you want to discuss something from nothing you can reference the big bang which is the beginning if everything, including time....since the big bang the laws if energy conservation always remain true. Within a closed system...(the universe) energy can never be created or destroyed ir can only be transfered from type to type....
This is in actuality a rather dated analogy anyway, that implies energy is something that exists....where as really energy is nothing more that a mathematical model that allows to calculate, predict, analyse etc.... How different things, particles, objects will interact with each other...

It is therefore meaningless to entertain the idea of energy being generated from noting, because it isn't something, it is just a mathematical construct...if I calculate the amount of petrol (chemical potential energy) I put in my car I can determine the speed (max me) the car will accelerate to....the energy itself never exists as something other than the potential to move something or the actual motion.

At the big bang this mathematical construct was 'created' if you want to discuss who/what/why it was created in its current form that allows the universe to exist in its current form then fine, that is an interesting debate.....bur discussingthe idea if something being created from nothing without a corresponding something being turned into nothing (pair production/annihilation) is totally meaningless.

Also on a side note don't butcher the laws of gravity, read up on general relativity for some semblance of understanding (or lack of) and then see if you still think the sun is a giant F*****g vacuum cleaner.

Drives em' crazy ...

Carlo:
Are we going to have a conversation, or are you just going to ignore my questions and continue to prattle on?

The best to you.

+1

Of course I know you're here but I would try to clarify at least my statements concerning Kant. Somehow, somewhere i seem to be seeing Kant under my bed sheets or at the very least generally around the corner.

You mentioned epistemology and the "justified true belief" and this naturally leads to Kant and Hume. Once upon a time Hume wrote that that knowledge was not attainable to Man, it being a matter of convention, that to which we consider knowledge.

The story goes that Kant read Hume while in England and quickly ran home to Konigsberg where he walked daily under the bell tower. He created the "Critique of Pure Reason" and others in the attempt to refute Hume and more to the point to "prove" an epistemology bereft of independent experience or the realm of "a priority". This is Kant speaking and i would be remiss if I go further into this particular tedium to which I am certainly not able.

The short is that he failed to "prove" an epistemology and dogmatically came to the two conclusions that knowledge is best appreciated through "mathematics" and that the individual man best leads his life with the sense of "duty".

The influence of Kant and Hume was and is pervasive . Mathematics is of course primary within our modern science , as it should be, but not of the realm of " a priority", as it is a Kantian dogmatic assertion.

Kant/Hume denied the ability of Man to read the underlying basis of our reality or in actuality denied our search for "truth" and anciently speaking "wisdom". this is better appreciated by the statement that the "world is my mental picture".

The "world is my mental picture" implies that the only "truth' that the individual man could ascertain is dependent upon the "mental picture" or that which is within the man which is unrelated, in knowledge, to the external perception.

We see the tree but our knowledge is only of the "mental picture" of the tree for there are a myriad of movements between the outer tree and our cognitive process that change the nature of the tree before we can speak to knowledge of the tree. Man can only live within the "picture' which leads has lead to many different approaches to life as one well may imagine.

Many talk of the "subjective" and this is the real "subjective" which denies our external percepts as a realistic knowledge. Kant and his boys :

1) denied knowledge or "truth"

2) asserted that man was unable physiologically to obtain any "truth".

I see "justified true belief" a direct result of the Kantian approach was and is powerful even to this day. You don't have to be a card carrying Kantian or even have read Kant to "think like Kant" for the "justified true belief" is just another supposed attempt to bring an epistemic basis to bear from a personal look at knowledge for there there is no universality within those words; they look like corn meal mush, must be sweet for corn is indeed sweet but the rest is non appealing.

There were and are philosophers who weren't Kantian and Hegel is one example but the influence of Kant is like this. When I was in school if one speaks to the professors of ersatz divinity they referred to Kant with "Ah Kant", held in holy esteem by all even if one hasn't read the ice crystals of reasoning which are best read on a frosty mountain top, really hard for me but some do, and kudos to them.

This is too much but if you want to read something of the "soul" somewhere in this forum I did write to it but its too much for now.

Thank you for your response, Carlo.

If I may quote myself from an earlier post:

"I actually believe that there are truths to be discovered that myself and others can know."

So, unlike "Kant and his boys", I believe that truth is attainable. In other words, my view of knowledge and truth is the opposite of that of "Kant and his boys."

I define knowledge as a justified, true belief. Obviously "Kant and his boys" would have rejected this definition of knowledge, given your claim that they denied that truth and knowledge were attainable at all.

Given what I have written about truth and knowledge coupled with your understanding of Hume/Kant, it seems to be that my paradigm and that of Hume/Kant are completely incompatible.

You do realize that Gettier, whom you referenced, acted in denial of "justified true belief" ? Some stated that Plato believed in "justified true belief" yet he explicitly denies that "justified true belief" was the basis for knowledge.

Kant arrived at a point on time to which the epistemological basis of knowledge was asked but left unanswered. I too, see that knowledge is attainable but "truth" has a universal significance and is not subject to a abstract attenuation like "justified true belief".

Another way of putting it is that "truth" speaks for itself and in order for the individual man to attain as such he must leave behind him all preconditions or particular "beliefs" in a manner of speaking. "justified true belief" is personal, a scheme, which may have some truth contained within it but not totally so.

Man knows and sees truth and this can only be ascertained through "thinking" and therefore the next step is our epistemology is to study "thinking" and "cognition" which is the how we are coming to any truths. Only in a selfless thinking can man approach "truth" for "truth' speaks for itself irrespective of any and all self made arias not based upon the "truth" of "selfless thinking".

Of course there's more, the study of thinking itself which is possible, but only in hindsight. When one thinks man does not disassociate himself from his thinking and thought but to study this thinking he can observe in hindsight just what the realm of thinking is and his place in the entelechy.

It was only given to Moses to see the "Back" of God , the world of the past or a hindsight. Moses was the great co creator of Man's past, the "Back" of the human movement, the "Back of God". Such is the world of thinking.

Again,"in thinking I experience myself united with the stream of cosmic existence".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gettier_problem

I'm loving these Carlo posts!


I do need to ask, though, whether there is a degree of blasphemy in the pretention to Truth.


The question of Access is one that Hume, Descartes, and Kant all struggled with and none resolved. Kant attempts to construct a framework for truth within the paradigm of our accessibility by identifying the contours of our access tunnel. He humanized truth, and said "let it be" for what it was.


Within the framework of human truth, pragmatism must reign. To go beyond is, easily, Beyond.


As for reincarnation, I see more of a directional hegelian superstructure type of mental immortality, with the cyclic rebirth scheme occupying instead the physical realm (ie, chromosomal reproduction).