DeepSight:

that the wonder of your existence: in mind, body and spirit: is staggering evidence of the creator or creators.

I just thought to drop a short note on the bold: just to remind you and others that I do not regard mankind on this earth or even this earth or universe as being directly created by the one permanent eternal self existent and intangible element which I refer to as God. However it is evident that this realm has a creator or creators: in the specific case of mankind and this earth I am almost convinced the creators are extra-terrestrial intelligent beings similar to but more advanced than us.

Let me also say that there are doubtless legion superior spiritual beings at a higher dimension responsible for this dimension: and in the natural course of the development of man, he is intended to also develop into such beings and create and superintend worlds as well.

thehomer:


What is the point of God?

It is the very point on which all existence rests.
The singular point which is the "necessary permanent something" that makes all existence possible, as opposed to nothingness.

DeepSight:


It is the very point on which all existence rests.
The singular point which is the "necessary permanent something" that makes all existence possible, as opposed to nothingness.

Was there ever a point where there was nothing?

dalaman:


Was there ever a point where there was nothing?

Such is impossible. Nothingness by definition cannot exist.

DeepSight:


Such is impossible. Nothingness by definition cannot exist.

Was there nothing before the universe began?

dalaman:


Was there nothing before the universe began?

No. There was never "nothing".

There was always something in existence. Something other than the universe. Something that sparked the universe.

Please stop repeating the same question in different words.

DeepSight:


I am truly at a loss sir.
I don't understand what you are saying.

When looking at a created thing, one can see attributes of its creator therein. In simple terms, where one looks at a computer once can discern not just that it was intelligently put together, but that its creator clearly has a need for storage and retrieval of information, for processing documents and programs and the like. Even a bicycle discloses that it has a creator and also discloses attributes of its creator - such as that the creator most likely has a need for movement, and most likely has two legs and two hands.

I don't understand how you can look at a fully formed being, starting as it does from the union of sperm and egg, developing in the wombs into a form with fit-for-purpose body parts: parts intricately designed to aid consciousness and active conscious experience of the world - all of the organs of the Body from the astonishing feat called a brain, to the mind-blowing things called eyes: to the ears, mouth, tongue - The heart, Lungs, Liver, digestive and reproductive systems, nervous and sensory systems: and the fact that therein lives and dwells a mind - of ideas, thoughts, emotions and self conscious will: and say to yourself that this does not of itself disclose a creator or creators who have set that process in movement with very definite intentions for conscious experiencing.

This is why I point to you as evidence of the creator and I can only be befuddled if you do not recognize that the wonder of your existence: in mind, body and spirit: is staggering evidence of the creator or creators.

But, as it happens, you are actually able to look at the totality of your self and declare: "no evidence!"
It can only be that you have a most dim and most low perception of your own being as a creature. You must regard yourself as something lower than an amoeba.

Ol boy, its benumbing.

Problems with your arguments;

1) You assume that humans were created without evidence

2) human beings and artificial things like computers and bicycles are very different. You are comparing apples to oranges, as human beings cannot be said to be created in the same way computers are manufactured.

JackBizzle:




Problems with your arguments;

1) You assume that humans were created without evidence

2) human beings and artificial things like computers and bicycles are very different. You are comparing apples to oranges, as human beings cannot be said to be created in the same way computers are manufactured.

Lol, the same "without evidence" refrain. Just how blind to the evidence presented can you choose to be.
My friend: just take a good hard look at the palms of your very hands.
Good evening.

DeepSight:


Lol, the same "without evidence" refrain. Just how blind to the evidence presented can you choose to be.
My friend: just take a good hard look at the palms of your very hands.
Good evening.

"the palms of you hands are evidence that zeus is a creator"


This is the nonsense non sequitur you are saying.


My body is only evidence of my existence and that I had ancestors. Nothing more.

In proving the existence of God, this argument can work ONLY against materialist atheists. It's an easy peasy for someone who believes in the reality of the soul (as an immaterial entity, of course), its self existence, and hence its immortality. There are infinite souls, of course (and accept the fact that for anything to be considered immaterial, it must of necessity, be DIMENSIONLESS, or rather to use Descartes's terminology, UNEXTENDED, hence indivisible, because it's zero, ontological "nothing" - this is the only possible precise, unambiguous definition of immateriality).

This fact renders a creator God IMPOSSIBLE because, what the fvck does it mean to create a soul/mind (an immaterial entity)? Well, from NOTHINGNESS? By magic? But nothingness is an impossible state when being used to describe NON-EXISTENCE. You can't create a soul. It is immaterial and eternal. That's why the materialist conception of the Big Bang is just as stupid and ridiculous as Abrahamism. The physical/material/dimensional universe didn't emanate from nothing, it was just dimensionless/immaterial/mental energy being converted to dimensional energy (not CREATING dimensional energy, as that would imply creation from nothing, and nonexistence is impossible.....). By the same token, it's absurd to talk about a creator God creating from nothing. It's impossible. The physical universe is just the product of infinite souls/minds (that's US!!) converting their dimensionless/mental/immaterial/spiritual energy into a dimensional one and stirring (within the parameters of the laws of exisyence ) the matter they have co-created, through trial and error, into more and more complex systems through which mind/life can be meaningfully expressed until there are complex enough systems through which minds can exhibit consciousness.

Since minds are immaterial, they never enter dimensional existence (souls are ALWAYS in the immaterial domain). They're immaterial afterall! They control the material body they're connected to mathematically, and when the control is lost due to many damages done to the process over-time, they can re-enact the connection to a new body (this is what is called REINCARNATION), and the process continues until a mind attains full mastery of material existence, having attained ultimate knowledge of existence as a whole and can exist as a pure mental/immaterial entity without needing the complexity of physical systems to be conscious. This is what it means to be GOD. We are all on a journey towards apotheosis, deification. Our destiny is to become God, and let it sink that no creator God created your soul (it's by definition, IMPOSSIBLE).

Cc. DeepSight

joyContraMundum:
In proving the existence of God, this argument can work ONLY against materialist atheists. It's an easy peasy for someone who believes in the reality of the soul (as an immaterial entity, of course), its self existence, and hence its immortality. There are infinite souls, of course (and accept the fact that for anything to be considered immaterial, it must of necessity, be DIMENSIONLESS, or rather to use Descartes's terminology, UNEXTENDED, hence indivisible, because it's zero, ontological "nothing" - this is the only possible precise, unambiguous definition of immateriality).

This fact renders a creator God IMPOSSIBLE because, what the fvck does it mean to create a soul/mind (an immaterial entity)? Well, from NOTHINGNESS? By magic? But nothingness is an impossible state when being used to describe NON-EXISTENCE. You can't create a soul. It is immaterial and eternal. That's why the materialist conception of the Big Bang is just as stupid and ridiculous as Abrahamism. The physical/material/dimensional universe didn't emanate from nothing, it was just dimensionless/immaterial/mental energy being converted to dimensional energy (not CREATING dimensional energy, as that would imply creation from nothing, and nonexistence is impossible.....). By the same token, it's absurd to talk about a creator God creating from nothing. It's impossible. The physical universe is just the product of infinite souls/minds (that's US!!) converting their dimensionless/mental/immaterial/spiritual energy into a dimensional one and stirring (within the parameters of the laws of exisyence ) the matter they have co-created, through trial and error, into more and more complex systems through which mind/life can be meaningfully expressed until there are complex enough systems through which minds can exhibit consciousness.

Since minds are immaterial, they never enter dimensional existence (souls are ALWAYS in the immaterial domain). They're immaterial afterall! They control the material body they're connected to mathematically, and when the control is lost due to many damages done to the process over-time, they can re-enact the connection to a new body (this is what is called REINCARNATION), and the process continues until a mind attains full mastery of material existence, having attained ultimate knowledge of existence as a whole and can exist as a pure mental/immaterial entity without needing the complexity of physical systems to be conscious. This is what it means to be GOD. We are all on a journey towards apotheosis, deification. Our destiny is to become God, and let it sink that no creator God created your soul (it's by definition, IMPOSSIBLE).

Cc. DeepSight

Very poor argument against God's existence .I doubt DeepSight would even pay attention to this .

And your doctrine is Jainism's - man's journey is towards apotheosis - nothing new .

JackBizzle:


"the palms of you hands are evidence that zeus is a creator"

Zeus I do not know.

This is the nonsense non sequitur you are saying.

No it is not, and you know that.

My body is only evidence of my existence and that I had ancestors. Nothing more.

If you so feel. However I did not speak of just your body. I spoke of you. It is your cup of tea if you feel that your decomposing body is all there is to you.

KingEbukasBlog:


Very poor argument against God's existence .I doubt DeepSight would even pay attention to this .

And your doctrine is Jainism's - man's journey is towards apotheosis - nothing new .

You don't just call it "poor" and leave. Show HOW it is poor, will ya?

joyContraMundum:
In proving the existence of God, this argument can work ONLY against materialist atheists. It's an easy peasy for someone who believes in the reality of the soul (as an immaterial entity, of course), its self existence, and hence its immortality. There are infinite souls, of course (and accept the fact that for anything to be considered immaterial, it must of necessity, be DIMENSIONLESS, or rather to use Descartes's terminology, UNEXTENDED, hence indivisible, because it's zero, ontological "nothing" - this is the only possible precise, unambiguous definition of immateriality).

This fact renders a creator God IMPOSSIBLE because, what the fvck does it mean to create a soul/mind (an immaterial entity)? Well, from NOTHINGNESS? By magic? But nothingness is an impossible state when being used to describe NON-EXISTENCE. You can't create a soul. It is immaterial and eternal. That's why the materialist conception of the Big Bang is just as stupid and ridiculous as Abrahamism. The physical/material/dimensional universe didn't emanate from nothing, it was just dimensionless/immaterial/mental energy being converted to dimensional energy (not CREATING dimensional energy, as that would imply creation from nothing, and nonexistence is impossible.....). By the same token, it's absurd to talk about a creator God creating from nothing. It's impossible. The physical universe is just the product of infinite souls/minds (that's US!!) converting their dimensionless/mental/immaterial/spiritual energy into a dimensional one and stirring (within the parameters of the laws of exisyence ) the matter they have co-created, through trial and error, into more and more complex systems through which mind/life can be meaningfully expressed until there are complex enough systems through which minds can exhibit consciousness.

Since minds are immaterial, they never enter dimensional existence (souls are ALWAYS in the immaterial domain). They're immaterial afterall! They control the material body they're connected to mathematically, and when the control is lost due to many damages done to the process over-time, they can re-enact the connection to a new body (this is what is called REINCARNATION), and the process continues until a mind attains full mastery of material existence, having attained ultimate knowledge of existence as a whole and can exist as a pure mental/immaterial entity without needing the complexity of physical systems to be conscious. This is what it means to be GOD. We are all on a journey towards apotheosis, deification. Our destiny is to become God, and let it sink that no creator God created your soul (it's by definition, IMPOSSIBLE).

Cc. DeepSight

Very interesting take which I agree with in many respects, however I do not see how what you have written obviates the existence of the primordial God-Head from which all souls flow.

DeepSight:


Very interesting take which I agree with in many respects, however I do not see how what you have written obviates the existence of the primordial God-Head from which all souls flow.

Do you agree that souls are ETERNAL? What's your definition of a soul?

joyContraMundum:
You don't just call it "poor" and leave. Show HOW it is poor, will ya?

You just asserted that the soul is eternal and then appealed to common sense : since you couldn't decipher how the an immaterial part of man , the soul , is created therefore it can't be created .

There are three quick things to note here :

1. God is an enormously powerful being that has the ability to bring anything into being .

2. The immaterial realm is a realm on its own , different rules , different experience of living .

3. The soul can be immaterial as God is but this does not mean it is of the same substance or essence as God . That explains the triune nature of God . The trinity are made up of one ousía - of one substance and essence . And with this understanding , we can say that angels who are also immaterial are another genus of ousia and souls - the immaterial part of man - are made of yet another different ousia from the angels . All are immaterial but are made of different ousia .

a. In Heteroousianism , God the Father and The Son are said to be of different substances though both of them are immaterial . In this view , The Son is created by God The Father - Arians hold this belief .

b. In Homoousion , God The Father and The Son are both immaterial and made up of the same substance and essence .

Since the soul is made of different substance , it can be created . The soul of man does not share the same substance and essence which make the creator eternal .

I think these are enough to utterly destroy your argument . Thanks for trying though .

Piss

joyContraMundum:
Do you agree that souls are ETERNAL? What's your definition of a soul?

Souls are living conscious orbs - immaterial beings carrying a spark of life within them from the God Head.

Souls are only eternal in the past in the sense that they existed as germ-soul seeds within the eternity and infinity of the God-Head from eternity. However they only gradually become distinct and conscious souls as they emanate outwards and enter into the realms of their experiencing for their development towards God Consciousness.

Souls can rise to God Consciousness and Light and they can also descend into utter destruction and darkness in which their essence is dissipated into nether realms and they lose the light spark within them.

KingEbukasBlog:


You just asserted that the soul is created and then appealed to common sense : since you couldn't decipher how the an immaterial part of man , the soul , is created therefore it can't be created .

There are three quick things to note here :

1. God is an enormously powerful being that has the ability to bring anything into being .

2. The immaterial realm is a realm on its own , different rules , different experience of living .

3. The soul can be immaterial as God is but this does not mean it is of the same substance or essence as God . That explains the triune nature of God . The trinity are made up of one ousía - of one substance and essence . And with this understanding , we can say that angels who are also immaterial are another genus of ousia and souls - the immaterial part of man - are made of yet another different ousia from the angels . All are immaterial but are made of different ousia .

a. In Heteroousianism , God the Father and The Son are said to be of different substances though both of them are immaterial . In this view , The Son is created by God The Father - Arians hold this belief .

b. In Homoousion , God The Father and The Son are both immaterial and made up of the same substance and essence .

Since the soul is made of different substance , it can be created . The soul of man does not share the same substance which makes the creator eternal .


I think these are surfeit to utterly destroy your argument . Thanks for trying though .

Piss

cc : DeepSight

This shiit is deep, Mr. You wrote complete nonsense up there. You have the effrontery to argue that God could not have been created because he's an immaterial entity, hence eternal and self existent, then went out of your way to declare in the same breath that the soul which is also immaterial CANNOT be self existent and eternal? Double standard, Orwellian Double think, sheer dishonesty. Your argument is pure bathos. I can understand that you did that because a creator is REQUIRED for Christianity to be valid. Now, since that's the case, why not shut the fvck up about logic and cling to that irrational, deluded, fanatical faith instead? Always trying to pathetically carve a niche for Yahweh to occupy. Sorry, but it's not working. Disgusts me that you had the temerity to call my argument poor while championing this kind of "logic".

Demonstrate how creation from NOTHINGNESS is logical. Show how an entity that wad NON-EXISTENT, could be brought into existence. Show me how an immaterial, dimensionless, unextended entity, could have been created. Since these are the ridiculous nonsense you believe, stop shouting logic and start championing magic - and then we can know that you've taken your first step into the madhouse. How grotesque.

joyContraMundum:
This shiit is deep, Mr. You wrote complete nonsense up there. You have the effrontery to argue that God could not have been created because he's an immaterial entity, hence eternal and self existent, then went out of your way to declare in the same breath that the soul which is also immaterial CANNOT be self existent and eternal? Double standard, Orwellian Double think, sheer dishonesty. Your argument is pure bathos. I can understand that you did that because a creator is REQUIRED for Christianity to be valid. Now, since that's the case, why not shut the fvck up about logic and cling to that irrational, deluded, fanatical faith instead? Always trying to pathetically carve a niche for Yahweh to occupy. Sorry, but it's not working. Disgusts me that you had the temerity to call my argument poor while championing this kind of "logic".

Demonstrate how creation from NOTHINGNESS is logical. Show how an entity that wad NON-EXISTENT, could be brought into existence. Show me how an immaterial, dimensionless, unextended entity, could have been created. Since these are the ridiculous nonsense you believe, stop shouting logic and start championing magic - and then we can know that you've taken your first step into the madhouse. How grotesque.

I thought you were adept in this area of philosophy . Looks like you are the fuccking neophyte here ... lmaoo .

DeepSight:


Souls are living conscious orbs - immaterial beings carrying a spark of life within them from the God Head.

Souls are only eternal in the past in the sense that they existed as germ-soul seeds within the eternity and infinity of the God-Head from eternity. However they only gradually become distinct and conscious souls as they emanate outwards and enter into the realms of their experiencing for their development towards God Consciousness.

Souls can rise to God Consciousness and Light and they can also descend into utter destruction and darkness in which their essence is dissipated into nether realms and they lose the light spark within them.

What exactly do you mean by the God-Head?

DeepSight:


Souls are living conscious orbs - immaterial beings carrying a spark of life within them from the God Head.

Souls are only eternal in the past in the sense that they existed as germ-soul seeds within the eternity and infinity of the God-Head from eternity. However they only gradually become distinct and conscious souls as they emanate outwards and enter into the realms of their experiencing for their development towards God Consciousness.

Souls can rise to God Consciousness and Light and they can also descend into utter destruction and darkness in which their essence is dissipated into nether realms and they lose the light spark within them.

This guy is even deeper into this than I thought .

There is just so much to learn from you sir

joyContraMundum:
What exactly do you mean by the God-Head?

The primordial fountain of eternity. God ~ in its original self and form.

KingEbukasBlog:




I thought you were adept in this area of philosophy . Looks like you are the fuccking neophyte here ... lmaoo .

Oh, I see. This is how far you can go. That's downright cretinous, my friend.

- It's silly to ask where God comes from, because he's IMMATERIAL, hence eternal, and therefore DID NOT begin to exist; he's self existent.

- It's silly not to ask where a soul comes from, because, even though it's IMMATERIAL, it is NOT eternal, and therefore DID begin to exist; it is NOT self-exisistent.

Makes perfect sense, indeed.

And if you disagree with this, you don't know philosophy.

Yeah, right.

joyContraMundum:
This shiit is deep, Mr. You wrote complete nonsense up there. You have the effrontery to argue that God could not have been created because he's an immaterial entity, hence eternal and self existent, then went out of your way to declare in the same breath that the soul which is also immaterial CANNOT be self existent and eternal? Double standard, Orwellian Double think, sheer dishonesty. Your argument is pure bathos. .

I explained why the soul is immaterial as God but it is not eternal as God. Try to read and understand then present a reasonable rebuttal not a deluge of vitriolic attacks .

I'd love to discuss this with you if you choose to be reasonable .

Gentlemen in your discussion perhaps its apt you consider and look into the distinction between a self existent eternal thing and an eternal thing which is not eternal in the past: i.e: not self existent.

KingEbukasBlog:



I explained why the soul is immaterial as God but it is not eternal as God. Try to read and understand then present a reasonable rebuttal not a deluge of vitriolic attacks .

I'd love to discuss this with you if you choose to be reasonable .

You EXPLAINED? Like hell you did.

You didn't explain a damn thing. You only told me your Christian beliefs. Talking about "Substance" in the Immaterial domain, and all that fabricated crap about the trinity. They have no rational underpinnings.

Well, as it appears, we have different ideas of what the word "Immaterial", means.

DeepSight:

Gentlemen in your discussion perhaps its apt you consider and look into the distinction between a self existent eternal thing and an eternal thing which is not eternal in the past: i.e: not self existent.

And this eternal thing which was not eternal in the past was CREATED right? Then, it's NOT eternal, since it began to exist at some point. And to assert that something that was initially nonexistent could be brought into existent is to take the philosophically absurd position of Creatio ex nihilo (Creation out of nothing), and where does that put you? It would be dishonest to hold this kind of belief and still ridicule scientific materialist atheists for believing in a universe which "came from nothing".

joyContraMundum:
And this eternal thing which was not eternal in the past was CREATED right?

I would prefer to say "emanated" in order to hep you understand what I mean. In the same way as the sun emanates rays of Light. It cannot but emanate them. And yet the rays of Light are not the Sun itself, even where they contain particles from it.

Then, it's NOT eternal, since it began to exist at some point.

Have you considered that there is a difference between a thing that begins to exist and which will exist eternally into the future and a thing that always existed and always will exist (a self existent).

And to assert that something that was initially nonexistent could be brought into existent is to take the philosophically absurd position of Creatio ex nihilo (Creation out of nothing), and where does that put you? It would be dishonest to hold this kind of belief and still ridicule scientific materialist atheists for believing in a universe which "came from nothing".

No I do not subscribe to creatio ex nihilo. I subscribe to creatio ex deo.

Please review this thread:

https://www.nairaland.com/1000711/ex-nihilo-nihil-fit-refutes

DeepSight:


I would prefer to say "emanated" in order to hep you understand what I mean. In the same way as the sun emanates rays of Light. It cannot but emanate them. And yet the rays of Light are not the Sun itself, even where they contain particles from it.

Good. Good. Now, it's a fact that the sun can be reduced to its atoms, or its fundamental particles even, and this particles have ALWAYS been part of the sun, right? There wasn't ever a time where they "began to exist" in regards to the sun, isn't that right? The sun DIDN'T precede its particles, and THEY'RE WHAT MAKE IT AFTERALL. All those particles came together to form the sun! They ARE the sun. So it goes.

Have you considered that there is a difference between a thing that begins to exist and which will exist eternally into the future and a thing that always existed and always will exist (a self existent).

Like I said earlier, if it BEGAN TO EXIST, then it plainly didn't exist before. That's just it. If you're talking about emanation, then it didn't "begin to exist", as it has always existed implicitly in that from which it emanates. And, wait, isn't that pantheism? So, whichever way you put it, the soul remains eternal. IT HAS ALWAYS EXISTED AND WILL ALWAYS EXIST. It wasn't created, neither can it be destroyed.

joyContraMundum:
Good. Good. Now, it's a fact that the sun can be reduced to its atoms, or its fundamental particles even, and this particles have ALWAYS been part of the sun, right? There wasn't ever a time where they "began to exist" in regards to the sun, isn't that right? The sun DIDN'T precede its particles, and THEY'RE WHAT MAKE IT AFTERALL. All those particles came together to form the sun! They ARE the sun. So it goes.

Like I said earlier, if it BEGAN TO EXIST, then it plainly didn't exist before. That's just it. If you're talking about emanation, then it didn't "begin to exist", as it has always existed implicitly in that from which it emanates. And, wait, isn't that pantheism? So, whichever way you put it, the soul remains eternal. IT HAS ALWAYS EXISTED AND WILL ALWAYS EXIST. It wasn't created, neither can it be destroyed.

Not different from what I said earler:

"Souls are only eternal in the past in the sense that they existed as germ-soul seeds within the eternity and infinity of the God-Head from eternity."

That also aligns with the analogy of particles in the sun.

This further aligns with what I said about my aligning with creatio ex deo.
That would simply mean that the soul always existed as part of the very substance of God. It only becomes a distinct self conscious spark when emanated.

I have argued the same point you are making before.
However a soul is not a separate unique being before it is emanated. Its seed has always rested in the Godhead though. So there is a subtle and fine difference. I don't see any particular thing to overly disagree with in terms of what you are saying though.

DeepSight:


Not different from what I said earler:

"Souls are only eternal in the past in the sense that they existed as germ-soul seeds within the eternity and infinity of the God-Head from eternity."

That also aligns with the analogy of particles in the sun.

I have argued the same point you are making before.
However a soul is not a separate unique being before it is emanated. Its seed has always rested in the Godhead though. So there is a subtle and fine difference. I don't see any particular thing to overly disagree with in terms of what you are saying though.

Well, we're saying pretty much the same thing, it would appear, albeit with emphasis on different parts.

^^^ By the way please tell me more about this:

"I shall Crush the Host of the swine. Hurl away their goblet of wine. Drink from the chalice of light. Consume this cosmic might. For those with eyes to see, let them behold.Those who refuse let them incur the mirth of saints."

Your signature.