Silkroad Online Forums

God is a theory then...

I should clear the cloud of confusion a bit, about when we remove smt, we got to remove its opposite.
Let's take the example of the light and darkness, which we can use reality facts to imagine.

If one says "i'd like to remove the light", then it's necessary that "the darkness" is also removed. Here is what created the confusion. When we remove a thing, it's the conception of that thing that we remove, not the object in material form. Still unclear?

Take an example of blind person from birth. He never know what is the light, right? In this case, he also not know what is the darkness either because he doesn't have the reference to compare.

For ppl outside, we think that the darkness exists for the blind person, it's just the light which is removed. It's true for our reality because we know what light/darkness is. But it's not true for his reality. Light and darkness of course still exist. But in the reality of the blind person, because he lacks of the conception of light/darkness, they don't exist. He also doesn't know the conception about "can see" and "can't see" because what he only knows is "i can/can't touch it", "i can/can't hear it", etc... Everything which is related to the light, the darkness and his eyes is unbound to his reality even though, in the reality (our reality), they still exist.

The reality we know till now is the reality of our mind, it's how human see the world. It's not, yet, the real ultimate reality.

Cool, you managed to copy my post.



I walk in to a room. The lights are on. There is light in the room. I turn the lights off. Light disappears, and it's opposite, darkness appears. I can remove either light or darkness, but definately not both. The room can be kept dark forever and still it'd be dark in there. If you put a blind person in there the room would still be dark. If you removed all light from the world, there would be a lot of darkness.

I think your logic and thread rules are fail, sorry.

it works only when you remove the wholeness of it, and not just a portion of it. Which means if you want to remove light, you got to remove the entire life in the universe, not just the light in your room. And by removing it, you got to remove the conception of the light as well as its definition. There is no such thing as "Light are entirely removed from the universe, but I still understand what it is".
For example, now is year 2009, 10 years later, year 2019, God removes all the light in the universe, how do you suppose to explain to your child to understand what is light?

To remove light leaves darkness. Darkness is the absence of light. What you are saying is that if light is removed in totality, than the very definition of darkness becomes unexplainable. But this does not change the fact that there is NO LIGHT there for darkness would still exist. You are combining perceived reality with actual reality, you cant do that. A tree still makes noise if it falls with no one around. Just because you remove hearing, that doesn’t removing the existance of sound waves...

Not very logically connected... If light is removed there is darkness. The thing that we define darkness would still exist even if all life was removed and there was no-one left to define it anymore. If there's something you don't know about, can't define or understand doesn't mean it can't exist.
If a tree falls in a forest, it does make a sound even if nobody hears.

PS. Good post CeLL.

Hell yeah, if you understand till that, that's the point of this thread I tried to tell you. If you want to remove a thing, it's the material, the conception, the definition which are removed. In the same time, the opposite could not materially removed, but its conception and definition has to be removed because there is no way you could explain it, that's the rule of this thread.

To perceive this, you got to call for the definition of existence. You can define 2 different definition. A relative definition, it's when you consider something exists only if you can perceive it using your senses (see, hear, smell, touch, taste, and eventually 6th sense, who knows). Currently, the majority of ppl in the world use relative definition. Another definition is the absolute definition, which means that a thing could exist, really exist, even though our senses don't let us to perceive its existence (ref. the bold part I quote above).

As for an example, you can take the example of God or ghosts, spirits, etc... you don't know, you can't define, you can't but it doesn't mean they can't exist.

Now as you understand that when talking about existence, it's not just about the material which exists but also its conception. You also understand the difference betweens relative and absolute definition. When talking about the absolute part, both material and the conception is needed to understand, while about the relative part, you only need to conception. This depends on what kind of definition you are choosing.

And in the bottom line, I don't think I feel surprise when someone stubbornly rejects God and spiritual stuffs because he simply choosing the path of relative conception. What I don't understand is that why someone feels the need of reject and disrespect someone else's belief by ridicule him in front of the public or smt.

naggers.

people who nag you, so annoying.

I would not remove god, so then god will be removed.

lol wrong, it's not "remove this" and "not remove this" but "remove this" and "remove anti-this"

There's absolutely no point in removing something and its opposite entirely.

Hey let's remove poverty. No wealth then either.
Starvation? Everybody gets rationed portions.
Sadness? Well nobody can be happy anymore so screw it.
War? No peace.

It's quite stupid.

I think this is the only post I understood in this whole topic.

The rule says if you don't know what to remove you can add things instead

free secks then

I think you said it yourself there. If the opposite existed, and is not removed, it still exists. If all light is gone then darkness may join the club of undefined. Not defined (anymore), not removed either.

Tbh you seem like a bad card player who's playing a game and losing, and making up new rules to fix it. Not without contradicting yourself, though. Kind of surprised that no one has posted a facepalm pic yet.

Because you are seeing thing using the absolute conception while the purpose of the thread is using the relative conception. It exists only if you are a God, you know everything and you don't suffer the lack of knowledge when it is removed. As human, when that thing is totally removed from your memory, from books, you'll have no idea of its existence even a small trace. Therefore, we can consider it not exists but it exists materially.
Do you believe in God and spirits?

i would wish to remove Division, whether its people divided by race or by opinion, beleif or for whatever reason we remain divided
United we stand, divided we fall

Nice topic silo

That would just make us more ignorant, not make the thing in question not exist. There probably are a lot of things that we can not know about, comprehend or define, and still they exist. Some we might discover one day, some others, perhaps never. That's what the human race has been doing till now, is it not.
Neutrons and protons existed in the stone age even though nobody could know about them. Well, for the caveman they did not exist. The caveman was ingorant, even moreso than we are.

The idea of relative conception can't really be seen in the OP. Hell, you even ask us to explain why we do not want the removed thing's opposite to exist. Like, if we remove war, you ask us to explain why we don't want peace to exist. I see some major confusion in your philosophy.


Now that you asked, no. I don't believe in such. I believe that those concepts were created to explain some things that people were not able to comprehend. Thus I see religion nowadays as a relic. I don't mind religion as long as it don't bother me. Like, start a war somewhere close to me.

Sometimes I think I'd be great to believe in a god. Or in a couple of them. I'd like to believe that there is something for me other than turning into soil after my heart retires from pumping blood. Afterlife or something, would love to meet those close to me (who've long gone) again...
My mind just wont let me believe so. Of course living in such belief wouldn't be bad, you couldn't get disappointed when you die, cos you're dead.
I'm pretty content with the idea of just turning to soil. A chuck of soil won't miss anyone I recon.

PS. If we meet in an afterlife of some kind, I'll take my words back.

I want to say that I would remove Silo but then intelligence would also cease to exist.


Agreed.

But that's what we need to debate to understand what is an Utopia world.
If one day you become a God, could you make a better world than our current one? If yes, what changes?

This thread makes no god damn sense.



DumboDii delivers:

then u are removing its opposite, unison.

I did post a facepalm back there but the pic was broken and I cbf to edit :3

>.<

lol. Hardly a topic worth browsing four pages of posts.

u

then you must be the worst God ever exists

About time. Thanks, this thread really deserves a facepalm


I know you read my reply and copied it because you wanted to be as cool as me. :3


And first one too, lol. Besides Lalo would obviously make a good god.

I'd remove Kanye West.