If X, then Y?

Author: Wrick-It-Ralph

Posts

Total: 71
Topic's author
#1
Wrick-It-Ralph
Wrick-It-Ralph's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 420
2
7
9
Wrick-It-Ralph's avatar
Wrick-It-Ralph
2
7
9
The purpose of this topic is to ask this question to me or any other person on the forum.

The point is to get answers to hypothetical questions.  

So just fill in X and then y and then the recipient can tell you if they agree or not and why. 

x can be multiple things with AND statements between them, but try not to load too many things at once. 


I'll start with an open ended question. 


If ghosts existed, then would we be able to detect them?  

if not, then is it even right to call them existing? 



Lets try to keep an open mind on this one because we're dealing with hypotheticals so some things asked will necessarily seem strange at times.  

14 days later

#2
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph
In order to be detectable a ghost would have to interact with the physical universe. For an example let us look to popular fiction. In ghost busters the ghosts can often be seen by the naked eye. In order for this to be the case ghosts would have to either react with photons or emit photons.

As for attributing existence to undetectable objects or beings I for one would be very reluctant in doing so.
Topic's author
#3
Wrick-It-Ralph
Wrick-It-Ralph's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 420
2
7
9
Wrick-It-Ralph's avatar
Wrick-It-Ralph
2
7
9
-->
@secularmerlin
I concur 
#4
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph
I'll start with an open ended question.

If ghosts existed, then would we be able to detect them? 
Not necessarily (yes and no), number one you would have to be in the right place at the right time. Number two a ghost would have to want/agree for you to observe it, you can't just go out and find a ghost lol! Obviously the movie Ghost Busters is an exaggeration as we normally don't get slimed by ghosts and we have nothing that can suck one into a device :D
Having said that ghosts have what are known as a subtle body (spirit body). I've seen them, they are "spirits" not dead people and they have a transparent sort of look to them.
The subtle body or spirit bodies are for the most part unseen by the human eye. Much like we are limited to the full spectrum of color and are only able to see certain rays so it's the same with the energetic makeup of the spirit form. It exists far less dense than the physical body and far lighter. The atoms that make up the spirit body also exist at a much finer, higher frequency/vibration and so they mostly escape the physical sight. So obviously I'll have to articulate how I was able to see some but I'm going to keep this as short as possible. Questions regarding this nature of existence are hard to explain with few sentences without seeming absurd so hang in there.

To answer the inevitable question though..... yes, technically we should be able to detect them with anything that could pick up an energy aura or something along those lines but the problem with that goes back to my first paragraph. How do you plan on finding a ghost, then how are planning to get one to agree to be observed? this may sound funny but you're the one that asked.
Not everyone can communicate or see spirits so this is another dynamic involved but I'll let you reply to what you would like. But "hint", WE also have a subtle body that correlates with the observations of the reality that transcends the physical sense perception.


Topic's author
#5
Wrick-It-Ralph
Wrick-It-Ralph's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 420
2
7
9
Wrick-It-Ralph's avatar
Wrick-It-Ralph
2
7
9
-->
@EtrnlVw
so one part of your statement stuck out as being a step too far.  The rest was speculation, but that's cool because that's why I opened this topic, lol. 


I have a problem with the idea that a ghost "chooses" who can see it.  This would contradict the nature of observation.  Even when we imagine crazy possibilities, we have to make sure they're coherent.  By coherent, I mean that any hypothetical idea that you add should not violate any previous observations that have been confirmed consistently.  


So I'd ultimately have to ask how selective visibility could be coherent. 
#6
mustardness
mustardness's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,979
2
2
3
mustardness's avatar
mustardness
2
2
3
-->
@secularmerlin
...react with photons or emit photons31.00627668029982017547631506710..31.0062766802998201754763150671031.00627668029982017547631506710131.006276680299820175476315067101P31.006276680299820175476315067101
2} Spiriti-2,  physical reality ergo an occupied space aka Observed Time { /\/\/ } is composed of fermionic matter and bosonic forces,

3} Spirit-3, metaphysical-3, occupied space gravity (  ) aka positive shaped geodesic shape of Space

4} Spirit-4, metaphysical-3, occupied space dark energy )( aka negative shaped geodesic shape of Space.

.........(  )(  )...........side-view perspective of great { equlatorial } circle{s} bisection of negatvie and postive shaped geodesic of Space

.......( ( ( ) ) ).....birds-eye view perspective great equatorial circle bisection of negative and positive shaped geodesic of Space

OO or (OO) or O--O as simple consciousness{ twoness-othernerss }

{ \*/ } aA more complex biological/soul consciousness

{ * * } as more complex bilateral animal consciousness

{* i *} as most complex human consciousness

{ * i * } as woman being the most complex individual conciousness entity of Universe

...(/\/\)............................................................................................................
(\/\/\/\/\).... as the finite, occupied space Universe being the most complex set.
...(/\/\).............................................................................................................

If X dimension exists then Y and Z are inherently included ergo Space = XYZ

If Space exists then Observed Time { /\/\/ | is inherently included ergo the term Space-Time came to exist.

...S( * t * )S...

Pi^3{ XYZ-3D} = 31.00 62 7 66 80

Spinal cord segments in different species (for reference purposes):
     Dog: 8 cervical; 13 thoracic; 7 lumbar; 3 sacral; & 5 caudal = 36 total

     Cat: 8 cervical; 13 thoracic; 7 lumbar; 3 sacral; & 5 caudal = 36 total

     Bovine: 8 cervical; 13 thoracic; 6 lumbar; 5 sacral; & 5 caudal = 37 total

     Horse: 8 cervical; 18 thoracic; 6 lumbar; 5 sacral; & 5 caudal = 42 total

     Swine: 8 cervical; 15/14 thoracic; 6/7 lumbar; 4 sacral; & 5 caudal = 38 total

     Human: 8 cervical; 12 thoracic; 5 lumbar; 5 sacral; & 1 coccygeal = 31 total

The 5-fold{ phi-fold } icosa{20}hedron has 31 axi ergo 31 great circle/polygonal planes LINK

#7
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@mustardness
If I say I don't know what your trying to say will you explain it in plain English or will you just insult me?
Topic's author
#8
Wrick-It-Ralph
Wrick-It-Ralph's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 420
2
7
9
Wrick-It-Ralph's avatar
Wrick-It-Ralph
2
7
9
-->
@secularmerlin
@mustardness
I've tried.  You'll get the same dialectic every time or an insult.  It's a shame too because it makes certain conversations with mustardness basically impossible.  This could even be the intent of the speech, but that's merely speculation on my part. 
#9
mustardness
mustardness's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,979
2
2
3
mustardness's avatar
mustardness
2
2
3
-->
@secularmerlin
If I say I don't know what your trying to say will you explain it in plain English or will you just insult me?
You insult yourself every time you claim I'm not using plain English.  You have no desire to understand anything Ive ever stated.
This is an ego problem on you end, not mine.


2} Spiriti-2,  physical reality ergo an occupied space aka Observed Time { /\/\/ } is composed of fermionic matter and bosonic forces,

3} Spirit-3, metaphysical-3, occupied space gravity (  ) aka positive shaped geodesic shape of Space

4} Spirit-4, metaphysical-3, occupied space dark energy )( aka negative shaped geodesic shape of Space.

.........(  )(  )...........side-view perspective of great { equlatorial } circle{s} bisection of negatvie and postive shaped geodesic of Space

.......( ( ( ) ) ).....birds-eye view perspective great equatorial circle bisection of negative and positive shaped geodesic of Space

OO or (OO) or O--O as simple consciousness{ twoness-othernerss }

{ \*/ } aA more complex biological/soul consciousness

{ * * } as more complex bilateral animal consciousness

{* i *} as most complex human consciousness

{ * i * } as woman being the most complex individual conciousness entity of Universe

...(/\/\)............................................................................................................
(\/\/\/\/\).... as the finite, occupied space Universe being the most complex set.
...(/\/\).............................................................................................................

If X dimension exists then Y and Z are inherently included ergo Space = XYZ

If Space exists then Observed Time { /\/\/ | is inherently included ergo the term Space-Time came to exist.

...S( * t * )S...

Pi^3{ XYZ-3D} = 31.00 62 7 66 80

Spinal cord segments in different species (for reference purposes):
     Dog: 8 cervical; 13 thoracic; 7 lumbar; 3 sacral; & 5 caudal = 36 total

     Cat: 8 cervical; 13 thoracic; 7 lumbar; 3 sacral; & 5 caudal = 36 total

     Bovine: 8 cervical; 13 thoracic; 6 lumbar; 5 sacral; & 5 caudal = 37 total

     Horse: 8 cervical; 18 thoracic; 6 lumbar; 5 sacral; & 5 caudal = 42 total

     Swine: 8 cervical; 15/14 thoracic; 6/7 lumbar; 4 sacral; & 5 caudal = 38 total

     Human: 8 cervical; 12 thoracic; 5 lumbar; 5 sacral; & 1 coccygeal = 31 total

The 5-fold{ phi-fold } icosa{20}hedron has 31 axi ergo 31 great circle/polygonal planes LINK

Topic's author
#10
Wrick-It-Ralph
Wrick-It-Ralph's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 420
2
7
9
Wrick-It-Ralph's avatar
Wrick-It-Ralph
2
7
9
-->
@mustardness
Okay, we need to nip this in the butt.  Come on now mustardness.  Let's be fair.  Do you really think your word math responses pass as "plain English"?

They may well be perfectly defined and accurate.  But plain, they are not.  I also find it odd that you're so quick to say that nobody has ever countered your position, but I think that's only because you protect you position from being analyzed by not allowing people to understand your language properly. 

It's a shame too, because a lot of what you say is very interesting, but I can't take any of it seriously because you won't let me look under the engine to see if there's equivocations afoot. 

#11
mustardness
mustardness's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,979
2
2
3
mustardness's avatar
mustardness
2
2
3
-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph
 Let's be fair.  Do you really think your word math responses pass as "plain English"?
It is plain math in all languages not just English.  Your ego working overtime.

 But plain, they are not.
False

  I also find it odd that you're so quick to say that nobody has ever countered your position
Please share when you have any rational, logical common sense ideas that add to or invalidate my Cosmic Trinity.

, but I think that's only because you protect you position from being analyzed by not allowing people to understand your language properly. 
Your ego is leading the charge to not understand plain English and/or any plain and relatively easy math.

It's a shame too, because a lot of what you say is very interesting,
Win/Win

but I can't take any of it seriously because you won't let me look under the engine to see if there's equivocations afoot. 
You have barely opened the hood to see the engine much less look under any "engine".  To claim I have "not let you look under the engine"  is bogus/false, and you have never ever offerred as quotation,  even one statement by me to validate your above false claims.

I have offerred much to expose your ego is the primary problem, not my abilites or efforts to assist others when the response with sincere, rational, logical common sense desire to clarify anything Ive ever stated, and specifically in regards to my Cosmic Trinity.


Topic's author
#12
Wrick-It-Ralph
Wrick-It-Ralph's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 420
2
7
9
Wrick-It-Ralph's avatar
Wrick-It-Ralph
2
7
9
-->
@mustardness
Plain means simple.  You're explanations aren't simple.  Not even remotely. 

If you can't even admit that one small thing, then I'm not sure you're being intellectually honest with me or yourself. 

The rest of the points fall moot to this one. 

Thoughts?  
Topic's author
#13
Wrick-It-Ralph
Wrick-It-Ralph's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 420
2
7
9
Wrick-It-Ralph's avatar
Wrick-It-Ralph
2
7
9
-->
@mustardness
Please share when you have any rational, logical common sense ideas that add to or invalidate my Cosmic Trinity.

Sure, I'll take that challenge.   You absolutely fail to explain your terms to people and they are not succinct, therefore, due to your inability to communicate your position, it is effectively incoherent.  Your link might as well say "AS;DLKFJASD;LFKJASD;LKFJASD;LKFJA;SLKDJF"  Because that's what your definitions amount to when you don't explain them. 


Metaphorically, you're no different than a person who only speaks Spanish while being surrounded by only English speakers and you refuse to adapt to your surroundings.   



Topic's author
#14
Wrick-It-Ralph
Wrick-It-Ralph's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 420
2
7
9
Wrick-It-Ralph's avatar
Wrick-It-Ralph
2
7
9
-->
@mustardness
Put your ego aside and you will realize that people understanding what you say, is more important than promoting your pseudo language. 
#15
mustardness
mustardness's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,979
2
2
3
mustardness's avatar
mustardness
2
2
3
-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph
Thoughts?
I have plenty. Any time your sincerely interested I'm always available, ---as I have been for you and others--- to assist in any clarification.

As long as your ego is leading the charge, then your mind will remain short-sighted aka narrow-minded in regards to anything Ive presented.

Please share when you have any rational, logical common sense that adds to or invalidates any of my concepts, as presented many many times in many many threads, for many years.

The truth exists for those who seek it, those who dont, and those who scoff at it.

Topic's author
#16
Wrick-It-Ralph
Wrick-It-Ralph's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 420
2
7
9
Wrick-It-Ralph's avatar
Wrick-It-Ralph
2
7
9
-->
@mustardness
For clarification (You know, the thing that honest people do)  I call it a pseudo language because you purposely try to add mystique to it for whatever subjective reason you ultimately came up with.  If you actually made an effort to explain it, then I would just call it language. 
Topic's author
#17
Wrick-It-Ralph
Wrick-It-Ralph's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 420
2
7
9
Wrick-It-Ralph's avatar
Wrick-It-Ralph
2
7
9
-->
@mustardness
As long as your ego is leading the charge, then your mind will remain short-sighted aka narrow-minded in regards to anything Ive presented.

That's ridiculous.  I've made several sincere efforts to understand you position and the only reason I don't is because of you.  I've LITERALLY asked you to clarify your position multiple times and you refuse to do so.  How is that my ego?  You're the one slowing things down.  

All you have to do is pull your head out of your butt and speak regular English long enough for me to understand you dialectic and we could actually have a conversation.  


But your words are just a carrot on a stick.  


You have the audacity to tell me what I think and feel. 


You have the audacity to tell me that my ego is in the way when all I want to do is understand your position. 



You:  "Says strange thing"
Me:  "What does that mean?"
You:  "You already know what that means, your ego's just in the way"
Me;  "No, I really just don't understand you"
You:  ":That's because of your ego"
Me:  "...……."
You: "You can't refute my position"
Me:  "Well tell me your position and I'll refute it"
You: "You could if your ego wasn't in the way."
You:  "Ego, ego, ego, ego, ego, ego, ego."



You really think THIS?... is a solid unrefuted position?   No.  Your argument is self defeating and vacuous. 



#18
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@mustardness
You insult yourself every time you claim I'm not using plain English.  You have no desire to understand anything Ive ever stated. 
This is an ego problem on you end, not mine.


2} Spiriti-2,  physical reality ergo an occupied space aka Observed Time { /\/\/ } is composed of fermionic matter and bosonic forces,

3} Spirit-3, metaphysical-3, occupied space gravity (  ) aka positive shaped geodesic shape of Space

4} Spirit-4, metaphysical-3, occupied space dark energy )( aka negative shaped geodesic shape ofSpace.

.........(  )(  )...........side-view perspective of great { equlatorial } circle{s} bisection of negatvie and postive shaped geodesic of Space

.......( ( ( ) ) ).....birds-eye view perspective great equatorial circle bisection of negative and positive shaped geodesic of Space

OO or (OO) or O--O as simple consciousness{ twoness-othernerss }

{ \*/ } aA more complex biological/soul consciousness

{ * * } as more complex bilateral animal consciousness

{* i *} as most complex human consciousness

{ * i * } as woman being the most complex individual conciousness entity of Universe

...(/\/\)............................................................................................................
(\/\/\/\/\).... as the finite, occupied spaceUniverse being the most complex set.
...(/\/\).............................................................................................................

If X dimension exists then Y and Z are inherently included ergo Space = XYZ

If Space exists then Observed Time { /\/\/ | is inherently included ergo the term Space-Timecame to exist.

...S( * t * )S...

Pi^3{ XYZ-3D} = 31.00 62 7 66 80

Spinal cord segments in different species (for reference purposes):
     Dog: 8 cervical; 13 thoracic; 7 lumbar; 3 sacral; & 5 caudal = 36 total

     Cat: 8 cervical; 13 thoracic; 7 lumbar; 3 sacral; & 5 caudal = 36 total

     Bovine: 8 cervical; 13 thoracic; 6 lumbar; 5 sacral; & 5 caudal = 37 total

     Horse: 8 cervical; 18 thoracic; 6 lumbar; 5 sacral; & 5 caudal = 42 total

     Swine: 8 cervical; 15/14 thoracic; 6/7 lumbar; 4 sacral; & 5 caudal = 38 total

     Human: 8 cervical; 12 thoracic; 5 lumbar; 5 sacral; & 1 coccygeal = 31 total

The 5-fold{ phi-fold } icosa{20}hedron has 31 axi ergo 31 great circle/polygonal planes LINK
Ah insults followed by exactly the same post that I already told you once I don't understand copy paste identical. Bold choice.
#19
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph
so one part of your statement stuck out as being a step too far.  The rest was speculation, but that's cool because that's why I opened this topic, lol.
What's even more funny is that whenever spiritual based questions are raised and answered the answer is always assumed it's speculation. When will you folks ever consider there is an objective transcendent reality involved? This means there can be experiential knowledge, observations, applications, practices, methods and yes even evidence, oh damn did I say evidence?
The only thing, and I mean only thing you have to understand and apply when trying to understand spirituality is the nature of all of it. 

I have a problem with the idea that a ghost "chooses" who can see it.
That's because you twisted my words ever so slightly and I don't like that because it wastes my time (or perhaps you just misunderstood), you switched my sentence from " a ghost would have to want/agree for you to observe it" to "a ghost chooses who can see it" and not sure why you did.

 What I was sayin or getting at is that if we wanted to detect a ghost or a spirit we would have to be able to locate one, and since not everyone has the perception to "see" them we would also have to have some sort of device to measure it's energy if we're coming from a scientific approach. Maybe you could clarify what you mean by "detect".
Ghosts (spirits) are not just stuck in one place or area they go wherever they want when they want and they are not bound to this planet. So you have a being that goes where it wants and that same being is practically invisible to the human eye. KNOWING you were going to ask how people see them I already told you I would elaborate on that. So I have no idea how you didn't understand it's pretty simple. A ghost may want to be in the presence of someone and they may not is what I'm getting at, so they don't control who "sees" them, but they do control who they want to be around and when to be observed. So I didn't really mean the ghost chooses who can see it, rather it chooses when to be present for anyone to be able to observe it by device or by perception. Does that make more sense?

Two different things I'm suggesting here, detecting a ghost through instrumentation/device by energy and being able to actually see one spiritually or through the subtle bodies perception. To visually see one (if it was present) it's dependent on the individual not the spirit or ghost but we should be able to pick up on a ghosts energy if we had a device IF it was present. 

#20
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph
This would contradict the nature of observation.  Even when we imagine crazy possibilities, we have to make sure they're coherent.  By coherent, I mean that any hypothetical idea that you add should not violate any previous observations that have been confirmed consistently. 
So far it seems you misunderstood what I meant by a spirit would have to want to be in your presence to be observed, when you decided to alter my statement. Had you followed what I actually meant there would be nothing incoherent. If you pay attention to what I write it will all be coherent. If there is something you're not sure of just ask and I'll clarify. 
So I'd ultimately have to ask how selective visibility could be coherent.
Well now that you fully understand that I didn't mean "a ghost chooses who can see it" rather when it's present I'll explain how it is possible that an individual can see one and why some people don't. Warning, it's probably not going to be short lol but at least you have people contributing to your topic.

 As I wrote in my first post about the subtle nature of the spirit body and the limits of the physical eye your actual conscious being (soul) is not restricted to only the physical sense perception believe it or not. A persons attention can be primarily focused on the physical body but they are not confined to just that experience alone this is really the only thing "selective" as you say. As well if a person is not putting their energy and awareness on that reality they may never have those experiences (see one). Occasionally an average person who sees a ghost might not even be aware that they are seeing it through the subtle body but everyone has that ability because we are that. We can alternate between states of conscious experience because your soul exists independent of material form, even independent of the spiritual/subtle body because the actual conscious soul has no form it's just awareness. 

So a person can be more in tune with these other ranges of conscious frequency depending on their practices or spiritual discernment and more sensitive to the presence of that energy, the energy of a spirit being. If your attention is on a spirit (assuming you knew it was there) you can then pick up on their energy, and if a person is more spiritually influenced by their subtle form then they can be seen as well...not with the physical eye but the subtle bodies perception and this is possible because we are first conscious souls, who have both subtle (spirit) form as well as a dense physical body. So a person can transcend the physical sense perception either purposefully or unknowingly. IMO we would need a device to observe them from a physical medium though, as if we were to collectively examine one from a scientific method. 
This is why there are so many spiritual transcendent experiences, religious observations, soul travel, NDE's and OBE's because this is the full scope of who and what we are.

Every soul will have a conscious experience leaving the material body and they will then be present in spirit form, a subtle body. This is the form you "take on" (though you don't really take it on, you are already that) when you leave this world. If you wish to be in this world again you must take on another physical body so a ghost would just be observing not really engaged with the physical world. 
You could observe this world as a spirit or "ghost", but you wouldn't be able to interact with the physical senses of this world other than your energy, nobody would ever know you were there though. You could get peoples attention because you still have energy, but a ghost has left the physical form. 








#21
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph
If a being exists which has an all encompassing and irrefutable plan which applies to each of us personally and guides us through our everyday lives then freewill is logically incoherent.

If the two ideas are logically contradictory then can a belief in both positions be rationally justified?

Topic's author
#22
Wrick-It-Ralph
Wrick-It-Ralph's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 420
2
7
9
Wrick-It-Ralph's avatar
Wrick-It-Ralph
2
7
9
-->
@EtrnlVw
So the reason I call it speculation, is because we have no data for it. So that means we're just hypothesizing how a ghost could possibly behave or what rules of physics do or don't apply and what metaphysical rules do that have that we may not know about.  Like I said, there's nothing wrong with speculation, as long as we understand that you don't know it well enough to say it's true.  

The problem here is that you keep saying X thing about ghost as if it's an objective fact.  I would rather we say what a ghost "might" be like rather than plainly stating it to be the case. 

Now if you're saying it that way because you know for sure that ghosts exist, then we have to stop and answer a critical question before I accept any of that.....   How do you know all these things you say about ghost are actually true?  


I don't necessarily asking if you know how ghost exist, but rather how you know all these weird and specific rules about them. 

Couldn't they exist, but all of your rules are inaccurate? 



#23
mustardness
mustardness's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,979
2
2
3
mustardness's avatar
mustardness
2
2
3
-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph
That's ridiculous.  I've made several sincere efforts to understand you position and the only reason I don't is because of you.  I've LITERALLY asked you to clarify your position multiple times and you refuse to do so.
This is third time you have made these bogus false claims. Ego is you primary problem and it keeps you short-sided { narrominded }. Old news around here.

You insult yourself every time you claim I'm not using plain English.  You have no desire to understand anything Ive ever stated.
This is an ego problem on you end, not mine.


2} Spiriti-2,  physical reality ergo an occupied space aka Observed Time { /\/\/ } is composed of fermionic matter and bosonic forces,

3} Spirit-3, metaphysical-3, occupied space gravity (  ) aka positive shaped geodesic shape of Space

4} Spirit-4, metaphysical-3, occupied space dark energy )( aka negative shaped geodesic shape of Space.

.........(  )(  )...........side-view perspective of great { equlatorial } circle{s} bisection of negatvie and postive shaped geodesic of Space

.......( ( ( ) ) ).....birds-eye view perspective great equatorial circle bisection of negative and positive shaped geodesic of Space

OO or (OO) or O--O as simple consciousness{ twoness-othernerss }

{ \*/ } aA more complex biological/soul consciousness

{ * * } as more complex bilateral animal consciousness

{* i *} as most complex human consciousness

{ * i * } as woman being the most complex individual conciousness entity of Universe

...(/\/\)............................................................................................................
(\/\/\/\/\).... as the finite, occupied space Universe being the most complex set.
...(/\/\).............................................................................................................

If X dimension exists then Y and Z are inherently included ergo Space = XYZ

If Space exists then Observed Time { /\/\/ | is inherently included ergo the term Space-Time came to exist.

...S( * t * )S...

Pi^3{ XYZ-3D} = 31.00 62 7 66 80

Spinal cord segments in different species (for reference purposes):
     Dog: 8 cervical; 13 thoracic; 7 lumbar; 3 sacral; & 5 caudal = 36 total

     Cat: 8 cervical; 13 thoracic; 7 lumbar; 3 sacral; & 5 caudal = 36 total

     Bovine: 8 cervical; 13 thoracic; 6 lumbar; 5 sacral; & 5 caudal = 37 total

     Horse: 8 cervical; 18 thoracic; 6 lumbar; 5 sacral; & 5 caudal = 42 total

     Swine: 8 cervical; 15/14 thoracic; 6/7 lumbar; 4 sacral; & 5 caudal = 38 total

     Human: 8 cervical; 12 thoracic; 5 lumbar; 5 sacral; & 1 coccygeal = 31 total

The 5-fold{ phi-fold } icosa{20}hedron has 31 axi ergo 31 great circle/polygonal planes LINK

Topic's author
#24
Wrick-It-Ralph
Wrick-It-Ralph's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 420
2
7
9
Wrick-It-Ralph's avatar
Wrick-It-Ralph
2
7
9
-->
@secularmerlin
If a being exists which has an all encompassing and irrefutable plan which applies to each of us personally and guides us through our everyday lives then freewill is logically incoherent.

It would depend.  You say "guides" as if we have a free will, but he simply imposes on it when it goes against his plan.  Small difference.

If you're saying that he determines all of our actions in advanced, then I agree. 


If the two ideas are logically contradictory then can a belief in both positions be rationally justified?
So if I go with the second possibility from the first statement.  I would generally say no, but there is one philosophical position that could attempt it. 

Some philosophies think that the law of noncontradiction doesn't hold up.  I forget which ones off the top of my head.  That would be the only way. 




Topic's author
#25
Wrick-It-Ralph
Wrick-It-Ralph's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 420
2
7
9
Wrick-It-Ralph's avatar
Wrick-It-Ralph
2
7
9
-->
@mustardness
Write your argument in plain English, or you're making mouth noise.  I'm not playing your ego game anymore. 


You're speaking gibberish. 
Topic's author
#26
Wrick-It-Ralph
Wrick-It-Ralph's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 420
2
7
9
Wrick-It-Ralph's avatar
Wrick-It-Ralph
2
7
9
-->
@mustardness
I understand the words you use just fine.  They just don't add up the way you use them. 


You cherry pick the parts of definitions that you like ignoring what they imply in the real world when you rig them like that. 
#27
mustardness
mustardness's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,979
2
2
3
mustardness's avatar
mustardness
2
2
3
Write your argument in plain English, or you're making mouth noise.  I'm not playing your ego game anymore. 
"argument"? You ego makes you appear as very confused person.

I have no idea what it is you think I'm 'arguing' other than your ego based mental blockage to any comments Ive ever stated and presented to you have something specific to address. You apparrently lack grasp of what specific and quote means.

Drop the ego and closed mind then maybe you can addressed what ive stated and not your  bogus/false accusations.

Just more evidence of you complete lack of moral fair play, lack of sincerity and not any shred of any rational, logical common sense that adds to, or detracts { invalidates } any comments by me as presented.  Huge ego based mental block is old news for your behavior. Sad :--(

Please share when you can address me with specific comment{s} you cannot grasp. You rarely if ever have actually done that. Sad :--(
 

Topic's author
#28
Wrick-It-Ralph
Wrick-It-Ralph's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 420
2
7
9
Wrick-It-Ralph's avatar
Wrick-It-Ralph
2
7
9
-->
@mustardness
Yes, when you present a claim to someone as being true, it's called an argument.  Not to be confused with an argument that two people have when they scream incoherently at each other.  Although your shallow insults tend to emulate the second one. 


You want specifics? 


Your definitions of physical and metaphysical are incoherent.  They don't adhere with any dictionary that I've ever read, nor do they adhere to epistemological dictionaries, nor scientific, not even urban dictionary.  


You claim you're speaking plain English, but if that was true, then 80% of the dictionaries I use should have your definitions, but they don't.  

Now there's nothing wrong with that by itself.  But when you add the fact that you absolutely categorically have refused to ever once explain your definitions and we have a recipe for incoherence.  


Is that specific enough for you? 






#29
mustardness
mustardness's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,979
2
2
3
mustardness's avatar
mustardness
2
2
3
-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph
You want specifics? 
The prefix 'meta' is not in dispute and you need to recall your own statements in those regards. You may have to place your ego to the side.
Maybe those comments were in another thread. Your ego { * i * } is running rampant in at least three of them now.

Here Ive restated just three comments by me because you cant even handle any much less three or more. Sad ego based mental blockage to facts and truth. :--(

2} Spiriti-2,  physical reality ergo an occupied space aka Observed Time { /\/\/ } is composed of fermionic matter and bosonic forces,

3} Spirit-3, metaphysical-3, occupied space gravity (  ) aka positive shaped geodesic shape of Space

4} Spirit-4, metaphysical-3, occupied space dark energy )( aka negative shaped geodesic shape of Space.




Topic's author
#30
Wrick-It-Ralph
Wrick-It-Ralph's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 420
2
7
9
Wrick-It-Ralph's avatar
Wrick-It-Ralph
2
7
9
-->
@mustardness
While those descriptions somewhat make sense.  It seems that their divisions are arbitrary,  I don't see why gravity and dark energy need their own metaphysical space.  that makes your definitions interchangeable and vacuous.