Wanted: Honest intelligent productive thinking to resolve the issue God exists or not.

a reply to: pthena
The Universe did not always exist in the state it is now, and it started roughly 13.7 billion years ago. Many physicists believe that all the matter in our Universe was highly compressed. As to WHY it exploded, there are many theories about this; it may be that we are only one of countless universes, or there are large swaths of energy that occasionally make contact resulting in random explosions, or the universe may be stuck in eternal flux, expanding and collapsing, then exploding again under its own gravitational force like a supernova.

I am presenting the fact that that matter and energy have always existed, because they are something, and we know something must always exist, because there was never a time there was nothing. And as I’ve pointed out above, matter seems to have a lot more going for it than the God hypothesis.

a reply to: Pachomius
Is it possible that the Universe had a beginning? possible but the same logic has to apply to a "creator" as well so you cannot escape from the circular logic. Could there be "nothing" in existence at some time? Is it possible? Certainly, but it seems very unlikely considering that stuff exists now. (Though strangely, believers seem hellbent on insisting there was nothing, so they can then claim that God crated something from nothing.)
Nothing is actually a difficult concept. It’s said that even empty space is made up of something; and things like quarks appear to pop in and out of existence, though I don’t think they are truly going anywhere or coming from nothing. I think something is happening here that we just haven’t quite understood yet.
Therefore I never argue on the basis of a beginning for the Universe because the same rule would apply to God. I have to conclude that something must have always existed.
Because our knowledge is limited, we can only speculate about whether it is God or the Universe that has always existed. Both ideas seem unusual, but in order for us to exist, one must be true. My conclusion is if something must always existed it must be the thing that exist...the tangible thing you can see..feel...hear...study....the Universe.

a reply to: toktaylor

I am presenting the fact that that matter and energy have always existed, because they are something, and we know something must always exist, because there was never a time there was nothing. And as I’ve pointed out above, matter seems to have a lot more going for it than the God hypothesis.

Thank you.
That does seem easier to understand.
So now the ( out of nothing crowd ) will brand me a heretic.

I better find a heretofore non-branded spot on my skin.
Here's a spot, just down from my inside left elbow.
That ought to do nicely !

( just joking about the branding folks! I don't really wallow in self pity. )

a reply to: toktaylor

Why would the same rule apply to God? That doesn't make any sense.

Logically it would also mean every creator has a creator endlessly but that could not hold any ground.

a reply to: Out6of9Balance
Then we also have to go about proving that non-material life can exist, and can think, and have knowledge, and create matter from nothing. Why not just say that the what exists is what exists?
Based on the God Hypothesis, we have to forego logic and accept:


Supernatural spiritual beings can exist.
Spiritual beings can exist eternally without cause.
Spiritual beings can create new matter and energy from nothing.
Spiritual beings can exist outside of space and time.
Spiritual beings can store, retrieve, and creatively process information.
Spiritual beings are constantly learning, or are able to somehow have knowledge without ever being educated.
Spiritual beings have needs or emotions that lead them to create things.

originally posted by: toktaylor
a reply to: Out6of9Balance
Then we also have to go about proving that non-material life can exist, and can think, and have knowledge, and create matter from nothing. Why not just say that the what exists is what exists?
Based on the God Hypothesis, we have to forego logic and accept:


Supernatural spiritual beings can exist.
Spiritual beings can exist eternally without cause.
Spiritual beings can create new matter and energy from nothing.
Spiritual beings can exist outside of space and time.
Spiritual beings can store, retrieve, and creatively process information.
Spiritual beings are constantly learning, or are able to somehow have knowledge without ever being educated.
Spiritual beings have needs or emotions that lead them to create things.

Question marks would be more appropriate punctuation for that list, considering those statements are mere hypothesis.

I get it, God is imagined. You imagine God to be something imagined. The imagination exists in your own mind. Right?

Your own mind is your source of knowledge.

a reply to: Out6of9Balance
Religion and God is man made as well as its rules and laws to control, manipulate, and intimidate us. Also keep in mind that mankind worships over 2500 Gods globally. Also a study of all religious text only serves us historically retelling of many men's interpretations of the idea of the monotheistic God of Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

So if you want to know if God is imagined..do your own research...you will be be very surprise at the findings.

a reply to: Out6of9Balance
There is no actual thing called a mind.

It's just thoughts appearing.... the thoughts don't actually belong to anyone.......no one is doing thought.

Words just appear and disappear.

MONO



Dear everyone posting here:


Forgive me, but the fact is that you all engage in vain verbiage in order to sound Oh you are so very smart.


Being smart is all vacuity, the more impressive act is to face me and we will exchange thoughts to the enhancement of mutually arrived at facts, truths, logic, and thus becoming better and better gentlemen intellectuals, instead of mere verbose empty words stringers.


Dear readers and posters here, do you have the courage i.e. guts and/or balls to tell me whether you have thought enough, as to have come to the irrefutable certainty that existence is the default status of reality?


Okay, everyone, tell me: Do you concur with me that existence is the default status of reality?

Don't evade answering my question, with either yes or no, and then please explain concisely, cleanly and intelligently i.e. with even just the most meager of IQ – why yes or why no?


Watch out now, dear readers, take notice whether our self-smart verbose words stringers will take on my challenge to them, answer me, Do you concur with me, that existence is the default status of reality?


If you don't understand my challenge, then just let us work together as to agree on a mutually accepted understanding of my challenge to you, namely, do you concur with me that Existence is the default status of reality?

What words in the list below don’t you know the meaning of?


Existence

is

the

default

status

of

reality



By the way, if you can't or don't know the meanings of the words above, then perhaps you should not be here at all, owing to deficient comprehension of basic English vocabulary.

.

.

a reply to: Pachomius

Pot? Are you calling the kettle black?

And you still have no evidence, just your lame “theory” crafted out of a house of cards we call circular logic.

You stated a “theory”. How will you test it to provide actual data?

a reply to: Pachomius

This might help...

a reply to: Pachomius

What is reality?

Two workers have the same plant manager. One worker sees the plant manager as a good boss and leader. The other worker sees the same plant manager as an incompetent manager who survives off the workers around him, and ass kissing.

What is the reality?

Or in the quantum level...

Copenhagen interpretation Edit
Main article: Copenhagen interpretation
A commonly held interpretation of quantum mechanics is the Copenhagen interpretation.[15] In the Copenhagen interpretation, a system stops being a superposition of states and becomes either one or the other when an observation takes place. This thought experiment makes apparent the fact that the nature of measurement, or observation, is not well-defined in this interpretation. The experiment can be interpreted to mean that while the box is closed, the system simultaneously exists in a superposition of the states "decayed nucleus/dead cat" and "undecayed nucleus/living cat", and that only when the box is opened and an observation performed does the wave function collapse into one of the two states.
en.m.wikipedia.org...ödinger%27s_cat

One god? Yet relativity and quantum physics have not developed into on unified theory,

a reply to: toktaylor

What would there be to find if God didn't exist?

You found the inexistence of God or perhaps something man made?

There's a lot of man made stuff about me too.

There's simply no such thing as no evidence of God to a human.

a reply to: Out6of9Balance

There's simply no such thing as no evidence of God to a human.

If not a human, what be I?

a reply to: Phage

Do you know what a human is?

a reply to: Out6of9Balance

Yes. I have a lot of personal experience in the subject.

dudlious.....if existence is default ....where is it....


I say it is hung on nothing......by a simulation creator.....a digital sim creator. your keyboard feels hard only because of the electrical charge between the molecules.....

I got plenty more.....where was God at the begining of time.........nowhere, because He was standing on nothing.....ha
And we heard no backlash from any witnesses because none was there......

a reply to: Pachomius

originally posted by: Pachomius
MONO



Dear everyone posting here:


Forgive me, but the fact is that you all engage in vain verbiage in order to sound Oh you are so very smart.


Being smart is all vacuity, the more impressive act is to face me and we will exchange thoughts to the enhancement of mutually arrived at facts, truths, logic, and thus becoming better and better gentlemen intellectuals, instead of mere verbose empty words stringers.


Dear readers and posters here, do you have the courage i.e. guts and/or balls to tell me whether you have thought enough, as to have come to the irrefutable certainty that existence is the default status of reality?


Okay, everyone, tell me: Do you concur with me that existence is the default status of reality?

Don't evade answering my question, with either yes or no, and then please explain concisely, cleanly and intelligently i.e. with even just the most meager of IQ – why yes or why no?


Watch out now, dear readers, take notice whether our self-smart verbose words stringers will take on my challenge to them, answer me, Do you concur with me, that existence is the default status of reality?


If you don't understand my challenge, then just let us work together as to agree on a mutually accepted understanding of my challenge to you, namely, do you concur with me that Existence is the default status of reality?

What words in the list below don’t you know the meaning of?


Existence

is

the

default

status

of

reality



By the way, if you can't or don't know the meanings of the words above, then perhaps you should not be here at all, owing to deficient comprehension of basic English vocabulary.

.

.

What is reality tho? What is existence?
Ok let's see...I have some things that I've discovered that I'd like to share with you even though it's very hard for me to fully explain, I'll try my best.

Numbers just like everything else in our reality have polarities and they help us understand our reality much better. There are basically two types of numbers, emitters and receivers.(1 and 0)


Terms-
Polar Completons- 2 numbers that add up to make the completion

Completion- a complete system of numbers

Cubiton-a geometrical system of numbers
Binary cubiton - a geometrical growth system of numbers
Example-
For c@9(completion at 9) base 10
Emitters-1,3,5,7
Recievers-2,4,6,8
Completons-1and8,
2and7,
3and6,
4and5
Higher(base)completons -0and9


'Male and female are poles
Completons are poles of the same species
Completion is like sex resulting in conception .'

Example 2
c@7 and human vision
0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7
Where 0 is black or absence of light
And 7 is white presence of all visible light
Binary cubiton- a triangle with nodes 1,2,4 interchanchangable with R,G,B
1+2=3 R+G=Y
2+4=6 G+B=Cy
4+1=5 B+R=V
Now we have all the completons
1and 6 (Red and Cyan)
2 and 5(Green and violet)
3 and 4(yellow and Blue)
0 and 7 (black and white)
(Note-when you invert a number or color you get its completon)
I'll add more as the conversation goes

a reply to: Ahadu

Btw how do you put pictures in threads?