My Philosophy

[Philosophis Pony]

Hey its nice to be back, took some time off to work on school but as always I am perpetually trapped in a game of "philosophy solitaire" so I've decided to share some of my ideas and ideals with the forum.

Philosophy 1
Does God exist?

Philosophy 2
If I were to point at you regardless of where or which part of your body I point at whether it be your head or a limb, Would that still be you?

The point of both these questions will not be revealed until the end of the debate. :lol:

[Azraella]

1. What do you mean by God? (there are too many conceptions of god, I need a definition)

2. Yes.

[Philosophis Pony]

1. The idea of a single entity as almighty ruler and creator of the universe, should the answer be no, I would say do thoughts exist? Followed by if thoughts exist do thoughts of God exist? Is this true or false?

2. So I assume that would apply to inanimate things as well? If I were to point at Venus which is a part of the Universe as much as your limbs are of your body I would be pointing at the Universe? Or to be more precise We would be the Universe as well as everything around us. This appears to prove that everything within the Universe is the technically the same thing as with anything within said Universe.
The same logic can be slightly altered to say if I should point to your right arm which would be you as a person and It was cut off as lay on the ground and I still pointed at your arm would that still be you? This part can be applied exactly the same in cases of theft, just because your TV (for example) was stolen doesn't mean it doesn't belong to you anymore or otherwise is a part of your living quarters.

[Bronco]

1. The idea of a single entity as almighty ruler and creator of the universe, should the answer be no, I would say do thoughts exist? Followed by if thoughts exist do thoughts of God exist? Is this true or false?

2. So I assume that would apply to inanimate things as well? If I were to point at Venus which is a part of the Universe as much as your limbs are of your body I would be pointing at the Universe? Or to be more precise We would be the Universe as well as everything around us. This appears to prove that everything within the Universe is the technically the same thing as with anything within said Universe.
The same logic can be slightly altered to say if I should point to your right arm which would be you as a person and It was cut off as lay on the ground and I still pointed at your arm would that still be you? This part can be applied exactly the same in cases of theft, just because your TV (for example) was stolen doesn't mean it doesn't belong to you anymore or otherwise is a part of your living quarters.

1. I think thoughts do exist yes, and some people have thoughts of a God, but I don't think those thoughts are naturally in peoples minds or inherent to humans or anything like that

2. If you point to my limb I would say it is part of my body; if you point to Venus I would say it is part of the Universe

[Meridian]

1. The idea of a single entity as almighty ruler and creator of the universe, should the answer be no, I would say do thoughts exist? Followed by if thoughts exist do thoughts of God exist? Is this true or false?
Thoughts 'exist' in similar manner that a sentence 'exists'. Does a sentence someone is uttering 'exist'? Physically, all that exists is correlating air pressure and lip movements. But that isn't the sentence, the sentence is understood as a use of language, if you understand it. If we mean the use of language, we can ask whether a sentence is understood, but not whether it exists.

It doesn't matter whether the thought involves God, it doesn't affect whether it exists, just like it doesn't affect the existence of this sentence although it contains the word.


2. So I assume that would apply to inanimate things as well? If I were to point at Venus which is a part of the Universe as much as your limbs are of your body I would be pointing at the Universe? Or to be more precise We would be the Universe as well as everything around us. This appears to prove that everything within the Universe is the technically the same thing as with anything within said Universe.
You have to see pointing as an activity with a certain use. It can be quite flexible. However, there are a few parameters that are followed in successful examples of pointing, in which both (or all) parties involved understand what is being pointed at and why.

If I am pointing at Venus and another person thinks I mean to point at the Milky Way (which is not at all the same as Venus, although it contains Venus) there was a misunderstanding. This could lead to bad things, such as the captain of the spaceship flying us to the center of the Milky Way instead of to Venus.

Such easily made misunderstandings, by the way, is one of several reasons "mere ostention" usually is insufficient in explaining the meaning of words, and that language generally is learned through the activities in which it is used.


The same logic can be slightly altered to say if I should point to your right arm which would be you as a person and It was cut off as lay on the ground and I still pointed at your arm would that still be you?
If my arm is connected to me, either you are pointing to my arm, or you are pointing to me. This is understood in the context of you pointing; what prompts you to do it, what would you want to show, and so on.

If my arm is laying on the ground, and I am standing next to it, you are still either pointing to my arm which is laying on the ground, or you are pointing to me who is standing next to it. My arm is not 'me', whether it is connected or not, and this is obvious from how we talk about it. What changes in a tear is whether it is a part of me.

[Die Rote Fahne]

1. No

2 I would say you are pointing a millions of atoms.

[Nox]

1.) No

2.) Well, that's a good question. Our POV and our consciousness is in our head, so it's difficult to answer.

[Azraella]

The idea of a single entity as almighty ruler and creator of the universe, should the answer be no, I would say do thoughts exist? Followed by if thoughts exist do thoughts of God exist? Is this true or false?



I can entertain the possibility of the 3O god existing. Is that what I personally believe? No. I am a polytheist, I believe in multiple and imperfect gods. As for thoughts? They certainly do and people can think of god or gods. I'm a Jungian in disposition and in thought. I think imagining God or gods is natural. Perhaps my gods are just Jungian archetypes? I certainly feel them. :) That is why they are real to me.


Your other point, missed the mark. My arm is part of me. I don't own it as I believe ownership to be a fictious construct(as are rights). Differentiating things is a higher brain function. I can point to one of my many psychology books on my shelf just as I can point to my Heathenry and Nordic history books. Discrimination is not a swear word.

[ZeroNowhere]

Philosophy 1
Does God exist?
No. I'm not an idealist.


Philosophy 2
If I were to point at you regardless of where or which part of your body I point at whether it be your head or a limb, Would that still be you?
That depends on the role which this pointing plays in practice, in other words on the context. You could be pointing to me, although you could also not be; for example, when a doctor points at one's limb, what they're doing is by no means the same thing as what we would call 'pointing at you' (eg. when accusing somebody of something, or choosing them, as may make sense in certain games.)

[Philosophis Pony]

1. Meridean, correct me if I am wrong but thoughts are formed from thousands of pulsating neuron even though one could for example think about the existence of a "God" it is existing, this can be applied to almost anything to the most obscure, ridiculous thing you can think of. Your sentence example is true for the most part though if I were to say this.
Right now I am imagining a flock of doves with a clear vivid mental picture of it and you were to use the same logic as you used with the sentence example then how would this logic work?
I can see it clearly in my mind just as I would be able to see you right in front of me. This "mental picture" is existing as a result of the thought process of thought via physical properties which fuel the brain. In this sense wouldn't this mean in theory that everything we are thinking is existing because we are thinking of it as a result of said thought process. On a separate note- Though to say this as I have said would lead to the accusation that by challenging the existence equality of mentality and physicality would question the reality of delusion as such if to say you saw three buildings on a street but there was also a forth building which existed as the result of a hallucination would be clearly a delusion to take this this from another view I could say that each individual clearly has its own perception someone who is experiencing their delusion is as such a very much reality to them and thus their reality does exist as the form of a thought regardless of what form this delusion takes place as whether it be an opinion, philosophy, religion, etc.
Our perception as we know it is a guess and check game of delusion and is so is born as the form of our reality for each individual.

2. The point of this question was to prove that everything within existence and non existence is a single entity including us instead of completely separate entities such as trillions of planets, galaxies, plants, animals, etc. as a separate objects or creatures. I will return again on this question soon to solve my own paradoxical philosophy. Feel free to still comment on it. :)

[Red Noob]

Philosophy 1
Does God exist?

In a nutshell, no. He only exists when an entire population is convinced so. Not in the material world though.


Philosophy 2
If I were to point at you regardless of where or which part of your body I point at whether it be your head or a limb, Would that still be you?

It would be a part of me, your pointing at my physical body, so I guess my answer is yes.

[∞]

Philosophy 1 Does God exist?
No. He shot himself.


Philosophy 2
If I were to point at you regardless of where or which part of your body I point at whether it be your head or a limb, Would that still be you?

Thats just a dopey question. If I take an engine out of a car is that a car? No. Is it part of that car? Yes. The references we make to things by referring them as 'parts' allows us to see things for what they are.

[Thirsty Crow]

1
Right now I am imagining a flock of doves with a clear vivid mental picture of it and you were to use the same logic as you used with the sentence example then how would this logic work?
I can see it clearly in my mind just as I would be able to see you right in front of me. This "mental picture" is existing as a result of the thought process of thought via physical properties which fuel the brain. In this sense wouldn't this mean in theory that everything we are thinking is existing because we are thinking of it as a result of said thought process.
It exists only as the object of your visualization. You are imagining it, and by communicating it via revleft you cannot show that your visualization has an independent (of your mental process - be it thinking or visualizing) existence like the computer you're typing on.


could say that each individual clearly has its own perception someone who is experiencing their delusion is as such a very much reality to them and thus their reality does exist as the form of a thought regardless of what form this delusion takes place as whether it be an opinion, philosophy, religion, etc.The whole point of human thought is to grasp the object in its concrete specificity for our own gain. What you're describing (psychic distress) does not amount to an effective way of coping with the world that exists outside our thought (in fact, this is a sypmtom of a disorder or just a being illogical).


Philosophy 1
Does God exist?I can't even answer this. Who or what is God?

But okay, I'll just go ahead. The question doesn't make sense because the existence of a non-being which somehow is the basis of all beings (the spiritual essence or whatever) cannot be determined rationally. Because of that, it's quite wrong to ask believers to prove that God exists, and the important question is glanced over: why does a person believe such an non-entity exists and how does that impact her life? Extending from that, you could ask the question of the historical role played by religion.


If I were to point at you regardless of where or which part of your body I point at whether it be your head or a limb, Would that still be you? ZeroNowhere and Meridian have dealt with this question aptly.

Though, it seems to me that you're trying to present an ontological "argument" for God's existence here.

[o well this is ok I guess]

2. No, there is no you in limbs. If you were to point to my pineal gland, however....

[Meditation]

Philosophy 1
Does God exist?
Phahahaha NO that thing called "god" never existed, only right-wingers,idiots, red necks believe in stories formed in the dark time of our time.

Philosophy 2
If I were to point at you regardless of where or which part of your body I point at whether it be your head or a limb, Would that still be you?
what kind of an stupid question is that?

[Rafiq]

Philosophy 1
Does God exist?


By "God" I think you mean "a god" and the answer is most likely no.

I think the whole idea is a bit humanocentric, don't you think? What makes a "living thing" that can "think" more complex and worthy then, say, a star or a planet?

The very act of "Deliberately 'creating' things" is humanocentric. Because in actuality nothing is really 'created', it's just morphed from one type of matter to another.

[Philosophis Pony]

I noticed some of you took it for granted that I was arguing for the existence of a God. Personally I am a Freethinker, I am merely using the concept of a "God" because it is an omnipotent concept which is the only reason I said it, I could have used other examples such as infinity but it might not have been understood as well.
I am merely theoretically philosophizing among my fellow comrades, it seems whether the questions work as the intended end product is dependent on the person you ask it, it seems.
As for the idea being humanocentric is it not the idea which is but the terms I used within the idea. The intended product of this theoretical philosophy is just to question the nature of reality and to debate on the reality of something intangible.
I'm glad a few people followed along and just to make it clear.
I do not believe in a God(s)

[Luís Henrique]

1. The idea of a single entity as almighty ruler and creator of the universe, should the answer be no, I would say do thoughts exist? Followed by if thoughts exist do thoughts of God exist? Is this true or false?

Thoughts of God, as in people thinking about God, do exist. This is completely unrelated to the question of whether God exists or not.


2. So I assume that would apply to inanimate things as well? If I were to point at Venus which is a part of the Universe as much as your limbs are of your body I would be pointing at the Universe? Or to be more precise We would be the Universe as well as everything around us. This appears to prove that everything within the Universe is the technically the same thing as with anything within said Universe.If you ask me to choose a person in a group, and I point to any part of John, I mean John, not that specific part of him. If you ask me what part of John is injured, and I point to his chest, I mean John's chest, not John in general.

If you ask me what planet is named for the Roman goddess of love, and I point to Venus, I mean Venus, not the Universe.

So no, John is not John's arm, Venus is not the Universe, and the Universe is not Venus.

Luís Henrique

[OHumanista]

1. No (aside from the realm of fiction)
2. If you meant to point especifically at single part of me (as opposed to pointing randomly to indicate the whole me) then I'd say that while being a piece of me it's simply that, fundamentally linked with me yes but not the same as the whole.

[La Comédie Noire]

If I were to point at you regardless of where or which part of your body I point at whether it be your head or a limb, Would that still be you?

David Hume talks about this somewhere when criticizing the idea of a soul and an ego.

[Rafiq]

c
Philosophy 2
If I were to point at you regardless of where or which part of your body I point at whether it be your head or a limb, Would that still be you?


It's kind of like this:

If there is a structure called "Rafiq's bigass mansion" two parts in the structure, Tower 1 and tower 2, both are directly connected to each other and have no space in between. One part is bigger then the other.

So if I point to Tower 2, am I still pointing to Rafiq's bigass mansion? yes, I am, I'm just being specific. And that's what your question is like. "You" is really just a bunch of parts put together and collectively categorized as an animal.