₦airaland Forum

justcool:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/faq/cat01.html#Q01

Dear madmax,
The above is from PBS. Please give me any article written by an authority which discribs 'scientific theory' as facts. Simply stated, theories offer a possible explanation to facts; the theories themselves are not necessarily facts. They may or may not be facts; but once proven to be facts, they cease to be theories.

While you're correct in stating that theories aren't fact, it is wrong to think that theories will or can ever become facts. Theories are never proved, because science doesn't do proof. So, except when they have been falsified, theories never cease being theories no matter how rigorous the evidence.

I will give an example: The death of Sani Abacha is a fact. The notion that he was killed by Viagra is a 'theory.' This is a theory that explains why he died; but as long as this theory has not been proven wrong or correct, it remains a theory. If however, one finds an irrefutable evidence that Abacha was killed by Viagra, then notion that he was killed by Viagra becomes a fact and no longer a theory. From this fact a law may manifest. The law maybe that "whoever takes 1000mg of Viagra will die witten 10 minutes."
This law cannever be falsified, no matter howmany times you try it it will always be true. You see how theories and laws work. Theories a educated hypothesis based on facts, they offer an explanation; while laws predict the behavior of obiects to mathematical acuracy, and therfore are facts.

The above(about Abacha) is just an illustration, don't take it literally. I am not suggesting that Viagra killed Abacha; I dont know what killed him.

This is not quite right either. What I noticed from reading earlier posts is that there seems to be - what I think is - a faulty conclusion on the idea that facts can't be wrong, and if falsified, adjusted, etc, they were never facts. That, in my opinion, is the wrong way of looking at what the term "fact" describes: observations that show true empirically when tested by groups or persons independently. However, it is wrong to think facts can't be shown to be wrong or adjusted to fit a new paradigm. Facts are, after all, still human descriptors. All facts are based on presumptions often presented as axioms.

Laws can be falsified or adjusted. I see Newton's law of gravity has been mentioned. This is a classic example of how a law can be. . . shall we say, incomplete? and superseded by a theory - in this case Einstein's theory of relativity. Yes, theories offer an explanation for things observed, but they also offer mathematical descriptions and predictions.

By the way, I like your analogy, but can you really say that Abacha is dead for a fact? I suppose you could, but you'd have to be aware that you could somehow be wrong and he's in hiding somewhere. But I digress.

Theories are not hypothesis the major difference is that hypotesis have not been undergone extensive testing. Hypothesis are just plausible explanations which have not been tested. If there were not facts backing the theory of evolution(ie if there were no fosills found that show gradual change), and if scientits have not tried to disprove the idea of evolution, then the idea of evolution would have been just a hypothesis.

Sometimes a body of explanation is also called a hypothesis if there's no way to falsify it. So it may have withstood tests, but if there's no way falsification can happen, and depending on circumstances, it will be a hypothesis.

I will give another example: Fossils have been discovered which can be arranged to portray a gradual transition one specie to another. This is a fact.
The idea that species evolve(the theory of evolution) is a theory based on the aforementioned fact(fossils). This will remain a theory it is proven, ie until species are observed evolving from another species. Due to the gradual nature of evolution, this may never be possible, ie it may never be possible for scientists to observe creatures evolve. Here I am talking of complete evolution like the evolution of amphibians from fishes; I am not talking about adaptation.

Not quite. Speciation has been observed both through human intervention and naturally. Observing speciation and even evolution between genus will never make the theory of evolution a fact.

Although evolution is very likely, it makes sense, it is supported by facts, and I personally believe in it, it is still, scientifically speaking, a theory. As long as their are still some missing links, it remains a theory. When all the ins and outs of evolution have been discovered and known by scientists, then evolution will no longer remain a theory; laws may emerge from it. Ie a law may emerge which states that "Under certain given conditions(Lets call this condition 'A'), and within a definet period of time(lets say 'Z' number of centuries) a perticuler creature(lets say a fish) will evlove into another creature(lets say an anphibian). With the theory, the way it is today, no one can decifer 'A' and 'Z' acurately. Nobody can make an acurate prediction bassed on the theory as it is today. Otherwise, scientisits would have known by now, with certainty what creatures will look like in one million years to come.

But is we are dealing with a 'law' then such prdictions would be possible. Ie scientists can predict the speed and position of an object in motion even in one one million years time, provided that certain conditions remain the same.

Evolutionary biologists make predictions all the time: it's what helped with the finding of tiktaalik, it preceded the finding of shared ERV's, and is done many times in laboratory experiments, etc. While you're right that there's no useful prediction on what - if anything - a particular species will look like, there are plausible projections based on certain parameters.

KunleOshob:
It still eludes me how any right thinking and rational human being would believe the outlandish and ridiculously daft evolution hypothesis which has been proven time and time again to be false. The missing links would forever remain missing cause they don't exist. Even if you don't subscribe to any form of religion, to console yourself that there is no God or that we were not created is the greatest form of delusion.

Which missing links? For which "transition"?

I seriously believe all atheist need psychiatric help.

'It is characteristic of theistic "tolerance" that no one really cares what the people believe in, just so they believe or pretend to believe.'

- Emma Goldman

beloveeed:
thanks but which statistics and moreover which "christians"? you see if one believes in evolution which according to 'scientists', does not point to a creator, will be immposible to believe the creation story and still be a christian.

That is not true. No, scientists do not state that evolution does not point to a creator. What is said, instead, is that the theory of evolution is silent on the subject of a creator for various important reasons, not least because there theists have placed gods beyond the realm of scientific testability.

maybe the 'christians' u refering to are nominal and those born brought up in a christian home. But born again christians will beleive fully in the creation story against evolution.

That is also wrong. Many of the Christians who accept evolution are staunch ones. One of the more famous advocates on the internet is G. R. Morton, a former Creationist I might add.

beneli:
@KAG,
Your understanding of the uncertainty principle, virtual particles etc is totally flawed.

I disagree. What part of my understanding of the uncertainty principle is flawed?

Virtual particles do NOT emerge from nothing.

Yet again, findings show otherwise. This is your turn to show me a reliable source that shows that virtual particles don't emerge from nothing.

In my initial response to you i had contexualised their behaviour as being within 'a complex space-time continuum' because their unusual behaviour-the way they oscillate between a form of matter ('particles) and a form of energy (waves)-at the level of quantum physics makes some scientists to consider their relationship to the whole concept of parallel universes, extradimensional space etc. Some have even posited that they are the 'graviton's being postulated to be the means by which gravity 'seeps out of our space-time continuum'.

I suspect you've missed something while reading up on the function of virtual particles. I could be wrong, but it seems you've mistaken what can possibly happen to virtual particles with a statement on their emergence. The subject of parallel universes and virtual particles is an interesting one - and one I have considered myself a few years ago. However, so far there's simply no evidence for it, while there is evidence for what I have proposed otherwise. I wouldn't put much stock in virtual particles being gravitons. Then again, this is the first time I've seen the suggestion that virtual particles could be gravitons, so I could be biased against it.

This topic is way more complex than the way it appears on wiki, so please stick to what you actually understand.

I would suggest the same to you.

tpia.:

Religion involves belief. That doesn't mean religion itself is belief. You know, I also believe there's really no Fortress of Solitude.

Therefore . . . . . . . blanks must be filled, yes?

quit you're just playing on semantics.

leave the matter as is.

religion is belief. Religion involves belief.

one does not contradict the other.

Um, no, that's not semantics. "Religion is belief" is not the same thing as "religion involves belief" They may not necessarily contradict each other, but they mean different things and the former is wrong. Yes, belief in something is an important element of religion, but it's a characteristic that is also separate from religion and involved in other aspects of human life other than religion. It, therefore, isn't the same as religion.

Deep Sight:

Is this Deep Sight being as dishonest as ever? Colour me surprised. Now that you've run out of the range to give adequate responses to my posts, you should at least take the time to read them properly and try to understand the salient points that have sailed over your head. I won't be holding my breath.

Oh please quit the  chit chat right there missus. Your serial and embarrasing contradictions have since been exposed for anybody who is capable of reading, so what the hell would make you think I am prepared to waste my time any further with a quack scientist.

The alarming thing is that you keep regurgitating the self same contradiction which even a hare would spot, and you never spot it.

The interesting thing is when you aren't trying handwave away something that rebuts your dogma, you come up with disingenuous proclamations and ad hominems. It's either unconvincing declarations of science you don't understand being voodoo or that there are contradictions where none exist.

Let me just assist you one last time to see the firm reason you are not to be taken seriously in this discussion.

The question was if it is possible for something to emerge from nothing. I stated that it is not possible: you claimed that it is possible. In defense of your claim you cited virtual particles in a quantum vacuum.

YOU SAID -

"Virtual particles emerge from nothing into the universe. "

Thereafter I pointed out to you that quantum vacuums are not “nothing” and as such your claim that virtual particles arise from “nothing” could not be sustained. I did also point out to you that scientifically there is no such thing as a perfect vacuum – namely that it is only a philosophical precept. ONLY after I had pointed these out did you revert conceding –

- - - thereby conceding that Vacuums are not nothing.

You then went on to say –

What has been said also is that short of the probability of uncertainty, a vacuum possesses nothing.

WHICH IS AN OUTRIGHT FALSITY BECAUSE THE TRUTH IS THAT – THE SAID VACUUMS HAVE GASEOUS PRESSURE – ONLY MUCH LOWER THAN NORMALLY OBSERVED ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE!

It's hard to know where to start. I see some of the problem is what I suspected it to be: quite a great deal of the subject matter went over your head. Unfortunately, rather than asking for clarification you've tried to bluster and be dishonest.

Okay, I guess I'll start from the part you've claimed is "AN OUTRIGHT FALSITY". In your zeal to jump to conclusions before understanding what was written (something you're apt to do), you've missed the fact that I was properly framing how a vacuum state works and how it applies to the emergence of virtual particles. A bit short-hand, yes, but not false. What it means is that if - and it's only useful as an hypothetical to make a point here - the uncertainty principle wasn't a factor then a true vacuum would exist or be possible to create. However, because of the uncertainty principle, particles - virtual particles - pop into existence. From that it should be easy to see the point: that virtual particles emerge into what would have otherwise been an empty space. . . from nothing.

Essentially, rather than a vacuum just not being empty space because of undefined vague reasons, it's because of virtual particles that it possesses a "something", no matter how temporary, rather than nothing.

I can explain further if you would like. Better still you can bother to actually read what I've written and try to understand what the words mean, too.

Now in case you are suffering selective amnesia, when I pointed out all these to you, this is what you said –

"That was my fault. I should have been more specific. It was sloppy on my part.

I apologised for being sloppy in my depiction of vacuums."

Thus acceding that you were wrong to equate a quantum vacuum to an instance of “nothing” (or “nothingness” - your pick

Oh I haven't forgotten those. I have no problems accepting or admitting to mistakes or even wrong characterisations. Do you think you can follow the argument now.

So please do not dare patronise me with any high-sounding rhetoric.

I leave the empty rhetoric to you.

The fact of the matter is simple and clear for all to see: your claim that virtual particles EMERGE from “nothing” IS SCIENTIFICALY FALSE – AS THE VACUUM YOU REFER TO IS NOT NOTHING – AND THIS HAS BEEN CONCLUSIVELY PROVED

Um, not quite. Not even close. What in a vacuum causes virtual particles? Like I wrote in my response to beneli, so far the findings point to them emerging from nothing.

Heck, even the fact that such vacuums contain a time-energy uncertainty is more than enough to show that whatever else they may be, they still ARE NOT nothing!

Wait, why? Why does that mean they are not nothing?

Aside from this recall they also contain low gaseous pressure.

Do you know what that means? I am forced to ask so many questions because I'm uncertain that you know what many of the terms and things you're saying mean.

So, to borrow from my friend viaro – quit the “linear tarradiddle” and sharpen up for once.

Now when you display such shocking incapacity to read your own contradictions, how do you expect me to bother with the following nonsense –

"No. A philosophical absolute - even more so than any other conception of an absolute - involves claims and/or arguments built on the present or prevalent scope and findings at a particular time. So, for instance, the certainty that nothing while on earth can flow up hill in defiance of gravity, all effects or occurrences must have an immediate cause, and that spontaneous generation of the kind where complex organisms appear were all philosophical absolutes. They were declared certain, sacrosanct and unable to defied in any way. However, new discoveries have shown otherwise.

Therefore, yes, absolutes have been changed and debunked by new scientific discoveries. "

- - - -  Whereat you show a lamentable incapacity to distinguish between an absolute and a presumption ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

I'll take that as a "KAG, I can't offer a logical rebuttal to your argument, but I believe I'll lose face if I accept I was wrong; therefore, I'll type something inane that makes me pretend I'm on a moral high ground"

No need to thank me for helping you understand better.

Here's a question: really, when it comes to human knowledge, is there an absolute that isn't presumptive in some way? Give examples if you can think of any. Otherwise, you can quit trying to handwave away a logical argument.

[snip]empty rhetoric[/snip]

beneli:
Okay, if that's the way you understand it, fine. I can clearly see that like myself, you're an amateur in this field!

Is there any other way to understand it?

Going by YOUR understanding then, kindly clarify how this is relevant to your position about virtual particles emerging from nothing, especially given your statement that 'true vacuums don't exist-yet'.

As the uncertainty principle prevents anyone from knowing the exact energy of a given space at a precise time, it becomes impossible to have a space with zero energy - which is what you will need for a true vacuum. To prevent the violation of the uncertainty principle, virtual particles emerge into what would have been completely empty space and then disappear again. They aren't caused by anything, more a quirk of the universe and the quantum world.

I can't open this link. Can you kindly paste the relevant paragraph here and let's see what it says. Thanks

It's not a link. It's a reference. I'll have to manually type the relevant sections:

"Something for nothing: The Casimir effect"

". . . In the quantum world it's different: there, something comes of nothing and moves the furniture around.

Specifically, if you place two uncharged metal plates side by side in a vacuum . . .

According to quantum field theory, empty space is actually fizzing with short-lived stuff that appears, looks around a bit, decides it doesn't like it and disappears again, all in the name of preventing the universe from violating the uncertainty principle."

tpia.:
religion is belief.

atheists believe there is no God, or atheists believe they have no religion.

therefore. . . . . . . . fill in the blanks.

Religion involves belief. That doesn't mean religion itself is belief. You know, I also believe there's really no Fortress of Solitude.

Therefore . . . . . . . blanks must be filled, yes?

beneli:
What's YOUR reading of this 'Uncertainty principle' and how virtual particles 'pop into existence in lieu' of it?

The uncertainty principle forbids knowing the precise amount of energy at a precise time. That's a major reason true vacuums don't exist - yet.

Give just ONE reliable source, which says that virtual particles emerge from nothing?

Sure. NewScientist, 8 May 2010, pg 39.

beloveeed:
Nonsense. Evolution isn't presented as an entity nor a being. Further, one needn't be an atheist to accept evolution. In fact, more theists - particularly Christians - than atheists (in terms of numbers) accept the occurrence of evolution.


Note I did not say evolution is a being or entity but an UNSEEN FORCE which made or caused (your assumption) what we see and touch. Secondly, becos they (so called christian) accept it, does it make it acceptable?

Way to miss the point. By equating evolution with your god (or gods in general) you imply that it is an entity. I don't see a way around it. Further, no, evolution didn't cause all we see and touch: instead, biological evolution caused the divergence in populations in biological life.

Finally that theists, including Christians (not "so called Christians", accept the occurrence of evolution should have shown you it's not an article of faith or something necessary for atheism. It should have been immediately clear that it no more atheistic than the theory of relativity.

Second, while the gods haven't been observed (and I welcome your admittance of that fact), evolution has been observed.

Please don’t confuse micro with MACRO Evolution. And MACRO evolution has neither been seen either or tell me, what has dinosaurs evolved into our present day and why have we not on a MACRO level evolved into a super species for more than thousand of years or are we to wait for million of years before we for one to evolve?

What's the difference between macro and micro evolution? Tell me what you understand by macro-evolution. Birds are dinosaurs. Is that what you mean by what have dinosaurs involved into, etc? Why would humans evolve into a super species when by the estimation of many - no less, Christians "created in the image of god" - we are already super. In any case, that's not how evolution works.

Third, like the theory of evolution, many (most?) theists accept the "evolution" of the earth. And, no, no one with a basic grasp of science says the earth "evolved from nothing".

Sorry, I hope the two evolutionist did not have a grasp of science when the said this:
Scientific America. May, 1984, The Inflationary Universe,” evolutionists Alan Guth and Paul Steinhardt wrote, The inflationary model of the universe provides a possible mechanism by which the observable universe could have evolved from an infinitesimal region- It is then tempting to go one step further and speculate that the entire universe evolved from literally nothing.

You do realise that there's a incredibly vast difference between the earth and the universe, right? Maybe you should learn how to read closely in future. Just a suggestion. Just to nip something in the bud before you come up with it in your next post, that George "Dubya" Bush stated that the forces of Al-Queda have evolved doesn't mean Bin Laden controls the theory of evolution or some such nonsense.

Finally, no the earth didn't come to be because of a trigger, etc, but through a series of reactions and processes.

Ok if a series of reactions and processes then surely there must be a ‘trigger’ a force that starts it.

Why?

What makes you think your god was there? In any case, using our senses we can observe the hostory of things and how they may have occurred both on earth and outside of it,

What if your senses could be telling you what it is not? No wonder there are counter argument upon argument about what one has observed in the scientific world. For me I will keeping waiting until the argue till He Comes! Then all knees must bow down to Him and Call Him Lord. Is it not funny that daily evolutionist etc daily contradict themselves over and over yet never coming to the knowledge of the truth?

There's a possibility that my senses are telling me what is not. However, independent and varied lines of inquiry help to minimise individual bias. If the diverse and far-flung senses of that many humans and many scientific findings point to something then, yeah, it's a better understanding of our world and our universe in general.

Wait, what has various sects? Not quite right. Theism consists of various religions, religious sects, and various ideologies. There are also some religions that are atheistic. What you wrote makes no sense otherwise.

Hmm, read my encarta post
sect [sekt](plural sects) noun
1. nonmainstream religious group: a religious group with beliefs and practices at variance with those of the more established main groups
2. religious denomination: a denomination of a larger religious group
3. close-knit group: a small close-knit group with strongly held views that are sometimes regarded as extreme by the majority
Encarta

Now from the above, a sect has a belief which it practices and follows dogmatically. And from what I have read from the various post, athiest have the belief that there is NO GOD which they practice as we see in their responses and this they follow dogmatically.

You didn't answer my question nor respond to what I wrote. Even worse it appears you didn't read the definition of sect which you posted - unnecessarily I might add.
What you're ignoring is that "theism consists of various religions, religious sects, and various ideologies" and there are atheistic religions - and sects within those religions. Atheism is no more a religion than theism is.

Now, to specifically address this part of your post. You claim that a sect has "a belief which it practices and follows dogmatically". Following your logic, this means every person with obsessive compulsive disorder is practicing their religion when they get stuck on whatever they have to redo. This means, then, using your definition, that the OCD therapy groups are religious sects if their beliefs of what will happen if a routine isn't followed obsessively intersect. Well done. Silly definition. Silly conclusion.

Look, even if atheists believe that there are no gods, that doesn't mean that's their religion or that it's a practice, etc. No more than me arguing in some other forum that Batman is a worse super hero than Superman makes my religion the Supermanist religion.

Your remaining argument I answered for winiret. Read my post above

No, you didn't.

Only after the Raelians

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0a/Adam%2C_Eve%2C_and_Elohim_%28Ra%C3%ABlism%29.gif

beloveeed:
Pls read this carefully,
I work up early this morning and while musing, it occurred to me that there are similarity between Christianity and athiesm. Yes it sounds funny though but I believe that athiesm is good to be classified as a religion though

You shouldn't have jumped from musing straight to posting your thoughts. Why is it good to classify atheism as a religion? Is reading also a religion? And athletics? Maybe everything humans do should be termed religions, too. Yes, it would totally render the term meaningless, but at least it would do away with the type of dubious argument you present.

God                                 Evolution
Unseen Entity called God        v Unseen Force called evolution
^^created the earth from nothing        v earth evolved from nothing
earth and all came by the spoken word        v earth existed from a ‘trigger’ of reaction

Nonsense. Evolution isn't presented as an entity nor a being. Further, one needn't be an atheist to accept evolution. In fact, more theists - particularly Christians - than atheists (in terms of numbers) accept the occurrence of evolution.

Second, while the gods haven't been observed (and I welcome your admittance of that fact), evolution has been observed.

Third, like the theory of evolution, many (most?) theists accept the "evolution" of the earth. And, no, no one with a basic grasp of science says the earth "evolved from nothing".

Finally, no the earth didn't come to be because of a trigger, etc, but through a series of reactions and processes.

no one was there when it happen except God v no one was there to record what happened

What makes you think your god was there? In any case, using our senses we can observe the hostory of things and how they may have occurred both on earth and outside of it.

consist of various sect                 v consist of sect with various ideology

Wait, what has various sects? Not quite right. Theism consists of various religions, religious sects, and various ideologies. There are also some religions that are atheistic. What you wrote makes no sense otherwise.

millions died because of a sect (catholic) v millions died becos of ideology-Stalin,Marx

Millions died because of wars. That isn't an argument for atheism being a religion. This is rather pathetic, you know.

have a history written by men         v observation (history later) written by men

Therefore writing books, and studying are religions.

have a standard book all reference from v reference4m other athiest as their reference

It's reading books that's the religion, right? Right?

have a complete manual from beginning to end v always discovering 'new' things so
                                                                                        not complete

This makes atheism a religion, how? Two disparate things . . . therefore religion. To many holes, too little time.

divided becos of reasoning         v divided becos of reasoning
Heb 11:1 the evidence of things not seen v atom that is not seen yet is believed to exist

Next thing you'll argue that DNA doesn't exist and gravity makes everyone religious. Others have been kind enough to point out that atoms have been observed. Of course that even not observing it doesn't make anyone, whether theist or atheist, religious shouldn't deter you from making asinine arguments and comparisons.

hope to add more as i read the minds of the religion of athiesm.

Please don't.

Deep Sight:
Right. There is no need to engage KAG further. She herself was forced to admit that quantum vacuums are NOT nothing and as such her claim that virtual particles emerge from "nothing" (a quantum vacuum) collapses FLAT ON ITS FACE AB INITIO.

Why are people so arrogant that they keep pursuing an absurd lie even when they themselves have acknowldged that it is false? ? ?

Is this Deep Sight being as dishonest as ever? Colour me surprised. Now that you've run out of the range to give adequate responses to my posts, you should at least take the time to read them properly and try to understand the salient points that have sailed over your head. I won't be holding my breath.

beneli:

No. As far as I know virtual particles are so called because of their short time span and their inability to be directly observed in relation to other particles. In any case, that is besides the point, as what is important here is that they do emerge from nothing and their effects are measurable.

They have a ‘short time span’ because when they are not particles, they exist in the form of energy. That’s what I mean by ‘oscillate’ between a form of matter and a form of energy. They do NOT emerge from ‘Nothing’. They emerge from energy.

No. That is all absolutely wrong.

First, no they do not exist as energy when they are not particles: they do not exist until they pop into existence in lieu of the uncertainty principle. I don't know where you're getting your information from, but it's wrong.

Second, they are never matter and in the instance of producing energy, that has some probability of occurring when a virtual particle collides (what is wont to happen is that annihilate each other) with its opposite.

Finally, what you mean is that they may be effected by energy fluctuations (see quantum fluctuations).

By ‘Oscillate’, I mean that they swing back and forth from being a form of energy to a form of matter.

Yeah, well, that's definitely wrong, then.

You are right, they are not the same as virtual energy per se, but the concept of ‘virtual energy’ allows one to understand ‘virtual particles’ better, because in essence  that’s what they are.

Not really, no. What they are in essence are particles, not energy. They may cause the Casimir effect, but that's not the same thing as them being force field.

But like you rightly suggested, all this is beside the point.  Of relevance is the scientific FACT that they do NOT emerge out of nothing.

Actually, all current findings indicate that they do in fact emerge from nothing.

[edited]

beneli:
^^^

'Virtual' particles are so called because they oscillate between a form of 'energy' and a form of 'matter' within a complex space-time continuum. You could also call them 'virtual energy', if you are so inclined, as it would mean almost the same thing. They do not pop out of 'nothing' as you suggest.


I make reference to this your comment: 'virtual particles are an excellent example of something emerging from nothing'. They are not.

No. As far as I know virtual particles are so called because of their short time span and their inability to be directly observed in relation to other particles. In any case, that is besides the point, as what is important here is that they do emerge from nothing and their effects are measurable. By the way, I take it that by "they oscillate between a form of 'energy' and a form of 'matter'" you mean they can affect forms of energy and matter not that would be what effects them, right? Just so there's no misunderstanding on this.

Finally, I'll go out on a limb and state that no, they are not the same as virtual energy, but they can cause virtual energy.

Deep Sight:

From wiki:

"In the West, the references to atoms emerged a century later from Leucippus, whose student, Democritus, systematized his views. In approximately 450 BCE, Democritus coined the term átomos (Greek: ἄτομος), which means "uncuttable" or "the smallest indivisible particle of matter". Although the Indian and Greek concepts of the atom were based purely on philosophy, modern science has retained the name coined by Democritus." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atom)

I learnt of the origin of the concept of atoms, the notion of them being indivisible, and its philosophical import in primary school. I guess it's your turn to learn of them. You can thank me later.

Trash. Balderdash. Bunkum. Not even half close. You astonish me with your logical deficiencies. Perhaps if you found that flying objects were first conceived of by Socrates, you would conclude that aeronautics is a branch of philosophy.

Um, no. There's a clear difference between the history of the atom and your analogy. A more comparable analogy would be acknowledging the link between Aristotle's concept of the aether to modern ether hypotheses as used by some modern science. That's because the link isn't just tentative, but have the same bases and premises.

I stated very clearly that I referred to philosophical absolutes. In this regard I was unequivocal in stating that such absolutes cannot be changed by science.

Now can you tell me how the notions advanced by the Indians and Greeks can be termed “absolutes?” What is an absolute, for heaven’s sake KAG? ? ? Do we have to haggle over and define every word as we go along?

An absolute is something which is logically closed and not open to alteration or corruption of any sort. Thus I may state that a logical absolute is that a shape cannot be a perfect square and a perfect circle at the same time – and because this is an absolute, no amount of science is going to change this fact.

No. A philosophical absolute - even more so than any other conception of an absolute - involves claims and/or arguments built on the present or prevalent scope and findings at a particular time. So, for instance, the certainty that nothing while on earth can flow up hill in defiance of gravity, all effects or occurrences must have an immediate cause, and that spontaneous generation of the kind where complex organisms appear were all philosophical absolutes. They were declared certain, sacrosanct and unable to defied in any way. However, new discoveries have shown otherwise.

Therefore, yes, absolutes have been changed and debunked by new scientific discoveries.

In the same way I gave you 0 + 0 = 0. This is a philosophical, mathematical and logical absolute. No amount of, combination of, or agglomeration of zeroes will EVER amount to anything other than same zero: this is an absolute: and it is the absolute that shows that no conception of “nothings” can ever deliver a “something.”

That's not a philosophical absolute: it's a mathematical absolute. The same can't be said for "7 + 6 = 13" unless its numeral system was strictly defined.

Science CANNOT change that. In your attempt to contradict that you claimed that things do pop out of nothingness – and for this you adduced the example of virtual particles in a quantum vacuum. WELL SORRY THERE BECAUSE WE HAVE COMPREHENSIVELY SHOWN THAT A QUANTUM VACUUM IS NOT “NOTHING” SCIENTIFICALY SPEAKING AND YOU SINCE APOLOGIZED FOR YOUR SLOPINESS ON THAT!

Yup. virtual particles are an excellent example of something emerging from nothing. You're mistaking the emergence from nothing into the universe for that thing being caused by the universe. I apologised for being sloppy in my depiction of vacuums.

Now what you pathetically presented as evidence that philosophical absolutes can be changed was the fact that a theory, a mere notion, conjecture by certain ancient minds – regarding the indivisibility of a unit was disproved by latter science!And you had the nerve to present this as a philosophical ABSOLUTE – which has been changed by science? ? ? ? ?

How was it ever an absolute? By what logical suppositions was it an absolute? ? ?

Actually, it was more than a theory or even a mere conjecture. It was declared an absolute formulation of the make-up of the world.

You amaze me!

KAG, HOW THE HECK WAS SUCH A NOTION “MADE ABSOLUTE?”

I have already explained above what an absolute is. Who made those ancient conjectures absolutes? Absolutes are not even made, they simply ARE.

Actually, they are made. Like the cosmological argument, for instance.

An absolute by its very nature is an ineluctable FACT, an adamantine TRUTH and CANNOT be “shown wrong” by any discovery.

Except when it is.

[snip]empty rhetoric getting repetitive[/snip]

Deep Sight:
@ KAG -

I am not able to respond intoto now, but let me just note yet another disastrous statement from you.

You shouldn't have bothered. Your knee-jerk reactions only show how lacking your knowledge is.

It worries me that a person of obvious proper schooling such as yourself would persistently make such pedestrian, nay, calamituos gaffes.

I had stated -

"That mankind is able to make scientific advancements does not in any way mean that core philosophical essentials which are absolutes can be changed."

And you reverted with -

"Actually, scientific advancements does mean that philosophical essentials and absolutes can be changed. One quick offhand example: "an atom is the smallest unit of matter and cannot be divided into anything else."

I ASK YOU KAG - SINCE WHEN DID THE SUPPOSITION OF AN ATOM BEING THE SMALLEST UNIT OF MATTER BECOME PHILOSOPHY? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

IS THAT NOT RATHER SCIENCE? ? ? ?

From wiki:

"In the West, the references to atoms emerged a century later from Leucippus, whose student, Democritus, systematized his views. In approximately 450 BCE, Democritus coined the term átomos (Greek: ἄτομος), which means "uncuttable" or "the smallest indivisible particle of matter". Although the Indian and Greek concepts of the atom were based purely on philosophy, modern science has retained the name coined by Democritus." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atom)

I learnt of the origin of the concept of atoms, the notion of them being indivisible, and its philosophical import in primary school. I guess it's your turn to learn of them. You can thank me later.

By the way, if you had bothered to read my post closely rather than trying - unsucessfully, I might add - to score cheap points, you'd have seen I was extending the scope of the discussion to include absolutes in general - not that even noting that would have mattered to the points presented here.

I stated to you that science cannot change phylosophical absolutes. You denied that and as proof gave an example of improved science changing previous science? ? ? ?

No, I gave an example of a philosophical notion made absolute that was adopted by modern science and shown wrong by continued discoveries.

This simply shows that you have no idea as to what philosophy is.

I'd wager I have a better idea of what philosophy is than you do.

It would therefore be presumptuous of me to imagine that you would understand what i meant by a "phylosophical absolute."

Heaven help me.

Did you mean "philosophical absolute"?

I hope you've learnt why knee-jerk reactions can be bad for you.

Deep Sight:
I vehemently resent your reference to the Bible as “my book” – I have stated to you that it is not my creed, and there are members of this forum who will swear that it is the thing I revile most.

The simple fact however, is that as much as it is riddled with myths, fantasies, absurdities, outright falsehoods, mistranslations and the like, it is also riddled with many true and startling facts. I do not wish to spend much time on this save to ask you if you ever studied Literature in English? ? ?

Because I am disgusted that a CLEAR figure of speech – such as “pillars of the earth” could be read by you to mean that the Bible-Writer supposed three-dimensional physical pillars to be upholding the Earth. I needn’t expatiate on this as it is clear for any person to see that that was a figure of speech. If you will study the style adopted by many Old Testament prophets, you will understand this better. So please the misconceptions of the Roman Church are theirs alone.

All books I have come across are riddled with many true and startling facts; it doesn't make them the inspired works of any deities or the like. The same applies to the Bible you claimed was prophetic , etc.

Also, of course I have studied literature; however, the instances of geocentric teaching in the Bible - and yes there's more than one mention of the Earth being immovable and on pillars in the book - aren't symbolic. The creation story in Genesis is symbolic. The pillars are not. And yes I have studied the Bible.

Finally, I called it your book because it was the one you gave as an example of a "prophetic book" possessing "scientifc accuracy". It doesn't meet the criteria you claim of it.

Second, not to split hairs but the Bible doesn't state that the Earth is a sphere. Instead, it claims that the Earth is a circle. A circle is two dimensional - flat. It's the whole Chuwg or Duwr dichotomy

You ARE splitting hairs. (x) How would the writer express himself? (y) How many of his contemporaries even conceived of it as a “circle?” Oh please, feed me with steel, and not rubber, Madam KAG.

How would a writer in that time have expressed himself? He would have used the word for a sphere or a ball. Yes, the term existed. That's why I said it's the whole Chuwg vs Duwr dichotomy. Many of the ancients conceived of a circle.

Nevertheless I must make it clear that I do not wish us to dwell on the subject of the bible: unless either of us is so unreasonable as to regard it as 100% True or 100% False. Evidently, neither is the case: nor do either of us hold it as a creed – so please, if you will permit, I prefer to focus on the philosophical and scientific aspects of this discussion in which I believe you have made evidently false presumptions and are simply NOT being man (or woman) enough to square up to them.

Then don't use the book as a yardstick, then. It clearly didn't live up to the billing you claimed of it.

- - - such as my statement that something cannot come from nothing?

Which you were wrong about and trying to use equivocation to prop up illogical conclusions.

. . . dire mathematics

Such as 0 + 0 = 0? – Which of course, if it never occurred to you, is the mathematical proof of my statement that nothing will always equal nothing, and will never approximate to a something.

Representational mathematics: you're doing it wrong. x⁄0 = a sideways eight.

Grasp that is you can, Alice.

I did. Now see if you can stop behaving like the twins from the book with the protagonist you mentioned.

O ho ho ho ho ho. . . such as the science that led you to comically construe a quantum vacuum as “nothing”? ? ? ?

And then attempt to retract your words dishonestly, when I, a non-scientist, drew out the facts of the nature of a quantum vacuum for you?

Do you imagine that once one is not a scientist, he has no rational brain, and as such you can pull the wool over our eyes just by uttering scientific jargon? ? ?

Yawn. Read back through what has occurred in this thread and the previous one. I don;t assume that one isn't rational if one isn't a scientist. All beings I have come across have the tendency towards rationality. However, your arguments have proven to be largely illogical.

However, I can deny the existence of gods because they have so far proved a necessary human construct with almost no evidence despite the extraordinary claims made of them.

I doubt that you know what GOD IS: or what gods are.

Because it is strange that with the mass of the known universe sitting about you, and the mathematically unlikely existence of intricate organs (such as the eye, to cite but one), you can see “almost no evidence” of superior intelligence?

But no matter, you are entitled to your delusions and serial contradictions. (I cannot forget the many you fed me on in the last thread, such as “purposeful beings in a purposeless universe” [such a shallow statement], Universe emerging from vacuum, but its contents [which are the universe itself] not emerging from vacuum. . .oh, KAG!)

More rhetoric. I have stated what the gods appear to be so far. You claim that the existence of intricate organs are mathematically unlikely: show your work. Show how they are mathematically unlikely. Yup, purposeful beings can live in a purposeless universe, etc.

That we do not go off on a tangent, I will in future open a thread specifically to discuss IFALOGY.

Okay.

'Further, it's laughable to represent the universe with the number "1" when it's a super set in itself.

If you are incapable of grasping a simple representation I cannot help you. I wonder what sort of mind is unable to see that we use the figure “1” there on a representational basis – as the sum of sets in the universe is at all events an unknown and possibly unknowable quantity.

Um, no. That's not a simple representation. You're attempting representational mathematics, but for the reason I stated - and more - you are not doing it. It's not a case of me being unable to grasp what you're trying to do, but me seeing how badly you've started your syllogism.

In any case, even if one were to use the number "1", the emergence of the universe still wouldn't be mathematically represented by

"0 + 1",

but:

0 = 1 as the universe possibly emerged from a vacuum and isn't the sum of the vacuum and the universe.

Tragically wrong. Because 0 = 1, which you have set forth, would mean that your “vacuum,” = the universe. Such inverse reasoning leads to the conclusion that the universe IS a vacuum. That it is EQUAL to a vacuum. Can you sustain that? Aha.

Which is why the conclusion you snipped from my post was: "It should already become apparent by that point that you're doing representational mathematics wrong." [Emphasis not in original]. Thanks for saying what I said back to me in different words.

Rather 0 + 1 which I set forth envisages a situation whereat an element was introduced into what YOU would describe as a vacuum – and that that introduction initiated an expansion that today forms the universe.

Representational mathematics: you're doing it wrong. You can also attempt reading back on what I wrote whre I pointed out a quantum fluctuation could have been "caused" the emergence of the universe.

Nothing else can explain the fact that the universe began to expand at a point. Why not previously? Why at that point? This can only be explained as I have said above if there was a change within the pre-existing singularity, that caused the expansion to begin.

Hence the cosmological argument: “whatever BEGINS to exist, has a cause”

And we're back to virtual particles and quantum fluctuations which needn't necessarily have a cause.

I assume that you are at home with the fundamentals of the cosmological argument. In brief, it goes thus –

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause

2. The Universe began to exist

3. The Universe thus has a cause.

It's a flawed argument, in the same vein of lizards have legs. New findings invalidate previous syllogisms. That argument precedes the Casmir effect and the uncertainty principle.

Now it is inconceivable to imagine any “cause” within the sort of vacuum you have laboriously tried to construct: which at all events we have shown to be at variance with even the very handicapped scientific discoveries regarding such vacuums.

I therefore re- assert to you that the only logical path of reasoning is that there must have been an intervention as a cause.

Otherwise nothing would exist.

See above and previous posts.

Actually, nothingness and nothing aren't interchangeable and are distinct both philosophically and scientifically. So, yeah, my understanding of the term still trumps yours.

At this point instead of the empty boasting you have persisted on, may I request you to adduce your definitions of “nothing” and “nothingness” in terms of this discussion.

I have already stated mine: nothingness is an absolute no thing – it represents a state of absolute zero: and I state to you again that by this very definition there is nothing like nothingness – it does not exist anywhere – any more than zero represents anything other than Zilch. Empty. Not there.

See my previous post. It's interesting that even your definition subtly implies that nothingness and nothing aren't interchangeable.

It was inconceivable for images to be sent thousands of miles to a receiving "box" used for viewing. It was inconceivable that a particle could be affected by what happened to another many miles away. So far the findings give an indication in that direction. I hope you can wrap your head around the fact that, once again, an argument from personal incredulity is a fallacy and not a rebuttal.

What are you on about here? That mankind is able to make scientific advancements does not in any way mean that core philosophical essentials which are absolutes can be changed.

Thus, conquer the universe, and engineer new planets, if you will, that will not change the fact that 0 + 0 = 0 and as such something cannot sprout from nothing.

Actually, scientific advancements does mean that philosophical essentials and absolutes can be changed. One quick offhand example: "an atom is the smallest unit of matter and cannot be divided into anything else."

Is it possible to have a zero in a numbers set, or, do we claim that just because it is a numbers set zero can't exist within it? The answer is obviously the former. The same applies to the universe and a vacuum.

Nope. We only have zero in a set to indicate a state where there is NOTHING as opposed to a state where there are quantities. That nothing remains nothing – and as such does not exist.

And that nothing that doesn't exist is within a numbers set. Nothing within something. Thanks for playing.

If you even half-thought this through you would recognise what I am saying: Check this out.

1. Between No. 1 and No. 2 – there exists an INFINITE number of fractions.

2. Between No 1 and ZERO. . . start counting backwards. 1, - - 0.9 - - - .0.8  - - -  0.7 ….0.2 - - -  0.1 - - - 0.09 - - - 0.08 - - - 0.07. . . . . infinity. .

3. You will count the fractions to infinity and YOU WILL NEVER ARRIVE AT ABSOLUTE ZERO! ! ! ! ! ! !

THIS FIRMLY, IRREVOCABLY AND INELUCTABLY PROVES MY POINT THAT ZERO AND NOTHINGNESS DO NOT, AND CANNOT EXIST, ANYWAY, ANYHOW, ANYWHERE, AT ALL! ! ! !

Um, the first three statements do not lead to that conclusion. No, seriously! No. 1 shows that counting using fractions (or decimals) means that there can be an infinite amount of numbers between two digits. Therefore using your logic from no. 3 certain numbers do not exist. See: as you'll never arrive at one because of the infinite number of decimals between 2 and 1, 1 doesn't exist; therefore your notation of the universe as the number 1 means the universe doesn't exist. Goodness, taking your illogic to it's ultimate conclusion should indicate how poorly you frame syllogisms and do mathematics.

In fact, for your sake stop alluding to mathematics until you know how it works above a third grade level.

In case you're wondering, zero does exist.

Don’t you get it now!

Do you?

No? I thought you earlier boasted that they were created even on earth? ? ?

Why did I have to hustle up the facts before you revert with this plea? ? ?

That was my fault. I should have been more specific. It was sloppy on my part.

They essentially emerge from nothing into what would be a vacuum.

This is frankly meaningless. You state: “from nothing” (define that) and then you state – “into what would be a vacuum” (thus acceding that it is NOT  a vacuum in the first place, remains NOT a vacuum, and as such the particles did not emerge from a vacuum or “nothing”)

Actually, it makes a great deal of sense. From nothing means without a cause external to it self and from a lack of previous existence. It isn't a complete vacuum because of what is emerging into it.

That uncertainty ensures that even everything else were eliminated, true vacuums will still prove challenging to create. However, like the zero within a numbers set, that doesn't mean they are necessarily the product of the set itself.

That’s a good girl! Thanks for seeing my point and being so gracious as to concede it wholly.

This is at variance with your earlier boasts regarding vacuums!

I've quoted the part you snipped off, because it gives the context and shows that you were being disingenuous. There's a good reason you snipped that bit out, and that's because you knew that what I wrote wasn't the image you were trying to present.

[/quote][quote]

Deep Sight:
O relax right there. I have been quite ill and on medication. Also I was just trying to draw your attention back to address the points I made.

Which makes your hypocrisy and your illogical conclusion all the more interesting.

I see you are not finished. So i will hold my peace till you are done.

But by the way - you will have to do quite some more wriggling to escape on the quantum vacuum one - because THAT WAS YOUR RESPONSE TO MY ASSERTION THAT "SOMETHING" CANNOT COME OUT OF NOTHING. THAT WAS THE EXAMPLE YOU USED IN AN ATTEMPT TO "FALSIFY" THAT ASSERTION OF MINE.

And it does falsify your claim. No wiggling needed on my part.

It therefore means that contrary to what you NOW claim, YOU DID approximate a quantum vacuum to "nothingness" - AND THIS HAS BEEN SHOWN TO BE ROUNDLY FALSE - AS SCIENTIFICALLY SUCH VACUUMS ARE NOT NOTHING!

Yet again, you're conflating nothing and nothingness.

I await to see with what effusive declamations you will seek to wriggle out of that FALSE allusion of yours.

Let me suggest that it would be simpler, and more honest, to simply admit your example regarding quantum vacuums was badly off. You cannot cavalierly pretend that you "never said a vacuum was nothing" - because if you do so, then you will have to explain EXACTLY why you used it as proof that something (virtual particles) could come out of nothing (a vacuum)? ? ? ?

I already did.

Finishing up

Deep Sight:
I demand of you that you define for me the vacuum that you refer to and show me how it equates nothingness.

Here is what Wiki defines a vacuum as –

Please note the bolded words – THESE EMPHATICALLY PROVE THAT A PERFECT VACUUM DOES NOT EXIST, AND THUS THAT THE VACUUMS YOU REFER TO DO NOT EQUATE NOTHINGNESS!

I wonder what gives you the audacity to make such preposterous assumptions and yet claim a “better understanding” of the word “nothingness”

I trust you will be honest and gracious enough to ADMIT that your understanding was flawed, and that vacuums DO NOT equate nothingness.

I quote the following from Wikipedia –

“Since these particles do not have a permanent existence, they are called virtual particles or vacuum fluctuations of vacuum energy.[4] In a certain sense, they can be understood to be a manifestation of the time-energy uncertainty principle in a vacuum”

And I positively assert to you that the foregoing again shows emphatically that a “vacuum” as herewith described, DOES NOT equate the same thing as “nothingness.” There are myriad elements at interplay here, and this could not be the case in a “nothing.”

Vacuums have a specific place in physics and in this instance they indicate something: that for quantum fluctuations they do not play a part as a cause. That is, it is because of quantum fluctuations in a vacuum that a perfect vacuum can not be had. What you appear to be doing is to confuse an occurrence with an effect.

Further, if you read what you've quoted from wiki, it should be apparent that virtual particles emerge from nothing as a result of the uncertainty principle in a vacuum. Exactly what I've stated from the beginning. What has been said also is that short of the probability of uncertainty, a vacuum possesses nothing. However, that isn't necessarily the important aspect of virtual particles. What is is that they aren't caused by vacuums themselves or, in fact, anything in a partial vacuum.

Secondly, you have already agreed with me that the space within which such particles have been observed is within this universe. Nobody has observed anything outside this universe, so madam – kindly leave that for the time when such happens. Fact is we have NO IDEA what exists outside this universe so quit the baseless conjecture.

Alright, I'll leave out any hypotheses that deal with the possibility of anything other than the universe.

Since you accept –

1. That the space within which such particles have been observed is this universe

2. The universe is NOT Nothing, but is something

3. Then incontestably, such particles could never be construed as arising from nothing – regardless of whether or not we are able to observe the element from which they arise.

No, your argument is illogical and wrong. You are making the same fundamental mistakes you were making in the other thread: confusing effects, causes and happenings is probably the most obvious one. I have given an analogy using a zero in a set, but I'll extend that response here. While space is a property of the universe, it doesn't mean space is the cause of virtual particles. They are caused by nothing emerging into something. That's a world different from what you're claiming.

Further, by your logic above you've successfully presented yet another rebuttal to one of the arguments you were making in the other thread, because you've essential claimed - though wrongly - that nothing can exist in the universe, a something.

I can this conclude that you are irretrievably drunk on what seems to be the zenith of your knowledge and experience – virtual particles. There is nothing in what you have said to connote that you have the slightest apprehension of what they are in fact.

You're being disingenuous.

Now please do not display any hasty eagerness to prove your supposed knowledge by reverting inundating me with information I have already seen on Wikipedia – just answer me these questions –

I don't have to do that. While the range of your knowledge is based mostly on what you can find on wiki, I am capable of going as far as to read source materials and primary research to understand different subject matters.

1. What is nothingness?

2. What is a vacuum, in the terms you refer to?

3. How does such a vacuum (imbued with the interplay observed) equate nothingness?

Nothingness is absolute negation. Something not existing either due to lack or an absence. A vacuum is state in which there's nothing or the likelihood of nothing. It doesn't equate nothingness.

I for my part, restate to you that (x) nothingness by its definition does not exist and (y) It is therefore inconceivable for anything to emerge from nothingness (which is non-existent).

Nothingness does exist. In philosophical parlance, nothingness can, and does, occur. Further, it is a state to which animals can resort.

The definition given of a vacuum above shows a number of things –

1. That it has gaseous pressure – only much lower than normally observed atmospheric pressure.

2. the classical notion of a perfect vacuum with gaseous pressure of exactly zero is only a philosophical concept and never is observed in practice

These show that your vacuum is not “nothing” and that no perfect vacuum has ever been observed. (in line with my submission that there is no such thing as nothingness).

See above.

Thus your use of this to claim that virtual particles are things that arise out of nothing is tragically flawed: worse – it has shown that you have NO understanding of what a vacuum is since you ignorantly attempted to equate it to nothingness which is CLEARLY NOT THE CASE.
Alice in wonderland.

I laugh.

Wrong again. Virtual particles emerge from nothing into the universe. Think of that in any way you wish, but it isn't virtual particles caused by anything or from something.

Deep Sight:
[QUOTE]Oh, it has occurred to me that ancient writers could only describe things in the way they perceived them - although not to the degree you imply. However, that is part of the problem: as several of things described from their perspectives have, with continued discoveries, been shown wrong and falsified. The earth is not stationary, the gods don't reside just beyond the sky or on mountain tops, nor are humans the products of a magic cow.[/QUOTE]
It is quite convenient for you to point out these – NONE of which is advanced within a prophetic book such as the Bible.

- Whereas you fail to take cognisance of the fact that that book that I refer to did state with perfect scientific accuracy, centuries before science did so that –

1. The Earth is a Sphere

2. The Earth “hangs upon nothing”  

Both quite engaging if you consider that current thinking at the time of the Prophets Job and Isaiah who inscribed these words was that (1) The Earth was flat and (2) The Earth had physical support in the form of giant animas or other such puerile imaginations.[/QUOTE]

Let's tackle each of your statements and arguments one at a time.

First, one of the things to which I referred is in the Bible - the Bible does preach a stationary earth. It was this that informed the Church and helped them to determine that Copernicus, Bruno, Galileo, et al. must be wrong. It was to the detriment of science. So much for your book.

Second, not to split hairs but the Bible doesn't state that the Earth is a sphere. Instead, it claims that the Earth is a circle. A circle is two dimensional - flat. It's the whole Chuwg or Duwr dichotomy. Further, the Bible wouldn't have found it hard to state the Earth hangs on nothing because it claims instead that "the pillars of the earth are the LORD'S, / And He set the world on them". Hard for a stationary object to hang when allegedly it's being held up by pillars. Yes, bases were sunk and cornerstones were laid, too.

It should already be plain to see that the claims you present as scientifically accurate fall flat, and a thorough examination shows that the Bible is no different from the times in which it was written. It makes several mistakes on simple things from claiming hares chew cud to miscalculating pi. Then again, it was meant to be a science book, nor should it be read as such.

I am NOT a Christian, and the Bible is NOT my creed, but it is nothing but intellectual dishonesty to throw out the baby with the bathwater.

It's intellectual dishonesty to present what you presented as evidence that the Bible has anymore scientific relevance than other ancient texts that also contain nonsense. Heck, you even somehow missed the geocentricism presented in the Bible.

Now in order not to lose direction, and for the purpose of tying this point up with the issue that brought it up: I positively state to you that whatever element was the source of the insights of the prophets who made these statements is NOT an element that you can “falsify”.

Except I did just falsify the implication that the "insights" presented must have come from some divine being. Unless, of course, you believe the Earth is stationary. I wouldn't put it past you to denounce findings that the Earth rotates around a sun as "belief in voodoo" or some such rubbish.

There is no doubt that if you, KAG had been alive in those times, like everyone else you would have believed the Earth to be flat and anchored on something heavy. This is more likely given your obvious and lamentably slavish adherence to “current thinking.”

Those prophets would have been millions of light years ahead of you.

It amuses me that you always imagine that current suppositions cannot be wrong. And yet in another breath you speak of being “imaginative.”

Lol.

Hmm, so far only one of the two of us has proved capable of not just accepting dogma and researching claims often assigned to deities. And it isn't you. I have researched and read up in order to understand the things I state and for which I argue. You haven't done the same. Instead, what we have had from you has been sloppy logic, dire mathematics and handwaves when faced with science.

Simply claiming I can't a god with as vague a quality as "an uncaused cause which is responsible for all that exists" isn't saying much because it's so unclear a descriptor that it could refer to something inanimate.

No, that is NOT the only quality of the ultimate deity, and I have to warn you to be careful of your use of the reference to “animation”, because animation cannot be the same thing in a physical context as it would be in a spiritual – and God is said to be SPIRIT.

When you show me an inanimate object with cognizance, I'll stop using that as a criteria for a god. Everything else you've claimed is conjecture.

[quote]Prior to this post I had only made two posts. Yes, I can't state absolutely that all gods are dead;

Thanks for the concession.

This emphatically shows that YOU CANNOT deny the possible existence of God/ gods.

My first post in this thread: "Can the existence of anything really be disproved? In my opinion, giv[en] the qualities of faith, no." However, I can deny the existence of gods because they have so far proved a necessary human construct with almost no evidence despite the extraordinary claims made of them.

what I can claim, though, is that gods when presented by their adherents can be falsified.

You cannot even falsify IFA, and you dare mouth off on this.

I positively challenge you to falsify IFA. Go ahead, I’ll meet you there.

You will be astonished at the extent of your ignorance on these matters.

What are the qualities of "IFA".  What makes it a god. Like I stated, when the god is presented by its adherents, then it can be falsified. Your move.

The former statement is not quite correct. Yes, I was pointing out how badly you were using maths and how bad your logic was proving,

You were the one who made the ludicrous equation 0 = 1, not me.

The only sense in which this could be rationalized is the obvious: to wit that zero is not really zero, and thus that your imaginary Alice-in-wonder-land “vacuum” never existed.

Once again:

'Further, it's laughable to represent the universe with the number "1" when it's a super set in itself. In any case, even if one were to use the number "1", the emergence of the universe still wouldn't be mathematically represented by

"0 + 1",

but:

0 = 1 as the universe possibly emerged from a vacuum and isn't the sum of the vacuum and the universe.

It should already become apparent by that point that you're doing representational mathematics wrong.' [Emphasis not in original]

but I was making a positive assertion in that the universe may have arisen from a vacuum.

You are a native witch doctor, and a poor excuse for a scientific or rational mind.

"on this ground the traditionalists denounced the telescope, refused to look through it, and maintained that it revealed only delusions." Your response reminds me of the thread about the four-legged chick. Everything not understood is decried as magic and an observation or probable occurrence called the workings of a witch doctor.

This equates to stating that the universe arose suddenly, pointlessly, magically OUT OF NOTHING, and without any intelligent or purposeful direction.

I submit that a person with such lame propositions does not deserve further response on the subject.

Apart from magically, yes. You don't have to respond to me, but argument from personal incredulity is justifiably a fallacy.

Second, I'll wager that I have a better understanding of "nothingness" than you do.

Your understanding of “nothingness” is exactly that – NOTHING.

You have demonstrated a pathetic understanding of that word. I do not know what drives your tragic misapprehension, but let me summarize this for you: by its very definition, nothingness does not exist – it is nothing – and accordingly it is nonexistent.

Actually, nothingness and nothing aren't interchangeable and are distinct both philosophically and scientifically. So, yeah, my understanding of the term still trumps yours.

It is therefore inconceivable for any thing to “arise from nothing” as you postulate. For the simple reason that there is no such thing as “nothing.”

I hope you can wrap your head around that.

It was inconceivable for images to be sent thousands of miles to a receiving "box" used for viewing. It was inconceivable that a particle could be affected by what happened to another many miles away. So far the findings give an indication in that direction. I hope you can wrap your head around the fact that, once again, an argument from personal incredulity is a fallacy and not a rebuttal.

Deep Sight: The universe is not “nothing.” It is a “something.”

I demand of you that you define for me the vacuum that you refer to and show me how it equates nothingness.

Here is what Wiki defines a vacuum as –

Please note the bolded words – THESE EMPHATICALLY PROVE THAT A PERFECT VACUUM DOES NOT EXIST, AND THUS THAT THE VACUUMS YOU REFER TO DO NOT EQUATE NOTHINGNESS!

I wonder what gives you the audacity to make such preposterous assumptions and yet claim a “better understanding” of the word “nothingness”

[/quote]A vacuum as I pointed out is achievable nothing until affected the probability due to the uncertainty principle. I didn't say it was nothingness. I've quoted your post to which I was responding. Here it is the relevant section again: 'The universe is not “nothing.” It is a “something.'

[quote]I trust you will be honest and gracious enough to ADMIT that your understanding was flawed, and that vacuums DO NOT equate nothingness.

I quote the following from Wikipedia –

“Since these particles do not have a permanent existence, they are called virtual particles or vacuum fluctuations of vacuum energy.[4] In a certain sense, they can be understood to be a manifestation of the time-energy uncertainty principle in a vacuum”

Exactly.

[snip. Already addressed this]

Secondly, you have already agreed with me that the space within which such particles have been observed is within this universe. Nobody has observed anything outside this universe, so madam – kindly leave that for the time when such happens. Fact is we have NO IDEA what exists outside this universe so quit the baseless conjecture.

Since you accept –

1. That the space within which such particles have been observed is this universe

2. The universe is NOT Nothing, but is something

3. Then incontestably, such particles could never be construed as arising from nothing – regardless of whether or not we are able to observe the element from which they arise.

It has already been established in the previous thread that logic is not your strongest suit. You do it very badly, and it has reared its ugly head here again. You remember when you were trying to do representational maths and I mentioned sets? Well, let's think of this present conjecture using sets. Is it possible to have a zero in a numbers set, or, do we claim that just because it is a numbers set zero can't exist within it? The answer is obviously the former. The same applies to the universe and a vacuum.

One of the reasons true vacuums are proving difficult to create is because of quantum fluctuations. They essentially emerge from nothing into what would be a vacuum. That uncertainty ensures that even everything else were eliminated, true vacuums will still prove challenging to create. However, like the zero within a numbers set, that doesn't mean they are necessarily the product of the set itself.

Like I have mentioned several times, you have trouble not conflating things that shouldn't be equated.

I can this conclude that you are irretrievably drunk on what seems to be the zenith of your knowledge and experience – virtual particles. There is nothing in what you have said to connote that you have the slightest apprehension of what they are in fact.

Don't be silly. That's easily the most obtuse thing you've said so far, and that's saying a lot.

Now please do not display any hasty eagerness to prove your supposed knowledge by reverting inundating me with information I have already seen on Wikipedia – just answer me these questions –

1. What is nothingness?

2. What is a vacuum, in the terms you refer to?

3. How does such a vacuum (imbued with the interplay observed) equate nothingness?

I for my part, restate to you that (x) nothingness by its definition does not exist and (y) It is therefore inconceivable for anything to emerge from nothingness (which is non-existent).

The definition given of a vacuum above shows a number of things –

1. That it has gaseous pressure – only much lower than normally observed atmospheric pressure.

2. the classical notion of a perfect vacuum with gaseous pressure of exactly zero is only a philosophical concept and never is observed in practice

These show that your vacuum is not “nothing” and that no perfect vacuum has ever been observed. (in line with my submission that there is no such thing as nothingness).

Thus your use of this to claim that virtual particles are things that arise out of nothing is tragically flawed: worse – it has shown that you have NO understanding of what a vacuum is since you ignorantly attempted to equate it to nothingness which is CLEARLY NOT THE CASE.
Alice in wonderland.

I laugh.

I'm tired now. I'll pick up where I left off.

Deep Sight:
Why has KAG taken off since the ridiculous fallacy of her claim that quantum vacuums approximate to "nothing" was EXPOSED? ? ?

Some people just pretend cheap scientific psuedo knowledge, are spoon fed and do not think for themselves!

Anyone else see the irony in someone who took two days to post a response hollering that a response hasn't been provided on the same day? What a douche.

Deep Sight:

I disagree that I (and anyone in general) cannot falsify the existence of gods. For instance, one can begin to falsify the existence of a god whose major characteristic involves transporting, with a chariot, the sun from its depths when one discovers or points out how "sun rise" works.

It perhaps has not occurred to you that ancient writers could only express what they perceived according to the limitations of their own knowledge.

If a prophet saw a vision wherein airplanes and helicopters were bombing a city, he would describe such as flying scorpions breathing fire upon the earth. This does not mean he has not seen something real: however the limitations of his understanding will lead him to deliver an inchoate description.

Oh, it has occurred to me that ancient writers could only describe things in the way they perceived them - although not to the degree you imply. However, that is part of the problem: as several of things described from their perspectives have, with continued discoveries, been shown wrong and falsified. The earth is not stationary, the gods don't reside just beyond the sky or on mountain tops, nor are humans the products of a magic cow.

At all events that is beside the point. For I do not seek to argue about the existence of Sango or Amadioha, Ishtar, Aphrodite or Venus. I seek to state to you clearly that you can never debunk in any intelligible terms the existence of an uncaused cause which is responsible for all that exists – and which is what the rational-theist refers to as GOD.

Of course you dismiss those other gods out of hand, as they have all faced falsification. Simply claiming I can't a god with as vague a quality as "an uncaused cause which is responsible for all that exists" isn't saying much because it's so unclear a descriptor that it could refer to something inanimate. However, gods with clearly defined characteristics have so far shown themselves to be falsifiable, lending credence to the position of gods being constructs of beings.

In terms of “gods” also – unless you claim omniscience you CANNOT state with any degree of certainty what exists or does not exist – and you acknowledged that in your penultimate post.

Prior to this post I had only made two posts. Yes, I can't state absolutely that all gods are dead; what I can claim, though, is that gods when presented by their adherents can be falsified.

“Falsify.” As though something which is true can be rendered false. No biggie though. I understand your context.

Your statement is wrong. What it is, instead, is that something which is claimed to be true can be shown to be false.

Not quite. I'll quote verbatim what I wrote:

'Further, it's laughable to represent the universe with the number "1" when it's a super set in itself. In any case, even if one were to use the number "1", the emergence of the universe still wouldn't be mathematically represented by

"0 + 1",

but:

0 = 1 as the universe possibly emerged from a vacuum and isn't the sum of the vacuum and the universe.

It should already become apparent by that point that you're doing representational mathematics wrong.' [Emphasis not in original]

I hope you get the point now. If you don't I don't mind explaining further.

Please do explain further. My deduction is that you are saying that the representational mathematics above is wrong, and as such cannot stand. Namely that you were merely trying to show up a flaw, and not make a positive assertion in itself.

None of this controverts the fact that you repeatedly stated that the universe possibly emerged from a vacuum. That certainly equates to the emergence of something from nothing. I again submit that that is worse than voodoo.

The former statement is not quite correct. Yes, I was pointing out how badly you were using maths and how bad your logic was proving, but I was making a positive assertion in that the universe may have arisen from a vacuum.

And while you may think something is "worse than voodoo" that doesn't count as a rebuttal, nor does it invalidate findings in quantum physics.

What is being discovered is that something can "pop into existence from nothing. For the past few years I've given a good example of that: virtual particles. Quantum physics has been showing that many of the things we, as intuitive humans, consider sacrosanct are in fact different from what was expected.

This is absolutely inconceivable and illogical.

You do not have a grasp of what “nothingness” refers to.

The virtual particles you refer to are observed within this universe, no?

The universe is not “nothing.” It is a “something.”

First, that you may be unable to conceive of something does not make it illogical.

Second, I'll wager that I have a better understanding of "nothingness" than you do.

Finally, yes, virtual particles are observed within this universe (although, may not be limited to our universe), but short of the probability due to the uncertainty principle, there can be a vacuum in the universe. Hek even humans have created vacuums on earth, whih is in the universe.

Accordingly it is nonsensical to speak about anything within it as having emerged from nothing – given that the vector space within which the subject is observed is already a “something”.

I hope you see this clearly.

Nonsense, you're conflating again.

Additionally I need to point out the fact that the failure of human technology to detect something does not mean that it does not exist. Indeed, human technology is deficient and still developing, as you well know. Accordingly the failure of human technology to detect what element such particles “pop” out of, does not suggest that the element does not exist.

What are you on about? You're not making any sense. A cursory read on virtual particles should show you why you aren't making sense.

For if you truly understand the word “nothingness” you would never be so reckless as to assert that anything may magical “pop” out of nothingness.

For a person with such scientific affinity, you display a reckless love of voodoo and black magic.

I addressed these earlier. I guess your tack is to label sciences you don't know of or don't understand "voodoo and black magic"

Deep Sight:
^^^ KAG - I positively assert that you cannot "falsify" the existence of GOD or gods, (in this i am at odds with your bizzarre choice of words).

I disagree that I (and anyone in general) cannot falsify the existence of gods. For instance, one can begin to falsify the existence of a god whose major characteristic involves transporting, with a chariot, the sun from its depths when one discovers or points out how "sun rise" works.

What's bizzare about my choie of words?

You mad esuch a horrid statement sometime ago to the effect that the commencement of the universe equates 0 = 1.

That means that nothingness = something.

That is worse than magic.

Not quite. I'll quote verbatim what I wrote:

'Further, it's laughable to represent the universe with the number "1" when it's a super set in itself. In any case, even if one were to use the number "1", the emergence of the universe still wouldn't be mathematically represented by

"0 + 1",

but:

0 = 1 as the universe possibly emerged from a vacuum and isn't the sum of the vacuum and the universe.

It should already become apparent by that point that you're doing representational mathematics wrong.' [Emphasis not in original]

I hope you get the point now. If you don't I don't mind explaining further.

If we accept that "something" cannot be produced by "nothing", then we necessarily accept that "something" (of whatever description) always existed, and "nothingness" perforce, and by its very description - does not exist.

Not quite. The way you've phrased it is wrong. What is being discovered is that something can "pop into existence from nothing. For the past few years I've given a good example of that: virtual particles. Quantum physics has been showing that many of the things we, as intuitive humans, consider sacrosanct are in fact different from what was expected.

What was that "something" that always existed? Aha.

Nothing need be that.

imhotep:
Atheism cannot disprove the existence of God

Can the existence of anything really be disproved? In my opinion, giving the qualities of faith, no. The existence of the gods that have been claimed to exist can be falsified, but that hasn't stopped the adherents. Zeus is still lord of all, to some hellenists. And Asatru is still going strong.

The point being, I can present a logical argument to attempt to falsify the existence of your god. Hell, it may actually falsify your god. However, all points made will be ignored or handwaved away, and like the believer in gold buried under a rainbow, you'll keep arguing that nothing has shown you can possibly be wrong.

Deep Sight:

Why limit the discourse to the origin of the individual? Because you did.

Hi KAG –

I am going to be entirely fair. I imagine I always have been. But sometimes I suppose it doesn’t come across. I am going to try hard to let it come across.

Thanks first for your detailed responses.

That is not true KAG. From the outset I spoke about the entirety of existence and weighed this against a cessation of all existence. Right from Post #17 on this thread I gave Mazaje two premises, the first of which was –

-   If everything that exists ends in nothingness (ceases to exist) – then all existence has collapsed into empty nothingness and accordingly the purpose of all that existed comes to nothingness.

Thus you cannot in any terms assert that my argument was based only on the Individual. I had already stated this before you appeared on the thread, and I would have thought that you would have taken note of such a salient aspect of the discourse.

Fair enough, although I was under the impression that especially with invitations like: "Back to the individual? Come on", there was a desire to focus mostly on the individual.

This is another severely contradictory statement. I am at odds that you can state that –


1. It didn’t all emerge from a vacuum

2. The universe may have emerged from a vacuum.

Madam, how do you reconcile these statements?

It's easy really: the universe may have emerged from a vacuum, but processes that have occurred after the onset of the universe have resulted in things within the universe. Things like the earth didn't emerge from a vacuum, but were caused as a result of physical processes in the universe.

I hope you are able to see the unfortunate and regrettable repetition of irreconcilable arguments that you continuously advance in this discourse. In what intelligible terms can any person apprehend the two statements of yours above – to wit – that “it didn’t all emerge from a vacuum, but the universe may have emerged from a vacuum” ? ? ?

It's simply a case of you not being able to distinguish between causes and effects because your argument is ultimately dependent on gross conflation. To repeat the points I made above, most of the things in the universe weren't caused by a vacuum.

Now this is at the core of the atheistic dilemma: a persuasion to find a meaning and a purpose within a universe already stated to be purposeless.

Looks strange? Your words, not mine.

It isn't simply the persuasion of the atheist: it's the persuasion of practically all aware humans. No, it doesn't look strange, nor is it much of a dilemma.

It grieves me that you do not assimilate this point. I already tried to explain it in detail when I gave Mazaje two initial premises, the second of which was this –


-   If there is a central objective to an endeavour, which is dependent on the realization of smaller objectives – the collapse of the central objective will also render the smaller objectives moot and purposeless.

Another way of saying the foregoing is simply this –

  – That whereat the ultimate purpose is zero or nothingness, all smaller purposes within it perforce amount to zero and nothingness

This withstands the rigors of both mathematics and commonsense.

First, your initial premise is wrong as the smaller objectives needn't be moot nor purposeless simply because the ultimate objective has collapsed. This is true for many human endeavours. In any case, you're making the same mistake you've been making constantly in your arguments - and one I'll keep reiterating in different ways: you're mistaking non-occurrence with the demise of an occurrence.

Second, purpose as the construct of beings is only meaningful from their perspectives.  The second premise still contains the same mistake of assuming non-existent is the same thing as once existed. Yes, a tree has still fallen and produced waves even if there is no one there to witness it.

Finally, yes so far I'd say what you've written does withstand the rigors of mathematics and commonsense. In fat, it's successfully, generally, lacking both so far.

Withstand:
1 a : to stand up against :  oppose with firm determination; especially :  to resist successfully

b : to be proof against :  resist the effect of

In terms of mathematics – it is not possible for any quantifiable factor to exist within a zero. Now please note this very very carefully because the entire discourse hinges on it and I will elucidate. For emphasis I first repeat: it is not possible for any quantifiable factor to exist within a zero.

Now stop.

I've cut the argument here so I can address it separately from the part where you misunderstand and misuse representational mathematics. Contrary to what you think it is a possibility that quantum fluctuations can happen in vacuums. Quantity appearing within what you've denoted a zero. So much for that.

Take a deep breath. Assimilate:

You stated that the Universe may have emerged from a vacuum. A vaccum. This is nothingness and thus zero. This is what advised the first part of the equation I set up – to wit -

0 (zero).

Now you further stated that the universe emerged.

This means that in addition to or within the vacuum (for want of words) the universe has come to exist. Now the universe is a factor or quantity as opposed to a non-factor or non-quantity. We may thus represent it as 1. This is a representative figure as the figure could be anything quantifiable. This advised the development of my equation into –

0 + 1.

Actually, not quite. First, you claim that "it is not possible for any quantifiable factor to exist within a zero." [emphasis yours], then now you accept that "in addition to or within the vacuum (for want of words) the universe has come to exist" [emphasis mine]? You should make up your mind.

Further, it's laughable to represent the universe with the number "1" when it's a super set in itself. In any case, even if one were to use the number "1", the emergence of the universe still wouldn't be mathematically represented by

"0 + 1",

but:

0 = 1 as the universe possibly emerged from a vacuum and isn't the sum of the vacuum and the universe.

It should already become apparent by that point that you're doing representational mathematics wrong.

This is the point at which the universe exists. It is something, a factor.

Now the point of demise represents a cessation of existence of that factor. Thus in the equation, you remove the factor itself, leading to –

0 + 1 – 1.

The sum of this equation is ineluctably zero.

Before I go further let me carefully note that this existential series also applies in our discourse to the life of a society or an individual human being. It is all the same.

Except, the universe may not end. If it does it may not end as a vacuum. I won't repeat the points about your maths and your logic here.

I should also add that, as I have pointed out previously, the same faulty logic doesn't apply to the life of a society or human being as neither of the two emerge froma vacuum, etc.

Now let me say a few pertinent things at this point –

1. What is an equation. It is a sum that expresses a balance of equality between a sum and a result. Thus 1 + 1 = 2. This simply means that the figure “2” is the SAME figure as the sum “1 + 1!”

2. What this inescapably shows, is that the non-existent factor “zero” IS THE SAME FIGURE AS THE SUM – “0 + 1 – 1.”

3. Thus the existential series which I describes above IS THE SAME AS THE FIGURE ZERO AND THUS AMOUNTS TO NOTHINGNESS.

Again no. I have mentioned how you're doing representational mathematics laughably wrong. Further, I have argued that you're are mistaking the non-existent with expiration, no doubt aided by the poor mathematics you've been using so far. Yes, the figure 2 = 1+1, as 1 = 0.33 repeating times 3, but they are of varying degrees of equality and the former especially shouldn't be mistaken for abstract philosophical concepts

To make this sit well with you, let me address some queasy points.

1. You make heavy weather of present existence – and you insist that so long as we are presently living and experiencing things, then there is not nothingness. Let me ask you: do you countenance the possibility that it is all a mirage? A dream, sort of? A void. A hallucinated reality?

2. I place this to you because of the uniqueness of experience. I am sure you are aware of the philosophical riddle which posits that so long as each man’s experience of reality remains unique to himself, he can never affirm externally the reality or non-reality of his existence.

Even if it was a dream, etc. "I" am in existence and awareness, experiencing. The positing of different viewpoints is irrelevant in light of what is being argued here, that a perspective or series of perspectives mean(s) something.

But the foregoing is slightly tangential: for the real point that I must bring to you is this – namely the central theme that I had stated before to wit –

it is not possible for any quantifiable factor to exist within a zero.

In the context of that which I have set out above, I hope that you see that –

1. The existential series “0 + 1 – 1.” – is exactly the same thing as a ZERO (remember what an equation is).

2. And since it is in itself a zero, then it is IMPOSSIBLE FOR ANYTHING TO EXIST WITHIN IT.

3. ACCORDINGLY, THAT WHICH WE PERCEIVE TO PRESENTLY EXIST, GOING BY YOUR FINITE VIEWS – CANNOT EXIST AT ALL. NOTHING CAN EXIST IN A ZERO, BECAUSE A ZERO IS NOTHINGNESS.

Now I need to note very carefully that I have spent the foregoing in analysing the possibility of existence at all – on a metaphysical level – if both ends of the series commence and end with a zero. I have very carefully stated that this would mean that everything is in fact zero and that in reality, nothing therefore exists. Evidentially, this is not correct – and this is my basis for asserting that the finite worldview of the atheist which presupposes that things can end in nothingness – (that a man can “cease” to exist by dying, or that all that exists can cease to exist – or emerged from a vacuum -) is eminently and evidentially wrong, mis-footed and misconceived.

"0 + 1 - 1" isn't an existential series.

You wrote this: "This means that in addition to or within the vacuum (for want of words) the universe has come to exist."

I've addressed most of this previously. Life does end. The brain and the body expire, hence nothing is left of the original animal. Trying to represent these concepts with simple maths is bordering on silly.

I rather state to you, that - Only a worldview with continuing existence can have any meaningfulness whatsoever.

I state to you that you're wrong.

Finally, I must return briefly to your conundrum of purpose.

Remember that this thread after all is not just about the fact of existence (which is what you have argued) but rather about the purpose of existence.

Then you haven't been reading what I wrote properly. Things exist, beings impose purpose onto those things in existence. Gold, for example, just was. Human beings dug it up and have imposed a purpose unto its existence. Without humans it will just continue to be, lacking purpose.

Summarily, I submit as l already said, as follows –

1. If a central or bigger purpose is actually purposeless, then the smaller purposes within it are actually purposeless as well. This is only logical.

2. You have already stated that the universe is most likely purposeless.

3. This logically removes any iota of purpose that may exist within the universe.

4. We exist within the universe.

5. We therefore cannot have a purpose if the universe is purposeless.

We exist within the universe – indeed, we are a product of the universe – that is, in your materialist view. If we have, can develop, or impose meaningfulness, then the universe CANNOT be purposeless, as we are ourselves a product or result of the existence of the universe.

n

Nonsense. See the example of gold I gave above. Subtle uses of the metal have given it certain purposes in the interim. It has none inherently. The same applies to the universe. We can have a purpose within an inherently purposeless universe because we are beings: we are aware; a condition that inclines us towards delineating meaning. This creation of meaning is a successful enterprise, and, like the puddle in the hole, we've defined our lives in something that just was. To extend a metaphor: we are of the universe, but we aren't the universe.

Deep Sight:

Except it doesn't suggest that. What, exactly, is the harmonious purpose that your argument suggests? What is this something of which you speak? In any case, yes it is all abstract - further making a mockery of your argument by simple numbers and mathematical notations - but it once again suggests a lack of imagination if one cannot understand living is meaningful while it lasts. An intelligent dinosaur needn't fear extinction while still alive.

I am certain that if you review this thread you will not anywhere see an allusion to fear in any of my posts.

What I have done is simply to seek out PURPOSE for this existence as it stands – to determine its relevance, rationale and result.

That is and remains the philosophers task in all ages.

While you are on about a lack of imagination might I very calmly suggest to you an image that reflects the concept and extent of imagination.

Person 1 – “This life is all that there is.”

Person 2 –  “There is more out there.”

Which person is more imaginative?

Aha.

Oh I'm not saying there's an allusion to fear in your posts: it's more of an inferrence on my part. In any case, you avoided the core of this part of my post.

WHich of the two lacks imagination? The two of them do, if that's the breadth of their thought process on the matter. Is this where I, too, go,"aha"?

Verily, I did. I understand that, but if you're going to represent the individual by a number in a mathematical equation, then you can't ignore salient facts like: the individual did not emerge from a vacuum and there are changes left after the death of the individual.

The individual did not emerge from a vacuum you state, cavalierly, might I add.

Because I am surprised that you do not see that this pulls the rug off the foundations of any atheistic worldview.

Why limit the discourse to the origin of the individual? Fact is, there was a time when there were NO individuals. No organisms. Hell, no Earth.

So I urge you yet again to view the discourse from a macro stand-point.

Did it all emerge from a vacuum?

Um, except it doesn't do anything to an argument based on atheistic premises. Of great import is this: "if you're going to represent the individual by a number in a mathematical equation, then you can't ignore salient facts like: the individual did not emerge from a vacuum and there are changes left after the death of the individual".

Why limit the discourse to the origin of the individual? Because you did. That was the context of the discussion at the instance I responded. So yes there was a time there were no individuals nor an earth, but like a hole in the ground in which a puddle finds a clean fit, the earth is now here and home to many different organisms.

No, it didn't all emerge from a vacuum, although the universe may have.

Further on you state that the individual leaves changes when he dies. Might I ask you if those changes change the ultimate result that your worldview espouses – namely – that upon final extinction, there would be nothing left but one big, fat, squat ZERO.

Nothingness.

Thus the supposed changes which you have talked about all = 0.

We are back to nothingness. Its inescapable.

In this kindly remember that the discourse is purpose.

Perhaps you should have carried on reading to see what I wrote after the point in my post quoted a little bit above. The fundamental flaw you appear to be making is that you can't help conflating expiration with non-existence. That something may cease to exist at some point doesn't invalidate the essence during subsistence. That one and everyone one knows may die doesn't mean one isn't alive at the present.

A life resulting in nothingness is irretrievably purposeless and that is iron cast logic.

Logic: you're using the word wrong. What you've presented isn't logic, let alone an iron cast one. I'll refrain from rehashing my previous arguments and rebuttals.

the fact still remains that in addition to the significance imposed on the life of an individual while living, some is also attached - because of what remains after the death of the individual - to their demise.

This again presumes an eternal society.

Which is NOT the case.

What does everything approximate to upon final extinction?

NOTHING.

No, no, nothing of the sort. It doesn't presume an eternal society: it acknowledges a society and habitat in which the individual is situated. Again, you're mistaking non-existent with expiration. The former implies no substance and no present, the latter indicates a presence that has come to an end. Not the same thing, really, when you think about it.

Would you want to argue that societies, the Earth, and the Universe are all meaningless because they too will end? Because it isn't so for an individual. They exist. Their existence doesn't need the imposition of purpose by an aware being. While the space individual beings need to survive remains, though, then the being can carry on imposing meaning into their life.

There is no need for me to say anything further save my stubbornness – for with this statement you have ENTIRELY CEDED THE DISCOURSE – GIVEN THAT YOU EXPRESSLY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT MEANING IS “IMPOSED” BY BEINGS ON REALITY.

Existence is one thing. Meaning and Purpose are quite another.

You specifically state that celestial bodies exist –and that their existence does not require “the imposition of purpose by an aware being.”

This is a wholesale admission that in your view, reality itself has no meaning, and that meaning is only a contrivance of the mind of beings.

Ceded? Where? Is that your way of saying you've run into some trouble with the procedings here? Yes, meaning is imposed by beings, there should be no difficulty understanding the point. Look, yes this part of your post is essentially something of a summary of what I've stated.

Perhaps this thread should now be renamed – “KAG – State the purpose of your life!”

Well, too late for that. You have just stated that there is none, and that you merely “impose” one onto your reality.

Not necessarily. I don't exist in a vacuum either and part of the purpose of my existence is also dictated by other beings. The point being that, to use an analogy, gold in the earth has a purpose only in the imposition of such by humans. That is not to say that a human isn't more complex than gold, but to simply use an example to make a point.

First, the universe is most likely purposeless, except when one is imposed upon it by beings.

Second, there is no certainty on the fate of the universe, so don't get ahead of the edge of the universe.

Finally, the fate of the universe will ultimately play a part in whether the hubris of anthropocentrism has been worthy of the egos that propped it; but in the purpose of a human capable of thought and imgination, life's purpose is experienced while the human is alive and when dead by ripples caused. That nothing may some day be the fate of all does not change the imposition of purpose.

This point is FIRMLY HAMMERED HOME BY THE FOLLOWING GAFFE -


1. You state that the universe is most likely purposeless

2. You insist that beings living within the universe have purpose and meaning!

This is an irretrievable contradiction the like of which I have never come across in my life before

I think that it is pretty clear now that you have quite some thinking to do regarding the question of purpose. You have set forth a purposeless universe which contains purposeful beings, Lol! How interesting!

You aren't reading closely or you're being mentally lazy. The two aspects of my argument don't contradict each other. The universe exists without inherent meaning, but humans - beings with awareness - have arisen in the space of the universe. Those human beings can - as they are beings - create meaning from existence because of awareness. It's possible for creatures to live in something that isn't capable of consciousness. The former can cause purpose, the latter can't. It's surprisingly strange that you got to the part where I argue that beings impose meaning but somehow contrived to see a contradiction in me pointing out "the universe is most likely purposeless, except when one is imposed upon it by beings".

Deep Sight:

KAG: There is a truism that has almost become cliche that applies here: "It is not everyone that is wandering that is lost". There's a sport I enjoy that involves simply running round an athletics track. You're not really going anywhere, just round and round, but for many experiencing the run is joy enough to justify what your position denies.

If you have the time someday, take a trip to a fair. Stop, if you will, at one of those wonderful carousel rides. See if you can find the destination of the wonderfully happy riders.

I cannot comprehend this.
It should be apparent in everything that I have said that whilst you appear to advocate the idea of nothingness post death, I have carefully set out arguments that make it clear that i believe in continued existence post-death. That is not nothingness.

A destination does not imply an end. It is simply what it is - a destination - a place that one is going to. Of course one may continue to other destinations from a destination. This is our everyday experience.

Accordingly "continuing in existence" does not in anyway suggest the absence of a destination, unless it is your peculiar experience that people collapse and die once they have completed any journey.

It's easy to understand, really. First, you claimed that "It is laughable that you can assert that a destination is of NO relevance to a journey." That, however, has shown itself to be anything but the case. You've followed up by building up strawmen of my arguments and I will address those consequently.

Second, no where did I claim or imply that you think or believe in the cessation of existence in a human. No, instead, what I was showing was that you were - inadvertently or otherwise - acceding that journeys needn't have a specific destination. In fact, based on what you wrote it became clear that you must realise that in the examples I gave, the meanings and purposes of those activities (running round a track, going on a carousel) are not necessarily determined before they are begun, and it is the experience that counts post the activity. Further, the purposes of embarking on those activities aren't invalidated even when their effects and memories of them are forgotten or gone. While the experiences and even the memories and effects remain in existence they can be contributive, but they needn't be considered negated because they have expired.

Finally, on a tangential and probably apocryphal note, simply collapsing and dying after completing a journey or one's believed purpose has alledgedly happened on occassion.

What are these if not circular arguments –

Your argument A –

1. Individual lives have meaning (Question: why?)

2. Because there is the context of society and fellow men (Question: What about extinction?)

3. Doesn’t matter because individual lives have meaning.

That, m’lady, is a perfectly round and circular argument that reaches to itself for validation.

Woah, easy there, you're missing the subtlety of what I'm arguing. I'm glad you decided to clarify.

No, my argument, crudely summarised, has run thus:

1. Individual lives have meaning because meaning is interposed by the being in question.

2. Further, the individual life, primarily because the life didn't come from and into a vacuum, causes an effect on a society of fellow humans and the containing environment which means the death of the individual doesn't result in nothing, as the valuation of purpose depends on awareness and perspectives.

3. Extinction may occur, but it's unimportant to an individual's appreciation of a purpose, which is a subjective, abstract concept created (hence imposed) by beings. If all beings have become extinct then a question of purpose is moot as there are no perspectives to consider anything of the sort.

4. The purpose of something or a life isn't necessarily invalidated because they may become lost in time.

Your argument B –

1. A person running or on a joy ride at a fair has no destination (Question: Aren’t there purposes for that?)

2. The purpose is that he is enjoying himself (Question: Does such enjoyment not have effects that outlast the moment?)

3. It does not matter because he is enjoying himself.

There again. The circle is clearly your favourite shape.

Um, no, that is a gross strawman of what I have written. The argument in this instance:

1. It is claimed that all journeys must have a destination. However, I argue that isn't the case as may be seen from two examples and a truism that I provided.

2. One can impose or find a purpose for undertaking those activities, prior or post hoc, but that is not a necessity to the undertaking of the activities. Do not forget that the point here happens to be that destinations aren't a requirement.

3. Effects after those activities do exist - not that they are necessairly why the individual may undertake them. However, like human life, the effects will expire, often in the life time of the human that undertook the activities.

4. That the effects or the memory of the activities may have expired doesn't invalidate the occurence or the potential of the experience while it occurred.

5. Experiencing something, thus, counts even in the face of its extinction.


Like I stated earlier, the circularity seems to be in your mind.