The "something can't come from nothing" argument

[Thief]

Matter because of Mind......says I....

 

[1robin]

Spirit as primary....yeah.

The spirit is not a scientific entity. Mind is. You can make very good arguments that mind is primary. You can't make one that spirit is. You would be lucky if you can even get a good definition for spirit.

God as Creator?.....yeah

This is a reasonable philosophical conclusion that uses science in it's argument.


I recommend you post the argument behind your conclusions.

 

[Thief]

The spirit is not a scientific entity. Mind is. You can make very good arguments that mind is primary. You can't make one that spirit is. You would be lucky if you can even get a good definition for spirit.

This is a reasonable philosophical conclusion that uses science in it's argument.


I recommend you post the argument behind your conclusions.

And God needed science to say....I AM!.........?

 

[1robin]

And God needed science to say....I AM!.........?

What God needs to justify a declaration was not the subject under debate.

 

[Thief]

What God needs to justify a declaration was not the subject under debate.

Was it you that placed science as needful?
Thought it was.

It isn't.

 

[allfoak]

This idea of "Mind" being all pervasive is interesting but confusing, as paradox always is a bit confusing.

The paradox is that "Mind" has always been, and it is being created at the same time.
This would explain the Holographic principle and also the principle of the Trinity.
We would be a holographic representation of our creator "Mind".
Designed to be creators by making the two one.
Creating our own mind through the interaction of opposites.
Thus the reason for being here is to make heaven and earth one.
One soul at a time.

 

[1robin]

Was it you that placed science as needful?
Thought it was.

It isn't.

It is. In any theistic / non-theistic debate science is among the few common grounds where issues can be settled. I do not care what you use for your metaphysical musings, but in a debate, issues are settled on common ground. You start throwing scripture at an atheist and they stop listening unless you have evidence or philosophical reasons to back the verses up with. Without it your just spinning your debate wheels.

 

[1robin]

This idea of "Mind" being all pervasive is interesting but confusing, as paradox always is a bit confusing.

The paradox is that "Mind" has always been, and it is being created at the same time.

That is not the Christian position (nor even the philosophical or physics position). Our position (meaning Christianity plus the philosophers and physics guys who grant a mind individuality model) believe mind is primary to everything else and is not being created and was never created. It is an eternal brute fact, in Christianity.

 

[allfoak]

That is not the Christian position (nor even the philosophical or physics position). Our position (meaning Christianity plus the philosophers and physics guys who grant a mind individuality model) believe mind is primary to everything else and is not being created and was never created. It is an eternal brute fact, in Christianity.

And so i hold to a different perspective.
"Mind" as thought of in physics is not the human mind.
and while it is true that we exist within this mind, we have a separate consciousness that we create.
Humans have our own mind.

It is very difficult to explain these things.
Just think paradox.
Life is a paradox.
It sure does make for some interesting living.

 

[metis]

Just think paradox.
Life is a paradox.

What does a pair-of-ducks have anything to do with this?

 

[adi2d]

What does a pair-of-ducks have anything to do with this?

I think he's talking about two DOCtors. With these extreme head cases they work in pairs

 

[metis]

I think he's talking about two DOCtors. With these extreme head cases they work in pairs

Are you sure it's not two ducksters in the medical area, although I understand they're just quacks?

 

[Ouroboros]

What does a pair-of-ducks have anything to do with this?

No, he said a pair-of-docks, like in the marina.

 

[1robin]

And so i hold to a different perspective.
"Mind" as thought of in physics is not the human mind.
and while it is true that we exist within this mind, we have a separate consciousness that we create.
Humans have our own mind.

It is very difficult to explain these things.
Just think paradox.
Life is a paradox.
It sure does make for some interesting living.

You may hold to whatever position you wish. My point is that your view has no relevance to scholarship or theology (at least mine). I am not sure if your right that mind as physics examines it, is not ours. It is either a mind as in God, or ours, or both. I think they mainly make general claims about both. That perception is what produces what is perceived. Not I share that exact position. Mine is that God's mind explains everything that we perceive and pre-existed it, necessarily

 

[Thief]

It is. In any theistic / non-theistic debate science is among the few common grounds where issues can be settled. I do not care what you use for your metaphysical musings, but in a debate, issues are settled on common ground. You start throwing scripture at an atheist and they stop listening unless you have evidence or philosophical reasons to back the verses up with. Without it your just spinning your debate wheels.

See Webster's .....faith needs no proving.

However, my sense of believing includes science.
God first.
Science helps to understand God.

 

[1robin]

See Webster's .....faith needs no proving.

I know what faith's burden is. It is only that it lacks a defeater. You can believe X is true as long as X is not proven untrue. You do not have to have evidence for X.


However your faith is not persuasive in a debate. This is a debate forum not a pulpit.

However, my sense of believing includes science.

I have found that in most cases your claims are not scientific. That does not mean they are untrue. It means they have no common ground by which they can persuade a non-theist.

God first.

This is what I mean. Saying God first is not going to convince anyone. I agree he was first but I always include the philosophical and scientific reasons why he is first. You will almost never find me saying God is first in a debate without explaining why.

Science helps to understand God.

I agree.

 

[ArtieE]

I know what faith's burden is. It is only that it lacks a defeater. You can believe X is true as long as X is not proven untrue. You do not have to have evidence for X.

Not at all. You are completely confusing faith with rationality which is belief in logic, reason and evidence. If you have faith in something evidence doesn't matter. You can have faith in X and you can stop having faith in X and start having faith in Y instead. Nothing to do with X being "proven untrue" or "evidence". If you had switched between X and Y because of "proven untrue" or "evidence" you wouldn't have faith in the first place, you would be a rationalist.

 

[1robin]

Not at all. You are completely confusing faith with rationality which is belief in logic, reason and evidence. If you have faith in something evidence doesn't matter. You can have faith in X and you can stop having faith in X and start having faith in Y instead. Nothing to do with X being "proven untrue" or "evidence". If you had switched between X and Y because of "proven untrue" or "evidence" you wouldn't have faith in the first place, you would be a rationalist.

Faiths official philosophic burden is the lack of a defeater. I can reasonably hold to faith as long as it is not disproven. I can do so as you say without evidence for it, but it must lack a disproof. That is not to say a person can't have faith in something disproven but he can not do so with any justification or validity. Seems like his is splitting hairs anyway.

 

[ArtieE]

Faiths official philosophic burden is the lack of a defeater. I can reasonably hold to faith as long as it is not disproven. I can do so as you say without evidence for it, but it must lack a disproof. That is not to say a person can't have faith in something disproven but he can not do so with any justification or validity.

The only justification a person of faith such as a Christian needs to believe something is that he read it in the Bible. The terms "evidence" and "disproof" belong to rationalists who believe in logic, reason and evidence and the scientific method, not to people of faith who believe in inspiration, revelation or authority.

 

[1robin]

The only justification a person of faith such as a Christian needs to believe something is that he read it in the Bible. The terms "evidence" and "disproof" belong to rationalists who believe in logic, reason and evidence and the scientific method, not to people of faith who believe in inspiration, revelation or authority.

I was not talking about what a person needs for faith in his own mind. I was discussing what official burden a faith claim has in a debate.


Who cares about what any individual does? That would require us to list 6 billion criteria and all of them would be irrelevant to a debate. The terms evidence and disproof are not in anyway only relevant to rationalists. They are legal terms, scientific terms, philosophical terms in numerous categories, a historical term, etc.....

I know exactly what your saying. I have no idea why your saying it.