Something is eternal.

a reply to: Itisnowagain

Cherry Picking. Leads To Arrogance, The Lesser Vortex Of Pride. For God To Exist Because Of Me... I Would Have To Convince Myself I Exist Because Of Him. Down Trodding The Blind Eye And Ear He Has Turned On Masses. He Slew Kings And Emperors And Conquerors With This Blindness. Then All The Malice And Abuse We Cry About, Which Is History, Is Reason For Much Gratitude And Appreciation. Otherwise The Lineages And Timelines Would Result In Neither of Us Being Born Into Existence. Thus Silence Is Golden. But For Us To Express Our Deepest Gratitude And Appreciation For Him... We Must Fortify. Or Be Lost To The Sands Of Time.
He Does Not Exist Because I Alone Do. He Exists Because He Is The Majesty Of All Things. I'm just here to Bare witness to my "shut the eff up" conundrum.

a reply to: midicon

I'm not, I just followed through on the idea that something is eternal.

Here you claim not to be engaging in moving the goal post, but all I have to do is quote our conversation from the page 2 to show that what you were originally trying to say was that I could not claim that something was eternal, once I gave it in that last format, you changed the discussion from can we claim something is eternal, to what if the universe is eternal...

Here you are on page two telling me that the phrase something is eternal is logically fallacious:

The statements, 'Nothing is eternal' and 'Something is eternal' are both logical fallacies.

Neither statement can be falsified so there is no inference to be made.

a reply to: Itisnowagain


So these are very low level critiques and claims that can easily be dealt with using a little logic. I will deal with some of what he says in the first couple of minutes for you this time, but most of the time I am not going to respond to stuff like this. It just demonstrates to me that someone hasn't spent a lot of time taking these ideas seriously. I watched the whole video, more because I found it to be funny than interesting.

Let's start with his first point, if there is a God, then who created God? This question is nonsensical, and it becomes more apparent if we understand some of the implications of the words used in the sentence. First we need a definition of God, and then we need to see if that concept is compatible with the notion of a beginning or a creation. If it is not, then the question is malformed. Now, I would say God is the eternal transcendent source of all things, and so we can already begin to see the issue arising. Something that is eternal is without beginning or end, while something that is created by definition begins to be. So now we can see that his question could be phrase like this to make the inconsistency more apparent:

"Who or what brought into being the thing without beginning or end?"

The obvious answer is that God, if he exists, was never brought into being, but is eternal. Asking who created the eternal thing is as nonsensical as asking why you cannot see my invisible girlfriend.

Now, his second point he says "The same people who can't accept that the universe came out of nothing, believe God came out of nothing". This is incorrect. People who believe in God do not believe that God came from anything. He is eternal and thus always was. He's not thinking consistently about the ontology of an eternal being.

After this he goes onto say that the universe came from nothing, because when he's asleep he thinks there is nothing. First, a lack of consciousness within an individual human doesn't amount to nothingness. We can watch him sleep, and see that his sleeping doesn't remove existence from being.

Beyond this he is inconsistent through out the video. At some points he claims everything is you, but then at other points he's talking about other people and their minds as though they aren't him. Overall I found it entertaining, but not very impressive.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Here you claim not to be engaging in moving the goal post, but all I have to do is quote our conversation from the page 2 to show that what you were originally trying to say was that I could not claim that something was eternal, once I gave it in that last format, you changed the discussion from can we claim something is eternal, to what if the universe is eternal...

Here you are on page two telling me that the phrase something is eternal is logically fallacious:

I accepted the premise that 'something is eternal' for the sake of continuing the conversation and because there is a sort of logic in the idea of cause and effect implying that continuing process. Nothing more.
When you gave 'it' in that last format, you were just talking nonsense so I followed your' nonsense to it's 'logical' conclusion. Given that you are a believer in a creator I was curious to see how you could marry that with the idea that if something is eternal then it couldn't have been created.
There are no examples of 'nothing' to examine and it's not known if there can ever be 'nothing'. It also can't be asserted that 'something' is eternal. That's just a statement that can't be proven.

a reply to: midicon

I accepted the premise that 'something is eternal' for the sake of continuing the conversation and because there is a sort of logic in the idea of cause and effect implying that continuing process.

It's not a premise. It's the conclusion of the argument. Could you prove to me that you know how deductive argumentation and reasoning works? You have premises, conclusions, inference rules, validity, and soundness. Do you know what all of these things are and how they relate to truth or am I wasting my time with someone who doesn't know how to think critically?

When you gave 'it' in that last format, you were just talking nonsense so I followed your' nonsense to it's 'logical' conclusion.

Okay, so to call something nonsense is to indicate that it is logical inconsistent or incoherent. Do you want to justify your belief that what I said there was nonsense or are you just slandering the argument with rhetoric?

Given that you are a believer in a creator I was curious to see how you could marry that with the idea that if something is eternal then it couldn't have been created.

If the universe is eternal, then the Christian God is not the eternal source of all things. These two positions do not marry, but I do not believe that the universe is eternal and that God is eternal, so I am confused as to why you think I would need to marry those two positions?

There are no examples of 'nothing' to examine and it's not known if there can ever be 'nothing'.

You're just repeating yourself from page two, and I've already explained to you that statements like the one above demonstrate ignorance with respect to what we mean by the word nothing. I've already explained to you numerous times now that asking to examine nothing is moronic statement, and because you've been corrected nicely about three times now I can only assume that you are not ignorant, but stupid or stubborn.

It also can't be asserted that 'something' is eternal. That's just a statement that can't be proven.

I've proven it for you here in this thread, you just don't like the necessary knowledge to be able to recognize the proof. Anyone in here who has studied this stuff can tell that you don't know what you're talking about.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Let me try again if I may. When you claimed that 'something is eternal' I took that as meaning that if 'something' exists it must have always been caused by some thing (cause and effect). In that sense I accepted the premise as cause and effect is all we really have at the moment...and it seems logical. Also in the sense of you can't get something from nothing (although that too might not be true). Anyway, I now understand that what you are saying is perhaps different, in that there must be a 'something' that is eternal and not that things are eternal.
If you feel you have a valid 'proof' or evidence of 'something eternal' why not try it out on people versed in philosophical discourse? For me the fact that I am here is evidence that there has always been something in the sense of cause and effect.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

www.youtube.com...

This covers the query rather aptly.

Existence is eternal.. thus the category of eternal actually exists within existence.. as an evaluation of the real world..

The question is really.. is there a soul..? Is there an eternal soul..?

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb
What do you experience in deep sleep?

Some say that nothing doesn't exist but what is the experience in deep sleep if it isn't nothing?

There appears to be nothing and then everything appears at once when waking occurs.

Notice that the body and the environment appear at the same instant.

There isn't a you plus an environment..... there is no thing..... just an appearance (the image of God).

Christ is the visible image of the invisible God.

There never has been any things....... but wording makes it seem as if there are.

a reply to: Itisnowagain

What do you experience in deep sleep?

Well most often I experience dreams, but arguments are particularly weak when you can give them everything, and the conclusion still doesn't follow. Let's say that when I am in deep sleep that I have no conscious experience. How does it follow from my individual lack of consciousness for a small period of time that the universe itself came from nothing? The simple answer is that it doesn't, unless one attempts to argue for hard solipsism, but hard solipsism is performatively flaccid in debate settings. He does attempt to do this later in the video, but he's not consistent as I told you earlier.

Some say that nothing doesn't exist but what is the experience in deep sleep if it isn't nothing?

It seems many people on this forum have a poor understanding of the term "nothing." When I say I had "nothing" for breakfast this morning I am not saying that I sat down and plated this thing called "nothing" that I ate. I am informing you that there was a lack of breakfast. A lack of conscious activity within a human isn't nothingness. You still have a human who is not conscious. Consciousness is something you do, sleep is something you do. The question isn't even meaningful unless you assume an objective reality is there.

There appears to be nothing and then everything appears at once when waking occurs. Notice that the body and the environment appear at the same instant.

Again all you're saying is I can lack conscious activity, therefore the world came from nothing. That my friend is entirely non-sequitur. The environment and my body don't appear, but rather I become conscious of them again.

There isn't a you plus an environment..... there is no thing..... just an appearance (the image of God).

If there isn't a you plus an environment, then how did you use your hands to tap on a keyboard in your environment and communicate with me? If there isn't a you plus your environment, then how is language which is a collection of external signs and symbols used to communicate between two different subjects in which one is not the other? Yea this has nothing to do with the image of God.

There never has been any things....... but wording makes it seem as if there are.

There never has ben any things he says as he uses words which are things to communicate to another subject which is also a thing. None of this is rational my friend.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb
The issue is; there is a presupposing of something....... which isn't.

It is 2 mins long......and the comments are worth reading.

Witnessing but no witness.
No seer no seen.... just seeing.

When the two become one the Kingdom shall be revealed.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

I think the question of "nothingness" is widely covered in many religious and esoteric systems. It is the AIN of the kabbalistic Tree of Life. In the East ,it has different names.

For me , there is no doubt it is the source. Hence something does come out of nothing.

Sadly, people turn away from the concept of nothingness and fail to realise its potential. I suppose it is becaue they think there is no point in trying to understand something that is NOT. They are wrong ! Nothingness is the key to everything.

Just as an example , on a very material level, where would we be if negative numbers had not been discovered some 1500 years ago ? It changed everything. It is also interesting to see that it is the unscrupulous (eg banksters) who made the most of it by multiplying their wealth.

On a personal philosophical/metaphysical level, the understanding of non-existence (even if we understand only 5% of it) can lead to far-reaching creativity and completly rebuild our environment at turbo speed.

It is within nothing that all potential is born.. binah assiyah.. atzilut

a reply to: Itisnowagain

The issue is; there is a presupposing of something....... which isn't.

Then that which you presuppose has no relations, qualities, quantities, or anything else that you would be able to predicate of it, and so you would not be able to justify your belief that it is a presupposition or precondition of some other state of affairs. You're attempting to apply properties and relations to non-existence like the ability to produce effects, which would be called power. In this case you're no longer speaking of nothing. From my perspective you are worshiping the nothingness from which God called the world into being, and desire to return to that instead of your proper end which is in that which called you from nothing.


Meditation of the nature in the video is not in and of itself bad, but it is being done in an improper metaphysical context, and so it can cause harm. People such as this meditate so as to free themselves from what they believe to be an illusion of the self, while in Christianity mediation that is aimed at transcending that of rational thought is done so that one may approach that one who has made darkness his secret place and we empty ourselves of our earthly desires and passions so that he may fill us with the uncreated virtues and light of God. You empty yourself so that God may penetrate every aspect of your being in the way iron is penetrated by fire, but notice neither fire nor iron lose their own individuality. So while the actions are very similar the intent is very different. In one you are there to free yourself from yourself, and in another you are there to free your spirit from it's enslavement to the body, and become a truly free individual. Don't worship the nothingness from which you were called or it is where you will return, worship that which called you from nothing my friend.

a reply to: crowdedskies

For me , there is no doubt it is the source. Hence something does come out of nothing.

Okay, so if there is no doubt you should be able to explain how nothing can produce effects, and still remain nothing. If it can produce effects it can at the very least be said to be power or force of some kind. I think what you're saying is logically incoherent as a metaphysics.

Sadly, people turn away from the concept of nothingness and fail to realise its potential.

Or perhaps they realize that only things can be predicated of, and so to predicate of the word "nothing" that it has potency demonstrates that you have not quite understood what is meant by the term.

Just as an example , on a very material level, where would we be if negative numbers had not been discovered some 1500 years ago ? It changed everything. It is also interesting to see that it is the unscrupulous (eg banksters) who made the most of it by multiplying their wealth.

Numbers are not nothing. Negative numbers are not nothing. Negative numbers contain qualities and quantities, and relations to other numbers like one and zero. So this doesn't help you demonstrate that everything came from nothing. As I told Boundless1 from my perspective you are worshiping the nothingness from which God called the world into being, and desire to return to that instead of your proper end which is in that which called you from nothing.

On a personal philosophical/metaphysical level, the understanding of non-existence (even if we understand only 5% of it) can lead to far-reaching creativity and completly rebuild our environment at turbo speed.

Yeah, I am afraid that you're not grasping that non-existence is not something made up of stuff that you can understand 5% of. A percentage is only comprehensible in relation to some whole as percentages are fractions, and so here again we see you speaking of non-existence as though it is some whole thing of which you have uncovered 5% of. I believe your concept of nothing or non-existence, and the one spoken of in the OP are very different.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb
I do not worship nothingness.....not sure where that conclusion came from?

The thing that is presupposed is the separate person....the me!

If the talk had been really heard then it is obvious that I do nothing...... because there is no me doing anything.

Thy will be done..... God's will..... not mine.

I think one has to be careful.. where they place nothing in case of falling into chaos..

That being said.. nothing does have a category of existence just like any other concept..

So to put it in its proper place is both moral and true..

a reply to: Itisnowagain

I do not worship nothingness.....not sure where that conclusion came from?

I understand you do not believe that for you think the referent of any pronoun is an illusion, so you do not worship anything. I say you worship nothing, because you've claimed that nothing is the source of all things, and this video seems to indicate that one's goal should be to free themselves from the illusion of self through mediation. In other words, the goal is to return to nothing. So now, nothingness is both the beginning and the end. The alpha and the omega. It is your God.

The thing that is presupposed is the separate person....the me!

You must understand that I don't agree with your view that there is no individual here that I am speaking with. In my view of metaphysics, there is a conversation between two individuals going on, but within your own there are no individuals to have a conversations. Again if we are operating under your view of metaphysics, then it should be impossible for me to presuppose anything, for there is no me...

If the talk had been really heard then it is obvious that I do nothing...... because there is no me doing anything.

The talk was heard, I simply don't find it to be rational. What epistemic weight could propositions have that are not expressed by anyone? How could the epistemic value of any proposition be sought, if there are no seekers of knowledge?

Thy will be done..... God's will..... not mine.

"Then they inquired, “What must we do to perform the works of God?” Jesus replied, “The work of God is this: to believe in the One He has sent.”

a reply to: Boundless1

I think one has to be careful.. where they place nothing in case of falling into chaos..

Is nothing the source of everything or chaos? Earlier you were telling me you are certain that nothing is the source of all things, but if chaos is the source of nothingness, and through nothingness the rest of things come into being, then chaos is the source of all. So which is it?

That being said.. nothing does have a category of existence just like any other concept..

The colloquial usage of the term nothing refers to not to something, but to the lack of something. It is at a metaphysical level non-existence. So maybe you should define what you mean by nothing?

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Brahman is the movie screen on which the movie of things is playing.

The screen is not affected by any thing that appears on it....the play of light Maya is the movie.

So Brahman is the eternal, unchanging, invisible principal and unaffected absolute.