I know, it's sort of OT, and you may love it or hate it, but you've gotta see this! It's towards the bottom of the list right now.

It would really be cool if everyone threw in his/her two cents. (not here, really, but in that thread)

Let's party!!

-- eve (123@4567.com), January 12, 2000

Answers

http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=002Hae

-- I'm Here, I'm There (I'm Everywhere@so.beware), January 12, 2000.

I'm Here I'm There,

Thanks for the link.

-- eve (123@4567.com), January 12, 2000.

Hi Eve,

Thank you for bringing this thread to my attention. Yeah, it is OT, but interesting, and thought-provoking, and intellectual. Maybe this forum is getting back to its roots.

It is a fascination notion that we rely upon strangers and sometimes false images of the past to shape our perceptions. Along with this, we similarly rely upon strangers and sometimes-false images from the present to shape our reality. In addition, we (consciously and unconsciously) filter the input from our senses. In other words, we each have a totally unique viewpoint  we create our own reality and truth. This is why equally intelligent and educated experts can have such diverse opinions.

This reminds me of a quote from Kierkegaard, where he mentions that philosophy and perception are like a sign in the window of a shop that says, pressing done here. If you took your clothes in to the shop to be pressed, you would be deceived, for the sign only is for sale. In this way, we perceive the signs of the time. They may look to be rock-solid, definitely bona-fide, but we may still be deceived.

Did this happen to us and Y2K? Who knows (yet). How much have our opinions, thoughts, and beliefs been shaped by false images?

-- No Polly (nopolly@hotmail.com), January 12, 2000.

Eve, Eve, Eve, what have you done? :)

Well now that the cat's out of the bag, let me weigh in with some ground rules since I initiated the debate and also seem to be the one under primary attack here (from both camps: believers and non-believers - what was I thinking:)), as it appears I am the only one defending my position (that one can indeed proove God exists, and that such a proof exists and therefore one need not believe God exists but know that he exists) from all manner of quotes from time immemorial, rather than any new fresh thinking along these lines to re-examine the past statements and put them through a new lens of scrutiny, except possibly from Eve who asks questions rather then re-hash history, allow me to set down a few rules for the thread:

1. The thread's topic is can one proove that God exists?

Very closely related and almost identical (I don't want to committ that it is identical as I have not thought about it sufficiently to make a concrete statement) is the issue that one needs faith and not pure logic and science to know/believe that God exists.

2 We will not debate theology as that is not germane to the discussion, since it requires faith to begin with.

3. We will not debate the nature of God as that is not germane to the discussion. Being able to prove something exists is not dependent on understanding its nature. (Notwithstanding this, I'll not hesitate to take some jabs at the concept of the trinity :), although I'd much prefer to discuss that one issue in a separate thread)

4. Any who wish to weigh in, should provide arguments, and also answer questions directed to them by previous argument. Otherwise this is not a debate but a monologue, as previous issues are not addressed but ignored. The conclusion can only be that those to whom the question is posed choose not to answer under the assumption that they have been "check mated". I.E. "No comment" is not an acceptable response in debate.

I might add a couple of more ground rules, if they strike me.

I am also going to state that I am not asking for consensus on these, and *if* we find the thread's "noise" level, of every other debate that gets started by those who don't wish to follow these rules, gets out of hand those who wish to continue to debate with me the specific topic under discussion, are welcome to join me and we will start at that time.

-- Interested Spectator (is@the_ring.side), January 12, 2000.

Just to clarify my last post, and to give appropriate credit where it is due so not to have people think I'm re-writing history, Snooze button started the original discussion about the media, but the current debate the thread is in was started by me.

And my last sentence should read:

... are welcome to join me *in a new thread that we will start at that time*.

-- Interested Spectator (is@the_ring.side), January 12, 2000.

No Polly,

Thanks for some interesting input. But I would caution you not to assign consciousness/perception primacy over reality/existence. Only actions through natural changes and changes by living beings can alter reality. Consciousness/perception can never do this alone.

(I do not speak here of the belief that God can alter things)

-- eve (123@4567.com), January 12, 2000.

Interested Spectator,

I beg to differ.

First of all, I don't see one debate; I see many going on simultaneously. Yes, some things are ignored, but many, if not most, are not.

And I see no point in limiting it to anything narrower than philosophy and religion. People do seem to be doing a very good job of recognizing this and limiting the discussions to those areas. I see us as here to enjoy ourselves, not to have to conform to a tight debate structure. In any case, it would be almost impossible to control in a forum such as this.

You do seem to be a major lightning rod of sorts, but I think that's because you made yourself a large presence by presenting a comprehensive argument on an interesting, yet controversial topic.

I'm sorry, but I'm enjoying it immensely just the way it is. I hope you understand, and I hope you continue to participate. I appreciate and value your contributions.

-- eve (123@4567.com), January 12, 2000.

Eve:

We have to draw the line somewhere as we can't have one thread discuss all of philosphy and religion. We can start other threads for those if needed.

Nevertheless I will continue until it becomes to unwieldly(? I can't spell worth a dime:)) and then we can move to a new threads to continue individual debates.

Ok?

-- Interested Spectator (is@the_ring.side), January 12, 2000.

Hi again Eve,

I don't mean to say that perception IS more important than "reality." In other words I can believe and think all day that the sky is red, while in reality it is blue. "Blueness" is FACT, and hence more "important" than my belief in the sky's "redness."

Nonetheless, my false belief that the sky is red may cause me to take REAL actions that alter reality. Therefore, my perceptions (albeit innacurate) may turn out to be as "important" as fact, if they have the effect of modifying reality.

-- No Polly (nopolly@hotmail.com), January 12, 2000.

Eve:

We have to draw the line somewhere as we can't have one thread discuss all of philosphy and religion. We can start other threads for those if needed.

Nevertheless I will continue until it becomes to unwieldly(? I can't spell worth a dime:)) and then we can move to a new threads to continue individual debates.

Ok?

(Sorry if this may get posted a few times--seems the servers are not repsonding to posts again)

-- Interested Spectator (is@the_ring.side), January 12, 2000.

Interested Spectator,

I'm not closed off for considering your idea if things become a complete mess. For now, I think having all this on one thread amounts to a great, big, wonderful advertisement regarding possible new avenues for the forum, as Y2K nears resolution.

-- eve (123@4567.com), January 12, 2000.

No Polly,

Now I agree with you completely! Thanks for elaborating.

-- eve (123@4567.com), January 12, 2000.

Eve, Interested..et.al.

Following my clarification and Eve's agreement, do you think this applies to religion?

Even if God is not true in reality, if I believe and act AS IF he were true, then the "God" of my perception is equal in effect (upon my actions only) as the God of reality.

-- No Polly (nopolly@hotmail.com), January 12, 2000.

The discussion on both these threads is reminscent of the conversations of the beings in "Flatland" (a mathematical education book about three-dimensional beings visiting a two-dimensional world).

Thus, if the universe is really multidimensional (as certain physicists and mathematicians claim), we, with our perceptions tied to the three physical dimensions and the pseudo-dimension of "time", have a hard time discussing what could simply be higher planes of reality that we're not equiped to perceive. That other planes exist is strongly suggested by certain unorthodox experimentation, of which Kirlian photography is but one example. To attach mystical or other attributes to things we don't understand is natural, but giving thigs labels doesn't explain them.

-- lurker2 (lurker2@home.prepared), January 12, 2000.

No Polly,

Yes, it's true, because you're acting on your beliefs.

You know, you've got some interesting ideas. Why don't you come down to the big thread ("The Great Deception...") and discuss them with us?

-- eve (123@4567.com), January 13, 2000.

lurker 2,

It seems that the "higher planes of reality" you speak of are outside the known universe, as opposed to a kind of photography, which is a part of the known universe. So the analogy is tough to follow. Perhaps I need an elaboration.

Could you come down to the other thread too? Good stuff!

-- eve (123@4567.com), January 13, 2000.