At some point on the planet, "life" happened without prior life. I use life in quotes, because it's probably not what you'd think of as life...self-replicating protein chains or some such. But it's there.
There are mathematically viable models for how the universe came to be on its own. It's not proof, but it's more than you have for your invisible, unknowable creator being. Even if you were to prove that something existed outside or before our universe (we have evidence of neither, but for the sake of the argument), it would only suggest that there's something else unexplained beyond the material universe. The logical leap between "something" and "the Christian God" is so large as to be laughable. And we don't even have evidence for the "something" let alone anything more specific.
The question of origin only gets more complicated if you introduce a more complicated god being. It solves nothing about ultimate origins...it just pushes the question one step further back. We may never know for certain how the universe came to be, but working with what we know is a far better option to me than positing an invisible space god that we have no reasonable evidence to believe in and calling it a day. That you accept your view without evidence as ultimate truth and refuse to think beyond it is your own limitation, not the universe's.
I said name one (just one) example (non-speculative but actual, observable, and provable using the scientific method) of life arising from non-life.
I have given a few examples to the contrary (i.e. irrefutable, observable, scientifically provable examples in the here and now) that support my claim.
Furthermore, you completely avoided the second challenge.
Name one exception of a law that did not require a lawmaker.
Again, I can provide present-day, current examples that support what I affirm.
The Bible's account for the origin of all life and of the universe is the only one that makes sense: it was a supernatural event.
I realize this is difficult for the atheist to accept, but it is the only logical explanation, despite the fact that it is supernatural.
Only a supernatural God could create matter, energy, life, order, laws, emotions, conscience, intelligence, logic, reasoning capacity, compassion, and a host of other emotions and phenomenon that we take for granted every day--and still cannot fully explain or grasp.
Lastly, a supernatural being does not need an origin.
Speculating is saying there's something we can't know in any way. My only assertion of existence is the universe itself. I doubt we need to invoke some fancy psychological idea to see my point, eh?
The Bible was written by humans. Nothing more. We might as well be using Harry Potter to determine our cosmology.
And you say a supernatural being does not need an origin. That is an opinion, based literally on nothing. How would you even begin to provide logical or empirical backing for such an assertion? Again, your willingness to accept the unfounded uncritically is a flaw in your thinking here.
And while we're accusing the other of dodging the point, nothing in your response refutes my earlier post. You say "you're speculating" without further backing. In the evolutionary case, I'm not speculating. We have a damn good, proven, testable, model of how life came to be on the planet. The lack of specificity in my description was necessitated by the nature of our discussion. I could copy/paste some books here if you'd rather I spell it out.
And on the origins of the universe, we're both speculating. Only difference is, mine has some evidence. Yours has none. Or rather, it has a book written by a bunch of guys who thought gravity was God's way of preventing us from flying to his palace in the sky.
Your candor is touching.
I was devout for most of my life. I do happen to be capable of understanding religious viewpoints.
Registered: Nov 2004
Location: With Cinderella and the 9 Dwarves
You didn't prove what you claimed, you showed at best circumstantial evidence that it could be true. It's not on me to show you prove that your claim is not true, when calling it out.
Prove to me your axioms, from which you derive everything are correct, or be prepared to have them questioned.
A basic understanding of burden of proof would help us here. I think JIA responded with "there is no burden of proof" at one point, which of course has us running in circles.
"Prove your claim"
"No, you"
"No, I didn't make a claim. You did."
"But you're speculating."
JIA, the problem lies with something like your claim:
"a supernatural being does not need an origin"
That's ver batim, and is a claim made about the nature of a supernatural god being. The onus of evidence is on you to support that claim.
We're not trying to defer logical responsibility away from ourselves. But you're the one saying things like this. If I say the chair I'm sitting on can experience pain, it's on me to prove it, not on others to disprove it. "God exists" is the claim, as is any claim about the nature of God. With no evidence, a lack of belief in that God is the default position, and needs to justification.
My core belief is the result of one paradox: Nothing is non-existent. By definition, nothing can't exist.
When your body dies, the consciousness it housed becomes zero. It becomes nothing, but that can't be because nothing isn't real.
When black holes achieve Planck mass, their singularities mathematically achieve infinity of density, zero of space, and a duration-less flow of time. This, like zero, is impossible according to physics. And this mathematical infinity comes from zero, from dividing by zero.
When the structure that is my body can no longer house a consciousness, my consciousness, I will see infinite possible universes from a non-linear viewpoint. I will experience my life as it were influenced by me in infinite different paradisaical probabilities, a new perfect life with a new set of events and experiences that would make me happy: After that physical body expires I experience a different possible paradisaical life, this is repeated for an eternity of lifetimes. That is heaven. That is the fate of all our consciousnesses.
God is the aggregate of all consciousnesses (there are infinite consciousnesses), viewing from the aforementioned zero/infinity perspective. The multi-verse is His play-thing, literally bending to His infinite perspective. There's an intelligently organized; purposeful providence that is ours, here and now, through Him. Our lives aren't meaningless or chaotic because, no matter what, they add unto Him perspective - and vice versa.
__________________ "Compounding these trickster aspects, the Joker ethos is verbally explicated as such by his psychiatrist, who describes his madness as "super-sanity." Where "sanity" previously suggested acquiescence with cultural codes, the addition of "super" implies that this common "sanity" has been replaced by a superior form, in which perception and processing are completely ungoverned and unconstrained"
Last edited by KillaKassara on Sep 11th, 2013 at 06:22 AM
This is a dogma. You can't prove it. It's just a reconciliation of cognitive dissonance.
I could say that nothing MUST exist, on account of something existing. No concept can exist without its opposite, and reality is painted on a canvas of nothingness.
of course, that's an equally ridiculous justification, but it's the same type of thought process that you're using. Difference is, only one of us thinks that a firmly stated belief equates to evidence. And only one of us thinks that trying to apply logic to the unknown and nihg-incomprehensible is a worthwhile task.
If you say so. How do you know this? Also, how do you know consciousness can exist outside the physical phenomena that give rise to it.
From consciousness to black holes. Your imagination and penchant for creating thematic links between things is impressive. The logic of this chain of thought, and the applicability of half-understood physics principles to consciousness, less so.
Fancy. But wholly unsupported, and no better than any theistic dogma that states supernatural claims without justification.
Actually, **** all of this...what does any of this have to do with atheism? At least JIA attacked the theme of the thread. All this is, is a Stephen Hawking novel mixed with some New Age pseudo-science.
Also, what does adding "perspective to Him - and vice versa" mean? Sounds like poetic nonsense to me.
You're only 20, which is about the time many people start to encounter these ideas. Hell, at the same age I think I tried to justify the existence of a multiverse by invoking black holes. And my understand of multiversal theory was incomplete enough that I posited that all sorts of insane things not only were possible, but probable (like a universe in which you're Batman). Good times. I'm just fortunate I didn't stop there.
Anway. Just keep applying critical thought to your beliefs, and I think you'll find that a few of them are lacking solid backing.
Okay, I agree with the Empirical method, and have no choice but to be Agnostic until experiments gauged to this astronomical specificity starts redundantly producing the same conclusion. The conclusion must be unlikely to have occurred by chance, mathematically speaking.
And I saw your Batman multiverse facebook post. It could be true, and it could be your consciousness's. What we truly are will find out whether or not this speculation is correct when we die.
__________________ "Compounding these trickster aspects, the Joker ethos is verbally explicated as such by his psychiatrist, who describes his madness as "super-sanity." Where "sanity" previously suggested acquiescence with cultural codes, the addition of "super" implies that this common "sanity" has been replaced by a superior form, in which perception and processing are completely ungoverned and unconstrained"
Last edited by KillaKassara on Sep 11th, 2013 at 06:10 PM
When you die, you become one with the infinite losing all knowledge of self thus there is not subjective experience from which to differentiate a consciousness.
When you die, "you" cannot sense the self when you become one with God.
And since that infinite consciousness is outside of time, but your subjective experience is still tied to that consciousness, this finite time you experience is split into an infinitely small experience rendering it meaningless and, for all purposes, it doesn't even exist.
So, you don't exist, I don't exist. This experience we are having is infinitely small and, therefore, is not happening.
Sonymous with becoming nothing, which is the definition of death.
No, that wouldn't make sense, your consciousness would be gone in that case. God is the aggregate of all such perspectives.
No, time has no meaning. The experience of duration is a choice. You're still essentially in a nothing place, without time or space. Your consciousness is still liberated from all but the zeroth dimension, you're still dead.
Nothing doesn't exist, if it did, it would have to be something.
*sigh*
Michio Kaku is better with words I guess. Here ya go:
He used the word, "theory".
__________________ "Compounding these trickster aspects, the Joker ethos is verbally explicated as such by his psychiatrist, who describes his madness as "super-sanity." Where "sanity" previously suggested acquiescence with cultural codes, the addition of "super" implies that this common "sanity" has been replaced by a superior form, in which perception and processing are completely ungoverned and unconstrained"
It would not exist and your subjective experience or "self" would cease to exist.
That's what I just said.
Oh, I didn't know I had a choice about whether or not I want my subjective experience to die. That's a relief. When I die, I'm just going to not become one with the infinite.
Nope, that's not how it works in your scenario. Becoming one with the infinite consciousness terminates my subjective experience and since it is outside of time and infinite, that means that my existence is infinitely small and, therefore, does not exist.
Good luck with that. You afraid of the butterfly effect? Consciousness's purpose is to experience fresh perspectives, it is a primal urge that cannot be overridden. Only this time you're aware of all the probabilities and are aware of your non-corporeal condition as it were, so you don't have to worry about the butterfly effect.
When you're dealing with infinity, terms like large and small have no meaning.
__________________ "Compounding these trickster aspects, the Joker ethos is verbally explicated as such by his psychiatrist, who describes his madness as "super-sanity." Where "sanity" previously suggested acquiescence with cultural codes, the addition of "super" implies that this common "sanity" has been replaced by a superior form, in which perception and processing are completely ungoverned and unconstrained"
Last edited by KillaKassara on Sep 11th, 2013 at 06:34 PM
Digi I read a post on facebook a while back that basically said exactly what you just said about being Batman in some universe somewhere. So I recalled it instantly when I read your post.
If that's the only perspective you choose to experience out of infinite possible perspectives, than it means something. Maybe you just really wanted to be loved all your life, and so that's the experience you chose.
__________________ "Compounding these trickster aspects, the Joker ethos is verbally explicated as such by his psychiatrist, who describes his madness as "super-sanity." Where "sanity" previously suggested acquiescence with cultural codes, the addition of "super" implies that this common "sanity" has been replaced by a superior form, in which perception and processing are completely ungoverned and unconstrained"
Last edited by KillaKassara on Sep 11th, 2013 at 10:32 PM
Sep 10th, 2013 01:30 PM
