If Heaven and Hell existed...

[Necrosis]

Purpose--the reason for which something exists or is done, made, used, etc.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/purpose

If purpose is defined as the "reason" for which something exists then the "reason" we exist is because our parents had sex and we were born.
As far as the "reason" we do things, I already explained that. Everyone makes their own purpose.

As far as consciousness being nothing more than "random chemical reactions". This is also false. Our brains are formed in such a way that the chemical reactions that occur are anything but random. Some chemical reactions occur naturally as a bodily mechanism. These aren't random. For instance the signals to tell our heart to beat. There's nothing random about that. Or thoughts. Thoughts aren't necessarily "random". The fact that one can determine their thoughts means that it isn't randomness.

Bacteria, Ants, Cows all have the same natural purposes humans have. To reproduce.


If the universe needs no cause or beginning then why invoke "God"? Moreover, It's true that the laws of physics seem to break down at the point of the big bang, however this doesn't necessarily mean that there couldn't of been a "before" the big bang in the casual sense. Physicists are still working on that and I'm not a physicist, but I can tell you that if there was no "before" the big bang then there couldn't of been a "God" who made it. If there is a "before" the big bang then it could of been many things other than a "God". Using some intelligent designer just complicates the question beyond comprehension and is useless.


 

first my apologies for not responding, i had some family issues along with work.

however, you keep bringing the argument done to the individual or finite level. also i do beleive there is purpose in life, i was making the argument that what is the purpose of existence, without god?  i believe life is purporsive. however, i have to ask a question since you agree, reproduction is purporsive? yes it is goal oriented. so would you argue that the first bacterium life form or whatever, that came into existence came pre assembled with purposive structures, the sex organs that is? i see a logical fallacy in this. life arose with purposiveness pre-established or as a condition, yet this is random? purposive behaviour is a choice, we choose to reproduce to obtain a goal. if bacteria began with this purposive behaviour then how or why is this a pre installed option?

also, would you argue that the sum is never greater then the whole? a reductionist position.

i have a degree in neuroscience, so i know something about consciousnous, and know its not random in a sense, but we cannot control our thoughts or have any control over the brain, if in fact it is an objective chemical reaction. that is reason does not exist, if the minds actions are produced by the brain, which in turn is a chemical reaction which in turn produces thought. no backwards causality can exist, mind is the epiphenomenon of brain. however, i dont agree with this, this position would rule out reason and free will. for the act to reason is undermined by the position that thought is predetermined by chemical reactions which produce mind. i also disagree with what i wrote, but this is the materialist position. thought is a product, not the opposite, this is horribly false if you beleive in reason.

Purpose--the reason for which something exists or is done, made, used, etc.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/purpose




If you can say that "God" had no creator then you could use the same reasoning and apply it to the universe.

Moreover, what's wrong with an infinite regression of causes?


Firstly, Even if there was some "timeless, immaterial" cause to the Big bang. There is absolutely no reason to believe it was an "intelligent creator". It could of easily been some natural cause, thoughtless and not sentient.

Secondly, It absolutely does complicate things. Science works by explaining what the evidence supports. You can't make leaps of logic and proof and assume that since we don't know the exact cause of the Big bang, some supernatural intelligent creator did it.

Thirdly, No one claims that the universe is "totally random, non purposeful" or "just happened". Natural causes aren't random. They have purposes and they don't 'just happen'.


 

firstly on alot of arguments you have been taking my position, there is purpose, and infinite(physical cannot exist). so we know the universe had a beginning, and time and space was created. the law of causality shows us that everything that comes into existence has a cause, we know the universe had a beginning hence it needs  a cause. so lets use logic here, it needs a cause, time came into existence, and matter came into existence and will have a finite death. so whatever created the universe MUST be immaterial, and have the power to create. also, something has always existed based on aquinas matrix arugment. so we have two attributes so far of this creative force whether it be god or a rock.

also whatever created the universe, has to be eternal and this is evidenced by the fact that time itself had a beginning. hence, cause is no longer and issue since it is a constraint of time. that is, whatever caused the existence of the universe is eternal or outside time. also, say the universe existed for eternity as a singularity or for simplicity existed as gas. if these conditons have always existed nothing could change them, the conditions are already there, why change? condtions dont change themselves unless an outside force acts upon them. also, the only thing i know that can choose is intelligence, or better yet consciousnous when condtions are ALWAYS the same. it takes consciounous to create something different from itself, that is a solid from gas, if not why change and why now? actually its eternal so why not back 500 years ago, oh ya time doesnt exist, conditions cant choose.

also you cant have an infinite regression or nothing would exist, something has to be the prime mover that cannot not exist for anything to exist.

Purpose--the reason for which something exists or is done, made, used, etc.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/purpose




Firstly, Even if there was some "timeless, immaterial" cause to the Big bang. There is absolutely no reason to believe it was an "intelligent creator". It could of easily been some natural cause, thoughtless and not sentient.

Secondly, It absolutely does complicate things. Science works by explaining what the evidence supports. You can't make leaps of logic and proof and assume that since we don't know the exact cause of the Big bang, some supernatural intelligent creator did it.

Thirdly, No one claims that the universe is "totally random, non purposeful" or "just happened". Natural causes aren't random. They have purposes and they don't 'just happen'.


You do have to explain "God". If you want to use inductive reasoning and assume that a "God" did it all then you need to explain why this "God" didn't have a cause. Why does this "God" exist opposed to not existing? Why is he "timeless"? How is he "immaterial"? How does he function? You need to explain all of this or else your assumptions are useless. Invoking such a complicated 'cause' absolutely makes the whole question of the origin of the universe useless.

My answer to the question "Why is there something opposed to nothing?" is simple. "I don't know". That's the only answer anyone can give. Anyone giving another answer had better have proof.

your first proposition has already been proven wrong. its illogical on many counts unless that natural cause can change conditions while being eternal. but then thats my definition of god.

your second proposition is false. im not dealing with science why i ask a metaphysical question obviously. LEAP of logic? im trying to explain why we are here, it will always require a leap of logic. wait a minute maybe its because there is an infinite number of universes. ya thats it, wait a minute theres not a single fucking shred of proof, nor would we be able to access those universes, and all it does is push back the question. YOU mean that kind of logical jump? or blind faith?. dont be so foolish im providing philosophical answers to philosophical questions, like many have done. your choice to not even try is yours to make but you've provided no evidence, no arguments while i have.

your last proposition is also false, natural causes have no goal by definition, they are random and chaotic. show me an example of nature choosing, or not being random. its not organize, natural selection has no goal, mutations are called random for a good reason, it does not choose. also in your example please dont use sentience. im thinking a tornado, that is random, however, it has a cause, but that doesnt mean its purposive inherently.

also i already explained why immaterial, why eternal, why creative, do you want his phone number . my logic is no more complicated the multiverse if it is the chosen answer would still have to be immaterial, because physical infinities dont exist, hence infinity has to be immaterial, to have no cause to avoid an infinite regression. however, there are paradoxes on both sides at this stage.

god exists because it is his essence to exist and he cannot not exist, or nothing would exist. however, something does exist, hence nothing never existed because nothing cannot create something.

as for the last parts of your post, the laws have to be violated by either the universe or god. Or at least they have to be different to allow for eternity and infinite.

god created to experience himself. infinte can only experience finite, perfect can only experience imperfection. I think the rest of you questions are addressed above.

[Wikidudeman]

I'm sorry but I'm having a terrible time understanding your bad spelling, grammar and English. Is English your second language? I'll address what I can from your posts but you should be clearer.

however, you keep bringing the argument done to the individual or finite level. also i do beleive there is purpose in life, i was making the argument that what is the purpose of existence, without god?

I don't know what you mean.

i believe life is purporsive. however, i have to ask a question since you agree, reproduction is purporsive? yes it is goal oriented. so would you argue that the first bacterium life form or whatever, that came into existence came pre assembled with purposive structures, the sex organs that is?

I'm having a lot of trouble understanding you. Are you asking me whether the first living organisms formed with sexual structures? The answer is no. The first life would of been simple a-sexual cells that copied their own DNA.

i see a logical fallacy in this. life arose with purposiveness pre-established or as a condition, yet this is random? purposive behaviour is a choice, we choose to reproduce to obtain a goal. if bacteria began with this purposive behaviour then how or why is this a pre installed option?

What fallacy would it be? It looks like you don't understand how evolution works.   

First you have inanimate matter. Complex chemicals, amino acids, etc. These gradually form into basic genetic material which eventually become able to copy and then form into the first single cells. The only reason they continued to exist was because they could copy their own DNA for the next generation and keep existing. Therefore sexual reproduction is absolutely vital to evolution and to life itself.

also, would you argue that the sum is never greater then the whole? a reductionist position.

That's a semantical argument and it seems to be unrelated to this discussion. Give me an example.

i have a degree in neuroscience,

I usually don't accuse people of making things up, but I'm afraid I must in this case. You don't seem to understand much about science and your grasp of the English language is terrible. If you do have a degree in "neuroscience", You must be from India or some middle eastern country. I find it hard to believe a native English speaker with your rudimentary grasp of the English language would be able to get a degree in neuroscience.

What branch of neuroscience is your degree in?
What type of degree is it?
What university does it come from?

iso i know something about consciousnous, and know its not random in a sense, but we cannot control our thoughts or have any control over the brain, if in fact it is an objective chemical reaction.

"Thought" is a very complex aspect of cognitive neuroscience. Thought isn't simply caused by "chemical reactions" but electro-chemical reactions. However the fact that drugs can often change the way our thoughts work is proof that the origin of our thoughts would be our brain's chemical composition and electrochemical reactions.

that is reason does not exist, if the minds actions are produced by the brain, which in turn is a chemical reaction which in turn produces thought. no backwards causality can exist, mind is the epiphenomenon of brain. however, i dont agree with this, this position would rule out reason and free will. for the act to reason is undermined by the position that thought is predetermined by chemical reactions which produce mind. i also disagree with what i wrote, but this is the materialist position. thought is a product, not the opposite, this is horribly false if you beleive in reason.

Thoughts are much more complex than "chemical reactions". Humans can cause specific thoughts to occur thus changing the electro-chemical relationships in their brains. I'm not advocating Epiphenomenalism, though there is some evidence supporting it (Bereitschaftspotential for example), Cognition is much more complex than simple "chemical reactions" as you (purportedly with a degree in neuroscience) puts it. Cognition is caused by highly complex neuro-electro-chemical reactions which can be caused by other such reactions etc. Epiphenomenalism is the contention that mental states are simple byproducts of physical states of the outside world. However this isn't totally accurate. This gets into the entire argument of freewill and the illusion of, however this really isn't relevant to the discussion of the existence of a "God".

firstly on alot of arguments you have been taking my position, there is purpose, and infinite(physical cannot exist). so we know the universe had a beginning, and time and space was created. the law of causality shows us that everything that comes into existence has a cause, we know the universe had a beginning hence it needs  a cause. so lets use logic here, it needs a cause, time came into existence, and matter came into existence and will have a finite death. so whatever created the universe MUST be immaterial, and have the power to create. also, something has always existed based on aquinas matrix arugment. so we have two attributes so far of this creative force whether it be god or a rock.

Your making a lot of logical leaps.

-The universe had a beginning. For simplicity purposes I'll agree.
-Time and space was formed then. For simplicity purposes I'll agree.
-Everything that comes into existence has a cause. This is where you start making logical leaps. Before the universe existed there wouldn't of been a "law of  causality". Prior to the universe existing there would of been "nothing" existing, I.E. no laws of causality. Therefore why does the universe need a cause if the law of causality didn't exist prior to it being formed?

Moreover, You're assuming that there is even a "law of causality" in these sorts of extreme physics during and even before the big bang. The laws of causality only exist in classical Newtonian physics, are stretched beyond repair in Einsteinian physics and generally don't exist in Quantum physics. For example in quantum electrodynamics various particles, electrons, positrons and photons can spontaneously emerge in a vacuum. The particles destroy each other leaving no traces behind. Where DeltaT is allowed via the uncertainty of DeltaT times DeltaE over h-bar(planks constant). This is called vacuum fluctuation and frequently occurs in quantum field theory.

Here are some studies on the possibility of the universe itself being a Vacuum Fluctuation and others showing the details of quantum vacuum fluctuations.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v246/n5433/abs/246396a0.html
http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v84/i8/p1655_1
http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRD/v59/i12/e123006

also whatever created the universe, has to be eternal and this is evidenced by the fact that time itself had a beginning. hence, cause is no longer and issue since it is a constraint of time. that is, whatever caused the existence of the universe is eternal or outside time.

This doesn't make any sense. If whatever caused the universe is "outside time" then how could it even act upon our time to create our universe?

also, say the universe existed for eternity as a singularity or for simplicity existed as gas. if these conditons have always existed nothing could change them, the conditions are already there, why change?

The same argument applies for a God. If God existed for eternity prior to making our universe, why decide to make it 15 billion years ago?

condtions dont change themselves unless an outside force acts upon them. also, the only thing i know that can choose is intelligence, or better yet consciousnous when condtions are ALWAYS the same. it takes consciounous to create something different from itself, that is a solid from gas, if not why change and why now? actually its eternal so why not back 500 years ago, oh ya time doesnt exist, conditions cant choose.

I really can't make out what you're saying here.

also you cant have an infinite regression or nothing would exist, something has to be the prime mover that cannot not exist for anything to exist.

Why?

your second proposition is false. im not dealing with science why i ask a metaphysical question obviously. LEAP of logic? im trying to explain why we are here, it will always require a leap of logic.

When you have empirical evidence, you don't need to make leaps of logic. Moreover, There's no need to make leaps of logic even without empirically evidence. Simply say "I don't know".

wait a minute maybe its because there is an infinite number of universes. ya thats it, wait a minute theres not a single fucking shred of proof, nor would we be able to access those universes, and all it does is push back the question. YOU mean that kind of logical jump? or blind faith?. dont be so foolish im providing philosophical answers to philosophical questions, like many have done. your choice to not even try is yours to make but you've provided no evidence, no arguments while i have.

I never mentioned a multiverse.

your last proposition is also false, natural causes have no goal by definition, they are random and chaotic. show me an example of nature choosing, or not being random. its not organize, natural selection has no goal, mutations are called random for a good reason, it does not choose. also in your example please dont use sentience. im thinking a tornado, that is random, however, it has a cause, but that doesnt mean its purposive inherently.

Mutations are random, natural selection isn't. Natural selection's goal is adaptation to ones environment. That's not random. That's purposeful.

also i already explained why immaterial, why eternal, why creative, do you want his phone number . my logic is no more complicated the multiverse if it is the chosen answer would still have to be immaterial, because physical infinities dont exist, hence infinity has to be immaterial, to have no cause to avoid an infinite regression. however, there are paradoxes on both sides at this stage.

Firstly, You haven't answered my questions. You used leaps of logic to come to conclusions. For instance, Why does this "God" exist opposed to not existing? You never answered that question. You simply assumed existence and postulated attributes. How does he function? You didn't answer that either.

Secondly, The multiverse hypothesis is supported by mathematical frameworks. http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0305292

god exists because it is his essence to exist and he cannot not exist, or nothing would exist. however, something does exist, hence nothing never existed because nothing cannot create something.

The universe exists because it is in it's essence to exist and it cannot not exist, or nothing would exist. 

as for the last parts of your post, the laws have to be violated by either the universe or god. Or at least they have to be different to allow for eternity and infinite.

I don't know what this means.

god created to experience himself. infinte can only experience finite, perfect can only experience imperfection. I think the rest of you questions are addressed above.

"infinite can only experience finite"? This doesn't make sense.

"Perfect can only experience imperfection"? "Perfection" is generally an epistemologically subjective term. Relative from one person to another. Moreover, If you define "Perfect" as simply "satisfying all requirements" then it's pretty easy for imperfection to experience perfection and vise versa.

[beatmaster]

oh brother........

est ce que le père noel existe?

[gcb]

oh brother........

est ce que le père noel existe?

yes he does exist - mum told me so

[Necrosis]

sorry i wrote the post fast. i can see you dont understand science nor logic all too much.


HAHAH that whole post was a meltdown, HAHAAHHAHA. sorry i didnt use the provided spell checker. Lots of people have commented on my poor grammer and spelling, its because i dont really give a shit nor do i look up from my computer when typing.

HAHAH owned. i have a 4.0 gpa on the rating scale, and am top of the class in many subjects.

Student Information Degree:  Bachelor of Science
Major:  Psychology
Level:  Undergraduate
Academic Standing:  Clear Standing

Undergraduate Course work CRN Subject Course Section Course Title Campus Final Grade Attempted Earned GPA Hours Quality Points   
40106 BIOL 2600 005 Principles of Ecology St. John's 83 3.000
 3.000
 3.000
 12.00
   
41190 PSYC 2900 002 Design & Analysis I St. John's 90 3.000
 3.000
 3.000
 12.00
   
43509 PSYC 3533 001 Sexual Behaviour St. John's 86 3.000
 3.000
 3.000
 12.00
   
44501 SOCI 2000 006 Principles of Sociology St. John's 89 3.000
 3.000
 3.000
 12.00
   

Undergraduate Summary   Attempted Earned GPA Hours Quality Points GPA Avg.
Current Term:  12.000
 12.000
 12.000
 48.00
 4.00
 87.0
 
for some reason the first column should read as a row. design and analysis is a statistics course. here ill get my next term for you.
 12.000
 12.000
 48.00
 4.00
 87.0

Student Information Degree:  Bachelor of Science
Major:  Psychology
Level:  Undergraduate
Academic Standing:  Clear Standing

Undergraduate Course work CRN Subject Course Section Course Title Campus Final Grade Attempted Earned GPA Hours Quality Points   
60998 PSYC 2360 001 Perception I St. John's 87 3.000
 3.000
 3.000
 12.00
   
61014 PSYC 2901 003 Design & Analysis II St. John's 91 3.000
 3.000
 3.000
 12.00
   
63565 PSYC 3501 082 Industrial Psychology Distance Education 85 3.000
 3.000
 3.000
 12.00
   
66718 SOCI 2240 001 Canadian Society & Cult St. John's 80 3.000
 3.000
 3.000
 12.00

NEUROSCIENCE


65519 PSYC 2810 056 Brain & Behaviour St. John's 81 3.000
 3.000
 3.000
 12.00
   
61010 PSYC 2850 002 Behavioural Neuroscience St. John's 88 3.000
 3.000
 3.000
 12.00
   
61712 PSYC 3800 001 Physio Psychology St. John's 79 3.000
 3.000
 3.000
 9.00

would you like my student number? this site is infamous for getting into peoples personal shit. the marks are obviously password protected. i have two electives left in my neuroscience degree. anyway, to be honest i never even learned about consciounous because its mostly theory based with little fact. disease, physiological psyhcology, and anatomy are the main components for a degree.

the above are previous semesters. i accuse you of taking two days to respond as well as copy and pasting all your "info" from wiki, which is a shithole.

i will touch on your origins of thought argument though. Taking drugs do not prove that the brain creates thought per se, it could be that brain is the mechanism through which thought is manifested. S(here is your capital since you cant read without)imilar to a t.v not being the source of the picture, but the mechanism through which programs are seen, you prove nothing. also, if we are to beleive that this is the case then the ability to make choices and reason are thrown out the window via a deterministic worldview. you cant make conslusions if the choice is inevitable, as would be the case if brain produced thought.

also the mere inaccuracies of your posts shows me you actually never attended school or were home schooled by downs syndrome patient. i've correcte you on inaccuracies on more then one occasion.

here's another duzzy

"-Everything that comes into existence has a cause. This is where you start making logical leaps. Before the universe existed there wouldn't of been a "law of  causality". Prior to the universe existing there would of been "nothing" existing, I.E. no laws of causality. Therefore why does the universe need a cause if the law of causality didn't exist prior to it being formed?"

i wont re-write my argument, which is essentially a couple brilliant philosophers, but if you like i will direct you to an avant thread with this question, were not one person agrees with you. nothing cannot exist, end of story. or if you like show me how nothing can create something. a vaccum is also SOMETHING, so theres goes your first tenet.also, if your going to copy and paste, provide the link. as well, because we dont know the direction of causality, nor the actually beggining due to uncertainty this doesn't rule out the law, backwards causality can exist, or at least is postulated to exist.

your ad homenim attacks are blantant attempts to save face. what exactly do you have to do with wiki?



" When you have empirical evidence, you don't need to make leaps of logic. Moreover, There's no need to make leaps of logic even without empirically evidence. Simply say "I don't know"."

so throw out all of philosophy and theoretical physics that have little to no proof and the only thing that makes something valid is objective measurement, or empirical evidence? i guess mind doesnt exist.

the rest of your post is garbage, go read wiki for two days and then come back with some copy and pasted material and i'll refute that.




   

 

[Necrosis]

if everyone took your "i dont know approach" we'd still be figuring out how to fly.

suppositions are needed in all areas.

[Necrosis]

"What fallacy would it be? It looks like you don't understand how evolution works.   

First you have inanimate matter. Complex chemicals, amino acids, etc. These gradually form into basic genetic material which eventually become able to copy and then form into the first single cells. The only reason they continued to exist was because they could copy their own DNA for the next generation and keep existing. Therefore sexual reproduction is absolutely vital to evolution and to life itself."

no first you have inorganic matter meatbag.

secondly, your acting as if this is fact and has been proven!!! abiogenesis is still a mystery, but your explanation is plausible. i still dont see how sentience can come from non-sentience. a rock will never be intelligent yet you expect me to beleive that, that is what happened. i suggest there is a reason we dont know, or that everything is sentient to a degree.

i understand evolution i also have a doctorate in biology (jk). what im saying is that reprodution is purposive, it came pre-installed, that is dna had the propensity to create reproductive organs. the fact that DNA conveys information is an argument for intelligence. information can only come from intelligence, that is seperate from the medium.

i think gerald expresses it better then i can

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4065080646891971315&q=gerald+shroeder&hl=en

"Firstly, You haven't answered my questions. You used leaps of logic to come to conclusions. For instance, Why does this "God" exist opposed to not existing? You never answered that question. You simply assumed existence and postulated attributes. How does he function? You didn't answer that either."


what are you talking about? i answered it, perhaps you should stop and actually read my posts. something HAS to be eternal, if not show me how nothing can create something for no fucking reason. thats implausible.

[Wikidudeman]

sorry i wrote the post fast. i can see you dont understand science nor logic all too much.

HAHAH that whole post was a meltdown, HAHAAHHAHA. sorry i didnt use the provided spell checker. Lots of people have commented on my poor grammer and spelling, its because i dont really give a shit nor do i look up from my computer when typing.

HAHAH owned. i have a 4.0 gpa on the rating scale, and am top of the class in many subjects.

would you like my student number? this site is infamous for getting into peoples personal shit. the marks are obviously password protected. i have two electives left in my neuroscience degree. anyway, to be honest i never even learned about consciounous because its mostly theory based with little fact. disease, physiological psyhcology, and anatomy are the main components for a degree.

the above are previous semesters. i accuse you of taking two days to respond as well as copy and pasting all your "info" from wiki, which is a shithole.

I really can't understand anything you're typing, but I will say that I won't dismiss your purported degree. I however find it a little difficult to believe someone could have a bachelors in neurology with such grammar and spelling and lack of knowledge of said area.

i will touch on your origins of thought argument though. Taking drugs do not prove that the brain creates thought per se, it could be that brain is the mechanism through which thought is manifested. S(here is your capital since you cant read without)imilar to a t.v not being the source of the picture, but the mechanism through which programs are seen, you prove nothing. also, if we are to beleive that this is the case then the ability to make choices and reason are thrown out the window via a deterministic worldview. you cant make conslusions if the choice is inevitable, as would be the case if brain produced thought.

Firstly, The idea that the brain is simply a "receiver" doesn't make sense for many reasons. Firstly, the brain isn't formed as a receiver. That's just not how it's formed. There are not "signals", origin for such signals, etc.

Secondly, I won't get into the whole mental causation argument since it's not really relevant to this topic.

i wont re-write my argument, which is essentially a couple brilliant philosophers, but if you like i will direct you to an avant thread with this question, were not one person agrees with you. nothing cannot exist, end of story. or if you like show me how nothing can create something. a vaccum is also SOMETHING, so theres goes your first tenet.also, if your going to copy and paste, provide the link. as well, because we dont know the direction of causality, nor the actually beggining due to uncertainty this doesn't rule out the law, backwards causality can exist, or at least is postulated to exist.

You don't understand the concept of vacuum fluctuations. Vacuum's aren't the point. The point is that the particles spontaneously emerge without any cause. I f I copy and paste something I will provide the link. So far I haven't.

your ad homenim attacks are blantant attempts to save face. what exactly do you have to do with wiki?

My critique of your spelling and grammar aren't ad hominems. I'm not saying that you're wrong because you can't spell. I'm saying I can't understand anything you're saying because you can't spell.

so throw out all of philosophy and theoretical physics that have little to no proof and the only thing that makes something valid is objective measurement, or empirical evidence? i guess mind doesnt exist.

I never said that lack of empirical evidence means you need to "throw something out". I said simply that one needs not make leaps of logic with empirical evidence. This doesn't mean that there aren't other forms of knowledge that does not need empirical evidence that don't require leaps of logic. Deductive reasoning would be one. Please read what I type.

the rest of your post is garbage, go read wiki for two days and then come back with some copy and pasted material and i'll refute that.

If you say I an copying something then provide the precise source and link of what I am copying it from. Quote what I copied and compare what it says to what I said to prove that I am copying anything.

if everyone took your "i dont know approach" we'd still be figuring out how to fly.

suppositions are needed in all areas.

No. The "I don't know approach" doesn't mean we can't keep trying to figure out why. It just means we admit that at this time, we don't know. This doesn't exclude future experiments and inquisition into why. You have it backwards. Saying you DO KNOW excludes future studies. If you say "I know God did it", that excludes future investigations into the real cause.

no first you have inorganic matter meatbag.

Well technically first you have hydrogen. 

secondly, your acting as if this is fact and has been proven!!! abiogenesis is still a mystery, but your explanation is plausible. i still dont see how sentience can come from non-sentience. a rock will never be intelligent yet you expect me to beleive that, that is what happened. i suggest there is a reason we dont know, or that everything is sentient to a degree.

Abiogenesis is a mystery in the sense we don't know everything about it, but we do know a lot about it. Moreover, Sentience comes from non-sentience via natural selection. Plants are not sentient. Animals are. This occurred due to natural selection over hundreds of millions of years.

i understand evolution i also have a doctorate in biology (jk).

Ha.

what im saying is that reprodution is purposive, it came pre-installed, that is dna had the propensity to create reproductive organs. the fact that DNA conveys information is an argument for intelligence. information can only come from intelligence, that is seperate from the medium.

Firstly, reproduction exist within our DNA. Nearly everything we are does. This occurred via natural selection.

Secondly, Define "information".

i think gerald expresses it better then i can

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4065080646891971315&q=gerald+shroeder&hl=en

I don't have time to watch that. But if you watched and have time...Here's a critique of his claims.
http://www.talkreason.org/articles/reply_to_Schroeder.cfm

what are you talking about? i answered it, perhaps you should stop and actually read my posts. something HAS to be eternal, if not show me how nothing can create something for no fucking reason. thats implausible.

Something has to be eternal because nothing can create something for no reason?

Firstly, What's wrong with an infinite chain of causalities? Why is this impossible?

Secondly, Assuming there is some "eternal" thing that made the universe, that doesn't explain the "reason" behind it. Nor does it explain the physics behind it.

Thirdly, How exactly can something "eternal" exist? What constitutes it? What is it made of? How does it function? Why does it function?

These are all questions that must be answered before we can assume at least that a "eternal cause" made the universe. This doesn't even get into the presumption that the eternal cause is "intelligent" and conscious.

[Necrosis]

i wont adress all your points as our debate is becoming a clusterfuck of ideas.

firstly please show me were my degree in neuroscience has come into question due to lack of knowledge. i already told you that we dont study consciouness per se, we dont go over penrose's theory etc.. secondly you still dont know what your talking about, nor do i know what you mean. "the brain isnt formed as a receiver" how? do you mean of the surroundings, or pertaining to thought.It can be thought of a input-processing-output model for simplicity.

we dont have to get into the mental causation argument, nor anything about the brain if you like. also, what does grammer have to due with neuroscience, do you think we write poetry or something in explaining the role of the amygdala in fear response. for one if i was being graded i would capitilize and take the time to write properly, however, since that is not the case i dont care.

if you cant understand what im writing then it is you who has the problem honestly.

what dont i understand about vaccums? i assumed you were using the retarded arguement that vaccums create particles out of seemingly nothing. also, the fact that we dont know the reason for causation doesn't rule out causation. retrocausality is imo a fact and can maintain relativity as well as explaining what seems to be non-locality.

"Well technically first you have hydrogen."

this is wrong if we are speaking about the primary thing. electromagnetic radiation would be first then baryons. .


"Firstly, reproduction exist within our DNA. Nearly everything we are does. This occurred via natural selection.

Secondly, Define "information"."

i can post the argument championed by yockley and defended by marshall about that if you'd like to read it.



"Something has to be eternal because nothing can create something for no reason?"

WHAT? i dont understand what your saying. NOTHING cannot create something, and for no reason, and also just happen to be life friendly. that is implausible. therefore something has to have always existed. simple, logical and cannot be refuted.

"Firstly, What's wrong with an infinite chain of causalities? Why is this impossible?"

i've answered this serveral times. if you always need a prior cause such as an infinite regress nothing would ever exist because that existence would need a prior cause ad infintium. nothing would exist if everything needed a prior cause.

"Secondly, Assuming there is some "eternal" thing that made the universe, that doesn't explain the "reason" behind it. Nor does it explain the physics behind it."

no it doesn't. your making the assumption that first i beleive in a theological god, not a pantheistic type god. secondly, i could be very well wrong in my supposition, however, i feel its logically superior to the alternatives at the moment, as well as satisfying.

"Thirdly, How exactly can something "eternal" exist? What constitutes it? What is it made of? How does it function? Why does it function?"

this is liken to the analogy of my mother cleaning my room. i ask someone who lives with me "who cleaned my room" they respond "mom". i say "how did she do it" they say "i dont know". i respond "well if you dont know how she did it then she never did it, or you cant say mom did it". get the point? i dont know how god creates, im not god. however, SOMETHING has to be eternal i proved why, provide an argument why all is not eternal please?

"These are all questions that must be answered before we can assume at least that a "eternal cause" made the universe. This doesn't even get into the presumption that the eternal cause is "intelligent" and conscious."

your wrong, have you read any philosophy?

[Wikidudeman]

what dont i understand about vaccums? i assumed you were using the retarded arguement that vaccums create particles out of seemingly nothing. also, the fact that we dont know the reason for causation doesn't rule out causation. retrocausality is imo a fact and can maintain relativity as well as explaining what seems to be non-locality.

Vacuums in quantum physics are areas of space where nothing exist, or if something does exist,that something has no effect on said experiment. When vacuum fluctuations occur, particles spontaneously emerge. This has been scientifically established. See the links I posted.

"Something has to be eternal because nothing can create something for no reason?"

WHAT? i dont understand what your saying. NOTHING cannot create something, and for no reason, and also just happen to be life friendly. that is implausible. therefore something has to have always existed. simple, logical and cannot be refuted.

I was quoting you.

Firstly, You claim that "Nothing can not create something"? Why not? What's stopping it? Nothing.

Secondly, You make the leap of claiming that something is "implausible" to "illogical". This is a logical fallacy called "argument from incredulity".

"Firstly, What's wrong with an infinite chain of causalities? Why is this impossible?"

i've answered this serveral times. if you always need a prior cause such as an infinite regress nothing would ever exist because that existence would need a prior cause ad infintium. nothing would exist if everything needed a prior cause.

You're going in circles. You state that infinite regress is impossible because nothing would exist if everything needed a prior cause. Why? Why would nothing exist if the casual chain went back ad infinitum?

"Secondly, Assuming there is some "eternal" thing that made the universe, that doesn't explain the "reason" behind it. Nor does it explain the physics behind it."

no it doesn't. your making the assumption that first i beleive in a theological god, not a pantheistic type god. secondly, i could be very well wrong in my supposition, however, i feel its logically superior to the alternatives at the moment, as well as satisfying.

You didn't answer my questions. You just said "no it doesn't" and then changed the subject. Please answer the question to the "reason" behind this "eternal being" existing as well as explain the physics behind said being. Pantheistic or not.

"Thirdly, How exactly can something "eternal" exist? What constitutes it? What is it made of? How does it function? Why does it function?"

this is liken to the analogy of my mother cleaning my room. i ask someone who lives with me "who cleaned my room" they respond "mom". i say "how did she do it" they say "i dont know". i respond "well if you dont know how she did it then she never did it, or you cant say mom did it". get the point? i dont know how god creates, im not god. however, SOMETHING has to be eternal i proved why, provide an argument why all is not eternal please?

If you can't explain the "Why's" and "How's" behind your "God" then your supposition only complicates the problem and must be thrown out per Occam's razor. Occam's razor says that if you have two theories, the one with the least "entities" is best. Entities in this case being explaining "Why", "How", etc.

Moreover, You've never proved why something must be eternal. Here was your argument...

so we know the universe had a beginning, and time and space was created. the law of causality shows us that everything that comes into existence has a cause, we know the universe had a beginning hence it needs  a cause. so lets use logic here, it needs a cause, time came into existence, and matter came into existence and will have a finite death. so whatever created the universe MUST be immaterial, and have the power to create. also, something has always existed based on aquinas matrix arugment. so we have two attributes so far of this creative force whether it be god or a rock.

Now broken down and refuted...

so we know the universe had a beginning, and time and space was created. the law of causality shows us that everything that comes into existence has a cause, we know the universe had a beginning hence it needs a cause.

This is false. It assumes that there must be a "cause" to all things, which is demonstratively untrue not only from a logical point (If nothing exists, nothing can prevent something from appearing) but also from a scientific standpoint (in quantum electrodynamics various particles, electrons, positrons and photons can spontaneously emerge in a vacuum).

Here are some studies on the possibility of the universe itself being a Vacuum Fluctuation and others showing the details of quantum vacuum fluctuations.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v246/n5433/abs/246396a0.html
http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v84/i8/p1655_1
http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRD/v59/i12/e123006

so lets use logic here, it needs a cause, time came into existence, and matter came into existence and will have a finite death.

As above, It doesn't necessarily need a cause. And even if it did need a cause, You're making the assumption that this cause had to be eternal, and I see no argument in support of that.

so whatever created the universe MUST be immaterial, and have the power to create.

Why must it have been immaterial? What does "immaterial" even mean? How can something immaterial exist? Is it made of nothing? If it's made of nothing how can you say it exists?

also, something has always existed based on aquinas matrix arugment.

Wrong.

Here is Thomas Aquinas' actual argument...

In the world of sensible things, we find there is an order of efficient causes. There is no case known ... in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself; for so it would be prior to itself, which is impossible. Now in efficient causes it is not possible to go to infinity, because . . . the first is the cause of the intermediate cause, and the intermediate is the cause of the ultimate cause.... Now to take away the cause is to take away the effect. Therefore, if there be no first cause among efficient causes, there will be no ultimate, nor any intermediate, cause . . . therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name god. Summa Theologica

The problems with this argument include...

The presumption that all things need causes, which I have shown to be unlikely above.

The claim that the casual chain can't go back forever. He doesn't back this claim up. He just asserts that the first cause (if there were such a thing) is the cause of the middle causes and the middle cause is the cause of the ultimate cause. This doesn't show how an infinite chain of cases isn't possible. He claims that without a "first causes" there would be no "ultimate causes". This just equivocates the argument and doesn't answer anything.

Why ascribe the "first cause" if we even assume a thing to be "God"? Why not stop at what we know and not assume anything until we know more? Historically speaking, the whole "God of the gaps" argument has failed. A thousand years ago it was God who caused the rain, until we found out the real cause. Five hundred years ago it was God who made humans as they were, until we found the real causes. Today it is God who made the big bang occur, until we find the real causes. Your "God of the gaps" is getting infinitely smaller. Historically we have always proven that "God" played no role in what people previously assumed to be caused by God. We will do the same for our unanswered questions.


You further argued that...

also whatever created the universe, has to be eternal and this is evidenced by the fact that time itself had a beginning. hence, cause is no longer and issue since it is a constraint of time. that is, whatever caused the existence of the universe is eternal or outside time. also, say the universe existed for eternity as a singularity or for simplicity existed as gas. if these conditons have always existed nothing could change them, the conditions are already there, why change? condtions dont change themselves unless an outside force acts upon them. also, the only thing i know that can choose is intelligence, or better yet consciousnous when condtions are ALWAYS the same. it takes consciounous to create something different from itself, that is a solid from gas, if not why change and why now? actually its eternal so why not back 500 years ago, oh ya time doesnt exist, conditions cant choose.

Now broken down and refuted...

also whatever created the universe, has to be eternal and this is evidenced by the fact that time itself had a beginning.

No it's not. The fact that our time line had a cause doesn't mean that the cause of that time line had to be "eternal". This doesn't follow at all.

hence, cause is no longer and issue since it is a constraint of time. that is, whatever caused the existence of the universe is eternal or outside time.

If something is "outside of our time" then it can't act upon our time. This would be logically impossible. It would be like me trying to change the past.

also, say the universe existed for eternity as a singularity or for simplicity existed as gas. if these conditons have always existed nothing could change them, the conditions are already there, why change?

The same argument applies for God. If God existed for eternity as God, why make the universe when it was made? Why then and not earlier or later? What was the cause of him making the universe? Why did he decide to? Thoughts have causes just like physical actions. So if God was just standing in nowhere for eternity and then just decided to make our universe, what caused him to decide to do so?

condtions dont change themselves unless an outside force acts upon them.

You're contradicting yourself. If conditions don't change themselves unless an outside force is acted upon them, then why was the condition of God doing nothing changed into doing something? Why did God decide to make the universe? His existence without creating things was a condition. So what caused the condition of him making the universe? What forced acted upon him that inspired him to do so?

also, the only thing i know that can choose is intelligence, or better yet consciousnous when condtions are ALWAYS the same. it takes consciounous to create something different from itself, that is a solid from gas, if not why change and why now? actually its eternal so why not back 500 years ago, oh ya time doesnt exist, conditions cant choose.

The same applies for God. See above.

Moreover, How can a God exist in an area where time does not exist? Was God doing nothing the whole time? Where was it that God existed?

"These are all questions that must be answered before we can assume at least that a "eternal cause" made the universe. This doesn't even get into the presumption that the eternal cause is "intelligent" and conscious."

your wrong, have you read any philosophy?

How am I wrong? You have failed to answer my questions, and without answers, your hypothesis breaks apart.

Have I read any philosophy? Of course.

[Necrosis]

first, please read this thread for arguments on this topic, it should clarify a few things. please posit some positive arguments for your position in this argument, i see none. your question of how can something be immaterial is answered by one word "mind", that is immaterial yet you wont deny it exists as a seperate reality.also, your begging the question of how something could exist outside of time is like asking how does infinity remain boundless, it's not even worth commenting on. nighttop's post is very good.

http://www.avantlabs.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=23897

secondly i know what vacuum fluctuations are, they would contain zero-points theoretically, hence have some electromagnetism etc.. so they are not really nothing as it is a vacuum, nothing truely cannot be described were nothing could occur. vacuum fluctuations are great, still arent nothing creating something however. even atheists agree on this point.


"I was quoting you"

i left out the not, i thought you were arguing my actual statement.

"You're going in circles. You state that infinite regress is impossible because nothing would exist if everything needed a prior cause. Why? Why would nothing exist if the casual chain went back ad infinitum?"

i dont know how to explain this simple accepted nugget of wisdom any clearer, please show the opposite to prove your point, how could everything need a cause, hence always require a prior cause, allow anything to exist. your not making any sense, its like you dont understand what im saying.

"You didn't answer my questions. You just said "no it doesn't" and then changed the subject. Please answer the question to the "reason" behind this "eternal being" existing as well as explain the physics behind said being. Pantheistic or not."

the reason or contingency for this being existing is so anything could exist at all, in which his essence is to exist. God would be above physics, or is physics according to me so explaining the physics of god is not possible in theory. if he is the creator of physics, its logical he doesnt operate with physics, nor in time, nor is material.

also, how does my theory have more entities? the others, string, loop quantum, multiverse have just as many with just as many presuppositions. according to string theory the big bang was two branes slamming together to create our universe with our properties, this may be correct, but im not about to list the "entities" within.


"This is false. It assumes that there must be a "cause" to all things, which is demonstratively untrue not only from a logical point (If nothing exists, nothing can prevent something from appearing) but also from a scientific standpoint (in quantum electrodynamics various particles, electrons, positrons and photons can spontaneously emerge in a vacuum)."

first what definition of nothing are you using, because a true nothing as best as can be conceived wouldn't have the propensity to do anything, it is a void for all intensive purposes, void of potential. thus something could never come from it, and better yet for NO REASON. your logical standpoint is a position of inferiority. also, ive already showed that a vacuum is something, electromagnetic radiation is something, energy is something not nothing. please show me how nothing creates something both logically. and refute all those people on the thread. your also making the assumption that particles in a vacuum just began to exist, and didnt already exist, perhaps in an alternate universe, as some have proposed.



"As above, It doesn't necessarily need a cause. And even if it did need a cause, You're making the assumption that this cause had to be eternal, and I see no argument in support of that."

well read up then, something would have always had to exist, it isnt logical any other way.



"The claim that the casual chain can't go back forever. He doesn't back this claim up. He just asserts that the first cause (if there were such a thing) is the cause of the middle causes and the middle cause is the cause of the ultimate cause. This doesn't show how an infinite chain of cases isn't possible. He claims that without a "first causes" there would be no "ultimate causes". This just equivocates the argument and doesn't answer anything.

Why ascribe the "first cause" if we even assume a thing to be "God"? Why not stop at what we know and not assume anything until we know more? Historically speaking, the whole "God of the gaps" argument has failed. A thousand years ago it was God who caused the rain, until we found out the real cause. Five hundred years ago it was God who made humans as they were, until we found the real causes. Today it is God who made the big bang occur, until we find the real causes. Your "God of the gaps" is getting infinitely smaller. Historically we have always proven that "God" played no role in what people previously assumed to be caused by God. We will do the same for our unanswered questions"

first, thats only one of his arguments, he wrote many, read some of his work. god could be everything, say we lived on a planet with hills and mountains, and we know at dawn a new mountain will form, we explain it all, from every angle. however, what we dont see is god shooting bullets at our planet creating the mountains. hence, we think its natural and that everything acts according to law, yet why have laws, why does mathematics work at all? its just as likely they should not work. he is the sustainer, or better yet to me everything. there is no god of the gaps here, to assume science will solve everything is science of the gaps, with no room for god. this could also be wrong, to withhold speculation on metaphysical questions because science might solve it, is an item of faith.


"If something is "outside of our time" then it can't act upon our time. This would be logically impossible. It would be like me trying to change the past."

first why?i see no logical reason why something could operate both within and without time. secondly, it is both logically and scientifically possible to change the past, or move in the other direction of time.


"You're contradicting yourself. If conditions don't change themselves unless an outside force is acted upon them, then why was the condition of God doing nothing changed into doing something? Why did God decide to make the universe? His existence without creating things was a condition. So what caused the condition of him making the universe? What forced acted upon him that inspired him to do so?"

you dont understand what i wrote. non-sentience cannot change conditions, gas cannot change to water without an outside force, gas cannot choose to change. however, sentience can choose, as its self-acting, or a prime mover if you will. i can make choices, rocks or conditions cannot. god being sentient, by my estimate can choose.

however, i will admit that if he is eternal why now, perhaps he has been creating for eternity. NOW is a temporal term that doesnt apply to the eternal, it is somewhat of a moot question.


"How am I wrong? You have failed to answer my questions, and without answers, your hypothesis breaks apart.

Have I read any philosophy? Of course.'

your wrong because all your arguments if i could even call them that have been false, and you have provided no evidence for your side, if you even have on.

id read more.

whoogy boogy

[Wikidudeman]

first, please read this thread for arguments on this topic, it should clarify a few things.

Post the arguments you want to here. I don't have time to go reading other forums.

please posit some positive arguments for your position in this argument, i see none.

I don't need any when I've shown your arguments to be negative.

your question of how can something be immaterial is answered by one word "mind", that is immaterial yet you wont deny it exists as a seperate reality.

The "mind" is an abstraction caused by the material brain. It doesn't exist like you think it exists. It's simply a result of how our brain works. It's not a "thing" but an abstraction of a physical process.

also, your begging the question of how something could exist outside of time is like asking how does infinity remain boundless, it's not even worth commenting on. nighttop's post is very good.

That's a cop out. Unless you can explain how something can exist outside of time, and also effect our time line, then your postulations aren't valid.

secondly i know what vacuum fluctuations are, they would contain zero-points theoretically, hence have some electromagnetism etc.. so they are not really nothing as it is a vacuum, nothing truely cannot be described were nothing could occur. vacuum fluctuations are great, still arent nothing creating something however. even atheists agree on this point.

That's totally false. Read the sources I posted. The fact that some things exist within these vacuum's doesn't negate the fact that the particles appear spontaneously from nowhere.

i dont know how to explain this simple accepted nugget of wisdom any clearer,

You haven't explained it at all.

please show the opposite to prove your point, how could everything need a cause, hence always require a prior cause, allow anything to exist. your not making any sense, its like you dont understand what im saying.

I don't understand what you're saying. Your grammar is terrible, your English is terrible.

You say...

please show the opposite to prove your point, how could everything need a cause, hence always require a prior cause, allow anything to exist.

THIS makes no sense.

the reason or contingency for this being existing is so anything could exist at all, in which his essence is to exist. God would be above physics, or is physics according to me so explaining the physics of god is not possible in theory. if he is the creator of physics, its logical he doesnt operate with physics, nor in time, nor is material.

This doesn't jive with modern science.

Firstly, You claim that the "reason" for him existing is so anything could exist at all. This begs the question.

Secondly, You claim that if "God made physics" you can't explain God? This doesn't follow either. Science can explain many physical laws that result in other physical laws. The same should apply for God (IF god exists).

also, how does my theory have more entities?

What? When? Why? Where? How? You can't explain any of that. Your theory(it's not even really a real scientific theory) is based on postulation and false assumption and fallacy.

the others, string, loop quantum, multiverse have just as many with just as many presuppositions.

How much do you know about string theory? Really?

according to string theory the big bang was two branes slamming together to create our universe with our properties, this may be correct, but im not about to list the "entities" within.

There are several different string theories, none of them state that.

first what definition of nothing are you using, because a true nothing as best as can be conceived wouldn't have the propensity to do anything, it is a void for all intensive purposes, void of potential.

If "Nothing" exists then "Nothing" prevents something from appearing.

thus something could never come from it, and better yet for NO REASON. your logical standpoint is a position of inferiority.

Wrong. Why could "something never come from it"? What are you basing this on? Current laws of causality? Those didn't exist then. Try again.

also, ive already showed that a vacuum is something, electromagnetic radiation is something, energy is something not nothing.

Vacuum's aren't necessarily radiation or energy. Have you read the links I posted? "Vacuum fluctuations" exists in quantum mechanics. The ONLY things that exist within quantum mechanical vacuums are the fluctuations I.E. Vacuum energy. That's it. They pop in and out of existence spontaneously without cause.

please show me how nothing creates something both logically.

I have. Pay attention.

and refute all those people on the thread.

No,I'm sorry. I have a life. 

your also making the assumption that particles in a vacuum just began to exist, and didnt already exist, perhaps in an alternate universe, as some have proposed.

Firstly, If that's the case they still violate causality when popping into this universe.

Secondly, If alternative universes exist. Why couldn't they be the cause of this universe? In an infinite chain of regress? You never explained this.

well read up then, something would have always had to exist, it isnt logical any other way.

Why?

first, thats only one of his arguments, he wrote many, read some of his work.

I have. But that argument is the one you were referring to.

god could be everything, say we lived on a planet with hills and mountains, and we know at dawn a new mountain will form, we explain it all, from every angle. however, what we dont see is god shooting bullets at our planet creating the mountains. hence, we think its natural and that everything acts according to law, yet why have laws, why does mathematics work at all?

Science is in the process of explaining why the laws of physics exist. You can't claim that "God did it" because science hasn't found out yet. That's a fallacy.

its just as likely they should not work.

Maybe our universe wouldn't exist if they didn't and we wouldn't be here to comment on them either way? None of this implies "God".

he is the sustainer, or better yet to me everything. there is no god of the gaps here, to assume science will solve everything is science of the gaps, with no room for god.

Science doesn't live in "Gaps". Science does the explaining and proving. Religion doesn't. It never has. To say that "God exists because science doesn't know" is a "God of the gaps". There's no "Science of the Gaps" because there are no gaps which science fit into. Science makes the gaps. And they're getting smaller.

this could also be wrong, to withhold speculation on metaphysical questions because science might solve it, is an item of faith.

"Speculation" and "belief" are two different things. I speculate about the existence of "God" frequently. However I do not "Believe" in the existence of God. You seem to. That's irrational.

first why?i see no logical reason why something could operate both within and without time. secondly, it is both logically and scientifically possible to change the past, or move in the other direction of time.

1. If I exist in some alternative time, I try to change something in another time, It won't work. Since my actions are occurring in my time, Their results occur in my time. Thus can't effect anything in another time.

2. How is it scientifically possible to change the past? This isn't true.

you dont understand what i wrote. non-sentience cannot change conditions,

Sure it can. Look at the weather.

gas cannot change to water without an outside force, gas cannot choose to change.

But it can still change due to outside forces.

however, sentience can choose, as its self-acting, or a prime mover if you will. i can make choices, rocks or conditions cannot. god being sentient, by my estimate can choose.

So what? Even sentience is physical and must obey the same laws of causality you're arguing all about. IF causality absolutely exists and everything must have a cause, then...

WHAT IS THE CAUSE OF GODS DECISION TO MAKE THIS UNIVERSE?

however, i will admit that if he is eternal why now, perhaps he has been creating for eternity. NOW is a temporal term that doesnt apply to the eternal, it is somewhat of a moot question.

If actions exist then time exists. Actions can't occur where time doesn't exist. Time is the point of one thing occurring to another occurring. If time doesn't exist somewhere then action can't exist. Events can't occur.

Moreover, What is God making these universes out of? What is he building them with?

your wrong because all your arguments if i could even call them that have been false, and you have provided no evidence for your side, if you even have on.

I've been providing evidence all along in the form of scientific studies. You've failed to read any of them.

[Necrosis]

firstly i dont need to read your "scientific studies" i know more about science then you, trust me.

its be proven by the fact that you think we can see the edge of the universe, totally obliviant to the fact that it has no edge.

"The "mind" is an abstraction caused by the material brain. It doesn't exist like you think it exists. It's simply a result of how our brain works. It's not a "thing" but an abstraction of a physical process."

thats one theory, eccles, penrose etc have different fews along with many others.

"There are several different string theories, none of them state that."

you truly are an ignorant. for one, me nor you have any clue about actual string theory. the mathematics is very advanced and few actually "know" by what it means to truly know something. secondly, that is straight from brian greenes fucking mouth, M-thoery. secondly i find it amusing that you question my knowledge after ive shown you im top of the department along with monster corrections of you who is reading everything from wiki mind you. its easy to tell, because you ask questions like "why cant there be an infinite regress?" which is primary philosophy, wiki couldnt save you.


"If "Nothing" exists then "Nothing" prevents something from appearing"

this is retarded. however, if nothing is all there is nothing cannot create something because its nothing. i dont know why your arguing this.

to the question is all eternal. why is there anything at all?

"I doubt its possible to pursue telelogical speculation about this observation any further. When one contemplates existence in constrast to nothingness (which is itself virtually impossible to conceive), it becomes evident that all that is, is infinite. If you try by proposing "what if there are other Gods or Universes or Realms of Existence 'totally apart' from ours," you are still left with the fact that such would still be part of One infiite whole, just bigger (to use an innaccurate term connotating spacial relation due to our or my linguistic constraints).

This is why those who say there is no God are essentially denying existence itself, which is impossible, as there IS something as evidenced by our self-aware phenomenological experience of qualia. Granted, this is due in great part to the fact that most of such people make the erroneous distinction between the Universe/Substance and God, when in fact, there is just One, the Infinite, which is what we are all part of and operating within ('the Mind of God'). What these metaphysical naturalists should say, in order to more accurately reflect their position, is that they deny the traditional Judeo-Christian theistic concept of a transcendent God existing apart from the Universe.

Of course, I may be so bold as to generalize and say that the majority of such people haven't really thought about any of this and simply adopt their "stance" in order to decrease any cognitive dissonance arising from a desire for hedonistic behavior and because atheism is somewhat of a bullshit socio-cultural meme, which attracts proponents much like the Democratic platform and the global warming/environmentalist alarmists. Further, since the adolescent and immediate post-adolescent environment (at least in America) seems to force the polarized false dilemma of "conservative evangelical young-earth creatonist Christians" or "progressive atheists" as the only worldview options, its easy to see how many are shuffled into the latter camp. With that said, I should note that there ARE of course metaphysical naturalists/atheists who are quite intelligent and aware of most of this. This group is simply wrong IMO, but is not as guilty of naivete to the same degree."

the fact that you disagree shows me wiki hasnt posted this information yet, you could be first to edit it.

"Wrong. Why could "something never come from it"? What are you basing this on? Current laws of causality? Those didn't exist then. Try again."

i honestly dont know how to dumb it down for you. i suggest you think about what your writing, you are perhaps having a mental block. Nothing is nothing. it is the absence of anything, so how could something spontaneously come from it. also, particles antiparticles appear IN A VACUUM which is SOMETHING, not nothing. this point will either be understood or you will keep asking the question. the thread i posted has everyone(67 replies agreeing with the intial proposition).

"If actions exist then time exists. Actions can't occur where time doesn't exist. Time is the point of one thing occurring to another occurring. If time doesn't exist somewhere then action can't exist. Events can't occur. "

first good piece of logic you wrote. however, it still really doesnt matter as logically eternity HAS to exist. so i will simply say "i dont know" works for you. just like before the big bang never existed. there may be a different link of events, non-temporal. im not sure, its impossible to speculate really  on what its like to be eternal or infinite since we cant experience them.


"I don't understand what you're saying. Your grammar is terrible, your English is terrible."


meltdown.

[Wikidudeman]

firstly i dont need to read your "scientific studies" i know more about science then you, trust me.

I'm sure...

its be proven by the fact that you think we can see the edge of the universe, totally obliviant to the fact that it has no edge.

Google "observable universe". Get back to me.

secondly, that is straight from brian greenes fucking mouth, M-thoery.

Brain Greene never made such a claim. You're confusing "String theory" with "brane collision singularity model".

secondly i find it amusing that you question my knowledge after ive shown you im top of the department along with monster corrections of you who is reading everything from wiki mind you.

I edit wikipedia. I don't need to get my information from it. I have more reliable sources for this information. Sources you refuse to read.

its easy to tell, because you ask questions like "why cant there be an infinite regress?" which is primary philosophy, wiki couldnt save you.

Wikipedia has plenty of articles on philosophy. Including on that subject.

this is retarded. however, if nothing is all there is nothing cannot create something because its nothing. i dont know why your arguing this.

You're using fallacious logic. You claim that "If nothing is there then nothing can not create something because it's nothing". This is fallacious because you're assuming that the rules of logic would still apply. This would not be the case if there "is nothing". If there "is nothing" that includes a lack of rules of logic.

to the question is all eternal. why is there anything at all?

I've explained why "God" can't be a valid answer to that question.

"I doubt its possible to pursue telelogical speculation about this observation any further. When one contemplates existence in constrast to nothingness (which is itself virtually impossible to conceive), it becomes evident that all that is, is infinite. If you try by proposing "what if there are other Gods or Universes or Realms of Existence 'totally apart' from ours," you are still left with the fact that such would still be part of One infiite whole, just bigger (to use an innaccurate term connotating spacial relation due to our or my linguistic constraints).

This is why those who say there is no God are essentially denying existence itself, which is impossible, as there IS something as evidenced by our self-aware phenomenological experience of qualia. Granted, this is due in great part to the fact that most of such people make the erroneous distinction between the Universe/Substance and God, when in fact, there is just One, the Infinite, which is what we are all part of and operating within ('the Mind of God'). What these metaphysical naturalists should say, in order to more accurately reflect their position, is that they deny the traditional Judeo-Christian theistic concept of a transcendent God existing apart from the Universe.

Of course, I may be so bold as to generalize and say that the majority of such people haven't really thought about any of this and simply adopt their "stance" in order to decrease any cognitive dissonance arising from a desire for hedonistic behavior and because atheism is somewhat of a bullshit socio-cultural meme, which attracts proponents much like the Democratic platform and the global warming/environmentalist alarmists. Further, since the adolescent and immediate post-adolescent environment (at least in America) seems to force the polarized false dilemma of "conservative evangelical young-earth creatonist Christians" or "progressive atheists" as the only worldview options, its easy to see how many are shuffled into the latter camp. With that said, I should note that there ARE of course metaphysical naturalists/atheists who are quite intelligent and aware of most of this. This group is simply wrong IMO, but is not as guilty of naivete to the same degree."

Did you copy paste that from the thread you posted earlier? I know you didn't type it because this person has at least a basic grasp of the English language. Are you asking me to address all of this? To refute it?

the fact that you disagree shows me wiki hasnt posted this information yet, you could be first to edit it.

The fact that I disagree shows that it's false. Wikipedia has nothing to do with it. Wikipedia often has faulty information in it. If Wikipedia says something I don't necessarily agree.

i honestly dont know how to dumb it down for you. i suggest you think about what your writing, you are perhaps having a mental block. Nothing is nothing. it is the absence of anything, so how could something spontaneously come from it.

How couldn't it? What's stopping it? Nothing.

also, particles antiparticles appear IN A VACUUM which is SOMETHING, not nothing.

I'm getting tired of repeating myself. By definition a "vacuum" is basically nothing from a physical point of view. The vacuum itself can't cause them to occur. The particles that appear in it are the only thing that exist in it.

this point will either be understood or you will keep asking the question. the thread i posted has everyone(67 replies agreeing with the intial proposition).

That just proves those 67 people are wrong. It doesn't prove you're right.

first good piece of logic you wrote. however, it still really doesnt matter as logically eternity HAS to exist.

You've failed to explain why.

so i will simply say "i dont know" works for you.

If "I don't know" works for you too then you must move the whole "I don't know" back to the cause of the universe itself and stop assuming "God".

just like before the big bang never existed. there may be a different link of events, non-temporal. im not sure, its impossible to speculate really  on what its like to be eternal or infinite since we cant experience them.

Yet you're here speculating away.

[Necrosis]

of course i copied and pasted his reponse, hence the quotations. its the same thing im saying albeit less elequently.


also, how is my english poor? apart from the minor spelling mistake which could be easily remedied.


theres nothing to argue with your post, you have shown yourself to be incapable of intelligent argumentation. also, i know people much smarter then me who concur with what i have said or am saying.

lets apply williams razor(the mach three version), what is simplest explanation, 67 different individuals who by all accounts are extremely bright are wrong or you "wikidudeman".

[Wikidudeman]

of course i copied and pasted his reponse, hence the quotations. its the same thing im saying albeit less elequently.

Eloquently* 

It doesn't matter how "eloquent" he is. I didn't read what he said but if he's arguing what you are, he's wrong just the same.

also, how is my english poor? apart from the minor spelling mistake which could be easily remedied.

Spelling, Punctuation, Grammar, Capitalization, Syntax.

theres nothing to argue with your post, you have shown yourself to be incapable of intelligent argumentation.

Copout.

also, i know people much smarter then me who concur with what i have said or am saying.

Fallacy.

lets apply williams razor(the mach three version), what is simplest explanation, 67 different individuals who by all accounts are extremely bright are wrong or you "wikidudeman".

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-popularity.html

Moreover, Just to show how dishonest you really are, that thread didn't have 67 separate people post in it. It had 67 posts but not 67 separate posters. Most people posted more than once, some several times. Just skimming through it I can see that it has around 15 separate posters give or take a few. Not only that, But they don't even all agree with you!

http://www.avantlabs.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=23897

I think it's blatantly obvious that I'm wasting my time with you.

[Necrosis]

Eloquently* 

It doesn't matter how "eloquent" he is. I didn't read what he said but if he's arguing what you are, he's wrong just the same.


Spelling, Punctuation, Grammar, Capitalization, Syntax.



Copout.


Fallacy.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-popularity.html

Moreover, Just to show how dishonest you really are, that thread didn't have 67 separate people post in it. It had 67 posts but not 67 separate posters. Most people posted more than once, some several times. Just skimming through it I can see that it has around 15 separate posters give or take a few. Not only that, But they don't even all agree with you!

http://www.avantlabs.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=23897

I think it's blatantly obvious that I'm wasting my time with you.
[/quote


my mistake on the 67 part i was looking at the replies. but no one disagrees besides atb who is arguing what your arguing to which no on is even replying. the first posts are in agreeance, and i also know some of those people personally.

hes not wrong, how? are you mildly retarded, there is no further specualation into the matter. it is as far as logic will take us.


dude honestly, your asking why and infinite regression is not possible, why everything has to be eternal, how nothing cannot create something. i dont understand how you cant comprehend these questions.

so because i type fast, use no capitilization and dont spell check you are wasting your time? you've been corrected many times, have made no arguments and have just made speculations that cant possibly be true.

i agree we are now wasting our time. ive explained my position, ive shown others with similar views. i cannot offer evidence, as logical arguments are the best most can do with regards to the concept of god. your asking questions, like "how does god create" which is impossible to answer. its liken to the statement of why the multiverse is here at all for example. you would have to say "i dont know", however, that doesnt mean the multiverse theory is wrong.

for example your suggesting that nothing did exist at one time. then from this nothing because nothing was there to stop nothing(oh brother) something emerged, and this emerged for NO reason, from nothing. not only did something all of a sudden emerge from nothing, but this something had such specific conditions(anthropic) as to sustain and manifest life, a miracle in itself. this was under no guidance and for no reason, as nothing cannot choose to change conditions, from nothingness to somethingness. ya thats logical. give me a break.

or my position

something has always existed or is eternal. and this thing that existed is god, who creates to experience himself as polarity is needed for experience. thus, he creates a finite creation which can hold life and is balanced on a knifes edge.thus nothing never existed, and something always has which essence is to exist and cannot not exist.

take your pick. and if your position is that nothing did exist, please explain it.

and infinite regression can not occur because everything would need a prior cause meaning NOTHING would exist. however, i exist, hence something does exist. if all things need a prior cause to base there existence on then you would have an infinite cycle of nothing existing because of this reason. this is accepted, its retarded to argue otherwise. please show how infinite regressions can logically lead to existence. you have dodged every single question i have asked while i have tried to answer yours.

[Necrosis]

sorry i left the closing quote bracket open.

[Wikidudeman]

my mistake on the 67 part i was looking at the replies. but no one disagrees besides atb who is arguing what your arguing to which no on is even replying.

Just goes to show why I wouldn't waste my time with it.

the first posts are in agreeance, and i also know some of those people personally.

So?

hes not wrong, how? are you mildly retarded, there is no further specualation into the matter. it is as far as logic will take us.

I'm getting pretty tired of your insults. You've failed to explain how the "logic" takes us there.

dude honestly, your asking why and infinite regression is not possible, why everything has to be eternal, how nothing cannot create something. i dont understand how you cant comprehend these questions.

I've phrased them in the simplest forms so that you can understand them. Yet you still won't answer.

so because i type fast, use no capitilization and dont spell check you are wasting your time?

I'm wasting my time because you refuse to read the sources, use fallacies like they are going out of style, copout every few sentence, won't answer questions, then insult me when I re-ask them. That's why I'm wasting my time.

you've been corrected many times, have made no arguments and have just made speculations that cant possibly be true.

Would you like me to repost my arguments? I will if you want.

Also, Explain what "speculations" I've made. Be specific.

i agree we are now wasting our time. ive explained my position, ive shown others with similar views.

I've shown how your position is wrong. Others having similar views is totally irrelevant.

i cannot offer evidence, as logical arguments are the best most can do with regards to the concept of god. your asking questions, like "how does god create" which is impossible to answer. its liken to the statement of why the multiverse is here at all for example. you would have to say "i dont know", however, that doesnt mean the multiverse theory is wrong.

The multiverse theory hasn't been proven false. It has mathematical evidence supporting it.

What you've been posting has been proven false.

for example your suggesting that nothing did exist at one time.

I never suggested that. That was an alternative argument made in response to your claims that "nothing can't exist". I just explained how it's not logically impossible but how your assertions are.

then from this nothing because nothing was there to stop nothing(oh brother) something emerged, and this emerged for NO reason, from nothing. not only did something all of a sudden emerge from nothing, but this something had such specific conditions(anthropic) as to sustain and manifest life, a miracle in itself. this was under no guidance and for no reason, as nothing cannot choose to change conditions, from nothingness to somethingness. ya thats logical. give me a break.

Can you explain why not? As absurd as this all sounds, It's more logically probable than your arguments are.

something has always existed or is eternal. and this thing that existed is god, who creates to experience himself as polarity is needed for experience. thus, he creates a finite creation which can hold life and is balanced on a knifes edge.thus nothing never existed, and something always has which essence is to exist and cannot not exist.

Watch me refute your argument now. Pay attention please.

something has always existed or is eternal.

There is no proof that "something has always existed."

If there were proof that something has always existed, There's no evidence this something was "God".

and this thing that existed is god,

Baseless assumption.

who creates to experience himself as polarity is needed for experience.

This sentence makes no sense.

thus, he creates a finite creation which can hold life and is balanced on a knifes edge.

Why did he make it? How did he make it? What did he make it with?

thus nothing never existed, and something always has which essence is to exist and cannot not exist.

Your argument doesn't follow through. Sorry.

take your pick. and if your position is that nothing did exist, please explain it.

That's not my position. My position was always "I don't know". I don't know. Neither do you, despite all of your blustery proclamations.

and infinite regression can not occur because everything would need a prior cause meaning NOTHING would exist.

This doesn't make sense. In an infinite regress everything has a prior cause, forever.

however, i exist, hence something does exist.

 

if all things need a prior cause to base there existence on then you would have an infinite cycle of nothing existing because of this reason.

This makes no sense either. If all things need a prior cause and we had an infinite regress of causes then we would just have an infinite regress of causes. There's no reason why nothing would exist in that circumstance.

this is accepted, its retarded to argue otherwise.

Accepted by whom? You? A few people on some other bodybuilding message board? You've convinced me!

please show how infinite regressions can logically lead to existence.

What do you mean "lead to existence"? If you have me(which needs a cause) then I can have my cause and the cause of me can have it's cause and so on and so on. Going back forever. With an infinite chain of causes there needs to be no "first cause". You continue to assume a "first cause" and then use that assumption to argue that infinite chains of cause can't be possible.

you have dodged every single question i have asked while i have tried to answer yours.

Which questions have I dodged? I'll answer them for you if you can point them out.

[Necrosis]

ill i will say to your arguments are one of us are having a mental block, i only insulted you because you began the insults.


such as "is english your first langauge", "you cant possibly have a degree".


"The multiverse theory hasn't been proven false. It has mathematical evidence supporting it."

didnt say it was false, i like the theory, it fits with my worldview, the more universes for me the better.


"Can you explain why not? As absurd as this all sounds, It's more logically probable than your arguments are"

for one the argument is thomas aquinas, written  by varghese, and also three other philosophers have written almost exactly the same logic argument. im sick of writing it out. could you answer some of my questions. how is it illogical that something could be eternal?
why is your position or the one i wrote above more logical? it is actually the perfect example of something that is implausible.


"This sentence makes no sense."


it makes perfect sense. ill ask you, what is the key component necessary in to experience something? how do you know what black is, or color, or male, or hot?

"There is no proof that "something has always existed.""

sure there is. nothing could not have existed or something would not exist. nothing CANNOT CREATE SOMETHING. is so, PLEASE(IVE ASKED SEVERAL TIMES) HOW COULD NOTHING CREATE SOMETHING. usually creation is a parent making a offspring. that is the creation contains some of the material of the parent. even your nothing, which is not really nothing since something can come from it, would be defined as something. hence, your argument supports mine.

"That's not my position. My position was always "I don't know". I don't know. Neither do you, despite all of your blustery proclamations."

no one knows, im speculating, as would anyone. i dont see your point. all we have are speculations into metaphysical questions. thanks for pointing out that no one knows why anything exists.



"Why did he make it? How did he make it? What did he make it with?"

he made it because this something that is eternal is the primary thing, the prime mover. therefore it is all or was all(cant avoid temporal terminology) that existed. polarity is needed for experience. therefore, it created to experience himself. infinite cannot experience itself as it is boundless. your skin lets you know what is out there, as to opposed to were you are. if you were all that existed you would not know what you are, as there is nothing to define you. hence, creation enables god or it to experience itself. finite is needed for experience, imperfection is needed as perfection has no polarity. you need to see what you are not to experience what you are.

this is my belief in a nutshell.

i cannot even attempt to make logical segway into the other questions.

im honest, i dont lie. i would have kept this argument friendly had you not insulted me first. i dont need to read your links as i know what your saying, and have read about vacuums, string, multiverse and much cosomolgy and quantum physics(i find it interesting) however, i am a layman as are you(i assume) so neither of us have a great grasp on the material(especially string).

either way you didnt "refute me" as refutation would require offering some argument other then saying "your argument doesnt follow through"

there is much "evidence" in the way of logic, that shows all is eternal. you also never refuted his paragraph nor others which agree with me. all i can say is maybe you should ask someone if your argument sounds logical(not being condescending) because i think we are having a mental block.

i made that thread to find out if i was wrong, because perhaps the greatest mind on avant( a personal friend) asked me that question a long time ago. only thing is i cant really understand much he says ;Dlol, because his iq is in the 170's, or put another way much higher then mine . i understand you think im wrong but i dont see why, nor do i see an alternate argument. the one i outlined above is illogical(for your position).

i enjoy helping people and have chosen a profession in which i can help people in need. im not an ass, and i dont wish to belittle you any further.

my apologies if i offended you. this argument would proceed better if anger wasnt a factor, so you could admit your wrong .

[Wikidudeman]

ill i will say to your arguments are one of us are having a mental block, i only insulted you because you began the insults.

Where did I begin the insults?

uch as "is english your first langauge", "you cant possibly have a degree".

That's not an insult. I'm asking a legitimate question.



s

for one the argument is thomas aquinas, written  by varghese, and also three other philosophers have written almost exactly the same logic argument. im sick of writing it out. could you answer some of my questions. how is it illogical that something could be eternal?

You're copping out again. Everything you write it out I refute it hands down. It's easy to refute. How is it illogical that something could be eternal? I never said that something being "eternal" is "illogical". I just said that your arguments aren't rational. Again, There is no proof that "something has always existed." If there were proof that something has always existed, There's no evidence this something was "God".

why is your position or the one i wrote above more logical? it is actually the perfect example of something that is implausible.

Because your position makes too many assumptions and fallacies. See where I refuted your argument.

it makes perfect sense. ill ask you, what is the key component necessary in to experience something? how do you know what black is, or color, or male, or hot?

Consciousness. Your sentence still doesn't make sense.

sure there is. nothing could not have existed or something would not exist.

This is circular reasoning. Why could nothing have existed or something would not exist? Your argument assumes that something is required to make something, which is of course established as untrue.

nothing CANNOT CREATE SOMETHING.

Why?

is so, PLEASE(IVE ASKED SEVERAL TIMES) HOW COULD NOTHING CREATE SOMETHING.

The question is, How couldn't it? There is nothing stopping nothing from creating something. No rules of physics, logic or reason. Nothing. Sure there is nothing "causing" something but then again there is no need for something to cause anything since there are no rules of causality if "nothing" exist. I've already explained this.

usually creation is a parent making a offspring. that is the creation contains some of the material of the parent.

Does this apply to "God"? What material do we contain of God? I thought you said God is immaterial. You're contradicting yourself!

even your nothing, which is not really nothing since something can come from it, would be defined as something. hence, your argument supports mine.

Nope. It's nothing. Always nothing. Not something. The fact that something came from it doesn't mean it's something. Sorry.

no one knows, im speculating, as would anyone. i dont see your point. all we have are speculations into metaphysical questions. thanks for pointing out that no one knows why anything exists.

1. Your speculations are baseless and fallacious.

2. You previously stated that you openly believe in "God". Now you admit your belief is based entirely on fallacious speculation? Good.

he made it because this something that is eternal is the primary thing, the prime mover.

How is this a reason?

polarity is needed for experience. therefore, it created to experience himself.

God made the universe to "experience himself"? So before he made it he couldn't experience himself? If he couldn't experience himself then he would not of been conscious. If he was not conscious then he could not of made any decision to make the universe. Your argument defeats itself yet again.

infinite cannot experience itself as it is boundless. your skin lets you know what is out there, as to opposed to were you are. if you were all that existed you would not know what you are, as there is nothing to define you.

Being the sole existence doesn't mean I can't reflect upon myself. It just means I can't see, hear, feel or taste anything. It doesn't mean I can't think.

hence, creation enables god or it to experience itself. finite is needed for experience, imperfection is needed as perfection has no polarity. you need to see what you are not to experience what you are.

 

You're arguing that God wanted to "feel" himself in relation to something else. This would only be possible if he were material. If he's not material he can't be in relation to anything, thus your argument negates itself once more!

this is my belief in a nutshell.

 

Your belief is baseless and full of holes.

i cannot even attempt to make logical segway into the other questions.

 

That just means Occam's razor would throw your argument away. Too many unknowns, assumptions, holes, fallacies.

im honest, i dont lie. i would have kept this argument friendly had you not insulted me first. i dont need to read your links as i know what your saying, and have read about vacuums, string, multiverse and much cosomolgy and quantum physics(i find it interesting) however, i am a layman as are you(i assume) so neither of us have a great grasp on the material(especially string).

 

You won't read my links because you know what I'm saying? The links are scientific studies that support my assertions. You won't read them because they disagree with you. This is a form of dishonesty.

either way you didnt "refute me" as refutation would require offering some argument other then saying "your argument doesnt follow through"

 

Wrong again.

Refuting
1 : to prove wrong by argument or evidence : show to be false or erroneous.
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/refuting

My argument is that your argument is false. I've proven that to be true. Thus I have "refuted" your arguments. I don't need to make up some alternative explanations to refute your argument. Simply show them to be false. Which was quite easy.

there is much "evidence" in the way of logic, that shows all is eternal. you also never refuted his paragraph nor others which agree with me. all i can say is maybe you should ask someone if your argument sounds logical(not being condescending) because i think we are having a mental block.

 

Do you want me to refute the argument you posted from that message board? I will if you want.

Here. I'll refute in his argument what is false. Ready?


Watch...

"I doubt its possible to pursue telelogical speculation about this observation any further.

You're telling me...

When one contemplates existence in constrast to nothingness (which is itself virtually impossible to conceive), it becomes evident that all that is, is infinite.

This doesn't make sense. When one contemplates existence in contrast to "nothingness" how does it become evident that all is infinite? This doesn't follow at all.

If you try by proposing "what if there are other Gods or Universes or Realms of Existence 'totally apart' from ours," you are still left with the fact that such would still be part of One infiite whole, just bigger (to use an innaccurate term connotating spacial relation due to our or my linguistic constraints).

I won't dispute this...

This is why those who say there is no God are essentially denying existence itself, which is impossible, as there IS something as evidenced by our self-aware phenomenological experience of qualia.

This doesn't follow. He's making quite a few baseless assumptions here. To say that there is "No God" would not be denying existence itself. It would just be denying God. He's yet to establish that "God" is required for existence.

Our self-awareness is evidence of natural selection over hundreds of millions of years. Our complex brains. Not "God".

Granted, this is due in great part to the fact that most of such people make the erroneous distinction between the Universe/Substance and God, when in fact, there is just One, the Infinite, which is what we are all part of and operating within ('the Mind of God').

This sort of definition of "God" doesn't make much sense. According to Princeton Word net the definition of "God" is 'the supernatural being conceived as the perfect and omnipotent and omniscient originator and ruler of the universe.'

Is his "God" conscious? Is it aware? Is it intelligent?

What these metaphysical naturalists should say, in order to more accurately reflect their position, is that they deny the traditional Judeo-Christian theistic concept of a transcendent God existing apart from the Universe.

Or your concept of God...

Of course, I may be so bold as to generalize and say that the majority of such people haven't really thought about any of this and simply adopt their "stance" in order to decrease any cognitive dissonance arising from a desire for hedonistic behavior and because atheism is somewhat of a bullshit socio-cultural meme, which attracts proponents much like the Democratic platform and the global warming/environmentalist alarmists.

Now I know this guy doesn't know what he's talking about. He's claiming that people only claim to be "atheist" because they want to live lust filled lives of debauchery and selfishness. This is absolutely nonsensical. Most atheists I know are more modest and self restrained than most theists I know. Compare Dawkins to Haggard. Tell me Dawkins is an atheist because he wants to live a "hedonistic lifestyle". 

By the way, I won't get into Politics or Environmental woes here.

Further, since the adolescent and immediate post-adolescent environment (at least in America) seems to force the polarized false dilemma of "conservative evangelical young-earth creatonist Christians" or "progressive atheists" as the only worldview options, its easy to see how many are shuffled into the latter camp.

No such thing exists in America. There are many non-conservative YEC christians and many non-atheists. Most people fit into that middle category actually. Polls show that 49% of adults believe in Evolution in America. This is a very low number it it still refutes what he's saying. 82% of Americans are Christians and only around 3%(according to a march 2002 poll) are atheist or agnostic. This means that his dichotomy doesn't exist.

With that said, I should note that there ARE of course metaphysical naturalists/atheists who are quite intelligent and aware of most of this. This group is simply wrong IMO, but is not as guilty of naivete to the same degree."

He's yet to show how they are wrong.

I won't go over to that forum and waste my time with this guy because it's blatantly obvious that he's a kook, but I hope that you see how easy his argument falls apart when dissected.

i made that thread to find out if i was wrong, because perhaps the greatest mind on avant( a personal friend) asked me that question a long time ago.

Make your thread on another forum. Try this one...

http://forums.randi.org/

http://www.skepticforum.com/

http://www.atheistnetwork.com/

Let's see how many agree with you. Ok? Register there, make a thread in the "Religion" section and let's see how that works out. You wanted to test your beliefs against argumentation and you posted it on a sport supplement forum? Hmm. That tells me that you didn't really want criticism.

only thing is i cant really understand much he says ;Dlol, because his iq is in the 170's, or put another way much higher then mine .

Oh yes, He has a genius level I.Q...

i understand you think im wrong but i dont see why, nor do i see an alternate argument. the one i outlined above is illogical(for your position).

That's true. It's illogical period.


I challenge you to make your thread on a forum with a little bit higher caliber than a "sports supplement" message board. I'll list a few boards and let you pick one.

Anyone will work. Pick one that I listed above, make a thread there sketching out your beliefs, then let's see how that works out. Since you clearly won't listen to me maybe you'll listen to other people. You said that you posted your thread on that supplement forum to see if you were wrong, well let's see how that works on one of these forums.

[Necrosis]

for one, that supplement forum is some of the most brillant minds in sports supplements, like patrick arnold, as well as some great thinkers. yes his iq is genius level, he is a genius.


obviously neither of us is going to win, when i dont adress every single point you make you call it a copout, yet you answer zero of my questions. also, you claim my beleifs are illogical yet have not shown why. my fallacies such as claiming majority opinion, or others agreeance arent fallacies. if you beleive a physicist to be right on a topic concerning physics, and base your opinion on that, i wouldnt really call that fallacious.


you cant experience if you are all that exists. i didnt say that god couldnt think, or have some sort of consciousnous, you still cant experience without polarity. there is an area in the occiptal lobe called the OAA area for simplicity as it was discovered by some neurologists who were studying deep meditation. when the participants reached this deep meditative state this area was deactivated. the OAA controls the boundaries of limitations of the body, or the conscious feeling of the limitations of YOU. when deactivated they feel the universal oneness most claim to feel. when asked to describe it they simple say they cant. "i feel like everything". you need to know were you end and out there begins to experience yourself.hot only exists per se because of cold or can be quantified. polarity is the main vice of experience. consciousness is needed, but even with that if had no perception you couldnt sense, but still be conscious.

i maintain that god is everything, both the material, immaterial and whatever they may be that we have no access too.


"his doesn't make sense. When one contemplates existence in contrast to "nothingness" how does it become evident that all is infinite? This doesn't follow at all"

maybe its because you havent contemplated it. i just cant see our argument continuing. you still hold that something can come from nothing, because there is no logic, no laws,no physics no reason. but then want me to beleive(even though the argument is false from the jump) that from this nothing, something came, with specific rules, and laws which are improbable. also, from this nothing and for no reason came sentience, along with logic and a rational world that operates under mathematics(or can be described accurately) which in itself is mystifying.

"Wrong again.

Refuting
1 : to prove wrong by argument or evidence : show to be false or erroneous.
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/refuting

My argument is that your argument is false. I've proven that to be true. Thus I have "refuted" your arguments. I don't need to make up some alternative explanations to refute your argument. Simply show them to be false. Which was quite easy."

WHAT? ahhahaha. i said your refutation was "your wrong" which isnt refutation. then you falsely claim "that you easily refuted me", basing it on a false premise that even if all was eternal it wouldnt be god. but yet, i outlined the attributes this eternal thing would have and they fit with the definition of god i gave. ETERNAL,TIMELESS,CREATIVE OR HAS TO CREATE,IMMATERIAL,ALL POWERFULL(this can be refuted).


you can apply the same thing to your argument. how does this nothing create something,why,how,when,with what since there is no materials to create this something from this nothing. so it seems that this something can from nothing with no materials or anything, and just popped out of the air.

you have refuted nothing.

as for your dissecting of his argument. for one he is just agreeing with the fact that all has to be eternal.

also i may make a post on another board, it could be a good learning experience as i could hear other views on the subject. however, i dont have time write now, but i might in the near future.

[Necrosis]

"Let's see how may agree with you. Ok? Register there, make a thread in the "Religion" section and let's see how that works out. You wanted to test your beliefs against argumentation and you posted it on a sport supplement forum? Hmm. That tells me that you didn't really want criticism."

haha first off brutal fallacy. also, post on a atheitic board or boards and see how many agree with my beleif in god? thats just dumb, of course i will not get any to agree. however i will make a post on the randi site as his bullshit proposals intrigue me.

[Necrosis]

i would also mention that many people on avant are phd's and medical doctors. i can think of many. also, i know two people that head the philosophy forum with multiple degrees.

the board is known as the most advanced health, diet, and supplement board on the net. it also has many great thinkers, hence the advanced theory and speculation section, as well as the lyceum.

i dont think the james randi site will have anyone with more intelligence. some people on avant are brialliant, plain and simple have you read any of the threads over there?

i just wanted to add that, because you seem to think that for some reason the randi site or skeptics will have more inteligent people. the philosophy section, or religion section over there is just as advanced. i would argue more so especially from glancing through the randi site.

[Wikidudeman]

"usmokepole" you clearly have a skewed view of the world and reality as a whole for that matter. I'm not making any leeway arguing with you about this. We're going in circles. I don't see how continuing to argue with you about it or anything else for that matter would be a good way for me to spend my time.

I will however encourage you to post on one of the forums I linked. I will be there when you sign up. Just tell me your name and link the thread here. Don't use the name you're using in this forum or you will get banned. If you're going to post on the James Randi forum then post in the " Religion and Philosophy" and just sketch out your views on "God". Make the same arguments you're making here(or whatever argument you want to make) and we'll see what happens.