If you think there is a flaw there, can you figure it out? You have to have more than suspicions! — Philosophim

Other than a Dipolar God, not sure... I'm stumped

Take that and bring it into the argument above. And that's the next hint! — Philosophim

That multiverse is logically possible?

I've been struck by how, on philosophy forums at least, both theists and atheists typically throw the baby out with the bath water when it comes to discussion of Christianity. As example, it's nearly impossible to find any serious discussion of love. — Hippyhead

Excellent point about love. In Christianity, Jesus was basically a pacifist and was mostly about spreading love. And what is love but yet another mystery anyhow. How can the atheist deny mystery. They cannot even explain love itself, but somehow can explain no-God. Again, not very intuitive, sophisticated and frankly, very ignorant.

But back to the Fundy/Atheist similarities. I'll just summarize by saying living life is not A or B; it's both A and B. Consciousness is both consciousness and subconsciousness working together (Freud would add in the unconscious). In fact, the poor atheist cannot even explain consciousness...for shame for shame sargent.

Before I respond I need to understand. Are you a religious person and are these your religious beliefs? — EricH

Those are indications of words on a page in a book. Belief is irrelevant to the topic, I don't understand what you think belief has to do with it. — whollyrolling

Agreed. I don't know why Eric needs to know whether you are a religious person or not. It indeed seems irrelevant. They are words in a history book.

The 'belief' component relates to whether one should believe in the history book's account of history, or disbelieve it. In the case of the Christianity, of course, early church politics; translation errors, lost gospels, excluded books (Spinoza's and Gnostic teachings), different religions excluding books (Sirach is omitted from the Baptist Bible) ad nauseum (not to mention allegory/ metaphor), simply means the book is fallible. Aren't many history books subject to fallibility?

And so in this context, the poor atheist decides to arbitrarily dichotomize same, by throwing out the baby with the bath water. Doesn't seem too intuitive or sophisticated does it... . Extremist Fundy's/Atheists indeed share a great sense of ignorance.

Are these types of information also produced at the speed of light? When I ask if the mind is timeless, I ask if it is affected by change. If the mind is purely information, is it produced? What produces it? At what rate is it produced? Does this information change? Does the source of this information change? — Daniel

Have you studied Dark energy/matter?

Alright, the challenge is on! Where is the flaw I finally found? Can you introduce a flaw I missed? — Philosophim

I did a thesis years ago and asked whether God was a subjective or objective truth. After much debate the answer was both ( albeit it was relatively gradient and contextual). Similarly, there might be consideration given to a dipolar God who creates or causes existence/cosmological space-time ex nihilo. Allow me to elaborate.

I think that one of the flaws associated with a causational God not having any attributes could be problematic to some ( your items 4 thru 9). On the one hand I really like that there are no rules in describing its existence. After all, existentially, who really has the logic capable of understanding a first cause and /or the mind of a God concept anyway... . For example, the task of reconciling a Being or metaphysical energy force that is both dependent on time and space for it's existence, yet timeless (outside of time) and unchangeable and therefore not dependent on anything else for it's own existence is paradoxical.

And so (before my point) the reason I bring that up is because of the widely accepted Big Bang theory (as you so well pointed out). And as such a first cause would have to account for the foregoing because for one, mathematics (a changeless and timeless truth) so effectively describes the universe and the Big Bang itself. Which in effect makes a timeless platonic God appealing and certainly plausible. Meaning if the Big Bang was the starting point for time, space and matter (creation ex nihilo) then a dipolar God who was timeless living outside of temporal time (not time dependent for its existence) would have to enter time to create temporal time itself. In other words, what was a timeless platonic God doing before the BB, and what are its attributes.

For those reasons, causation or first cause ex nihilo has to consider a dipolar attribute of some sort.

Nevertheless, I'm still open to your existential (hence paradoxical) treatment to the no-rules argument of a first cause since afterall as suggested earlier, we cannot even understand many things associated with the nature of our own existence (consciousness being one; time being another) much less a super-natural force or a Being with transcendent qualities and attributes.. And so much like multiverse theories, the floodgates are really open as to what might be considered logically possible there. And I take no exception to that.

Otherwise, the other obvious and important flaw I don't have time to discuss (just putting it out there for fodder) is accounting for self-aware, conscious Beings, who happen to be here.

Can you figure out my flaw? Can you figure out another flaw I didn't think of? — Philosophim

Very nice! I'm subscribed!

My gut reaction relates to logical possibility and logical necessity. When I get more time I'll be happy to add some thoughts... .

A couple basic recommendations would be to argue specific questions regarding the nature of existence (Metaphysics). Two quick thoughts:

1. Catnap was a logical positivist. Contrast Kant's innate knowledge of Being, against the exclusivity of empirical truth's. In other words, research how Kant's synthetic a priori knowledge is distinct from empiricism. The infamous metaphysical example is Kant's (correct) judgement that it is natural to our ontological/epistemological existence (Being) to wonder that ' all events must have a cause'.

2. Google the illusion of time, dualism, etc. relative to cosmology. The nature of time itself is paradoxical. There are so many examples, but one of the first metaphysical problems that related to ontology and consciousness can be summed up in Descartes dualism (being and becoming). For example, thinking is a process, being is a state. Or cosmologically, the world continues to exist yet it continues to change. The timeless eternal truths of mathematics describe the universe, yet the universe is constantly changing ( and dependent on time), so on and so forth.

And so the nature of existence (Metaphysics and/or the Will in nature) is what you're trying to parse there. Hope that gives you some ideas...

Now, if something occupies a space and changes in time (possesses the quality of changing/change), isn't it physical? — Daniel

Awesome questions!

Are electrons and photons physical? Both, because they are both energy and mass. Much like the brain. Both energy and mass. In short, there is a metaphysical component to all.

Your other questions are quite paradoxical in nature! It makes me think of the question, what is time. What is the nature of time and the perception/phenomenon of it. Just like light-travel and time stopping; time flies when you're having fun :blush: . But in physics, the illusion of time can extend to the nature of energy and information.

Since energy can only be changed, the information within itself is always out there. How can there exist a phenomenon such as the timeless concept of the energy created during the speed of light, when to reach such speeds it requires time in order to achieve it (?). (We are traveling within time to reach a point of timelessness.) Seems paradoxical.

Perhaps the easier answer involves the difference between what we see physically and what we can't see physically (like the wind/air). How about time, can we see time pass?

The aesthetical experience itself is inclusive of ‘intellectual’ and ‘spiritual’ connection, not distinct from it. — Possibility

Of course, but you can't deny that without the object itself, there would be no such thing as an aesthetic experience. It's logically necessary for the experience itself. For the Kantian aesthetic judgement to take place. To be apperceived.

Rather it enables us to come to terms with our experiences of humility, adjustment and lack in relation to the possibility of Love or Beauty, for instance, that does not revolve around our own pleasure. — Possibility

Consider love making (romantic love). Does it involve pleasure for both? Of course it does. As self-directed individuals (the virtues of selfishness), we seek pleasure, happiness and joy. And as a higher altruistic type of love might include; a temporary denial of oneself for the pleasure of another. That still "revolves around our own pleasures."

And so a romantic relationship that includes a mind, body, spirit connection not only has potential for the higher love for reasons beyond just the physical (aesthetic judgement/experience), it still nevertheless "revolves around our own pleasure".

Otherwise, consider when two-become-one. Part of the phenomenon is that each person wants to procreate in order to create a mini-me. It's partly based upon an aesthetic judgement to desire creating another person (the physical object). And when the baby is first born, the object is considered (Kantian aesthetic judgement) beautiful. If it wasn't, people would not feel compelled to look at other babies and say 'what a beautiful baby (or ugly baby )'.

The aesthetic judgement always begins with the object itself. We can't escape it. Sure, there are other reasons that involve the intellect, but when it comes down to it, the feelings of physical passion (Eros) is a virtue that relationship's want to maintain in all forms of Being.

but for me metaphysics seeks an objective understanding of reality, — Possibility

Correct. And part of the "objective understanding" is the concrete object itself. Are men and women attracted to each other physically (and mentally)? I hope so.

If the mind is affected by time, shouldn't it also occupy a space? — Daniel

It does occupy a space. It's part of space itself.

Is the mind affected by time? — Daniel

That's a great question! If information doesn't pass with the extinction of time, and from Einstein's relativity the speed of light makes time stand still, does light/information itself become timeless and eternal (the Hologram Principle)?

Some practical examples of information outside the mind include truly novel discoveries in physics, as well as writing music and/or from our stream of consciousness during everydayness. Theoretical physicist Davies wrote in his book (The Mind of God) that although he had never had such revelatory experiences, he knew some fellow physicists who came up with truly novel formulas seemingly out of nowhere. Unfortunately it didn't happen that often.

Perhaps the analogy there, is that if the so-called platonic realm of mathematics (a timeless truth) comes to a person out of nowhere, it makes you wonder if mathematics is more than just a human invention.

But matter and energy are the same thing, just in different states. — Sir2u

Agreed. That's another reason why the Hologram principle works. And that's because it follows the first law of thermodynamics known as, the Law of Conservation of Energy,.

Since energy can neither be created nor destroyed, energy can only be transferred or changed from one form to another. For example, turning on a light would seem to produce energy; however, it is electrical energy that is converted.

And so space contains energy and energy contains space. Add to that QM, PAP, double-slits etc. and the overwhelming evidence suggests the mind is just a microcosm of a larger metaphysical phenomena.

I don't have to prove anything because I have not made any declarations that require proof. And what I said does not lead to whether there is something instead of nothing either. — Sir2u

Okay. Then it sounds like both space contains information and energy, and information and energy occupy space.

Hold your hand in front of you, it takes up space right. What information is in that space that is separate from the hand that is occupying it. None. The genetic info included in the cells is part of the cells, a property of the cells, and it occupies the same space as the cells. When the body dies, what happens to the information? The basic information that many think is included in atoms and particles is still there, so where did the other stuff go to? — Sir2u

All that describes is the distinction between matter and energy. You haven't made the case that energy somehow doesn't exist, like it does everywhere, and within space.

The Hologram Principle is pretty straightforward.

Can you cite any cases where non-believers have murdered millions of people simply because they (the murdered people) did not share the non-believer's particular brand of non-belief? — EricH

Indeed. Yet another form of religion; religious extremism gives [a] God a bad name.

On the other hand here in America, we didn't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Meaning, our commitment to Christian philosophy and religious freedom overwhelmingly enhances our quality of life. In other words, practically speaking, or in a philosophical pragmatic way, the pluses continue to outweigh the minuses.

Agreed. And the contradiction as well as the irony, is that the (metaphysical) sense of wonderment has not only contributed greatly to our quality of life in science, technology and humanities, but is absolutely essential in affecting same. Life without wonder would be... (?).

And so in turn it translates into a sense of ignorance that causes a person to dismiss that which provides a quality of life (for all people), regardless of their belief system. Thus one of the many existential paradoxes, in this case, for the atheist to resolve.

It's kind of sad, but as I've said before; pride, ignorance, ego, extremism, and other cognitive deficiencies relative to the finitude of existence (the human condition) , rears it ugly head more often than we care to admit. And too, as we know, that's certainly nothing new under the sun as it were. Those of us who appreciate all types of knowledge ( i.e., from the various domains of philosophy) also understand OT wisdom books are a good basic resource there... .

Most atheists seem to lack that simple concept associated with self-awareness. Perhaps another reason why nihilists are atheists...not sure. In any case that certainly speaks to another form of extremism.

If you're scared say you're scared :chin:

Last time I checked the concern in the OP relates to positions on the arguments for God.

I presented existential, metaphysical, phenomenological and other questions about consciousness for which none of the atheists on this site have been able to answer

So far the evidence suggests at atheism is an untenable position to be in...

Why is this troll still here? Why do the mods permit such shite to continue? — Banno

That's ironic, I thought the same thing concerning your lack of supporting evidence in your Atheistic belief system (existential, metaphysical, phenomenological, cognitive science, et.al.). LOL

Can you parse the logic for me? So far from history, Jesus,/God existed unless you tell me otherwise.

the laws we see in the universe are the only laws that a universe can have this gives fuel to the deterministic philosophy in which things have to/ will occur a certain way rather than completely by chance. — Benj96

The laws of the universe being mathematical means they're both deterministic and indeterministic. As such, Godel, Heisenberg, and quantum mechanics all suggest a level of indeterminacy in nature. The distinctions between indeterminism and complete chaos is a different matter though. Complete chaos presumably would preclude human existence among other things... .

Similarly, there could be other so-called possible worlds that have a different set of laws governing their or its existence. A totally different language as it were. Some multiverse theories obviously include such possibilities.

It's a great question! It's like asking why do self-aware beings inhabit the universe (?). Determinism and indeterminism in nature is subordinate to our metaphysical sense of wonderment.

Atheists want to think they are more than that, but they aren't. — Frank Apisa

Yep. Both far right-wing atheists and theists (extremists) think they have it all figured out. It's kind of sad but true.

Perhaps another reason why the secular concepts of Faith, Hope and Love are alive and kickin! People either have faith or hope about something they believe in … but what's Love got to do widdit :nerd:

Ok. Bible as history, and as history, to be believed — tim wood

Okay, if you say so. I rest my case. Next issue?!

Believe if you like. — tim wood

Believe what, in a history book? You don't believe history? If not, which accounts of history should be vetted and why?

What's worse is that throughout history wars have been fought to decide the outcomes of these discussions. — EricH

Indeed, religion gives God a bad name. In Christianity, I don't think Jesus was big on religion...

Aside from that, extremism in all forms, is usually the culprit. Not to mention the sin of the ego/pride...

Accordingly, I wished the early church politicians would have included things like the lost gospel's information, Spinoza's, as well as the Gnostic wisdom! It's all about information and wisdom... !

As to history, I don't think there are two words together in the Bible that would pass as history. As to what else, lots of else. What's you point? — tim wood

Are you sure? I thought the Bible was an account of historical events that occurred in time, no?

Oh, and speaking of time, you might want to explain the phenomenon of Time after we get through the history lesson. But let's take one at a time, no pun intended.

An edited collection of a whole lot of writings by different people at different times in different languages for different purposes. Do you understand that history is largely a modern invention, and is itself its own science - when done right.


tim wood

an hour ago — tim wood

1.Okay, good. And what was this edited collection about?
2. Do you mean the history of science?

The following scientific diagram explains the details. :-) — Hippyhead

Funny, but I think this (Picasso's) diagram might be more appropriate:

Only the most ignorant think the Bible a history book. — tim wood

What is the Bible then?

...when it comes to Christian apologetics... , another reason why I'm a Christian Existentialist. (Otherwise, I enjoy talking about God.)

Some of the greatest minds among us have been sucked in to this pointless dance for centuries.

Unfortunately or fortunately its not pointless. One reason is because over 75% of all philosophical domains invoke God as their respective criterion.

Similarly, have you read The Mind of God by theoretical physicist Paul Davies? I should get royalties, but it's a great read... .

Timmy! Cognitive science may help you with this phenomenon:

What you are not you cannot perceive to understand, it cannot communicate itself to you-AH Maslow.

Aside from believing the truth's of a given history book (the Christian Bible), logical inference from cosmology, phenomenology, existentialism, cognitive science/consciousness, metaphysics, et. al. points to the concept of a God for its meaning.

No argument? Oh well, I guess you've run out of options. Next atheist!

F*** you," every time you hit it, like some kind of obscene squeeze toy. The which, alas and unfortunately, just makes me want to hit it again. Tar-baby is another term. I have trouble even imaging why anyone would want to be, aspire to be, work to be, such a thing. But I think I'll try to keep course with you and keep away. Maybe there's a Bill for this problem. — tim wood

Hahaha, hiding behind ad hominin seems to substantiate my arguments.

That would be irrelevant since "to quote scripture" does not corroborate the claims of scripture. — 180 Proof

Does quoting a history book corroborate history?

Syllogisms of the sort you're "using" have three terms. Count your terms; you have four. And that even has a name, the fallacy of the four terms. — tim wood

There are no limits to how many premises a syllogism can have. The basic syllogism is three terms, but if you feel it commits a fallacy, I'd be happy to re-arrange them if you like!

the Christian Bible is no history book, — tim wood

Really? I thought it recorded Christianity.

As noted before, your "syllogism" is not a syllogism - if that is of any interest to you. — tim wood

Why isn't this a syllogism (for reference)?

1. Jesus was known as being [ in part] God.
2. History indicated Jesus existed.
3. Therefore, history indicates the existence of God.

I mean, it meets the basic criteria of; All A are B, 2.All C are A, 3.Therefore, all C are B.

Alternatively, I'll be happy to re-arrange it, if you feel it isn't sound. For example, would proposition/premise one read better if I changed it to ' 1. Jesus was known as the son of God'. (?)

If it is "known", then provide or indicate evidence which corroborates the claims of the Christian Bible — 180 Proof

I would be glad to, but this is more or less an atheist site and I was not told to quote Christian Scripture. It's definitely in there, I double checked... .

Think of it this way, as history reads, Jesus was crucified, in part, because at the time he was disliked and known to be the son of God.

And so, not sure what your argument is... . If you're saying one should not believe in history books, then make your case, I'd be more than happy to navigate that territory.

The fact that space contains information and energy does not make it conclusive that information and energy occupy space.

Then you would simply have to prove why/how there is something and not nothing.

Just curious, have you studied NeuroQuantology? It's kind of the latest thing in science that combines QM and neuroscience.