Total Posts:35|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

For The Theists

Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2015 11:21:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Creatio ex materia, creatio ex nihilo, or creatio ex deo? What form of creation makes the most sense to you and why (atheist opinions welcome as well)?
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2015 12:20:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Self-actualization of the potential for self-actualization. Absent any reality, there is no constraint, which implies infinite potential. So this potential didn't "come" from anywhere. It's simply inevitable.

I'm not sure what to call this though.
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2015 12:52:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/22/2015 12:20:03 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Self-actualization of the potential for self-actualization. Absent any reality, there is no constraint, which implies infinite potential. So this potential didn't "come" from anywhere. It's simply inevitable.

I'm not sure what to call this though.

In this case, wouldn't the "self" be reality?
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2015 1:04:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/22/2015 12:52:52 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/22/2015 12:20:03 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Self-actualization of the potential for self-actualization. Absent any reality, there is no constraint, which implies infinite potential. So this potential didn't "come" from anywhere. It's simply inevitable.

I'm not sure what to call this though.

In this case, wouldn't the "self" be reality?

Of course.
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2015 1:08:19 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/22/2015 1:04:15 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/22/2015 12:52:52 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/22/2015 12:20:03 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Self-actualization of the potential for self-actualization. Absent any reality, there is no constraint, which implies infinite potential. So this potential didn't "come" from anywhere. It's simply inevitable.

I'm not sure what to call this though.

In this case, wouldn't the "self" be reality?

Of course.

So it isn't absent any reality?
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2015 1:12:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/22/2015 1:08:19 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/22/2015 1:04:15 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/22/2015 12:52:52 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/22/2015 12:20:03 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Self-actualization of the potential for self-actualization. Absent any reality, there is no constraint, which implies infinite potential. So this potential didn't "come" from anywhere. It's simply inevitable.

I'm not sure what to call this though.

In this case, wouldn't the "self" be reality?

Of course.

So it isn't absent any reality?

I didn't say that self-actualization exists absent any reality. I said the potential for reality to do so naturally exists absent any reality.
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2015 1:23:23 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/22/2015 1:12:28 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/22/2015 1:08:19 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/22/2015 1:04:15 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/22/2015 12:52:52 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/22/2015 12:20:03 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Self-actualization of the potential for self-actualization. Absent any reality, there is no constraint, which implies infinite potential. So this potential didn't "come" from anywhere. It's simply inevitable.

I'm not sure what to call this though.

In this case, wouldn't the "self" be reality?

Of course.

So it isn't absent any reality?

I didn't say that self-actualization exists absent any reality. I said the potential for reality to do so naturally exists absent any reality.

Oh, that's what you meant. Okay, that clarifies it. But how does a potential for reality exist absent reality? In what form does it exist, where does it exist, and how?
xXCryptoXx
Posts: 5,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2015 1:48:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/22/2015 12:20:03 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Self-actualization of the potential for self-actualization. Absent any reality, there is no constraint, which implies infinite potential. So this potential didn't "come" from anywhere. It's simply inevitable.

Wouldn't true nothingness imply that there is no potential of any kind?

How can a potency actualize itself?
Nolite Timere
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2015 1:48:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/22/2015 1:23:23 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/22/2015 1:12:28 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/22/2015 1:08:19 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/22/2015 1:04:15 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/22/2015 12:52:52 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/22/2015 12:20:03 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Self-actualization of the potential for self-actualization. Absent any reality, there is no constraint, which implies infinite potential. So this potential didn't "come" from anywhere. It's simply inevitable.

I'm not sure what to call this though.

In this case, wouldn't the "self" be reality?

Of course.

So it isn't absent any reality?

I didn't say that self-actualization exists absent any reality. I said the potential for reality to do so naturally exists absent any reality.

Oh, that's what you meant. Okay, that clarifies it. But how does a potential for reality exist absent reality? In what form does it exist, where does it exist, and how?

It exists in an undifferentiated form (therefore lacking a location or specific character) i.e., it exists as part of the infinite potential implied by a zero-informational domain. It only becomes distinguished as something specific upon self-actualization. In other words, all potentials are implicit in undifferentiated potential, but they do not "exist" yet in the sense of being distinguishable. If they are to actualize, they must distinguish themselves. This limits possible worlds to only those which are capable of self-actualization.
xXCryptoXx
Posts: 5,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2015 1:49:01 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/21/2015 11:21:30 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Creatio ex materia, creatio ex nihilo, or creatio ex deo? What form of creation makes the most sense to you and why (atheist opinions welcome as well)?

What is creation ex deo? What is creation ex materia?
Nolite Timere
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2015 1:55:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/22/2015 1:48:04 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 7/22/2015 12:20:03 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Self-actualization of the potential for self-actualization. Absent any reality, there is no constraint, which implies infinite potential. So this potential didn't "come" from anywhere. It's simply inevitable.

Wouldn't true nothingness imply that there is no potential of any kind?

No. True nothingness is undefined (there's nothing about it which is a specific way) and therefore has a superficial inability to enforce or imply constraint. It can't even prevent itself from turning into reality, which is why reality (which is in a sense part of nothingness...part of its inherent potential) can self-actualize.

How can a potency actualize itself?

By being self-contained.
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2015 1:57:14 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/22/2015 1:48:22 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/22/2015 1:23:23 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/22/2015 1:12:28 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/22/2015 1:08:19 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/22/2015 1:04:15 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/22/2015 12:52:52 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/22/2015 12:20:03 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Self-actualization of the potential for self-actualization. Absent any reality, there is no constraint, which implies infinite potential. So this potential didn't "come" from anywhere. It's simply inevitable.

I'm not sure what to call this though.

In this case, wouldn't the "self" be reality?

Of course.

So it isn't absent any reality?

I didn't say that self-actualization exists absent any reality. I said the potential for reality to do so naturally exists absent any reality.

Oh, that's what you meant. Okay, that clarifies it. But how does a potential for reality exist absent reality? In what form does it exist, where does it exist, and how?

It exists in an undifferentiated form (therefore lacking a location or specific character) i.e., it exists as part of the infinite potential implied by a zero-informational domain. It only becomes distinguished as something specific upon self-actualization. In other words, all potentials are implicit in undifferentiated potential, but they do not "exist" yet in the sense of being distinguishable. If they are to actualize, they must distinguish themselves. This limits possible worlds to only those which are capable of self-actualization.

But the infinite potential or the zero-informational domain are not realities?

If there are limits on the possible worlds which can be self-actualized, then is the potential actually infinite? It seems to be suggest that the potential is limited, since there is no potential for certain worlds to be actualized.

I guess I sort of understand what you believe. Is it correct to say that you believe there exists or existed an infinite potential implied by a zero-informational domain (which you once defined as a superficial lack of definition or constraint) from which reality self-actualized (of its own will, I think you once said)? I don't want to get it wrong.

I don't know why you believe that, but I guess that would be a difficult discussion.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2015 2:04:50 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/22/2015 1:57:14 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/22/2015 1:48:22 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/22/2015 1:23:23 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/22/2015 1:12:28 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/22/2015 1:08:19 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/22/2015 1:04:15 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/22/2015 12:52:52 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/22/2015 12:20:03 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Self-actualization of the potential for self-actualization. Absent any reality, there is no constraint, which implies infinite potential. So this potential didn't "come" from anywhere. It's simply inevitable.

I'm not sure what to call this though.

In this case, wouldn't the "self" be reality?

Of course.

So it isn't absent any reality?

I didn't say that self-actualization exists absent any reality. I said the potential for reality to do so naturally exists absent any reality.

Oh, that's what you meant. Okay, that clarifies it. But how does a potential for reality exist absent reality? In what form does it exist, where does it exist, and how?

It exists in an undifferentiated form (therefore lacking a location or specific character) i.e., it exists as part of the infinite potential implied by a zero-informational domain. It only becomes distinguished as something specific upon self-actualization. In other words, all potentials are implicit in undifferentiated potential, but they do not "exist" yet in the sense of being distinguishable. If they are to actualize, they must distinguish themselves. This limits possible worlds to only those which are capable of self-actualization.

But the infinite potential or the zero-informational domain are not realities?

If there are limits on the possible worlds which can be self-actualized, then is the potential actually infinite? It seems to be suggest that the potential is limited, since there is no potential for certain worlds to be actualized.


They are not topological limits. In other words, they are not applied from the outside. If a potential is to actualize, it must conform to the rules of existence not because of UBT but because of existence. In other words, in choosing to self-actualize, a potential consigns itself to the rules which make existence possible. If it is unable to fulfill those rules, then existence has not be achieved.

I guess I sort of understand what you believe. Is it correct to say that you believe there exists or existed an infinite potential implied by a zero-informational domain (which you once defined as a superficial lack of definition or constraint) from which reality self-actualized (of its own will, I think you once said)? I don't want to get it wrong.

It has an extrapolated existence. It doesn't exist in the usual sense, since its "non-existence" is its existence.

I don't know why you believe that, but I guess that would be a difficult discussion.
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2015 2:58:43 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/22/2015 2:04:50 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/22/2015 1:57:14 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/22/2015 1:48:22 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/22/2015 1:23:23 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/22/2015 1:12:28 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/22/2015 1:08:19 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/22/2015 1:04:15 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/22/2015 12:52:52 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/22/2015 12:20:03 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Self-actualization of the potential for self-actualization. Absent any reality, there is no constraint, which implies infinite potential. So this potential didn't "come" from anywhere. It's simply inevitable.

I'm not sure what to call this though.

In this case, wouldn't the "self" be reality?

Of course.

So it isn't absent any reality?

I didn't say that self-actualization exists absent any reality. I said the potential for reality to do so naturally exists absent any reality.

Oh, that's what you meant. Okay, that clarifies it. But how does a potential for reality exist absent reality? In what form does it exist, where does it exist, and how?

It exists in an undifferentiated form (therefore lacking a location or specific character) i.e., it exists as part of the infinite potential implied by a zero-informational domain. It only becomes distinguished as something specific upon self-actualization. In other words, all potentials are implicit in undifferentiated potential, but they do not "exist" yet in the sense of being distinguishable. If they are to actualize, they must distinguish themselves. This limits possible worlds to only those which are capable of self-actualization.

But the infinite potential or the zero-informational domain are not realities?

If there are limits on the possible worlds which can be self-actualized, then is the potential actually infinite? It seems to be suggest that the potential is limited, since there is no potential for certain worlds to be actualized.


They are not topological limits. In other words, they are not applied from the outside. If a potential is to actualize, it must conform to the rules of existence not because of UBT but because of existence. In other words, in choosing to self-actualize, a potential consigns itself to the rules which make existence possible. If it is unable to fulfill those rules, then existence has not be achieved.

That doesn't seem to suggest that the potential being referred to is not finite, since its actualization is constrained and limited.

You didn't say what UBT stands for, by the way.

I guess I sort of understand what you believe. Is it correct to say that you believe there exists or existed an infinite potential implied by a zero-informational domain (which you once defined as a superficial lack of definition or constraint) from which reality self-actualized (of its own will, I think you once said)? I don't want to get it wrong.

It has an extrapolated existence. It doesn't exist in the usual sense, since its "non-existence" is its existence.

I think what you're saying that is that "non-existence" is itself a kind of potential. Is that about right?


I don't know why you believe that, but I guess that would be a difficult discussion.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2015 3:04:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/22/2015 2:58:43 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/22/2015 2:04:50 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/22/2015 1:57:14 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/22/2015 1:48:22 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/22/2015 1:23:23 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/22/2015 1:12:28 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/22/2015 1:08:19 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/22/2015 1:04:15 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/22/2015 12:52:52 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/22/2015 12:20:03 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Self-actualization of the potential for self-actualization. Absent any reality, there is no constraint, which implies infinite potential. So this potential didn't "come" from anywhere. It's simply inevitable.

I'm not sure what to call this though.

In this case, wouldn't the "self" be reality?

Of course.

So it isn't absent any reality?

I didn't say that self-actualization exists absent any reality. I said the potential for reality to do so naturally exists absent any reality.

Oh, that's what you meant. Okay, that clarifies it. But how does a potential for reality exist absent reality? In what form does it exist, where does it exist, and how?

It exists in an undifferentiated form (therefore lacking a location or specific character) i.e., it exists as part of the infinite potential implied by a zero-informational domain. It only becomes distinguished as something specific upon self-actualization. In other words, all potentials are implicit in undifferentiated potential, but they do not "exist" yet in the sense of being distinguishable. If they are to actualize, they must distinguish themselves. This limits possible worlds to only those which are capable of self-actualization.

But the infinite potential or the zero-informational domain are not realities?

If there are limits on the possible worlds which can be self-actualized, then is the potential actually infinite? It seems to be suggest that the potential is limited, since there is no potential for certain worlds to be actualized.


They are not topological limits. In other words, they are not applied from the outside. If a potential is to actualize, it must conform to the rules of existence not because of UBT but because of existence. In other words, in choosing to self-actualize, a potential consigns itself to the rules which make existence possible. If it is unable to fulfill those rules, then existence has not be achieved.

That doesn't seem to suggest that the potential being referred to is not finite, since its actualization is constrained and limited.


There's no constraint which enforces it though. Existence is itself a constraint, so if it lacks the logical properties which make existence possible i.e., if it's unconstrained, it simply fails to achieve existence, not because something makes it so, but just because.

You didn't say what UBT stands for, by the way.


Sorry. It stands for Unbound Potential, which is synonymous with zero-informational domain.

I guess I sort of understand what you believe. Is it correct to say that you believe there exists or existed an infinite potential implied by a zero-informational domain (which you once defined as a superficial lack of definition or constraint) from which reality self-actualized (of its own will, I think you once said)? I don't want to get it wrong.

It has an extrapolated existence. It doesn't exist in the usual sense, since its "non-existence" is its existence.

I think what you're saying that is that "non-existence" is itself a kind of potential. Is that about right?


I don't know why you believe that, but I guess that would be a difficult discussion.
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2015 4:31:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/22/2015 3:04:30 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/22/2015 2:58:43 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/22/2015 2:04:50 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/22/2015 1:57:14 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/22/2015 1:48:22 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/22/2015 1:23:23 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/22/2015 1:12:28 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/22/2015 1:08:19 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/22/2015 1:04:15 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/22/2015 12:52:52 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/22/2015 12:20:03 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Self-actualization of the potential for self-actualization. Absent any reality, there is no constraint, which implies infinite potential. So this potential didn't "come" from anywhere. It's simply inevitable.

I'm not sure what to call this though.

In this case, wouldn't the "self" be reality?

Of course.

So it isn't absent any reality?

I didn't say that self-actualization exists absent any reality. I said the potential for reality to do so naturally exists absent any reality.

Oh, that's what you meant. Okay, that clarifies it. But how does a potential for reality exist absent reality? In what form does it exist, where does it exist, and how?

It exists in an undifferentiated form (therefore lacking a location or specific character) i.e., it exists as part of the infinite potential implied by a zero-informational domain. It only becomes distinguished as something specific upon self-actualization. In other words, all potentials are implicit in undifferentiated potential, but they do not "exist" yet in the sense of being distinguishable. If they are to actualize, they must distinguish themselves. This limits possible worlds to only those which are capable of self-actualization.

But the infinite potential or the zero-informational domain are not realities?

If there are limits on the possible worlds which can be self-actualized, then is the potential actually infinite? It seems to be suggest that the potential is limited, since there is no potential for certain worlds to be actualized.


They are not topological limits. In other words, they are not applied from the outside. If a potential is to actualize, it must conform to the rules of existence not because of UBT but because of existence. In other words, in choosing to self-actualize, a potential consigns itself to the rules which make existence possible. If it is unable to fulfill those rules, then existence has not be achieved.

That doesn't seem to suggest that the potential being referred to is not finite, since its actualization is constrained and limited.


There's no constraint which enforces it though. Existence is itself a constraint, so if it lacks the logical properties which make existence possible i.e., if it's unconstrained, it simply fails to achieve existence, not because something makes it so, but just because.

Nonetheless, that implies a limited potential, because it isn't a potential if there is no possibility of it being realized, is it?

You didn't say what UBT stands for, by the way.


Sorry. It stands for Unbound Potential, which is synonymous with zero-informational domain.

Are they synonymous, or does one merely imply the other?

I guess I sort of understand what you believe. Is it correct to say that you believe there exists or existed an infinite potential implied by a zero-informational domain (which you once defined as a superficial lack of definition or constraint) from which reality self-actualized (of its own will, I think you once said)? I don't want to get it wrong.

It has an extrapolated existence. It doesn't exist in the usual sense, since its "non-existence" is its existence.

I think what you're saying that is that "non-existence" is itself a kind of potential. Is that about right?


I don't know why you believe that, but I guess that would be a difficult discussion.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2015 1:01:45 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/22/2015 1:49:01 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 7/21/2015 11:21:30 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Creatio ex materia, creatio ex nihilo, or creatio ex deo? What form of creation makes the most sense to you and why (atheist opinions welcome as well)?

What is creation ex deo? What is creation ex materia?

Creatio ex deo means God created the universe from himself. Creation ex materia means he created the universe from pre-existing materials (Aristotle had this view). Creatio ex nihilo means he created the universe out of absolutely nothing (the most absurd of the three views).
ShabShoral
Posts: 3,228
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2015 3:31:50 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/21/2015 11:21:30 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Creatio ex materia, creatio ex nihilo, or creatio ex deo? What form of creation makes the most sense to you and why (atheist opinions welcome as well)?

The creation of reality, all that is, from something outside of itself is inherently contradictory. The only cause it can have is itself, and therefore it must be eternal and necessary.
"This site is trash as a debate site. It's club penguin for dysfunctional adults."

~ Skepsikyma <3

"Your idea of good writing is like Spinoza mixed with Heidegger."

~ Dylly Dylly Cat Cat

"You seem to aspire to be a cross between a Jewish hipster, an old school WASP aristocrat, and a political iconoclast"

~ Thett the Mighty

"fvck omg ur face"

~ Liz
tejretics
Posts: 6,081
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2015 8:55:48 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/23/2015 3:31:50 AM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 7/21/2015 11:21:30 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Creatio ex materia, creatio ex nihilo, or creatio ex deo? What form of creation makes the most sense to you and why (atheist opinions welcome as well)?

The creation of reality, all that is, from something outside of itself is inherently contradictory. The only cause it can have is itself, and therefore it must be eternal and necessary.

... or simultaneously caused by itself.

Though I seriously doubt that view.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2015 9:17:20 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/23/2015 1:01:45 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 7/22/2015 1:49:01 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 7/21/2015 11:21:30 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Creatio ex materia, creatio ex nihilo, or creatio ex deo? What form of creation makes the most sense to you and why (atheist opinions welcome as well)?

What is creation ex deo? What is creation ex materia?

Creatio ex deo means God created the universe from himself. Creation ex materia means he created the universe from pre-existing materials (Aristotle had this view). Creatio ex nihilo means he created the universe out of absolutely nothing (the most absurd of the three views).

Given that all three involve creation by God, how are any of them more or less absurd than the others? Wouldn't that assume that each involves a different amount of difficulty for God, or that God is limited in how it can create something?
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2015 9:33:06 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/22/2015 4:31:25 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/22/2015 3:04:30 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/22/2015 2:58:43 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/22/2015 2:04:50 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/22/2015 1:57:14 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/22/2015 1:48:22 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/22/2015 1:23:23 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/22/2015 1:12:28 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/22/2015 1:08:19 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/22/2015 1:04:15 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/22/2015 12:52:52 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/22/2015 12:20:03 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Self-actualization of the potential for self-actualization. Absent any reality, there is no constraint, which implies infinite potential. So this potential didn't "come" from anywhere. It's simply inevitable.

I'm not sure what to call this though.

In this case, wouldn't the "self" be reality?

Of course.

So it isn't absent any reality?

I didn't say that self-actualization exists absent any reality. I said the potential for reality to do so naturally exists absent any reality.

Oh, that's what you meant. Okay, that clarifies it. But how does a potential for reality exist absent reality? In what form does it exist, where does it exist, and how?

It exists in an undifferentiated form (therefore lacking a location or specific character) i.e., it exists as part of the infinite potential implied by a zero-informational domain. It only becomes distinguished as something specific upon self-actualization. In other words, all potentials are implicit in undifferentiated potential, but they do not "exist" yet in the sense of being distinguishable. If they are to actualize, they must distinguish themselves. This limits possible worlds to only those which are capable of self-actualization.

But the infinite potential or the zero-informational domain are not realities?

If there are limits on the possible worlds which can be self-actualized, then is the potential actually infinite? It seems to be suggest that the potential is limited, since there is no potential for certain worlds to be actualized.


They are not topological limits. In other words, they are not applied from the outside. If a potential is to actualize, it must conform to the rules of existence not because of UBT but because of existence. In other words, in choosing to self-actualize, a potential consigns itself to the rules which make existence possible. If it is unable to fulfill those rules, then existence has not be achieved.

That doesn't seem to suggest that the potential being referred to is not finite, since its actualization is constrained and limited.


There's no constraint which enforces it though. Existence is itself a constraint, so if it lacks the logical properties which make existence possible i.e., if it's unconstrained, it simply fails to achieve existence, not because something makes it so, but just because.

Nonetheless, that implies a limited potential, because it isn't a potential if there is no possibility of it being realized, is it?

No. There's no potential of it being realized precisely because it is unbound (limitless) potential.

You didn't say what UBT stands for, by the way.


Sorry. It stands for Unbound Potential, which is synonymous with zero-informational domain.

Are they synonymous, or does one merely imply the other?

They are synonymous in the sense that neither is larger or smaller than the other.


I guess I sort of understand what you believe. Is it correct to say that you believe there exists or existed an infinite potential implied by a zero-informational domain (which you once defined as a superficial lack of definition or constraint) from which reality self-actualized (of its own will, I think you once said)? I don't want to get it wrong.

It has an extrapolated existence. It doesn't exist in the usual sense, since its "non-existence" is its existence.

I think what you're saying that is that "non-existence" is itself a kind of potential. Is that about right?


I don't know why you believe that, but I guess that would be a difficult discussion.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2015 9:43:16 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/23/2015 3:31:50 AM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 7/21/2015 11:21:30 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Creatio ex materia, creatio ex nihilo, or creatio ex deo? What form of creation makes the most sense to you and why (atheist opinions welcome as well)?

The creation of reality, all that is, from something outside of itself is inherently contradictory. The only cause it can have is itself, and therefore it must be eternal and necessary.

Reality need not exist prior to causing itself. The selection function, and that which is selected, are identical. Since there's no real constraint external to reality, there's nothing to prevent this from happening.
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2015 9:48:37 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/23/2015 9:33:06 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/22/2015 4:31:25 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/22/2015 3:04:30 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/22/2015 2:58:43 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/22/2015 2:04:50 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/22/2015 1:57:14 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/22/2015 1:48:22 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/22/2015 1:23:23 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/22/2015 1:12:28 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/22/2015 1:08:19 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/22/2015 1:04:15 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/22/2015 12:52:52 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/22/2015 12:20:03 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Self-actualization of the potential for self-actualization. Absent any reality, there is no constraint, which implies infinite potential. So this potential didn't "come" from anywhere. It's simply inevitable.

I'm not sure what to call this though.

In this case, wouldn't the "self" be reality?

Of course.

So it isn't absent any reality?

I didn't say that self-actualization exists absent any reality. I said the potential for reality to do so naturally exists absent any reality.

Oh, that's what you meant. Okay, that clarifies it. But how does a potential for reality exist absent reality? In what form does it exist, where does it exist, and how?

It exists in an undifferentiated form (therefore lacking a location or specific character) i.e., it exists as part of the infinite potential implied by a zero-informational domain. It only becomes distinguished as something specific upon self-actualization. In other words, all potentials are implicit in undifferentiated potential, but they do not "exist" yet in the sense of being distinguishable. If they are to actualize, they must distinguish themselves. This limits possible worlds to only those which are capable of self-actualization.

But the infinite potential or the zero-informational domain are not realities?

If there are limits on the possible worlds which can be self-actualized, then is the potential actually infinite? It seems to be suggest that the potential is limited, since there is no potential for certain worlds to be actualized.


They are not topological limits. In other words, they are not applied from the outside. If a potential is to actualize, it must conform to the rules of existence not because of UBT but because of existence. In other words, in choosing to self-actualize, a potential consigns itself to the rules which make existence possible. If it is unable to fulfill those rules, then existence has not be achieved.

That doesn't seem to suggest that the potential being referred to is not finite, since its actualization is constrained and limited.


There's no constraint which enforces it though. Existence is itself a constraint, so if it lacks the logical properties which make existence possible i.e., if it's unconstrained, it simply fails to achieve existence, not because something makes it so, but just because.

Nonetheless, that implies a limited potential, because it isn't a potential if there is no possibility of it being realized, is it?


No. There's no potential of it being realized precisely because it is unbound (limitless) potential.

This seems rather contradictory. It sounds like you're saying that it is limited in potential because it is limitless in potential.


You didn't say what UBT stands for, by the way.


Sorry. It stands for Unbound Potential, which is synonymous with zero-informational domain.

Are they synonymous, or does one merely imply the other?

They are synonymous in the sense that neither is larger or smaller than the other.

Squeeze theorem? (That's just a calculus joke). It sounds like you're not saying they're the same, but you're also not saying that they're different.



I guess I sort of understand what you believe. Is it correct to say that you believe there exists or existed an infinite potential implied by a zero-informational domain (which you once defined as a superficial lack of definition or constraint) from which reality self-actualized (of its own will, I think you once said)? I don't want to get it wrong.

It has an extrapolated existence. It doesn't exist in the usual sense, since its "non-existence" is its existence.

I think what you're saying that is that "non-existence" is itself a kind of potential. Is that about right?


I don't know why you believe that, but I guess that would be a difficult discussion.
ShabShoral
Posts: 3,228
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2015 9:54:08 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/23/2015 9:43:16 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/23/2015 3:31:50 AM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 7/21/2015 11:21:30 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Creatio ex materia, creatio ex nihilo, or creatio ex deo? What form of creation makes the most sense to you and why (atheist opinions welcome as well)?

The creation of reality, all that is, from something outside of itself is inherently contradictory. The only cause it can have is itself, and therefore it must be eternal and necessary.

Reality need not exist prior to causing itself. The selection function, and that which is selected, are identical. Since there's no real constraint external to reality, there's nothing to prevent this from happening.

Such a selection function could not be specified or act in any particular manner in a constraintless plane.
"This site is trash as a debate site. It's club penguin for dysfunctional adults."

~ Skepsikyma <3

"Your idea of good writing is like Spinoza mixed with Heidegger."

~ Dylly Dylly Cat Cat

"You seem to aspire to be a cross between a Jewish hipster, an old school WASP aristocrat, and a political iconoclast"

~ Thett the Mighty

"fvck omg ur face"

~ Liz
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2015 9:57:00 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/23/2015 9:48:37 AM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/23/2015 9:33:06 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/22/2015 4:31:25 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/22/2015 3:04:30 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/22/2015 2:58:43 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/22/2015 2:04:50 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/22/2015 1:57:14 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/22/2015 1:48:22 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/22/2015 1:23:23 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/22/2015 1:12:28 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/22/2015 1:08:19 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/22/2015 1:04:15 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/22/2015 12:52:52 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/22/2015 12:20:03 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Self-actualization of the potential for self-actualization. Absent any reality, there is no constraint, which implies infinite potential. So this potential didn't "come" from anywhere. It's simply inevitable.

I'm not sure what to call this though.

In this case, wouldn't the "self" be reality?

Of course.

So it isn't absent any reality?

I didn't say that self-actualization exists absent any reality. I said the potential for reality to do so naturally exists absent any reality.

Oh, that's what you meant. Okay, that clarifies it. But how does a potential for reality exist absent reality? In what form does it exist, where does it exist, and how?

It exists in an undifferentiated form (therefore lacking a location or specific character) i.e., it exists as part of the infinite potential implied by a zero-informational domain. It only becomes distinguished as something specific upon self-actualization. In other words, all potentials are implicit in undifferentiated potential, but they do not "exist" yet in the sense of being distinguishable. If they are to actualize, they must distinguish themselves. This limits possible worlds to only those which are capable of self-actualization.

But the infinite potential or the zero-informational domain are not realities?

If there are limits on the possible worlds which can be self-actualized, then is the potential actually infinite? It seems to be suggest that the potential is limited, since there is no potential for certain worlds to be actualized.


They are not topological limits. In other words, they are not applied from the outside. If a potential is to actualize, it must conform to the rules of existence not because of UBT but because of existence. In other words, in choosing to self-actualize, a potential consigns itself to the rules which make existence possible. If it is unable to fulfill those rules, then existence has not be achieved.

That doesn't seem to suggest that the potential being referred to is not finite, since its actualization is constrained and limited.


There's no constraint which enforces it though. Existence is itself a constraint, so if it lacks the logical properties which make existence possible i.e., if it's unconstrained, it simply fails to achieve existence, not because something makes it so, but just because.

Nonetheless, that implies a limited potential, because it isn't a potential if there is no possibility of it being realized, is it?


No. There's no potential of it being realized precisely because it is unbound (limitless) potential.

This seems rather contradictory. It sounds like you're saying that it is limited in potential because it is limitless in potential.


It's a bit hard to criticize UBT on account of being contradictory, considering that it is limitless and thus does not claim to be consistent. It's only limited in the sense that it is limitless. It's so limitless, in fact, that is also possesses a limited aspect, hence reality.


You didn't say what UBT stands for, by the way.


Sorry. It stands for Unbound Potential, which is synonymous with zero-informational domain.

Are they synonymous, or does one merely imply the other?

They are synonymous in the sense that neither is larger or smaller than the other.

Squeeze theorem? (That's just a calculus joke). It sounds like you're not saying they're the same, but you're also not saying that they're different.



I guess I sort of understand what you believe. Is it correct to say that you believe there exists or existed an infinite potential implied by a zero-informational domain (which you once defined as a superficial lack of definition or constraint) from which reality self-actualized (of its own will, I think you once said)? I don't want to get it wrong.

It has an extrapolated existence. It doesn't exist in the usual sense, since its "non-existence" is its existence.

I think what you're saying that is that "non-existence" is itself a kind of potential. Is that about right?


I don't know why you believe that, but I guess that would be a difficult discussion.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2015 10:01:10 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/23/2015 9:54:08 AM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 7/23/2015 9:43:16 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/23/2015 3:31:50 AM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 7/21/2015 11:21:30 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Creatio ex materia, creatio ex nihilo, or creatio ex deo? What form of creation makes the most sense to you and why (atheist opinions welcome as well)?

The creation of reality, all that is, from something outside of itself is inherently contradictory. The only cause it can have is itself, and therefore it must be eternal and necessary.

Reality need not exist prior to causing itself. The selection function, and that which is selected, are identical. Since there's no real constraint external to reality, there's nothing to prevent this from happening.

Such a selection function could not be specified or act in any particular manner in a constraintless plane.

Which is why the potential must be intrinsically self-actualizing so that it is can distinguish and actualize its own potential. Claiming that this is "impossible" amounts to the assertion that a constraintless plain enforces topological constraint.
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2015 10:16:52 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/23/2015 9:57:00 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/23/2015 9:48:37 AM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/23/2015 9:33:06 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/22/2015 4:31:25 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/22/2015 3:04:30 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/22/2015 2:58:43 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/22/2015 2:04:50 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/22/2015 1:57:14 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/22/2015 1:48:22 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/22/2015 1:23:23 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/22/2015 1:12:28 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/22/2015 1:08:19 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/22/2015 1:04:15 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/22/2015 12:52:52 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/22/2015 12:20:03 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Self-actualization of the potential for self-actualization. Absent any reality, there is no constraint, which implies infinite potential. So this potential didn't "come" from anywhere. It's simply inevitable.

I'm not sure what to call this though.

In this case, wouldn't the "self" be reality?

Of course.

So it isn't absent any reality?

I didn't say that self-actualization exists absent any reality. I said the potential for reality to do so naturally exists absent any reality.

Oh, that's what you meant. Okay, that clarifies it. But how does a potential for reality exist absent reality? In what form does it exist, where does it exist, and how?

It exists in an undifferentiated form (therefore lacking a location or specific character) i.e., it exists as part of the infinite potential implied by a zero-informational domain. It only becomes distinguished as something specific upon self-actualization. In other words, all potentials are implicit in undifferentiated potential, but they do not "exist" yet in the sense of being distinguishable. If they are to actualize, they must distinguish themselves. This limits possible worlds to only those which are capable of self-actualization.

But the infinite potential or the zero-informational domain are not realities?

If there are limits on the possible worlds which can be self-actualized, then is the potential actually infinite? It seems to be suggest that the potential is limited, since there is no potential for certain worlds to be actualized.


They are not topological limits. In other words, they are not applied from the outside. If a potential is to actualize, it must conform to the rules of existence not because of UBT but because of existence. In other words, in choosing to self-actualize, a potential consigns itself to the rules which make existence possible. If it is unable to fulfill those rules, then existence has not be achieved.

That doesn't seem to suggest that the potential being referred to is not finite, since its actualization is constrained and limited.


There's no constraint which enforces it though. Existence is itself a constraint, so if it lacks the logical properties which make existence possible i.e., if it's unconstrained, it simply fails to achieve existence, not because something makes it so, but just because.

Nonetheless, that implies a limited potential, because it isn't a potential if there is no possibility of it being realized, is it?


No. There's no potential of it being realized precisely because it is unbound (limitless) potential.

This seems rather contradictory. It sounds like you're saying that it is limited in potential because it is limitless in potential.


It's a bit hard to criticize UBT on account of being contradictory, considering that it is limitless and thus does not claim to be consistent. It's only limited in the sense that it is limitless. It's so limitless, in fact, that is also possesses a limited aspect, hence reality.

I guess it is hard to fault something for not being exactly coherent when it doesn't aim to be. So it's unlimited, except it isn't, because it's limited in/by reality, but that's only because it's unlimited. Something like that.


You didn't say what UBT stands for, by the way.


Sorry. It stands for Unbound Potential, which is synonymous with zero-informational domain.

Are they synonymous, or does one merely imply the other?

They are synonymous in the sense that neither is larger or smaller than the other.

Squeeze theorem? (That's just a calculus joke). It sounds like you're not saying they're the same, but you're also not saying that they're different.

Is this one of those things that's not meant to be exactly consistent?




I guess I sort of understand what you believe. Is it correct to say that you believe there exists or existed an infinite potential implied by a zero-informational domain (which you once defined as a superficial lack of definition or constraint) from which reality self-actualized (of its own will, I think you once said)? I don't want to get it wrong.

It has an extrapolated existence. It doesn't exist in the usual sense, since its "non-existence" is its existence.

I think what you're saying that is that "non-existence" is itself a kind of potential. Is that about right?


I don't know why you believe that, but I guess that would be a difficult discussion.
xXCryptoXx
Posts: 5,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2015 11:36:57 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/22/2015 1:55:32 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/22/2015 1:48:04 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 7/22/2015 12:20:03 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Self-actualization of the potential for self-actualization. Absent any reality, there is no constraint, which implies infinite potential. So this potential didn't "come" from anywhere. It's simply inevitable.

Wouldn't true nothingness imply that there is no potential of any kind?

No. True nothingness is undefined (there's nothing about it which is a specific way)

I disagree with this. Nothingness is defined as simply the lack of anything. This is what makes nothingness, nothingness, as opposed to something. Potency, even though it does not actually exist, is something insofar as it could exist. However, nothingness, as defined as the lack of anything, cannot have even the potential for something to exist, otherwise it isn't truly nothingness.

How do you come to the conclusion that nothingness is undefined?

and therefore has a superficial inability to enforce or imply constraint. It can't even prevent itself from turning into reality, which is why reality (which is in a sense part of nothingness...part of its inherent potential) can self-actualize.

How can a potency actualize itself?

By being self-contained.

Tell me if this is a correct analogy to what you are saying.

A rubber ball has the potential to become a puddle if goo if it is heated up to a certain temperature. A rubber ball can actualize this potential to become a puddle of goo if the ball can heat itself up, thus actualizing its own potential to become a puddle of goo.
Nolite Timere
xXCryptoXx
Posts: 5,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2015 11:43:09 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/23/2015 1:01:45 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 7/22/2015 1:49:01 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 7/21/2015 11:21:30 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Creatio ex materia, creatio ex nihilo, or creatio ex deo? What form of creation makes the most sense to you and why (atheist opinions welcome as well)?

What is creation ex deo? What is creation ex materia?

Creatio ex deo means God created the universe from himself. Creation ex materia means he created the universe from pre-existing materials (Aristotle had this view). Creatio ex nihilo means he created the universe out of absolutely nothing (the most absurd of the three views).

Creation ex nihilo is most absurd when God is taken out of the equation. The idea that the the universe, without God, arose from nothing.
Nolite Timere
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2015 11:52:57 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/23/2015 11:36:57 AM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 7/22/2015 1:55:32 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/22/2015 1:48:04 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 7/22/2015 12:20:03 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Self-actualization of the potential for self-actualization. Absent any reality, there is no constraint, which implies infinite potential. So this potential didn't "come" from anywhere. It's simply inevitable.

Wouldn't true nothingness imply that there is no potential of any kind?

No. True nothingness is undefined (there's nothing about it which is a specific way)

I disagree with this. Nothingness is defined as simply the lack of anything. This is what makes nothingness, nothingness, as opposed to something. Potency, even though it does not actually exist, is something insofar as it could exist. However, nothingness, as defined as the lack of anything, cannot have even the potential for something to exist, otherwise it isn't truly nothingness.

Nothingness is undefined, else it would be something. I.e., there's nothing about it which is a certain way. It's simply devoid of all information. Since it has no information, there's nothing to prevent or limit anything, which implies homogeneous, infinite potential. This potential need not be created; it's simply the logical consequence of the lack of constraint and information.


How do you come to the conclusion that nothingness is undefined?

Because if it had definition, it would be something by definition.


and therefore has a superficial inability to enforce or imply constraint. It can't even prevent itself from turning into reality, which is why reality (which is in a sense part of nothingness...part of its inherent potential) can self-actualize.



How can a potency actualize itself?

By being self-contained.

Tell me if this is a correct analogy to what you are saying.

A rubber ball has the potential to become a puddle if goo if it is heated up to a certain temperature. A rubber ball can actualize this potential to become a puddle of goo if the ball can heat itself up, thus actualizing its own potential to become a puddle of goo.

Not really. In this case, the "potential" is not the thing actualizing itself. The ball is doing it. The ball is not synonymous with its potential gooey self.