'To posit that a God was a necessary being, unlike the contingent universe, you would have to first postulate that his nonexistence is logically implausible. But we know that for example, a square circle, is logically implausible. To understand the concepts of causality and time, we would have to know how this being would relate to a reality that transcends our material world. We would have to ask the questions that would have to be answered such as, does this God exists by his own nature and evolution? What would that particular nature and evolution consist of in their entirety? If those elements of composition were infinite, then if the universe was created out of nothing, would it not imply its fixed point in time, as its reference and the circumference of space as being essentially infinite? Would this be the example of a sequence of cause and effect? If we consented to that postulation, then this God has no cause. His existence is a brute fact, and he is existential. Thus, he is proposed as the "ens realissimum", the most real being. How is a necessary being, without any nature, evolution, space, materiality and cause and effect considered, a necessary being to the cosmos and is real?'
'The metaphysical contrast of materiality could be examined observantly, through the truth about the discernible world that is called our viable reality. The general notion of reality is defined by either physics or metaphysics in categories of existence ascribed to an elemental level of absolute transparency that defies or not the ascertainable laws of physics or the fundamentals of metaphysics applied. Universal principles have no power and only describe the laws with ontology and mathematical patterns that define the function of the universe, within its constants and values as observations. In essence, the universe is perceived by experimental constructs and not by undefined reality, because laws are not fundamental reality. Cosmic laws serve for the accountability of the universe and are accentuated in the ontology of particles and fields, as entities or the assertion of how quantum mechanics functions in a rational structure. Until we differentiate the applicability of metaphysics and physics and better understand their relative distinction, the significance will be merely marginal at best. Ergo, the abstract numbers and nominalism will be considered the quantifiability that represents the mathematical or metaphysical verities. If we subscribe to the theory of a definite reality that ultimately encompasses God, then we would require a necessary basis for his existence that does not exhausts reality. If we inferred from a metaphysical or immaterial comparison, such as thoughts and concepts, experiences or observations without people, conscious beings, transcendental value, sentience, personhood, and the consciousness for this foundation, then the question that would be asked is what is the reality of his essence within the emergence of a cogent sense, where possibility space as a deep structure of the universe could co-exist with this God's substance? How would his reality correlate with the interchangeable nature of the abstract Platonic meanings, within the space of mathematical reality? If he is not constrained by the governable laws of the cosmos, then how do we examine the cosmicity of his existential realism from an anthropic consciousness that is objective? We could conceive the answerable reply to the question, if we could only observe the metaphysical realm of his existence that inputs our thoughts daily, within the observable and testable cosmos'.
'If I conceded to the certain notion of infinitism that knowledge may be justified by an infinitely prolonged link of reasoning, then there would be no need for sceptism and knowledge would result to be solely subjective than objective'.
'Even if we observe a small and void part of space, where there are no transparent atoms, we still could discern the pattern of the movement of these particles in our keen observation, like the minuscule particles of the dust in a room'.
'What is significant about Aristotle's Rhetoric is the actual comprehension of the meaning of ethos, pathos and logos and the method of the usage of that rhetoric. To be an effective speaker of philosophy, the philosopher must appeal to the character, the audience and the logical reasoning applied'.
'I do not know whether my time upon the Earth is nigh in its completion, but if it is to ultimately end today, then I shall gladly bide my time, with the knowledge that I have gained in life'.
'How is the sectarian doctrine of a resurrection justified plausibly, within a conjoined and divine nature that correlates, with human nature? How is the concept or act of an incarnation relative to a philosophic truth that corresponds, with the scientific truth? If a God transformed himself to a man on a lone planet in the vast universe, how do we examine this belief, when we are limited to the only evidence presented that is faith or partial dogma? How does a coherent pattern of universal existence relate to the nature of a singular God that appears as a fallible man, but maintains his infallibility as the Creator? Would it not be perceived, as a contradiction and absolute fallacy? If people would ascribe to this supreme being supposed attributes that exceed human comparison and comprehension, then why would a God contradict his own essence and need to assume a human life and become material, so that man believed his existence? This would certainly require a dependency, on a contingency that was already established previously. Ergo, how could one entity substantiate another entity, and be independent if this causality was not necessarily indicative of a materialisation of an evolved matter of interdependence? If the universe is dependent on a God, then what independence does the universe have, if it must be restricted to the notion of a conscious God that does not appear to reflect coherence? If this divine God was interchangeable and infallible as we are supposed to believe in Christianity, then how does this God escape the actuality of the contradiction of his essence? How does a resurrection avoid reality and falsifiability, when this God is regarded as eternal and infallible? Thus, he would be presumed to have never died or could he die in the first place. People could easily attach a perennial nature and attributes to a God, within their metaphysical claims, but how could a God be considered immaterial and material, impassable and passable, mutable and immutable, within the composite forms of cosmological matter? If a God became man somehow in a physical manner, then how could he be compatible with his creation in the analytical notion and be composed of two natures divided at the same time ceteris paribus? How could a man be the image of an invisible God and how do we describe this metaphenomenal resurrection, if this God is defined as invisible and visible in nature? Why would a God crucify himself and submit himself to man and be considered, as still omnipotent and perfect? What kind of analogy or conclusion would result from that contradictory realisation? Consequently, if the world was so horrific and required the presence of a saviour to save humanity, then why would a God attempt to acknowledge the purpose of salvation through an abstract verity, yet dismiss the whole reality of human suffering, by only reducing this purpose to a notional death and resurrection that implied his faulty creation's requirement, for human salvation that had no cosmic relevance? I would deduce that the contrast is limited to the foundation of faith and no clear reason, and it would imply faulty logic on this creator's part. I cannot concede to the idea that we are beholden to religious pluralism that teaches that a divine agent chose Christianity over other religions, merely because this agent supposedly became man and died and resurrected afterwards. Is any transcendence of a divine reincarnation or embodiment personified of a physical God relatively, a fundamental demonstration of human gullibility or yearning for a supernatural entity? Are we closer to the truth in our sequuntur? Is the distinction between the devised God, the creator and the universe the creation nothing more than an errant perception that is aligned to the eternal question of faith and belief than the materialisation of universal reality?'
'To better understand in philosophy the mechanism of the body, we must first understand the relationship, between the nous, pneuma and logistikon'.
'Often, I find myself allured to the simplest beauty attached to nature in its originality and the beautiful composition of its colour and pristine form'.
'There are some instances, when we are not truly cognisant, about the revolving things that occur in sequential order, or we assume that they are realistically insignificant'.
'The five core beliefs in philosophy are happiness, reason, nature, progress, and liberty. Without either of them, our way of being, thinking, perceiving, realising, understanding and living would be irrelevant and incomplete'.
'What was before can never be again, but what is now can always be something'.
'Why do people define morality as strictly in religious terms and believe that non-religious people have no real morality? Is committing an injustice worse than suffering an injustice to a rational atheist, agnostic or theist? Our inductive thoughts and decisions are conditioned to the inherent manner of thinking that we are inculcated with, such as the normativity of our cultural values and education. When we are outside of this environment and explore with a meticulous observation and contemplation, then our morality begins to form into a belief system of concepts, theories, facts that we can base its implementation, and not with some blind faith. A person must strive intuitively to understand self-knowledge, self-awareness and self-being. The importance of the nature of our true self is linked to the thinking of the human mind, the volition of the human soul, the eudaemonia of our well-being, and the material dimension of our body. Reducing suffering and enhancing well-being is moral in the philosophical sense that a person is informed, about the distinction between suffering and well-being and therefore knows what are their meaning and value. This knowledge does not require the necessity of religion. It would only require the elements of cognition and consciousness. There are no definite moral absolutes because morality is subjective. The universe is indifferent to our suffering, and without our consciousness, there is no moral agency to distinguish morality. We are not born with the absoluteness of purity. People can believe that we are born with human innocence, but there are not, because it would apply that they can distinguish right from wrong from their birth. It is relatively more important to discuss the issues of moral objectivity and subjectivity. In philosophy there is also a relevance, between moral objectivity that is related to a fixed point of reference and moral absolutism that is a reference to the view that all actions are intrinsically right or wrong. As Socrates said, "The unexamined life is not worth living".
'Verily, the only relevant thing that matters in the end, is what matters to you of relevance'.
'All men are born with an intellect to learn and a mind to obtain knowledge to think. Thereafter, with wisdom, they retain that knowledge and with time aspire to become great philosophers'.
'Death is not the purpose for life, because as inherent beings, we the people of the world determine what is the purpose of our life. Without volition, there is no need for function and thereby, death could only be interpreted, as a non sequitur or a natural state'.
'The galaxy in astronomy is the collections of innumerable millions or billions of stars, galactic dust, black holes that exist, as independent and structured systems of which there are billions in the known vast universe. The question that intrigues me is, will human beings ever reach the galaxies that are far beyond our Earth in the future or are we billions of years behind in their comprehension and ultimate destination?'
'If I was to believe in such an argument as Pascal's wager, then I would have to either construe a universal deity based, upon the condition of the existence or not of that specific deity. That would signify that either that my reward or punishment in a supposed hereafter would be either finite or infinite in nature. This argument would regard my fate predicated on the belief of a universal deity, irrespective of the incontrovertible evidence provided. In order for my mind to comprehend and accept the possibilities of a numerical value, I would have to submit to the idea that I was irrational in my thinking process and could not distinguish a supposition from a fact. It would also mean that I had no virtues or their capacity. Most people tend to believe in things that can be demonstrated and not believe in something until it is disproven'.
'I can describe the philosophical soul in the comparative sense to the unconscious state of dreaming. When we dream, our mind detaches from the body within a metaphysical state, but it is in reality still attached to the physical body, by way of the brain. The soul is the agency that guides our activated consciousness and the brain is the matrix that enables the soul to be relative to the body'.
'A necessary cause of another cause means that the result can never transpire without the cause itself. However, sometimes the cause transpires without the result. Thus, what should be elucidated about the necessary cause for the universe, and what should be understandable to the argument to how the cause is unnecessary to the universe is the philosophical premise that cause implies that the universe has a necessary cause in the first place'.
'The faculty of the mind requires a reason for its function and purpose, because the mind is a conscious mechanism that recognises both function and purpose, but without reason, it is only a physical component with no viability'.
'I cannot fill a glass with wine with my mind. However, I can make my mind compel my body to fill that glass with wine. If I understood the capacity of my mind and the physicality of the glass, I would simply surmise that the perception is that the wine is dependent on the body and not the mind, yet it is the mind that controls the movements of the body'.
'When I observe the movement of the hands of a clock, I am observing the duration of time. The perceptible notion is that the clock is contingent to the reality of time. What is actually occurring is the phenomenon that is behind the passage of time. Time is not necessarily dependent on motion, but on its infinite state and its predictable nature. Thus, the quantum element of time is an infinitude that transcends the motion of anything'.
'The instrumental concept of any type of philosophy is indicative of the pluralistic conceptualisations of its meaning. We learn the meaning of these applicable concepts, through our consciousness, intellect, logic, rational thoughts, knowledge and wisdom. The reasons for philosophy are the discernment of knowledge, the objective transparency of wisdom, the method of examination, the justification, its communicable value, its intellectual design, the questions to our ultimate reality, the experimental or analytical reasoning, the unbridgeable gap of the finitude and infinitude, the theory of knowledge in epistemology, deducing doxas of ontology, proper basic necessity, the humanly unimaginable and ineffable notion of the totality of cosmic relevance, the affirmation and negation of existence, the intimacy of the knowledge that defines the conceptual forms, the possible assertions and negative assertions, the personal experiences, the approachable belief of philosophy, the compartmentalisation of theories, the attributes to something and the possibility of divine providence inter alia'.
'There is no practical reason for theism to attack atheism and agnosticism based on concepts. Atheism is not Darwinism or is agnosticism Humanism. An atheist or agnostic may concur with those concepts, but they are not their dogmas like theism has theology. Atheism and agnosticism have no official dogmas. Atheism is merely a disbelief in the existence of a divine agent, and agnosticism is the uncertainty in the existence of that divinity. In the end the obvious discrepancy is realised, in the actual interpretation and constatation of proof than dogma'.
'Whatever I shall become, and wherever I shall be, the universal question is, howsoever shall I be understood by the world?'
'Within the particles of dust, I can perceive the substance of the dust and its form with observation. If my perception was only that, then I would be aware of the fact that the particles of dust are uniquely intrinsic to their variable form. Thus, what is really perceived, as mere particles of dust are actually universal in appearance that our perception has then detected, with their motion. It is motion that draws our perception and not the substance or form of the particles'.
'To ascribe to the general concept of the resurrection of a human being would involve the necessary requirement of some natural contingency that was material, such as the brain and heart. These vital components of our anatomy would have to survive, beyond a brief period of time to be actually a case of human resurrection. Hitherto, this form of resurrection would be considered implausible and unnatural. There is a clear difference, between resurrection and recycling. For example, we can recycle a plastic bottle maintaining its substance. Its form would be changed, but its substance would not. Ergo, this is the pertinence of the comparison and understanding. The substance can be recycled and its form but it could never be returned to its original composition, because that composition has already been changed. Whatever attempt would only be a duplicate. A human being cannot be returned to a definite life anew. Human beings are not plastic bottles. They require the factors and assistance of their materiality, intelligence, thought and consciousness to be living and active'.
'It is often the most complicated thing that appears insoluble that has oddly enough, the least ordinary explanation'.
'I believe that the compulsive nature of human behaviour is related to the certain degrees of emotional instability and irrational thinking that results unnaturally'.
'According to the philosophy of Aristotle, the soul is what is causally responsible, for the animate behaviour of a living thing. Could we not apply this analysis to the human soul and connect it to our rationality, sensitivity and maturity? If we affirm this inusitate supposition, then rationality would be caused by thought, sensitivity by perception and maturity by growth. If the soul neither exists without a body nor is a body of some kind, thus it would be considered as a capacity, not the thing that has the capacity. In essence, it is not a separation of the physical body, but a reflection of our intrinsic being'.
'Whatever existence is presumed about anything that is truly consequential in nature, the universal distinction would be found in the clarity of its inner essence and the composition of the different compounds of form and matter'.
'I care little about fate and luck in the analogy outside of the philosophical sense, because time is interminable and luck is a perception of something'.
'I do not necessarily believe in the viability or conception of luck, because it is merely circumstantial in its nature at best'.
'What am I without emotion? What am I without thought? What am I without instinct? What am I without consciousness? What am I without materiality? An immaterial emptiness'.
'What has not been proven yet is not, beyond the realm of actuality or probability. The basic assumption for any existing form of life should be examined conscientiously, in the comparative notion of reason and the reliable coherence of logic that correlates the material evidence'.
'After further meticulosity on the topic of worship of any particular deity, I fail to understand the arguments for its necessity connected to that deity based, on the wrong assumptions, the Circular argument, the Anthropic argument or the Anthropomorphic nature argument, the need to alter objectivity, human psychology, pseudo science or philosophy, intimidation, corrupted dogma, reward, false virtues and blind faith. Why would such an omnipotent and perfect deity require any form of human worship to function, from imperfect beings that presumably would have a limited comprehension of his presupposed essence and existence?'
'To doubt something of unreliable essence is not necessarily the sign of scepticism or a vulnerability. As conscious beings of intellect, we are constantly experiencing new discoveries and episodes. Therefore, when we doubt it is not an ignorance or incredulity. It is mostly an intellectual awakening and awareness that was dormant before'.
'Whatever could be assumed about the perception of nature is measured, by the unique view of the observer'.
'Anyone that denies suffering, is denying oneself then because suffering does not choose to discriminate'.
'There is an abyss within us all that cannot be eradicated or extemporised. It has no external shape, no internal essence or meaning, except that it is there. It is a cruelty that no man should bear. It has many names or titles, but it hides itself well, under the guise of emptiness'.
'A controversy to me is only consequential if we attach a supposed reason for that controversy'.
'Every whole-minded person must be accountable, for his or her actions in life. Everyone is capable of the common traits of good and bad. It is, we the people that define their relevant signification'.
'Which burden of evidence is to be deduced, as an authentic belief? One that is based from the inception of quondam experiences on a certain level of comprehensive nature or one that is based on mere necessity?'
'The physical attributes are not the same as the cognitive attributes, because the known physical attributes are strictly of aestheticism and the cognitive attributes are more accredited to the human mind'.
'From whence does inspiration originate, and until when does it ultimately become an aspiration?'
'In the society, we belong to, we have the capacity to be knowers, by way of the actuality of our birth, and the potentiality of knowledge, through the knowledge we acquire. However, being a knower does not imply that the knower has any real knowledge at all. I would ascribe to the thought that being a knower defines our capacity, but not our knowledge'.
'Creativity is endless, it has no boundaries, only the boundaries that I impose. Thus, I ride the natural force of the tempest of the creative sense that guides me forth'.
'Isolation can be a very daunting ordeal to confront and endure at the same time, especially when you are confined in the dread of the four walls of your isolation'.
'Indeed friendships are a special bond, we do not dissever so easily. Life affords us, this affinity in the end to choose our meaningful friends'.
'Poetry allows me to easily imagine the majestic setting I describe with a narrative. It is often common to find myself describing such beauty, through the universal whims of nature'.
'I believe that I am a mixture in poetic and natural essence of several writers of which I enjoy. For example, I enjoy the narrative in the darkness of Poe, the dialogue of Shakespeare, the elegance of Wilde, the grandeur of Tennyson, the audacity of the Brontë sisters, the placidity of Lanier and the rusticity of Burns'.
'When speaking of depression, there is much thought and emotion expressed, with evoking the grim and drear shade of these horrible phantasmagoric episodes that consume one in such absolute uncertainty and despondency'.
'The good thing about the mind and consciousness is that we have the useful utility of expression to voice them freely'.
'Words seem to come so naturally to me. I can't explain it in simplistic terms, except to say that they are like the purity of the natural sequence of the gushing waters of a waterfall'.
'We are taught with the teachings of philosophy that the nourishment of the mind is equally, as important as the nourishment of the body. It is difficult to remove the physical pain from the mind when it is constant and unrelenting. We should not allow this pain to overcome the essence of our mind. If we locate within the depth of the mechanism of our mind, a serenity that could allow us to cope with this somatic and mental suffering, then we would not allow solitude to be our only comfort'.
'I would not exactly say legends have faded into the lore of oblivion, but they do seem to be altered and distorted, by so many versions and additions that tend to be more inaccurate than accurate in their originality'.
'How could we imagine our existential nature as a part of the process of universal creation, without the substantiality of science? We would have to believe that we are either a product of a masterful genius or the delusion of a madman'.
'Our eyes see the world, but are we perceiving the entirety of the reality or is our perception limited only to the impression we presume?'
'I see, therefore I perceive. I hear, therefore I sense. I breathe, therefore I live. I think, therefore I philosophise'.
'The tragedy about humanity is that in this vast world we live in currently, there are people suffering, dying, crying and begging, whilst others are deliciating, living, laughing and spending. Do people not see the terrible fate of their misfortune? Is their pain considered less relevant than the pleasure that others enjoy gladly and volitiently?'
'The inherent qualities that reflect our personality, individuality, ability, mentality, proclivity, rationality, scibility, intelligibility, uniformity, sentimentality, comprehensibility, universality, sexuality, humanity and simplicity are demonstratively of our natural disposition and inception'.
'I agree that metaphysical aspects of the mind actually define our thoughts, perception and consciousness to a great degree. There are certain properties of the mind that are correlative, with the nature and function of that notion'.
'I am convinced about the puissant utility of cognitive activity and how it relates to the mental evolution of the physical brain'.
'Everything that is known to humans is either a result of a priori or a posteriori forms of knowledge that then accommodate our sense of comprehensibility. Humans obtain their source of information, by way of experience or observation. These coherent forms of thinking do not necessarily need the inclusion of reliabilism or emergent materialism, for the actuality or potentiality of the expansion of common knowledge'.
'There is nothing fair about life and there is nothing magical about its essence. A person does not choose to be born or the need to be treated unfairly. The essence of life is not governed by some supernatural force of indivisibility, but by the elements of the factor of time, restraint and contingency'.
'The prescribed thought that creationism in itself is sufficient to explain the complexity of the universe and our world is congruent to the universe would be definitely antithetical to the basic fundamentals of the established laws of the universe'.
'To assume that there is life after death and heaven and hell that is material in one form or the other outside of the metaphorical, religious or philosophical sense, would require certainly a universal presence, an invariable state, and a mathematical certainty that were, beyond any known postulation rationalised'.
'How can we comprehend the concepts of universality and relativism that differ in position, if we consider universality as objective and relativism as subjective? Perhaps the differentiation in the contrast is not merely the answer. What could be deduced, is the thing that is emphasised in humanism. By using critical thinking and evidence such as rationalism and empiricism over the acceptance of any dogma or superstition, we enhance our knowledge and at the same time, our world perception and purview'.
'How is it feasible to make the ultimate value of existence linked to faith, when faith is based on religious apprehension rather than concrete evidence? If we selected faith as the instrumentality of existence, then our material world would be conclusively irrelevant'.
'The issue of morality is a contentious debate, between religion, philosophy and science. Morality requires the necessary acquisition of a moral agent that possesses a conscious awareness of actions committed. Thus, whatever action, a person takes, is conditioned to the conscious relevance of that action. To posit that human beings are capable of being ethical and moral without religion and instead, with human reason is more reasonable than to posit humans to be religiously moral, simply due to the fact of their creator. Without the conscious mind, the meaning of any morality is futile'.
'I could measure a grain of sand by its natural form and then surmise that was all the sand represented in its substance, yet the essence is not the form of the sand. Instead, the essence is the substance that is maintained in it. The size of the sand does not diminish its value. Therefore, the sand may appear to be small in quantity, but it is not necessarily indicative of its quality.'
'In general, a lot of people often fail to recognise their own defects and think that it is due to the fact that they simply misconstrue a virtue, or they are not habitually aware of those visible defects'.
'Historically, religion had replaced philosophy and then science replaced religion in the way of human thinking, but the survival of philosophy does not depend on either religion or science. It depends on the survival of philosophers that maintain the main principles and concepts of philosophy alive. Without them, there could be no true conceptualisation of philosophic survival'.
'I believe that the most abstract sense of existing is related to our consciousness. How does the conscious mind interpret, beyond the common notion of time and within the definite sphere of reality?'
'When the flame of an oil lamp has extinguished and the oil has been depleted, the time of that process abates. Thus, does the materiality of the flame. If we observe keenly the entire process in its completion, then what we could sense with our perception is the duration of the flame and the absolute burning of the oil. The duration would reflect the time of being and the burning the actual substance, but the essence of the lamp is the oil. Without the oil, there is no connection to the flame and the lamp. It would be truly impossible for the wick to have extinguished the flame alone.'
'When will mankind learn the lesson of needless war? Must everything be gained, through physical force, coercion or invasion? There is nothing good that can be gained from war, except the senseless bloodshed of a nation and the corruption of power'.
'For humanity, what is your plight, without a voice? What is your voice, without a reason? What is your reason, without a purpose? What is your purpose, without a cause?'
'No one has the right to take an innocent life from this Earth. We are not the proprietors of time or death, but the keepers of life. We can choose to be the semblance of substantial difference or the cruelty of the extreme indifference to human life'.
'Human stupidity is not the same thing as human ignorance. Stupidity in humans is the presumption of knowledge, and ignorance is the lack of knowledge. Within that cogitation there is the apparent truth of the misleading perception of the human mind'.
'The difficulties of our problems are mostly caused by the inability to realise the dynamic nature and mechanism of the mind, as well as our failure to sufficiently recognise the reasons for their difficulties. What cannot be detected, cannot be fully understood or resolved by instinct or intuition'.
'All extant beings and things on the planet have their limitation and period of relativity. What cannot be refuted is that inevitable reality'.
'There is some form of value to everything in this world I think. The question is, what value do people place on something that is considered worthy enough?'
'If ever there was such a place that defined our empty thoughts would we call it monotony? Can there be an actual time of which we find ourselves, at a loss, in an undesirable incertitude that is our monotony?'
'Water has no shape, no true boundary-for it is there with or within us. Therefore, if water is in the end existential and shapeless, then its appearance is the thought I apply to its shape'.
'The conception of any proposition offered, and the sundry relations between affirmative, negative, universal, and particular propositions are contingent, on the presumed interpretation of the proposition'.
'A building could seem to require a builder and a painting a painter. This statement would conclude as being a logical inference. However, if I examine the building and the painting, I could deduce that each object would need also other elements of matter to contribute in their natural composition. That is to say, without the ground for the building and the canvas for the portrait, neither one of these visible constructions would be effectuated, because a builder and painter would too require a brain that is substance'.
'If there is an assumption made that our pleasures are the completion of our desires, then what do I assume those pleasures to mean?'
'The premise for any reasonable argument cannot be then superseded, by the false illation utilised, so that the premise can be presumed as being truthful'.
'Usually, it is not uncommon under the first impression that the perceptible images we view or the active thoughts we process appear always as being accurate, when they are in reality not indicative of the actual occurrence'.
'There is no such thing as absolute perfection, except the thought that a divine designer could be considered perfect. In the religious sense, the reality of perfection is the truth of the concept professed as that divinity. However, in the philosophical and scientific sense, this interpretation would be construed as erroneous, because if human nature is flawed, then would not the reality of a divine designer have to be in such a perfect state to exist within the universe noticeably? The only conceivable reality of this ancestral notion of a divine agent is located, in the firm belief of people and not in the cosmic relevance'.
'Human rights and freedoms that humans should be guaranteed, such as the right to life and liberty, freedom of thought and expression, and equality before the law cannot function as the basis of our society, if people are subjugated to the continual dominion of corrupted religion, government and economic enslavement'.
'If the cosmos operates without purpose and is only the known essence of gravity, nuclear forces and energy, then why do people continue to argue that is has a fundamental purpose, as if it had a necessary consciousness? Human beings realised that there was purpose for their lives afterwards, because of consciousness. But not the cosmos.'
'Rationality can manifest as being logical in its perception, yet it must equate always to the existing reality. A person could make a rational claim of anything, but unless that rationality corresponds to the actual truth, then it is nothing more than irrationality in substance?'
'Are we only a product of a social conformity or change that eventually influences our patterns of behaviour and selection? If true, then what are we to discern from the evolutionary process of human intellect and maturity?'
'Man could advocate any principle of philosophy and its cause and justification for his desire, but without the throne of absolute power, that man is only a visionary aspirer'.
'The assertion that human beings on the planet derived from some supernatural element or nothing would be predicated, on the requirement of the absence of the clear surrounding existence. However, this would be truly contradictory to the existential things, such as the necessity of oxygen, the subsistence of water, the other lifeforms, the exclusion of nature, etc. The actual evolution of human beings can be disputed, but it cannot be answered by religious assertions or asseverations. This is where the elements of natural selection, environment and migration would need to be seriously considered. How could nothing of existence could have been created from nothing and how could nothing have created nothing? It would need for something to exist already in the plane of the physical universe. We would too have to accede to the fact that the accretion of the convergent elements of matter and form that composed human beings were magically conceived, from a sempiternal entity of a non-physicality'.
'The body to a certain degree is capable of enduring physical pain as is the mind to endure mental anguish, but the mind must learn to cope with the body and use the active mechanism of thought to then comprehend the meaning of pain and anguish, in order to overcome them.'
'The energy of the cosmic universe and the ergon of the cosmic activity are constantly evolving, into universal forms that materialise into matter'.
'The general sense that there are innumerable things that cannot be explicated, by the comprehensive nature of the mind does not insinuate that these things are existential or a feasibility. These things would have to be detected, if they were inanimate or animated'.
'Within the world, there are audible sounds that I easily perceive with my ears and others that I fail to recognise with my keen perception. Is it because my mind perceives something to be a sound, when it is not? Or is silence the most deafening sound that is an immutable discernment?'
'To confide in the notion that each person has the equal capacity and ability to achieve a measure of success is not out of the realm of possibilities, when that success is defined with an objective and transparence'.
'Religion has no credible argument in the supposed origin or creation of the universe. It is better served for the purpose of faith, devotion and worship, instead of irrationality, phenakism and avidity. Philosophy can argue with metaphysics the abstract and ontological argument for existence, but it cannot answer the questions of the physical realm with absolute clarity. This is where philosophy must defer to the science of cosmology and cosmogony for the complexity of the universe'.
'I have contrasted the difference between a bottle of water and one that is half empty. The irony appears to be manifest through the naked eye, but the irony is not understood in the water of the bottle. Instead, in the contrast of space of each bottle that remains the same. Namely, that the quantity of something such as the water of the bottle does not really alter the quality or shape of that bottle. Ergo, despite the quantity of matter, the quality of its form can remain invariably'.
'What is the purpose for living? What is the reason for evidence? How do I conceive from within the realm of possibility that my life is not contingent to the perception of my natural environment?'
'I cannot dissuade the minds of doubt, with the rhetorical means of persuasion, until I convince those minds about the necessary procurement for the truth'.
'The ethical proposition of the theorem of humanism is not predicated on the inverity of theism, but its rejection as a secular argument. We can either agree with rationalism and empiricism or accept the dogma and supernatural occurrences of theism'.
'I have never understood the need for religion to explain science, nor science to explain philosophy. In essence, the relevance of religion is for faith, and the relevance of science is for theory, as the relevance of philosophy is for the truth'.
'A hypothesis could never be alone sufficiently objective to deduce anything about life that appears to be random or selective, because of the introduction of subjectivity'.
'Upon what criterion shall we assume the argument of reason to be the only credible evidence, if the reason that we present is nothing more than the apparent fallacy constructed, against the proposition of the truth? Reason is without a doubt, a viable method for an argument, but it is not the only inference for evidence'.
'From amongst the world of mortal men, there are a selective few of them that are born, with the impeccable acumen of intellectual insight and the scibility of the principles of philosophy and science.'
'Perhaps, we shall never know to the great extent, whether or not reality as we know it, could actually be interdimensional and not only accidental or essential in nature and omnitude'.
'The omnibus of the plurality of thoughts of the operative mind is relatively perceptible, in the concatenation of logic and intellect. Thus, all noetic things that are conceived by conception are perceived, as being actual in their entirety. To decipher the optimality of the mind, there must be a comprehension of its haecceity to deduce consequentially'.
'The nomos is endeictic in the physis of ethics and the mores exposed of our inveterate idiosyncrasy. It is the act of supererogation and deonticity that remind us of the quality of our ethos and the germaneness of diligence. The understandable reason of an ethical cause is to effectuate the subsequent effects of its practice'.
'Any basis of ethics has purport, just as any action of propriety has a moral standard. Ethics are not designed for suppressing religious guilt, instead, ethics serve to guide our moral judgement and comportment, as people and not sinners'.
'To better realise the value of ethics, we should first learn the true meaning of humanity. By acknowledging the structure of our sophrosyne, it allows us to make sense of difficult issues related to our actions and behaviour that we could cope with in our deliberations'.
'Indeed, it is our duty to be ethical in our decisions and solemnity, if not then our society would not gradually ameliorate, but rapidly deteriorate'.
'Philantropy is not necessarily only, the benevolence of our intentions, but it is also a form of humane compassion that phelegmatic people seldom reveal in its attainment and reward'.
'Altruism in its natural expression is the opposite of the uncontrollable ego. It is when our mind is controlled by the ego that our altruism becomes evidently, a demonstrative vanitarianism'.
'The common person views the subject of ethics as an attachment to philosophy, but the implementation of ethics is essentially, the indicative method of a personal and habitual observation of instituted precepts'.
'Where do we find a semblance of peace, from amongst the expected path of sudden turmoil and conflict?'
'History will chronicle in the annals of time, the centuries of mankind. And what will be written about us will either reflect the truth for posterity or the falsehood of our contributions'.
'The study and discipline of philosophy requires the conscious mind of a person and resolution to attain knowledge, understand logic and enhance wisdom. Without these elements, any form of philosophy cannot be considered to be a valid inference of thought'.
'All solvable problems have reasonable solutions, just as all rational thoughts have sustainable logic. It is when people begin to think and act irrationally that these problems result in repetitious lies, addictions, obsessions and vices than mere conundrums'.
'Ever since the first Homo Sapiens departed Africa, humans have carried the strand of his genes. We are the product of our social and natural environment. And because of migration, we have spread those genes unto the world. Ultimately, we are the demonstrative proof of a natural evolution and selection'.
'For what sane reason do people treat others as foes of disdain and prejudice? Have we as a people not realised the meaning of humanity, or have we easily forgotten the importance of civility? Shall we progress as advanced people of society or regress to the barbaric stage of our primal instincts?'
'The manner in which we understand life is integral to our survival. We cannot survive on the mere necessity, when there is the factor of the unknown mystery that accompanies the probability of death'.
'An idea represents in its manifestation a thought and an opinion represents in its supposition a point. When should the idea transcend the supposition and be assumed to be the transparent truth of the argument and not only an opined idea?'
'Scientific Realism is considered to be an epistemological argument, concerning the recommendable belief in both the observable and unobservable aspects of the world, according to science. Scientific Instrumentalism is the concept that scientific theories are helpful tools for the prediction of phenomena, instead of veracious or partial descriptions. The question is if neither one of these forms of conceptual science is in my estimation the answer to any cosmic realm of celestial divinity, then what scientific relevance do unobservable phenomena have with natural occurrences that are measured by facts and information? Why assert and argue these concepts or theories for a deity, instead of the metaphysical and physical argumentation of the noumenal qualities and quantities of existential objects?'
'I cannot conceive in a rational sense the notion that motion is not the central and visible component of one of the universal properties that govern our world. It is the singular thing that connects us to the nexus of the universe and the synergy of existence'.
'In philosophy, the sphere of the human consciousness is not defined by its absolute function, instead by its implex nature. It is not a constant, or particular, because it is more of a universal'.
'I discovered that the countless things that existed in this world and the universe had a natural explanation and a natural conceptualisation that was, beyond the common and religious form of examination. I began to question many ordinary and extraordinary things of this world and how they operated and how concepts and theories functioned in accordance with the facts and the truth. I had many questions about the surroundings of the universe and the intricate nature of human existence. I began to study the scientific method of exploration and was satisfied to a certain extent, because it was self-explanatory and detailed. I no longer cared much about the religious aspect of exploration and began my quest for knowledge, wisdom, intelligence, rational thinking, logic, and above all consciousness. Ultimately, it led me to the remarkable discovery of philosophy. Now, philosophy alone does not prove or disprove anything, it merely offers a rational explication and observation into the intrinsic entanglements of the world and universe. How we perceive the concepts of philosophy are no different or unfounded than the presumed concepts of science or religion. It is we the observers of these concepts that apply with our interpretative skills and knowledge, the significance of those presupposed concepts. The distinction between philosophy and the other fields of observation and examination is that philosophy can merge with scientific or religious arguments, when those arguments are based on the fundamentals of logic and incontrovertible evidence'.
'The philosopher is always the first interlocutor to philosophise with his axioms, maxims, propositions, philosophemes, etc. At times, a philosopher will perorate or idealise in the argument or discourse, but the parleys are generally to intervene between science and religion. Philosophy is the voice of the philosopher and the lexis of the words pronounced. Without a voice and words to express, a philosophy is rendered as worthless and nullified. It is precisely these things that I mention and more that are the constructive tools for the intellectual philosopher. The philosopher may devise innumerable notions and considerations or may construct the foundation of a modern form of rational thinking. Either way, the philosopher utilises with a studious demonstration, the mind, the acumen and intellect'.
'We live in this emergent and developing age of technology and advancement. We are born with innate and certain endowed qualities that embue our knowledge and endue our wisdom. We must evolve with the time period that we live in and to effectuate that, we too, must evolve in our manifestation of thought. Philosophy is not the end to all means, nor is it the answer to all questions. It is merely the avenue to enlightenment and comprehensibility. When we take the time to ponder at length, the how, the what, the where, the which, the why of the things and their reasons, operations, necessities, purposes, causes and existence, we are learning and teaching philosophy'.
'No one is less intelligent in this world by ignorance. No one is knowledgeable in this world by study alone. And no one is wiser in this world by knowledge only. What philosophy allows the inquisitive and meticulous mind to enable with its ability is the opportunity to explore beyond the boundaries of its physical limitation with such things as creativity, thought, idea, imagination and consciousness. We cannot delude ourselves to believe that these metaphysical tools are sufficient for observation and study. Science is required for those things that pertain to the physical realm of the universe and this world that we call the Earth'.
'A person could enter the metaphysical and physical realm of philosophy and science and learn from the teachings of either field. In my conclusion, there is no one that cannot learn and be taught. As there is no one that cannot teach and learn. We can all be mentors, scribes, teachers, sages and above all philosophers, if we only had the interest and time to develop profoundly the ruminative thoughts and capacity of the mind that we possess. Anyone could be part of a process of learning and teaching that the ancient philosophers such as Thales, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Pythagoras, Heraclitus, Parmenides, the Stoics and others had belonged to, in the eternal quest for knowledge'.
'All that we think of the world is meaningless, if we do not possess the awareness of the Platonic or material things that exist in this world and how they function in the end'.
'I am what knowledge I have learnt and I shall be what wisdom I have obtained. To reach the signs of clarity, I must comprehend the meaning and worth of my knowledge'.
'Our civilisations have been historically plagued with prophets, gurus and shamans of religion. What they require are more sages, scribes and teachers of science and philosophy'.
'There are people that prefer to remain anonymous in their simplicity and there are other people that choose to be famous in their multiplicity. Fame is only a token gift or reward granted, but simplicity is the start towards a great philosophy'.
'A man cannot be a hostage to his irrational desires or thoughts. He must learn to accept his human weaknesses and strengthen his conscious mind to overcome them. Until he can achieve this, he will remain a nolitional hostage to his irrationality'.
'I have no doubt that men and women are sapient beings. That I do not doubt! But what I am incredulous is, whether or not enough men and women actually perceive the cognitive attributes of sapience'.
'There is no worse hypocrite than a man, who claims to speak from a higher authority, but deceives with words and fear. He cannot be trusted for credible evidence of his argument, because he is a blind serf to his ambition and desire for power'.
'If individuals do not evolve their thinking, their reasoning and their understanding, then they will remain trapped in their primitive minds. Natural evolution is part of the cycle of life and it dictates our own evolution'.
'Moral absolutism and Moral objectivism can be measured, as the basis of a moral code of ethics in our societies, for the obviation of the reason that justifies the mean or the action of immorality. However, it would be predicated on the perception of what could be considered immoral than the actual relevance of the truth. That would result in uncertainty'.
'The belief that our gender, our race, our nationality, our religion, our status, makes us morally superior to others, is to confirm a complexity of inferiority from the beginning'.
'The question about philosophy is not what the philosopher knows, but what is defined of his philosophy? The philosopher needs to be more mindful about the quiddity of the active faculty of consciousness than the knowledge professed, because there will always be sooner or later, someone who knows more and is better rehearsed in the structure of logic and rhetoric'.
'An assumption does not represent a fact, it simply offers an alternative. I can advocate the veracity of something, with a logical inference and deduction, yet it does not signify that assumption as an apodictic fact established'.
'I wonder how many people must perish daily, before people realise that the next person to perish will be either a loved one or friend and not a mere stranger? Must we be forced to accept that cruel reality knowingly and willingly, or be daring to care enough to stop the madness?'
'Whether we completely agree with Methodological Naturalism or Ontological Naturalism the main discrepancy is found in the point of observation and interpretation. The person that argues for Ontological Naturalism will assert that the phenomena that are related to the preternatural world are existent, and the person that argues for Methodological Naturalism will assert that the preternatural phenomena are simply non-existent. Consequently, what cannot be determined by ontology is, if in the final analysis this belief could go beyond the mere proposition of this form of naturalism, without the induction or necessity of a divine designer for the nature of the universe?'
'When we discuss the issues of realism and instrumentalism we are differentiating the distinction, between these two fundamental points of view. Realism describes the world with accuracy, and instrumentalism is used for predicting and clarifying things, but are not relative to an objective truth. Then, if we applied either one of these two principles, the distinction would appear to be metaphysical in observation than apparent to the instrumentalist, but not to the realist. Therefore, what a philosopher could assume to be factual, a scientist could assume the opposite. The argument would be construed as being a criterion of verifiability or logical positivism and it would depend on the basis and illation of the argument presented that justifies the correlation of the facts'.
'The idiom of any reasonable speaker is reflected and represented in the knowledge, wisdom, logic, intellect and rational thought presented. Naturally for there to be coherence and structure, the speaker must comprehend and be comprehended by his audience. This is where clearly these aforementioned applications are useful and dynamic in the idiosyncrasy and rationale of the utilisation of the idiom of the speaker'.
'To declare that philosophy is more of an efficient form of the expression of human concepts than science is not necessarily a misconception, but to declare that it is more efficient than science to prove the actuality of the universe is thus, an apparent form of deduction that cannot incontrovertibly equate, with the scientific method of observation or examination and be assumed to be totally accurate'.
'Can nothing actually derive from nothing in the universe? First, that argument is a fallacious and errant interpretation of the philosophical statement of Parmenides, who was describing an incompossibility, between an existent world and a non-existent one. Nothing cannot be referred to the physical cosmos, because anything extant must have at least, a position and duration of transparency. Nothing would have to require those viable elements to be present. In the end that nothing would ultimately be a material thing. Second, the absence of nothing would be something. Third, in accordance to the known Law of Thermodynamics, there has always been something of existence and relativity. Even within the vast universe, there is a something and that something is an atom or a particle. In essence, nothingness is a clear paradox of sciolism. How can a concept of ontology or epistemology conclude that the universe was created out of nothingness or that something in particularity is supposedly an invisible and indivisible deity that abides, as the agency for everything and consequently created the universe? This would result contradictory to the universal laws of physics'.
'As my years elapse and I age with the passage of time, I can reminisce a thousand things that could transcend the evolving complexity of my life and intellect. Yet, I am not convinced that everything in my life has gone amiss or it has not presently reached its ultimate path. Either way I can attest to the substantiation of my existence and sustain my subsistence, without a dubious expectation, because all that matters is what I understand my life to mean'.
'Within the commonality of beliefs there are countless things that people believe with absolute morality and conviction. However, the world does not revolve around the self-existence of any belief. It merely exists and nothing more. The world is the reflection of self-evidence that is discovered by self-awareness'.
'The signs of any proven evidence that materialise are in correlation, with the facts that do not contradict the essence of that verity. Although a form of evidence can be assumed as resulting material its conceptualisation cannot be measured, without the indisputable proof. Thus, the presupposed evidence is at best, regarded as being a supposition of insufficient material'.
'Whether man was destined to rule the world will be determined, by the probability of man to be the supreme ruler and survivor of the planet. Only evolution and time will ultimately know the answer afterwards'.
'In effect, to desire that which a man cannot have is worse than to desire nothing and still be left, with the feasibility of that lingering desire.'
'A presumed perception could be a misleading observation, when we analyse the substance and result of that exact perception. That is to say, if we examine something unusual like in the formation of the rocks, sand and clouds and perceive that formation to be something tangible in our observation, then that mere thing can transform into anything that we perceive. The thing is that what may appear visually as the transparency of something relevant is in reality, nothing more than the irrelevant nature of a misconstrued perception that has no transcendental truth'.
'When I am addressing the subject of choice, I am explicating the misconception about its usage. In order to express choice as a selection, we must first understand the distinction and accentuation of its actual meaning and significance. I may believe in my asserted assumption that I have a definite choice in my selection, but let me explain the selective process of that possibility. First, there must be a contingency for a need, then a specific reason for that selection. If I inferred that I had only a free will to choose my selection, then I would be reducing my option or alternative to choice and not the faculty of rational thinking. There is a simplicity in this argument of mine. Once more to fully understand the universal meaning of choice, people must understand the natural process. Choice without the contingent factors of need and reason is absent of purpose and purpose without choice is absent of logic'.
'How does an ordinary individual learn to accept his certain insecurities effectively? By embracing the distinctions and acknowledging the similitudes that particular individual learns to assimilate the value of each contrast and incorporate them to their knowledge. The conscious realisation that we are, who we are in essence defines the identity of our existing nature'.
'Is our consciousness the key to resolving the mystery of life? Could we ever in our effort and contemplation reduce the mitigating effects of suffering? Is our world only a token reference to the condition of our reality? Does time only reveal the relevancy of existence? Is depression the concealment of our volition? Is fear the representation of our uncertainty? Why should life be reduced to death? Where does space define absoluteness? When should a sole thought become a principle and a principle the established truth? Could the extraneous nature of the abstract variables of the intrinsic universe be in the end the known boundary of our limited knowledge?'
'If the body is the shell of the outer self, then what is the essence of my inner self, if it is not the consciousness of my soul?'
'It is the time to realise the unique difference and function of moral judgement and moral decadence. Moral judgement is attributed to a decision or action, whilst moral decadence is accredited to a lack of conscious thought or indifference. Nothing of morality is a product of religious sin and ignoscency, instead it is an ethical value that is espoused, through the rational sense. Therefore, its function is to not deter us by condemnation, but to guide us by the continuity of a logical structure of ethics'.
'Decency is relative to modesty and modesty is relative to conduct. Without either decency or modesty, our conduct is rendered ineffective and indifferent'.
'A creative and rational mind will be conducive to the ratiocination and comprehensibility of a logical and established system or science than of the convincing and demonstrative reference that results in a compilation or peroration of pseudo arguments or discourses of psilosophy that the sciolists apply to reason their philosophical or scientific arguments'.
'Charm is an intriguing persuasion to emulate attraction that is the natural display of expression or affectation'.
'As sentient beings of percipience humans are considered the predominant observers of the multiplicity of extant objects of the world. Nature is the surrounding realism of that world. Thus, it is nature that we must comprehend, because nature possesses no actual consciousness or elements of an expressible mechanism. It is merely a part of the reality, with the laws that govern the universality of multiple beings and things'.
'The principle of the concepts of universals and particulars are distinguished, in the elements of their essence. If a particular is what is typically thought of as a thing, with a particular position in space at a precise time and a universal is that which particulars have mostly in common, then the universe would be composed of these elements that are relative to either time, space, form and matter'.
'If we used the metaphorical analogy of the cocoon from which a butterfly would emerge from, and assert that fluttering, altering, existing butterfly discovers its primary objective for existence and function in the immutability of its material shell, then the conclusion would be a purely physical observation; but if we unfastened the cocoon and awaken the chrysalis, restoring to movement its natural mobility, to alter its fluidity, to time its precise duration, then the conclusion would result a metaphysical observation. Ergo, by this acknowledgement, we would evidently know, through that experimentation what is the general and universal perception of physics and metaphysics in their utility'.
'If I concur with the reality of the entropy of space and its vacuum, along with the theory that the vastidity of the cosmos is devoid of form and matter, then the Heisenberg Principle would suggest that particles appear from the nothing in that vacuum of lifeless space, yet I cannot know indubitably, whether dark matter or dark energy are intrinsically a part of that vacuum of nothingness. What I can surmise within an explanatory exposition that is observable is that particles are constant and so is matter and energy over a volume of space and time'.
'I have neologised two new forms of arguments for the contention of the universe. First, the Aristotelian Fallacy that asserts that there are noumenal or independent things that are not the composite natural things, and consequently, they are evidence of an existence of a supernatural origin to the universe that is attributed to a divine agent. And second, the De Rerum Nature Argument influenced by Lucretius states that the universe is based on the nature of things and not some supernatural force of a divine and delitescent agent. I shall argue in my putation that the dianoetic polemic would be the second argument, because hylism is all that can be examined and a divine agent is only presently, a hypoletical notion'.
'The indication of a juxtaposition of the concept of a divine designer with the universe is based on unfounded dixits and maxims of parologisms that are errantly used, by philopolemic persons of battology that assert the absolute truth about the origin and chronology of the universe. A logical claim cannot equate an immaterial entity to a material universe scientifically or philosophically, with a coherentific cosmological argument that bases an existence within and without a universe. That would be simply, an obvious contradiction.'
'When we discuss the difference between metaphysics and physics, we are essentially describing metaphysics, as the relative nature of something and physics, as the absolute nature of something. When we address the quantifiable differentiations and the qualitative integrations of each field, we must comprehend that a relative state of a thing is contingent to an interchangeable thing, but an absolute thing is not, because it invariably has established itself within the mutable reality, beyond the intrinsicality of any form of symbolism and uncertainty. Thus, the tangible intelligibility that is propounded by metaphysics is discovered, in the compoundable elements of relativity and physics in absoluteness'.
'How do we distinguish a sublime vision from an axiomatic reality? If we imply that a vision is merely abnormal and reality normal, then what is the difference between a miracle and a manifestation of matter? Could it be because a miracle is perceived, as being a preternatural thing and reality a natural thing? Thus, the causality of that preternatural occurrence could be presumed to transform into reality, but in truth, it is most likely non-existential. A miracle may appear as reality, but it is not an incontrovertible demonstration of materiality. Hence, it is not reality!'
'The just principles of our democracies do not belong to the false providence of a selective elite or a brash trumpery'.
'If aprosexia is an abnormal inability to pay attention, hyperprosexia the ability to concentrate on one thing to the exclusion of everything else, and paraprosexia, the inability to pay attention to any one thing, then what should be determined is how do we apply the ability's mind to adapt to these opposite states of contrast of our mental cognition or lapses and account for our instinct?'
'A republic cannot stand alone or be ruled by the oligarchists. It must always be ruled, by a legitimate constitution that holds true to its conviction, governance and authority'.
'It is virtually implausible to elucidate the absoluteness of the things of unpredictability in the world with a supposition and then a summation ex hypothesi, when the nature of anything is either an abstract notion or at best, a contingent variable'.
'Naturally, I could imagine countless things that I could conceive rationally, but there are also countless things that I could perceive irrationally'.
'The question that I ask, is what purpose in the commonality of humanity is greater than the aretaic quality and eximiety of virtue and affiduity?'
'The Cosmological Argument was posited as a "first cause", by Plato in the book "The Laws", and then in "Timaeus". He presupposed an emergent "demiurge" that represented a higher sagacity and intelligence as the Creator, because motion required a self-originated mover. Aristotle had disputed the notion of a "first cause", that was erroneously linked to the concept of a "prime mover", in his physics and metaphysics. He believed that there were numerous "prime movers" or "unmoved movers" that powered the supernal sphere that were aligned to eternal motion in the cosmos. This Aristotle called "first philosophy", or metaphysics. His prime movers were relative to the orbit of the Earth and the uniformity of its circular motion. These prime movers are responsible, for the process of the motions of the planets, etc. He did not suggest a particular creator. He was against the atomist's assertion of a non-sempiternal universe that would require a "first cause". He believed in an infinite cosmos, with no beginning or end. This is associated to the real meaning of Parmenides' declaration "nothing comes from nothing". The Cosmological Argument began to developed into a religious nature, with Proclus the disciple of Plotinus. Philoponus coined the "Kalam Cosmological Argument", and Aquinas adapted it afterwards. If the universe requires a "first cause", then why does that first cause not require a cause and is exempted? How do we deduce from an extrapolation of causality, that which is beyond our peirastic episodes and perception? How is this argument evidence of a God that is of omniparience, omniscience, omnipotence and omnitude? Even if the succession of causes was infinite, the entire link yet would require a general cause. Why are there any contingent beings in the first place? Consequently, we would only be the cause of another contingent being or beings and that would result circular and not necessary. If a necessary being is attached to a necessary cause, then every being is contingent in nature, but the infinite link is not in its entirety. Now, where does the factor of time equate to that cause, and the point of reference in which all forms of dimensions originated with the beginning of space, time and matter? Simply, without time, then what was prior to the existence of the universe? If God is a timeless being, how could this God remain relevant and be the "first cause" to the universe, when the universe is material and the almighty God is not? If God does not require a form of materiality or a "first cause", then why should the universe require a cause that is compossible to an absolute divinity that has no universal cause? The Cosmological or Kalam Argument appears to me to be nothing more than a modo hoc fallacy at the moment, because a creator would not merely create a creation that is the universe and give it universal laws, yet exists beyond the boundaries of his superb creation. There is no need to mistake a God of devotion and praise to a universe of form and matter. Allow God to belong to the religious minds of people and the universe to the scientific realm of cosmology and cosmogony'.
'The plurality of our governments and societies should always be based on the intrinsic principles of secularism and free thinking, instead of the obsolescence of religious dogmas that human beings no longer require. Why should we have a moral or particular need for religious interposition, when we have ethics and logic to guide us in our new age? As a society of free thinkers, we have outgrown the necessity and worship for a divine God, just as we have outgrown the illusion of a divine paradise, Olympus or Valhalla. We no longer worship Zeus or Odin in our homage. All Gods are eventually reduced to the lore of mythology where they rightfully belong, because they are replaced by the evolutionary process of free and modern thinking. The minds of people should evolve, with the reality of time and the useful technology of their century'.
'Philosophy represents the universal quiddity of the ampliative elements of humanity. To ultracrepidate is the amissibility of genuine knowledge'.
'If the basic principle of universal causation establishes that all things have known causes, although not necessarily deterministic causes, then are these causes more probabilistic in nature than necessary? Does a necessary cause require determinism or is a necessary cause only a contingency of a cause that needs the establishment of an irrefutable function to exist?'
'In order to have any plausible change, there must be the evidence of expansion and reduction present in the element of quantity. And there must be locomotion and alterity present in the element of quality'.
'The study of human behaviour is better observed, through the activated patterns of human contemplation and exhibition. Human behaviour originates from three principal sources: desideratum, emotion and scibility, but the transparent acknowledgement of these patterns are not necessarily inclusive of these properties, because sometimes our conductual actions are instinctive as well'.
'A metaphysical and philosophical truth is found, in the property of sentences, assertions, beliefs, thoughts, or propositions that are used in a methodical discourse, to concur with the established facts. Thus, a truth must be recognised, as the basis for any philosophic premise aspired'.
'Why are we so consumed with aesthetic value, when the beauty of any form of art regardless of its composition and nature is personified, by the abstract creativity of the mind than the mere notion of the perfection of the substance?'
'How could anyone assume that human knowledge is an acquisition that is innate, when the only certain degree of its manifestation is discovered, in the inherent process of its attainment?'
'People usually take life for granted and believe that they are entitled more good fortune than what they have presently, yet they forget that life is contingent to what a person does with that life and not to a mere fancy'.
'I find no absolute logic in the necessity for someone in Hyde Park to misprise or traduce in any form of blatant charientism a person that is reasonable in their objection and civility. I often conclude that the worst form of debating is used by someone that palters, with an ingnoratio elenchi that attempts to establish the syllogism of the argument with errant displays of religious convictions, philosophical premises and pseudo science'.
'I am cognisant about many things that occur in the world and every time I suspect the reason I am marvelled, by the capacity of my percipience and sapience to distinguish the relevance of that thing, with the effort of my heightened acumen'.
'How do we define the architecture of the universe with the comprehensibility of quantum mechanics, as it relates to the ontology of fields and existential and physical entities, such as particles and waves? If there is a higher dimension of space and the world is not necessarily abstract objects alone, would existence be of a simplicity that was, beyond the variables of numbers in physics? If there is a matrix of the universe, could the material world associated to quantum mechanics be the fundamental link to the mystery behind reality, space, time or are the mathematical and absolute truths better explicated in descriptive categories, about the concepts of existence? What is the implication of the universe to abstract objects, the physical and metaphysical realm? If we exhaust reality, thoughts, ideas, experiences that are derivative of the material world, what are conscious beings to consider of transcendental experimentation, sentience, observation, immateriality and consciousness that reflect the elements of quantifiable phenomena? Thus, within the current belief of the deep structure of the cosmos, is there an internal or external influence of growth and alteration that is relative to a possibility space and our transcendental world of realism that the laws of physics gravitate to a timeless and higher depth of existence? If we asked the implex questions of the subspace of reality and the absolute or relevant nature about existence, is the foundation of reality based, on a set of possibilities more than a set of properties that are multivious?'
'I have pondered at times the heterisation of human beliefs and the prefigurement of their ultimate recourse. A belief is not a paraenisis to the apocatastisis or a gerendum out of necessity. We are so facilely illuded by subdolous charlatans that utilise parisology and catachreses to impose the vitiated meaning of a belief; even though the universality of a belief is not to pretermit or subiate rational contention that is a multivolent concision to their professed dogmas. I fail to recognise in their pasilaly the metagnostic apophenia of the outrance of their muatiticial rhetoric that represents the incondite aspect of a genuine belief that ultimately restricts the evolution of the mind and the Thelemic nature of human expression'.
'I cannot explicate in simplistic terms the whole composition of the universe, except it is better defined, by the amalgam of matter and form of naturalism than the subliminal perception of divine creation'.
'If life is governed by the set of rules of probabilistic or deterministic causes to occurrences, then everything in life would either be perceived, as being predictable or unpredictable in nature'.
'I cannot comprehend how the metaphysical branch of ontology could be associated to a philosophical argument that is invalid from the premise. To equate the inception of a divine agent to a deducible concept or teleological supposition is, beyond the original proposition of ontology and more the propothesis of the prosopopeiac notion of divine existence. The purpose of ontology is to deal, with the nature of existential traits of being qua being and not the quoddamodotative ontologies of axiomatic postulates. What should be addressed in the prolegomenon are the primary questions of what is the haeccity of existence? What is its qualitative measure? What is its quantitative measure? What is its relativity to other beings or existence? How do we truly distinguish, between the poles of nominalism and realism? How do we interpret particulars, universals and constants to the state of being? If energy remains constant in its quiddity, but matter does not exactly in its entirety and variance, then how does a sui generis being of no transparency remain in congruence to the universe and to the concept of a divinity, yet is relative to both matter and energy?'
'Omnilism is a neologism I have termed to mean literally, the belief that everything about the universe is perceived to be finite. This belief is strictly hypothetical and does not preclude the possibility of an infinite universe. From this belief there is an argument that is shared by people that believe in a definite universe that I have named, "Omne finitum, Infinito nihil" that means in Latin, "Everything is finite, Nothing is infinite". Naturally, I have not concluded that the universe is either finite or infinite'.
'I have contemplated the theory of strong emergence and how it quadrates, with the conception of the mind. This theory is the mechanism that deals with the operative function of the universe and that the biological laws cannot be explicated, by physics or mental interpretation. The requirement of its comprehension is the logical argumentation that would manifest, in the interactions of things that require compatibility to the basis of physics. There would be questions about the non reducible properties that could relate to physical elements? How would the brain causally be effected by this emergence, when it is only a physical component exerted? How does logic determine the consequential outcome of the abstract variable of something universal? Could logic be the exhibition of the monothetic verity of an axial question? How do realistic and mechanical reality of quantum mechanics relate to this concept? Does strong emergence prove the encoding of the neurological activities of the brain and consciousness? What about reduction realism? Could the materiality of a macrophysical universe be explicable by ontological, metaphysical or epistemological observations? Many physicists claim that human beings could not effectuate biology, with the dynamical laws of physics. Ergo, the enquiry would require polemics to such things as, the higher levels of physics that are probabilistic, the low entropy present, the regularities of physics, the relativity of universals and particulars, etc. In the end, we would never known the ultimate truth of that precise knowledge and it would require more than the veram absque probationem or our assertions'.
'If the argument for a Creator of the universe is that all creation has a Creator, then we must distinguish the difference, between the concept of creation. There are things of matter in the universe that are a conglomeration of physical components that have merged into tangible substances and are considered erroneously to be creation, when they are transformations or at best, the mergence of matter. We know that energy became matter and liquid substance can become solid. Thus, any part of matter is the product of a singular atom that has evolved. Are we to call this process creation or the evolution of a natural process that began long before the notion of a Creator? It is important to denote that revelation. Not everything is a creation or needs a Creator! The concept that nothing comes from nothing does not apply to something that has already existed'.
'For if things were created out of mere nothing, then the physical laws that govern the universe would be non-existent, unnecessary, nonutilitarian and contradictory. There would be people arising from the sea and dropping from the sky. There would also be trees and plants growing on the clouds and animals resting on the stars and so on. Everything must be in accordance to a logical variable and sequence of time. There is no escaping the reality of the universal laws of physics'.
'The universe is the cosmic energy that is composed mostly of matter and form. We know that energy has the capacity to transform into a material substance like light, heat and electricity, in its composition. If the conceptualisation of the hypothetical big bang consisted entirely of energy and matter that only came into being as a subitaneous cooling occurrence, then is it feasible to conceive the universe as the invariable plane of the phenomenon of the cosmic energy and matter, as the compossible component to the evolution of the universe?' My question is, where did that energy originate?'
'I have no objection at all for the argument against the nature of human evolution. I cannot asseverate that we originated from primates. All I can acknowledge is the fact that our planet evolved before humans did, and in order to have survived for insurmountable centuries, the human species would have had to evolved physically from the nature and genesis of the planet, far beyond the conceptualisation of any Adam and Eve, as other sublunary organisms did'.
'If we asked the metaphysical questions about our essence that are abstract in a general manner, What is there? What is it like? Then, we could surmise the Aristotelian concept and meaning of our existence'.
'I am intrigued by the compoundable aspects of metaphysical investigation that includes existence, things and their properties, space and time, cause and effect, and possibility, using the foundation of deduction, from that which is known a priori and is a fortiori structure'.
'Is it possible that extinction is the ultimate fate of mankind in the future and the planet will be ruled and dominated, by artificial intelligence and life?'
'Metaphysics makes the assumption that a position has been established on the questions explored and that it may proceed independently of the selection-the question of which position to assume requires, instead, another familiar branch of philosophy called epistemology'.
'Ontology often deals with interesting questions concerning what beings exist or have existed and how such beings may be then categorised, in relation to a hierarchy, and subdivided in accordance to verisimilitudes and inverisimilitudes. What intrigues me is, can we as observers fully determine the result of something existential?'
'How are we to define space and time? Are they entities of some form, or did they exist previous to other known entities? If time is defined as a "sequence of change", then must there always be something evolving with change, in order for time to be extant and be contingent to space?'
'To assume that the prime mover or first cause of the universe and the Supreme Good as the final cause of all things as God is a fallacy. To believe that a God is the first cause, the universe would first require a cause that could define its purpose as being universal, particular and not merely hypothetical. It is possible that the universe never had a first cause. Aristotle never acknowledged the prime mover, as the God that is known to us. As for the Supreme Good, it would have to indicate that a divine God would have to have a superior and active consciousness. In the end if the universe had a first cause, then its cause would have to logically be in order with the laws of the cosmos. And if a God had an active consciousness and was all good, then he would have to be aware of the misery, suffering and evil that occur in the world and not be indifferent by nature'.
'There is a recidiving episode in our period of living, when we gradually illapse into the recesses of our inner contemplation and the fugue state of the mind obfuscates the simplex nature of the perspicuous sense of human rationality'.
'In order to realise the meaningful purpose and function of our dynamic world as brethren, people should regard the value of humanity and the application of our consciousness, as the method of achieving that objective with compassion and effectiveness'.
'Must everything be understood about life or is life in essence, merely all that we understand it to be and to mean, without a concise or elaborate definition?'
'Am I forever destined to the misery that is my haunting past or the memories of that burden that I bear unwillingly of my emotional crucifixion?'
'Could there be something more universal than the world that appears transpicuous or is the truth apparently all that we perceive, as being factual with motion, form, time and relativity?'
'Verily I do not know, whether there is true love that exists, but if there is, it has forsaken me to the depth of the emergent abyss of time that is called eternity.'
'If the actual world was more idealistic than realistic in its nature, then the world would be more receptive to my evolving thinking and more munificent to my inherent needs'.
'The most universal thing is life and the most definite thing is time. Time is the determining factor to the ultimate form of life and its common quintessence and interchangeable value'.
'Where there is a reason, there is a cause. Where there is a will, there is a vision'.