I was atheist before it was cool.

[Obbe]

Originally Posted by Snoopy

[crazzyass]

Originally Posted by Obbe

Exactly. It's really just a matter of semantics.

I'm sorry for not following. You are saying that God is equivalent to our present physical universe?

[Obbe]

Yes, God is right now.

[crazzyass]

Originally Posted by Obbe

Yes, God is right now.

So instead of calling the universe the universe, you're calling it another arbitrarily chosen name?

[Obbe]

Not at all. The way I think of the world could be described as somewhat pantheistic, and pantheism has been around for a very long time. I didn't arbitrarily choose to use "God" in this way, this is just the meaning I have come to use as I have grown and learned, especially as I began to frequent totse. And I probably don't mean exactly what you mean. But the name really doesn't matter. In reality, god/the universe/the tao/reality is nameless.

[Danger]

Originally Posted by crazzyass

And proof for a supernatural one is overabundant?

We know that matter/energy can appear spontaneously within spacetime. Also, we are not 100% clear on the exact state of the early universe. We're still piecing that together.

Furthermore, there are theories that the universe IS eternal: an infinite loop of big bang and big crunch, the universe expanding and collapsing on itself an infinite number of times.

There are dozens of theories, all of them more probable than supernatural ones, all of them rooted in empirical evidence.

pre- "big bang" there was no "space", "time", or "spacetime"

[Retard Synrdome]

Everyone's getting so butthurt over such petty shit.

[Danger]

Originally Posted by Retard Synrdome

Everyone's getting so butthurt over such petty shit.

you entered R&S a tight end, & left a wide receiver, you're obsessed with us, you pumped back, which is why you so butthurt.

[nshanin]

How 'bout you start providing evidence of your theory? We've been waiting this whole time.

No. Go figure it out yourself or respond to the evidence I've already posted. Nobody values knowledge anymore when it is given out like that, and I would be the last person to decide to say that since I have lusted after its acquisition and distribution. You haven't even done any research (at least none that you've presented here) so I see no consideration for me in this deal/arrangement. I'm still waiting for your evidence of the origin of origins, please stop changing the subject to other physics and other philosophy.

[quote=Rust;3639112]Since people decided to humor nshanin's bullshit...



1. No problem with that one.

2. Non-sequitur. Does not follow from any of the other premises, and is stated without proof.

It's assumed under causality. You are simply not a strong causalist and that is fine.

In fact, it contradicts the conclusion of the argument; the conclusion is supposed to be that a God (that came from nothing) exists.

That's not what you quoted as being the conclusion of the argument. I remember distinctly the text saying that God is the only thing/process that can take the place of an unmade prime mover. Back and forth with your being incapable of imagining a definition/interpretation for these words bigger than the one you've constrained yourself to. One thing cannot be disputed and that is that there are more things in heaven and earth than are imaginable in our philosophies; most mystics have said that God is unfathomable but have endorsed God-consciousness nonetheless. But for you, neither is fathomable so you dismiss the both and never learn of their power and ability to transcend this plane of existence.

Calling it an "eternal god" (or an "eternal universe") is a nice way of hiding the fact that that "god" (or "universe") had no cause.

God could have had a cause or he could have caused himself and if you weren't so rude we could have gotten to the bottom of this. God could be cause itself, which is reasonable if you assume the basis of the universe to be the free choice/creation of intelligent beings on down to less intelligent beings and plants and atoms, each choosing to experience this present moment. Believe it or not, everything is here because of the will of something, without will there can be no (super)consciousness to come into existence since such faculties are not part of a dead universe and will not arise spontaneously but only under the directed choice of a conscious being. If this was not so, why then is the imagination capable of making any imagined experience real? Why is it that you will begin to manifest your desires after a few moments of clearing your mind with meditation?

3. Non-sequitur. I could believe a statement saying "There is something which is eternal" (assuming the previous premises weren't wrong), but stating, as a fact, that those are the only two possibilities goes way beyond that. However, this one isn't as bad as the others.

4. Non-sequitur. False. Science has not ruled out any such possibility. Not only has no such statement has ever been made by Science (whoever the fuck is supposed to make such as statement... the NAS? ), but in fact, science never rules out anything by definition. Science always allows the possibility that it is incorrect (an by consequence, any alleged conclusion regarding the (im)possibility of an external universe).

ALL HAIL

5. Non-sequitur. First of all, the term "God" here is purposefully loaded. We're supposed to conclude that the Christian god is the answer, when in fact, even if all these premises where true and we bought this awful argument, that still wouldn't be the conclusion. The conclusion would be "Something has always existed". It says nothing about being a personal god, the type of powers it's supposed to have, or the like.

You think there is nothing special about creation. I know my life is important. Do you know the difference between knowing something in your head and knowing it in your heart? The heart is an emotional intelligence on par with being a second brain; do you know how to use yours?


---

Not true at all. Why? Because they are nowhere near as "unthinkable". The universe the "Evolutionist" ( ha! ) proposes is not a personal god, does not answer prayers, does not violate the laws of physics... it's incredibly different from a God. In other words, while it may be true that both such an universe and a god require that the "making itself/everything out of nothing", what the God requires doesn't stop there.

Your G.K Chesterton has made a false comparison.

Based on your scientistic worldview, I can see that. However, I myself see more than just the objective (used loosely) world and this also leads to true knowledge, some of which relates to origins and the nature of consciousness, two mysteries that science will forever be "allowing the possibility" but will never seriously investigate. This rings a bell, I better go post more evidence.

You don't understand God so you cannot say what he would require. It is generally agreed that God is unfathomable but he is less unfathomable than something coming from nothing, and this is why he receives more believers than any other solution (which I've yet to hear, but that is always expected with you, Rust).

[nshanin]

I don't want to waste your time, you should just communicate with me directly instead of throwing logic grenades that I have to toss back.

[nshanin]

Originally Posted by Rust

You're a moron.

And you failed at addressing the reincarnation research (and to some extent the first cause). Children are more loving than you are and so they are more likely to tell the truth. I will trust their metaphysics since you've not provided me with any.

[Rust]

Originally Posted by nshanin

And you failed at addressing the reincarnation research (and to some extent the first cause). Children are more loving than you are and so they are more likely to tell the truth. I will trust their metaphysics since you've not provided me with any.

What are you talking about? I don't have any burden to discuss any YouTube clip you haphazardly throw around. Especially not anyone talking about reincarnation. This thread isn't about reincarnation, and more importantly you've deliberately avoided the thread dealing with it (where all your previous arguments failed). Why should I respond to a clip you throw out of context, while you ignore my points in that thread?

[Rust]

I'm ignoring anything that doesn't respond to what I said. I'm not here to listen to your red-herrings, your accusations, or rationalizations. If you feel I skipped something that actually addressed one of my points, let me know.

Originally Posted by nshanin

It's assumed under causality. You are simply not a strong causalist and that is fine.

Except that assumption would then contradict the very conclusion of the argument. See below.

That's not what you quoted as being the conclusion of the argument. I remember distinctly the text saying that God is the only thing/process that can take the place of an unmade prime mover...

You mean that's not the conclusion in #5? Not true. They are a Christian group using this argument to establish the existence of God. Capital G. This is undoubtedly referring to the Christian God. Even if we ignore this, the point still stands. The argument doesn't establish the existence of a god, it would establish, if we were to believe the flawed premises and contradictory statements, that something that isn't the universe is eternal.

God could have had a cause or he could have caused himself and if you weren't so rude we could have gotten to the bottom of this. God could be cause itself...

No, god couldn't have had a cause because according to them god is eternal. If god could have had a cause, they still have the same problem. "God could be the cause itself" is another way of saying that God had no cause or came from nothing, and violates causality.

ALL HAIL

So I take it you cannot actually respond to the point? Here it is again:
Claiming that science has "ruled out the possibility of an eternal universe" is a complete falsehood. Not only has science not made any such decision, it is incapable, by its very definition, to do so. It does not rule out any possibilities, it always admits the possibility that it is incorrect.

You think there is nothing special about creation. I know my life is important. Do you know the difference between knowing something in your head and knowing it in your heart? The heart is an emotional intelligence on par with being a second brain; do you know how to use yours?

I'll repeat my point since you didn't respond to it:

5. Non-sequitur. First of all, the term "God" here is purposefully loaded. We're supposed to conclude that the Christian god is the answer, when in fact, even if all these premises where true and we bought this awful argument, that still wouldn't be the conclusion. The conclusion would be "Something has always existed". It says nothing about being a personal god, the type of powers it's supposed to have, or the like.

You don't understand God so you cannot say what he would require. It is generally agreed that God is unfathomable but he is less unfathomable than something coming from nothing, and this is why he receives more believers than any other solution (which I've yet to hear, but that is always expected with you, Rust).

The theists (Christians in this case) already say what he requires. The original article is a piece of Christian apologetic, and G.K Chesterton was a Christian. Christians already establish the requirements for the Christian god (i.e. a personal god who answers prayer, create life as we know it...etc). Your excuse doesn't work.

So again, while you could say that such a conception of the universe requires it coming from nothing just as the Christian god does, the Christian god goes further. They are not comparable.

[Pee Vee Proots, M.D.]

Originally Posted by crazzyass

Furthermore, there are theories that the universe IS eternal: an infinite loop of big bang and big crunch, the universe expanding and collapsing on itself an infinite number of times.

That's the same as the god dilemma. The universe needs a creator because something can't come from nothing. What created God then?

What created the first universe before it crunched?

[nshanin]

Originally Posted by Rust

What are you talking about? I don't have any burden to discuss any YouTube clip you haphazardly throw around. Especially not anyone talking about reincarnation. This thread isn't about reincarnation, and more importantly you've deliberately avoided the thread dealing with it (where all your previous arguments failed). Why should I respond to a clip you throw out of context, while you ignore my points in that thread?

No you failed in that big thread from the past. That is what I meant. Several people asked or implicitly asked for proof of God and if reincarnation happens at all then reality has a mind-body duality which is indicative of a creator. In any case reincarnation has been associated with religion and it is more human a topic than God Himself. I don't agree with your assessment of my arguments because you are obviously using the wrong definitions. Yes I failed at explaining the incompleteness theorem. I'll say it again next post so you can relish it, I suppose.

Of the popular proofs of God I hear that Christ's love is a common (personal) one, and it is even more human than the topics here in this thread, which are at such a high level that semantics become a significant roadblock. Ummm, yeah let's talk about something besides what the topic was earlier when I responded to it but perhaps along the same lines like with psi or reincarnation research--obvious stepping stones to a broadening belief horizon.

[Rust]

Yeah, again, I'm not here to listen to your red-herrings. It's a demonstrable fact that you failed to respond to my points in that other thread. I'm bumping to refresh your memory, and so anyone else can see that you're lying.

I have no burden to respond to YouTube clips you post haphazardly (not even directed at me... yet you chastise me for not responding to them ) if you get to ignore the points I made there in that thread. I specially don't have to respond to it because this thread isn't about reincarnation, and reincarnation isn't proof or evidence of a god; plenty of people who don't believe in a god believe in reincarnation. You're only trying to make that connection to crowbar your nonsense into the discussion.

[Pee Vee Proots, M.D.]

Originally Posted by nshanin

Potentially? Can you stand up for your own argument? The reason for the dichotomy is that things in the natural world are never causeless and a cause cannot arise from nothing.

Potentially is my argument. A valid proof cannot be potentially wrong by definition, yours is, therefore it is an invalid proof.

[crazzyass]

Originally Posted by Pee Vee Proots, M.D.

That's the same as the god dilemma. The universe needs a creator because something can't come from nothing. What created God then?

What created the first universe before it crunched?

The idea is that a creator isn't needed. The universe either spontaneously occurred or there was some event that predates what we can see about the universe. We know at quantum levels the universe doesn't behave classically at all. Note the quantum fluctuations I was talking about earlier.

Either God arose from nothing or the universe arose from nothing. And, if God created the universe, then the universe came from nothing anyways. So the argument is a very, very weak one. SOMETHING came from nothing, so acting like it can't be the universe is ridiculous.

Also, the possibilities found in the multiverse theory would trump everything we've discussed here. While the empirical data is lacking, the math is pretty good and personally I see it as resolving many questions we have. But it needs more data...

[crazzyass]

Originally Posted by nshanin

No. Go figure it out yourself or respond to the evidence I've already posted. Nobody values knowledge anymore when it is given out like that, and I would be the last person to decide to say that since I have lusted after its acquisition and distribution. You haven't even done any research (at least none that you've presented here) so I see no consideration for me in this deal/arrangement. I'm still waiting for your evidence of the origin of origins, please stop changing the subject to other physics and other philosophy.

In other words, you have no evidence. You claim you have it but won't share it. Typically that means you're lying. Excuse me for not taking you at your word.

You're the one bringing up reincarnation and changing the subject.

[nshanin]

Most people who believe in reincarnation believe in God, it has been associated with religion and there is good reason for bringing it up but you just want to stifle discussion. I will keep talking about this and you can keep telling everyone about how mean I am to you.

[nshanin]

Originally Posted by crazzyass

In other words, you have no evidence. You claim you have it but won't share it. Typically that means you're lying. Excuse me for not taking you at your word.

You're the one bringing up reincarnation and changing the subject.

Why would I lie? I am trying to have a conversation, I have no ulterior motives but to spread my beliefs and gain new ones from you guys.

http://www.zoklet.net/bbs/showpost.p...7&postcount=13

Read books 3, 9, and 10, you'll be off to a great start. How else can I share knowledge with you?

[nshanin]

I'll tell you: God is infinite, so first God was potentially infinite and then with his will he actualized and became infinite, we are living in finite space and this is why we call the gods God.

[Rust]

Originally Posted by nshanin

Most people who believe in reincarnation believe in God, it has been associated with religion and there is good reason for bringing it up but you just want to stifle discussion. I will keep talking about this and you can keep telling everyone about how mean I am to you.

No, I have no problem with discussion. I have problems with you being a dishonest piece of shit who ignores my points in a thread that actually deals with reincarnation, and then comes into this one and berates me for not responding to a random link you posted that wasn't even directed at me.

I also have problems with you changing the topic of the thread. This thread doesn't deal with reincarnation. God and reincarnation are different things. You can believe in reincarnation and not in gods.

[Pee Vee Proots, M.D.]

Originally Posted by crazzyass

SOMETHING came from nothing, so acting like it can't be the universe is ridiculous.

Then it's not eternal. Eternity stretches in both directions my friend. Either the universe was always here, crunching and banging (eternal) or something came from nothing. I'm not saying it can't be the universe, but it could just as well be God. Or the universe and God are one and the same, which in my mind doesn't violate Occam's razor. God created himself, and in doing so created the universe. Or the universe created itself, and in doing so created God.

[nshanin]

Broadening belief horizons is the only thing R&S threads can be useful for, I can use the existence of mind outside of the body as a stepping-stone to proof of God. Does the explanation that I gave suit you? I can certainly see how infinite learning would take place in an infinite universe where we were blessed with multiple lives and experiences through which we can learn. This is because I value learning as one of the rules of thumb for specifying the nature of the creator, this can be explained by way of reference to the sophisticated metaphysics text Coming to Understanding by A.M. Monius of which this is a concise review; you should check out other reviews/summaries if you don't want to read the text, but suffice to say that some aspect of existence involving consciousness was critical for the creation of the universe from nothing and that this relates to learning/experience of the infinite creation.

[Retard Synrdome]

Originally Posted by Danger

you entered R&S a tight end, & left a wide receiver, you're obsessed with us, you pumped back, which is why you so butthurt.

...

Are you hitting on me?

[Mutant Funk Drink]

Originally Posted by Danger

pre- "big bang" there was no "space", "time", or "spacetime"

Need I even mention how fucking wrong that image is?

Atheism ISN'T A BELIEF.

I know you probably posted that to troll people, but seriously, whoever made that image is a fucking dolt.

[crazzyass]

Originally Posted by nshanin

Why would I lie? I am trying to have a conversation, I have no ulterior motives but to spread my beliefs and gain new ones from you guys.

http://www.zoklet.net/bbs/showpost.p...7&postcount=13

Read books 3, 9, and 10, you'll be off to a great start. How else can I share knowledge with you?

I'm starting to think you're so delusional you can't be coherent.

You first refuse to give me evidence, and then give me a reading list. And those look like those scammy "think to become rich books".

Anyways, feel free to summarize the hardcore evidence in those books that science somehow ignored. Because I probably won't buy them anytime soon. Might look into the library though.

[crazzyass]

Originally Posted by Pee Vee Proots, M.D.

Then it's not eternal. Eternity stretches in both directions my friend. Either the universe was always here, crunching and banging (eternal) or something came from nothing. I'm not saying it can't be the universe, but it could just as well be God. Or the universe and God are one and the same, which in my mind doesn't violate Occam's razor. God created himself, and in doing so created the universe. Or the universe created itself, and in doing so created God.

Dude, are you listening to me? I'm saying coming from nothing should stop being considered taboo. It probably can happen. Or maybe it's eternal through means we don't understand yet.

Either way, there is no evidence of God, only evidence of the universe. Man invented our perception of God whether there's one or not. Every modern understanding comes from myth. And to date, no evidence has been viewed. So maybe God came into existence at the same time or created himself or whatever, but there's no way for us to know that without guessing. Meaning no direct observations have been made.

[Rust]

Originally Posted by Pee Vee Proots, M.D.

... Occam's razor. God created himself, and in doing so created the universe. Or the universe created itself, and in doing so created God.

Or "the universe created itself" (whatever that means), and didn't create any god, which according to Occam's razor is the simplest out of all those...

[The Pat-Man]

Originally Posted by Mutant Funk Drink

Atheism ISN'T A BELIEF.

wat

[nshanin]

Originally Posted by crazzyass

I'm starting to think you're so delusional you can't be coherent.

You first refuse to give me evidence, and then give me a reading list. And those look like those scammy "think to become rich books".

Anyways, feel free to summarize the hardcore evidence in those books that science somehow ignored. Because I probably won't buy them anytime soon. Might look into the library though.

Sure, see above and the concentrated 1 book by Ammonius. You asked me for less homework and I gave it, now you have the ball.

Besides just being only a book, Think and Grow Rich is too popular to be a scam. It's also too profitable.

[nshanin]

Originally Posted by Rust

Or "the universe created itself" (whatever that means), and didn't create any god, which according to Occam's razor is the simplest out of all those...

But his criteria was "not violating Ockham's Razor", and not satisfying it to the fullest. You missed the context where you cut him off at the buzzword.

Ockham's Razor: The simplest definition is usually best.
Corollary: The simpler the definition, the better.

Perhaps he was just focused on the corollary?

[Rust]

Originally Posted by nshanin

But his criteria was "not violating Ockham's Razor", and not satisfying it to the fullest. You missed the context where you cut him off at the buzzword.

If he's not choosing the simplest explanation, then by definition he's violating Ockahm's Razor.

Not only are you a liar, you're a moron.

[Pee Vee Proots, M.D.]

Originally Posted by Rust

Or "the universe created itself" (whatever that means), and didn't create any god, which according to Occam's razor is the simplest out of all those...

It means something came from nothing, and the end result was something so infinitely complex that it has it's own kind of sentience. Which we currently live in.

[Rust]

Originally Posted by Pee Vee Proots, M.D.

It means something came from nothing, and the end result was something so infinitely complex that it has it's own kind of sentience. Which we currently live in.

Or it doesn't have "its own kind of sentience" (whatever that means). You keep adding things to the explanation that are completely unnecessary. There's no need to bring god or an infinitely complex universe with sentience into this. Ockhams Razor.

[nshanin]

There is mind and then there is matter and they have different substances, I think it's safe to say this has been explained to you.

[Danger]

Originally Posted by Rust

Or it doesn't have "its own kind of sentience" (whatever that means). You keep adding things to the explanation that are completely unnecessary. There's no need to bring god or an infinitely complex universe with sentience into this. Ockhams Razor.

Every conscious being in the universe is proof the universe is conscious.. At the quantum level we're a cohesive wave function. ie GOD's mind.

[Rust]

Originally Posted by nshanin

There is mind and then there is matter and they have different substances, I think it's safe to say this has been explained to you.

Stop trying to be relevant. You're a moron.

[Snoopy]

Originally Posted by nshanin

There is mind and then there is matter and they have different substances, I think it's safe to say this has been explained to you.

Not it hasn't. If I stick my dick in your brain, you turn retarded. Well, more retarded that is.