# What is "Nothing"



## ambush80 (Apr 9, 2019)

I tossed and turned a bit last night trying to figure this out.  

Where is it?  Is there a place where nothing exists?  If it's a place then it's not nothing.  Can Nothing exist temporarily? Obviously it can't exist infinitely because here we are. I've heard it suggested that it can't ever exist.


----------



## Madman (Apr 9, 2019)

Nothing = No Thing


----------



## Madman (Apr 9, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> Is there a place where nothing exists?



For some there may be that place, I do not see it as possible, in fact I don't see how any theist can believe there could ever be nothing.


----------



## Madman (Apr 9, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> Obviously it can't exist infinitely because here we are.



Simply because there is something now how does that make it obvious that "nothing can not exist infinitely"?  

I thought we were here because of an infinite amount of time and an infinite number of possibilities. If that is true then on of the possibilities must be nothing.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 9, 2019)

Madman said:


> For some there may be that place, I do not see it as possible, in fact I don't see how any theist can believe there could ever be nothing.



I'm having a hard time as a secularist trying to find where Nothing can exist.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 9, 2019)

Madman said:


> Simply because there is something now how does that make it obvious that "nothing can not exist infinitely"?



It's not here.  It must be somewhere else, but then it would be somewhere, a place, and a place is a thing, so it's not No-Thing.  That place must be Nowhere as far as I can tell.



Madman said:


> I thought we were here because of an infinite amount of time and an infinite number of possibilities. If that is true then on of the possibilities must be nothing.



The Nothing exists Nowhere.  Multiverse theory kind of answers this.  I don't understand it completely and it's not a very popular explanation. That doesn't make it wrong.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 9, 2019)

So if there's always Something, I don't see why that can't be some sort of material potential.  I definitely don't see the need for a "Conscious Prime Mover".


----------



## Madman (Apr 9, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> Multiverse theory kind of answers this.  I don't understand it completely and it's not a very popular explanation. That doesn't make it wrong.



I believe the Multiverse theory is very possible, but you do understand that there are several Multiverse theories.  I lean more to the possibility that there may be a difference in the "physics" of another universe, it seems more plausible than the theory that I may exist in another universe as a thin, wealthy, Adonis.


----------



## Madman (Apr 9, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> So if there's always Something, I don't see why that can't be some sort of material potential.  I definitely don't see the need for a "Conscious Prime Mover".



*St. Thomas Aquinas: 
The Existence of God can be proved in five ways.*Argument Analysis of the Five Ways         © 2016 Theodore Gracyk

The First Way: Argument from Motion

Our senses prove that some things are in motion.
Things move when potential motion becomes actual motion.
Only an actual motion can convert a potential motion into an actual motion.
Nothing can be at once in both actuality and potentiality in the same respect (i.e., if both actual and potential, it is actual in one respect and potential in another).
Therefore nothing can move itself.
Therefore each thing in motion is moved by something else.
The sequence of motion cannot extend _ad infinitum_.
Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.
Look at it as an infinite number of train cars, they just sit on the track until coupled to an engine.

Material potential would be an effect; how about an immaterial potential?


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 9, 2019)

Madman said:


> I believe the Multiverse theory is very possible, but you do understand that there are several Multiverse theories.  I lean more to the possibility that there may be a difference in the "physics" of another universe, it seems more plausible than the theory that I may exist in another universe as a thin, wealthy, Adonis.



I'm familiar with the basic concept, I think.  I don't completely understand "Inflation" or the "Bubbles".  As I understand it, everything possible happens in some universe.  But I ain't no Physics doctor.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 9, 2019)

Madman said:


> *St. Thomas Aquinas:
> The Existence of God can be proved in five ways.*Argument Analysis of the Five Ways         © 2016 Theodore Gracyk
> 
> The First Way: Argument from Motion
> ...


If there has always been Something, and that something could be energy/motion/ potential motion, why is a consciousness required?


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 9, 2019)

The material of the train cars is in motion. If there is material now, it must have been around forever in some form or else there would be Nothing.  It seems that you want to say that the initial "Material Potential" must be a thought in God's mind.  I just don't see the need for the Material Potential to have a consciousness.  All I can tell for certain is that the idea of God exists because we are here to think it up. Some people think that "Math" exists without us, including (I guess) any weird math that might exist in a multiverse with different physics.

I came across this last night:

https://www.livescience.com/28132-what-is-nothing-physicists-debate.html


----------



## Madman (Apr 9, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> If there has always been Something, and that something could be energy/motion/ potential motion, why is a consciousness required?


Where does the "Somethings" potential come from?  Has it always existed as nothing more than potential?  What caused it to release it's potential if it had no consciousness?  Would that cause thee be the true cause? If so then you have moved up one notch.


----------



## JustUs4All (Apr 9, 2019)

I will readily admit that the concept of "nothing", that is, the absence of something, is one of those things that is beyond my understanding similar to when did time start or what exists beyond the universe(s) that we know.


----------



## Madman (Apr 9, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> The material of the train cars is in motion. If there is material now, it must have been around forever in some form or else there would be Nothing.



Or there would be a material nothing, a spacial nothing, a nothing relating to time.



ambush80 said:


> ://www.livescience.com/28132-what-is-nothing-physicists-debate.html



Interesting article, was there ever No Thing?  I believe not, however I do believe there was a time when no matter existed, no space existed, no time existed.  If there ever was a time of "no thing" then it would be impossible to now be "some thing".

There is a problem with physicists trying to define something that cannot be measured.  This is more philosophical.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 9, 2019)

Madman said:


> Where does the "Somethings" potential come from?  Has it always existed as nothing more than potential?  What caused it to release it's potential if it had no consciousness?  Would that cause thee be the true cause? If so then you have moved up one notch.



A while ago I Googled 

https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=how+does+something+come+from+niothing

One of the things I read is that the material potential could be a "vibration".  Have we agreed that there has never been Nothing?  If so, we know that "Somethings" can change spontaneously, like degrading of elements.  It's their "nature".  They needn't have had anything influence them.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 9, 2019)

JustUs4All said:


> I will readily admit that the concept of "nothing", that is, the absence of something, is one of those things that is beyond my understanding similar to when did time start or what exists beyond the universe(s) that we know.



#MeToo.  

For some reason, the idea of "Something" always existing doesn't seem as hard for me to conceptualize.  I don't see the need for that "something" to have a consciousness or a will.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 9, 2019)

Madman said:


> Or there would be a material nothing, a spacial nothing, a nothing relating to time.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I agree.  We only differ in that you think that the "some thing" is a guy.


----------



## Madman (Apr 9, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> One of the things I read is that the material potential could be a "vibration".



This has it's own set of problems.  Scientist always want to start with an effect that is "self actualizing".  Kind of like the old joke where a scientist "creates" life by manipulating some dirt, and brags to God about it.  God replies make you own dirt.



ambush80 said:


> Have we agreed that there has never been Nothing?


yes




ambush80 said:


> If so, we know that "Somethings" can change spontaneously, like degrading of elements.  It's their "nature".  They needn't have had anything influence them.



Here you are talking about a lose of something, a degradation, the second law of thermo, not an increase which would require an input of energy or information.


----------



## Madman (Apr 9, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> I agree.  We only differ in that you think that the "some thing" is a guy.


that is a good place to start.

Could it be a "guy"?


----------



## Madman (Apr 9, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> I agree.  We only differ in that you think that the "some thing" is a guy.




So we agree there was a time when there was No Thing.  No space, no matter, absolutely no thing, except some type of First Cause, Prime Mover, you call it energy and I assume unintelligent energy.  What kept it from degrading like the isotope?

My "Energy" is self sustaining, eternal, because it has to be, if not it too would die the heat death of thermodynamics.  (And if that is so then it must have a consciousness)

I hijacked this;

"This ultimate source for the being and intelligibility of nature cannot be yet another natural thing. It must be something outside of nature that has the power to produce the totality of nature and does not itself require a cause. Both the existence and intelligible order of the natural universe, therefore, show that it exists because of an ultimate cause: God the Creator. "


https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/aquinas-vs-intelligent-design


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 9, 2019)

Madman said:


> So we agree there was a time when there was No Thing.  No space, no matter, absolutely no thing, except some type of First Cause, Prime Mover, you call it energy and I assume unintelligent energy.  What kept it from degrading like the isotope?
> 
> My "Energy" is self sustaining, eternal, because it has to be, if not it too would die the heat death of thermodynamics.  (And if that is so then it must have a consciousness)
> 
> ...



Can you explain to me why these must be?  Is it possible that this is just more "God of the Gaps"?


----------



## Madman (Apr 9, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> Can you explain to me why these must be?  Is it possible that this is just more "God of the Gaps"?


No gaps just logic.  How can something in nature cause itself?


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 9, 2019)

Madman said:


> No gaps just logic.  How can something in nature cause itself?



Well, in order to answer that I'd have to know more about nature.  I like that we're working on it.  I don't mind people using God as a place holder for the things that we don't understand.  I just don't like that they often claim that it's absolutely true.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 9, 2019)

Madman said:


> So we agree there was a time when there was No Thing.  No space, no matter, absolutely no thing, except some type of First Cause, Prime Mover, you call it energy and I assume unintelligent energy.  What kept it from degrading like the isotope?
> 
> My "Energy" is self sustaining, eternal, because it has to be, if not it too would die the heat death of thermodynamics.  (And if that is so then it must have a consciousness)
> 
> ...


Energy


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 9, 2019)

Madman said:


> So we agree there was a time when there was No Thing.  No space, no matter, absolutely no thing, except some type of First Cause, Prime Mover, you call it energy and I assume unintelligent energy.  What kept it from degrading like the isotope?
> 
> My "Energy" is self sustaining, eternal, because it has to be, if not it too would die the heat death of thermodynamics.  (And if that is so then it must have a consciousness)
> 
> ...



Actually, I thought we agreed that there can't have been No Thing because here we are.  I think we still disagree on what that thing is or whether or not it needed to have a consciousness.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 9, 2019)

bullethead said:


> Energy



I can buy that.  Something that was always around that would eventually produce matter and so on...


----------



## bullethead (Apr 9, 2019)

https://www.skeptical-science.com/atheism/debunking-argument/


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 9, 2019)

Madman said:


> that is a good place to start.
> 
> Could it be a "guy"?



This one got by me.

Let's suppose a guy. Now what? What information would give you a hint as to what this guy is like or what he wants?


----------



## elfiii (Apr 9, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> I tossed and turned a bit last night trying to figure this out.
> 
> Where is it?  Is there a place where nothing exists?  If it's a place then it's not nothing.  Can Nothing exist temporarily? Obviously it can't exist infinitely because here we are. I've heard it suggested that it can't ever exist.



Dude, you need to take some Melatonin after dinner. You'll sleep like a baby. No more tossing and turning worrying about nothing.


----------



## Madman (Apr 9, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> This one got by me.
> 
> Let's suppose a guy. Now what? What information would give you a hint as to what this guy is like or what he wants?


Another lunch discussion, maybe dinner.


----------



## Madman (Apr 9, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> Actually, I thought we agreed that there can't have been No Thing because here we are.  I think we still disagree on what that thing is or whether or not it needed to have a consciousness.


I kind of misspoke, I meant no thing except some prime mover.


----------



## Madman (Apr 9, 2019)

bullethead said:


> Energy


How did that energy not follow the laws of physics and fall continually into a greater state of disorder?


----------



## bullethead (Apr 9, 2019)

Madman said:


> How did that energy not follow the laws of physics and fall continually into a greater state of disorder?


You mean a greater state of disorder like a, oh I don't know...Big Bang?


----------



## NE GA Pappy (Apr 10, 2019)

bullethead said:


> You mean a greater state of disorder like a, oh I don't know...Big Bang?



yeah... a state of disorder that went BANG and created all the order in the universe.

Works for me.   not


----------



## bullethead (Apr 10, 2019)

NE GA Pappy said:


> yeah... a state of disorder that went BANG and created all the order in the universe.
> 
> Works for me.   not


Adding in an invisible excuse to explain things that we just do not know yet works for me...not.


----------



## Madman (Apr 10, 2019)

bullethead said:


> You mean a greater state of disorder like a, oh I don't know...Big Bang?


Exactly, what set off the Big Bang?  And you may want to read up on the latest science about the Big Bang.


----------



## WaltL1 (Apr 10, 2019)

NE GA Pappy said:


> yeah... a state of disorder that went BANG and created all the order in the universe.
> 
> Works for me.   not


I'm curious -
"orderly" is a judgement call. To judge something "orderly" one must know/compare it to "disorderly".
Exactly which "disorderly" universe are you comparing this one to to determine that its "orderly"?


----------



## bullethead (Apr 10, 2019)

Madman said:


> Exactly, what set off the Big Bang?  And you may want to read up on the latest science about the Big Bang.


I freely admit that I do not know what set off the Big Bang. So why would I insert a non verifiable excuse and then give it a name, personality, and make up stories about it?

Science? Since when is science a trusted source in here? 
I'll read what you post about the latest science in the Big Bang.

You, Science or I do not know what happened or what was going on one billionth of a second before the Big Bang. YET anyway.
For tens of thousands of years people didn't understand thunder, lightning,  earthquakes, volcanoes etc etc so they automatically inserted excuses based off of fears and irrational thoughts which were all based off of other human traits. Well, God is angry turned out to be another more plausible reason and although I doubt Science will know what caused the Big Bang or if it was a Big Bang at all during my lifetime, I feel every day we are closer to finding out what happened than the day before.
I am fine not knowing for sure, but I also have no problem going with the best available evidence until better evidence is found.


----------



## WaltL1 (Apr 10, 2019)

Madman said:


> I kind of misspoke, I meant no thing except some prime mover.


Question if you don't mind -
What is your definition of a prime mover?
If the Big Bang or any other "event" of that type should be determined to be fact, would that qualify as a prime mover.... or only a "g(G)od like thing can be a prime mover?


----------



## WaltL1 (Apr 10, 2019)

bullethead said:


> I freely admit that I do not know what set off the Big Bang. So why would I insert a non verifiable excuse and then give it a name, personality, and make up stories about it?
> 
> Science? Since when is science a trusted source in here?
> I'll read what you post about the latest science in the Big Bang.
> ...





> I freely admit that I do not know what set off the Big Bang. So why would I insert a non verifiable excuse and then give it a name, personality, and make up stories about it?


Well aint that the question of the century...


----------



## PopPop (Apr 10, 2019)

WaltL1 said:


> Well aint that the question of the century...



We have several non verifiables here. How can there be a better choice among them.


----------



## Madman (Apr 10, 2019)

WaltL1 said:


> Question if you don't mind -
> What is your definition of a prime mover?
> If the Big Bang or any other "event" of that type should be determined to be fact, would that qualify as a prime mover.... or only a "g(G)od like thing can be a prime mover?


An eternal, self sufficient being.  No it would  not qualify, how could it?


----------



## Madman (Apr 10, 2019)

WaltL1 said:


> Well aint that the question of the century...


For the vast majority of humanity that has been a question since we began thinking, and science found its origin with the men and women looking for the answer.


----------



## WaltL1 (Apr 10, 2019)

Madman said:


> An eternal, self sufficient being.  No it would  not qualify, how could it?


Because the definition of a "prime mover" is not exclusive to a "being".
Its one of the uses of the phrase.
Wanted to fully understand your position. So I asked.


----------



## WaltL1 (Apr 10, 2019)

Madman said:


> For the vast majority of humanity that has been a question since we began thinking, and science found its origin with the men and women looking for the answer.


Yes I would agree that "why and how are we here" is an age old question.
So far, no answer to that question has been proven as a fact. Lots of theories and beliefs though.


----------



## WaltL1 (Apr 10, 2019)

PopPop said:


> We have several non verifiables here. How can there be a better choice among them.


I'm not sure "choosing a non verifiable" is a good choice.
By definition its a choice made on something other than proven facts.


----------



## Madman (Apr 10, 2019)

WaltL1 said:


> Because the definition of a "prime mover" is not exclusive to a "being".
> Its one of the uses of the phrase.
> Wanted to fully understand your position. So I asked.


Sure it is.  What could it be other than self sufficient?  There are no self sufficient effects.  The cause MUST be outside of the created.  Logic 101


----------



## WaltL1 (Apr 10, 2019)

Madman said:


> Sure it is.  What could it be other than self sufficient?  There are no self sufficient effects.  The cause MUST be outside of the created.  Logic 101


Please Google "definition of prime mover".
And Im not saying your usage is wrong. Im saying the definition is not exclusive to a "being".
Im trying to determine if your definition of prime mover = a god and a god only or if your usage encompasses all the usages of it.


----------



## Madman (Apr 10, 2019)

WaltL1 said:


> Please Google "definition of prime mover".
> And Im not saying your usage is wrong. Im saying the definition is not exclusive to a "being".
> Im trying to determine if your definition of prime mover = a god and a god only or if your usage encompasses all the usages of it.


I dont care if you call it God or not.  A character cannot write the book from inside the story, he must be external to the book.  Call it first cause, whatever.  The effect, i.e.the big bang cannot be the cause.


----------



## WaltL1 (Apr 10, 2019)

Madman said:


> I dont care if you call it God or not.  A character cannot write the book from inside the story, he must be external to the book.  Call it first cause, whatever.  The effect, i.e.the big bang cannot be the cause.


Please Google "definition of prime mover".
You will find the phrase does not only apply to a "being".
If you disagree, you can debate it with the dictionary people.
I was simply trying to find out how exactly you were using it.

And sorry Ambush, I thought I was asking a simple question didnt mean to derail your discussion.


----------



## PopPop (Apr 10, 2019)

WaltL1 said:


> I'm not sure "choosing a non verifiable" is a good choice.
> By definition its a choice made on something other than proven facts.


Isn't that what every opinion thus far is based on. Each of us have our favorite non verifiable. It's pretty much intelligent design or Nothing with some big unexplained upgrades.


----------



## Madman (Apr 10, 2019)

WaltL1 said:


> Please Google "definition of prime mover".
> You will find the phrase does not only apply to a "being".
> If you disagree, you can debate it with the dictionary people.
> I was simply trying to find out how exactly you were using it.
> ...


Do you believe pri
E mo er


WaltL1 said:


> Please Google "definition of prime mover".
> You will find the phrase does not only apply to a "being".
> If you disagree, you can debate it with the dictionary people.
> I was simply trying to find out how exactly you were using it.
> ...


Are.you saying the prime mover is eternal?  What sustains it?


----------



## WaltL1 (Apr 10, 2019)

PopPop said:


> Isn't that what every opinion thus far is based on. Each of us have our favorite non verifiable. It's pretty much intelligent design or Nothing with some big unexplained upgrades.





> Isn't that what every opinion thus far is based on.


Yep.
Thats where presenting evidence to support your opinion comes in.
Then comes the debate over what actual evidence is.


> It's pretty much intelligent design or Nothing with some big unexplained upgrades.


Or "Nothing"??
It has to be "something".


----------



## PopPop (Apr 10, 2019)

WaltL1 said:


> Yep.
> Thats where presenting evidence to support your opinion comes in.
> Then comes the debate over what actual evidence is.
> 
> ...



Ok, maybe it was something, that was acted upon by nothing. Or it was something that was acted upon by something, but that something was unintelligent and supremely random and unique. Bang, pleased to meet you, that's was cool.
This stuff zooms me.


----------



## WaltL1 (Apr 10, 2019)

Madman said:


> Do you believe pri
> E mo er
> 
> Are.you saying the prime mover is eternal?  What sustains it?





> Do you believe pri
> E mo er


Say what? 


> Are.you saying the prime mover is eternal?  What sustains it?


No.
Im saying "prime mover", by definition and usage, does not ONLY apply or CAN ONLY apply to a "being".
Thats why I asked how you are using it.


----------



## WaltL1 (Apr 10, 2019)

PopPop said:


> Ok, maybe it was something, that was acted upon by nothing. Or it was something that was acted upon by something, but that something was unintelligent and supremely random and unique. Bang, pleased to meet you, that's was cool.
> This stuff zooms me.


It zooms me too.
Thats why I cant/wont claim "_______ is how the universe & us were created".


----------



## bullethead (Apr 10, 2019)

PopPop said:


> Ok, maybe it was something, that was acted upon by nothing. Or it was something that was acted upon by something, but that something was unintelligent and supremely random and unique. Bang, pleased to meet you, that's was cool.
> This stuff zooms me.


Not saying this is what is HAS to be but Energy makes a lot of sense. We really have no clue on what "was" before that Bang. There most likely never was "nothing", but more likely always "something" that very well could have been in a different state or in a different system that the current Universe is in after that Bang.

Zooms Me is a cool way to put it.


----------



## Madman (Apr 10, 2019)

WaltL1 said:


> Say what?
> 
> No.
> Im saying "prime mover", by definition and usage, does not ONLY apply or CAN ONLY apply to a "being".
> Thats why I asked how you are using it.


I passed graduate physics, I understand a definition for prime mover.  Let's call it a locomotive, what made the locomotive?
The locomotive is an effect, the train cars are an effect, all you can provide is a long list of effects,  you need an uncashed cause.  What is your uncaused cause?


----------



## PopPop (Apr 10, 2019)

Usually, if I can't say what caused X, I can not also say definitively and absolutely what did not cause X.


----------



## WaltL1 (Apr 10, 2019)

Madman said:


> I passed graduate physics, I understand a definition for prime mover.  Let's call it a locomotive, what made the locomotive?
> The locomotive is an effect, the train cars are an effect, all you can provide is a long list of effects,  you need an uncashed cause.  What is your uncaused cause?





> I passed graduate physics, I understand a definition for prime mover.


I passed the 11th grade. Does that count?


> you need an uncashed cause.


I didnt make any claims so I dont need anything.


----------



## Madman (Apr 10, 2019)

WaltL1 said:


> I passed the 11th grade. Does that count?


Nuff said then.


----------



## WaltL1 (Apr 10, 2019)

PopPop said:


> Usually, if I can't say what caused X, I can not also say definitively and absolutely what did not cause X.


Careful, I think thats^ pretty much the A/A position


----------



## WaltL1 (Apr 10, 2019)

Madman said:


> Nuff said then.


Yes its certainly a fact that only less educated people are A/As.


----------



## Madman (Apr 10, 2019)

WaltL1 said:


> Yes its certainly a fact that only less educated people are A/As.


That was rude.  I never said you were uneducated, you just come back in typical Walt fashion, nothing to add, just argumentative.  Ambush and bullet engage.


----------



## WaltL1 (Apr 10, 2019)

Madman said:


> That was rude.  I never said you were uneducated, you just come back in typical Walt fashion, nothing to add, just argumentative.  Ambush and bullet engage.


I asked you a simple question so I could fully understand where you were coming from as I read along.
Not sure that falls under the "argumentative" category.
Please go back to engaging Bullet and Ambush.


----------



## Madman (Apr 10, 2019)

WaltL1 said:


> I asked you a simple question so I could fully understand where you were coming from as I read along.


To which I have answered several times, there must be something outside of the "effect" to cause it.  If you take the AA thesis to its logical beginning there still must be an uncaused cause, something that can sustain itself.  Everything moves from a state of order to a state of disorder, therefore there must be an eternal, self sustaining Cause for everything.  As I said the characters in the book cannot write the book.  That is where I am coming from.  Big bang, maybe. Martians, maybe.  But everyone one of them needs an uncaused cause to begin.  Something has to.set this in motion.  Everything at rest stays at rest unless acted on.  Does that make sense?


----------



## bullethead (Apr 10, 2019)

Madman said:


> Nuff said then.


That is a thread killer.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 10, 2019)

Madman said:


> To which I have answered several times, there must be something outside of the "effect" to cause it.  If you take the AA thesis to its logical beginning there still must be an uncaused cause, something that can sustain itself.  Everything moves from a state of order to a state of disorder, therefore there must be an eternal, self sustaining Cause for everything.  As I said the characters in the book cannot write the book.  That is where I am coming from.  Big bang, maybe. Martians, maybe.  But everyone one of them needs an uncaused cause to begin.  Something has to.set this in motion.  Everything at rest stays at rest unless acted on.  Does that make sense?


Quantum Physicists


----------



## Madman (Apr 10, 2019)

bullethead said:


> Quantum Physicists


Yep.  I understand a little.  What is the point?


----------



## Madman (Apr 10, 2019)

bullethead said:


> That is a thread killer.


For me this is the conversation killer with a particular individual,  "I didnt make any claims so I dont need anything."   To me it is tantamount to  saying "I have nothing to add, I'm just going to sit on the side line and throw bottles in the crowd when things quiet down". 

I think you, me and ambush agree on many things, and we disagree on many things, but at least we are willing to put our self out there and figure this out.


----------



## PopPop (Apr 10, 2019)

WaltL1 said:


> Careful, I think thats^ pretty much the A/A position



Yeah, all I got is what I believe, same as A/As.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 10, 2019)

Madman said:


> Yep.  I understand a little.  What is the point?


Explaining the cause of Alpha Decay seems to be a decent point against an external force or cause.


----------



## Madman (Apr 10, 2019)

If memory serves me the heavier elements have an unstable nucleus. The alpha particle is much more stable.  Order to disorder.


----------



## Madman (Apr 10, 2019)

Also need to study the rate of decay of elements like helium.  Pretty cool.


----------



## WaltL1 (Apr 10, 2019)

Madman said:


> To which I have answered several times, there must be something outside of the "effect" to cause it.  If you take the AA thesis to its logical beginning there still must be an uncaused cause, something that can sustain itself.  Everything moves from a state of order to a state of disorder, therefore there must be an eternal, self sustaining Cause for everything.  As I said the characters in the book cannot write the book.  That is where I am coming from.  Big bang, maybe. Martians, maybe.  But everyone one of them needs an uncaused cause to begin.  Something has to.set this in motion.  Everything at rest stays at rest unless acted on.  Does that make sense?


Do me a favor -
Copy and Paste any argument I made against your response.
When you cant, consider the validity of your accusation of me being argumentative and or throwing bottles.


----------



## WaltL1 (Apr 10, 2019)

PopPop said:


> Yeah, all I got is what I believe, same as A/As.


You keep saying things I agree with.
Come on, thats no fun


----------



## PopPop (Apr 10, 2019)

Sure it is. A/As be all about science until we peel down to this. Then it's just faith. Faith in nothing and it's superiority over faith in something.
I realize that's a big ol sloppy brush. It works often enough.


----------



## Madman (Apr 10, 2019)

Well aint that the question of the century...


----------



## WaltL1 (Apr 10, 2019)

PopPop said:


> Sure it is. A/As be all about science until we peel down to this. Then it's just faith. Faith in nothing and it's superiority over faith in something.
> I realize that's a big ol sloppy brush. It works often enough.


That's a real big 'ol sloppy brush.
And guess what?
I can agree with much of what you said ^ but for probably very different reasons/coming from a different angle than you.


----------



## Madman (Apr 10, 2019)

WaltL1 said:


> Do me a favor -
> Copy and Paste any argument I made against your response.
> When you cant, consider the validity of your accusation of me being argumentative and or throwing bottles.


Well aint that the question of the century... 

And the the continuous nonsense about define prime mover.


----------



## WaltL1 (Apr 10, 2019)

Madman said:


> Well aint that the question of the century...


You were supposed to be looking for me arguing against/throwing bottles at your response...…..


----------



## Madman (Apr 10, 2019)

WaltL1 said:


> You were supposed to be looking for me arguing against/throwing bottles at your response...…..


I didn't say throwing bottles at my response I simply said throwing bottles, as in having nothing to add, just stirring the pot.

"Yes its certainly a fact that only less educated people are A/As."

You have never made an argument against my response, I wish you would.

"I didnt make any claims so I dont need anything."

You dont make claims, you never put yourself out there, say what you believe, take a chance.  I've been laughed at by some brilliant people, but they know what I believe and why.


----------



## WaltL1 (Apr 10, 2019)

Madman said:


> I didn't say throwing bottles at my response I simply said throwing bottles, as in having nothing to add, just stirring the pot.
> 
> "Yes its certainly a fact that only less educated people are A/As."
> 
> You have never made an argument against my response, I wish you would.





> as in having nothing to add


I wanted to understand where you were coming from before I added anything.
I ended up being dragged into this pile of dung conversation.


> You have never made an argument against my response, I wish you would.


I don't know enough about the subject to make an intelligent argument without doing further research. That's why I haven't argued it. That's why I havent added anything yet. I simply asked a question. Maybe if you wish a little harder......
Im done with you now.


----------



## Madman (Apr 10, 2019)

WaltL1 said:


> I don't know enough about the subject to make an intelligent argument


Evident


----------



## Israel (Apr 11, 2019)

WaltL1 said:


> I'm curious -
> "orderly" is a judgement call. To judge something "orderly" one must know/compare it to "disorderly".
> Exactly which "disorderly" universe are you comparing this one to to determine that its "orderly"?




It appears to me you touch upon "a" crux, if not _the _crux of the matter.

That there is an assumption/presumption _in man _capable, and not only capable, but willing (and perhaps even more so_ than willing_)...compelled to judge amongst observations, with the presumption it does so to itself, rightly. An inner compass that it cannot differentiate from itself.
It believes itself in some sense_ the orderly._

But man is trying to judge (measure/compare) the "thing" (call it universe or whatever to that man constitutes _the all_) while _in that very thing_, and no less a _constituent part of that thing. _All he would have then for measuring/comparing/judging _the universe_...is _of the universe._

Perfect frustration might be a better key than imaginable.

If keys do in truth, exist.


----------



## 660griz (Apr 11, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> I tossed and turned a bit last night trying to figure this out.
> 
> Where is it?  Is there a place where nothing exists?  If it's a place then it's not nothing.  Can Nothing exist temporarily? Obviously it can't exist infinitely because here we are. I've heard it suggested that it can't ever exist.



I don't think there is anyway to know. If you happen to go to a place where nothing once existed, well, it isn't that place anymore. How big of a microscope would you have to bring?


----------



## PopPop (Apr 11, 2019)

I just read an article suggesting that we are all characters in a video game. No really. So if God is really some super advanced player of some super advanced version of FarmVille would that work for you A/As. 
It's on Drudge, a guy from MIT. Science an all like that.
Zoom, Zoom.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 11, 2019)

Deists say "Matter can't come from nowhere.  It has to have been created by a force that is eternal and the force must have a conscience".

Non-deists say "Perhaps the "matter" or "proto -matter" is eternal.  Our present incarnation of it is a result of the "proto-matter's" nature."

Both positions claim something infinite.  A guess.  One position claims "a guy".  A guess.  The other claims "No guy needed".  A guess.  If one can accept the possibility that "a guy" was unnecessary, then believing in a guy would be just a preference.  If someone were to believe that "a guy" is a possible explanation, then not believing in a guy is also just a preference.

Deists can't seem to be able to accept the possibility of "no guy involved". They seem to think it an impossibility.  I'm not sure why and I haven't been convinced by the "necessity of a guy" arguments.  I'll table the "guy" notion until better proof comes in.


The natural state seems to be towards entropy, but stars are created all the time. The creation of stars doesn't refute the entropic principle, but I don't know the math. Is it possible that the birth of a Universe could be part of a principle of physics, like entropy, that we simply don't know about yet?  If so, then why are people so cocksure that they know how things got here?


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 11, 2019)

PopPop said:


> I just read an article suggesting that we are all characters in a video game. No really. So if God is really some super advanced player of some super advanced version of FarmVille would that work for you A/As.
> It's on Drudge, a guy from MIT. Science an all like that.
> Zoom, Zoom.



Yes.  I've heard the notion that we're in a simulation and am convinced that the statistical argument for it is sound.  Nick Bostrom is a proponenet of the idea.  I couldn't get through his book.  His brain works in a way that mine doesn't seem to be able to.  

https://samharris.org/podcasts/151-will-destroy-future/

It's above my pay grade.  

I'm also convinced by Sam's argument that there's no free will, but as he says, we are built to act as if there is free will.  So I do.


----------



## WaltL1 (Apr 11, 2019)

PopPop said:


> I just read an article suggesting that we are all characters in a video game. No really. So if God is really some super advanced player of some super advanced version of FarmVille would that work for you A/As.
> It's on Drudge, a guy from MIT. Science an all like that.
> Zoom, Zoom.


As long as he can prove his claim its ok with me. Just like any other claim, scientific or not.


----------



## PopPop (Apr 11, 2019)

I doubt we will ever have proof, by design or the lack there of.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 11, 2019)

WaltL1 said:


> As long as he can prove his claim its ok with me. Just like any other claim, scientific or not.



Enjoy.

https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=why+we+are+in+a+simulation


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 11, 2019)

PopPop said:


> I doubt we will ever have proof, by design or the lack there of.



Then it's true that people choose the world view that they prefer, not by what they're convinced of.  Either "no guy necessary" or "definitely must be a guy"?


----------



## WaltL1 (Apr 11, 2019)

PopPop said:


> I doubt we will ever have proof, by design or the lack there of.


As we sit here today, its hard for me to imagine there ever being 100% proof.
Wouldnt suprise me in the least if future discoveries sent us off on a completely different direction than where we sit now.
Odds are, the Big Bang and God/gods will go the same way as thinking bleeding someone out is how you treat the common cold.


----------



## PopPop (Apr 11, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> Then it's true that people choose the world view that they prefer, not by what they're convinced of.  Either "no guy necessary" or "definitely must be a guy"?



Possibly. Our individual uniqueness of mind and experiences have to play a role in what we become convinced of. I am absolutely convinced in my faith, I could intellectually deny it, but I would be so uncomfortable that I would become miserable. Keep in mind that I have played on both teams.


----------



## WaltL1 (Apr 11, 2019)

PopPop said:


> Possibly. Our individual uniqueness of mind and experiences have to play a role in what we become convinced of. I am absolutely convinced in my faith, I could intellectually deny it, but I would be so uncomfortable that I would become miserable. Keep in mind that I have played on both teams.


What would cause the misery? Not having an answer? No bream fishing in Heaven with loved ones? The thought of being nothing more than fertilizer for eternity? …..?


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 11, 2019)

WaltL1 said:


> As we sit here today, its hard for me to imagine there ever being 100% proof.
> Wouldnt suprise me in the least if future discoveries sent us off on a completely different direction than where we sit now.
> Odds are, the Big Bang and God/gods will go the same way as thinking bleeding someone out is how you treat the common cold.



We learned that "bleeding" doesn't fix anything, but it did put us on the track to understanding blood.  Like our knowledge of blood, it seems unlikely that our ideas about the origins of the universe or god(s) won't change, too.  Bad ideas often take some time to die.

"Science advances one funeral at a time"

--Max Planc


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 11, 2019)

PopPop said:


> Possibly. Our individual uniqueness of mind and experiences have to play a role in what we become convinced of. I am absolutely convinced in my faith, I could intellectually deny it, but I would be so uncomfortable that I would become miserable. Keep in mind that I have played on both teams.



That is as honest a thing as I have ever heard on here.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 11, 2019)

PopPop said:


> Possibly. Our individual uniqueness of mind and experiences have to play a role in what we become convinced of. I am absolutely convinced in my faith, I could intellectually deny it, but I would be so uncomfortable that I would become miserable. Keep in mind that I have played on both teams.



Could you intellectually confirm it or is intellect the wrong "tool" for examining these things?


----------



## PopPop (Apr 11, 2019)

WaltL1 said:


> What would cause the misery? Not having an answer? No bream fishing in Heaven with loved ones? The thought of being nothing more than fertilizer for eternity? …..?



Bingo. The best question ever.
The answer will be incomprehensible.
I have had experiences you have not, they began when I was where you are, I could not resist, my scientific mind and warriors heart were no match. The only tool I could use would be to lie to myself and that is a self destructive action. I am not conflicted with myself. I am certain that I will return to dust, I have taken actions to insure it. I don't trouble my self with the details of what comes next. I do have some Great Aunts I would love to catch big ole shellcrackers with again, that would be nice.


----------



## PopPop (Apr 11, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> Could you intellectually confirm it or is intellect the wrong "tool" for examining these things?


We each have our own level of proof requirement, I don't think yours is greater than mine, rather I think of it as a timeline. At some point between your beginning and your end on this earth, your requirement will be met.


----------



## WaltL1 (Apr 11, 2019)

PopPop said:


> Bingo. The best question ever.
> The answer will be incomprehensible.
> I have had experiences you have not, they began when I was where you are, I could not resist, my scientific mind and warriors heart were no match. The only tool I could use would be to lie to myself and that is a self destructive action. I am not conflicted with myself. I am certain that I will return to dust, I have taken actions to insure it. I don't trouble my self with the details of what comes next. I do have some Great Aunts I would love to catch big ole shellcrackers with again, that would be nice.


Interesting.
Your reasons for believing are pretty similar to why I no longer believe.
I was a Christian for far longer than not being one.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 11, 2019)

WaltL1 said:


> Interesting.
> Your reasons for believing are pretty similar to why I no longer believe.
> I was a Christian for far longer than not being one.



What do you mean, Walt?


----------



## WaltL1 (Apr 11, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> What do you mean, Walt?


Ive been in this place -


> I could not resist, my scientific mind and warriors heart were no match. The only tool I could use would be to lie to myself and that is a self destructive action. I am not conflicted with myself.


Just moving in the opposite direction.


----------



## PopPop (Apr 11, 2019)

WaltL1 said:


> Ive been in this place -
> 
> Just moving in the opposite direction.



Did you get mad at God, I certainly have been. Briefly.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 11, 2019)

WaltL1 said:


> Ive been in this place -
> 
> Just moving in the opposite direction.



Do you feel that you've used the best tools you have available in the best way you know how to arrive at your positions? Have you ever experienced a revalation?  How do you (personally) analyze revelation?


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 11, 2019)

PopPop said:


> Did you get mad at God, I certainly have been. Briefly.



Hope you don't mind if I jump in.  I've been mad at how people use the idea of God to inform their actions.  It makes me think they haven't a clue about what they think they know, especially when it seems to lead them to bad conclusions about things.  An example would be Young Earth Creationists.


----------



## PopPop (Apr 11, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> Hope you don't mind if I jump in.  I've been mad at how people use the idea of God to inform their actions.  It makes me think they haven't a clue about what they think they know, especially when it seems to lead them to bad conclusions about things.  An example would be Young Earth Creationists.



"Zealots, no matter what persuasion, are dangerous."
Know who said that?


----------



## WaltL1 (Apr 11, 2019)

PopPop said:


> Did you get mad at God, I certainly have been. Briefly.


Sure as a believer I would occassionly get mad at God if things didnt go the way I thought they should. I think thats a pretty normal response if you believe God is in control of everything.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 11, 2019)

PopPop said:


> "Zealots, no matter what persuasion, are dangerous."
> Know who said that?



I've seen you write that.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 11, 2019)

WaltL1 said:


> Sure as a believer I would occassionly get mad at God if things didnt go the way I thought they should. I think thats a pretty normal response if you believe God is in control of everything.



Only if you think you can change His mind.


----------



## WaltL1 (Apr 11, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> Do you feel that you've used the best tools you have available in the best way you know how to arrive at your positions? Have you ever experienced a revalation?  How do you (personally) analyze revelation?





> Do you feel that you've used the best tools you have available in the best way you know how to arrive at your positions?


​For me, I felt I had to remove emotion ie, hope, wants, desires, fears etc etc from the equation as they will basically give you "false positives". Facts/science etc. was the best way I knew to do that.



> Have you ever experienced a revalation?


Never had a "holy crap" moment. I was brought up to believe so never needed one. 


> How do you (personally) analyze revelation?


​I view it as a psychological event.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 11, 2019)

PopPop said:


> "Zealots, no matter what persuasion, are dangerous."
> Know who said that?




It's not just zealots.  I live next door to a Christian who is trying to plant a church in my neighborhood.  We have become friends and we talk about everything.  I'm amazed at how little he's thought about what he believes.  This Tuesday we talked about the "Abortion vs. Death Penalty" subject.  He was for the death penalty but when we talked through the question through the lens of _his own faith _he realized that the Death Penalty is inconsistent with his beliefs. 

In the course of our conversations he has come to realize that many things he believed in were contrary to the way that he interprets scripture.  Some of these things have political ramifications.  He was voting based on ideas that he didn't actually believe in.  He's no zealot but he never questioned how his religious beliefs should affect his world view.  I see that allot.


----------



## WaltL1 (Apr 11, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> Only if you think you can change His mind.


Never thought I had the ability to change God's mind. Admittedly there were a few times I was on my knees begging and praying for him to though.
BUT, don't want to give the impression that I no longer believe because of anything God did or didn't do. God, in and of himself, had nothing to do with it.


----------



## Madman (Apr 11, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> Deists say "Matter can't come from nowhere.  It has to have been created by a force that is eternal and the force must have a conscience".
> 
> Non-deists say "Perhaps the "matter" or "proto -matter" is eternal.  Our present incarnation of it is a result of the "proto-matter's" nature."
> 
> ...




And therein lies the dilemma.   We are in agreement that there must have always been something eternal, something must have always existed.  The question is what is it.  Some say some form of matter, some say some form of energy, some say "a guy" and some say the flying spaghetti monster, and then there is the camp that says "I just don't know".  
There is as much or more philosophy in this discussion then science, at the present there are many things that we know nothing about and some that we do know about but do not have the capacity to test, but philosophically we can at least begin to look in the right direct.

There was a fellow, Thomas Aquinas who, around the the 13th century, put together some interesting thesis on theology, philosophy, etc. the Summa Theologiae.  In his Summa Theologiae Aquinas lays out (5) ways that, he believes, proves the existence of God.  

1) Argument from Motion 
2) Argument from Efficient Causes 
3) Argument from Possibility and Necessity 
4) Argument from Gradation of Being 
5) Argument from Design 

and by the very nature of the argument some of them have the attributes of a "guy".

In these discussions I believe we have to look beyond the physical, we have to look to the metaphysical.  

I could accept "eternal energy" if someone could help me see how it could survive up until things began to form without degradation.


----------



## PopPop (Apr 11, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> I've seen you write that.


It's my quote. Zealotry fuels dominion. It is present on all sides of this discussion.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 11, 2019)

Madman said:


> And therein lies the dilemma.   We are in agreement that there must have always been something eternal, something must have always existed.  The question is what is it.  Some say some form of matter, some say some form of energy, some say "a guy" and some say the flying spaghetti monster, and then there is the camp that says "I just don't know".
> There is as much or more philosophy in this discussion then science, at the present there are many things that we know nothing about and some that we do know about but do not have the capacity to test, but philosophically we can at least begin to look in the right direct.
> 
> There was a fellow, Thomas Aquinas who, around the the 13th century, put together some interesting thesis on theology, philosophy, etc. the Summa Theologiae.  In his Summa Theologiae Aquinas lays out (5) ways that, he believes, proves the existence of God.
> ...




"It works in mysterious ways"?


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 11, 2019)

Madman said:


> And therein lies the dilemma.   We are in agreement that there must have always been something eternal, something must have always existed.  The question is what is it.  Some say some form of matter, some say some form of energy, some say "a guy" and some say the flying spaghetti monster, and then there is the camp that says "I just don't know".
> There is as much or more philosophy in this discussion then science, at the present there are many things that we know nothing about and some that we do know about but do not have the capacity to test, but philosophically we can at least begin to look in the right direct.
> 
> There was a fellow, Thomas Aquinas who, around the the 13th century, put together some interesting thesis on theology, philosophy, etc. the Summa Theologiae.  In his Summa Theologiae Aquinas lays out (5) ways that, he believes, proves the existence of God.
> ...



http://web.mnstate.edu/gracyk/courses/web publishing/aquinasfiveways_argumentanalysis.htm

Firstly, he speaks as if he thinks that all his observations about the natural world are accurate and complete.  Then, he does the same old thing which is to exclude god from having to follow all the rules that he says can't be broken.  I notice that at the end of each proof he says "We call this thing God".  That would be all well and good if he admitted that he doesn't have any proof for why he thinks God does any of theses things or what God's intentions are.  That's the biggest hurdle to me.  It reeks of "Man".


----------



## Madman (Apr 11, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> http://web.mnstate.edu/gracyk/courses/web publishing/aquinasfiveways_argumentanalysis.htm
> 
> Firstly, he speaks as if he thinks that all his observations about the natural world are accurate and complete.



Go on line and look at the complete Summa, that is Gracyk's abbreviated version.



ambush80 said:


> Then, he does the same old thing which is to exclude god from having to follow all the rules that he says can't be broken.



We all must do that.  Hence my earlier statement, without a self sustaining eternal (whatever we choose to call it)  everything would breakdown before it could get started.  The characters of the book cannot write the book, there must be something external the author.




ambush80 said:


> I notice that at the end of each proof he says "We call this thing God".  That would be all well and good if he admitted that he doesn't have any proof for why he thinks God does any of theses things or what God's intentions are.  That's the biggest hurdle to me.  It reeks of "Man".



We can name it anything we want. God = X 

I don't understand "It reeks of "Man"".  Is it because he has not shown intention?
He has not go into that here, he is simply showing 5 reasons for why he believes "God" exists.  Other parts of the Summa cover that topic. I think there is over 3000 topics.  Lot of reading.


----------



## Israel (Apr 11, 2019)

Ya can't think outside da box if there ain't any (thing) outside da box. Tryin' jes' won't do it.


----------



## Israel (Apr 11, 2019)

WaltL1 said:


> For me, I felt I had to remove emotion ie, hope, wants, desires, fears etc etc from the equation as they will basically give you "false positives". Facts/science etc. was the best way I knew to do that.
> 
> Never had a "holy crap" moment. I was brought up to believe so never needed one.
> 
> I view it as a psychological event.



I simply go by statistics, (booooring as they are!) myself. 100% of everyone presently on the planet (and those that have gone before) believe me to be "someone else" although _I know_ I am me. I can either argue or concede to their view, and so now go about (mostly) to grant them room for their belief,_ I am _someone else.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 11, 2019)

Israel said:


> Ya can't think outside da box if there ain't any (thing) outside da box. Tryin' jes' won't do it.



Lots of things we know about now were just guesses because we didn't have the means to test them.  We have to look at the methods of inquiry and judge them on their accuracy.  Math and the sciences have thown themselves to be some of the most useful and reliable ways of understanding the universe.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 11, 2019)

Madman said:


> Go on line and look at the complete Summa, that is Gracyk's abbreviated version.
> 
> 
> 
> We all must do that.  Hence my earlier statement, without a self sustaining eternal (whatever we choose to call it)  everything would breakdown before it could get started.  The characters of the book cannot write the book, there must be something external the author.



This is a guess.  I'll grant that it may have some philosophical grounding but it's still a guess.  I'm not sure I like the analogy of the universe or us as characters in a book.  If you want to use that, one may just as easily say that "the story is eternal.  It's nature is to change.  That's what it does.  It gets written over and over again in many forms".



Madman said:


> We can name it anything we want. God = X
> 
> I don't understand "It reeks of "Man"".  Is it because he has not shown intention?
> He has not go into that here, he is simply showing 5 reasons for why he believes "God" exists.  Other parts of the Summa cover that topic. I think there is over 3000 topics.  Lot of reading.



"He was lonely".  "He wanted someone to love Him".  "He gets angry and jealous".  Those descriptions reek of Man.


----------



## Madman (Apr 11, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> This is a guess.  I'll grant that it may have some philosophical grounding but it's still a guess.  I'm not sure I like the analogy of the universe or us as characters in a book.  If you want to use that, one may just as easily say that "the story is eternal.  It's nature is to change.  That's what it does.  It gets written over and over again in many forms".



The book had to be written to start with and it couldn't write itself.  Heat death is a problem for the eternal matter theory.  Calcs show the universe expanding at a rate to rapidl to "recollapse" into a reocurring big bang.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 11, 2019)

Madman said:


> The book had to be written to start with and it couldn't write itself.  Heat death is a problem for the eternal matter theory.  Calcs show the universe expanding at a rate to rapidl to "recollapse" into a reocurring big bang.



Yeah. I've read that.  Who knows what happens?

Do you see that you're relying on what I'll call "Earth logic" as a proof about something that you declare doesn't follow "Earth logic"?


----------



## Israel (Apr 12, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> Lots of things we know about now were just guesses because we didn't have the means to test them.  We have to look at the methods of inquiry and judge them on their accuracy.  Math and the sciences have thown themselves to be some of the most useful and reliable ways of understanding the universe.


Mud cannot exceed mud.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 12, 2019)

http://warp.povusers.org/grrr/kalam.html


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 12, 2019)

Israel said:


> Mud cannot exceed mud.



Except when the mud receives Divine Inspiration?  But it's only true for your mud guys, not their mud guys.  Their mud guys were deceived by Satan, right?


----------



## Israel (Apr 12, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> Except when the mud receives Divine Inspiration?  But it's only true for your mud guys, not their mud guys.  Their mud guys were deceived by Satan, right?



Mud cannot exceed mud. What you add is on you...


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 12, 2019)

Israel said:


> Mud cannot exceed mud. What you add is on you...



I think I agree with you.


----------



## Madman (Apr 12, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> Yeah. I've read that.  Who knows what happens?
> 
> Do you see that you're relying on what I'll call "Earth logic" as a proof about something that you declare doesn't follow "Earth logic"?


Do you see that what you are relying on is supernatural as proof that there is no supernatural?


----------



## Madman (Apr 12, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> Yeah. I've read that.  Who knows what happens?
> 
> Do you see that you're relying on what I'll call "Earth logic" as a proof about something that you declare doesn't follow "Earth logic"?


PS you need to drop "lunch note" one day.  I travel to eat, Invite  everyone,  bullet will need about a 2 day head start.


----------



## Israel (Apr 13, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> Do you see that you're relying on what I'll call "Earth logic" as a proof about something that you declare doesn't follow "Earth logic"?






Madman said:


> Do you see that what you are relying on is supernatural as proof that there is no supernatural?



I prayed for an outcome and the outcome I prayed for appeared (to me).

As a child I assumed "_my prayers_ have been heard and prevailed with God". "I" have prevailed with God.

This led to a place of pride that then found this question "how do you know"? "How do you know it was _your praying_ that was answered?"
"How do you know it was not the prayers of another _for you, _or _with you (in that prayer) _that _did_ this_?" _I could not now presume to know_. _

_And further, _if in that position of prayer (in which you were pressed to pray in the "not seeing"/not believing to _have_ _presently _the thing for which_ you asked)_ "how can you assume_ you saw rightly?" _

How can I think my _doing_ of prayer in that position of (presumption) of seeing "not presently" this _certain thing_, while imagining/presuming I did see _certain others, that all that I did believe I saw _was just all of the presumption? Suppose prayer didn't appear answered (to me) "because"...but actually _in spite of_? I could not know.

I ask for that stone to become bread. Suddenly it appears to me as bread! I cannot believe my eyes. But, the eyes I presently now cannot believe, yet how did I believe them when the _thing_ did not "then" (previously) appear as bread?

So Christopher Hitchens did not unwisely (to my mind) say "_your miracles_ will not _do it (_for me)". (



)  

I believe I can receive him in that. Not necessarily as one scorning, (though he did _appear_ at times not "above" that) but more in admission that the limits of my (and his) senses are too well known to being "up for illusion" (mistaken) to fulfill a complete and inner conviction. If I know that to myself even my _own eyes _are not_ most trustworthy,_ how much less then the trusting in what another says they have seen....or know? 

No, I believe him...and receive (received) him as one saying "there must (for me) be a something that exceeds even my own sensing _in the material _to be convinced_" Even_ if I _can grant _the seeming miraculous to occurring. And, at least to _that time_ of my hearing of him, I believe he had not received such a convincing. 

Whether or not this understanding of him (Hitchens) was implied or only inferred (by me) is entirely of no consequence, for I do know a man that can relate _to that_, regardless.

That he was speaking to and of "christianity" particularly, is again, from his standpoint perhaps, moot. I have little doubt he would (and did) summon requisite ammo when confronting any manner of what he may have called _religious thinking_. But I do not much question (or doubt) whether his particular objection to christianity (and as I have heard him speak of Jesus' teachings of themselves as being somewhat corrupt and even as against good "moral principle"), I am persuaded that there is a more central resistance (Jesus' teachings notwithstanding) that the assertion, as generally held and promulgated on its face _by christianity (_if such a thing _even_ exists apart from the men claiming it) that _the God who is above all, _is benevolent.

A man receives all he has, knows, and all he will ever have or know from the unknown. If he has anything he now believes he knows he has received it as once being in the unknowing of it. From wives, to cars, to guns, to math or physics or picking his own nose, whatever knowledge or practice he now considers _his own (along with possessions or relationships), they were all once unknown to himself as _his own, coming to him out _from the unknown_. How can this be any less regarding knowledge of consciousness, which _no man_ is able to_ see prior to? _Cars were there, a woman to be had as wife was there, a gun to be purchased or traded for or received _as gift _was there_, _waiting to be appropriated as it were to "ownership". Even the child that once seemed "not"...there...

But consciousness?

All I have comes to me out from the unknown. And there was a time of unknowing that I could not have ever imagined agreeing with a man, and specifically as a "christian" as once I imagined myself to be according to what I believed I knew of "being one" that I could agree with a man like Hitchens. But, I, like him had to enter by summons this place where only _what can be known_ must, and always come out from the unknown.

This is not the "why" I believe in Jesus Christ, that summoning to a place from which I believed I knew, was and is as much out of my hands as my original appearing there (or here, depending). I could no more will myself to be born "of the flesh" than will to any other thing. Even such a thing as "my will" comes to me out from the unknown. I don't know what it is...until I meet it. Oh, make no mistake, like _you all,_ I believe I know it. And, no less _like you all,_ I really don't know it, until I meet it.

I aim _my consciousness_ (no less than you all, each and _every one of you_, every time for all time) at the unknown to apprehend it, to bring something out of it to make it "my own". To gain knowledge. But to see there was an aiming in which I had no part, that initiated it all, and by initiation as primary _in all _yet demonstrates I still have no part in control...manifestly. _Knowledge_ of consciousness came without will or desire. That _knowledge_...was not sought. Not aimed at...but in complete reverse of _all seeming. _And in reverse of all seeming of _how knowledge_ is apprehended. Something _of knowledge _(prior) willed me to consciousness. Where I think I aim (as do you all) my consciousness at knowing, knowing is aimed at my consciousness, also, no less, nor more, than you all.

Had I been able to meet Hitchens "in the flesh", that Hitchens who once said "_your _miracles will not do it" how I would have told him how much he would find in agreement with Jesus Christ. But I did not.
I would have told him of the Jesus who said this _in truth _of man, (even a man)appealing to Abraham who desired to so warn his brothers that he was sure if he could return from the dead to warn them...they would believe.

Jesus said this is Abraham's response "they have Moses and the prophets let your brothers listen to them", but the man protested "'No, father Abraham,' he said. 'But if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.' 

And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.

So much for "that" miracle...to its sufficiency.


You all will know, not _because_ of your own consciousness that you believe is in your _will to aim at gathering_ (no more nor less than myself) but _in spite of it. _

Knowing is aimed at you and me. What _invades_ our consciousness is nothing of our own will. The miracle (if one cares to call it that) of faith is the most self apparent thing to a man when seen but also the most profound thing he could never come to "of himself". Which is why till it is seen it is all of "cannot be".

That there exists a right one, a right thing, a righteousness...exceeding his own.

"If they hear not Moses and the prophets"...to a convincing "right" exists..._not in them_, but _above them_...neither will they believe if one come back from the dead. But, when one is convinced they are "not the right One", it's amazing what can be seen.


----------



## Madman (Apr 13, 2019)

Israel said:


> I prayed for an outcome and the outcome I prayed for appeared (to me).
> 
> As a child I assumed "_my prayers_ have been heard and prevailed with God". "I" have prevailed with God.
> 
> ...


Sorry I havent totally read and digested the above.  As for prayer, I do not know if any of mine have been answered, and in retrospect I most assuredly hope that some have not, but, whether by an answer to prayer or good fortune, I have seen both my children grow into fine young men.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 14, 2019)

Madman said:


> Do you see that what you are relying on is supernatural as proof that there is no supernatural?



How so?  I don't claim that I know anything about infinity or infinite matter/proto-matter.  I'm still like a caveman looking at the stars and wondering what they're made of.  But I've been convinced by evidence that the best way to find out about cosmological phenomena is with science and math.  Religious and faith traditions have always failed to describe natural law accurately, indeed they all have an element that defies natural law.  I don't see a use for it in my life or anyone else's.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 14, 2019)

Madman said:


> Sorry I havent totally read and digested the above.  As for prayer, I do not know if any of mine have been answered, and in retrospect I most assuredly hope that some have not, but, whether by an answer to prayer or good fortune, I have seen both my children grow into fine young men.



From talking with you I get the feeling that they would have turned out just fine without prayer.  My guess is that you took efforts to raise them well.


----------



## Madman (Apr 14, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> From talking with you I get the feeling that they would have turned out just fine without prayer.  My guess is that you took efforts to raise them well.


Thanks. Their mother is 5'-2" of awesomeness.


----------



## Madman (Apr 14, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> How so?  I don't claim that I know anything about infinity or infinite matter/proto-matter.  I'm still like a caveman looking at the stars and wondering what they're made of.  But I've been convinced by evidence that the best way to find out about cosmological phenomena is with science and math.  Religious and faith traditions have always failed to describe natural law accurately, indeed they all have an element that defies natural law.  I don't see a use for it in my life or anyone else's.


Just thinking about our earlier discussion on the belief of something eternal.  That in itself defies natural law.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 14, 2019)

Madman said:


> Just thinking about our earlier discussion on the belief of something eternal.  That in itself defies natural law.



We can't possibly know if anything is eternal, I can't imagine how we ever could.  We can speculate about it and supposing it brings up some interesting questions, but since we don't really know anything about it, there's no reason to think that what we suppose about it is true.


----------



## Madman (Apr 14, 2019)

I would argue that if there is ANYTHING now then SOMETHING must be eternal.  If there ever was a time when "no thing" existed then there could be "no thing" now.  For me the question is; what is the eternal thing?


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 14, 2019)

Madman said:


> I would argue that if there is ANYTHING now then SOMETHING must be eternal.  If there ever was a time when "no thing" existed then there could be "no thing" now.  For me the question is; what is the eternal thing?



I made the same argument but alas, it's all speculation.


----------



## Madman (Apr 14, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> I made the same argument but alas, it's all speculation.


Time for beer and chicken wings or whatever you philosophy over


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 15, 2019)

Madman said:


> Time for beer and chicken wings or whatever you philosophy over



Before or after we fish?


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 15, 2019)

I imagined a thought experiment.  If a supreme being were to make itself disappear from existence it would be "nothing" existing "nowhere".  Then by some non-understood and incomprehensible way, it could make itself reappear from nothing.  By this I mean that it was nothing, nowhere and it spontaneously became something, somewhere.  

This is really just a version of "Can God make a burrito so hot that he can't eat it?"  The answer should be "Yes", though inexplicable.

Funny stuff.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 15, 2019)

Seeing that all this speculation is well outside our pay grade, the question still remains "Is there anything besides personal preference for believing one way or the other?".

I'd like to move on and examine what the practical benefits psychologically or otherwise are for believing one way or the other.  I observe that differences in personal revelation are divisive in a way that scientific disagreement is not.  Though people kill each other over ideology, it's not because of, as the late Chris Hitchens put it "An explosion of rational thought".  When confronted by a theist who claimed that many atrocities of the 20th century were caused by secular thinking, Hitchens replied that they were a result of religious thinking wherein the State became the object of religious dogmatism.


----------



## Madman (Apr 15, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> Seeing that all this speculation is well outside our pay grade, the question still remains "Is there anything besides personal preference for believing one way or the other?".
> 
> I'd like to move on and examine what the practical benefits psychologically or otherwise are for believing one way or the other.  I observe that differences in personal revelation are divisive in a way that scientific disagreement is not.  Though people kill each other over ideology, it's not because of, as the late Chris Hitchens put it "An explosion of rational thought".  When confronted by a theist who claimed that many atrocities of the 20th century were caused by secular thinking, Hitchens replied that they were a result of religious thinking wherein the State became the object of religious dogmatism.



Anywhere men amass power it becomes corrupted. That is the constant struggle, hence the US Constitution,  and  how we have become so lazy in the US we have given power over to them.  
But I am in for the discussion.


----------



## redwards (Apr 17, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> We can't possibly know if anything is eternal, I can't imagine how we ever could.  We can speculate about it and supposing it brings up some interesting questions, but since we don't really know anything about it, there's no reason to think that what we suppose about it is true.



Kurt,

I agree with you…...up to a point…..”We”.....meaning an individual who has not accepted Jesus Christ as her/his personal Savior CANNOT know whether anything is eternal or not.

However, an individual who has accepted Jesus has the Holy Spirit living within her/him, and that/those individual(s) CAN CERTAINLY know that something is ETERNAL!


HOW?...you ask….I'm glad you asked!


Man (humankind) has four aspects (parts, if you will) about himself, and you can search any philosophy or psychology book or website you want and you will likely find the four aspects discussed.

They are, namely:


#1 Mental
#2 Physical
#3 Emotional
#4 Spiritual


The first three make up man's Soul.
Mental - Man's mind -- Man thinks
Emotional - Man's emotions -- Man feels
Physical - Man's will -- Man acts


The fourth part, the core of man, is his Spirit.

When man is born on planet earth, he is born dead Spiritually-
That is; Dead = Separated from God,
which can be represented by a -------------Line---------------

God (Spiritual), above the line.

Man (Physical), below the line.


Anything above the line can be thought of as ETERNAL.

Anything below the line can be thought of as TEMPORAL, or NOT ETERNAL.

So, since man's Spirit is "Dead" or "Separated from God" man functions with only Three parts-


#1 - Mental - Man's mind – what man thinks
---- a computer (as it were), to be programmed


#2 - Emotional - What man feels - Emotions follow man's thoughts,
        Emotions - have no Intellect
- no discernment for fact or fantasy
- can't discern today or tomorrow
- can't discern past, present, or future
- feels something from what the mind thinks
- are strictly responders


#3 - Physical  - Man's will
- Man acts
- based on what he thinks and what/how he feels


So man, without God to communicate with his spirit (the fourth part) CAN DO NOTHING BUT live "Below the Line"
which results in "Subjective Living"

Thank you!  You post is a very good example of "Subjective Living"
Which is:
Mental - Your eyes saw (or have seen) something and your mind interpreted it
Emotional - Your emotions kicked in
Physical - Man's will - Prompting you to create the above post
Result - Man's Actions: Dictated by what you think and what/how you feel.


So then, of what benefit is:
-LIVING ABOVE THE LINE-

Confession to God that I (man) am totally lost and dead in my (man) own sins, and accepting Jesus Christ as my (man) Personal Savior results in a regenerated soul and my (man) 'dead' spirit is GIVEN LIFE through the INDWELLING of the Holy Spirit who is in perfect communication with the will of God.
Because the regenerated man now has a LIVING SPIRIT (the 4th part of man), the first three parts of man can function in a completely different way. That is:


#1 Mental - Man's mind - man thinks on Truth (John 14:6),
a computer (as it were) programmed by God’s WORD – (1 Cor. 2:9-16)
-We are righteous – (II Cor. 5:21)
-We are perfect – (Heb 2:6-10)
-We are seated in Heaven - (Eph 2:6)
-We died to sin – (Rom 6:2)
-We are freed from sin – (Rom 6:7)
-We have Holy Spirit living within us (Rom 8:11)
-Our sins God will remember no more (Heb 10:15-17)

#2 Emotional – Man responds to Truth with God’s emotions
-- God’s Emotions –
-Peace (Phil 4:7)
-Joy   (John 15:11)
-Love  (I John 4:16)
-Fruit of the Spirit (Gal  5:22-24)

#3 Physical  - Man's will
-Man thinks on God’s Truth (John 8:32)
-Man‘s emotions respond with God’s emotions
-Man acts by Faith on God’s Truth (John 8:31)  (Matt 7:24-27)
Which results in “Objective Living”


                             Living Above the Line
                                       Eternal
                               " Objective Living"
------------------------------- The Line --------------------------------
                              " Subjective Living"
                                     Temporal
                             Living Below the Line


Given that a professing Christian has accepted Jesus Christ and that the NEW SPIRIT that lives within that individual is able to communicate with God, it is entirely possible to know of eternity!


Kurt….It hinges 100% on RELATIONSHIP!!...It is not about “religion”...


----------



## bullethead (Apr 17, 2019)

redwards said:


> Kurt,
> 
> I agree with you…...up to a point…..”We”.....meaning an individual who has not accepted Jesus Christ as her/his personal Savior CANNOT know whether anything is eternal or not.
> 
> ...


If that is true of one god and it's believers then it is true of the other gods and their believers, right?


----------



## redwards (Apr 17, 2019)

bullethead said:


> If that is true of one god and it's believers then it is true of the other gods and their believers, right?


Nope....there is only one true God....there are plenty of untrue gods.....


----------



## bullethead (Apr 17, 2019)

redwards said:


> Nope....there is only one true God....there are plenty of untrue gods.....


But those other believers have the same experiences as the ones you say are proof. You may be experiencing their gods and just can't figure it out.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 17, 2019)

redwards said:


> Nope....there is only one true God....there are plenty of untrue gods.....


Does the bible say that there are no other gods?


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 19, 2019)

redwards said:


> Kurt,
> 
> I agree with you…...up to a point…..”We”.....meaning an individual who has not accepted Jesus Christ as her/his personal Savior CANNOT know whether anything is eternal or not.
> 
> ...



You don't know if eternal life is real.  You believe what a book that said "bats are birds" told you.  I can't argue against your personal revelation, it's an impossible task.  In the same regard, you can't argue against someone else's personal revelation that leads them to believe that Allah is God, but I imagine that you feel confident in telling them that theirs is wrong.  That would make you a hypocrite.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 19, 2019)

Madman said:


> Anywhere men amass power it becomes corrupted. That is the constant struggle, hence the US Constitution,  and  how we have become so lazy in the US we have given power over to them.
> But I am in for the discussion.



I was talking with my church planter neighbor the other night about our conversation.  In doing so I came to the conclusion that the idea of a "Great Arbiter of right and wrong" is useful; not absolutely necessary, but useful.  As we see now, the Great Arbiter notion is quite divisive in a profound way, because when people disagree on the wishes of the Arbiter they can be driven to do terrible things to each other.  As the idea of the Arbiter gets tempered by secularism, the minor details become less important.  In another thread I suggested that for some kinds of people the notion of an arbiter is just the best way for them to structure their lives to work well in society.  Even if they're only being good because they're afraid of the "Boogey Man", the net result is that they behave.  I would prefer taht they behave because they have realized that it's best for themselves and everyone else for them to do so, but behaving because they want to please God or are afraid of his wrath accomplishes the same thing, even if it's not ideal. 

I also came to the conclusion that revelation should only be used to inform metaphysical questions and not ever to inform questions about things in the real world.  And revelations should be regarded as theories and not applied untill they have been proven through the scientific method to be useful.


----------



## ky55 (Apr 19, 2019)

redwards said:


> Kurt,
> 
> I agree with you…...up to a point…..”We”.....meaning an individual who has not accepted Jesus Christ as her/his personal Savior CANNOT know whether anything is eternal or not.
> 
> However, an individual who has accepted Jesus has the Holy Spirit living within her/him, and that/those individual(s) CAN CERTAINLY know that something is ETERNAL



You don’t know any more than anybody else.


----------



## WaltL1 (Apr 19, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> You don't know if eternal life is real.  You believe what a book that said "bats are birds" told you.  I can't argue against your personal revelation, it's an impossible task.  In the same regard, you can't argue against someone else's personal revelation that leads them to believe that Allah is God, but I imagine that you feel confident in telling them that theirs is wrong.  That would make you a hypocrite.





> That would make you a hypocrite.


Christianity/organized religion literally depends on people willing to be hypocrites as its life blood. Without it, organized religion unravels.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 19, 2019)

ky55 said:


> You don’t know any more than anybody else.




That's the biggest problem with faith based beliefs, they demand that the believer be absolutely certain that they are right.  Since many of the beliefs are contrary to what we know to be true, believers have to double down with their surety in order to believe them.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 19, 2019)

Going back to the original OP, if a non-believer reads a scientific paper talking about how something spontaneously came from nothing or that something was eternally there, it doesn't affect them to not take it to heart.  To the believer, the fact that their book tells them how something came from nothing and that some(thing/one) is eternal informs everything they do.  They have to believe that because if they don't, the rest of the claims in the book may topple like dominoes. That domino effect seems to be what caused many previous believers to now disbelieve.


----------



## Madman (Apr 19, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> I was talking with my church planter neighbor the other night about our conversation.  In doing so I came to the conclusion that the idea of a "Great Arbiter of right and wrong" is useful; not absolutely necessary, but useful.  As we see now, the Great Arbiter notion is quite divisive in a profound way, because when people disagree on the wishes of the Arbiter they can be driven to do terrible things to each other.  As the idea of the Arbiter gets tempered by secularism, the minor details become less important.  In another thread I suggested that for some kinds of people the notion of an arbiter is just the best way for them to structure their lives to work well in society.  Even if they're only being good because they're afraid of the "Boogey Man", the net result is that they behave.  I would prefer taht they behave because they have realized that it's best for themselves and everyone else for them to do so, but behaving because they want to please God or are afraid of his wrath accomplishes the same thing, even if it's not ideal.
> 
> I also came to the conclusion that revelation should only be used to inform metaphysical questions and not ever to inform questions about things in the real world.  And revelations should be regarded as theories and not applied untill they have been proven through the scientific method to be useful.


I need to spend some time with this.


----------



## redwards (Apr 19, 2019)

> But those other believers have the same experiences as the ones you say are proof. You may be experiencing their gods and just can't figure it out.





> Does the bible say that there are no other gods?





> You don't know if eternal life is real. You believe what a book that said "bats are birds" told you. I can't argue against your personal revelation, it's an impossible task. In the same regard, you can't argue against someone else's personal revelation that leads them to believe that Allah is God, but I imagine that you feel confident in telling them that theirs is wrong. That would make you a hypocrite.





> You don’t know any more than anybody else.





> Christianity/organized religion literally depends on people willing to be hypocrites as its life blood. Without it, organized religion unravels.





> That's the biggest problem with faith based beliefs, they demand that the believer be absolutely certain that they are right. Since many of the beliefs are contrary to what we know to be true, believers have to double down with their surety in order to believe them.



bullethead; Kurt; ky55; Walt

Thank you!  Your posts are very good examples of "Subjective Living"
Which is:
Mental - Your eyes saw (or have seen) something and your mind interpreted it
Emotional - Your emotions kicked in
Physical - Man's will - Prompting you to create the posts
Result - Man's Actions: Dictated by what you think and what/how you feel.


Which supports this statement:

It is impossible to reason with (fill in the blanks), one can only expose them to Truth.


----------



## Madman (Apr 19, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> Going back to the original OP, if a non-believer reads a scientific paper talking about how something spontaneously came from nothing or that something was eternally there, it doesn't affect them to not take it to heart.  To the believer, the fact that their book tells them how something came from nothing and that some(thing/one) is eternal informs everything they do.  They have to believe that because if they don't, the rest of the claims in the book may topple like dominoes. That domino effect seems to be what caused many previous believers to now disbelieve.


Ambush,  I have never said anything came from nothing, that is impossible and everyone knows that, except some non-believers.  It is not that the rest of the "book" crumbles, it is the fact that it is impossible.  If you believe that someting can come from nothing then don't laugh at those who you claim believe in the flying spaghetti monster.  
You believe in magic.

Dont worry about the "book" until you get past something from nothing.  That's where I started, at the beginning.

Have a good one.


----------



## atlashunter (Apr 19, 2019)

Nothing is what you experience when you aren’t living.


----------



## Madman (Apr 19, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> Nothing is what you experience when you aren’t living.


Here! Here!


----------



## WaltL1 (Apr 19, 2019)

redwards said:


> bullethead; Kurt; ky55; Walt
> 
> Thank you!  Your posts are very good examples of "Subjective Living"
> Which is:
> ...


What you describe above is called "human nature".
It is only your particular belief that connects it to a god.


----------



## WaltL1 (Apr 19, 2019)

Madman said:


> Ambush,  I have never said anything came from nothing, that is impossible and everyone knows that, except some non-believers.  It is not that the rest of the "book" crumbles, it is the fact that it is impossible.  If you believe that someting can come from nothing then don't laugh at those who you claim believe in the flying spaghetti monster.
> You believe in magic.
> 
> Dont worry about the "book" until you get past something from nothing.  That's where I started, at the beginning.
> ...





> anything came from nothing, that is impossible and everyone knows that, except some non-believers.


If you were asked "where did God come from" are you going to explain how he is the exception to that? (thereby proving it wrong)


----------



## Madman (Apr 19, 2019)

WaltL1 said:


> If you were asked "where did God come from" are you going to explain how he is the exception to that? (thereby proving it wrong)


Done it 100 times.  You first, where did this come from?


----------



## WaltL1 (Apr 19, 2019)

Madman said:


> Done it 100 times.  You first, where did this come from?


Help me out here -
Did what 100 times? Explain how God is the exception to that?


> You first, where did this come from?


Where did what come from? Everything? (the universe, us etc?)
I don't know.


----------



## Madman (Apr 19, 2019)

WaltL1 said:


> Help me out here -
> Did what 100 times? Explain how God is the exception to ?


No exception just logic.  Why does God need to be created?


----------



## WaltL1 (Apr 19, 2019)

Madman said:


> No exception just logic.  Why does God need to be created?


First -
Please stop claiming logic. There is no logic that gets you to a god because no god has been proven to exist. The only way you can claim logic is to assume one does and then go from there. Which of course is not logical.
Second -
A god is "something". "Something" falls under "anything".
Per your statement -


> anything came from nothing, that is impossible and everyone knows that, except some non-believers.


Since it is impossible for anything, which would include a god, to come from nothing, then a god HAD to come from something else.
Advance notice -
If you go off on some wacky diatribe that has nothing to do with those 2 completely contradictory statements, Im going to have to just bow out of the conversation to save us both frustration.


----------



## Madman (Apr 19, 2019)

WaltL1 said:


> First -
> Please stop claiming logic. There is no logic that gets you to a god because no god has been proven to exist. The only way you can claim logic is to assume one does and then go from there. Which of course is not logical.
> Second -
> A god is "something". "Something" falls under "anything".
> ...


Slow down.  The only thing that gets you to "anything" or "something" in the created order is something that is transcendent,  or outside of the created order.  That is logic.  Nothing in the created order can create itself.  The book cannot write itself.

I'm done.
Good night


----------



## WaltL1 (Apr 19, 2019)

Madman said:


> Slow down.  The only thing that gets you to "anything" or "something" in the created order is something that is transcendent,  or outside of the created order.  That is logic.  Nothing in the created order can create itself.  The book cannot write itself.
> 
> I'm done.
> Good night


Fine we'll play it your way.
It is not logical to claim a god is the writer of the book because no god has been proven to exist. Its just not a logical choice because its not a choice that has been proven to exist.
You can go on for 10 pages or 100 pages and you just cant get around that.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 19, 2019)

Madman said:


> Slow down.  The only thing that gets you to "anything" or "something" in the created order is something that is transcendent,  or outside of the created order.  That is logic.  Nothing in the created order can create itself.  The book cannot write itself.
> 
> I'm done.
> Good night


Man created the book that created the god. Nothing as far as anybody knows purposely created man. Man and everything else is a result of the available chemistry set. Only what can exist does. Anything beyond that is wishful thinking and a guess usually based off of wants and needs.


----------



## WaltL1 (Apr 19, 2019)

bullethead said:


> Man created the book that created the god. Nothing as far as anybody knows purposely created man. Man and everything else is a result of the available chemistry set. Only what can exist does. Anything beyond that is wishful thinking and a guess usually based off of wants and needs.


I'll never understand what is so difficult about admitting "this is what I believe, cant prove it, its not logical, but its what I believe".


----------



## bullethead (Apr 20, 2019)

WaltL1 said:


> I'll never understand what is so difficult about admitting "this is what I believe, cant prove it, its not logical, but its what I believe".


Everything that I can think of is only as strong as it's weakest part. Like a chain, when it busts it will bust at the weakest link. Any believer that relies on the contents of the bible as their foundation for making a case for that particular god is immediately on shaky ground due to the errors and inaccuracies regarding, events, science, history, knowledge, geography and most of all the monumental claims that exist nowhere else but within those pages. And claiming to use "logic"  then in the next breath having to insert something that has never been proven exist shows how weak an otherwise good sounding case is. 
Yeah, sure, if you can just suspend reality, logic reason, facts and evidence....this works!!!!
Basically they are standing on an empty soda can and it looks impressive until someone comes along and flicks the can and it all crumbles.


----------



## atlashunter (Apr 20, 2019)

Madman said:


> Slow down.  The only thing that gets you to "anything" or "something" in the created order is something that is transcendent,  or outside of the created order.  That is logic.  Nothing in the created order can create itself.  The book cannot write itself.
> 
> I'm done.
> Good night



How do you know everything that exists was created and how do you know your god isn’t part of that category? This is just a case of special pleading. You claim a rule as an absolute as “logic” without offering any demonstration of the truth of your claim and then you want an exception to the rule for a mythological figure you claim is the creator without a shred of evidence that this figure actually exists or created anything. That’s not logic. It’s just a bunch of baseless assertions.


----------



## atlashunter (Apr 20, 2019)

bullethead said:


> Everything that I can think of is only as strong as it's weakest part. Like a chain, when it busts it will bust at the weakest link. Any believer that relies on the contents of the bible as their foundation for making a case for that particular god is immediately on shaky ground due to the errors and inaccuracies regarding, events, science, history, knowledge, geography and most of all the monumental claims that exist nowhere else but within those pages. And claiming to use "logic"  then in the next breath having to insert something that has never been proven exist shows how weak an otherwise good sounding case is.
> Yeah, sure, if you can just suspend reality, logic reason, facts and evidence....this works!!!!
> Basically they are standing on an empty soda can and it looks impressive until someone comes along and flicks the can and it all crumbles.



It reminds me of William Lane Craig. I’ve seen him argue for God’s existence based on the resurrection and argue for the possibility of the resurrection based on Gods existence.


----------



## WaltL1 (Apr 20, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> How do you know everything that exists was created and how do you know your god isn’t part of that category? This is just a case of special pleading. You claim a rule as an absolute as “logic” without offering any demonstration of the truth of your claim and then you want an exception to the rule for a mythological figure you claim is the creator without a shred of evidence that this figure actually exists or created anything. That’s not logic. It’s just a bunch of baseless assertions.


If we can get past this illogical logic claim Im hoping this is what gets addressed -


> and then you want an exception to the rule


You cant say -


> anything came from nothing, that is impossible and everyone knows that, except some non-believers.


And then claim "except for".
The "except for" proves what you just said to be false.


----------



## Madman (Apr 20, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> How do you know everything that exists was created and how do you know your god isn’t part of that category? This is just a case of special pleading. You claim a rule as an absolute as “logic” without offering any demonstration of the truth of your claim and then you want an exception to the rule for a mythological figure you claim is the creator without a shred of evidence that this figure actually exists or created anything. That’s not logic. It’s just a bunch of baseless assertions.


The OP is what is nothing and could it ever have been. Answer that and then we can move on to the next part.
We have not gotten to "my god" yet.  Take the idea of God out of the conversation.  It is evident that you are so God focused that you can't get him out of your mind. Logically, philosophically, scientifically, and metaphysically, you have to make a choice;

1) something has always existed.
2) something came from nothing
3) you dont know.
4) something transcendent exists 

As for the analogy of the book, I am not speaking about the Bible, I am talking about any book. Logically the book does not write itself, there must be something "outside" of the book that wrote it.

Your arguments are just a bunch of scattered assertions.


----------



## Madman (Apr 20, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> It reminds me of William Lane Craig. I’ve seen him argue for God’s existence based on the resurrection and argue for the possibility of the resurrection based on Gods existence.


WLC argues from the calum argument, you have missed a lot.


----------



## WaltL1 (Apr 20, 2019)

Madman said:


> The OP is what is nothing and could it ever have been. Answer that and then we can move on to the next part.
> We have not gotten to "my god" yet.  Take the idea of God out of the conversation.  It is evident that you are so God focused that you can't get him out of your mind. Logically, philosophically, scientifically, and metaphysically, you have to make a choice;
> 
> 1) something has always existed.
> ...





> Logically the book does not write itself, there must be something "outside" of the book that wrote it.


Yes that is logic because we KNOW there is a book (any book) and that a book cant write itself.
However you are trying to use that one logical statement to then go off in an illogical direction that is comprised of what you believe not what is known.


----------



## redwards (Apr 20, 2019)

WaltL1 said:


> What you describe above is called "human nature".


Exactly, and that is the very nature that wrestles with my Spiritual Nature constantly.



> It is only your particular belief that connects it to a god.


I very respectfully disagree. It is my Spiritual Nature that is now alive that connects me with God. My human nature is always trying to disrupt that relationship. Be blessed Walt. I appreciate your response.


----------



## Madman (Apr 20, 2019)

WaltL1 said:


> Yes that is logic because we KNOW there is a book (any book) and that a book cant write itself.
> However you are trying to use that one logical statement to then go off in an illogical direction that is comprised of what you believe not what is known.


Ok now we have some place to start, a book cannot write itself.  Can we agree that matter cannot make itself?


----------



## WaltL1 (Apr 20, 2019)

Madman said:


> Ok now we have some place to start, a book cannot write itself.  Can we agree that matter cannot make itself?


While I can appreciate your wanting to take a step by step approach (as it should be) we both (all) know where this is heading.
Regardless of how much agreeing we do we are going to hit a wall of where human knowledge stops before we get to an end.
There is no logic or sound reasoning that can take us beyond that point.
Its an exercise in futility.


----------



## Madman (Apr 20, 2019)

WaltL1 said:


> (as it should be)


And yet you refuse.


----------



## WaltL1 (Apr 20, 2019)

Madman said:


> And yet you refuse.


I also agree a step by step approach should be used to determine if a square wheel is better than a round one but Im not going to spend a whole lot of time on it.
Your premise isn't a complicated one. Its even a legitimate one. Up to a certain point.
Im just jumping ahead to that point. We aren't starting from scratch here. You've already tipped your hat as to where you are going with it. And you cant get there based on human knowledge at this point.


----------



## Madman (Apr 20, 2019)

WaltL1 said:


> I also agree a step by step approach should be used to determine if a square wheel is better than a round one but Im not going to spend a whole lot of time on it.
> Your premise isn't a complicated one. Its even a legitimate one. Up to a certain point.
> Im just jumping ahead to that point. We aren't starting from scratch here. You've already tipped your hat as to where you are going with it. And you cant get there based on human knowledge at this point.



Most non-believers are just not comfortable with where it may lead.

Had you chosen to continue you may be surprised.  I hope you don't think I woke one morning and blindly decided to be a "theist" which eventually led me to Christianity.  It was a very slow and deliberate process, science and engineering, philosophy and logic, have all been instrumental.

P.S. not everything is "measurable" many things that we know are not measurable.

Anyway, we'll let this topic go.


----------



## WaltL1 (Apr 20, 2019)

Madman said:


> Most non-believers are just not comfortable with where it may lead.
> 
> Had you chosen to continue you may be surprised.  I hope you don't think I woke one morning and blindly decided to be a "theist" which eventually led me to Christianity.  It was a very slow and deliberate process, science and engineering, philosophy and logic, have all been I instrumental.
> 
> ...


Just so you know -


> Most non-believers are just not comfortable with where it may lead.


I, and Im really comfortable about including the rest of the A/As here, do not fall into that category ^. I can guarantee none of us are going to miss a meal due to an upset stomach if a god (any of them) were proven to exist tomorrow. I have no emotional investment in whether there is or isnt. In fact it would be satisfying to have an answer one way or the other.
But its just a fact that at this point in human knowledge no god has been proven to exist. There is no logic, science or engineering that gets around that.
So any argument using them (like yours) is a dead end. It will only get you so far. It would require a leap of faith to get the rest of the way and thats where we get off the train.
And while I may be wrong, I read this -


> I hope you don't think I woke one morning and blindly decided to be a "theist" which eventually led me to Christianity.  It was a very slow and deliberate process, science and engineering, philosophy and logic, have all been I instrumental.


as "Im not stupid because I believe in God".
Nobody has accused you of being stupid for believing. It simply boils down to you are willing to take that leap of faith. It wasnt the logic or engineering or science that got you there.
It was that leap of faith.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 20, 2019)

Madman said:


> Ok now we have some place to start, a book cannot write itself.  Can we agree that matter cannot make itself?


Energy makes matter.
Energy most likely is eternal.
It fills all of the criteria.


----------



## atlashunter (Apr 20, 2019)

Madman said:


> The OP is what is nothing and could it ever have been. Answer that and then we can move on to the next part.
> We have not gotten to "my god" yet.  Take the idea of God out of the conversation.  It is evident that you are so God focused that you can't get him out of your mind. Logically, philosophically, scientifically, and metaphysically, you have to make a choice;
> 
> 1) something has always existed.
> ...



Actually we have gotten to your god because you and others are talking about it. I already answered the OP in my first post. Not that there was any need for me to in order for us to "move on" to things you said.

If it is possible that "some thing has always existed" because you believe there is a deity that has always existed that's fine. Believe it if you wish. There is no evidence that any such thing exists but we won't tell you logic precludes it. It's possible. By that same logic, other things may have always existed.


----------



## atlashunter (Apr 20, 2019)

Madman said:


> WLC argues from the calum argument, you have missed a lot.



I've heard him make both arguments in separate debates. In arguing for the resurrection he relies heavily on the claim that god exists to lessen the improbability of the resurrection being historical. Then in another debate he will make the argument for god existing because of what he claims is the historicity of the resurrection.

It's spelled Kalam.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 20, 2019)

Madman said:


> Ok now we have some place to start, a book cannot write itself.  Can we agree that matter cannot make itself?


It seems like in order to make your point you want to use "earthly" or human type accomplishments in order to deduce how a god, and then specifically how the god of the bible, is THE god responsible for all of this doing.
If such a being exists outside of the Universe then there is no need for it to conform to the laws of the Universe. And then rightly so, we as humans should not be able to figure out how humans came about other than from dust or figure out that it took even one second more for the Universe to be created in 6 days.
But a book is a good example because ONE book in particular can be used to discuss this.
Meaning, if the bible explains how all of the Universe got it's start and also explains how "god" "made" man from dust and those two things have been found not to be accurate let alone true, it leaves a huge deficit for the believer to now claim that their god is above all that, but then use analogies to try to explain why a God creates in ways that are below all that.

Human logic says that a book must have a writer. And the book can only be as good as the writer(s) who wrote it.
It also then says if a book needs to be created the creator must have a creator so a writer must have a mother and father. Then on and on and on and on and on backwards.
The Bible says that very first human was made from dust by a God and his name was Adam, then God made a woman from the rib of Adam and they were meant to populate. They were made in God's image, which, can we agree is what  "modern" humans look like now?
BUT,  we know that the human de-evolution goes back millions of years to a creature(s) that shares our dna but did not look or act "modern".
We know that in reality men and women have 12 pairs of ribs which equal 24 ribs. And that does vary due to many reasons, but equal amount of ribs for both is accurate. Women are not created to have one more rib than men.

Now just "logically" using those two small examples of what is written in the bible and what science knows, we have to decide which is the more accurate description of how the human race came to exist.
Clearly the way the bible tells it, which also happens to be the same "god" type figure which is touted as being the creator, the uncaused cause and the only thing that can be eternal....is flat out wrong.
So then we move onto well, ok, this same "god" got the ball rolling in a different way than the bible claims.
Ok then, throw the bible out of use as a source of accuracy. It cannot be relied upon to tell us anything about this god or how anything came to exist.
It is useless.

So now we have absolutely ZERO credible sources that are to be considered able to provide ANY sort of accurate information about a deity that is eternal, the uncaused cause or the creator.  And EVERYTHING now used to explain such a deity comes from imagination based off of what an individual can conjure up which is MOSTLY influenced from a book which is absolutely inaccurate,  fallible, error filled and untrustworthy. The books creators didn't create accurately. It also seems as though they created an excuse for the things they just absolutely did not understand and the claims that a god inspired these people to write "his" book is also an awful attempt to ignore how badly a god did in "creating" that to be done properly.

So, how do you or how does anyone KNOW a god exists, let alone a god is responsible for creating, let alone narrow it down to one god WITH specifics?


----------



## Madman (Apr 20, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> It's spelled Kalam.


My phone always corrects me.


----------



## Israel (Apr 21, 2019)

WaltL1 said:


> While I can appreciate your wanting to take a step by step approach (as it should be) we both (all) know where this is heading.
> Regardless of how much agreeing we do we are going to hit a wall of where human knowledge stops before we get to an end.
> There is no logic or sound reasoning that can take us beyond that point.
> Its an exercise in futility.



I agree.

Any of _my reason_ (if extended to "our" _reasoning_) can no more get me to God (or any understanding) than it can _help/enlighten_ any other. What you have said "it's an exercise in futility" I have often said alternatively as "it's a wash" among men. 

Hitchens was clear "your miracles [even] won't do it", going so far as to say in a manner, "even if I grant resurrection (and resurrections, for they seemed a not exclusive matter in the Bible), virgin birth and the like (granting parthenogenesis), they still won't do it". I think I _get that. _In fact, in and of myself, I know that personally.

And for me it goes at least as far (but does not _stop at that particular point)_ to having learned among men that experiences and reasoning among men, to each, is their own peculiar domain. Each can only bear so much of an incursion by another before self integrity feels threatened and is reacted to by opposition.

For Hitchens, he was willing to declare the line being crossed in Jesus' own teachings...finding a lack of integrity in them. For many, I believe these are what would, or might fall under the "harder sayings"...so seemingly contrary to basic reason as to easily be questionable/rejected on their face. And though there be many who might say "Jesus had some very good things to say"...the rest may appear to them as babblings or rubbish. (Or viewed as being inserted for attribution to him to some nefarious end by the _inserters_). Almost everyone finds some willingness to concur that "loving ones neighbor as themself" has some merit; that _nice Jesus _suddenly disappears in claim of exclusivity for enlightenment. Or in whatever other place the self is offended by its reduction of choice...to zero.

Yeah, I _get that. _And so like Hitchens (and not unlike him in much) I also get _the how _of another's testimony can be insufficient. If we are speaking of ultimate matters (are we?) how much more of ultimate convincing is then necessary to any man? My experiences...will not _do it_ for you. You are _your self, _and it is not only right, but fitting, that _my self _have no dominion (by whatever power of assertion or exertion) over yours. Yes, my miracle/miracles (nor my reason/reasonings) cannot _do it_ for you. You might be intrigued, you might find some interest, you might even declare some affinity or compatibility (or just as equally, vociferously deny it)..but in all that does not matter, you still remain you, and I me. And that is unless we are both so very wrongly perceiving of _ourselves._

The weakness of resort to strength of numbers here shows itself...when it is just you and I. Thus, the wash. The frustration of the futility you mention. "Atheists" as a group are better informed. Christians _as a group also _includes Oxford scholars. But, Christians were/are willing to die for their faith...Nazi's were willing to do no less for what they believed. There are so many who say they believe (are they all deluded?)...there are so many who likewise say they do not. "But look at the world in its godlessness"..."seems it's just as it ever was". "But I have seen God do such and such"..."but I have never". "To me God is so abundantly apparent"..."never seen such work that can't be explained some other way".

Yes, if it's all "a wash" in all things (I prefer braid/ I prefer flouro) then the most ultimate matters will both meet with the _more _[sic] ultimate assertions. Each self asserting in like measure to what is viewed most necessary to its maintenance of integrity (to itself). So that if nothing from "outside" puts a finger on the scale it must always remain so...a wash.

Two questions. Can a man, any man, have all the above propositions/assertions taking place within himself, with no need for "another"...in other words, can a man in all his reasoning within himself (again, with no need for another man) discover to himself it is all a "wash"? It doesn't matter at all, in time or eternity (if it can be perceived) what "he chooses" for ultimately it is shown to him that all is no more than a matter of his own choice of "side" in anything...and from that he is all of inescapable. He to himself is then "the wash" of _no consequence _whatsoever in all of it. Having no more ability to "get behind", go prior to, unearth the reason that displays reason as to why he chooses as he does? Whether he is inclined to be a Mother Theresa like figure or a Jeffrey Dahmer (or go to the "go to" for all malignity, Adolf, who as far as we know, never personally killed anyone...except maybe WW1).
Oh, sure...other men en masse may approve or so disapprove of him and his being, but they are no less caught up in their own "wash" of their own preferences. Why would, to any man so knowing this, even of himself...be willing to submit to such a silly thing as weight of numbers when _the weight_ of all his own choices have been so clearly demonstrated to him as meaningless? Is it wise to "go with the crowd"? Is it all that is unwise? Consequences may have influence but _only a liar _reasons backward from personal consequence to determine truth.

The second question may be the more salient. If a finger is discerned within a man (or can be?) as coming down upon that scale in which all was previously "a wash", where all seeming negatives were in just as perfect array as all seeming positives...to such a balance in that man's self appearance of having no weight to either...how many "times" is enough to that man? Need he discern God's hand once? If he says _he never_ has had anything to upset his scales he can tell me all day he was a devout christian, he's just a liar. If he tells me this is not possible he is likewise...saying he himself has gone and surveyed the "outside" and found nothing there...coming _back_ as liar. What he can do is say I am completely deluded, but then he must also, if _claiming completely_...say he is no less _completely assured _the _outside _can never act to come into the inside of a man. And not only "place a finger", but utterly destroy that prior balance. It need only happen once, there is no repair of the scales after touched by that hand...unless a man show himself a liar. 

A wash? Of course between us. To the one who says "I used to be a christian _and I too once thought_ God spoke to me, but it was just my thinking"" the simplest reply is, "of course, just like _you think now_ He does not".


----------



## WaltL1 (Apr 22, 2019)

Israel said:


> I agree.
> 
> Any of _my reason_ (if extended to "our" _reasoning_) can no more get me to God (or any understanding) than it can _help/enlighten_ any other. What you have said "it's an exercise in futility" I have often said alternatively as "it's a wash" among men.
> 
> ...





> (I prefer braid/ I prefer flouro)


I prefer braid with a flouro leader 
(and no that's not the only thing I got out of your post)


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 22, 2019)

redwards said:


> bullethead; Kurt; ky55; Walt
> 
> Thank you!  Your posts are very good examples of "Subjective Living"
> Which is:
> ...


----------

