Uyi Iredia:

I'll take you seriously when you stop doing that. You're welcome.

Why, oh why? Oh, please do take me seriously... I've already told you the fate of the universe rides on that.... Please..

wiegraf:

What does this have to do with anything? If you were a scientist that believed in the 'immaterial', would you put 'immaterial' into your equations? By it's very definition, something that can NOT be measured. Can you explain to me how that is science?

You have problems with 'something from nothing' but think it logical to put 'immaterial' into equations?!

Philosophical equations, yes.

And o, I doubt that there is any scientist who would deny that thoughts exist. I also doubt that there is any scientist who can ascribe the properties of matter to thoughts (has weight and occupies space)

wiegraf:

Why, oh why? Oh, please do take me seriously... I've already told you the fate of the universe rides on that.... Please..

Lolz, this is why I like you. You are so incredibly random, honest and humorous.

Deep Sight:

Philosophical equations, yes.

And o, I doubt that there is any scientist who would deny that thoughts exist. I also doubt that there is any scientist who can ascribe the properties of matter to thoughts (has weight and occupies space)

You underestimate them. All they need to do is point to chemicals and ions in the neurons and glial cells that are part of the brain. That is thought.

wiegraf:

Why, oh why? Oh, please do take me seriously... I've already told you the fate of the universe rides on that.... Please..

Faffing is indeed your forté, do continue.

Deep Sight:

Philosophical equations, yes.

I'm talking about scientists. A scientist who believes immaterial was first cause is very well justified in saying NOTHING was first cause. As you say yourself here with the bolded

Deep Sight:
And o, I doubt that there is any scientist who would deny that thoughts exist. I also doubt that there is any scientist who can ascribe the properties of matter to thoughts (has weight and occupies space)

There is the issue of what thoughts consist of, and I do think them physically based, as simply; computations. But I'm not making a case for that now, I'm making a case for your dreaded 'something from nothing'. Immaterial = nothing as far as the physical is concerned..

wiegraf:

I'm talking about scientists. A scientist who believes immaterial was first cause is very well justified in saying NOTHING was first cause. As you say yourself here with the bolded

Then a scientist would be justified in saying that your thoughts do not exist.

There is the issue of what thoughts consist of, and I do think them physically based, as simply; computations.h

Do not hedge. I did not ask you if thoughts are physically based. I asked you if they are physical things themselves.

But I'm not making a case for that now, I'm making a case for your dreaded 'something from nothing'. Immaterial = nothing as far as the physical is concerned..

But physics is not all there is to reality.

Else i really have to stop arguing against your thoughts, which do not exist in physics, else i be considered mad.

wiegraf:

I'm talking about scientists. A scientist who believes immaterial was first cause is very well justified in saying NOTHING was first cause. As you say yourself here with the bolded

Anticipated and dealt with in a previous post below.

There is no 'nothing' as such, for if there was truly 'nothing' it could not be thought of, if 'nothing' can be thought of it is something. Put simply, there was always something. It is from this something from which all things in the material world springs. This something is God. QED.

All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force... We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter.
- Max Planck

wiegraf:
There is the issue of what thoughts consist of, and I do think them physically based, as simply; computations. But I'm not making a case for that now, I'm making a case for your dreaded 'something from nothing'. Immaterial = nothing as far as the physical is concerned..

@ bolded: Good. Will you agree that space is nothing ?

Deep Sight:

O no, that is not theistic thought. Theistic thought is that anything that is finite and has a beginning, requires a cause. Eternal things do not have a beginning and as such cannot be "made."

Or the theistic school of thought is that "let us make ourselves a God, who will transcend creation, and who we can believe created everything". The theistic school of thought is based on assumptions and wishes without any shred of mathematical or biological evidence to support 0.1% of their beliefs.

The deist is also forced to accept this insanity, for he has no other option, being a deist.

Only nothing is eternal, and 'nothing' does not have consciousness. Therefore, if any man believe in a God, he believes in 'nothing', if any man believes in 'nothing', he can also believe 'anything'. Stuffs like spirits, angels, demons and fairies.

And by maths and logic, based on simple common sense, a man with at least a functioning brain (therefore, common sense, which is obviously not common), however empty, should know that everything there is must have a beginning. And a man with a functioning eye sight would know that nothing lasts forever.

The theistic school of thought therefore shows reasoning ability less than that of a chimpanzee.

Deep Sight: A five year old will also know that between two people or two options, there may be the worse, but there is no such thing as "worst."

This hair-splitting and ad hominem can't save you from this state of deep-fall you have thrown yourself.

Uyi Iredia:

Time to play the idealist

'compulsion', 'proof', 'observation', 'mind', 'success', and 'evolution' are all mental constructs. You can NEVER point them out because by DEFINITION they are all mental constructs, they can never be EMPIRICALLY PERCIEVED. As proof, I'll note that you can never point to a physical object as any of the mentioned mental constructs. You can only say that physical objects EXHIBIT these mental constructs eg a chair or falling apple is observed, an organism evolves, fossils or anatomical similarities prove evolution.

I see you have problems understanding English language. Except for empiricism, there would be nothing called 'evolution'. Evolution is the name given to a process which is visible in nature. You observe objects, then you define them. We observed evolution, then we defined it. Is this enough proof of the objectivism of evolution? Its only simple common sense, you know!

Uyi Iredia:
When spirit and body compromise

Taking this to the God idea, God perforce (telekinetically if you wish) made matter, and is revealed in the material world. To the extent theists believe in a personal God with certain jealousies, affinities and wishes, they understand Her, to the extent deists believe in a God quite devoid of religious embellishments, they understand Him, to the extent atheists believe in a non-existent God and the material world, they understand It.

If God made matter, what/who made God?

Other theists may be angry because of your use of 'Her' to refer to their God, use 'He' instead next time.

I dont exactly get you. Are you indirectly expressing pantheism or do you also believe in the Gaia hypothesis.

Note that the Gaia hypothesis is not an atheistic idea.

Uyi Iredia: Replying ooman's million dollar question

The answer is Nothing. You must ask a cause of 'Mind' because you are contingent on matter. You note that all minds are products of brains. You must ignore the cause of 'Energy' because you believe that science has PROVEN energy isn't created or destroyed. You must ignore the fact that it is not empirically verified, it is inferred from what has been verified. Cause and effect are not physically observed, they are mental concepts that are toyed with as one pleases.

All 'conscious minds' would do for the bold. Have you not read about objectifying matter? Things other than brains can be said to have minds.

Have you created energy? Can you destroy it?

YES, yes, cause and effect are simple common sense. No one is denying that. But if you have observed nature enough, you would have discovered that all causes of natural effects are random and are NOT intelligent or intelligently controlled. Your lack of knowledge of this simple fact advertises your ignorance of natural processes, making you unfit to debate this matter.

Uyi Iredia: Pre-cognizing the inanities of thehomer

You will insist that mind must have a cause whilst ignoring that energy doesn't have a cause.

Again, insincerely perceived. All real minds are conscious, energy is not and energy alone, in itself cannot have consciousness.

Am not obscuring away the question of the source of energy, but the sincere answer is that I do not know. But what I do know is that every other available evidence speaks against consciousness of pure energy, a form which we may call God cannot therefore exist.

Uyi Iredia: You will insist that energy need not have a cause because of scientific observations, as if one observes can never be created or destroyed, when such observers are created and destroyed.

Do not take me for a theist, am not, so dont assume I will tell you energy does not have a cause. What I can tell you about the existence of energy is that, though we do not know it fully enough, we know it enough to know its not a complex God.

Uyi Iredia: You will ignore the fact that ideas necessarily exist and demand their physical instances eg a pink unicorn able to birth baby pink unicorns to prove the idea that pink unicorns exist. You will like mr whargarbl insist that intelligence must be expressed through matter, you then state that the evolved brain and its activities constitute intelligence. You are BOUND by your position to continually ignore the chasm between neural activities involving electrons and the meaning (the consciousness and intelligence). Put in other words, you must continually forget that the activities in your brain don't answer the question of intelligence, they beg the question, for the simple fact that each component lacks intelligence and are constrained in their actions despite (not because of) physical forces (eg tornadoes, sunlight, ocean waves, thunder, methane, ammonia, hydrothermal vents, phospholipids etc involve physical forces have no compulsion to make a brain yet they perforce via MUTATION and SELECTION evolved one). You are bound to dismiss all I've written as meaningless if you disagree with it or to nit-pick on points such as ideas existing.

Is sodium chloride aware of its saltiness? Yet its salty. Is water away of its wetness? Yet it makes wet. Are brain cells aware of their consciousness and intelligence? No, but they code for intelligence and consciousness same way NaCl and H2O code for their properties without being away of it.

Magnets are bipolar, north pole will always attract south pole, leaving a neutral point. Negative charge will always attract positive charge (and vice versa), leaving a neutral point. Now tell me, is the north pole of a magnet aware of its charge? If no, why does it attract the south pole? Are negative charges conscious of their negativity? Why do they move towards the positive?

Now, my questions above answer your questions. Just as no other force is needed to make opposite charges attract or repel, except for the charges themselves, no other force is required to make nature, except for nature itself.

Deep Sight:

Then a scientist would be justified in saying that your thoughts do not exist.

Sort of curve ball here..

Obviously, physically speaking, if he believes thoughts immaterial, yes. They might exist in some form or the other, true, but not as anything that can be quantified. Certainly nothing within the realm of science

That actually is the contention of most theists, no? Like with freewill, souls are immaterial xx.xx that cannot be understood. One can break the laws of physics, gain something (physical or otherwise) from nothing physical or measurable. By say praying, sacrifices, etc. They also contend free will cannot be affected by the physical (but jazz will do), etc etc. So I fail to see how this could affect a theist/deist scientist.

Deep Sight:
Do not hedge. I did not ask you if thoughts are physically based. I asked you if they are physical things themselves.

Hedge? Me? Never. The indignity!

Depends on context. It's a bit like asking if an action is physical (and thoughts can be said to essentially be actions). Yes and no.

Yes, as physical cause and effect governs all aspects of thoughts, experiences, etc. Highly subjective nature as far as experiencing and perceiving, etc, are concerned, but physically based nonetheless (therefore predictable, observable, testable, reproducible etc).

No, as these actions do involve weighing and manipulating abstract concepts.

By definition, I would say pure abstracts like math or concepts (such as the concept of thought itself) cannot be affected by the physical, and they do exist even if not physically. They still qualify as nothing to science though.

Deep Sight:
But physics is not all there is to reality.

Else i really have to stop arguing against your thoughts, which do not exist in physics, else i be considered mad.

Perhaps, but it still would mean just about naught to a scientist. It's nothing that could fit into an equation.

^^^ And yet, these thoughts, which will mean "naught" to a scientist, are the wellspring from which all scientific thought and process derive!

Would there be science without thought?

No.

And yet you say thoughts would mean "naught" to the scientist.

Please go back and start all over again. Think again from scratch, independently, out of the box, and un-influenced by new age materialist incoherence.

ooman:

Or the theistic school of thought is that "let us make ourselves a God, who will transcend creation, and who we can believe created everything". The theistic school of thought is based on assumptions and wishes without any shred of mathematical or biological evidence to support 0.1% of their beliefs.

The deist is also forced to accept this insanity, for he has no other option, being a deist.

Only nothing is eternal, and 'nothing' does not have consciousness. Therefore, if any man believe in a God, he believes in 'nothing', if any man believes in 'nothing', he can also believe 'anything'. Stuffs like spirits, angels, demons and fairies.

And by maths and logic, based on simple common sense, a man with at least a functioning brain (therefore, common sense, which is obviously not common), however empty, should know that everything there is must have a beginning. And a man with a functioning eye sight would know that nothing lasts forever.

The theistic school of thought therefore shows reasoning ability less than that of a chimpanzee.



This hair-splitting and ad hominem can't save you from this state of deep-fall you have thrown yourself.

Well the bold shows that you have no idea what you are discussing. You need to go back and take time to read, study, meditate, cogitate, reflect and understand elementary concepts.

This is because it has not occurred to you that for anything at all to exist, something or the other must self-exist, since things may not arise from nothingness.

That you say nothingness is eternal, is another cringe-worthy and sad contradiction.

ooman:

I see you have problems understanding English language. Except for empiricism, there would be nothing called 'evolution'. Evolution is the name given to a process which is visible in nature. You observe objects, then you define them. We observed evolution, then we defined it. Is this enough proof of the objectivism of evolution? Its only simple common sense, you know!

This 'process' can't be empirically verified. The concept of this type of 'process' termed 'evolution' is applied to mere instances or groups of physical objects like humans, apes, an E.coli bacteria, a Tiktaalik, mammals etc. The groups or instances of physical objects can be verified. The 'process' which is a concept has NEVER been verified. My arguments involves an understanding of abstract and concrete nouns. All abstract nouns (as far as I know) are assumed, NEVER empirically verified. All concrete nouns (with the exceptionnof extremely minute sub-atomic particles, as far as I know) are subject to empirical verification. To know that you understand the concept, answer the question: Are 'reason' and 'throwing' abstract nouns or a concrete nouns ?

ooman:
If God made matter, what/who made God?

Nothing. Or maybe, I should say I don't know.

ooman:
Other theists may be angry because of your use of 'Her' to refer to their God, use 'He' instead next time.

I don't think God too petty to bother over appelations. Theists certainly, not God.

I dont exactly get you. Are you indirectly expressing pantheism or do you also believe in the Gaia hypothesis.[/quote]

More like panentheism, which was Spinoza's true position AND NOT pantheism.

ooman:
Note that the Gaia hypothesis is not an atheistic idea.

Okay. I have misgivings though.

ooman:
All 'conscious minds' would do for the bold. Have you not read about objectifying matter? Things other than brains can be said to have minds.

Apart from God, and less likely computers, what thing without a brain has a mind ? Do tell.

ooman:
Have you created energy? Can you destroy it?

To the extent 'energy' is a word coined to describe the behaviour of matter, it can be created or destroyed. Before the word 'energy' it never existed, only the things which energy refers to eg light, chemicals, nucleus etc. If a thing eg a chair, a house, a human, a car must be created to exist what exempts energy from that observation ? Do tell.

ooman:
YES, yes, cause and effect are simple common sense.

Have they been empirically verified ? If not, I must not assume with you they are common sense. If you are willing to agree cause and effect are immaterial, intangible, and are concepts made by conscious and intelligent beings, then I will forge ahead with you.

ooman:
No one is denying that.

Agreed. They are assumed.

ooman:
But if you have observed nature enough, you would have discovered that all causes of natural effects are random and are NOT intelligent or intelligently controlled.

Hold on a minute ! You are not thinking. I repeat, 'you are not thinking'. Observation is an immaterial apprehension of what physical objects (or natural if you will) are. Example: You throw a stone in a river and you see ripples. These events, in themselves, don't scream 'the stone CAUSED ripples'. No. As a matter of fact, if you think they do end this argument, for my point would be lost on you. The apprehended CAUSALITY (or relation) of the thrown stone to the EFFECTED ripples is what is immaterial and intelligent.

ooman:
Your lack of knowledge of this simple fact advertises your ignorance of natural processes, making you unfit to debate this matter.

I see. Lucky for me you are in no position to make me unfit. Feel free to imagine me unfit, it's all nuerons jumping around in your brain.

ooman:
Again, insincerely perceived. All real minds are conscious, energy is not and energy alone, in itself cannot have consciousness.

Yet energy and mind are concepts discussed by conscious and intelligent people, not stones, electrons, stars, sand, air etc. If energy can't have consciousness, consciousness couldn't possibly exist. Since you state otherwise, state how consciousness arose from non-conscious energy. Prediction: ooman will either dismiss my request (obviously or subtly) or refer to matter from energy and special plead that evolution did it without giving us details.

ooman:
Am not obscuring away the question of the source of energy, but the sincere answer is that I do not know.

The bolded contradicts the underlined for by stating you don't know, you've obscured the question of energy's source, yet demand the same (reworded as cause instead of source) of God.

ooman:
But what I do know is that every other available evidence speaks against consciousness of pure energy, a form which we may call God cannot therefore exist.

Because you say so.

ooman:
Do not take me for a theist, am not, so dont assume I will tell you energy does not have a cause.

You've practically said that by saying you don't know its cause. Another atheist, thehomer, was less tactful. He simply asserted energy exists.

ooman:
What I can tell you about the existence of energy is that, though we do not know it fully enough, we know it enough to know its not a complex God.

Funny, because I know it enough to know energy like God is the asylum of ignorance. A term coined to describe the behaviour of matter. An apole fell to the ground and someone said 'gravity does it' how 'because of attraction'. One wonders that this same gravity is defined as attraction and when I asked for what caused this gravity (which is attraction) scientists say 'attraction did it' and inquisitive kinds like me must keep shut because they said so. Arrant nonsense ! Present energy (not matter o! Energy) for empirical verification.

ooman:
Is sodium chloride aware of its saltiness? Yet its salty. Is water away of its wetness? Yet it makes wet.

Agreed. And I ask what makes salt salty and water wet ? I know you may want to assert they are salty by the very fact (or properties). More importantly who or what KNOWS that salt os salty and water wet ?

ooman:
[b]Are brain cells aware of their consciousness and intelligence? No, [/b]but they code for intelligence and consciousness same way NaCl and H2O code for their properties without being away of it.

@ bolded: Good. Just help me tell that oaf called wiegraf. When I insinuated the bolded by stating brain in itself isn't intelligent, he differed. Now coding as observed, involves coders. In fact H2O doesn't code for the property it (H20) is the property that begs for an explanation.

ooman:
Magnets are bipolar, north pole will always attract south pole, leaving a neutral point. Negative charge will always attract positive charge (and vice versa), leaving a neutral point. Now tell me, is the north pole of a magnet aware of its charge? If no, why does it attract the south pole? Are negative charges conscious of their negativity? Why do they move towards the positive?

Okay.

ooman:
Now, my questions above answer your questions. Just as no other force is needed to make opposite charges attract or repel, except for the charges themselves, no other force is required to make nature, except for nature itself.

They don't. You simply depend on my understanding of the concept 'make', 'attraction' and 'repulsion'. I AM NOT giving you that luxury. Now state how we go from inferred but physical charges to attraction and repulsion. Prediction: You will cast aspersions whilst stating that no one denies attraction or repulsion. You are BOUND to forget that 'attraction' and 'repulsion' have never been verified. They are abstracts assumed and applied to many objects.

Deep Sight:

Well the bold shows that you have no idea what you are discussing. You need to go back and take time to read, study, meditate, cogitate, reflect and understand elementary concepts.

This is because it has not occurred to you that for anything at all to exist, something or the other must self-exist, since things may not arise from nothingness.

That you say nothingness is eternal, is another cringe-worthy and sad contradiction.

Deepsight without insight, and with a disappointing level of common sense. When will your cerebral hemisphere signal to your neocortex that the "beginning" of a thing may not necessarily be the source of that thing, but the process that acted on it and changed it into something more tangible, like a universe.

My argument is simple. There is no mind except consciousness, consciousness does not just pop into existence. If God is alive, then life must predate God. Life itself IS NOT AN IRREDUCIBLE UNIT. Therefore, any God that exists must be made up by some sort of stuff.

Tracing down this stuff, we must truly arrive at a point of irreducible simplicity, where this stuff that makes all things up cannot be further divided. At this point of irreducible simplicity, there must exist this thing that exist eternally, from which everything else formed and into which everything disintegrates.

Note that my use of what you bolded in my previous reply DID NOT include this stuff of irreducible simplicity because my argument is that this stuff is too simple to be a God.

My argument is this: what are the chances that a complex conscious God, great enough to be greater than the universe and to make a universe, can pop into existence from this stuff of irreducible simplicity to make everything?

The chances are 0. The theistic and deistic position becomes destroyed.

The atheistic position and the evolutionary view, however, becomes totally supported by the fact that change is constant in nature. Change experienced by this stuff of irreducible simplicity must therefore cause a b.ang and there, you have a universe, and a mind to debate it - us.

ooman:

Deepsight without insight, and with a disappointing level of common sense. When will your cerebral hemisphere signal to your neocortex that the "beginning" of a thing may not necessarily be the source of that thing, but the process that acted on it and changed it into something more tangible, like a universe.

My argument is simple. There is no mind except consciousness, consciousness does not just pop into existence. If God is alive, then life must predate God. Life itself IS NOT AN IRREDUCIBLE UNIT. Therefore, any God that exists must be made up by some sort of stuff.

Tracing down this stuff, we must truly arrive at a point of irreducible simplicity, where this stuff that makes all things up cannot be further divided. At this point of irreducible simplicity, there must exist this thing that exist eternally, from which everything else formed and into which everything disintegrates.

Note that my use of what you bolded in my previous reply DID NOT include this stuff of irreducible simplicity because my argument is that this stuff is too simple to be a God.

My argument is this: what are the chances that a complex conscious God, great enough to be greater than the universe and to make a universe, can pop into existence from this stuff of irreducible simplicity to make everything?

The chances are 0. The theistic and deistic position becomes destroyed.

The atheistic position and the evolutionary view, however, becomes totally supported by the fact that change is constant in nature. Change experienced by this stuff of irreducible simplicity must therefore cause a b.ang and there, you have a universe, and a mind to debate it - us.

God is indeed rather said to be the irreducible simple and permanent self existent: I do not know whence you derive your idea of a complex God from: it certainly follows no known philosophical construct.

Understand: God is the eternal sum of self-existent laws of reality, which could not be otherwise.

The atheistic worldview is illogical, contradictory, meaningless, thoughtless, shallow, da.ft, inane, insane, puerile, contradictory, nonsensical, delusional, self-denying, sense-defying, in short: vacant gibberish fit only for swine playing in a rubbish heap.

I don't have the time now bro, i'm off to a meeting: start your studies by reading up on the philosophical distinction between necessary things and contingent things.

Uyi Iredia:

This 'process' can't be empirically verified. The concept of this type of 'process' termed 'evolution' is applied to mere instances or groups of physical objects like humans, apes, an E.coli bacteria, a Tiktaalik, mammals etc. The groups or instances of physical objects can be verified. The 'process' which is a concept has NEVER been verified. My arguments involves an understanding of abstract and concrete nouns. All abstract nouns (as far as I know) are assumed, NEVER empirically verified. All concrete nouns (with the exceptionnof extremely minute sub-atomic particles, as far as I know) are subject to empirical verification. To know that you understand the concept, answer the question: Are 'reason' and 'throwing' abstract nouns or a concrete nouns ?

Are you deliberately forgetting the meaning of 'empirical' or are you just being deliberately annoying? In case you dont know, empirical means "based on observation and experiment" according to Encarta and Oxford dictionaries. Evolution as a process, satisfies the requirement of being referred to as empirical. The only place this theory continues to lack is the point where it fails to experimentally produce life from non-life. Note that its theoretical position as to the origin of life is mathematically and logically supported. The theistic position of creation of life by a intelligent God is disproved by the imperfection of life itself.

Uyi Iredia: Nothing. Or maybe, I should say I don't know.

You know, what is not healthy is not to assert that things come into existence by natural processes, what is not healthy is to assert that a complex conscious God could pop into existence from 'Nothing' while refusing to accept nature could come from natural processes.

Uyi Iredia: I don't think God too petty to bother over appelations. Theists certainly, not God.

More like panentheism, which was Spinoza's true position AND NOT pantheism.

You do know that panentheism posits that whatever is behind nature is God. It does not posit that this God is a conscious God who could die for the sins of man. Panentheism is more explained thus: Natural processes in their whole is God. This position is more like the atheistic position when you subtract the word 'God' from it. The atheist posit that natural processes is sufficient to make nature.

Uyi Iredia: Apart from God, and less likely computers, what thing without a brain has a mind ? Do tell.

Its called personification. Its a figure of speech. Such things do not necessarily exist. Because one may confuse what you meant with personification, I issued the warning.

Uyi Iredia: To the extent 'energy' is a word coined to describe the behaviour of matter, it can be created or destroyed. Before the word 'energy' it never existed, only the things which energy refers to eg light, chemicals, nucleus etc. If a thing eg a chair, a house, a human, a car must be created to exist what exempts energy from that observation ? Do tell.

Well, from this logic, what exempts a creator, God, from being created? You have quickly forgotten that this question is the reason for this thread.

Now to answer your question, if anything exist at all, then what makes it up must predate. Tracing this down, we will arrive at a point of irreducible simplicity. What exists at this point must exist forever, and what exists at this point of irreducible simplicity is too simple to be a conscious complex God. This is why God cannot exist.

Uyi Iredia: Have they been empirically verified ? If not, I must not assume with you they are common sense. If you are willing to agree cause and effect are immaterial, intangible, and are concepts made by conscious and intelligent beings, then I will forge ahead with you.

Well by this, I can conclude you are confused by the theory of cause and effect. Cause is what acts on an object, effect is the action the object performs. There is no cause and effect without a pre-existing object (God could not therefore make the universe from nothing), therefore, the theory of cause and effect is not immaterial, but material.

Uyi Iredia: Agreed. They are assumed.

Not assumed, observed.

Uyi Iredia: Hold on a minute ! You are not thinking. I repeat, 'you are not thinking'. Observation is an immaterial apprehension of what physical objects (or natural if you will) are. Example: You throw a stone in a river and you see ripples. These events, in themselves, don't scream 'the stone CAUSED ripples'. No. As a matter of fact, if you think they do end this argument, for my point would be lost on you. The apprehended CAUSALITY (or relation) of the thrown stone to the EFFECTED ripples is what is immaterial and intelligent.

There you are, still confused by the theory of cause and effect. Anything that is observable must be caused. Therefore, if you have observed anything, then you may trace its cause. This is why observation is important in telling the sources of things in nature and nature itself. Our observation does not favor the existence of a God.

Uyi Iredia: I see. Lucky for me you are in no position to make me unfit. Feel free to imagine me unfit, it's all nuerons jumping around in your brain.

No need to be angry.

Uyi Iredia: Yet energy and mind are concepts discussed by conscious and intelligent people, not stones, electrons, stars, sand, air etc. If energy can't have consciousness, consciousness couldn't possibly exist. Since you state otherwise, state how consciousness arose from non-conscious energy. Prediction: ooman will either dismiss my request (obviously or subtly) or refer to matter from energy and special plead that evolution did it without giving us details.

Perhaps you didnt get me, let me paraphrase. Energy by itself, in its pure form, cannot have consciousness. Therefore, God could not be conscious.

Uyi Iredia: The bolded contradicts the underlined for by stating you don't know, you've obscured the question of energy's source, yet demand the same (reworded as cause instead of source) of God.

Your use of "contradicts" is not appropriate in this context. You assume that I have taken "I dont know" as an answer for the source of energy. Perhaps the fault is from me, perhaps I should have said "I do not know NOW". Complete knowledge about energy is what every evolutionary astronomer seek to find out.

What I debate about God is the impossibility of his consciousness. God is not conscious and so anything from stone to the chemical processes may be referred to as God, since Gods are creators, and chemical processes too are creators. This would be correct.

But to claim that there is such a being as a conscious God who could die for the sins of man is irresponsible.

Uyi Iredia: Because you say so.

Because there is no evidence for such.

Uyi Iredia: You've practically said that by saying you don't know its cause. Another atheist, thehomer, was less tactful. He simply asserted energy exists.

Refer above. I should have said "I dont know NOW". The search continues.

Uyi Iredia: Funny, because I know it enough to know energy like God is the asylum of ignorance. A term coined to describe the behaviour of matter. An apole fell to the ground and someone said 'gravity does it' how 'because of attraction'. One wonders that this same gravity is defined as attraction and when I asked for what caused this gravity (which is attraction) scientists say 'attraction did it' and inquisitive kinds like me must keep shut because they said so. Arrant nonsense ! Present energy (not matter o! Energy) for empirical verification.

I do not get this. Do you assume a mind to gravity? And do you assume that this mind does not have a mind behind it, and a mind behind that? The cycle continues forever. There is no answer when God comes into the question of origin.

Uyi Iredia: Agreed. And I ask what makes salt salty and water wet ? I know you may want to assert they are salty by the very fact (or properties). More importantly who or what KNOWS that salt os salty and water wet ?

All conscious minds do. You do know that most animals deliberately move towards a salt source for the sake of eating salt, right? Its all by awareness. A fish does not experience wetness, but it experiences dryness out of water, so a fish does not know wetness, but dryness. Its all based on how we experience things. And Gods cannot be excluded from this requirement. We cannot therefore have a perfect, nerver ending conscious God. If Gods exist, then they must be limited too.

Uyi Iredia: @ bolded: Good. Just help me tell that oaf called wiegraf. When I insinuated the bolded by stating brain in itself isn't intelligent, he differed. Now coding as observed, involves coders. In fact H2O doesn't code for the property it (H20) is the property that begs for an explanation.

You may need to consult Wiegraf to clear what he meant. I may also argue that individual cells are conscious. Chlamydonomas, for instance, would move away from UV light to less bright light. That is a very simple form of consciousness. Note that my use of "Are brain cells aware of their consciousness and intelligence? No" means that there is no consciousness without ALL parts of the brain fully functional. Individual neuron does not make a brain, but combination of such - perhaps saying it like that would make you understand

Uyi Iredia: They don't. You simply depend on my understanding of the concept 'make', 'attraction' and 'repulsion'. I AM NOT giving you that luxury. Now state how we go from inferred but physical charges to attraction and repulsion. Prediction: You will cast aspersions whilst stating that no one denies attraction or repulsion. You are BOUND to forget that 'attraction' and 'repulsion' have never been verified. They are abstracts assumed and applied to many objects.

Perhaps you need to revise the meaning of the word "abstract" and "empirical".

Whatever is observed exists, there is no abstract here. God is not observed, neither is perfection or intelligent control in nature. Therefore, God does not exist.

Deep Sight:

God is indeed rather said to be the irreducible simple and permanent self existent: I do not know whence you derive your idea of a complex God from: it certainly follows no known philosophical construct.

By the bolded, I understand you do not know the theory of the existence of God. God is said to be much more complex than the most complex things known to man, the brain and the universe. For if God made the universe, then he must be much more complex than it.

Such complexity is what I debate against. Such complexity cannot pop into existence from nothing, or self arrange from the stuff of irreducible simplicity to make everything.

Perhaps now, you will understand how illogical the theistic and deistic state of mind is.

Deep Sight: Understand: God is the eternal sum of self-existent laws of reality, which could not be otherwise.

If this is solely your definition of God, if a self existing, conscious God, separate from nature is not part of your definition of God, then I have no problems with you. What I call natural processes is what you call God, and that is not my business.

Deep Sight: The atheistic worldview is illogical, contradictory, meaningless, thoughtless, shallow, da.ft, inane, insane, puerile, contradictory, nonsensical, delusional, self-denying, sense-defying, in short: vacant gibberish fit only for swine playing in a rubbish heap.

Do you intend to bully me by this? Note that you saying this does nothing but re-enforces stup.id ideas into your deluded mind.

Deep Sight: I don't have the time now bro, i'm off to a meeting: start your studies by reading up on the philosophical distinction between necessary things and contingent things.

I dont exactly have the day off too, so keep your agenda to yourself.

Why dont you start your philosophical studies by reading up on the philosophical distinction between things that are possible and things that are thought to be necessarily possible.

ooman:

By the bolded, I understand you do not know the theory of the existence of God. God is said to be much more complex than the most complex things known to man, the brain and the universe. For if God made the universe, then he must be much more complex than it.

Such complexity is what I debate against. Such complexity cannot pop into existence from nothing, or self arrange from the stuff of irreducible simplicity to make everything.

Perhaps now, you will understand how illogical the theistic and deistic state of mind is.



If this is solely your definition of God, if a self existing, conscious God, separate from nature is not part of your definition of God, then I have no problems with you. What I call natural processes is what you call God, and that is not my business.



Do you intend to bully me by this? Note that you saying this does nothing but re-enforces stup.id ideas into your deluded mind.



I dont exactly have the day off too, so keep your agenda to yourself.

Why dont you start your philosophical studies by reading up on the philosophical distinction between things that are possible and things that are thought to be necessarily possible.

Please check this out.

https://www.nairaland.com/377521/oneness-infinity-explained

We'll chat later.

PS; No bullying intended, just soft soft yabbis

Deep Sight:

Please check this out.

https://www.nairaland.com/377521/oneness-infinity-explained

We'll chat later.

PS; No bullying intended, just soft soft yabbis

Read your link.

If you want to worship the oneness of nature as God, that is your business. But you cannot say that there is a separate conscious entity out there who made the universe and is separate from it.

Note that my stuff of irreducible simplicity is inseparable from the universe, for if it makes up the universe, then its inside the universe.

A conscious being outside the universe is a total impossibility.

Deep Sight:
^^^ And yet, these thoughts, which will mean "naught" to a scientist, are the wellspring from which all scientific thought and process derive!

Would there be science without thought?

No.

And yet you say thoughts would mean "naught" to the scientist.

Please go back and start all over again. Think again from scratch, independently, out of the box, and un-influenced by new age materialist incoherence.

Che... Context..
I ask again, should he add immaterial into his equations? And again, a scientist.

Also, note this isn't my worldview, but like I've been saying, it's perfectly justifiable

edits

Deep Sight:
The atheistic worldview is illogical, contradictory, meaningless, thoughtless, shallow, da.ft, inane, insane, puerile, contradictory, nonsensical, delusional, self-denying, sense-defying, in short: vacant gibberish fit only for swine playing in a rubbish heap.

Now I'm sure you're just jelly of our superiar logical skills sir

But seriously, I'd have said the same thing about certain theistic/deistic views, but that wouldn't be exactly accurate. For instance, when left to themselves pigs don't go looking for $hit, however the folk I speak specifically go out of their to injest $hit. In fact, quite a few even enjoy imported $hit, expending resources to bring it into the country.

Ok, I'll get out of the way now

wiegraf:

Che... Context..
I ask again, should he add immaterial into his equations? And again, a scientist.

This is an existential discussion and without his immaterial thoughts, he would have no equations to speak of.

Now I'm sure you're just jelly of our superiar logical skills sir

But seriously, I'd have said the same thing about certain theistic/deistic views, but that wouldn't be exactly accurate. For instance, when left to themselves pigs don't go looking for $hit, however the folk I speak specifically go out of their to injest $hit. In fact, quite a few even enjoy imported $hit, expending resources to bring it into the country.

Ok, I'll get out of the way now

Lol, you shouldnt always take me seriously o!

ooman:

Are you deliberately forgetting the meaning of 'empirical' or are you just being deliberately annoying?

Precisely. Because this meaning of 'empirical' itself has never been empirically observed. It is just assumed. Since you want to play the materialist bring 'empirical' for observation.

ooman: In case you dont know, empirical means "based on observation and experiment" according to Encarta and Oxford dictionaries.

In case you don't know observation and experimentation involve mentations, they aren't concrete objects, they are abstracts. Put simply no one has empirically verified 'observation and experiment'. If you state otherwise, you are playing the idealist, because 'observation and experiments' are IMMATERIAL concepts people intuit.

ooman: Evolution as a process, satisfies the requirement of being referred to as empirical.

What can be asserted as without empirical backing can be dismissed without empirical backing. Bring 'evolution' for empirical verification. All you can do is point to physical objects and INFER evolution.

ooman: The only place this theory continues to lack is the point where it fails to experimentally produce life from non-life. Note that its theoretical position as to the origin of life is mathematically and logically supported. The theistic position of creation of life by a intelligent God is disproved by the imperfection of life itself.

I don't want to prolong this discourse so lemme just show that I get what you're saying. I'll state my version. From experiments involving self-replicating RNA's and phospholipids it has been shown that rudimentary self-replicating systems could arise in plausible conditions eg hydrothermal vents. By coopting other chemical compounds into their structure and replicating such structure such protobionts could have evolved by mutation and natural selection into the first living cell. Agreed.

ooman: You know, what is not healthy is not to assert that things come into existence by natural processes, what is not healthy is to assert that a complex conscious God could pop into existence from 'Nothing' while refusing to accept nature could come from natural processes.

I said God always existed by replying that 'nothing' caused God. Read my initial response. There's no reason for me to accept your posit only Nature exists when Nature itself begs a cause while YOU dismiss my posit of God because you think it demands a cause.

ooman: You do know that panentheism posits that whatever is behind nature is God. It does not posit that this God is a conscious God who could die for the sins of man. Panentheism is more explained thus: Natural processes in their whole is God. This position is more like the atheistic position when you subtract the word 'God' from it. The atheist posit that natural processes is sufficient to make nature.

SMH. Don't embarass yourself with your ignorance. Google panentheism and get what it MEANS. Pantheism is what you described NOT panentheism.

ooman: Its called personification. Its a figure of speech. Such things do not necessarily exist. Because one may confuse what you meant with personification, I issued the warning.

I see. Yet you forget you also SUBTLY personify energy and matter by stating they ultimately made conscious and intelligent beings via evolution, not to mention their apparent creativity. Fool yourself, not me.

ooman: Well, from this logic, what exempts a creator, God, from being created? You have quickly forgotten that this question is the reason for this thread.

Nothing. It applies to God as much as it applies to your precious, unconscious energy, yet you believe energy is the lynchpin of reality. I state this 'energy' is conscious and intelligent and you differ based on what. Now to level the playing field, answer the question: What really is energy ?

ooman: Now to answer your question, if anything exist at all, then what makes it up must predate. Tracing this down, we will arrive at a point of irreducible simplicity. What exists at this point must exist forever, and what exists at this point of irreducible simplicity is too simple to be a conscious complex God. This is why God cannot exist.

Simplicity is an immaterial concept. Stop fooling yourself. I've been pretty consistent in saying God is an immaterial mind that perforce effected the material world.

ooman: Well by this, I can conclude you are confused by the theory of cause and effect.

No, you are. You state talk of caused as if it physically exists. It doesn't. It is a concept applied to things that physically exist.

ooman: Cause is what acts on an object, effect is the action the object performs.

How can an immaterial cause act on an object ? What is the thing that acts on the object ? Do tell.

ooman: There is no cause and effect without a pre-existing object (God could not therefore make the universe from nothing), therefore, the theory of cause and effect is not immaterial, but material.

So if causes depend on pre-existing objects what caused the universe. Of course, the universe can't come from nothing. Note that I'm taking the entire universe as an object.

ooman: Not assumed, observed.

Assumed not observed. If it is observed show me the physical objects 'cause' and 'effect'. I tire of you pointing to physical objects and wanting me to infer cause and effect.

ooman: There you are, still confused by the theory of cause and effect. Anything that is observable must be caused. Therefore, if you have observed anything, then you may trace its cause. This is why observation is important in telling the sources of things in nature and nature itself. Our observation does not favor the existence of a God.

Spoken like the quintessential atheist. Read 'Atheism or Theism' by Chapman Cohen. His argument in the chapter titled 'Argument from causality' is similar to yours. Cause begs the question, not answer the question, for the simple fact that cause is not empirically verifiable. God is inferred from Nature and observed as Nature.

ooman: No need to be angry.

Okay.

ooman: Perhaps you didnt get me, let me paraphrase. Energy by itself, in its pure form, cannot have consciousness. Therefore, God could not be conscious.

So how do we explain consciousness ? Just to clarify, Is consciousness material or not ? IOW can you show me an material thing called 'consciousness' ?

ooman: Your use of "contradicts" is not appropriate in this context. You assume that I have taken "I dont know" as an answer for the source of energy. Perhaps the fault is from me, perhaps I should have said "I do not know NOW". Complete knowledge about energy is what every evolutionary astronomer seek to find out.

Stop the bait-and-switch. The answer FOR NOW is "I don't know." I ain't taking promissory checks, not especially when you refuse my 'currency notes' to show God exists.

ooman: What I debate about God is the impossibility of his consciousness. God is not conscious and so anything from stone to the chemical processes may be referred to as God, since Gods are creators, and chemical processes too are creators. This would be correct.

So chemical processes are creators. This is the personification you were talking of earlier. It seems we have a knack for confuting ourselves. Since a God can't be conscious by your assertion, I assert consciousness couldn't have evolved from non-consciousness.

ooman: But to claim that there is such a being as a conscious God who could die for the sins of man is irresponsible.

Agreed. The bane of Christianity. Though I think it can be advocated for.

ooman: Because there is no evidence for such.

Said who ? You ! Present the so-called evidence.

ooman: Refer above. I should have said "I dont know NOW". The search continues.

Then your stance is baseless as I insinuated earlier.

ooman: I do not get this. Do you assume a mind to gravity? And do you assume that this mind does not have a mind behind it, and a mind behind that? The cycle continues forever. There is no answer when God comes into the question of origin.

How do you know it goes on forever ? You did not actually undertake this cycle forever and yet you claim it must go on forever. The same could be said of gravity. What is behind it and what is behind that thing ad infinitum.

ooman: All conscious minds do. You do know that most animals deliberately move towards a salt source for the sake of eating salt, right? Its all by awareness. A fish does not experience wetness, but it experiences dryness out of water, so a fish does not know wetness, but dryness. Its all based on how we experience things. And Gods cannot be excluded from this requirement. We cannot therefore have a perfect, nerver ending conscious God. If Gods exist, then they must be limited too.

And God has limited himself by creating this universe out of all possible universes it could make. Now if this $hit was dressed up string theory some one's boner may be bobbing up and down by now.

ooman: You may need to consult Wiegraf to clear what he meant. I may also argue that individual cells are conscious. Chlamydonomas, for instance, would move away from UV light to less bright light. That is a very simple form of consciousness. Note that my use of "Are brain cells aware of their consciousness and intelligence? No" means that there is no consciousness without ALL parts of the brain fully functional. Individual neuron does not make a brain, but combination of such - perhaps saying it like that would make you understand

Good ! Not just all cells of the brain, but nerves, blood, capillaries, lungs, heart etc. The brain shares similarities with a CPU. We all know without a system the CPU is useless matter. Same for the brain.

ooman: Perhaps you need to revise the meaning of the word "abstract" and "empirical".

I have. You haven't. That's why you can say $hit like 'Evolution is observed' or 'I went to the market' or 'Atheistic materialim is true' without noting the NECESSARY contradictions involved.

ooman: Whatever is observed exists, there is no abstract here. God is not observed, neither is perfection or intelligent control in nature. Therefore, God does not exist.

Observation doesn't exist. If it does, show me. I may accept a picture of observation. Energy doesn't exist, it isn't observed, if it does, like Hume I request, 'show me the impression'.

Deep Sight:

This is an existential discussion and without his immaterial thoughts, he would have no equations to speak of.

Is it? I speak only of a scientific view, and how pure abstract qualifies as nothing on that end. It's certainly nothing useful.

But on a somewhat other note, thoughts are actions, no? They aren't really abstract, yes, unlike proper concepts?

When you have a thought or conceptualize you, or your brain to be more specific, is using its neurons/synapses/etc to make calculations, just like any other machine. Making links via abstractions, recognizing patterns and using them to solve problems. Difference here being what determines objectives. With biological machines that would be emotion, feelings, physical stimuli etc.

There is nothing there other than your brain. No brain? No tools to process information, ie no thoughts. No consciousness.

Deep Sight:
Lol, you shouldnt always take me seriously o!

I'm aware of that good ser, ty. I hope you'll extend the same courtesy to me pls.

Uyi Iredia:

Precisely. Because this meaning of 'empirical' itself has never been empirically observed. It is just assumed. Since you want to play the materialist bring 'empirical' for observation.

You definitely have a problem with hermeneutic words.

Uyi Iredia: In case you don't know observation and experimentation involve mentations, they aren't concrete objects, they are abstracts. Put simply no one has empirically verified 'observation and experiment'. If you state otherwise, you are playing the idealist, because 'observation and experiments' are IMMATERIAL concepts people intuit.

You live in your own world. A pathetically delusive world.

Uyi Iredia: What can be asserted as without empirical backing can be dismissed without empirical backing. Bring 'evolution' for empirical verification. All you can do is point to physical objects and INFER evolution.

What satisfies your requirement of being called 'empirical'

Uyi Iredia: I said God always existed by replying that 'nothing' caused God. Read my initial response. There's no reason for me to accept your posit only Nature exists when Nature itself begs a cause while YOU dismiss my posit of God because you think it demands a cause.

My argument is that nature can cause and continue itself because it goes from simple to complex. God cannot cause himself because he goes from complex to making simple stuff, like a universe. Note that the universe must be simple, compared to the God who made it, if a God made it.

Uyi Iredia: SMH. Don't embarass yourself with your ignorance. Google panentheism and get what it MEANS. Pantheism is what you described NOT panentheism.

OK

Wikipedia: Panentheism (from Greek πᾶν (pân) "all"; ἐν (en) "in"; and θεός (theós) "God"; "all-in-God" is a belief system which posits that the divine (be it a monotheistic God, polytheistic gods, or an eternal cosmic animating force) interpenetrates every part of nature and timelessly extends beyond it. Panentheism differentiates itself from pantheism, which holds that the divine is synonymous with the universe.[1]

In panentheism, the universe in the first formulation is practically the whole itself. In the second formulation, the universe and the divine are not ontologically equivalent. In panentheism, God is viewed as the eternal animating force behind the universe. Some versions suggest that the universe is nothing more than the manifest part of God. In some forms of panentheism, the cosmos exists within God, who in turn "transcends", "pervades" or is "in" the cosmos. While pantheism asserts that 'All is God', panentheism goes further to claim that God is greater than the universe. In addition, some forms indicate that the universe is contained within God,[1] like in the concept of Tzimtzum. Much Hindu thought is highly characterized by panentheism and pantheism.[2][3] Hasidic Judaism merges the elite ideal of nullification to paradoxical transcendent Divine Panentheism, through intellectual articulation of inner dimensions of Kabbalah, with the populist emphasis on the panentheistic Divine immanence in everything and deeds of kindness.

My previous input

Ooman: You do know that panentheism posits that whatever is behind nature is God. It does not posit that this God is a conscious God who could die for the sins of man. Panentheism is more explained thus: Natural processes in their whole is God. This position is more like the atheistic position when you subtract the word 'God' from it. The atheist posit that natural processes is sufficient to make nature.

So what exactly do you have problems with?

Uyi Iredia: I see. Yet you forget you also SUBTLY personify energy and matter by stating they ultimately made conscious and intelligent beings via evolution, not to mention their apparent creativity. Fool yourself, not me.

I dont just state that, its the only thing observable in nature.

Uyi Iredia: Nothing. It applies to God as much as it applies to your precious, unconscious energy, yet you believe energy is the lynchpin of reality. I state this 'energy' is conscious and intelligent and you differ based on what. Now to level the playing field, answer the question: What really is energy ?

Energy is everything there is.

Based on do what do you posit that energy is conscious?

Uyi Iredia: Simplicity is an immaterial concept. Stop fooling yourself. I've been pretty consistent in saying God is an immaterial mind that perforce effected the material world.

The theory of an immaterial being making material stuff is the dumbest theory an intelligent being could put forward. No single observation supports such, not even in the computer world.

Tell me how a software could exist or produce hardware without a pre-existing hardware. Its a total impossibility.

Uyi Iredia:
No, you are. You state talk of caused as if it physically exists. It doesn't. It is a concept applied to things that physically exist.

Only in your dreamland are you right.

Uyi Iredia: How can an immaterial cause act on an object ? What is the thing that acts on the object ? Do tell.

Causes are not immaterial. If you throw a ball, you are the cause of the ball's motion. Are you immaterial?

Immaterial cannot act on material, this is exactly my position. An immaterial God cannot therefore make nature.

Here, you contradict and destroy your own argument

Uyi Iredia: So if causes depend on pre-existing objects what caused the universe. Of course, the universe can't come from nothing. Note that I'm taking the entire universe as an object.

A stuff of irreducible simplicity.

Uyi Iredia: Assumed not observed. If it is observed show me the physical objects 'cause' and 'effect'. I tire of you pointing to physical objects and wanting me to infer cause and effect.

You are the proof you seek. You exist, so you are a cause and was caused.

Uyi Iredia: Spoken like the quintessential atheist. Read 'Atheism or Theism' by Chapman Cohen. His argument in the chapter titled 'Argument from causality' is similar to yours. Cause begs the question, not answer the question, for the simple fact that cause is not empirically verifiable. God is inferred from Nature and observed as Nature.

God is inferred from necessity. An intelligent controller of nature cannot be ascribed to nature by those who have really studied it. Solomon, Darwin all dropped God after their study of nature. So did I.

Uyi Iredia: So how do we explain consciousness ? Just to clarify, Is consciousness material or not ? IOW can you show me an material thing called 'consciousness' ?

Your question in bold is irksome. Look into yourself and tell me what you see. A dumb unconscious combination of matter?

Consciousness is material, if not, brain injury wouldn't cause lack of consciousness or madness.

Uyi Iredia: Stop the bait-and-switch. The answer FOR NOW is "I don't know." I ain't taking promissory checks, not especially when you refuse my 'currency notes' to show God exists.

Consciousness does not just pop into existence from absolute nothing. Your position is illogical.

Uyi Iredia: So chemical processes are creators. This is the personification you were talking of earlier. It seems we have a knack for confuting ourselves. Since a God can't be conscious by your assertion, I assert consciousness couldn't have evolved from non-consciousness.

But we exist, so conscious did evolved. If your God is conscious, where is he? What makes him up? How was he made up?

Uyi Iredia: Said who ? You ! Present the so-called evidence.

for what?

Uyi Iredia: Then your stance is baseless as I insinuated earlier.

I have no stance concerning the source of energy. I am therefore baseless.

Uyi Iredia: How do you know it goes on forever ? You did not actually undertake this cycle forever and yet you claim it must go on forever. The same could be said of gravity. What is behind it and what is behind that thing ad infinitum.

Well its simple. Whats behind attraction of opposite charges? Their different concentration of energy. Read more on quarks, will you.

But when we talk of a mind in nature, then we must talk of what's behind it ad infinitum.

Uyi Iredia: And God has limited himself by creating this universe out of all possible universes it could make. Now if this $hit was dressed up string theory some one's boner may be bobbing up and down by now.

I mean limited by the laws of nature.

Uyi Iredia: I have. You haven't. That's why you can say $hit like 'Evolution is observed' or 'I went to the market' or 'Atheistic materialim is true' without noting the NECESSARY contradictions involved.

Your live in your own world of delusion. This I have come to understand.

Uyi Iredia: Observation doesn't exist. If it does, show me. I may accept a picture of observation. Energy doesn't exist, it isn't observed, if it does, like Hume I request, 'show me the impression'.

what is observation to you?

ooman:

You definitely have a problem with hermetics words.

Oh no ! You do. Because if you analyzed language as I did you would realize the tendency to treat things that aren't as if they are or those that are (physical) as if they aren't (physical). In fact, you will see the patent stupidity in pretending that the idea of a flying spaghetti monster or Russell's teapot dismisses the idea of God as non-extant

ooman:
You live in your own world. A pathetically delusive world.

Ah ! My memosphere. Perfect.

ooman:
What satisfies your requirement of being called 'empirical'

Evident to the 5 senses whilst, in this context, ignoring the fundamental 6th sense. The bolded is the reason for my apparent but needful irrationality.

ooman:
My argument is that nature can cause and continue itself because it goes from simple to complex. God cannot cause himself because he goes from complex to making simple stuff, like a universe. Note that the universe must be simple, compared to the God who made it, if a God made it.

Simplicity and complexity are concepts that can be toyed with. God is the Thought or Nous or Mind or Immaterial aspect upon which all things whatsoever they may be exist. I refuse to believe your belief that there is only Nature.

ooman:
OK

Okay.

ooman:
My previous input



So what exactly do you have problems with?

Pantheism merely puts the appelation God to the universe, panentheism doesn't. That you don't want to read for yourself is pitiable.

ooman:
I dont just state that, its the only thing observable in nature.

FAIL ! It has never been observed. Funny though, all along I was expecting you to raise challenges on empirical verification wrt light, fire, heat, water, air, cold, earth and darkness.

ooman:
Energy is everything there is.

Says what ? ooman's brain.

ooman:
Based on do what do you posit that energy is conscious?

Spent so much time answering you from the bottom up I will only answer with one word: Thought.

ooman:
The theory of an immaterial being making material stuff is the dumbest theory an intelligent being could put forward. No single observation supports such, not even in the computer world.

Yet this dullard talks of 'information', 'networking', 'CPU frequency', 'observation', 'love', 'logic', 'cause', motion, energy, science, sex, life, fallacy, creativity, pleasure, insults as if they are empirically verifiable things that make them do or undo something. I'm a Kantist with a rationalist bias. I have noted, to the delusional pleasure of mr faff-a-bout, that immaterial intelligence is needfully expressed through matter (q.v.) I have made my compromise with materialism that matter needs to exist for non-material idea to be relevant. When I state intelligence makes matter you differ with that accursed intelligence which you've got. You use an empirically unverified 'intelligence' to assert that
only matter exists. You are too damn blind to see that you depend on the immaterial 'understanding' of others to get you accursed message accross. A stone or baby's reaction well describes what matter is without immaterial ideas: meaningless And your stance against an inferred God best decribes what ideas are without matter: non-existent.

ooman:
Tell me how a software could exist or produce hardware without a pre-existing hardware. Its a total impossibility.

And a hardware that could run without a pre-extant software ? Totally impossicant.

ooman:
Only in your dreamland are you right.

Thanks for that.

ooman:
Causes are not immaterial. If you throw a ball, you are the cause of the ball's motion. Are you immaterial?

You are fooling yourself not me. Throwing is immaterial and empirically unverifiable, the same for cause. You can't see, smell, taste, hear or touch 'throwing' and 'cause'. The ball and my body are empirically verifiable, not your so-called cause. Trying to make me believe causes are material eh ! I ain't giving you that luxury.

ooman:
Immaterial cannot act on material, this is exactly my position. An immaterial God cannot therefore make nature.

Said who ? You ? Then gravity cannot make objects fall since it is immaterial. Now since scientists note this paradox they gesticulate at materials like gravitons, W and Z bosons and gluons which are supposed to be force carriers. They exist in an immaterial context called space. This context is infinite. Now lemme take thefool's stance that all atoms in the universe is finite. What sustains the universe in an infinite space ? More bosons and gravitons, perhaps ? This begs the question for there is still more space for the universe to fall, expand or contract into. Now how does this immaterial space hold the universe ? Mr whargarbl will vomit out more bosons ad infinitum but not ad nauseum.

ooman:
Here, you contradict and destroy your own argument

Okay. Though I note contradictions necessarily exist.

ooman:
A stuff of irreducible simplicity.

What is this stuff and why can't it be reduced further ?

ooman:
You are the proof you seek. You exist, so you are a cause and was caused.

Not at all mr ooman. We are mere human zombies. Just bodies really. The idea that my body is a cause is as idealistic as they come for how can body be what is 'immaterial' ? It is purposeless, unintelligent, unconscious conglomeration of matter with no empirically verifiable 'causality' behind it.

ooman:
God is inferred from necessity. An intelligent controller of nature cannot be ascribed to nature by those who have really studied it. Solomon, Darwin all dropped God after their study of nature. So did I.

Using what. Their intelligence. Save it. When you show me that 'study' has a location, what it is made up of and how it is made, I may agree.

ooman:
Your question in bold is irksome. Look into yourself and tell me what you see. A dumb unconscious combination of matter?

Precisely. That's as materialistic as you will NEVER be but then claim that matter = consciousness.

ooman:
Consciousness is material, if not, brain injury wouldn't cause lack of consciousness or madness.

Your position is illogical since you admit the components of the brain are not conscious and you can agree that a brain without its body is useless. It is even all the more clear because you state brain injury causes lack of consciousness. Meaning that consciouness is an immaterial 'attribute' of the brain. As a true materialist, you would have confuted yourself less by stating "Brain injury hampers the workings of the frontal lobe."

ooman:
Consciousness does not just pop into existence from absolute nothing. Your position is illogical.

You have comprehension issues. For nowhere, have I stated that consciousness pops from nothing. But that absolute nothing makes no sense, since by thinking about and stating it, it is something, I stated it to be God and asserted that from it matter springs. Maybe I should strip off the idea of conscious intelligence and present you the subtly similar concept of anti-matter which you will readily gobble up because a Paul Dirac posited it in the garb of 'science'.

ooman:
But we exist, so conscious did evolved. If your God is conscious, where is he? What makes him up? How was he made up?

From non-conscious matter through evolution. Don't decieve yourself, for t'is mere human bodies (zombies really), I note who seek to convince me that the truth is consciousness and intelligence came from non-consciousness. Now to answer your questions, though I fear it is pouring water through a sieve:

1st question's answer: Nowhere. For a being truly infinite as I understand God to be is not bound to one particular location. But by creating the universe and arrogant men with His capacity to apprehend infinity. He binds Himself to the universe's location. Look at a typical picture of the universe with the Milky Way galaxy near the centre, that's as close to God as you'll ever get. Keep in mind the finite galaxy and the infinite space in which it is sustained. Your difficulty is that your experience involves objects in locations and you are constrained to think of God as an object needing a location. Not so, anymore than I should ask for the location of concepts such as 'evolution', 'materialism', 'cause', 'consciousness', 'logic' etc. Maybe they are located simultaenously in the brains of extant individuals.

2nd question's answer: Nothing. For a being truly infinite, if made of a certain constitution and presented to a skeptic would be dismissed as a mere mortal. You want to reduce a concept to a material body by asking, forgetting that 'asking' is a concept that is made up of nothing but expressed through cerebration. Put simply 'asking' isn't a material thing. You use your 'ability to think' to dismiss God, this 'ability' isn't material, if it is, show me the object 'ability'. You then turn around in shock when I use my 'ability to think' to assert God. Your difficulty is in the fact that you thin God, like balls, chairs, stones and water and God in the truest sense is a concept like 'idea', 'form', 'abstract', 'immaterial' and 'cause'.

3rd question's answer: Nohow. As I have said before, an immaterial, conscious and intelligent God perforce effected matter. I talked about telekinesis. This question is the most crucial because it is where idealism and materialism compromise. I'll explain. Imagining things like pink unicorns, golden mountains, The Alchemist's stone (that turns lead into gold), a cell phone that filters dirty water, a fan that automatically switches on at low temperature or on issuing voice commands. If you don't act on your idea they don't materialize, and there is no testament to their existence except to the one who thinks of it. The really cool thing about ideas is that no one man is the custodian of all ideas. Now let's take the case of a pink unicorn, which people like you use to parody the idea of God. You draw a pink unicorn and it is easily materialized, sculpting a unicorn and painting it in a manner that evokes the feeling that an observer is looking at an actual pink unicorn is much harder. Building an actual pink unicorn, able to give birth to pink unicorns is hardest. Ask the likes of Paul Rothemund or do some work and read genetic engineering. An actual pink unicorn being built with co-opted genetic elements is a future possibility. Now your difficulty is this, you are constrained to materialize your ideas using your body and using already extant matter and you imagine God like you, to be constrained in that manner. No. Your will has power to effect an idea via the body wherein which you, your ideas etc are constrained. God has no such limits which you seek to place on it. In fact I now find the picture Christians use to imply God by depicting a hand holding the universe to be off the mark. He needs no hand to sustain the universe talkless of planet earth. Its will has power

ooman:
for what?

The evidence against consciousness (and intelligence I must add) being a pure energy form.

ooman:
I have no stance concerning the source of energy. I am therefore baseless.

Okay. This is as true a materialist as you have ever been in this discusssion where you want me to argue conceptually why "God doesn't exist". It is ironic though your stance contradicts itself by conveying a meaning I apprehend. Nevertheless, I applaud you for this step, albeit a probable subtle dis
paraging.

ooman:
Well its simple. Whats behind attraction of opposite charges? Their different concentration of energy. Read more on quarks, will you.

Quarks and leptons interact with force carriers to make the universe. The force behind the carriers has NEVER been verified.

ooman:
But when we talk of a mind in nature, then we must talk of what's behind it ad infinitum.

I see no reason why the same question should not be asked of energy. The more so since Zeno asked this question of kinetic energy percieved as motion. When you talk of energy you talk of what's behind it ad infinitum.

ooman:
I mean limited by the laws of nature.

I meant God limits Himself by defining the physical universe (and its inferred laws).

ooman:
Your live in your own world of delusion. This I have come to understand.

I see ! Eat this while you understand:


"Thoughts without content are empty, intuitions without concepts are blind. The understanding can
intuit nothing, the senses can think nothing. Only
through their unison can knowledge arise."

Critique of Pure Reason (1781)

When next we cross paths, come prepared with what Kant meant by that statement.

ooman:
what is observation to you?

Something that is assumed and has never been empirically verified.

Uyi Iredia:
I see ! Eat this while you understand:


"Thoughts without content are empty, intuitions without concepts are blind. The understanding can
intuit nothing, the senses can think nothing. Only
through their unison can knowledge arise."

Critique of Pure Reason (1781)

When next we cross paths, come prepared with what Kant meant by that statement.

Simple. He meant a single neuron does not make a brain. I have told you this before.

99% of your problem is not knowing how to differentiate between abstracts and reality.

I shall leave you in your delusions. Only you can help yourself, when you are ready to face reality.

ooman:

Simple. He meant a single neuron does not make a brain. I have told you this before.

99% of your problem is not knowing how to differentiate between abstracts and reality.

I shall leave you in your delusions. Only you can help yourself, when you are ready to face reality.

You fully missed Kant's point. It is too damn obvious he did not refer to a brain. You are the one having problems, since you fail to note that commonly held concepts eg chance, causality, motion etc have never been verified, not so. They are mental constructs (or immaterial ideas) used wrt physical objects. Your atheism, even your materialism depends on people apprehending this apprehended idea and you turn around and pretend certain ideas or assumed beings like God don't exist. You ignore my example of the pink unicorn showing how ideas materialize. Do wallow in your dark cave. When you REALIZE that existence itself is a concept you will realize any things imagined necessarily exist and the problem we face is materializing them. Furthermore, you will UNDERSTAND that causality starts not from matter but from intelligence behind the matter.

Have a good night's sleep, or a good day as the case may be.

Uyi Iredia:

You fully missed Kant's point. It is too damn obvious he did not refer to a brain. You are the one having problems, since you fail to note that commonly held concepts eg chance, causality, motion etc have never been verified, not so. They are mental constructs (or immaterial ideas) used wrt physical objects. Your atheism, even your materialism depends on people apprehending this apprehended idea and you turn around and pretend certain ideas or assumed beings like God don't exist. You ignore my example of the pink unicorn showing how ideas materialize. Do wallow in your dark cave. When you REALIZE that existence itself is a concept you will realize any things imagined necessarily exist and the problem we face is materializing them. Furthermore, you will UNDERSTAND that causality starts not from matter but from intelligence behind the matter.

Have a good night's sleep, or a good day as the case may be.

guy, what the hell is your point?

your god is just another idea that has never been verified just like many abstract concepts. whatever point you try to make comes back destroying your whole deist worldview.

Uyi Iredia:

You fully missed Kant's point. It is too damn obvious he did not refer to a brain. You are the one having problems, since you fail to note that commonly held concepts eg chance, causality, motion etc have never been verified, not so. They are mental constructs (or immaterial ideas) used wrt physical objects. Your atheism, even your materialism depends on people apprehending this apprehended idea and you turn around and pretend certain ideas or assumed beings like God don't exist. You ignore my example of the pink unicorn showing how ideas materialize. Do wallow in your dark cave. When you REALIZE that existence itself is a concept you will realize any things imagined necessarily exist and the problem we face is materializing them. Furthermore, you will UNDERSTAND that causality starts not from matter but from intelligence behind the matter.

Have a good night's sleep, or a good day as the case may be.

End of.

That people cannot see that everything is of mind, is just hopeless.

Deep Sight:

End of.

That people cannot see that everything is of mind, is just hopeless.

The contradiction that you and Uyi cant see is that your God too becomes of the mind....a creation of humand minds not an external being existing on its own

Logicboy03:


The contradiction that you and Uyi cant see is that your God too becomes of the mind....a creation of humand minds not an external being existing on its own

Ergo, God exists as an idea.

The deist God then becomes a thought/idea, one that didn't need a mind to exist(uncaused cause).

Funny thing though, and I couldn't get my mind round it for the period I explored deism, is why would a thought/idea(if it were a self-existent being) choose to create matter then.. It would serve no purpose whatsoever to its existence.