Deep Sight:

It is logical rather than convenient, given the reasoning 1 - 11 in my penultimate post.

Remember also that there are different kinds of evidence. Deductive and Inductive reasoning also form logical patterns that are evidence. The existence of God is evident by sequential reasoning from the very premise that from nothing comes nothing.

Aside from this, there are zillions of everyday pointers to the glaring fact of super-dimensional energy and intelligence, and it is amazing how foolishly the atheist blinds himself to these.

We can use use deductive and inductive reasoning to arrive at any pre-determined conclusions that we wish to. You are a lawyer , you should know that better than I do. Making a brilliant logical argument in court can win you cases but does it necessarily establish truth?

The existence of super-dimensional energy or intelligence only brigs us to more questions and not answers.

plaetton:

What is eternal and how do come to the conclusion that something is eternal? Be honest, isn't the idea of something being eternal just a leap of imagination? Leaving your imagination aside, how can you demonstrate that something is eternal and permanent?

My dear, think about it. Its all so incredibly simple. Ceazar nailed it all in simple words in his post. Let's take it calmly again -

Caezar: You exist. You cannot exist from nothing. Therefore, something existed, prior to you, to have caused you. Nothing that existed prior to you could have existed from nothing. Therefore, from the very beginning [for all eternity], something must have always existed.

This above answers your question as to why we know something must have always existed: i.e: being eternal. For lack of words he interpolated the word "beginning" though, which he should not have. I have modified with the underlined above. But in essence it captures it all; nothing that existed prior to this reality could have come from nothingness, as nothingness cannot bear somethingness. As such the only logical conclusion is a permanent somethingness. It could not logically be otherwise.

What are self-existent things that you speak about? Pls name a few.

Infinite Time

Infinite Space

Numbers

Infinite Mind

Infinite Energy

Again leaving your imagination behind, what is that you know for sure that preceded all things?

The foregoing.

Pls try to answer , is god existing as particle , energy or neither?. If neither, in what form?

plaetton:

We can use use deductive and inductive reasoning to arrive at any pre-determined conclusions that we wish to.

No we cannot.

You are a lawyer , you should know that better than I do. Making a brilliant logical argument in court can win you cases but does it necessarily establish truth?

Yes, that's because as humans we often arrive at wrong conclusions based on falsehoods and errors. This does not mean that if we had applied the proper logic consistently and correctly, we would not have arrived at the truth.

The existence of super-dimensional energy or intelligence only brigs us to more questions and not answers.

I am not talking about extra terrestrial intelligence in the form of aliens. I am referring to the infinite intelligence inherent in the framework of reality itself: which is what God is.

plaetton: Pls try to answer , is god existing as particle , energy or neither?. If neither, in what form?

In my view, God is the compound of pure intangible energy and the compound of self existent laws.

This is not to say that I subscribe to God being strictly impersonal: for; as someone once powerfully remarked, creation itself reeks of a personal rather than impersonal act. Nevertheless I do not believe that God itself necessarily directly created this universe. Someday humans will create a universe. That does not mean humans and all of reality, have no ultimate origin - which is what God is.

Deep Sight:

My dear, think about it. Its all so incredibly simple. Ceazar nailed it all in simple words in his post. Let's take it calmly again -



This above answers your question as to why we know something must have always existed: i.e: being eternal. For lack of words he interpolated the word "beginning" though, which he should not have. I have modified with the underlined above. But in essence it captures it all; nothing that existed prior to this reality could have come from nothingness, as nothingness cannot bear somethingness. As such the only logical conclusion is a permanent somethingness. It could not logically be otherwise.



Infinite Time

Infinite Space

Numbers

Infinite Mind

Infinite Energy



The foregoing.

Except for energy , the rest are imaginary. By numbers you mean infinite progression. same can be applied with time. I just want you to admit that most of what you postulate are just mere notions. You argue as if they were known and demonstrable facts.If you can only agree that hey are just one of many other notions, then we can both rest.

Ideas do not become truths simply because we believe so much in them. Certainly a lot more that just wishful notions are required.

Its is better to start with doubts with aim of arriving at certainty than to start with certainty and then end up with doubts.
That is the folly of most theists and creatonists.

plaetton:

@Deepsight.

The above cannot be gibberish. It goes to the core of the issue. If god exists, then god is something, and if god is something then something cannot come out of nothing, unless god is nothing, in which case, god does not exist.

It is gibberish. He says that if God is something, then applying the nothing from nothing principle, God must come from something. God is not said to begin - because it is evident within the nothingness equation [0 + 0 = 0], that for anything to exist in reality [the right side of the equation], some quantity must permanently exist on the left side of the equation. Since things exist, and cannot sprout from nothingness, then there is a permanent somethingness - simple.

He also says that ex nihilo nihil fit refutes the existence of God so long as God is something. That is poor reasoning. Are we going to say that same principle refutes the existence of anything that is something? Such as you and I? Can you see how self-contradictory and hopelessly mis-footed his statements are? I really cannot pander to such non-starters.

plaetton:

Except for energy , the rest are imaginary.

How so?

They are all every real, and you experience them. We all do.

Its is better to start with doubts with aim of arriving at certainty than to start with certainty and then end up with doubts.
That is the folly of most theists and creatonists.

I agree with this. I am not saying these things with conviction just spontaenously: I have spent the better part of my life since I was 12 years or so reflecting on them to the point of distraction. The same thirst took me through a labyrinth of religions and philosophies, and its been a long road - which never ends, of course but I can say with confidence I have found my conviction in the nature of what this reality is and I am entirely at home with it.

Deep Sight:

In my view, God is the compound of pure intangible energy and the compound of self existent laws.

This is not to say that I subscribe to God being strictly impersonal: for; as someone once powerfully remarked, creation itself reeks of a personal rather than impersonal act. Nevertheless I do not believe that God itself necessarily directly created this universe. Someday humans will create a universe. That does not mean humans and all of reality, have no ultimate origin - which is what God is.

Fianlly, I get you to agree that god must be intangible energy. We are making progress.
So energy must be god. That is the only way the notion of self existence and immutablity can be a bit palatable.
The physical universe, down to its basic component , is just intangible energy. e=mc2
So the universe is also energy(albeit compressed or dense energy)
So, the universe, in its basic form, is also immutable and therefore self-existent.
The very same same qualities you ascribe to god.
So, the universe is god, or in the least, a part of god.
Do you agree with my deductive logic?

plaetton:

Fianlly, I get you to agree that god must be intangible energy. We are making progress.
So energy must be god. That is the only way the notion of self existence and immutablity can be a bit palatable.
The physical universe, down to its basic component , is just intangible energy. e=mc2
So the universe is also energy(albeit compressed or dense energy)
[s]So, the universe, in its basic form, is also immutable and therefore self-existent.[/s] No: the universe is manifestly mutable and as such not self existent.
The very same same qualities you ascribe to god.

[s]So, the universe is god, or in the least,[/s]No: for same reason above.

a part of god. No, I will prefer to say: a result of God.
Do you agree with my deductive logic?

I have never disputed your first line. Maybe you haven't understood my position. Yes I agree with your deductive logic except the part I have modified in your quote in red.

Deep Sight:

I have never disputed your first line. Maybe you haven't understood my position. Yes I agree with your deductive logic except the part I have modified in your quote in red.

To the sentences you modified, the question is ,Why not?
You prefer? Bingo!
I guess that is the issue.
We all have preferences as to what should be our truth.

Deep Sight:

I have never disputed your first line. Maybe you haven't understood my position. Yes I agree with your deductive logic except the part I have modified in your quote in red.

Correction: The universe is not mutable. The universe is made of matter. We all know from primary school that matter cannot be destroyed or created. It can only change form.
Like I posted on a previous thread, the big b.ang was probably just an INFLECTION POINT in transition from pure energy to physical matter. It was not the beginning of existence of matter.

Deep Sight:

I was going to respond to this but i honestly can't. It's just plain gibberish. The bolded is just ridiculous. I'M not sure I can sensibly interact with you.

The first fallacy you pandered to is that of Slippery slope, by disembarking from the progression of my arguments, tagging it 'gibberish'. I forgive your ignorance. The second fallacy you're guilty of is called 'petitio principii'(begging the question), by engaging in a circular argument, when you used what requires proof itself to prove your argument. I can't but tell you that the foundation of your whole argument is faulty. Using the phantom called self-existence to prove the status quo, is like recoursing to the bible to prove the existential puzzles. You don't create an imagined phenomenon and call it a supportive determiner of real events; it is fallacious and fraudulent. It's like saying, all certain humans will die..,and later say that the parents of those humans cannot die: are the parents not humans? Undoubtedly, we all know that this presumed self-existent entity is also a part and under the governing rules of existentiality. So, why do you now prematurely and illogically obviated this force from the rule of causality. Hence, i'll appeal to you to stop derailing the thread with your potpourri of fallacies. Stop behaving you know what you don't know at all. Answer the numerous logical questions from my previous posts! Does God have an origin? Does he have a creator? Does he have a beginning? If the answers to these questions is NO!then you'll be unlearned to continue saying this your God is SOMETHING. Because, whatever you call 'something' must have a beginning, an origin, and a cause! Prove me wrong dude!

Deep Sight:
He says that if God is something, then applying the nothing from nothing principle, God must come from something. God is not said to begin - because it is evident within the nothingness equation [0 + 0 = 0], that for anything to exist in reality [the right side of the equation], some quantity must permanently exist on the left side of the equation.

What a bore.


There is no basis for saying "god did not begin" other than a need to escape from clumsy dogma.

Since things exist, and cannot sprout from nothingness, then there is a permanent somethingness - simple.

And so to solve the problem of infinite regression; I present to you, the oneness of infinity. An infinitely self-existing, questionably "immutable" non material thingy.

What a load of rubbish. Believe what you want to believe but while you are at it, stop labouring under the illusion that you are making any amount of sense.

Someday humans will create a universe.

And they will do so not through science but by employing fallacious arguments and spurious reasoning. Not so, eh Mr "Deep Sight" ?

I admit i'm not a fan of mathematics, but at least i'm not as vapid to not give a simple mathematical illustration of my argument. Here is it:
1. Let 0 stands for 'nothing'.
2. Let 1 stands for 'something'.
3. Hence, 0 + 0 = 0(i.e.nothing and nothing = nothing).
0 - 0 = 0(i.e. nothing without nothing is still nothing)...Ex nihilo nihil fit.
4. Hence, 1 + 1 = 2(i.e. something and something is two somethings).
1 - 1 = 0(something without something is nothing).
5. Hence, if God(something) exists without something else, it is NO-THING!

jayriginal:

What a bore.


There is no basis for saying "god did not begin" other than a need to escape from clumsy dogma.



And so to solve the problem of infinite regression; I present to you, the oneness of infinity. An infinitely self-existing, questionably "immutable" non material thingy.

What a load of rubbish. Believe what you want to believe but while you are at it, stop labouring under the illusion that you are making any amount of sense.



And they will do so not through science but by employing fallacious arguments and spurious reasoning. Not so, eh Mr "Deep Sight"

i'm telling you, the guy is so dogmatic that he couldn't even pick the fragments of the argument. As the yoruba adage goes: eni ti ko doko baba elomiran ri, a se pe oko baba re lo ju.

Deep Sight:
I have spent the better part of my life since I was 12 years or so reflecting on them to the point of distraction. The same thirst took me through a labyrinth of religions and philosophies, and its been a long road - which never ends, of course but I can say with confidence I have found my conviction in the nature of what this reality is and I am entirely at home with it.

Nothing wrong with a conviction (the trinitarians you are so fond of have their own convictions as well you know?). However until your convictions can be demonstrated as fact, they are merely that; convictions.

Deep Sight:

Yes, that's because as humans we often arrive at wrong conclusions based on falsehoods and errors. This does not mean that if we had applied the proper logic consistently and correctly, we would not have arrived at the truth.

The above is a rather unfortunate statement.

Lord Babs: i'm telling you, the guy is so dogmatic that he couldn't even pick the fragments of the argument. As the yoruba adage goes: eni ti ko doko baba elomiran ri, a se pe oko baba re lo ju.

As Fela said "Carpenter wey no know him work na kpako".

When a "philosopher" is not acquainted with the basic tools of his trade LOGIC, na kpako be that oh.


http://www.amazon.com/Logic-For-Dummies-Mark-Zegarelli/dp/0471799416

[size=14pt]Stephen Hawking tells Google ‘philosophy is dead’[/size]

Stephen Hawking, the renowned physicist, has declared that “Philosophy is dead”.

Speaking to Google’s Zeitgeist Conference in Hertfordshire, the author of 'A Brief History of Time' said that fundamental questions about the nature of the universe could not be resolved without hard data such as that currently being derived from the Large Hadron Collider and space research. “Most of us don't worry about these questions most of the time. But almost all of us must sometimes wonder: Why are we here? Where do we come from? Traditionally, these are questions for philosophy, but philosophy is dead,” he said. “Philosophers have not kept up with modern developments in science. Particularly physics.”

Prof Hawking went on to claim that “Scientists have become the bearers of the torch of discovery in our quest for knowledge.” He said new theories “lead us to a new and very different picture of the universe and our place in it”.

In a 40-minute speech, Prof Hawking said that the new “M Theory” of the universe was the “unified theory Einstein was hoping to find”. He compared the idea to the computer programme Google Earth, saying it was a “map” of theories, but added that a new, bigger Hadron Collider the size of the Milky Way was needed to collect more data to prove it.

“This technology is some way off,” he said, “and I don't think even Google could afford to build it.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/google/8520033/Stephen-Hawking-tells-Google-philosophy-is-dead.html

While I think he was being a tad glib, the point he makes is very clear.

Lord Babs: you still don't get it, do you? The existence of a supreme deity, otherwise called God, [size=15pt]is known to be characterised by its ability of having not emerged from something[/size], which is contrary to ex nihilo nihil fit. So, how does the expression affirms its existence?

[size=15pt]And that's why he's God!!![/size]

joe4christ:





[size=15pt]And that's why he's God!!![/size]

........And that is why he is just a figment of your imaginations.

joe4christ:





[size=15pt]And that's why he's God!!![/size]

who is this one? This arena is strictly for adults, please. Return to your sunday school. Oya! Afira!

So much, there's a little too much. Ignore this as it's going to go all over the place if you're only interested the main topic. Also, I'll be reiterating a lot things that should be rather obvious to most of us (annoying), and speculating (equally annoying)

Lord Babs:
Here is my theory: sometime you see a ray of the sunlight blurring your visual, your immediate response will be most likely thrown at the sun, and not the rays. But although the sun(which is farther from you) is a substantive matter(cause), the ray is nothing but mere an illumined effect of the sunlight. This shows that even a thing that is considered something might not be concretely something, but a mere nothing in disguise. After all, it is often said that there is 'sense' in 'nonsense' as there is 'problem' in 'no problem, just as there is 'thing' in 'nothing'. Theoretically, everything that exists is nothing. This is proven by the inevitability of death, which eventually swallows up existing things into nothingness. Plants die, properties die, organisms die, humans die. The whole of existence is but a make-belief something but absolutely nothing in disguise! I wish I could express my thoughts clearer than this.

I'm not too sure about what you are trying to demonstrate here. You're a lawyer? I think it's because I'm not too familiar with the way you guys illustrate stuff. With the biological organisms dying bit for instance, I think of it in terms of energy. Sure, "all men must die", but energy remains the same. When the organism was alive, it was collecting energy from the environment (food, sunlight, whatever mechanism) and using it to 'live'. Basically the second law of thermodynamics, no need to get into too much detail. Just that my thinking style cannot relate to that (and I'm fairly high). Another key word is entropy with regards to how stuff seems to waste away

Lord Babs:
The first fallacy you pandered to is that of Slippery slope, by disembarking from the progression of my arguments, tagging it 'gibberish'. I forgive your ignorance. The second fallacy you're guilty of is called 'petitio principii'(begging the question), by engaging in a circular argument, when you used what .....

This post I understand, and couldn't agree more (but another death analogy.. I think he is of the opinion that the parents are not human, rather made of jazz or something, but he doesn't elaborate)

Lord Babs:
I admit i'm not a fan of mathematics, but at least i'm not as vapid to not give a simple mathematical illustration of my argument. Here is it:
1. Let 0 stands for 'nothing'.
2. Let 1 stands for 'something'.
3....

Yup, something like that, just not sure where the -1 comes from.

plaetton :

If god can be self-created and self-existent, then why can't the universe also be self-created and self-existent?

Because, GOD

plaetton :

The above cannot be gibberish. It goes to the core of the issue. If god exists, then god is something, and if god is something then something cannot come out of nothing, unless god is nothing, in which case, god does not exist.

Its is better to start with doubts with aim of arriving at certainty than to start with certainty and then end up with doubts.
That is the folly of most theists and creatonists.

So energy must be god. That is the only way the notion of self existence and immutablity can be a bit palatable.
The physical universe, down to its basic component , is just intangible energy. e=mc2
So the universe is also energy(albeit compressed or dense energy)
So, the universe, in its basic form, is also immutable and therefore self-existent.
The very same same qualities you ascribe to god.
So, the universe is god, or in the least, a part of god.
Do you agree with my deductive logic?

Correction: The universe is not mutable. The universe is made of matter. We all know from primary school that matter cannot be destroyed or created. It can only change form. [EDIT the second law, again]

Lucid and succinct. Sometimes I wish I had that

jayriginal:
Nothing wrong with a conviction (the trinitarians you are so fond of have their own convictions as well you know?). However until your convictions can be demonstrated as fact, they are merely that; convictions.

That shouldn't be too hard to understand, no?

Deep Sight:
In my view, God is the compound of pure intangible energy and the compound of self existent laws.

This is not to say that I subscribe to God being strictly impersonal: for; as someone once powerfully remarked, creation itself reeks of a personal rather than impersonal act. Nevertheless I do not believe that God itself necessarily directly created this universe. Someday humans will create a universe. That does not mean humans and all of reality, have no ultimate origin - which is what God is.

That took a while, finally what you think god is. And you think there's something personal about it. Why?

And now my own semi-coherent ramblings

If you require something to be imutable, we can go with infinite energy. If there was only infinite energy as a starting point, you could actually say there was: nothing. Everything would be the same, every point you pass in which ever direction would be infinite energy, practically nothing (or the exact same properties everywhere). Matter and antimatter (both energy) are constantly colliding, infinitely, and cancelling each other out. Every once in a while though some matter escapes (even antimatter escapes, but for unknown reasons this is much, much rarer, so much so antimatter is considered the most expensive substance on this rock), and this makes up the known universe. (if you think this doesn't make sense look up the incompleteness theorem, math can be tricky). The big ban.g to most is one of these collisions going ballistic, for reasons we are not too clear of, and creating unimaginable amounts of matter in a few seconds. The main point is the infinite energy is still there, just canceling itself out, being "nothing".

I'm not going to make any assertions though, as this is not fact. I'm not even sure if I understand the concepts and details, this is just my personal opinions and stuff. However, objectively, I cannot see in any way how you can justify creation as "reeking of something personal". You'll have to explain how, why, else it comes across to me as you believing in what you want to believe, perhaps because it makes you comfortable.

I actually have a job, s^%&, I'm off

What is Theoretical Cosmology?

Theoretical cosmologists study the evolution and composition of the universe as a system, constructing theories and confronting them with experiments and observations. Many of the quantities of interest are average properties; consequently, theoretical cosmology deals to a large extent with statistical predictions and measurements. In recent years, advances in measurements and computational techniques have brought us to the brink of quantifying precisely these fundamental properties.

What is known?
There are some fundamental things about our universe which we do know with high confidence:

Our universe is approximately homogeneous (the same at all points in space) and isotropic (the same in all directions in space) on large scales and at early times.
Our universe is expanding (discovered by Hubble in the 1920's).
Space is flat on the average.
The mass energy in the universe is approximately 1/4 matter and 3/4 "dark energy", less than 1/5 of the matter is baryonic, the rest is "dark matter" (see figure on right).
The universe is approximately homogeneous and isotropic on large scales or at early times.
The distribution of matter in the universe today is statistically consistent with growth from a close to scale invariant set of perturbations at an early time under the influence of gravity.


What is under study?
Specifics of this emerging paradigm are still under intense investigation. These include:

Exactly how fast is the universe expanding? In other words, what is the Hubble constant, H0?
Exactly how much matter is there in the universe? What is it? There is strong evidence for dark matter implied by, for example, the motions of astronomical objects. Is this matter some exotic particle from high energy physics or a quantum black hole or something more prosaic? What is this dark matter made of?
Is the dark energy a (cosmological constant), i.e. an ambient 'vacuum' energy density in the universe? Or is it not a cosmological constant but something varying? How would particle theory produce this? And if it is not a constant, how will it evolve (and thus what is the ultimate fate of the universe - will it expand forever or recollapse in a ``big crunch'')?
Why was the universe approximately homogeneous and isotropic at early times? Did inflation occur?
How did departures from this purely homogeneous and isotropic universe arise? What were the seeds for the formation of structure (stars, galaxies, clusters of galaxies)?

These various questions fall into the areas of cosmological parameter estimation (Hubble constant, matter density, dark energy density, etc.), dark matter searches, early universe model building (inflationary theory, theories of dark energy, string cosmology).

http://astro.berkeley.edu/~jcohn/tcosmo.html

I wonder why they spend so much time and money studying and documenting these things and then presenting their findings for scrutiny. Surely its better and more accurate to sit outside, look to the heavens and intuit the mysteries of nature. Of course certain "herbs" would enhance this intuition, particularly when such herbs are set on fire

ad hoc hypothesis

An ad hoc hypothesis is one created to explain away facts that seem to refute one’s belief or theory. Ad hoc hypotheses are common in paranormal research and in the work of pseudoscientists.
http://skepdic.com/adhoc.html

In science and philosophy, an ad hoc hypothesis is a hypothesis added to a theory in order to save it from being falsified. Ad hoc hypothesizing is compensating for anomalies not anticipated by the theory in its unmodified form.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hoc_hypothesizing

Which is why we assert that something (all inclusive) cannot come from nothing and then save our god from this limitation by excluding it.

Examine your Premises

Another type of premise error occurs when one or more premises is an unwarranted assumption. The premise may or may not be true, but it has not been established sufficiently to serve as a premise for an argument. Identifying all the assumptions upon which an argument is dependent is often the most critical step in analyzing an argument. Frequently, different conclusions are arrived at because of differing assumptions.

Often people will choose the assumptions that best fit the conclusion they prefer. In fact, psychological experiments show that most people start with conclusions they desire, then reverse engineer arguments to support them – a process called rationalization.
http://www.theskepticsguide.org/resources/logicalfallacies.aspx

If someone wants to believe in leprechauns, they can avoid ever being proven wrong by using ad hoc hypotheses (e.g. by adding "they are invisible", then "their motives are complex", and so on)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hoc_hypothesizing#cite_ref-Stanovich2007_0-0

Deep Sight:

Oh LAWD.

There is neither oxymoron nor cop out. Settle down and listen:

1. Something exists.

2. Something cannot come from nothing.

3. As such, the somethings that exist came from something already existing.

4. Since things exist, then there was always a something because if there was nothing, there would always have remained nothing and never any something.

5. Thus, something eternal and permanent exists.

6. Anything which is eternal and permanent is self-existent.

7. Self existent things are not mutable by reason of their self-existent and permanent nature.

8. Matter is mutable and changeable and therefore not self existent.

9. Ergo, matter is not that which is the permanent self-existent something.

10. Ergo, that which precedes all things is a permanent, self-existent, non material essence.

11. This is what is referred to as God.

No cop out, no paradox, simple and clear philosophical logic.

Change is believed by many wise men *smile* as the only permanent object. Understanding that the First Cause gives off a potential the Universe and its constituent matter, then one must acknowledge that the First Cause itself changed/transformed/altered state to form the Universe. The universe is not a separate entity but should be at least a part of the First Cause.

Therefore concluding that due to the alterable state of Matter and energy, both can't be the first cause is faulty. Also, to suggest the immaterial gives off the material, knowing both entities radically diFferent and considering that both don't share the same substance is to seek for a Miracle.

Akpos: tell me about the earth.
Hindu: the earth rested on an elephant and the elephant rested on a tortoise.
Akpos: so, what is the tortoise resting on?
Hindu: suppose we change the subject.


Deep sight: God exists.
I've known this since i was 12.
Akpos: really? Who is God?
Deep sight: something.
Akpos: who are his parents?
Deep sight: nothing!
Akpos: chow! can nothing give birth to something?
Deep sight: your questions are too much, have you taken your bath?

jayriginal:
I wonder why they spend so much time and money studying and documenting these things and then presenting their findings for scrutiny. Surely its better and more accurate to sit outside, look to the heavens and intuit the mysteries of nature. Of course certain "herbs" would enhance this intuition, particularly when such herbs are set on fire

This really got me laugh
ing. . .i recommend that to Deep sight especially.

jayriginal:
Which is why we assert that something (all inclusive) cannot come from nothing and then save our god from this limitation by excluding it.

FRAUD IN ITS ENTIRETY!

^^^^^
What a silly argument, we both know it's turtles all the way down. This argument also ignores the fact that if were uniformly falling through infinity, we wouldn't be able to tell ( actually that is similar to what is actually happening and gravity in gr, can anyone explain gr in plain english?). How's that sir?!

wiegraf: ^^^^^
What a silly argument, we both know it's turtles all the way down. This argument also ignores the fact that if were uniformly falling through infinity, we wouldn't be able to tell ( actually that is similar to what is actually happening and gravity in gr, can anyone explain gr in plain english?). How's that sir?!

please, can you be more coherent? I don't seem to understand the propeller of your question.

Oops, never mind. It was a joke.. But if the turtle were falling, and we were moving along with it, so long as speed were constant we would not be able to to tell the diffrence. If we were under it and it were pushing (accelerating actually), the effect would be indistinguishable from that of gravity (gr= general relativity), or something like that. So we could still be on top of (or under) a giant turtle moving through space. Who would have thunk!

plaetton:

........And that is why he is just a figment of your imaginations.

[size=15pt]And that's why you're an ignoramus fool who is demented but thinks he's wise enough to know the origin of existance itself.
You're just pathetically dumb blessed with a shallow twisted mind, i pity your fate![/size]