LordReed:


Yes I agree.

You shouldn’t have. What the hell is “nothing”?

To talk about the world, existence, the universe, or whatever else we call it is to talk about something. There is no such thing as “no thing”.
The next step would be for Deepsight to cite the Big Bang or some other “beginning” and say that “ some thing”is responsible for it and that thing is “eternal” or “infinite” whatever else. Fact of the matter is that the concept of god is nonsense and no amount of rhetorical masturbation is going to detract from that.

The nonsense called god is wholly dependent on the vocabulary of the person presenting the idea and the credulity of the other person.

At the end of the day, it will still boil down to absolute rubbish. Gods can do all things except speak or show themselves. Even a baby can babble, a kid can bleat, a kitten can meow but a god is utterly incapable of saying a mumbling word.

PoliteActivist:

*Politeness*
Sooo, QED as usual
Now on to your next point:
I only quoted Einstein's statement: "I don't think God plays dice with the universe". I did NOT gratuitously keep meentioning God as you obvoously compulsively need to do!

E= MC2 is where Einstein’s authority begins and ends. It doesn’t matter if his God or Dog played dice, ayo, or fucking hopscotch. If he believed in a god, his god wasn’t any different than an uneducated person’s god. Both nonsense.
You can cite the pied piper playing at a distance or the pied piper playing in your closet but IT DOESN’T MATTER! Christ fucking Jesus, you are thick!

KnownUnknown:


You shouldn’t have.

Stay in your lane and mind your business.

What the hell is “nothing”?

To talk about the world, existence, the universe, or whatever else we call it is to talk about something. There is no such thing as “no thing”.

Of course there is no such thing as nothing and that is a fundamental philosophical plank in the upbuilding of the rational argument for the existence of God - to wit: that an eternal something necessarily exists.

Fact of the matter is that the concept of god is nonsense and no amount of rhetorical masturbation is going to detract from that.

The nonsense called god is wholly dependent on the vocabulary of the person presenting the idea and the credulity of the other person.

At the end of the day, it will still boil down to absolute rubbish.

This is nothing but cowardly. If you wish to come at a concept, come at it with logic. Don't attempt cheap cowardly escapisms such as trying to assert that the word has no meaning when it evidently does especially in the context of a specific discussion.

Any coward can do what you are doing here with any discussion and it is simply cheap and unworthy. Frankly i feared Lordreed would play the definition game with "something" and "nothing" - to his credit, he has not. Let him be. If that is the game that suits you, you are simply tiresomely pedantic or intellectually dishonest or both.

Gods can do all things except speak or show themselves. Even a baby can babble, a kid can bleat, a kitten can meow but a god is utterly incapable of saying a mumbling word.

This was the only interesting bit with what you wrote. Has it occurred to you that the "speech" of even an alien would be different from from ours? How much more different would we expect the "speech" of a transcendental being to be? Such speech could simply be universes.

And I am not saying that that is so. I am pointing out how absurd it is to expect a transcendental element to speak pidgin English or Cantonese.

DeepSight:


Stay in your lane and mind your business.

What the hell is “nothing”?



Of course there is no such thing as nothing and that is a fundamental philosophical plank in the upbuilding of the rational argument for the existence of God - to wit: that an eternal something necessarily exists.



This is nothing but cowardly. If you wish to come at a concept, come at it with logic. Don't attempt cheap cowardly escapisms such as trying to assert that the word has no meaning when it evidently does especially in the context of a specific discussion.

Any coward can do what you are doing here with any discussion and it is simply cheap and unworthy. Frankly i feared Lordreed would play the definition game with "something" and "nothing" - to his credit, he has not. Let him be. If that is the game that suits you, you are simply tiresomely pedantic or intellectually dishonest or both.



This was the only interesting bit with what you wrote. Has it occurred to you that the "speech" of even an alien would be different from from ours? How much more different would we expect the "speech" of a transcendental being to be? Such speech could simply be universes.

And I am not saying that that is so. I am pointing out how absurd it is to expect a transcendental element to speak pidgin English or Cantonese.

The “transcendental element”. Indeed! More rhetorical masturbation.

KnownUnknown:


If he believed in a god, his god wasn’t any different than an uneducated person’s god.

This right here is stupid presumption.

DeepSight:


This right here is stupid presumption.

Educated or uneducated. They both lead to the same nonsensical conclusion. It’s not a presumption but a fact. The educated one just has a more expansive vocabulary than the educated but at the end of the day, both their gods are nonsense.

LordReed:


Yes I agree.

Thank you.

Step two. The universe being "something" therefore, we can further surmise that either -

1. It is eternal in the past

Or

2. It had a beginning.

Fair enough so far?

KnownUnknown:


Educated or uneducated. They both lead to the same nonsensical conclusion. It’s not a presumption but a fact.

So far from being a fact, it is a daft and illiterate statement which betrays both shallowness and ignorance.

Good night.

DeepSight:


Thank you.

Step two. The universe being "something" therefore, we can further surmise that either -

1. It is eternal in the past

Or

2. It had a beginning.

Fair enough so far?

Lol, “eternal in the past”.

DeepSight:


So far from being a fact, it is a daft and illiterate statement which betrays both shallowness and ignorance.

Good night.

Lmao, I’m sorry for not being “deep”.

KnownUnknown:


E= MC2 is where Einstein’s authority begins and ends. It doesn’t matter if his God or Dog played dice, ayo, or fucking hopscotch. If he believed in a god, his god wasn’t any different than an uneducated person’s god. Both nonsense.
You can cite the pied piper playing at a distance or the pied piper playing in your closet but IT DOESN’T MATTER! Christ fucking Jesus, you are thick!

HellVictorinho6:


does it matter why he asked or what he meant by asking?

is einstein not overrated?

is he worth all these?

(** It seems my good friend LordReed has been banned. But I have a feeling he's still here with us )

😆Quite funny. But funny aside, let's analyze this Einstein. Have you ever pondered where your thoughts come from. Or where your dreams come from? Those are the kind of things Einstein spent months on end thinking about before comming forward with a position.
Considering that Einstein is arguably the most insightful human that has ever lived (in terms of insight into the true nature of our reality), it is not wise to dismiss his position on that topic as "Appeal to Authority"

KnownUnknown:


You shouldn’t have. What the hell is “nothing”?

To talk about the world, existence, the universe, or whatever else we call it is to talk about something. There is no such thing as “no thing”.
The next step would be for Deepsight to cite the Big Bang or some other “beginning” and say that “ some thing”is responsible for it and that thing is “eternal” or “infinite” whatever else. Fact of the matter is that the concept of god is nonsense and no amount of rhetorical masturbation is going to detract from that.

The nonsense called god is wholly dependent on the vocabulary of the person presenting the idea and the credulity of the other person.

At the end of the day, it will still boil down to absolute rubbish. Gods can do all things except speak or show themselves. Even a baby can babble, a kid can bleat, a kitten can meow but a god is utterly incapable of saying a mumbling word.

That's why I agreed, there wasn't a nothing.

DeepSight:


Thank you.

Step two. The universe being "something" therefore, we can further surmise that either -

1. It is eternal in the past

Or

2. It had a beginning.

Fair enough so far?

Permit me to qualify my answer.

1. Time was not eternal in the past, therefore whatever existed before time began cannot be measured by time.

2. The universe as we know it now began as time began.

PoliteActivist:




(** It seems my good friend LordReed has been banned. But I have a feeling he's still here with us )

😆Quite funny. But funny aside, let's analyze this Einstein. Have you ever pondered where your thoughts come from. Or where your dreams come from? Those are the kind of things Einstein spent months on end thinking about before comming forward with a position.
Considering that Einstein is arguably the most insightful human that has ever lived (in terms of insight into the true nature of our reality), it is not wise to dismiss his position on that topic as "Appeal to Authority"

Can u help me with any amount of money?

LordReed:


Permit me to qualify my answer.

1. Time was not eternal in the past, therefore whatever existed before time began cannot be measured by time.

2. The universe as we know it now began as time began.

For the purposes of this discussion, I am going to stick with the common scientific understanding of time as we know it, to wit: a dimension of motion. Because if we were to venture outside that, what a terrible flux we will find ourselves in.

Now it is interesting that I referred to the universe but your qualifications are about time. No matter, no pun intended. Let us just get the logic clear -

1. We both agree that something cannot come from nothing - it being the case that nothingness does not exist

2. Therefore if a thing exists, given that it could not have come from nothing, then it either -

. . . (a) Came from something already pre existing or

. . . (b) Is eternal in the past (i.e: it always existed) - as a necessary element. I trust you understand what "necessary" as opposed to "contingent" means in philosophy.

DeepSight:


For the purposes of this discussion, I am going to stick with the common scientific understanding of time as we know it, to wit: a dimension of motion. Because if we were to venture outside that, what a terrible flux we will find ourselves in.

Now it is interesting that I referred to the universe but your qualifications are about time. No matter, no pun intended. Let us just get the logic clear -

1. We both agree that something cannot come from nothing - it being the case that nothingness does not exist

2. Therefore if a thing exists, given that it could not have come from nothing, then it either -

. . . (a) Came from something already pre existing or

. . . (b) Is eternal in the past (i.e: it always existed) - as a necessary element. I trust you understand what "necessary" as opposed to "contingent" means in philosophy.

I guess my gripe is with the use of eternal. I can agree that whatever preceded the universe existed as a necessary element. Eternal and its association with time is at conflict with what we understand of the conditions preceding the birth of our universe as we know it.

PoliteActivist:




(** It seems my good friend LordReed has been banned. But I have a feeling he's still here with us )

😆Quite funny. But funny aside, let's analyze this Einstein. Have you ever pondered where your thoughts come from. Or where your dreams come from? Those are the kind of things Einstein spent months on end thinking about before comming forward with a position.
Considering that Einstein is arguably the most insightful human that has ever lived (in terms of insight into the true nature of our reality), it is not wise to dismiss his position on that topic as "Appeal to Authority"

Lol, imbecil3

LordReed:


I guess my gripe is with the use of eternal. I can agree that whatever preceded the universe existed as a necessary element.

This suffices for the purpose of our discussion.

Eternal and its association with time is at conflict with what we understand of the conditions preceding the birth of our universe as we know it.

In truth though, you are showing a needless fear of clear concepts and clear words, almost as though you are frightened of being trapped by self evident logic. A thing which has always existed is eternal in the past - no mystery there, contrary to the way one clown tried to scoff at the phrase yesterday. If something has always existed, it is eternal in the past, simple. A thing that will always exist in the future is eternal in the future.

So let us proceed. Of the two options - either that the universe has always existed or that it had a beginning, we are clearly going with the latter. I appreciate this otherwise I may have had to labor to explain why it could not be that the universe is eternal in the past. Now, since we agree that the universe had a beginning, and we also agree that it could not come from nothing - as nothingness does not exist, then we per force also agree that it came from a previously existing thing.

All good so far?

PoliteActivist:




(** It seems my good friend LordReed has been banned. But I have a feeling he's still here with us )

😆Quite funny. But funny aside, let's analyze this Einstein. Have you ever pondered where your thoughts come from. Or where your dreams come from? Those are the kind of things Einstein spent months on end thinking about before comming forward with a position.
Considering that Einstein is arguably the most insightful human that has ever lived (in terms of insight into the true nature of our reality), it is not wise to dismiss his position on that topic as "Appeal to Authority"

It is appeal to authority and nothing says he could not be wrong in any of his conclusions. Even scientific ones. New science continuously upends old science.

DeepSight:


This suffices for the purpose of our discussion.



In truth though, you are showing a needless fear of clear concepts and clear words, almost as though you are frightened of being trapped by self evident logic. A thing which has always existed is eternal in the past - no mystery there, contrary to the way one clown tried to scoff at the phrase yesterday. If something has always existed, it is eternal in the past, simple. A thing that will always exist in the future is eternal in the future.

So let us proceed. Of the two options - either that the universe has always existed or that it had a beginning, we are clearly going with the latter. I appreciate this otherwise I may have had to labor to explain why it could not be that the universe is eternal in the past. Now, since we agree that the universe had a beginning, and we also agree that it could not come from nothing - as nothingness does not exist, then we per force also agree that it came from a previously existing thing.

All good so far?

There is no fear. I try to make sure I am clear in what I am saying.

Yes I agree that the universe had a beginning, it could not come from nothing - as nothingness does not exist. I also agree that it came from a previously existing thing.

KnownUnknown:



Lol, imbecil3

A very insufferable one.

DeepSight:


A thing which has always existed is eternal in the past - no mystery there, contrary to the way one clown tried to scoff at the phrase yesterday. If something has always existed, it is eternal in the past, simple. A thing that will always exist in the future is eternal in the future.

Lol, you forgot the third part of the holy Trinity of bullshit, “eternal in the present”.

KnownUnknown:


Lol, you forgot the third part of the holy Trinity of bullshit, “eternal in the present”.

No one invited daft commentary to this conversation. Please go and rest.

LordReed:


There is no fear. I try to make sure I am clear in what I am saying.

Yes I agree that the universe had a beginning, it could not come from nothing - as nothingness does not exist. I also agree that it came from a previously existing thing.

Excellent. So what remains is to see to what extent we can logically deduce what that previously existing thing is.

Now there is a simple way I have oft phrased this (and it is not unique to me, nor did I originate this reasoning). Here goes:

That if the universe consists of physical things then that pre existing thing could not be physical. It would have to be non physical. That if the universe is bound in time then that pre existing thing would have to be timeless. That if the universe is bound in space, then that pre existing thing would have to be spaceless. The rationale for all this being that the pre existing thing could not have the same attributes as the universe which it caused: otherwise we are no longer speaking of a universe which had a beginning.

And this leads us to discern initial qualities of that pre existing thing as something immaterial beyond time and space.

Any worries so far?

DeepSight:


No one invited daft commentary to this
conversation. Please go and rest.

Don’t mind me. Continue with your rigmarole of bullshit.

DeepSight:


Excellent. So what remains is to see to what extent we can logically deduce what that previously existing thing is.

Now there is a simple way I have oft phrased this (and it is not unique to me, nor did I originate this reasoning). Here goes:

That if the universe consists of physical things then that pre existing thing could not be physical. It would have to be non physical. That if the universe is bound in time then that pre existing thing would have to be timeless. That if the universe is bound in space, then that pre existing thing would have to be spaceless. The rationale for all this being that the pre existing thing could not have the same attributes as the universe which it caused: otherwise we are no longer speaking of a universe which had a beginning.

And this leads us to discern initial qualities of that pre existing thing as something immaterial beyond time and space.

Any worries so far?

I disagree. That we don't know what preceded the universe doesn't give us leeway to assume that it was immaterial.

LordReed:


I disagree. That we don't know what preceded the universe doesn't give us leeway to assume that it was immaterial.

It's not an assumption but a logical inference.

If physical matter had a beginning and came from something else, that other thing could not logically be physical matter.

DeepSight:


It's not an assumption but a logical inference.

If physical matter had a beginning and came from something else, that other thing could not logically be physical matter.

We have never seen any physical matter that didn't come from another physical matter or energy so I disagree that this is a logical inference. I see nothing upon which to make such an inference.

LordReed:


We have never seen any physical matter that didn't come from another physical matter or energy so I disagree that this is a logical inference. I see nothing upon which to make such an inference.

Well in that case you necessarily conclude that there exists physical matter / energy outside of or aside from this universe.

Yes?

DeepSight:


It is appeal to authority and nothing says he could not be wrong in any of his conclusions. Even scientific ones. New science continuously upends old science.

*Politeness*
That's why I say atheism is by far the most STUPID postion a person can adopt. See how you did not attempt to answer the questions as to where your thoughts come from? Or where your dreams come from? I have a friend who is a very devout Christian. She always dreams of same entity coming to have sex with her. When she's strong in her faith it doesn't happen. When she starts slacking off, it happens again. There are so many dimensions and levels to existence, it's as if we hardly know anything! See below, Einstein on us being like a child in a library. I'll add to it that the child can't read, doesn't know how many rooms are in the library, doesn't know how many libraries there are, and doesn't even know if the library is "real" or if he is in dream or hallucinating!
Imagine such a child making declarations, like nothingness cannot exist, or there is no God!

As for Einstein being just "authority" (someone else said he's overrated). I think it is a case of a pharaoh has come who doesn't know Joseph. Do you know Einstein was the person who persuaded Roosevelt about developing nuclear weapons that ended the war by showing him the Germans were in the process of developing it using his formulas. Do you know Einstein came up with his perception-changing theories in his study through thought experiments, with no technical equipments? I bet you still don't understand how time and space are a continuum, spacetime, and how our gravity is not a force exerted by earth but a curvature in spacetime.
So, there is authority, then there is authority. Especially when all the geniuses of our time are also saying we are likely in a simulation or matrix, and glitches abound that support that. All point to something or someone being behind our reality, not mere happenstance!

LordReed, KnownUnknown, HellVictorinho6, francistown, FxMasterz, jaephoenix, maynman, hopefullandlord

DeepSight:


Well in that case you necessarily conclude that there exists physical matter / energy outside of or aside from this universe.

Yes?

That is an unknown. All we know at the moment is our universe. So no I can't make such a conclusion.

LordReed:


That is an unknown. All we know at the moment is our universe. So no I can't make such a conclusion.

You don't seem to be following your own statements and the inferences and deductions necessary therefrom.

You can't say that all existing matter comes from previously existing matter/ energy and then turn around, when told that this implies previously existing matter / energy outside or aside from the universe, to say oooops, this is an unknown.

If you wished to hold it to be unknown then you should not have posited that all matter comes from previously existing matter/ energy.