Atheism: The Great Nothing!

[Sententia]

Well my point is that certain people read others, then claim things like " Nobody is interested in what I am saying." Then they try to manipulate others not to read, as they themselves continue to read. Thats hypocrital in my view, I don't agree with them, they cannot handle me, so they give impression that my views are meaningless, all the while my post continue to grow and garner attention.

And thats what they don't like.

Peace.

You have a point. Keep on the prowl. Any publicity is good publicity... So says paris hilton and so says mickiel.

 

[mickiel]

You have a point. Keep on the prowl. Any publicity is good publicity... So says paris hilton and so says mickiel.

Well I think the point is valid. Certain Atheist here try to claim my post are uninteresting, I disagree with that, and the numerics backs it up. And most of the intrest and debate have come from Atheist themselves, and I don't like it when they claim they are not interested. Its illusion and selfish denial. Its transparent and I see through it each time.

Atheism is nothing to me, yet I am willing to engage them, have done so for years now. Its the Great Nothing in my view, and nothing from nothing leaves nothing in my thinking. I am not willing to settle for nothing, because my Consciousness was not shaped by this nothing, something ordered it.

And that something is far more than I. Far more that this Atheist nothing.

Its academic in my view.

Peace.

 

[Sententia]

Well I think the point is valid. Certain Atheist here try to claim my post are uninteresting, I disagree with that, and the numerics backs it up. And most of the intrest and debate have come from Atheist themselves, and I don't like it when they claim they are not interested. Its illusion and selfish denial. Its transparent and I see through it each time.

Atheism is nothing to me, yet I am willing to engage them, have done so for years now. Its the Great Nothing in my view, and nothing from nothing leaves nothing in my thinking. I am not willing to settle for nothing, because my Consciousness was not shaped by this nothing, something ordered it.

And that something is far more than I. Far more that this Atheist nothing.

Its academic in my view.

Peace.

Do not confuse people trying to help you with people who wish to follow and learn more.

 

[LuisDantas]

Well I think the point is valid. Certain Atheist here try to claim my post are uninteresting, I disagree with that, and the numerics backs it up.

The numbers may show interest, but it is risky to assume what sort of interest.

And most of the interest and debate have come from Atheist themselves, and I don't like it when they claim they are not interested. Its illusion and selfish denial. Its transparent and I see through it each time.

You seem pretty convinced, so maybe it is a waste of time.

Atheism is nothing to me, yet I am willing to engage them, have done so for years now. Its the Great Nothing in my view, and nothing from nothing leaves nothing in my thinking. I am not willing to settle for nothing, because my Consciousness was not shaped by this nothing, something ordered it.

Yet you don't really have a clear point to offer. Other, I guess, that you abhor atheism?

And that something is far more than I. Far more that this Atheist nothing.

Its academic in my view.

Peace.

If you say so.

 

[mickiel]

Do not confuse people trying to help you with people who wish to follow and learn more.

There is an advent to learning, a humility of sorts. One may think they teach, but really they are learning. The Atheist here may assume that I need to be taught, but I am different, and they are different.

In this difference, we both learn.

And I will do some teaching of my own.

Peace.

 

[Sententia]

There is an advent to learning, a humility of sorts. One may think they teach, but really they are learning. The Atheist here may assume that I need to be taught, but I am different, and they are different.

In this difference, we both learn.

And I will do some teaching of my own.

Peace.

Jesus was humble but you choose not to be while also claiming to follow the teachings of Jesus.

Is Pride not a sin? judge not lest you be judged? Meh... Keep teaching without listening I guess?

 

[Copernicus]

Well I think the point is valid. Certain Atheist here try to claim my post are uninteresting, I disagree with that, and the numerics backs it up. And most of the intrest and debate have come from Atheist themselves, and I don't like it when they claim they are not interested. Its illusion and selfish denial. Its transparent and I see through it each time.

Here you seem to be saying that claims of not having an interest in your posts must be false, because people respond to them.

Atheism is nothing to me, yet I am willing to engage them, have done so for years now. Its the Great Nothing in my view, and nothing from nothing leaves nothing in my thinking. I am not willing to settle for nothing, because my Consciousness was not shaped by this nothing, something ordered it.

Here you say that "atheism is nothing" to you, but you cannot help but keep coming back to bait atheists and commenting on the posts of atheists. Atheism is not nothing to you. You are obsessed with it. What makes your posts interesting to me is the constant spectacle of you getting hoisted by your own petards all the time. I find it fascinating that you seem so oblivious to this.

What I find truly fascinating about belief in God is the magnitude of the delusion. People who believe in the existence of an undetectable, super-intelligent being with unlimited magical powers and a keen interest in every aspect of human behavior, including dietary/mating/clothing habits, must know at some level of their being that they are grasping at some fairly implausible straws. Yet the belief is so pervasive and so deep in some that one has to see it as a fundamental flaw in psyches. Mickiel, I do not find your posts uninteresting. I find some rather breathtaking contradictions in them, and it is sometimes interesting to watch you squirm when people poke at the unshakable faith that keeps you dancing around the flame of that great "nothing"--atheism.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Atheism is nothing to me, yet I am willing to engage them, have done so for years now. Its the Great Nothing in my view, and nothing from nothing leaves nothing in my thinking.

Peace.

Come on mickiel....tell the truth....

You love us.....We fascinate you. You, secretly, long to be like us and as free as we are...come on...tell the truth....

You can tell me...no one else can hear you....

 

[Peacewise]

Come on atheists....tell the truth....

You love believers.....They fascinate you. You, secretly, long to be like believers and as free as they are...come on...tell the truth....

You can tell Him...He'll hear you....

You don't have to tell anyone else, just tell Him, in the privacy of your home - that's what He requires you to do.

"Matthew 6:6.
But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. "

 

[OneThatGotAway]

Here's the problem though, LPH.

Creationist arguments generally go as such:

1) The Universe is massively complex
2) This is too complex to have come about randomly
3) Therefore it was created
4) The Creator is God

Which sounds pretty good. But then you have to consider:

5) The Creator must be even more complex than the creation
6) Point 2) holds that the complexity of the creation is too high to be undesigned or naturalistic
7) But this, combined with 5) would mean that the Creator is too complex to be undesigned

Thank DS for mentioning points 5 through 7. However, despite the fact that the universe is complex; still, you have to conclude only two options:

1) These objects (planets, energy, gravity, conscience, molecules, etc.) have ALWAYS been around with nothing to create them; hence No Creator. OR....
2) There has always been a Creator who naturally (and supernaturally) created everything else.

We have to conclude that "In the Beginning..." there was something or someone that has ALWAYS been around without creation or creator.

It is the same as deducing\reducing every large number to either 0 or 1. Which came first?
The Zero: Nothing or lifeless objects, unordered molecules, conscience ALWAYS existed;
The One: The Creator

I for one believes that the Creator has always been around without being created.
And yes, he would naturally have to be more complex than his creation.

Would you agree that no matter how far back we go in time, that we have to scientifically consider these two possiblities?

PS: If I don't reply right away; it is because I live a very busy life and I'm trying to catch up on my hundreds of e-mail.

 

[yourhopeboundheart]

Atheism is nothing to me, yet I am willing to engage them, have done so for years now. Its the Great Nothing in my view, and nothing from nothing leaves nothing in my thinking. I am not willing to settle for nothing, because my Consciousness was not shaped by this nothing, something ordered it.

And that something is far more than I. Far more that this Atheist nothing.

the reason why your threads are so popular comes down to two pretty important factors. first of all, you post more times on your own threads than nearly everyone else combined. and often it's not even in a response to something anyone else replied with, it's simply you continuing to say exactly what you were saying the in OP without provocation or requests for clarification. you mainly have 47 pages of responses on a thread about "nothing" because you populate it with posts galore.
the second reason your threads go on for so long is because it's painfully obvious that you will never change your opinion. it's evident in the above quote where you, 47 pages later, repeat the title of the thread even though it's been made clear to you over and over again that atheism is neither a belief in nothing or NOTHING, that doesn't make any sense. most conversations about nonsense don't take 47 pages worth of posts to clear up, say we were having a discussion about my shirt. it would probably go something like this.
normal rational human being: your shirt is on fire.
me: no, i dont believe it is. i'm looking at it now and it seems to not only be free of flame, but rather something like room temperature.
n.r.h.b: oh, my mistake. weird, i totally thought it was.
me: no worries.

now, what would this discussion look like if i was having it with mickiel?
mickiel: your shirt is on fire. and i want to get into that.
mickiel: fire engulfs your shirt, it is fire all over. your shirt burns on you and you are blind to it because you believe we come from apes. and i want to get into that.
me: no, i really think that it's fine. i dont know where you're getting your information from; but i have pictures i can show you of my shirt, flameless, i have three witnesses here, one measuring the temperature of all my clothing, i have a stack of peer reviewed articles detailing the fire-free state of my shirt and on top of all that my shirt is actually fire retardant. could you tell me, perhaps why you think my shirt was on fire in the first place?
mickiel: your shirt is on fire. peace.
[ad nauseum]


numbers, in this case, seriously do not suggest interest. more than likely it suggests rhetorical masochism.

 

[LuisDantas]

There is no particular reason why the universe must have been created, nor why it should always have existed with planets and stars.

We are predisposed to believe in creators because our brains and mental proccesses are biased in that way. That is all.

 

[mickiel]

the reason why your threads are so popular comes down to two pretty important factors. first of all, you post more times on your own threads than nearly everyone else combined. and often it's not even in a response to something anyone else replied with, it's simply you continuing to say exactly what you were saying the in OP without provocation or requests for clarification. you mainly have 47 pages of responses on a thread about "nothing" because you populate it with posts galore.
the second reason your threads go on for so long is because it's painfully obvious that you will never change your opinion. it's evident in the above quote where you, 47 pages later, repeat the title of the thread even though it's been made clear to you over and over again that atheism is neither a belief in nothing or NOTHING, that doesn't make any sense. most conversations about nonsense don't take 47 pages worth of posts to clear up, say we were having a discussion about my shirt. it would probably go something like this.
normal rational human being: your shirt is on fire.
me: no, i dont believe it is. i'm looking at it now and it seems to not only be free of flame, but rather something like room temperature.
n.r.h.b: oh, my mistake. weird, i totally thought it was.
me: no worries.

now, what would this discussion look like if i was having it with mickiel?
mickiel: your shirt is on fire. and i want to get into that.
mickiel: fire engulfs your shirt, it is fire all over. your shirt burns on you and you are blind to it because you believe we come from apes. and i want to get into that.
me: no, i really think that it's fine. i dont know where you're getting your information from; but i have pictures i can show you of my shirt, flameless, i have three witnesses here, one measuring the temperature of all my clothing, i have a stack of peer reviewed articles detailing the fire-free state of my shirt and on top of all that my shirt is actually fire retardant. could you tell me, perhaps why you think my shirt was on fire in the first place?
mickiel: your shirt is on fire. peace.
[ad nauseum]


numbers, in this case, seriously do not suggest interest. more than likely it suggests rhetorical masochism.

It got your attention.

Peace.

 

[OneThatGotAway]

There is no particular reason why the universe must have been created, nor why it should always have existed with planets and stars.

We are predisposed to believe in creators because our brains and mental proccesses are biased in that way. That is all.

If what you say is true, then it begs the question as to why should we not consider the possibility of a Creator or that physical objects and energies have always existed. When trying to explain the origin of things such as the universe, a man would logically consider these two possibilities as some of his theories. To not consider these two possiblity would lead other men to conclude that we really did not exhaust ALL possibilities of explaining the origin of things.

It is like a group of scientists got together and came up with 98 theories of considering the origins of the universe. But two more scientist came up with theory 99 and 100 and were excluded because they were told that there is no reason for those two theories (i.e. the ones that I proposed). Why not? And who determines which ones to consider and which ones to ignore?

 

[LuisDantas]

If what you say is true, then it begs the question as to why should we not consider the possibility of a Creator

There might be one, I guess. But there is no real evidence of any, and if there is a Creator then its own origin is a puzzle - a bigger, more challenging one than the existence of the universe itself.

or that physical objects and energies have always existed.

Maybe they have. The evidence that planets are born and eventually die is however quite convincing by this point, so we have no reason to expect immortality or even a perpetuallly extant Earth.

When trying to explain the origin of things such as the universe, a man would logically consider these two possibilities as some of his theories. To not consider these two possiblity would lead other men to conclude that we really did not exhaust ALL possibilities of explaining the origin of things.

Well, did we? That is hardly a modest goal. Who knows what other possibilities there might be?

It is like a group of scientists got together and came up with 98 theories of considering the origins of the universe. But two more scientist came up with theory 99 and 100 and were excluded because they were told that there is no reason for those two theories (i.e. the ones that I proposed). Why not? And who determines which ones to consider and which ones to ignore?

That is not at all a good parallel, however. It is not at all like an ever-existing universe or a creator god have never been proposed or considered. It just turns out that the evidence strongly suggests a Big Bang, and the idea of a creator god is ultimately a non-explanation which begs even more difficult questions.

 

[OneThatGotAway]

Originally Posted by LovePeaceHappiness
Although I do not agree with mickiel's approach to showing athiests the existence of God; nevertheless, he does make a very valid scientific point:
1. A Creator created everything; or
2. Everything we see came into being from nothing.
And when I say nothing; I mean no physical objects no matter how small they are.

Did the creator create itself? Or is that creator itself nothing? (I suspect the latter.)

If we believe that the Creator was in the beginning instead of lifeless objects and random energy; then the obvious answer is that the Creator did not created Himself nor was created: He has always existed without end.

There is no reason to believe that everything we see came from nothing.

I agree with you. Because logically that would not make any sense. Something or someone had to have always existed in the beginning; whether it be an intelligent spirit or mindless and patternless rocks and energy that have always existed only later to accidently collided with each other over countless trillions of times to later create a pattern of energy and thus ordered conscience, energy, planets, and life.

If anything can exist without having been created, that could just as well be physical reality itself. No need to bring an uncreated god into the picture.

I agree with you that this too is a possibility but highly unlikely. Because if you were to collide any 'pre-existing' physical substance and energy together for over a trillion millennia, you still will not be able to create a Boeing 747 Jumbo Jet (for example).

My point is that given what mankind know today; we eventually will limit our scientific methods to what we believe regarding the origins of the universe: In the beginning was:

0) Death - an always existing floating objects and energy with no order :no:
1) Life - An always existing Creator with order and conscience. :yes:

Surely, these two options should scientifically be considered in a collection of today's theories of the origin of the universe.

 

[PolyHedral]

I agree with you that this too is a possibility but highly unlikely. Because if you were to collide any 'pre-existing' physical substance and energy together for over a trillion millennia, you still will not be able to create a Boeing 747 Jumbo Jet (for example).

There is no way to back up this being unlkikely. Also, how about if you take the entire mass-energy content of the universe and compress into the smallest possible volume? OK, it might take you over 13 billion years, but you get the jet eventually...

Surely, these two options should scientifically be considered in a collection of today's theories of the origin of the universe.

They are considered. The Big Bang is essentially a very complicated version of 0. (Though the concept of "objects" does not make sense in those conditions)

 

[Copernicus]

Originally Posted by LovePeaceHappiness If we believe that the Creator was in the beginning instead of lifeless objects and random energy; then the obvious answer is that the Creator did not created Himself nor was created: He has always existed without end.

But if we do not believe that there was a super-intelligent, super-complex being with unlimited powers, then the obvious answer is that physical reality itself was not created by such a being. Rather, it just always existed and was never created by anything or anyone. Under that scenario, life and complexity evolved from the interaction of matter and energy. We came into being because gravity compressed matter inside of stars, and exploding stars spread the heavy elements necessary for more complex physical forms everywhere in the universe. That scenario seems consistent with what we know about the formation of stars and the natural interaction of matter.

I agree with you. Because logically that would not make any sense. Something or someone had to have always existed in the beginning; whether it be an intelligent spirit or mindless and patternless rocks and energy that have always existed only later to accidently collided with each other over countless trillions of times to later create a pattern of energy and thus ordered conscience, energy, planets, and life.

Right. There is no evidence of a creator, and it does appear that the interaction of matter created events that led to the formation of planets and complex beings such as ourselves. Life on this planet evolved without the paradoxical aid of another more complex life form, whose existence would also need to be explained. Rather, conditions on the planet led to the evolution of beings such as ourselves.

I agree with you that this too is a possibility but highly unlikely. Because if you were to collide any 'pre-existing' physical substance and energy together for over a trillion millennia, you still will not be able to create a Boeing 747 Jumbo Jet (for example).

Well, that is essentially what happened. Evolution led to beings such as ourselves, who created the Boeing 747 to serve our needs and wants, just as beavers create dams to serve their needs and ants create complex tunnels to serve their needs. That is how evolution works. Life forms compete for their survival and propagation. Our species has been fairly successful in that competition for survival so far, although it won't last forever.

My point is that given what mankind know today; we eventually will limit our scientific methods to what we believe regarding the origins of the universe: In the beginning was:

0) Death - an always existing floating objects and energy with no order :no:

The absence of life is not death. You need life in order to have death. And it turns out that order does evolve out of chaos. We see examples of emergent order everywhere in nature, and we can even simulate that behavior with mindless algorithms. :yes:

1) Life - An always existing Creator with order and conscience. :yes:

Not really. :no: We can see evidence that life did not exist at all in the universe for most of the time it has been in existence. There had to be a lot of exploding stars before life could evolve out of that chaos.

Surely, these two options should scientifically be considered in a collection of today's theories of the origin of the universe.

There are lots of cosmological theories other than theistic ones about the origins of matter and the universe. Why don't you look into them? Let me give you a fairly easy one to start with: Primack and Abrams' The View from the Center of the Universe. The book goes into great detail about religious cosmologies and modern day cosmological theories. I suspect that you would find the book a fascinating read, and it might even change some of your ideas about how we came into existence.

 

[OneThatGotAway]

Originally Posted by LovePeaceHappiness
However you may classify my argument; the question still remains: In order to explore all possiblities of the origins of the universe, a scientist must consider in his list that there might be an intelligent designer (Creator, if you will). And I have yet to see anyone prove that this kind of argument is bad logic. In fact, it is their reasoning that is bad logic.

But this just throws up another problem.

If you're arguing that the Universe is too complex to have come about naturalistically and therefore needed a creator, then how can you in the same breath say that this hugely MORE complex creator could have just been undesigned?

I am suggesting that mankind must consider the one of two possibilities on the origin of the universe:

0) Rocks, energy, molecules or something has always existed in the universe without it being created; regardless if it is complex or simplistic; OR

1) A Creator existed in the beginning without Him being created; and that he must be complex in order to create what mankind have discover in life.

So my question is which came first: A Zero (0) or The One (1)?

How can mankind exclude a Creator as one of the possibilities in the Universe; when:
1) We exist and we are capable of creating things; and
2) We have not visited all four corners of the universe; let alone our solar system.

 

[Meow Mix]

So my question is which came first: A Zero (0) or The One (1)?

It's interesting that you say that.

The total energy of the universe is so far observed to be about zero (since potential energy is essentially "negative" and 1 + (-1) = 0).

It's also true that all of mathematics emerges from the null set, which is the set that contains nothing -- indicated by Ø.

However, there is no evidence that the universe "came from nothing" and that's not what I'm asserting. It is likely something has always existed, as implied by the First Law of Thermodynamics and various symmetries.

A God is not excluded, it just isn't necessary to explain anything and so is therefore extraneous. It may or may not be the case, but we can't test for it at this point... so therefore can't worry about it, we worry about what we can test for.