@lynneatwater [I assume, of course, that you are using 'clay' as a representation of existence itself]
Yes & no. Because the clay (Oneness) is inescapable, it is absolutely unknowable. However, Existence (Awareness) can only emerge via the illusion of separation.
[Concerning reality; as you well know, it is immeasurable]
Again, yes & no. Reality seems to be about paradoxes. Existence/Awareness is immeasurable (infinite), yet there exists measurable/objective (finite), though relative, forms.
Existence is not awareness, it's existence. Awareness is a-posteriori to existence. What is this 'illusion' of separation you speak of? Separation of what? You refer to 'oneness', but oneness of what? Are you sure you're not referring to existence itself? Why is reality paradoxical? Are you sure you're not simply referring to the relational contrast that is a prerequisite to all existence? Lynne
@lynneatwater [Do keep in mind, however, that using your analogy, that which is being discussed here is whether or not, your example of 'clay' is, in and of itself, causal]
The clay, being the 'source', would be both the cause & the effect. So perhaps 'causality' might be a more appropriate term.
[Could Protagoras have been that wrong?]
I would say he got it right, but only if one adopts his perspective. Humans can have extremely variable levels of awareness.
@eleutheromaniac ['recycled' implies a process; all processes have a beginning]
Every single moment has infinite causes and infinite effects. If all processes have a beginning, where/when do they absolutely begin? Where/when do they absolutely end? That would depend on an arbitrary/personal/agreed upon/relative definition of what is considered the beginning and end to said process.
@eleutheromaniac [The "clay" itself may be eternal, but the shaping and molding of it is a process and therefore subject to sequential measurement (time). The clay is timeless, the process of creating forms from the clay, is not.]
All is One, so ‘form’ and ‘process’ must be one and the same. The two are indistinguishable. A vortex is a form, yet it is also a process. Existence/Awareness can likewise be defined as such.
@eleutheromaniac [The clay is the source...and all things return to the source. The First Cause is the Last Cause, the Alpha and the Omega; however, since the clay is infinite in nature, this process will be repeated infinitely]
‘Recycling’ does not begin or end at any single point or moment because it exists at all (infinite) levels of existence. So no-thing is actually repeated. Rather, there are infinite ‘versions’ or ‘forms’ of the same unchanging existence.
A hunk of clay can be shaped into a myriad of forms. The clay is the source, and thus the constant. The forms are impermanent...they come and go. The universe is just one form...slowly recycled through innumerable 'black holes'...and from which new universes emerge. As in a vortex, there's no absolute beginning or end.
The Clay = Oneness
The Forms = illusion of separation (ie, infinite manifestations of Oneness as 'consciousness/awareness')
Very well put. Do keep in mind, however, that using your analogy, that which is being discussed here is whether or not, your example of 'clay' is, in and of itself, causal. I assume, of course, that you are using 'clay' as a representation of existence itself.
Concerning reality; as you well know, it is immeasurable, hence, Man's continuing problem with a proper description of same. Could Protagoras have been that wrong? Lynne
@No1warp9 'recycled' implies a process; all processes have a beginning.
The "clay" itself may be eternal, but the shaping and molding of it is a process and therefore subject to sequential measurement (time). The clay is timeless, the process of creating forms from the clay, is not.
The clay is the source...and all things return to the source. The First Cause is the Last Cause, the Alpha and the Omega; however, since the clay is infinite in nature, this process will be repeated infinitely.
'Satan' is/was an ET leader...probably a very headstrong, maverick 'reptilian'. With references to ancient AND current UFO's, what better explanation is there? The 'gods' and 'angels' of ancient manuscripts were always either human or humanoid. No need for this religious debate when one considers ancient ET's. It unifies the two sides of this pointless debate...each side holding some truth (eg, creationism vs evolution, God vs no God, miracles vs science, etc.), but missing the bigger picture.
Emotional outbursts and four letter insults so commonly used by those that profess to be religious are, however, not welcome in this comment section. If you would like to restate your views in a rational way, I will answer you. If, you feel that my definition of creation is improper, please submit your own. I will be glad to discuss any definition you may propose. Lynne
@lynneatwater when did i "profess to be religious"?
saying creation means 'something from nothing' is imbecilic and deserving of ridicule, especially when it is arrogantly presented as a "final proof" of an age-old philosophical debate.
'bringing into existence' (webster's definition) means just that: making something which did not previously exist. it does not mean that 'nothing' existed previously. did henry Ford create the first model t from nothing?
That which is being discussed here is the bringing into existence, of "existence itself". That is what creation is postulated to be, were it to be anything else, (Henry Ford's creation of an affordable automobile) it would be transformation, not creation. Would you not agree? Would you also not agree that the bringing into existence "of existence itself" were self-contradictory in nature? Lynne
@lynneatwater So God "transformed" Himself into the universe, then. Transform, create, evolve, we're really just playing with semantics here.
But it is not "bringing into existence, of existence itself", because *what* is doing the bringing? If *something* is doing the bringing then ipso facto it exists, so existence *itself* is not what is being brought about, since something already exists: The First Cause, aka The Prime Mover.
This is not about semantics, this is about logic. When you ask 'what' is doing the bringing into existence, you have already presupposed that something or someone could have existed prior to existence itself, and that would be self-contradictory. There can't be a Prime Mover with out there being something to move and if there is something to move, that something clearly must already be in existence. Again, true creation is self-contradictory. Lynne
@lynneatwater If the Prime Mover was the first and only thing to exist, then what the Prime Mover moved, and has forever been moving, is self-evident: Itself. For there is nothing else to move.
Everything that ever is or ever was is only a reflection of the Prime Mover. Or, as the Bible would say: "We are created in God's image."
Everything is made up of God; everything is made up of energy. God cannot be created nor destroy; energy cannot be created nor destroyed. God = energy.
Are you sure you're not religious? Could I have been that far off base from the beginning? Please view my response below concerning the scholastic notion of a Prime Mover or, if you wish, a causal universe. Lynne
@lynneatwater If you believe in the existence of effect without a cause (i.e. something from nothing) then essentially you believe in magic--you believe a rabbit can be pulled from an empty tophat.
If you believe in the existence of Cause without a preceding effect, then you believe in an immutable God, the First Cause.
So do you believe in magic or do you believe in God? :P
Unless you can prove that something can come from nothing.
Like some scholastics before you, you declare the need of a 'first' cause. My question to you would be, how could there be a 'first' cause in a non-existing universe? Is that not what is being discussed here, the emergence of creation itself? Yet how could there be a 'first' cause of nothing? And nevertheless that is precisely what creation must be: The emergence of existence itself? Lynne
@lynneatwater again you keep going to 'non-existence' or 'prior to existence'--there is no such thing. since everything which exists in the universe is the result of causality, something must have been the first cause to exist.
nothing comes from nothing and nothing leads to nothing; therefore, if nothing ever was, nothing still would be, and forever would be. existence could not have come from nothing, therefore non-existence never was.
If you recognize that only nothing can come from nothing, please also recognize that to speak of a 'first cause' of existence itself is contradictory. You categorically state that "non-existence never was" And I agree. Yet that recognition substantiates the fact that clearly existence is eternal. And yes, "everything in our universe is causal, but only given that just as existence itself, our universe, in and of itself is non-causal. Lynne
@lynneatwater and what is this "universe in and of itself" when all the causal constituents are removed?
i never 'professed to be religious' as you claimed, because what i am was, and still is, entirely irrelevant.
But if you're curious, I do believe in non-localized consciousness--that is, that consciousness is not derived from the human brain but rather only perceived and recorded by it--consciousness belongs to the universe itself which may be called God.
Very well, you believe in a non-localized consciousness. That's certainly interesting. Others, for example, say they don't believe in a God at all but then add, "But I do believe in some sort of all bracing force or consciousness that created all of this." Is that, in any way, a bit like what you believe? Such would certainly make us feel less alone out here, but could such a thing be possible? And if so, could you explain to us how? Thanks. Lynne
@lynneatwater is such a thing possible? have you never had a dream?
'existance as an entity' is that not God? you say it is non-causal, but I think what you mean is that it is uneffected. It is the First Cause, eternally immutable. The only thing that changes with regards to the First Cause--with regards existence in and of itself--is perception.
Just as in a dream, the only difference between "you" and everything else is perception. In reality, it is all One mind.
I fear there can be no first cause of eternity as such a concept would be self-contradictory. Just as an aside, I know that it's comforting to believe that there is "someone" or "something" watching over us, even caring for our destinies. Clearly, however, life demonstrates that if anything seemingly "goes our way" at all, it is we, matched with happenstance, who have produced the desired result, not some mysterious guy in the sky. Would you not agree? Lynne
@lynneatwater 'guy in the sky'? I think you may be confusing Michangelo's famous conceptualization of "God" with the actual God, as many do. God is not a someone or even a something, rather God is All Things. Picturing God as a Man on a cloud or on top of Mt. Olympus is merely a method of putting Him into perspective.
There can be a First Cause to eternity, if the First Cause is also the Last Cause; or as it is more popularly known, the Alpha and the Omega.
@lynneatwater Regarding things 'going our way' or being 'comforted' by God, it is all a matter of perspective. I would only say that there is a HUGE difference between having a belief in God, and having faith in God.
But naturally, you must establish the former before you can even contemplate the latter.
I'm anxious to learn in what way you can distinguish faith from belief. Are not both dependent on an absence of knowledge? You may also converse via email by contacting me directly: lynneatwater@gmail.com. Lynne
@lynneatwater Knowledge itself is based on belief; knowledge is belief which can be objectively tested and agreed upon to be true. But is true knowledge even obtainable for subjective beings such as ourselves? Many philosophers have surmised that the answer is no. True knowledge can only belong to a consciousness such as God, "God only is wise", as Socrates said.
Faith is synonymous with trust: it deals with the trustworthiness of a the thing believed.
True, all knowledge is based on beliefs. (Protagoras) In turn, beliefs supported by tangible evidence become what we call knowledge. Beliefs absent of evidence, however, are a product of a lack of knowledge or, if you wish; ignorance. To claim that someone or something is capable of true knowledge is a belief which is entirely absent of tangible evidence. Be careful you are not trying to say: 'because I do not 'know' something, I know it' Lynne
True, all knowledge is based on beliefs. (Protagoras) In turn, beliefs supported by tangible evidence become what we call knowledge. Beliefs absent of evidence, however, are a product of a lack of knowledge or, if you wish; ignorance. To claim that someone or something is capable of true knowledge is a belief which is entirely absent of tangible evidence. Be careful you are not trying to say: 'because I do not 'know' something, I know it' Lynne
True, knowledge is based on belief. (Protagoras) In turn, beliefs supported by tangible evidence become what we call knowledge. Beliefs absent of evidence, however, are a product of ignorance = (absence of knowledge). To claim that someone or something is capable of true knowledge is a belief which is entirely absent of tangible evidence. Be careful you are not trying to say: 'because I do not 'know' something, I know it' Lynne
@lynneatwater but what you're missing is that tangiable evidence inevitably has gaps, which are filled in by belief. The only thing any of us can truly be certain of is "I think, therefore I am", and some philosophers even debate THAT.
And again, God is not a "someone" or a "something", it is All Things
I am NOT saying 'because I do not know, I know', I am saying I believe. I, like Socrates, only "know" that I know nothing. Belief is all human beings truly ever have; the rest is sophistry
Are you suggesting that sophism is evil or erroneous ? You speak of 'gaps', and I agree, all evidence is incomplete. Nevertheless, there is no gap of evidence whatsoever in self-contradiction. The emergence of existence itself, for example, has been clearly proven to be self-contradictory. If you claim that your God is not a creator, that I'm unable to prove as false. A true 'creator' however is, quite to the contrary, provably impossible. Lynne.
@lynneatwater the object of the sophist is to win an argument, period. truth is irrelevant to sophism. it is the very antithesis of what Socrates and the truly great thinkers of western civilization have tried to work towards.
Again, we keep going over this point: it is not the emergence of "existence itself" because something already does exist: First Cause, eternal and immutable.
ETs was a different commentor, I don't believe in ETs visiting Earth.
The object of the sophist is not to win arguments it is to bring forth the absolute subjectivity of reality and truth.
If you agree that the universe, existence or what you call God is eternal, I am unable to dismember such a claim through logical discourse. Only when one attempts to claim an absolute 'first cause' is the use of deductive logic meaningful. Lynne
@lynneatwater I think it depends upon your definition of universe. I think you are defining universe as the beginning of physical processes, formation of stars, creation of life, etc. But that is not what the universe is; it is shapeless and formless and infinite.
We know that energy can neither be created nor destroyed; but what is energy if it has nothing to act upon? What is "pure" energy? If consciousness is in fact non-localized, then what is consciousness freed from a physical form?
The universe should be understood as all things existing or, if you wish, existence itself. There can be no such thing as a 'beginning' to that which is, like the universe, inexorably eternal. I don't know what 'pure energy is' unless we are talking about the abstract idea of energy as a concept. Consciousness clearly is only possible in physical form. Lynne
@lynneatwater energy can *only* be understood conceptually, as energy itself has never been directly observed
"Consciousness clearly is only possible in physical form" Then explain the dream state; wherein your consciousness creates the dreamworld, yet you also inhabit the dreamworld within a physical form created by your consciousness: you are simultaneously the creator and the created
What if you had a dream where you received a CAT scan, showing brain activity? A brain within a brain?
Dream states are simply just another form of consciousness. During the dream you are perfectly aware of the dream's content. The surprisingly 'inventive nature' of dreams is sparked by the dreamer's psychologically induced needs and desires represented by perfectly ad hoc psychological experiences perfectly combined to provide the psyche with that which it structurally requires. As you know, tomes could be written about dreams and have been. Lynne
@lynneatwater all that aside, my point is that dreams are proof of the non-locality of consciousness.
"another form of consciousness", this is sort of what I'm saying; energy is eternal, indestructible--in merely changes form; this is true of consciousness, as well. Is it such an unreasonable leap in logic to presume that these two concepts are then naturally linked to one another. energy = consciousness. and since everything is made of energy, everything is made of consciousness = God.
All dreams are construed within the confines of the mind. Consciousness is absolutely distributable. All the basic elements from which consciousness is formed, however, are, of course, eternal. When our minds die, so does our consciousness and so do we. Lynne
@lynneatwater "When our minds die, so does our consciousness and so do we"
The universe is infinite, never-ending--we both agree on that. It is then a mathematical certainty that all things finite existing within the infinite universe will be repeated, in exact measure, infinitely. Poincare's Recurrence Theorem provides the mathematical proof, and Nietzsche's theory of Eternal Return provides the philosophical context.
Let's be precise. All things living eventually die. The fundamental matter and energy that are necessary to create those living things, however, will only change its relational form. Pls keep in mind that Poincare's theorem is only that; a theorem. Nietzsche's theory of Eternal Return is too, just a theory. The facts are: death of all living life forms is definitive. Those elements that eventually re-form themselves, do so as something else. Lynne
*What* else? Your body, from head-to-toe, is made up of entirely different cells then those you were born with, and yet you still identify yourself as the same being, because of the CONFIGURATION of those cells, which is detriminant and finite and can be remade by the infinite universe again and again.
Yes, Eternal Return is only a theory, but it is a coherent theory that is entirely consistent with what we know about mathematics and the universe.
You are correct; such cells "are", indeed, remade again and again. Please understand that my reference to "something else" is an existentially based relational issue. You might want to review an ad hoc website that will allow you some very revealing insights concerning this matter. You can find the site under the heading of "Structured Psychology". Tell me what you think? Dr. Follansbee and I work together. Lynne
@lynneatwater by "something else" do you mean another subjective consciousness?
if you believe that then you acknowledge who "you" are is irrelevant to the physical form you take, since that physical form can be remade precisely--and even the circumstances of your entire life and death can be remade precisely (it is all made of ordered and detriminant factors)....so if there is a being that has your entire configuration, your exact life from start to finish, and it is not "you", what is it?
As the theory of Structured Psychology postulates, the person you are, is just the beginning of the person you are becoming. However, who you are is in no way 'irrelevant' to the physical form you take. You 'are' your ever-changing physical being and that ever-changing physical being, is you. That is to say, your 'being' is totally dependent upon your physical status and vice versa. It's a relational issue. No subject can exist without an object. Lynne
@lynneatwater Understand, I am not merely saying that your body will be remade, atom-by-atom; I am saying that every aspect of your life will be remade--and HAS been remade--instant-by-instant. It is ALL based on detriminant factors and sequential ordering.
So ALL the experiences and relationships which influenced the psychological structure of your being will be repeated, infinitely.
@lynneatwater Unless, that is, you believe that the eternal universe is also infinitely complex (irreducible complexity) or infinitely precise (like Pi). These are the only factors which could logically negate the eternal return of your finite self within this infinite universe.
Even without taking into consideration the infinite nature of the universe, I am unable to find a justification for eternal consciousness. In a word, were life to be entirely annulled, so would be consciousness. When one's own individual consciousness dies, it dies. Lynne
@lynneatwater Of course, both of these possibilities fly in the face of Darwinian evolution, as Darwin himself said: "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find out no such case"
Could consciousness itself be an example of such an organ? That seems to be what you are suggesting.
Of course, 'evolution' per-SE, is an illusion all by itself as not one 'missing' link has ever been found that would bind the evolution of one living species to another. Herbert Spencer I can relate to. Darwin, however, is a completely different story. Consciousness, by the way, is the result of brain function alone. Lynne
@lynneatwater just as in a dream, everything is made of consciousness. The floor you walk on, the air you breathe, even the people you talk to, are all part of one, singular consciousness--one Soul. The soul is in a way the antithesis of the body.
You are distinct from this consciousness (the soul) because of subjectivity (the body)--but that is only an illusion, nothing more. It would be no different then if you felt that your hand was somehow seperate from your body.
The separation of mind and body has been a point of philosophical discussion for centuries. Keep in mind that subjectivity is only meaningful where there is conscious. One's body, for example is perfectly capable of being sensed by the Ego as an object and frequently is by a human 'subject'. That, at least, until another subject relates to one as one singular entity. Man's Soul, however, is an imaginary concept synonymous with the mind. Lynne.
Subjectivity in general refers to a subject that is in a necessary existential relationship with an object whereas absolute subjectivity isolates the subject from all relational activity allowing one to consider the subject exclusively in and of itself. You are correct in assuming that taken at face value, the notion of 'absolute subjectivity' is, at best, a senseless term and depending on one's perspective, ultimately contradictory. Lynne
@lynneatwater Regarding God, one example of people who believe in God but do not have faith in Him are Satanists, who of course place their faith in Satan instead.
I agree. In my view, Satanism is just another 'cop-out' as the Satanist has faith in something which instead of being born of knowledge, it is born of ignorance. There is no supported evidence whatsoever that Satin exists. The idea of a Satin, however, does make for some very creepy novels and a film script or two. Lynne
@lynneatwater regarding Satan, I am wondering if you think of Satan as a cloven-hoofed, red beast with horns? Or a winged-angel, fallen to Earth?
These are only conceptualizations. Just as saying Zeus sits at the top of Mt. Olympus is a conceptualization. Do you not think the Greeks were capable of climbing Olympus and seeing for themselves Zeus was not there?
We have evidence of moutainclimbers thousands of years before ancient Greece, climbing mountains much higher than Olympus.
I personally do not consider this debate we are having to be pointless. Please help, however, by explaining what you mean by "the big picture." I'm having a hard time linking ETs with our discussion about the impossibility of a creating God. I also am not sure what the analogy is that you suggest exists between Mt. Olympus, the Greeks and creation. Lynne
@lynneatwater But regarding the Greeks, my point was that atheists have a tendency to be far too obtuse and condescending towards mythologies, not understanding that they are allegorical in nature
The Greeks did not believe there was literally a giant man on top of Olympus hucking lightning bolts at them, just as Michangelo didn't believe that God was a bearded man floating on a cloud. This was simply a means of conjuring within the mind an idea which is on very edges of human understanding
@lynneatwater I think of religions and mythologies as artistic representations, rather than factual accounts. If you gathered 50 artists together to paint the same scene, you would get 50 different, unique paintings. Yet each of them is expressing the same scenerio. The differences in the paintings are the artist's unique perspective.
Some paintings will be fuller and more complete than others, but all of them have value in that they give an opportunity to see things from a different POV
@lynneatwater by the same token, each of the mythologies have their unique POV and means of expressing an idea. But ultimately, it is my belief that they are 'painting the same scenerio' so to speak.
I believe this because the parallels between the ancient mythologies and modern religions are undeniable. For example, the parallels between Jesus and Dionyssus, or St. George and Perseus.
But each 'artist' sees something the others do not. Perception is the only thing that truly changes.
I agree; the interpreter or illustrator of any abstract concept is doing just that: producing a spatial representation of an abstraction which, in turn, obviously annuls the abstraction itself. Having said that, I don't think anyone here has every claimed that Michelangelo's representation of God, or anyone else's for that matter, were anything more than just paintings. Lynne
@lynneatwater "I don't think anyone here has every claimed that Michelangelo's representation of God, or anyone else's for that matter, were anything more than just paintings"
That's where you're wrong. How many times is God described as an "old bearded man in the sky"? Where do you think that imagery orginated?
This, IMO, is why the Bible forbade any graven images of God: because inevitably, as seen in other religions, it is the IMAGE, instead of what the image reps., that is worshiped
The universe, 'in and of itself', is existence 'in and of itself.' Existence as an entity or, if you wish, as an abstract representation of all things existing, is inexorably non-causal as only nothing can emerge from nothing. This, essentially, is why the concept of 'nothingness' is contradictory. Over the centuries, thinkers have, indeed, made frequent reference to 'nothingness', but when they have, in my opinion, it's been in error. Lynne
@eleutheromaniac From our perspective you maybe right and by using logic it is plausable, but from God's perspective our logic in trown out the window. God is is bigger than our puny minds can absorb. All I can say that you have not shaken my belief that God exists and he believes you
"Again, this 'argument' is about the possibility or impossibility of 'creation'. Nothing more, nothing less. In this video I prove that creation is impossible and, therefore, so is a creating God." - Lynne Atwater (1 week ago) Please do not contradict yourself and ask non-relevant questions... I want my Baton Lynne.... AG
Umm... You are mistaken completely; our universe was created from remanents of a universe that was destroyed, and that remanents created our universe through the big bang at random. Everything in nature is recycled because something cannot becreated from nothing. The events of the bible are spontaneus (sp) and are not transitional nor are they accountable for themselves. That is because an event needs a past, present, and a future; in transition. The format of the bible proves god impossible.
To suggest that your God existed before the universe existed is a non-sequitur. The universe comprises 'all things existing' and, therefore, comprises existence itself. The problem with that which you assert is not that it is too simple, it's that it is self-contradictory and, subsequently, impossible. Lynne
@lynneatwater the definition you give of the universe is a worldview and an example of infinite regression. The universe containing its initial cause. The universe only encompass the natural laws and physical objects governed by those laws. Therefore, a prime mover would not necessarily be included in the universe because it would be something outside of space-time and natural law.
Your argument is against the old testament. It's called the "old" testament for a reason. Can you please submit an argument for modern Christianity? There have been a lot of different gods spoken about in history and I think that it's pretty conclusive that, even though the old testament is part of the bible, it doesn't reflect the beliefs of Christians.
Please tell us, therefore, what your beliefs are. Are you saying that the God of the New Testament is not a creator? Is that how it differentiates itself from the God of the Old Testament? We are not sure what it is you are trying to assert. Lynne
@lynneatwater In the beginning there was the word. And the word was with God, and the word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things are made. Without him, nothing is made that has been made. In him is life and that life is the light of all man kind.
That which is proven in this video is that creation is impossible. Your comment does in no way refute that impossibility. In addition, you provide no support whatsoever which proves that this God of yours ever said anything to anyone. Lynne
@lynneatwater #1 That's a cop out. #2 If you actually read what I wrote instead of jumping to conclusions, you'd see that I haven't refuted anything. I simply asked you to provide a more up to date argument against God since yours is only outdated by a couple thousand years. #3 You are a researcher, or at least your video claims that you are. You should research what you're disputing before patronizing one's beliefs. #4 I'm not here to argue or debate. Only to converse.
Please pay attention to what the video says and my responses to you. The only thing proven in this video is that creation is not possible and, therefore, neither is a creating God, period. I patronize no one's beliefs, I only question their lack of empirical or logical support. Please provide proof that your God spoke. A recording would be nice. Are you actually suggesting that Man's intelligence was not the product of evolution? Please prove that as well. Lynne
@lynneatwater You're joking right? You're asking for a recording of the first word spoken by a life form on Earth from a time that no such technology was available. Boy, that's going to be hard to come by. Seriously, get real. I understand you're an Atheist. That's fine. I'm not trying to turn you. You have, however avoided my question repeatedly because it appears that you don't understand modern Christianity. You're refuting a God of Judaism. Christians do that all the time.
Of course I'm joking. Again, if your new, modern, up-to-date God created nothing, I have no problem with that. I would, however, suggest you query the value of such a God. How, after all could a God like that provide eternal existence or is its own existence limited as well? Lynne
@lynneatwater You just don't get it. Eternity isn't physically existing after death. It's not what you do in life, but what you do in life for others that grants you eternal bliss as they remember and share their memories. Christianity isn't some sort of Nazi camp for the clinically dumb. It's a peaceful religion that thrives on the understanding and sharing of knowledge to help perpetuate life in a morally correct way. This is why the teachings of Jesus are so important to us.
You may claim that Christianity is a peaceful, understanding and knowledge sharing religion, yet such claims do, in no way, jibe with historical fact. You indicate that eternity isn't physical. What is it then? If you say it is spiritual, please explain exactly how. Do keep in mind, however, that if you state that spirit is not physical, spiritual consciousness becomes an oxymoron and, therefore, of little interest to humans. Lynne
@lynneatwater Please show me where historical fact contradicts Christianity. I've already explained how spirituality works. Eternal life is granted from what people remember and share of you while you're alive and after you've passed. Spirituality is of great interest to humans, because as a psychologist, you should know that the human species are not isolationists. We prefer to be around other people which makes spirituality not just important but essential.
Are you saying you're unfamiliar with Christianity's, cruel, demanding, violent and intolerant past? Are you truly asking for that historical laundry list of shameful events ? Where did you explain how spirituality works? I see that nowhere in the comments you have made. So please, once again, kindly define and / or demonstrate what you mean by the term spirituality. I have no idea whatsoever what that could possibly be. Lynne
@lynneatwater Yes I am asking you for those types of things because if something of that nature were to even have transpired under a Christian religion, that would make those in question bad Christians, therefor, not really Christian at all. Wouldn't you agree? And for the third time. Spirituality is not what you do in life that transpires after death, but what you do in life for others that grants you you're immortality, or eternity if you will. You live on in other's memories..
@lynneatwater So, I ask you to please pay attention to what I'm asking and quit avoiding the question. The title of your video says "God is Impossible". The God you speak of is not the God I believe in. That God is outdated by 2000 years. That God isn't God. We have grown beyond that type of thinking. As far a the word "creation" is concerned, the definition you provide isn't exactly correct. Creation isn't popping something into existence. It's intellectual design or property.
If you believe in some other kind of God; one, for example, which is not a creator, I have nothing to say. I only have a problem with those who insist on believing in something which is impossible. My personal goal is to have as much empirical evidence as I can before believing something is true. I have the feeling that your goals may not be all that different. Lynne
@lynneatwater As far as evolution goes. I have no problems with it. It's a sound theory. As a matter of fact, genetics now suggests that teaching and learning processes contribute to information stored within the genes that are passed down from generation to generation which ultimately contribute to evolution. Research the differences in intellectual responses of feral, and domesticated canines, to pointing.
@lynneatwater Please be a little more grown up about this discussion instead of jumping to some sort of assumption that I am a creationist who wants to ban evolution in schools or something because that's certainly not the case. I have provided a point of every rational request that you have asked of me. Are you not going to give me the same respect and reciprocate? Or are you just wasting my time? Because you have yet to properly address my points and that's just plain rude.
All I can do is try to interpret your observations as best I can and respond accordingly. There is a very limited amount of space here, so we are both forced to be cryptic with our words. Misinterpretations are frequent under such conditions. Tell me precisely what points you would like me to address and I will do so happily. I invite you to write me directly at: lynneatwater@gmail.com Lynne
@wuSchu44 She has done the same EXACT thing with me for months, please don't waste your time with arguing. Plus I found the etymology of the word in the bible that "Creation" is derived from is "Bara" which literally means to fatten, nulling ex nihlo in this argument, Therefore this is a straw man and is invalid. The fact that she is still arguing for it despite this being presented to her already shows just how pathetic and egoistic she is, this proof is a failure :(
@ALLKINDZASH1T It's not a failure. It's just outdated because semantics are involved when comparing defining languages that are a few thousand years apart. A virgin, then meant an unwed woman. Not a woman that has never had sex. In the bible, it's stated that Mary was already with child when she met Joseph. It's semantics. That's all. They aren't filling in that 2000 year old bridge correctly because not enough research and time has gone into the argument itself.
@wuSchu44 Well no, it actually is a failure because it commits the Straw man fallacy, Since her definition of Creation does not equal the actual word used which is "Bara" which is clearly defined as "to fatten" in Hebrew,and her argument is against the word Creation, therefore whether it was conscious or not this proof is a failure.
@wuSchu44 Actually, you are very wrong about the "Virgin = unwed woman claim" this stems from a clear misunderstanding of Hebrew culture. Virgin = marriageable woman and to be a marriageable woman in the Hebrew culture you must be a true virgin.Otherwise you were "put away"/socially exiled and left to become a prostitute. This is not up for debate it is a FACT.
@ALLKINDZASH1T That's not entirely true. People have been knocking boots at an exponential rate since the beginning of our existence. Hence the population we have today. Maybe, in some "tribes" or villages this may have been law in those times, but that would only limit them to a hand full. The origin of the actual word virgin comes from virgo which simply means maiden which means a young, unmarried woman.
@wuSchu44 Yes maybe in other cultures that could be true, However in the Hebrew culture, which is the only baseline used for biblical translation, the cultural definition of a marriageable woman is clearly defined.. over and over again..anyway Up until recently in some countries you were killed if you didn't bleed on your wedding night. Honestly this is a fact.
@ALLKINDZASH1T Well, regardless of how you try define it per culture, "marriageable" defined is unwed, or a suitable age for marriage. If we are talking about a woman, that would define that woman as a maiden, which is defined as a virgo or virgin. I'm just going with what the facts are. If you have information that contradicts these facts, please post it so you can better present your case and so that I maybe better informed with regards to your point. Thanks.
@ALLKINDZASH1T And I did a little bit of research in regards to your claim. This claim is only limited and referring to Nobility Social Structure making up between 1 and 3 percent of the total population. That's only 3% tops. That's pretty insignificant in my opinion when the rest of the world used different practices. Your argument however was "virgin" not meaning an unwed woman. That claim is absolutely false no matter how you try to define marriageable.
@ALLKINDZASH1T You'll have to wait a couple days when I go back to work. It's in my history on that computer. Please provide your sources. You can msg them to me here on youtube. Are you saying that your claim of exiling women to become prostitutes was not excluded to nobility only? Are you saying that this was commonly practiced throughout the entire Jewish religion? And are you still arguing against virgin meaning unwed woman? I just need to know what you are arguing.
@ALLKINDZASH1T So because it's both outdated and because it uses an unfamiliar definition of the word creation make it irrelevant because creation is more properly defined as intellectual design or property which, in that sense, makes God not only viable but necessary. God isn't a name. It's a title given by both Judaism and Christianity. It's quite obvious that those two belief systems differ. I feel it would be more respectful to us if the title of this video clarified this.
If what you believe makes your God lord of the universe, is its ability to "fatten", please keep in mind that it had to fatten "something"which was already in existence. By the way, how would an ability to "fatten" give your God the power to eternal life? You go on and on about this argument being erroneous but yet you are unable to demonstrate how or why. Do so and I will hand you the baton. Otherwise... Lynne
@lynneatwater Lynne, I do not understand why you keep asking me these non-relevant questions. This proof is about the impossibility of creation proving the impossibility of a Creating god God, NOT WHAT MAKES GOD SPECIAL. Therefore, I have proved that you are not characterizing God with the correct word or meaning, and as a result exposing a straw man fallacy which rejects the use ex nihlo in the argument. You are clearly trying to divert the argument away from the subject. Baton?
In one sentence you say I am not characterizing God correctly, yet in the next you appear to affirm that indeed this is about the possibility or impossibility of the emergence ex nihlo of existence. Please clarify: Is your God or is it not defined by its ability to make something emerge from nothing ? In addition, we continue to wait for your explanation of how my argument is a straw man fallacy. Lynne
@lynneatwater One more time for ya ;) The Hebrew word "Bara" is the word which has been frequently mistranslated into "Creation," Etymologically the word "Bara" means fatten, and the Ancient Hebrew Research Center States this! and also that the hebrew language has no word for a "something from nothing creation" So if you are disproving "creation" to disprove a creating god, and creation is a mistranslation and he is a fattening god, you have attacked a straw man.
Again, please keep in mind that the point of discussion here has, from the beginning, been the possibility or impossibility of a causal universe. If, however, it is enough for you to worship a God that is but a manipulator of existing matter and energy, so be it. The existence or non-existence of such an imaginary figure is, of course, unprovable. I, however, would find worshiping such a manipulator to be challenging at best. Lynne
@lynneatwater "Is your God or is it not defined by its ability to make something emerge from nothing ?" Lynne Atwater (8 hours ago) Actually I am saying no, To fatten somting is not to bring it into existance, it is to shape it to your purpose, and that is why you are committing a straw man, if you would like further explanation on this I made a 2 min video that should explain. Again if creation is not the word used in the bible it is impossible to disprove god by that word, baton?
@lynneatwater "In addition, we continue to wait for your explanation of how my argument is a straw man fallacy." Lynne Atwater. This is FALSE I have described your use of a mistranslated word to disprove God over and over for a week you just seem to ignore facts :( It is really actually quite sad, because the only options at this point are that you are not reading my comments or you should not participate in logic arguments. Stop trying to save face it is pathetic. Baton please?!
I see, now, where you found your straw man. Not hard to do when two people find themselves discussing two radically different issues while thinking their point of discussion is common to both. Must I conclude then that your God is a 'fattening' God? I have a friend that can do that kind if thing but I don't think I'd really want to worship her. Just out of curiosity, what would you say makes 'your' God worth worshiping? Lynne
@lynneatwater In short, it's the promise of eternal life with the proof thousands of fulfilled prophesies. I understand why you believe the way you do, but when I'm faced with a brief and possibly meaningless existence, the only strength there is exists in the possibility of eternity, and if i can get it just by Loving & having faith in God, I don't see sufficient reason why I wouldn't.
@lynneatwater More simply: If god is a fattener, and fattening exists, then God can exist. Because God is not "a creator" in the ex nihlo sense your argument is truly null. There is no need to address your questions "If what you believe makes your God lord of the universe.....how would an ability to "fatten" give your God the power to eternal life?" because they are 100% irrelevant to your Proof, which is what I am proving wrong. I just don't understand how you don't see this?
@lynneatwater #5 I do have proof that "this God of mine ever said anything to anyone". The fact that we are communicating here proves this. In order for language and knowledge to exist, it would have had to first be conceived of by an intelligence then either taught to, or learned by other intelligences. If this process didn't happen, this conversation wouldn't be happening. Or at the very least, not in this manner.
@wuSchu44 Language is created by us in order to communicate. Most animals have some method of communication (that I know of)...some is vocal, some communicate via hormones and chemicals while others choose to dance their messages....why again would an intelligence be needed?
@wuSchu44 so you consider the writings of a group of Bronze age middle eastern locals to be an accurate representation of how the entire universe began? What makes that creation story any different than any other creation story that man has ever made up over the years, attempting to explain something he didn't understand?
@1n354a I can't reply accurately to your comments because I don't understand your point on the "why again would an intelligence be needed?" question. I think the answer to that question would be quite obvious. Unless rocks can communicate with each other somehow and I just didn't know about it. Bronze age comment: Again, I can't respond accurately because it seems that you are making assumptions based on your own lack of understanding. I'm not saying you're dumb. Just not well informed.
@wuSchu44 Uuuugh you know exactly what I was saying. You act as if human language is something that only a divine entity/intelligence could concoct, while I pointed out that pretty much every living species has some sort of communication. Your comment about rocks was just dumb. I'll give you a second shot on that one, if you would like.The Bronze age comment - see my previous. You understand what I was saying and are dodging the question. Try again as well (I'm generous tonight!).
@1n354a I think you're jumping to conclusions and I, in no way, can help you with that. I've never said that language is something only a divine entity could concoct. I said that language is something that first must be conceived by an intelligence and then taught to or learned by other intelligences. That was my point and it still remains my point. If you have something rational to say that argues that point then feel free to reply. But if you don't, then our conversation is done.
@wuSchu44 "I do have proof that "this God of mine ever said anything to anyone". The fact that we are communicating here proves this. In order for language and knowledge to exist, it would have had to first be conceived of by an intelligence then either taught" <--that seems to indicate that you think that language had to be taught by your god or else we could never achieve this. Since you have stated again that this is your position, I think you have some explaining to do...
@1n354a Look in the bible and read John 1:1. That quote is about that specific passage and it was an answer to Lynne's question. I've explained spirituality and the defining moments in your life, unto others, that reflect your immortality and I continue to stand by what I said. I have no explaining to do at all. "In the beginning there was the word". That's my point. Your argument however, ended with the question "why would an intelligence be needed?" Answer, Because it does.
@wuSchu44 Because it does is not an acceptable answer. It explains nothing. I could similarly interject that Cheeseburgers are necessary for the development of language - when asked why, I respond "Because it is". Is this acceptable to you? Didn't think so.
@1n354a You have not read or understood what I have wrote. I'm only responsible for what I say, not for what you understand. Are you arguing the fact that it takes an intelligence to first conceive of language before it can be taught to, or learned by other intelligences? If you are, please provide your argument. If not then this conversation is pretty much over.
@wuSchu44 language is communication between two (or more) parties which develops over time by interacting with each other and their environment. it is learned by subsequent generations and evolves with them as they experience new things. there is no intelligence conceiving of language before we could learn it...god/intelligence is not needed in such a fashion in order to explain the origins and evolution of language.
@1n354a Are these parties intelligent? Meaning, are they living organisms with a brain and able to reason within the limits of their understanding? And surely one or more parties must conceive of the proper usage of such an ideal or else there would be absolutely no structure to language. Communication, whether you want to admit it or not, had to start from, not just somewhere, but also someone.
@wuSchu44 "And surely one or more parties must conceive of the proper usage of such an ideal or else there would be absolutely no structure to language" - no, nobody "conceived" of order and structure, rather it developed over time naturally as people interacted. communication only had to start from at least two people in that it takes two people to communicate.the rules and structure evolve with the language, not before the language.
With regard to existence in and of itself, 'nothing' is not an option. Form can change its configuration but the existence from which all form is made possible is immutable. In other words, an object's form may change but the existence that allows that object's form to be, is eternal. Our universe, in one form or another, has always been in existence. To be any other way would be unacceptably self-contradictory. Lynne
Do the supposition of complex imaginary numbers show or, in any way, demonstrate the concept of creation? No they don't, as in no way do they correspond to reality. They are imaginary. Lynne
1 is not an imaginary number, infact it is categorised as real. sqrt-1 does not exist as a real number, thus given the term imaginary. In relation to reality, we often tag the word imaginary to abstract things that are not measureable or can be compared to a caliber of anysort, thus not real. But to demonstrate that something imaginary can result in something real does in fact, how ever relevent show you that real things can result from things that are not real...creation.
Please recognize that any given quantity, the number 1, for example, is only possible as an a-posteriori option of existence itself. What is being argued here is not that 1-1 can or can not = 0, what is being argued is the possibility or impossibility of an 'emerging' or 'caused' existence in the first place. What is proved in this video is that existence is non-causal and, therefore, that 'creation' is not possible. Nothing more, nothing less. Lynne
@lynneatwater In your clip, it was stated that 0=0+0 0=0 0=0+0+0+0+0+0+0+... also 0=(1-1)+(1-1)+(1-1)+... (expand brackets) 0=1-1+1-1+1-1+1... Now shift the brackets to the RHS by 1 unit, (we're not adding/subtracting anything in anyway, just shifting brackets which has no equivalent exchange) 0=1+(-1+1)+(-1+1)+(-1+1)+(-1+1)... All bracketed units = 0 Therefore 0=1 1 exists from 0, Thus something can exist from nothing, this proves that creation is plainly possible, but obviously, not by us.
Please keep in mind that, from a cosmological perspective, 0 could never be the equivalent of 1-1; as to formulate any given quantity from the absence of same is rigorously self-contradictory and all self-contradictions are impossible. Lynne
regardless of perspective, be it cosmological or atomic, 0 is always the equivalent of 1-1, try it, have an apple inside a basket, take away that apple, and there is no apple inside that basket, hence naught, or zero, The opposite is also true, expect when referring to God, He makes the apple appear from naught. And it ismathematically possible to demonstrate such a thing. As I have mentioned earlier mathematics are processes involved in the solution of a problem.
You understand that mathematics are processes involved in the solution of a problem or study of some scientific field. So what would you say if I showed you that mathematics complies with the concept of creation?
So you have posted and argued against a straw man this whole time :( All of this stems from a simple lack of research on you're "Final Proof," A simple apology would suffice for the trouble you caused in your error.
Now I can 100% slay your entire proof because the word you are using for creation is biblically incorrect :) In Genesis 1.1 "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." The Hebrew word "bara" is a verb and is usually translated as "create". The word "bara" does not mean, "create" (Hebrew actually has no word that means "create" in the sense of something out of nothing) but "to fatten". Take the literal definition of "bara" In the beginning God fattened the heavens and the earth.
It appears you now argue that God never created anything after all. If this is your contention, your God is a transformer of already existing matter and energy, something which tens of thousands of humans do on a daily basis. Please explain, therefore, why anyone should worship your God instead of worshiping, say, Steve Jobs or Kevin Rudd? Lynne
@lynneatwater I hope you know the answer to that question Lynne, and if you don't please open a bible and learn about what you're arguing against. It has been a bumpy ride arguing with you, but fun nonetheless, sorry if I was offensive at all its a bad habit I am trying to kill. Wish you the best in your further studies, but please do not post more FINAL PROOFs without doing the proper research, they are offensive to many.
Please remember that the bible is a story book, hardly a source of scientific fact. To suppose that it, in any way, reflects reality is decidedly a gross error of scientific discourse. You bid farewell without having answered one single question I have posed to you. I have answered all of yours. Shouldn't that tell you something? Lynne
@lynneatwater You may believe the Bible is a story book, yet from your lack of knowledge on the subject, it is quite apparent you have never read it. I would not listen to a deaf music critic's claims, so why would I listen to you about the legitimacy of The Word. As for your Steve Job's question, it is simply preposterous you cannot compare a perfect being who has shown himself through completed prophesy, offered eternal life, and welcomed worship, to a CEO and inventor. silly.
I am more that just familiar with both the old and new testament. I have also read The Lord of the Rings. The reading of both these works, however, do not render their content real. From what I gather, your faith in God stems from its supposed 'perfection', but unlike most who are religious, not it's ability to create. Please describe what it is you understand by the term 'perfection' as my idea of perfection might be different from yours. Lynne
@lynneatwater You're just taking this argument in a circle with so many simple questions that you would know if you had even a surface knowledge of what you are arguing against. Please let me remind you of what this argument is about so you don't drag it in a different direction to draw attention from your failure anymore and try to save face. This proof has been discounted by finding the true Hebrew translation of the word creation "Bara" is non-contradictory. Sorry, you've lost.
Again, this 'argument' is about the possibility or impossibility of 'creation'. Nothing more, nothing less. In this video I prove that creation is impossible and, therefore, so is a creating God. If you contend that your God is not a creator, but rather a transformer of already existing energy and matter, I have no rub with that whatsoever. A non-creating God, however, would hold little interest for most. Lynne
@lynneatwater And please look back in the history of out comments you are not being honest in your claims of "answering all of my questions" while I "answer not a single one of yours." And that is a fact, proof readily available. You are the one readily lying to prove a point, shouldn't that tell you something Lynne? Best Andrew
Clinical psychologist and researcher does Philosophy, has her own webpage for this old argument under her name as if this was new and original, and she seriously believes it works. This is a gem!
I agree, there is absolutely nothing new about this argument. Indeed, it is as old as Aristotle himself. If you are convinced, however, that this argument is, in any way, invalid, prove to us in what way. Otherwise... Lynne
If syllogism "If there is God, creation is possible" isn't self explanatory to you, let me try to explain it. Premise: There is God. Premise: God is omnipotent. Premise: Omnipotency allows for tweaking and reshaping of any aspect of reality regardless of the laws of physics and logic. Premise: Creatio ex nihilo is possible if there is someone omnipotent to do it. Conclusion: Creatio ex nihilo is possible.
Your first premise is invalid as it is neither self-evident nor proven. So is your second. Your conclusion, therefore, is equally as invalid. Please deductively prove that Creatio ex nihilo is possible using self-evident or proven premises. Lynne
@lynneatwater You are trying to show us how illogical world is if there is God. For that reason you presupose God as the creator. Do you admit this? If you presupose that there is no God, then your argument is circular. So we presupose that there is God and watch what happens next.As this aimed at major religions we give God the atributes the major religions give him,that is omnipotency. Im proving a simple s
There always something..or nothing if we can agree on that.
God is an idea, so is existing and not existing, it's really whatever you want to make it out to be.
wtfpurepwned 2 days ago
@lynneatwater [I assume, of course, that you are using 'clay' as a representation of existence itself]
Yes & no. Because the clay (Oneness) is inescapable, it is absolutely unknowable. However, Existence (Awareness) can only emerge via the illusion of separation.
[Concerning reality; as you well know, it is immeasurable]
Again, yes & no. Reality seems to be about paradoxes. Existence/Awareness is immeasurable (infinite), yet there exists measurable/objective (finite), though relative, forms.
No1warp9 2 days ago
No1warp9
Existence is not awareness, it's existence. Awareness is a-posteriori to existence. What is this 'illusion' of separation you speak of? Separation of what? You refer to 'oneness', but oneness of what? Are you sure you're not referring to existence itself? Why is reality paradoxical? Are you sure you're not simply referring to the relational contrast that is a prerequisite to all existence? Lynne
lynneatwater 2 days ago
@lynneatwater [Do keep in mind, however, that using your analogy, that which is being discussed here is whether or not, your example of 'clay' is, in and of itself, causal]
The clay, being the 'source', would be both the cause & the effect. So perhaps 'causality' might be a more appropriate term.
[Could Protagoras have been that wrong?]
I would say he got it right, but only if one adopts his perspective. Humans can have extremely variable levels of awareness.
No1warp9 2 days ago
No1warp9
Please keep in mind that since creation is not possible, all examples of causality are a-posteriori to existence itself.
Protagoras was specifically referring to Man's capacity for multiple perspectives, not denying them. Lynne
lynneatwater 2 days ago
@eleutheromaniac ['recycled' implies a process; all processes have a beginning]
Every single moment has infinite causes and infinite effects. If all processes have a beginning, where/when do they absolutely begin? Where/when do they absolutely end? That would depend on an arbitrary/personal/agreed upon/relative definition of what is considered the beginning and end to said process.
No1warp9 2 days ago
@eleutheromaniac [The "clay" itself may be eternal, but the shaping and molding of it is a process and therefore subject to sequential measurement (time). The clay is timeless, the process of creating forms from the clay, is not.]
All is One, so ‘form’ and ‘process’ must be one and the same. The two are indistinguishable. A vortex is a form, yet it is also a process. Existence/Awareness can likewise be defined as such.
No1warp9 2 days ago
@eleutheromaniac [The clay is the source...and all things return to the source. The First Cause is the Last Cause, the Alpha and the Omega; however, since the clay is infinite in nature, this process will be repeated infinitely]
‘Recycling’ does not begin or end at any single point or moment because it exists at all (infinite) levels of existence. So no-thing is actually repeated. Rather, there are infinite ‘versions’ or ‘forms’ of the same unchanging existence.
No1warp9 2 days ago
@No1warp9 it's always changing, just not very obvious sometimes due to personal conditioned perspectives being accentuated at the moment.
wtfpurepwned 2 days ago
Here's a simple way to look at reality:
A hunk of clay can be shaped into a myriad of forms. The clay is the source, and thus the constant. The forms are impermanent...they come and go. The universe is just one form...slowly recycled through innumerable 'black holes'...and from which new universes emerge. As in a vortex, there's no absolute beginning or end.
The Clay = Oneness
The Forms = illusion of separation (ie, infinite manifestations of Oneness as 'consciousness/awareness')
No1warp9 5 days ago
No1warp9
Very well put. Do keep in mind, however, that using your analogy, that which is being discussed here is whether or not, your example of 'clay' is, in and of itself, causal. I assume, of course, that you are using 'clay' as a representation of existence itself.
Concerning reality; as you well know, it is immeasurable, hence, Man's continuing problem with a proper description of same. Could Protagoras have been that wrong? Lynne
lynneatwater 5 days ago
@No1warp9 'recycled' implies a process; all processes have a beginning.
The "clay" itself may be eternal, but the shaping and molding of it is a process and therefore subject to sequential measurement (time). The clay is timeless, the process of creating forms from the clay, is not.
The clay is the source...and all things return to the source. The First Cause is the Last Cause, the Alpha and the Omega; however, since the clay is infinite in nature, this process will be repeated infinitely.
eleutheromaniac 5 days ago
'Satan' is/was an ET leader...probably a very headstrong, maverick 'reptilian'. With references to ancient AND current UFO's, what better explanation is there? The 'gods' and 'angels' of ancient manuscripts were always either human or humanoid. No need for this religious debate when one considers ancient ET's. It unifies the two sides of this pointless debate...each side holding some truth (eg, creationism vs evolution, God vs no God, miracles vs science, etc.), but missing the bigger picture.
No1warp9 1 week ago
eleutheromaniac
Emotional outbursts and four letter insults so commonly used by those that profess to be religious are, however, not welcome in this comment section. If you would like to restate your views in a rational way, I will answer you. If, you feel that my definition of creation is improper, please submit your own. I will be glad to discuss any definition you may propose. Lynne
lynneatwater 2 weeks ago
@lynneatwater when did i "profess to be religious"?
saying creation means 'something from nothing' is imbecilic and deserving of ridicule, especially when it is arrogantly presented as a "final proof" of an age-old philosophical debate.
'bringing into existence' (webster's definition) means just that: making something which did not previously exist. it does not mean that 'nothing' existed previously. did henry Ford create the first model t from nothing?
ex nihilo nihil fit.
eleutheromaniac 2 weeks ago
eleutheromaniac
That which is being discussed here is the bringing into existence, of "existence itself". That is what creation is postulated to be, were it to be anything else, (Henry Ford's creation of an affordable automobile) it would be transformation, not creation. Would you not agree? Would you also not agree that the bringing into existence "of existence itself" were self-contradictory in nature? Lynne
lynneatwater 2 weeks ago
@lynneatwater So God "transformed" Himself into the universe, then. Transform, create, evolve, we're really just playing with semantics here.
But it is not "bringing into existence, of existence itself", because *what* is doing the bringing? If *something* is doing the bringing then ipso facto it exists, so existence *itself* is not what is being brought about, since something already exists: The First Cause, aka The Prime Mover.
eleutheromaniac 2 weeks ago
eleutheromaniac
This is not about semantics, this is about logic. When you ask 'what' is doing the bringing into existence, you have already presupposed that something or someone could have existed prior to existence itself, and that would be self-contradictory. There can't be a Prime Mover with out there being something to move and if there is something to move, that something clearly must already be in existence. Again, true creation is self-contradictory. Lynne
lynneatwater 2 weeks ago
@lynneatwater If the Prime Mover was the first and only thing to exist, then what the Prime Mover moved, and has forever been moving, is self-evident: Itself. For there is nothing else to move.
Everything that ever is or ever was is only a reflection of the Prime Mover. Or, as the Bible would say: "We are created in God's image."
Everything is made up of God; everything is made up of energy. God cannot be created nor destroy; energy cannot be created nor destroyed. God = energy.
eleutheromaniac 2 weeks ago
eleutheromaniac
Are you sure you're not religious? Could I have been that far off base from the beginning? Please view my response below concerning the scholastic notion of a Prime Mover or, if you wish, a causal universe. Lynne
lynneatwater 2 weeks ago
@lynneatwater If you believe in the existence of effect without a cause (i.e. something from nothing) then essentially you believe in magic--you believe a rabbit can be pulled from an empty tophat.
If you believe in the existence of Cause without a preceding effect, then you believe in an immutable God, the First Cause.
So do you believe in magic or do you believe in God? :P
Unless you can prove that something can come from nothing.
eleutheromaniac 2 weeks ago
eleutheromaniac
Like some scholastics before you, you declare the need of a 'first' cause. My question to you would be, how could there be a 'first' cause in a non-existing universe? Is that not what is being discussed here, the emergence of creation itself? Yet how could there be a 'first' cause of nothing? And nevertheless that is precisely what creation must be: The emergence of existence itself? Lynne
lynneatwater 2 weeks ago
@lynneatwater again you keep going to 'non-existence' or 'prior to existence'--there is no such thing. since everything which exists in the universe is the result of causality, something must have been the first cause to exist.
nothing comes from nothing and nothing leads to nothing; therefore, if nothing ever was, nothing still would be, and forever would be. existence could not have come from nothing, therefore non-existence never was.
Something has always existed.
eleutheromaniac 2 weeks ago
eleutheromaniac
If you recognize that only nothing can come from nothing, please also recognize that to speak of a 'first cause' of existence itself is contradictory. You categorically state that "non-existence never was" And I agree. Yet that recognition substantiates the fact that clearly existence is eternal. And yes, "everything in our universe is causal, but only given that just as existence itself, our universe, in and of itself is non-causal. Lynne
lynneatwater 2 weeks ago
@lynneatwater and what is this "universe in and of itself" when all the causal constituents are removed?
i never 'professed to be religious' as you claimed, because what i am was, and still is, entirely irrelevant.
But if you're curious, I do believe in non-localized consciousness--that is, that consciousness is not derived from the human brain but rather only perceived and recorded by it--consciousness belongs to the universe itself which may be called God.
eleutheromaniac 2 weeks ago
eleutheromaniac
Very well, you believe in a non-localized consciousness. That's certainly interesting. Others, for example, say they don't believe in a God at all but then add, "But I do believe in some sort of all bracing force or consciousness that created all of this." Is that, in any way, a bit like what you believe? Such would certainly make us feel less alone out here, but could such a thing be possible? And if so, could you explain to us how? Thanks. Lynne
lynneatwater 2 weeks ago
@lynneatwater is such a thing possible? have you never had a dream?
'existance as an entity' is that not God? you say it is non-causal, but I think what you mean is that it is uneffected. It is the First Cause, eternally immutable. The only thing that changes with regards to the First Cause--with regards existence in and of itself--is perception.
Just as in a dream, the only difference between "you" and everything else is perception. In reality, it is all One mind.
eleutheromaniac 2 weeks ago
eleutheromaniac
I fear there can be no first cause of eternity as such a concept would be self-contradictory. Just as an aside, I know that it's comforting to believe that there is "someone" or "something" watching over us, even caring for our destinies. Clearly, however, life demonstrates that if anything seemingly "goes our way" at all, it is we, matched with happenstance, who have produced the desired result, not some mysterious guy in the sky. Would you not agree? Lynne
lynneatwater 1 week ago
@lynneatwater 'guy in the sky'? I think you may be confusing Michangelo's famous conceptualization of "God" with the actual God, as many do. God is not a someone or even a something, rather God is All Things. Picturing God as a Man on a cloud or on top of Mt. Olympus is merely a method of putting Him into perspective.
There can be a First Cause to eternity, if the First Cause is also the Last Cause; or as it is more popularly known, the Alpha and the Omega.
Eternal Recurrence.
eleutheromaniac 1 week ago
@lynneatwater Regarding things 'going our way' or being 'comforted' by God, it is all a matter of perspective. I would only say that there is a HUGE difference between having a belief in God, and having faith in God.
But naturally, you must establish the former before you can even contemplate the latter.
eleutheromaniac 1 week ago
eleutheromaniac
I'm anxious to learn in what way you can distinguish faith from belief. Are not both dependent on an absence of knowledge? You may also converse via email by contacting me directly: lynneatwater@gmail.com. Lynne
lynneatwater 1 week ago
@lynneatwater Knowledge itself is based on belief; knowledge is belief which can be objectively tested and agreed upon to be true. But is true knowledge even obtainable for subjective beings such as ourselves? Many philosophers have surmised that the answer is no. True knowledge can only belong to a consciousness such as God, "God only is wise", as Socrates said.
Faith is synonymous with trust: it deals with the trustworthiness of a the thing believed.
eleutheromaniac 1 week ago
eleutheromaniac
True, all knowledge is based on beliefs. (Protagoras) In turn, beliefs supported by tangible evidence become what we call knowledge. Beliefs absent of evidence, however, are a product of a lack of knowledge or, if you wish; ignorance. To claim that someone or something is capable of true knowledge is a belief which is entirely absent of tangible evidence. Be careful you are not trying to say: 'because I do not 'know' something, I know it' Lynne
lynneatwater 1 week ago
eleutheromaniac
True, all knowledge is based on beliefs. (Protagoras) In turn, beliefs supported by tangible evidence become what we call knowledge. Beliefs absent of evidence, however, are a product of a lack of knowledge or, if you wish; ignorance. To claim that someone or something is capable of true knowledge is a belief which is entirely absent of tangible evidence. Be careful you are not trying to say: 'because I do not 'know' something, I know it' Lynne
lynneatwater 1 week ago
eleutheromaniac
True, knowledge is based on belief. (Protagoras) In turn, beliefs supported by tangible evidence become what we call knowledge. Beliefs absent of evidence, however, are a product of ignorance = (absence of knowledge). To claim that someone or something is capable of true knowledge is a belief which is entirely absent of tangible evidence. Be careful you are not trying to say: 'because I do not 'know' something, I know it' Lynne
lynneatwater 1 week ago
@lynneatwater but what you're missing is that tangiable evidence inevitably has gaps, which are filled in by belief. The only thing any of us can truly be certain of is "I think, therefore I am", and some philosophers even debate THAT.
And again, God is not a "someone" or a "something", it is All Things
I am NOT saying 'because I do not know, I know', I am saying I believe. I, like Socrates, only "know" that I know nothing. Belief is all human beings truly ever have; the rest is sophistry
eleutheromaniac 1 week ago
eleutheromaniac
Are you suggesting that sophism is evil or erroneous ? You speak of 'gaps', and I agree, all evidence is incomplete. Nevertheless, there is no gap of evidence whatsoever in self-contradiction. The emergence of existence itself, for example, has been clearly proven to be self-contradictory. If you claim that your God is not a creator, that I'm unable to prove as false. A true 'creator' however is, quite to the contrary, provably impossible. Lynne.
lynneatwater 1 week ago
@lynneatwater the object of the sophist is to win an argument, period. truth is irrelevant to sophism. it is the very antithesis of what Socrates and the truly great thinkers of western civilization have tried to work towards.
Again, we keep going over this point: it is not the emergence of "existence itself" because something already does exist: First Cause, eternal and immutable.
ETs was a different commentor, I don't believe in ETs visiting Earth.
eleutheromaniac 1 week ago
eleutheromaniac
The object of the sophist is not to win arguments it is to bring forth the absolute subjectivity of reality and truth.
If you agree that the universe, existence or what you call God is eternal, I am unable to dismember such a claim through logical discourse. Only when one attempts to claim an absolute 'first cause' is the use of deductive logic meaningful. Lynne
lynneatwater 1 week ago
@lynneatwater I think it depends upon your definition of universe. I think you are defining universe as the beginning of physical processes, formation of stars, creation of life, etc. But that is not what the universe is; it is shapeless and formless and infinite.
We know that energy can neither be created nor destroyed; but what is energy if it has nothing to act upon? What is "pure" energy? If consciousness is in fact non-localized, then what is consciousness freed from a physical form?
eleutheromaniac 1 week ago
eleutheromaniac
The universe should be understood as all things existing or, if you wish, existence itself. There can be no such thing as a 'beginning' to that which is, like the universe, inexorably eternal. I don't know what 'pure energy is' unless we are talking about the abstract idea of energy as a concept. Consciousness clearly is only possible in physical form. Lynne
lynneatwater 6 days ago
@lynneatwater energy can *only* be understood conceptually, as energy itself has never been directly observed
"Consciousness clearly is only possible in physical form" Then explain the dream state; wherein your consciousness creates the dreamworld, yet you also inhabit the dreamworld within a physical form created by your consciousness: you are simultaneously the creator and the created
What if you had a dream where you received a CAT scan, showing brain activity? A brain within a brain?
eleutheromaniac 5 days ago
eleutheromaniac
Dream states are simply just another form of consciousness. During the dream you are perfectly aware of the dream's content. The surprisingly 'inventive nature' of dreams is sparked by the dreamer's psychologically induced needs and desires represented by perfectly ad hoc psychological experiences perfectly combined to provide the psyche with that which it structurally requires. As you know, tomes could be written about dreams and have been. Lynne
lynneatwater 5 days ago
@lynneatwater all that aside, my point is that dreams are proof of the non-locality of consciousness.
"another form of consciousness", this is sort of what I'm saying; energy is eternal, indestructible--in merely changes form; this is true of consciousness, as well. Is it such an unreasonable leap in logic to presume that these two concepts are then naturally linked to one another. energy = consciousness. and since everything is made of energy, everything is made of consciousness = God.
eleutheromaniac 5 days ago
eleutheromaniac
All dreams are construed within the confines of the mind. Consciousness is absolutely distributable. All the basic elements from which consciousness is formed, however, are, of course, eternal. When our minds die, so does our consciousness and so do we. Lynne
lynneatwater 5 days ago
@lynneatwater "When our minds die, so does our consciousness and so do we"
The universe is infinite, never-ending--we both agree on that. It is then a mathematical certainty that all things finite existing within the infinite universe will be repeated, in exact measure, infinitely. Poincare's Recurrence Theorem provides the mathematical proof, and Nietzsche's theory of Eternal Return provides the philosophical context.
Nothing ever dies; all things return.
eleutheromaniac 5 days ago
eleutheromaniac
Let's be precise. All things living eventually die. The fundamental matter and energy that are necessary to create those living things, however, will only change its relational form. Pls keep in mind that Poincare's theorem is only that; a theorem. Nietzsche's theory of Eternal Return is too, just a theory. The facts are: death of all living life forms is definitive. Those elements that eventually re-form themselves, do so as something else. Lynne
lynneatwater 4 days ago
@lynneatwater "do so as something else"
*What* else? Your body, from head-to-toe, is made up of entirely different cells then those you were born with, and yet you still identify yourself as the same being, because of the CONFIGURATION of those cells, which is detriminant and finite and can be remade by the infinite universe again and again.
Yes, Eternal Return is only a theory, but it is a coherent theory that is entirely consistent with what we know about mathematics and the universe.
eleutheromaniac 4 days ago
eleutheromaniac
You are correct; such cells "are", indeed, remade again and again. Please understand that my reference to "something else" is an existentially based relational issue. You might want to review an ad hoc website that will allow you some very revealing insights concerning this matter. You can find the site under the heading of "Structured Psychology". Tell me what you think? Dr. Follansbee and I work together. Lynne
lynneatwater 3 days ago
@lynneatwater by "something else" do you mean another subjective consciousness?
if you believe that then you acknowledge who "you" are is irrelevant to the physical form you take, since that physical form can be remade precisely--and even the circumstances of your entire life and death can be remade precisely (it is all made of ordered and detriminant factors)....so if there is a being that has your entire configuration, your exact life from start to finish, and it is not "you", what is it?
eleutheromaniac 4 days ago
eleutheromaniac
As the theory of Structured Psychology postulates, the person you are, is just the beginning of the person you are becoming. However, who you are is in no way 'irrelevant' to the physical form you take. You 'are' your ever-changing physical being and that ever-changing physical being, is you. That is to say, your 'being' is totally dependent upon your physical status and vice versa. It's a relational issue. No subject can exist without an object. Lynne
lynneatwater 3 days ago
@lynneatwater Understand, I am not merely saying that your body will be remade, atom-by-atom; I am saying that every aspect of your life will be remade--and HAS been remade--instant-by-instant. It is ALL based on detriminant factors and sequential ordering.
So ALL the experiences and relationships which influenced the psychological structure of your being will be repeated, infinitely.
eleutheromaniac 3 days ago
@lynneatwater Unless, that is, you believe that the eternal universe is also infinitely complex (irreducible complexity) or infinitely precise (like Pi). These are the only factors which could logically negate the eternal return of your finite self within this infinite universe.
eleutheromaniac 3 days ago
eleutheromaniac
Even without taking into consideration the infinite nature of the universe, I am unable to find a justification for eternal consciousness. In a word, were life to be entirely annulled, so would be consciousness. When one's own individual consciousness dies, it dies. Lynne
lynneatwater 2 days ago
@lynneatwater Of course, both of these possibilities fly in the face of Darwinian evolution, as Darwin himself said: "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find out no such case"
Could consciousness itself be an example of such an organ? That seems to be what you are suggesting.
eleutheromaniac 3 days ago
eleutheromaniac
Of course, 'evolution' per-SE, is an illusion all by itself as not one 'missing' link has ever been found that would bind the evolution of one living species to another. Herbert Spencer I can relate to. Darwin, however, is a completely different story. Consciousness, by the way, is the result of brain function alone. Lynne
lynneatwater 2 days ago
@lynneatwater just as in a dream, everything is made of consciousness. The floor you walk on, the air you breathe, even the people you talk to, are all part of one, singular consciousness--one Soul. The soul is in a way the antithesis of the body.
You are distinct from this consciousness (the soul) because of subjectivity (the body)--but that is only an illusion, nothing more. It would be no different then if you felt that your hand was somehow seperate from your body.
eleutheromaniac 5 days ago
eleutheromaniac
The separation of mind and body has been a point of philosophical discussion for centuries. Keep in mind that subjectivity is only meaningful where there is conscious. One's body, for example is perfectly capable of being sensed by the Ego as an object and frequently is by a human 'subject'. That, at least, until another subject relates to one as one singular entity. Man's Soul, however, is an imaginary concept synonymous with the mind. Lynne.
lynneatwater 5 days ago
@lynneatwater "absolute subjectivity" how can subjectivity be absolute? is this not a contradiction in terms?
eleutheromaniac 1 week ago
eleutheromaniac
Subjectivity in general refers to a subject that is in a necessary existential relationship with an object whereas absolute subjectivity isolates the subject from all relational activity allowing one to consider the subject exclusively in and of itself. You are correct in assuming that taken at face value, the notion of 'absolute subjectivity' is, at best, a senseless term and depending on one's perspective, ultimately contradictory. Lynne
lynneatwater 6 days ago
@lynneatwater Regarding God, one example of people who believe in God but do not have faith in Him are Satanists, who of course place their faith in Satan instead.
eleutheromaniac 1 week ago
eleutheromaniac
I agree. In my view, Satanism is just another 'cop-out' as the Satanist has faith in something which instead of being born of knowledge, it is born of ignorance. There is no supported evidence whatsoever that Satin exists. The idea of a Satin, however, does make for some very creepy novels and a film script or two. Lynne
lynneatwater 1 week ago
@lynneatwater regarding Satan, I am wondering if you think of Satan as a cloven-hoofed, red beast with horns? Or a winged-angel, fallen to Earth?
These are only conceptualizations. Just as saying Zeus sits at the top of Mt. Olympus is a conceptualization. Do you not think the Greeks were capable of climbing Olympus and seeing for themselves Zeus was not there?
We have evidence of moutainclimbers thousands of years before ancient Greece, climbing mountains much higher than Olympus.
eleutheromaniac 1 week ago
eleutheromaniac
I personally do not consider this debate we are having to be pointless. Please help, however, by explaining what you mean by "the big picture." I'm having a hard time linking ETs with our discussion about the impossibility of a creating God. I also am not sure what the analogy is that you suggest exists between Mt. Olympus, the Greeks and creation. Lynne
lynneatwater 1 week ago
@lynneatwater But regarding the Greeks, my point was that atheists have a tendency to be far too obtuse and condescending towards mythologies, not understanding that they are allegorical in nature
The Greeks did not believe there was literally a giant man on top of Olympus hucking lightning bolts at them, just as Michangelo didn't believe that God was a bearded man floating on a cloud. This was simply a means of conjuring within the mind an idea which is on very edges of human understanding
eleutheromaniac 1 week ago
@lynneatwater I think of religions and mythologies as artistic representations, rather than factual accounts. If you gathered 50 artists together to paint the same scene, you would get 50 different, unique paintings. Yet each of them is expressing the same scenerio. The differences in the paintings are the artist's unique perspective.
Some paintings will be fuller and more complete than others, but all of them have value in that they give an opportunity to see things from a different POV
eleutheromaniac 1 week ago
@lynneatwater by the same token, each of the mythologies have their unique POV and means of expressing an idea. But ultimately, it is my belief that they are 'painting the same scenerio' so to speak.
I believe this because the parallels between the ancient mythologies and modern religions are undeniable. For example, the parallels between Jesus and Dionyssus, or St. George and Perseus.
But each 'artist' sees something the others do not. Perception is the only thing that truly changes.
eleutheromaniac 1 week ago
eleutheromaniac
I agree; the interpreter or illustrator of any abstract concept is doing just that: producing a spatial representation of an abstraction which, in turn, obviously annuls the abstraction itself. Having said that, I don't think anyone here has every claimed that Michelangelo's representation of God, or anyone else's for that matter, were anything more than just paintings. Lynne
lynneatwater 1 week ago
@lynneatwater "I don't think anyone here has every claimed that Michelangelo's representation of God, or anyone else's for that matter, were anything more than just paintings"
That's where you're wrong. How many times is God described as an "old bearded man in the sky"? Where do you think that imagery orginated?
This, IMO, is why the Bible forbade any graven images of God: because inevitably, as seen in other religions, it is the IMAGE, instead of what the image reps., that is worshiped
eleutheromaniac 1 week ago 3
eleutheromaniac
The universe, 'in and of itself', is existence 'in and of itself.' Existence as an entity or, if you wish, as an abstract representation of all things existing, is inexorably non-causal as only nothing can emerge from nothing. This, essentially, is why the concept of 'nothingness' is contradictory. Over the centuries, thinkers have, indeed, made frequent reference to 'nothingness', but when they have, in my opinion, it's been in error. Lynne
lynneatwater 2 weeks ago
@eleutheromaniac From our perspective you maybe right and by using logic it is plausable, but from God's perspective our logic in trown out the window. God is is bigger than our puny minds can absorb. All I can say that you have not shaken my belief that God exists and he believes you
legmanpv72 1 week ago
A creator cannot make something from nothing, because nothing would not exists. The creator itself is something.
bander87 2 weeks ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
"Again, this 'argument' is about the possibility or impossibility of 'creation'. Nothing more, nothing less. In this video I prove that creation is impossible and, therefore, so is a creating God." - Lynne Atwater (1 week ago) Please do not contradict yourself and ask non-relevant questions... I want my Baton Lynne.... AG
ALLKINDZASH1T 3 weeks ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
Umm... You are mistaken completely; our universe was created from remanents of a universe that was destroyed, and that remanents created our universe through the big bang at random. Everything in nature is recycled because something cannot becreated from nothing. The events of the bible are spontaneus (sp) and are not transitional nor are they accountable for themselves. That is because an event needs a past, present, and a future; in transition. The format of the bible proves god impossible.
Sneak173 1 month ago
madstork91
To suggest that your God existed before the universe existed is a non-sequitur. The universe comprises 'all things existing' and, therefore, comprises existence itself. The problem with that which you assert is not that it is too simple, it's that it is self-contradictory and, subsequently, impossible. Lynne
lynneatwater 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@lynneatwater the definition you give of the universe is a worldview and an example of infinite regression. The universe containing its initial cause. The universe only encompass the natural laws and physical objects governed by those laws. Therefore, a prime mover would not necessarily be included in the universe because it would be something outside of space-time and natural law.
ShawnSwander 4 weeks ago
Your argument is against the old testament. It's called the "old" testament for a reason. Can you please submit an argument for modern Christianity? There have been a lot of different gods spoken about in history and I think that it's pretty conclusive that, even though the old testament is part of the bible, it doesn't reflect the beliefs of Christians.
wuSchu44 1 month ago
wuSchu44
Please tell us, therefore, what your beliefs are. Are you saying that the God of the New Testament is not a creator? Is that how it differentiates itself from the God of the Old Testament? We are not sure what it is you are trying to assert. Lynne
lynneatwater 1 month ago
@lynneatwater In the beginning there was the word. And the word was with God, and the word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things are made. Without him, nothing is made that has been made. In him is life and that life is the light of all man kind.
wuSchu44 1 month ago
wuSchu44
That which is proven in this video is that creation is impossible. Your comment does in no way refute that impossibility. In addition, you provide no support whatsoever which proves that this God of yours ever said anything to anyone. Lynne
lynneatwater 1 month ago
@lynneatwater #1 That's a cop out. #2 If you actually read what I wrote instead of jumping to conclusions, you'd see that I haven't refuted anything. I simply asked you to provide a more up to date argument against God since yours is only outdated by a couple thousand years. #3 You are a researcher, or at least your video claims that you are. You should research what you're disputing before patronizing one's beliefs. #4 I'm not here to argue or debate. Only to converse.
wuSchu44 1 month ago
wuSchu44
Please pay attention to what the video says and my responses to you. The only thing proven in this video is that creation is not possible and, therefore, neither is a creating God, period. I patronize no one's beliefs, I only question their lack of empirical or logical support. Please provide proof that your God spoke. A recording would be nice. Are you actually suggesting that Man's intelligence was not the product of evolution? Please prove that as well. Lynne
lynneatwater 4 weeks ago
@lynneatwater You're joking right? You're asking for a recording of the first word spoken by a life form on Earth from a time that no such technology was available. Boy, that's going to be hard to come by. Seriously, get real. I understand you're an Atheist. That's fine. I'm not trying to turn you. You have, however avoided my question repeatedly because it appears that you don't understand modern Christianity. You're refuting a God of Judaism. Christians do that all the time.
wuSchu44 4 weeks ago
wuSchu44
Of course I'm joking. Again, if your new, modern, up-to-date God created nothing, I have no problem with that. I would, however, suggest you query the value of such a God. How, after all could a God like that provide eternal existence or is its own existence limited as well? Lynne
lynneatwater 4 weeks ago
@lynneatwater You just don't get it. Eternity isn't physically existing after death. It's not what you do in life, but what you do in life for others that grants you eternal bliss as they remember and share their memories. Christianity isn't some sort of Nazi camp for the clinically dumb. It's a peaceful religion that thrives on the understanding and sharing of knowledge to help perpetuate life in a morally correct way. This is why the teachings of Jesus are so important to us.
wuSchu44 3 weeks ago
wuSchu44
You may claim that Christianity is a peaceful, understanding and knowledge sharing religion, yet such claims do, in no way, jibe with historical fact. You indicate that eternity isn't physical. What is it then? If you say it is spiritual, please explain exactly how. Do keep in mind, however, that if you state that spirit is not physical, spiritual consciousness becomes an oxymoron and, therefore, of little interest to humans. Lynne
lynneatwater 3 weeks ago
@lynneatwater Please show me where historical fact contradicts Christianity. I've already explained how spirituality works. Eternal life is granted from what people remember and share of you while you're alive and after you've passed. Spirituality is of great interest to humans, because as a psychologist, you should know that the human species are not isolationists. We prefer to be around other people which makes spirituality not just important but essential.
wuSchu44 3 weeks ago
wuSchu44
Are you saying you're unfamiliar with Christianity's, cruel, demanding, violent and intolerant past? Are you truly asking for that historical laundry list of shameful events ? Where did you explain how spirituality works? I see that nowhere in the comments you have made. So please, once again, kindly define and / or demonstrate what you mean by the term spirituality. I have no idea whatsoever what that could possibly be. Lynne
lynneatwater 3 weeks ago
@lynneatwater Yes I am asking you for those types of things because if something of that nature were to even have transpired under a Christian religion, that would make those in question bad Christians, therefor, not really Christian at all. Wouldn't you agree? And for the third time. Spirituality is not what you do in life that transpires after death, but what you do in life for others that grants you you're immortality, or eternity if you will. You live on in other's memories..
wuSchu44 3 weeks ago
@lynneatwater So, I ask you to please pay attention to what I'm asking and quit avoiding the question. The title of your video says "God is Impossible". The God you speak of is not the God I believe in. That God is outdated by 2000 years. That God isn't God. We have grown beyond that type of thinking. As far a the word "creation" is concerned, the definition you provide isn't exactly correct. Creation isn't popping something into existence. It's intellectual design or property.
wuSchu44 4 weeks ago
wuSchu44
If you believe in some other kind of God; one, for example, which is not a creator, I have nothing to say. I only have a problem with those who insist on believing in something which is impossible. My personal goal is to have as much empirical evidence as I can before believing something is true. I have the feeling that your goals may not be all that different. Lynne
lynneatwater 4 weeks ago
@lynneatwater As far as evolution goes. I have no problems with it. It's a sound theory. As a matter of fact, genetics now suggests that teaching and learning processes contribute to information stored within the genes that are passed down from generation to generation which ultimately contribute to evolution. Research the differences in intellectual responses of feral, and domesticated canines, to pointing.
wuSchu44 4 weeks ago
@lynneatwater Please be a little more grown up about this discussion instead of jumping to some sort of assumption that I am a creationist who wants to ban evolution in schools or something because that's certainly not the case. I have provided a point of every rational request that you have asked of me. Are you not going to give me the same respect and reciprocate? Or are you just wasting my time? Because you have yet to properly address my points and that's just plain rude.
wuSchu44 4 weeks ago
wuSchu44
All I can do is try to interpret your observations as best I can and respond accordingly. There is a very limited amount of space here, so we are both forced to be cryptic with our words. Misinterpretations are frequent under such conditions. Tell me precisely what points you would like me to address and I will do so happily. I invite you to write me directly at: lynneatwater@gmail.com Lynne
lynneatwater 4 weeks ago
@wuSchu44 She has done the same EXACT thing with me for months, please don't waste your time with arguing. Plus I found the etymology of the word in the bible that "Creation" is derived from is "Bara" which literally means to fatten, nulling ex nihlo in this argument, Therefore this is a straw man and is invalid. The fact that she is still arguing for it despite this being presented to her already shows just how pathetic and egoistic she is, this proof is a failure :(
ALLKINDZASH1T 3 weeks ago
@ALLKINDZASH1T It's not a failure. It's just outdated because semantics are involved when comparing defining languages that are a few thousand years apart. A virgin, then meant an unwed woman. Not a woman that has never had sex. In the bible, it's stated that Mary was already with child when she met Joseph. It's semantics. That's all. They aren't filling in that 2000 year old bridge correctly because not enough research and time has gone into the argument itself.
wuSchu44 3 weeks ago
@wuSchu44 Well no, it actually is a failure because it commits the Straw man fallacy, Since her definition of Creation does not equal the actual word used which is "Bara" which is clearly defined as "to fatten" in Hebrew,and her argument is against the word Creation, therefore whether it was conscious or not this proof is a failure.
ALLKINDZASH1T 3 weeks ago
@wuSchu44 Actually, you are very wrong about the "Virgin = unwed woman claim" this stems from a clear misunderstanding of Hebrew culture. Virgin = marriageable woman and to be a marriageable woman in the Hebrew culture you must be a true virgin.Otherwise you were "put away"/socially exiled and left to become a prostitute. This is not up for debate it is a FACT.
ALLKINDZASH1T 3 weeks ago
@ALLKINDZASH1T That's not entirely true. People have been knocking boots at an exponential rate since the beginning of our existence. Hence the population we have today. Maybe, in some "tribes" or villages this may have been law in those times, but that would only limit them to a hand full. The origin of the actual word virgin comes from virgo which simply means maiden which means a young, unmarried woman.
wuSchu44 3 weeks ago
@wuSchu44 Yes maybe in other cultures that could be true, However in the Hebrew culture, which is the only baseline used for biblical translation, the cultural definition of a marriageable woman is clearly defined.. over and over again..anyway Up until recently in some countries you were killed if you didn't bleed on your wedding night. Honestly this is a fact.
ALLKINDZASH1T 3 weeks ago
@ALLKINDZASH1T Well, regardless of how you try define it per culture, "marriageable" defined is unwed, or a suitable age for marriage. If we are talking about a woman, that would define that woman as a maiden, which is defined as a virgo or virgin. I'm just going with what the facts are. If you have information that contradicts these facts, please post it so you can better present your case and so that I maybe better informed with regards to your point. Thanks.
wuSchu44 3 weeks ago
@ALLKINDZASH1T And I did a little bit of research in regards to your claim. This claim is only limited and referring to Nobility Social Structure making up between 1 and 3 percent of the total population. That's only 3% tops. That's pretty insignificant in my opinion when the rest of the world used different practices. Your argument however was "virgin" not meaning an unwed woman. That claim is absolutely false no matter how you try to define marriageable.
wuSchu44 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
ALLKINDZASH1T 3 weeks ago
@wuSchu44 Provide your sources please.......
ALLKINDZASH1T 3 weeks ago
@ALLKINDZASH1T You'll have to wait a couple days when I go back to work. It's in my history on that computer. Please provide your sources. You can msg them to me here on youtube. Are you saying that your claim of exiling women to become prostitutes was not excluded to nobility only? Are you saying that this was commonly practiced throughout the entire Jewish religion? And are you still arguing against virgin meaning unwed woman? I just need to know what you are arguing.
wuSchu44 3 weeks ago
@ALLKINDZASH1T So because it's both outdated and because it uses an unfamiliar definition of the word creation make it irrelevant because creation is more properly defined as intellectual design or property which, in that sense, makes God not only viable but necessary. God isn't a name. It's a title given by both Judaism and Christianity. It's quite obvious that those two belief systems differ. I feel it would be more respectful to us if the title of this video clarified this.
wuSchu44 3 weeks ago
ALLKINDZASH1T
If what you believe makes your God lord of the universe, is its ability to "fatten", please keep in mind that it had to fatten "something"which was already in existence. By the way, how would an ability to "fatten" give your God the power to eternal life? You go on and on about this argument being erroneous but yet you are unable to demonstrate how or why. Do so and I will hand you the baton. Otherwise... Lynne
lynneatwater 3 weeks ago
@lynneatwater Lynne, I do not understand why you keep asking me these non-relevant questions. This proof is about the impossibility of creation proving the impossibility of a Creating god God, NOT WHAT MAKES GOD SPECIAL. Therefore, I have proved that you are not characterizing God with the correct word or meaning, and as a result exposing a straw man fallacy which rejects the use ex nihlo in the argument. You are clearly trying to divert the argument away from the subject. Baton?
ALLKINDZASH1T 3 weeks ago
ALLKINDZASH1T
In one sentence you say I am not characterizing God correctly, yet in the next you appear to affirm that indeed this is about the possibility or impossibility of the emergence ex nihlo of existence. Please clarify: Is your God or is it not defined by its ability to make something emerge from nothing ? In addition, we continue to wait for your explanation of how my argument is a straw man fallacy. Lynne
lynneatwater 3 weeks ago
@lynneatwater One more time for ya ;) The Hebrew word "Bara" is the word which has been frequently mistranslated into "Creation," Etymologically the word "Bara" means fatten, and the Ancient Hebrew Research Center States this! and also that the hebrew language has no word for a "something from nothing creation" So if you are disproving "creation" to disprove a creating god, and creation is a mistranslation and he is a fattening god, you have attacked a straw man.
ALLKINDZASH1T 3 weeks ago
ALLKINDZASH1T
Again, please keep in mind that the point of discussion here has, from the beginning, been the possibility or impossibility of a causal universe. If, however, it is enough for you to worship a God that is but a manipulator of existing matter and energy, so be it. The existence or non-existence of such an imaginary figure is, of course, unprovable. I, however, would find worshiping such a manipulator to be challenging at best. Lynne
lynneatwater 3 weeks ago
@lynneatwater "Is your God or is it not defined by its ability to make something emerge from nothing ?" Lynne Atwater (8 hours ago) Actually I am saying no, To fatten somting is not to bring it into existance, it is to shape it to your purpose, and that is why you are committing a straw man, if you would like further explanation on this I made a 2 min video that should explain. Again if creation is not the word used in the bible it is impossible to disprove god by that word, baton?
ALLKINDZASH1T 3 weeks ago
@lynneatwater "In addition, we continue to wait for your explanation of how my argument is a straw man fallacy." Lynne Atwater. This is FALSE I have described your use of a mistranslated word to disprove God over and over for a week you just seem to ignore facts :( It is really actually quite sad, because the only options at this point are that you are not reading my comments or you should not participate in logic arguments. Stop trying to save face it is pathetic. Baton please?!
ALLKINDZASH1T 3 weeks ago
ALLKINDZASH1T
I see, now, where you found your straw man. Not hard to do when two people find themselves discussing two radically different issues while thinking their point of discussion is common to both. Must I conclude then that your God is a 'fattening' God? I have a friend that can do that kind if thing but I don't think I'd really want to worship her. Just out of curiosity, what would you say makes 'your' God worth worshiping? Lynne
lynneatwater 3 weeks ago
@lynneatwater In short, it's the promise of eternal life with the proof thousands of fulfilled prophesies. I understand why you believe the way you do, but when I'm faced with a brief and possibly meaningless existence, the only strength there is exists in the possibility of eternity, and if i can get it just by Loving & having faith in God, I don't see sufficient reason why I wouldn't.
ALLKINDZASH1T 3 weeks ago
Especially when Jesus gave the commandment, Love others as you Love yourself.
ALLKINDZASH1T 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@lynneatwater More simply: If god is a fattener, and fattening exists, then God can exist. Because God is not "a creator" in the ex nihlo sense your argument is truly null. There is no need to address your questions "If what you believe makes your God lord of the universe.....how would an ability to "fatten" give your God the power to eternal life?" because they are 100% irrelevant to your Proof, which is what I am proving wrong. I just don't understand how you don't see this?
ALLKINDZASH1T 3 weeks ago
@lynneatwater #5 I do have proof that "this God of mine ever said anything to anyone". The fact that we are communicating here proves this. In order for language and knowledge to exist, it would have had to first be conceived of by an intelligence then either taught to, or learned by other intelligences. If this process didn't happen, this conversation wouldn't be happening. Or at the very least, not in this manner.
wuSchu44 1 month ago
@wuSchu44 Language is created by us in order to communicate. Most animals have some method of communication (that I know of)...some is vocal, some communicate via hormones and chemicals while others choose to dance their messages....why again would an intelligence be needed?
1n354a 4 weeks ago
@wuSchu44 so you consider the writings of a group of Bronze age middle eastern locals to be an accurate representation of how the entire universe began? What makes that creation story any different than any other creation story that man has ever made up over the years, attempting to explain something he didn't understand?
1n354a 4 weeks ago
@1n354a I can't reply accurately to your comments because I don't understand your point on the "why again would an intelligence be needed?" question. I think the answer to that question would be quite obvious. Unless rocks can communicate with each other somehow and I just didn't know about it. Bronze age comment: Again, I can't respond accurately because it seems that you are making assumptions based on your own lack of understanding. I'm not saying you're dumb. Just not well informed.
wuSchu44 3 weeks ago
@wuSchu44 Uuuugh you know exactly what I was saying. You act as if human language is something that only a divine entity/intelligence could concoct, while I pointed out that pretty much every living species has some sort of communication. Your comment about rocks was just dumb. I'll give you a second shot on that one, if you would like.The Bronze age comment - see my previous. You understand what I was saying and are dodging the question. Try again as well (I'm generous tonight!).
1n354a 3 weeks ago
@1n354a I think you're jumping to conclusions and I, in no way, can help you with that. I've never said that language is something only a divine entity could concoct. I said that language is something that first must be conceived by an intelligence and then taught to or learned by other intelligences. That was my point and it still remains my point. If you have something rational to say that argues that point then feel free to reply. But if you don't, then our conversation is done.
wuSchu44 3 weeks ago
@wuSchu44 "I do have proof that "this God of mine ever said anything to anyone". The fact that we are communicating here proves this. In order for language and knowledge to exist, it would have had to first be conceived of by an intelligence then either taught" <--that seems to indicate that you think that language had to be taught by your god or else we could never achieve this. Since you have stated again that this is your position, I think you have some explaining to do...
1n354a 3 weeks ago
@1n354a Look in the bible and read John 1:1. That quote is about that specific passage and it was an answer to Lynne's question. I've explained spirituality and the defining moments in your life, unto others, that reflect your immortality and I continue to stand by what I said. I have no explaining to do at all. "In the beginning there was the word". That's my point. Your argument however, ended with the question "why would an intelligence be needed?" Answer, Because it does.
wuSchu44 3 weeks ago
@wuSchu44 Because it does is not an acceptable answer. It explains nothing. I could similarly interject that Cheeseburgers are necessary for the development of language - when asked why, I respond "Because it is". Is this acceptable to you? Didn't think so.
1n354a 3 weeks ago
@1n354a You have not read or understood what I have wrote. I'm only responsible for what I say, not for what you understand. Are you arguing the fact that it takes an intelligence to first conceive of language before it can be taught to, or learned by other intelligences? If you are, please provide your argument. If not then this conversation is pretty much over.
wuSchu44 3 weeks ago
@wuSchu44 language is communication between two (or more) parties which develops over time by interacting with each other and their environment. it is learned by subsequent generations and evolves with them as they experience new things. there is no intelligence conceiving of language before we could learn it...god/intelligence is not needed in such a fashion in order to explain the origins and evolution of language.
1n354a 3 weeks ago
@1n354a Are these parties intelligent? Meaning, are they living organisms with a brain and able to reason within the limits of their understanding? And surely one or more parties must conceive of the proper usage of such an ideal or else there would be absolutely no structure to language. Communication, whether you want to admit it or not, had to start from, not just somewhere, but also someone.
wuSchu44 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@wuSchu44 "And surely one or more parties must conceive of the proper usage of such an ideal or else there would be absolutely no structure to language" - no, nobody "conceived" of order and structure, rather it developed over time naturally as people interacted. communication only had to start from at least two people in that it takes two people to communicate.the rules and structure evolve with the language, not before the language.
1n354a 3 weeks ago
Did you also know that (0)^0 = 1?
Vincent18121 1 month ago
Vincent18121
Your observation is irrelevant to this discussion. Lynne
lynneatwater 1 month ago
@lynneatwater
if nothing can come from something? that does explain something does it not?
Vincent18121 1 month ago
Vincent18121
With regard to existence in and of itself, 'nothing' is not an option. Form can change its configuration but the existence from which all form is made possible is immutable. In other words, an object's form may change but the existence that allows that object's form to be, is eternal. Our universe, in one form or another, has always been in existence. To be any other way would be unacceptably self-contradictory. Lynne
lynneatwater 1 month ago
@lynneatwater If that is not enough, may I invite you to see another mathematical validity corresponding to the concept of creation?
Again how to mathematically prove the existance of Allah and the concept of creation.
I first showed you all the infinite series, now, what about complex imaginary numbers?
i = sqrt-1
i^2 = sqrt-1 x sqrt-1 = sqrt1 = 1.
So how is it that something real comes from something that isn't?
Does this not show the concept of creation? and doesn't a creation need a creator
Vincent18121 1 month ago
Vincent18121
Do the supposition of complex imaginary numbers show or, in any way, demonstrate the concept of creation? No they don't, as in no way do they correspond to reality. They are imaginary. Lynne
lynneatwater 1 month ago
@lynneatwater
1 is not an imaginary number, infact it is categorised as real. sqrt-1 does not exist as a real number, thus given the term imaginary. In relation to reality, we often tag the word imaginary to abstract things that are not measureable or can be compared to a caliber of anysort, thus not real. But to demonstrate that something imaginary can result in something real does in fact, how ever relevent show you that real things can result from things that are not real...creation.
Vincent18121 1 month ago
Vincent18121
Please recognize that any given quantity, the number 1, for example, is only possible as an a-posteriori option of existence itself. What is being argued here is not that 1-1 can or can not = 0, what is being argued is the possibility or impossibility of an 'emerging' or 'caused' existence in the first place. What is proved in this video is that existence is non-causal and, therefore, that 'creation' is not possible. Nothing more, nothing less. Lynne
lynneatwater 1 month ago
Vincent18121 1 month ago
Vincent18121
Please keep in mind that, from a cosmological perspective, 0 could never be the equivalent of 1-1; as to formulate any given quantity from the absence of same is rigorously self-contradictory and all self-contradictions are impossible. Lynne
lynneatwater 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@lynneatwater
regardless of perspective, be it cosmological or atomic, 0 is always the equivalent of 1-1, try it, have an apple inside a basket, take away that apple, and there is no apple inside that basket, hence naught, or zero, The opposite is also true, expect when referring to God, He makes the apple appear from naught. And it ismathematically possible to demonstrate such a thing. As I have mentioned earlier mathematics are processes involved in the solution of a problem.
Vincent18121 1 month ago
Mrs. Lynneatwater
You understand that mathematics are processes involved in the solution of a problem or study of some scientific field. So what would you say if I showed you that mathematics complies with the concept of creation?
Vincent18121 1 month ago
So you have posted and argued against a straw man this whole time :( All of this stems from a simple lack of research on you're "Final Proof," A simple apology would suffice for the trouble you caused in your error.
-Once and for all your proof is dead!
ALLKINDZASH1T 1 month ago
Now I can 100% slay your entire proof because the word you are using for creation is biblically incorrect :) In Genesis 1.1 "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." The Hebrew word "bara" is a verb and is usually translated as "create". The word "bara" does not mean, "create" (Hebrew actually has no word that means "create" in the sense of something out of nothing) but "to fatten". Take the literal definition of "bara" In the beginning God fattened the heavens and the earth.
ALLKINDZASH1T 1 month ago 2
ALLKINDZASH1T
It appears you now argue that God never created anything after all. If this is your contention, your God is a transformer of already existing matter and energy, something which tens of thousands of humans do on a daily basis. Please explain, therefore, why anyone should worship your God instead of worshiping, say, Steve Jobs or Kevin Rudd? Lynne
lynneatwater 1 month ago
@lynneatwater I hope you know the answer to that question Lynne, and if you don't please open a bible and learn about what you're arguing against. It has been a bumpy ride arguing with you, but fun nonetheless, sorry if I was offensive at all its a bad habit I am trying to kill. Wish you the best in your further studies, but please do not post more FINAL PROOFs without doing the proper research, they are offensive to many.
ALLKINDZASH1T 1 month ago
ALLKINDZASH1T
Please remember that the bible is a story book, hardly a source of scientific fact. To suppose that it, in any way, reflects reality is decidedly a gross error of scientific discourse. You bid farewell without having answered one single question I have posed to you. I have answered all of yours. Shouldn't that tell you something? Lynne
lynneatwater 1 month ago
@lynneatwater You may believe the Bible is a story book, yet from your lack of knowledge on the subject, it is quite apparent you have never read it. I would not listen to a deaf music critic's claims, so why would I listen to you about the legitimacy of The Word. As for your Steve Job's question, it is simply preposterous you cannot compare a perfect being who has shown himself through completed prophesy, offered eternal life, and welcomed worship, to a CEO and inventor. silly.
ALLKINDZASH1T 1 month ago
ALLKINDZASH1T
I am more that just familiar with both the old and new testament. I have also read The Lord of the Rings. The reading of both these works, however, do not render their content real. From what I gather, your faith in God stems from its supposed 'perfection', but unlike most who are religious, not it's ability to create. Please describe what it is you understand by the term 'perfection' as my idea of perfection might be different from yours. Lynne
lynneatwater 1 month ago
@lynneatwater You're just taking this argument in a circle with so many simple questions that you would know if you had even a surface knowledge of what you are arguing against. Please let me remind you of what this argument is about so you don't drag it in a different direction to draw attention from your failure anymore and try to save face. This proof has been discounted by finding the true Hebrew translation of the word creation "Bara" is non-contradictory. Sorry, you've lost.
ALLKINDZASH1T 1 month ago
ALLKINDZASH1T
Again, this 'argument' is about the possibility or impossibility of 'creation'. Nothing more, nothing less. In this video I prove that creation is impossible and, therefore, so is a creating God. If you contend that your God is not a creator, but rather a transformer of already existing energy and matter, I have no rub with that whatsoever. A non-creating God, however, would hold little interest for most. Lynne
lynneatwater 1 month ago
@lynneatwater And please look back in the history of out comments you are not being honest in your claims of "answering all of my questions" while I "answer not a single one of yours." And that is a fact, proof readily available. You are the one readily lying to prove a point, shouldn't that tell you something Lynne? Best Andrew
ALLKINDZASH1T 1 month ago
Clinical psychologist and researcher does Philosophy, has her own webpage for this old argument under her name as if this was new and original, and she seriously believes it works. This is a gem!
kidart89 1 month ago
kidart89
I agree, there is absolutely nothing new about this argument. Indeed, it is as old as Aristotle himself. If you are convinced, however, that this argument is, in any way, invalid, prove to us in what way. Otherwise... Lynne
lynneatwater 1 month ago
If syllogism "If there is God, creation is possible" isn't self explanatory to you, let me try to explain it. Premise: There is God. Premise: God is omnipotent. Premise: Omnipotency allows for tweaking and reshaping of any aspect of reality regardless of the laws of physics and logic. Premise: Creatio ex nihilo is possible if there is someone omnipotent to do it. Conclusion: Creatio ex nihilo is possible.
RabMaksim 1 month ago
RabMaksim
Your first premise is invalid as it is neither self-evident nor proven. So is your second. Your conclusion, therefore, is equally as invalid. Please deductively prove that Creatio ex nihilo is possible using self-evident or proven premises. Lynne
lynneatwater 1 month ago
@lynneatwater You are trying to show us how illogical world is if there is God. For that reason you presupose God as the creator. Do you admit this? If you presupose that there is no God, then your argument is circular. So we presupose that there is God and watch what happens next.As this aimed at major religions we give God the atributes the major religions give him,that is omnipotency. Im proving a simple s