Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If creaton were not occurring you might have a point . . . but it is . . .unless you insist that mind always existed (then we agree and that would be God). But if you assert mindlessness . . you must account for mind. The same is true for life/non-life. Your excursions into the netherworld of the unobservable seems only to fit your unfounded beliefs rather than objective science. And if pink unicorns are possible . . . blah, blah, blah . . . get a life Konraden.
You dodge the question and resorted to ad hominem attacks.
I asked you if it is possible for there to be non-existence.
I didn't ask about the existence of the mind (which you need to define) nor life, but existence. Is it possible for there to be not-existence?
If that is not possible, than there is no need for creation. Everything is merely a change from one state to another.
If it is possible, you have the problem of explaining why it's possible for your God, or your God's creator ad infinitum, to exist eternally, while the universe cannot.
Quote:
I thought you science-only types dealt only with observables.BS . . . more appeals ad populum.
Definitions of words are based on common agreement, genius.
Quote:
ALL we have is everything that exists and those parts of it we can measure and observe (not ALL is measurable). . . that requires a source that seems unobservable except for these effects we observe.
Why does existence require a source? You'll find this directly relates to the first question I posed.
Quote:
The ONLY phenomenon like that in existence is our consciousness. You refuse to acknowledge that as a scientific basis for imputing the same type of source for all that we observe . . . despite all the theoretical science that points to the existence of this universal field.
Define universal field.
Quote:
You prefer your imaginary friends hypothesis or no hypothesis ("Nature"). There you go again . . . into the future unknown and unobservable. Are you disputing that evolution produced consciousness or did it always exist?
Consciousness came about through the process of evolution, but how is it possible for you claim that is an end goal?
Quote:
Do you have any basis to hypothesize any other "end" result?
Evolution is an ongoing process--you have no basis to hypothesize any end.
Quote:
Disingenuous pretention to ignorance. You repeatedly use "natural" processes as your explanatory device for all such phenomena . . so you know precisely to what I refer.
Nope. You refuse to use common definitions in the past--why should I accept what I use as yours?
Quote:
Wrong . . . more of your attempting to establish artificial distinctions among the unobservable source (God v. "Nature") without ANY scientific basis whatsoever.
That's why we establish concepts to distinguish and measure differences.
Quote:
Consciousness is the unobservable source of all the many observable (and different) "effects" of it . . . like these discussions on this forum.
Conciousness is an abstraction--but that isn't germane to the topic of "the universe coming from nothing." Your flame analogy is brilliant, and dismantles your argument that consciousness exists elsewhere rather effectively.
Quote:
Stop pretending not to understand the obvious, Konraden.I have done so . . . you have NOT done the same for your "Nature." Your pitiable reliance on semantic argument ad populum lacks intellectual integrity.
Oh the irony. Semantics is the only argument you have. We define words as a people in order to effectively communicate ideas. Communication requires ad populum agreement! Your steadfast refusal to accept that leads us to here.
You dodge the question and resorted to ad hominem attacks.
I didn't dodge your hypothetical and you need to re-acquaint yourself with what actually is an ad hominem.
Quote:
I asked you if it is possible for there to be non-existence.
I didn't ask about the existence of the mind (which you need to define) nor life, but existence. Is it possible for there to be not-existence?.
Well . . . since neither you nor I existed 200 years ago . . . I would be tempted to say yes . . . based on that observational evidence. You inability to know what mind is seems to suggest the lack of one in your case . . . but I know better . . . so it has to be a ploy or dodge of some sort. Besides . . . you have yet to establish a scientifically valid point to these hypotheticals.
Quote:
If that is not possible, than there is no need for creation. Everything is merely a change from one state to another.
Change of what from what . . for something to change it must EXIST . . . did Mind always exist? . . . did Life always EXIST. If so your change hypothesis might make sense. Otherwise CREATION is involved.
Quote:
If it is possible, you have the problem of explaining why it's possible for your God, or your God's creator ad infinitum, to exist eternally, while the universe cannot.
No more so than the requirement re: your God ("Nature"). You and I both know the prevailing scientific opinion is that the universe had a beginning . . . that means it was created. Whatever the reality is re: your inane hypotheticals . . . its existence must be accounted for as an observable.
Quote:
Definitions of words are based on common agreement, genius.
Right . . . like "Flat Earth."
Quote:
Why does existence require a source? You'll find this directly relates to the first question I posed.
See above.
Quote:
Define universal field.
Ask Daddy to educate you.
Quote:
Consciousness came about through the process of evolution, but how is it possible for you claim that is an end goal?
Because it is an unknown future and the current reality is all we have. Is there some other pinnacle of evolution around?
Quote:
Evolution is an ongoing process--you have no basis to hypothesize any end.
Agreed. But the changes need only be a superior consciousness . . . ours is rather limited . . . not some as yet unknowable hypothetical.
Quote:
Nope. You refuse to use common definitions in the past--why should I accept what I use as yours?
Because i specifically pointed to them as common between us.
Quote:
That's why we establish concepts to distinguish and measure differences.
But we have a basis for doing so . . . not just arbitrarily as you have done.
Quote:
Conciousness is an abstraction
Neither you nor I are abstractions . . . what a pitiable denial of existence.
Quote:
--but that isn't germane to the topic of "the universe coming from nothing." Your flame analogy is brilliant, and dismantles your argument that consciousness exists elsewhere rather effectively.
How so? Our production merely adds to the existing consciousness as it emanates from our brain into the universe at large . . . just as the "flames" do or the TV broadcasts that ET's may be watching as we speak.
Quote:
Oh the irony. Semantics is the only argument you have. We define words as a people in order to effectively communicate ideas. Communication requires ad populum agreement! Your steadfast refusal to accept that leads us to here.
Wrong . . . yours is the semantics argument . . . mine is based on a scientifically plausible basis for the existence of the universal field that defines our reality using known phenomena as the proof of concept.
It's amazing how your argument has changed now that you are on the defensive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
I didn't dodge your hypothetical and you need to re-acquaint yourself with what actually is an ad hominem.
"blah, blah, blah . . . get a life Konraden."
That is an ad hom. against me.
Well . . . since neither you nor I existed 200 years ago . . . I would be tempted to say yes . . . based on that observational evidence.[/quote]
I'm not referring to humans, life, or any of that--I'm referring directly to the "stuff" that makes up everything--matter and energy, or if you want to go further, quarks.
Is it possible for that "stuff" to not-exist.
Quote:
You inability to know what mind is seems to suggest the lack of one in your case
Ad hom! Define mind.
Quote:
. . . but I know better . . . so it has to be a ploy or dodge of some sort. Besides . . . you have yet to establish a scientifically valid point to these hypotheticals.
You're assertion that our universe was created--this is me refuting that assertion.
Quote:
Change of what from what . . for something to change it must EXIST . . . did Mind always exist? . . . did Life always EXIST. If so your change hypothesis might make sense. Otherwise CREATION is involved.
Ah, but I'm speaking of the base "stuff" that makes up everything.
Quote:
No more so than the requirement re: your God ("Nature"). You and I both know the prevailing scientific opinion is that the universe had a beginning . . .
Yes, our base universe had a beginning. Did the "stuff" that it came from always exist, or was there a period of non-existence?
Quote:
that means it was created.
Big Bang theory posits that some "stuff" expanded into what we have now, creating both time and space. It changed forms--nothing was "created."
Quote:
Whatever the reality is re: your inane hypothetical . . . its existence must be accounted for as an observable.
Quote:
Right . . . like "Flat Earth." See above. Ask Daddy to educate you.
Dance monkey dance.
Quote:
Because it is an unknown future and the current reality is all we have. Is there some other pinnacle of evolution around? Agreed. But the changes need only be a superior consciousness . . . ours is rather limited . . . not some as yet unknowable hypothetical.
You can't make a claim that conciousness is the goal of evolution when it's an ongoing process and we're but in the middle of it--especially considering that further evolution could result in greater and better things beyond our comprehension. Ergo, consciousness is not an end goal of evolution.
Quote:
Because i specifically pointed to them as common between us. But we have a basis for doing so . . . not just arbitrarily as you have done.
How are God and nature arbitrarily defined by me? They are distinctly separate concepts which several people on here have pointed out.
Neither you nor I are abstractions . . . what a pitiable denial of existence.
My physical body exists. My physical brain exists. The behavior that we attribute to consciousness--awareness of the physical self, is an abstraction. Our identities--comprised of memories, emotions, and thoughts, are all products of the brain--certain networks of cells firing in certain orders at certain frequencies. Nothing special.
Quote:
How so? Our production merely adds to the existing consciousness as it emanates from our brain into the universe at large . . . just as the "flames" do or the TV broadcasts that ET's may be watching as we speak.
Conciousness has nothing to do with the question of can something come from nothing.
Quote:
Wrong . . . yours is the semantics argument . . . mine is based on a scientifically plausible basis for the existence of the universal field that defines our reality using known phenomena as the proof of concept.
Define universal field. Define your God as a distinct separation between existing concepts. You've successfully defined energy.
It's amazing how your argument has changed now that you are on the defensive.
"blah, blah, blah . . . get a life Konraden."
That is an ad hom. against me.
[color=blue][color=black]Well . . . since neither you nor I existed 200 years ago . . . I would be tempted to say yes . . . based on that observational evidence.
I'm not referring to humans, life, or any of that--I'm referring directly to the "stuff" that makes up everything--matter and energy, or if you want to go further, quarks.
Is it possible for that "stuff" to not-exist.
Ad hom! Define mind.
You're assertion that our universe was created--this is me refuting that assertion.
Ah, but I'm speaking of the base "stuff" that makes up everything.
Yes, our base universe had a beginning. Did the "stuff" that it came from always exist, or was there a period of non-existence?
Big Bang theory posits that some "stuff" expanded into what we have now, creating both time and space. It changed forms--nothing was "created."
Dance monkey dance.
You can't make a claim that conciousness is the goal of evolution when it's an ongoing process and we're but in the middle of it--especially considering that further evolution could result in greater and better things beyond our comprehension. Ergo, consciousness is not an end goal of evolution.
How are God and nature arbitrarily defined by me? They are distinctly separate concepts which several people on here have pointed out.
My physical body exists. My physical brain exists. The behavior that we attribute to consciousness--awareness of the physical self, is an abstraction. Our identities--comprised of memories, emotions, and thoughts, are all products of the brain--certain networks of cells firing in certain orders at certain frequencies. Nothing special.
Conciousness has nothing to do with the question of can something come from nothing.
Define universal field. Define your God as a distinct separation between existing concepts. You've successfully defined energy.[/quote]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I've been following this whole thing.
Mystic hasn't EVER been on the defensive...If it was a boxing match, the referee would have stopped it weeks ago to save you guys the punishment.
He explains his conceptual points...in detail. You guys mostly just question him and never support anything about your own concepts. READ: You on the defensive and him pummeling you at will.
You guys constantly use the ever popular mantra..."I/we don't know". Mystic does know, and gives solid answers with full explanations that are comprehensible, reasonable, and make complete and total sense.
You are reduced to doing nothing but insulting him and intentionally trying to be annoying...like the stupid Occam's Razor vid post, and "dance monkey dance"...like little school children.
If you guys have so much "game"...how come you never show any?...I've been waiting to actually learn something from you guys...I'm still waiting.
TEACH ME SOMETHING...please! Though from what I've seen so far, I don't think it wise to hold my breath waiting on "Atheist Wisdom"...is there such a thing?
Because you apparently believe that nonsense that God is completely unknowable. We are learning more about HOW God works every day.
his would stop science in its tracks . . . since every scientific hypothesis develops from what is known and points to what is unknown (Gaps). I agree this silly Gaps argument is tiresome.
You claim known mechanism such as natural selection is your god.
When I posted a animated picture of a fossil fuel engine, the administrator decided to remove it because it was "offensive".
This animation is a KNOWN mechanism. Thus claims that the main mechanism of evolution is your god, you must accept that we can control and predict these mechanisms (your god).
But your claim is not even a hypothesis, it has no evidence supporting it. You basically looked at a rock and said "my god made that". Your IDEA will be rejected by any skeptic.
It's amazing how your argument has changed now that you are on the defensive.
You must be joking!! . . . on the defensive??? You must be projecting . . . you do seem to have trouble with reality.
Quote:
"blah, blah, blah . . . get a life Konraden."
That is an ad hom. against me.
The blahs refer to the stale argument . . . the latter is just a suggestion.
Quote:
Quote:
[color=blue][color=black]Well . . . since neither you nor I existed 200 years ago . . . I would be tempted to say yes . . . based on that observational evidence.
I'm not referring to humans, life, or any of that--I'm referring directly to the "stuff" that makes up everything--matter and energy, or if you want to go further, quarks.
You can't pick and choose what aspects of reality you want to account for, Konraden. It ALL counts . . . and it all is God (or your "Nature" version)
Quote:
Is it possible for that "stuff" to not-exist.
Do you know anything . . . or can you only ask inane hypothetical questions? I have presented my hypothesis many times and you have done squat . . . asking childish questions in feigned ignorance while proclaiming I'm on the defensive. What I'm on is a merry-go-round of your inanity.
Quote:
Ad hom! Define mind.
More of the same QED. I explained MY view of consciousness (mind/self) and my hypothesis in detail many times now . . . you have refuted none of it, asserted a bunch of unsupported crap, and asked childish questions. I'm waiting for you to present your hypothesis and support as well as i have done with mine. Can you do it or not? You cannot just assert your name for it as the default and claim ad populum semantic BS as your rationale.
Quote:
You're assertion that our universe was created--this is me refuting that assertion.
If you think ANYTHING you have presented during this discussion has been a "refutation" . . . you really do need help with definitions . . . no wonder you are so fixated on them.
Quote:
Ah, but I'm speaking of the base "stuff" that makes up everything.
And I am speaking about it ALL.
Quote:
Yes, our base universe had a beginning. Did the "stuff" that it came from always exist, or was there a period of non-existence?
Do you have some scientific method or data from which to answer this (so that you are asking me something YOU know the answer to) . . . or am I supposed to be your Daddy again? What is it with you and these hypotheticals.
Quote:
Big Bang theory posits that some "stuff" expanded into what we have now, creating both time and space. It changed forms--nothing was "created."
I am really tired of this obtuseness . . . are you even remotely familiar with qualia . . . do you know that once certain parameters concerning qualia are exceeded it constitutes creation . . . NOT mere change? You seem to be oblivious to it all . . . assuming there is no difference in the form "stuff" takes that can THINK . . . and the forms that cannot, etc. This is an annoying deficiency.
Quote:
Dance monkey dance.
No thanks . . . I would prefer you stop dancing and pretending you don't know what I am referring to and engage in something resembling intellectual discourse.
Quote:
You can't make a claim that conciousness is the goal of evolution when it's an ongoing process and we're but in the middle of it--especially considering that further evolution could result in greater and better things beyond our comprehension. Ergo, consciousness is not an end goal of evolution.
And you know this HOW? You are just full of assertions beyond the existing data.
Quote:
How are God and nature arbitrarily defined by me? They are distinctly separate concepts which several people on here have pointed out.
Sophomoric fail yet agian. This is not a Merriam Webster's conclave to determine what is the state of our existing language. This is a philosophical discussion about the best description of our reality . . . mine or yours (which you have YET to articulate . . . despite all your unsupported assertions.)
Quote:
My physical body exists. My physical brain exists. The behavior that we attribute to consciousness--awareness of the physical self, is an abstraction.
That is completely bogus . . . abstractions cannot independently interact with the universe identifiably AS abstractions. Your inability to assimilate this conceptual barrier to your assertion is the major source of your confusion.
Quote:
Our identities--comprised of memories, emotions, and thoughts, are all products of the brain--certain networks of cells firing in certain orders at certain frequencies. Nothing special.
You cannot possibly believe YOU are separate individually firing memories composing and constructing these inane posts of yours . . . can you? If you cannot even recognize the synthesis of these inputs into the YOU that is actually doing the thinking (or what passes for it in your world) . . .no wonder the result of the thinking is so poor. Each individual memory is simply in playback mode . . . no original thought or synthesis. Pathetic.
Quote:
Conciousness has nothing to do with the question of can something come from nothing.
::Sigh::
Quote:
Define universal field. Define your God as a distinct separation between existing concepts. You've successfully defined energy.
This is pathetic . . a broken record. You seem incapable of understanding anything and you pretend to be a blank slate possessing no knowledge (something easy for me to believe, by the way). Define intelligence . . . since you claim to have it. I see no evidence of it using my definition.
You claim known mechanism such as natural selection is your god.
When I posted a animated picture of a fossil fuel engine, the administrator decided to remove it because it was "offensive".
This animation is a KNOWN mechanism. Thus claims that the main mechanism of evolution is your god, you must accept that we can control and predict these mechanisms (your god).
But your claim is not even a hypothesis, it has no evidence supporting it. You basically looked at a rock and said "my god made that". Your IDEA will be rejected by any skeptic.
You clearly have not been following my posts . . . or you are incapable of understanding what I have presented because NOTHING you said has ANY relevance whatsoever to this discussion. Go back and argue with the fundamentalists and your other religious foils that are in your league.
But it is refreshing to know that there are intelligent folk out there (like Gldnrule and Matrix) who actually comprehend the issues.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
. . . on the defensive???
You must be projecting . . . you do seem to have trouble with reality.
