MacDaddy01:



Regarding your debunked particle nonsense,


If you cant show me what is smaller than a quark, then shut the feck up. Dont do Anony Houdini with me

Oh yeah, just like once upon a time the atom was the smallest particle, no?

Oh,and go back and read your link again. If you had read it, you would not have posted it.

plaetton:

I do not see how I have done so.
All I have conceded is that the big ba.ng could have been a mere inflection in existence that spawned new characteristics to the what already is.
It still means there was no creation and no creator.

Still saying the same thing!

@Deep Sight I hope you remember our thread and the fact that not all observed events are caused...

mkmyers45: @Deep Sight I hope you remember our thread and the fact that not all observed events are caused...

Give me an example of one single OBSERVED EVENT that you know has no cause.

Deep Sight:

If indeed you have pondered the first cause for so long, then you ought to have pondered its tenable attributes. I listed some earlier. UP TILL NOW, NONE OF YOU HAVE ADDRESSED THAT QUESTION I GAVE YOU ABOUT ATTRIBUTES, AND THE SOURCE FOR SUCH: CAUSALIY

COWARDS - Address the question!

when you say answer, what excactly do you expect?

Scientific explanations or mere mental gymanstics?
Opinion is the most abundant commodity there is. I could flood this market, I mean this thread with all sorts of wild opinions. I dont know how much that would help our discussions.

Deep Sight:

Still saying the same thing!

Then we are both saying the same things then?

plaetton:
when you say answer, what excactly do you expect?

Scientific explanations or mere mental gymanstics?
Opinion is the most abundant commodity there is. I could flood this market, I mean this thread with all sorts of wild opinions. I dont know how much that would help our discussions.

Escapism.

Answer the question. Fetch my quotes. Read them. Answer them. They were simple and clear questions. Anony also paraprahsed the question. Stop running.

Mr_Anony: lol, they won't. they'd much rather ridicule

@plaetton, all he is asking is that you describe what attributes first cause would have. Simples. A conceptual analysis if you may.

Here it is again, Plaetton.

Stop running.

And remember the context - re: FSM.

Deep Sight:

By that token, time itself does not exist. Nor do thoughts. Nor do emotions. Nor do ideas.

Emotions and thoughts are chemical reactions. We feel the emotions. I am going to self-service soon. Blood will rush to my gbola and it will stand at a 60 degree slant. We can see (visualize) our thoughts in our brains.

Regarding time, that is a great question. Almost knocked me out and debunked me there! Time itself doesnt exist but aspects of it do.


It is a diffcult question to answer. Just google it and you will see that there are many websites ranging from physics to psychology asking if time exists.

The rhythm, movement and effects of the progression of time are very tanginble but time itself is very intangible. That is my answer, Partialy yes and no.



For once, you landed an intellectual blow, Deepsight, my respects!

MacDaddy01:


How do we know that something exist?


Tangibility!


See, touch, smell, feel, taste, hear.......,measurable, quantifiable, etc



Anything beyond our senses is non-existent. Unless you have some 6th sense you want to share with us.

Fair enough.

In the same token, think of the color blue: Now please define that thought precisely in terms of tangibility: sight, smell, touch, feel, taste, measure and quantity.
To properly convince us, please provide us with tangible evidence of that thought maybe video evidence of what the "thought of blue" looks like.

If you cannot do that, then thought does not exist in your reality i.e. you are devoid of a mind.

Deep Sight:

Give me an example of one single OBSERVED EVENT that you know has no cause.

Jayriginal's conundrum.

Mr_Anony:
Fair enough.

In the same token, think of the color blue: Now please define that thought precisely in terms of tangibility: sight, smell, touch, feel, taste, measure and quantity.
To properly convince us, please provide us with tangible evidence of that thought maybe video evidence of what the "thought of blue" looks like.

If you cannot do that, then thought does not exist in your reality i.e. you are devoid of a mind.

Blue is a shade isnt it. We can see it. Colours have something to do with light and reflection. I didnt study physics , I am reaching my limits.

Kai na so God dey punish person? Anony is pushing me to the limits!


I am partialy colour blind but I have trained myself to see orange, if i find the shade of red to be funny and a bit lighter 7/10 times it is orange. Howeer, people look at me as if i'm mad when I call an orange material brown.

Deep Sight:

Give me an example of one single OBSERVED EVENT that you know has no cause.

I brought up virtual particles and you refuted it but did not go on to tell me what causes them..Remember that you said also that nothing can never exist which i showed to be not true..

Deep Sight:

Here it is again, Plaetton.

Stop running.

And remember the context - re: FSM.

It seems that you have not been reading my post.
If you have , you would not be asking for the attributes of the first cause.

If the permanent somethingness(your words) is eternal and uncaused(your view), then how in gods name(FSM) would there be a first cause with any attributes.
How can you in one part of your mouth say eternal, uncaused cause, permanent somethinness, then , in another part of your mouth you are asking me for attributes of the first cause?

Am I the only one seeing a contradiction here?

plaetton: [/b]
[/b]
Am rolling on the floor laughing.

I have pondered the first cause since I was 5yr old.
I do not pretend to know and I'm not willing cop out and claiming the most comforting idea that comes into my head or regurgitated every sunday.
I would rather continue to ponder and ask questions along the way.
I do not envy you who has already found an answer that is soft, cuddly and sweet in the mouth, much like spaghetti.

would you mind telling us your ponderings then?

MacDaddy01:

Blue is a shade isnt it. We can see it. Colours have something to do with light and reflection.

If you have studied visual illusions, you might be acquainted with the fact that what you see is not what is there. And this says alot. It says that that which is real can by no means be limited to our senses, as you earlier suggested. Even your partial color blindness says the same thing.

For Jayriginal, I add this - observation still remains the tool of science nonetheless.

plaetton:

It seems that you have not been reading my post.
If you have , you would not be asking for the attributes of the first cause.

If the permanent somethingness(your words) is eternal and uncaused(your view), then how in gods name(FSM) would there be a first cause with any attributes.
How can you in one part of your mouth say eternal, uncaused cause, permanent somethinness, then , in another part of your mouth you are asking me for attributes of the first cause?

Am I the only one seeing a contradiction here?

Because the universe demonstrably had a beginning.

Material things are thus caused/created.

Immaterial things such as eternity - which is what God is - are not.

MacDaddy01:

Blue is a shade isnt it. We can see it. Colours have something to do with light and reflection. I didnt study physics , I am reaching my limits.

Kai na so God dey punish person? Anony is pushing me to the limits!


I am partialy colour blind but I have trained myself to see orange, if i find the shade of red to be funny and a bit lighter 7/10 times it is orange. Howeer, people look at me as if i'm mad when I call an orange material brown.

None of what you have said so far amounts to tangible evidence of a thought.

I asked you to tell me the specific measurement of your thought of color blue or any thought at all if you like just be sure to tell us exactly what thought it is and what it's exact physical measurements are.

Mr_Anony:
Fair enough.

In the same token, think of the color blue: Now please define that thought precisely in terms of tangibility: sight, smell, touch, feel, taste, measure and quantity.
To properly convince us, please provide us with tangible evidence of that thought maybe video evidence of what the "thought of blue" looks like.

If you cannot do that, then thought does not exist in your reality i.e. you are devoid of a mind.

Mr Annony, If this is the best that you can do, then this is an Epic fail.

There is a mathematical, molecular and geometric relationship between color and all the above. Grab your physics text book and read up on optics.
It about numbers. Blue is justa certain wavelenght of energy, smell is a certain wavelenght of energy, taste and feel are related to molecular structure, which also may have a corresponding wavelenght of energy.

So colour can indeed be reducable into tangible units of measurement, namely wavelength.

Deep Sight:

If you have studied visual illusions, you might be acquainted with the fact that what you see is not what is there. And this says alot. It says that that which is real can by no means be limited to our senses, as you earlier suggested. Even your partial color blindness says the same thing.

For Jayriginal, I add this - observation still remains the tool of science nonetheless.

Visual illusions dont come in plain colours. The colour blue exists since we can see it. The problem is that our colour-seeing abilities are limited. Aparently, there are deep colours invisible to the naked eyes.

plaetton:

Mr Annony, If this is the best that you can do, then this is an Epic fail.

There is a mathematical, molecular and geometric relationship between color and all the above. Grab your physics text book and read up on optics.
It about numbers. Blue is justa certain wavelenght of energy, smell is a certain wavelenght of energy, taste and feel are related to molecular structure, which also may have a corresponding wavelenght of energy.

So colour can indeed be reducable into tangible units of measurement, namely wavelength.

He has not said they don't exist. Get the logic right: he is proceeding from logicboy's statement that real things must be measurable and quantifiable. The colors you see - and much worse - the thought of those colors - are not.

Is there any thought you have which you can extract, measure and quantify?

In fact, there is nothing that you think that you can prove exists.

Think on it.

Mr_Anony:
None of what you have said so far amounts to tangible evidence of a thought.

I asked you to tell me the specific measurement of your thought of color blue or any thought at all if you like just be sure to tell us exactly what thought it is and what it's exact physical measurements are.

If 1 billion people say that facebook logo is blue and we can all testify to that. Who the hell are you to say that it doesnt exist? What did we observe? Satan playing tricks on us?

Deep Sight:

He has not said they don't exist. Get the logic right: he is proceeding from logicboy's statement that real things must be measurable and quantifiable. The colors you see - and much worse - the thought of those colors - are not.

Is there any thought you have which you can extract, measure and quantify?

In fact, there is nothing that you think that you can prove exists.

Think on it.

The colours are measurable


Epic fail.


Reread his arguments again

MacDaddy01:



Visual illusions dont come in plain colours. The colour blue exists since we can see it. The problem is that our colour-seeing abilities are limited. Aparently, there are deep colours invisible to the naked eyes.

Not at all, if i were to post here a simple visual illussion, you might find that the color blue ceases to exist - sensually. That's the issue. The fact that you limited real things to our senses. That is faulty, clearly.

MacDaddy01:

The colours are measurable


Epic fail.


Reread his arguments again

Please describe blue.

And kindly remember that you cannot define a word using the same word. In other words you cannot point to the sky or facebook's logo,because i might be color blind and see it as red.

So please go ahead and describe what blue is, thanks.

Thank you.

Deep Sight:

Because the universe demonstrably had a beginning.

Material things are thus caused/created.

Immaterial things such as eternity - which is what God is - are not.

Materials things are matter, which are aggregations of atomic particles, which aggregations of energy, which cannot be created nor destroyed, but can only change form or configuration.
Therein lies your permanent somethingness. Energy.
All roads lead to Rome, in this context, eternal and immutable Energy.
Are we agreed , or am I still escaping?

The universe was not created or conscioussly caused. No.
The big B.ang occurred when energy reached a certain threshold and breached its equilibrium.

All resulting motions thereafter are simple attempts, as required by the laws of physics, by a system to regain its original equilibrium

plaetton:

Mr Annony, If this is the best that you can do, then this is an Epic fail.

.

WHAT! ! ! ! Is Plaetton same person as logicbloy ? ? ? ? ? ?

plaetton:

Mr Annony, If this is the best that you can do, then this is an Epic fail.

There is a mathematical, molecular and geometric relationship between color and all the above. Grab your physics text book and read up on optics.
It about numbers. Blue is justa certain wavelenght of energy, smell is a certain wavelenght of energy, taste and feel are related to molecular structure, which also may have a corresponding wavelenght of energy.

So colour can indeed be reducable into tangible units of measurement, namely wavelength.

lol really? but in logicboy's world, numbers do not even exist.

Anyway i didn't ask him for color, I asked him for the tangible measurement of the "thought of color blue."

Let me give you your own assignment since you seem to share the same worldview as him. Now Plaetton, think of roast beef. Please be so kind as tell us the exact tangible units of measurement of that "roast beef thought". best evidence would be to provide us with the thought so that we can see it, taste it, touch it, smell it etc. Just hold the thought in your hand and take a picture if you may.

plaetton:

Materials things are matter, which are aggregations of atomic particles, which aggregations of energy, which cannot be created nor destroyed, but can only change form or configuration.
Therein lies your permanent somethingness. Energy.
All roads lead to Rome, in this context, eternal and immutable Energy.
Are we agreed , or am I still escaping?

The universe was not created or conscioussly caused. No.
The big B.ang occurred when energy reached a certain threshold and breached its equilibrium.

All resulting motions thereafter are simple attempts, as required by the laws of physics, by a system to regain its original equilibrium

I have alrady explained to you that matter is mutable and as such could not be self existent.

What triggered the big b ang please?

Deep Sight:

Not at all, if i were to post here a simple visual illussion, you might find that the color blue ceases to exist - sensually. That's the issue. The fact that you limited real things to our senses. That is faulty, clearly.

Visual illusions dont come in plain colours. They come in patterns to fool the brain because the brain forces itself to see patterns.

Mr_Anony:
best evidence would be to provide us with the thought so that we can see it, taste it, touch it, smell it etc. Just hold the thought in your hand and take a picture if you may.

Exactly.

Can you oblige us, Plaetton?

MacDaddy01:


Visual illusions dont come in plain colours. They come in patterns to fool the brain because the brain forces itself to see patterns.

Exactly, so how do we know that the color of the facebook logo or the sky is not an illusion: since EVERYTHING we see has a pattern or backdrop, no?

Are you aware that everything we see might as well be such?

Do you know the reason you cannot walk through a wall? Do you know that its not because of the material particles forming the wall, but because of the motion and energy between the sub particles? So is a wall solid? In fact, do walls exist?