PoliteActivist:


*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?

You haven't posted any question to me. That was my first post to you. So please don't make presumptions - I am not an atheist
.

And yes, you are appealing to authority. Einstein, no matter how brilliant, was only human. Nothing becomes true simply because he said it. And he had all the limitations of perception of reality that human beings have.

DeepSight:


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

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.

Let me clarify. First we don't know what the thing that preceded the universe was. We don't know if it was matter or energy or magic. Then after the universe began we have no way to investigate beyond it so that too is closed off to us. It is only within this universe do see that matter comes from other matter or energy so if any inference was to be made it would be whatever preceded this universe was some form of matter or energy. I won't make such an inference though since it is an unknown.

PoliteActivist:


*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 "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!

There is no such thing as universe/EVERYTHING that exists



It makes no sense to say something happened..(past) ..in the absence of time.



There must be time if one thing must precede some other.

The entire big bang/universe concept is rubbish

As 4 thoughts, they are overrated.

Even death is overrated.

Whether u send that murny or not, it remains that way.



U think,hence ur thoughts.

They come from you.

Itz just part of what makes u. Thats why you call it yours.

LordReed:


Let me clarify. First we don't know what the thing that preceded the universe was. We don't know if it was matter or energy or magic. Then after the universe began we have no way to investigate beyond it so that too is closed of to us. It is only within this universe do see that matter comes from other matter or energy so if any inference was to be made it would be whatever preceded this universe was some form of matter or energy. I won't make such an inference though since it is an unknown.

Clearly we have to take a step back. I can see now the problem with my not having explained why the universe cannot be eternal in the past, relying on the fact that you concurred that it had a beginning. That was a problem. Because there is a factor in there that we do not necessarily agree on, but glossed over. Here it is.

Matter cannot be eternal in the past because it is mutable. A thing that changes form cannot be eternal in the past.

Now, this is a statement that a lot of people seem to struggle with whereas some immediately grasp. I would ask that you take a few minutes to dwell carefully on it, and see if you find agreement with it before we proceed. If you don't, I will attempt an explanation.

DeepSight:


Clearly we have to take a step back. I can see now the problem with my not having explained why the universe cannot be eternal in the past, relying on the fact that you concurred that it had a beginning. That was a problem. Because there is a factor in there that we do not necessarily agree on, but glossed over. Here it is.

Matter cannot be eternal in the past because it is mutable. A thing that changes form cannot be eternal in the past.

Now, this is a statement that a lot of people seem to struggle with whereas some immediately grasp. I would ask that you take a few minutes to dwell carefully on it, and see if you find agreement with it before we proceed. If you don't, I will attempt an explanation.

I can readily agree since at the moment of inception of this universe there was only energy and matter came latter.

LordReed:


I can readily agree since at the moment of inception of this universe there was only energy and matter came latter.

This energy you speak of is of a physical nature, no? And it is mutable. To that extent, it is not eternal in the past - i.e: it could not have always existed. Do you see this - if you do not, I will offer an expatiation of that point.

DeepSight:


This energy you speak of is of a physical nature, no? And it is mutable. To that extent, it is not eternal in the past - i.e: it could not have always existed. Do you see this - if you do not, I will offer an expatiation of that point.

Sure, I agree it was not eternal in the past.

HellVictorinho6:


There is no such thing as universe/EVERYTHING that exists



It makes no sense to say something happened..(past) ..in the absence of time.



There must be time if one thing must precede some other.

The entire big bang/universe concept is rubbish

As 4 thoughts, they are overrated.

Even death is overrated.

Whether u send that murny or not, it remains that way.



U think,hence ur thoughts.

They come from you.

Itz just part of what makes u. Thats why you call it yours.

But Einstein discovered (entirely thinking in his study) that time doesn't work like that, that it is intertwined with space and motion. He imagined two trains speeding in opposite directions. They'll record different times for an occurrence. Also the faster the soeed, the slower time gets till it stands still at speed of light and reverses beyond that - and you have time travel into the past!
As for thoughts, I'll try to think like Einstein. We know you cannot NOT think of something (eg a pink elephant) no matter how you try. We also know you can't decide what dream you'll have no matter how you try. We also know people can be hypnotized and told what to do - yet they'll swear it was a their free will, that they are not being controlled. All these will seem to indicate we have no power to override our own thoughts, yet those thoughts were just there - we're not the ones who chose them!

*Politeness*
To illustrate what I said above check out these two videos, one is a minute, the other is 30 sec. Remember, this is just a fellow human who probably doesn't even know exactly why it works. If a fellow human can do this, what can a super being do? Also note that the guy doesn't remember being hypnotized, he thinks he's just operating of his free will.
So, outlandish as the notion may seem, the more you think about it, the more you'd tend to agree with Einstein viewpoint.
Also, Einstein used to keep a pen by his bedside and used to wake up and write down thoughts dropped into his mind. As he later refused to take credit for these thoughts, maybe he knows something we don't!

30 sec short
https://youtube.com/shorts/LyQ8krZpCtw?si=0g-fpB6HesZNDTv7

1 minute

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ON_Q5RXr44?si=bbshYsaxBclZINzm

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

PoliteActivist:


But Einstein discovered (entirely thinking in his study) that time doesn't work like that, that it is intertwined with space and motion. He imagined two trains speeding in opposite directions. They'll record different times for an occurrence. Also the faster the soeed, the slower time gets till it stands still at speed of light and reverses beyond that - and you have time travel into the past!
As for thoughts, I'll try to think like Einstein. We know you cannot NOT think of something (eg a pink elephant) no matter how you try. We also know you can't decide what dream you'll have no matter how you try. We also know people can be hypnotized and told what to do - yet they'll swear it was a their free will, that they are not being controlled. All these will seem to indicate we have no power to override our own thoughts, yet those thoughts were just there - we're not the ones who chose them!

u dont understand

i was not talking about trains moving

i was talking about being preceded in the absence of time ...not possible.

DeepSight:


Clearly we have to take a step back. I can see now the problem with my not having explained why the universe cannot be eternal in the past, relying on the fact that you concurred that it had a beginning. That was a problem. Because there is a factor in there that we do not necessarily agree on, but glossed over. Here it is.

Matter cannot be eternal in the past because it is mutable. A thing that changes form cannot be eternal in the past.

Now, this is a statement that a lot of people seem to struggle with whereas some immediately grasp. I would ask that you take a few minutes to dwell carefully on it, and see if you find agreement with it before we proceed. If you don't, I will attempt an explanation.

how can u be sure the universe exists when u say it was preceded in the absence of time?

PoliteActivist:


But Einstein discovered (entirely thinking in his study) that time doesn't work like that, that it is intertwined with space and motion. He imagined two trains speeding in opposite directions. They'll record different times for an occurrence. Also the faster the soeed, the slower time gets till it stands still at speed of light and reverses beyond that - and you have time travel into the past!
As for thoughts, I'll try to think like Einstein. We know you cannot NOT think of something (eg a pink elephant) no matter how you try. We also know you can't decide what dream you'll have no matter how you try. We also know people can be hypnotized and told what to do - yet they'll swear it was a their free will, that they are not being controlled. All these will seem to indicate we have no power to override our own thoughts, yet those thoughts were just there - we're not the ones who chose them!

that they come from u does not mean u choose them

the environment makes u to produce them

it also makes u to do anything else

to choose means to suggest that u have control or the ability to withstand certain things

HellVictorinho6:


that they come from u does not mean u choose them

the environment makes u to produce them

it also makes u to do anything else

to choose means to suggest that u have control or the ability to withstand certain things

But you can see clearly from the illustrations how someone can be operating 100% sure they have freewill when in fact they don't! How it is very likely that free will is an illusion, that we only think we have freewill

HellVictorinho6:


how can u be sure the universe exists when u say it was preceded in the absence of time?

If the universe is a simulation or matrix, and that simulation was launched what we perceive as 13.8 billion years ago. Before that, well there's no b4 that from our perspective.

HellVictorinho6:


u dont understand

i was not talking about trains moving

i was talking about being preceded in the absence of time ...not possible.

But there is no time, there is only spacetime

DeepSight:


Clearly we have to take a step back. I can see now the problem with my not having explained why the universe cannot be eternal in the past, relying on the fact that you concurred that it had a beginning. That was a problem. Because there is a factor in there that we do not necessarily agree on, but glossed over. Here it is.

Matter cannot be eternal in the past because it is mutable. A thing that changes form cannot be eternal in the past.

Now, this is a statement that a lot of people seem to struggle with whereas some immediately grasp. I would ask that you take a few minutes to dwell carefully on it, and see if you find agreement with it before we proceed. If you don't, I will attempt an explanation.

Assume our reality is a simulation and discuss eternity, mutability, etc from that perspective

PoliteActivist:


But there is no time, there is only spacetime

same person that said time doesnt bla bla bla

that said time behaves this way or that way

well, if there aint meat, u cant have meat pie

PoliteActivist:


If the universe is a simulation or matrix, that simulation was launched whatvwe perceive as 13.8 billion years ago. Before that, well there no b4 that from our perspective.

even without talking simulations,
if u cant have b4, u cant have after.

Retracted.

PoliteActivist:


Assume our reality is a simulation and discuss eternity, mutability, etc from that perspective

In truth our reality could only be a simulation if one ponders the matter deeply. However that changes little and its best to approach this discussion without that supposition, at least at the earliest stages of engagement.

DeepSight:


Good. So you see, the question then remains - what was the nature of that which preceded and triggered it?

Perhaps I should pause a little here to point out why, at all events, since things exist, then something or the other must be self-existent and thus be eternal in the past.

You see, we agreed that something cannot come from nothing. We also agreed that nothingness does not exist. This leaves us only with the existence of "somethings." Now for "somethings" to exist, the only logical possibility is that there is a "something" or there are some somethings which existed by default - i.e: existing was their default state - they were necessary as opposed to contingent things and thus always existed - they were self existential. This is absolutely the only scenario in which anything exists at all, otherwise there would be nothing in existence whatsoever.

The challenge therefore is to identify what those self existential things are. Two of those things are infinite time and infinite space - and these are to be distinguished from the limited and finite time and space we talk about as arising from the big bang - and which are physical or attached to the physical. Infinite time could not but exist, and the same goes for infinite space because in the default state of reality there can exist no boundaries. These two self existential elements form[i] the root of potentialities[/i] which is immaterial, and which for me is the fundamental core of the invisible source of all reality - which is what is called God.

My puzzlement is why you are so quick to land on this as the explanation. How have you eliminated every other possibility given that we'd not know what this thing even is? Why do you think that this thing we do not know itself is not the outcome of a whole different process we have no conception of? Why is it not possible it was some sort of universe building machine that expends itself in creating a universe? Or even just magic. You insist this is the logical conclusion but you seem to skip all these possibilities to land on this one without showing why.

Deepsight:


Good. So you see, the question then remains - what was the nature of that which preceded and triggered it?

Perhaps I should pause a little here to point out why, at all events, since things exist, then something or the other must be self-existent and thus be eternal in the past.

You see, we agreed that something cannot come from nothing. We also agreed that nothingness does not exist. This leaves us only with the existence of "somethings." Now for "somethings" to exist, the only logical possibility is that there is a "something" or there are some somethings which existed by default - i.e: existing was their default state - they were necessary as opposed to contingent things and thus always existed - they were self existential. This is absolutely the only scenario in which anything exists at all, otherwise there would be nothing in existence whatsoever.

The challenge therefore is to identify what those self existential things are. Two of those things are infinite time and infinite space - and these are to be distinguished from the limited and finite time and space we talk about as arising from the big bang - and which are physical or attached to the physical. Infinite time could not but exist, and the same goes for infinite space because in the default state of reality there can exist no boundaries. These two self existential elements form the root of potentialities which is immaterial, and which for me is the fundamental core of the invisible source of all reality - which is what is called God.

Lordreed -

Permit me to add that some people have put it this way - when we look at the premises we have built up and agreed upon, we are left with either a self existent universe or a self existent God. I think we have agreed that the universe and the matter / and energy at its root are not self existent and this leads us to a self existent God, however one may then wish to describe it.

Banish any conception of an anthropological God in conceptualizing this. We are talking simply about a primordial root source and force.

LordReed:


My puzzlement is why you are so quick to land on this as the explanation. How have you eliminated every other possibility given that we'd not know what this thing even is? Why do you think that this thing we do not know itself is not the outcome of a whole different process we have no conception of? Why is it not possible it was some sort of universe build machine that expends itself in creating a universe? Or even just magic. You insist this is the logical conclusion but you seem to skip all these possibilities to land on this one without showing why.

Any pre existing "universe build machine" would be subject to the same premises. It would either have to be self existent or something else caused it to be - in a chain of causative agents which can only end up with a self existent thing. The principles and premises would remain the same.

You see, that would only amount to pushing the question one step back. Who created the universe? Mr. X. Who created Mr. X? The question with form an infinite regression - which is impossible in a causative chain and can only be logically answered at its root by the existence of something self-existent.

DeepSight:


Lordreed -

Permit me to add that some people have put it this way - when we look at the premises we have built up and agreed upon, we are left with either a self existent universe or a self existent God. I think we have agreed that the universe and the matter / and energy at its root are not self existent and this leads us to a self existent God, however one may then wish to describe it.

Banish any conception of an anthropological God in conceptualizing this. We are talking simply about a primordial root source and force.

As you'd see from my response already I disagree that these are the only possibilities. We are so very thoroughly handicapped in exploring this matter since the events are both beyond our current level of ingenuity and the gulf of time that separates us. How can you bring any certainty to this without a solid evidentiary backing?

HellVictorinho6:


how can u be sure the universe exists when u say it was preceded in the absence of time?

To be honest, the only thing that a human being can really know absolutely is "cogito ergo sum."

LordReed:


My puzzlement is why you are so quick to land on this as the explanation. How have you eliminated every other possibility given that we'd not know what this thing even is? Why do you think that this thing we do not know itself is not the outcome of a whole different process we have no conception of? Why is it not possible it was some sort of universe building machine that expends itself in creating a universe? Or even just magic. You insist this is the logical conclusion but you seem to skip all these possibilities to land on this one without showing why.

He is just creating his own imaginary friend like the rest of them. But his god is special because it’s not “anthropological”.

LordReed:


As you'd see from my response already I disagree that these are the only possibilities. We are so very thoroughly handicapped in exploring this matter since the events are both beyond our current level of ingenuity and the gulf of time that separates us. How can you bring any certainty to this without a solid evidentiary backing?

It is very true that we are terribly handicapped in this matter and that, by the way, is why it is good to be agnostic generally, as stated by the OP, Politeactivist. It is also wise and signals the right humility which we should have in light of our smallness in the vastness of the cosmos.

However the question of inferring that a self existent element must exist for anything to exist at all is a matter of pure deductive and inductive logic. It is not the sort of thing for which some sort of physical evidence can or should be produced.

DeepSight:


To be honest, the only thing that a human being can really know absolutely is "cogito ergo sum."

Why say so?

DeepSight:


It is very true that we are terribly handicapped in this matter and that, by the way, is why it is good to be agnostic generally, as stated by the OP, Politeactivist. It is also wise and signals the right humility which we should have in light of our smallness in the vastness of the cosmos.

However the question of inferring that a self existent element must exist for anything to exist at all is a matter of pure deductive and inductive logic. It is not the sort of thing for which some sort of physical evidence can or should be produced.

I want to know why you think it must be the case. Show me how you eliminate every other possibility to land on this one.

LordReed:


I want to know why you think it must be the case. Show me how you eliminate every other possibility to land on this one.

Are you referring to -

1. The statement that a self existent thing must exist for anything else to exist at all or -
2. My description of that self existent thing as God?

HellVictorinho6:


Why say so?

Because every other thing could be, and likely is, a mirage, illusion, or simulation.

DeepSight:


Are you referring to -

1. The statement that a self existent thing must exist for anything else to exist at all or -
2. My description of that self existent thing as God?

The first one first we can deal with the other later.