ooman: ok, where is the sum?

Deep Sight:

It is for the initiated to see.

Anyhow, there will be more.

ooman:

all you have up there are questions showing your confusion...

Deep Sight:

So you have no questions. Lol, please leave me and mine to my musings.

By the way, if there is a single falsity in anything I wrote, do feel free to point it out. But if there is not, can you not just smile at an idle old man and let him be.

plaetton: Good poetry for a man that is not only a non-resident of our celestial neighborhood, but is also a self-confessed mad man. Lol.

Yes, madness does inspire good poetry.

But I see nothing new, no new insight, no new revelation: just the same old " the universe is so great that we must, as an urgent necessity, create a creator for it".

It just echoed in a much more elegant fashion, the earlier convoluted logic of Joshthefirst.

Cosmology according to Deepsight:

In the beginning was the word, and the word grew into big words, and the words became God, and the words were from Deepsight.

Lol.

Redlyn: Something must have been uncaused. I stop at the universe because it's as far as I can see. beyond that it's just wild speculation based on the evidence presented to me in this world. I'll leave it that.

I think the first arguments premise should be the singularity or something not big balls of fire. We already know the earth or the sun wasn't always there.

Deep Sight: FIRST ARGUMENTS (OPTIONS. . . )

- - - - > The worlds, the big balls of fire - - ->

1. Came from nothing. (ex nihilo) - - - OR ->

2. Always existed: were just there. - - - > OR ->

3. Came from something. - - - AND ->

4. That "Something" - - -> always existed - - - > was Just there.

plaetton:

Cosmology according to Deepsight:

plaetton:
In the beginning was the word, and the word grew into big words, and the words became God, and the words were from Deepsight.
Lol.

Deep Sight:
So you have no questions. Lol, please leave me and mine to my musings.

By the way, if there is a single falsity in anything I wrote, do feel free to point it out. But if there is not, can you not just smile at an idle old man and let him be.

Deep Sight:

. . . .

I had thought, that people would not argue against the idea that the universe had a cause: but may argue what the cause is. However, I was mistaken. Some atheists actually contest even the idea that the universe had a cause. On this board, notably thehomer and jayriginal have done so. This is why the sum of all arguments must commence with baby steps.

Very very. . .

Baby, baby. . .

Deep Sight:
^^^ Yes, for the blind.

thehomer:

Careful now. The problem is that by "cause", you generally mean that someone maybe spoke the universe into existence or imagined it into existence. Would say a change of state from something to the universe that didn't need some mind directing things count as a cause to you?

Joshthefirst:
cause/kôz/
Noun:
A person or thing that gives rise to an action, phenomenon, or condition
Verb:
Make (something) happen


I believe you see enough to realize that a change of state had to be caused. Non-consciousness cannot give rise to consciousness, even in the smallest degree.

rationalmind:

Lol, somehow, non-consciousness gave rise to a conscious creator(or should I say cause).

Joshthefirst: the creator is uncaused. Or else he is not the creator. Simple logic. Think.

Merry Christmas.

cyrexx:

So you believe that something or someone can be uncaused?

Joshthefirst: the creator is uncaused. Or else he is not the creator. Simple logic. Think.

Merry Christmas.

texanomaly:

Nice one…



Even better one…



You are old? How old is old? Interesting…
I have to wonder, because I’ve noticed there are NLers who think 30 is old. So I’m just wondering.

Lovely musings btw

thehomer:

Careful now. The problem is that by "cause", you generally mean that someone maybe spoke the universe into existence or imagined it into existence. Would say a change of state from something to the universe that didn't need some mind directing things count as a cause to you?

Mr Troll: False. Nobody knows...
False. Proven so.
speculation. No concrete evidence.
see 3 above.

Deep Sight: FIRST ARGUMENTS (OPTIONS. . . )

- - - - > The worlds, the big balls of fire - - ->

1. Came from nothing. (ex nihilo) - - - OR ->

2. Always existed: were just there. - - - > OR ->

3. Came from something. - - - AND ->

4. That "Something" - - -> always existed - - - > was Just there.

This is the first step. These are the first arguments. Then we discuss many other steps.

I had thought, that people would not argue against the idea that the universe had a cause: but may argue what the cause is. However, I was mistaken. Some atheists actually contest even the idea that the universe had a cause. On this board, notably thehomer and jayriginal have done so. This is why the sum of all arguments must commence with baby steps.

Very very. . .

Baby, baby. . .

Deep Sight:

Right.

Following on from this. But before I do, I should make a brief comment on strangeness.

Most people live their lives within a "normalcy" that allows them to be completely oblivious of just how absolutely strange and odd this world, this existence of ours, is. I do not. Although it is a dysfunction of some sort, and troubles me a great deal, I live every day with an acute consciousness of the strangeness of life and of our existence: the strangeness of everything about us. Indeed, the strangeness of our very own lives.

For this is exactly what has happened, as far as we know:

In what appears a stagnant void, existing, for all observable purposes, eternally in the past, a sudden burst of matter and energy occurred. This sudden burst, as far as we know, took place about 14 billion years ago, in terms of our current measurement of time. From a single point of virtually infinite energy, the origin and nature of which is unknown, an expansion of matter and energy proceeded, the size and scale of which is absolutely unfathomable to the human mind. The size of the observable universe (not to speak of the universe, whole) is unbelievable and out of all proportion to that which the human mind can visually grasp or comprehend.

Any person who does not regard this (the sudden blossoming into existence of the universe from the point of a singularity) as a pretty strange thing to occur in a seeming void, will have to be pretty strange himself. But wait, that is only the beginning of the strangeness which I tried to convey in such light words in the intro contained in my OP.

It gets stranger. Within the same universe, there, from chemical interactions, at some point in time, supposedly, something quite special and different emerges. Something different from the dead matter about it - living organisms. These organisms grow and evolve over time. Along the way, plant life emerges, also, conscious, feeling, breathing creatures, animals. Ultimately, mankind come forth - self-conscious, thinking, feeling intelligent beings with a sense of past, present and future, and with such very strange tendencies as art, science, music, philosophy, and even cosmological philosophy, religion, as well as moral and societal codes and laws.

In this interaction, in their societies, they create galaxies of knowledge, of new learning, of ideas without limit. But, as with all other living things about them: notwithstanding the high extent of their minds, the loves and passions of their lives, their extensive pursuits: at some point - they die.

And what does this death mean. That every single man, woman and child walking on this earth, floating around the sun, within the larger universe - will lie motionless in death, and rot away. You, me, everyone.

From the first mystery of the big b.ang, what triggered it, what powered it, why it happened at all, to the mystery of first life, and then on to the mystery of self-conscious intelligent life, and on to the mystery of death, it is all a really, really odd thing that has happened, that is happening, and that continues to happen. The existence of the universe, the existence of life, and the existence of us.

Thus people seek meaning in their lives, for otherwise it is perplexing. The sheer futility of compulsory and unavoidable death, the enigma of it all, is enough to compel man to seek meaning in his life: however it is also sufficient to render man renegade, not caring one way or the other. For if all things end in death, why should man seek any ideal higher than to enjoy himself within this brief stay under the sun.

When the atheist thus preaches to the religionist, asking the religionist to forsake the coagulation of ideas which give him purpose and meaningfulness in his otherwise perplexing existence, the atheist should be ready to offer a purpose and a meaningfulness higher and better, in lieu of the purpose and meaning of the life of the religious.

The atheist would do well to understand that few people would choose the seeming perplexing meaninglessness and randomness of "chance" life, in a "chance" universe, over a meaning, a purpose and an order. Such meaning, purpose and order, the atheist should inculcate into his evangelism, before seeking to deconvert the theist.

An unenviable task, given the strangeness of all things about us, as described above. . . .