3RU7AL

Well, if the universe is defined to be everything that exists, then it tautologically exists.

Well, you can be quite certain that there is no such thing as "nothing".

Upon analysis, "nothing" can only be "nowhere" and have "no size" and "no characteristics" it would axiomatically be undetectable by all.

It is the very definition of "non-existence".

So we can reason that because there is no such thing as "nothing", then whatever this this is, it certainly qualifies as "something".

You wouldn't say that locking up and permanently depriving a moose from food will result in the moose starving to death? You wouldn't call that objective?

I would call it a fact as long as you and I agree explicitly on your definitions.

Please explain where I can find "nothing".

Have done so numerous times in this thread, others at DArt and with you specifically in DDO [red herring/dodging the question].

Your in denial and playing mind games [red herring/dodging the question].

Eternally existent, macro-infinite non-occupied space exists outside our eternally existent, finite, occupied space Universe ergo;

2} Eternally existent, macro-infinite non-occupied space embraces/surrounds our eternally existent, finite, occupied space Universe.

And while you're at it, please explain what makes you think there is a macro-infinite-non-occupied-space.

More mind  games as Ive done that in this thread and others here at DArt and at DDO with you specifically, when you chose to read rational, logical common sense postings from me [red herring/dodging the question].

We live in an eternally existent, finite, occupied space Universe [I agree with finite and occupied but not eternal]. You have not ever offered any rational, logical common sense that supports otherwise ["you can't prove me wrong"/appeal to ignorance]. 

And just as Ive asked you and others the following in DDO and here in this thread, you remain silent to obvious truths [rush to disqualify opponent/negative characterization/straw man/red herring/dodging the question].

If we live in a finite , occupied space Universe [I agree with finite and occupied], then there exists only one rational, logical conclusion [unsupported claim/opinion stated as fact]. Your ego keeps you from acknowledging the only one possible conclusion [dime-store psychoanalysis/ad hominem].

Please do not go off and divergency tactics as Outplazy likes to do [red herring]. Place you ego to the side and address commments by as presented to you and not create words or scenarios I did not suggest/state [demands control over scope]. Thank YOu 

Can you draw a straight line between a deistic being and any particular theistic tradition?

Most legit religions [no true Scotsman] are observing a singular yet vast and dynamic reality [syncretism]. On top of this religions operate on various levels, it's also mixed with traditions and opinions, culture ect ect... Some are just more accurate than others [begging the question] but they all have truths within them, as well they all have misconceptions within them [bracketing/fence walking]. I can draw a straight line at many of the concepts within all these spiritual sources that I've examined [appeal to ambiguity].

I mean, for all conceivable practical intents and purposes, as far as I can tell, a deistic belief is functionally identical to atheism.

I don't see how by any stretch of the imagination [appeal to lack of imagination]. Atheists seem to me, to be stuck in a materialists nightmare [straw man]. Even a deistic God is still an omnipresent conscious reality that transcends the physical experience, out of which all comes from [a deistic god is merely a creator, or prime mover. A deistic god does not modify or interact with reality as we know it]. I don't know of any sect of atheism [I also don't know of any sect(s) of atheism] that accepts the existence of a supreme Being. Can you explain what you mean if you don't mind? if I had to take a guess it would be because there's no religious connotation involved? and therefore not relevant to your personal experience? if so I'd be glad to disagree and explain why.

In a perfect world, this would be a good idea. It presupposes that you have two dispassionate debaters who are willing to argue without allowing emotions to dictate their means. Nobody wants to lose a debate which is why people typically display the traits you mentioned above. People would rather be ugly and retain a semblance of winning than lose gracefully.

That's why we have to change the rules.

If your opponent is your judge, it might not be a good idea to insult them.

I believe that state isn't sustainable or quite frankly boring. That is why creating mortality to live experiences seems like a genius creation a higher intelligence would manifest to actually live rather than stay all knowing. 

If anything physical became infinite we would run into the problem you are mentioning.

Yes, here it is. Space-time is not properly and technically infinite because it is bounded/defined/limited to "non-physical".  If space-time was truly unlimited and infinite, it would include all possible forms of existence, including physical/material existence.

We live in an indefinite cosmos and there may (or may not be) be some sort of indefinite mind.

I would be somewhat interested in hearing your preferred definitions of "intelligence" and "mind".

What you are describing sounds a lot like Brahma.  The Hindu's believe what we call "reality" is Brahma's dream.

I appreciate your civility.

You can't have two infinite things.

Macro-infinite non-occupied space is one infinite thing --or one non-thing-- depending on how we choose to define 'thing'.\

But you'd be better off loving THE TRUTH over vanities and worthless things, putting your faith in a rock.

You still haven't adequately explained the difference between the two relationships or addressed what you feel I need to be saved from.

Well stated.

"Nothing" literally doesn't exist.

Incorrect as always.

Eternally existent, macro-infinite non-occupied space embraces/surrounds our eternally existent, finite, occupied space Universe.

You refuse to address this rational, logical common sense conclusion because of ego.

Ego is the greatest danger to humanity.

Please explain where I can find "nothing".

And while you're at it, please explain what makes you think there is a macro-infinite-non-occupied-space.

I mean, if finite-occupied-space is contained within macro-infinite-non-occupied-space, wouldn't that make non-occupied-space technically occupied???

Which student is going to do better in class? Which one is going to do be moved by their love?

The one who loves A ROCK?

The one who loves THE TRUTH?

It is shameful to even ponder this question, it is patently idiotic.

I'm going to hazard a guess that you don't know many geologists.

However, i still don't understand what you mean. You have to address why you don't think finite events could happen on an infinite platform.

Let's try this.  Instead of a canvas, let's imagine a gigantic piece of paper.  This piece of paper stretches in every direction further than we could ever travel in a trillion lifetimes.  This is similar to what you seem to be describing.  Now my point on this is that if the paper only stretches out in two dimensions, then it is not truly unlimited or unbounded.  So to explain what I'm trying to illustrate here, imagine millions of trillions of these gigantic pieces of paper stacked on top of each other.  This would be the largest possible ream of paper.  The observable cosmos is now paperverse.

There is no room in paperverse for anything other than paper.  There can be no paint.  There can be no painter.  If the canvas is truly unbounded, it would expand, not only in two dimensions, but in three dimensions, and then four dimensions, and then five dimensions, and so on.

Here's another example.  Imagine an empty box.  What is in the box?  Well, there's probably air in the box and maybe some dust.  Ok, so let's remove the air and the dust, now is it empty?  No, not really, there is still space-time in the box.  In order to be truly empty, it would have to be so small as to not take up any space-time.  How small would this empty box need to be?  Smaller than the Planck length.  Would it be fair to say that something smaller than the Planck length "exists"?  Probably not.  It also probably couldn't properly be described as a box.

"Nothing" literally doesn't exist.

However, the main difference here is that atheists tend to dismiss God because they don't really even know what it is they are dismissing.

In the same way that the ancient lunatic can not offer any practical reason to believe in radio waves, the person advocating for acknowledgement of noumenon is going to have a lot of trouble explaining exactly why this is of the slightest importance to the average person.

They compare creation to absurd examples when in fact creationism is by fay one of the most rational, common sense theories there is, it's not an absurd concept and has a vast array of propositions and evidences.

There are certain phenomena that could exist that we have no way to test for or understand. 

By infinite i guess i mean it has no end.

It's like a canvas. Just bc you have an infinite canvas to draw on doesn't mean you can't draw where ever you want on it.

Maybe i don't mean infinite, but just endless.

See, given endless space-time, it is not only possible but probable for there to be other intelligence's.

Something can exist without being known.

Omniscience doesn't mean infinite intelligence, it means "all knowledge".

I actually agree with you 100% on this point.

Every time i say this is my belief, i believe, i'm confident; what i mean is i believe said opinion more than not. Like a 70/30 thing.

Actually, i can even concede that space-time is finite but always infinitely expanding.

I'm sorta a fictional realist. I believe every reality we can think of exists. The platform being space-time, but everything happening within it could be different. Different laws, molecules, energy, etc.

I don't fully get what you mean by indivisible. It cannot be separated?

An infinite intelligence would explain a lot imho.

It is one macro-infinite set.

It is one macro-indefinite set.

Because I know what God means, so I can know that God exists.

I know what unicorns and leprechauns mean. So what? They don't exist.

Fairies, pixies, ghosts, goblins are all in the Dictionary. According to you, they all exist.

See how your argument has no validity?

Your logic is airtight.

Something MUST exist to us before it can be known to exist for us. You can't know of something until you observe it existing in front of you.

While the Moon exists, I've never been there, hence I don't know it. I observe it regularly through my telescopes and can visit museums to see the rocks brought back from there. This is my extent of knowing the Moon.

Have you seen God existing before you? If not, how you do you "know" God exists?

Have you seen free will existing before you?  If not, how do you "know" free will exists?

You can't even identify it accurately enough to measure it within yourself, much less reliably (empirically) identify it in anything else.

Anyone who says they know what God is... are a bald faced liar.

Is that your legacy?

Anyone who says they know what free will is... are a bald faced liar.

Is that your legacy?

There is just a certain point i will have to jump off. Take a leap in logic. For me, i only do it to make sense of my spiritual belief. A metaphysical belief always makes you have to take the leap.

So, i am confident due to the combination of everything, i.e. experience, observation, thinking/logic as a whole. With that said, i am more confident than not that space-time didn't have a start.

It raises more questions than answers if there is finite space-time...

(IFF) infinite means literally "without limit" (THEN) anything that can be divided into parts or identified in any way cannot be considered infinite.

Yet i think it is appropriate to use for something like space-time. I guess i am just not understand your reasoning. Can you explain it in a little more layman's terms. 

This is the story we are living.  This is what we know.

You should say this is only one story of what we know.

This is what i mean about the source... it isn't a "who" it's an "it" where everything already exists within it and manifests into physical to experience it. 

So lastly how does this fix infinite regress? Think of a bunch of books going on forever. If the first book is a drama and then you say go to the middle to find a fantasy book you will never get there.

Add to this that the source is also everything, it simply just has the imagine the point/reality it wants to manifest into and it instantaneously goes there. The problem of infinite regress goes away if you add this sort of mind to it.  

You don't have to know

Oh, yeah, right, of course, please feel free to completely dodge every single point I've explicitly addressed.

When you make a valid point, we'll address it, but until then all you're doing is filling my mouth with your words. Quite dishonest.

What would that ontological disagreement be if you don't mind me asking?

In my ontology, thought is bedrock.

Thought is not dogmatically fundamental, however it is our natural epistemological limit.

In the same way that the initial singularity (big bang) is not dogmatically fundamental, but it is an obvious epistemological limit.

Thought, like the initial singularity is the current demarcation point.

Any speculation about "what came before thought" or "what happened before the initial singularity" is currently unknowable and any speculation should be approached with every possible caution and requisite disclaimer.

Cogito, ergo sum.

I can certainly accept that.

However the word "noumena" I wouldn't call a name of God because it implies that God is contingent on thought. The Ultimate Reality is not contingent on thought, thought would be contingent on The Ultimate Reality.

We seem to have an ontological disagreement.

I'm going to say, "close enough".

I do appreciate your civility.

Kant's noumena is the perfect example of a truly objective reality.  Kant points out that no matter how much we intuitively believe we can infer the nature of nourmena from phenomena, any such inference is an astronomical epistemological leap of faith.

I would be more than happy to explain/explore this further if you are so inclined.

It may be beyond me, but I'm interested.  If we can only know and share phenomenal reality, then why should noumena be considered important ...or (for that matter) objective reality.

It is only important in the sense that we need to respect our collective epistemological limits.

Be careful what you say about noumena.  If someone gets specific, you know they're full of it.

Epistemology is what the boards of our house are made of.  What is outside our house is noumenon.

Metaphysics is what we stuff into the cracks between the boards in order to keep warm.

Since there are more than one noumenons, 

All we know is "our" universe.

This evidence is trying to make sense of the universe we know. We don't know how far it goes or if there is anything beyond it or before it.

So, we are stuck in only speculating on what we can tell. And, just bc things look as though what they are doesn't mean we are remotely right about it in a bigger picture.

i'm confident that our universe wasn't the start of space and wasn't the start of time in the bigger sense of things.

It makes more sense to me than a finite route. In part bc i can also answer the infinite regress problem from my metaphysical belief's point of view. Bc metaphysically i also believe intelligence/consciousness is infinite and that answers why there is no infinite regress problem plus other things about life.

However, what I am currently puzzled by is a person who says the only believe in empirical evidence and then tries to assert that consciousness is somehow evidence of free will.

This makes zero sense.

If you can't support your assertions, fill the others mouths with your words. Poor tactic.

If you refuse to explain yourself, I must speculate.

Imagine for a moment that free will is gods.

I say, "there is no god".

You say, "Support your assertion with empirical evidence."

I say, "A god is not an empirically measurable phenomena."

...And though I myself identify as a Christian and have my theological education in that tradition, I must admit this is a universal concept.

So that is your good news for the day. The Ultimate Reality is God. That is something that transcends culture, tradition, conception, everything.

It Is What It Is.

There is another, more specific term that means "ultimate reality" and that is noumenon.

The primary characteristic of noumenon is that it is fundamentally unknowable.

The Monotheist God is The Ultimate Reality.

Those are your own claims, they are not supported by Scriptures.

Why would it obliterate finite existence? Are you talking about the infinite regress problem? 

For example, if "space" was truly and absolutely infinite, there could be no planets or stars.

Planets and stars are technically the boundary of space.

When a planet moves or dies, what is left over... space. There will always be space. I can see how you are saying they are boundaries to space and one can look at it as its boundary but there is always space without the planet or star there. As they are physically manifest, they are occupying space so you can call them boundaries... but all they are doing is, occupying space. One day they will die and leave more space. Interestingly, some stars that die create another form of space, i.e. black holes, but it's still space.  

I have met your demands to the best of my ability.

Then clearly, you haven't the ability to support your claims. Looks like you're done here.

You are under no obligation to continue any type of discussion.

I personally welcome valid objections and logical critique.

I also understand that reasonable people can often disagree on fundamental topics.

However, what I am currently puzzled by is a person who says the only believe in empirical evidence and then tries to assert that consciousness is somehow evidence of free will.

This makes zero sense.

As you can plainly see, God with a capital "G" in English means The Supreme or Ultimate Reality.

People often use the term infinity in illogical ways.  For instance, they might say "we have infinite choices" or "we have infinite potential" or "the universe is infinite space" or "mathematical integers are infinite".

However, I will not belabor the point since I believe we agree that everything is technically finite.  I also have a logical proof of this if you're interested.

I'm interested. I don't see how in the most literal sense, space isn't infinite i.e. doesn't have any boundaries.  

Now we seem to be getting somewhere.

I can observe animals making decisions.

Do you believe that animals also have free will?

For example, empirically, one could observe two individuals calling the same dog by name.

The dog would then make a decision as to which request to honor first.

That is one of the silliest things I've read today. You're saying the dog made a conscious decision, that it actually thought about it. Hilarious.

Atheists ostensibly reject superstitious fairy-tales and religious beliefs because they are logically impossible/unknowable and unverifiable and unfalsifiable and categorically outside the scope of scientific exploration.

I do consider this statement to be false. Atheists don't always reject the supernatural. Some believe in the supernatural..just not gods. Secondly, they don't always reject the supernatural because of their understanding of science. They might object on logical grounds and physical evidence is unimportant. Lastly, they don't always "reject" these things. They may simply not believe. Any conclusion drawn from this premise is dubious.

Free will: As an atheist, I don't believe in it. If another consciousness were to be dropped into my body and live my life from start to finish I've no reason to think they would choose different paths and every reason to think the experiences of my life would inform their decisions and mould their personality to be exactly like mine. I believe Sam Harris rejects free will as well (and I probably was influenced by his argument). 

Objective reality: I'm not sure I understand this term as you do. It seems we have a reality that we share. I see no reason to doubt this. 

Infinity: I don't understand your objection here. "Infinity" is not an actual size or number, but a a place marker for something bigger than we can measure, understand, or imagine. I do believe such things exist. I don't know that infinity can be understood in a strictly literal sense though (eg.  A literal infinite universe makes no sense to me)

Will you supply proof that MANY atheists believe these things? Will you define many?

This is a personal observation.

I would be interested to know if your experience is somewhat different than mine.

I can observe animals making decisions.

That's yet another claim you need to support. 

For example, empirically, one could observe two individuals calling the same dog by name.

The dog would then make a decision as to which request to honor first.

This is an uncoerced choice that the dog is able to easily make.

Do you believe this is evidence in support of the idea that dogs have free will?

Notice that Dictionaries are reference books and have no authority whatsoever other then defining words.

I wholeheartedly agree that dictionaries are not perfectly and absolutely authoritative.

However, they are intended to represent a consensus, which would be somewhat more authoritative than a unique, ad-hoc definition.

He doesn't know what is non-empirical and prob never will. He's a pure materialist/atheist and anything outside that he's dumb-founded, nothing registers, religious topics go straight over his blank head. Logic and common sense alone don't exist and do not resonate in his one-dimensional brain. His whole foundation is built on an illusion thinking and believing only that which was produced by some scientist is somehow truth lol. Then he mocks others for believing in what those who's expertise transcends those little boundaries. How hilarious, he clings to one illusion and refuses to believe anything outside that. That is the epitome of these kind of folks in a religious debate/discussion. 

That sounds like it might be almost, but perhaps not quite a strawman.

Let's see if Goldtop agrees with your paraphrasing of his ideological position.

That is what God means.

It only sounds unreasonable because you don't know that is what the concept of God means.

Now you know.

I think that is some good news for the day.