Theism vs. Atheism debate

Author: Fallaneze

Posts

Total: 540
#511
mustardness
mustardness's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,979
2
2
3
mustardness's avatar
mustardness
2
2
3
-->
@WyseGui
IFF we live in a finite --ergo integral-- occupied space { structural } Uni-V-erse { One-Verse }, then there can exist only one logical conclusion as to what is beyond the finite, occupied space Uni-V-erse.

Simple minimal brainer with broad open mind and seeking rational, logical common sense. Rare find on the internet has been my experience.

Macro-infinite non-occupied space that, is available for the finite, occupied space Universe to expand into or contract from.

All other conclusions are irrational, illogical and lack common sense.

To date, the best response any human can state, is that we dont observe any part of this alledged macro-infinite non-occupied space Universe.

However, that is 2nd to the philosophical question and its conclusion vai rational, logical common sense search for the speculative truth, based on we do observe.

1} all occupied space things have a systemic and structural integrity, even if that integrity is very short lived mesonic particle,

2} finite space as definite 2D area or 3D volume has a definitive meaning that most humans agree too, irrespective of specific size

3} infinite space has not integrity, ergo and no definite area or volume.

#512
WyseGui
WyseGui's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 98
0
0
4
WyseGui's avatar
WyseGui
0
0
4
-->
@Mopac
You keep saying that like if you believe it enough it will become true. No I dont know better. Neither do you, as I exposed the contradiction of this "belief" last time I engaged with you. Proving the "Ultimate Reality" wrong is not the point. The Ultimate reality could be anything, per your own words, and yet it is a sentient God somehow. If you remember I even said "God could have sneezed this universe into existence without even noticing" which you agreed could be possible. You only disagreed when I pointed out the futility of religion in that scenario. You have a explanation by all means.
#513
WyseGui
WyseGui's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 98
0
0
4
WyseGui's avatar
WyseGui
0
0
4
-->
@mustardness
Great. Solid logical explanation. None of this means there is a God. This something could be anything. That was my point to Mopac.

#514
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@WyseGui
You are taking what I said out of context.


I more than likely said "If the Ultimate Reality is such and such, that is what it is".


Thst is not an admission of possibility, because you certainly gave other impossible scenarios.


The Ultimate Reality is exactly what it is. And it is all encompassing.

And that is what God is, my repeating this matter or even my silence on the matter has no impact on the veracity of this. This is what we mean by God.

You by denying this are wrong. And superstitious to boot.


The Ultimate Reality can't be "anything". It is what it is. To you it can be anything, because it is all arbitrary to you.


#515
WyseGui
WyseGui's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 98
0
0
4
WyseGui's avatar
WyseGui
0
0
4
-->
@Mopac
It was not per your pwn words.

My comment:

Any of these could be true and would render Ultimate Reality completely moot. 

Yours:

The Ultimate Reality is whatever it actually is. Not a single one of those scenarios you present refutes The Ultimate Reality. Assuming any one of these situations was true...

Existence is the product of "random" events.
Existence is a simulation of aliens.
The universe is a fingernail of God(what?)
This universe is all there is
Etc


Every single one of these possibilities, if any of them are true at all, they do not and can not "render the Ultimate reality moot".

Also
And we Orthodox don't know what God is. Nobody does. The essence of God is unknowable. Think about it, The Ultimate Reality... any idea you have about what that is must be false, because ideas are created things
I very obviously implied God can be anything, and you accepted that. You even said these examples don't refute Ultimate Reality. Every scenario I gave, you said it was plausible. I didn't take it out of context. Although later, after I pointed out the contradiction, you acted as if you never said this.


Yet, none of these examples you listed are The Ultimate Reality. If they were the ultimate reality, that is what it would be.

Even if we ignore that, there is still a contradiction. What is the point of religion if these examples are plausible? If no one really knows what God is, how do you know God is sentient?

God is omnipresent, enlivening all things, omnipotent, etc
How do you know what God is if no one can know what God is or understand God?
#516
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@WyseGui
How do you know what God is if no one can know what God is or understand God?
(IFF) any hypothetical god is omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient and the sole origin of all things (THEN) that god must necessarily BE all things.

All things (real and imaginary) must be pieces-parts of such a god.

Monism is true.
#517
WyseGui
WyseGui's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 98
0
0
4
WyseGui's avatar
WyseGui
0
0
4
-->
@3RU7AL
Sound premise logical conclusion. 

#518
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@WyseGui
You do not get to tell me what I mean by my words, I am not a deceptive person.

Your problem is you take "The Ultimate Reality" to mean something other than what it means. If you took it to mean what it means, I am not saying anything that isn't patently obvious. 



And only accepting it as Reality As it Truly Is will our discipline, which has more to do with examining the self and removing that which clouds our judgement or compromises our honesty, make sense.


Instead you are superstitious and because you refuse to be humble about being ignorant, you are confused.

#519
WyseGui
WyseGui's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 98
0
0
4
WyseGui's avatar
WyseGui
0
0
4
-->
@Mopac
Lol. You literally make me laugh bruh. This whole post is one big red haring. You are not addressing the contradiction I just presented

First of all. No one is doing any of those things. Did I insult you or accuse you of being deceptive? No, your just being sensitive.

Second Im not telling you what your words mean. Where did I do that? Nonsense. I quoted you directly and presented you with a honest and very debatable contradiction in your statements.

Third, superstition involves beliefs and I have no beliefs about God. I explained this before, I believe when we die ANYTHING could happen. That is all. I am not debating what you think Ultimate Reality is. Never said I understood what it meant. I never even said you were wrong. I asked you multiple times and you kept being ambiguous. "the realest real , the truest truth, the essence of all things". And yet I just quoted you saying Gods essence is unknowable. Im not twisting anything or taking anything out of context. Your just contradicted yourself. Why not just clear it up instead of attacking the person that pointed it out.
#520
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@WyseGui
Do you know what it means to know everything? Of course, you know what that means. Do you know everything? Of course not.














#521
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,067
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@mustardness
2D = 0 

3D= Unlimited Potential.

Occupied Space is limited to Total Mass Potential. Ergo Expansive Infinite is negated. (Though, in no way necessarily relative to 3D spatial potential)

Regressed infinity becomes implausible. Ergo Total Mass at 2D State can only be temporary. (Given the accrued energy at fractional collapse events).

Ergo Universal oscillation = 101010101

Nonetheless we still rely upon primary magic for both God and creation and also presumably for extirpation.
#522
mustardness
mustardness's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,979
2
2
3
mustardness's avatar
mustardness
2
2
3
-->
@3RU7AL
@WyseGui
Monism is true.
Uni = monism

Universe is synonym with G-o-d and is  is the first subset of the most wholistic set  " U "niverse/" G "od.  LINK

It never ceases to amaze me how may seemingly rational, logical common sense adults, cannot follow even the most simple lines of rational, logical common sense conclusions and truth, when it comes to the most cosmically inclusive issues.

For some I think it is a religious mental block.

For others and ego based mental block,

And still others its an inability to get beyond the education on the subject.

Seek and you shall find --the truth--  only if the ego can be place to the side to let truth enter or not be refuted by the ego,

ABC, 123, thats how easy, Universe/God can be...sung to M Jackson song
#523
mustardness
mustardness's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,979
2
2
3
mustardness's avatar
mustardness
2
2
3
-->
@zedvictor4
2D = 0 
2D = XY, XZ or YZ with no regard to integral finite-ness.

Your circle above equal a finite area ergo 2D integral

3D= Unlimited Potential.
False.  3D = XYZ with no given definities ergo not integrity and may infer/imply macro-infinite Space.

A finite ergo integral, occupied space exists in complement to a finite set of cosmic laws/principles ergo you Unlimited Potential is false in two reqards.

My guess is you have three mental issues keeping you from following rational, logical common sense;

1} religious,

2} ego,

3} prior education.

Occupied Space is limited to Total Mass Potential. Ergo Expansive Infinite is negated. (Though, in no way necessarily relative to 3D spatial potential)
Huh?  Meaningless..  Finite occupied space is limited because of integrity. "expansive infinite" does not state what that is your specifically refering too.  Again you lack clarity in what it is you think your trying to state. Why? Because you have nothing of rational, logical common sense that of relevant signifcance to offer.

No blames just stating what I see coming from you is greatly lacking.  Please try until you can actually begin to make some definitive rational, logical common sense.


Regressed infinity becomes implausible. Ergo Total Mass at 2D State can only be temporary. (Given the accrued energy at fractional collapse events).
"regressed infinity".  Your going off the deep end of irrelevant insignifcant ill-defined non-sense.

Ergo Universal oscillation = 101010101
Meaningless. Huh? Lacks clarity and definitive clarification.

Nonetheless we still rely upon primary magic for both God and creation and also presumably for extirpation.

...Huh?  You really gone of deep end of illogical irrational lack of any specificied meaning or definition.

#524
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,067
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@mustardness
Huh?

There is 0 (2D), or there is spatial potential (3D). Simple.
The question is how do you get from one state to another.

And the answer is, no one knows. Not even the "ego" that is mustardness.
No amount of their pseudo-scientific symbolism and jargonism gets close.

An oscillating universal sequence negates the infinite. Thereby allowing an instantaneous finality and re-initiation, ergo zero is momentarily achieved.
1-0-1. A simple and logical hypothesis that can explain a zero state, within a sequence.

Nonetheless 0-1 is the sticking point.
Primary initiation. Something from nothing?

Theism always starts at 1.  Atheism simply says that this is not good enough. Ergo I am an Atheist.
#525
mustardness
mustardness's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,979
2
2
3
mustardness's avatar
mustardness
2
2
3
-->
@zedvictor4
There is 0 (2D), or there is spatial potential (3D).
..."No amount of their pseudo-scientific symbolism and jargonism gets close."...

And that is all you have to offer us.

The question is how do you get from one state to another.
No definitive clearity, as per your usual. More nonsense.

An oscillating universal sequence negates the infinite.
Huh? Is this actually suppose to have some definitive meaning? It does not.

Thereby allowing an instantaneous finality and re-initiation, ergo zero is momentarily achieved.
Huh? Lacks any definitive meaning or clarity.

1-0-1. A simple and logical hypothesis that can explain a zero state, within a sequence.
Meaingless.  1,2,3,4 ergo 3 is another one of your so called "states". It is meaingless.

Nonetheless 0-1 is the sticking point.
Meaningless.

Primary initiation. Something from nothing?
Has never happened and never will. Our eternally existent, fiinite, occupied space Universe is emrbaced by the macro-infinite non-occupied space.

This the primary duality of space and not a monism except as space. Yes its all ---macro-infinite space--- with some of it as occupied space Universe.

When we consider both states of occupied and non-occupied we use the word{s} " U "niverse/" G "od and that is what is simple, not your meaningless dribble.

No if you want to call macro-infinite non-occupied space 0{ zero }, that is fine, but you have not done that.

If you want to call occupied space Universe, 1{ one } that is fined, but you have not done that.

More definitive clarification and less meangingless dribble. Please.






#526
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,067
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@mustardness
Huh!

Says the top pseudo-scientist. Ergo magic.

More clarification and less meaningless drivel. Please.




#527
mustardness
mustardness's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,979
2
2
3
mustardness's avatar
mustardness
2
2
3
-->
@zedvictor4
More clarification and less meaningless drivel.
Yes, that is what Ive been saying to you since day one since I first engaged with you many moons ago.  I observe the fact that you lack more definitive clarications, elaboration and rational, logical common sense pathways to your conclusions.

Your ego cant handle those facts so you attempt to redirect my concerns about your content back at  me.

Please try again when you can drop your ego and focus on more rational, logical common sense and definitive clarifications for comments.  This will require more effort on your part to do some research.  Ive been doing that for some 30 years now and the evidence iof my research  in many of my posts.

Niether you nor anyone else has added to or invalidated any of my comments, scenarios, concepts as presented. Please share when can even attempt to do so. You do not becuase you have not anything of relevant significance that adds to or takes away those ideas as presented.
#528
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,067
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@mustardness
Are you able to validate any of your comments, scenarios, concepts as presented?

The trouble with your fanciful hypotheses, is that they are meaningless unless they have applicable rationality. 


#529
mustardness
mustardness's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,979
2
2
3
mustardness's avatar
mustardness
2
2
3
Are you able to validate any of your comments, scenarios, concepts as presented?
Yeah, Pi^3 = 31

Yeah we each have 31 bilateral spinal nerves.

Yes the 5-fold icosa{20}hedron has 31 sets of left and right primary great circle/polygonal planes.

Yes, P^4 - 31{XYZ } = 66.4.

Yes are prime numbers --except 2 and 3--  fall on top line of my squential, inverted numerical four level/lines.

I ve made it pretty clear for 20 or more years, if any want too add to or invaldiate any of  my comments as stated. please do so with rational, logical common.  That has happened maybe three times in last 20 or more years.

Your not on that last, so still waiting for you to offer something of relevant signifcance that is rational logical and common sense.
#530
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,673
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
-->
@mustardness
Pi^3 = 31

Wrong, it's 31.0062766803
#531
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,067
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@mustardness
Dr Franklin is correct.
A simple inaccuracy. Casually overlooked.

We have 31 pairs of spinal nerves.
We have 33 vertebrae. So What?

Known geometry is what it is and has been known for a few thousand years longer than twenty.

Circles/Polygons?

20 years wasted maybe. Perhaps you should have taken up the flute.
#532
mustardness
mustardness's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,979
2
2
3
mustardness's avatar
mustardness
2
2
3
-->
@zedvictor4
We have 33 vertebrae. So What?
I said nothing about vertabrae. Your confused. Stick to what I say

Circles/Polygons?
When you learn what a circle and polygon{nall} is, then please come back an attempt to learn something beyond those two that ive been dealing with for 20 plus years. 

The only waste has been your comments. They lack definitive description and your ego is hurt when I tell you that truth. Get over it and do more research.

Pi = 3 is a rounded off truth

Pi = 3.1 is rounded off truth

Pi = 3.14  is rounded off truth

Pi = 3.142 is rounded off truth

Etc.....3.14 15 92 65 35 897932384626433832795 is a rounded off truth.

When you actually want get interested in truth, please come back and share something of relevant significance with us. Thanks.

Pi^3{ XYZ } = 31.00 is a rounded off truth and the two zeros{ 00 }  make the relationship the whole rational number of significant-ally more relevance to my nunically geometric explorations and to  any person who choses to use rounded off numbers.  That does not appear to be you. 

Please share when you have something of relevant significance and stop wasting bandwidth.

Pi^4 - 31{ XYZ } = 66.4 and that is rounded of number. If you want to see more of the irrational the put out some effort and use a calculator. Ive been doing just that for 20 years or more.  You, not so much. You fear being naive and I embrace it.

"Dare To Be Naive" ......Bucky Fuller

#533
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,067
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@mustardness
You picked an inaccurate number and attempted to imply a significant relationship between that inaccurate number and one particular set of body parts. By pointing out that we have 33 vertebrae I was simply expounding the tenuous nature of your claim.

I know perfectly well what circles and polygons are. I was merely questioning the implied relationship between them.

"As for rounded off truth".  Well; perhaps you really should have taken up the flute 20 years ago.

#534
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@Fallaneze
After determining the weight of the evidence for and against the claim, it's more rational to believe the claim if the evidence is more for it than against it, and it's more rational to disbelieve the claim if there's more evidence against it than for it.
Is there no problem in 'determining the weight'?    I think its not worth stating that one should give more credence to something with good evidence than to something with little or no evidence.   Well, duh!  The problem is evaluting the quality of the evidence. 

How good is something in the Bible as evidence?  Is it more or less than something in, say, Josephus?  Our experience of the world is that people don't come back from bein dead - is that good evidence the Lazarus story is fiction?

#535
mustardness
mustardness's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,979
2
2
3
mustardness's avatar
mustardness
2
2
3
-->
@zedvictor4
You picked an inaccurate number
I have no idea what number your talking about. As per your ususal you always lack definitive desripition of what ever it is your think your talking about.  Waste of bandwidth again.

and attempted to imply a significant relationship between that inaccurate number and one particular set of body parts.
I observe the truths and present them to you. If cant accept truth as presented to you, move on somewhere else.

By pointing out that we have 33 vertebrae I was simply expounding the tenuous nature of your claim.
Again, I stated nothing about 33 vertabrae and for the 2nd or rmore times, you narrow mind and ego and cannot accept the truth once again. Take a hike Z4 as your have not the slightest interest truth. You only want to play mind games that stem from a hurt ego.

I know perfectly well what circles and polygons are. I was merely questioning the implied relationship between them.
You have not pointed out anything because you never ever offer us definitive descripion of whatever it is you seem to think your talking about. Waste of bandwidths is all that you have to offer us. Sad :--(

For starters that you dont even no any relationships between polygon and circle just shows how many years behind the 8-ball you are.  They both enclose a 2D area.  Do you need me to spell out a long list of similarites between polygons and circles. Cone dude get real. Get specific with definitive descripitions of what is you think your talking about.

"As for rounded off truth".  Well; perhaps you really should have taken up the flute 20 years ago.

Huh? More meaningless dribble and waste of bandwidth from Z4.  Please share when you actually have any shred of some relevantly signnificant info to share with us. Thanks.
#536
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,067
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@mustardness
Drivel!

And Bogus Science.

You might know one or two things, but so do millions of other people.

Bucky Fuller you ain't!




#537
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@keithprosser
Is there no problem in 'determining the weight'?    I think its not worth stating that one should give more credence to something with good evidence than to something with little or no evidence.   Well, duh!  The problem is evaluting the quality of the evidence. 
Bingo.  Standards of evidence.
#538
mustardness
mustardness's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,979
2
2
3
mustardness's avatar
mustardness
2
2
3
-->
@zedvictor4
I'm sorry Z4 from day one many moons ago, Ive never ever seen any definitive descriptive info from you, in regards to anything Ive stated, ergo, once I'm not going to continue to waste any more bandwidith.  Good bye.  :--O
#539
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,067
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@mustardness
Absolutely fine. But consider my advice, ditch the pseudo-science and channel your mental energy into something a little more realistic.

Regards.

Z4



#540
mustardness
mustardness's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,979
2
2
3
mustardness's avatar
mustardness
2
2
3
Anyone up for debating your beliefs about the existence of God?
Define God. Thats an easy one for those who choose to follow rational, logical common sense pathways of thought.

" G "od = " U "niverse and this label the most wholistic cosmc set i.e. God/Universe is a subset catagory of " G "od = " U "niverse.

Why do people deny or avoid obvious rational, logical common sense pathays of thought? There exists a few differrent reasons and they all overlap with common denominator ----ego * (i) *-----.

Ego exists as part of the metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concepts catagory.

Ego, like oxygen, is double-edged sword that can preserve humanities existence on Earth or make cause is extinction.

Caring is biological aspect. God/Universe does not care if humanity  survives on Earth or elsewhere, even tho, the coding for biological life may exist all black hole type phenomena.

Black hole phenomena appear to exist at center of most galaxies examined.