-->
@Fallaneze
By first do you mean specifically preceding the big bang?
Theism vs. Atheism debate
Posts
Total:
540
-->
@secularmerlin
Yes that would be true.
-->
@Fallaneze
The big bang is the earliest event we have observable evidence for. We cannot say what if anything existed or happened before then. I would argue that this renders your definition unprovable. We literally cannot know if a being fitting this description can or could exist.
-->
@nagisa3
How would you go about doing that?
-->
@secularmerlin
@nagisa3
The classical theist postion - going back more than a thousand years - is that God created time when he created the universe, that is God created the universe 'with time, not in time'.
on that view God is not 'eternal' in the way of 'having infinite duration' - 'eternal' is just away to approximately render in English that for God time does not exist at all.
-->
@nagisa3
Those are basic assumptions, not facts. And to be honest, I'm not refusing to give my definitions, I just think that discussion over the existence of the earth isnt the point of the thread.
I claim facts exist.
You claim facts do not exists.
Please provide your preferred definitions of "fact" and "exist".
And as to your opinion about the relevance of "facts", I propose that Atheism holds rigorous standards of evidence regarding what is considered a fact and Theism holds considerably more flexible standards of evidence regarding what is considered a fact.
You can't essentially claim "facts do not exist" and then rush out the door screaming "this is off-topic!!!!!"
-->
@Fallaneze
Anyone up for debating your beliefs about the existence of God?
Disscussion of God//Universe is insignificant and meaningless unless we have common agreement of definitions as specifically described. Ive given the most descriptive and accurate definitions as follows and none have any rational, logical common sense to invalidate my givens as stated.
"U " niverse / "G " od is most inclusive set as it includes the Cosmic Trinity below and all of its subsets.
Universe//God aka Uni-V-erse #3 below is less inclusive and is not considerate of #1 and #2 below.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Cosmic Trinity and its subset of trinities
1} spirit-1{ spirit-of-intent } aka metaphysical-1 mind/intellect/concept with a resultant ego{ i }. Ex concepts of Space, God, Universe, Ego Toyota's etc.
.....1a} absolute truth --ergo cosmic--
.....1b} relative truth --ergo local special-case--
.....1c} lies//falsehoods
--------------conceptual-line-of-demarcation---------------------------------------------
2} metaphysical-2, macro-infinite, non-occupied SPACE, that, embraces/surrounds the following,
...2a} ?
...2b} ?
...2c} ?
3} God//Universe as occupied space Universe aka Uni-V-erse as follows;
.....3a} spirit-2, observed Time aka reality/energy via fermions, bosons ---and possibly a new 3rd hybrid catagory-- or any aggregate collection thereof. Ex atoms, molecules, biologicals, planets, clusters of galaxies etc,
.....3b} spirit-3, metaphysical-3 Gravity ( ) as positive shaped geodesic curvature of occupied Space,
.....3c} spirit-4, metaphysical-4, Dark energy )( as negative shaped geodesic curvature of occupied Space.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
.....meta is greek for beyond and there is four distinct kinds of meta-physical in the above cosmic trinity above hence the enumeration #1, 2, 3, 4.....
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Observed Time aka reality is commonly associated with a sine-wave topology ex /\/\/\/\/\/ or as ^v^v^v and defined by diametrically opposed inversions { >< } from peaks of positive ( ) and negative )( geodesic curvature of a torus ( )( ) ergo the texticonic representation as (><)(><).
Occupied space Universe aka Uni-V-erse is composed of fermions and bosons that are each defined by two or more tori interfering with each other. The sum-total of all interfering tori is occupied space Universe aka Uni-V-erse.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
i = immature or baby metaphysical-1 ego
I = mature adult, metaphysical-1 ego
I = immature adult narcissistic, metaphysical-1 ego
* i * or * I * = most complex bilateral consciousness
( )( ) = vertical bisection/cross section of a torus, which torus has positive and negative geodesically curved space.
( ( ) ) = horizontal { birds-eye-view } bisection/cross section of a torus.
SPACE (>*<) i (>*<) SPACE
SPACE ( Time ) i ( Time ) SPACE
SPACE ( ^v^v) i ( ^v^v ) SPACE
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Humans dont really know what happen at the Big Bang phenomena or what existed before. Our instrumentation only reveals what appear to have existed a few hundred thousand years after the big bang or what existed before.
....See LINK Since the universe by its definition encompasses all of space and time as we know it, NASA says it is beyond the model of the Big Bang to say what the universe is expanding into or what gave rise to the Big Bang. Although there are models that speculate about these questions, none of them have made realistically testable predictions as of yet."......
Whereas they say "space" is stretching the do not state the essence or medium, or fabric, or substance of this "space". A rubber band expands contracts. Steel expands contracts.
Where they lack clarity in there descripition of Space, I add specificifity by making the distinction of four specific kinds of SPACE in my above Cosmic Trinity.
Macro-infinite non-occupied SPACE
Gravity ( ) Space
Observed Time Space
Dark Energy )( Space
In the past when they say space-time they Ive clarfied that as occupied Space via Gravity ( ) Dark Energy )( and Observed Time ^v^v ergo;
SPACE (^v^v)(v^v^)SPACE
-->
@nagisa3
It really isn't unless you take your logical framework from Kant.
Would you like to highlight some glaring error in basic logic regarding noumenon specifically?
You could, for example, believe the world is entirely incomprehensible...
No, you absolutely could not believe such a thing and still maintain the ability to feed yourself and use a computer.
...or that there is no inherent identity to anything (anatman in Buddhist philosophy).
Ontology is clearly a choice, but fundamental existence is indisputable.
Even quantum physics seems to suggest Noumenon is a bad assumption.
Please explain how exactly "quantum physics" "suggests" "the unknown-unknowable" is a "bad assumption"?
-->
@nagisa3
But again, I could poke holes in that until it looked like swiss cheese.
So this is merely a strawman.
-->
@nagisa3
My preferred definition of fact is something which is known or proven to be true. And exist i take to mean having objective reality or being.
Would you say both, known to be true (OR) proven to be true is fair?
This would lead us down the path of exploring your version of "known" and or "proven".
Is it fair to say that you don't believe that anything is "knowable" or "provable"?
I will have to formally object to your definition of "exist".
The qualification, "having objective reality or being" is fundamentally unverifiable and constitutes a snuck premise (that phenomena are not contingent on perception). It would also appear to be circular since "reality" and "exist" are both defined as "true" and "true" requires "fact".
So essentially "reality" = "exist" = "true" = "fact".
In philosophy 'Phenomenon' is usually almost synonymous with 'perception' and 'noumena' is the underlying reality.a snuck premise (that phenomena are not contingent on perception)
Our perception of reality is a construct of information-processing.
-->
@nagisa3
I am often confused by 3rutal's terminology!
-->
@secularmerlin
Again, "observable evidence" won't get us any closer to answering whether God does or does not exist because a "prime, eternal consciousness who created the universe" has no physical, observable characteristics.
Again, whether God's existence is "provable or "unprovable" is irrelevant. All we should concern ourselves with is whether belief in God's existence is more rational than not. A belief is more rational than not when there's sufficient evidence for that belief. There's sufficient evidence for a belief when there's more information indicating that it's true than untrue.
-->
@keithprosser
In philosophy 'Phenomenon' is usually almost synonymous with 'perception' and 'noumena' is the underlying reality.
Visible-to-naked eye EMRadiation --very narrow set---
Invisible-to-naked eye EMRadiation ---underlying yet very large yet finite set of quantisable and quantifiable ---
Gravity ( ) and Dark Energy )( ---the non-quantised, if not also non-quantifable, ultra-micro and ultra-macro set---
......"The only thing that interferes with my learning is my education"....A Einstein....
-->
@Fallaneze
Somebody has been drinking way to much kool-aid of illogical irrationality ergo lack of most basic common sense.Again, "observable evidence" won't get us any closer to answering whether God does or does not exist because a "prime, eternal consciousness who created the universe" has no physical, observable characteristics.
Gravity ( ) and Dark Energy )( is the closet we come to metaphysical, yet still exists as an occupied space.
Metaphysical-1, does not exist as occupied space.
Metaphysical-1, exists as complement to occupied space.
Here is an occupied space curved line >(< and it has metaphysical-1, concavity and convexity shape//pattern ergo shape complememts occupied space.
However, brain does not inherently mean access to intellect much less rational, logical common sense access to intellect.
-->
@keithprosser
In philosophy 'Phenomenon' is usually almost synonymous with 'perception' and 'noumena' is the underlying reality.
If you're suggesting that noumenon is "objective", that is absolutely =/= "the wavelength of light is objective".
-->
@Fallaneze
A belief is more rational than not when there's sufficient evidence for that belief.
You're describing rational-relativism again.
Who gets to be the ultimate arbiter of "sufficient evidence"?
Can you make your standards of evidence explicit?
-->
@nagisa3
Because information that indicates the truth of something doesn't just come from what we can observe.
-->
@nagisa3
Yes.
-->
@nagisa3
Here's a question: is 'nothing comes of nothing' an empirical or a logical truth?
-->
@nagisa3
Feel free. We are often our own worst enemy.So I was straw manning myself?
-->
@Fallaneze
Then again we cannot possibly determine that such a being exists.Again, "observable evidence" won't get us any closer to answering whether God does or does not exist because a "prime, eternal consciousness who created the universe" has no physical, observable characteristics.
Again, whether God's existence is "provable or "unprovable" is irrelevant. All we should concern ourselves with is whether belief in God's existence is more rational than not.
And again the only way to determine if it is rational to believe something is to examine the evidence. No observable characteristics no evidence. No evidence no rational reason to believe.
A belief is more rational than not when there's sufficient evidence for that belief. There's sufficient evidence for a belief when there's more information indicating that it's true than untrue.
If no information indicating the truth or falsity the default is skepticism. To withhold belief until some information becomes available.
If there is no observable evidence then I am unable to maintain belief. If you have none them we are at an impasse.
-->
@secularmerlin
There is no observable evidence of 'meaning.' If you only believe in things that have observable evidence for them, then you must not find anything meaningful.
-->
@Fallaneze
then you must not find anything meaningful.
This is untrue. I assign meaning as I see fit just as you do. The only difference is our self justification.
-->
@secularmerlin
You have no observable evidence of meaning. In order for you to be self-consistent, you must either remove the requirement that something must have observable evidence in order to be believed or you must find everything meaningless.
-->
@Fallaneze
This is untrue. The evidence is humans considering things meaningful but having different opinions about what is meaningful and how meaningful.it is. This evidence points to the concept of meaning existing and humans assigning meaning as they see fit.You have no observable evidence of meaning.
-->
@Fallaneze
My dopamine and serotonin levels create a feed-back-loop that causes some items and experiences to be subjectively perceived as more meaningful and other items and experiences to seem less meaningful.You have no observable evidence of meaning.
Qualitative experiential perceptual "evidence" is still (private) evidence to the perceiver, and under certain special circumstances it can be somewhat scientifically quantified.
(IFF) I am unable to monitor your neurotransmitter levels (THEN) I must "take you at your word" regarding what you personally find meaningful.
If I see what I perceive to be a genuine smile on your face, that counts as de facto evidence of your happiness (which implies a sense of meaning).
-->
@secularmerlin
Okay, so "observable evidence" is so loosely defined so that even though we can't observe meaning we can still consider there to be observable evidence of meaning?
-->
@Fallaneze
I can observe people. I can observe their actions and their statements and look for inconsistencies. That is observable evidence by definition.