FxMasterz:


I've answered your question. Your answer is in my question. If you can answer my question, then you have your answer. I didn't dodge anything. That's a false accusation.

Don't worry, I will start answering you the same way, let's see how soon you'll accuse me of dodging . LoLz.

DeepSight:


This is too scattered and all over the place. When did science prove ten dimensions please. When did you demonstrate that nothing is something. How and when was "cogito proven wrong?"

*Politeness*
Well, it seems all over the place because I'm playing devil's advocate for both sides.
By the way I was reading some of your debate with LordReed. Ouite erudite of you, except that "anthropologic" instead of anthropomorphic (Knownunknown was mocking you for it😆). As for the debate itself, unlike Reed, I can logically refute your central point (Which is why I always defeat him!).
And I thought this up all by myself. I didn't read it anywhere or told it by anybody.
Here goes (and don't read anything about my faith from any of it; it is purely intellectual):
An immutable element cannot trigger mutability without itself suddenly becoming mutable. Same applies to all corollaries of it: a self-existent cannot and will not suddenly start creating unless triggered either by change within itself or compelled by an external element. The other possibility is that the "creation" is within the self-exitent itself and have always been there.

As for nothing being something, well try imagining nothing. You can't. So we go abstract. "Nothing" in the abstract, which is the absence of anything, is still part of fabric of reality itself, a manifestation of existence - something!
Also, in quantum mechanics nothing is really something. "Vacuum energy" exists in nothing. The energy is not from particles or anything.

As for cogito, I was expecting you to ask how when I told you it was disproved but you kept mute. It was proved wrong not long after Descartes expounded it. Here goes. You can't prove the existence of something by starting with the assumption that the thing already exists. Thus the statement should be: "There is thinking therefore I am", which of course doesn't make any sense.

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

PoliteActivist:


*Politeness*
Well, it seems all over the place because I'm playing devil's advocate for both sides.
By the way I was reading some of your debate with LordReed. Ouite erudite of you, except that "anthropologic" instead of anthropomorphic (Knownunknown was mocking you for it😆). As for the debate itself, unlike Reed, I can logically refute your central point (Which is why I always defeat him!).

Typo, and anyone mocking over a typo is beyond pedantic.

[b]And I thought this up all by my thinking therefore I am", which of course doesn't make any sense.

Quite a few interesting thoughts you have put up there and will comment on them when I am before my laptop.

PoliteActivist:


*Politeness*
Well, it seems all over the place because I'm playing devil's advocate for both sides.
By the way I was reading some of your debate with LordReed. Ouite erudite of you, except that "anthropologic" instead of anthropomorphic (Knownunknown was mocking you for it😆). As for the debate itself, unlike Reed, I can logically refute your central point (Which is why I always defeat him!).
And I thought this up all by myself. I didn't read it anywhere or told it by anybody.
Here goes (and don't read anything about my faith from any of it; it is purely intellectual):
An immutable element cannot trigger mutability without itself suddenly becoming mutable. Same applies to all corollaries of it: a self-existent cannot and will not suddenly start creating unless triggered either by change within itself or compelled by an external element. The other possibility is that the "creation" is within the self-exitent itself and have always been there.

As for nothing being something, well try imagining nothing. You can't. So we go abstract. "Nothing" in the abstract, which is the absence of anything, is still part of fabric of reality itself, a manifestation of existence - something!
Also, in quantum mechanics nothing is really something. "Vacuum energy" exists in nothing. The energy is not from particles or anything.

As for cogito, I was expecting you to ask how when I told you it was disproved but you kept mute. It was proved wrong not long after Descartes expounded it. Here goes. You can't prove the existence of something by starting with the assumption that the thing already exists. Thus the statement should be: "There is thinking therefore I am", which of course doesn't make any sense.

Always obsessing about defeating me. Enjoy your fantasies. Bwahahahahahaha!

FxMasterz:


That's the same way you tagged God evil without knowing anything about God except what ignorant preachers of religion told you.

What other way is there to know a god other than what some people told you, what some people wrote in a book or you creating one?
At the end of the day, they are all nonsensical ideas.

FxMasterz:


Lol.

That's the same way you tagged God evil without knowing anything about God except what ignorant preachers of religion told you.

You don't know me. So, you're just being childish again.

I agree that I don't know much about any god. But I know a lot about Yahweh and Allah and I dare say those characters are wicked, irresponsible and extremely evil.

I don't even know how I survived reading the bible from Genesis to Revelation several times without going mad

KnownUnknown:


What other way is there to know a god other than what some people told you, what some people wrote in a book or you creating one?
At the end of the day, they are all nonsensical ideas.

I wonder o

PoliteActivist:


*Politeness*
Well, it seems all over the place because I'm playing devil's advocate for both sides.
By the way I was reading some of your debate with LordReed. Ouite erudite of you, except that "anthropologic" instead of anthropomorphic (Knownunknown was mocking you for it😆). As for the debate itself, unlike Reed, I can logically refute your central point (Which is why I always defeat him!).
And I thought this up all by myself. I didn't read it anywhere or told it by anybody.
Here goes (and don't read anything about my faith from any of it; it is purely intellectual):
An immutable element cannot trigger mutability without itself suddenly becoming mutable. Same applies to all corollaries of it: a self-existent cannot and will not suddenly start creating unless triggered either by change within itself or compelled by an external element. The other possibility is that the "creation" is within the self-exitent itself and have always been there.

As for nothing being something, well try imagining nothing. You can't. So we go abstract. "Nothing" in the abstract, which is the absence of anything, is still part of fabric of reality itself, a manifestation of existence - something!
Also, in quantum mechanics nothing is really something. "Vacuum energy" exists in nothing. The energy is not from particles or anything.

As for cogito, I was expecting you to ask how when I told you it was disproved but you kept mute. It was proved wrong not long after Descartes expounded it. Here goes. You can't prove the existence of something by starting with the assumption that the thing already exists. Thus the statement should be: "There is thinking therefore I am", which of course doesn't make any sense.

You cleverly avoided my response on the other points and you tagged me to this.

As much as I'm burning to knock you out of this point, I will not do that. I can't let you have a control over this discussion. You can't get me at where you want me to be.

FRANCISTOWN:


You cleverly avoided my response on the other points and you tagged me to this.

As much as I'm burning to knock you out of this point, I will not do that. I can't let you have a control over this discussion. You can't get me at where you want me to be.

*Politeness*
Noo, I'll still respond to you. It is one at a time. His reply to me was before your own. I tag everyone on some posts simply because I assume that, like me, most people only read their mentions. It avoids repetition.
I think you're next to reply to. Let me check

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

FRANCISTOWN:


You cleverly avoided my response on the other points and you tagged me to this.

As much as I'm burning to knock you out of this point, I will not do that. I can't let you have a control over this discussion. You can't get me at where you want me to be.

*Politeness*
I just checked. Sorry, FxMasterz is next. I'll reply you right after him

FRANCISTOWN:


I agree that I don't know much about any god. But I know a lot about Yahweh and Allah and I dare say those characters are wicked, irresponsible and extremely evil.

Completely agree.

KnownUnknown:


What other way is there to know a god other than what some people told you, what some people wrote in a book or you creating one?
At the end of the day, they are all nonsensical ideas.

There seems to be this absurd presumption you make that any idea whatsoever about any pre existent beings, or any being or being said to be responsible for either creation or our existence, whether or not such ideas are religious or non religious, whether or not such are rooted in mysticism or not, in philosophy or not, in science or not, must automatically be nonsensical.

What is sad is that you fail to see how this renders you omniscient and closed minded.

DeepSight:


There seems to be this absurd presumption you make that any idea whatsoever about any pre existent beings, or any being or being said to be responsible for either creation or our existence, whether or not such ideas are religious or non religious, whether or not such are rooted in mysticism or not, in philosophy or not, in science or not, must automatically be nonsensical.

What is sad is that you fail to see how this renders you omniscient and closed minded.

Another purveyor of nonsense with his “pre-existent” beings.

PoliteActivist:


*Politeness*

Can you please stop placing this before each post? Your moniker already declares your intention to be and remain polite and that is sufficient. It is mildly irritating to see this repeated above every post.

Here goes (and don't read anything about my faith from any of it; it is purely intellectual):
An immutable element cannot trigger mutability without itself suddenly becoming mutable. Same applies to all corollaries of it: a self-existent cannot and will not suddenly start creating unless triggered either by change within itself or compelled by an external element. The other possibility is that the "creation" is within the self-exitent itself and have always been there.

Now well done!

For this here, is one of the most apt and proper responses to the self existential argument I have always made. Indeed one would have expected a Lordreed to raise it, but he wouldn't because he doesn't really stop to ponder self existence and the thought development behind the concept. He rejects it beforehand.

Now I have a number of things to say to this.

1. When we speak of a self existent thing, we are talking about something that sits at the root of all reality, of all existence. Therefore do not make the mistake of thinking of it as necessarily something which directly gets up to be involved in special acts of creation such as creating a universe or a creature. It is rather a permanent factor which could not but exist, in other words a factor the non existence of which is impossible. And this is why infinite time is one such factor because it always necessarily exists. Here we do not speak of the scientific time which is simply a dimension of motion within this universe. We speak of that permanent time which does not move, which is still and infinite, and which may be described as the void into which events are interpolated.

2. Again dwell on the fact that the self existent things we speak of are so remote that we even dabble dangerously in attempting to discuss their nature, which is a point I cede to Lordreed when he says that all of these things are far beyond our capacity to know. So we must make room for that and limit ourselves to the little that some elementary logic and reasoning may permit us. And in that wise, let me use the sun as an analogy.

Imagine that the sun was a self existent thing. That it didn't have a beginning and will have no end, but was just there as it is. Now imagine the light it gives out as creation. So the sun, as it were, would not have to change in order to give out light. Giving out light is a function of its nature. Now please and please bear in mind that this is but a rough and speculative analogy, by no means exact to the point at hand but only intended to suggest that a self existent thing needn't be mutable in order to have and give out consequences of its nature.

3. So far, we have been speaking of these self existent things as impersonal forces. But what if, just what if, they actually have consciousness and agency. Because if they do, that would present the possibility that they can undertake definite actions without being mutable. In an analogous way to how you and I can do a single deed without changing the essence of our being.

Now frankly such forces being conscious takes us close to the religious idea of God, but not so close that it is an idea that must be thrown out with the bath water: because it has been suggested in philosophical thought and also in some scientific thinking as well that consciousness may be the fundamental building block of reality. See the double slit experiment and the way particles and waves act differently when observed as opposed to when not observed. This experiment suggested strongly that consciousness actually dictates reality.

As for nothing being something, well try imagining nothing. You can't. So we go abstract. "Nothing" in the abstract, which is the absence of anything, is still part of fabric of reality itself, a manifestation of existence - something!
Also, in quantum mechanics nothing is really something. "Vacuum energy" exists in nothing. The energy is not from particles or anything.

All of this only affirms that nothingness does not exist.

As for those idiotic scientists such as Lawrence Krauss who attempt to say that something may come from nothing because of the behavior of virtual particles in a quantum vacuum, they are woefully wrong because even a quantum vacuum is not nothing. It contains low gaseous energy as you have correctly alluded.

As for cogito, I was expecting you to ask how when I told you it was disproved but you kept mute. It was proved wrong not long after Descartes expounded it. Here goes. You can't prove the existence of something by starting with the assumption that the thing already exists. Thus the statement should be: "There is thinking therefore I am", which of course doesn't make any sense.

I can't see anything disproved here. The idea behind "cogito ergo sum" is sound: the fact that you have thoughts demonstrates that there exists a being thinking those thoughts. This remains true even if the thoughts are an illusion because what that would mean is that there exists a being having that illusion. So it demonstrates to you, the thinker or the hallucinator, that at the minimum, you exist at some level or the other.

FxMasterz:


This is a wonderful exposition but unfortunately atheists would buy none of it. They would not subject themselves to God even if they saw Him face to face.

I have come to realize that for someone to become an atheist, he first has to fight off any thoughts of God's existent. It takes time for them to ingrain it firmly in their minds that there is no God. It's a deliberate act of manipulating the mind to believe a false reality. They actually don't want to acknowledge God, not because they think He does not exist but because they don't want to have anything doing with Him. It's a deliberate choice they made after falling prey to faulty logic.

I have heard Francistown if I'm not mistaking him for another, who said he would never even believe in God if God shows up to Him today, especially the Christian God. This actually is the position of most atheists. That's why they would do nothing to verify the existence of the supernatural even when it is happening close to their nostrils . They prefer to sit in their corners while telling themselves that everything they're been told about supernatural demonstrations in a nearby place is a lie. We've told them several times where they could go see the supernatural, they refuse to go. Maynman even avoided a one on one encounter with me.

Whatever supernatural occurrence or experience you narrate to any atheist, his first and only reaction is that you're lying. He pulls up very childish thoughts and asks so much irrelevant questions that reek of deep seated ignorance while commending himself for being intelligent when it's so obvious that intelligence is far from him. Intelligence itself is knowledge based. If you don't talk knowledgeably about spiritual things but only dismiss them as hoaxes, I'll consider you spiritually foolish. A spiritual barbarian. And of cause, that's how I view all atheists, especially the ones on this forum who pride themselves on calling others fools when they're the real fools.

As Brian Cox rightly said in the OP's excerpt, there are 10 dimensions (probably even more) out of which only 4 are known to man. Which means all scientific knowledge revolve around those 4 dimensions . There 6 known dimensions that remain unexplored. The conclusion that there's no God is a hasty conclusion based on the incomplete knowledge of the 4 dimensions which themselves have not been fully explored.

Oftentimes I've asked atheists like lordreed, maynman and jaephoenix a question which they always dodge, and I shall ask the same question here again against the backdrop of what Brian Cox said. Science is ever evolving and can not lay any claim yet to perfect knowledge or absolute knowledge. What science does not know is more than what science knows. That's why its grounds are always shifting. If science discovers the existence of God after you die, what shall be your fate? Science has been known to abolish previous theories and ideas in preference for new ones in the light of fresh discoveries. It's very foolish for anybody to rely on incomplete and imperfect scientific findings in absolution. Even staking your life on science that doesn't have the answers when you ask "What happens after death?"

Some scientists are getting to realize now that there is much likely to be some forms of consciousness or reality after death. That's very interesting because oftentimes scientific discoveries begin with some packets of non conventional ideas here and there until it becomes mainstream after being proven beyond reasonable doubt that those ideas provide authentic information. Most atheists are gambling their lives away in exchange for a painful eternal reality.

https://www.nyas.org/news-articles/academy-news/is-there-life-after-death/

Thanks for calling the write-up "a wonderful exposition", but remember, I am playing devil's advocate for both sides.
So. how would you answer when they ask:

Why do countless people die from natural disasters, diseases, wars, etc. including children, babies, even those still in the womb?
And why do some people deny and deride God daily and still live their full lives sometimes much better than others, while churches and mosques sometimes collapse or are attacked killing worshippers inside, sometimes including babies?

How would you answer these?

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

KnownUnknown:


Another purveyor of nonsense with his “pre-existent” beings.

These shallow, thoughtless and frankly stupid one liners do nothing for the idiocy you attempt to advance.

DeepSight:


These shallow, thoughtless and frankly stupid one liners do nothing for the idiocy you attempt to advance.

It just bothers you that your brain addled musings are dead on arrival.

PoliteActivist:


Thanks for calling the write-up "a wonderful exposition", but remember, I am playing devil's advocate for both sides.
So. how would you answer when they ask:

Why do countless people die from natural disasters, diseases, wars, etc. including children, babies, even those still in the womb?
And why do some people deny and deride God daily and still live their full lives sometimes much better than others, while churches and mosques sometimes collapse or are attacked killing worshippers inside, sometimes including babies?

How would you answer these?

Remember the existence of God is an altogether different question from the benevolence or goodness of God.

KnownUnknown:


It just bothers you that your brain addled musings are dead on arrival.

Jack shit bothers me: especially when proceeding from a vacant mind such as yours my dear. You have no clue how far removed I am from being bothered.

Look, I honestly enjoy serious existential discussion, but I have no appetite for the vaccuous and vacant. Nothing you have ever said or written on this board has ever suggested that you have a mind worth engaging. And that's not because you are atheist. There are many atheists I have delightedly engaged for years. It's because you are vacant.

Look ol boy, enjoy your life.

DeepSight:


Jack shit bothers me: especially when proceeding from a vacant mind such as yours my dear. You have no clue how far removed I am from being bothered.

Look, I honestly enjoy serious existential discussion, but I have no appetite for the vaccuous and vacant. Nothing you have ever said or written on this board has ever suggested that you have a mind worth engaging. And that's not because you are atheist. There are many atheists I have delightedly engaged for years. It's because you are vacant.

Look ol boy, enjoy your life.

Jackshit bothers you but your posts say otherwise. I’m not an atheist anyway because I know gods are nonsense, including your prolix bullshit. There is nothing to engage about because your claims are as nonsensical as all the other god ideas you reject. Your ill- defined claims are extremely laughable.

KnownUnknown:


Your posts say otherwise. I’m not an atheist anyway because I know gods are nonsense. There is nothing to engage about because your claims are as nonsensical as all the other god ideas you reject.

Enjoy.
As for the bold, go figure. I have no time to point out the obvious illiteracy.

DeepSight:


Enjoy.
As for the bold, go figure. I have no time to point out the obvious illiteracy.

You have nothing to point out. I know your god is bullshit you are making up based on your ignorance and arrogance. You really think the bullshit you right is impressive. Lmao.

“The ball won’t go into the goal post because someone has to give an order for a person to give an order for a person to give an order to kick the ball”.

FRANCISTOWN:

Advocate of God. What could possibly be the reasons your "god" refused to help those kids?
....

Number 1, God is The Law Keeper.and The Law is that you bear the consequences of your action. A kidnappers child cannot expect to escape bombing when his father's house and lands is being bombed by the army exactly how you dont care about the children of the mosquito when it bit you and you bombed it with insecticide.

Actions have consequences whether you like it or not.

DeepSight:


Remember the existence of God is an altogether different question from the benevolence or goodness of God.

That's why I reply based on what I perceive as the person's view of God's existence or non-existence as the case may be. If you believe God created man in his own image. That's anthropomorphism, and I reply you based on that

KnownUnknown:


You have nothing to point out. I know your god is bullshit you are making up based on your ignorance and arrogance. You really think the bullshit you right is impressive. Lmao.

“The ball won’t go into the goal post because someone has to give an order for a person to give an order for a person to give an order to kick the ball”.

I single out the bold word for its remarkable stupidity. And this gives me cause for thanks that I have not bothered engaging you. What a waste.

All the best.

PoliteActivist:


That's why I reply based on what I perceive as the person's view of God's existence or non-existence as the case may be. If you believe God created man in his own image. That's anthropomorphism, and I reply you based on that

I don't believe God has an image or any form. I believe that God is an absolute intangible.

DeepSight:


I single out the bold word for its remarkable stupidity. And this gives me cause for thanks that I have not bothered engaging you. What a waste.

All the best.

Remarkably stupid is thinking the only way a ball goes into a goal post if it‘s kicked or thinking that your infinite regress bullshit was clarified by that brain dead analogy.

KnownUnknown:


Remarkably stupid is thinking the only way a ball goes into a goal post if it‘s kicked or thinking that your infinite regress bullshit was clarified by that brain dead analogy.

Sweet Jesus.
That you read it that way just saves me my breath.

As I said, all the best.

DeepSight:


I don't believe God has an image or any form. I believe that God is an absolute intangible.

Lol. Do you believe it’s not a partial intangible?
It’s a good afterall and can have any attribute including being tangible and intangible.

KnownUnknown:


Lol. Do you believe it’s not a partial intangible?

Dey go, dey go, dey go.
I don tire for you.

DeepSight:


Dey go, dey go, dey go.
I don tire for you.

Does the Absolute Intangible not strengthen you?!

DeepSight:


I don't believe God has an image or any form. I believe that God is an absolute intangible.

But an absolute intangible doesn't go about creating things. An absolute intangible stays an absolute intangible, minds it's own business