I am creating this topic as a place for people to put arguments based on compounding premises. By that I mean this topic is for logical application to arguments, i.e. reasons for why a god may or may not exist. This is NOT a topic where faith is an axiomatic principle, axiomatic meaning self-evidently true. I'm not against faith but I want a thread area (which I hope this topic eventually evolves into) where I can argue with people who will not say I believe it and the discussion is over.

That being said, this topic/thread is supposed to be completely open-minded. It is a place for people to make arguments and debate them out. Please do not post once, assert something, and never come back. Debate it out, that is the point.

This topic is - God Exist (Any god) Yes or No...

I'll start:

No: the premise that it is necessary for a God to create existence is a false choice. If it is necessary for existence to be created, then it is also necessary for its creator to be created. This principle (when applied more universally than just in reference to religion) is usually called the Primacy of Existence. That is simply existence exists as an axiomatic principle (a self-evident truth). To argue against that (i.e. to say it was created) presupposes that it exists to establish that argument. I.e. God is the creator who created existence, however, if before God there was no existence then where did god exist, in fact how did god exist if there is nothing that existed and if god does not have to have an existence to exist than how is it possible for God to exist, for existence cannot exist in non-existence and it is impossible for non-existence to exist, because it doesn't exist.

Now Cameron are we assuming God as the all powerful all knowing deity or are we assuming God can be a being with greater knowledge than ourselves?
Assuming the later then I can say yes there can be a God. Lets suppose in theory that the universe started from the big bang and life started. Eventually a thinking being would come about. Now lets say this being is humaniod and is like us. Starts to experiment and creates another being much like himself. Now the new being would see the "creator" as a God. In this sense yes I do think that a God could exist.

I would go with "yes," god does exist...and for a very "simple" reason: the only way to avoid an infinite loop of cause and effect is to accept god as the uncaused cause! god, to me, seems a better explanation than an infinite regress!

And when i weigh "intelligent design" against "chance events," "yes" seems to be an even more viable option!

looks like i love debate, i will take the stance of "no, there is no god" (only because i am bored and have seen this thread, im agnostic and have no idea... but will take a stance for the sake of taking a stance)

ok, so "the only way to avoid an infinite loop of cause and effect is to accept god as the uncaused cause!" onlinetoenjoy
"...I want a thread area where I can argue with people who will not say I believe it and the discussion is over" Cameron

Anyway, God does not exist because the only proof i am aware of for his existance is doccuments written by humans a long time ago. the "eye witness" accounts are by people who saw visions of him or saw him, still a very long time ago. it is always other humans who tell other humans about their god. god does not tell every believer personally(?) he does not himself spread his own word (?) he does not do great works for everybody to see that are so special that ONLY god can do these (?) any and all "works of god" are plausably works of laws of physics or mis-perceptions or concidences (they are interpretations of humans saying "this is so great only god must have done this) (?). we have all sorts of technology and science but not one of them can "prove" god exists. WHY does god not come down and show himself and do miracles for people to prove beyond a doubt that god is real? i am sure he would have so many more followers if god came down and was revealed as a physical being/non physical being, but can be percieved by humans and "prove" once and for all god is REAL.

faith and mysterys and things humans can not access are parts of religion that must say that god does not exist because nothing is proven. only faith and beliefs hold religions.

anyway i just wanted to stir up randomness see people's replys and take note that i do not hold anything for fact about god because i myself do not know, i just wanted to take a position for taking a position.

-peace

how does an uncaused god make sense as a means of ending the cycle of cause and effect

your end game seems to be to remove as much cause from the equation as possible

I'll do your job better

existence is the uncaused cause it exists nothing made it or created it boom, guess what, it also makes logical sense because to assert that something created existence requires some form of existence to exist, that existence being this creator at the least and where it lives etc, meaning that to create would really be to expand meaning not initially create which means the concept of a creator doesn't make any sense because it creates the already created meaning it isn't creating see the contradiction

Now juan - any diety the topic doesn't specify however your example doesn't make sense to me

a deity who learned then created

so a deity who created something into existence

that makes no sense because you can't create what has already been created you can however procreate or expand but that isn't the mark of a god or a deity at least not in how i interpret the concept of a god in reference to creation for more explanation for this contradiction look above

Ok Cameron lets say a being forms and creates another form of life. The created form of life could consider the being that created him his God. That is my point. Even though the Creator being is mortal and has traits of his creation can still be considered God. Even though the being doesn't posses the all power all mighty attributes we put with God. That was my point. Just cause a greater being maybe bald, big head, grey skin created man doesn't mean the grey skinned being was really God but just considered by his creation.

cameron-how does an uncaused god make sense as a means of ending the cycle of cause and effect

--> if u are up for it...then define or explain "god"

cameron-your end game seems to be to remove as much cause from the equation as possible

--> Remove? on the contrary that gives us something more plausible than an infinite regress!

cameron-I'll do your job better

existence is the uncaused cause it exists nothing made it or created it boom, guess what, it also makes logical sense because to assert that something created existence requires some form of existence to exist, that existence being this creator at the least and where it lives etc, meaning that to create would really be to expand meaning not initially create which means the concept of a creator doesn't make any sense because it creates the already created meaning it isn't creating see the contradiction

--> explain "existence is the uncaused cause"

What makes up this "existence"...it's traits...how it works!

MY ANSWERS ARE BOLDED

that is not the traditional notion of god but ok let's take up your claim. as proven by the fact that things occur post the initial creation i.e. miracles.

Let's take the premise of the "creator" creating the person who address the other as god. It requires that the necessary things to create that person existed. This is because if that "creator" created the necessary things to create that person he would be creating existence meaning you fall prey to my earlier post about how existence cannot be created.

Now assuming this creator manipulated essentially ingredients then they made this person.

If the creator made the person then it is essentially what occurs when a person makes a table or when a chef bakes a cake, why does that person gain reverence, should cakes pray to the chef to be digested by a good person as opposed to someone with irritable bowl syndrome so they don't become diarrhea? That makes no sense. The essence of worship etc is that the person has the capability to alter your future. I.e. you can go to heaven or hell. This maker doesn't have that capability. Also, how doesn't this person make you it doesn't make much sense. What does it mean to say that someone understands existence. Existence is existence, you aren't created but occurred. Define what it means to be created then I can explain why this concept doesn't make sense.

Also, the essential question, who made this grey skinned creator thing? Why do they not have to be created an we do.

cameron-WHY? YOUR ARTICULATION OF GOD IS THAT OF THE CREATOR ETC. THAT IS WHAT I AM ANSWERING. MY DEFINITION IS IRRELEVANT, IT IS YOUR'S THAT I AM ARGUING AGAINST.

--> How can u argue against the definition? what u can argue against is the existence of an entity so defined!


cameron-EXACTLY, YOU ATTEMPT TO REMOVE THE REGRESS AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE. END THE REGRESS. MY POINT IS THAT MY WAY IS MORE EFFECTIVE. EXISTENCE EXISTS, NOTHING CREATED IT (THIS IS BECAUSE TO HAVE CREATED IS TO HAVE EXISTED AND TO CREATE EXISTENCE REQUIRES NON-EXISTENCE WHICH DOESN'T EXIST). IF YOU CAN ACCEPT EXISTENCE EXISTENCE THEN YOU HAVE CUT OUR THE EXTRA REGRESS, THAT BEING THAT A GOD CREATED IT.

-->From where did u get that non-existence doesn't exist? Have u seen flying tigers?

cameron-EXISTENCE EXISTS. TAKING GOD OUT OF THE QUESTION GETS RID OF AN ADDITIONAL "REGRESS" (I THINK STEP IS EASIER TO UNDERSTAND) IN THE CHAIN THAT IS EXISTENCE. HERE, YOU CLAIM MULTIPLE STEPS BUT YOUR SYSTEM REQUIRES AT LEAST THESE THREE GOD EXISTS --> GOD CREATES EXISTENCE --> EXISTENCE EXISTS, MY SYSTEM REQUIRES ONE EXISTENCE EXISTS. THERE ARE TWO STEPS TAKEN OUT WHICH IS WHAT YOU SAID EARLIER WAS WHY GOD MADE MORE SENSE AS A CREATOR THAT BEING THAT IT GETS RID OF THE INFINITE REGRESS.

--> It is not about "fewer steps," but "making sense".

But if it makes u happier, i can reduce it to a single step: God exists.

Whatever exists is, then, by the virtue of existence of god, the way u would state that whatever exists is by the virtue of existence of existence.

cameron-LET ME ALSO SAY THAT YOUR INFINITE REGRESS IS PROBABLY BASED ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT EVOLUTION AND THE BIG BANG ETC FUNCTION AS STEPS. IF I AM CORRECT IN THAT ASSUMPTION THEN THAT MAKES NO SENSE. THAT IS NOT THE CREATION OF EXISTENCE BUT RATHER OCCURENCES THAT HAPPENED WHILE EXISTENCE EXISTS (WHICH IS ETERNAL BUT TIME ISN'T A NECESSARY POINT IN THIS PART OF THE DEBATE, IT IS ETERNAL AS YOU WOULD CLAIM GOD IS IF YOU WANT TO ARGUE THIS POINT). THESE ARE SIMPLY THINGS THAT WENT ON TO ALTER THE STATE OF EXISTENCE.

--> So allow us to know the state of "primordial" existence...what was the earliest occurrence?

Also, u have to explain the flow of time...and, ofcourse, the claim that it is eternal!

cameron-REALLY JUST LOOK ABOVE. THERE IS NO CAUSE TO EXISTENCE (NO CREATOR ETC.) EXISTENCE SIMPLY EXISTS, IT IS ESSENTIALLY UNCAUSED. THE UNCAUSED CAUSE PHRASE REFERS TO THE EARLY POST SAYING THAT GOD IS UNCAUSED AND IS THE CAUSE OF EXISTENCE, ESSENTIALLY GOD IS THE UNCAUSED CAUSE, MY CLAIM IS THAT EXISTENCE EXISTS AND THAT IT IS THE UNCAUSED CAUSED OF EXISTENCE, THAT IS IT EXISTS BECAUSE IT EXISTS AND NON-EXISTENCE CAN'T EXIST BECAUSE IT IS NON-EXISTENT. THIS IS PHILOSOPHY STEMMING FROM PARMENEDES (I MAY HAVE SPELLED THAT WRONG), WHO IS AN ANCIENT GREEK PHILOSOPHER, AND HAS GROWN INTO MANY PHILOSOPHICAL SYSTEMS TODAY, MOST NOTABLY OBJECTIVISM. THE ESSENTIAL STATEMENT IS EXISTENCE EXISTS, NON-EXISTENCE DOES NOT EXISTS OR BEING BE'S NON-BEING BE'S NOT.

--> greek philosophy is in no way fool-proof...philosophy of parmenides and zeno included!

It has nothing to do with proving and disproving!

cameron-THAT WHICH IS. EXISTENCE IS EVERYTHING, IT DOESN'T WORK IT IS, IT EXISTS. EXISTENCE IS AN AXIOM (A SELF-EVIDENT TRUTH). IT IS ONE OF THREE AXIOMATIC PRINCIPLES ACCORDING TO OBJECTIVIST (WHICH IS SOMEWHAT THE BASE SYSTEM FOR THE ARGUMENT I AM PRESENTING SO I WILL CONTINUE USING ITS TERMINOLOGY). THE OTHER TWO PRINCIPLES ARE CONSCIOUSNESS AND IDENTITY. EXISTENCE HOWEVER HAS PRIMACY, THAT IS TO SAY, EXISTENCE IS THE CAUSE, THE BASIS, THE STEM FOR EVERYTHING. CONSCIOUSNESS IS THE PERCEPTION OF EXISTENCE AND IDENTITY IS HOW WE IDENTIFY IT. I.E. YOUR COMPUTER EXISTS, YOUR SENSES ALLOW YOU TO PERCEIVE IT, YOUR PAST INTERACTION ALLOWS YOU TO RECOGNIZE IT AND ITS CAPABILITIES, ESSENTIALLY THESE FUNCTION AS PERCEPTION AS WELL WHICH ALLOWS YOU TO PERCEIVE THE EXISTENCE OR TO CONSCIOUSLY REALIZE THIS EXISTENCE THEN WITH YOUR SENSES AND EXPERIENCE WITH YOUR COMPUTER YOU CAN IDENTIFY IT, AS YOUR COMPUTER. IT EXISTS, YOU PERCEIVE, YOU IDENTIFY.

--> Resorting to objectivism doesn't help ur cause...u first need to prove it, rather than accept it as an infallible philosophy!

So, what i await is some stuff on: the state of primordial existence; the first occurrence; timelessness of time (paradox?); flow of time; evolution of "consciousness" and "identity"; irrefutability of greek and objectivist philosophy!

ONCE AGAIN WHAT IS PRIMORDIAL EXISTENCE, THE FIRST OCCURRENCE, AND WHEN DO I SAY THAT GREEK/OBJECTIVIST PHILOSOPHY ARE IRREFUTABLE, I AM SIMPLY STATING WHERE MY LOGIC IS BASED. FYI OBJECTIVISM IS AN EXTENSION OF GREEK PHILOSOPHY FROM PARMENIDES.

OH, ZENO ALSO HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS, HE IS SIMPLY A FOLLOWER OF PARMENIDES BUT IS NOT PART OF THE BEGINNING OF OBJECTIVISM, SOME OF HIS LOGIC MAY HAVE COME OVER BUT MOST DOESN'T AS HE IS SIMPLY TRYING TO EXTEND PARMENIDES TO AN ABSURD POINT WHICH HAS BEEN MOSTLY REFUTED.

Before i turn my attention to ur post, i would want this clarified: do u intend a discussion based on logic, or on philosophy?

I hope u understand u need to do more than just base ur arguments on any philosophical school of thought! It is a gross abuse of common sense when somebody states that "the three axiomatic principles are...", when, in fact, these are naught more than tenets of a particular philosophy!

As for zeno: he was more than just a "follower," he was a disciple of parmenides, and his staunchest supporter and most devoted perpetrator of his cause! what zeno and his teacher did prove, if anything they could prove, was that misapplication of logic (based on unsound premises) spawns fallacious philosophy!

cameron-PHILOSOPHICAL SYSTEMS (ESPECIALLY OBJECTIVISM) FORM THEIR IDEOLOGIES AS CHAINS OF LOGIC. OBJECTIVISM SPECIFICALLY BEGINS AS A CHAIN FROM 3 SELF-EVIDENT TRUTHS THAT CANNOT BE LOGICALLY PROVEN INCORRECT BECAUSE TO ATTEMPT TO PROVE THEM FALSE REQUIRES FIRST ACCEPTING THEIR TRUTH (I.E. TO SAY EXISTENCE DOESN'T EXIST REQUIRES YOU TO ASSUME THAT YOU EXIST TO MAKE THIS ARGUMENT) AND IT BUILDS UPON THOSE SYSTEMS. MY POINTS HAVE BEEN LOGICAL ENDPOINTS OF THESE ARGUMENTS. LOGIC ISN'T ONE STATMENT AT A TIME BUT RATHER A CHAIN, LOGIC IS VERY MUCH LIKE MATH WHERE PRIMISES ARE USED TO DRAW CONCLUSIONS TO BE USED LATER AS PREMISES.

-->Philosophical systems are based not necessarily on logic but on premises (which may lead to application or misapplication of logic)!

Talking about "flying tigers," the flying tigers definitely existed the moment i (or u) perceived them! Further, can i perceive something that was never in existence? Either way, flying tigers exist!

cameron-AS STATED BEFORE. i AM SIMPLY EXPLAINING THE ROOT OF SOME OF MY ARGUMENTS. AND FURTHERMORE THEY ARE TENETS OF THAT PHILOSOPHY ONLY BECAUSE THEY ARE SELF-EVIDENT TRUTHS. AS STATED ABOVE THEY ARE LOGICALLY PROVEN BY THE FACT THAT TO PROVE THEM FALSE REQUIRES THEIR ACCEPTANCE. YOU WANT AN ANSWER LOOK TO THINGS LIKE THE DIALETIC BY HEGEL AND STOP SAYING THAT BECAUSE I SAID OBJECTIVISM THAT I NOT ARGUING BUT SAYING BOOM I WIN, BECAUSE I AM NOT I AM USING THEIR PHILOSOPHICAL SYSTEMS AS A ROOT FOR MY ARGUMENT JUST AS YOU ARE USING RELIGION FOR YOURS (RELIGION BEING VERY MUCH A PHILISOPHICAL SYSTEM).

-->Saying "I am" does not equal to "I always was and will be"!

The question here is not whether "existence exists," but whether existence has always existed! I hope u understand the difference! If u could prove via "logic" that "existence always existed" instead of just force-approving it as self-evident truth (and thus not violate ur own rule), u would greatly contribute to the furthering of this discussion!

cameron-I UNDERSTAND THIS. ZENO DID NOT USE UNSOUND PREMISES BUT RATHER USED A LOGICAL PRINCIPLE AND THAT IS REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM (REDUCED TO ABSURDITY). NOW MANY OF ZENO'S EXTENSIONS WERE PROVEN WRONG BUT NOT FOR OVER 1000 YEARS LATER WHEN NEWTON DEVISED CALCULOUS AND WAS ABLE TO PROVE THAT THERE WAS A SET DISTANCE BETWEEN 0 AND 1. IT WASN'T UNFOUND PREMISES BUT SIMPLY ONE UNKNOWN FACT. HOWEVER, THE EXTENSION OF PARMENIDES THAT I AM REFERENCING HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ZENO'S EXTENSION ONLY THE FUNDAMENTAL PREMISE (WHICH HASN'T BEEN PROVEN WRONG BUT SIMPLY HAS COUNTER THEORIES HENCE WHY NO ONE HAS SAID HEY I HAVE SOLVED THE ULTIMATE EXISTENTIAL QUESTION OF ALL TIME) THAT PREMISES BEING THAT EXISTENCE EXISTS. PROVE THIS WRONG AND DON'T CRITICIZE FOLLOWERS OF THEORIES. THAT IS LIKE SAYING THAT WE SHOULD REGARD OSAMA BIN LADEN AS THE PREEMINENT SCHOLAR IN ISLAMIC STUDIES BECAUSE HE USES SOME IDEAS FROM ISLAM AND THEN CREATES HIS OWN LOGICAL ENDPOINTS.

-->That zeno's fallacy was categorically refuted through calculus doesn't at all add to it's glory! It remains that he would lay down an unsound premise to come up with a nonsense conclusion!

Again, nobody is refuting that existence exists. What is being challenged is whether "existence always existed"! Ayn or parmenides can choose to not be able to conceptualize "non-being," but it doesn't amount to much, does it? Please prove the identity of the first existent (evolution of identity), and when it was first perceived (evolution of consciousness)! Also, what role do time and space play?

If u think achilles can never overtake the tortoise...it's ur philospohy; but don't equate criticizing parmenides or zeno with endorsing laden!

camaron-PREMISES LEAD TO CONCLUSIONS. HOW? THROUGH LOGICAL APPLICATION HENCE WHY PREMISE IS A TERM OF ART FOR LOGICAL APPLICATION. EITHER WAY THIS IS IRRELEVANT AS THAT IS HOW OBJECTIVISM FORMS ITS SCHOOL OF THOUGH. ALSO WHY DOES IT MATTER? I SAID I AM USING AN OBJECTIVIST ARGUMENT NOW ANSWER THE ARGUMENT, STOP ARGUING WHAT YOU DON'T KNOW ABOUT OBJECTIVISM.

--> Do u understand the difference between premises and logic?

Premises lead to conlcusions...but not always the correct ones; reaching the *right* conclusion involves laying down the correct premises and applying (against misapplying) logic.

If u don't understand this much, let's try and/to clear it up for u. Else make an admission that it is not logic but premise that spawns philosophy, especially faied ones!

And refrain from telling me what i do and do not know...sounds like cribbing!

camaron-WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT. YOUR PERCEPTION DOESN'T CREATE EXISTENCE. HENCE WHY THERE AREN'T FLYING TIGERS EVERYWHERE. WHAT YOU ARE ARGUING IS THE PRIMACY OF CONSCIOUSNESS WHICH IS IMPOSSIBLE, EXISTENCE HAS PRIMACY BECAUSE CONSCIOUSNESS IS FIRST THE PERCEPTION OF THAT WHICH EXISTS AND SECONDLY EXISENCE IS THE NECESSARY PRECONDITION FOR CONSCIOUSNESS.

Where do u think my perception exists? In a non-existent world, outside the real world?

If my perception exists (in the real world), then what i perceive must also exist in the real world.

I (personally) find pretty embarrassing having to explain this to somebody who wants a logical conlcusion to the existence of god!

UM, WHAT? I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU MEAN HERE PLEASE EXPLAIN.

--> Do u exist? In the real world? Have u always existed?

camaron-THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT I HAVE BEEN ARGUING, IT HAS ALWAYS EXISTED BECAUSE TO HAVE NOT EXISTED REQUIRES NON-EXISTENCE TO HAVE EXISTED, THAT IS IMPOSSIBLE. EXISTENCE CANNOT NOT EXIST. THAT IS LOGIC BECAUSE THE CONTRADICTION PROVES IMPOSSIBILITY. I HAVE NOT BEEN JUST SAYING IT'S SELF-EVIDENT, I HAVE EXPLAINED MULTIPLE TIMES WHY IT IS, READ THEN ENTIRE POST NEXT TIME MAYBE.

-->What is this "it" that has always existed? Existence or an existant?

A painting is non-existent until the artist puts it down on the canvass!

Go back to my flying tigers...either accept that flying tigers exist simply because i perceive them, or accept that there can be a state of non-existence for the painting (and, yeah...don't camouflage it as non-occurrence...doesn't sell!)

So why must it be that non-existence never existed? Don't just fire blanket statements!

camaron-ZENO IS IRRELEVANT TO THIS DISCUSSION DUDE, I AM REFERING TO ONE STATEMENT THAT PARMENIDES SAID. SAYING THAT BECAUSE I STEM FROM ONE AUTHOR THAT I ASSUME EVERYTHING THEY SAID. THAT IS LIKE SAYING ALL NON-CHRISTIANS BELIEVE MURDER IS OKAY BECAUSE TO SAY THAT IT ISN'T RIGHT MAKES THEM CHRISTIANS BECAUSE THAT IS ONE STATEMENT OF CHRISTIANITY.

--> If names are irrelevant then don't throw in names; i am interested in the nature of ur refuge...not the names of those u seek refuge with!

camaron-EXISTENCE HAS ALWAYS EXISTED LOOK ABOVE.

--> Blanket statement!

camaron-WHAT DO YOU MEAN THE FIRST EXISTENCE? EXISTENCE IS, WAS, AND ALWAYS WILL BE.

--> First existant...not existence; who or what first had the ability to perceive or be perceived? And how did existence seperate into identity and consciousness?

camaron- CONSCIOUSNESS HAS EXISTED SINCE THERE HAVE BEEN THINGS THAT HAVE THE ABILITY TO IDENTIFY THEIR SURROUNDINGS, AKA TO CONSCIOUSLY PERCEIVE EXISTENCE.

--> Since when have these things been? What "things"? What "surroundings"? When did state of identifying and perceving come about? And how?

Was that the start of time? Did space already exist? Or did time exist before space?

I can do without blanket statements!

I DON'T KNOW THE FIRST CREATURE, BUT THAT IS IRRELEVANT.

--> Why is it irrelevant?

Did the first existant have the ability to perceive?

Or was the first existant not conscious?

Don't try to brush it away as irrelevant!

camaron- ABOUT THE PERCEPTION OF NON-BEING. THIS IS IMPOSSIBLE. EXPLAIN HOW NON-EXISTENCE CAN EXIST? IT IS NON-EXISTENCE MEANING IT DOES NOT EXIST. DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND THIS BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY OTHER WAYS I CAN EXPLAIN THAT EXISTENCE IS INFINITE. IT CANNOT NOT EXIST WHICH MEANS THAT THERE IS NOTHING SURROUNDING IT BECAUSE TO HAVE SOMETHING SURROUND IT WOULD REQUIRE SOMETHING THAT IS NON-EXISTENT (WHICH MEANS THAT IT DOESN'T EXIST) AND TO HAVE HAD SOMETHING BEFORE IT WOULD REQUIRE SOMETHING THAT ISN'T EXISTENCE AND THAT IS NON-EXISTENCE AS WELL SO IT DOESN'T EXIST.

--> Hmmm...u are right, I don't understand blank statements! Please prove something, else i can say with equal abrasiveness, "what kind are u? can't u understand god always existed because god can not be non-existent!"

Not meaning to embarrass u, but blanks statements have nothing to do with logic!

camaron-ONCE AGAIN, WHY DOES A CLAIM BY ZENO MAKE ME WRONG. LOOK ABOVE AT THE CHRISTIANITY EXAMPLE. NOW GUESS WHAT, NO ONE COULD PROVE ZENO WRONG FOR OVER 1000 YEARS. NOW EVEN WITH CALCULUS YOU HAVEN'T DONE ANYTHING TO PROVE ME WRONG BECAUSE GUESS WHAT, MY PHILOSOPHY ISN'T USING THE CONCEPT OF INFINITE DIVIDE BETWEEN 1 AND 0. THIS IS WHY ZENO IS IRRELEVANT TO THIS DISCUSSION.

--> No, zeno or parmenides got nothing to do with u...(so,) how can they make u wrong? I wonder what made u think my condemning zeno is ur condemnation!

And, no, zeno is not irrelavant because he exemplifies the abuse of logic...and blank statements have nothing to do with logic, either!

camaron- PARMENIDES SAID ONE BASIC STATEMENT WHICH I HAVE STATED OVER AND OVER AGAIN. EXISTENCE EXISTS AND NON-EXISTENCE DOES NOT EXIST. ARGUE THAT POINT (WHICH HAS BEEN ADOPTED BY THE OBJECTIVIST DISCUSSION BUT ONCE AGAIN I AM ONLY USING IT AS A REFERENCE SO YOU CAN GO FIND SOME ACTUAL ANSWERS I.E. THE DIALECTIC ETC). IF YOU CAN PROVE THAT EXISTENCE DOESN'T EXIST OR THAT NON-EXISTENCE DOES THEN WE CAN CONTINUE BUT ARGUING A POINT ABOUT ZENO THAT HAS NO RELEVANCE IN THIS DISCUSSION IS GETTING RIDICULOUS GET BACK TO THE POINT OF THE THREAD AND STOP DRIVING OTHER PEOPLE AWAY FROM THIS THREAD BECAUSE YOU WON'T ARGUE THE ACTUAL TOPIC.

--> Exactly! Do u understand the difference between "non-existence doesn't exist" and "non-existence never existed"?

If u don't, then i would be glad to see u carry on this "discussion" with somebody who shares a similar lack of understanding!

And like i said, there is also the factor of "intelligent design" versus "chance events"! For me, it is about being logical and picking that which is more plausible...and not just losing the entire exercise in assumptions!

The way i see it, it is not logic but blank statements that u are banking on...I admit i was deceived by the clever use of the word "logic" in the title!

camaron- CONSCIOUSNESS HAS EXISTED SINCE THERE HAVE BEEN THINGS THAT HAVE THE ABILITY TO IDENTIFY THEIR SURROUNDINGS, AKA TO CONSCIOUSLY PERCEIVE EXISTENCE. I DON'T KNOW THE FIRST CREATURE, BUT THAT IS IRRELEVANT.

--> Okay, the way u have put it there, it does seem that u are suggesting that consciousness is not as primeval as existence; as u put it, "consciousness has existed since there have been things..."

So what u seem to be saying is that the "state of consciously perceiving" was an evolution! Put differently, u have said that the state of not perceiving preceded the state of perceiving! In other words, u have just stated that a state of being (consciousness) came out of a state of not-being (not-consciousness)!

And that is the very impossibility u are supposed to be arguing against!

You like to create the typhoon confined within the dew
You seek hidden ALLAH to become public view

cameron-YES I UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE, DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT A PREMISE IS A FACTOR OF LOGICAL EQUATION? YES A PREMISE DOES SPAWN PHILOSOPHY, BUT YOU MISUNDERSTAND THAT IT IS THROUGH PREMISES THAT WE CAN DRAW CONCLUSIONS.

--> I said it is by laying the correct premises *and* applying logic that v draw conclusions...or did i say something else?

It's honestly getting boring, and i mean no offense! : thumbs up :

Talking about consciousness...u have provided no explanation of it's origin; all u have done is issued another blanket statement: "IT HAS EXISTED AS AN ABILITY IN EVERYTHING THAT CAN PERCEIVE ITS SURROUNDINGS:

why/how did certain things get the ability to perceive, and certain other (things) did not? And how do u *know* that mountains cannot perceive? Think...think...u don't know this...maybe they can perceive...maybe not...maybe v cannot perceive their perception!

In any case, u have not provided any explanation as to what changes occurred, and what triggered these changes so that "things" (with or without the ability to perceive) were created! These are the kind of holes that first need to be filled in before anybody can venture forth and embrace this kind of metaphysics!

I will say this: I can accept a state when there was no earth, no mountains, no rivers, no trees, no air...nothing! This i call a state of non-being, and only god existed! Thence god created things, and fashioned them, and gave them different abilities; and that, to me, makes more sense than only "existence" existing, where nobody knows what the state of existence was, nor what it means!

Is "existence" something like life force (vital energy)? if yes, then all things are living! if no, then how/why did life get injected into "existence"?

Any case, sincere apologies for sounding/being rude!

Wow, what a great discussion! Although this may be redundant, I'd like to ask Cameron a question as a fellow agnostic. Why does anything exist at all? If there at one time was nothing, shouldn't there be nothing still?

UNDERSTAND THAT MY ARGUMENTS IN THIS FORUM AREN'T NECESSARILY MY BELIEFS IN EXISTENTIALISM. THOUGH THERE ARE MANY THINGS THAT I HAVE ARTICULATED THAT I DO BELIEVE OR AT LEAST HAVE HAD SUBSTANTIAL IMPACT UPON MY BELIEFS, AND AS I KNOW THE ARGUMENT RELATIVELY WELL I AM WILLING TO ARGUE THE OBJECTIVIST POINT FOR METAPHYSICS.

NOW FROM THE OBJECTIVIST VIEWPOINT - THERE WAS NO TIME IN WHICH THERE WASN'T EXISTENCE. TO ASSUME THAT THIS IS TRUE ASSUMES THERE WAS A TIME IN WHICH THERE WAS NON-EXISTENCE. SAY THAT PHRASE A FEW TIMES...THERE WAS NON-EXISTENCE...THAT DOESN'T MAKE MUCH SENSE. NON-EXISTENCE IS THAT WHICH DOESN'T EXISTENCE SO HOW CAN THERE EXIST SOMETHING THAT DOESN'T EXIST TO PRECEDE THE TIME OF EXISTENCE?

NOW ALSO ASK, UNDER THE INTERPRETATION OF A DIVINE CREATOR, IF THERE WAS SOME GOD THAT CREATED US (BECAUSE IT IS NECESSARY FOR EXISTENCE AND HUMANITY TO HAVE BEEN CREATED AND NOT JUST HAVE ALWAYS BEEN) THEN WHY DOES THE NEED FOR EXPLANATION OF CREATION NOT ALSO APPLY TO GOD? IF GOD DOESN'T HAVE TO HAVE BEEN CREATED OR COULD HAVE JUST EXISTED OR CAN'T BE UNDERSTOOD, THEN WHY CAN'T WE HAVE OCCURRED THE SAME WAY? WHY DO WE HAVE TO BE CREATED?

SIMPLY PUT - THERE WAS NO TIME OF NON-EXISTENCE AND TO ASSUME THAT WE WERE CREATED PUTS A DEMAND UPON US TO FIND A CREATOR THAT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE CREATED, A FALSE REQUIREMENT TO BE PUT UPON EXISTENCE.

WE CAN ALSO ASK WHY IT IS WE HAVE QUESTIONED OUR CREATION. IS IT A SOCIAL NEED, A FEAR OF WHAT OCCURS AFTER OUR DEATH, ETC. BUT THAT IS A QUESTION FOR A LATER THREAD THAT I WILL MAKE AFTER I HAVE THE ABILITY TO STOP FOCUSING ON THE ONES I AM CONSTANTLY CHECKING NOW.

cameron-FINALLY A SOMEWHAT NEW QUESTION. PERCEPTION IS THE RESULT OF SENSORY PERCEPTION. YOU HAVE FIVE SENSES: SIGHT, TASTE, SMELL, TOUCH, AND HEARING. THESE 5 SENSES ALLOW A CONSCIOUS PERCEPTION OF EXISTENCE TO THEN BE IDENTIFIED AND CATEGORIZED. THIS IN COMBINATION WITH VOLITION (THE ABILITY TO REMEMBER AND APPLY CERTAIN PROPERTIES) CREATE THE CONSCIOUS PERCEPTION OF EXISTENCE. NOW, AS I HAVE NEVER BEEN A MOUNTAIN I GUESS THAT MY EXAMPLE MAY HAVE BEEN WEAK TO THOSE THAT BELIECE THAT INANIMATE THINGS HAVE THE ABILITY TO PERCEIVE BUT AS I DO NOT THE PRINCIPLE FOLLOWS. IT IS AN ILLUSTRATION NOT A POINT OF FACT. BUT I STILL BEG OF YOU TO TELL ME HOW A MOUNTAIN PERCEIVES AND STORES THE PERCEPTIONS IT MAKES. BASICALLY WHERE IS THE BRAIN OF A MOUNTAIN. IF YOU DON'T LIKE THE MOUNTAIN EXAMPLE PICK SOMETHING ELSE, A TABLE, CHAIR WHATEVER, THAT ISN'T THE POINT OF THE ARGUMENT BEING MADE.

--> Do all life forms have a "brain"?

cameron-WHAT? WHAT CHANGES ARE YOU REFERRING TO? IF YOU MEAN LIKE HOW ANIMALS EVOLVE, WELL DARWIN EXPLAINS THAT. THE REASON THE INTELLIGENT DESIGN-EVOLUTION DEBATE MAKES NO SENSE IS THAT THOSE THEORIES CLASH ONLY IN A MINOR LEVEL. EVOLUTION VERY MUCH WORKS WITH A WORLD CREATED BY A GOD (THOUGH IT DOESN'T REQUIRE A GOD. THE POINT I AM MAKING HERE IS THAT INTELLIGENT DESIGN IS A QUESTION OF CREATION/METAPHYSICS WHEREAS DARWINISM IS SIMPLY HOW WE EXIST POST-CREATION). MY ARGUMENT IS SIMPLY THAT THE ARGUMENT OF AN EXISTENCE CREATED BY GOD IS FALSE. EXISTENCE HAS ALWAYS EXISTED (AS EXPLAINED BEFORE) AND THINGS CAN CHANGE WITHIN IT BUT NOTHING CAN BE CREATED INDEPENDENT OF IT. ANIMALS CAN EVOLVE (MOST SCIENTISTS WOULD AGREE WITH MY CLAIMS HERE AS MANY ARE OBJECTIVISTS, THOUGH I DON'T WANT TO GET INTO THE STUPID QUABBLE OVER ZENO ETC. SO IF YOU CAN'T SIMPLY UNDERSTAND THIS AS A SOURCE REFERENCE THEN IGNORE THIS) BUT JUST BECAUSE ANIMALS CAN EVOLVE DOESN'T MEAN THAT THEY ARE FORMED FROM NON-EXISTENCE.

--> I am not talking about animals...i am talking of cosmological evolution...what was the substratum?

cameron-DO YOU CLAIM TO UNDERSTAND THEN THE STATE OF GOD AND UNDERSTAND ALL HIS MISTORIES? DO YOU KNOW EVERYTHING OF THE TIME OF THE DINOSAURS? DOES THAT MEAN THEY ARE WRONG. JUST BECAUSE YOU DON'T KNOW DOESN'T MAKE IT TRUE. MY ARGUMENTS ARE SHOWING THE IMPOSSIBILITY OF A GOD. EXISTENCE MUST EXIST FOR IT TO NOT EXIST REQUIRES NON-EXISTENCE TO EXIST AND FOR EXISTENCE TO BE CREATED OUT OF IT, BASICALLY CREATING EXISTENCE OUT OF NOTHING. IMAGINE IT THIS WAY: YOU ARE MAKING A CAKE BUT YOU HAVE NO INGREDIENTS AND NO WHERE TO GET THEM. YOU HAVE NOTHING TO MAKE THIS CAKE. YOUR ARGUMENT IS ESSENTIALLY THAT ABOUT 2 HOURS LATER YOU PULLED A CAKE OUT OF YOUR OVEN AND SERVED IT TO THE PARTY. THAT MAKES NO SENSE. WHAT IS EVEN WORSE IS THAT YOU ALLOW THERE TO BE NO PLACE FOR EXISTENCE AS YOU ASSUME THAT THERE IS A NON-EXISTENCE. THIS PLACE YOU CLAIM TO ACCEPT IS ESSENTIALLY A LACK OF EXISTENCE (AM I CORRECT, BECAUSE IF I AM NOT THEN YOU AREN'T DISPROVING MY ARGUMENT) BUT THEN HOW DOES THAT LACK OF EXISTENCE TAKE UP SPACE WHEN THERE IS NOTHING TO TAKE UP THAT SPACE. IF IT DOESN'T TAKE UP SPACE, THEN HOW CAN EXISTENCE BE CREATED THERE, BECAUSE THERE IS NO THERE FOR IT TO HAVE BEEN CREATED?

--> The way i look at it, god is beyond space and time, and god created space and time! So there is no need to wonder where and when!

Sounds like magic, and perhaps is! But animate and inanimate entities coming out of "existence" would be nothing other than magic, either!

cameron-NO, TABLES EXIST BUT (AT LEAST I BELIEVE BUT WE MAY HAVE THE STUPID MOUNTAIN DEBATE AGAIN) THEY DON'T HAVE LIFE FORCE. THERE ARE MULTIPLE SCIENTIFIC THEORIES, I.E. PRIMORDIAL BUBBLES AND THROUGH EVOLUTION FROM THAT TO BACTERIA TO MODERN LIFE FORMS. BUT IF THIS IS SERIOUSLY YOUR QUESTION, FROM WHAT DID GOD COME FROM, HOW WAS HE CREATED/MADE/THOUGHT OF/WHATEVER, BECAUSE TO ASSUME THAT I HAVE TO KNOW THIS MEANS THAT THERE MUST BE THE SAME OBLIGATION TO YOU. AND MORE SIGNIFICANTLY (THOUGH I DON'T BELIEVE THIS IS AN OBJECTIVIST ARGUMENT BUT SOMETHING THAT I HAVE THOUGHT OF A LOT) IF GOD DOESN'T HAVE TO BE CREATED THEN WHY DO WE ASSUME WE HAVE TO HAVE BEEN OR EXISTENCE TO HAVE BEEN? IF WE DON'T NEED AN EXPLANATION FOR GOD THEN WHY FOR EXISTENCE ALWAYS EXISTING?.

--> How did the primordial bubbles come about?

I understand ur concerns...however, i feel i am better justified because god, for me, is alive, able and intelligent, and can thus create animate and inanimate entities! "existence," on the other hand, is not so forunate!

****I personally feel a statement like "energy always existed" makes more sense than "existence aways existed"! After all, as v know it, all things are nothing but manifestation of energy!****

But v all have our own way of thinking...and that, for me, lends even more credibility to god!

Isn't the only other alternative infinite existence? If there is a boundary to existence, then there must have been non-existence, despite the logical problems describing it. Disregarding existence itself, the beginning of the universe would require a suspension of several well-established laws of physics. Perhaps this makes it impossible to formulate any kind of theory, but it would be a discredit to philosophers and scientists both not to try. After all, we've already breached the realm of practicality, what other goal is there but a complete understanding of everything?

WHERE ARE THESE ARGUMENTS GETTING YOU IN THE DEBATE OVER THE EXISTENCE OF GOD, EXCEPT OF COURSE YOUR FAITH BASED ONES?

AHH, YOU HAVE SHOWN MY POINT. EXISTENCE IS INFINITE. READ LIKE TWO POSTS BACK OF MINE WHERE I ARGUE THIS OUT. EXISTENCE ALWAYS WAS, IS, AND WILL BE AND THERE IS NO LIMIT TO EXISTENCE.

NOW YOUR SECOND POINT BASIS ITSELF UPON A THEORY OF A BEGINNING OF EXISTENCE, I SAY THERE IS NO BEGINNING BUT EXISTENCE IS INFINITE. IT WASN'T CREATED, HENCE WHY THESE ARGUMENTS ARE A REFUTATION OF CREATION THEORY AND HENCE GOD. NOW LAWS OF PHYSICS ARE SIMPLY WAYS OF DESCRIBING EXISTENCE. IT IS CONSCIOUSNESS AND IDENTITY FUNCTIONING AS ONE TO DESCRIBE EXISTENCE. MORE SIGNIFICANTLY IS THAT THEY ARE ESTABLISHED TO ALLOW US TO COPE WITH EXISTENCE NOT MASTER IT AS WE CAN'T, EXISTENCE HAS PRIMACY OVER THE OTHER AXIOMS.

I don't necessarily disagree wih you, but I believe the other side has a point too.
If you believe that the universe and time did have a beginning, and only existence is infinite, then the original question arises again, only in different form. If there was a state in which the universe did not exist, then how did existence produce the universe? We are in a state of existence now, yet no new matter, energy, or physical laws are being produced. With an infinite existence, it seems that everything that would have happened, would have happened already. It also can be argued that the universe encompasses everything by definition, so there must have been a state of nothing.

MY ARGUMENT IS THAT THERE IS NO "BEGINNING" BECAUSE TO ASSUME THAT ASSUMES THAT THERE IS A PERIOD OF TIME BEFORE EXISTENCE WHICH MEANS THAT THERE WAS AN ERA OF NON-EXISTENCE, THAT IS IMPOSSIBLE. NOW THE UNIVERSE AROSE BECAUSE OF THE INFINITE TIME THAT ENSURES CHANCE IS CERTAINTY, LOOK TO MY LAST POST REFUTING ONLINETOENJOY WHERE I SPEAK OF DEEP TIME. NOW THE DIFFERENCE WITH YOUR ARGUMENT AND THE ARGUMENTS POSED BY RELIGION IS THAT THEY CLAIM THE CREATION OF EXISTENCE, THE BEGINNING OF TIME. EVEN, HOWEVER, IF YOU DO NOT AGREE WITH THAT, EXISTENCE EXISTED PRIOR TO THIS GOD, WHY 1. DO WE WORSHIP HIM, 2. WHAT CREATED THIS GOD IF WE MUST HAVE AN EXPLANATION FOR OUR OCCURENCE, 3. GOD CANNOT BE WHAT IS DEFINED, THAT BEING A CREATOR AND ALL-POWERFUL AND ALL-KNOWING. EXISTENCE HAS PRIMACY AS IT IS REQUIRED FOR THE ABILITY OF CONSCIOUSNESS AND IDENTITY, WHICH MEANS THAT IT IS THE PREDECESSOR TO THING THAT RELY UPON THOSE THINGS AS WELL. THE IDEA THAT SOMETHING CAN BE CREATED BY WILL ASSUMES THAT YOU HAVE POWER OVER EXISTENCE. TO ASSUME GOD CAN CREATE A NEW OR MORE EXISTENCE IS IMPOSSIBLE. NOW FOR YOUR LAST CLAIM ABOUT DEFINITION. EXISTENCE IS DENFINITION EVERYTHING OR ENCOMPASSES IF YOU PREFER THAT TERM. NOW YOU CLAIM THAT THIS MEANS THERE IS A REALM OF NOTHINGNESS OR A STATE OF NOTHINGNESS. WHAT MAY I ASK YOU OCCUPIES THIS STATE? FOR A STATE OR REALM OF NOTHING TO BE (FOR LACK OF A BETTER TERM) EXIST, IT MUST TAKE UP SOME SPACE BUT THERE IS NOTHING TO TAKE UP SPACE AS IT IS NOTHINGNESS. THERE IS NO NON-EXISTENCE BECAUSE THERE IS NOTHING THAT EXISTS WITHIN IT TO EXIST BECAUSE IF SOMETHING EXISTED WITHIN THIS STATE OF NON-EXISTENCE THEN IT WOULD BE EXISTENCE BECAUSE SOMETHING EXISTS THERE. GET WHAT I'M SAYING?

cameron-AS FAR AS I KNOW THEY DO. EVEN IF THAT BRAIN IS ONLY IN THE FORM OF THE
NUCLEAS OF SINGLE CELL LIFEFORMS IT DOES THE FUNCTION OF THE BRAIN FOR
SENSORY PERCEPTION, THOUGH THEY HAVE LESS SENSES.

--> Then far as ur knowledge goes u are wrong! A brain is a distinct organ and is definitely not present in all living organisms!

Before u advance more wrong information, i will want it to sink into u that bacteria don't even have a true nucleus!

cameron-I DON'T KNOW WHAT IS THE SUBSTRATUM, I NEVER MENTIONED IT.

--> Ahan! This isn't about who mentions what, this is about making sense...aka logic...or so have i assumed!

Saying "i don't know" doesn't get this dialogue anywhere! I could switch to ur mode and say "i don't know...it simply is" to every single thing...but wouldn't help!

Talking of big bang, when (not in time, but at what point) and how? Do talk on the substratum and the underlying substraum...let me see how u deal with regress!

cameron-1. IF I CONCEDE GOD IS BEYOND SPACE AND TIME AND EVERYTHING ELSE ISN'T:
THEN IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR CREATION. THIS IS BECAUSE EXISTENCE STILL
REQUIRES SPACE AND TIME. IF THERE IS NO SPACE AN TIME THEN EXISTENCE
CANNOT EXIST, IF THERE IS SPACE AND TIME THEN EXISTENCE ALREADY EXISTS AND
WASN'T CREATED BY GOD.

--> Huh? I think i clearly stated god *created* space and time; so spacetime is available for further creation!

cameron-2. IF GOD CAN BE BEYOND SPACE AND TIME THEN WHY AREN'T WE? YOUR ARGUMENT
IS ESSENTIALLY THAT GOD DOESN'T NEED TO BE CREATED, THEN WHY DOES
EXISTENCE? THERE IS A NEED TO QUESTION WHERE AND WHEN FOR GOD IF YOU ARE
GOING TO HOLD EXISTENCE TO THE SAME CONSTRAINTS.

--> Asking if god is so and so then why aren't v so and so is a nonsense question! It is akin to asking, "why is giant robot a machine, and kingkong a giant ape?"...they are what they are!

God is immeasurable in space and time for the simple reason that god created space and time! If in the 40th year of my life i make an instrument to record my heart-beats, would it be able to record the heart-beats before i made it? Then, how can god be measurable in time when time is its own handiwork?

God is infnite and eternal! And the creation (ur primordial bubble and what-have-u) are temporal, i.e, confined in space and time! And i would like to see u resolve this infinite regress!

cameron-NOW, YOU ARE GETTING (AT LEAST I FEEL YOU ARE) CLOSE TO THE SLIPPERY SLOPE
OF FAITH BASED ARGUMENTS WHICH MAKE IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR LOGICAL
ARGUMENTATION. I CANNOT DISPROVE YOUR BELIEFS IF ALL YOU NEED IS BELIEF
(NO I DON'T INTEND TO CHANGE YOUR MIND) BUT I DO INTEND THIS THREAD TO
ALLOW FOR DISCUSSION TO CONTINUE AND DEBATE TO BE ABLE TO OCCUR.

--> I am basing my statements on less faith than u are! I have partly defined god, can u do the same for "existence"? All u resort to is "i don't know...but it must be this way or that"! If u can present ur convictions *and* also prove them, then well and good! Else, ur statements are but a product of ur faith!

cameron-NO, IT WOULDN'T BE MAGIC BUT RATHER A CHANCE OCCURRENCE FROM THEORIES SUCH
AS DEEP TIME. THERE WAS ALWAYS A CHANCE THAT CERTAIN ELEMENTS WOULD
ARRANGE THEMSELVES INTO A BASIC SINGLE CELL ORGANISM. (A SINGLE CELL IS
ALL I NEED AS EVOLUTION TAKES PLACE FROM THERE.) THERE WAS ALWAYS A CHANCE
THAT ELEMENTS AND ATOMS AND WHATNOT WOULD COMBINE IN THE NECESSARY
QUANTITIES TO FORM A BACTERIUM. NOW THAT CHANCE COULD BE ONE IN A BILLION
(WHATEVER NUMBER YOU WANT). BUT IF YOU HAVE HAD BILLIONS OF BILLIONS OF
YEARS (IN FACT THROUGH THE ARGUMENTS I HAVE SHOWN LITERALLY INFINITE TIME)
THEN THAT CHANCE IS NOT ABSURD BUT NEARLY A CERTAINTY BECAUSE THE TIME IN
WHICH YOU HAVE HAD FOR THE NECESSARY REACTIONS TO OCCUR. NOW WHAT SOUNDS
LIKE MAGIC IS THEORIES THAT OCCUR DESPITE LOGICAL EVIDENCE TO THEIR
CONTRARY AS I HAVE SHOWN WITH CREATION THEORY AND YOU HAVE ESSENTIALLY
STOPPED ARGUING LIKE 3 POSTS AGO.

--> See? Another blanket statement: THERE WAS ALWAYS A CHANCE THAT CERTAIN
ELEMENTS WOULD ARRANGE THEMSELVES INTO A BASIC SINGLE CELL ORGANISM. (A
SINGLE CELL IS ALL I NEED AS EVOLUTION TAKES PLACE FROM THERE.)

From where did these did re-arranging elements come about? Why do u always skip the substratum?

Either u are pretending u don't see ur fallacy, or else u really can't see it...either way not good news!

LOOK ABOVE - DEEP TIME ETC. I DON'T KNOW I WASN'T THERE BUT I CAN MAKE A
LOGICAL STATEMENT IN THE DEFENSE OF THESE THEORIES AND LOGICAL ARGUMENTS
REFUTING YOUR CREATION THEORY.

--> Ah!...the g' old " i wasn't there" apology!

Please understand that there is nothing logical about blanket statements! If u really want to issue a logical statement then prove the premise to be sound, rather than just assuming it!

In this case, explain *what* led to the big-bang! I know u can try only upto a certain extent...before being caught up in a regress!

cameron-AHH, AS I FEARED, WE GET INTO A FAITH DEBATE. UNDERSTAND THAT I DON'T
BELIEVE I WILL CHANGE YOUR IDEOLOGY, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE A DEBATE SO
CAN WE KEEP IT IN THE REALM OF LOGIC WHERE A DEBATE CAN BE HAD BECAUSE I
CAN JUST SAY THERE IS NO GOD I BELIEVE IT AND WE STILL WOULD GET NO WHERE.

--> This has been a faith debate from ur end since the very start...which is why i said it was clever deception to throw in "logic" in the title!

The moment u explain how and when, v can try incorporating logic into this!

cameron-YES, BUT WHAT IS ENERGY BUT MATTER? E=MC^2 PROVES THAT THERE MUST BE
EXISTENCE TO BE ENERGY, MATTER IS A REQUIRMENT. WHAT IS MATTER? MATTER IS
EXISTENCE. SO BELIEVE THAT ENERGY HAS ALWAYS EXISTED, BUT IF YOU DO YOU
ARE BELIEVING THAT EXISTENCE HAS ALWAYS EXISTED WHICH IS MY ARGUMENT.

--> Nopes, u are putting the carriage before the horse! The axiom of perpertualness would be that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, but only converted from one form to another; in other words energy has always existed! I have heard of universe beginning as energy; that universe began as matter is something i haven't heard of as yet, that's other than from u!

cameron-MULTIPLE THEORIES PROVES GOD??? HOW? ESPECIALLY WHEN MANY THEORIES DENY GOD. ACTUALLY IT SEEMS GOD WOULD MAKE A SINGLE THEORIED WORLD MORE LIKELY THAN THEORIES SPROUTING FROM EXISTENCE ALWAYS EXISTING LIKE DEEP TIME. CHANCE BEING THE CAUSE OF LIFE MAKES MORE SENSE FOR MULTIPLE WAYS OF THINKING BECAUSE IT DOESN'T DEMAND WORSHIP AND RECOGNITION FOR A SUPREME LEADER. ALSO, WHY ARE THERE SEVERAL THEORIES FOR GOD THEN? WHY SO MANY RELIGIONS IF ONE GOD MADE EVERYTHING?

--> I am talking about ways of thinking...not just theories about god!

cameron-WHERE ARE THESE ARGUMENTS GETTING YOU IN THE DEBATE OVER THE EXISTENCE OF
GOD, EXCEPT OF COURSE YOUR FAITH BASED ONES?

--> A long way! For one, this is another confirmation that logic has almost nothing to do with the attempts of those who set out to disprove god via logic!

All that u have said so far is that human evolution followed the evolution of cosmos, and that the cosmos came ot of primordial bubbles! How the primordial bubbles came into being; how life got injected into the universe; how there came into being animate and inaminate entities are issues which are beyond u: all u do is say "i don't know".

I believe u said something like chemical reactions took place which led to the creation of life; whence these chemicals?

Perhaps language is confusing u, and u are losing urself in terms like "nothing" and "non-existence"...seeking to materialize these rather than treat them for what they are: concepts!

If i ask, "who said that?", and somebody answers "nobody," it doesn't mean there has to be a material "nobody" who said that! It simply means nothing was said...and again don't lose urself by imagining "nothing" being said!

Likewise, when i talk of nothing besides god, u don't have to imagine a state of a material nothing, it simply means only god was!

Having experienced people's inability to conceptualize nothingness, i know this is not an easy thing (if at all possible be it) to grasp! So, to help this discussion, please elaborate:

what triggered big bang? what before it?
whence life? whence primordial bubbles
what is time? how to measure it?
what is space? how to determine it?

Axioms are not self evident truths, that was the colloquial use back with Euclid as his axiom/postulate distinction and up untill about Frege's time; however, in modern logic and mathematics an axioma has absolutly no inherent self evidence, it is simply, in a deductive system of propositions, an unfounded assumption, and in a logistics system, a wff stated as an axiom.

Now, let's take a look at your argument

Now, in your argument, I beleive that you are a bit confused, the first two sentences I highlighted seem a bit logically confused and vague, and need expanding upon, and the third seems a bit overly complicated, are you saying if in a given domain there is an absence of existence then nothing exists?

Furthermore how do you define "existence", what do you mean by it?

Here is my argument.

There is no point to haveing this argument.

Modern physics dosen;t really even know why the laws of physics are asymetrical. Why can you break an egg, yet you can't unbreak it? There is nothing suggusting this asymmetry in the equations used to describe these physical laws, yet the relation clearly exists. What of causality? Quantum Mechanics shows us that many foundational assumptions of causality fall apart at the quantum level.

Much of this thread seem to consist of debateing the nature of causality without anyone haveing a clear idea what the physical causal laws are, or how they apply.

Untill all problems of modern Physical, Neuroscience, Philosophy of Mind, and Epistemology are solved, there really is no reasone to expect discussions such as these to yield any definitive results.

Cameron, doesn't your theory of infinite time assume that time has existence independent of the universe? Doesn't this ignore general relativity? Also, doesn't it follow that with infinite time, it would take an infinite amount of time to reach this point? Since we clearly have reached this point, then it follows that time cannot be infinite?



Since to say prior to the universe would assume that there was time prior to the universe, and to say outside the boundary of the universe's existence would assume that there was space outside the universe, and neither are true. Perhaps it can be described in a satisfactory manner by calling it the ~ universe, or a negative universe?

To those arguing for the existence of a creator, how do you expect to use logic to prove something that hypothetically does not require to be logical? If the universe requires a logical explanation, couldn't it be argued that since God is not necessarily logical, he is not necessarily the explanation? In fact, it could be argued that God is necessarily not logical, considering the attributes normally used to describe him seem to contradict reason. (cause-less cause, omnipresent, omnipotent, etc...)
On the flip side, it would seem equally impossible to disprove his existence.

Will, perhaps the point of this argument is that it is a pleasure to discuss. Although I agree that no one should create concrete beliefs based on the small amount of evidence we have. As to causality, do you have any evidence that causality can be reversed? Could you elaborate further on the incorrect assumptions used in this thread?

Yes, and while I stand by the substance of what I said, I regret the opening line, saying there was no point to the discussion, that is clearly wrong and superficial on my part, and should have stayed with the latter claim that this discussion will likely not yeild definitive results.



I never said that causality can be reversed, I simply pointed out that we don't even have sufficient knoeldge of causality and the universe to yet know WHY the laws of physics are asymmetrical.

I was just curious about reversed causation. Since you spoke of quantum symmetry, I thought you might know. You made a statement about fundamental assumptions of causation breaking down at the quantum level. Could you elaborate further?

will-Axioms are not self evident truths...

--> That "non-existence exists" becomes an impossility because of the way the words are arranged...in other words it is an impossibility because it seems to put two opposite ideas side by side! Therefore, a sophist will conclude that since "non-existence exists" is an impossibility, the only option left is that "existence exists"! This, however, is merely a play of words!

The fallacy lies in the attempt to materialize (rather than conceptualize) nothingness!

Which is why i gave the example of "nobody spoke" or "nothing was said"! If v try to imagine "nobody" and "nothing," v are led to an impossibility! How can "nothing" be said?