Attempted logical proof for God

[Donnadogsoth]

Just because you say so doesn't it make so. Propose an experiment that verifies your view. A materialistic view of the world is easy to validate. Consume your favourite drug and see how it changes the way the mind works based on the intake of a single substance.

 

Fermat's least-time principle of light.  Poke a straight stick into a body of water and observe the stick appears to break at the boundary.  The materialist explanation is that the light takes the least-time path when changing media.  The problem is, how does the light know to take this path?  So with any principle, including the principle of your own free will.  The things in the Universe do what they do, because they want to.

[rosencrantz]

The things in the Universe do what they do, because they want to.

 

 

How do you know? Could a ray of light say "Dang it, today I will take the longer route."

 

The materialist explanation is that the light takes the least-time path when changing media.

 

The explanation is coherence

[Donnadogsoth]

How do you know? Could a ray of light say "Dang it, today I will take the longer route."

 

The explanation is coherence

 

Principle of least action, which binds the inorganic things.  They only want to do one thing, they have no choice.  Maybe in some quantum sense things have a choice, but in everyday practical terms they have no choice.

[EclecticIdealist]

Principle of least action, which binds the inorganic things.  They only want to do one thing, they have no choice.  Maybe in some quantum sense things have a choice, but in everyday practical terms they have no choice.

Actually, the real reason why light takes the shortest path is out of desire, because it's the moral thing to do. It's the reason why photons choose to do anything--morality. Amoral photons choose to scatter; they're "PGTOW" (Particles Going Their Own Way). Immoral photons, on the other hand, are constantly selfishly abusing other particles. They are low-energy/low vibration particles constantly trying to raise their energy state by taking it from other particles. As they steal the energy of higher-energy/higher vibration particles, they bring them to a lower and lower state. They are what are known as "Dark Matter" and "Dark Energy". They are also the real reason why people get tired and depressed. don't take my word for it though, It's true because somebody else said so.

[Donnadogsoth]

Actually, the real reason why light takes the shortest path is out of desire, because it's the moral thing to do. It's the reason why photons choose to do anything--morality. Amoral photons choose to scatter; they're "PGTOW" (Particles Going Their Own Way). Immoral photons, on the other hand, are constantly selfishly abusing other particles. They are low-energy/low vibration particles constantly trying to raise their energy state by taking it from other particles. As they steal the energy of higher-energy/higher vibration particles, they bring them to a lower and lower state. They are what are known as "Dark Matter" and "Dark Energy". They are also the real reason why people get tired and depressed. don't take my word for it though, It's true because somebody else said so.

 

EclecticIdealist is an interesting collection of sense-data points comprising photograph and words appearing on the screen.  It's almost as if there's another....mind?..."behind" these data points, yes some kind of guiding mind.  But I don't believe in intelligent design and such a mind is not observable so there's no reason to think that this intuition has has any merit.  The only mind I know for sure exists is mine own.  Everything else is "dead," unending deadness...mere phenomena, and nothing more.

[Troubador]

*facepalm* I am a man of faith myself. However there is no logical proof for God, and that is precisely what faith is for. When natural philosophy gave way to the scientific method and we formalised logic and reason into it's modern form we birthed an incredibly useful mechanism for observing the world and understanding it based on reason and evidence.

 

Faith is neither reason nor evidence, except to the person who has it. Now until a diety reveals itself and becomes subject to measurement and empirical observation you are not going to be able to convince anyone with logical proofs, as such is simply impossible, as the whole system relies on providing repeatable observable and verifiable results. Please be careful in discussions like these there is enough evil in the world going around that we all need to start pulling in the same direction.

 

My position is that my faith is an aesthetic choice, that relates to my own personal attempts to grapple with my own mortality and fear of the unkown. Mixed in with a set of personal experiences that have lead me to my faith. However from a purely objective standpoint even those experiences are indistinguishable from a deluded mind. So I invite any atheist to merely regard me as a well meaning fool. In fact I would like to go further in that people shouldn't at any point hang their ideological hat on my experiences, or even what this or that sacred text says.

 

I recognise better men and women than I have walked the earth without one drop of faith, and my overriding priority is to align myself with the good in humanity, not some half understood ancient book. I think my faith helps me personally in that aspiration, but I have observed that is not necessarily the case for other people. Which is why I advocate consigning religion to aesthetics, I may listen to a piece of music or read certain poetry to uplift my mood and better get on with living. Someone else may play a sport or sculpt. Faith exists in that category.

[rosencrantz]

The things in the Universe do what they do, because they want to.

 

 

Compare that to: 

 

They only want to do one thing, they have no choice.

 

Which one is it?

[Donnadogsoth]

Compare that to: 

 

Which one is it?

 

Haven't you ever wanted to do that which you must?  We must remember the simple particles may lack all imagination and so awareness of options.

[rosencrantz]

We must remember the simple particles may lack all imagination and so awareness of options.

 

 

So particles want to do what they want but they don't know what else to do because they don't know any better? 

[Donnadogsoth]

So particles want to do what they want but they don't know what else to do because they don't know any better? 

 

Exactly.

[EclecticIdealist]

Yes, those simple particles... barely a conscious awareness of anything, but they have the desire to behave in very specific and sometimes counter-intuitive ways.  Some are even mutant particles... we can call them "X-Particles" with the powers of telepathy, telekinesis, magnetism, etc. actual "Children of the Atom".

[Tyler H]

First sentance is a pointless assertion without evidence.

Do you not see the irony here?

[neeeel]

The only mind I know for sure exists is mine own. 

 

You cant even be sure of your own. Youve never seen a mind, or experienced a mind. The only thing you have experienced are thoughts, and one of those thoughts says that thoughts come from a mind. 

[Donnadogsoth]

You cant even be sure of your own. Youve never seen a mind, or experienced a mind. The only thing you have experienced are thoughts, and one of those thoughts says that thoughts come from a mind. 

 

Strictly speaking you're right.  The mind is to the thoughts are vision is to colour.  Who has seen vision?  We only see colour. Our supra-logical Intellect intuits that there is such a thing as vision, and mind, though these things are outside of the logical apprehension.

[neeeel]

Strictly speaking you're right.  The mind is to the thoughts are vision is to colour.  Who has seen vision?  We only see colour. Our supra-logical Intellect intuits that there is such a thing as vision, and mind, though these things are outside of the logical apprehension.

 

We dont intuit that there is a mind. We notice phenomena, and attribute it to a mind, and imply that the mind has all sorts of characteristics, qualities, powers, actions. 

 

it would be like intuiting that the rain is god crying.

[Donnadogsoth]

We dont intuit that there is a mind. We notice phenomena, and attribute it to a mind, and imply that the mind has all sorts of characteristics, qualities, powers, actions.

 

it would be like intuiting that the rain is god crying.

 

“Attribute” or “intuit”--the action is the same: taking a sphere of existence and extrapolating an invisible thing that governs that sphere.

 

Intuiting that the rain is God crying is incomplete: the full idea would be that visible things in the Universe indicate an invisible God, just as our individual experiential sums indicate our respective minds, or just as colour indicates sight.

[EclecticIdealist]

“Attribute” or “intuit”--the action is the same: taking a sphere of existence and extrapolating an invisible thing that governs that sphere.

 

Intuiting that the rain is God crying is incomplete: the full idea would be that visible things in the Universe indicate an invisible God, just as our individual experiential sums indicate our respective minds, or just as colour indicates sight.

The difference between determining the existence of the mind vs an invisible supernatural being that causes rain is that the former fits all the evidence, whereas the latter does not. We know that the brain is the domain of the mind for a variety of reasons (which I'd rather you not force me to list as it should be commonly held knowledge), we know that an invisible weather manipulating god is not the direct (or likely indirect) cause of the rain.

[Donnadogsoth]

The difference between determining the existence of the mind vs an invisible supernatural being that causes rain is that the former fits all the evidence, whereas the latter does not. We know that the brain is the domain of the mind for a variety of reasons (which I'd rather you not force me to list as it should be commonly held knowledge), we know that an invisible weather manipulating god is not the direct (or likely indirect) cause of the rain.

 

God is the cause of causes.  Why do causes exist?

[Tyler H]

God is the cause of causes.  Why do causes exist?

"I don't know" is a better answer than "God".

[thebeardslastcall]

"I don't know" is a better answer than "God".

God is "I don't know". The crazy people just don't realize that's what they're saying. I have faith that I don't know. I believe that I don't know. You can't explain that, but I don't know [what] can. I don't know [what] is the cause of causes. Why do causes exist?

 

See?

[Donnadogsoth]

"I don't know" is a better answer than "God".

 

Learned ignorance is how we approach that which is beyond the categories.  So, "I don't know" from the perspective of learned ignorance is from a novitiate perspective equal to "God".  What is it that we do not know?  Take being and nonbeing.  A person darkens your door, and then is gone.  First he is, then he is not, where you are.  These two things are part of a commonality, they form a continuity, but they are different.  Whatever the commonality is, is beyond both being and nonbeing.  We then see that this commonality applies to all things, as the light of the Sun illuminates everything it touches, and when it is absent (absent the other heavenly bodies) nothing is illuminated.

[rosencrantz]

 Our supra-logical Intellect intuits that there is such a thing as vision, and mind, though these things are outside of the logical apprehension.

 

If you need a supra-logical intellect to intuit that there is vision you are a lost cause.

[EclecticIdealist]

God is the cause of causes. Why do causes exist?

Why does anything exist? The answer: there is no why for existence. Why implies purpose. Purpose implies an actor. An actor must exist before it can act. Existence is a precondition of action and purpose. Therefore, there cannot be a why or purpose for existence other than the purpose we make for ourselves or others have for us.

[Donnadogsoth]

Why does anything exist? The answer: there is no why for existence. Why implies purpose. Purpose implies an actor. An actor must exist before it can act. Existence is a precondition of action and purpose. Therefore, there cannot be a why or purpose for existence other than the purpose we make for ourselves or others have for us.

 

Given that it is the nature of substance to have perception and desire, everything must act with purpose.  How then can that which created the Universe not also act with purpose in that creation?

[EclecticIdealist]

Given that it is the nature of substance to have perception and desire, everything must act with purpose.  How then can that which created the Universe not also act with purpose in that creation?

Given there is no credible evidence supporting the claim, "the nature of substance is perception, desire, and purpose", I shall ignore your absurd and irrational claim and substitute a more humorous one of my own which you are likewise free to deny.

 

It is the nature of matter to be angry. Consequently, all matter in the universe is in constantly trying to get as far away from all other matter as possible in order to avoid violent exchanges of energy. This is the proper explanation for what physicists erroneously refer to as the Law of Entropy or the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

[Tyler H]

God is "I don't know". The crazy people just don't realize that's what they're saying. I have faith that I don't know. I believe that I don't know. You can't explain that, but I don't know [what] can. I don't know [what] is the cause of causes. Why do causes exist?

 

See?

I don't think so because God as an answer deters the pursuit of the real answer while I don't know necessitates that pursuit.

Learned ignorance is how we approach that which is beyond the categories.  So, "I don't know" from the perspective of learned ignorance is from a novitiate perspective equal to "God".  What is it that we do not know?  Take being and nonbeing.  A person darkens your door, and then is gone.  First he is, then he is not, where you are.  These two things are part of a commonality, they form a continuity, but they are different.  Whatever the commonality is, is beyond both being and nonbeing.  We then see that this commonality applies to all things, as the light of the Sun illuminates everything it touches, and when it is absent (absent the other heavenly bodies) nothing is illuminated

I have no idea what this means.

[Donnadogsoth]

 

 

Learned ignorance is how we approach that which is beyond the categories.  So, "I don't know" from the perspective of learned ignorance is from a novitiate perspective equal to "God".  What is it that we do not know?  Take being and nonbeing.  A person darkens your door, and then is gone.  First he is, then he is not, where you are.  These two things are part of a commonality, they form a continuity, but they are different.  Whatever the commonality is, is beyond both being and nonbeing.  We then see that this commonality applies to all things, as the light of the Sun illuminates everything it touches, and when it is absent (absent the other heavenly bodies) nothing is illuminated

I have no idea what this means.

 

Consider it another way:  you see the colour red.  But where did "redness" come from in the first place?  You see a building is extended in three dimensions, but where did "extension" come from?  So with any quality you could care to name, including being (i.e., a thing exists or partakes of being) and nonbeing (i.e., a thing is absent or partakes of nonbeing).  The materialists have absolutely no explanation for where red, extension, being, and nonbeing come from, they merely presume that these things are "brute facts"--facts with no explanation.

 

If you don't care, then your problem is solved, but if you are philosophical enough to care, these "brute facts" pose a very big problem for materialist philosophy.  The only explanation for these things is that they have a source, but this source is so important we should dignify it by calling it the Source.  Or, we could call it the Origin, or, more traditionally, the Creator.  Some kind of Creator is the source or origin of red, extension, being, and nonbeing.  Being the source, this Creator is different from all of these things, and is to all created things as the Sun is to the bodies of the Solar System.

[EclecticIdealist]

Consider it another way:  you see the colour red.  But where did "redness" come from in the first place?  You see a building is extended in three dimensions, but where did "extension" come from?  So with any quality you could care to name, including being (i.e., a thing exists or partakes of being) and nonbeing (i.e., a thing is absent or partakes of nonbeing).  The materialists have absolutely no explanation for where red, extension, being, and nonbeing come from, they merely presume that these things are "brute facts"--facts with no explanation.

 

If you don't care, then your problem is solved, but if you are philosophical enough to care, these "brute facts" pose a very big problem for materialist philosophy.  The only explanation for these things is that they have a source, but this source is so important we should dignify it by calling it the Source.  Or, we could call it the Origin, or, more traditionally, the Creator.  Some kind of Creator is the source or origin of red, extension, being, and nonbeing.  Being the source, this Creator is different from all of these things, and is to all created things as the Sun is to the bodies of the Solar System.

Consider it another way. You claim God is the source of all. But where did God come from in the first place? You see a creator of ultimately complexity, but from whence did this ultimate complexity arise? With any metaphor or reference to deity you could care to use, including God, Source, Creator, Origin, Being, Father, King of Kings, Lord of Lords, Principal, Chief, Supreme Being, this entity which you claim to be the Chief Cause of all that is surely didn't arise from nothing at all; and to be Supreme, could not have any greater than itself, and to be first, could not have any come before it.

 

If you don't care about reason or philosophy, then your problem is solved, you can go about believing whatever irrational stories you've been told or whatever fantastic stories you wish to believe and your life will likely be just fine. But if you actually do care, not simply profess to care, but actually care about being rational, if you actually believe in philosophy (the love of wisdom), then you will take the uncomfortable step outside the comfort zone of your beliefs and seriously consider and examine the question honestly, and without reservation: Where does God come from? If everything else has a first cause, why doesn't God? If God, the most complex being in the entirety of existence doesn't require a cause, then why does the less complex entirety of the universe require one? Where is the evidence for an unmoved prime mover?

 

The best answer is, "I don't know". The best speculation is, "There is no prime mover, the whole of existence is eternal, even if the universe as we know it may not be." 

[Donnadogsoth]

Consider it another way. You claim God is the source of all. But where did God come from in the first place? You see a creator of ultimately complexity, but from whence did this ultimate complexity arise? With any metaphor or reference to deity you could care to use, including God, Source, Creator, Origin, Being, Father, King of Kings, Lord of Lords, Principal, Chief, Supreme Being, this entity which you claim to be the Chief Cause of all that is surely didn't arise from nothing at all; and to be Supreme, could not have any greater than itself, and to be first, could not have any come before it.

 

If you don't care about reason or philosophy, then your problem is solved, you can go about believing whatever irrational stories you've been told or whatever fantastic stories you wish to believe and your life will likely be just fine. But if you actually do care, not simply profess to care, but actually care about being rational, if you actually believe in philosophy (the love of wisdom), then you will take the uncomfortable step outside the comfort zone of your beliefs and seriously consider and examine the question honestly, and without reservation: Where does God come from? If everything else has a first cause, why doesn't God? If God, the most complex being in the entirety of existence doesn't require a cause, then why does the less complex entirety of the universe require one? Where is the evidence for an unmoved prime mover?

 

The best answer is, "I don't know". The best speculation is, "There is no prime mover, the whole of existence is eternal, even if the universe as we know it may not be." 

 

Those who haven't studied Nicolaus of Cusa are at a disadvantage in answering your question because they still think of "space" and "time" and the "categories" (extension, duration, density, complexity, etc.) as being implicitly aeternal from the get-go.  The question's presumptions are designed to guide the mind toward the answer you give of "I don't know" and "the whole of existence is eternal".

 

The God of Cusa, however, is not like that.  He is radically strange, and so precedes concepts like space and time and all the categories.   We cannot say "Where did God come from" because he created "from-ness" in the first place, he created "where-ness".  It is not as if there is an immutable spacetime with God at one end and the created Universe ranged along the middle and opposite end.  That makes God into a creature, when God is the author of creatures, including space and time.

 

This is why Cusa goes to such lengths to find more accurate names for God, such as the Not-Other and the Origin, he realises that such a strange God is beyond the rational apprehension and can only be considered through intellectual intuition.

 

So, "Where did God from"?  God created "where" and so precedes it.  "Who created God?"  God's radical weirdness leaves no room for any other "who" since anything that was as he is--beyond the categories--would be him.

[EclecticIdealist]

The God of Cusa, however, is not like that.  He is radically strange, and so precedes concepts like space and time and all the categories. We cannot say "Where did God come from" because he created "from-ness" in the first place, he created "where-ness".  It is not as if there is an immutable spacetime with God at one end and the created Universe ranged along the middle and opposite end.  That makes God into a creature, when God is the author of creatures, including space and time.

 

This is why Cusa goes to such lengths to find more accurate names for God, such as the Not-Other and the Origin, he realises that such a strange God is beyond the rational apprehension and can only be considered through intellectual intuition.

 

So, "Where did God from"?  God created "where" and so precedes it.  "Who created God?"  God's radical weirdness leaves no room for any other "who" since anything that was as he is--beyond the categories--would be him.

All Cusa is doing is holding onto the idea, in spite of the absence of evidence in support of the idea, and evidence to the contrary, that an unfathomable, deity must exist. Cusa then goes on to invent his way around every limitation by simply declaring God to be exempt. God doesn't require space--God is immaterial. God doesn't require time--God is timeless or outside of time. God does not require an origin--God is without origination or beginning. God cannot be understood--God is unfathomable. It doesn't require any special knowledge or intelligence to come up with these ideas at all. A kindergartener with only a little prompting could do it. The answers or descriptions are by no means actually explanatory of anything, they are the opposite of explanatory, they end any attempt at explanation with the mental equivalence of an engine seizing up. What you have is a non-explanatory solution for every problem or challenge that is as previous individuals have mentioned, the equivalent of "I don't know". It is a non-answer without any justification beyond the desire for a definitive answer.

[Donnadogsoth]

All Cusa is doing is holding onto the idea, in spite of the absence of evidence in support of the idea, and evidence to the contrary, that an unfathomable, deity must exist. Cusa then goes on to invent his way around every limitation by simply declaring God to be exempt. God doesn't require space--God is immaterial. God doesn't require time--God is timeless or outside of time. God does not require an origin--God is without origination or beginning. God cannot be understood--God is unfathomable. It doesn't require any special knowledge or intelligence to come up with these ideas at all. A kindergartener with only a little prompting could do it. The answers or descriptions are by no means actually explanatory of anything, they are the opposite of explanatory, they end any attempt at explanation with the mental equivalence of an engine seizing up. What you have is a non-explanatory solution for every problem or challenge that is as previous individuals have mentioned, the equivalent of "I don't know". It is a non-answer without any justification beyond the desire for a definitive answer.

 

1. The Universe is aeternal?  What happens when we rewind time and entropy reaches minimum—how can we rewind time more than that?

2. Given that I hold that substance is monadic in nature, what generates the preestablished harmony between monads if not God?

3. Indeed, we should teach Cusa to kindergarteners.  It would improve their minds and they would have a natural delight in it that hardened adults do not.

[EclecticIdealist]

 

1. The Universe is aeternal?  What happens when we rewind time and entropy reaches minimum—how can we rewind time more than that?

 

At this point (and for the foreseeable future) science does not have anything but speculation as to what happened before the Big Bang. It also presupposes that the entire universe is expanding; however, this is a supposition based on the limitations of our observation. It is by no means a "known fact" that the universe began with the Big Bang, it is only the theory with the most supporting evidence. Alternative theories exist which explain the majority of the evidence for the Big Bang and have additional supporting evidence which the Big Bang Theory is presently unable to account for in any definitive way. Additional evidence may require a revision of the Big Bang theory or may require the theory be scrapped for a new different theory which better fits the evidence thus obtained. It is within the realm of possibility that the universe as we presently understand it is a relatively localized phenomena, a mere "bubble" of space time in a greater universe which we cannot even catch a glimpse of, and the Big Bang Theory only explicative of what we presently consider to be the known universe..

 

2. Given that I hold that substance is monadic in nature, what generates the pre-established harmony between monads if not God?

 

Only you can answer the question to your own contrived or adopted imaginary ideology. I hesitate to speculate as to the workings of the universe according to your imagination.

 

3. Indeed, we should teach Cusa to kindergarteners.  It would improve their minds and they would have a natural delight in it that hardened adults do not.

 

Why bother teaching it to kindergarteners? You could simply ask them to share with you their fantastical imaginations and teach that as Cusa's theology. Who would be able to tell the difference?

[Donnadogsoth]

 

 

1. The Universe is aeternal?  What happens when we rewind time and entropy reaches minimum—how can we rewind time more than that?

 

At this point (and for the foreseeable future) science does not have anything but speculation as to what happened before the Big Bang. It also presupposes that the entire universe is expanding; however, this is a supposition based on the limitations of our observation. It is by no means a "known fact" that the universe began with the Big Bang, it is only the theory with the most supporting evidence. Alternative theories exist which explain the majority of the evidence for the Big Bang and have additional supporting evidence which the Big Bang Theory is presently unable to account for in any definitive way. Additional evidence may require a revision of the Big Bang theory or may require the theory be scrapped for a new different theory which better fits the evidence thus obtained. It is within the realm of possibility that the universe as we presently understand it is a relatively localized phenomena, a mere "bubble" of space time in a greater universe which we cannot even catch a glimpse of, and the Big Bang Theory only explicative of what we presently consider to be the known universe..

 

2. Given that I hold that substance is monadic in nature, what generates the pre-established harmony between monads if not God?

 

Only you can answer the question to your own contrived or adopted imaginary ideology. I hesitate to speculate as to the workings of the universe according to your imagination.

 

3. Indeed, we should teach Cusa to kindergarteners.  It would improve their minds and they would have a natural delight in it that hardened adults do not.

 

Why bother teaching it to kindergarteners? You could simply ask them to share with you their fantastical imaginations and teach that as Cusa's theology. Who would be able to tell the difference?

 

1. A platter of irrelevancies.  If you hold to the materialist scientists' view of entropy, then entropy, universally, has a net increase with time.  Thus my question stands, what happens when we rewind time to the point of minimum entropy?

 

2. What could possibly have created redness, extension, being, and nonbeing, and all other categories and Platonic forms, as I  as much as ask above, if not something on the order of a God?  I'm not talking about creating "matter" or "energy" as modern scientists speak of it, as if there were an "in between" you and I called the objective universe, I'm talking about the respective experiences that you and I have.  According to the moderns, there is no explanation for this metaphenomenon called experience, it is merely now and forever a brute fact, not even logical enough to merit the prestige of a mathematical necessity such as 1+1=2.  Your position is that experience just is, for no reason.  Mine is that it flows from a Source that is higher than it is, higher than everything is, rather than merely associating with a substrata (matter) that is beneath it.

 

3. Cusa was never condemned by the Catholic Church for his teachings, so they are at least rigourous enough not to conflict with Catholic teachings.  Kindergarteners would need (and want) to participate in that rigour, rather than merely being set loose with chaotic conjecture.  Then they could have fun at a high level of thought at a very young age.

[Tyler H]

Consider it another way: you see the colour red. But where did "redness" come from in the first place? You see a building is extended in three dimensions, but where did "extension" come from? So with any quality you could care to name, including being (i.e., a thing exists or partakes of being) and nonbeing (i.e., a thing is absent or partakes of nonbeing). The materialists have absolutely no explanation for where red, extension, being, and nonbeing come from, they merely presume that these things are "brute facts"--facts with no explanation.

 

If you don't care, then your problem is solved, but if you are philosophical enough to care, these "brute facts" pose a very big problem for materialist philosophy. The only explanation for these things is that they have a source, but this source is so important we should dignify it by calling it the Source. Or, we could call it the Origin, or, more traditionally, the Creator. Some kind of Creator is the source or origin of red, extension, being, and nonbeing. Being the source, this Creator is different from all of these things, and is to all created things as the Sun is to the bodies of the Solar System.

Maybe we try to stop people from slaughtering each other over superstition before figuring out what is "redness" or what are "nouns". I am philosophical enough to push that inconsequnetial nonsense to the bottom of the list of philosophical problems to be solved and disseminated.

[Donnadogsoth]

Maybe we try to stop people from slaughtering each other over superstition before figuring out what is "redness" or what are "nouns". I am philosophical enough to push that inconsequnetial nonsense to the bottom of the list of philosophical problems to be solved and disseminated.

 

Them darned Wright kids and their flying machines, that'll never amount to anything!