creationists/IDists, admit your defeat

Originally posted by filosophia
The origin of all things has no beginning because time was not yet created. The origin is eternal meaning it has no creator, but since it exists, it must have come from itself. The evidence is logic. There is no other possibility except for the origin of all things to be one transcendental reality that has always existed.

There's also the possibility that prior to space-time the potential for space-time had always existed. This potential doesn't need to be transcendental (supernatural).

Originally posted by rhinoceros

Originally posted by filosophia
The origin of all things has no beginning because time was not yet created. The origin is eternal meaning it has no creator, but since it exists, it must have come from itself. The evidence is logic. There is no other possibility except for the origin of all things to be one transcendental reality that has always existed.

There's also the possibility that prior to space-time the potential for space-time had always existed.

There must be potential for a thing to exist if it does in fact exist. Prior to space-time, all potentialities that were possible existed, the "primordial soup" as big bang scientists like to call it. This "soup" is not really a soup, that's a horrible name of course, but this essence existed prior to time, and thus all its multiple components that make up the entire varied universe must have been coalesced into one form (hence the term "soup"). This proves that the origin of all things must be Singular.

Originally posted by filosophia
If every being needs a male and a female parent, then the male and female must have come from some type of neutral-gender thing. If human species can only come from other human species, meaning the origin of life was not some type of multi-gender frog or organism, then it follows that the origin of all things must have been self-created by its own means. This creation produced both male and female as dominant dualities that are inherent throughout nature, as well as the multiplicity of species based on the principle of emanation in which things go from simplicity (God) to complexity (Matter/Species).

Vast majority of beings on this planet (over 99.99%) don't need a male and a female parent. They start existing as a result of binary fission and other related cell division methods. Genders and sex came into picture rather late in the evolutionary history of life. Also species is just an artificial concept that humans have created (like God). In the end what we have living on this planet are cellular lineages, which have usually isolated their nucleic acids from other cellular lineages.

Originally posted by rhinoceros

Originally posted by filosophia
If every being needs a male and a female parent, then the male and female must have come from some type of neutral-gender thing. If human species can only come from other human species, meaning the origin of life was not some type of multi-gender frog or organism, then it follows that the origin of all things must have been self-created by its own means. This creation produced both male and female as dominant dualities that are inherent throughout nature, as well as the multiplicity of species based on the principle of emanation in which things go from simplicity (God) to complexity (Matter/Species).

Vast majority of beings on this planet (over 99.99%) don't need a male and a female parent. They start existing as a result of binary fission and other related cell division methods. Genders and sex came into picture rather late in the evolutionary history of life. Also species is just an artificial concept that humans have created (like God). In the end what we have living on this planet are cellular lineages, which have usually isolated their nucleic acids from other cellular lineages.

100 percent of humans needs a male and a female parent.

Fission is when a cell splits apart, right? So the cell had to have existed before it split apart, which is different from fusion, in which cells join together. So...where did the cells originate from?

reply to post by filosophia

What if 200 years from now humans find a way to send scientific instruments back in time, and we attempt to send one to the exact moment of the Big Bang, but then some calculation turns out to be slightly off and we end up sending the probe to Big Bang minus 1 nano second. And then we find out that this is what caused the Big Bang.

Originally posted by filosophia

Originally posted by rhinoceros

Originally posted by filosophia
If every being needs a male and a female parent, then the male and female must have come from some type of neutral-gender thing. If human species can only come from other human species, meaning the origin of life was not some type of multi-gender frog or organism, then it follows that the origin of all things must have been self-created by its own means. This creation produced both male and female as dominant dualities that are inherent throughout nature, as well as the multiplicity of species based on the principle of emanation in which things go from simplicity (God) to complexity (Matter/Species).

Vast majority of beings on this planet (over 99.99%) don't need a male and a female parent. They start existing as a result of binary fission and other related cell division methods. Genders and sex came into picture rather late in the evolutionary history of life. Also species is just an artificial concept that humans have created (like God). In the end what we have living on this planet are cellular lineages, which have usually isolated their nucleic acids from other cellular lineages.

100 percent of humans needs a male and a female parent.

Fission is when a cell splits apart, right? So the cell had to have existed before it split apart, which is different from fusion, in which cells join together. So...where did the cells originate from?

7 billion humans does not represent even 0.01% of beings on this planet. There are more beings inside one human than there are humans. As for the origin of cells, there are many hypotheses. I personally find the clay theory in its modern form the most plausible scenario.

Originally posted by rhinoceros
reply to post by filosophia

 

What if 200 years from now humans find a way to send scientific instruments back in time, and we attempt to send one to the exact moment of the Big Bang, but then some calculation turns out to be slightly off and we end up sending the probe to Big Bang minus 1 nano second. And then we find out that this is what caused the Big Bang.

Well first off that would be impossible since time travel is impossible. The past doesn't exist like some type of previous page number of a book. Reality is the "here and now" and the only reason time exists is because of the illusion of permanence that objects gives off.

Secondly, what would you measure? If the big bang created everything, then when the big bang started there wouldn't even be stars or light in the universe, so you'd need your own light source, and what would you film? There's be nothing to film. Even according to scientific theories the galaxy would take billions of years just to cool off and give some type of resemblance of life.

It would also be equally impossible to travel before the big bang, because that would also not show anything since physical things have not been created yet.

The only way you can "see" what is prior to the big bang is to know that nothing comes from nothing, living things come from a parent or from other life (even your analogy of fission requires some type of matter to have already be in existence), and so the only possibility is that it comes from itself. Since we know species don't come from itself, nor does even matter come from itself, it mus be that the origin of all things not only comes from itself but must be the only thing to do so. Otherwise, if you have two things that instantaneously come from itself, then their separation is proof that some type of reality encasing them must also come from itself, so you always deductively infer that there can be only one thing that came from itself, and no matter what you call that, it is the origin of all other things. Basically, the proper word to describe it is reality. Reality always exists, even when all other objects wither and die reality will still be there whether people think it does or not.

reply to post by rhinoceros


Even if humans originated from cells which fissed or fused together then you still have to account for how those material things came into being. It's like the theory that aliens created humans, okay so who created the aliens? If you ask who created God well obviously it had to have created itself, or if that is not accurate then it must be that it always existed, and never did it not exist.

It's tempting to say that all these different material forms suddenly came into existence all on their own, then they fused together to create species. But If they truly came into existence on their own independent of the other things, then they are already self-sufficient and there is no reason for them to join with others, in fact it would be contrary to their nature. If you could instantaneously create yourself out of nothing, you wouldn't need a mother or father, you also wouldn't need sustenance because if you died you'd just pop back into reality whenever you felt like it, if you even felt at all. But if things do form together then they must have some type of nature that allows for them to unite together. If all these things came from the same source, that would help to explain it. So the only question is, how did all these material organisms or cells come from the origin? It can not be that they physical "popped" into existence, or that they went from "here" to "there" but rather they had to have always existed. There's no other way of describing it. The origin must have always existed, otherwise it wouldn't be the origin, you could say, hydrogen created it, okay so then hydrogen is the origin. Or you could say quantums created it, okay then quantums are the origin. Or some other strange sounding Latin word created it all, okay then that's the origin. The point is, whatever you call it (and it is just a semantic issue, God/reality, truth/science), it had to have always existed, if it's real, it must be authentically real.

Another way of explaining it is if the universe suddenly came to life following the big bang, then it could do it again whenever it wanted. Some mysterious cause caused the big bang, there is no reason to think it can't happen again. But the real question would be what caused the big bang. That would indicate that clearly the big bang is not the "first" if it was caused. Once again, the only solution is to say the origin has always existed.

reply to post by filosophia

Originally posted by filosophia
I didn't say matter has permanence, I said some people make the argument that matter always existed if God always existed, so technically they are saying it is a deity,

No. The argument goes "God always existed" and then someone says "Why couldn't matter have always existed?"
That's not making it a deity, that's saying that matter didn't need a creator. And permanence....always existing. If something is permanent it doesn't stop existing.

which is of course wrong since matter is simply the outward physical structure of reality and not the inherent structure of reality.

Citation needed. What is this 'inherent structure of reality' you speak of so confidently?

One changes, the other does not. Matter is also multiple while God is singular.

Again, citation needed. How are you sure of monotheism?

And it further proves the point: only God can self-produce, matter can not come into existence out of nowhere.

And how is reasserting positions further proof? How is it any sort of proof? You've provided no proof, merely repeated assertions of your position.

One last thing:

*ahem*

Nobody is saying matter necessarily came into existence out of nowhere

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


The proof is not found in a text book but in meditation. Although there are plenty of text books written about this for you to consult. I'm not really sure you'll read any of them so I won't waste my breath, I'll just say one: Upanishads.

I'm not giving you physical proofs, but to be fair, you're not really opening your mind to anything but the physical. You just quote something I say and then say "citation needed." How about your own mind, is that a good enough citation for yourself? Why not meditate and become conscious of your own consciousness, you'll find that no matter how much you try to objectify your consciousness, a new awareness is revealed which is conscious of your consciousness, meaning it is an infinite paradox, you can never escape the "Self" beyond the consciousness.

reply to post by filosophia

Originally posted by filosophia
The proof is not found in a text book but in meditation.

...I don't find proof in text books, I find it in peer-reviewed scientific works. And last I checked, meditation was not an accurate way to discern the nature of reality, mainly because it's never produced anything more than positive mental health benefits for the user.

Oh, and I do meditate. I've been doing so for about as long as I've been an atheist.

I'm not giving you physical proofs, but to be fair, you're not really opening your mind to anything but the physical.

Well, I don't have any evidence of anything but the physical, do I?

You just quote something I say and then say "citation needed." How about your own mind, is that a good enough citation for yourself?

I'm quite open-minded. I'm open-minded enough to accept any claim backed by sufficient argument/evidence.

Why not meditate and become conscious of your own consciousness, you'll find that no matter how much you try to objectify your consciousness, a new awareness is revealed which is conscious of your consciousness, meaning it is an infinite paradox, you can never escape the "Self" beyond the consciousness.

Um..yeah. This is why you don't really have any credibility here. It's not a paradox. Consciousness isn't even a 'thing'. It's not a unified idea. Maybe you should actually look into the cognitive neuroscience research that's been going on lately.

Of course, you'd rather just sit there and contemplate yourself instead of understanding the world.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


If matter always existed, then matter would have to be defined. What is matter? Atoms? Or Quantums? Or something scientists don't yet know? So if they don't even know what it is, how can they say it always existed? I would need to know how you define matter before I can respond. To me, matter is the outward appearance of reality, and as Plotinus describes it is the 'base' of all things, so that matter itself does not have magnitude but rather is the base for which magnitude lodges.

Regardless of whether or not reality exists outside of the mind, the mind is the only way to comprehend reality. So we should really be talking about the origin of mind rather than the origin of all things. But since things don't come from nothing, how can matter come from nothing? Or itself? Again, matter needs to be defined in order to elaborate on this

I'm sure of monotheism because two realities can not exist. Every planet exists in one universe. All laws follow one nature. There isn't one set of natural laws for Monday and another set for Tuesday. Truth is the same regardless of the day. So it's quite clear that physical universe is one. If you say there are multi-verses, well that would have to be explained how they exist. And if you say time, past, present, future, well past and future are just illusions of the present. So again, only one thing can exist, the present.

Then where did matter come from? It's impossible to answer, it can only be said that whatever the origin, it must have come from itself or always existed if its impossible to come from itself.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


well, if multiple people meditate and find healthy benefits, isn't that an example of peer reviewed? Plus, how do you explain the health benefit of meditation? Chemicals being released from the brain? But how? It must be your own will that does it, a will that is not physical but mental, so this seems to prove that something immaterial not only exists but affects your physical well being, otherwise, how do you suddenly become healthy and happy for no reason?

Do you have a mind? Do you have physical proof of the mind? Yet you still have a mind, so that's proof of something immaterial.

The world can not be understood except by the mind.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


Just playing off your avatar screen name, Madness-in-my-soul, what is madness? Anger is an emotion, can you point to anger? Do you only know when someone is angry after you use a microscope to examine their cellular level and determine through peer reviewed process that they are angry? Must you do the same to yourself? Or can you register your emotional level by your feelings inside of your "soul" which of course you say you're an atheist yet you claim you have a soul, I'll just assume this is being creative with your user name, but anyways, you feel anger in your soul, can you prove this physically? What if I were to say I only believe in peer review scientific journals, and thus your statement that you have madness in your soul is unfounded and unscientific. What say you?

Originally posted by filosophia
Well first off that would be impossible since time travel is impossible. The past doesn't exist like some type of previous page number of a book. Reality is the "here and now" and the only reason time exists is because of the illusion of permanence that objects gives off.

Sure, we experience time as a linear forward moving dimension, but fact is that we don't know enough about reality yet to make any assertions whether time travel is possible or not. I recently watched some Discovery documentary series (Through the Wormhole or something like that) that stated that at least Einstein's theory allows time travel. Considering we have a rather good record in confirming Einstein's predictions, (even without being a physicist) I think it's far too early to state that time travel is impossible. Also, we have no clue what the shape of time is like, e.g. all time might exist simultaneously.

Secondly, what would you measure? If the big bang created everything, then when the big bang started there wouldn't even be stars or light in the universe, so you'd need your own light source, and what would you film? There's be nothing to film. Even according to scientific theories the galaxy would take billions of years just to cool off and give some type of resemblance of life.

Well, we could for example study why all matter and anti-matter didn't cancel each other out.

It would also be equally impossible to travel before the big bang, because that would also not show anything since physical things have not been created yet.

Again far too early to tell what is, and what isn't possible. Also, I'm pretty sure time 0 would suffice to do something.

The only way you can "see" what is prior to the big bang is to know that nothing comes from nothing, living things come from a parent or from other life (even your analogy of fission requires some type of matter to have already be in existence), and so the only possibility is that it comes from itself.

As far as I know, studying how the Universe is now (e.g. gravity waves and distribution of matter) might reveal something about how things were prior to the Big Bang.

I should probably say this now so I don't really give you madness in your soul, but I do not believe in the Old Testament God. I know that that mentality can be easily refuted but that doesn't mean the entire history of thought concerning God is made entirely moot. I just wanted to point that out, I'm more of a Selfist.

Originally posted by filosophia
reply to post by rhinoceros

 

Even if humans originated from cells which fissed or fused together then you still have to account for how those material things came into being. It's like the theory that aliens created humans, okay so who created the aliens? If you ask who created God well obviously it had to have created itself, or if that is not accurate then it must be that it always existed, and never did it not exist.

Big Bang created matter. Much later on our planet, due to laws of physics and environmental conditions, living things arose from non-living things (abiogenesis, e.g. clay theory I already mentioned explains this beautifully).

reply to post by filosophia
Cellular structures form naturally from the behavior of long-chain fatty acids in water. The elements required for life are made in stars.

reply to post by rhinoceros




sure we could develop technology that alters time, but that can never link us to the past which is already gone. All that really exists is the present, we just think in terms of past and future because present things are impermanent.

Matter and anti-matter could cancel each other out, but they would still have to have come from some third entity to begin with. I guess the problem I am seeing is that every thing has to have its origin, and obviously each thing has its own origin, so what is the origin of the origins? Or do things just originate out of nothing in infinite ways? Consulting nature, we see that things originate from dependent causes. So speculation about the past is purely theoretical, but given the theory of an origin, how did the origin spawn the universe? By ignoring any physical anomalies and means since this is just theoretical and not actual possible to duplicate, then we can say that the origin is something immaterial, so we really need to work with that concept of immateriality no matter how you look at, which is exactly what the big bang would be prior to the big bang.