Questions for Atheists

[Necrosis]

i get bored arguing with you, you simply are a talkorigins link provider which gets rather boring. plus im working on my thesis and dont have time right now to argue. when im ready i will begin to post again, you think nothingness and infinity are concepts of the mind, showing lack of knowledge of matematics, you think because punctuated equilibrium is merely a description of the fossil record it supports evolution. i dont want to read all your links and am busy reading material in book form, from people like ellis and penrose among many others, micheal shermer is a gearbox. i provided direct quote from the holder of the largest fossil depot in the world saying transitional fossils are merely interpretation you post a link from someone saying there not. it is cyclical and redundant and when i posted links to spetner and others who have lab evidence that mutations cannot work, and people like De Duve saying the same thing you ignore me, or ask for awards. you keep using tautologies as arguments showing your lack of logical argumentation. nuff said. i will post when im ready, you are the only one waiting on my reply.

the site does have the basis of evidence against evolution, but the individuals who have there articles on that site are merely showing what there finding are indicative of nothing more. the site is simply a collection of articles and the individuals arent evolution bashers just those with conflicting real data.

[Necrosis]

de duve won the nobel prize, is that award enough to warrant basis for criticism.

[Necrosis]

i dont have time to write a huge paper write now, so if you want we can argue points as i present them. i dont want many links if possible, quotes are fine, i dont wish to read lesser scientists view on science over at talkorigins, i read from the minds of wave makers.

we already argued nothingness, were eternal is reality, if you dont accept this truth then the argument cannot continue, you are closed minded and unable to accept truth. a vaccum is not nothing so dont use this tired argument. you could say that the vaccum is eteranal, but basically some non-thing outside of space time had to create the universe.

first point worth arguing is that everything in the universe is one, that is everything is one thing and not seperate. do you agree? if not then we can argue about it, if you do then we can move on. point im making is that there is only one thing, consciousness, and matter is the epiphenomenon, along similar lines and the physicist amit gaswami. information or wisdom is the substrate for life, mind of god argument.

http://www.wie.org/j11/goswami.asp?page=3

i have more points but we will argue one at time if you want. basically im saying that i dont have a ton of time on my hands to have an all out internet debate right now as you know this is exam time for schools in about three weeks so this is all i can handle. you could be a dick and not want to do it like this, but its the best i can do right now. link is interesting for anyone interested in physics.

[Necrosis]

the reason i say  outside of space time is that without time first causes would not be an issue, there is no linearity, this seems to be our sticking point. a vaccum cannot operate outside of time. some like hawking have argued against time but have failed, i think we can agree time is a dimension.

[NeoSeminole]

i get bored arguing with you, you simply are a talkorigins link provider which gets rather boring.

ha ha ha, sure. I'm a "talkorigins link provider." Here is a list of websites I've used as references.

http://www.csun.edu/~vcgeo005/gentry/tiny.htm
http://ucsu.colorado.edu/~theobal/PE.html
http://www.kent-hovind.com
http://www.skeptictank.org/hovind2.htm
http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/hovind_fractured_fairy_tales.htm
http://www.americanscientist.org/template/AssetDetail/assetid/14770
http://www.tufts.edu/as/wright_center/cosmic_evolution/docs/splash.html
http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s249630.htm
http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/COMPLETE/learn/star_and_planet_formation.html
http://archive.ncsa.uiuc.edu/Cyberia/Cosmos/InTheBeginning.html
http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/early.html
http://jersey.uoregon.edu/~js/ast123/lectures/lec17.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_fluctuation

you think nothingness and infinity are concepts of the mind, showing lack of knowledge of matematics

No, I think your interpretation of nothingness only exist in the mind. Don't put words in my mouth. I explained to you that it's possible space has always existed but was empty. This may be viewed as a form of nothing. All you have done is come up with 1 definition of 'nothingness' and ignored other interpretations. Furthermore, I have never commented on infinity in this discussion. So I don't know where you pulled that from. Perhaps out of your ass?

you think because punctuated equilibrium is merely a description of the fossil record it supports evolution.

I never said punctuated equilibrium is simply a description of the fossil record. In fact, in addition to the fossil record, I said the theory is supported by the stability of morphology in widespread species and the apparent morphological differences between ancestral and daughter species. You're the one who keeps trying to reduce punctuated equilibrium to a 'mere guess to explain a lack of fossils' - not me. You asked for a mechanism. I provided you with a response.

i dont want to read all your links and am busy reading material in book form, from people like ellis and penrose among many others, micheal shermer is a gearbox.

I never asked you to read my links. Funny how many times I have to keep reminding you I never said this or that. The links only serve as references so you can double check my work. It's similar to writing a research paper. If you write a thesis, do you leave out your sources b/c your readers may not want to read them? No.

i provided direct quote from the holder of the largest fossil depot in the world saying transitional fossils are merely interpretation you post a link from someone saying there not.

I never said transitional fossils are not interpretation. I'm not sure where you got that from.

the site does have the basis of evidence against evolution, but the individuals who have there articles on that site are merely showing what there finding are indicative of nothing more. the site is simply a collection of articles and the individuals arent evolution bashers just those with conflicting real data.

bullshit. Anytime a website contains so much religious propaganda, I question their credibility. I have already caught them lying. One of the guys from True Origins claims he never recieved a response from an evolutionists when this is not true. Moreover, half of the articles posted there only raise questions in evolution. None of them actually disprove the theory otherwise the authors would recieve a Nobel Prize and evolution would no longer be taught.

[NeoSeminole]

de duve won the nobel prize, is that award enough to warrant basis for criticism.

I'm not sure what your point is. Who is De Duve, and what did he say?

[NeoSeminole]

i dont want many links if possible, quotes are fine, i dont wish to read lesser scientists view on science over at talkorigins, i read from the minds of wave makers.

I guess it doesn't matter if these men have PhD's in evolution and biochemistry, they are "lesser scientists" according to you. So they must not know what they are talking about.

we already argued nothingness, were eternal is reality, if you dont accept this truth then the argument cannot continue, you are closed minded and unable to accept truth. a vaccum is not nothing so dont use this tired argument. you could say that the vaccum is eteranal, but basically some non-thing outside of space time had to create the universe.

you are so ignorant. I honestly feel sorry for you. Between you and me, I'm the one whose kept an open mind. I freely admit I don't know the answer in certain areas of discussion. You have this notion ingrained in your head that your belief is the only way. I have refuted comment after comment from you. All you do is change topics or say "I get bored arguing with you" when you lose.

first point worth arguing is that everything in the universe is one, that is everything is one thing and not seperate. do you agree? if not then we can argue about it, if you do then we can move on. point im making is that there is only one thing, consciousness, and matter is the epiphenomenon, along similar lines and the physicist amit gaswami. information or wisdom is the substrate for life, mind of god argument.

everything in the universe can be one thing or separate depending on your interpretation. This is why philosophical discussions are pointless. I'd rather address facts rather than opinions.

[Necrosis]

haha space doesnt exsist dumbass, ahah you think space is an entity. i didnt lose one argument in this whole debate, i said quantum entanglement re established cause effect, and you still ignored it(i even gave an example, and can describe the slit experiment if you want). nothingness is not a concept of the "mind", again space doesn't exsist as something tangible it is merely a reference for distance between objects, there goes your theory(prove space exsists as something seperate then we can continue).im open minded to peoples arguments and argue with people much smarter then you my friend. they at least understand the concepts im giving, the never was nothing, you cant accept it is not my fault go read some cosmology from the link i provided long ago.

you are a materialist, explain consiousness then using material terms. explain how this world is an intangible thing in reality. you asked how an intangible god could create matter through e=mc2 simply put, since this world is made of it. also, read about the grand unification epoch to find out when photons were converted to matter.

quantum entanglement is fact not opinion, yes we are all the same thing and there is only one thing or reality, i wont explain it to you because you annoy me with your non sense. your the one who ignores phd's, spetners work is no good because he is supported by religious folk.

hahah go on avant or a philosophy forum, or physics forum and say nothing exsisted, you retard, i made the thread over there to show you what a ignorant fool you are then you say it is a concept of the mind, ahah you refuted aquinas, one of the greatest thinkers in history with one felt swoop. templeton prize here you come.go back and look at the thread then, look at the thread started by RAS about the same subject only much more advanced and you'll understand how stupid your points are. thats why i stop arguing, you dont have a clue what your talking about.

punctuated equilibrium is only a description, what is the testable mechanism, if nothing exsists it is only a simple hypothesis. it is merely a description, they said look gradual evolution doesnt happen, it happens in short bursts, lets call it punctuated equilibrium and pretend it has a mechanism. show me the mechanism, copy and paste it from the link. dont feel bad for me seriously, im fine. 

[NeoSeminole]

cool, you're right. I must be dumb. How silly of me!

[suckmymuscle]

you have been supremely owned like suckmymuscle and his rant about memory that i shoved up his stupid ass. i dont like ad hominen arguments but when someone attacks me, this is not the main board by the way, i will return the favor, also those arguments are known to be used by the weak minded my friend. i rest my case on this argument.

  Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! You couldn't own me even in a parallel universe where stupidity is the currency in use! No, it was me who called out your bullshit claims that somehow the frontal cortex had anything to do with perception. I owned you so badly that you evne stopped posting in the truce thread. You're so pathetic that you got owned by a layman at a field you're majoring in at academically!

SUCKMYMUSCLE

[Necrosis]

you didnt even respond to me, and i received pms from people talking about what a meathead you are, you said memory was stored in limbic system, i will haul up the quotes if you like. you have a defence complex were you say you own everyone after you have been owned, i didnt keep responding because you didnt respond to me.stop being so ignorant and admit when your wrong, you can barely spell let alone own.

[suckmymuscle]

you didnt even respond to me, and i received pms from people talking about what a meathead you are, you said memory was stored in limbic system, i will haul up the quotes if you like. you have a defence complex were you say you own everyone after you have been owned, i didnt keep responding because you didnt respond to me.stop being so ignorant and admit when your wrong, you can barely spell let alone own.

  Hmmm...but memory is stored in the limbic system. It is the center of emotions. The visual cortex is related to perception, not storage. I't's like a route program that analyses data, but archives it elsewhere. You have been seriously owned by me and I honestly feel sorry for you. The reason why I didn't repsond to you was because there's no point in debating the obvious. It's not like debating quantum mechanics vs general relativity. This is not a matter of contention, but simply of fact. Owned.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

[suckmymuscle]

the law of cause and effect has been refuted by logic. Therefore, it cannot be assumed like you say in science.

  "the law of cause and effec has been refuted by logic". Bwa ha ha ha ha ha ha! This has got to be the most retarded thing I've ever read here. The law of cause and effect is logic, you incredible moron. Deductive logic is axiomatically tied to the notion that that there is a non-contradictory pattern of deductions that are made based on infered inductions.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

[Necrosis]

last post was good sucky, but you posts on the neuroscience are retarded, the limbic system is not the only place memory is stored and i outlined why, you owned no one. i even outlined major areas and there function therefore if and only if im incorrect you are right, we cannot both be right in so far as the facts provide. the visual cortices in the occ. lobe are more related to visual perception(lateral geniculate nucleus), however is involved in storage of memory, or archives as you gayly put it. but you do not have a very good comprehension of what memory storage intails(working, episodic, semantic, visual, olfactory) i even posted links to top research. also, if you review and mri or pet scans you will see that retriving memories of different modalities activates mutiple neural correlates etc.

i am impressed however with your argument for cause and effect, however, his argument boiled down to more then that. you do sound intelligent but i think you overstep your ,boundaries and boast a little too much you aint that smart son, i would own you on any subject. pick one and a topic and if i own you, you will have to delete your account. a debateble topic, and i wont pick spelling as you would suffer a short defeat.

[Necrosis]

  Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! You couldn't own me even in a parallel universe where stupidity is the currency in use! No, it was me who called out your bullshit claims that somehow the frontal cortex had anything to do with perception. I owned you so badly that you evne stopped posting in the truce thread. You're so pathetic that you got owned by a layman at a field you're majoring in at academically!

SUCKMYMUSCLE

in at academically, this is what im talking about, you in reality are a high functioning down syndrome patient. hahah me own you at neuroscience debate at hulkster thread.

[Necrosis]

since you claim to be educated i assume you have made a choice wether atheist, agnostic, or theistic in nature care to add anything to the "does god exist" argument. i think anyone who has studied philosophy(meta-physics and the like) will come to the conclusion that something outside of space-time and eternal would have to exist. any thoughts? i dont agree with anything you have said until your last post in this thread but i would like to hear your thoughts.

[suckmymuscle]

  Since I'm confident that I'm highly intelligent, I don't need to even reply to you. You think that you're more intelligent than me because you happen to posses a little more of highly specialized knowledge for which you study 24/7? And spelling is now an indication of intelligence? The last time I checked, this board has a spell-checker, so spelling correctly is as hard as pressing the spell-cchecking button and correcting your spelling mistakes. There are several areas that I know more of than you. Only someone arrogant and petty would assume otherwise. Even Einstein had his ass handed to him by Keynes, when he tried to debate economics with him.

  As for this discussion, by definition, nothing can exist outside of reality, since reality contains all that is real. If you accept this tautology, then In this sense, reality is a process that is a process of definition. When you use expressions such as "outside", you are using perceptual Human functions to explain to identify the process of containment. Einstein already demonstrated matter create both time as well as space, so there's nothing but potential for organized systems in an a "void". In this case, the word "void" is not used to imply "lack of matter", per se, but rather lack of "logic". Because logic exists as a function of quantum interaction, which results from two processes: identification and perception.

 Logic is nothing more than a "language" that reality uses to define the interaction between particles within a specific level of perception. Just like in mathematics, a given conjecture, theorem or proposition is only valid for a verty specific set of axioms you've established as truths into themselves. So, we perceive time/space because we're biased by our senses for it. In this sense, time is nothing more than a "language" of logic, of the law of cause-and-effect, and we only perceive it as such. If you create a parallel universe where there is no interaction or indentification between "potentials"(quantum flolws), then "time" wouldn't be required. This is fiendishly contrived, but there is a great TOE about it:

 www.megafoundation.org/CTMU/Articles/IntroCTMU.htm

  The botom line is that there is a God, because reality is a process of perception, where potentials are turned into systems by indentification. Since perception of one by another causes global changes in all the systems involved - by definition, a single change in a small part causes a change in the whole -, then the reality is perceived globally by all it's parts. In other words, reality perceives itself. If you define perception as a form of consciousness, then reality is a conscience, and you could call that "God".

SUCKMYMUSCLE

[Necrosis]

  Since I'm confident that I'm highly intelligent, I don't need to even reply to you. You think that you're more intelligent than me because you happen to posses a little more of highly specialized knowledge for which you study 24/7? And spelling is now an indication of intelligence? The last time I checked, this board has a spell-checker, so spelling correctly is as hard as pressing the spell-cchecking button and correcting your spelling mistakes. There are several areas that I know more of than you. Only someone arrogant and petty would assume otherwise. Even Einstein had his ass handed to him by Keynes, when he tried to debate economics with him.

  As for this discussion, by defitnition, nothing can exist outside of reality, since reality contains all that is real. If you accept this tautology, then In this sense, reality is a process that is a process of definition. When you use expressions such as "outside", you are using perceptual Human functions to explain to identify the process of containment. Einstein already demonstrated matter create both time as well as space, so there's nothing but potential for organized systems in an a "void". In this case, the word "void" is not used to imply "lack of matter", per se, but rather lack of "logic". Because logic exists as a function of quantum interaction, which results from two processes: identification and perception.

 Logic is nothing more than a "language" that reality uses to define the interaction between particles within a specific level of perception. Just like in mathematics, a given conjecture, theorem or proposition is only valid for a verty specific set of axioms you've established as truths into themselves. So, we perceive time/space because we're biased by our senses for it. In this sense, time is nothing more than a "language" of logic, of the law of cause-and-effect, and we only perceive it as such. If you create a parallel universe where there is no interaction or indentification between "potentials"(quantum flolws), then "time" wouldn't be required. This is fiendishly contrived, but there is a great TOE about it:

 www.megafoundation.org/CTMU/Articles/IntroCTMU.htm

SUCKMYMUSCLE

first great response, i take back what i said you talk like someone with intelligence as many who can discuss this topic use verbage which is foreign to most. i dont wish this to turn into a mudslinging contest, but rather a simple debate.

first i would like to say that something outside of space-time is does not violate your definition of reality, since it is part of that reality, time is in essence a product of our reality. also, for something to exist nothing could have never existed by definition, thus some non-thing created the universe. however, it is obvious to any that ex nihilo does or did exsist hence the creation of the universe, it in itself is not eternal, and since redshift was discovered it is not infinite since expansion is not possible in infinite. my whole argument for god boils down to a few ancient philosophical questions, such as why is there something insted of nothing, and better yet why was there change.

a void also could not exist just like nothing could not exist(i understand this is not your argument, but is related to buddhism, so i feel compelled to touch upon it). once you describe a void with characteristics, or nothing with char. you are describing something by nature thus it is not nothing, true nothing cannot create something(this universe or reality) thus something eternal and infinite exists, i beleive it to be god.

your response never answered my fundamental question(you sound monistic) what is your beleif, god or no god? i will refrain from bashing you in other threads and you have earned my respect, much appreciation for the answer to the question.

[NeoSeminole]

"the law of cause and effec has been refuted by logic". Bwa ha ha ha ha ha ha! This has got to be the most retarded thing I've ever read here.

Then explain to me what the law of cause and effect is. As I understand it, the law states that everything that happens must have a cause. This description is self-defeating for several reasons that I already mentioned.

The law of cause and effect is logic, you incredible moron. Deductive logic is axiomatically tied to the notion that that there is a non-contradictory pattern of deductions that are made based on infered inductions.

the law of cause and effect may appear logical at first glance. However, it falls apart upon closer inspection. It's nothing more than labels we use to describe the relationship between observations which meet causality. There are plenty of examples of effects that weren't "caused" by something, per se, but rather are related to other variables.

[NeoSeminole]

in at academically, this is what im talking about, you in reality are a high functioning down syndrome patient.

I got a kick out of this comment.

[Necrosis]

neo, a relationship like radio decay for example doesnt rule out cause and effect, it just means we dont understand how they effect each other but we make the assumption to make our calculations and deductions. your rain example, if you can remove variables that negatively effect each other such that they cannot occur without the other then a cause and effect relationship is assumed. saying that we do not know the relationship rules out cause and effect is plain ignorance, everday experience shows us(logic,reason)that effects are precluded by causes. however, you raised a good point about what caused god, to which i replied the uncaused cause, and you never accepted it.

let me try again. this universe is not finite nor eternal, hence it was "created" it would have to have been, plus the theory of singularity places this observation straight in our laps. ok so if this universe is not eternal and true "nothing" cannot create something then we are left with something eternal and infinite for this universe to occur. now, eternal by definition rules out the need for a cause, it is everlasting or always hence no need to cause it is the cause for everything. some non-thing outside of space-time would have to create space-time since it cannot function without matter as sucky showed. hence anything outside of space-time does not apply to time and with no time there is no beginning end or middle thus no need to be caused, god is the unmoved mover. time is a dimension we subscribe too, it does not have to exist outside of the universe, but if the universe is not infinite(which by science it isnt, redshift) then something has to exist outside of it, or do you beleive that a void exist outside it, or nothing, which has already been dealt with(this would imply a self-sustaining universe, which as you know is not possible).

[Necrosis]

another argument you might assume is that a vaccum, and matter-antimatter etc. however, a vaccum is something, plus matter popping in and out of exsistence doesnt rule out that it is nothing, the particles may be coming from another dimension, who knows. however, many have used your argument and it is not accepted even by atheists as the quotes i posted earlier. there are better arguments against me then you are providing ie monism but a vaccum is something thus is no vaccum was there matter-antimatter could not pop in and out of existence. see how it is not truly nothing, the vaccum provides the something for the matter-antimatter. all i wanted to get across was that something outside space-time would have to exist for this reality to exist. the final jump takes faith just as atheism does. atheism is a faith you must grapple with the same questions as me, you choose no god, but how were we created, why change etc etc.. if you cant answer these questions then it is a matter of faith, not fact. you believing in no god takes just as much faith as me beleiving in him/her/it.

i just think that the reality of the question, the complexity of the world, the purpose driven features, intelligence, consciousness of matter, humans drive for purpose, and the GENERAL intuition of everyone to pray in times of need as youth, and to beleive more are signs of god. when i was an athiest, and my grandmother died i prayed even though i thought i dont see god there is no god, why i dont know, it is instilled in us and intuition tells me when i reflect on life and the universe there has to more to it then us, and there has to be a purpose, faith it is but i think it is a justified faith.

[Necrosis]

because correlations dont allow us assume causality doesnt mean cause and effect are not operating, or the exegetes of the correlation, we simply dont know the relationship between variables, chaos theory will eventually show that everything is cause and effects or interconnected predetermined arrangements of events that correlate sequentially, or even exponentially in that they are additive from the first cause in history. far way away however.

[suckmymuscle]

  Leibniz actually demonstrated that for every problem there's a solution that follows a pattern. This imples that all "potentials" in the Universe are already solved, or that the Universe is a closed system without inherit contradictions, because the contradictions are a fundamental part of the system. This would imply that paradoxes don't really exist, but are rather the result of faulty perception. This also goes against observalbe reality, because the system does not function properly. If you assume that the contradictions are a part of the system and that they're already solved, then why is there multiple options for the resolution of these paradoxes? I guess the solution is to assume that the "solutions" are always optima globally, and that we only perceive some solutions being better because there's a kind of meta-universe that allows fro multiple universes. So, asume that the system does not "choose" the better pattern to solve it's inherit contradictions. This would mean that the meta-universe allows the "faulty" universe to exist merelly as a "potential" which is only faulty from the inherit deductive properties of definition of the universe from where you observe it. Thus, there is no logical cointradiction in no system, because all systems(universes) are problems unto themselves that are already solved, and the contradictions arises only from trying to apply the axiomatic language of a system to another. Global coherence determines the prime axioms that define each system, and since all systems are coherent due to a deterministic assumption that it's properties create an arbitrary perception of each other that is an a priori language inbeded in the system, then meta-logic exists and it is, simply, the recogniction that infinite potentials is non-axiomatic, because axioms themselves are "tools" used to arbitrarily limit potentials. Since infinite potentials have no limited "solutions" or outcomes - because since there are no axioms, there is also no need for a language to describe the path that the axiom uses to to "close" itself in a system. Thus, meta-logic, unlike mere logic, is not a "language", but rather a "translator" between infinite different logics. In conclusion, the problem of the Universe is a problem of logic, which is a problem of potentials and meta-logic, which is essentially a problem of recognition, definition an dperception. Problem solved!

SUCKMYMUSCLE

[NeoSeminole]

you still haven't proven me wrong. Nice try kid.