Archive for FREE FAITH, EXPRESSION AND THOUGHT BREAK THE CHAINS OF IGNORANCE AND FEAR
 


       FREE FAITH, EXPRESSION AND THOUGHT Forum Index -> God
Fathom

What Is God?

Being both an x-Muslim and an x-Christian, I have enjoyed some of the most excellent discussions on the beliefs of both religions. Being a friend to a few Jewish people has also given me a keen perspective on how they view their relationship to God.

But after going through all these religious experiences, I came out of it as an agnostic. I came out of it with respect for Jesus, but a great loss of respect for Muhammad. I came out of it with a tolerance for Christianity, but a loathing for Islam.

The reason for my loss of respect for Muhammad and my loathing of Islam was simply because of the Muslim people themselves and their false Islamic traditions, and of course the history of Muhammad. It's not that I dislike Muslims, you see, but it's the utter uselessness of the traditions they follow, and the insistence of outright lying to not only the kafir, but also to themselves.

Islam was just completely devoid of spirit, and empty of love for the human race outside of Islam. Islam itself is directly responsible for me becoming an agnostic.

So as an agnostic I began to honestly question the existence of this God the three Abrahamic religions all worship. I determined that the god they believe in does not exist. Now, that does not mean that a god of some kind does not exist, it only means that the Abrahamic god does not exist.

My position on "God" is this:

I don't know.

Now the reason I am not an atheist is because of logic, and here is my logic. I will provide the only two possibilities regarding existence:

1.  Everything has always existed, and had no beginning and will see no end. This also means that even if the universe itself was created, something of non-intelligent origin must have existed previously, otherwise we wouldn't be here. It becomes a mirror verses mirror affect, whereas we hold one mirror up to another and we see an infinite number of images. There's no end to it. Non intelligent forms of existence simply create and replicate randomly forever. There never was a beginning, and there never will be an end. Everything always just was, and always just will be, and will only change forms over time.

2. Something very great and intelligent caused existence to be. But does this mean God?" No, but it could mean something of intelligence that is far greater than our ability to comprehend it whereas, with our limited perception, we could perceive it to be a god. Certainly it wouldn't be the Abrahamic God, because that one has been proven to be mistaken on so many things in all 3 religions that it simply does not make sense for this god to be the one who created the universe.

There doesn't seem to be a # 3 option for me. The only options I can think of are # 1 and # 2. Now, because I do not know which one is the truth, and because both appear to be logically possible, I am therefore an agnostic because I simply do not know.

But one of them must be the truth. What is "god," # 1 or # 2?

Which one?

Discuss ...
Mutley

http://users.bigpond.net.au/manisall/silence.html
Fathom

Mutley wrote:
http://users.bigpond.net.au/manisall/silence.html


And that's pretty much my point of view. Thanks.
roshan

Quote:
1.  Everything has always existed, and had no beginning and will see no end. This also means that even if the universe itself was created, something of non-intelligent origin must have existed previously, otherwise we wouldn't be here. It becomes a mirror verses mirror affect, whereas we hold one mirror up to another and we see an infinite number of images. There's no end to it. Non intelligent forms of existence simply create and replicate randomly forever. There never was a beginning, and there never will be an end. Everything always just was, and always just will be, and will only change forms over time.

2. Something very great and intelligent caused existence to be. But does this mean God?" No, but it could mean something of intelligence that is far greater than our ability to comprehend it whereas, with our limited perception, we could perceive it to be a god. Certainly it wouldn't be the Abrahamic God, because that one has been proven to be mistaken on so many things in all 3 religions that it simply does not make sense for this god to be the one who created the universe.


Note that option 1 and the idea of a godlike entity are not mutually exclusive - this is the case with Hinduism. Theistic Hindus do not view the universe as a creation of god, but an eternal manifestation of the divine, undergoing cycles of destruction and rebirth.

Also note that "what is god" can have multiple answers that may be contradictory yet equally true. A great analogy is the nature of light. Light can be viewed as made up of particles, light can be viewed as waves, but light can also be viewed with the much more advanced perspective of wave-particle duality. The Hindu view of god is similar. One does not move from falsehood to truth, but from lower truths to higher ones, which depends on ones mental state.
Fathom

roshan wrote:
Quote:
1.  Everything has always existed, and had no beginning and will see no end. This also means that even if the universe itself was created, something of non-intelligent origin must have existed previously, otherwise we wouldn't be here. It becomes a mirror verses mirror affect, whereas we hold one mirror up to another and we see an infinite number of images. There's no end to it. Non intelligent forms of existence simply create and replicate randomly forever. There never was a beginning, and there never will be an end. Everything always just was, and always just will be, and will only change forms over time.

2. Something very great and intelligent caused existence to be. But does this mean God?" No, but it could mean something of intelligence that is far greater than our ability to comprehend it whereas, with our limited perception, we could perceive it to be a god. Certainly it wouldn't be the Abrahamic God, because that one has been proven to be mistaken on so many things in all 3 religions that it simply does not make sense for this god to be the one who created the universe.


Note that option 1 and the idea of a godlike entity are not mutually exclusive - this is the case with Hinduism. Theistic Hindus do not view the universe as a creation of god, but an eternal manifestation of the divine, undergoing cycles of destruction and rebirth.

Also note that "what is god" can have multiple answers that may be contradictory yet equally true. A great analogy is the nature of light. Light can be viewed as made up of particles, light can be viewed as waves, but light can also be viewed with the much more advanced perspective of wave-particle duality. The Hindu view of god is similar. One does not move from falsehood to truth, but from lower truths to higher ones, which depends on ones mental state.


I have often seen arguments that state that there is no god, yet everything is fixed and things like "free will" do not exist. Everything we do has already been determined and there is nothing we can do about it. Yet, even this smacks of a "god theory" to me because it presents itself as some kind of preplanned creation. Oddly, this argument has been presented by atheists.

When scientists suggest the Big Bang as the catalyst for the origin of the universe, this simply fails to answer the question of "where did the matter come from to form the Big Bang in the first place?"

I cannot escape the possibility that an alternate universe exists; one which consists of anti-matter which is constantly recycling the matter back and forth from this universe, going from matter to anti-matter endlessly.

But even that does not answer the question of the origin of existence.
roshan

I dont think that question is relevant to spirituality at all. Thats why Hinduism (and perhaps other Eastern religions as well) generally doesnt concern itself with it, assuming existence has always existed in one form or another. I think trying to answer such a question is a waste of time. In fact, why does existence need to have a beginning at all? It is better to question the questions rather than continously trying to find answers, because if answers cannot be found, it is likely that the question being asked is the wrong one in the first place. It is much more relevant to try to figure out the nature of existence rather than what caused it.

One great theory of how existence came to be is that of the Sankhya philosophy. It theorized that all of physical existence has evolved from a base substance called Prakriti, which evolved into the complex universe through Sattva (harmony), Tamas (inertia) and Rajas (action). If the theoretical "god particle" is discovered, that would essentially be the discovery of Prakriti. However Sankhya never dealt with where Prakriti came from. It was assumed to be eternal, and always dual to Purusha (the soul). Similarly monistic Hindus never postulated about the creation of Maya (the relative reality) assuming it has always been superimposed on Brahman, and theistic Hindus always assumed the universe to be an eternal manifestation of the divine.

Once you assume existence is the creation of a god, that means that such a god is mutable. And anything that is mutable will have to end someday. Therefore, such a god is not a god at all. Not only that, it raises the question of where such a god came from in the first place, and what in the world such a god was doing for the infinite amount of time before the universe existed, why such a god created the universe, and so on. Why answer a question with something that merely raises more questions and confuses matters further? It doesnt even make sense to reject the idea that physical existence has always existed in favor of the idea that physical existence has come from a god who has always existed. Therefore, the entire premise of a god creating the universe is foolish.

Quote:
I have often seen arguments that state that there is no god, yet everything is fixed and things like "free will" do not exist. Everything we do has already been determined and there is nothing we can do about it. Yet, even this smacks of a "god theory" to me because it presents itself as some kind of preplanned creation. Oddly, this argument has been presented by atheists.


Both the premise that universe that is purely physical and that it is the creation of a god with a plan lead to this idea of determinism. That does not increase the validity of either premise.
Mutley

Fathom wrote:
Mutley wrote:
http://users.bigpond.net.au/manisall/silence.html


And that's pretty much my point of view. Thanks.


Yeah, as I read what you were trying to say, that article immediately came to mind. Glad you found it interesting.
Mutley

roshan wrote:
Quote:
1.  Everything has always existed, and had no beginning and will see no end. This also means that even if the universe itself was created, something of non-intelligent origin must have existed previously, otherwise we wouldn't be here. It becomes a mirror verses mirror affect, whereas we hold one mirror up to another and we see an infinite number of images. There's no end to it. Non intelligent forms of existence simply create and replicate randomly forever. There never was a beginning, and there never will be an end. Everything always just was, and always just will be, and will only change forms over time.

2. Something very great and intelligent caused existence to be. But does this mean God?" No, but it could mean something of intelligence that is far greater than our ability to comprehend it whereas, with our limited perception, we could perceive it to be a god. Certainly it wouldn't be the Abrahamic God, because that one has been proven to be mistaken on so many things in all 3 religions that it simply does not make sense for this god to be the one who created the universe.


Note that option 1 and the idea of a godlike entity are not mutually exclusive - this is the case with Hinduism. Theistic Hindus do not view the universe as a creation of god, but an eternal manifestation of the divine, undergoing cycles of destruction and rebirth.

Also note that "what is god" can have multiple answers that may be contradictory yet equally true. A great analogy is the nature of light. Light can be viewed as made up of particles, light can be viewed as waves, but light can also be viewed with the much more advanced perspective of wave-particle duality. The Hindu view of god is similar. One does not move from falsehood to truth, but from lower truths to higher ones, which depends on ones mental state.


Wave-Particle duality. Can one smile and frown simultaneously? You are applying a common misnomer of the superposition. It is not actually two things simultaneously, it can be one of two based on the measurement instrumentation one chooses and the conditions, but it is not both simultaneously.

About no beginning, do you have any examples of anything physical, or any physical process that has no beginning? If not, then why would one arbitrarily apply this characteristic to the universe? What's the basis for this view?
roshan

Mutley wrote:
roshan wrote:
Quote:
1.  Everything has always existed, and had no beginning and will see no end. This also means that even if the universe itself was created, something of non-intelligent origin must have existed previously, otherwise we wouldn't be here. It becomes a mirror verses mirror affect, whereas we hold one mirror up to another and we see an infinite number of images. There's no end to it. Non intelligent forms of existence simply create and replicate randomly forever. There never was a beginning, and there never will be an end. Everything always just was, and always just will be, and will only change forms over time.

2. Something very great and intelligent caused existence to be. But does this mean God?" No, but it could mean something of intelligence that is far greater than our ability to comprehend it whereas, with our limited perception, we could perceive it to be a god. Certainly it wouldn't be the Abrahamic God, because that one has been proven to be mistaken on so many things in all 3 religions that it simply does not make sense for this god to be the one who created the universe.


Note that option 1 and the idea of a godlike entity are not mutually exclusive - this is the case with Hinduism. Theistic Hindus do not view the universe as a creation of god, but an eternal manifestation of the divine, undergoing cycles of destruction and rebirth.

Also note that "what is god" can have multiple answers that may be contradictory yet equally true. A great analogy is the nature of light. Light can be viewed as made up of particles, light can be viewed as waves, but light can also be viewed with the much more advanced perspective of wave-particle duality. The Hindu view of god is similar. One does not move from falsehood to truth, but from lower truths to higher ones, which depends on ones mental state.


Wave-Particle duality. Can one smile and frown simultaneously? You are applying a common misnomer of the superposition. It is not actually two things simultaneously, it can be one of two based on the measurement instrumentation one chooses and the conditions, but it is not both simultaneously.


True, but my point was specific to light - its behaviour can be analyzed both in terms of waves and particles. Similarly, Hindus view that god can be analyzed in multiple ways.

Quote:
About no beginning, do you have any examples of anything physical, or any physical process that has no beginning? If not, then why would one arbitrarily apply this characteristic to the universe? What's the basis for this view?


This is a strawman. I have not stated that the universe is eternal - I have stated that physical existence is eternal.

Looking at physical processes only illustrates the non existence of god. Everything that is physical has a beginning and an end. Everything that is physical comes from other things that are physical. If physical existence was created by god, then god too is physical and will end someday. Such a god is not a god at all and makes no sense whatsoever. What makes much more sense is that physical existence is eternal, and the universe (possibly universes?) undergoes cycles of destruction and reformation (just like everything else that is physical) all of which is based purely on physical processes.
Mutley

roshan wrote:
Mutley wrote:
roshan wrote:
Quote:
1.  Everything has always existed, and had no beginning and will see no end. This also means that even if the universe itself was created, something of non-intelligent origin must have existed previously, otherwise we wouldn't be here. It becomes a mirror verses mirror affect, whereas we hold one mirror up to another and we see an infinite number of images. There's no end to it. Non intelligent forms of existence simply create and replicate randomly forever. There never was a beginning, and there never will be an end. Everything always just was, and always just will be, and will only change forms over time.

2. Something very great and intelligent caused existence to be. But does this mean God?" No, but it could mean something of intelligence that is far greater than our ability to comprehend it whereas, with our limited perception, we could perceive it to be a god. Certainly it wouldn't be the Abrahamic God, because that one has been proven to be mistaken on so many things in all 3 religions that it simply does not make sense for this god to be the one who created the universe.


Note that option 1 and the idea of a godlike entity are not mutually exclusive - this is the case with Hinduism. Theistic Hindus do not view the universe as a creation of god, but an eternal manifestation of the divine, undergoing cycles of destruction and rebirth.

Also note that "what is god" can have multiple answers that may be contradictory yet equally true. A great analogy is the nature of light. Light can be viewed as made up of particles, light can be viewed as waves, but light can also be viewed with the much more advanced perspective of wave-particle duality. The Hindu view of god is similar. One does not move from falsehood to truth, but from lower truths to higher ones, which depends on ones mental state.


Wave-Particle duality. Can one smile and frown simultaneously? You are applying a common misnomer of the superposition. It is not actually two things simultaneously, it can be one of two based on the measurement instrumentation one chooses and the conditions, but it is not both simultaneously.


True, but my point was specific to light - its behaviour can be analyzed both in terms of waves and particles. Similarly, Hindus view that god can be analyzed in multiple ways.

Quote:
About no beginning, do you have any examples of anything physical, or any physical process that has no beginning? If not, then why would one arbitrarily apply this characteristic to the universe? What's the basis for this view?


This is a strawman. I have not stated that the universe is eternal - I have stated that physical existence is eternal.


OK, but isn't it still the same question anyway? do you have any examples of anything physical, or any physical process that has no beginning? If not, then why would one arbitrarily apply this characteristic to anything physical or any physical process or physical existence? What's the basis for this view? Why did I have to ask this question a second time? Why is it strawman? Why do people use this term in inappropriate places?

roshan wrote:

Looking at physical processes only illustrates the non existence of god.


Can't there be something outside the physical or metaphysical? If you say that's impossible, then i will use a thought as my example. Can they open up your brain and pull thoughts out?

roshan wrote:

Everything that is physical has a beginning and an end.


But you just got done saying that physical existence is eternal, which not only means no end, it means no beginning as well.

roshan wrote:

Everything that is physical comes from other things that are physical. If physical existence was created by god, then god too is physical and will end someday.


There is no rule that says something physical must be created by something physical, only that if it is physical, then it must have a beginning. But there is nothing to stop us from saying something non physical creating the physical.

roshan wrote:

Such a god is not a god at all and makes no sense whatsoever. What makes much more sense is that physical existence is eternal, and the universe (possibly universes?) undergoes cycles of destruction and reformation (just like everything else that is physical) all of which is based purely on physical processes.


But again, you are applying the quality of eternal on to a physical thing or physical process. What about if the only thing that is eternal is a thing that is beyond the physical? That's the only solution. Otherwise, we have an infinite chain of backwards causations. So each link in the chain has a preceding link, but then we say the chain itself has nothing preceding it? The chain, in this analogy, would be just as physical as each of it's links. It is a collection of links and therefore would require something preceding it, just like all of it's links. At some point, either you have infinite regression, or a non physical or metaphysical starter, that itself, was never started. We can pull a fast one like that, because there is only the requirement of having a beginning for physical things, but if we go beyond the physical, then this requirement disappears. It is no longer necessary.
roshan

Quote:
OK, but isn't it still the same question anyway? do you have any examples of anything physical, or any physical process that has no beginning? If not, then why would one arbitrarily apply this characteristic to anything physical or any physical process or physical existence? What's the basis for this view? Why did I have to ask this question a second time? Why is it strawman? Why do people use this term in inappropriate places?


You are missing the point. Everything that is physical has a beginning, but comes from something else that is physical. Similarly, the universe also comes from something physical that preceded it, such as the remains of a previous universe. Physical existence cannot be assumed to have a beginning as there is nothing physical that comes out of nothing. Therefore, physical existence is eternal.

Quote:
Can't there be something outside the physical or metaphysical? If you say that's impossible, then i will use a thought as my example. Can they open up your brain and pull thoughts out?


I accept the existence of the metaphysical, just not that of a creator god, for the various reasons I have outlined.

Quote:
But you just got done saying that physical existence is eternal, which not only means no end, it means no beginning as well.


Physical existence, not physical objects.

Quote:
There is no rule that says something physical must be created by something physical, only that if it is physical, then it must have a beginning. But there is nothing to stop us from saying something non physical creating the physical.


Then give me an example of something physical that is created out of nothing.

Quote:
But again, you are applying the quality of eternal on to a physical thing or physical process.


Physical existence is eternal, but nothing within it is eternal - it is in a constant state of change.

Quote:
What about if the only thing that is eternal is a thing that is beyond the physical?


No reason to assume such a thing is a creator god.

Quote:
Otherwise, we have an infinite chain of backwards causations. So each link in the chain has a preceding link, but then we say the chain itself has nothing preceding it? The chain, in this analogy, would be just as physical as each of it's links. It is a collection of links and therefore would require something preceding it, just like all of it's links. At some point, either you have infinite regression, or a non physical or metaphysical starter, that itself, was never started. We can pull a fast one like that, because there is only the requirement of having a beginning for physical things, but if we go beyond the physical, then this requirement disappears. It is no longer necessary.


What exactly is wrong with the concept of infinite regression? It seems that you dont really have any argument against the idea of physical existence being eternal except that you want to believe it had a beginning when god created it.
Mutley

roshan wrote:
Quote:
OK, but isn't it still the same question anyway? do you have any examples of anything physical, or any physical process that has no beginning? If not, then why would one arbitrarily apply this characteristic to anything physical or any physical process or physical existence? What's the basis for this view? Why did I have to ask this question a second time? Why is it strawman? Why do people use this term in inappropriate places?


You are missing the point. Everything that is physical has a beginning, but comes from something else that is physical. Similarly, the universe also comes from something physical that preceded it, such as the remains of a previous universe. Physical existence cannot be assumed to have a beginning as there is nothing physical that comes out of nothing. Therefore, physical existence is eternal.

Quote:
Can't there be something outside the physical or metaphysical? If you say that's impossible, then i will use a thought as my example. Can they open up your brain and pull thoughts out?


I accept the existence of the metaphysical, just not that of a creator god, for the various reasons I have outlined.

Quote:
But you just got done saying that physical existence is eternal, which not only means no end, it means no beginning as well.


Physical existence, not physical objects.


How are the two separated?

Quote:
There is no rule that says something physical must be created by something physical, only that if it is physical, then it must have a beginning. But there is nothing to stop us from saying something non physical creating the physical.


Then give me an example of something physical that is created out of nothing.[/quote]

Non physical does not mean nothing. It means what it says, "non physical".

roshan wrote:

Quote:
But again, you are applying the quality of eternal on to a physical thing or physical process.


Physical existence is eternal, but nothing within it is eternal - it is in a constant state of change.


And just like my example of a chain said, you posit a preceding link for every link in the chain, but then you magically say that the chain itself has nothing preceding it. How do you pull this logical magic act off? A,B,C, E,F

roshan wrote:

Quote:
What about if the only thing that is eternal is a thing that is beyond the physical?


No reason to assume such a thing is a creator god.


So instead, you assume that a collection of physical things, each with a beginning, has no beginning? The collection itself has no beginning? Presto digito. What is your basis for this?

[quote="roshan"]
Quote:
Otherwise, we have an infinite chain of backwards causations. So each link in the chain has a preceding link, but then we say the chain itself has nothing preceding it? The chain, in this analogy, would be just as physical as each of it's links. It is a collection of links and therefore would require something preceding it, just like all of it's links. At some point, either you have infinite regression, or a non physical or metaphysical starter, that itself, was never started. We can pull a fast one like that, because there is only the requirement of having a beginning for physical things, but if we go beyond the physical, then this requirement disappears. It is no longer necessary.


roshan wrote:

What exactly is wrong with the concept of infinite regression?


Because the chain itself is also a physical process, and therefore needs a beginning.

roshan wrote:

It seems that you dont really have any argument against the idea of physical existence being eternal except that you want to believe it had a beginning when god created it.


It seems as though you are having a difficult time grasping the argument.
roshan

Quote:
How are the two separated?


Physical existence refers to the physical realm as a whole. A physical object is something existing within this realm.

Quote:
Non physical does not mean nothing. It means what it says, "non physical".


Then give me an example of something physical created out of something nonphysical.

Quote:
And just like my example of a chain said, you posit a preceding link for every link in the chain, but then you magically say that the chain itself has nothing preceding it. How do you pull this logical magic act off? A,B,C, E,F

Because the chain itself is also a physical process, and therefore needs a beginning.


If a chain is infinitely long, then there logically cannot be anthing preceding it.

Quote:
So instead, you assume that a collection of physical things, each with a beginning, has no beginning? The collection itself has no beginning? Presto digito. What is your basis for this?


Everything existing has a beginning from something else that is physical. Since physical objects cannot arise out of the nonphysical, physical existence must have always existed in some form or the other.
Mutley

roshan wrote:
Quote:
How are the two separated?


Physical existence refers to the physical realm as a whole. A physical object is something existing within this realm.

Quote:
Non physical does not mean nothing. It means what it says, "non physical".


Then give me an example of something physical created out of something nonphysical.


Sadness creating tears. An idea creating a smile.

roshan wrote:

Quote:
And just like my example of a chain said, you posit a preceding link for every link in the chain, but then you magically say that the chain itself has nothing preceding it. How do you pull this logical magic act off? A,B,C, E,F

Because the chain itself is also a physical process, and therefore needs a beginning.


If a chain is infinitely long, then there logically cannot be anthing preceding it.


Yes, if, but it gets back to the question I keep repeating. Why should we think that it is infinitely long?

roshan wrote:

Quote:
So instead, you assume that a collection of physical things, each with a beginning, has no beginning? The collection itself has no beginning? Presto digito. What is your basis for this?


Everything existing has a beginning from something else that is physical. Since physical objects cannot arise out of the nonphysical,


That isn't necessarily true.

roshan wrote:

physical existence must have always existed in some form or the other.


That isn't necessarily true.
Fathom

Mutley wrote:
roshan wrote:
Quote:
How are the two separated?


Physical existence refers to the physical realm as a whole. A physical object is something existing within this realm.

Quote:
Non physical does not mean nothing. It means what it says, "non physical".


Then give me an example of something physical created out of something nonphysical.


Sadness creating tears. An idea creating a smile.


Not a good example, unfortunately, since both the sadness and idea are manufactured impulses from the physical being.

Mutley wrote:

roshan wrote:

Quote:
And just like my example of a chain said, you posit a preceding link for every link in the chain, but then you magically say that the chain itself has nothing preceding it. How do you pull this logical magic act off? A,B,C, E,F

Because the chain itself is also a physical process, and therefore needs a beginning.


If a chain is infinitely long, then there logically cannot be anthing preceding it.


Yes, if, but it gets back to the question I keep repeating. Why should we think that it is infinitely long?


It's a matter of acceptance. For example, numbers are infinitely long, and are in fact eternal in nature since no limit can be reached. Since numbers can also go below zero, they can have an eternal infinity also in the negative direction.

Mutley wrote:

roshan wrote:

Quote:
So instead, you assume that a collection of physical things, each with a beginning, has no beginning? The collection itself has no beginning? Presto digito. What is your basis for this?


Everything existing has a beginning from something else that is physical. Since physical objects cannot arise out of the nonphysical,


That isn't necessarily true.


You are correct, because we don't know for a certainty. But with all available knowledge in its current state, it approximates the truth that all existence had a beginning from something else physical.

Mutley wrote:

roshan wrote:

physical existence must have always existed in some form or the other.


That isn't necessarily true.


It's the closest approximation of the truth given the current state of our knowledge.
roshan

Quote:
Sadness creating tears. An idea creating a smile.


As Fathom noted these are also the results of physical processes. All depend on existing physical objects, including the human brain and body. A better way of wording it is: Give me an example of something physical arising out of the metaphysical.

Quote:
Yes, if, but it gets back to the question I keep repeating. Why should we think that it is infinitely long?


Because of the reasoning outlined below: "Everything existing has a beginning from something else that is physical. Since physical objects cannot arise out of the nonphysical, physical existence must have always existed in some form or the other."

Quote:
That isn't necessarily true.

That isn't necessarily true.


No, but it is the most logical theory given our current state of knowledge. Applying Occams razor, is also the simplest explanation, as it involves no unproven assumptions except for one (that the matter that forms universes comes from the remains of previous ones) as well as not postulating any other entities aside from that which we know of, and hence is the explanation that is by a vast margin the most likely to be true.

Thats why I concluded earlier: You have no reason for believing in a creator god except that it is what you want to believe.
Mutley

roshan wrote:
Quote:
Sadness creating tears. An idea creating a smile.


As Fathom noted these are also the results of physical processes. All depend on existing physical objects, including the human brain and body. A better way of wording it is: Give me an example of something physical arising out of the metaphysical.


We don't know that emotions are strictly physical processes. The question is, does the feeling create the thought and then the reaction?

roshan wrote:

Quote:
Yes, if, but it gets back to the question I keep repeating. Why should we think that it is infinitely long?


Because of the reasoning outlined below: "Everything existing has a beginning from something else that is physical. Since physical objects cannot arise out of the nonphysical, physical existence must have always existed in some form or the other."


But again, I posit that the physical can arise from the metaphysical. If there is a metaphysical, would you posit that the metaphysical arises from the physical? How?

Quote:
That isn't necessarily true.

That isn't necessarily true.


roshan wrote:

No, but it is the most logical theory given our current state of knowledge. Applying Occams razor, is also the simplest explanation, as it involves no unproven assumptions except for one (that the matter that forms universes comes from the remains of previous ones) as well as not postulating any other entities aside from that which we know of, and hence is the explanation that is by a vast margin the most likely to be true.


But you're forgetting that you are making a second assumption, that the physical process itself had no beginning. This is every bit as illogical as a non creaed, metaphysical cause.


roshan wrote:

Thats why I concluded earlier: You have no reason for believing in a creator god except that it is what you want to believe.


And you merely arbitrarily slap the label of infinity on to a "physical" process, because that is what you want to believe. You don't have a leg to stand on either. I think it's more logic, when speaking of anything with no beginning, to apply this to something metaphysical rather than a physical process.
kafir forever

A "food for thought" question for roshan and mutley:

Is energy in its non-material forms physical or non-physical?  

I suspect each of you might have a different view on this.

If you believe in E=mc2, then you also believe that energy can be transformed from many different forms into many other different forms with matter being one of the forms of energy.  If non-material forms of energy are "non-physical," then physical objects such as sub-atomic particles are indeed created from the non-physical.  If, however, non-material energy is physical, then all that can be said is that energy is simply transforming itself into many different physical forms, including material forms, in an endless process.

This concept finds further support in the Law of Conservation of Energy, that energy can neither be created or destroyed. If that is true, does that not imply an infinite physical existence(i.e, energy)?

I think the current state of knowledge, and Occam's Razor, favor the notion of infinite existence of all forms of energy that is in a constant state of transformation.

I wouldn't refer to Fathom's option 1 as God, but if you believe in what is currently known about physics and energy, you would have to lean heavily toward infinite energy and its infinite existence.

I know that is heresy among the big bang theorists, but there have been a lot of heresies in science that were later considered mainstream -- the heliocentric solar system is one that comes to mind.
Fathom

kafir forever wrote:
A "food for thought" question for roshan and mutley:

Is energy in its non-material forms physical or non-physical?  

I suspect each of you might have a different view on this.

If you believe in E=mc2, then you also believe that energy can be transformed from many different forms into many other different forms with matter being one of the forms of energy.  If non-material forms of energy are "non-physical," then physical objects such as sub-atomic particles are indeed created from the non-physical.  If, however, non-material energy is physical, then all that can be said is that energy is simply transforming itself into many different physical forms, including material forms, in an endless process.

This concept finds further support in the Law of Conservation of Energy, that energy can neither be created or destroyed. If that is true, does that not imply an infinite physical existence(i.e, energy)?

I think the current state of knowledge, and Occam's Razor, favor the notion of infinite existence of all forms of energy that is in a constant state of transformation.

I wouldn't refer to Fathom's option 1 as God, but if you believe in what is currently known about physics and energy, you would have to lean heavily toward infinite energy and its infinite existence.

I know that is heresy among the big bang theorists, but there have been a lot of heresies in science that were later considered mainstream -- the heliocentric solar system is one that comes to mind.


But that puts us back to square one.

What is the origin of the energy?
roshan

kafir forever wrote:
A "food for thought" question for roshan and mutley:

Is energy in its non-material forms physical or non-physical?  

I suspect each of you might have a different view on this.

If you believe in E=mc2, then you also believe that energy can be transformed from many different forms into many other different forms with matter being one of the forms of energy.  If non-material forms of energy are "non-physical," then physical objects such as sub-atomic particles are indeed created from the non-physical.  If, however, non-material energy is physical, then all that can be said is that energy is simply transforming itself into many different physical forms, including material forms, in an endless process.

This concept finds further support in the Law of Conservation of Energy, that energy can neither be created or destroyed. If that is true, does that not imply an infinite physical existence(i.e, energy)?

I think the current state of knowledge, and Occam's Razor, favor the notion of infinite existence of all forms of energy that is in a constant state of transformation.

I wouldn't refer to Fathom's option 1 as God, but if you believe in what is currently known about physics and energy, you would have to lean heavily toward infinite energy and its infinite existence.

I know that is heresy among the big bang theorists, but there have been a lot of heresies in science that were later considered mainstream -- the heliocentric solar system is one that comes to mind.


I define both matter and energy as being physical.
roshan

Quote:
We don't know that emotions are strictly physical processes. The question is, does the feeling create the thought and then the reaction?


But that is speculative, and a red herring to this discussion.

Quote:
But again, I posit that the physical can arise from the metaphysical. If there is a metaphysical, would you posit that the metaphysical arises from the physical? How?


If we do not posit that the metaphysical can arise out of the physical, why should we posit that the physical can arise out of the metaphysical? Why should we even bother positing the existence of the metaphysical when we can answer the question using current knowledge of what is physical? Again, apply Occams razor.

Quote:
But you're forgetting that you are making a second assumption, that the physical process itself had no beginning. This is every bit as illogical as a non creaed, metaphysical cause.


Not really. It just follows on logically from the original assumption.

Quote:
And you merely arbitrarily slap the label of infinity on to a "physical" process, because that is what you want to believe. You don't have a leg to stand on either. I think it's more logic, when speaking of anything with no beginning, to apply this to something metaphysical rather than a physical process.


Wrong. I dont believe that physical existence has been around for eternity. I merely consider it a likely possibility, because: it takes into consideration what we currently know and does not contradict it, it makes the least number of assumptions, does not require the existence of any unproven entities and also answers the question without raising any further questions.
kafir forever

Fathom wrote:
kafir forever wrote:
A "food for thought" question for roshan and mutley:

Is energy in its non-material forms physical or non-physical?  

I suspect each of you might have a different view on this.

If you believe in E=mc2, then you also believe that energy can be transformed from many different forms into many other different forms with matter being one of the forms of energy.  If non-material forms of energy are "non-physical," then physical objects such as sub-atomic particles are indeed created from the non-physical.  If, however, non-material energy is physical, then all that can be said is that energy is simply transforming itself into many different physical forms, including material forms, in an endless process.

This concept finds further support in the Law of Conservation of Energy, that energy can neither be created or destroyed. If that is true, does that not imply an infinite physical existence(i.e, energy)?

I think the current state of knowledge, and Occam's Razor, favor the notion of infinite existence of all forms of energy that is in a constant state of transformation.

I wouldn't refer to Fathom's option 1 as God, but if you believe in what is currently known about physics and energy, you would have to lean heavily toward infinite energy and its infinite existence.

I know that is heresy among the big bang theorists, but there have been a lot of heresies in science that were later considered mainstream -- the heliocentric solar system is one that comes to mind.


But that puts us back to square one.

What is the origin of the energy?


Actually it does not, because the Law of Conservation of Energy holds that energy cannot be created or destroyed, which means it is, always was, and always will be, which seems to support your Option 1.  Therefore, by definition, the origin of energy is off the table.
kafir forever

roshan wrote:
kafir forever wrote:
A "food for thought" question for roshan and mutley:

Is energy in its non-material forms physical or non-physical?  

I suspect each of you might have a different view on this.

If you believe in E=mc2, then you also believe that energy can be transformed from many different forms into many other different forms with matter being one of the forms of energy.  If non-material forms of energy are "non-physical," then physical objects such as sub-atomic particles are indeed created from the non-physical.  If, however, non-material energy is physical, then all that can be said is that energy is simply transforming itself into many different physical forms, including material forms, in an endless process.

This concept finds further support in the Law of Conservation of Energy, that energy can neither be created or destroyed. If that is true, does that not imply an infinite physical existence(i.e, energy)?

I think the current state of knowledge, and Occam's Razor, favor the notion of infinite existence of all forms of energy that is in a constant state of transformation.

I wouldn't refer to Fathom's option 1 as God, but if you believe in what is currently known about physics and energy, you would have to lean heavily toward infinite energy and its infinite existence.

I know that is heresy among the big bang theorists, but there have been a lot of heresies in science that were later considered mainstream -- the heliocentric solar system is one that comes to mind.


I define both matter and energy as being physical.


OK, what say you, Mutley?
Fathom

kafir forever wrote:
Fathom wrote:
kafir forever wrote:
A "food for thought" question for roshan and mutley:

Is energy in its non-material forms physical or non-physical?  

I suspect each of you might have a different view on this.

If you believe in E=mc2, then you also believe that energy can be transformed from many different forms into many other different forms with matter being one of the forms of energy.  If non-material forms of energy are "non-physical," then physical objects such as sub-atomic particles are indeed created from the non-physical.  If, however, non-material energy is physical, then all that can be said is that energy is simply transforming itself into many different physical forms, including material forms, in an endless process.

This concept finds further support in the Law of Conservation of Energy, that energy can neither be created or destroyed. If that is true, does that not imply an infinite physical existence(i.e, energy)?

I think the current state of knowledge, and Occam's Razor, favor the notion of infinite existence of all forms of energy that is in a constant state of transformation.

I wouldn't refer to Fathom's option 1 as God, but if you believe in what is currently known about physics and energy, you would have to lean heavily toward infinite energy and its infinite existence.

I know that is heresy among the big bang theorists, but there have been a lot of heresies in science that were later considered mainstream -- the heliocentric solar system is one that comes to mind.


But that puts us back to square one.

What is the origin of the energy?


Actually it does not, because the Law of Conservation of Energy holds that energy cannot be created or destroyed, which means it is, always was, and always will be, which seems to support your Option 1.  Therefore, by definition, the origin of energy is off the table.


But ... energy is contained within the universe.

Where did the universe come from?
Mutley

roshan wrote:
Quote:
We don't know that emotions are strictly physical processes. The question is, does the feeling create the thought and then the reaction?


But that is speculative, and a red herring to this discussion.

Quote:
But again, I posit that the physical can arise from the metaphysical. If there is a metaphysical, would you posit that the metaphysical arises from the physical? How?


If we do not posit that the metaphysical can arise out of the physical, why should we posit that the physical can arise out of the metaphysical? Why should we even bother positing the existence of the metaphysical when we can answer the question using current knowledge of what is physical? Again, apply Occams razor.


But there is no knowledge of anything physical, or any physical process having no beginning. Where do you get this "knowledge" from? It's not occam's razor because you are arbitrarily applying the quality of no beginning to this physical process. That's not occam's razor.

roshan wrote:

Quote:
But you're forgetting that you are making a second assumption, that the physical process itself had no beginning. This is every bit as illogical as a non creaed, metaphysical cause.


Not really. It just follows on logically from the original assumption.


It doesn't necessarily follow. You can arbitrarily explain it as having no beginning, which in of itself violates it's own rules or rules of the physical, or you can arbitrarily explain it as having a metaphysical cause. There is nothing inherent about a physical process that says it can't be started by a non physical one. We don't have evidence of this, but there is no law that says a non physical thing cannot be without beginning


roshan wrote:

Quote:
And you merely arbitrarily slap the label of infinity on to a "physical" process, because that is what you want to believe. You don't have a leg to stand on either. I think it's more logic, when speaking of anything with no beginning, to apply this to something metaphysical rather than a physical process.


Wrong. I dont believe that physical existence has been around for eternity.


Earlier, you said physical objects must have a beginning, but that physical existence itself doe not.


roshan wrote:

I merely consider it a likely possibility,


What is the difference between believing it, and thinking it's a likely possibility?


roshan wrote:

because: it takes into consideration what we currently know


And it violates the rules of the physical that we currently know.


roshan wrote:

and does not contradict it, it makes the least number of assumptions,


It's the same amount of assumptions. One assumes an infinite physical process, one assumes that since it is infinite, and shouldn't violate physical laws, then we posit the assumption of a metaphysical cause. Neither of us can show an example of what we posit, so where are we at? Both are applying an equal amount of assumption.



roshan wrote:

does not require the existence of any unproven entities



What? physical existence being infinite is unproven as well



roshan wrote:

and also answers the question without raising any further questions.


It does too raise more questions, like why a physical process or the physical itself, always has some sort of beginning as far as we know, then why do we suddenly apply infinity to the process with no evidence for that either?
Mutley

kafir forever wrote:
roshan wrote:
kafir forever wrote:
A "food for thought" question for roshan and mutley:

Is energy in its non-material forms physical or non-physical?  

I suspect each of you might have a different view on this.

If you believe in E=mc2, then you also believe that energy can be transformed from many different forms into many other different forms with matter being one of the forms of energy.  If non-material forms of energy are "non-physical," then physical objects such as sub-atomic particles are indeed created from the non-physical.  If, however, non-material energy is physical, then all that can be said is that energy is simply transforming itself into many different physical forms, including material forms, in an endless process.

This concept finds further support in the Law of Conservation of Energy, that energy can neither be created or destroyed. If that is true, does that not imply an infinite physical existence(i.e, energy)?

I think the current state of knowledge, and Occam's Razor, favor the notion of infinite existence of all forms of energy that is in a constant state of transformation.

I wouldn't refer to Fathom's option 1 as God, but if you believe in what is currently known about physics and energy, you would have to lean heavily toward infinite energy and its infinite existence.

I know that is heresy among the big bang theorists, but there have been a lot of heresies in science that were later considered mainstream -- the heliocentric solar system is one that comes to mind.


I define both matter and energy as being physical.


OK, what say you, Mutley?


Energy can neither be created nor destroyed once it's created. There is nothing explicit in the law of thermal dynamics that say energy was never created. It's my understanding, that more energy can't be created and energy can't be destroyed or reduced as long as their is physical  existence of any sort. Would this be a correct qualification or detail? of the law of thermal dynamics?
roshan

Quote:
But there is no knowledge of anything physical, or any physical process having no beginning. Where do you get this "knowledge" from? It's not occam's razor because you are arbitrarily applying the quality of no beginning to this physical process. That's not occam's razor.


There is no knowledge of anything physical beginning from the metaphysical. What we know is that the physical always arises from the physical.

Quote:
It doesn't necessarily follow. You can arbitrarily explain it as having no beginning, which in of itself violates it's own rules or rules of the physical, or you can arbitrarily explain it as having a metaphysical cause. There is nothing inherent about a physical process that says it can't be started by a non physical one. We don't have evidence of this, but there is no law that says a non physical thing cannot be without beginning


Wrong. We can assign it the quality of beginning from something else that is physical which is based on our current knowledge of the physical. If this is assumed to be from a previous universe, then the conclusion of a cycle logically follows on.

Quote:
Earlier, you said physical objects must have a beginning, but that physical existence itself doe not.

What is the difference between believing it, and thinking it's a likely possibility?


You are missing the point. I ACCEPT that it is LIKELY that physical existence has no beginning. I dont BELIEVE physical existence has no beginning. My ideas are based on rational thought and are always subject to change depending on information or logical arguments. My mind is not a hostage to belief.

Quote:
And it violates the rules of the physical that we currently know.

It's the same amount of assumptions. One assumes an infinite physical process, one assumes that since it is infinite, and shouldn't violate physical laws, then we posit the assumption of a metaphysical cause. Neither of us can show an example of what we posit, so where are we at? Both are applying an equal amount of assumption.


Actually, its just one assumption: that matter used to form universes comes from previous universes. That logically leads to the conclusion of an infinite cycle.

On the other hand, your idea assumes the existence of the metaphysical, and also that the physical can arise out of the metaphysical. Not only that, it assumes that the metaphysical is a God, and that God created the universe.

Quote:
What? physical existence being infinite is unproven as well


I said unproven entities.

Quote:
It does too raise more questions, like why a physical process or the physical itself, always has some sort of beginning as far as we know, then why do we suddenly apply infinity to the process with no evidence for that either?


An infinite cycle is not an assumption but a logical conclusion. Your theory on the other hand raises questions such as what is god, why did god create physical existence, and so on. It is as absurd and foolish as theorizing that Jinns made a plate fall down on the floor, when it could have been that it was not balanced properly. The questions raised in this case are similar: What are Jinns? Why would they make a plate fall down on the floor?

There is no sense whatsoever in attributing phenomena that can be explained naturally to metaphysical entities. I think my aguments here have been quite clear, and I see no point in continuing this discussion any further. Its descending into repetition, as you dont seem to be able to understand the logic behind the arguments I have presented (or are simply ignoring it out of Faithheadism).
kafir forever

Fathom wrote:
kafir forever wrote:
Fathom wrote:
kafir forever wrote:
A "food for thought" question for roshan and mutley:

Is energy in its non-material forms physical or non-physical?  

I suspect each of you might have a different view on this.

If you believe in E=mc2, then you also believe that energy can be transformed from many different forms into many other different forms with matter being one of the forms of energy.  If non-material forms of energy are "non-physical," then physical objects such as sub-atomic particles are indeed created from the non-physical.  If, however, non-material energy is physical, then all that can be said is that energy is simply transforming itself into many different physical forms, including material forms, in an endless process.

This concept finds further support in the Law of Conservation of Energy, that energy can neither be created or destroyed. If that is true, does that not imply an infinite physical existence(i.e, energy)?

I think the current state of knowledge, and Occam's Razor, favor the notion of infinite existence of all forms of energy that is in a constant state of transformation.

I wouldn't refer to Fathom's option 1 as God, but if you believe in what is currently known about physics and energy, you would have to lean heavily toward infinite energy and its infinite existence.

I know that is heresy among the big bang theorists, but there have been a lot of heresies in science that were later considered mainstream -- the heliocentric solar system is one that comes to mind.


But that puts us back to square one.

What is the origin of the energy?


Actually it does not, because the Law of Conservation of Energy holds that energy cannot be created or destroyed, which means it is, always was, and always will be, which seems to support your Option 1.  Therefore, by definition, the origin of energy is off the table.


But ... energy is contained within the universe.

Where did the universe come from?


And if the energy is infinite (cannot be created or destroyed) then the universe is infinite, and the question of where it came from goes away.

I am just trying to make the argument consistent.  If energy cannot be created or destroyed, how can anyone ask how it was created?  Who knows, maybe the energy conservation law is wrong, but we certainly have no evidence for that as yet.
kafir forever

Mutley wrote:
kafir forever wrote:
roshan wrote:
kafir forever wrote:
A "food for thought" question for roshan and mutley:

Is energy in its non-material forms physical or non-physical?  

I suspect each of you might have a different view on this.

If you believe in E=mc2, then you also believe that energy can be transformed from many different forms into many other different forms with matter being one of the forms of energy.  If non-material forms of energy are "non-physical," then physical objects such as sub-atomic particles are indeed created from the non-physical.  If, however, non-material energy is physical, then all that can be said is that energy is simply transforming itself into many different physical forms, including material forms, in an endless process.

This concept finds further support in the Law of Conservation of Energy, that energy can neither be created or destroyed. If that is true, does that not imply an infinite physical existence(i.e, energy)?

I think the current state of knowledge, and Occam's Razor, favor the notion of infinite existence of all forms of energy that is in a constant state of transformation.

I wouldn't refer to Fathom's option 1 as God, but if you believe in what is currently known about physics and energy, you would have to lean heavily toward infinite energy and its infinite existence.

I know that is heresy among the big bang theorists, but there have been a lot of heresies in science that were later considered mainstream -- the heliocentric solar system is one that comes to mind.


I define both matter and energy as being physical.


OK, what say you, Mutley?


Energy can neither be created nor destroyed once it's created.


You don't see anything wrong with that statement?  That is not what the conservation law says.

Quote:
There is nothing explicit in the law of thermal dynamics that say energy was never created.


In fact it says it can't be created or destroyed.  My interpretation of that is that it has always existed, and always will.

Quote:
It's my understanding, that more energy can't be created and energy can't be destroyed or reduced as long as their is physical  existence of any sort. Would this be a correct qualification or detail? of the law of thermal dynamics?


This assumes that the initial pool of energy was created, then just set to run on auto pilot, if you will.  Why is that assumption better than the assumption that it is, always was, and always will be? At least that interpretation is consistent with the law as stated.
Fathom

So the big question is this?

"Energy creates matter?"

Energy is the creator of all that exists?
kafir forever

Fathom wrote:
So the big question is this?

"Energy creates matter?"

Energy is the creator of all that exists?


Not exactly.  Whether you intended it or not, your last question implies that matter exists, but energy does not.  Actually, the suggestion I am proposing is that energy is all that exists, and it exists in multiple forms, including but not limited to, matter.  E=mc2 implies that energy in non-material form and energy in material form (matter) are transmutable -- one can be transformed into the other.  This happens in particle accelerators and within stars, for example.  So, it is not exactly accurate to say that energy creates matter.  It is more appropriate to say that matter is just another form of energy, and as matter, it can come and go, but when it does, the overall energy content of the universe does not change.

And if that is so, and if energy cannot be created or destroyed, then the energy content of the universe cannot change which implies it is infinite in time and space.  To me, never created, never destroyed means that it is, always was, and always will be.

If the energy conservation law is wrong, or has unstated qualifiers, then the argument can change.

As an aside, E=mc2 can be derived without any reference to relativity.  The only two assumptions that are needed is that energy is conserved, and electric charge in motion is conserved.  Therefore, E=mc2 is a necessary consequence of energy conservation.  I do not want to get side tracked on this, but I mention it only to show the consistency of the energy transformation and energy conservation propositions I have mentioned.
Fathom

kafir forever wrote:
Fathom wrote:
So the big question is this?

"Energy creates matter?"

Energy is the creator of all that exists?


Not exactly.  Whether you intended it or not, your last question implies that matter exists, but energy does not.  Actually, the suggestion I am proposing is that energy is all that exists, and it exists in multiple forms, including but not limited to, matter.  E=mc2 implies that energy in non-material form and energy in material form (matter) are transmutable -- one can be transformed into the other.  This happens in particle accelerators and within stars, for example.  So, it is not exactly accurate to say that energy creates matter.  It is more appropriate to say that matter is just another form of energy, and as matter, it can come and go, but when it does, the overall energy content of the universe does not change.

And if that is so, and if energy cannot be created or destroyed, then the energy content of the universe cannot change which implies it is infinite in time and space.  To me, never created, never destroyed means that it is, always was, and always will be.

If the energy conservation law is wrong, or has unstated qualifiers, then the argument can change.

As an aside, E=mc2 can be derived without any reference to relativity.  The only two assumptions that are needed is that energy is conserved, and electric charge in motion is conserved.  Therefore, E=mc2 is a necessary consequence of energy conservation.  I do not want to get side tracked on this, but I mention it only to show the consistency of the energy transformation and energy conservation propositions I have mentioned.


I see this somewhat like the question of "which came first, the chicken or the egg?"

But what I am realizing here is that perhaps energy and matter are not the two separate things we think they are?
kafir forever

Fathom wrote:
kafir forever wrote:
Fathom wrote:
So the big question is this?

"Energy creates matter?"

Energy is the creator of all that exists?


Not exactly.  Whether you intended it or not, your last question implies that matter exists, but energy does not.  Actually, the suggestion I am proposing is that energy is all that exists, and it exists in multiple forms, including but not limited to, matter.  E=mc2 implies that energy in non-material form and energy in material form (matter) are transmutable -- one can be transformed into the other.  This happens in particle accelerators and within stars, for example.  So, it is not exactly accurate to say that energy creates matter.  It is more appropriate to say that matter is just another form of energy, and as matter, it can come and go, but when it does, the overall energy content of the universe does not change.

And if that is so, and if energy cannot be created or destroyed, then the energy content of the universe cannot change which implies it is infinite in time and space.  To me, never created, never destroyed means that it is, always was, and always will be.

If the energy conservation law is wrong, or has unstated qualifiers, then the argument can change.

As an aside, E=mc2 can be derived without any reference to relativity.  The only two assumptions that are needed is that energy is conserved, and electric charge in motion is conserved.  Therefore, E=mc2 is a necessary consequence of energy conservation.  I do not want to get side tracked on this, but I mention it only to show the consistency of the energy transformation and energy conservation propositions I have mentioned.


I see this somewhat like the question of "which came first, the chicken or the egg?"

But what I am realizing here is that perhaps energy and matter are not the two separate things we think they are?


EXACTLY.  What we call matter and energy are just different manifestations of the same thing, and there is a lot of physics to support that.  In my opinion, failure to make that distinction, and to think only of matter as that which exists, is the flaw in our thinking, and the source of confusion in our logic and our semantics.

Once I accepted the concept of energy as being all that exists, including its material form, then my mental picture of the universe, and how it functions, became very simple and straightforward, indeed.  I now see no need for a beginning or an end, and I see no need for some kind of supernatural creator.
Fathom

Then, could we say that energy can become manifest into matter due to a collision of different grades of energy?

Since we know that energy can be transformed into matter, how could this happen?
roshan

kafir forever wrote:
[Actually, the suggestion I am proposing is that energy is all that exists, and it exists in multiple forms, including but not limited to, matter.  E=mc2 implies that energy in non-material form and energy in material form (matter) are transmutable -- one can be transformed into the other.  This happens in particle accelerators and within stars, for example.  So, it is not exactly accurate to say that energy creates matter.  It is more appropriate to say that matter is just another form of energy, and as matter, it can come and go, but when it does, the overall energy content of the universe does not change.

And if that is so, and if energy cannot be created or destroyed, then the energy content of the universe cannot change which implies it is infinite in time and space.  To me, never created, never destroyed means that it is, always was, and always will be.


This is another good argument for the idea that physical existence is eternal. A question, what do you think of the following theory by Kapila, an Indian philosopher:

"Kapila theorized that all of physical existence has evolved from a single base substance called Prakriti, which evolved into the complex universe through Sattva (harmony), Tamas (inertia) and Rajas (action). If the theoretical "god particle" is discovered, that would essentially be the discovery of Prakriti. However Sankhya never dealt with where Prakriti came from. It was assumed to be eternal."

Note that Kapilas theory does not seek to explain how physical existence came to be, but rather what its nature is - it sought to explain how the complexity and diversity of physical existence came to be without any sort of intelligent designer (Sankhya the system devised by Kapila was an atheist philosophy).
kafir forever

Fathom wrote:
Then, could we say that energy can become manifest into matter due to a collision of different grades of energy?


Roughly speaking, there is a theory that predicts exactly that.

Quote:
Since we know that energy can be transformed into matter, how could this happen?


The answer involves a lot of Calculus and Physics, but it involves a concept that some physicists do not accept.  The qualitative answer is that space itself is a vast store of energy.  In this view, space is not the absence of everything, it is the absence of matter, but it is charged with energy that can spontaneously generate particles of matter that usually disintegrate again into the energy of space.  There is a fairly elaborate theory that predicts that once in a while, the particles do not disintegrate back into the fabric of space, and in this way, the energy of space is transformed into matter.  If this is true, there is no reason why it cannot go on forever.  Thus the "creator" is not the creator of the universe, but the energy of space is the creator of matter, and the energy is infinite and has existed forever.  While there are some attributes here that some associate with God -- creator, infinite, etc. -- they are not anthropomorphic as the conventional attributes of God are portrayed.

I know that conventional physics does not agree with this, but the theory I have in mind explains phenomena that conventional physics cannot explain, so I give it some credence.
Fathom

kafir forever wrote:
Fathom wrote:
Then, could we say that energy can become manifest into matter due to a collision of different grades of energy?


Roughly speaking, there is a theory that predicts exactly that.

Quote:
Since we know that energy can be transformed into matter, how could this happen?


The answer involves a lot of Calculus and Physics, but it involves a concept that some physicists do not accept.  The qualitative answer is that space itself is a vast store of energy.  In this view, space is not the absence of everything, it is the absence of matter, but it is charged with energy that can spontaneously generate particles of matter that usually disintegrate again into the energy of space.  There is a fairly elaborate theory that predicts that once in a while, the particles do not disintegrate back into the fabric of space, and in this way, the energy of space is transformed into matter.  If this is true, there is no reason why it cannot go on forever.  Thus the "creator" is not the creator of the universe, but the energy of space is the creator of matter, and the energy is infinite and has existed forever.  While there are some attributes here that some associate with God -- creator, infinite, etc. -- they are not anthropomorphic as the conventional attributes of God are portrayed.

I know that conventional physics does not agree with this, but the theory I have in mind explains phenomena that conventional physics cannot explain, so I give it some credence.


I don't profess to know much about physics, as the study of theology has always occupied my time. Yet, I'm thinking that no matter where you are in the universe, you can see light coming from one source or another.

Since you can see light, that means that light has reached your position. I'm betting you cannot go anywhere in the universe without being able to see light.

Now, light is an energy source, and if you cannot go anywhere in the universe without seeing light, then everywhere in the universe is populated by light energy. Since light is not "nothing," then the universe is indeed only void of matter, as you suggest. But it is not void of energy because light exists everywhere.

How am I doing? Or am I crazy?
kafir forever

Fathom wrote:
kafir forever wrote:
Fathom wrote:
Then, could we say that energy can become manifest into matter due to a collision of different grades of energy?


Roughly speaking, there is a theory that predicts exactly that.

Quote:
Since we know that energy can be transformed into matter, how could this happen?


The answer involves a lot of Calculus and Physics, but it involves a concept that some physicists do not accept.  The qualitative answer is that space itself is a vast store of energy.  In this view, space is not the absence of everything, it is the absence of matter, but it is charged with energy that can spontaneously generate particles of matter that usually disintegrate again into the energy of space.  There is a fairly elaborate theory that predicts that once in a while, the particles do not disintegrate back into the fabric of space, and in this way, the energy of space is transformed into matter.  If this is true, there is no reason why it cannot go on forever.  Thus the "creator" is not the creator of the universe, but the energy of space is the creator of matter, and the energy is infinite and has existed forever.  While there are some attributes here that some associate with God -- creator, infinite, etc. -- they are not anthropomorphic as the conventional attributes of God are portrayed.

I know that conventional physics does not agree with this, but the theory I have in mind explains phenomena that conventional physics cannot explain, so I give it some credence.


I don't profess to know much about physics, as the study of theology has always occupied my time. Yet, I'm thinking that no matter where you are in the universe, you can see light coming from one source or another.


I see no reason to dispute that.

Quote:
Since you can see light, that means that light has reached your position. I'm betting you cannot go anywhere in the universe without being able to see light.


That seems reasonable.

Quote:
Now, light is an energy source,


Not quite. Light, more specifically electromagnetic radiation, is one "form" of energy, not necessarily a "source" of energy.  The "source" might be an electron decaying from a higher energy orbit around an atom to a lower energy orbit giving off a photon of light in the process.  Thus the "source" is the electron orbital decay, and the "form" is a photon of detectable electromagnetic radiation.

Quote:
and if you cannot go anywhere in the universe without seeing light,


In this context, I am assuming by "seeing" you mean detecting.  The human eye can only "see" a very narrow range of frequencies of light (electromagnetic radiation).

Quote:
then everywhere in the universe is populated by light energy. Since light is not "nothing," then the universe


space, not the universe, is devoid of matter

Quote:
is indeed only void of matter, as you suggest. But it is not void of energy because light exists everywhere.


"LIght" being a form of energy called electromagnetic radiation, then yes, it is detectable anywhere in the universe.

Quote:


How am I doing? Or am I crazy?


You are progessing very well.
Fathom

kafir forever wrote:
Fathom wrote:
kafir forever wrote:
Fathom wrote:
Then, could we say that energy can become manifest into matter due to a collision of different grades of energy?


Roughly speaking, there is a theory that predicts exactly that.

Quote:
Since we know that energy can be transformed into matter, how could this happen?


The answer involves a lot of Calculus and Physics, but it involves a concept that some physicists do not accept.  The qualitative answer is that space itself is a vast store of energy.  In this view, space is not the absence of everything, it is the absence of matter, but it is charged with energy that can spontaneously generate particles of matter that usually disintegrate again into the energy of space.  There is a fairly elaborate theory that predicts that once in a while, the particles do not disintegrate back into the fabric of space, and in this way, the energy of space is transformed into matter.  If this is true, there is no reason why it cannot go on forever.  Thus the "creator" is not the creator of the universe, but the energy of space is the creator of matter, and the energy is infinite and has existed forever.  While there are some attributes here that some associate with God -- creator, infinite, etc. -- they are not anthropomorphic as the conventional attributes of God are portrayed.

I know that conventional physics does not agree with this, but the theory I have in mind explains phenomena that conventional physics cannot explain, so I give it some credence.


I don't profess to know much about physics, as the study of theology has always occupied my time. Yet, I'm thinking that no matter where you are in the universe, you can see light coming from one source or another.


I see no reason to dispute that.

Quote:
Since you can see light, that means that light has reached your position. I'm betting you cannot go anywhere in the universe without being able to see light.


That seems reasonable.

Quote:
Now, light is an energy source,


Not quite. Light, more specifically electromagnetic radiation, is one "form" of energy, not necessarily a "source" of energy.  The "source" might be an electron decaying from a higher energy orbit around an atom to a lower energy orbit giving off a photon of light in the process.  Thus the "source" is the electron orbital decay, and the "form" is a photon of detectable electromagnetic radiation.

Quote:
and if you cannot go anywhere in the universe without seeing light,


In this context, I am assuming by "seeing" you mean detecting.  The human eye can only "see" a very narrow range of frequencies of light (electromagnetic radiation).

Quote:
then everywhere in the universe is populated by light energy. Since light is not "nothing," then the universe


space, not the universe, is devoid of matter

Quote:
is indeed only void of matter, as you suggest. But it is not void of energy because light exists everywhere.


"LIght" being a form of energy called electromagnetic radiation, then yes, it is detectable anywhere in the universe.

Quote:


How am I doing? Or am I crazy?


You are progessing very well.


If this is true, how then could "nothing" exist?
kafir forever

Fathom wrote:
If this is true, how then could "nothing" exist?


I never said it did.  That is why I said that space is the absence of matter, not the absence of everything.  And I never said that the universe was created from nothing.

For those who make this kind of statement, it becomes necessary to get real nit-picky on what the words "nothing" and "exist" really mean.  They are human concepts, and they must have a meaning.  My experience is that difficulties and disagreements regarding such statements almost always involve fuzzy concepts, where each person is using the same words, but with a different concept.  That's why I get so pedantic, at times, about using common words in such situations without clear definitions.
Fathom

kafir forever wrote:
Fathom wrote:
If this is true, how then could "nothing" exist?


I never said it did.  That is why I said that space is the absence of matter, not the absence of everything.  And I never said that the universe was created from nothing.

For those who make this kind of statement, it becomes necessary to get real nit-picky on what the words "nothing" and "exist" really mean.  They are human concepts, and they must have a meaning.  My experience is that difficulties and disagreements regarding such statements almost always involve fuzzy concepts, where each person is using the same words, but with a different concept.  That's why I get so pedantic, at times, about using common words in such situations without clear definitions.


My question wasn't intended to be accusative, but just a general question asking about whether or not "nothing" could exist.

Human perception is limited, I believe, to our physical reality. We rationalize what can be detected by our senses and process a concept of reality in accordance to our perception of it.

Energy can be classified as another state of being, altered from a physical state of being. It's an altered state and perhaps a natural state of being. It make me wonder that since energy can exist in the state it currently exists in, can life also exist in the same non-physical state as energy?

Your thoughts?
kafir forever

Fathom wrote:
Energy can be classified as another state of being, altered from a physical state of being. It's an altered state and perhaps a natural state of being. It make me wonder that since energy can exist in the state it currently exists in, can life also exist in the same non-physical state as energy?

Your thoughts?

Quote:
Energy can be classified as another state of being,


Now, you will have to be more precise in what you mean by an "another state of being."  I do not accept that as another "state of consciesness," which some people would assume from your statement, and I do not equate it with anything anthropomorphic.  A supernova is "another state of being" from a star in equilibrium with its gravitational and internal thermodynamic forces.

Quote:
altered from a physical state of being.


It sounds like you are still equating "physical" with "material."  To me, all states of energy are "physical."

Quote:
It's an altered state and perhaps a natural state of being.


Not that energy can be classified as another state of being, it is the only state of being, and it can exist in alternate forms, such as matter, or electromagnetic forms of existence or other forms ...

Quote:
It make me wonder that since energy can exist in the state it currently exists in, can life also exist in the same non-physical state as energy?


Again, it seems that by "non-physical" you mean "non-material."  I categorically deny that concept.  Let us not confuse "physical" with "material."  To me, life cannot exist in a "non-material" format.  Also, to me, all that exists is by definition "physical;" therefore, there is no such thing as a "non-physical" existence.
Wiking

Re: What Is God?

Fathom wrote:
Being both an x-Muslim and an x-Christian, I have enjoyed some of the most excellent discussions on the beliefs of both religions. Being a friend to a few Jewish people has also given me a keen perspective on how they view their relationship to God.

But after going through all these religious experiences, I came out of it as an agnostic. I came out of it with respect for Jesus, but a great loss of respect for Muhammad. I came out of it with a tolerance for Christianity, but a loathing for Islam.

The reason for my loss of respect for Muhammad and my loathing of Islam was simply because of the Muslim people themselves and their false Islamic traditions, and of course the history of Muhammad. It's not that I dislike Muslims, you see, but it's the utter uselessness of the traditions they follow, and the insistence of outright lying to not only the kafir, but also to themselves.

Islam was just completely devoid of spirit, and empty of love for the human race outside of Islam. Islam itself is directly responsible for me becoming an agnostic.

So as an agnostic I began to honestly question the existence of this God the three Abrahamic religions all worship. I determined that the god they believe in does not exist. Now, that does not mean that a god of some kind does not exist, it only means that the Abrahamic god does not exist.

My position on "God" is this:

I don't know.

Now the reason I am not an atheist is because of logic, and here is my logic. I will provide the only two possibilities regarding existence:

1.  Everything has always existed, and had no beginning and will see no end. This also means that even if the universe itself was created, something of non-intelligent origin must have existed previously, otherwise we wouldn't be here. It becomes a mirror verses mirror affect, whereas we hold one mirror up to another and we see an infinite number of images. There's no end to it. Non intelligent forms of existence simply create and replicate randomly forever. There never was a beginning, and there never will be an end. Everything always just was, and always just will be, and will only change forms over time.

2. Something very great and intelligent caused existence to be. But does this mean God?" No, but it could mean something of intelligence that is far greater than our ability to comprehend it whereas, with our limited perception, we could perceive it to be a god. Certainly it wouldn't be the Abrahamic God, because that one has been proven to be mistaken on so many things in all 3 religions that it simply does not make sense for this god to be the one who created the universe.

There doesn't seem to be a # 3 option for me. The only options I can think of are # 1 and # 2. Now, because I do not know which one is the truth, and because both appear to be logically possible, I am therefore an agnostic because I simply do not know.

But one of them must be the truth. What is "god," # 1 or # 2?

Which one?

Discuss ...


I don't think your argument for being an agnostic holds water.

If we accept the big bang as the singular point in space and time when the universe came into being, some will call it the creation, then we must ask the question"what do you mean with 'before' or 'previously'?" If space and time were created (i.e. came into being) in that singularity, then there was no before. I know this sounds bizarre, totally counter intuitive, but who said we must be able to comprehend with our senses the physical realities of the enormously big and the unthinkable small? As an analogy we can think of temperature. There is no temperature below 0 deg. K. There is no before the BB.

So, I think we must add another item to your list:
# 3. Time and space came into being at the BB. There was no before.

Now, I can anticipate your next argument: If it is so, then what or who caused it? Who made the BB happen?

The answer to this is "nothing and nobody". Again we are up against our senses, against 'common sense'. We are so accustomed to the cause-effect model that we cannot imagine things happening without a cause. But nevertheless, spontaneous events do happen in nature. Spontaneous radioactive decay for instance.  Decay is an inherent property of matter and there is nothing we can do to cause it or to prevent it. It just happens. Same with BB. It just happened.

If we postulate an external (to the universe) intelligence that forced the universe into being through an act of creation, then it must be legitimate to ask the question "how did that being come to exist?", or more succinctly: Who created God? And: What was before God. It's a circular argument without an escape hatch.

So, my preferred option is #3. It explains so much of what we can see and measure and is consistent with our view of the universe. #3 can exist without a God, and therefore I'm an atheist.
Tvebak

Re: What Is God?

Wiking wrote:
Fathom wrote:
Being both an x-Muslim and an x-Christian, I have enjoyed some of the most excellent discussions on the beliefs of both religions. Being a friend to a few Jewish people has also given me a keen perspective on how they view their relationship to God.

But after going through all these religious experiences, I came out of it as an agnostic. I came out of it with respect for Jesus, but a great loss of respect for Muhammad. I came out of it with a tolerance for Christianity, but a loathing for Islam.

The reason for my loss of respect for Muhammad and my loathing of Islam was simply because of the Muslim people themselves and their false Islamic traditions, and of course the history of Muhammad. It's not that I dislike Muslims, you see, but it's the utter uselessness of the traditions they follow, and the insistence of outright lying to not only the kafir, but also to themselves.

Islam was just completely devoid of spirit, and empty of love for the human race outside of Islam. Islam itself is directly responsible for me becoming an agnostic.

So as an agnostic I began to honestly question the existence of this God the three Abrahamic religions all worship. I determined that the god they believe in does not exist. Now, that does not mean that a god of some kind does not exist, it only means that the Abrahamic god does not exist.

My position on "God" is this:

I don't know.

Now the reason I am not an atheist is because of logic, and here is my logic. I will provide the only two possibilities regarding existence:

1.  Everything has always existed, and had no beginning and will see no end. This also means that even if the universe itself was created, something of non-intelligent origin must have existed previously, otherwise we wouldn't be here. It becomes a mirror verses mirror affect, whereas we hold one mirror up to another and we see an infinite number of images. There's no end to it. Non intelligent forms of existence simply create and replicate randomly forever. There never was a beginning, and there never will be an end. Everything always just was, and always just will be, and will only change forms over time.

2. Something very great and intelligent caused existence to be. But does this mean God?" No, but it could mean something of intelligence that is far greater than our ability to comprehend it whereas, with our limited perception, we could perceive it to be a god. Certainly it wouldn't be the Abrahamic God, because that one has been proven to be mistaken on so many things in all 3 religions that it simply does not make sense for this god to be the one who created the universe.

There doesn't seem to be a # 3 option for me. The only options I can think of are # 1 and # 2. Now, because I do not know which one is the truth, and because both appear to be logically possible, I am therefore an agnostic because I simply do not know.

But one of them must be the truth. What is "god," # 1 or # 2?

Which one?

Discuss ...


I don't think your argument for being an agnostic holds water.

If we accept the big bang as the singular point in space and time when the universe came into being, some will call it the creation, then we must ask the question"what do you mean with 'before' or 'previously'?" If space and time were created (i.e. came into being) in that singularity, then there was no before. I know this sounds bizarre, totally counter intuitive, but who said we must be able to comprehend with our senses the physical realities of the enormously big and the unthinkable small? As an analogy we can think of temperature. There is no temperature below 0 deg. K. There is no before the BB.

So, I think we must add another item to your list:
# 3. Time and space came into being at the BB. There was no before.

Now, I can anticipate your next argument: If it is so, then what or who caused it? Who made the BB happen?

The answer to this is "nothing and nobody". Again we are up against our senses, against 'common sense'. We are so accustomed to the cause-effect model that we cannot imagine things happening without a cause. But nevertheless, spontaneous events do happen in nature. Spontaneous radioactive decay for instance.  Decay is an inherent property of matter and there is nothing we can do to cause it or to prevent it. It just happens. Same with BB. It just happened.

If we postulate an external (to the universe) intelligence that forced the universe into being through an act of creation, then it must be legitimate to ask the question "how did that being come to exist?", or more succinctly: Who created God? And: What was before God. It's a circular argument without an escape hatch.

So, my preferred option is #3. It explains so much of what we can see and measure and is consistent with our view of the universe. #3 can exist without a God, and therefore I'm an atheist.


Hello fellow wiking

There's also a fourth possibillity if we consider the quantum-theory. Without going to much into detail (some other might, most likely, be able to explain it better) the quantum-theory works without the singularity and borders.

Cheers
Wiking

Re: What Is God?

Tvebak wrote:


Hello fellow wiking

There's also a fourth possibillity if we consider the quantum-theory. Without going to much into detail (some other might, most likely, be able to explain it better) the quantum-theory works without the singularity and borders.

Cheers


Hi Tvebak.

Yes, I have seen a theory about a "primordial" particle at 0 deg. K and an immense density that disintegrated due to a quantum mechanical effect, analogous to the way unstable radioactive nuclei decay.
Here is a link: http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0103456

I don't see it invalidate my remarks regarding the beginning of time and the "no before" argument.

Cheers.
Mutley

roshan wrote:
Quote:
We don't know that emotions are strictly physical processes. The question is, does the feeling create the thought and then the reaction?


But that is speculative, and a red herring to this discussion.


And an infinite physicality is speculative as well.

roshan wrote:

Quote:
But again, I posit that the physical can arise from the metaphysical. If there is a metaphysical, would you posit that the metaphysical arises from the physical? How?


If we do not posit that the metaphysical can arise out of the physical, why should we posit that the physical can arise out of the metaphysical? Why should we even bother positing the existence of the metaphysical when we can answer the question using current knowledge of what is physical? Again, apply Occams razor.


But we can't answer it using current knowledge of what is physical because current knowledge of what is physical says that everything has a beginning. So Occam's razor doesn't actually apply like you think it doesn't. You're inserting an assumption that has every bit as little basis as you claim my assumptions have. I imagine something beyond the physical. You imagine the physical having a quality that breaches it's own rules. Just like me, you have absolutely no example of what you posit to show anybody.

roshan wrote:

Quote:
But you're forgetting that you are making a second assumption, that the physical process itself had no beginning. This is every bit as illogical as a non creaed, metaphysical cause.


Not really. It just follows on logically from the original assumption.


And the original assumption says everything has a beginning, and then, you use negation to violate the very assumption that create the basis for even developing your secondary assumption. This is the concept eating itself or violating itself.
Mutley

kafir forever wrote:

space, not the universe, is devoid of matter


So space is merely a mathematical concept?
Mutley

Re: What Is God?

Wiking wrote:

Now, I can anticipate your next argument: If it is so, then what or who caused it? Who made the BB happen?

The answer to this is "nothing and nobody". Again we are up against our senses, against 'common sense'. We are so accustomed to the cause-effect model that we cannot imagine things happening without a cause. But nevertheless, spontaneous events do happen in nature.


A random cause is still a cause. We may not know the causes of certain things yet, but we have never come to the conclusion that anything is causeless.

Wiking wrote:

Spontaneous radioactive decay for instance.  Decay is an inherent property of matter and there is nothing we can do to cause it or to prevent it. It just happens. Same with BB. It just happened.


And the cause of this decay are physical laws and the properties of matter. This is not causeless.

Wiking wrote:

If we postulate an external (to the universe) intelligence that forced the universe into being through an act of creation, then it must be legitimate to ask the question "how did that being come to exist?", or more succinctly: Who created God? And: What was before God. It's a circular argument without an escape hatch.


The escape hatch is claiming that if there is a creator, then it HAD to have always existed. But this violates physical law. Therefore, if there is a creator it would also HAVE to be metaphysical or beyond the physical. Otherwise, it would be a physical God violating physical law. The circular argument isn't the one where we posit a metaphysical creator, it's the one where we posit a physical universe where everything has a beginning, but the physical process itself doesn't. Physical law would be eating itself.


Wiking wrote:

So, my preferred option is #3. It explains so much of what we can see and measure and is consistent with our view of the universe. #3 can exist without a God, and therefore I'm an atheist.


We have no example of a God or an example that the metaphysical exists, and we have no example of anything physical or even physical processes themselves having no beginning. You pick one absurdity over the other.
Wiking

Re: What Is God?

Mutley wrote:
Wiking wrote:

Now, I can anticipate your next argument: If it is so, then what or who caused it? Who made the BB happen?

The answer to this is "nothing and nobody". Again we are up against our senses, against 'common sense'. We are so accustomed to the cause-effect model that we cannot imagine things happening without a cause. But nevertheless, spontaneous events do happen in nature.


A random cause is still a cause. We may not know the causes of certain things yet, but we have never come to the conclusion that anything is causeless.

Wiking wrote:

Spontaneous radioactive decay for instance.  Decay is an inherent property of matter and there is nothing we can do to cause it or to prevent it. It just happens. Same with BB. It just happened.


And the cause of this decay are physical laws and the properties of matter. This is not causeless.


When we speak of cause and effect, we always mean an external cause. Matter cannot cause itself to decay, that is an inherent property of matter. In reality, this is only a play with words. If you wish to see an inherent property as the cause of some event, then that is equivalent to saying "the universe caused itself to happen" instead of saying "an internal property of matter caused the BB". In both cases the need for a creator (external cause) is not there.

Mutley wrote:

Wiking wrote:

If we postulate an external (to the universe) intelligence that forced the universe into being through an act of creation, then it must be legitimate to ask the question "how did that being come to exist?", or more succinctly: Who created God? And: What was before God. It's a circular argument without an escape hatch.


The escape hatch is claiming that if there is a creator, then it HAD to have always existed. But this violates physical law. Therefore, if there is a creator it would also HAVE to be metaphysical or beyond the physical. Otherwise, it would be a physical God violating physical law. The circular argument isn't the one where we posit a metaphysical creator, it's the one where we posit a physical universe where everything has a beginning, but the physical process itself doesn't. Physical law would be eating itself.


We can always fantasize about non-physical creators and ghosts, but that is the same as to admit that we don't know. In other words, we are back where we started, the same result that the physical model yields: We don't know what was "before" the BB. We don't even know what before the BB means.

I prefer to stick to the physical model. Fantasy has given us so many false, albeit entertaining results, space warps and time travel just to name a few. The physical model is more prosaic, but it has the power to explain what we actually do observe.


Mutley wrote:

Wiking wrote:

So, my preferred option is #3. It explains so much of what we can see and measure and is consistent with our view of the universe. #3 can exist without a God, and therefore I'm an atheist.


We have no example of a God or an example that the metaphysical exists, and we have no example of anything physical or even physical processes themselves having no beginning. You pick one absurdity over the other.


The BB postulates and theorizes over a beginning. That beginning leads nicely up to what we can observe today. Do you find that absurd?
kafir forever

Mutley wrote:
kafir forever wrote:

space, not the universe, is devoid of matter


So space is merely a mathematical concept?


Not at all.  The proposition I am presenting is that space itself has energy in non-material form.  Remember E=mc2?

Matter is merely another form of energy, just like electromagnetic radiation is another form of energy.  What I am suggesting is that space itself contains energy in non-material form; therefore, space is merely the absence of the material form of energy, not the absence of everything which would include non-material forms of energy.
Fathom

Re: What Is God?

Wiking wrote:
Fathom wrote:
Being both an x-Muslim and an x-Christian, I have enjoyed some of the most excellent discussions on the beliefs of both religions. Being a friend to a few Jewish people has also given me a keen perspective on how they view their relationship to God.

But after going through all these religious experiences, I came out of it as an agnostic. I came out of it with respect for Jesus, but a great loss of respect for Muhammad. I came out of it with a tolerance for Christianity, but a loathing for Islam.

The reason for my loss of respect for Muhammad and my loathing of Islam was simply because of the Muslim people themselves and their false Islamic traditions, and of course the history of Muhammad. It's not that I dislike Muslims, you see, but it's the utter uselessness of the traditions they follow, and the insistence of outright lying to not only the kafir, but also to themselves.

Islam was just completely devoid of spirit, and empty of love for the human race outside of Islam. Islam itself is directly responsible for me becoming an agnostic.

So as an agnostic I began to honestly question the existence of this God the three Abrahamic religions all worship. I determined that the god they believe in does not exist. Now, that does not mean that a god of some kind does not exist, it only means that the Abrahamic god does not exist.

My position on "God" is this:

I don't know.

Now the reason I am not an atheist is because of logic, and here is my logic. I will provide the only two possibilities regarding existence:

1.  Everything has always existed, and had no beginning and will see no end. This also means that even if the universe itself was created, something of non-intelligent origin must have existed previously, otherwise we wouldn't be here. It becomes a mirror verses mirror affect, whereas we hold one mirror up to another and we see an infinite number of images. There's no end to it. Non intelligent forms of existence simply create and replicate randomly forever. There never was a beginning, and there never will be an end. Everything always just was, and always just will be, and will only change forms over time.

2. Something very great and intelligent caused existence to be. But does this mean God?" No, but it could mean something of intelligence that is far greater than our ability to comprehend it whereas, with our limited perception, we could perceive it to be a god. Certainly it wouldn't be the Abrahamic God, because that one has been proven to be mistaken on so many things in all 3 religions that it simply does not make sense for this god to be the one who created the universe.

There doesn't seem to be a # 3 option for me. The only options I can think of are # 1 and # 2. Now, because I do not know which one is the truth, and because both appear to be logically possible, I am therefore an agnostic because I simply do not know.

But one of them must be the truth. What is "god," # 1 or # 2?

Which one?

Discuss ...


I don't think your argument for being an agnostic holds water.

If we accept the big bang as the singular point in space and time when the universe came into being, some will call it the creation, then we must ask the question"what do you mean with 'before' or 'previously'?" If space and time were created (i.e. came into being) in that singularity, then there was no before. I know this sounds bizarre, totally counter intuitive, but who said we must be able to comprehend with our senses the physical realities of the enormously big and the unthinkable small? As an analogy we can think of temperature. There is no temperature below 0 deg. K. There is no before the BB.

So, I think we must add another item to your list:
# 3. Time and space came into being at the BB. There was no before.

Now, I can anticipate your next argument: If it is so, then what or who caused it? Who made the BB happen?

The answer to this is "nothing and nobody". Again we are up against our senses, against 'common sense'. We are so accustomed to the cause-effect model that we cannot imagine things happening without a cause. But nevertheless, spontaneous events do happen in nature. Spontaneous radioactive decay for instance.  Decay is an inherent property of matter and there is nothing we can do to cause it or to prevent it. It just happens. Same with BB. It just happened.[/b]


You seem to be stating a postulation in accordance with the current state of your knowledge. That's fine, and I can understand and respect that point of view. But there are so many "ifs" in it that it becomes a point of belief, and thus inconclusive.

Firstly, although the evidence for a BB is very good, we are still not certain a BB actually occurred. I can respect approximating the truth, but does it approximate the truth closely enough?

Like you said, we are still left with the question of why the Big Bang occurred. There is no agreement on the "why" in the astronomical field of study. Spontaneous radioactive decay does nothing to explain some kind of spontaneous creation of the materials which came into existence for the Big Bang in the first place.

Have we yet discovered what in nature converts energy to new matter? Sure, things that are alive convert energy to matter, and as far as we know the only thing that converts energy to matter are living things ie; a plant converts sunlight to matter and grows.

Don't get me wrong, I love the BB theory. But before I can accept it in completeness I need to know the cause. Let me put it this way; I accept the BB theory because it approximates the truth very well, but although we see the effect of the BB, we still have no idea of the cause.

Therefore, the question of how it got there in the first place is unanswered, and there really is no evidence to support any theory strongly enough to garner any reasonable approximation of the truth closely enough to approach conclusion.

When we apply Occam's razor, we end up with no answers.

Wiking wrote:
If we postulate an external (to the universe) intelligence that forced the universe into being through an act of creation, then it must be legitimate to ask the question "how did that being come to exist?", or more succinctly: Who created God? And: What was before God. It's a circular argument without an escape hatch.

So, my preferred option is #3. It explains so much of what we can see and measure and is consistent with our view of the universe. #3 can exist without a God, and therefore I'm an atheist.


Yet the current state of our knowledge tells us that only life itself converts energy to matter. So far, all we have is life converting energy to matter, or from a religious perspective; an unknown god that is alive converted energy to matter in the beginning.

With the current state of our knowledge, when we apply Occam's razor with this information, we end up with the far greater possibility that something which is alive created matter.

Believe it or not.
Wiking

Fathom wrote:
Wiking wrote:

I don't think your argument for being an agnostic holds water.

If we accept the big bang as the singular point in space and time when the universe came into being, some will call it the creation, then we must ask the question"what do you mean with 'before' or 'previously'?" If space and time were created (i.e. came into being) in that singularity, then there was no before. I know this sounds bizarre, totally counter intuitive, but who said we must be able to comprehend with our senses the physical realities of the enormously big and the unthinkable small? As an analogy we can think of temperature. There is no temperature below 0 deg. K. There is no before the BB.

So, I think we must add another item to your list:
# 3. Time and space came into being at the BB. There was no before.

Now, I can anticipate your next argument: If it is so, then what or who caused it? Who made the BB happen?

The answer to this is "nothing and nobody". Again we are up against our senses, against 'common sense'. We are so accustomed to the cause-effect model that we cannot imagine things happening without a cause. But nevertheless, spontaneous events do happen in nature. Spontaneous radioactive decay for instance.  Decay is an inherent property of matter and there is nothing we can do to cause it or to prevent it. It just happens. Same with BB. It just happened.[/b]


You seem to be stating a postulation in accordance with the current state of your knowledge. That's fine, and I can understand and respect that point of view. But there are so many "ifs" in it that it becomes a point of belief, and thus inconclusive.

Firstly, although the evidence for a BB is very good, we are still not certain a BB actually occurred. I can respect approximating the truth, but does it approximate the truth closely enough?

Like you said, we are still left with the question of why the Big Bang occurred. There is no agreement on the "why" in the astronomical field of study. Spontaneous radioactive decay does nothing to explain some kind of spontaneous creation of the materials which came into existence for the Big Bang in the first place.

Have we yet discovered what in nature converts energy to new matter? Sure, things that are alive convert energy to matter, and as far as we know the only thing that converts energy to matter are living things ie; a plant converts sunlight to matter and grows.

Don't get me wrong, I love the BB theory. But before I can accept it in completeness I need to know the cause. Let me put it this way; I accept the BB theory because it approximates the truth very well, but although we see the effect of the BB, we still have no idea of the cause.

Therefore, the question of how it got there in the first place is unanswered, and there really is no evidence to support any theory strongly enough to garner any reasonable approximation of the truth closely enough to approach conclusion.

When we apply Occam's razor, we end up with no answers.

Wiking wrote:
If we postulate an external (to the universe) intelligence that forced the universe into being through an act of creation, then it must be legitimate to ask the question "how did that being come to exist?", or more succinctly: Who created God? And: What was before God. It's a circular argument without an escape hatch.

So, my preferred option is #3. It explains so much of what we can see and measure and is consistent with our view of the universe. #3 can exist without a God, and therefore I'm an atheist.


Yet the current state of our knowledge tells us that only life itself converts energy to matter. So far, all we have is life converting energy to matter, or from a religious perspective; an unknown god that is alive converted energy to matter in the beginning.

With the current state of our knowledge, when we apply Occam's razor with this information, we end up with the far greater possibility that something which is alive created matter.

Believe it or not.


Fathom wrote:
You seem to be stating a postulation in accordance with the current state of your knowledge. That's fine, and I can understand and respect that point of view. But there are so many "ifs" in it that it becomes a point of belief, and thus inconclusive.

Firstly, although the evidence for a BB is very good, we are still not certain a BB actually occurred. I can respect approximating the truth, but does it approximate the truth closely enough?


Yes, but what else do we have to base our postulates on?
If we build postulates on wishes or free associations we end up with science fiction and, allow me, with religion. There will always be ”ifs” and that is fine. Science after all is not the ultimate truth and does not, contrary to religious dogma, profess to be so. Nevertheless, scientific method is the road to travel if you want to come as close to truth (not the truth) as possible. Religion and plain mad rambling has taken us down blind alleys for thousands of years. Only with the advent of modern science did we find the road that has led us towards the light. We are not there and we will probably never arrive there, so the search is and will remain inconclusive. What alternatives do we have?

Science is not about ”finding the truth”. It is about examining the things we see and describe them as honestly and accurately as possible. I'm afraid that's about as close to ”truth” that it is possible to get.

Fathom wrote:
Have we yet discovered what in nature converts energy to new matter? Sure, things that are alive convert energy to matter, and as far as we know the only thing that converts energy to matter are living things ie; a plant converts sunlight to matter and grows.
----
Yet the current state of our knowledge tells us that only life itself converts energy to matter. So far, all we have is life converting energy to matter, or from a religious perspective; an unknown god that is alive converted energy to matter in the beginning.


Your argument for being an agnostic hinges on the preposition that living things convert energy to matter and that nothing else in the universe does that.

I'm afraid that preposition is wrong in several dimensions!

A). Living things do not convert energy into matter.
B). Living things build high energy compounds, using matter and energy as input.
C). High energy compounds can be (and are) synthesized in the laboratory. We don't need life for that.
D). We do know what converts energy into matter.
E). We can convert energy into matter in the laboratory.

A). Living things do not convert energy into matter.
For matter, like a  sugar molecule, to form, the individual sub atomic particles must first be formed, that is protons, neutrons and electrons. Then the subatomic particles must be assembled into atoms that then must be made to react with each other in order to create the molecule. Living matter do not have the physical apparatus to carry out this process. Both the proton and the electron have a mass of ~ 940 MeV/c2. That is, in order to create one nucleon one needs an energy of ~940 MeV! This is an energy level not available even in gamma radiation (~10MeV), let alone visible light. We need the energy of cosmic rays to complete the task.

A small apple tree in your back garden produces approx. 5 Kg of sugar every year. How much energy would be needed to produce that amount of sugar?

Well, the ”Little Boy” weapon that virtually wiped out Hiroshima had a yield of ~15 kilotons of TNT.
Of the approx. 50 Kg of uranium it contained, 600 mg were converted into energy. Now let's calculate the amount of energy contained in 5 Kg: E = (5000 g / 0.6 g) * 15 kilotons = 125000 kilotons. That little apple tree would in one year have to absorb an amount of energy equivalent of a 125 Megaton nuclear weapon, and the energy would have to be delivered in the form of high energy cosmic rays for it to produce a measly 5 Kg of sugar! So much for that.

B). Living organisms do build high energy compounds using matter and energy as input.
Let's take the photosynthesis as an example. The net result can be written:

6 CO2 + 12 H2O + energy→ C6H12O6 + 6 O2 + 6 H2O

Let's count the atoms on both sides of the reaction.
To the left we have 6 carbon, 24 oxygen and 24 hydrogen.
To the right we also have 6 carbon, 24 oxygen and 24 hydrogen.
If we examine the number of electrons (”the oxidation level”) on both sides of the reaction, we discover the same. The number is the same on both sides.

So no matter has been created or destroyed. Carbon dioxide and water have simply been converted to glucose and oxygen. The only thing unaccounted for is the energy. Where has it gone?
The energy used is the energy of visible light, 1.8 eV to 3.1 eV (energy levels almost a million time less than that that is required to create a nucleon), and that energy has gone into the chemical bonds of the sugar. The energy becomes again available when the sugar is oxidized into carbon dioxide and water.

C). High energy compounds can be synthesized in the laboratory.
In the early days of chemistry people believed that a ”vital principle” was needed in order to build ”organic” compounds. With the synthesis of urea in 1827 by Wöhler, the ”vital principle” fell. The discovery prompted Wöhler  to write triumphantly to Berzelius:

"I must tell you that I can make urea without the use of kidneys, either man or dog. Ammonium cyanate is urea.”

Since then, endothermic chemical synthesis has developed into an industry. Almost anything, also high energy organic compounds are synthesized in the laboratory (explosives for instance). The preferred method for making sugar is still the biological one, due to the extremely high efficiency of the process.

D). We do know what converts energy into matter.
The only events that can convert energy into matter are high energy interactions, like the ones that took place during the BB, in supernova explosions, in and around black holes and when a cosmic ray interacts with a nucleus, possibly in the Earth's atmosphere.

E). We can convert energy into matter in the laboratory.
Some of the biggest machines ever build are dedicated to high energy particle physics. This year (2008) the Large Hadron Collider at CERN is scheduled to be put into operation. It will operate in the TeV range and is expected to give us valuable information of the very early universe. When particles smash into each other at these tremendous energies, matter ensues, new particles whose properties we are curious to know. The higher the energies we can operate at, the closer we come to the conditions of the early universe. At the moment, we have knowledge of what happened back to a few milliseconds after the BB. The LHC will push the limit further back. We are not quite there, and we will never quite reach t0, but we are close, damned close.

How much closer to the ”truth” do you want to get?

PS.
1 eV (electronVolt) is the energy an electron acquires when it is accelerated across a potential difference of 1 Volt.
Fathom

Wiking wrote:
Fathom wrote:
Wiking wrote:

I don't think your argument for being an agnostic holds water.

If we accept the big bang as the singular point in space and time when the universe came into being, some will call it the creation, then we must ask the question"what do you mean with 'before' or 'previously'?" If space and time were created (i.e. came into being) in that singularity, then there was no before. I know this sounds bizarre, totally counter intuitive, but who said we must be able to comprehend with our senses the physical realities of the enormously big and the unthinkable small? As an analogy we can think of temperature. There is no temperature below 0 deg. K. There is no before the BB.

So, I think we must add another item to your list:
# 3. Time and space came into being at the BB. There was no before.

Now, I can anticipate your next argument: If it is so, then what or who caused it? Who made the BB happen?

The answer to this is "nothing and nobody". Again we are up against our senses, against 'common sense'. We are so accustomed to the cause-effect model that we cannot imagine things happening without a cause. But nevertheless, spontaneous events do happen in nature. Spontaneous radioactive decay for instance.  Decay is an inherent property of matter and there is nothing we can do to cause it or to prevent it. It just happens. Same with BB. It just happened.[/b]


You seem to be stating a postulation in accordance with the current state of your knowledge. That's fine, and I can understand and respect that point of view. But there are so many "ifs" in it that it becomes a point of belief, and thus inconclusive.

Firstly, although the evidence for a BB is very good, we are still not certain a BB actually occurred. I can respect approximating the truth, but does it approximate the truth closely enough?

Like you said, we are still left with the question of why the Big Bang occurred. There is no agreement on the "why" in the astronomical field of study. Spontaneous radioactive decay does nothing to explain some kind of spontaneous creation of the materials which came into existence for the Big Bang in the first place.

Have we yet discovered what in nature converts energy to new matter? Sure, things that are alive convert energy to matter, and as far as we know the only thing that converts energy to matter are living things ie; a plant converts sunlight to matter and grows.

Don't get me wrong, I love the BB theory. But before I can accept it in completeness I need to know the cause. Let me put it this way; I accept the BB theory because it approximates the truth very well, but although we see the effect of the BB, we still have no idea of the cause.

Therefore, the question of how it got there in the first place is unanswered, and there really is no evidence to support any theory strongly enough to garner any reasonable approximation of the truth closely enough to approach conclusion.

When we apply Occam's razor, we end up with no answers.

Wiking wrote:
If we postulate an external (to the universe) intelligence that forced the universe into being through an act of creation, then it must be legitimate to ask the question "how did that being come to exist?", or more succinctly: Who created God? And: What was before God. It's a circular argument without an escape hatch.

So, my preferred option is #3. It explains so much of what we can see and measure and is consistent with our view of the universe. #3 can exist without a God, and therefore I'm an atheist.


Yet the current state of our knowledge tells us that only life itself converts energy to matter. So far, all we have is life converting energy to matter, or from a religious perspective; an unknown god that is alive converted energy to matter in the beginning.

With the current state of our knowledge, when we apply Occam's razor with this information, we end up with the far greater possibility that something which is alive created matter.

Believe it or not.


Fathom wrote:
You seem to be stating a postulation in accordance with the current state of your knowledge. That's fine, and I can understand and respect that point of view. But there are so many "ifs" in it that it becomes a point of belief, and thus inconclusive.

Firstly, although the evidence for a BB is very good, we are still not certain a BB actually occurred. I can respect approximating the truth, but does it approximate the truth closely enough?


Yes, but what else do we have to base our postulates on?
If we build postulates on wishes or free associations we end up with science fiction and, allow me, with religion. There will always be ”ifs” and that is fine. Science after all is not the ultimate truth and does not, contrary to religious dogma, profess to be so. Nevertheless, scientific method is the road to travel if you want to come as close to truth (not the truth) as possible. Religion and plain mad rambling has taken us down blind alleys for thousands of years. Only with the advent of modern science did we find the road that has led us towards the light. We are not there and we will probably never arrive there, so the search is and will remain inconclusive. What alternatives do we have?

Science is not about ”finding the truth”. It is about examining the things we see and describe them as honestly and accurately as possible. I'm afraid that's about as close to ”truth” that it is possible to get.


Yet science is planets away from explaining everything we would like to know. I'm not saying that science will not someday be able to explain some of the mysteries surrounding our existence.

We are still a babe in the cradle as far as knowledge is concerned.

Wiking wrote:

Fathom wrote:
Have we yet discovered what in nature converts energy to new matter? Sure, things that are alive convert energy to matter, and as far as we know the only thing that converts energy to matter are living things ie; a plant converts sunlight to matter and grows.
----
Yet the current state of our knowledge tells us that only life itself converts energy to matter. So far, all we have is life converting energy to matter, or from a religious perspective; an unknown god that is alive converted energy to matter in the beginning.


Your argument for being an agnostic hinges on the preposition that living things convert energy to matter and that nothing else in the universe does that.

I'm afraid that preposition is wrong in several dimensions!

A). Living things do not convert energy into matter.
B). Living things build high energy compounds, using matter and energy as input.
C). High energy compounds can be (and are) synthesized in the laboratory. We don't need life for that.
D). We do know what converts energy into matter.
E). We can convert energy into matter in the laboratory.

A). Living things do not convert energy into matter.
For matter, like a  sugar molecule, to form, the individual sub atomic particles must first be formed, that is protons, neutrons and electrons. Then the subatomic particles must be assembled into atoms that then must be made to react with each other in order to create the molecule. Living matter do not have the physical apparatus to carry out this process. Both the proton and the electron have a mass of ~ 940 MeV/c2. That is, in order to create one nucleon one needs an energy of ~940 MeV! This is an energy level not available even in gamma radiation (~10MeV), let alone visible light. We need the energy of cosmic rays to complete the task.

A small apple tree in your back garden produces approx. 5 Kg of sugar every year. How much energy would be needed to produce that amount of sugar?

Well, the ”Little Boy” weapon that virtually wiped out Hiroshima had a yield of ~15 kilotons of TNT.
Of the approx. 50 Kg of uranium it contained, 600 mg were converted into energy. Now let's calculate the amount of energy contained in 5 Kg: E = (5000 g / 0.6 g) * 15 kilotons = 125000 kilotons. That little apple tree would in one year have to absorb an amount of energy equivalent of a 125 Megaton nuclear weapon, and the energy would have to be delivered in the form of high energy cosmic rays for it to produce a measly 5 Kg of sugar! So much for that.

B). Living organisms do build high energy compounds using matter and energy as input.
Let's take the photosynthesis as an example. The net result can be written:

6 CO2 + 12 H2O + energy→ C6H12O6 + 6 O2 + 6 H2O

Let's count the atoms on both sides of the reaction.
To the left we have 6 carbon, 24 oxygen and 24 hydrogen.
To the right we also have 6 carbon, 24 oxygen and 24 hydrogen.
If we examine the number of electrons (”the oxidation level”) on both sides of the reaction, we discover the same. The number is the same on both sides.

So no matter has been created or destroyed. Carbon dioxide and water have simply been converted to glucose and oxygen. The only thing unaccounted for is the energy. Where has it gone?
The energy used is the energy of visible light, 1.8 eV to 3.1 eV (energy levels almost a million time less than that that is required to create a nucleon), and that energy has gone into the chemical bonds of the sugar. The energy becomes again available when the sugar is oxidized into carbon dioxide and water.

C). High energy compounds can be synthesized in the laboratory.
In the early days of chemistry people believed that a ”vital principle” was needed in order to build ”organic” compounds. With the synthesis of urea in 1827 by Wöhler, the ”vital principle” fell. The discovery prompted Wöhler  to write triumphantly to Berzelius:

"I must tell you that I can make urea without the use of kidneys, either man or dog. Ammonium cyanate is urea.”

Since then, endothermic chemical synthesis has developed into an industry. Almost anything, also high energy organic compounds are synthesized in the laboratory (explosives for instance). The preferred method for making sugar is still the biological one, due to the extremely high efficiency of the process.

D). We do know what converts energy into matter.
The only events that can convert energy into matter are high energy interactions, like the ones that took place during the BB, in supernova explosions, in and around black holes and when a cosmic ray interacts with a nucleus, possibly in the Earth's atmosphere.

E). We can convert energy into matter in the laboratory.
Some of the biggest machines ever build are dedicated to high energy particle physics. This year (2008) the Large Hadron Collider at CERN is scheduled to be put into operation. It will operate in the TeV range and is expected to give us valuable information of the very early universe. When particles smash into each other at these tremendous energies, matter ensues, new particles whose properties we are curious to know. The higher the energies we can operate at, the closer we come to the conditions of the early universe. At the moment, we have knowledge of what happened back to a few milliseconds after the BB. The LHC will push the limit further back. We are not quite there, and we will never quite reach t0, but we are close, damned close.

How much closer to the ”truth” do you want to get?

PS.
1 eV (electronVolt) is the energy an electron acquires when it is accelerated across a potential difference of 1 Volt.


But you must understand that in order for all the processes above to occur, it requires a living being's interaction.
Wiking

Fathom wrote:

Yet science is planets away from explaining everything we would like to know. I'm not saying that science will not someday be able to explain some of the mysteries surrounding our existence.

We are still a babe in the cradle as far as knowledge is concerned.


Are you invoking the old "God in the Gaps" argument?
That is simply too boring.

Fathom wrote:

But you must understand that in order for all the processes above to occur, it requires a living being's interaction.


That theory was abandoned in 1827 as far as chemistry is concerned. We don't know of any living being in the vicinity of black holes or in the upper atmosphere where cosmic rays are converted to matter in the form of muon and pion particles.
Fathom

Wiking wrote:
Fathom wrote:

Yet science is planets away from explaining everything we would like to know. I'm not saying that science will not someday be able to explain some of the mysteries surrounding our existence.

We are still a babe in the cradle as far as knowledge is concerned.


Are you invoking the old "God in the Gaps" argument?
That is simply too boring.


You seem to think I am arguing on behalf of God. That is not the truth. I stated my position right at the beginning:

"I don't know."

The thing is, and the truth is, you don't know either. No one does. The argument for the existence of a superior god-like being existing in this vast universe is compelling. We are a babe in the cradle in discovering life elsewhere. No rational scientist I have ever read about denies the real possibility that intelligent life- possibly far superior to ourselves- exists in the universe.

I suppose you will now state an argument from your knowledge and say we must only go with what we know. That is ludicrous when we take history into account. Just 100 years ago people laughed at those who dared to dream of the possibilities which we learned to realize in the past 60 years.

100 years ago "we didn't know," and over time we gained the knowledge. How then can we say from our experience that "we know?" If history accounts for anything, then it must account for the fragility of our ignorance, and history itself mocks our past and present mockery.

We don't know what the future will bring to us, and if we use history as the learning curve, we then must accept our ignorance as a fact, and the reality of possibilities as also a fact.

I don't know, and I'm proud of my ignorance because I would much rather put my pride into possibilities than to place it into a proclamation of knowledge.

I am an agnostic, and that is a far more honest state of being than any religionist or atheist.

Wiking wrote:

Fathom wrote:

But you must understand that in order for all the processes above to occur, it requires a living being's interaction.


That theory was abandoned in 1827 as far as chemistry is concerned. We don't know of any living being in the vicinity of black holes or in the upper atmosphere where cosmic rays are converted to matter in the form of muon and pion particles.


The underlined and bold text is my whole point.

"We don't know."

How much more honest is that?
Mutley

roshan wrote:
Quote:
But there is no knowledge of anything physical, or any physical process having no beginning. Where do you get this "knowledge" from? It's not occam's razor because you are arbitrarily applying the quality of no beginning to this physical process. That's not occam's razor.


There is no knowledge of anything physical beginning from the metaphysical. What we know is that the physical always arises from the physical.


That's right. There is no actual knowledge of either, but you tried to approach your angle as though it is coming from knowledge, when it most certainly is not.

roshan wrote:

Quote:
It doesn't necessarily follow. You can arbitrarily explain it as having no beginning, which in of itself violates it's own rules or rules of the physical, or you can arbitrarily explain it as having a metaphysical cause. There is nothing inherent about a physical process that says it can't be started by a non physical one. We don't have evidence of this, but there is no law that says a non physical thing cannot be without beginning


Wrong. We can assign it the quality of beginning from something else that is physical which is based on our current knowledge of the physical. If this is assumed to be from a previous universe, then the conclusion of a cycle logically follows on.


Wrong, I repeat, there is no rule that says the physical cannot come from the non physical. However,there IS a rule that says that the physical must come from something, whether that be physical, or a possible non physical source. And, I see where you are going. If it's circular, then there is no beginning or end to the circle. However, all we have to ask is where the circle or circular process itself comes from, and we're right back to linearity.

roshan wrote:

Quote:
Earlier, you said physical objects must have a beginning, but that physical existence itself doe not.


What is the difference between believing it, and thinking it's a likely possibility?


Both are the same as far as I'm concerned. You didn't answer the flip flop I was pointing out. At first you said physical existence itself doesn't have to have a beginning, only physical objects do. Then, you said that physical existence itself must have a beginning, so you flip flopped.

roshan wrote:

You are missing the point. I ACCEPT that it is LIKELY that physical existence has no beginning.


And how do you calculate the likeliness? Likeliness inherently involves probability which inherently involves statistics which inherently involves a sample of a population, and the whole of the population itself. So what portion of the whole does the sample that you're using represent?

roshan wrote:

I dont BELIEVE physical existence has no beginning. My ideas are based on rational thought and are always subject to change depending on information or logical arguments. My mind is not a hostage to belief.


Neither is mine.

roshan wrote:

Quote:
And it violates the rules of the physical that we currently know.

It's the same amount of assumptions. One assumes an infinite physical process, one assumes that since it is infinite, and shouldn't violate physical laws, then we posit the assumption of a metaphysical cause. Neither of us can show an example of what we posit, so where are we at? Both are applying an equal amount of assumption.


Actually, its just one assumption: that matter used to form universes comes from previous universes. That logically leads to the conclusion of an infinite cycle.


Not necessarily. So you do have a second assumption.

roshan wrote:

On the other hand, your idea assumes the existence of the metaphysical,


And yours assumes infinite physical, which violates it's own rules.

roshan wrote:

and also that the physical can arise out of the metaphysical. Not only that, it assumes that the metaphysical is a God, and that God created the universe.


It is merely speaking of how a creator could be possible, and if said creator existed, what it must be. Other than that, I have done nothing more.

roshan wrote:

Quote:
What? Physical existence being infinite is unproven as well


I said unproven entities.


An unproven entity is an unproven concept, just like what you have.

roshan wrote:

Quote:
It does too raise more questions, like why a physical process or the physical itself, always has some sort of beginning as far as we know, then why do we suddenly apply infinity to the process with no evidence for that either?


An infinite cycle is not an assumption but a logical conclusion.


If you say that it is impossible for anything to be beyond the physical, so it is a logical conclusion that comes from an assumption that could very easily be wrong.

roshan wrote:

Your theory on the other hand raises questions such as what is god,


Not necessarily. This is why you are having such a big problem with what I posit, because you are attaching all sorts of things to it that were never said.

roshan wrote:

why did god create physical existence, and so on. It is as absurd and foolish as theorizing that Jinns made a plate fall down on the floor, when it could have been that it was not balanced properly.


I think that was a very poor comparison.


roshan wrote:

The questions raised in this case are similar: What are Jinns? Why would they make a plate fall down on the floor?

There is no sense whatsoever in attributing phenomena that can be explained naturally to metaphysical entities.


I do not believe you have sufficiently explained it naturally. I believe you have added some arbitrary assumptions, and that they are contradictory. Again, everything needs a beginning. That's the rule, but then, you make a funny little exception to this rule in order to make your idea work.


roshan wrote:

I think my aguments here have been quite clear,


Sure they've been clear. But clear and correct are sometimes not the same exact thing.


roshan wrote:

and I see no point in continuing this discussion any further.


The nose snub. Laughing  Laughing


roshan wrote:

Its descending into repetition, as you dont seem to be able to understand the logic behind the arguments I have presented (or are simply ignoring it out of Faithheadism).


That's bunk.

Oh, I understand them perfectly. I don't think you are aware of the assumption that YOU are making until someone points them out to you.

In closing, I would say you are limiting possibilities. There's an old Eastern concept which goes as follows. Are God and I one or two? And the answer is "not one, not two". And the next question is, "how is that possible?". and the answers says, the dancer and the dance, the sun and it's rays, the singer and the song, the ocean and it's wave. Not one, not two.
Wiking

Fathom wrote:
Wiking wrote:
Fathom wrote:

Yet science is planets away from explaining everything we would like to know. I'm not saying that science will not someday be able to explain some of the mysteries surrounding our existence.

We are still a babe in the cradle as far as knowledge is concerned.


Are you invoking the old "God in the Gaps" argument?
That is simply too boring.


You seem to think I am arguing on behalf of God. That is not the truth. I stated my position right at the beginning:

"I don't know."

The thing is, and the truth is, you don't know either. No one does. The argument for the existence of a superior god-like being existing in this vast universe is compelling. We are a babe in the cradle in discovering life elsewhere. No rational scientist I have ever read about denies the real possibility that intelligent life- possibly far superior to ourselves- exists in the universe.


Yes, I read what you stated, but there is a glaring discrepancy between what you state and what you argue. You are a theist.

Do you really live in the delusion that the overwhelming probability of life in the universe allows us to propose an all mighty god lurking somewhere, an undetectable god who defies all basic laws of nature? Sorry, in that case I must tell you you have all odds against you.

If the argument for a superior god is compelling, then it is easy for you. Just show us the argument.


Fathom wrote:

I suppose you will now state an argument from your knowledge


Yes, I prefer to argue from knowledge.

Fathom wrote:
and say we must only go with what we know. That is ludicrous when we take history into account. Just 100 years ago people laughed at those who dared to dream of the possibilities which we learned to realize in the past 60 years.

100 years ago "we didn't know," and over time we gained the knowledge. How then can we say from our experience that "we know?" If history accounts for anything, then it must account for the fragility of our ignorance, and history itself mocks our past and present mockery.

100 years ago people believed firmly in the hell fire and the bodily resurrection. As recently as 500 years ago people were burned as witches and the Aztecs ripped the hearts out of the body of their victims as sacrifice to their gods. Knowledge has put and end to all that.


Fathom wrote:
We don't know what the future will bring to us, and if we use history as the learning curve, we then must accept our ignorance as a fact, and the reality of possibilities as also a fact.

I don't know, and I'm proud of my ignorance because I would much rather put my pride into possibilities than to place it into a proclamation of knowledge.


Now, you make ignorance the highest of virtues and you put free rambling of the mind en par with science. Shame on you!

Fathom wrote:
I am an agnostic, and that is a far more honest state of being than any religionist or atheist.


I don't think being an agnostic is honest. Besides, you clearly is a theist.

Fathom wrote:

Wiking wrote:

Fathom wrote:

But you must understand that in order for all the processes above to occur, it requires a living being's interaction.


That theory was abandoned in 1827 as far as chemistry is concerned. We don't know of any living being in the vicinity of black holes or in the upper atmosphere where cosmic rays are converted to matter in the form of muon and pion particles.


The underlined and bold text is my whole point.

"We don't know."

How much more honest is that?


"We don't know about any living being in the vicinity of black holes" does not allow us to assume the existence of "living things converting energy into matter", just as little as the fact that I have never seen a leprechaun allows me to assume they do exist.


You seem to assume a complete symmetry between knowing and not knowing, that the fact that we don't know must lead us to the conclusion that it may exist.

This preposition is absolutely wrong, as are most of the other prepositions you argue from.

Will you now start asking me to prove the globally negative?
Fathom

Wiking wrote:
Fathom wrote:
Wiking wrote:
Fathom wrote:

Yet science is planets away from explaining everything we would like to know. I'm not saying that science will not someday be able to explain some of the mysteries surrounding our existence.

We are still a babe in the cradle as far as knowledge is concerned.


Are you invoking the old "God in the Gaps" argument?
That is simply too boring.


You seem to think I am arguing on behalf of God. That is not the truth. I stated my position right at the beginning:

"I don't know."

The thing is, and the truth is, you don't know either. No one does. The argument for the existence of a superior god-like being existing in this vast universe is compelling. We are a babe in the cradle in discovering life elsewhere. No rational scientist I have ever read about denies the real possibility that intelligent life- possibly far superior to ourselves- exists in the universe.


Yes, I read what you stated, but there is a glaring discrepancy between what you state and what you argue. You are a theist.

Do you really live in the delusion that the overwhelming probability of life in the universe allows us to propose an all mighty god lurking somewhere, an undetectable god who defies all basic laws of nature? Sorry, in that case I must tell you you have all odds against you.

If the argument for a superior god is compelling, then it is easy for you. Just show us the argument.


You have misrepresented my argument, for I did not speak of "an all mighty god" but instead spoke clearly of a "superior god-like being." To be perfectly clear, I do not believe in the god of Judaism, Christianity, nor Islam. Do not confuse what I propose to what your concept of a "god" should be, which is undoubtedly the Abrahamic god.  

What I believe is what I accept, and what I accept is the very possibility that a god-like being(s) exist in this vast universe. I have already demonstrated the argument regarding our ignorance.

Wiking wrote:

Fathom wrote:

I suppose you will now state an argument from your knowledge


Yes, I prefer to argue from knowledge.


My argument appeals to your ignorance. It is not a fallacy to state an argument on behalf of ignorance, as it is to state an argument from ignorance. I do not state an argument from a lack of knowledge, but according to my knowledge of our history.

You say you state an argument from your knowledge, and that is fine. But as you well know, in my case the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I state an argument based upon how our ignorance became knowledge over history, as new discoveries were uncovered in regards to existence, among other discoveries.

Our own history has taught us how utterly ignorant we actually are, and also how utterly foolish it is to mock the possibility of future discoveries from the current state of our knowledge. These are facts that are etched in stone, and it is upon these facts that I build my case.

Wiking wrote:

Fathom wrote:
and say we must only go with what we know. That is ludicrous when we take history into account. Just 100 years ago people laughed at those who dared to dream of the possibilities which we learned to realize in the past 60 years.

100 years ago "we didn't know," and over time we gained the knowledge. How then can we say from our experience that "we know?" If history accounts for anything, then it must account for the fragility of our ignorance, and history itself mocks our past and present mockery.


100 years ago people believed firmly in the hell fire and the bodily resurrection. As recently as 500 years ago people were burned as witches and the Aztecs ripped the hearts out of the body of their victims as sacrifice to their gods. Knowledge has put and end to all that.


What does that have to do with my argument? Absolutely nothing. If you would have read my argument correctly, you would have known what I was speaking about.

Wiking wrote:

Fathom wrote:
We don't know what the future will bring to us, and if we use history as the learning curve, we then must accept our ignorance as a fact, and the reality of possibilities as also a fact.

I don't know, and I'm proud of my ignorance because I would much rather put my pride into possibilities than to place it into a proclamation of knowledge.


Now, you make ignorance the highest of virtues and you put free rambling of the mind en par with science. Shame on you!


Acknowledgment of our ignorance is indeed the highest virtue en route to knowledge. There is absolutely no shame in professing ignorance whatsoever. The shame is upon those who profess to be all-knowing, falsely representing themselves as gods while history mocks them to shame.

Science is still in the cradle, while ignorance looms throughout the universe, and yet you say science is greater than ignorance? Has history not taught you that what we don't know greatly exceeds our knowledge? You sit upon the laurels of your knowledge and boast about the greatness of it, while mocking the yet unknown?

I admit to my ignorance because it is the truth, for it is far better to admit to my ignorance today than to boast of my knowledge, for perhaps 100 years from now the knowledge you currently hold could be proven a dead end and false, as has been proven to occur throughout history.

The current state of your knowledge is all you know, while at the same time you seem unaware of the current state of your ignorance. My, but what a boastful proclamation of knowledge you propagate, while history repeatedly demonstrates the repercussions of our ignorance.

Again, our greatest knowledge is that of acknowledging our ignorance.

Wiking wrote:

Fathom wrote:
I am an agnostic, and that is a far more honest state of being than any religionist or atheist.


I don't think being an agnostic is honest. Besides, you clearly is a theist.


You seem so certain. Look again.

Wiking wrote:

Fathom wrote:

Wiking wrote:

Fathom wrote:

But you must understand that in order for all the processes above to occur, it requires a living being's interaction.


That theory was abandoned in 1827 as far as chemistry is concerned. We don't know of any living being in the vicinity of black holes or in the upper atmosphere where cosmic rays are converted to matter in the form of muon and pion particles.


The underlined and bold text is my whole point.

"We don't know."

How much more honest is that?


"We don't know about any living being in the vicinity of black holes" does not allow us to assume the existence of "living things converting energy into matter", just as little as the fact that I have never seen a leprechaun allows me to assume they do exist.


You seem to assume a complete symmetry between knowing and not knowing, that the fact that we don't know must lead us to the conclusion that it may exist.

This preposition is absolutely wrong, as are most of the other prepositions you argue from.

Will you now start asking me to prove the globally negative?


Actually, I expound our ignorance to be far greater than our knowledge, which- as history has proven- to be the truth. It is very arrogant to boast that your knowledge is greater than your ignorance in the face of history.

My ignorance allows me to explore possibilities which currently elude the current state of our knowledge. Do we dare not to theorize?

For example, have you ever wondered why, when the average religionist is asked to point to where God is, that they point up? Do you understand that they are pointing to outer space? Have you ever thought about the origins of this characteristic? For eons, the religionists have pointed to the universe as the abode of one form of a god or another.

Why? Why do they believe that a god exists out in the universe? What did our early ancestors see that compelled them to this belief?

Can you claim you know for a certainty what the answer is? No you cannot, but you cannot deny that that characteristic exists, and that some kind of explanation existed at some point in our past history.

You don't know, but you cannot deny it exists. But what you do not realize is that they are pointing out to the universe and saying something far greater than ourselves exists out there.

Is it not possible they knew something that you don't?

I don't speak from a position of ignorance, but from a position of knowledge regarding our ignorance. My point is valid when our history provides the facts to support it.
Mutley

Re: What Is God?

Wiking wrote:

I prefer to stick to the physical model. Fantasy has given us so many false, albeit entertaining results, space warps and time travel just to name a few. The physical model is more prosaic, but it has the power to explain what we actually do observe.


You've observed something physical with no beginning?



Wiking wrote:

So, my preferred option is #3. It explains so much of what we can see and measure and is consistent with our view of the universe. #3 can exist without a God, and therefore I'm an atheist.

We have no example of a God or an example that the metaphysical exists,



And we have no example of something that is physical having no beginning. You just arbitrarily throw that into the equation to make it work.

Wiking wrote:
Quote:

and we have no example of anything physical or even physical processes themselves having no beginning. You pick one absurdity over the other.


The BB postulates and theorizes over a beginning. That beginning leads nicely up to what we can observe today. Do you find that absurd?


I find it absurd that you speak of no beginning, and yet tell us that the big bang is the beginning and leads up nicely to what we have. We're merely right back to the circle again. What caused the big bang? Nothing. Why nothing? Because that's what I felt like adding to the equation to make it work. You add that to the equation, I add or posit something beyond the physical. You seem to stop at station Y in your questioning rather than take it to Z. Consider the water fountain. Does the water come from the top or the bottom? And the answer is "neither", it's just a continuous process without end. Yeah !!! We explained it !!!!  Until someone asks where the fountain itself came from. Booo!!!!!
brainout

Consider the mathematical concept of "hupostasis".  Literally, that means "one thing standing under another", with "hupo" being the Greek word for "under", and "stasis" being shorthand for "standing".  Idiomatically it comes to mean a UNITY wherein one thing is CONTAINED within another thing, and in the idiom it comes to mean a whole reality.  You all can look up the idea in Greek philosophy and mathematics, I'm sure.

But here I want to focus on how this "hupostasis" is in fact the most prevalent relationship in reality itself.  Union of opposites, and it operates dynamically in a cycling of opposites.  This cycling of opposites leads to a stable equilibrium.

So as you all have discussed, light-matter conversions;  in math of course this is all over the place, not the least represented by the non-real numbers which are negative, infinitely regressing;  at the opposite end, real numbers which are progressing.  Now all this cycling couldn't happen without a containing stasis.

Of course, in economics equilibrium theory depends on the cycling of opposites.  In biology, you have reproduction and death-life dependencies all over the place for food, in Malthusian and other multiplication-of-populations (i.e. organisms)  theories, etc.

So in the construct you all are trying to jointly determine, I submit that you're busy looking at the "hupo" part but need instead to query the nature of the containing "stasis", to get where you want to go.  

Every attribute of the containing stasis would be the exact opposite of each attribute of the "hupo".  Else, the two antithetical natures cannot hold together.

It becomes a unified theory of everything, to discover WHY these two opposites hold together, but science will not be able to determine that without positing God.  So instead, just observe that they do hold together, for this union-of-opposites characteristic is in virtually everything in life.  High-low.  Punctiliarly so.  It's an action-reaction dynamic that holds our very cells together, holds the universe together.

Quantum mechanics versus the theory of relativity:  two opposites, two hupos, both of which are largely opposite in nature to each other, but both move:  one seemingly chaotically (QM), but the other in allegedly more orderly fashion.  

Held together by what "pants"?  Well, the "pants" have to have the opposite characteristics of either one.  So you figure out what the "opposite" characteristics would be by recourse to the characteristics you know in both QM and TR.

"By indirections, find directions out", as Shakespeare once said. (I think it was in Othello, not sure.)

So take stock of what attributes you can see and measure, and find its opposite, then list that attribute as potentially one belonging to "stasis".  Keep on listing.

Example, what we can see and measure has:  beginnings and endings, moves, occupies space (even energy occupies space, so you can tell its origin is really matter), has mass (even energy has some mass, though infinitesmal -- pure energy is theoretical), feeds on itself, hence expands and then withers/dries/crumbles (not merely entropy, but a cycle).  

So "stasis" has all the opposite characteristics, which is why the "hupo" CAN keep going on in an endless cycle.  And you can determine the characteristics of that "stasis", because you can determine what is opposite of what you can see and measure.

This "stasis" must exist.  Math principles act on everything but themselves have neither mass nor energy:  so that is our closest "empirical evidence" that there is an unseen, immaterial, immeasurable "stasis" containing everything, which itself has the attributes which are exactly the opposite of what is contained.

You can call that "stasis", "God".  Or you can give it another name, depending on where you're at on the question.  But you'd have to call it SOME KIND of "stasis" with exactly the opposite characteristics (i.e., timelessness, the opposite of time) compared to all it contains.

Ok, I've got to go back to work.  See ya when I can.  Enjoy!
Fathom

brainout wrote:
Consider the mathematical concept of "hupostasis".  Literally, that means "one thing standing under another", with "hupo" being the Greek word for "under", and "stasis" being shorthand for "standing".  Idiomatically it comes to mean a UNITY wherein one thing is CONTAINED within another thing, and in the idiom it comes to mean a whole reality.  You all can look up the idea in Greek philosophy and mathematics, I'm sure.

But here I want to focus on how this "hupostasis" is in fact the most prevalent relationship in reality itself.  Union of opposites, and it operates dynamically in a cycling of opposites.  This cycling of opposites leads to a stable equilibrium.

So as you all have discussed, light-matter conversions;  in math of course this is all over the place, not the least represented by the non-real numbers which are negative, infinitely regressing;  at the opposite end, real numbers which are progressing.  Now all this cycling couldn't happen without a containing stasis.

Of course, in economics equilibrium theory depends on the cycling of opposites.  In biology, you have reproduction and death-life dependencies all over the place for food, in Malthusian and other multiplication-of-populations (i.e. organisms)  theories, etc.

So in the construct you all are trying to jointly determine, I submit that you're busy looking at the "hupo" part but need instead to query the nature of the containing "stasis", to get where you want to go.  

Every attribute of the containing stasis would be the exact opposite of each attribute of the "hupo".  Else, the two antithetical natures cannot hold together.

It becomes a unified theory of everything, to discover WHY these two opposites hold together, but science will not be able to determine that without positing God.  So instead, just observe that they do hold together, for this union-of-opposites characteristic is in virtually everything in life.  High-low.  Punctiliarly so.  It's an action-reaction dynamic that holds our very cells together, holds the universe together.

Quantum mechanics versus the theory of relativity:  two opposites, two hupos, both of which are largely opposite in nature to each other, but both move:  one seemingly chaotically (QM), but the other in allegedly more orderly fashion.  

Held together by what "pants"?  Well, the "pants" have to have the opposite characteristics of either one.  So you figure out what the "opposite" characteristics would be by recourse to the characteristics you know in both QM and TR.

"By indirections, find directions out", as Shakespeare once said. (I think it was in Othello, not sure.)

So take stock of what attributes you can see and measure, and find its opposite, then list that attribute as potentially one belonging to "stasis".  Keep on listing.

Example, what we can see and measure has:  beginnings and endings, moves, occupies space (even energy occupies space, so you can tell its origin is really matter), has mass (even energy has some mass, though infinitesmal -- pure energy is theoretical), feeds on itself, hence expands and then withers/dries/crumbles (not merely entropy, but a cycle).  

So "stasis" has all the opposite characteristics, which is why the "hupo" CAN keep going on in an endless cycle.  And you can determine the characteristics of that "stasis", because you can determine what is opposite of what you can see and measure.

This "stasis" must exist.  Math principles act on everything but themselves have neither mass nor energy:  so that is our closest "empirical evidence" that there is an unseen, immaterial, immeasurable "stasis" containing everything, which itself has the attributes which are exactly the opposite of what is contained.

You can call that "stasis", "God".  Or you can give it another name, depending on where you're at on the question.  But you'd have to call it SOME KIND of "stasis" with exactly the opposite characteristics (i.e., timelessness, the opposite of time) compared to all it contains.

Ok, I've got to go back to work.  See ya when I can.  Enjoy!


Mathematically you can also name the stasis as "0," or from another perspective, "zero point."

Some say that zero is nothing, therefore nothing exists as zero. Yet, zero must exist for us to acknowledge it as a point. This brings back the question of whether or not "nothing" exists.
brainout

Yeppers, Fathom. Smile  And the question of Infinity as a "dot" having no dimension, too. Smile  For "if A then -A" as the equilibrium theory of everything means there is no loss of information and no waste, either. Smile
Fathom

brainout wrote:
Yeppers, Fathom. Smile  And the question of Infinity as a "dot" having no dimension, too. Smile  For "if A then -A" as the equilibrium theory of everything means there is no loss of information and no waste, either. Smile


Then "zero point" would would be a stasis of perfection. It is the only point which cannot be divided, multiplied, subtracted, or added to to affect any change.

0 X 0 = 0
0 + 0 = 0
0 / 0 = 0
0 - 0 = 0

Compared to ...

1 X 1 = 1
1 + 1 = 2
1 / 1 = 1
1 - 1 = 0

Zero point is the only thing that is consistently constant and cannot change.
brainout

Golly, you're fast, Fathom Smile  And when I turn your avatar sideways, I get two joined zeros, HYPOSTATIC symbol of infinity. Smile
All_Brains

I am glad you guys are on the right track and have successfully managed to find out how many God(s) really exist!

0
All_Brains

Fathom wrote:
brainout wrote:
Yeppers, Fathom. Smile  And the question of Infinity as a "dot" having no dimension, too. Smile  For "if A then -A" as the equilibrium theory of everything means there is no loss of information and no waste, either. Smile


Then "zero point" would would be a stasis of perfection. It is the only point which cannot be divided, multiplied, subtracted, or added to to affect any change.

0 X 0 = 0
0 + 0 = 0
0 / 0 = 0
0 - 0 = 0

Compared to ...

1 X 1 = 1
1 + 1 = 2
1 / 1 = 1
1 - 1 = 0

Zero point is the only thing that is consistently constant and cannot change.



How about

0 + (-1) = (-1)?????

I suggest you guys have a read : ZERO
Mutley

Zero is an useful mental invention that actually does not exist. It's simply an idea.
All_Brains

Mutley wrote:
Zero is an useful mental invention that actually does not exist. It's simply an idea.


From mathematical and algebraic point of view it's a great human invention and has proved very useful throughout the years, unlike our other invention: GOD.
All_Brains

All_Brains wrote:
Mutley wrote:
Zero is an useful mental invention that actually does not exist. It's simply an idea.


From mathematical and algebraic point of view it's a great human invention and has proved very useful throughout the years, unlike our other invention: GOD.


p.s: Being in the IT business, I am sure you know how important is the zero in Binary.
brainout

Yeah, All-Brains and Mutley, Zero means that there is something BEYOND what you can see and measure, that's why.  Wow, you both really walked into THAT one!  LOL!

Thanks, Fathom!  You're fast!
All_Brains

brainout wrote:
Yeah, All-Brains and Mutley, Zero means that there is something BEYOND what you can see and measure, that's why.  Wow, you both really walked into THAT one!  LOL!

Thanks, Fathom!  You're fast!


How is the zero beyond what we can see??? We invented it!!!
Mutley

All_Brains wrote:
Mutley wrote:
Zero is an useful mental invention that actually does not exist. It's simply an idea.


From mathematical and algebraic point of view it's a great human invention and has proved very useful throughout the years, unlike our other invention: GOD.


I'll agree with the usefulness.
Mutley

All_Brains wrote:
All_Brains wrote:
Mutley wrote:
Zero is an useful mental invention that actually does not exist. It's simply an idea.


From mathematical and algebraic point of view it's a great human invention and has proved very useful throughout the years, unlike our other invention: GOD.


p.s: Being in the IT business, I am sure you know how important is the zero in Binary.


Zero isn't "Nothing" in binary. It's merely the state of an electronic gate being open, and thereby allowing electricity to flow through it, or being closed. Closed is zero, open is one. Just merely terms for alternating states of something that exists, which is the electronic gate itself. It could just as easily be 1 for closed and 2 for open, or "true" and "false".
All_Brains

Mutley wrote:
All_Brains wrote:
All_Brains wrote:
Mutley wrote:
Zero is an useful mental invention that actually does not exist. It's simply an idea.


From mathematical and algebraic point of view it's a great human invention and has proved very useful throughout the years, unlike our other invention: GOD.


p.s: Being in the IT business, I am sure you know how important is the zero in Binary.


Zero isn't "Nothing" in binary. It's merely the state of an electronic gate being open, and thereby allowing electricity to flow through it, or being closed. Closed is zero, open is one. Just merely terms for alternating states of something that exists, which is the electronic gate itself. It could just as easily be 1 for closed and 2 for open.


Thanks for the info....you live and learn! Smile
Mutley

Well, kind of a minor detail that actually doesn't effect your larger point that much.
Mutley

All_Brains wrote:


Thanks for the info....you live and learn! Smile


Being part Egyptian, you may find it interesting to know that all pf the wonders of the computer come down to nothing more than sophisticated uses of nothing more than the ancient Egyptian Abacus suped up with electricity. That's the entire basis for power of 2 math, which is the entire basis of the computer.
All_Brains

Mutley wrote:
All_Brains wrote:


Thanks for the info....you live and learn! Smile


Being part Egyptian, you may find it interesting to know that all pf the wonders of the computer come down to nothing more than sophisticated uses of nothing more than the ancient Egyptian Abacus suped up with electricity. That's the entire basis for power of 2 math, which is the entire basis of the computer.


I know! We once had a great thing going for Egypt, until those tent dwellers invaded my homeland and condemned people back to the stone age! Sad

I wonder of the amount of contribution to humanity would civilizations like Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Syria & Lebanon have added.
Fathom

All_Brains wrote:
Fathom wrote:
brainout wrote:
Yeppers, Fathom. Smile  And the question of Infinity as a "dot" having no dimension, too. Smile  For "if A then -A" as the equilibrium theory of everything means there is no loss of information and no waste, either. Smile


Then "zero point" would would be a stasis of perfection. It is the only point which cannot be divided, multiplied, subtracted, and added to to affect any change.

0 X 0 = 0
0 + 0 = 0
0 / 0 = 0
0 - 0 = 0

Compared to ...

1 X 1 = 1
1 + 1 = 2
1 / 1 = 1
1 - 1 = 0

Zero point is the only thing that is consistently constant and cannot change.



How about

0 + (-1) = (-1)?????

I suggest you guys have a read : ZERO


I'm sure you understood that I was speaking of 0 as not effecting any change when it is added to, subtracted from, multiplied by, and/or divided by itself.

Unlike all other mathematical symbols.
Fathom

All_Brains wrote:
brainout wrote:
Yeah, All-Brains and Mutley, Zero means that there is something BEYOND what you can see and measure, that's why.  Wow, you both really walked into THAT one!  LOL!

Thanks, Fathom!  You're fast!


How is the zero beyond what we can see??? We invented it!!!


Did we?

If nothing existed in a specific place at a specific point in time before the existence of mankind, was zero then not represented?

Or, does zero only exist because we acknowledge it?

Which is true?
All_Brains

Fathom wrote:

I'm sure you understood that I was speaking of 0 as not effecting any change when it is added to, subtracted from, multiplied by, and/or divided by itself.

Unlike all other mathematical symbols.


Sure I understood that way but wanted to show brainout the other possibilities of the zero since he may have been thinking that he found God or the infinite truth through the magical ZERO!
All_Brains

Fathom wrote:
All_Brains wrote:
brainout wrote:
Yeah, All-Brains and Mutley, Zero means that there is something BEYOND what you can see and measure, that's why.  Wow, you both really walked into THAT one!  LOL!

Thanks, Fathom!  You're fast!


How is the zero beyond what we can see??? We invented it!!!


Did we?

If nothing existed in a specific place at a specific point in time before the existence of mankind, was zero then not represented?

Or, does zero only exist because we acknowledge it?

Which is true?


Yes, we did.

And it was not from the moment we invented the zero, but from the moment that we perceived the existence of nothingness.
Mutley

Fathom wrote:
All_Brains wrote:
brainout wrote:
Yeah, All-Brains and Mutley, Zero means that there is something BEYOND what you can see and measure, that's why.  Wow, you both really walked into THAT one!  LOL!

Thanks, Fathom!  You're fast!


How is the zero beyond what we can see??? We invented it!!!


Did we?

If nothing existed in a specific place at a specific point in time before the existence of mankind, was zero then not represented?


Or, does zero only exist because we acknowledge it?

Which is true?


Zero is an invented mental concept used to represent a complete lack of something. It doesn't necessarily, exactly mean nothing, it means a lack of something. Zero birds. Zero trees. It's always zero something. It was probably first thought of when someone had two apples, then ate one and had one left, then ate that one, so we created a concept for representing that we have no apples left when the neighbor asks to borrow one.
brainout

No, All-Brains, you don't understand what I meant but Fathom did. It's not magical, it's a principle of truth, of equilibrium.  Of balancing.  Of zeroing out, bringing home, uniting both ends of a spectrum, of Daniel 9:24 and Ephesians 1:23.  Fathom "gets" all that.  It would take longer to explain it to you.

Truth has properties, which "zero" evidences.  So I'm not explaining further, since Fathom already has begun to see it.  I myself didn't see it until answering kafir forever in here the other day, with the "If A, then -A" Hupostasis postulate (of Divine Decree).
Fathom

All_Brains wrote:
Fathom wrote:
All_Brains wrote:
brainout wrote:
Yeah, All-Brains and Mutley, Zero means that there is something BEYOND what you can see and measure, that's why.  Wow, you both really walked into THAT one!  LOL!

Thanks, Fathom!  You're fast!


How is the zero beyond what we can see??? We invented it!!!


Did we?

If nothing existed in a specific place at a specific point in time before the existence of mankind, was zero then not represented?

Or, does zero only exist because we acknowledge it?

Which is true?


Yes, we did.

And it was not from the moment we invented the zero, but from the moment that we perceived the existence of nothingness.


What you are telling me is that the concept of nothing did not exist until mankind discovered it. But what of animals which existed before mankind who, while tracking their prey, lose sight of it and observe nothing there to attack?

I'm sorry, but it is impossible for me to logically believe that mankind conceptualized nothingness. When something is not evident, then it is not evident to everything.
Fathom

Mutley wrote:
Fathom wrote:
All_Brains wrote:
brainout wrote:
Yeah, All-Brains and Mutley, Zero means that there is something BEYOND what you can see and measure, that's why.  Wow, you both really walked into THAT one!  LOL!

Thanks, Fathom!  You're fast!


How is the zero beyond what we can see??? We invented it!!!


Did we?

If nothing existed in a specific place at a specific point in time before the existence of mankind, was zero then not represented?


Or, does zero only exist because we acknowledge it?

Which is true?


Zero is an invented mental concept used to represent a complete lack of something. It doesn't necessarily, exactly mean nothing, it means a lack of something. Zero birds. Zero trees. It's always zero something. It was probably first thought of when someone had two apples, then ate one and had one left, then ate that one, so we created a concept for representing that we have no apples left when the neighbor asks to borrow one.


I can appreciate mankind's invention of "0" to represent "nothingness,' but I cannot accept that it was mankind who first realized that nothing existed. What of the early primate who, after eating all his bananas, discovered there is nothing left to eat?

Logically, the assertion is eliminated.
Mutley

Fathom wrote:
Mutley wrote:
Fathom wrote:
All_Brains wrote:
brainout wrote:
Yeah, All-Brains and Mutley, Zero means that there is something BEYOND what you can see and measure, that's why.  Wow, you both really walked into THAT one!  LOL!

Thanks, Fathom!  You're fast!


How is the zero beyond what we can see??? We invented it!!!


Did we?

If nothing existed in a specific place at a specific point in time before the existence of mankind, was zero then not represented?


Or, does zero only exist because we acknowledge it?

Which is true?


Zero is an invented mental concept used to represent a complete lack of something. It doesn't necessarily, exactly mean nothing, it means a lack of something. Zero birds. Zero trees. It's always zero something. It was probably first thought of when someone had two apples, then ate one and had one left, then ate that one, so we created a concept for representing that we have no apples left when the neighbor asks to borrow one.


I can appreciate mankind's invention of "0" to represent "nothingness,' but I cannot accept that it was mankind who first realized that nothing existed.

Logically, the assertion is eliminated.


"Nothing" does not exist. It's not an actual thing, it's a mental construct used to represent the lack of something. At most, we can say that it is referring to a state.

Fathom wrote:

What of the early primate who, after eating all his bananas, discovered there is nothing left to eat?


I don't think the primate came up with a concept of "nothing" or zero, it just knew it didn't have any more bananas. And, like I said, the concept of zero always refers to something. Zero bananas. But notice, it's never zero nothings
brainout

Fathom wrote:
I'm sorry, but it is impossible for me to logically believe that mankind conceptualized nothingness. When something is not evident, then it is not evident to everything.


Nice choice of words, Fathom.  Very precise.
Fathom

Mutley wrote:
"Nothing" does not exist. It's not an actual thing, it's a mental construct used to represent the lack of something. At most, we can say that it is referring to a state.


A state of what? Being? Existence?

If you can claim that "nothing" exists as "an actual thing," despite having no evidence to support its existence, how then can you claim that a God could not exist when the circumstances regarding its evidence are exactly the same as "nothing?"

How can you be so certain that "nothing" can exist, yet claim God cannot?

Mutley wrote:

Fathom wrote:

What of the early primate who, after eating all his bananas, discovered there is nothing left to eat?


I don't think the primate came up with a concept of "nothing" or zero, it just knew it didn't have any more bananas. And, like I said, the concept of zero always refers to something. Zero bananas. But notice, it's never zero nothings


The postulation that the primate has no bananas is no different than if you yourself had no bananas; both of you have nothing, and both of you know it.

Just because we can write a symbol of "0" on a piece of paper does not mean we have defined the existence of nothing any more than the primate. At the end of the day, both you and the primate have no bananas, and both of you are aware of this "nothing" in your hands.

What you seem to be suggesting is that a construct of what is obvious somehow denoted a greater awareness. I put it to you that a hungry primate is every bit as aware of not having any bananas as you would be.

If "nothing" can exist without evidence, then how can you claim that a God cannot exist without evidence?

This appears contradictory in logic.
All_Brains

brainout wrote:
No, All-Brains, you don't understand what I meant but Fathom did. It's not magical, it's a principle of truth, of equilibrium.  Of balancing.  Of zeroing out, bringing home, uniting both ends of a spectrum, of Daniel 9:24 and Ephesians 1:23.  Fathom "gets" all that.  It would take longer to explain it to you.

Truth has properties, which "zero" evidences.  So I'm not explaining further, since Fathom already has begun to see it.  I myself didn't see it until answering kafir forever in here the other day, with the "If A, then -A" Hupostasis postulate (of Divine Decree).


Oh believe me, I do understand it! I just don't accept it.
All_Brains

Fathom wrote:
All_Brains wrote:
Fathom wrote:
All_Brains wrote:
brainout wrote:
Yeah, All-Brains and Mutley, Zero means that there is something BEYOND what you can see and measure, that's why.  Wow, you both really walked into THAT one!  LOL!

Thanks, Fathom!  You're fast!


How is the zero beyond what we can see??? We invented it!!!


Did we?

If nothing existed in a specific place at a specific point in time before the existence of mankind, was zero then not represented?

Or, does zero only exist because we acknowledge it?

Which is true?


Yes, we did.

And it was not from the moment we invented the zero, but from the moment that we perceived the existence of nothingness.


What you are telling me is that the concept of nothing did not exist until mankind discovered it. But what of animals which existed before mankind who, while tracking their prey, lose sight of it and observe nothing there to attack?

I'm sorry, but it is impossible for me to logically believe that mankind conceptualized nothingness. When something is not evident, then it is not evident to everything.


HI Fathom

I am sure many animals saw falling apples and all sort of fruit from trees, yet none of them came up with the concept of gravity!

My example very much resembles the tree that fell and there was no one around to hear it....The sound still indeed exists, but is irrelevant! At least to us humans, who are heavily involved in this discussion.

For if the human race did not exist, such reflection of ideas on world events would too cease to exist!

Just like God needed humans to exist, nothingness has become something through this very conversation.

I hope you get what I am trying to say.
Fathom

All_Brains wrote:
brainout wrote:
No, All-Brains, you don't understand what I meant but Fathom did. It's not magical, it's a principle of truth, of equilibrium.  Of balancing.  Of zeroing out, bringing home, uniting both ends of a spectrum, of Daniel 9:24 and Ephesians 1:23.  Fathom "gets" all that.  It would take longer to explain it to you.

Truth has properties, which "zero" evidences.  So I'm not explaining further, since Fathom already has begun to see it.  I myself didn't see it until answering kafir forever in here the other day, with the "If A, then -A" Hupostasis postulate (of Divine Decree).


Oh believe me, I do understand it! I just don't accept it.


But that's just cool. When we speak of concepts they most certainly belong in the realm of belief/disbelief since not enough evidence exists either way to prove them.

But where would we be today if scientists did not conceptualize and believe in the outcome of their work? And how many scientific theories fell to the wayside due to a lack of evidence to support them, or due to hitting a brick wall with them?

No matter how you look at it, faith exists even for the scientific atheist. If scientists simply didn't believe in the end result of their work, what motivates them to continue?

Faith does not only exist in the mind of the beholder, because in one way or another, it exists in us all in one form or another.
All_Brains

Fathom wrote:
All_Brains wrote:
brainout wrote:
No, All-Brains, you don't understand what I meant but Fathom did. It's not magical, it's a principle of truth, of equilibrium.  Of balancing.  Of zeroing out, bringing home, uniting both ends of a spectrum, of Daniel 9:24 and Ephesians 1:23.  Fathom "gets" all that.  It would take longer to explain it to you.

Truth has properties, which "zero" evidences.  So I'm not explaining further, since Fathom already has begun to see it.  I myself didn't see it until answering kafir forever in here the other day, with the "If A, then -A" Hupostasis postulate (of Divine Decree).


Oh believe me, I do understand it! I just don't accept it.


But that's just cool. When we speak of concepts they most certainly belong in the realm of belief/disbelief since not enough evidence exists either way to prove them.

But where would we be today if scientists did not conceptualize and believe in the outcome of their work? And how many scientific theories fell to the wayside due to a lack of evidence to support them, or due to hitting a brick wall with them?

No matter how you look at it, faith exists even for the scientific atheist. If scientists simply didn't believe in the end result of their work, what motivates them to continue?

Faith does not only exist in the mind of the beholder, because in one way or another, it exists in us all in one form or another.


Reasonable! Well-put and agreed! Smile
Fathom

All_Brains wrote:
Fathom wrote:
All_Brains wrote:
Fathom wrote:
All_Brains wrote:
brainout wrote:
Yeah, All-Brains and Mutley, Zero means that there is something BEYOND what you can see and measure, that's why.  Wow, you both really walked into THAT one!  LOL!

Thanks, Fathom!  You're fast!


How is the zero beyond what we can see??? We invented it!!!


Did we?

If nothing existed in a specific place at a specific point in time before the existence of mankind, was zero then not represented?

Or, does zero only exist because we acknowledge it?

Which is true?


Yes, we did.

And it was not from the moment we invented the zero, but from the moment that we perceived the existence of nothingness.


What you are telling me is that the concept of nothing did not exist until mankind discovered it. But what of animals which existed before mankind who, while tracking their prey, lose sight of it and observe nothing there to attack?

I'm sorry, but it is impossible for me to logically believe that mankind conceptualized nothingness. When something is not evident, then it is not evident to everything.


HI Fathom

I am sure many animals saw falling apples and all sort of fruit from trees, yet none of them came up with the concept of gravity!


Do you say this because the animals never wrote it down on a term paper or something? I assure you animals know and understand basic gravity just as surely as we do, for if they did not then why would the mountain lion, for example, hesitate and re-consider jumping the 38 feet from the boulder to the ground below?

It's because he knows and understands the result. It's a basic understanding to all living things. They may not vocalize or illustrate an understanding of gravity, but for a certainty they are fully aware it exists.

All_Brains wrote:


My example very much resembles the tree that fell and there was no one around to hear it....The sound still indeed exists, but is irrelevant! At least to us humans, who are heavily involved in this discussion.

For if the human race did not exist, such reflection of ideas on world events would too cease to exist!

Just like God needed humans to exist, nothingness has become something through this very conversation.

I hope you get what I am trying to say.


I understand your meaning, but my point is that mankind does not have a lock on understanding the nature of things. Since we do not have the ability to effectively communicate with animals, we have no way of knowing for certain just what kind of intellectual capabilities they actually have in terms of understanding the nature of things.

The thing that does indeed make mankind unique over other living creatures is our ability to be creative through imagination. With this understanding, a case could be made that any god is a created construct of human imagination, since we find little or no evidence of any other living creature demonstrating a belief in any god.
kafir forever

Fathom wrote:
The thing that does indeed make mankind unique over other living creatures is our ability to be creative through imagination. With this understanding, a case could be made that any god is a created construct of human imagination, since we find little or no evidence of any other living creature demonstrating a belief in any god.


Interesting point, there, Fathom.  I have always held the position that god is a figment of Man's imagination, but I never saw in in those terms before.  Surprised
Mutley

Fathom wrote:
Mutley wrote:
"Nothing" does not exist. It's not an actual thing, it's a mental construct used to represent the lack of something. At most, we can say that it is referring to a state.


A state of what? Being? Existence?


No. A state of non existence.

Fathom wrote:

If you can claim that "nothing" exists as "an actual thing," despite having no evidence to support its existence, how then can you claim that a God could not exist when the circumstances regarding its evidence are exactly the same as "nothing?"

How can you be so certain that "nothing" can exist, yet claim God cannot?


You clearly did not understand my post.

Mutley wrote:

Fathom wrote:

What of the early primate who, after eating all his bananas, discovered there is nothing left to eat?


I don't think the primate came up with a concept of "nothing" or zero, it just knew it didn't have any more bananas. And, like I said, the concept of zero always refers to something. Zero bananas. But notice, it's never zero nothings


The postulation that the primate has no bananas is no different than if you yourself had no bananas; both of you have nothing, and both of you know it.

Just because we can write a symbol of "0" on a piece of paper does not mean we have defined the existence of nothing any more than the primate. At the end of the day, both you and the primate have no bananas, and both of you are aware of this "nothing" in your hands.[/quote]

Well then it's a mental construct that the primate is capable of inventing as well. But it's still a mental concept.

Fathom wrote:

What you seem to be suggesting is that a construct of what is obvious somehow denoted a greater awareness. I put it to you that a hungry primate is every bit as aware of not having any bananas as you would be.


Well then it's a mental construct that the primate is capable of inventing as well. But it's still a mental concept.

Fathom wrote:

If "nothing" can exist without evidence, then how can you claim that a God cannot exist without evidence?


Who says nothing can exist without evidence? I called "nothing" a concept
Fathom

Mutley wrote:
Fathom wrote:
Mutley wrote:
"Nothing" does not exist. It's not an actual thing, it's a mental construct used to represent the lack of something. At most, we can say that it is referring to a state.


A state of what? Being? Existence?


No. A state of non existence.

Fathom wrote:

If you can claim that "nothing" exists as "an actual thing," despite having no evidence to support its existence, how then can you claim that a God could not exist when the circumstances regarding its evidence are exactly the same as "nothing?"

How can you be so certain that "nothing" can exist, yet claim God cannot?


You clearly did not understand my post.


Agreed. I misread your post. Disregard my argument.  

Mutley wrote:
Fathom wrote:
Mutley wrote:
Fathom wrote:

What of the early primate who, after eating all his bananas, discovered there is nothing left to eat?


I don't think the primate came up with a concept of "nothing" or zero, it just knew it didn't have any more bananas. And, like I said, the concept of zero always refers to something. Zero bananas. But notice, it's never zero nothings


The postulation that the primate has no bananas is no different than if you yourself had no bananas; both of you have nothing, and both of you know it.

Just because we can write a symbol of "0" on a piece of paper does not mean we have defined the existence of nothing any more than the primate. At the end of the day, both you and the primate have no bananas, and both of you are aware of this "nothing" in your hands.


Well then it's a mental construct that the primate is capable of inventing as well. But it's still a mental concept.


Agreed, it is a mental concept. But the concept itself represents nothingness, which is something which is basic to the senses of all living creatures. Because of this, I do not place much import on the concept as showing mankind having any greater knowledge of nothingness than the primate.

Mutley wrote:
Fathom wrote:

What you seem to be suggesting is that a construct of what is obvious somehow denoted a greater awareness. I put it to you that a hungry primate is every bit as aware of not having any bananas as you would be.


Well then it's a mental construct that the primate is capable of inventing as well. But it's still a mental concept.


Same answer as I posted above.

Mutley wrote:
Fathom wrote:

If "nothing" can exist without evidence, then how can you claim that a God cannot exist without evidence?


Who says nothing can exist without evidence? I called "nothing" a concept


If you can put a name to anything, it exists, even if it's just a concept.

But we are not addressing the bigger question here:

"What is reality?"
Mutley

Fathom wrote:


If you can put a name to anything, it exists, even if it's just a concept.


Except, in the case pf "nothing". That's the only exception, because it refers to a state of non existence, and therefore does not exist.

Fathom wrote:

But we are not addressing the bigger question here:

"What is reality?"


What ever is beyond the concepts that we use to cut up reality, and the labels that we apply to the parts.

Quote:

A second quality of a concept is that it is static whereas reality is in flux. We use the same name for Niagara Falls, but that body of water is constantly changing. You've got the word "river," but the water there is constantly flowing. You've got one word for your "body," but the cells in your body are constantly being renewed. Let's suppose, for example, there is an enormous wind outside and I want the people in my country to get an idea of what an American gale or hurricane is like. So I capture it in a cigar box and I go back home and say, "Look at this." Naturally, it isn't a gale anymore, is it? Once it's captured. Or if I want you to get the feel of what the flow of a river is like and I bring it to you in a bucket. The moment I put into a bucket it has stopped flowing. The moment you put things into a concept, they stop flowing; they become static, dead. A frozen wave is not a wave. A wave is essentially movement, action; when you freeze it, it is not a wave. Concepts are always frozen. Reality flows. Finally, if we are to believe the mystics (and it doesn't take too much of an effort to understand this, or even believe it, but no one can see it at once), reality is whole, but words and concepts fragment reality. That is why it is so difficult to translate from one language to another, because each language cuts reality up differently. The English word "home" is impossible to translate into French or Spanish. "Casa" is not quite "home"; "home" has associations that are peculiar to the English language. Every language has untranslatable words and expressions, because we're cutting reality up and adding something or subtracting something and usage keeps changing. Reality is a whole and we cut it up to make concepts and we use words to indicate different parts. If you had never seen an animal in your life, for example, and one day you found a tail -- just a tail -- and somebody told you, "That's a tail," would you have any idea of what it was if you had no idea what an animal was?

Ideas actually fragment the vision, intuition, or experience of reality as a whole. This is what the mystics are perpetually telling us. Words cannot give you reality. They only point, they only indicate. You use them as pointers to get to reality. But once you get there, your concepts are useless. A Hindu priest once had a dispute with a philosopher who claimed that the final barrier to God was the word "God," the concept of God. The priest was quite shocked by this, but the philosopher said, "The ass that you mount and that you use to travel to a house is not the means by which you enter the house. You use the concept to get there; then you dismount, you go beyond it." You don't need to be a mystic to understand that reality is something that cannot be captured by words or concepts. To know reality you have to know beyond knowing.
Fathom

Mutley wrote:
Fathom wrote:


If you can put a name to anything, it exists, even if it's just a concept.


Except, in the case pf "nothing". That's the only exception, because it refers to a state of non existence, and therefore does not exist.


Cogito, ergo sum.

Are the thoughts and images in our minds not real?
Mutley

Fathom wrote:
Mutley wrote:
Fathom wrote:


If you can put a name to anything, it exists, even if it's just a concept.


Except, in the case pf "nothing". That's the only exception, because it refers to a state of non existence, and therefore does not exist.


Cogito, ergo sum.

Are the thoughts and images in our minds not real?


Wow. Great question. I'm getting interested. Actually, your thoughts and images is all that can ever be real for you, (or in fact, me too, for myself). For YOU, there can't be a world outside of your perception of that world, or more plainly put, your idea for that world. Because, ultimately, the stimulus means little until one interprets it, and so therefore, along those lines, one is creating their own reality via their reaction to the stimulus and therefore reality is created by the individual. But in my opinion, some eastern thought goes too far when it suggests that your own consciousness creates "ultimate", "objective" reality, because what they are saying is that not only do you create the reaction to the stimulus, which is what our lives come down to, IMHO, but they go further to say that you create the stimulus itself. And that's where I bail.

I do believe the tree made a sound whether anybody heard it or not, because I distance reality from my perception of it. And there's a very important reason why. Because if one wants to see reality, one has to remove themselves (self interest) from the perception, which means that one can not take past perceptions and drag them in to the current observation. Therefore, one no longer considers good and bad in terms of good for me or bad for me, but instead, leaves their own personal issues out of the equation. Is a snake good or bad? Well, I suppose it's good when it helps with a rat infestation, and bad when it bites your leg. But is it ever really either? Of course not. It's a snake. It does what it does. It can't be imperfect in it's actions because it can only do what it does. It's actually perfect. It's completely in line with what it should be doing. This is why animals can't sin. They can't be imperfect, in terms of conduct judgment.

It's kind of like the interesting concept that says that sin was created when Adam and Eve understood what it was. The understanding of the concept itself, suddenly created the sin. That's why animals can't sin, because they don't understand the concept. So maybe paradise was before they understood "self judgment" and judgment of their situation (embarrassment about nudity, for example), which seems to be described in Genesis
Mutley

Actually, in extension to that, it seems like the ability to judge one's self, would possibly be a sort of God like quality, as per the OT, because now there was a mental observer, and a mental observed. Therefore, one could judge themselves, and this ability led to supposed God like attributes.

Quote:

I suggest another exercise now. Would you write down on a piece of paper any brief way you would describe yourself -- for example, businessman, priest, human being, Catholic, Jew, anything.

Some write, I notice, things like, fruitful, searching pilgrim, competent, alive, impatient, centered, flexible, reconciler, lover, member of the human race, overly structured. This is the fruit, I trust, of observing yourself. As if you were watching another person.

But notice, you've got "I" observing "me." This is an interesting phenomenon that has never ceased to cause wonder to philosophers, mystics, scientists, psychologists, that the "I" can observe "me." It would seem that animals are not able to do this at all. It would seem that one needs a certain amount of intelligence to be able to do this.

       FREE FAITH, EXPRESSION AND THOUGHT Forum Index -> God Page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum
Home|Home|Home|Home|HomeHome|Home|Home|Home|Home