# Why is there something?



## Madman (Apr 22, 2019)

In is thread What is "Nothing"? ambush stated;

"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." 

This is a most excellent philosophical question. 

I have another question: Why is there something rather than nothing?


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 22, 2019)

Madman said:


> In is thread What is "Nothing"? ambush stated;
> 
> "I tossed and turned a bit last night trying to figure this out.
> 
> ...



Why wouldn't there be?  

I'll try not to leave the realm of what we can _*all*_ agree to be true.  There is something.  As far as we know (And that's a HUGE gap in knowledge) something doesn't just come from nothing. According to the laws of the universe (the pitiful little we understand about them) either something came from nothing or something has always been around.  

"Why?" probably isn't a scientific question.


----------



## WaltL1 (Apr 22, 2019)

> I have another question: Why is there something rather than nothing?


Seems to be a purely philosophical question and my brain doesn't really work that way so I'll probably just follow along and ask a question or two based on peoples responses.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 22, 2019)

Madman said:


> In is thread What is "Nothing"? ambush stated;
> 
> "I tossed and turned a bit last night trying to figure this out.
> 
> ...


Conditions allow something to be.


----------



## Madman (Apr 22, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> Why wouldn't there be?
> 
> I'll try not to leave the realm of what we can _*all*_ agree to be true.  There is something.  As far as we know (And that's a HUGE gap in knowledge) something doesn't just come from nothing. According to the laws of the universe (the pitiful little we understand about them) either something came from nothing or something has always been around.
> 
> "Why?" probably isn't a scientific question.


Don't let this slip through the cracks.  The majority of us have been taught to begin with the periodic table and see it as containing the building blocks of everything.  There is an older way of looking at the world, what is the "isness" of something, what is it? Why is it?  That is where this question starts. Why is there something?  There must be a reason for it.


----------



## Madman (Apr 22, 2019)

bullethead said:


> Conditions allow something to be.


So it is allowable or is it necessary?


----------



## bullethead (Apr 22, 2019)

Madman said:


> So it is allowable or is it necessary?


Something is the result of the available chemistry set. Only what can be, will be, in the conditions that allow it to be.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 22, 2019)

bullethead said:


> Something is the result of the available chemistry set. Only what can be, will be, in the conditions that allow it to be.



All true, as far as I can tell.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 22, 2019)

Madman said:


> Don't let this slip through the cracks.  The majority of us have been taught to begin with the periodic table and see it as containing the building blocks of everything.  There is an older way of looking at the world, what is the "isness" of something, what is it? Why is it?  That is where this question starts. Why is there something?  There must be a reason for it.



Then we were told about Uncertainty Principle and dark matter.  I just don't think things are as simple as we thought.  I kind of see the explanation of "A guy" as being too simple, too naive, to archaic, too typical of man's ancient ignorance to give it much consideration.  When the evidence starts to point more towards a guy than away from it I'll consider it again.

I sound silly when I ask myself "Why is there something?" and I answer "Because a guy wished it to be".


----------



## atlashunter (Apr 22, 2019)

The honest answer is we don't know.


----------



## Madman (Apr 22, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> Then we were told about Uncertainty Principle and dark matter.  I just don't think things are as simple as we thought.  I kind of see the explanation of "A guy" as being too simple, too naive, to archaic, too typical of man's ancient ignorance to give it much consideration.  When the evidence starts to point more towards a guy than away from it I'll consider it again.
> 
> I sound silly when I ask myself "Why is there something?" and I answer "Because a guy wished it to be".


We need to get away from "the guy".  A/A's seem to fear being trapped into a guy with a beard.  Uncertainty principle, (which by the way states, something happens but I dont know what,) or dark matter or any number of other things are unexplainable scientifically, yet you pursue them because there may some "guy" at the end if you go the other way.

Well the "guy" or the energy, or the spaghetti monster, may fit in this metaphysical reality that you are pursuing.  

We have to let the evidence take us where it leads.  

I believe at some level we can understand, why there is something rather than nothing.

In old threads we have discussed things that we know, not because we can see them directly or measure them,  but we can see how they affect other things that we can see or measure.  

Many philosophical questions are answered the same way.

What is nothing is just as "immeasurable " as why is there something.


----------



## stringmusic (Apr 22, 2019)

bullethead said:


> Something is the result of the available chemistry set.


A chemistry set is something, which makes this statement a logical fallacy, and still doesn’t answer the question. 

Science, as ambush pointed out earlier, doesn’t answer why questions. So if one looks to the scientists to answer it they will always come up short.


----------



## Madman (Apr 22, 2019)

bullethead said:


> Something is the result of the available chemistry set. Only what can be, will be, in the conditions that allow it to be.


But you dont treat your children or you wife or friends like chemical compounds.  You love them, that is a spiritual aspect, you look beyond the measurable things, color,  weight, height, etc.,  and try to understand the reasons you love them, why do they love you. We try to understand what it means to be a human being.

 What is it about something that you like and about something else that you dont.  What we see is considerably more complex than a chemistry set.


----------



## Madman (Apr 22, 2019)

stringmusic said:


> A chemistry set is something, which makes this statement a logical fallacy, and still doesn’t answer the question.
> 
> Science, as ambush pointed out earlier, doesn’t answer why questions. So if one looks to the scientists to answer it they will always come up short.


Agreed, And my point is that science is incapable of answering every question, that is why we must move beyond the physical to the metaphysical, and not be afraid of where it leads.


----------



## Madman (Apr 22, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> The honest answer is we don't know.


Then we need to keep looking.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 22, 2019)

Madman said:


> But you dont treat your children or you wife or friends like chemical compounds.  You love them, that is a spiritual aspect, you look beyond the measurable things, color,  weight, height, etc.,  and try to understand the reasons you love them, why do they love you. We try to understand what it means to be a human being.
> 
> What is it about something that you like and about something else that you dont.  What we see is considerably more complex than a chemistry set.


Me loving them has nothing to do with why they exist.
Now, my children are the way they because of the dna of my wife and I.
They would not look like they do from any two other people, or any one other person. They are the result of Me and my Wife getting together. They formed because conditions allowed it.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 22, 2019)

stringmusic said:


> A chemistry set is something, which makes this statement a logical fallacy, and still doesn’t answer the question.
> 
> Science, as ambush pointed out earlier, doesn’t answer why questions. So if one looks to the scientists to answer it they will always come up short.


I don't think you understand what a logical fallacy is.
"the modes in which, by neglecting the rules of logic, we often fall into erroneous reasoning."
How is that a logical fallacy?


Nothing answers all the questions.  So far everything comes up short.

The chemistry set exists because of Energy. Energy creates matter.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 22, 2019)

Madman said:


> But you dont treat your children or you wife or friends like chemical compounds.  You love them, that is a spiritual aspect, you look beyond the measurable things, color,  weight, height, etc.,  and try to understand the reasons you love them, why do they love you. We try to understand what it means to be a human being.
> 
> What is it about something that you like and about something else that you dont.  What we see is considerably more complex than a chemistry set.


Humans that Love....
http://www.weirdworm.com/the-5-weirdest-things-people-have-fallen-in-love-with/
What is the metaphysical and spiritual aspect of those loves?


----------



## bullethead (Apr 22, 2019)

Madman said:


> Agreed, And my point is that science is incapable of answering every question, that is why we must move beyond the physical to the metaphysical, and not be afraid of where it leads.


Explain exactly how the metaphysical is understood let alone can be followed.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Apr 22, 2019)

I've always thought that in order for something to exist, so does it's opposite. Like how can we have good without evil or life without death? Maybe we need the opposite to see or understand the other. We need something as a measurement. 

Like God working outside of time. We need time to understand living outside of time. Love, we need hate. Cold, we need hot.

Nothingness, we need something. Something, we need nothing.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Apr 22, 2019)

I'm not sure there has ever been a time or even outside of time, that "nothing" and "something" didn't exist. Wow, this could get really confusing.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 22, 2019)

Artfuldodger said:


> I've always thought that in order for something to exist, so does it's opposite. Like how can we have good without evil or life without death? Maybe we need the opposite to see or understand the other. We need something as a measurement.
> 
> Like God working outside of time. We need time to understand living outside of time. Love, we need hate. Cold, we need hot.
> 
> Nothingness, we need something. Something, we need nothing.


All that we know of and most of what we do not know exists in this Universe. Within this Universe there cannot be a place where there is nothing. An empty box is not empty. There are billions of tiny particles coming from space that pass through your body every second of every day.

Nothing means just that. NOTHING.


----------



## WaltL1 (Apr 22, 2019)

Madman said:


> Agreed, And my point is that science is incapable of answering every question, that is why we must move beyond the physical to the metaphysical, and not be afraid of where it leads.


You are trying to assign a scientific concept (where it leads) to the metaphysical.
The metaphysical leads wherever you want to IMAGINE or BELIEVE it leads.
The physical does not. It only leads to wherever it physically can.


----------



## Madman (Apr 22, 2019)

bullethead said:


> Humans that Love....
> http://www.weirdworm.com/the-5-weirdest-things-people-have-fallen-in-love-with/
> What is the metaphysical and spiritual aspect of those loves?


What type of love is that?  Do you love your wife the way you love your truck?


----------



## Madman (Apr 22, 2019)

WaltL1 said:


> You are trying to assign a scientific concept (where it leads) to the metaphysical.


No I'm not


----------



## bullethead (Apr 22, 2019)

Madman said:


> What type of love is that?  Do you love your wife the way you love your truck?


Me, no.
Others, absolutely.

Madman, that lady married a dolphin...
These spiritual humans eat toilet paper and lick toilet seats, dress as dogs and live like dogs , they have blow up dolls as actual companions.
Tell us more about special connections of the beyond in us humans designed to be...


----------



## Madman (Apr 22, 2019)

I'll take the A/A answer to be. "Cause there just is".


----------



## Madman (Apr 22, 2019)

bullethead said:


> Me, no.
> Others, absolutely.
> 
> Madman, that lady married a dolphin...


Psychotic people are not the norm we are discussing.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Apr 22, 2019)

Madman said:


> Agreed, And my point is that science is incapable of answering every question, that is why we must move beyond the physical to the metaphysical, and not be afraid of where it leads.



While that may be true, why has God used science to answer what is physical? I would imagine that there will never be a time or even outside of time that science will give us all of the answers. I'm not sure science can even answer anything beyond time. 

So if "time" and "physical" were inserted into existence, the Creator did it. If the Creator gave us science to explain the "physical" and "time."

I don't know. Maybe He has hid the rest. Maybe one day such as how we now explain the rainbow, revelation will be given to explain "beginnings." 

I will say though that without endings, we can't have beginnings. Maybe? Without time, we can't have an Alpha and Omega.


----------



## stringmusic (Apr 22, 2019)

bullethead said:


> I don't think you understand what a logical fallacy is.
> "the modes in which, by neglecting the rules of logic, we often fall into erroneous reasoning."
> How is that a logical fallacy?


“nothing” and a chemistry set can’t exist at the same time, including energy, that’s what makes your statement illogical. 




> The chemistry set exists because of Energy. Energy creates matter.


Few things, one, I don’t believe scientists even agree on what energy even is. Second, what created energy? Third, you’re still leaving the question of why there is something rather than nothing unanswered. 

Follow up question, how does energy violate the first law of thermodynamics?


----------



## WaltL1 (Apr 22, 2019)

Madman said:


> No I'm not


Yes you are.
Metaphysics is a field of philosophy.
Philosophy leads wherever you want it to.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 22, 2019)

Madman said:


> Psychotic people are not the norm we are discussing.


Ohhhh, those psychos are not like the people who got their fertilizer together and believe in guys who come back from the dead, fly, and a big daddy the lives elsewhere...who "we" happen to look like.
Gotcha


----------



## Madman (Apr 22, 2019)

Artfuldodger said:


> While that may be true, why has God used science to answer what is physical?


If there is a being that you call God, would he not be ordered, would he not design with certain laws, would we not see patterns, etc.?  

He didn't use science to answer, we scientifically search to learn about him.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Apr 22, 2019)

How could eternal life have ever existed without death? Especially once "time" was added to creation. You have to have both of everything or it's not a thing.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 22, 2019)

stringmusic said:


> “nothing” and a chemistry set can’t exist at the same time, including energy, that’s what makes your statement illogical.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Oh boy you are back full force...who said anything about there ever being NOTHING? 

In this Universe Energy had always existed. 14 billion years and counting. That is when time began.
What do you know is older than that?


----------



## Madman (Apr 22, 2019)

bullethead said:


> Ohhhh, those psychos are not like the people who got their fertilizer together and believe in guys who come back from the dead, fly, and a big daddy the lives elsewhere...who "we" happen to look like.
> Gotcha


Or the ones who think something comes from nothing, or that effects have always existed.
Gotcha


----------



## bullethead (Apr 22, 2019)

Madman said:


> If there is a being that you call God, would he not be ordered, would he not design with certain laws, would we not see patterns, etc.?
> 
> He didn't use science to answer, we scientifically search to learn about him.


Some people call the Sun GOD. 
What is ordered about the Sun, what did the Sun create, what pattern can we see?


----------



## bullethead (Apr 22, 2019)

Madman said:


> Or the ones who think something comes from nothing, or that effects have always existed.
> Gotcha


Who says something came from nothing?


----------



## WaltL1 (Apr 22, 2019)

Hey String!
Good to see you. Hope you and yours are doing well.


----------



## stringmusic (Apr 22, 2019)

bullethead said:


> Oh boy you are back full force...who said anything about there ever being NOTHING?


Um, the OP.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Apr 22, 2019)

Madman said:


> If there is a being that you call God, would he not be ordered, would he not design with certain laws, would we not see patterns, etc.?
> 
> He didn't use science to answer, we scientifically search to learn about him.



What makes you think he didn't use science to create and for the physical to function? It's hard to believe science is something man created to explain how God controls the physical part of his creation.

He would only be ordered to control His creation by the Laws he created for his creation to conform to.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 22, 2019)

Madman said:


> Or the ones who think something comes from nothing, or that effects have always existed.
> Gotcha


That "something came from nothing" statement is always made by Theists. No non believer I ever knew or read about ever said such a thing.


----------



## stringmusic (Apr 22, 2019)

WaltL1 said:


> Hey String!
> Good to see you. Hope you and yours are doing well.


 Doing good Walt, well, except for these dang birds that won’t cooperate.

Hope you and the family are doing good too man.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 22, 2019)

stringmusic said:


> Um, the OP.


String , I never mentioned there being Nothing and you are inserting that into my answer to make it into a logical fallacy. 
You will have to take up How NOTHING became something with Madman, he is the OP.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 22, 2019)

Artfuldodger said:


> What makes you think he didn't use science to create and for the physical to function? It's hard to believe science is something man created to explain how God controls the physical part of his creation.
> 
> He would only be ordered to control His creation by the Laws he created for his creation to conform to.


Art, honest question, Do you think that a Force that is BEYOND our understanding is going to use Science to create?

The bible tells us of creation taking 6 days. From every smallest sub atomic particle to every complex organism and object in the entire Universe,...6 days. This God created a man that is said to look just like us from dust!!!
This bible is Gods word.

Science refutes it.

So which is it?
God uses science or the Bible should not be taken as Gods word??


----------



## Madman (Apr 22, 2019)

Artfuldodger said:


> What makes you think he didn't use science to create and for the physical to function? It's hard to believe science is something man created to explain how God controls the physical part of his creation.
> 
> He would only be ordered to control His creation by the Laws he created for his creation to conform to.


Be cause he is science.


----------



## Madman (Apr 22, 2019)

bullethead said:


> That "something came from nothing" statement is always made by Theists. No non believer I ever knew or read about ever said such a thing.


Then why is there something?


----------



## bullethead (Apr 22, 2019)

Madman said:


> Then why is there something?


My guess is because something always was.
The Universe is 14.something  billion years old.
I have no idea what was or what was not one second before that.

But, I have a very hard time with a "spirit" outside of the physical creating the physical.
We know it did not happen the way a certain gods book said it happened, and there is no spiritual creation since...so...


----------



## Madman (Apr 22, 2019)

bullethead said:


> My guess is because something always was.
> The Universe is 14.something  billion years old.
> I have no idea what was or what was not one second before that.
> 
> ...


Very good.  I have your answer.  
You coming down for lunch with me and ambush?


----------



## bullethead (Apr 22, 2019)

Madman said:


> Very good.  I have your answer.
> You coming down for lunch with me and ambush?


Id like to some time.


----------



## Madman (Apr 22, 2019)

bullethead said:


> Id like to some time.


Let us know if you come south.  I'll do the same if I come north


----------



## bullethead (Apr 22, 2019)

Madman said:


> Let us know if you come south.  I'll do the same if I come north


Will definitely do, appreciated.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Apr 22, 2019)

bullethead said:


> Art, honest question, Do you think that a Force that is BEYOND our understanding is going to use Science to create?
> 
> The bible tells us of creation taking 6 days. From every smallest sub atomic particle to every complex organism and object in the entire Universe,...6 days. This God created a man that is said to look just like us from dust!!!
> This bible is Gods word.
> ...



Well since you put it that way, I'll have to rethink how babies are born and what rainbows are.  That force also worked within the restraints of time which he also created.

I don't really have an answer to your question.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 22, 2019)

Artfuldodger said:


> Well since you put it that way, I'll have to rethink how babies are born and what rainbows are.  That force also worked within the restraints of time which he also created.
> 
> I don't really have an answer to your question.


Those are the types of things I think about though.
Like the bible says 6 days for creation and in those 6 days man was included.
The best available information shows that creation was over 14 billion years ago.
And Man has been on the Earth about 2 million years.
Which "man" is the image of god?
6000 year old man, 50,000 year old man, 200,000 year old man or man that started to walk upright but still slept in trees?

What I DO think is the stories in the OT are the tales of how the Hebrews believe they came to exist. That people and races existed before them but one of the many gods(because they acknowledged many) took it upon itself to create them as "his" people to serve "him" at that time. His chosen. It was never meant for anyone else except them and the rest is their explanation of their history as a culture.


----------



## ky55 (Apr 22, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> The honest answer is we don't know.



That really seems like such a simple concept to me.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 22, 2019)

Madman and String,
Who, especially in here that is not a believer, has ever said that something came from nothing?

And to jump right to it, who created god if there is No Thing that can be eternal?

 Eternity would have to have a starting time just not an ending time.
Spending an eternity in heaven would start when you die, you would not have always been in heaven correct? So eternity has a starting point as does something eternal.
If the Big Bang is the start of time it would seem that Energy has definitely been ETERNAL because it still exists. There is evidence of it the entire time.


If there was no Universe as we know it before the Big Bang there had to still be something where that energy was.


----------



## atlashunter (Apr 23, 2019)

Madman said:


> Agreed, And my point is that science is incapable of answering every question, that is why we must move beyond the physical to the metaphysical, and not be afraid of where it leads.



^God of the gaps.


----------



## Israel (Apr 23, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> ^God of the gaps.



Yes, He is.


----------



## WaltL1 (Apr 23, 2019)

bullethead said:


> That "something came from nothing" statement is always made by Theists. No non believer I ever knew or read about ever said such a thing.


While I don't personally know many A/As beyond the ones that participate here, I have NEVER heard or read an A/A make that claim.
It seems contradictory. A/As get "dinged" for worshipping science yet something coming from literally nothing would be pretty UNscientific and not a position a science worshipping person would take.


----------



## WaltL1 (Apr 23, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> ^God of the gaps.


Exactly.
"This road doesn't take us where we want to go so lets imagine a road that does".


----------



## atlashunter (Apr 23, 2019)

WaltL1 said:


> Exactly.
> "This road doesn't take us where we want to go so lets imagine a road that does".



It’s a road they have taken us down many times before.


----------



## j_seph (Apr 23, 2019)

Artfuldodger said:


> I've always thought that in order for something to exist, so does it's opposite. Like how can we have good without evil or life without death? Maybe we need the opposite to see or understand the other. We need something as a measurement.
> 
> Like God working outside of time. We need time to understand living outside of time. Love, we need hate. Cold, we need hot.
> 
> Nothingness, we need something. Something, we need nothing.


What came first, Good or Evil? Say the first person, since y'all do not believe I will not state Adam. Was the first person Evil or Good? If they were Good then why would say the 2nd or 3rd person become Evil if all they ever knew was Good. Was the first person Evil? If they were Evil then how would the 2nd or 3rd person become Good if all they ever knew was Evil?


----------



## bullethead (Apr 23, 2019)

j_seph said:


> What came first, Good or Evil? Say the first person, since y'all do not believe I will not state Adam. Was the first person Evil or Good? If they were Good then why would say the 2nd or 3rd person become Evil if all they ever knew was Good. Was the first person Evil? If they were Evil then how would the 2nd or 3rd person become Good if all they ever knew was Evil?


Wouldn't it have to come from and exist before the first person?

And if not, Good/Evil is a relative term that depends on the situation.


----------



## atlashunter (Apr 23, 2019)

Before science gave us germ theory religion gave us the flagellants. History demonstrates superstition is not a viable pathway to knowledge. It only gets in the way of real discovery.


----------



## WaltL1 (Apr 23, 2019)

j_seph said:


> What came first, Good or Evil? Say the first person, since y'all do not believe I will not state Adam. Was the first person Evil or Good? If they were Good then why would say the 2nd or 3rd person become Evil if all they ever knew was Good. Was the first person Evil? If they were Evil then how would the 2nd or 3rd person become Good if all they ever knew was Evil?


Good and Evil are descriptive words we as humans came up with to describe what we thought about certain things. Both words mean different things to different people.
Neither word is agreed upon by everybody. What is good to some is evil to others. What used to be good can now be considered evil (and vice versa) as the times change.
Good and evil is in the same class as hot and cold.
A jalepino is hot to some, tasty to others, cold compared to a ghost pepper etc etc.
Using your first/second person scenario, the first person was neither good or evil because there was no other person to compare them to and no-one else to judge their actions as "good or evil".

Your questions only make sense to you because you believe a god had already decided what was to be good and evil before the people ever existed.


----------



## WaltL1 (Apr 23, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> Before science gave us germ theory religion gave us the flagellants. History demonstrates superstition is not a viable pathway to knowledge. It only gets in the way of real discovery.


Off topic but I first read flagellants as flatulence.
I was like daaaang


----------



## atlashunter (Apr 23, 2019)

WaltL1 said:


> Off topic but I first read flagellants as flatulence.
> I was like daaaang


----------



## Madman (Apr 23, 2019)

WaltL1 said:


> Exactly.
> "This road doesn't take us where we want to go so lets imagine a road that does".



I rest my case.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Apr 23, 2019)

bullethead said:


> Those are the types of things I think about though.
> Like the bible says 6 days for creation and in those 6 days man was included.
> The best available information shows that creation was over 14 billion years ago.
> And Man has been on the Earth about 2 million years.
> ...



I sorta believe as the Hebrews. That "creation" is them. Adam wasn't the first man but the first of "creation."


----------



## Artfuldodger (Apr 23, 2019)

j_seph said:


> What came first, Good or Evil? Say the first person, since y'all do not believe I will not state Adam. Was the first person Evil or Good? If they were Good then why would say the 2nd or 3rd person become Evil if all they ever knew was Good. Was the first person Evil? If they were Evil then how would the 2nd or 3rd person become Good if all they ever knew was Evil?


Adam was born good. He became evil because evilness was already present within Heaven and the universe. Maybe these "opposites" I speak of are sometimes dormant.

Satan was an evil presence long before Adam was created. How could 
Satan become evil if there was no dormant evilness for him to acquire? How did God know Satan became evil? 

Which brings us back to eternity? How can there even be such a thing if there is not death or time?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Apr 23, 2019)

Better yet, how could God be good if there was no evil? How could God be eternal if there was not an opposite? 

If God is the Alpha and Omega, how can that be if he is eternal with no beginning and end?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Apr 23, 2019)

Maybe before time started, there was no death. Maybe when Satan became evil, time and death started. Perhaps before then time and death were dormant. Then evil entered into existence and this started time which was also lying dormant. 

Once this occurred Adam was created good and eternal. Then he became evil and death entered the Earth. Jesus restored the goodness Adam acquired and restored man's eternal life. 

The eternal life on man was lying dormant from Adam's sin. Without death, one would not need eternal life. Without time man would not need eternal life.

My question is does time stop once we gain eternal life?


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 23, 2019)

Artfuldodger said:


> Adam was born good. He became evil because evilness was already present within Heaven and the universe. Maybe these "opposites" I speak of are sometimes dormant.
> 
> Satan was an evil presence long before Adam was created. How could
> Satan become evil if there was no dormant evilness for him to acquire? How did God know Satan became evil?
> ...





Artfuldodger said:


> Maybe before time started, there was no death. Maybe when Satan became evil, time and death started. Perhaps before then time and death were dormant. Then evil entered into existence and this started time which was also lying dormant.
> 
> Once this occurred Adam was created good and eternal. Then he became evil and death entered the Earth. Jesus restored the goodness Adam acquired and restored man's eternal life.
> 
> ...



I admire your struggle to make what you've read in the Bible fit with a rational worldview but sometimes it really reminds me of this scene from fight club:






They were told by their leader that members of Project Mayhem have no names, but now he's telling them that this dead man has a name.  They make up a reason for the contradiction.


----------



## WaltL1 (Apr 23, 2019)

Madman said:


> I rest my case.


What was your case?


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 23, 2019)

Madman said:


> I rest my case.



I'll go down any road eight times.  The one you're on seems a dead end because of "the exception"; the special pleading.  Can God blink himself in and out of existence?  Can he be nowhere?  is he constrained by that philosophical proposition?

I imagine myself an Iron Age man occasionally. I imagine how hard it would be to try to understand the world.  I'd have a modern brain but very little information about the natural world.  What stories would I come up with to try to understand the world and relationships and human nature?  People have seemed to come up with similar stories during that time period and prior to explain these things.  I like Peterson's analysis that these stories are the best they could do at the time and that they're in fact incredibly valuable, because they tell us something about our nature.  Much knowledge about how the brain works can be gleaned by asking a 4 year old how a car works.  

The writers of religious texts had 10,000 years of human experience to draw from.  Many of their life experiences, concerns, desires, ambitions, prejudices, fears, motivations, emotions...are the same as ours today.  They talked about them in the best way they knew how.  In some ways they were more intimate with deadly forces than we are today.  They may actually have more to say about real danger than we do.  But there are many, many things that we have to deal with today that their methods won't apply to.  

Imagine asking one of the Biblical Authors "We can go to Mars, should we?"  Well, as modern men, should we?  We can genetically engineer humans at a DNA level.  Should we?  Would the ancients know?   Will prayer help?  Discernment and revelation?


----------



## bullethead (Apr 23, 2019)

Artfuldodger said:


> Maybe before time started, there was no death. Maybe when Satan became evil, time and death started. Perhaps before then time and death were dormant. Then evil entered into existence and this started time which was also lying dormant.
> 
> Once this occurred Adam was created good and eternal. Then he became evil and death entered the Earth. Jesus restored the goodness Adam acquired and restored man's eternal life.
> 
> ...


Don't they sound like a bunch of "spirits" in a place that isn't in this Universe acting just like a bunch of humans in this Universe???

If God created all and is Omnipotent and Omniscient he would've known what Satan and Adam were up to before they even thought of it. If there is evil it is because your god wants it. There is no battle of good vs evil in the spirit world. If there is, why worship a god that can't do a thing about it? Why would a god have to battle or fight for anything ever?

Adam does not represent all man, just the Hebrews. God's "chosen" let him down time after time until he drowned them all and started over.  And then god had to have them kill his Son/himself to make it right yet again. As if he didn't know what was going to happen....
The story just doesn't make sense


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 23, 2019)

WaltL1 said:


> What was your case?



He's saying that non-believers refuse to go down the road that leads to belief.  This would be a good time to try some Steelmanning. 

*Approach 1: Steelmanning*

The philosopher Daniel Dennett outlines an effective process for arguing with someone who has opposing views:

(1) Attempt to re-express the other person’s position so clearly, vividly, and fairly that they say, “Thanks, I wish I’d thought of putting it that way.”​(2) List any points of agreement (especially if they are not matters of general or widespread agreement).​(3) Mention anything you have learned from your target.​(4) Only then are you permitted to say so much as a word of rebuttal or criticism.​
The first step of Dennett’s approach has been called _steelmanning_. It’s the opposite of _straw_manning, in which you misrepresent the other person’s position or argument so you can easily defeat it. In contrast to a strawman, a steelman is an _improved_ form of the other person’s views—one that’s harder to defeat.

https://conversion-rate-experts.com/steel-manning/


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 23, 2019)

Artfuldodger said:


> Better yet, how could God be good if there was no evil? How could God be eternal if there was not an opposite?
> 
> If God is the Alpha and Omega, how can that be if he is eternal with no beginning and end?



We're the way we are, or more precisely,  He is the way He is because "the God of squares has 4 sides".

He's a little bit Country and a little bit Rock N' Roll because that's how we are.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 23, 2019)

Madman (and String),

Let me see if I understand your thinking clearly.

God exists because everything has to have a cause, but if you follow the regress to the end there MUST be a place where the regress stops and that would be an un-caused cause.  It must be outside of what we know as natural law because it violates natural law by its very existence.  It has to have a consciousness and the evidence of this is because it imprinted consciousness into the design of the Universe which anyone can clearly see.

Is that pretty good?


----------



## WaltL1 (Apr 23, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> He's saying that non-believers refuse to go down the road that leads to belief.  This would be a good time to try some Steelmanning.
> 
> *Approach 1: Steelmanning*
> 
> ...


Then my post was misunderstood. Probably my fault.
Atlas's comment was "God of the gaps".
That's required because the road you were on (the physical) didn't get you to a God so you had to IMAGINE a road that does. (jumping to the metaphysical)


----------



## Madman (Apr 23, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> He's saying that non-believers refuse to go down the road that leads to belief.  This would be a good time to try some Steelmanning.
> 
> *Approach 1: Steelmanning*
> 
> ...


I am just quoting what walt said.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Apr 23, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> I'll go down any road eight times.  The one you're on seems a dead end because of "the exception"; the special pleading.  Can God blink himself in and out of existence?  Can he be nowhere?  is he constrained by that philosophical proposition?
> 
> I imagine myself an Iron Age man occasionally. I imagine how hard it would be to try to understand the world.  I'd have a modern brain but very little information about the natural world.  What stories would I come up with to try to understand the world and relationships and human nature?  People have seemed to come up with similar stories during that time period and prior to explain these things.  I like Peterson's analysis that these stories are the best they could do at the time and that they're in fact incredibly valuable, because they tell us something about our nature.  Much knowledge about how the brain works can be gleaned by asking a 4 year old how a car works.
> 
> ...



Pertaining to Walt saying "This road doesn't take us where we want to go so lets imagine a road that does".         

These stories that were fabricated over the years in tiny villages and even large nations. Do you think they were done with an honest quest? Maybe most were but could some have been fabricated to control or appease the masses. 

Maybe some were created in what some saw as true but others used this to their advantage to control.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 23, 2019)

Madman said:


> I am just quoting what walt said.



Come, now.  We're all friends here.  What you meant was that non-believers refuse to go down a certain "logical path" because the end will necessarily and inevitably lead one to the conclusion of an uncaused cause.  Did you see my "Steel man" of your argument?  was it good?


----------



## Madman (Apr 23, 2019)

WaltL1 said:


> Then my post was misunderstood. Probably my fault.
> Ambush's comment was "God of the gaps".
> That's required because the road you were on (the physical) didn't get you to a God so you had to IMAGINE a road that does. (jumping to the metaphysical)



Actually the road I am on leads me to something transcendent.  Nothing you have presented gets us to where we are today.  

You have to imagine a lot, eternal matter, something from nothing, how matter disobeys the laws of physics,etc., etc.,etc.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 23, 2019)

Artfuldodger said:


> Pertaining to Walt saying "This road doesn't take us where we want to go so lets imagine a road that does".
> 
> These stories that were fabricated over the years in tiny villages and even large nations. Do you think they were done with an honest quest? Maybe most were but could some have been fabricated to control or appease the masses.
> 
> Maybe some were created in what some saw as true but others used this to their advantage to control.




I absolutely believe that all of that happened because the same methods of control are employed today.  Look into what some people have written about how Progressivism or anti-racism has become a religion.


----------



## Madman (Apr 23, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> Madman (and String),
> 
> Let me see if I understand your thinking clearly.
> 
> ...


pretty basic, but pretty close.  That would be the Kalam argument, I believe it goes much deeper than that.  Aristotle had a version, I believe he called it the unmoved mover.

So far as consciousness, there appears to be a deliberateness to what is seen, order, etc.

I have yet to find anything that gets us close to what we see without something "outside". 

An infinite number of monkeys with an infinite number of typewriters, given an infinite amount of time would never write a poem.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 23, 2019)

Madman said:


> Actually the road I am on leads me to something transcendent.  Nothing you have presented gets us to where we are today.
> 
> You have to imagine a lot, eternal matter, something from nothing, how matter disobeys the laws of physics,etc., etc.,etc.



I'll grant "The Transcendent".  Tell me more.  What do you know for certain about its nature and why?  If it's outside of natural law what can't it do?  Can it "not be" and then "be" if it wants, or do those terms mean nothing to it?


----------



## bullethead (Apr 23, 2019)

Madman said:


> Actually the road I am on leads me to something transcendent.  Nothing you have presented gets us to where we are today.
> 
> You have to imagine a lot, eternal matter, something from nothing, how matter disobeys the laws of physics,etc., etc.,etc.


There you go with this "something from nothing" assertion again despite being told that nobody in here thinks that. I have asked you WHO it is that you are referring to in here claims that something came from nothing.
Will you answer?
So far, you are the only one making that claim and pretending someone else said it.

Is imagining eternal matter different from imagining eternal spirit?


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 23, 2019)

Madman said:


> pretty basic, but pretty close.  That would be the Kalam argument, I believe it goes much deeper than that.  Aristotle had a version, I believe he called it the unmoved mover.
> 
> So far as consciousness, there appears to be a deliberateness to what is seen, order, etc.
> 
> ...



Play along with me, if you would.  Take what I said and pick it apart.  What would a non-believer say to counter any of it?


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 23, 2019)

Madman said:


> pretty basic, but pretty close.  That would be the Kalam argument, I believe it goes much deeper than that.  Aristotle had a version, I believe he called it the unmoved mover.
> 
> So far as consciousness, there appears to be a deliberateness to what is seen, order, etc.
> 
> ...



This has so many problems as to make it unuseful.   Can you come up with some criticisms of it?


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 23, 2019)

bullethead said:


> There you go with this "something from nothing" assertion again despite being told that nobody in here thinks that. I have asked you WHO it is that you are referring to in here claims that something came from nothing.
> Will you answer?
> So far, you are the only one making that claim and pretending someone else said it.
> 
> Is imagining eternal matter different from imagining eternal spirit?



I'll play Satan's Advocate.  We know that everything made has to have a maker and the axiom that energy can't be created or destroyed is a guess that can't be confirmed.


----------



## WaltL1 (Apr 23, 2019)

Madman said:


> Actually the road I am on leads me to something transcendent.  Nothing you have presented gets us to where we are today.
> 
> You have to imagine a lot, eternal matter, something from nothing, how matter disobeys the laws of physics,etc., etc.,etc.


Here's what concerns me -
You don't pay attention to people's stated position. You translate it so you can continue your argument.
I have repeatedly stated my position is "I dont know".
Thats my position precisely because I DO NOT imagine stuff.
You are doing the same with your "something from nothing" claim which none us have made.
You gotta pay attention.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 23, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> I'll play Satan's Advocate.  We know that everything made has to have a maker and the axiom that energy can't be created or destroyed is a guess that can't be confirmed.


But we do not know who or what the maker is for everything. And we do not know who or what may have existed even one billionth of one second before the Universe violently expanded.
Right now we do know that at a point in time(14.something Billion years ago) Energy was present and it is still present today, so as far as we can tell, it is as close to being eternal as any other known option.

We do not know with any certainty if we are the result of the powers a conscious entity, the imagination of a mind, or a computer program...or any number of infinite scenarios that "could" explain what went on and what is going on.

Edited to add:
Boy if energy doesn't sound a whole lot like a god without a specific name but way more proof and street cred.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 23, 2019)

The Universe expanded from one small singularity, that means there was still one small singularity in existence before it expanded. 
For how long is anyone's guess. One second or forever.....?????


----------



## atlashunter (Apr 23, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> I'll play Satan's Advocate.  We know that everything made has to have a maker and the axiom that energy can't be created or destroyed is a guess that can't be confirmed.



Key word there is made which implies a maker. Nobody knows for sure if all things which exist fall within this category.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 23, 2019)

A stone arrowhead implies a maker but merely finding one does not tell us anything specifically about the individual who made it.
As a stone, pre arrowhead,  how does it imply that someone made it?

A person can turn wooden log into a baseball bat but what implies that something made the tree?


----------



## bullethead (Apr 23, 2019)

If it is claimed that a god can create everything in this Universe from sub atomic particles to matter and dark matter to the complexity of life and entire planets hundreds the times the size of Earth(in 6 days mind you) and then all that god can do to get its word out is have man write the Bible.......
I am pretty confident that the god within the bible is not the same god as the one that actually thought up and then created. The biblical god is more like Al Gore taking credit for someone else's work and holding others accountable for the same things he does himself.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 23, 2019)

bullethead said:


> But we do not know who or what the maker is for everything. And we do not know who or what may have existed even one billionth of one second before the Universe violently expanded.
> Right now we do know that at a point in time(14.something Billion years ago) Energy was present and it is still present today, so as far as we can tell, it is as close to being eternal as any other known option.
> 
> We do not know with any certainty if we are the result of the powers a conscious entity, the imagination of a mind, or a computer program...or any number of infinite scenarios that "could" explain what went on and what is going on.
> ...





atlashunter said:


> Key word there is made which implies a maker. Nobody knows for sure if all things which exist fall within this category.



Well done, boys.

I'll keep my "believer hat" on for a bit longer.  Things seem to have an order to them or at very least a program.  Doesn't that imply a programmer?


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 23, 2019)

bullethead said:


> If it is claimed that a god can create everything in this Universe from sub atomic particles to matter and dark matter to the complexity of life and entire planets hundreds the times the size of Earth(in 6 days mind you) and then all that god can do to get its word out is have man write the Bible.......
> I am pretty confident that the god within the bible is not the same god as the one that actually thought up and then created. The biblical god is more like Al Gore taking credit for someone else's work and holding others accountable for the same things he does himself.



Let's step away from the God of the Bible for a moment and concentrate on a general Prime mover that has an inclination to create.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 23, 2019)

bullethead said:


> A stone arrowhead implies a maker but merely finding one does not tell us anything specifically about the individual who made it.
> As a stone, pre arrowhead,  how does it imply that someone made it?
> 
> A person can turn wooden log into a baseball bat but what implies that something made the tree?



Why isn't a stone arrow head just like the beautiful double helix design of DNA?  Why don't the amazingly intricate properties of physics indicate a "programmer"?


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 23, 2019)

How long before someone cuts to the chase and says "He revealed Himself to me and that's why I believe"?

It's not reason and argument.  It's revelation.  Newton, DaVinci, Einstein, they all had revelations.  Then their revelations were tested and are still being tested to see if they remain true.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 23, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> Let's step away from the God of the Bible for a moment and concentrate on a general Prime mover that has an inclination to create.


Sounds very human, but....


----------



## bullethead (Apr 23, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> Why isn't a stone arrow head just like the beautiful double helix design of DNA?  Why don't the amazingly intricate properties of physics indicate a "programmer"?


I can appreciate the arrowhead more,  lolol
I also think that a programmer that wanted worship would leave clear and precise evidence and information if it wanted to make itself known, otherwise it's like a mural on a train car. Appreciated but Anonymous


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 23, 2019)

bullethead said:


> Sounds very human, but....



Agreed.  If a Prime mover created humans is it possible that it created them somewhat like itself?  Let's not quibble about why it would do that just yet, but at least consider the possibility that it might do it that way.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 23, 2019)

bullethead said:


> I can appreciate the arrowhead more,  lolol
> I also think that a programmer that wanted worship would leave clear and precise evidence and information if it wanted to make itself known, otherwise it's like a mural on a train car. Appreciated but Anonymous



Again, your argument is still "That's not how I would do it".  Consider that you have very little information of what the Prime Mover is like.  It's possible that it might have programmed an intuition in the creatures that it created that gave them a sense of what it is like.  

Assume the Prime Mover.  How would we get a sense of what its like or what it wants?


----------



## bullethead (Apr 23, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> Agreed.  If a Prime mover created humans is it possible that it created them somewhat like itself?  Let's not quibble about why it would do that just yet, but at least consider the possibility that it might do it that way.


Ok


----------



## bullethead (Apr 23, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> Again, your argument is still "That's not how I would do it".  Consider that you have very little information of what the Prime Mover is like.  It's possible that it might have programmed an intuition in the creatures that it created that gave them a sense of what it is like.
> 
> Assume the Prime Mover.  How would we get a sense of what its like or what it wants?


Since a/the/prime mover(s) left no definitive evidence or more importantly instructions, I would have to do what has been done all along....invent a Prime Mover based off of what I can think of and that makes sense in my mind which also comforts me and tends to my needs.
The "thats the way I'd do it" or "that is not how I would do it" seems to be EXACTLY the way the writers of these religious books wrote. Their god always likes the same people as they do and hates the ones they hate.
I have yet to see a writer guided by god write the opposite of what that writer believes. 
I cant find any Egyptian writers who were overwhelmed by the God of Abraham and they wrote that The Jews were the Chosen people and that YHWH was the one true god and then proceeded to tell the same stories that coincides with the OT and or NT.
As a believer I had to go with what I was taught about the popular god of my family and area. No Prime Mover ever gave me a hint of who or what it is or wants. So I had to take what was taught and tweak it to make sense to me.


----------



## WaltL1 (Apr 23, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> Agreed.  If a Prime mover created humans is it possible that it created them somewhat like itself?  Let's not quibble about why it would do that just yet, but at least consider the possibility that it might do it that way.


Why did you pick humans?
Wouldn't it be equally possible a Prime mover created a porpoise or an elephant or.....
somewhat like itself?


----------



## ky55 (Apr 23, 2019)

bullethead said:


> Don't they sound like a bunch of "spirits" in a place that isn't in this Universe acting just like a bunch of humans in this Universe???
> 
> If God created all and is Omnipotent and Omniscient he would've known what Satan and Adam were up to before they even thought of it. If there is evil it is because your god wants it. There is no battle of good vs evil in the spirit world. If there is, why worship a god that can't do a thing about it? Why would a god have to battle or fight for anything ever?
> 
> ...



Doesn’t make sense?
You’re being way too kind. 
It’s absolutely absurd and ridiculous. 

*


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 23, 2019)

WaltL1 said:


> Why did you pick humans?
> Wouldn't it be equally possible a Prime mover created a porpoise or an elephant or.....
> somewhat like itself?



Maybe it did.  Let's table that notion for a minute then get back to it.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 23, 2019)

bullethead said:


> Since a/the/prime mover(s) left no definitive evidence or more importantly instructions, I would have to do what has been done all along....invent a Prime Mover based off of what I can think of and that makes sense in my mind which also comforts me and tends to my needs.
> The "thats the way I'd do it" or "that is not how I would do it" seems to be EXACTLY the way the writers of these religious books wrote. Their god always likes the same people as they do and hates the ones they hate.
> I have yet to see a writer guided by god write the opposite of what that writer believes.
> I cant find any Egyptian writers who were overwhelmed by the God of Abraham and they wrote that The Jews were the Chosen people and that YHWH was the one true god and then proceeded to tell the same stories that coincides with the OT and or NT.
> As a believer I had to go with what I was taught about the popular god of my family and area. No Prime Mover ever gave me a hint of who or what it is or wants. So I had to take what was taught and tweak it to make sense to me.



Let's consider the fact that all peoples have come up with a Prime Mover concept or at least the concept of some higher power than them.  Could that fact be evidence of it leaving hints about its existence?


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 23, 2019)

ky55 said:


> Doesn’t make sense?
> You’re being way too kind.
> It’s absolutely absurd and ridiculous.
> 
> *



I completely agree that those particular stories seem ludicrous.  Have you got any wiggle room for a Prime Mover of any kind?


----------



## WaltL1 (Apr 23, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> Let's consider the fact that all peoples have come up with a Prime Mover concept or at least the concept of some higher power than them.  Could that fact be evidence of it leaving hints about its existence?


That's a question I cant completely settle. Bullet's response (I know what is) makes perfect sense to me yet I still cant shake that question.
I do consider it a piece of evidence. Im just not sure of its value.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 23, 2019)

WaltL1 said:


> That's a question I cant completely settle. Bullet's response (I know what is) makes perfect sense to me yet I still cant shake that question.
> I do consider it a piece of evidence. I'm just not sure of its value.



"Take the road to its end", as it were.  What else have all peoples done through recorded history?  They rape, love, hate, kill, heal, make art...  As far as I know, the only Universal taboo cross culturally is against incest.  What should we make of these breadcrumbs in regards to the Prime Mover and any intentions it might have for us?


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 23, 2019)

Believers,

Am I making a good case for the Prime Mover?  What else would you add?


----------



## ky55 (Apr 23, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> I completely agree that those particular stories seem ludicrous.  Have you got any wiggle room for a Prime Mover of any kind?



I have wiggle room for anything supported by evidence. 
Jesus cured Uncle Joe’s cancer after surgery and chemo is not evidence. That’s near the bottom on my absurdity scale. It gets more absurd from there.


----------



## Madman (Apr 23, 2019)

bullethead said:


> A stone arrowhead implies a maker but merely finding one does not tell us anything specifically about the individual who made it.
> As a stone, pre arrowhead,  how does it imply that someone made it?
> 
> A person can turn wooden log into a baseball bat but what implies that something made the tree?


You found an arrowhead.   Does that tell you something about who made it?  Why didn't they make a bowl, or a knife.  What you are saying is that you cannot devise a scientific test from the finding to prove something about the person, but we certainly can ascertain a lot from the arrowhead.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 23, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> Let's consider the fact that all peoples have come up with a Prime Mover concept or at least the concept of some higher power than them.  Could that fact be evidence of it leaving hints about its existence?


Hints, like a game?
Death in its name just to see what happens?
Or how about addressing everyone worldwide all at once every few generations to keep us all in the loop?


----------



## bullethead (Apr 23, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> "Take the road to its end", as it were.  What else have all peoples done through recorded history?  They rape, love, hate, kill, heal, make art...  As far as I know, the only Universal taboo cross culturally is against incest.  What should we make of these breadcrumbs in regards to the Prime Mover and any intentions it might have for us?


Incest taboo? Not in the bible


----------



## atlashunter (Apr 23, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> Let's consider the fact that all peoples have come up with a Prime Mover concept or at least the concept of some higher power than them.  Could that fact be evidence of it leaving hints about its existence?



No.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 23, 2019)

Madman said:


> You found an arrowhead.   Does that tell you something about who made it?  Why didn't they make a bowl, or a knife.  What you are saying is that you cannot devise a scientific test from the finding to prove something about the person, but we certainly can ascertain a lot from the arrowhead.


Yes it tells me some general information about who made it. But nothing concrete. Boy or man?  Did a hunter make it or a child wanting to hunt? Woman? But no specifics. No name, no race, no height or weight, not any  thoughts, no likes, not their age what he or she expected of the world. Did they lose the arrowhead or discard it because it wasnt good enough?
Way more questions than answers Madman.
Tell me what you would KNOW about the maker of a found arrowhead be it stone or titanium...
What could you tell me about its designer when it was still a rock?


----------



## atlashunter (Apr 23, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> "Take the road to its end", as it were.  What else have all peoples done through recorded history?  They rape, love, hate, kill, heal, make art...  As far as I know, the only Universal taboo cross culturally is against incest.  What should we make of these breadcrumbs in regards to the Prime Mover and any intentions it might have for us?



How is our reality any different from one in which there either was no conscious being at the controls or one that simply walked away and never looked back? It looks to me exactly as one would expect. The laws of nature apply to us without a single exception being made on our behalf. It’s been that way for the 100,000+ years our species has been around. Every bit of evidence indicates it’s been the same for every other species prior to us.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 23, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> How is our reality any different from one in which there either was no conscious being at the controls or one that simply walked away and never looked back? It looks to me exactly as one would expect. The laws of nature apply to us without a single exception being made on our behalf. It’s been that way for the 100,000+ years our species has been around. Every bit of evidence indicates it’s been the same for every other species prior to us.


And to add, "we" as a species didn't come about until the conditions allowed.


----------



## ky55 (Apr 23, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> The laws of nature apply to us without a single exception being made on our behalf.



Not even one single time. 
And all of the gods and faith and mumbo jumbo cannot change that fact. 

*


----------



## Madman (Apr 24, 2019)

bullethead said:


> Yes it tells me some general information about who made it. But nothing concrete. Boy or man?  Did a hunter make it or a child wanting to hunt? Woman? But no specifics. No name, no race, no height or weight, not any  thoughts, no likes, not their age what he or she expected of the world. Did they lose the arrowhead or discard it because it wasnt good enough?
> Way more questions than answers Madman.
> Tell me what you would KNOW about the maker of a found arrowhead be it stone or titanium...
> What could you tell me about its designer when it was still a rock?


You should be able to tell from the craftsmanship if it was a skilled person or an amateur.   Much can be known about the maker of the arrowhead, not everything, but a lot.   The more you look around you may find pottery,  etc. That tells you more.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 24, 2019)

Madman said:


> You should be able to tell from the craftsmanship if it was a skilled person or an amateur.   Much can be known about the maker of the arrowhead, not everything, but a lot.   The more you look around you may find pottery,  etc. That tells you more.


Again, I agree, but general info to a point.


More importantly,
Who made the stone that a human turned into an arrowhead?
What clues are there that points to a specific source, and what facts do they reveal about the maker, if there is a maker?

Pick up the next rock you see and tell us about who made it based off of the information you get from the rock.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 24, 2019)

bullethead said:


> Hints, like a game?
> Death in its name just to see what happens?
> Or how about addressing everyone worldwide all at once every few generations to keep us all in the loop?



Kind of like a game if you like.  Maybe more like a challenge.  

Perhaps that's how you would do it but perhaps a supreme being might have different motives than you.


----------



## atlashunter (Apr 24, 2019)

Madman said:


> You should be able to tell from the craftsmanship if it was a skilled person or an amateur.   Much can be known about the maker of the arrowhead, not everything, but a lot.   The more you look around you may find pottery,  etc. That tells you more.



I guess it’s all relative but.... does the fact that 99% of species that have ever existed are now extinct say to you craftsman or amateur?


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 24, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> No.




What does the fact that all people have universally come up with an idea of a higher power indicate to you about the nature of people?   I believe even the Piraha are animists to some degree.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 24, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> I guess it’s all relative but.... does the fact that 99% of species that have ever existed are now extinct say to you craftsman or amateur?



Again, it seems like you're applying a very human standard to what is most likely a very non-human force.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 24, 2019)

Madman said:


> You found an arrowhead.   Does that tell you something about who made it?  Why didn't they make a bowl, or a knife.  What you are saying is that you cannot devise a scientific test from the finding to prove something about the person, but we certainly can ascertain a lot from the arrowhead.



What would the test for evidence of a "Universe Maker" look like?


----------



## atlashunter (Apr 24, 2019)

bullethead said:


> Again, I agree, but general info to a point.
> 
> 
> More importantly,
> ...



The thing is, we already know how rocks are formed and how the elements they consist of are formed and none of it requires a supernatural agent. God sits at the edge of human knowledge and with every discovery that doesn’t need him as part of the explanation gets pushed further back into the narrowing gaps where ignorance remains. Every time we stop assuming he is responsible and we ask the universe the question and allow evidence to tell us the answer god shrinks a little more. Where the gods were once rather poor substitutes for knowledge they have become placeholders for ignorance.


----------



## atlashunter (Apr 24, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> Again, it seems like you're applying a very human standard to what is most likely a very non-human force.



The descriptions of craftsman, amateur and maker are all very human are they not?


----------



## bullethead (Apr 24, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> Kind of like a game if you like.  Maybe more like a challenge.
> 
> Perhaps that's how you would do it but perhaps a supreme being might have different motives than you.


Agreed, and if so I am A-ok with it not being involved. Set it and forget it.
But if such a being expects its creation to follow the rules or pay for eternity for not, then the rules should be clearly defined.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 24, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> How is our reality any different from one in which there either was no conscious being at the controls or one that simply walked away and never looked back? It looks to me exactly as one would expect. The laws of nature apply to us without a single exception being made on our behalf. It’s been that way for the 100,000+ years our species has been around. Every bit of evidence indicates it’s been the same for every other species prior to us.



OK. That discounts a type of Prime Mover, the kind that intercesses in human affairs.  It's still possible that the Prime Mover is just watching its creation unfurl.


----------



## WaltL1 (Apr 24, 2019)

Madman said:


> You should be able to tell from the craftsmanship if it was a skilled person or an amateur.   Much can be known about the maker of the arrowhead, not everything, but a lot.   The more you look around you may find pottery,  etc. That tells you more.


Using that statement above (which I agree with) and considering -
If its too cold we (humans) freeze to death
too hot we roast to death
bit by a certain mosquito or bee or.... dead
fall in the water... drowned
eat too much salt .. heart explodes
get a simple cut.... infected and amputated or dead
destroy the environment around us
and on and on......
If we were crafted by a "creator", would you consider us crafted by a skilled creator or an amateur in relation to our environment?


----------



## bullethead (Apr 24, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> The thing is, we already know how rocks are formed and how the elements they consist of are formed and none of it requires a supernatural agent. God sits at the edge of human knowledge and with every discovery that doesn’t need him as part of the explanation gets pushed further back into the narrowing gaps where ignorance remains. Every time we stop assuming he is responsible and we ask the universe the question and allow evidence to tell us the answer god shrinks a little more. Where the gods were once rather poor substitutes for knowledge they have become placeholders for ignorance.


Well, I know that...I am waiting to see how something more is deciphered out if it.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 24, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> The descriptions of craftsman, amateur and maker are all very human are they not?



Yes they are.  They're words and concepts that we use.  Should they and can they  be applied to a force like a Prime Mover


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 24, 2019)

bullethead said:


> Agreed, and if so I am A-ok with it not being involved. Set it and forget it.
> But if such a being expects its creation to follow the rules or pay for eternity for not, then the rules should be clearly defined.



I agree, but that's the way I would do it.  It's also possible that the force nudges the action in almost imperceptible ways.


----------



## atlashunter (Apr 24, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> What does the fact that all people have universally come up with an idea of a higher power indicate to you about the nature of people?   I believe even the Piraha are animists to some degree.



It indicates humans find the idea of a higher power useful. Useful in coping with the struggles of life and useful in coping with the knowledge of their own mortality and useful in controlling each other. It says nothing whatsoever about whether a higher power actually exists.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 24, 2019)

WaltL1 said:


> Using that statement above (which I agree with) and considering -
> If its too cold we (humans) freeze to death
> too hot we roast to death
> bit by a certain mosquito or bee or.... dead
> ...



As a human, I might think it's having a bit of fun, perhaps.  It may have a plan for all those maladies that we don't know about yet.  Perhaps the challenges they present us will make us more durable for a "next step".  Maybe the "long game" is hard or impossible for us to discern.


----------



## atlashunter (Apr 24, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> Yes they are.  They're words and concepts that we use.  Should they and can they  be applied to a force like a Prime Mover



Perhaps. If you take issue with their usage then take issue with the people who insist on using them to make the case for a prime mover made in their own human likeness.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 24, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> It indicates humans find the idea of a higher power useful. Useful in coping with the struggles of life and useful in coping with the knowledge of their own mortality and useful in controlling each other. It says nothing whatsoever about whether a higher power actually exists.



That seems a likely reason.  It certainly works that way.  All cultures come up with concepts of various monsters, many of them have similar features like vamipirism or lycanthropy.  That doesn't indicate that they might be real.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 24, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> Perhaps. If you take issue with their usage then take issue with the people who insist on using them to make the case for a prime mover made in their own human likeness.



That does seem to be a problem.  Perhaps people are the incarnation of the Prime mover with the constraints of the natural world affecting them in such a way as to make us who we are.


----------



## atlashunter (Apr 24, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> As a human, I might think it's having a bit of fun, perhaps.  It may have a plan for all those maladies that we don't know about yet.  Perhaps the challenges they present us will make us more durable for a "next step".  Maybe the "long game" is hard or impossible for us to discern.









Whose plan is this?


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 24, 2019)

Madman, String,

How am I doing in defense of the Prime Mover?  Anything to add?


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 24, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> Whose plan is this?



It's poetic in it's brutality in a way.  Seems man cannot avoid suffering.  I can find utility in that.  I can't imagine what a force of the Prime Mover's magnitude might make of that situation.


----------



## WaltL1 (Apr 24, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> As a human, I might think it's having a bit of fun, perhaps.  It may have a plan for all those maladies that we don't know about yet.  Perhaps the challenges they present us will make us more durable for a "next step".  Maybe the "long game" is hard or impossible for us to discern.


Or we got here by something that didnt care/know/plan/consider anything about us.
I know which one Im going with based on actual evidence.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 24, 2019)

Suffering, or the conditions that can cause it, often drive evolution.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 24, 2019)

WaltL1 said:


> Or we got here by something that didnt care/know/plan/consider anything about us.
> I know which one Im going with based on actual evidence.



It does kind of seem that way most of the time.


----------



## atlashunter (Apr 24, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> OK. That discounts a type of Prime Mover, the kind that intercesses in human affairs.  It's still possible that the Prime Mover is just watching its creation unfurl.



Yes that is possible. I don’t know that it is the simplest explanation available to us but at least the possibility of it would not contradict the available evidence. We can concoct any number of mythologies around that possibility. I’m going to need a bit more than the establishment of possibility.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 24, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> Yes that is possible. I don’t know that it is the simplest explanation available to us but at least the possibility of it would not contradict the available evidence. We can concoct any number of mythologies around that possibility. I’m going to need a bit more than the establishment of possibility.



10-4.  Would you put the Prime Mover hypothesis on the same level of possibility as the Multiverse theory?


----------



## atlashunter (Apr 24, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> It's poetic in it's brutality in a way.  Seems man cannot avoid suffering.  I can find utility in that.  I can't imagine what a force of the Prime Mover's magnitude might make of that situation.



Would you love and worship a being that made that part of their plan?


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 24, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> Would you love and worship a being that made that part of their plan?



Me? No.  But I'm carnal as heck.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 24, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> Would you love and worship a being that made that part of their plan?



Perhaps an ascetic might be able to spin it a better way than I can.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 24, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> I agree, but that's the way I would do it.  It's also possible that the force nudges the action in almost imperceptible ways.


Almost Anything is possible, only what can be proved is reliable.


----------



## Madman (Apr 24, 2019)

But the most important thing we know is that the arrow head did not make itself, nor did a rock make the arrow head.  We can conclude that some intelligent being fashioned the arrow head for a reason.  If we begin to look around and try to determine the reason we may learn more about the being who made it.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 24, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> It indicates humans find the idea of a higher power useful. Useful in coping with the struggles of life and useful in coping with the knowledge of their own mortality and useful in controlling each other. It says nothing whatsoever about whether a higher power actually exists.


We as a species are always looking for guidance and in most ways look to be told what to do and NEED explanations to what we cannot understand. When that isn't available,  we make up things to fill the voids, even tho all along we are listening to ourselves.


----------



## Madman (Apr 24, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> I guess it’s all relative but.... does the fact that 99% of species that have ever existed are now extinct say to you craftsman or amateur?


 Evolution


----------



## bullethead (Apr 24, 2019)

Madman said:


> But the most important thing we know is that the arrow head did not make itself, nor did a rock make the arrow head.  We can conclude that some intelligent being fashioned the arrow head for a reason.  If we begin to look around and try to determine the reason we may learn more about the being who made it.


You have so far avoided all the questions asked of you that pertain to anything pointing to a creator beyond human.
Who made the rock?


----------



## atlashunter (Apr 24, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> 10-4.  Would you put the Prime Mover hypothesis on the same level of possibility as the Multiverse theory?



No. The multiverse is less of a leap. We already know a natural reality exists. Every discovery we have made up to this point about the nature of that reality has been answered with what, not who. These are answers to questions that we originally assumed could only be answered with who, not what. That track record indicates to me the probability in answering the yet unanswered questions about reality lies with what, not who.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 24, 2019)

Madman said:


> But the most important thing we know is that the arrow head did not make itself, nor did a rock make the arrow head.  We can conclude that some intelligent being fashioned the arrow head for a reason.  If we begin to look around and try to determine the reason we may learn more about the being who made it.



In what way is an arrow head like anything in the natural world?  What things in the natural world seem manipulated to the degree an arrow head is?


----------



## atlashunter (Apr 24, 2019)

Madman said:


> Evolution



Craftsman or amateur? Those were your characterizations. Bit late to shirk from using them now.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 24, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> No. The multiverse is less of a leap. We already know a natural reality exists. Every discovery we have made up to this point about the nature of that reality has been answered with what, not who. These are answers to questions that we originally assumed could only be answered with who, not what. That track record indicates to me the probability in answering the yet unanswered questions about reality lies with what, not who.



I can't think of a rebuttal.


----------



## WaltL1 (Apr 24, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> As a human, I might think it's having a bit of fun, perhaps.  It may have a plan for all those maladies that we don't know about yet.  Perhaps the challenges they present us will make us more durable for a "next step".  Maybe the "long game" is hard or impossible for us to discern.


Yes you are doing an excellent job of making a case for a "Prime Mover".
Minimize what "is" and explain it with maybe's and perhaps's and impossible for us to discern.... 
(its a little scary you can do that so well. I'll be keeping an eye on you )


----------



## Madman (Apr 24, 2019)

there


ambush80 said:


> What would the test for evidence of a "Universe Maker" look like?


There are several.
I have already shown Aquinas's 5 ways.

The argument from contingency goes something like this:
1) If anything exists that does not have to exists then it requires an explanation
2) The universe does not have to exist
3) therefore the universe requires an explanation
4) the explanation is something outside the created universe
5) the name for this "something" outside the universe is God. 

It is a logical argument, it is a good argument, because it can be true and has not logical error.


----------



## atlashunter (Apr 24, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> I can't think of a rebuttal.


----------



## atlashunter (Apr 24, 2019)

WaltL1 said:


> Yes you are doing an excellent job of making a case for a "Prime Mover".
> Minimize what "is" and explain it with maybe's and perhaps's and impossible for us to discern....
> (its a little scary you can do that so well. I'll be keeping an eye on you )


----------



## Madman (Apr 24, 2019)

WaltL1 said:


> Using that statement above (which I agree with) and considering -
> If its too cold we (humans) freeze to death
> too hot we roast to death
> bit by a certain mosquito or bee or.... dead
> ...


You are getting ahead of yourself so I will answer your question simply.

"Through one man sin entered into the world."


----------



## Israel (Apr 24, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> It's poetic in it's brutality in a way.  Seems man cannot avoid suffering.  I can find utility in that.  I can't imagine what a force of the Prime Mover's magnitude might make of that situation.





> I can't imagine what a force of the Prime Mover's magnitude might make of that situation.


----------



## Madman (Apr 24, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> OK. That discounts a type of Prime Mover, the kind that intercesses in human affairs.  It's still possible that the Prime Mover is just watching its creation unfurl.


How does that indicate a prime mover who does not intercede?


----------



## WaltL1 (Apr 24, 2019)

Madman said:


> You are getting ahead of yourself so I will answer your question simply.
> 
> "Through one man sin entered into the world."


Your avoidance of the question is noted.


----------



## atlashunter (Apr 24, 2019)

Madman said:


> You are getting ahead of yourself so I will answer your question simply.
> 
> "Through one man sin entered into the world."



I’d love to hear an elaboration on this one.


----------



## atlashunter (Apr 24, 2019)

Madman said:


> How does that indicate a prime mover who does not intercede?



So let’s set up a little experiment to test the intercession of this prime mover. You go BASE jump without a parachute and pray for intercession on the way down. I’ll meet you at the bottom to find out what answer you got.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 24, 2019)

WaltL1 said:


> Yes you are doing an excellent job of making a case for a "Prime Mover".
> Minimize what "is" and explain it with maybe's and perhaps's and impossible for us to discern....
> (its a little scary you can do that so well. I'll be keeping an eye on you )



This is an important exercise to train to think well.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 24, 2019)

Madman said:


> How does that indicate a prime mover who does not intercede?



All the evidence I've heard that is supposed to confirm an intercessor has been weak.  Maybe you can give a good piece of evidence, one that absolutely confirms an intercession.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 24, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> So let’s set up a little experiment to test the intercession of this prime mover. You go BASE jump without a parachute and pray for intercession on the way down. I’ll meet you at the bottom to find out what answer you got.



Last night I was talking to my planter neighbor who is looking for a job.  I asked him "If you get a job, does that mean God answered your prayers?".  Of corse he said "Yes".  Then I asked him "If you don't get a job and you have to sell your house, does that mean that God answered your prayer?".  Again he said "Yes".  I asked him "If you didn't pray at all, would one of those things still happen?" He answered "Probably".  I don't think the exercise was lost on him.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 24, 2019)

Madman said:


> there
> 
> There are several.
> I have already shown Aquinas's 5 ways.
> ...



"Does not have to".  That seems like a bit of a leap. How does Aquinas know the difference between what has to exist and what doesn't?


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 24, 2019)

WaltL1 said:


> Yes you are doing an excellent job of making a case for a "Prime Mover".
> Minimize what "is" and explain it with maybe's and perhaps's and impossible for us to discern....
> (its a little scary you can do that so well. I'll be keeping an eye on you )



That's where I had to go to continue the line of thinking.  Why do you think that is?


----------



## atlashunter (Apr 24, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> Last night I was talking to my planter neighbor who is looking for a job.  I asked him "If you get a job, does that mean God answered your prayers?".  Of corse he said "Yes".  Then I asked him "If you don't get a job and you have to sell your house, does that mean that God answered your prayer?".  Again he said "Yes".  I asked him "If you didn't pray at all, would one of those things still happen?" He answered "Probably".  I don't think the exercise was lost on him.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 24, 2019)

Madman said:


> You are getting ahead of yourself so I will answer your question simply.
> 
> "Through one man sin entered into the world."



I think that's getting ahead of the discussion.  We should stick to the existence of the Prime Mover for just a bit more.


----------



## Madman (Apr 24, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> I think that's getting ahead of the discussion.  We should stick to the existence of the Prime Mover for just a bit more.


That's what I said but walt asked


----------



## WaltL1 (Apr 24, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> That's where I had to go to continue the line of thinking.  Why do you think that is?


Because that's where you HAD to go to continue the line of thinking.....


----------



## bullethead (Apr 24, 2019)

Madman said:


> You are getting ahead of yourself so I will answer your question simply.
> 
> "Through one man sin entered into the world."


1. And still... Who made the rock?
2. Which one man? Now is the time to be specific AND explain in detail how and why.
3. Will be after you answer 1 and 2


----------



## Madman (Apr 24, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> No. The multiverse is less of a leap. We already know a natural reality exists. Every discovery we have made up to this point about the nature of that reality has been answered with what, not who. These are answers to questions that we originally assumed could only be answered with who, not what. That track record indicates to me the probability in answering the yet unanswered questions about reality lies with what, not who.


The multiverse still does not answer the question it only pushes it farther out.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 24, 2019)

WaltL1 said:


> Because that's where you HAD to go to continue the line of thinking.....



Perhaps that's "where the road leads".


----------



## Madman (Apr 24, 2019)

WaltL1 said:


> Your avoidance of the question is noted.


I answered unless I misunderstood the question.


----------



## atlashunter (Apr 24, 2019)

Madman said:


> The multiverse still does not answer the question it only pushes it farther out.



If the multiverse is eternal and encompasses all that exists then that is your final answer. Just as you think a deity is the final answer when it really just creates a further mystery.


----------



## Madman (Apr 24, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> "Does not have to".  That seems like a bit of a leap. How does Aquinas know the difference between what has to exist and what doesn't?


You tell me, why does anything have to exist?


----------



## WaltL1 (Apr 24, 2019)

Madman said:


> That's what I said but walt asked


Come on dude....
All I did was change YOUR scenario to Bullet. I didn't get ahead of anything. 
Your "getting ahead of yourself" excuse is getting lamer and lamer.


----------



## Madman (Apr 24, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> If the multiverse is eternal and encompasses all that exists then that is your final answer. Just as you think a deity is the final answer when it really just creates a further mystery.


It is still something, why does it exist.  Knowing the laws of physics why does your eternal stuff not fall prey to entropy?


----------



## Madman (Apr 24, 2019)

bullethead said:


> 1. And still... Who made the rock?
> 2. Which one man? Now is the time to be specific AND explain in detail how and why.
> 3. Will be after you answer 1 and 2


You know my answer to who made the rock, what is your answer to who made the rock?


----------



## atlashunter (Apr 24, 2019)

Madman said:


> It is still something, why does it exist.  Knowing the laws of physics why does your eternal stuff not fall prey to entropy?



It is what it is. Or as your answer goes, “I am”. We don’t get to ask why of the eternal. Right? I don’t know if there is an eternal reality or not. Neither do you. And whether there is or not it is incredible and hard to wrap our mind around.


----------



## atlashunter (Apr 24, 2019)

Madman said:


> You tell me, why does anything have to exist?



Why ask him to defend your logic?


----------



## bullethead (Apr 24, 2019)

Madman said:


> You know my answer to who made the rock, what is your answer to who made the rock?


It is the details about the rock which you used to come to the conclusion is what you never explain.
Break it down for us as to what about that rock shows a designer and then how those clues further point to a specific designer. And what you know about that designer from the rock.
And I know how the rock got made by the Earthly process.
Beyond that, I have No Idea. It DID take Energy to make that rock though.


----------



## Israel (Apr 24, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> It's poetic in it's brutality in a way.  Seems man cannot avoid suffering.  I can find utility in that.  I can't imagine what a force of the Prime Mover's magnitude might make of that situation.



Can a man who might lend his imagination to exploring the notion of nothingness be persuaded to consider its _apparent _opposite?


----------



## bullethead (Apr 24, 2019)

Israel said:


> Can a man who might lend his imagination to exploring the notion of nothingness be persuaded to consider its _apparent _opposite?


What is the notion of nothingness?
I cannot fathom at death, a continuation on in nothingness goes on.
I would think that I will know of and be aware the same things after death as I do before I was born. Nothing! Zero Personal Effect.


----------



## WaltL1 (Apr 24, 2019)

Madman said:


> You know my answer to who made the rock, what is your answer to who made the rock?





> You know my answer to who made the rock,


And THAT is EXACTLY why we "arent getting ahead of ourselves" when we assume where your line of reasoning is going. And how do we know that?
Because YOU have told us.
Thats why your "getting ahead" excuse is so lame. We arent getting AHEAD, we are going BACK to what YOU have already established.

I propose my question to you in Post #136 again. Its a simple question. Its taking YOUR question to Bullet but changing "a rock" to "us". So its not getting ahead, its a lateral move.


----------



## atlashunter (Apr 24, 2019)

bullethead said:


> What is the notion of nothingness?
> I cannot fathom at death, a continuation on in nothingness goes on.
> I would think that I will know of and be aware the same things after death as I do before I was born. Nothing! Zero Personal Effect.



We’ve all been dead before. We just didn’t realize it.


----------



## Israel (Apr 24, 2019)

bullethead said:


> What is the notion of nothingness?
> I cannot fathom at death, a continuation on in nothingness goes on.
> I would think that I will know of and be aware the same things after death as I do before I was born. Nothing! Zero Personal Effect.


What do you know now? Are you arguing something from nothing?


----------



## ky55 (Apr 24, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> We’ve all been dead before. We just didn’t realize it.



And Mark Twain said he suffered not the least discomfort. 

*


----------



## Madman (Apr 24, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> Why ask him to defend your logic?


I am just asking the question.  I am not sure that anything "has" to exist in the A/A world.


----------



## Madman (Apr 24, 2019)

WaltL1 said:


> And THAT is EXACTLY why we "arent getting ahead of ourselves" when we assume where your line of reasoning is going. And how do we know that?
> Because YOU have told us.
> Thats why your "getting ahead" excuse is so lame. We aren't getting AHEAD, we are going BACK to what YOU have already established.
> 
> I propose my question to you in Post #136 again. Its a simple question. Its taking YOUR question to Bullet but changing "a rock" to "us". So its not getting ahead, its a lateral move.



You have already said you do not know where things come from, I assume you don't know why things exist at all and I accept that.  A/As have no logical answer for why anything came into existence, some theists do.  So far there is nothing in my argument that can be found to illogical or false.  

It is far more logical to say a flying spaghetti made everything then to say matter has always existed or it came from nothing.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 24, 2019)

Israel said:


> What do you know now? Are you arguing something from nothing?


I know what I know from somethingness.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 24, 2019)

Madman said:


> You have already said you do not know where things come from, I assume you don't know why things exist at all and I accept that.  A/As have no logical answer for why anything came into existence, some theists do.  So far there is nothing in my argument that can be found to illogical or false.
> 
> It is far more logical to say a flying spaghetti made everything then to say matter has always existed or it came from nothing.


It may be far more logical to you a believer in another highly unlikely and unknown/unknowable source, but it is not really logical at all.

Are you saying that it is more logical to believe in any made up creature as a possible source of creation than to think something that is has been shown exist for as long as 14+ Billion years may have existed before that and will still exist after that?

When does Eternal start? We know it doesnt end.


----------



## WaltL1 (Apr 24, 2019)

Madman said:


> You have already said you do not know where things come from, I assume you don't know why things exist at all and I accept that.  A/As have no logical answer for why anything came into existence, some theists do.  So far there is nothing in my argument that can be found to illogical or false.
> 
> It is far more logical to say a flying spaghetti made everything then to say matter has always existed or it came from nothing.





> So far there is nothing in my argument that can be found to illogical or false.


The premise from which you/theists start is illogical. Already been explained why.


> It is far more logical to say a flying spaghetti made everything


No. To say a flying spaghetti monster created everything is as illogical as saying a god created everything and for the same reason. Neither has been proven to exist. You really, really, really seem to want to avoid that fact when discussing what is logical.

And -


> I propose my question to you in Post #136 again. Its a simple question. Its taking YOUR question to Bullet but changing "a rock" to "us". So its not getting ahead, its a lateral move.


----------



## atlashunter (Apr 24, 2019)

Madman said:


> I am just asking the question.  I am not sure that anything "has" to exist in the A/A world.



You cited Aquinas and then dodged the question ambush posed. How does Aquinas (or you) know what does or does not have to exist? It’s part of the argument you put forward. Explain it.


----------



## atlashunter (Apr 24, 2019)

WaltL1 said:


> *No. To say a flying spaghetti monster created everything is as illogical as saying a god created everything and for the same reason. Neither has been proven to exist. You really, really, really seem to want to avoid that fact when discussing what is logical.*



^This. In case it didn’t register the first time.


----------



## WaltL1 (Apr 24, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> ^This. In case it didn’t register the first time.


Ive been trying to explain that you can make a logical argument IF you skip over the illogical starting point but to no avail.


----------



## Madman (Apr 24, 2019)

WaltL1 said:


> Ive been trying to explain that you can make a logical argument IF you skip over the illogical starting point but to no avail.


It is evident that you do not understand the logical progression.  In classical logic, the only thing that needs a cause is an effect.  Some thing transcendent, outside of what we see, self sustaining, self sufficient was the cause of the first effects. 

You may not agree with it but you cannot show a fault in the logic.  This is has been put forth many times and you continue to dismiss it.  Show me something else if any of you have it.

Yet there continues to be put forth the argument of eternal "effects", that is not only illogical it is impossible.

Also no one has even tried to put forth an argument for "why there is anything" accept "I don't know".   Thats a good answer, I don't know but I have a really good idea.

This has been fun but it is going nowhere.

time to move on.

P.S. your Scientism and naturalism is as philosophical as any other idea out there.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 24, 2019)

What did I miss?


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 24, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> You cited Aquinas and then dodged the question ambush posed. How does Aquinas (or you) know what does or does not have to exist? It’s part of the argument you put forward. Explain it.



I'd like an answer to this, as well.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 24, 2019)

Madman said:


> It is evident that you do not understand the logical progression.  In classical logic, the only thing that needs a cause is an effect.  Some thing transcendent, outside of what we see, self sustaining, self sufficient was the cause of the first effects.
> 
> You may not agree with it but you cannot show a fault in the logic.  This is has been put forth many times and you continue to dismiss it.  Show me something else if any of you have it.



I think the part in blue is a leap too far.  That's the fault in the logic. If it's outside of what we understand to be reality then it's undefinable.  It needn't any of the qualities that you ascribe it.  It's its own ball game and not subject to "Man's" logic.  I'm still playing along that this thing exists but this part you should abandon for the reasons I just gave.  You may have to use another tool besides logic to prove its existence.



Madman said:


> Yet there continues to be put forth the argument of eternal "effects", that is not only illogical it is impossible.
> 
> Also no one has even tried to put forth an argument for "why there is anything" accept "I don't know".   Thats a good answer, I don't know but I have a really good idea.
> 
> ...



Can the cause blink itself in and out of existence?


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 24, 2019)

Madman said:


> I am just asking the question.  I am not sure that anything "has" to exist in the A/A world.


 
What "has" to exist in the other "A" world?


----------



## Madman (Apr 24, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> What did I miss?


I think I missed a lot.  Been working hard for the last few days.

In summation I'll say this, the argument from contingency is based in science.  It begins with every discovery of something new.  When a new bacteria is discovered the discoverer may ask "why is it red in color and not yellow", or a why do humans have hair in certain places while apes have it all over.  To say I don't know is against the very nature of man.  Science was founded on mankind trying to find out WHY?  Everything is based on why?  

This is the argument that some things are necessary, and some things are contingent.
The contingency argument simply states that the universe does not have to exist then there must be a reason for why it does exist.  

Whatever the explanation for "WHY" is it must be greater than the universe. 

Whatever it looks like, that is what philosophers call a  "necessary" being.


----------



## Madman (Apr 24, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> I think the part in blue is a leap too far.  That's the fault in the logic. If it's outside of what we understand to be reality then it's undefinable.  It needn't any of the qualities that you ascribe it.  It's its own ball game and not subject to "Man's" logic.  I'm still playing along that this thing exists but this part you should abandon for the reasons I just gave.  You may have to use another tool besides logic to prove its existence.


We know that the book cannot write itself, there must be an author, a watchmaker, and inventor, and it cannot be part of the natural order, it must be outside of the order the very laws of physics demand it.

You can call it a leap but it does not violate the laws of logic.  The multiverse theory, or at least the one that claims there are many if not infinite other parallel universes is a huge leap and still answers no questions about origin.  We all MUST plant a flag somewhere, lest we are adrift at sea, "thrown about by every wind of doctrine".



ambush80 said:


> Can the cause blink itself in and out of existence?


No


----------



## Madman (Apr 24, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> What "has" to exist in the other "A" world?


And yet is does!  Why?

I need to move to the hobby threads.  This has been fun.  Thanks fellows.  I suppose we are all fellows, if not I apologize.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 24, 2019)

Madman said:


> I think I missed a lot.  Been working hard for the last few days.
> 
> In summation I'll say this, the argument from contingency is based in science.  It begins with every discovery of something new.  When a new bacteria is discovered the discoverer may ask "why is it red in color and not yellow", or a why do humans have hair in certain places while apes have it all over.  To say I don't know is against the very nature of man.  Science was founded on mankind trying to find out WHY?  Everything is based on why?
> 
> ...


The explanation may lie within the Universe, since we know very little about the Universe there is no need to jump beyond it.

Show us the chain of causation that gets a rock to a god and then show us why it is a specific god.

Right now all we have from you is Rock = Maker, Maker = The God I worship.


----------



## WaltL1 (Apr 24, 2019)

Madman said:


> It is evident that you do not understand the logical progression.  In classical logic, the only thing that needs a cause is an effect.  Some thing transcendent, outside of what we see, self sustaining, self sufficient was the cause of the first effects.
> 
> You may not agree with it but you cannot show a fault in the logic.  This is has been put forth many times and you continue to dismiss it.  Show me something else if any of you have it.
> 
> ...


You have an amazing ability to turn something simple into a gigantic pile of gobbledy gook all in an effort to avoid your illogical starting point.


> but it is going nowhere.


Correct.
And -


> I propose my question to you in Post #136 again. Its a simple question. Its taking YOUR question to Bullet but changing "a rock" to "us". So its not getting ahead, its a lateral move.


----------



## WaltL1 (Apr 24, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> ^This. In case it didn’t register the first time.


Apparently you didn't use a big enough or bright enough font.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 24, 2019)

Madman said:


> It is evident that you do not understand the logical progression.  In classical logic, the only thing that needs a cause is an effect.  Some thing transcendent, outside of what we see, self sustaining, self sufficient was the cause of the first effects.
> 
> You may not agree with it but you cannot show a fault in the logic.  This is has been put forth many times and you continue to dismiss it.  Show me something else if any of you have it.
> 
> ...



*The arguments from cause and purpose stem from a confusion of language. They apply the concepts to realms where, by definition, they can have no validity.
The cause of an event must precede that event. Yet if we define the universe as including all time, then there was no preceding time in which a first cause could have taken place.
The purpose of a thing lies outside itself in time or space. Yet if we define the universe as containing all space and all time, there is no "outside" where a purpose could be lurking.
Claiming that God lies outside time, space and the universe does not advance the opposing argument. For even if we accept God into the picture, we can define a new totality, embracing God andeverything that exists. That totality, again by definition, can have no cause or purpose, because there is nothing outside of it in time or space.
God is no real answer to questions of cause and purpose, for theists do not ask or answer questions about the cause and purpose of God's own existence. This does not end the chain of questions: it merely draws a curtain over the further links. The answer "God" can only satisfy us if we suspend our drive for understanding at that point. And there is no logical reason for doing so. As Hume remarked:

If we stop, and go no further, why go so far? Why not stop at the material world? [Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, , Part IV]​A moment's reflection shows that human thought can neverreach a final end to the chain of cause and purpose questions.*​


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 24, 2019)

WaltL1 said:


> Apparently you didn't use a big enough or bright enough font.



I believe Madman is saying "It must exist" by logic.  Sounds a bit like "This illogical thing must exist because logic says it must".  I call it illogical because by the description of it, it exceeds logic.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 24, 2019)

*The universe embraces all time and all space and all things that have existed or exist now or will exist in the future.
It has no before and it has no outside.
Nothing existed before it that could have been its cause.
Nothing exists outside it that could be the source or goal of its purpose or the reference point for its meaning.
It cannot conceivably have any cause or purpose.*​


----------



## Madman (Apr 24, 2019)

bullethead said:


> *The arguments from cause and purpose stem from a confusion of language. They apply the concepts to realms where, by definition, they can have no validity.*​*The cause of an event must precede that event. Yet if we define the universe as including all time, then there was no preceding time in which a first cause could have taken place.*​*The purpose of a thing lies outside itself in time or space. Yet if we define the universe as containing all space and all time, there is no "outside" where a purpose could be lurking.*​*Claiming that God lies outside time, space and the universe does not advance the opposing argument. For even if we accept God into the picture, we can define a new totality, embracing God andeverything that exists. That totality, again by definition, can have no cause or purpose, because there is nothing outside of it in time or space.*​*God is no real answer to questions of cause and purpose, for theists do not ask or answer questions about the cause and purpose of God's own existence. This does not end the chain of questions: it merely draws a curtain over the further links. The answer "God" can only satisfy us if we suspend our drive for understanding at that point. And there is no logical reason for doing so. As Hume remarked:*​​*If we stop, and go no further, why go so far? Why not stop at the material world? [Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, , Part IV]*​
> 
> *A moment's reflection shows that human thought can neverreach a final end to the chain of cause and purpose questions.*​


The argument is valid even if the chain is infinite.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 24, 2019)

bullethead said:


> *The universe embraces all time and all space and all things that have existed or exist now or will exist in the future.*​*It has no before and it has no outside.*​*Nothing existed before it that could have been its cause.*​*Nothing exists outside it that could be the source or goal of its purpose or the reference point for its meaning.*​*It cannot conceivably have any cause or purpose.*​



I dunno. They say the edge of it is some 14 billion light years away and getting farther.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 24, 2019)

Madman said:


> The argument is valid even if the chain is infinite.



How so?


----------



## Madman (Apr 24, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> I believe Madman is saying "It must exist" by logic.  Sounds a bit like "This illogical thing must exist because logic says it must".  I call it illogical because by the description of it, it exceeds logic.


No.  The known universe is contingent, it need not exist.  Hence the question.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 24, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> I dunno. They say the edge of it is some 14 billion light years away and getting farther.


http://www.vexen.co.uk/religion/universe.html
#8 addresses that in the link above.
#1-7 are worth reading too


----------



## bullethead (Apr 24, 2019)

Madman said:


> The argument is valid even if the chain is infinite.


If you explain your answers instead of asserting what you say is true it would cause us to think and counter.
The way you answers provided no details on how you get to that answer.

Still waiting on the Rock to Christian God chain of evidentiary events too


----------



## WaltL1 (Apr 24, 2019)

> ambush80 said:
> I believe Madman is saying "It must exist" by logic.  Sounds a bit like "This illogical thing must exist because logic says it must".  I call it illogical because by the description of it it exceeds logic.


Which is why you cant logically get there.
Which is why any argument claiming to be logical is sunk from the get go.
Is anybody considering that "logic" is based on what we KNOW/HAVE PROVEN????
Which DOES NOT include a god????????
Which means there is NO logical argument that can get you to one never mind a specific one????
Now Im not the sharpest tool in the shed but its pretty obvious to me that there is no amount of goobledy gook that gets around that.


----------



## Madman (Apr 24, 2019)

bullethead said:


> If you explain your answers instead of asserting what you say is true it would cause us to think and counter.
> The way you answers provided no details on how you get to that answer.
> 
> Still waiting on the Rock to Christian God chain of evidentiary events too


You can't get to a neccessary being, why move on to the Christian God?


----------



## atlashunter (Apr 24, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> I believe Madman is saying "It must exist" by logic.  Sounds a bit like "This illogical thing must exist because logic says it must".  I call it illogical because by the description of it, it exceeds logic.



Logic is hard when you start with the conclusion.

In the end this all boils down to a god of the gaps argument. You don’t know the answer to a question and therefore I do. No need to demonstrate the truth of the answer. Just make a bunch of baseless assertions, call it logic, ignore any objections and head for the exits.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 24, 2019)

Madman said:


> You can't get to a neccessary being, why move on to the Christian God?


How can I get there when nobody has produced a shred of evidence that anything,  let alone a Being, exists Beyond or outside of this Universe. 

If you had a legitimate chain of causation from Rock to Christian God all you have to do is type it and hit post reply. You have avoided it for pages now as if it is someone's else's fault.


----------



## atlashunter (Apr 24, 2019)

Madman said:


> You can't get to a neccessary being, why move on to the Christian God?



Neither can you. You started with the conclusion that such a being exists and are now trying to form an argument to make your assumption appear logical. There is no logic, no evidence that would move you off your conclusion because it wasn’t logic or evidence that got you there in the first place.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 24, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> I believe Madman is saying "It must exist" by logic.  Sounds a bit like "This illogical thing must exist because logic says it must".  I call it illogical because by the description of it, it exceeds logic.





Madman said:


> The argument is valid even if the chain is infinite.



I was talking about the very much outside of logic Prime Mover.  It's a thing that exceeds logic yet you try to use logic to affirm it.  I find that odd.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 24, 2019)

Why did the Prime Mover create? How would you know?


----------



## WaltL1 (Apr 24, 2019)

I'm really trying to avoid the conclusion that Madman is perfectly aware that he cant back up squat of his assertions and is therefore just throwing crap against the wall in the hopes that something will stick so we will just move on......
but the evidence is overwhelming that that is exactly what he is doing.


----------



## WaltL1 (Apr 24, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> Logic is hard when you start with the conclusion.
> 
> In the end this all boils down to a god of the gaps argument. You don’t know the answer to a question and therefore I do. No need to demonstrate the truth of the answer. Just make a bunch of baseless assertions, call it logic, ignore any objections and head for the exits.





> In the end this all boils down to a god of the gaps argument


Thats all it is.
Madman is attempting to dress it up in a sophisticated looking suit and tie...….
but thats all it is.


----------



## ky55 (Apr 24, 2019)

WaltL1 said:


> Thats all it is.
> Madman is attempting to dress it up in a sophisticated looking suit and tie...….
> but thats all it is.



Yep, lipstick on a pig. 

*


----------



## Israel (Apr 25, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> I was talking about the very much outside of logic Prime Mover.  It's a thing that exceeds logic yet you try to use logic to affirm it.  I find that odd.



Either logic (reason?) exists...in a transcendent state (to which man makes his attempts at, or appeal for conformity), or it is simply a construct of man with all the limits of created things attendant to existing in the material universe.

"Real" independent of _any man _(and man in general) or totally dependent.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 25, 2019)

Madman said:


> We know that the book cannot write itself, there must be an author, a watchmaker, and inventor, and it cannot be part of the natural order, it must be outside of the order the very laws of physics demand it.
> 
> You can call it a leap but it does not violate the laws of logic.  The multiverse theory, or at least the one that claims there are many if not infinite other parallel universes is a huge leap and still answers no questions about origin.  We all MUST plant a flag somewhere, lest we are adrift at sea, "thrown about by every wind of doctrine".
> 
> ...



So the prime mover is subject to logic and natural laws?


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 25, 2019)

Israel said:


> Either logic (reason?) exists...in a transcendent state (to which man makes his attempts at, or appeal for conformity), or it is simply a construct of man with all the limits of created things attendant to existing in the material universe.
> 
> "Real" independent of _any man _(and man in general) or totally dependent.



So you think the Prime Mover is subject to logic?


----------



## j_seph (Apr 25, 2019)

bullethead said:


> http://www.vexen.co.uk/religion/universe.html
> #8 addresses that in the link above.
> #1-7 are worth reading too


He sure has learned a lot in the 35 years leading up to writing that article.


----------



## Israel (Apr 25, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> So you think the Prime Mover is subject to logic?


No.
He is_ the _logic.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 25, 2019)

Israel said:


> No.
> He is_ the _logic.



I swear I'm trying to glean meaning from this statement but I can't seem to.  Maybe some further explanation would help.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 25, 2019)

Israel said:


> No.
> He is_ the _logic.



So many problems here.  Why "He"?  

I suppose "He" is also the Law of Gravity and the Bernoulli Principle, yes?


----------



## WaltL1 (Apr 25, 2019)

Israel said:


> Either logic (reason?) exists...in a transcendent state (to which man makes his attempts at, or appeal for conformity), or it is simply a construct of man with all the limits of created things attendant to existing in the material universe.
> 
> "Real" independent of _any man _(and man in general) or totally dependent.





> it is simply a construct of man


Yes


> totally dependent.


Yes
Logic is based on what man knows/has been proven and therefore is limited by what man knows/has been proven by man.
Precisely why any argument of logically getting to a god or starting with a god or ending with a god is NOT logical or comprised of logic.
Some Christians, for reasons known to them (I have my own opinion as to why), really really really want their belief to be "logical".
Its not. Might be some day but not yet.


----------



## WaltL1 (Apr 25, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> I swear I'm trying to glean meaning from this statement but I can't seem to.  Maybe some further explanation would help.


It means Israel believes He is all things including logic. The End.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 25, 2019)

WaltL1 said:


> Yes
> 
> Yes
> Logic is based on what man knows/has been proven and therefore is limited by what man knows/has been proven by man.
> ...



That's what I meant.  Thanks for saying it so clearly.  Would it be too far a stretch to say that the "Prime Mover" is an imagination like hyper drive?  A more charitable description might be that the Prime Mover is a theory, but no, for some reason the argument is that the Prime Mover is the ONLY possibility.  That to me seems like saying "Hyper Drive is the ONLY possibility and your Wormhole Slide concept is impossible".   Is that a fair assessment of the argument?

I get it.  It's the avoidance of saying "I believe because it's been revealed to me" because these very smart people understand what shaky ground revelation is.  They don't believe because of logic and reason. Logic and reason can't speak to the "Divine" or the "Revealed".


----------



## bullethead (Apr 25, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> I swear I'm trying to glean meaning from this statement but I can't seem to.  Maybe some further explanation would help.


Clear, Concise, Accurate back up explanations after a claim or assertion is not Izzy's thing.


----------



## WaltL1 (Apr 25, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> That's what I meant.  Thanks for saying it so clearly.  Would it be too far a stretch to say that the "Prime Mover" is an imagination like hyper drive?  A more charitable description might be that the Prime Mover is a theory, but no, for some reason the argument is that the Prime Mover is the ONLY possibility.  That to me seems like saying "Hyper Drive is the ONLY possibility and your Wormhole Slide concept is impossible".   Is that a fair assessment of the argument?
> 
> I get it.  It's the avoidance of saying "I believe because it's been revealed to me" because these very smart people understand what shaky ground revelation is.  They don't believe because of logic and reason. Logic and reason can't speak to the "Divine" or the "Revealed".


For me, my first step is getting a grasp on we are defining "prime mover".
Like for alot of words you guys use in here, the dictionary is my friend 


ambush80 said:


> That's what I meant.  Thanks for saying it so clearly.  Would it be too far a stretch to say that the "Prime Mover" is an imagination like hyper drive?  A more charitable description might be that the Prime Mover is a theory, but no, for some reason the argument is that the Prime Mover is the ONLY possibility.  That to me seems like saying "Hyper Drive is the ONLY possibility and your Wormhole Slide concept is impossible".   Is that a fair assessment of the argument?
> 
> I get it.  It's the avoidance of saying "I believe because it's been revealed to me" because these very smart people understand what shaky ground revelation is.  They don't believe because of logic and reason. Logic and reason can't speak to the "Divine" or the "Revealed".


First I need to clarify what we are discussing when we refer to a "prime mover".
prime mov·er
[ˌprīm ˈmo͞ovər]

NOUN
1. a person or establishment that is chiefly responsible for the creation or execution of a plan or project.
synonyms:
originator · author · creator · instigator · founder · father · mother · founding father · prime mover · engineer · designer · deviser · planner · shaper · inventor · maker ·
2. an initial natural or mechanical source of motive power.
synonyms:
source · root · origin · beginning(s) · starting point · seed · germ · genesis · agency · occasion · mainspring · base · basis · foundation · bottom · seat · originator ·

We seem to be using #1 ^ exclusively but the way I read it #2 could include the Big Bang or what caused the BB or..... stuff we dont have a clue about?


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 25, 2019)

WaltL1 said:


> For me, my first step is getting a grasp on we are defining "prime mover".
> Like for alot of words you guys use in here, the dictionary is my friend
> 
> First I need to clarify what we are discussing when we refer to a "prime mover".
> ...



Either of those will work for the intent I had as a "Prime Mover" advocate during my experiment.  I was trying to avoid a "Guy" initially but I tried to see if I could justify the necessity of a Guy.  It was a useful experiment because it allowed me to see exactly why they need it to be a guy.  Did it seem weird when I was taking a deist position?  It felt weird to me because allot of the time I didn't believe what I was saying but it REALLY made sense if you assume a guy apriori.  I wonder if it seemed weird for believers to hear me defend their side.   Sometimes when you hear someone say what you said back to you it reveals the strength or weakness of it.  I think I did a good job.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 25, 2019)

The reason why the "Guy" falls apart is because they are saying they know what this guy wants and why he does stuff.  They talk like they know what this guy can and can't do and what he likes and dislikes.  Even if we decide we prefer the notion of a guy blinking everything into existence, the way things are still doesn't tell us anything about the guy.  Heck, he could have flatulated us into existence.  The universe may be the poop of the guy.  If they just said "I like to think a guy was involved" that would be one thing, but ALL of them of every stripe want to claim they know what the guy wants.  Even if it is a guy, he's got to be like nothing we can imagine.


----------



## WaltL1 (Apr 25, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> Either of those will work for the intent I had as a "Prime Mover" advocate during my experiment.  I was trying to avoid a "Guy" initially but I tried to see if I could justify the necessity of a Guy.  It was a useful experiment because it allowed me to see exactly why they need it to be a guy.  Did it seem weird when I was taking a deist position?  It felt weird to me because allot of the time I didn't believe what I was saying but it REALLY made sense if you assume a guy apriori.  I wonder if it seemed weird for believers to hear me defend their side.   Sometimes when you hear someone say what you said back to you it reveals the strength or weakness of it.  I think I did a good job.





> Did it seem weird when I was taking a deist position?


So all kidding aside....
No not weird. Its a sign of a strong debater/thinker when one can argue either side regardless of their personal beliefs. Not to mention the world would be a better place if more folks could "put themselves in the other's shoes" and at least be able to consider (not necessarily agree but consider) their view point.
I think this is a good example of why we have some "terminology issues" in our discussions/debates here. I specifically asked a Christian here if a prime mover could be something other than God, and paraphrasing here, was told "of course not".
Obviously because thats the only way their beliefs work not because thats the exclusive definition of prime mover.


----------



## WaltL1 (Apr 25, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> The reason why the "Guy" falls apart is because they are saying they know what this guy wants and why he does stuff.  They talk like they know what this guy can and can't do and what he likes and dislikes.  Even if we decide we prefer the notion of a guy blinking everything into existence, the way things are still doesn't tell us anything about the guy.  Heck, he could have flatulated us into existence.  The universe may be the poop of the guy.  If they just said "I like to think a guy was involved" that would be one thing, but ALL of them of every stripe want to claim they know what the guy wants.  Even if it is a guy, he's got to be like nothing we can imagine.


My opinion is its the emotional and psychological dependence on the Bible being right/accurate. The Bible/Christianity says what God can do/thinks/does etc.
Their entire world view/belief system/afterlife depends on that being accurate.
I'm not belittling that Im just stating it.
I would imagine there are some Atheists that would lose their minds if God was proven to exist tomorrow.


----------



## Israel (Apr 26, 2019)

The Prime Mover is _the _logic. (Since you stumble at _he_)


----------



## bullethead (Apr 26, 2019)

Israel said:


> The Prime Mover is _the _logic. (Since you stumble at _he_)


From:
https://churchleaders.com/pastors/pastor-articles/175069-barnabas-piper-god-is-not-logical.html

God is not logical because logic is for the finite and the fallible. It is a structure created and given _by_ God so that beings with limited knowledge could solve problems and have a reasonable world.

Izzy are you ever going explain your claim?


----------



## WaltL1 (Apr 26, 2019)

bullethead said:


> From:
> https://churchleaders.com/pastors/pastor-articles/175069-barnabas-piper-god-is-not-logical.html
> 
> God is not logical because logic is for the finite and the fallible. It is a structure created and given _by_ God so that beings with limited knowledge could solve problems and have a reasonable world.
> ...





> God is not logical


Well isn't that a double whammy on those attempting a logical argument for God.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 26, 2019)

WaltL1 said:


> Well isn't that a double whammy on those attempting a logical argument for God.


Yeah, and it may make for good thought and convo if anyone could explain at how they got to their claim.


----------



## Israel (Apr 27, 2019)

WaltL1 said:


> Well isn't that a double whammy on those attempting a logical argument for God.


yes...it's a perfect prohibition.


----------



## WaltL1 (Apr 27, 2019)

Israel said:


> yes...it's a perfect prohibition.


Great! Then we can rely on you to jump in and point that out to fellow Christians instead of them just hearing it from this side.


----------



## Spotlite (Apr 27, 2019)

bullethead said:


> It may be far more logical to you a believer in another highly unlikely and unknown/unknowable source, but it is not really logical at all.
> 
> Are you saying that it is more logical to believe in any made up creature as a possible source of creation than to think something that is has been shown exist for as long as 14+ Billion years may have existed before that and will still exist after that?
> 
> When does Eternal start? We know it doesnt end.


No, if I’m reading him correctly, things just don’t come from “nothing”.....nothing only produces nothing. It is more logical to think / believe / accept that something, regardless of how or what that something is, caused the existence of.....than to say “it came from nothing or it always existed” 

We Christians are guilty of going with that same “illogical logic”. And, you could have played along with this counter; where did the spirit of God come from?


----------



## Israel (Apr 27, 2019)

WaltL1 said:


> Great! Then we can rely on you to jump in and point that out to fellow Christians instead of them just hearing it from this side.


LOL...rely on me? Talk about putting hope in the wrong thing.


----------



## WaltL1 (Apr 27, 2019)

Israel said:


> LOL...rely on me? Talk about putting hope in the wrong thing.


I said it "tongue in cheek".
I know that wouldn't be your style to do that 
In other words, just pokin' at ya


----------



## bullethead (Apr 27, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> No, if I’m reading him correctly, things just don’t come from “nothing”.....nothing only produces nothing. It is more logical to think / believe / accept that something, regardless of how or what that something is, caused the existence of.....than to say “it came from nothing or it always existed”
> 
> We Christians are guilty of going with that same “illogical logic”. And, you could have played along with this counter; where did the spirit of God come from?


That has been done to death.
NOBODY except believers use the term "came from  nothing ", and that is when they are ungraciously GIVING the term to Nonbelievers who never say it.
We have countered with where did god/spirit come from and the answer is always....Even though nothing is eternal MY god is...

What we do know is that time began when the Universe expanded. The Universe may have always been there...to what size, I don't know.

Something  before thecurrent Universe could be many things but what I am sure of is that I don't know what it is, let alone know it. And neither does anyone in here. So I am waiting to hear a detailed account if how Madman, you, or anyone else KNOWS the specifics of what came before, always existed and is specifically the god of the bible.


----------



## Israel (Apr 27, 2019)

WaltL1 said:


> I said it "tongue in cheek".
> I know that wouldn't be your style to do that
> In other words, just pokin' at ya



I know Walt. Took it all as above.

Just that frustration can be a great teaching tool even when hated.

If it's pursued to perfection as any _thing _might be, well, at least it's an opportunity to consider the perfect.

As Ambush said:



> I can't imagine what a force of the Prime Mover's magnitude might make of that situation.



Neither could, nor can, I.


----------



## WaltL1 (Apr 27, 2019)

Israel said:


> I know Walt. Took it all as above.
> 
> Just that frustration can be a great teaching tool even when hated.
> 
> ...


----------



## Spotlite (Apr 27, 2019)

bullethead said:


> That has been done to death.
> NOBODY except believers use the term "came from  nothing ", and that is when they are ungraciously GIVING the term to Nonbelievers who never say it.
> We have countered with where did god/spirit come from and the answer is always....Even though nothing is eternal MY god is...
> 
> ...


I can’t argue.....to clarify, the term “came from nothing” may not be used directly by a non believer, but indirectly, that’s most likely the conclusion that is perceived when evolution verses creation is debated and an answer similar to the one you just provided is given to a creationist that ask “where did it start”. 

I, myself, am perfectly fine with “I don’t know” from either side because I don’t know. I only know what I believe. 

And I have been asked “where did God start” from an evolutionist. I can’t answer that any more than you or anyone else can answer where did the universe come from. 

Somewhere in the mix of all of that “not knowing” is where I wrestle with those from either side that are sure of “what isn’t, or can’t be”. Why can’t God use evolution - didn’t the organisms we evolved from come from the ground or earth in some form or another? If time didn’t start until when.......what was a day and how do we know and how do we know what time was before we knew it as we now know it? If from the ground he formed us (biblically) ......how do we know it didn’t come through evolution over a period of that unknown time until he breathed breath into our nostrils?? At some point lungs had to develop, and we became a living  soul......is that the point we became human beings, separate from organisms, etc?  Did he literally breath breath into the mans nostrils or just cause his lungs to fill?? These are questions I ask to those that are so sure it was in fact one day we were formed like placing dust in a mold..... 

Why can’t evolutionist phantom a supreme being planting the “seed” or getting the ball rolling letting nature take its course, why can’t the “nature” or the universe itself be that supreme being? Is nature designed in full, semi designed, or simply reacting from its own affects? Do we even know what all entails the universe or nature? Are the writings of the Bible a new religion built on older writings or has man boogered up with his own agenda and words and this supreme being caused man to write again to get back on track?

If none of us really know with surety, how do we say “what can’t be” “what is” or “what isn’t”? 

Evidence points to the evolution model.......(as we understand “evidence” & “evolution”) but the unanswerable question is the source, or the source of the source due to the dead end road identifying the “origin”. 

Is that the point that we can trace and prove back to.......and then left with faith.....which is what we as Christians are supposed to have. Faith also indicates trust and believing that’s part of the foundation in establishing a relationship. As with my wife, if I have to have detailed evidence of her daily conversations and where a-bouts, do I really trust, believe, or have any faith in her that our relationship is pure and genuine? 


My way of thinking isn’t popular amongst most Christians. BUT the reality is we “believe”...

That’s about as detailed as it gets for me?


----------



## bullethead (Apr 27, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> I can’t argue.....to clarify, the term “came from nothing” may not be used directly by a non believer, but indirectly, that’s most likely the conclusion that is perceived when evolution verses creation is debated and an answer similar to the one you just provided is given to a creationist that ask “where did it start”.


I have to disagree. Nonbelievers do not indirectly use the term "came from nothing". That phrase is automatically where a theist jumps to because they are of an either/or mindset.
Well if it isn't god , it had to be nothing...while not considering a multitude of other possibilities because NOBODY really knows for sure.



Spotlite said:


> I, myself, am perfectly fine with “I don’t know” from either side because I don’t know. I only know what I believe.


That is honest and appreciated



Spotlite said:


> And I have been asked “where did God start” from an evolutionist. I can’t answer that any more than you or anyone else can answer where did the universe come from.


I with you so far



Spotlite said:


> Somewhere in the mix of all of that “not knowing” is where I wrestle with those from either side that are sure of “what isn’t, or can’t be”. Why can’t God use evolution - didn’t the organisms we evolved from come from the ground or earth in some form or another? If time didn’t start until when.......what was a day and how do we know and how do we know what time was before we knew it as we now know it? If from the ground he formed us (biblically) ......how do we know it didn’t come through evolution over a period of that unknown time until he breathed breath into our nostrils?? At some point lungs had to develop, and we became a living  soul......is that the point we became human beings, separate from organisms, etc?  Did he literally breath breath into the mans nostrils or just cause his lungs to fill?? These are questions I ask to those that are so sure it was in fact one day we were formed like placing dust in a mold.....


Those are all good questions but according to the bible, it ALL happened in 6 days. The complete contents of the Universe (which we know took over 13 Billion years) to the first human which was in God's image (which we know have been around for over 2 million years where humans evolved to look like they do today *last 20,000 years*)



Spotlite said:


> Why can’t evolutionist phantom a supreme being planting the “seed” or getting the ball rolling letting nature take its course, why can’t the “nature” or the universe itself be that supreme being? Is nature designed in full, semi designed, or simply reacting from its own affects? Do we even know what all entails the universe or nature? Are the writings of the Bible a new religion built on older writings or has man boogered up with his own agenda and words and this supreme being caused man to write again to get back on track?


Some evolutionists can fathom that but it goes against the Bible. As soon as a person sees and admits that the bible IS fallible, full of errors, falsehoods,  inaccuracies  etc etc it shows that THE god of that book is absolutely not the god that got anything going.



Spotlite said:


> If none of us really know with surety, how do we say “what can’t be” “what is” or “what isn’t”?


Well, based off of evidence against and more importantly lack of evidence for, it comes down to a more likely than not scenario to the magnitude that it would be like admitting that there is a chance that Scooby Doo really drives the Mystery Machine because it isn't proven that he doesn't.  There is an expectation of reality that some things can never fulfill.



Spotlite said:


> Evidence points to the evolution model.......(as we understand “evidence” & “evolution”) but the unanswerable question is the source, or the source of the source due to the dead end road identifying the “origin”.


And is it more likely to be something that really is and has been Eternal since the beginning of time as we know it and still continues on today? Something we know exists or any one of infinite imaginary guesses?
Think about what is Eternity.



Spotlite said:


> Is that the point that we can trace and prove back to.......and then left with faith.....which is what we as Christians are supposed to have. Faith also indicates trust and believing that’s part of the foundation in establishing a relationship. As with my wife, if I have to have detailed evidence of her daily conversations and where a-bouts, do I really trust, believe, or have any faith in her that our relationship is pure and genuine?


 Your wife exists here and now.
How can anyone say a specific cause is responsible using faith when as we discussed above...the sole source of information pertaining to that god is faulty?



Spotlite said:


> My way of thinking isn’t popular amongst most Christians. BUT the reality is we “believe”...
> 
> That’s about as detailed as it gets for me?


10-4


----------



## Spotlite (Apr 27, 2019)

bullethead said:


> I have to disagree. Nonbelievers do not indirectly use the term "came from nothing". That phrase is automatically where a theist jumps to because they are of an either/or mindset.


That’s what I meant - that’s the conclusion of how it’s perceived......by the believer.......so its indirectly a conclusion made by the believer.  I just wasn’t clear enough.


----------



## Israel (Apr 28, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> I can’t argue.....to clarify, the term “came from nothing” may not be used directly by a non believer, but indirectly, that’s most likely the conclusion that is perceived when evolution verses creation is debated and an answer similar to the one you just provided is given to a creationist that ask “where did it start”.
> 
> I, myself, am perfectly fine with “I don’t know” from either side because I don’t know. I only know what I believe.
> 
> ...



Is it not the _having respect to a person_ in all things? I cannot escape that in the reading of this:



> Faith also indicates trust and believing that’s part of the foundation in establishing a relationship. As with my wife, if I have to have detailed evidence of her daily conversations and where a-bouts, do I really trust, believe, or have any faith in her that our relationship is pure and genuine?



with this bearing repetition:



> if I have to have detailed evidence



Every man is free to come to investigate that, no? That "what do I have to have"?

I do not mean to jump on your back for standing and exposition...if you can receive this in grace, it is far more rather the healthy things _you expound_ that provoke me to these considerations.

Despite what some do in regards to certain things (I have no issue at all with what is called "renewing vows")...you married your wife..."at one time". You didn't return the next day, or the next hour, or minute or second to again declare "I am _all in_" in ceremony. From the point of "that ceremony" of union you have already entered into the "all in"...(but I believe we may both admit?) that is just the very beginning of our even beginning to know of ourselves, and to ourselves the significance of declaring before witnesses..the being of "all in".

Here I will speak only for myself that there were many many times I did not at all "like" the significance of that knowing pressed upon me. Yes, for me, I will not deny that "having to be _all in_" was often experienced as far more burden than pleasure. But, as you declare God's faithfulness (as I have watched you) I too bear no less a witness...grace has been abundant, and sufficient. I was "made able" to see (by grace ALONE) that place where choice is reduced to the place of plainly "no choice"...either endure in some suffering or be found plainly, a liar.

But here again, do not mistake me. The ease of being found a liar as opposed to enduring was far more attractive to me. It is not as though "I had within myself" or "of myself" such a devotion to truth that my spine was steeled to endurance. As though I stood by some nobility to endurance. No, I was rabbit all inside, ready to run. I do not like suffering...and all the less in some situation that I myself "freely" entered (with what was only_ later shown to be) _in some self deluding. "Marriage is a pleasant thing" which meant (to me) "always a pleasure" to be _my experience_. (insert laughter towards that most vain, and very vain, man). Marriage can be a good place where a man can discover the ease with which he lies to himself, about who he is, what he will "do", how he will deport himself, and what (and who) he truly esteems. All I am able to say here is..."Thanks be to God for Godly wives!" Yes, God can show a man "how he is". And that even through the so called "weaker vessel".

How the narrowing down to such a fine point you mention, _the fine point_ you mention:


> if I have to have detailed evidence



holds the question, no? "What _do "I"_ have to have"?

I have to have...preservation of my soul. The authenticity to myself...that _I am_ myself, for without it, without some ground of firmness from which to survey (which is _instantly lost_ at the very moment I submit to lying to "myself") "I" am all of lost.

The liar _can never know_ he lies to himself. He will _always believe _he speaks truth of himself to himself, his personal logic is all of _flawless. _(The Devil _does believe_ himself "an angel of light" which is why he is so convincing to those inured to being reproved, theirs is a _very temporary_ kinship, for there is no "fellowship" of he11) But why Jesus is known among _his disciples_ as the One speaking truth: "as many as_ I love_ I rebuke and chasten..." For they _are always_ being reproved of falling to "lying to themselves". To preserve their soul. An intervention. _The_ intervention. The "only" necessity...to the soul. That narrowing "down to" (or better, _up to)._


----------



## Israel (Apr 28, 2019)

I _think _I hear you. 



> if I have to have detailed evidence



In the relationship in which you have both already declared being "all in" it will mean that as you now, _if you now_ "have to have" detailed evidence (to your own satisfaction) by very inclusive _admission of lacking it_..._one of you was already a liar "in the ceremony". _Either in the speaking...or in the reception of words.

"I am giving you _all my_ trust"

It has _cost me nothing_ to be shown such an _easy_ liar to myself. On the contrary it has only been the Lord's faithfulness "in the ceremony" that has let me, caused me, to see so. And His persistence in _His word._

He is, Himself the "detailed evidence", and it is no surprise to us any longer that man cannot receive His testimony. No man, of himself can show to himself his _own lying. _No more than I could, or can, to my _self_.

This is the work (alone) of the Prime Mover, that you believe in Him whom He has sent.

When we believe...wives, mothers, fathers, friends, enemies, become all of one _to us, _now able _to be trusted_ to show precisely who "they" are. And who they "are of".
After all, if we claim to have any fellowship or _trust at all _in the "all knowing one" who has made Himself _plain in faithfulness _by showing to our self the singlest thing about our self...to our self through Jesus Christ "I am the one whose _only necessity_ is salvation" we know he will _never do less_ for all that are His.

Some want God's (Prime Mover's) appearance and are able to admit it, as _thing. _Unable to concede consciousness, they _do not know_ how they deny their own. Here is the "something from nothing" they unconsciously (very unconsciously) argue. They claim to have a something..._not present_ in "prime mover". From here, they argue. Imagine, if you can, their surprise! But why imagine...behold your own!

I hear the maker of man. 
And I see His work. Changing...man. From dust...to something able to re-think. I see it here.



> 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.





> I would imagine there are some Atheists that would lose their minds if God was proven to exist tomorrow.



What if the first man speaking "of himself" found himself to be among the second group. He might miss several meals.

For I too, am always surprised...by what I do not know.
The one thing that man's consciousness (logic, reason, attempts at ascension in knowledge) can never account for is how much he is unconscious of.

And he can never account for the prime mover having a will to _make himself_ known.
That would mean conceding a will greater than _his own_...and this he cannot do until he meet this One "not my will, but thine be done".

He's still and always...here. Everything else...is what is going.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 28, 2019)

That is a lot of something that explains nothing.


----------



## ky55 (Apr 28, 2019)

bullethead said:


> That is a lot of something that explains nothing.



Yes, what an absolute waste of time. 
More refrigerator decoration.


----------



## WaltL1 (Apr 28, 2019)

Man you guys are brutal 
You've really gotta learn to appreciate Israel's posts for what they are not for what you want them to be . His style has been pretty consistent over the years so probably not gonna change now 

mys·tic
[ˈmistik]
NOUN

1 a person who seeks by contemplation and self-surrender to obtain unity with or absorption into the Deity or the absolute, or who believes in the spiritual apprehension of truths that are beyond the intellect.

I'm with ya Israel!!! Shake these bullies off like a wet dog!


----------



## WaltL1 (Apr 28, 2019)




----------



## Israel (Apr 29, 2019)

WaltL1 said:


> Man you guys are brutal
> You've really gotta learn to appreciate Israel's posts for what they are not for what you want them to be . His style has been pretty consistent over the years so probably not gonna change now
> 
> mys·tic
> ...



LOL, Walt.

I don't think I think of myself as a mystic at all, just practical...and sort of lazy to an extreme. At best I am more like a dog lying in the sun on a hot day that goes looking for some shade...

I woke up "here" just like everyone else...without a clue...eventually hearing advice, instructions, stories, but with this thing just as determined as anyone else to find out _for myself _what it's about, but all the while kinda hobbled by a  developing prejudice toward my experience of pleasure and a dislike of pain. It steered me, like that dog. Couldn't shake it, I like what I like, and dislike what I don't. Also, can't deny it. But explain it? Ha! 

How could my father finish his peas, lick his lips...and I gagged?


----------



## bullethead (Apr 29, 2019)

WaltL1 said:


> Man you guys are brutal
> You've really gotta learn to appreciate Israel's posts for what they are not for what you want them to be . His style has been pretty consistent over the years so probably not gonna change now
> 
> mys·tic
> ...


I get that. I understand him. But I cannot remember a single time that he made a post that actually had some substance while making a viable point with examples to back it up that dealt with his claim or assertion.

Its always make a claim and ramble on as if it there is no opposition or requests for him to provide backup dialog. He goes to great lengths to avoid providing any proof for what he claims is truth.

I mean, Madman at least took it far with good thought provoking explanations.  He bowed out when logic and evidence failed to provide any specific information which would point to an intelligent source, he never got to a specific god and cannot. He will be back when he thinks we forgot about the conversation.


----------



## Israel (Apr 29, 2019)

ky55 said:


> Yes, what an absolute waste of time.
> More refrigerator decoration.


 I believe I'd ought to be more concerned if it wasn't absolute.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 29, 2019)

Israel said:


> I believe I'd ought to be more concerned if it wasn't absolute.


Can paint many pictures with different backgrounds , but like Bob Ross, we know it is all about and always ever gonna be, about the big Pine Tree front and center. I watch him paint on pbs and turn right as he starts the lonely tree up front.


----------



## Israel (Apr 29, 2019)

ky55 said:


> More refrigerator decoration.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 29, 2019)

Izzy, 
1. No big tree in the foreground 
2. Did you REALLY look at the pic and ALL the pics within the pic???


----------



## Spotlite (Apr 29, 2019)

bullethead said:


> Did you REALLY look at the pic and ALL the pics within the pic???


----------



## ky55 (Apr 29, 2019)

bullethead said:


> Izzy,
> 1. No big tree in the foreground
> 2. Did you REALLY look at the pic and ALL the pics within the pic???



Uhhhh, 
I think not.
Too busy seeing pictures of himself.


----------



## Israel (Apr 30, 2019)

ky55 said:


> Uhhhh,
> I think not.
> Too busy seeing pictures of himself.




Yes, indeed!
I am discovering I am infinitely small, and not even of any use to myself.

You seem to have perception. You discern a small _vain man_.  Kudos!


----------



## Spotlite (Apr 30, 2019)

Israel - check your PM’s......


----------



## WaltL1 (Apr 30, 2019)

Bob Ross was awesome. Just sayin


----------



## bullethead (Apr 30, 2019)

WaltL1 said:


> Bob Ross was awesome. Just sayin


Awesome and Predictable.(goes for Izzy too)
I am fairly sure that if he were to paint the space shuttle orbiting the earth with the view from space, there would still be a pine tree in the foreground!


----------



## WaltL1 (Apr 30, 2019)

bullethead said:


> Awesome and Predictable.(goes for Izzy too)
> I am fairly sure that if he were to paint the space shuttle orbiting the earth with the view from space, there would still be a pine tree in the foreground!


And a happy little pine tree it would be...…


----------



## Israel (Apr 30, 2019)

Ain't nothin' hidden ceptin' to be revealed...


----------



## atlashunter (May 1, 2019)

Israel said:


> Yes, indeed!
> I am discovering I am infinitely small, and not even of any use to myself.
> 
> You seem to have perception. You discern a small _vain man_.  Kudos!



So humble.


----------



## Israel (May 1, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> So humble.


Wait, Bob! There's more!


----------



## KyDawg (May 2, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> I swear I'm trying to glean meaning from this statement but I can't seem to.  Maybe some further explanation would help.



Where do you think logic came from. Did it just fall out of the sky one day, and 98% of it just happened to hit us humans. Or maybe you think it came from the apes, but if that is true, why are the Apes not out building skyscrapers and curing diseases.


----------



## bullethead (May 2, 2019)

KyDawg said:


> Where do you think logic came from. Did it just fall out of the sky one day, and 98% of it just happened to hit us humans. Or maybe you think it came from the apes, but if that is true, why are the Apes not out building skyscrapers and curing diseases.


Are they honestly the ONLY two options you think are possible? Typical believer either or mindset.
Logic, like everything else on this planet evolved.
You are asking if Logic just fell out of the sky one day,  yet you'll have us believe that An Invisible buddy who lives in the sky "gave" it to us??

If you even slightly understood evolution, you would realize that humans never were apes, nor chimpanzees, nor orangutans as we know them today, but all had branched off and became what they are from common ancestors and each took different evolutionary paths according to what was needed to survive and adapt to the surroundings.
If you care to look into it more research how fire and cooked meat separated the human species from the others.
But do not kid yourself into thinking you are made in the mold of some sky god. Your great grand pap a long way back had a tail and slept in the trees so predators wouldn't get him. Embrace it. Be thankful he could climb well and pass on the survival skills to his offspring. Otherwise you wouldn't be here.


----------



## 660griz (May 2, 2019)

KyDawg said:


> Where do you think logic came from. Did it just fall out of the sky one day, and 98% of it just happened to hit us humans.


 Not all humans had/have it. We are the only human species left. Maybe logic kept us alive. I think the ability to adapt has some logic to it. 


> Or maybe you think it came from the apes, but if that is true, why are the Apes not out building skyscrapers and curing diseases.



Well, we are a member of the "great apes" family so, I guess you can say, they are out building skyscrapers and curing diseases. 
"The great *apes* were formerly classified in their own *family*, Pongidae, but, because of their extremely close relation to humans and the fact that orangutans, gorillas, and chimpanzees are not as closely related to each other as chimpanzees are to humans, all are now grouped with humans in the *family* Hominidae."


----------



## KyDawg (May 2, 2019)

I should never have posted in this thread. Everyone likes to dismiss the thought of a creator, but never have any kind of explanation of how we got here,


----------



## bullethead (May 2, 2019)

KyDawg said:


> I should never have posted in this thread. Everyone likes to dismiss the thought of a creator, but never have any kind of explanation of how we got here,


Again, you make these statements about others without being able to back up your own.

How do you know who or what is a/the creator.
Who or what created the creator. 

If you followed along on this thread all of these things have been discussed, or at least been brougt up,  any and all believers that participated have not and absolutely cannot trace creation back to a god god or gods let alone the one single specific god you believe in.
If you have information that backs up your creator claim then please post it.
Simply saying God did it leaves you in a bigger hole to explain. Which you and all others have not even attempted to.

You have given a name to the unknown and still cannot explain how we got here any better than the people who admit they do not know how we got here. We just don't make up a story and give it a name.


----------



## ky55 (May 2, 2019)

KyDawg said:


> I should never have posted in this thread. Everyone likes to dismiss the thought of a creator, but never have any kind of explanation of how we got here,



Well, not exactly.
Some will admit they don’t know, and some will buy into a fantasy about an old man in the sky....and call it an explanation.


----------



## atlashunter (May 2, 2019)

KyDawg said:


> Where do you think logic came from. Did it just fall out of the sky one day, and 98% of it just happened to hit us humans. Or maybe you think it came from the apes, but if that is true, why are the Apes not out building skyscrapers and curing diseases.



Where do you think logic came from?


----------



## KyDawg (May 2, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> Where do you think logic came from?



You knew my answer before you asked, if you used logic. I believe that the Lord created man and logic was inherent in his creation. I am not a good Christian, and I will admit that I could do better. But no one will ever convince me that life on this earth just happened out of nothing, without any Devine design.


----------



## bullethead (May 2, 2019)

KyDawg said:


> You knew my answer before you asked, if you used logic. I believe that the Lord created man and logic was inherent in his creation. I am not a good Christian, and I will admit that I could do better. But no one will ever convince me that life on this earth just happened out of nothing, without any Devine design.


 "No one will ever convince me that Life on this earth just happened out of nothing "
You didnt read this thread at all...

Everything you are saying has been covered  and NOBODY except believers in a god, mention the life from nothing excuse. In fact, Just you and Madman mention it because you both falsely assume that is what non believers actually think and say...but the truth is...no non believer in here has ever made that claim and I have never even read about one that makes that claim.


----------



## KyDawg (May 2, 2019)

bullethead said:


> "No one will ever convince me that Life on this earth just happened out of nothing "
> You didnt read this thread at all...
> 
> Everything you are saying has been covered  and NOBODY except believers in a god, mention the life from nothing excuse. In fact, Just you and Madman mention it because you both falsely assume that is what non believers actually think and say...but the truth is...no non believer in here has ever made that claim and I have never even read about one that makes that claim.



I am sorry, you are right, I did not read the whole thread, and that is my fault. I was just looking around the threads and saw this and opened it. I or no one else should post in a thread, before they read it. I know better, but I just got in a hurry. My bad.


----------



## ky55 (May 2, 2019)

KyDawg said:


> I am sorry, you are right, I did not read the whole thread, and that is my fault. I was just looking around the threads and saw this and opened it. I or no one else should post in a thread, before they read it. I know better, but I just got in a hurry. My bad.



So, let’s assume you had read the entire thread from front to back before you replied.
Would the information contained in the thread have caused you to question what you have always believed, or would you still be sitting exactly where you were before you read information that could have caused you to believe differently?


----------



## WaltL1 (May 2, 2019)

KyDawg said:


> You knew my answer before you asked, if you used logic. I believe that the Lord created man and logic was inherent in his creation. I am not a good Christian, and I will admit that I could do better. But no one will ever convince me that life on this earth just happened out of nothing, without any Devine design.





> But no one will ever convince me that life on this earth just happened out of nothing,


Same with us. That's why we don't claim that it does.


> without any Devine design.


Obviously that's where we differ. But we are open to some sort of facts/proof of it.


----------



## KyDawg (May 2, 2019)

Well I cant offer any proof other than, the ducks headed south in the winter and north in the summer, or butterflys pollinating flowers and vegetables, or a dog finding his way home from 200 miles away or salmon returning to their place of birth without GPS. I know that is not the proof you are looking for, but seeing a new born baby, or a new born deer fawn, developing, is proof to me that there was a lot of thought put into the life we live. Again I am not a good speaker for the Christian faith. But faith is our biggest proof.


----------



## ky55 (May 2, 2019)

KyDawg said:


> Well I cant offer any proof other than, the ducks headed south in the winter and north in the summer, or butterflys pollinating flowers and vegetables, or a dog finding his way home from 200 miles away or salmon returning to their place of birth without GPS. I know that is not the proof you are looking for, but seeing a new born baby, or a new born deer fawn, developing, is proof to me that there was a lot of thought put into the life we live. Again I am not a good speaker for the Christian faith. But faith is our biggest proof.



We can agree on two things from your post....
you are not a good speaker for the Christian faith, and...
faith is your biggest proof because it is your only proof.
Ducks and dogs and butterflies fill in the gaps of the things you have never bothered to fill in with basic scientific knowledge because it could go against your faith.


----------



## atlashunter (May 2, 2019)

I love when believers just claim their deity created something, even intangible concepts like logic and time, without giving a moments thought to the implications of their claim. The icing on the cake is "no one will ever convince me". All marks of an individual that doesn't place much value on whether the beliefs they hold are actually true.


----------



## atlashunter (May 2, 2019)

KyDawg said:


> Well I cant offer any proof other than, the ducks headed south in the winter and north in the summer, or butterflys pollinating flowers and vegetables, or a dog finding his way home from 200 miles away or salmon returning to their place of birth without GPS. I know that is not the proof you are looking for, but seeing a new born baby, or a new born deer fawn, developing, is proof to me that there was a lot of thought put into the life we live. Again I am not a good speaker for the Christian faith. But faith is our biggest proof.








A lot of thought.


----------



## KyDawg (May 2, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> A lot of thought.



Thanks Atlas.


----------



## bullethead (May 3, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> A lot of thought.


Can we get a Really, Really, REALLY LIKE  button??


----------



## WaltL1 (May 3, 2019)

KyDawg said:


> Well I cant offer any proof other than, the ducks headed south in the winter and north in the summer, or butterflys pollinating flowers and vegetables, or a dog finding his way home from 200 miles away or salmon returning to their place of birth without GPS. I know that is not the proof you are looking for, but seeing a new born baby, or a new born deer fawn, developing, is proof to me that there was a lot of thought put into the life we live. Again I am not a good speaker for the Christian faith. But faith is our biggest proof.


Throughout man's history there has been a number of different gods that have been credited with all those things you have mentioned.
How did you pick the one you believe in? Faith again?


----------



## bullethead (May 3, 2019)

KyDawg said:


> Well I cant offer any proof other than, the ducks headed south in the winter and north in the summer, or butterflys pollinating flowers and vegetables, or a dog finding his way home from 200 miles away or salmon returning to their place of birth without GPS. I know that is not the proof you are looking for, but seeing a new born baby, or a new born deer fawn, developing, is proof to me that there was a lot of thought put into the life we live. Again I am not a good speaker for the Christian faith. But faith is our biggest proof.


Picking up on what Walt is asking you...
What you said above is proof that Ducks fly, Butterflies pollinate and dogs and salmon have an incredible sense of homing direction.
How do you get from that to Its All Because Of My God?

You went from point A to point Z without anything in between on how you get from A to Z


----------



## Israel (May 3, 2019)

bullethead said:


> Can we get a Really, Really, REALLY LIKE  button??


not from this guy, who ain't from Calaveras County.


----------



## Israel (May 3, 2019)




----------



## bullethead (May 3, 2019)

Israel said:


>


What is the bite and pester vs heal ratio worldwide?

And isn't it ironic that man had to improve the fly larve to be sterile and medical grade in order to turn it into something good?


----------



## WaltL1 (May 3, 2019)




----------



## Israel (May 3, 2019)

bullethead said:


> What is the bite and pester vs heal ratio worldwide?
> 
> And isn't it ironic that man had to improve the fly larve to be sterile and medical grade in order to turn it into something good?


LOL...I'm sure you'll find whatever statistic you need.


----------



## bullethead (May 3, 2019)

Israel said:


> LOL...I'm sure you'll find whatever statistic you need.


Pot/Kettle


----------



## Israel (May 3, 2019)

Statistically...you'd be...


----------



## bullethead (May 3, 2019)

Israel said:


> Statistically...you'd be...


More likely to back up what I say with facts and evidence.


----------



## Israel (May 3, 2019)

WaltL1 said:


>


It can be off putting. Especially the first time you encounter it. A long hot weekend a patient spends at home that doesn't have air conditioning, but has instead a large leg wound that you have returned to dress on Monday. The clean up crew is always relegated a shockingly low place, even in appearance. But, it's fitting...this apparently low place of esteem.

For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, _there is_ no beauty that we should desire him.


----------



## atlashunter (May 3, 2019)

An omnipotent deity could make a fly that had benefits without being a pest and vector for pathogens. That we so often have to weed out the good from the bad looks like the indifference I would expect with no one at the helm.


----------



## atlashunter (May 3, 2019)

bullethead said:


> Picking up on what Walt is asking you...
> What you said above is proof that Ducks fly, Butterflies pollinate and dogs and salmon have an incredible sense of homing direction.
> How do you get from that to Its All Because Of My God?
> 
> You went from point A to point Z without anything in between on how you get from A to Z



Trees... therefore Yahweh. Just look at the trees man! What more do you need?


----------



## bullethead (May 3, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> Trees... therefore Yahweh. Just look at the trees man! What more do you need?


Yeah when you put it like that.....


----------



## bullethead (May 3, 2019)

Israel said:


> It can be off putting. Especially the first time you encounter it. A long hot weekend a patient spends at home that doesn't have air conditioning, but has instead a large leg wound that you have returned to dress on Monday. The clean up crew is always relegated a shockingly low place, even in appearance. But, it's fitting...this apparently low place of esteem.


Informative, interesting and thank goodness the post isn't scratch and sniff!



Israel said:


> For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, _there is_ no beauty that we should desire him.


Too good to be true, now I smell it


----------



## Israel (May 4, 2019)

bullethead said:


> Informative, interesting and thank goodness the post isn't scratch and sniff!
> 
> 
> Too good to be true, now I smell it



Bless you brother.


----------



## bullethead (May 4, 2019)

Israel said:


> Bless you brother.


That wasn't a sneeze, it was a wince.


----------

