A Universe from Nothing?

Thief said:

you're making post to avoid the issue.

Click to expand...

That's rich, coming from you.

Your continuing evasion in clarification to what you mean by spirit and substance, is nothing but avoidance.

Thief said:

you're making post to avoid the issue

the debate begins at the beginning

Spirit first?
or substance?

shall we begin?

Click to expand...

You have never began to debate, Thief.

Repeating the same questions again, won't get you any answer until you answer everyone who have ask you what is spirit and what is substance.

The spirit I am thinking and know that are in the dictionary and in the bible and other religious scriptures, don't exist.

And substance is too vague a word, that could mean anything, making it choosing substance pointless.

How about I answer this?

Since I know that you cannot be bother answering our questions, then I will answer yours.

Spirit don't exist, so I cannot choose spirit.

And I can't choose substance because without definition on what you mean by it, make it pointless to choosing this.

Now I have answer both, neither are first, because nonexistent of spirit, and because the meaningless substance.

Now you can stop asking these same inane (and moronic) questions. Will we forward, now that I answer no to both?

...I'd guess not because you are obsessed with repeating the stupid questions over and over again, [*edit by the RF staff*]

Thief said:

you're making post to avoid the issue

Click to expand...

You're only saying that to distract people from the real issue:

Considering i only ever replied to you because you misquoted a part of text and made assumptions about it, I called you out on it, you admitted to it. That's the only issue: Everything since then you've added on top of the original, expecting them to be the "original" issue. It really makes it seem like you're avoiding the issue.

You are illogical and irrational.

the debate begins at the beginning

Click to expand...

What makes your highness think his question is the beginning? You haven't even elaborated your definitions, you refuse to accept the actual meaning for the word "substance" and at the same time you refuse to tell us what you mean by the word...

You yourself have made your question even more seemingly empty: You refuse to elaborate on your own question when asked. You don't KNOW how to elaborate. This is the only logical explanation:

You didn't think the question through, and are still too proud to admit that: You don't know when to quit. The question has been proven nonsensical by many people and you refuse to see it.

Your question is not the beginning: Your question is inane and empty. And you are completely incapable of explaining or defending it. What do you mean by substance? Can you answer EVEN ONCE?!

Spirit first?
or substance?

shall we begin?

Click to expand...

Substance = Reality, essence, significance, existence, tangible. *IF YOUR CLAIM IS CORRECT* then spirit must be substance by definition. I.E it's substance because the moment you agreed to use English, you agreed to accept its definitions. You haven't presented an argument as to why your (still unseen) definition for substance counts and mine doesn't. I gave you dictionary examples, and you NEVER COUNTERED IT. Yet your post here is written as if you did counter it somehow.

If you want to get to the beginning, how about you first show us the evidence for spirit? Your entire question assumes that you are right and others wrong by default: That your premise is correct just because. At the moment your question is comparable to:

Unicorn first?
Or substance?

I've already answered this same question at least three times and you keep imagining that i haven't: You then just repeat the question like a parrot. Furthermore, this thread isn't about your question.

Also: I have shown with rational argument that your question is empty, inane and nonsensical. Your definitions are different from other people's definitions. You refuse to tell me what "substance" means after i specifically linked you to dictionary examples of what it means: You did not explain your definition at all. I showed evidence that the word "substance" doesn't mean what you think it does.

What does substance mean? Seriously. I did make a prediction that you would ignore ALL my questions addressed to you. And so far you've done exactly that. You ignore my long posts in their entirely and still think you're somehow arguing effectively? You don't even answer to any of my points with your silly replies: You just say whatever you can to give yourself the excuse to post that same question over and over again.

/E: Again, i make the claim that you use less effort in arguing your opposition than you expect from them. Again. You commonly reply before you've even had enough time to READ my replies.

Are you ACTUALLY proud of doing everything with the least possible effort, half-assed and with no forethought? Your improvisational skills leave MUCH to be desired so maybe you should consider actually THINKING your points through before letting everyone else know exactly how futile arguing with you truly is.

I waste my time with this essay only for you to construct a reply to this post in less than 5 minutes without reading any of the points, or without addressing any of them. I've answered your question at least 3 times so far and you keep repeating it like a parrot and IGNORING EVERYTHING I SAID.

You aren't even willing to learn: You are under the impression that you know something. Even scientists don't pretend to ACTUALLY know everything. BUT you do. You specifically seem to want to project an image of yourself on the forums that you're somehow a teacher and people should listen to you.

Based on this thread and others, i do make the claim that you aren't capable of actually making a rational argument to support your own claims. I'm going to be making the call that i don't think you've ever convinced anyone in your life...

TLDR: Thief. If you're going to quote me, read the post you are quoting, in its entirety, please. This is around the third or fourth time you quote a long post by me, and never answer any of the points the post contains. A few times you've posted so quickly that you couldn't have possibly read it AND made a reply to it... If you reply to this post again without reading it, how well do you think your point is going to be made if it's based on ignoring everything and demanding that others don't ignore you?

I think I have said so in this thread....more than once....
the consequence for choosing substance first

ben d said:

Nothing you said appears to refute anything in my quoted comment? If you disagree, please quote my precise words that you disagree with and provide your reason?

Click to expand...

I wasn't attempting to refute you. I was describing the condition under which you would be right.

It Aint Necessarily So said:

I wasn't attempting to refute you. I was describing the condition under which you would be right.

Click to expand...

I used the term 'no reason' in the context of it was not impossible, but if one wanted to take it literally, there are some reasons why a scientist can't be religious and likewise some religious souls can't be a scientists, and that is for example, if they are dogmatists, either the atheistical or theistical types as appropriate.

hummmm.

Rogue theologian
no religion
believes in God because of science

does that make me a person of interest?

Thief said:

hummmm.

Rogue theologian
no religion
believes in God because of science

does that make me a person of interest?

Click to expand...

hummmm.

Oxymoron....theologian of no religion.....nonreligious scientific belief in God

Yes....definitely..

ben d said:

I used the term 'no reason' in the context of it was not impossible, but if one wanted to take it literally, there are some reasons why a scientist can't be religious and likewise some religious souls can't be a scientists, and that is for example, if they are dogmatists, either the atheistical or theistical types as appropriate.

Click to expand...

Atheistic dogma? There is atheistic dogma that might prevent a scientist from being religious or vice versa? Dogma has no appeal. Knowledge arrived at by applying reason to evidence is what has been shown to be useful. Dogma is ideas presented as true without sufficient support, ideas that it is expected will be accepted uncritically. Dogma is characteristic of religion, a variety of political movements, and cults. It's promulgation is called indoctrination.

All of that is antithetical to secular humanist values, and atheism offers no values or ideas. It's nothing more than a "no" answer to the question of whether you believe in a god or gods.If yes, you're a theist,and absolutely nothing else about you is defined by that word. Otherwise, you're an atheist, and likewise, nothing else can be assumed at that point. Additional questions must be asked, and their answers will not come from atheism, which is a statement of what one doesn't belief - not one of belief..

It Aint Necessarily So said:

Atheistic dogma? There is atheistic dogma that might prevent a scientist from being religious or vice versa? Dogma has no appeal. Knowledge arrived at by applying reason to evidence is what has been shown to be useful. Dogma is ideas presented as true without sufficient support, ideas that it is expected will be accepted uncritically. Dogma is characteristic of religion, a variety of political movements, and cults. It's promulgation is called indoctrination.

All of that is antithetical to secular humanist values, and atheism offers no values or ideas. It's nothing more than a "no" answer to the question of whether you believe in a god or gods.If yes, you're a theist,and absolutely nothing else about you is defined by that word. Otherwise, you're an atheist, and likewise, nothing else can be assumed at that point. Additional questions must be asked, and their answers will not come from atheism, which is a statement of what one doesn't belief - not one of belief..

Click to expand...

Unfortunately dogma afflicts science as well as religion. And then there is atheism 101

ben d said:

Unfortunately dogma afflicts science as well as religion.

Click to expand...

yeah.....
last I heard....no proof of dark energy or dark matter
only written hieroglyphs (numbers)

read enough numbers and you can believe anything

like substance creating life.....all by it's .....'self'

Thief said:

yeah.....
last I heard....no proof of dark energy or dark matter
only written hieroglyphs (numbers)

read enough numbers and you can believe anything

like substance creating life.....all by it's .....'self'

Click to expand...

Well if nothing can create something from nothing, then nothing making that something alive would be a breeze...

ben d said:

Well if nothing can create something from nothing, then nothing making that something alive would be a breeze...

Click to expand...

that sounded convoluted

but of course it would

I seem able
I can focus to that initial singularity

It gathered under the will of a Spirit
it condensed....and then expanded

that is how I read Genesis

the only mystery.....
How did God become self aware?

and the Lord said unto Moses.....when asking for a Name
....tell the people....I AM!
and they with understanding will know Whose law this is

Thief said:

that sounded convoluted

but of course it would

I seem able
I can focus to that initial singularity

It gathered under the will of a Spirit
it condensed....and then expanded

that is how I read Genesis

the only mystery.....
How did God become self aware?

and the Lord said unto Moses.....when asking for a Name
....tell the people....I AM!
and they with understanding will know Whose law this is

Click to expand...

I accept your belief as you describe, but as you know my understanding is along pantheism lines, God as a transcendent being is eternal and infinite, and is immanent in universal ever changing manifested existence, so where you see a beginning of all creation, I see ongoing natural creation of just a manifested aspect of a greater whole. But you are welcome to your belief, I do not intend to have a never ending back and forth on the matter.

It Aint Necessarily So said:

Atheistic dogma? There is atheistic dogma that might prevent a scientist from being religious or vice versa?

Click to expand...

I believe it's called naturalism.

ben d said:

Unfortunately dogma afflicts science as well as religion.

Click to expand...

Disagree for reasons already given but ignored.

Since you make no argument - just a claim - my answer is sufficient. I've already defined dogma and its relationship to indoctrination, which you chose not to address, but rather, to repeat the claim already rebutted, so their is no need to repeat why the term "dogma" applies to religion but not science.

You can't persuade a rational skeptic of anything using that MO. I consider all such discussions dead in the water until the points made in the rebuttal are either agreed with or specifically contradicted with an explanation. If you choose to disregard them, then you are not engaging in good faith debate. You're just lecturing without listening.

Willamena said:

I believe it's called naturalism.

Click to expand...

Please explain how that is the dogma of science. You probably should define dogma.

It Aint Necessarily So said:

Dogma is ideas presented as true without sufficient support, ideas that it is expected will be accepted uncritically. Dogma is characteristic of religion, a variety of political movements, and cults. It's promulgation is called indoctrination.

Click to expand...

Sounds like atheism 101 t0

It Aint Necessarily So said:

Disagree for reasons already given but ignored.

Since you make no argument - just a claim - my answer is sufficient. I've already defined dogma and its relationship to indoctrination, which you chose not to address, but rather, to repeat the claim already rebutted, so their is no need to repeat why the term "dogma" applies to religion but not science.

You can't persuade a rational skeptic of anything using that MO. I consider all such discussions dead in the water until the points made in the rebuttal are either agreed with or specifically contradicted with an explanation. If you choose to disregard them, then you are not engaging in good faith debate. You're just lecturing without listening.

Click to expand...

There is no argument except in your own mind. That's the thing about being dogmatic about your atheistic beliefs, it does not affect reality outside your own limited distorted conceptual perception of it. Reality is forever on the other side of your beliefs my friend.

It Aint Necessarily So said:

Atheistic dogma? There is atheistic dogma that might prevent a scientist from being religious or vice versa?

Click to expand...

Willamena said:

I believe it's called naturalism.

Click to expand...

It Aint Necessarily So said:

Please explain how that is the dogma of science. You probably should define dogma.

Click to expand...

I believed that willamena is saying that "naturalism is a dogma for "atheism", not a dogma for "science".

...But then again, I could be wrong with what I think she is thinking. She might be thinking that science and atheism, which is very common mistake creationists make, as it sometimes happens with other theists, and with people who have limited education with science.

Anyway I am speculating, because I don't what she might mean by naturalism being a dogma for which.

atheism is dogmatic......as is religion
no proof
just trolling a discussing for the sake of denial or acceptance

ben d said:

Because of logic and science my friend. Logically something that does not exist can't somehow magically suddenly exist. Science says that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, but can be change from one form to another. The total amount of mass and energy in the universe is constant.

Click to expand...

And, if time is finite, that is the end of the story. The state of 'nothing' does not exist.