Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Theophage · 03-10-2002, 12:20 PM

The Mighty Theophage chimes in with yet another hit and run bit of self-aggrandizing commentary:

Originally posted by [b]Marcel Rombouts[b]:
NOTHING does NOT exist!

I certainly agree here.

There couldn't possibly be a maker, because there's nothing to make, the whole infinite thing has always been here!

Yes and no. To understand this, look at what tronvillan wrote:

That nothing cannot exist does not imply that the universe has always existed, it simply implies that something has always existed. As a result, it is logically possible for the universe to have a creator and your argument fails.

In other words, yes, the fact that there was never nothing does mean that some creator did not create the universe where there was nothing before (ex nihilo). But, it also does not mean that there could be no Creator, since the Creator could simply be the one who took what previously existed (a sort of proto-universe) and fashioned the universe out of it.

It all really depends on how you define "universe" (thus making it a semantic problem). If you define universe as "everything that has existance," then the Creator itself is part of the universe, and thus did not create the universe, only spacetime and energy since the big Bang.

Originally posted by A3:
Look at ANY 'substance', it is held together by force. His force. That is why He is the only reality and only real Person.

Heh heh, this reminds me of the chick tract which talks about how atomic nuclei are held together by Jesus, rather than by the strong nuclear force. I guess Jesus isn't too good at holding radioactive elements together, eh?

Please tell us how we can determine whether or not the forces in nature are "His force" or not, A3, without already assuming that God exists and is responsible for nature. Theists just love to play "beg the question..."

No, spiritual substance. Love is not nothing, it is a spiritual substance.

"Spiritual substance"...is that like ectoplasm? No, A3, love is an emotion, not a "substance" spiritual or otherwise. I suppose the number 2 is a "numerical substance"? Note the disturbing trend theists have for reification too...

Originally posted by J. Mordecai Pallant
No, Sonoran Desert. 300 days of sunshine a year. The mountains around me have less than that.

Woohoo! The desert rocks! We live in the same town, J...

Originally posted by Jonsey3333:
Time is something.
"Before" implies it happened in a time preceding the event.
If there is something, there is not nothing.
Therefore, nothing could not exist before something.

This is an important point I made in an old thread I started regarding proof that a creator God could not exist (too lazy to look up URL now :^). My take was that a God could not have caused spacetime, since causality itself requires that the cause be temporally prior to the effect. Since a God could not be temporally prior to spacetime itself, such a being could not have been the cause of it.

I don't want to re-hash that here, I just thought that its mention was interesting, especially given Marcel's original inent of using "nothing doesn't exist" as proof of the non-existance of a Creator.

Daniel "Theophage" Clark
the Infrequent Infidel

A3 · 03-10-2002, 05:07 PM

Sorry Theo...

Quote:

"Spiritual substance"...is that like ectoplasm? No, A3, love is an emotion,

Love is a spiritual substance which manifests iself in our mind as an emotion. Similar to radio waves coming to our radio, what comes out is sound.
A3

Samsa · 03-10-2002, 06:00 PM

"Love is a spiritual substance". OK then, if love is matter, then which elements on the periodic table make it up? Can only certain isotopes of the more unstable elements be used to create a 'spiritual' compound or mixture?

If love is energy, then what other energy forms is it derived from or transformed into? Maybe it's from 'spiritual energy'. But spiritual energy, like any other, cannot be created. Unless, of course, there's a GOD sitting up there spewing it out of whole cloth.

I prefer to believe that love is an emotion created by the alchemy of thoughts, memories and sensory input.

A3 · 03-10-2002, 07:05 PM

Hi Samsa,

Quote:

OK then, if love is matter

uh uh, it is a spiritual substance or is substantial (not nothing). As all natural matter is governed by natural laws, spiritual substance is governed by spiritual laws. So i.e. water has certain characteristics in the natural realm, love has its characteristics in the spiritual realm. They are to love others outside of oneself, it also has the desire to be one with them and to make them happy. And this can only be done when freedom exists.
Divine Love adheres to these characteristics just as much as our love does. God is love, so are we. Everything we do is motivated by love. The love of food, honour, golf, marriage, self-preservation, whatever. God did not create us for the purpose of worshiping Him. He created us so He could love us, be one with us and make us happy (if we let Him).

Quote:

But spiritual energy, like any other, cannot be created. Unless, of course, there's a GOD sitting up there spewing it out of whole cloth.

If you only new how close you were. What do you think Life is? I suppose you could call it spiritual energy, sure. God is Life, ("without Me you can do nothing") Without His life flowing into us every nano-second we would not exist.
But it is past my bedtime.
G'night
A3

Theophage · 03-11-2002, 12:07 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by A3:
<strong>Sorry Theo...

Love is a spiritual substance which manifests iself in our mind as an emotion. Similar to radio waves coming to our radio, what comes out is sound.
A3</strong>

Evidence please.

If I claimed that "2 is a numerical substance" does that mean anything? Would you accept my assertion of that without explanation/evidence? Your assertion is exactly the same (meaningless and unevidenced).

ju'iblex · 03-11-2002, 02:16 AM

Quote:

Well, what's so bad about that?? what is your alternative? If you are against religion I sympathize with you in a way. Nothing has done more harm to humanity than building a literal interpretation of the Bible and classifying it as the only way. �Think like us or you go to hell!� That is absolutely uncalled for. If you were a loving parent would you punish the whole family, for the rest of their lifes, if they stole one of your fruits? Of course not. Could you be so mad at society (as a loving god) that the only thing that could possibly make you feel better was if they killed your only son? This happens when you take things literally. Some very smart people have done some very strenuous mental calisthenics to come up with these �answers.� But all they have come up with are things that don�t make sense and remain a mystery. This approach is not just limited to the Christian faith. Other religions took things literally too and are still waiting for their Messiah. The atrocities of Sep. 11 were done by people who were convinced they were doing the right thing.
Many people today, having seen all the misery, say there is no God. If there were a God, He would have prevented it. But we can�t say �God doesn�t exist� just because we don�t understand how He works. Now everyone wants proof that He exists. Proof that there is a life after death, etc. But that situation is like a kid refusing to go to school unless someone can proof to him he will live past his 20e birthday. Why not hope for the best and live your life as if you will go past 20? Why live as if everything comes to a screeching halt at the death of the body? Why go through so many years of schooling, apprenticeships, career development, paychecks and exercising and eating healthy just to die. In fact many do die before they reach 20. What are you living for then? See how big a house you can own before you die? How many cars you can own? How many women you can seduce? How big a bank account you can accumulate? How many talk shows you can get on? etc. And then I haven�t even mentioned friends, marriage and children.

Why not look at the positive side of life and the side that makes the most sense, based on the internal meaning of the Bible? And that is the only thing I�m trying to get across.

who could have thought one sentence could inspire so much. it was hardly Shakespeare.

honestly, divine "substance", am i the only one spotting a problem here? my alternative is that of the big bang, and everything always existing. not big men speading love.
and yes, i do dislike religion to an extent, but how you manage to devote so much writing to that assumption is beyond me. perhaps you should wait until i actually say something before you argue with me about it. and i have no need for your sympathy.

really, all i was saying is that your claim of divine substance is not only as absurd as everything being made of pink, but likewise has absolutely no evidence whatsoever to substantiate it.

i apologise if you took offence at my sarcasm, but it was to make a point.

joedad · 03-11-2002, 09:17 AM

"Zero" represents the absence of a quantity. Conventionally, it assumes and infers the existence of something only presently absent, correct?

A creator, therefore would have to somehow equate with the idea of "zero." But how could "zero" create something?

Reasonable conclusions: Zero is eternal and zero is the creator. A "zero" looks like an egg, and therefore the egg came first, not the chicken, and the chicken was created by the eternal creator egg. And unless I'm a pantheist, the egg and the chicken are separate.

Cosmic egg theorists carry the day.

joe

Jayhawker Soule · 03-11-2002, 09:54 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by A3:
<strong>Why not look at the positive side of life and the side that makes the most sense, based on the internal meaning of the Bible? And that is the only thing I’m trying to get across.
</strong>

I suppose that, by "the positive side of life and the side that makes the most sense", you mean recognizinging that life's not all that bad if you're not a Canaanite. Or have you manufactured a more esoteric meaning?

Quote:

"But of the cities of these people, which the LORD thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth: But thou shalt utterly destroy them; namely, the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites; as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee." Deuteronomy 20:16-17 KJV

"Well, [A3,] what's so bad about that??" <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

Infinity Lover · 03-11-2002, 11:50 AM

(Love, by the way is a shameless honest binding affection, not some kind of trippy energy. And if God puts love in your heart, why are so many theist intollerant and grumpy? Or is that just a Canadian thing?)
RELATIVES AND ABSOLUTES

Size is relative. You're gigantic compared to an ant, but miniscule compared to the planet you live on.
An absolute is a criterium that applies to a subject, regardless of what you compare it with. Some absolutes are purely contemplative, and can only be used as a figure of speech, or in theory, but some absolutes, REAL absolutes, apply to real live!
Certainty is a 'real absolute', you know you're lifespan is limited for sure (NO you're not ZORG the immortal who demands worship; stop fooling around

) Limitation is another 'real absolute'
Perfection is a 'contemplative absolute' nothing and nobody is perfect. Perfection means that NOTHING is lacking. Nothing is a 'contemplative absolute' as well. It means the perfect lack of everything.

(time is something? If there's nothing, who the (beep) is keeping track of it? Oh yeah Mr.G. sure, the easy answer. The great excuse to dodge issues)

When we say "there's nothing here", that's a figure of speech, to implicate the lack of certain things. But if you were to say "nothing can exist" in a court of law, you'd technicly speaking be commiting purgery, because you're denying your own existence, the court's existence, and then some.
Nothing can't exist, so there's always something.
Calling the space between thing's "nothing" is also rather silly.
nothing, nothing, planet, nothing, nothing, planet. THAT'S NOTHING CONTAINING SOMETHING
Nothing doesn't contain anything! That's what it friggin'nothing for! Since when can nothing contain something? When did this become doable? Does that mean I don't need a glass to drink out of anymore?
Nothing also means that which non-exists (you can look this up in a dictionary, I ain't goofing)

And I see a lot of entries by a lot of people, and a lot of nothing. And turning something into nothing. Or turning nothing into something.

But not a solid counterargument in sight.

Nothing is nothing! DUH! <img src="confused.gif" border="0">

tronvillain · 03-11-2002, 11:53 AM

That nothing cannot exist does not imply that the universe has always existed, it simply implies that something has always existed. As a result, it is logically possible for the universe to have a creator and your argument fails.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-10-2002, 12:20 PM	#21
Theophage Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Tucson, AZ USA Posts: 966	The Mighty Theophage chimes in with yet another hit and run bit of self-aggrandizing commentary: Originally posted by [b]Marcel Rombouts[b]: NOTHING does NOT exist! I certainly agree here. There couldn't possibly be a maker, because there's nothing to make, the whole infinite thing has always been here! Yes and no. To understand this, look at what tronvillan wrote: That nothing cannot exist does not imply that the universe has always existed, it simply implies that something has always existed. As a result, it is logically possible for the universe to have a creator and your argument fails. In other words, yes, the fact that there was never nothing does mean that some creator did not create the universe where there was nothing before (ex nihilo). But, it also does not mean that there could be no Creator, since the Creator could simply be the one who took what previously existed (a sort of proto-universe) and fashioned the universe out of it. It all really depends on how you define "universe" (thus making it a semantic problem). If you define universe as "everything that has existance," then the Creator itself is part of the universe, and thus did not create the universe, only spacetime and energy since the big Bang. Originally posted by A3: Look at ANY 'substance', it is held together by force. His force. That is why He is the only reality and only real Person. Heh heh, this reminds me of the chick tract which talks about how atomic nuclei are held together by Jesus, rather than by the strong nuclear force. I guess Jesus isn't too good at holding radioactive elements together, eh? Please tell us how we can determine whether or not the forces in nature are "His force" or not, A3, without already assuming that God exists and is responsible for nature. Theists just love to play "beg the question..." No, spiritual substance. Love is not nothing, it is a spiritual substance. "Spiritual substance"...is that like ectoplasm? No, A3, love is an emotion, not a "substance" spiritual or otherwise. I suppose the number 2 is a "numerical substance"? Note the disturbing trend theists have for reification too... Originally posted by J. Mordecai Pallant No, Sonoran Desert. 300 days of sunshine a year. The mountains around me have less than that. Woohoo! The desert rocks! We live in the same town, J... Originally posted by Jonsey3333: Time is something. "Before" implies it happened in a time preceding the event. If there is something, there is not nothing. Therefore, nothing could not exist before something. This is an important point I made in an old thread I started regarding proof that a creator God could not exist (too lazy to look up URL now :^). My take was that a God could not have caused spacetime, since causality itself requires that the cause be temporally prior to the effect. Since a God could not be temporally prior to spacetime itself, such a being could not have been the cause of it. I don't want to re-hash that here, I just thought that its mention was interesting, especially given Marcel's original inent of using "nothing doesn't exist" as proof of the non-existance of a Creator. Daniel "Theophage" Clark the Infrequent Infidel

03-10-2002, 06:00 PM	#23
Samsa Junior Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: New Zealand Posts: 47	"Love is a spiritual substance". OK then, if love is matter, then which elements on the periodic table make it up? Can only certain isotopes of the more unstable elements be used to create a 'spiritual' compound or mixture? If love is energy, then what other energy forms is it derived from or transformed into? Maybe it's from 'spiritual energy'. But spiritual energy, like any other, cannot be created. Unless, of course, there's a GOD sitting up there spewing it out of whole cloth. I prefer to believe that love is an emotion created by the alchemy of thoughts, memories and sensory input.

03-11-2002, 09:17 AM	#27
joedad Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: PA USA Posts: 5,039	"Zero" represents the absence of a quantity. Conventionally, it assumes and infers the existence of something only presently absent, correct? A creator, therefore would have to somehow equate with the idea of "zero." But how could "zero" create something? Reasonable conclusions: Zero is eternal and zero is the creator. A "zero" looks like an egg, and therefore the egg came first, not the chicken, and the chicken was created by the eternal creator egg. And unless I'm a pantheist, the egg and the chicken are separate. Cosmic egg theorists carry the day. joe

03-11-2002, 11:50 AM	#29
Infinity Lover Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: The Netherlands Posts: 1,047	(Love, by the way is a shameless honest binding affection, not some kind of trippy energy. And if God puts love in your heart, why are so many theist intollerant and grumpy? Or is that just a Canadian thing?) RELATIVES AND ABSOLUTES Size is relative. You're gigantic compared to an ant, but miniscule compared to the planet you live on. An absolute is a criterium that applies to a subject, regardless of what you compare it with. Some absolutes are purely contemplative, and can only be used as a figure of speech, or in theory, but some absolutes, REAL absolutes, apply to real live! Certainty is a 'real absolute', you know you're lifespan is limited for sure (NO you're not ZORG the immortal who demands worship; stop fooling around ) Limitation is another 'real absolute' Perfection is a 'contemplative absolute' nothing and nobody is perfect. Perfection means that NOTHING is lacking. Nothing is a 'contemplative absolute' as well. It means the perfect lack of everything. (time is something? If there's nothing, who the (beep) is keeping track of it? Oh yeah Mr.G. sure, the easy answer. The great excuse to dodge issues) When we say "there's nothing here", that's a figure of speech, to implicate the lack of certain things. But if you were to say "nothing can exist" in a court of law, you'd technicly speaking be commiting purgery, because you're denying your own existence, the court's existence, and then some. Nothing can't exist, so there's always something. Calling the space between thing's "nothing" is also rather silly. nothing, nothing, planet, nothing, nothing, planet. THAT'S NOTHING CONTAINING SOMETHING Nothing doesn't contain anything! That's what it friggin'nothing for! Since when can nothing contain something? When did this become doable? Does that mean I don't need a glass to drink out of anymore? Nothing also means that which non-exists (you can look this up in a dictionary, I ain't goofing) And I see a lot of entries by a lot of people, and a lot of nothing. And turning something into nothing. Or turning nothing into something. But not a solid counterargument in sight. Nothing is nothing! DUH! <img src="confused.gif" border="0">

03-11-2002, 11:53 AM	#30
tronvillain Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Alberta, Canada Posts: 5,658	That nothing cannot exist does not imply that the universe has always existed, it simply implies that something has always existed. As a result, it is logically possible for the universe to have a creator and your argument fails.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.