What is "Nothing"

[redwards]

What you describe above is called "human nature".

Exactly, and that is the very nature that wrestles with my Spiritual Nature constantly.

It is only your particular belief that connects it to a god.

I very respectfully disagree. It is my Spiritual Nature that is now alive that connects me with God. My human nature is always trying to disrupt that relationship. Be blessed Walt. I appreciate your response.

 

[Madman]

Yes that is logic because we KNOW there is a book (any book) and that a book cant write itself.
However you are trying to use that one logical statement to then go off in an illogical direction that is comprised of what you believe not what is known.

Ok now we have some place to start, a book cannot write itself. Can we agree that matter cannot make itself?

 

[WaltL1]

Ok now we have some place to start, a book cannot write itself. Can we agree that matter cannot make itself?

While I can appreciate your wanting to take a step by step approach (as it should be) we both (all) know where this is heading.
Regardless of how much agreeing we do we are going to hit a wall of where human knowledge stops before we get to an end.
There is no logic or sound reasoning that can take us beyond that point.
Its an exercise in futility.

 

[Madman]

(as it should be)

And yet you refuse.

 

[WaltL1]

And yet you refuse.

I also agree a step by step approach should be used to determine if a square wheel is better than a round one but Im not going to spend a whole lot of time on it.
Your premise isn't a complicated one. Its even a legitimate one. Up to a certain point.
Im just jumping ahead to that point. We aren't starting from scratch here. You've already tipped your hat as to where you are going with it. And you cant get there based on human knowledge at this point.

 

[Madman]

I also agree a step by step approach should be used to determine if a square wheel is better than a round one but Im not going to spend a whole lot of time on it.
Your premise isn't a complicated one. Its even a legitimate one. Up to a certain point.
Im just jumping ahead to that point. We aren't starting from scratch here. You've already tipped your hat as to where you are going with it. And you cant get there based on human knowledge at this point.

Most non-believers are just not comfortable with where it may lead.

Had you chosen to continue you may be surprised. I hope you don't think I woke one morning and blindly decided to be a "theist" which eventually led me to Christianity. It was a very slow and deliberate process, science and engineering, philosophy and logic, have all been instrumental.

P.S. not everything is "measurable" many things that we know are not measurable.

Anyway, we'll let this topic go.

 

[WaltL1]

Most non-believers are just not comfortable with where it may lead.

Had you chosen to continue you may be surprised. I hope you don't think I woke one morning and blindly decided to be a "theist" which eventually led me to Christianity. It was a very slow and deliberate process, science and engineering, philosophy and logic, have all been I instrumental.

P.S. not everything is "measurable" many things that we know are not measurable.

Anyway, we'll let this topic go.

Just so you know -

Most non-believers are just not comfortable with where it may lead.

I, and Im really comfortable about including the rest of the A/As here, do not fall into that category ^. I can guarantee none of us are going to miss a meal due to an upset stomach if a god (any of them) were proven to exist tomorrow. I have no emotional investment in whether there is or isnt. In fact it would be satisfying to have an answer one way or the other.
But its just a fact that at this point in human knowledge no god has been proven to exist. There is no logic, science or engineering that gets around that.
So any argument using them (like yours) is a dead end. It will only get you so far. It would require a leap of faith to get the rest of the way and thats where we get off the train.
And while I may be wrong, I read this -

I hope you don't think I woke one morning and blindly decided to be a "theist" which eventually led me to Christianity. It was a very slow and deliberate process, science and engineering, philosophy and logic, have all been I instrumental.

as "Im not stupid because I believe in God".
Nobody has accused you of being stupid for believing. It simply boils down to you are willing to take that leap of faith. It wasnt the logic or engineering or science that got you there.
It was that leap of faith.

 

[bullethead]

Ok now we have some place to start, a book cannot write itself. Can we agree that matter cannot make itself?

Energy makes matter.
Energy most likely is eternal.
It fills all of the criteria.

 

[atlashunter]

The OP is what is nothing and could it ever have been. Answer that and then we can move on to the next part.
We have not gotten to "my god" yet. Take the idea of God out of the conversation. It is evident that you are so God focused that you can't get him out of your mind. Logically, philosophically, scientifically, and metaphysically, you have to make a choice;

1) something has always existed.
2) something came from nothing
3) you dont know.
4) something transcendent exists

As for the analogy of the book, I am not speaking about the Bible, I am talking about any book. Logically the book does not write itself, there must be something "outside" of the book that wrote it.

Your arguments are just a bunch of scattered assertions.

Actually we have gotten to your god because you and others are talking about it. I already answered the OP in my first post. Not that there was any need for me to in order for us to "move on" to things you said.

If it is possible that "some thing has always existed" because you believe there is a deity that has always existed that's fine. Believe it if you wish. There is no evidence that any such thing exists but we won't tell you logic precludes it. It's possible. By that same logic, other things may have always existed.

 

[atlashunter]

WLC argues from the calum argument, you have missed a lot.

I've heard him make both arguments in separate debates. In arguing for the resurrection he relies heavily on the claim that god exists to lessen the improbability of the resurrection being historical. Then in another debate he will make the argument for god existing because of what he claims is the historicity of the resurrection.

It's spelled Kalam.

 

[bullethead]

Ok now we have some place to start, a book cannot write itself. Can we agree that matter cannot make itself?

It seems like in order to make your point you want to use "earthly" or human type accomplishments in order to deduce how a god, and then specifically how the god of the bible, is THE god responsible for all of this doing.
If such a being exists outside of the Universe then there is no need for it to conform to the laws of the Universe. And then rightly so, we as humans should not be able to figure out how humans came about other than from dust or figure out that it took even one second more for the Universe to be created in 6 days.
But a book is a good example because ONE book in particular can be used to discuss this.
Meaning, if the bible explains how all of the Universe got it's start and also explains how "god" "made" man from dust and those two things have been found not to be accurate let alone true, it leaves a huge deficit for the believer to now claim that their god is above all that, but then use analogies to try to explain why a God creates in ways that are below all that.

Human logic says that a book must have a writer. And the book can only be as good as the writer(s) who wrote it.
It also then says if a book needs to be created the creator must have a creator so a writer must have a mother and father. Then on and on and on and on and on backwards.
The Bible says that very first human was made from dust by a God and his name was Adam, then God made a woman from the rib of Adam and they were meant to populate. They were made in God's image, which, can we agree is what "modern" humans look like now?
BUT, we know that the human de-evolution goes back millions of years to a creature(s) that shares our dna but did not look or act "modern".
We know that in reality men and women have 12 pairs of ribs which equal 24 ribs. And that does vary due to many reasons, but equal amount of ribs for both is accurate. Women are not created to have one more rib than men.

Now just "logically" using those two small examples of what is written in the bible and what science knows, we have to decide which is the more accurate description of how the human race came to exist.
Clearly the way the bible tells it, which also happens to be the same "god" type figure which is touted as being the creator, the uncaused cause and the only thing that can be eternal....is flat out wrong.
So then we move onto well, ok, this same "god" got the ball rolling in a different way than the bible claims.
Ok then, throw the bible out of use as a source of accuracy. It cannot be relied upon to tell us anything about this god or how anything came to exist.
It is useless.

So now we have absolutely ZERO credible sources that are to be considered able to provide ANY sort of accurate information about a deity that is eternal, the uncaused cause or the creator. And EVERYTHING now used to explain such a deity comes from imagination based off of what an individual can conjure up which is MOSTLY influenced from a book which is absolutely inaccurate, fallible, error filled and untrustworthy. The books creators didn't create accurately. It also seems as though they created an excuse for the things they just absolutely did not understand and the claims that a god inspired these people to write "his" book is also an awful attempt to ignore how badly a god did in "creating" that to be done properly.

So, how do you or how does anyone KNOW a god exists, let alone a god is responsible for creating, let alone narrow it down to one god WITH specifics?

 

[Madman]

It's spelled Kalam.

My phone always corrects me.

 

[Israel]

While I can appreciate your wanting to take a step by step approach (as it should be) we both (all) know where this is heading.
Regardless of how much agreeing we do we are going to hit a wall of where human knowledge stops before we get to an end.
There is no logic or sound reasoning that can take us beyond that point.
Its an exercise in futility.

I agree.

Any of my reason (if extended to "our" reasoning) can no more get me to God (or any understanding) than it can help/enlighten any other. What you have said "it's an exercise in futility" I have often said alternatively as "it's a wash" among men.

Hitchens was clear "your miracles [even] won't do it", going so far as to say in a manner, "even if I grant resurrection (and resurrections, for they seemed a not exclusive matter in the Bible), virgin birth and the like (granting parthenogenesis), they still won't do it". I think I get that. In fact, in and of myself, I know that personally.

And for me it goes at least as far (but does not stop at that particular point) to having learned among men that experiences and reasoning among men, to each, is their own peculiar domain. Each can only bear so much of an incursion by another before self integrity feels threatened and is reacted to by opposition.

For Hitchens, he was willing to declare the line being crossed in Jesus' own teachings...finding a lack of integrity in them. For many, I believe these are what would, or might fall under the "harder sayings"...so seemingly contrary to basic reason as to easily be questionable/rejected on their face. And though there be many who might say "Jesus had some very good things to say"...the rest may appear to them as babblings or rubbish. (Or viewed as being inserted for attribution to him to some nefarious end by the inserters). Almost everyone finds some willingness to concur that "loving ones neighbor as themself" has some merit; that nice Jesus suddenly disappears in claim of exclusivity for enlightenment. Or in whatever other place the self is offended by its reduction of choice...to zero.

Yeah, I get that. And so like Hitchens (and not unlike him in much) I also get the how of another's testimony can be insufficient. If we are speaking of ultimate matters (are we?) how much more of ultimate convincing is then necessary to any man? My experiences...will not do it for you. You are your self, and it is not only right, but fitting, that my self have no dominion (by whatever power of assertion or exertion) over yours. Yes, my miracle/miracles (nor my reason/reasonings) cannot do it for you. You might be intrigued, you might find some interest, you might even declare some affinity or compatibility (or just as equally, vociferously deny it)..but in all that does not matter, you still remain you, and I me. And that is unless we are both so very wrongly perceiving of ourselves.

The weakness of resort to strength of numbers here shows itself...when it is just you and I. Thus, the wash. The frustration of the futility you mention. "Atheists" as a group are better informed. Christians as a group also includes Oxford scholars. But, Christians were/are willing to die for their faith...Nazi's were willing to do no less for what they believed. There are so many who say they believe (are they all deluded?)...there are so many who likewise say they do not. "But look at the world in its godlessness"..."seems it's just as it ever was". "But I have seen God do such and such"..."but I have never". "To me God is so abundantly apparent"..."never seen such work that can't be explained some other way".

Yes, if it's all "a wash" in all things (I prefer braid/ I prefer flouro) then the most ultimate matters will both meet with the more [sic] ultimate assertions. Each self asserting in like measure to what is viewed most necessary to its maintenance of integrity (to itself). So that if nothing from "outside" puts a finger on the scale it must always remain so...a wash.

Two questions. Can a man, any man, have all the above propositions/assertions taking place within himself, with no need for "another"...in other words, can a man in all his reasoning within himself (again, with no need for another man) discover to himself it is all a "wash"? It doesn't matter at all, in time or eternity (if it can be perceived) what "he chooses" for ultimately it is shown to him that all is no more than a matter of his own choice of "side" in anything...and from that he is all of inescapable. He to himself is then "the wash" of no consequence whatsoever in all of it. Having no more ability to "get behind", go prior to, unearth the reason that displays reason as to why he chooses as he does? Whether he is inclined to be a Mother Theresa like figure or a Jeffrey Dahmer (or go to the "go to" for all malignity, Adolf, who as far as we know, never personally killed anyone...except maybe WW1).
Oh, sure...other men en masse may approve or so disapprove of him and his being, but they are no less caught up in their own "wash" of their own preferences. Why would, to any man so knowing this, even of himself...be willing to submit to such a silly thing as weight of numbers when the weight of all his own choices have been so clearly demonstrated to him as meaningless? Is it wise to "go with the crowd"? Is it all that is unwise? Consequences may have influence but only a liar reasons backward from personal consequence to determine truth.

The second question may be the more salient. If a finger is discerned within a man (or can be?) as coming down upon that scale in which all was previously "a wash", where all seeming negatives were in just as perfect array as all seeming positives...to such a balance in that man's self appearance of having no weight to either...how many "times" is enough to that man? Need he discern God's hand once? If he says he never has had anything to upset his scales he can tell me all day he was a devout christian, he's just a liar. If he tells me this is not possible he is likewise...saying he himself has gone and surveyed the "outside" and found nothing there...coming back as liar. What he can do is say I am completely deluded, but then he must also, if claiming completely...say he is no less completely assured the outside can never act to come into the inside of a man. And not only "place a finger", but utterly destroy that prior balance. It need only happen once, there is no repair of the scales after touched by that hand...unless a man show himself a liar.

A wash? Of course between us. To the one who says "I used to be a christian and I too once thought God spoke to me, but it was just my thinking"" the simplest reply is, "of course, just like you think now He does not".

 

[WaltL1]

I agree.

Any of my reason (if extended to "our" reasoning) can no more get me to God (or any understanding) than it can help/enlighten any other. What you have said "it's an exercise in futility" I have often said alternatively as "it's a wash" among men.

Hitchens was clear "your miracles [even] won't do it", going so far as to say in a manner, "even if I grant resurrection (and resurrections, for they seemed a not exclusive matter in the Bible), virgin birth and the like (granting parthenogenesis), they still won't do it". I think I get that. In fact, in and of myself, I know that personally.

And for me it goes at least as far (but does not stop at that particular point) to having learned among men that experiences and reasoning among men, to each, is their own peculiar domain. Each can only bear so much of an incursion by another before self integrity feels threatened and is reacted to by opposition.

For Hitchens, he was willing to declare the line being crossed in Jesus' own teachings...finding a lack of integrity in them. For many, I believe these are what would, or might fall under the "harder sayings"...so seemingly contrary to basic reason as to easily be questionable/rejected on their face. And though there be many who might say "Jesus had some very good things to say"...the rest may appear to them as babblings or rubbish. (Or viewed as being inserted for attribution to him to some nefarious end by the inserters). Almost everyone finds some willingness to concur that "loving ones neighbor as themself" has some merit; that nice Jesus suddenly disappears in claim of exclusivity for enlightenment. Or in whatever other place the self is offended by its reduction of choice...to zero.

Yeah, I get that. And so like Hitchens (and not unlike him in much) I also get the how of another's testimony can be insufficient. If we are speaking of ultimate matters (are we?) how much more of ultimate convincing is then necessary to any man? My experiences...will not do it for you. You are your self, and it is not only right, but fitting, that my self have no dominion (by whatever power of assertion or exertion) over yours. Yes, my miracle/miracles (nor my reason/reasonings) cannot do it for you. You might be intrigued, you might find some interest, you might even declare some affinity or compatibility (or just as equally, vociferously deny it)..but in all that does not matter, you still remain you, and I me. And that is unless we are both so very wrongly perceiving of ourselves.

The weakness of resort to strength of numbers here shows itself...when it is just you and I. Thus, the wash. The frustration of the futility you mention. "Atheists" as a group are better informed. Christians as a group also includes Oxford scholars. But, Christians were/are willing to die for their faith...Nazi's were willing to do no less for what they believed. There are so many who say they believe (are they all deluded?)...there are so many who likewise say they do not. "But look at the world in its godlessness"..."seems it's just as it ever was". "But I have seen God do such and such"..."but I have never". "To me God is so abundantly apparent"..."never seen such work that can't be explained some other way".

Yes, if it's all "a wash" in all things (I prefer braid/ I prefer flouro) then the most ultimate matters will both meet with the more [sic] ultimate assertions. Each self asserting in like measure to what is viewed most necessary to its maintenance of integrity (to itself). So that if nothing from "outside" puts a finger on the scale it must always remain so...a wash.

Two questions. Can a man, any man, have all the above propositions/assertions taking place within himself, with no need for "another"...in other words, can a man in all his reasoning within himself (again, with no need for another man) discover to himself it is all a "wash"? It doesn't matter at all, in time or eternity (if it can be perceived) what "he chooses" for ultimately it is shown to him that all is no more than a matter of his own choice of "side" in anything...and from that he is all of inescapable. He to himself is then "the wash" of no consequence whatsoever in all of it. Having no more ability to "get behind", go prior to, unearth the reason that displays reason as to why he chooses as he does? Whether he is inclined to be a Mother Theresa like figure or a Jeffrey Dahmer (or go to the "go to" for all malignity, Adolf, who as far as we know, never personally killed anyone...except maybe WW1).
Oh, sure...other men en masse may approve or so disapprove of him and his being, but they are no less caught up in their own "wash" of their own preferences. Why would, to any man so knowing this, even of himself...be willing to submit to such a silly thing as weight of numbers when the weight of all his own choices have been so clearly demonstrated to him as meaningless? Is it wise to "go with the crowd"? Is it all that is unwise? Consequences may have influence but only a liar reasons backward from personal consequence to determine truth.

The second question may be the more salient. If a finger is discerned within a man (or can be?) as coming down upon that scale in which all was previously "a wash", where all seeming negatives were in just as perfect array as all seeming positives...to such a balance in that man's self appearance of having no weight to either...how many "times" is enough to that man? Need he discern God's hand once? If he says he never has had anything to upset his scales he can tell me all day he was a devout christian, he's just a liar. If he tells me this is not possible he is likewise...saying he himself has gone and surveyed the "outside" and found nothing there...coming back as liar. What he can do is say I am completely deluded, but then he must also, if claiming completely...say he is no less completely assured the outside can never act to come into the inside of a man. And not only "place a finger", but utterly destroy that prior balance. It need only happen once, there is no repair of the scales after touched by that hand...unless a man show himself a liar.

A wash? Of course between us. To the one who says "I used to be a christian and I too once thought God spoke to me, but it was just my thinking"" the simplest reply is, "of course, just like you think now He does not".

(I prefer braid/ I prefer flouro)

I prefer braid with a flouro leader
(and no that's not the only thing I got out of your post)

 

[ambush80]

bullethead; Kurt; ky55; Walt

Thank you! Your posts are very good examples of "Subjective Living"
Which is:
Mental - Your eyes saw (or have seen) something and your mind interpreted it
Emotional - Your emotions kicked in
Physical - Man's will - Prompting you to create the posts
Result - Man's Actions: Dictated by what you think and what/how you feel.


Which supports this statement:

It is impossible to reason with (Revelation), one can only expose them to Truth.