What are you talking about, being a troll? You're off topic and brushing my commentary aside without even considering it. It's not off topic. Try to be a little more open minded. — whollyrolling

read the OP and try to tell me that. Now i'll answer the question now that your pushing me.

A good book to read on this is Noah Harrari's "Sapien"

Before the common era CE or AD there were many religions just as there are now. Religion might be a human construct as dictated in the above book i mentioned. Ants kill other Ants. There is even an Ant species that captures other ants and enslaves them for labor. In some cases the second species of ants will revolt against the captor ant. I know your going to ask me for sources for that ant example but this is off topic so i'm not going to find the source. Send me a private message for a source.

Apes kill other ape tribes and as far as we know they have no religion. Religion has allowed for more efficient wars in terms of murdering massive amounts of people but people have been killing each other far be before the known world empires. The Roman empire for example brought writing to alot of areas so that these areas could record how they murder each other. I'm not a fan of the Roman empire. and on and on and on.

Read the above book or leave me alone on this particular forum topic about the dangers of religion

as i said over and over we are off topic.

I'm not talking solely about "the dangers of religion". I'm talking about inefficiency, and I'm talking about supernatural justification, I'm talking about assumption. That religion is dangerous is tertiary to my other statements, and you've chosen to focus primarily on that aspect of my commentary.

How can God be non-material if God doesn't exist, and how can you begin a discussion by assuming that God exists if there's no foundation for the claim? My commentary is directly related to the topic. The OP has begun by assuming that God exists, which implies that it doesn't, and I'm arguing that it's a contradictory, self-defeating and unproductive position. The existence of God has to be demonstrated in order to discuss its properties.

and you've chosen to focus primarily on that aspect of my commentary. — whollyrolling

just stop.

How can God be non-material if God doesn't exist, and how can you begin a discussion by assuming that God exists if there's no foundation for the claim? My commentary is directly related to the topic. The OP has begun by assuming that God exists, which implies that it doesn't, and I'm arguing that it's a contradictory, self-defeating and unproductive position. The existence of God has to be demonstrated in order to discuss its properties. — whollyrolling

i disagree. The OP is presenting the idea that what we view as a god or supernatural might not be magical nor supernatural at all. I said something to this effect in a previous post on this OP topic. The OP explains that this god might not be a god as classically defined but a creature with extra (read geometric) dimensional characteristics.

i answered the question that had nothing to do with the OP and you didn't like the answer even though i kept saying it had nothing to do with the OP

Please don't pretend you're adding to a conversation. All you're doing is trying to shut down feedback you don't want to hear and talking about ants and apes and imagining there was ever a time in recorded history, or prior to it, that religion didn't exist in some form.

I'm done here, you can have the thread, it's your personal property.

Nice!

Please don't pretend you're adding to a conversation. All you're doing is trying to shut down feedback you don't want to hear and talking about ants and apes and imagining there was ever a time in recorded history, or prior to it, that religion didn't exist in some form. — whollyrolling

You were the one who brought up religion. I said over and over that had nothing to do with OP. If you want to talk about the dangers of religion (i said this several times) start another Topic and i'll respond if you like. I said this many times. You didn't like my answer.

Until some future point in time yes you are correct this is my forum topic. I'll be waiting possibly forever. lol

How can God be non-material if God doesn't exist, and how can you begin a discussion by assuming that God exists if there's no foundation for the claim? My commentary is directly related to the topic. The OP has begun by assuming that God exists, which implies that it doesn't, and I'm arguing that it's a contradictory, self-defeating and unproductive position. The existence of God has to be demonstrated in order to discuss its properties. — whollyrolling

The foundation for the claim God exists is here:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/5577/was-there-a-first-cause-reviewing-the-five-ways/p1

If you want to debate if God exists, I suggest doing it on the above thread where all the evidence is laid out. This thread is about whether God is material or not.

"It seems simple to me, the universe can't have existed forever (it would have no start so none of it would exist)
— Devans99

Yeah, yeah. And Achilles can never catch up with the tortoise. And the flying arrow is motionless. — S

What exactly has that got to do with whether the universe has ever existed?

What exactly has that got to do with whether the universe has ever existed? — Devans99

It has to do with logic. But there's no point explaining it because you're an evangelical.

christian2017
154
I noticed through out this forum topic that accusations were made in the OP that were never clarified on certain concepts. The 4th post down is an example of this. The poster of the 4th post F.A. said things were stated but infact they were never stated in this forum topic. The OP started a new thread because he/she had new insights new ideas. Some of your are being trolls today. — christian2017

I certainly am not being a troll.

The conversation is a continuation of several conversations occurring simultaneously. Allusions were made...I responded to them.

Devans knew what he was doing. He is not trolling...nor am I.

There was no "new insight"...there was a very old notion being peddled...and I was not buying.

One last thing, Christian...

...and this is "off-topic" also...

...you sound like a sock puppet for Devans.

Are you?

It has to do with logic. But there's no point explaining it because you're an evangelical. — S

As usual nothing substantive to say :(

But isn't it kind of insane to go on a merry-go-round to nowhere? That's what you're effectively inviting me to.

I don't understand how you can doubt there is a first cause, all the evidence is presented here:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/5577/was-there-a-first-cause-reviewing-the-five-ways/p1

It is very obvious that there must be a first cause so discussing the attributes of the first cause is relevant.

Just because there is only one type of reality we are familiar with does not mean other types of reality are not possible. Logically whatever created spacetime is not of spacetime so non-material is not as bizarre as it sounds.

Space can't exist without time so it could be that the first cause is 'spaceless' as well as timeless.

One last thing, Christian...

...and this is "off-topic" also...

...you sound like a sock puppet for Devans.

Are you? — Frank Apisa

No but i am a member of this forum that agrees with some people on some issues and not some issues with other people.

I don't understand how you can doubt there is a first cause... — Devans99

There's a reason for that, but it's not what you think. It has to do with psychology.

Do you understand how it can be doubted that Achilles can never catch up with the tortoise, and that the flying arrow is motionless?

I don't see for example how anything can logically exist without a first cause. — Devans99

No, you don't. I'm not sure I do either. But the scenario you present is speculative in its every aspect, to the point where it seems difficult to make any kind of definite statement about anything. Does cause and effect apply to God, for example?

What do you hope that this topic will (could) achieve? Surely it is possible that God is non-material, but if She is, what of it? What have we learned if we conclude She is? Do you have, or know of, any evidence to present? Lacking evidence, as we always do when we discuss such things as God, what can we usefully conclude? I suggest that, sans evidence, we are constrained by logic to refrain from reaching any conclusion at all. We have no justification for doing so...? :chin:

Do you understand how it can be doubted that Achilles can never catch up with the tortoise, and that the flying arrow is motionless? — S

I don't find either paradoxical; the universe is discrete, so not very good examples.

A logical argument can lead to something at odds with common sense? This is true. Relativity and QM are both examples where common sense does not cut it.

Does cause and effect apply to God, for example? — Pattern-chaser

God is timeless so he is beyond cause and effect. The only way out of the infinite regress of time stretching back forever is to have a timeless first cause.

What do you hope that this topic will (could) achieve? Surely it is possible that God is non-material, but if She is, what of it? — Pattern-chaser

Anything material is probably subject to the 2nd law of thermodynamics - it becomes disorganised with time - ages and dies effectively. So there is an argument that a material God would be dead by now. So the argument of material Vs non-material God could be cast as dead Vs alive God.

I suggest that, sans evidence, we are constrained by logic to refrain from reaching any conclusion at all — Pattern-chaser

We can make some deductions. For example, how did material God get away from the Big Bang? It would of blown him to bits setting that off. Hence non-material God seems more likely.

Do you understand how it can be doubted that Achilles can never catch up with the tortoise, and that the flying arrow is motionless?
— S

I don't find either paradoxical; the universe is discrete, so not very good examples.

A logical argument can lead to something at odds with common sense? This is true. Relativity and QM are both examples where common sense does not cut it. — Devans99

If you understand how they can be doubted, then you should be able to understand how your argument for the necessity of a first cause can be doubted, unless your psychology prevents you. They all use a similar sort of bad logic.

Describe the bad logic please.

Does cause and effect apply to God, for example? — Pattern-chaser


God is timeless so he is beyond cause and effect. The only way out of the infinite regress of time stretching back forever is to have a timeless first cause. — Devans99

Although you have not - probably wisely - defined what God is, I see no reason to assume She is bound by the same constraints that apply to us humans. [And no reason to assume She is not so bound.] Perhaps She has divine powers that make things different for Her, or maybe our misunderstanding of (in this case) time leads us to misunderstand? And so on. Speculation often only leads to ... more speculation.

Once we introduce an unknown quantity, in this case God, it is unclear how our reasoning could or should progress.

What do you hope that this topic will (could) achieve? Surely it is possible that God is non-material, but if She is, what of it? — Pattern-chaser


Anything material is probably subject to the 2nd law of thermodynamics - it becomes disorganised with time - ages and dies effectively. So there is an argument that a material God would be dead by now. So the argument of material Vs non-material God could be cast as dead Vs alive God. — Devans99

The "2nd law of thermodynamics" is not a law, in the sense that it does not bind us, the universe or God. It's a guideline we have discovered that appears to apply to most of the things we know of, most of the time. It might apply to a material, or non-material, God, but if it did, how would it apply?

I suggest that, sans evidence, we are constrained by logic to refrain from reaching any conclusion at all — Pattern-chaser


We can make some deductions. For example, how did material God get away from the Big Bang? It would [have] blown him to bits setting that off. Hence non-material God seems more likely. — Devans99

I think the Big Bang is a theory, n'est ce pas? :wink: And if it did happen, and it was God that caused it to happen, perhaps She had a way to avoid its consequences?

There are just too many variables in your speculation to reach conclusions. Every guess we might make could be invalidated by something we failed to define (i.e. assume). You speculate about God, but make assumptions as to which parts of our knowledge and understanding of life, the universe and everything might apply to Her. The usefulness, if any, of any answers we invent is wholly dependent on the accuracy of our groundless and unjustified assumptions concerning Her.

Note: I assert nothing here; there is insufficient information on which to base such assertions. I have no clue how to answer your questions, and I don't think any human can know enough about such matters to offer a useful response to your questions.

Describe the bad logic please. — Devans99

Describe it yourself. Describe to me the faults in Zeno's arguments.

When you were at school, did you just sit back and ask your teachers to explain everything to you, so you didn't really have to learn through tasks and challenges? If you had've done so, how do you think your teachers would've reacted? Is this reflective of your understanding of education? It's your job to sit back and hold to your assumptions, whilst everyone else works to spoon feed you and get you to actually think?

It's like if I give you an inch, you take a mile.

Although you have not - probably wisely - defined what God is, I see no reason to assume She is bound by the same constraints that apply to us humans. [And no reason to assume She is not so bound.] — Pattern-chaser

God is the creator of the universe; that is my definition. On the subject of God's sex, God is not the product of bisexual reproduction, so has no sex. It is merely conventional to refer to God as a 'him'.

Perhaps She has divine powers that make things different for Her, or maybe our misunderstanding of (in this case) time leads us to misunderstand? And so on. Speculation often only leads to ... more speculation. — Pattern-chaser

Your suggestion of divine powers is not logically derived from anything. My suggestion of a non-material nature of God is logically derived. I suggest we can make progress by sticking to logic rather than speculation.

The "2nd law of thermodynamics" is not a law, in the sense that it does not bind us, the universe or God. It's a guideline we have discovered that appears to apply to most of the things we know of, most of the time. It might apply to a material, or non-material, God, but if it did, how would it apply? — Pattern-chaser

It is the most fundamental law of science. It transcends even our universe; stuff gets disorganised that is a fact. If you can give me an example of where the 2nd law does not hold?

If God is material and subject to time then the 2nd law says he is dead.

Describe it yourself. Describe to me the faults in Zeno's arguments.

When you were at school, did you just sit back and ask your teachers to explain everything to you, so you didn't really have to learn through tasks and challenges? If you had've done so, how do you think your teachers would've reacted? Is this reflective of your understanding of education? — S

I was asking you to describe the faults in my arguments. I don't see what purpose a discussion of Zeno's arguments serves at this point.

I was asking you to describe the faults in my arguments. I don't see what purpose a discussion of Zeno's arguments serves at this point. — Devans99

I'm trying to get you to see the purpose of my relating your argument to Zeno's arguments by getting you to use your brain instead of me spoon feeding you the answer.

Your suggestion of divine powers is not logically derived from anything. My suggestion of a non-material nature of God is logically derived. I suggest we can make progress by sticking to logic rather than speculation. — Devans99

Your suggestion of God (and Her existence) is not logically derived from anything.

Zeno's arguments have some merit; else we would not still reference them.

Your suggestion of God (and Her existence) is not logically derived from anything. — Pattern-chaser

I go through the logical deduction of a first cause here:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/5577/was-there-a-first-cause-reviewing-the-five-ways/p1

I say at the start of the OP that I'm assuming the first cause is God.