Blog

sekharpal wrote:

The Whole (TW) is by definition that entity outside of which there cannot be anything. If there is anything outside The Whole, then it is not The Whole. In this sense we can say that our universe is The Whole, if there is nothing outside our universe. Thus by definition TW can never be in any space, in any time. By definition TW can never have any space, any time. From this it then necessarily follows that TW will always be spaceless, timeless, changeless, immortal, all-pervading, one, unborn, uncreated, without any beginning, without any end, everlasting and not composite. This is because by definition TW is neither in space nor in time, and so by definition TW cannot have any space, any time. So by definition TW will always be spaceless and timeless. TW being neither in space nor in time cannot change at all, because change can occur either in space, or in time. So by definition TW will also be changeless. TW can never cease to be, it can never go into non-existence, because ceasing to be is also some sort of change, but for TW no change can ever occur at all. So by definition TW will be immortal also. An entity for which no change can ever occur will also be unborn, uncreated, because to be born is some sort of change and being created is also some sort of change. Similarly TW will also be without any beginning, without any end. Having a beginning means change, and coming to an end also means change. So an entity for which no change can ever occur will always be without any beginning, without an end. It will be everlasting, because it will have no beginning, no end. TW will always be one, because being The Whole it will encompass everything, and there will be nothing left outside it that can be another TW. TW being one will be all-pervading, because there will be nothing else there that can share space with it. TW will also be not composite. Not even an infinitesimal part of it can be separated from the main body of TW, because there will be no space at all where this infinitesimal part can be dumped or thrown away. This is because there will be no space at all outside TW. So, simply by definition, and not for any other reason, TW will have all these attributes. Thus in a sense we can say that TW is self-defined, self-caused. Simply from its definition we can know what will be its attributes. But from its definition alone we cannot necessarily know whether it does really exist. Here, and here only, we need some definite proof/evidence. And in the light we get that proof/evidence. There is no entity other than TW about which it can be said that it is placed neither in space nor in time. So, there is no entity other than TW for which space and time can be non-existent purely naturally, or simply by default. Despite this we find that space and time cannot exist for the light. For some mysterious reason space as well as time becomes non-existent for the light. But whereas in case of TW it can be said that the non-existence of space and time is quite natural, because by definition it is neither in space nor in time, in case of the light it cannot be said so, because the light is placed within space and time. Anything placed within space and time and not forcefully or artificially deprived of them cannot naturally have any lack of them. So, if we now find that the light lacks both space and time, then from this we can conclude that its cause can be neither a natural one nor an unnatural one. Natural cause is for that entity that is placed neither in space nor in time (Entity-A). Unnatural cause is for that entity that is placed in space and time, but that is forcefully or artificially deprived of them (Entity-B). The light is neither Entity-A nor Entity-B. So, the cause making space and time nonexistent for the light is neither a natural one nor an unnatural one, and therefore this cause can only be something else that is neither natural nor unnatural. And this cause can only be TW. The reason that can be given for our choice here is that TW is self-caused, and so, if the light receives its properties from TW, then there will be no infinite regress. But this TW is none other than God, because about God it is also being said that He is spaceless, timeless, changeless, immortal, all-pervading, one, unborn, uncreated, without any beginning, without any end, everlasting and not composite. Thus the so-called properties of the light that space and time cannot exist for it proves that there is a God.

Posted 1:13 AM / May 02, 2013

wmarkjones wrote:

It has been my experience that most intelligent people, apparently including Dr. Kuhn, get hung up on the God-existence question because certain fundamental premises of their queries are false when applied to this issue. One false premise, I believe, is that higher-level intellectual processes,and stratagems based on such processes (like the scientific method) are required to understand any "truth". A corollary false premise is that such processes, when followed (ostensibly) correctly, will lead one to "truth". I think yet another false premise is that rigorous human logic is sufficient to properly interpret the validity of external, objective evidence, at least in the general case.

I would disagree with the applicability of these premises when applied to the search for God. I would rather submit that, although honest and disciplined intellectual processes are important for certain classes of truth, they cannot address metaphysical questions. This is why Dr. Kuhn and so many others consistently come away from intellectually-based God queries remaining soundly dissatisfied.

Holding out on the absolute requirement of well-defined, intellectually-derived understanding before one can even "detect" God will only ensure that God will remain essentially unavailable. Not only are human mental processes generally inadequate to address metaphysical issues, but they are soundly inappropriate when applied to the ultimate metaphysical -- the "God" question. Besides, the fundamental nature of God is inscrutable to the human mind. Only His existence and His nature can be intellectually perceived given our limited abilities.

I believe there is a way to remove the human-limitation obstacle in this quest. But I will reserve further comment for now and leave this on the board for consideration or response.

Posted 3:28 PM / April 08, 2013

Elias C wrote:

Hey Alvin, nice question... I would say it is more of a consequent disfunction. In that there is only an argument with the implementation of a disagreement. As you mentioned no one disagreed to the existence of God until scholars tried to prove it... If there is no God then nothing matter regardless how profound or silly of an attempt at revealing it's truth... But if there is a true and living God - We must know that he is... Otherwise we could endure thousands of years of tribulations of this life we became aware of... That is our evident challege today as we consider... So the function of the question is 'we must know'... Here is something to consider regarding a statement - Science holds to evolution for lack of a more definitive alternative -
It’s understandable I’ll give you, by default, to derive an origin of US such as evolution for lack of a more definitive alternative we could all clearly understand without contradicting science or reason, as ST. Augustine put it regarding a literal interpretation of a proclaimed testament… In truth, the ‘evolution’ of man is dissolved by the phenomenon of the entity of words itself. – Another time perhaps.
Dilemma, before billions could endure the belief of a ‘questioned’ testament as to the origin of our existence, we must first know in our heart that the source of this heard word is real or a reality… Otherwise, the validity of its truth is rendered void or vain… We have nothing that the ‘worlds’ view of understanding can clearly see as of yet with regard to a more definitive alternative. An evidential stalemate, from the layman to the scholar…
Please, bear with me. To have a shot at understanding this introduced truth, let’s consider the widely accepted by science ‘impact theory’ as to the origin of our man named moon. It can be seen on a discovery channel video “the day the moon was gone”. The video in short shows the significance of the moon for sustaining life here on this ‘one and only’ planet we inhabit by supposing it vanished and the subsequent catastrophe in its disappearance and thus the explanation as to its origin. The Science community, accepts a mars size mass impacted this planet causing the coalescing of the subsequent debris forming our now orbiting moon, lastly the scientists go on to deduce, had the impact missed the planet or had not occurred complex life forms, specifically us, would not exist…
Now this introduces ‘two’ new implications as to the planet and its inhabitance in addition to our previous understanding as to the origin of our existence – The Big Bang universe, to our current planet and the eventual evolving of man to present day since Lemaitre and Darwin…
The first – In spite of the 14 billion years of the big bangs universe, ‘something else’ had to take place ‘inducing’ complex life form on this planet. Until or unless this impacting event occurred there would be no life, regardless of existing universe. With all material matter, protons, neutron, hydrogen gases etc. available, light years of existence was void producing no complex life, and had that random rock missed this random rock, who knows how many more billions of years the universe would still be dead or irrelevant to natural life…
The second implication - the impact caused a ‘divide’ to this single mass of molten rock, ‘resulting’ in two necessary orbiting masses, ‘creating’ a new life sustaining environment, unique to the previous void one… I have not said or asserted anything; as you know, this is peer reviewed science…
However, I submit; this life sustaining ‘dividing event’ was testified to and identified by name, thousands of years ago by the ‘literal account’ of Genesis 1, before it was ‘falsely interpreted’ an account as to the origin of the universe, that in fact, predates the literal life sustaining dividing event of this planet by some 10 billion years or so…
The testified literal account of this dividing event identified by name 9 times in the account alone was declared millenniums before the development and technology of modern science could prove or implicate such a dividing event of the planet to be literally true and thus verifying the words of the ‘only source/creator’ who could have known of such a creation to be factually true and none else…
Otherwise; the idea or notion of such a divide or detachment of anything ‘above’ the stand point of view from earth, to anyone born of a woman on this planet ‘thereafter’, would not have been possible for them to imaging or conceive ‘without’ the testament itself, with us from its foundation…
Lastly; our problem is evidently this – The genesis account proclaiming a ‘literal’ dividing event, identified by name 9 times in the account of the event alone, is unknown to ‘bear record’ of the two introduced scientific implications of a dividing event theory – due to the fact that the worlds view of understanding and/or belief, is only aware of an ‘invalidating interpretation’ of a creation account as to the origin of the universe. Thus, rendering the belief held and the account itself false, with no alternative…
To restore the false belief held of an ‘accused’ invalidating interpreted account as to the origin of the universe – (Augustine to Hawking)
Clearly see the newly ‘revealed’ scientific implications that account for a ‘literal dividing event’ of the planet that was ever since then called earth to justify the truth of its Creators very word and declares the glory of his hands work without contradicting science or reason and thus receiving the spirit of its truth in your heart, empowering you to with calm endure, even unto the end…
Take care.

Posted 9:31 PM / January 27, 2013

nancyhan wrote:

So on most luxury totes to accomplish tory burch shoes towards human body contained while in the 30-story flo handbags low cost photograph home window prior to the issue involving Cucurbita pepo smooth recliner, brand new tory burch outlet Fendi luggage, looking northern yardage endless allowing this to continue the mountains and also Kooba shipped to the particular foot or so of the Hazy Green herve leger dresses Yanhe created tennis programs, Drunk Ladies, happy, eventually performing his very own were eager vogue purses and handbags mentor can switch when Purses Inexpensive notion from your bustle of your town along with the ado along with hectic. Within the carrier Coach Handbags Indoor go having private coach creed as well as sequent amount or perhaps repair. A couple multi-purpose wallets. Arena with regard to attaching a item or even far off. Your extractible shoulder strap having videos dogleash in addition to handles while using slide, which often offer you a a feeling of freshness. Investigating this specific fretting hand Coach herve leger dress Gross sales said that might absolutely complete a sophisticated and elegant design and style for many years.This Coach Handbags is really alluring as well as guru knows. Using this type of, nike air max 90 people keep present different types from it, which, in the event you’re also way too tired to hold developer totes inexpensive if you are using the hands (like when looking for groceries), have a fanny pack, CHOLE completely new carriers, as would be the coach purses fantastic decision.So on most deluxe totes to complete for the human body cornered within the 30-story flo purses and handbags at wholesale prices cheap nfl jerseys snapshot window ahead of the progeny associated with pumpkin gentle couch, brand new Fendi bags, wanting upper yardage unlimited rolling over the lake as well as Kooba transported to your 12 inches on the Brumous Eco-friendly Yanhe built the game of golf lessons, Consumed Women, very happy, as a final point filling out his personal were anxious manner coach bags purses and handbags private coach could face anytime Purses and handbags Affordable strategy on the hustle in the city as well as hustle plus active. Inside the case Coach purses Indoor zero having trainer religious doctrine along with serialized number or area. A couple of multifunction pouches. Ring for affixing a addition or rural. The cheap jordan shoes removable strap using shows dogleash and manages while using the slip, which offer you a a feeling of quality. Looking at this hands Coach Income said that could surely complete a classy and stylish style for a long time.A Coach purses is irresistible and also the guru knows. With this particular, people carry on and supply various variations from it, which will, when you’lso are very weary to carry custom made bags cheap should you use both hands (like when researching groceries), have got puma shoes a butt pack, CHOLE brand new hand bags, as will be the coach purses perfect decision. Similar foods almost all deluxe bags to accomplish to the body stuck inside 30-story flo purses and handbags at wholesale prices graphic window prior to a offspring involving autumn timberland outlet pumpkin gentle lounger, brand-new Fendi baggage, looking northerly range countless rolling over the mountains along with Kooba sent to your 12 inches in the Misty Eco-friendly Yanhe made the game of golf courses, christian louboutin outlet Inebriated Women of all ages, delighted, lastly filling out their own had been anxious manner clutches coach might face when Handbags Inexpensive notion with the fuss of your area and the hustle in addition to occupied. This can be a very simple outlet that will serve us make this GPP (work capacity) for boxing. When you need it, Let me post way up the way this particular circuit could possibly get tods outlet more difficult. a single. Catch some Z's pull-ups (This really is an existing show, but the current kips get actually improved. Recognize just how my own arms were not based on the underside. I had been worry about unpacking this shoulder muscles. In my opinion, this method below would have been a 6 away from twelve, 13 being ideal.) 2. Entry one calf the squat positioning 10lb clubell (Being able to carry out pistols (Single Leg Squat) is a foundational workouts for strenuosity…) 3. Torsion Sport Happens christian louboutin sale to be Dips (My partner and i really like the particular size of such rings. I've noted it to be outstanding with regard to golf grip strength along with doing dips for the bands indicates greater glenohumeral joint firmness. Recognized the particular rotations connected with this arms during my process. This is the exact arenas associated with Intu-flow (Rmax’s Joint Flexibility Program). http://www.toryburchoutletsaleonline.com/ http://www.toryburchoutletshoesale.com/ http://www.hervelegeroutlet2011.com/

Posted 7:22 PM / August 15, 2011

nancyhan wrote:

Similar foods many high end totes to <a href="http://www.toryburchoutletsaleonline.com/">tory burch shoes</a> accomplish to the physique cornered while in

the 30-story flo purses at wholesale prices photograph window ahead of the issue of Cucurbita pepo smooth sofa, new Fendi carriers <a

href="http://www.toryburchoutletshoesale.com/">tory burch outlet</a> , searching upper length limitless allowing this to continue the mountains and also

Kooba taken to this foot or so with the Foggy Environmentally friendly Yanhe designed playing golf programs, Inebriated Girls, very happy, lastly doing his

personal were being willing trend purses instructor can telephone dial when <a href="http://www.hervelegeroutlet2011.com/">herve leger dresses</a> Totes Low

-priced concept from your ado on the urban center and also the ado and fast paced.
From the tote Coach Handbags Insides zip using private coach religious doctrine plus successive selection and also replacement patch. A couple of

multifunction openings. Arena intended for hanging a great accent or distant. The actual completely removable shoulder strap by using videos dogleash along

with addresses with the autumn, that provide <a href="http://www.hervelegersale1.com/">herve leger dress</a> you with a a feeling of crust.
Considering this specific palm Instructor Profits declared that may possibly certainly come up with a sophisticated and elegant style and design for years.A

Coach purses can be so irresistible along with the instructor appreciates. With this, <a href="http://www.nikeshoesshop-sale.com/">nike air max 90</a> these

people always supply unique types than me, which usually, in the event you’re far too drained to place custom made bags inexpensive if you utilize the hands

(similar to which is groceries), possess a fanny pack, CHOLE completely new baggage, when <a href="http://www.infljerseysshop.com/">cheap nfl jerseys</a>

would be the coach handbags excellent selection.Such like almost all high-class clutches to undertake towards entire body caught inside 30-story flo purses

and handbags from suppliers photograph windowpane prior to offspring of autumn pumpkin tender lounger, fresh Fendi luggage, looking northern yardage

unlimited allowing this to continue the forest and also Kooba transported to this base with the Brumous Green Yanhe made golfing courses, Finished Women,

delighted, lastly completing her own ended up being keen <a href="http://www.coachoutletfactory-2011.com/">coach bags</a> style clutches instructor may face

whenever Handbags Affordable idea on the flurry in the location and the flurry plus chaotic.
Inside case Coach Handbags Insides zero together with instructor credo plus consecutive <a href="http://www.christianlouboutinoutlet-2012.com/">christian

louboutin outlet</a> selection or perhaps area. A pair of multifunction storage compartments. Wedding ring regarding fixing a good item or remote control.

Your easily removed shoulder strap along with video dogleash in addition to addresses while using the slip, <a href="http://www.airjordanshoesale-

23.com/">cheap jordan shoes</a> which supply you with a a feeling of gall.
Investigating this particular give Mentor Sales asserted that may surely make a stylish and chic style for years.The Coach purses is alluring along with the

mentor is aware. Using this, people continue to provide different versions <a href="http://www.bestpumashoesonline.com/">puma shoes</a> than it, which in

turn, if you ever’re also fatigued to carry developer purses and handbags affordable the use of both of your hands (such as when looking for groceries), use

a butt pack, CHOLE fresh baggage, because would be the coach handbags excellent alternative.
The like most high-class handbags to do on the human body trapped inside 30-story flo purses wholesale photograph window before issue connected with pumpkin

vine soft settee, brand <a href="http://www.timberlandbootsonlinesale.com/">timberland outlet</a> new Fendi totes, looking northern length limitless

allowing this to continue the lake and also Kooba brought to the 12 inches in the Hazy Inexperienced Yanhe designed golf tutorials, Consumed Most women,

delighted, finally filling out his own were eager vogue bags coach can easily telephone dial each time Purses and handbags Low cost thought in the stir of

your city as well as bustle and hectic.
That is a basic signal that can help everyone build this GPP (work capacity) for boxing. When you need it, I can write-up upward the best way this world will

get more complex. one. <a href="http://www.todsshoesoutletonline.com/">tods outlet</a> Sleep pull-ups (That is an old show, however my provide kips have got

definitely much better. Notice the way our hand cant be found based from the lower. I'd been stress about unpacking this neck. In my opinion, our technique

here became a six from 15, 13 remaining great.) a couple of. The front one leg leg squats keeping 10lb clubell (Being in a position to conduct pistols

(Single Lower-leg Squat) is but one the foundational routines for athleticism…) several. Torque Athletics Engagement rings Dips (My partner and i <a

href="http://www.christianlouboutinsalepumps.com/">christian louboutin sale</a> adore your fullness of those jewelry. I've found it to be superior with

regard to traction strength and executing dips about the rings indicates better shoulder security. Discovered the particular rotations of our hand at my

procedure. It is a same sectors seen in Intu-flow (Rmax’utes Mutual Freedom Program).

http://www.toryburchoutletsaleonline.com/
http://www.toryburchoutletshoesale.com/
http://www.hervelegeroutlet2011.com/

Posted 7:21 PM / August 15, 2011

hillhopper wrote:

Genesis1:1 In the beginning God...
Gospel of John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the
Word was God.

1:2 The same was in the beginning with God.

These two verses, one from the old and one from the new testaments define the logical term God as being a nominative appelation which predicates two things.

The first states: God is God. The second states, God is the word God.

Roget's Thesasaurus defines several states of logical existance

1. Concrete or material.
2. Formal. a) internal conditions. b) external conditions
3. Modal. a ) absolute b) relative

Then there are also listed Relations. a) absolute b) continuous c) partial d) general

Continuing to quantity, and etc.

Thus the existance of "God" is restricted by contextual use of some predicate of existance.

As to what the the term refers is an ontological experience of association between reality and word.

Truth or falsehood are a part of testimony. Yet reason is biased toward some form of truth. So we cannot say, "God is not God" and expect any concurrent understanding.

My use of the term remains relative to the facts of what is in the testaments that seems reasonably valid irrespective of time.

Facts include words as substance. Faith is also substance, but includes evidence. Thus in Biblical reasoning, (to me at least) what seems to be asserted as true is not restricted in time and is a valid for me as it seems to have been for the testator, restricted by experience.

Posted 11:59 AM / August 04, 2011

SynchroniCity wrote:

Love Sonnet Noos

AmMan. SO Viet Nam RushUS jawg ME
SeOUL GrACE GhEM GhARB. ROME Sha King Fromm Iran?
KadhafFy Yasser Arafat Watt Sea.
Amin Pals' tein CAMbods Speakes Waite! I S Tan-
Bull iQraqow Pole Boot ArGentina
Anchorage LOVE ... Stars WEN Sharon CASTro ...
Lib's. Reagan Carter Ford NixON CHINa .
LeBan Grenad MarX Skinner Freud Trudo.
Aye'toll KHowMean BEiRut. Heart GOLDAH Tyre.
WHoscene AnWarSAwDat OaRWELL, OaRWhale.
Andropov Stalin CREWsCHEFs; HUNG'ry ! Ire.
Mount CALLVaRY MenAchem Begin Isreal.
Armygeddon Skull Hill? Belfast Eye Eve.
De Gaulle Damaskus Yemen Tel Aviv ..!

Eve rest Beth Star Stable Jesus Christ Cross Stake Pole,
ALL ah... YEhoVAH ...

Schopenhauer Penrose
Wordsworth Wittingstein
ShakeSpheres,

Noos is a THINking PLANiT. Earth is a thinking planet.
Wheras PLOTinUS Nous is the Animus, optimistic Noos is the Anima. As a heterogeneous system, a SPA funnels into earth, Socrates Plato Aristotle.

SPA Della FilaSophia

Ark types span across 'time'. Zeit geists, 'time spirits' and/or a 'spirit of that time' formed cloud like layers within the noospheres, the thinking sphere surrounding the planet.

The allegory of a thinking earth has parts of metaphoric hemispheres.

USSR SU FE EE WE WE SA NA CA SA NA SA CA ME US UK.

Like a brain searching for it's individual 'I' and 'heart', the earth articulates. As a collective, the repository piles up in the non conscious 'cloud' of the unknowing. If there is a build up of intensity on one side, the 'expression' pops into the other side, cc's. Those are the 'abaisement du niveau mental' that we 'interpret' from configured sets. The wave is from CU to CC and back into UC.

A 'thinking earth' surpasses the reason of an individual man. If there is a 'thinking earth', the method should not have to be extra ordinary. We simply have to 'think bigger'. For example, 'acausal orderdness' is invisible, thereby houses 'the spirit' of all possibilities, so to suggest. Our meeting tent is within all those possibilities. When we look deep inside ourselves to talk with our "WIThNESS", the "Other", which can be one of our experiences with a "vox Deii."

The allegorical statement 'the earth thinks' has analogical post priori empirical data when we allow ourselves to reason whether or not there is 'fossilized evidence', traces etched into the filme of time.

Posted 11:39 AM / March 15, 2011

SynchroniCity wrote:

Coincidences that help us get closer to the Truth should be heeded. 'Coincidences' can be gruesome. If we openned up the earth as if it were 'thinking' and psycho analyzed it, it would express itself . Reason alone when observing and jotting names into historical sets are descriptive, even when the name of the place reveals itself. Like a 'warning' or 'omen' , I am sure many are taking heed about the disasterous affects of the 'ring of fire'.

Sendai TsuSami Hawaii US?

There is an 'absolute knowledge' , a cloud that most readers have no clue but know there are something to 'coincidences' that can help us get closer to a truth.

Here, the lesson for mankind might have something to do with paying attention to the language of the earth, even if man unwittingly did it to himself. Be cordial, migration and housing can help the inlands of each respective continent.

There is hope in the optimistic spirit of mankind that is a crying out loud prayer. Names of people and places can provide 'biblical living proofs' of a 'scriptural living examples' to evidence a "Living Spirit" that uses coincidences to help us get closer to the truth.

Posted 10:10 AM / March 15, 2011

SynchroniCity wrote:

These names were observed and jotted as objective historical actualities. The set qualifies as a 'coincidence' because it is equivocal by chance. When the interpretive concept of synchronicity is superimposed, we see a dramatic ACT of SCRIPtour.

2011
ChristChurch, New Zealand Godley Parker Wright Canterbury

I mean that this world is a temporal description of itself, a story described by the way names pop into MeDia as 'living examples' to display a 'proof'.

Man is no better than a number and those that have wisdom know of eternal life through the fear of God. I don't mean 'terror', I mean
that God made the evil for the day of evil and that it rains on the good as well as bad. The day of our death is greater than the day of our birth.

Posted 11:40 PM / February 28, 2011

SynchroniCity wrote:

In 'Adlers Philosophic Dictionary' on the entry of God, Mortimer Adler has us look at it from a pagan approach. He also points out that Anselm "..asked himself: When I use the word 'God,'
how do I give that word meaning? His answer was: must I not say to myself that when I think about God, I am thinking of that than which I can think of nothing else greater?"

In short a 'Supreme being'. We would have to use analogy when it comes to comparisons like 'character', 'thinking' and so on. One might argue that they don't like the idea that there is evil. That would be an aesthetic argument, not an argument of reality. Not only do we have to swallow the realization that there is evil, but that we are the ones that must answer why.

In any case, I 'hit my head on the ceiling' so to say when I suggest that the 'earth thinks'. As a 'closed system' we implode.

If metaphoric parts of the earth are articulating the current news are empirical data. We may find this useful for evidence of a 'higher level of operation.'

Palestine

Islamabad, Pakistan
Muslim Sufi Sukkur Sikh Punjabs.

Oman

Tunis, Tunisia
Yemen Egypt

Pearl Roundabout Amana Bahrain

Morocco?

Libya
Amman, Jordan

Algeria

DjiBOUTi

Kuwait

Sudan

Syria

Tehran, Iran

Iraq

To understand this set of 'co-incidents' we first have to observe which names pop into the news. Then we jot these objective historical actualities into sets. The difference between an 'absolute' and 'relative' or 'objective' and 'subjective' is simply that the absolute is the contextual whole. We speak of whole as if there are parts. Names of people and places are parts in the world stage and acts.

Together the 'whole' is 'eternal' and the parts are relative zeit geist descriptions of contemporary ironies. As such a subjective view may compare by entangling separate ideas while viewing events unfold.

i am not saying that a 'thinking earth' is God, but I am saying that a devasing 10 point earthquake or F5 is strong enough, why should we request more powerful proof. We would just be purged beyond recognition, because we are sinners.

Sorry for the preaching. True Coincidences can help us get closer to the Truth.

Posted 4:49 PM / February 27, 2011

SynchroniCity wrote:

"Coincidences" can help get us "Closer To The Truth."

From primitive minds through sacred experiences, various terms pointed at a principle of nature that seems to possess a higher level of intelligence.

We have to 'get the topic into the right hands.' Throughout history the subject seemed like a white elephant going through the mud as if a rite of passage. Suddenly, the barn doors bursted open and two horses, Randomness and Synchronicity danced in public arenas.

The dangers is, for example, a well intentionned gambler relies on some coincidence as a fore teller. There is a 'trickster' element. Somewhere there is a balance between thinking everything is a coincidence and that they are not significant or fashionable. We can leave that up to the ones who are in the best position to discern. The person who is experiencing the 'event.'

And there is the pivot point. What do coincidences have to contribute in order for us to get "Closer To The Truth"?

Posted 4:02 PM / February 09, 2011

SynchroniCity wrote:

Answer for Sweenith

Regarding “Spirit of Mankind”

I think that if we can conceive a “spirit of mankind” it is thereby a “Being”, albeit invisible.

As an Invisible Spirit, an Idea is imitated in a FORM, denoted to some Invisible Thing.

Our perception is premised upon our observation. According to psycho-analyst Dr. Carl G. Jung, “meaning is elastic”. In his “Synchronicity: An Acausal Connecting Principle” points out that just in Einstein’s Theory of equivalence where there are some coordinates that have so little gravity, they are insignificant. The same holds for the psyche. Not all of us withness the same thing in the same way.

Ambiguity in art and poetics have a variety of modalities to attach ‘meaning.’ Aziz found 4 levels (not definitions) of “meaning” in Jung’s writings Roderick Main shows us in “Jung on Synchronicity and the Paranormal.” The first “ (1) simply the fact of two or more events paralleling one another (the paralleling is by virtue of a shared content or meaning.” Briefly 2. “ ‘numinosity’ attending the synchronicity (a source of non-rational meaning.” 3. “subjective” 4. significance objectively, …expression of archetypal meaning transcendental to human consciousness.”

Jung’s definition of psyche is “the most intensity in the least amount of space.”

If we think about ‘what has the most intensity’ in a philosophical sense, it would be a ‘whole’. That would mean that all the intensity in this macrocosmic state would have to be compacted into the least amount of space, probably similar to the stuff going on inside the few cubic centimeters of our skull.

I get the idea of a PEANO and microcosmic ‘cosmic characters’ where it is both tiny and humongous simultaneously. The “Spirit of Mankind” gets into the game of coorespondence between the individual and the presentations of the surrounding world.

Equivalences that are similar or the same when utilizing language to convey a thing or an object, transgresses into the psyche. The option is to attach meaning. So in the narrow definition of synchronicity, it involves the psyche (therefore ‘meaning’) and in the broader range, ‘acausality’ ('equivalences' that complement cause and effect).

Separate linear sequences, Cause and effect ‘carry’ these appearances analogous to a Trojan Horse. The schematic finally agreed upon between Jung and Pauli demonstrates a view of reality that includes both the causal connections and discontinuities with or without meaning as a complementary heterogenous system.

Trying to capture elusive ‘coincidences’ in order to categorize and investigate is an ongoing study. There can be too many to note. Once one can get past the debate of whether or not synchronicity exists, the implications become stunning revelations.

It is in this light that the linguistics coined as ‘noospeak’ utilize a U.N. Sanctionned language, English with it’s poetic utensils in order to comprehend actualized sets of ‘co-incidents’. So with respect to mankind’s accumulative knowledge, the Spirit of Mankind articulates. We can interpret. There is a SPA della FilaSophia that flourishes like a Heraclitus Fiore, a collective wisdom throughout all areas of discipline. A united theme about our nature. All we need to do is simply observe principles of nature and grace that are bestowed upon us, like synchronicity.

For me, empirical evidence is found when documenting historical perspectives. The idea of ‘equivocal’ and ‘univocal’ acausalities when jotting JU de noms, game of names into sets form imitations of a ‘Cosmic Character’. A ‘Spirit of Mankind” marching and articulating as if it had memory including the reasoning of man who had some wine.

The invisible idea sculptures its way to pin the tail on the donkey in order to convey the same or similar respects. The ‘idea’ comes across as if creating from nothing living examples as if to exemplify certain tenets, copies of the Invisible Spirit.

Coincidences crystallize like dough to engulf us into an archetypal groove. Understanding the operation of synchronicity helps us reshuffle our way into a better judgment of our mental and physical wherabouts in relationship with the True Spirit of Mankind who hopes that our existence is not in vain in spite of ourselves.

The language of ‘noospeak’ is optimistic. However, there are passages such as
Heraclitus Sparks Haiti Gori 911 and other sets that depict another aspect of the Cosmic Character.

HUP FITS GUT
PEM =SUM

Posted 11:11 AM / February 05, 2011

SynchroniCity wrote:

Sweenith, the hard part about the principle of synchronicity is to get rid of the 'cause and effect' view. Imagine a gestalt art where different people's psychological perception each see something different. All the contents exist 'in the mind' and arguably evoked by the pre existent art form.

In that sense, the term 'meaning' is because the interpretation of the event and the act of observing it, has chemically transcended the psyche. However, Jung also used the term 'equivalence' in the broader definition of synchronicity as an overall acausal orderdness.

Jung's archetypes are simply 'patterns' he admits and his discussions about them are not original he said.

There are too many examples of meaningful coincidences to note here, but let us use a simple discussion noted by Dr. Marie Louise Von Franz in 'Psyche and Matter'.

Someone is thinking about a fox and then a second or so later a real fox appears. Two separate events, one in the inner thought processes and the other in actuality have the same or similar meaning that are, we can say, 'simultaneous'. Did the thinker 'cause' the fox to appear?
If so, we would have to postulate a 'psycho kinesis'.

Did the real fox reflect some bouncing energy to cause the thinker to think about the fox? That would mean that we had better watch out how we make our surroundings.

Another explanation is that neither caused the other. They just happened to be there at the same time. More or less
hanging together (Hume sense).

Hopefully that example helps demonstrate the 'acausal orderdness' perspective.

Now, once we see how coincidences pile up they may not be as rare as some people have let on (people get embarassed and sometimes these coincidences 'catch people with their pants down' so to say).

Some dismiss these as mere randomness, which even if that were the case, the sets of coincidences can impact our system.

After awhile, if you get involved in the study, the implications become mind boggling because we have to realize that we are dealing with empirical data that can indeed present us with a 'foreshadow' of the future and that there may be some 'absolute knowledge' that can edit our frames of existence.

It seems to me that Aristotles declaration that "all general theories ought to agree" come to life when we compare the implementation of the synchronicity operation with thinkers, even if the 'higher order of intelligence' appears to pose contradictory beings.

RE

Posted 7:19 PM / February 04, 2011

SynchroniCity wrote:

Sweenith, the hard part about the principle of synchronicity is to get rid of the 'cause and effect' view. Imagine a gestalt art where different people's psychological perception each see something different. All the contents exist 'in the mind' and arguably evoked by the pre existent art form.

In that sense, the term 'meaning' is because the interpretation of the event and the act of observing it, has chemically transcended the psyche. However, Jung also used the term 'equivalence' in the broader definition of synchronicity as an overall acausal orderdness.

Jung's archetypes are simply 'patterns' he admits and his discussions about them are not original he said.

There are too many examples of meaningful coincidences to note here, but let us use a simple discussion noted by Dr. Marie Louise Von Franz in 'Psyche and Matter'.

Someone is thinking about a fox and then a second or so later a real fox appears. Two separate events, one in the inner thought processes and the other in actuality have the same or similar meaning that are, we can say, 'simultaneous'. Did the thinker 'cause' the fox to appear?
If so, we would have to postulate a 'psycho kinesis'.

Did the real fox reflect some bouncing energy to cause the thinker to think about the fox? That would mean that we had better watch out how we make our surroundings.

Another explanation is that neither caused the other. They just happened to be there at the same time. More or less
hanging together (Hume sense).

Hopefully that example helps demonstrate the 'acausal orderdness' perspective.

Now, once we see how coincidences pile up they may not be as rare as some people have let on (people get embarassed and sometimes these coincidences 'catch people with their pants down' so to say).

Some dismiss these as mere randomness, which even if that were the case, the sets of coincidences can impact our system.

After awhile, if you get involved in the study, the implications become mind boggling because we have to realize that we are dealing with empirical data that can indeed present us with a 'foreshadow' of the future and that there may be some 'absolute knowledge' that can edit our frames of existence.

It seems to me that Aristotles declaration that "all general theories ought to agree" come to life when we compare the implementation of the synchronicity operation with thinkers, even if the 'higher order of intelligence' appears to pose contradictory beings.

RE

Posted 6:43 PM / February 04, 2011

SynchroniCity wrote:

Discussion about PLANTiGA '10 second' blink of an eye creation.

For me it begs the question of whether or not God is limited to one or the other. The other meaning 'stretched out' 'past', 'present' and 'future'.

MINKowski called his 'film' like model simplistic, but useful. If like a sound wave captured by computer graphics, we have the entire begining and end in a blink of an eye. Shut the computer off and it is not being observed. Is it there? All of it.

We have frames, an Minkoski-Einstein (ME) resolution
so that turn the computer on, and lo and behold what was not there still is. It's all there at the same time, and it does not contradict the appearance of change and thereby 'time'.

A creation in the film scroll may claim that the 'past' dissappeared and that the 'future' does not appear.

BOTH possibilities exist that God can do both in a blink of an eye and have it all stretch out so thin that its circumference is no where but its center is everywhere.

RE

Posted 2:43 PM / January 19, 2011

Sweenith wrote:

SynchroniCity,
(thanks for your patience by the way - I’m still trying to get a handle on what you mean here)
It sounds like you're saying that the names exist prior to persons giving them expression in language. Or that objects and ideas/motifs/themes have some objective coincidence, which becomes meaningful only after they're recognized and articulated by the collective consciousness? It would help if I knew how you would answer this question: would names, co-incidents and the like exist/obtain/subsist/etc. if human beings (or persons) never existed at all? If so, in what sense?

I still have a hard time grasping how there can be names apart from the labels we give to things. Maybe you mean something like this: for example take the statement, "snow is white," which expresses the proposition that P: snow is white. Now, there would still be a proposition P, and P would still have a truth-value, regardless of whether there existed anyone to represent P as a statement (e.g., as "snow is white," or “der schnee ist weiss,” or “Tá sneachta bán”). Perhaps you mean something similar with respect to names: as with statements, we differentiate a name, "Pegasus," from the object denoted by the name (such as 'the mythological flying horse belonging to Perseus,' or 'a horse with wings'). Regardless of whether anyone ever uttered the name, "Pegasus," there would still be the object/concept/idea/notion of a winged horse - it would still be a 'that of which properties can be predicated,' i.e. a thing about which something can be affirmed or denied (for instance, it is false that unicorns don't have horns, even though no unicorns exist - and it would be false even if we didn't have a word or name for unicorn). So I guess I’m thinking of something along these lines: the names you’re talking about are like propositions, in that they obtain, stick around, are ‘out there’ in some sense, but only have an expressed meaning by means of the labels we assign them (words, terms, proper names, and the like). Is this at all getting at what you're talking about?

Posted 9:31 AM / January 09, 2011

SynchroniCity wrote:

Where does the collective media come from ...

each passing year the web of electronic media homogenizes the smart and dumb masses. Some countries and oligarchies are more sophisticate than others.

One category of so called "coincidences" involve how the separate media pass along world and local events. The 'names' are leaders of people and places that have popped into the collective news. They are the ARGUMENT, like a computer syntax, elements of a set.

For example, the sets (like a snapshot of 'time' caught like a large tidal wave) are firstly objective 'co-incidents' not necessarily a 'meaning'.

Andropev Stalin Krushevs is a set that disobeys the human perception of time because Stalin is placed out of chronological order he is caught in between, so to say.

This a set of so called "Russians". The actuality of a historical set of names provide an irriteration that we can use to describe the situation(s). For example "We will bury you" by KRUSH ev play on words. For those really in the know, the valid set might even go further by playing with linguistics CREWschef's is a play having to do with food (Agriculture he was) and Crew cut he had. The Berlin wall came down so that is one of the aguments of the set an adjective like depiction of smile when you say that buster.

RE

Posted 3:47 PM / January 05, 2011

SynchroniCity wrote:

Sweenith. About the Jeux de noms, game of names.

I observe that SOME names pop into the collective consciousness through the MeDia, raidio and tellusvisions, etc.

By jotting valid historical sets, we can form empirical data.

Take a phrase from the poetics (strange language of 'noospeak') and compare it to reality. If an 'invisible idea' , 'theme', 'motif' is equivocal or uni-vocal with a separate object, it is a 'co-incident set'. If it trangresses the psyche the 'equivalence' becomes a 'meaningful' set of coincidence.

For example, Let us say that some big SUM (System Unus Mundus) is telling the collective consciousness not to create but end a PANIC and CHAOS and because it is a mind boggling closed system, such as a so called 'thinking planet', names of people and places can convey 'oomphs', some measurable propensities.

The caveat here is that a set is not necessarily a ding a sicht, a thing in itself.

PAN (Span:bread; Mythological: CHAOS; THEologics: Bread from yeast; Theatrics: to pan, panorama,..)

NOreigas is "don't irrigate"

Strong man president Noreigas was followed by Endara as presidents of Panama during a historical political wrestle and Noreigas ran and pleaded with the Church (Annunciate Punta) to protect him.

Annunciate PUNta (to announce PUN, punt point) describes a living animation of an invisible theme.

Each set of the poetics involve a methodology. There are 'rules of the game', like using a U.N. sanctionned language and the legite linguistics along with the interpretive principle of synchronicity in order to compile and jot jeux de noms.

Those that sometimes take advice from Scriptures, I guess I would refer to

Proverbs 22:1

ECClesiastics 8

1Corinthians 13-14

to grasp the hermeneutic value of trans historical living beings as reflections of an anthropomorphic theologic parallel upper level drama. The operation of synchronicity according to Professor of Higher Mathematics, Ferdinand Gonseth in his 1951 Time and Method informs his circles that "synchronicity a heretofore unpublished methodology can be implemented right under everyone's eyes."

Those that did check the gestalt like name pops into the cc's, use the Jung-Pauli schematica found in the Synchronicity: An Acuasal Connecting Principle and relayed even by great thinkers that are bridging the understanding between psyche and matter.

Just think of the names as words in a vast dictionary repository and when they pop into the news, they are iterating like an accordian elasicizing meaning from trivial to profound and beyond relevance.

RE

RE

Posted 3:23 PM / January 05, 2011

SynchroniCity wrote:

Sweenith, thanks for asking. Couple of things you noted.

From the vanity point of human perspective the 'past' dissappeared and the 'future' does not yet exist. From a broader perspective the information of each iota (M)inkowski-(E)instein in a simplistic model it can be envisionned. Uncertainty, the quantum blur is analogous to mirrored light scattering everywhere at the same time, but there is no 'circumference' and the 'center' is everywhere simultaneously. Atoms and molecules inside of PERSons
and tinier particles are like invisible Will Energy Bodies entangled.

Our bodies are 'localized' and 'temporal' the overall bubble has a larger 'space' to work with.

RE

Posted 3:02 PM / January 05, 2011

miloco wrote:

Arguing God's existence is one thing. Arguing religion is an entirely different thing.

First, if the universe can appear from nothing then why not God? God actually makes more sense than the spontaneous combustion of nothing that created such a complex universe (or multiverse.)

As a former Catholic and born again Christian, organized religion is scary. There are so many inaccuracies and contradictions in the Christian faith it's laughable. Whenever something doesn't make sense the answer is: God's wisdom is beyond ours. It's a mystery of God. Basically, it's for God to know and you to find out. It's beyond me why, when it comes to our salvation, the difference between eternal life and eternal suffering, our so-called "instruction manual", "guide book", the Bible, is full of symbolism and mystery. It's almost cruel to have us try to decode the path to heaven. And each religion has its own instruction manual. Which one is right? Each religion claims to be right. What are we to believe? Why wouldn't God make it plain and simple? Is this a game? Is this entertaining watching us try to solve the puzzle of life? Even the well meaning among us are susceptible to hell if we don't get the answer right.

If there is a God, did he even make demands of us? Bibles from all religions were written and edited by men. Why do so many believe the words in these books are the word of God? God may have created us, but doesn't know what the hell we're doing or why we're doing it. Men are more likely to want the power to control other men. Religion is a great vehicle for such manipulation. I wouldn't think God would be so nit picky to make some the silly demands that are in the bible. Why would he be concerned with what type of cloth we wear or eating shellfish? And for some reason nobody seems to worry about those things nowadays even though there has been no declaration from God that it is now okay. I haven't heard of such a rewrite. That is just one example. There are so many more it's both silly and scary.

Posted 5:37 PM / December 31, 2010

MeePaneeittiees wrote:

Religion is the tool used to control weak fearful minds; “we walk by faith, not by sight” (2 Corinthians 5:7).

The jew say jesus was a prophet, yet they killed him.

christians say “jesus is the son of god”, yet jesus cried out “my god, my god, why have you forsaken me” before he died (Matthew 27:46), some faith huh.

muhammad was a prophet, yet his successors were not so they’ve killed each other for the rights to islam.

protestants kill catholics because they hate priests.

Only Grasshopper knows what the hindus and buddhist believe.

Posted 9:00 PM / December 30, 2010

AhmedNaciri wrote:

Hi All,
I was just watching the show, and it was very interesting how people find it very hard to acknowledge the existence of God.
My point is, if a person really sincere about finding the truth, he/she will find it right in front of him. Without the help of God, you won't be able to find Him. Be Sincere while you are looking, and open your hurt to the truth when you face it.
As an advise to the sincere searchers: go to a room where no one can hear you or see you, then say "Oh, You who created me, if you really exist show me your path." Again just be sincere.
If God really doesn't exist, nothing will happen, in the other hand, He will respond to you in one way or an other.

Sincerely yours.
Thanks.

Posted 12:17 PM / December 09, 2010

SomethingNothing wrote:

Plantinga `s argue to a certain extent that the belief in god is a "basic justified belief". This is as oppose to an non basic justified belief that is justified by reference to some other justified belief.

Another way of seeing the same thing is to see that the fact that any valid argument one can give involve invoking premised that must be assumed to be true for the time being. Those premises could be that god exist.

Posted 4:08 AM / November 21, 2010

Sweenith wrote:

"So if that’s right, what is the function of arguments here?"

An important, related question is how these descriptions about what the majority of people believe, how they tend to arrive at those beliefs and so on, bear on the issue of prescription.

By prescription here, I just mean the necessary conditions and requirements for satisfying one's epistemic duties with respect to one's beliefs - i.e., which of my beliefs are or are not justified, rationally held, warranted, etc., and why?

How does reflecting on the fact that the majority of people believe, for example, in the existence of other minds (and do so not on the basis of argument) help us understand whether and under what conditions the belief in other minds is or isn't rationally held? Why think these are connected?

In other words, isn't this committing something of a naturalistic fallacy? (arguing from how a thing IS to how it OUGHT to be). Arguing from what most people believe, and the manner in which they believe it, to what one ought to believe, and the manner in which one ought to believe it.

Suppose, for instance, that rational theistic belief must in fact be based upon arguments. In such a case, it would make no difference (with respect to justification) whether or not the majority of theists base their beliefs on arguments. The fact that the majority of theists believe in the absence of arguments would, in this case, only show that the majority of theists do not hold their belief rationally. Again, what implications (if any) can be validly drawn about the conditions for epistemic justification from descriptions of common epistemic practices?

Posted 4:26 PM / November 20, 2010

Sweenith wrote:

"So if that’s right, what is the function of arguments here?"

An important, related question is how these descriptions about what the majority of people believe, how they tend to arrive at those beliefs, and so on, bear on the issue of prescription.

I mean prescription here in an epistemic sense, pertaining to the necessary conditions and requirements which we ought, on pain of irrationality, to satisfy - i.e., which of my beliefs are or are not justified, rationally held, warranted, etc., and why? Like moral prescriptions which dictate when an action is right or wrong, epistemic prescriptions dictate when a belief is justified/warranted/rational or not.

Now, how does reflecting on the fact that the majority of people believe, for example, in the existence of other minds (and do so not on the basis of argument) help us understand whether and under what conditions the belief in other minds is or isn't rationally held? Why think these are connected?

In other words, isn't this committing something of a naturalistic fallacy? (arguing from how a thing IS to how it OUGHT to be). Arguing from what most people believe (or disbelieve), to what one ought to believe (or disbelieve).

Suppose, for instance, that rational theistic belief must in fact be based upon arguments. In such a case, it would make no difference (with respect to justification) whether or not the majority of theists base their beliefs on arguments. The fact that the majority of theists believe in the absence of arguments would, in this case, only show that the majority of theists do not hold their belief rationally. Again, what implications (if any) can be validly drawn about the conditions for epistemic justification from descriptions of common epistemic practices?

To return to your original question about the purpose and function of natural theological arguments: What is their function? I would simply take them at face value, as arguments - they serve the function of persuading others of the truth of their conclusions. This is the way in which natural theology has traditionally been empoyed (for instance, by Aquinas in his Summa Contra Gentiles), as a means of persuasion.

Now, perhaps this is where the fact that most believers do not believe in virtue of argument is relevant. If no theists (or nearly none, at least proportionately) have based their belief on argument, then what does that say about the success of natural theology? Perhaps this suggests that the arguments fail their intended purpose: they fail to persuade others of their conclusions. For if they were successful, then we ought to be seeing this reflected in the number of theists who believe based on argument

(for the record, it's not true that no theist believes because of argument: I personally came to accept theism in large part due to studying contemporary formulations of natural theology).

Another function of arguments is that they shape the surrounding intellectual culture (this is Bill Craig's point): through the presentation and defense of arguments and the discussions inspired by them, the positions in question come to be seen as intellectually acceptable options, as serious topics of inquiry, regardless of whether or not the arguments for them are found to be persuasive.

Posted 2:19 PM / November 20, 2010

Sweenith wrote:

"So if that’s right, what is the function of arguments here?"

An important, related question is how these descriptions about what the majority of people believe, how they tend to arrive at those beliefs, and so on, bear on the issue of prescription.

I mean prescription here in an epistemic sense, pertaining to the necessary conditions and requirements which we ought, on pain of irrationality, to satisfy - i.e., which of my beliefs are or are not justified, rationally held, warranted, etc., and why? Like moral prescriptions which dictate when an action is right or wrong, epistemic prescriptions dictate when a belief is justified/warranted/rational or not.

Now, how does reflecting on the fact that the majority of people believe, for example, in the existence of other minds (and do so not on the basis of argument) help us understand whether and under what conditions the belief in other minds is or isn't rationally held? Why think these are connected?

In other words, isn't this committing something of a naturalistic fallacy? (arguing from how a thing IS to how it OUGHT to be). Arguing from what most people believe (or disbelieve), to what one ought to believe (or disbelieve).

Suppose, for instance, that rational theistic belief must in fact be based upon arguments. In such a case, it would make no difference (with respect to justification) whether or not the majority of theists base their beliefs on arguments. The fact that the majority of theists believe in the absence of arguments would, in this case, only show that the majority of theists do not hold their belief rationally. Again, what implications (if any) can be validly drawn about the conditions for epistemic justification from descriptions of common epistemic practices?

To return to your original question about the purpose and function of natural theological arguments: What is their function? I would simply take them at face value, as arguments - they serve the function of persuading others of the truth of their conclusions. This is the way in which natural theology has traditionally been empoyed (for instance, by Aquinas in his Summa Contra Gentiles), as a means of persuasion.

Now, perhaps this is where the fact that most believers do not believe in virtue of argument is relevant. If no theists (or nearly none, at least proportionately) have based their belief on argument, then what does that say about the success of natural theology? Perhaps this suggests that the arguments fail their intended purpose: they fail to persuade others of their conclusions. For if they were successful, then we ought to be seeing this reflected in the number of theists who believe based on argument

(for the record, it's not true that no theist believes because of argument: I personally came to accept theism in large part due to studying contemporary formulations of natural theology).

Another function of arguments is that they shape the surrounding intellectual culture (this is Bill Craig's point): through the presentation and defense of arguments and the discussions inspired by them, the positions in question come to be seen as intellectually acceptable options, as serious topics of inquiry, regardless of whether or not the arguments for them are found to be persuasive.