Theism vs. Atheism debate

1} And you have not yet  placed yor ego aside to address the comment as stated with  a specific word you commonly use "IFF".

2} Maybe you dont know what you IFF means. It means that,  If X is true then Y is the only rational, logical common sense conclusion and your ego, will not allow you to concede that conclusion, to "IFF". Please place your ego asided 3Ru7al.

3} We only observe a finite occupied space Universe and,

...3a} we certainly do not observe or have evidence of, a  macro-infinite occupied space Universe.

 IFF you{ 3Ru7al do not believe we  live inside a 3D Universe...

AND you have not established it is "eternally existent".

I.e. you believe the 1st law of thermodynamics is false.

You have absolutely no way of knowing any of this.

Currently that appears true and Ive never claimed I know, only that I believe that, 

...based on rational, logical common sense.  I'm still waiting for you to place your ego to the side and attempt rational, logical common sense to arrive at a conclusion that adds to or invalidates my conclusions, as stated.

(IFF) there is "space-time" "outside" of our "finite occupied space-time" you have absolutely no way of knowing (IFF) it is "occupied" or not.

You need to reread #331 as state and not as you falsely project my comments 

1} PLease play fair and that begins  by your placing you ego to the side,

2} I state occupied space not your "space-time" ---whatever you may think that may or may not be---,

3} your latter comment above is meaningless becuase,

...3a} if your space-time is same as my occupied space, then your space-time cannot be outside of  an occupied space i.e it is just more of the same and to say outside is meaningless irrational, illogical and lacks any shred of common sense. Do you understand your error?

Please do not play ego based mind games with me. I hoped you would be at least one person on this forum could place aside their ego.  Maybe no one here can do that. Actually I think MagicAintReal conceded my rational, logical common sense conclusions, as presented.

Oh, excuse me..............((((((((((((((((((((((((()))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))(((((((((((((((((((((((((((.....................)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Thanks for clearing that up.

I'm not disputing that "finite occupied space-time" is finite and occupied.

This part we agree on.

  This is knowable.

No your ego based priorities/drives are not excused.Clarrity and truth by me does not equal any concessions by you or the placing of your ego to the side.  You need to go back #331 and address the comments as stated and not as you repatedly and falsely project them. Thats behavious is evidence your ego is running your show.1} I did not state space-time in #351 yet you keep quoting that way.  This is evidence of your ego before truth issues,2} nowhere have you conceded to my rational, logical common sense conclusion to my IFF statements in several posts now.  Your playing hide and seek game with words liken to cups hiding truths and concepts under some cups and false under others and meaningless statements by you under others.  Sad :--( 3} you certainly appear to  be disputing that we live in a finite, 3D, occupied space Universe.Ive not seen you agree with anything Ive stated and especially not from the get go after #331.You appear to agree to your statements not mine, as stated.What is knowable? Your running a zig-zag of confusing statements to obfuscate ergo protect your ego.

M-Tard.... IFF you{ 3Ru7al do not believe we  live inside a 3D Universe...

.......3r7....That's not what I'm disputing here.  I'm pointing out epistemological limits.

The first law of thermodynamics describes how energy behaves from our perspective.  This apparent behavior does not "prove" energy is "eternal".

This sounds promising.  If you "don't know" but merely "believe" then how can you insist that everyone who disagrees is a fool?

,.,nobody cares....

  (IFF) your conclusions are logical (THEN) show your logic.

Do you really not understand that space and time are fundamentally inseparable?

Now you get it.  This is your error.  This is exactly what I'm trying to point out to you.

Not a shred of logic in the lot.

Then you need to reread you own statements, again.....#352.....3r7....."You have not established that "finite space-time" is "inside" "any-thing"".......Universe is 3D "anything" and 3D something and your statement above attempts tosuggest mine { above } is incorrect, when it is not. Please try and play fair.Of course it is from our perspective. And our perspective is based on observation that energy cannot be created yet exists. That can only means it is eternally existent.Please try and use some rational, logical common sense on that specific concept.  Can you do that 3r7?Read my lips/text energy { ergo } occupied space, cannot be created{ 1st law  of conservation } yet energy exists ergo if it was not created, and it exists, then it exists eternally. Simple not difficult to grasp, unless you have a ego based mental blockage to relatively simple, rational, logiocal common sense pathways of thought.God I hope as this forum like many is full of them.

When you're ready to present purely logical arguments without ad hominems, let me know.

If you don't believe there is an ultimate reality,

2} Maybe you dont know what you IFF means. It means that,  If X is true then Y is the only rational, logical common sense conclusion...

What I would say is, "please give me an example of an absolute truth".

 Actually "iff" is an abbreviation commonly used in mathematics as shorthand for "if and only if". It means a logical implication goes both ways. X iff Y doesn't just mean if X is true then Y must be true. It also means that if Y is true then X must be true.Reality is Observed Time { /\/\/ } i.e. quantized by humans.ergo fermions,  bosons ---and possible hew hybrid third catagory--- or any aggregate collection thereof.

I don't restrict perception to what one may call conscious. A robot, for example, takes in information about its surroundings and acts accordingly, but we don't call them concscious, but except for the fact that we can't communicate, there is no reason to think that it cannot perceive or isn't conscious. (Especially things that aren't hard coded). I am essentially looking for an understanding of perception divorced from consciousness. 

The time corresponds to the events, not the other way of round. Time isn't absolute, it is relative. Just like "inches" don't 'exist" they are just a measurement as a result of things. 

I'm saying that is one way of viewing you. You can define yourself however you please, but I just point out the fact that none of those definitions is absolute. You can go from you don't exist to you are all that exists or you are everything that exists, which are all kind of the same thing, but kind of different in my opinion. 

Whether or not the person in a lab coat could articulate it is unimportant in my opinion to whether the mouse reacts. You seem to be tying it to the ability to discern what is happening. 

Sure there is a practical line, but you seem to be taking that line too seriously or as something absolute. 

In the same way that a leaf is part of a tree, but the leaf is not the whole tree, and one leaf is still distinguishable from another leaf on the same tree.

This is a result of how you have defined a leaf. If someone who had never seen a tree before looked at one, they may not think the leaves are practically separable. 

You're living proof of "subjective experience".  Whether or not you believe it qualifies as "existent" is a purely ontological choice.

Hm...I could also say I am living proof that the earth is flat, I have never felt the curvature of the earth, that doesn't mean it doesn't curve. The flatness of the earth is a function of my point of view and a kind of illusion, so, maybe, the existence of a subjective experience could work in a similar way. There could something more fundamental there. 

I think I see the utility of telling people that they do not know everything. But nothingness is just defined as that which doesn't exist, so of course it doesn't exist by that definition. And if you take a thing to be something that does exist then of course something exists. I do not see how that leads to the impossibility of science explaining everything, because that is a matter of perspective and level of detail.

It's the comprehensible part we are stuck on here. Smelling a rose, doesn't require knowing it's a rose.

I don't need to comprehend to perceive. But you could call that comprehensible and/or mentally identified and/or named perceptions. 

I don't know, because again, I cannot articulate it because I don't know how to read a rainstorm and know all of the butterflies responsible. Again, just because I cannot name it, or comprehend it, doesn't mean I should rule it out or say it doesn't exist etc.

In the same way, many rainstorms are really two colliding rainstorms, if you had an experience in the rain on the ground in a way that you didn't know there were two rainstorms, you'd reasonably say "i perceive one rainstorm", when there are two. If you learned that it was two later, you might then say "I perceived two rainstorms" if you identify your perception with what you call it. 

I was under the impression you were asserting that time was a real thing that we measure and not a result of the measurements. 

I mean sure, but if your framework is the practical we are no longer talking about what is true if there is such a thing, only what is useful. I concede noumenon is a useful thing to posit under certain circumstances, doesn't mean it's true. 

If you can't measure the effect, then it is purely hypothetical.

All I assert is measurable (never perfectly of course, as is the case with anything measured since measurement is by definition an approximation) in principle.

Or are you saying I have to have the means to do so? I am not claiming to have any particular perception, just that my perception is in principle more than I can articulate.

There are one or two things which are certain (cogito-ergo-sum/noumenon), and everything else is some matter of degree.

I can't agree with that. Cogito ergo sum is not foolproof. And I still don't see the necessity of noumenon that isn't definitional. 

The line of distinction changes depending on what you need, and that doesn't indicate anything about a supposed absolute truth. 

Sure, "subjective individual experience" might be some sort of "illusion" (Parmenides).  However, we still SUBJECTIVELY experience it (whatever it is).

That assumes cogito ergo sum. A starting place I cant agree with in principle. You started with we. 

Any qualitative statement can be assigned numbers and exhibit the same behavior under manipulation.

But I don't even know what we mean by everything here. Science claims to give explanations to phenomena as we experience it, and there is no reason to assume we have experienced all possible phenomena. So science changes with new phenomena. If people measured only to a certain degree of accuracy, Newton's Laws + Maxwell's equations do explain everything.

It's a matter of what you experience. And if we continually experience more, science cannot say to explain those things we have yet to experience. I don't think it has to do with something fundamentally and intrinsically unknowable. Cuz that's a bold claim too. 

Ok, I take perception to be input, and you take it to be comprehensible input. Is that agreeable? If so, where does that get us. 

Sure, I don't see where that gets you. I am not claiming to comprehend everything, but rather to be affected by everything. 

Science has not explained everything.

I agree, but everything from our perspectives. 

Well, there's one sure-fire way to disprove noumenon.  Omniscience.

I'm assuming it doesn't until given a convincing argument it does, not the other way around. 

Please explain the critical logical error in "cogitoergosum".

To be brief with this, his original reasoning was that (correct me if I'm wrong) je pense donc je suis, makes more sense really as, "je doute donc je suis" One cannot doubt one's own existence because the doubting itself is occurring. But the critique is more with the final phrase than his particular methodology. I am by no means the first with this critique, the "I" problem. Cogito ergo sum or je pense donc je suis or je doute donc je suis, all take as their beginning "I". I think or I doubt, which is like saying, there exists something called I which is doubting therefore I exist. You are assuming the very thing which you set out to prove. In the same sense, when you said:

"Subjective experience could be like an illusion but we still subjectively experience it" or something to that effect, you are taking the existence of "we" as a given. That's my issue with it. 

Don't get too hung up on the "I".  It is merely a placeholder for "not nothingness".  Co-(together) gito-(agitate) ergo-(therefore) sum-(total).  In other-words, pieces, together, therefore, sum total.

I don't know if that's a fair interpretation of Descartes. But that is NOT what that Latin means. Yes, cogito comes from etymologically con-agito which means something like "to act in engangement with," "sum" has nothing to do with summus which means 'highest' from which the english word sum comes. And Descartes originally posited all of this stuff in French anyhow, so it was je pense donc je suis. Which kind of blows a whole in the idea that he was looking at the meaning of the etymology of cogito because it is completely different for penser in French. Which comes from a work meaning to hang or something like that. If you are making your own interpretation of Cogito ergo sum, sure, go for it, but that is almost assuredly not what Descartes meant, especially if you go into his explanation of how he gets there. 

This seems circular to me still. You're saying we process bits of data which means we exist to process these bits of data. How does this consider the possibility that we aren't actually processing bits of data? Just because you feel like something is the case subjectively doesn't mean that's the case. Sometimes you need a different perspective. (From a person's perspective the world may well seem flat, and from your perspective you may well seem to process data and/or exist. None of this thought seems to point to a "whole" or existence without feeling they exist beforehand. 

You're saying we process bits of data which means we exist to process these bits of data.

What I said there was unclear, I apologize. I wasn't saying we exist in order to process these bits of data, but that processing these bits of data requires existence, so "we must exist if we are able to process these bits of data." That might have been a better rendition of what I meant. 

And since it has "pieces" there must be a "whole".

Why do pieces necessitate a whole? And what are these pieces that can be objectively delineated?

We don't know what exactly this "something" is, that is to say, it might be something entirely different than what it appears to be, but we can be absolutely certain that it is definitely not "nothingness".

I think I am confused about what you mean by something and nothing again. But maybe we should revisit existence itself: I tend to go by: A thing is said to exist if change in the universe can be traced back to it. 

I think this is logically identical to detectibility and quantum entanglement with a measuring device. Also, I don't think existence needs to be objective. If a kid believes in the existence of an imaginary friend and does something as a result, from the child's perspective, the imaginary friend may well exist, while for others it might be the child's belief in the imaginary friend that exists, but there is no objective way to compare.  

Also, I don't think existence needs to be objective. If a kid believes in the existence of an imaginary friend and does something as a result, from the child's perspective, the imaginary friend may well exist, while for others it might be the child's belief in the imaginary friend that exists, but there is no objective way to compare.