A Challenge To All Creationists

[Shad]

Are you saying that when an unstable atomic nuclei finally breaks into smaller, more stable fragments, there is no precipitating cause that makes it happen at that particular moment rather than at some other moment? That it's a truly random, uncaused act?


.

As far as we know there is no cause. Which refuted the point everything effect has a cause.

 

[Skwim]

As far as we know there is no cause. Which refuted the point everything effect has a cause.

That was my understanding as well; however, I haven't found a single source that affirms there is no cause. At best, they say the emission is spontaneous, most phrasing it as the process by which a nucleus of an unstable atom loses energy by emitting radiation. None of them indicating why it necessarily occurs at one moment rather than another. If you come across a source that does I'd be interested in reading it. Thanks.


.

 

[Shad]

That was my understanding as well; however, I haven't found a single source that affirms there is no cause.

Irrelevant. You are making a point of induction which is a major issue in science. That amount of events we know of have a cause means that all unknown events have a cause as well. I am pointing out the very claim that "all" events have a cause is not deductive reasoning but inductive thus can not be a universal by definition. In the end all I am pointing out is the claim is pure nonsense.

At best, they say the emission is spontaneous, most phrasing it as the process by which a nucleus of an unstable atom loses energy by emitting radiation. None of them indicating why it necessarily occurs at one moment rather than another. If you come across a source that does I'd be interested in reading it. Thanks.
.

All I needed to do was establish that an event has no known cause thus the claim that "all" events have a cause is in error. Besides you are asking me to prove a negative which I can not, nor anyone, do.

 

[Skwim]

Irrelevant. You are making a point of induction which is a major issue in science. That amount of events we know of have a cause means that all unknown events have a cause as well. I am pointing out the very claim that "all" events have a cause is not deductive reasoning but inductive thus can not be a universal by definition. In the end all I am pointing out is the claim is pure nonsense.



All I needed to do was establish that an event has no known cause thus the claim that "all" events have a cause is in error. Besides you are asking me to prove a negative which I can not, nor anyone, do.

rusra02 said: "Every effect has a cause. . . ."

You said: "Atomic decay doesn't."

I then said: Are you saying that when an unstable atomic nuclei finally breaks into smaller, more stable fragments, there is no precipitating cause that makes it happen at that particular moment rather than at some other moment? That it's a truly random, uncaused act?

You then went back on your unequivocal assertion that "atomic decay doesn't" have a cause, to "As far as we know there is no cause."

Now you want to play reasoning games, to distance yourself from your mistaken pronouncement I suspect.

Have a good day.


.

 

[PeteC-UK]

Hi Folks...

Jonathan; Yer funny video mate - use an idiot to try to discredit me - usually the way when there is no other defense eh..?...cant beat him so I will try to mock him and hope everyones attention gets deflected from the truth...lol... TWICE even you try the same tactic here - just shows you have nothing to refute my ideas with legitimately...lol..

Pointless though, as look - its not even Me saying the things HES saying in that video is it.>??..lol.. Im saying what IM saying and NO, that vid does NOT debunk what I SAID....That hat I mention DID begin already to change into a fossil - the first stages of the process yes..?.. Another 50 years the process would be further along - and another 50 and so on and so on - until eventually that hat WILL be a bona fide fossil....BUT - what you fail to explain is the extraordinary TIME DIFFERENCE - for as said I will be generous, and lets say we found that hat right at the start - 1% into the process took 50 years - so - maths and logic is always our allie - 50 years per 1 % takes only that small 5000 years to become a complete fossil...

You experienced it when you were stoned, I imagine? Is that what we are getting to?

lol - IRRELEVANT - lol - your SECOND failed attempt to ridicule me - now my hands are somewhat tied here but I will tell you directly you simply do not know anything about cannabis if you think it somehow makes me "less intelligent" or if you think it makes me somehow "less worthy" or "less credable" as as you imply....lol...Foolish irrelevant remark you just made that yet again is there solely to deflect from the truth - isnt it..??.. I already know you are no authority to be judging me, so I will just laugh openly at your naivete and tell you straight you know nothing at all of the things you imply...lol...

Listen,Do you believe that the Sun existed prior to the Earth? Do you believe that the other planets existed before their discovery? Do you believe that anything historical actually happened? Do you believe that time will continue to charge on long after you're dead?

YES I BELIEVE ALL THOSE THINGS AS FACT !!!

If you believe any of those things, then your argument is completely without merit, as it contradicts your basic premise.

NO !!! I believe those things BECAUSE there is a MIND PRESENT to directly EXPERIENCE them - and of course there was such a mind present THROUGHOUT the ENTIRE CREATION PROCESS....What IM saying and that you fail miserably to see is that IF you REMOVED THE MIND COMPLETELY - then for sure ALL THAT EXISTANCE MUST CEASE - as it IS the MIND itself THAT HAS THAT EXPERIENCE OF EXISTANCE !!!!

OBVIOUS and totally undeniable - MIND is the FACULTY and the actual ABILITY to PERCEIVE and EXPERIENCE REALITY - yes..?....

Obvious then - if we remove MIND COMPLETELY - then for sure there is NO POSSIBLE WAY TO EXPERIENCE ANYTHING - and so undeniably NOTHING exists !! I ask the question and you simply can not answer it can you..??....REMOVE MIND COMPLETELY - now tell me - WHO or WHAT is left to KNOW or EXPERIENCE this universe you envision..??... Remove mind and there is nothing to even ponder consider or even imagine such an existance at all period full stop....Indeed - remove mind and yes indeed - FULL STOP - everything CEASES as it is MIND that GIVES DEFINITION TO EVERYTHING and it is MIND alone that HAS THAT EXPERIENCE OF EXISTANCE !!!!

If a tree falls in a wood...You're essentially arguing that not only does it not make a sound but that there is, in fact, no tree.

If there is a MIND PRESENT to perceive that reality then no problem - but again - take that mind away COMPLETELY - and now tell me who or what is there to a) hear the sound and b) to even know that the thing is a "tree".....The tree is ONLY there BECAUSE the mind PERCEIVES it to be so - if NO MIND WAS PRESENT AT ALL - then tell me please - who or what HAS that perception..??.....

The sound is ONLY a sound once a MIND defines it thus....If there was no mind to INTERPRET the wave of energy INTO sound then the sound CEASES TO EXIST - literally NO BODY HEARS IT so it is NOT sound at all just a movement of energy that nobody can perceive...lol... .Again, remove mind and tell me now WHO or what is perceiving this sound and defining it thus..??... Do you see yet how intrinsically vitasl andd necassary the Presence of Mind ACTUALLy is..??..lol...

You're saying that before you were born, or otherwise able to experience this planet or your parents, that there was no planet and there were no parents.

lol - NO IM NOT - YOU are trying to make it seem that way - but Iam ACTUALLY saying such things still existed BECAUSE OTHER MINDS WERE PRESENT BEFORE MINE....I already told you - not MY mind - not YOUR mind - but ALL MIND - the FACULTY and ABILITY to perceive and experience reality... Remove that COMPLETELY and for sure EVERYTHING CEASES.......Of course though BEFORE my individual Mind arrived here in this body, many many OTHER minds were already here and so Creation has always been apparant, stable and defined BY those MINDS PRESENT....Do try to let it sink in.....lol....if you took ALL MIND away right at the start - the FACULTY TO PERCEIVE is removed and the so called "world out there" simply ceases to exist...

Look - its easy to grasp - you already witness it every time you sleep - you REMOVE your mind form THIS slice of reality and so THIS REALITY CEASES TO EXIST - once you return the mind the reality here, it just pops back into existance - doesnt it..?.....This should give you a basic understanding of the greater universal truth - MIND causes defines and EXPERIENCES ALL EXISTANCE !!

Before there was ever a "mind" capable of experiencing anything, there still had to be stuff, didn't there? How else would the mind come about? How would the mind have a thing to experience if not things predated it?

I knew this would be the stumbling block for many here - it is really hard to conceive a state of "none existance" - and yet it can be experienced directly (briefly) just as I emphasised before, and without that direct experience it will be really hard to grasp the implication of what Im saying...GNOSIS really is crucial here... There was "NO STUFF"
created before the mind, as understand the ENERGY that will become "stuff" IS the MIND itself - the same commody - same resource - inseperable MIND IS ENERGY - a fully ABSTRACT NOTION - energy does NOT even exist unless a MIND is present to define and experience that reality......This is a recording....I repeat..................lol....

How many ways must I explain it before it dawns..?... MIND itself, and mind alone - defines and experiences ALL reality and ALL EXISTANCE - remove that mind completely and you remove the ABILITY itself - all reality ceases.....

There are huge problems that your position can't answer - yet you regard it as the basis for all reality and existence?

lol - as we all clearly see - Im providing answers a plenty - every point raised thus far...Can YOU say the same..??...Seems you struggle more as you didnt even attempt my questions seriously just tried to brush them off - and instead tried "ridicule" as your first recourse...lol...wanna try again..?....I asked the same questions above...Go for it...

From your perspective the Universe may cease to be after you're dead. And from your perspective, things that you are ignorant of do not exist... However, your problem is that neither of those statements are true.

Ah now you wish to change the parameters - move the goal posts so to speak...lol...Listen - we are speaking of removing ALL MIND - the ENTIRE FACULTY - not just an individual mind but the COMPLETE ABILITY to PERCEIVE and EXPERIENCE...OBVIOUSLY - if you remove that FACULTY entirely then all perception and all experience HAS stopped - HASNT IT..??...And WITHOUT perception or experience then there simply is NO REALITY APPARANT - is there..??.. The things I say ARE true - if you stick to the premise of ALL MIND (as one mind of course many forms) and not just an individual.. You think individually and perceive this existance still as an INDIVIDUAL mind - and this is severely handicapping your perception of the greater reality you are a part of always....Your mind is one part of a much much MUCH greater entitty - and as I say - until you get some direct experience of that truth, then all this metaphysical truth is bound to go right over your head here....

You are aware, I hope, that your grandmother's corpse has been feeding new life since you were 10 years old... That's what rotting bodies do - provide a constant source of nutrition and sanctuary for "new DNA" to emerge in several differing species of insects, namely flies.

Yes - I gave you a ridiculous scenario on purpose to show you how utterly ridiculous that theory ACTUALLY is....For indeed science DOES tell us specifically - if and when we gather the correct chemical mix together same time and place then all by itself they say that life arises unbidden spontaneous....So then - all these dead bodies - perfect mix of chemicals to produce life - ALREADY in the perfect and desired structure - no work needed at all as the body is already complete and we have EVERYTHING we need obviously as this body WAS alive before - so how come NO LIFE COMES FORTH..???.......Its not as ridiculous as it sounds - according to this theory these now dead chemicals should just reanimate...And as they already formed a body and it is whole and complete then this body should just reanimate now as they propose - yet it never does.. And as I say - it doesnt matter at all - WHAT we do - it simply NEVER happens the way they say it does......Autogenesis is a GUESS and nothing more - absolutely NO EVIDENCE to support it as a fact - they propose it as they have nothing else to offer - but they are clearly wrong as all experimentation shows...As said we can NOT reproduce life - we can NOT reanimate dead things even though we have everything we need in place - and all we CAN do is REPLICATE dna that is ALREADY ALIVE...Once its dead it is beyond our understanding entirely and we are practicaly CLUELESS about the origin of life.....

Also, please note that you did not stop existing just because your grandmother's mind became unaware of your existence.

lol - AGREED - but please note - we WOULD stop existing if ALL MIND were removed in that fashion

 

[PeteC-UK]

Hi Folks..

A Vestigial Mote;

So you're one of those who believe that if a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, then it actually makes no sound - that is, literally, that the energies that are expelled due to the tree falling do not vibrate the air in such a way as to produce what would have been audible had anyone been around? That's basically what you're saying.

Absolutely correct...Even if the tree fell - even if the energy waved out as it does - it is NOT A SOUND - not UNTIL A MIND is PRESENT and DEFINES IT THUS

Except that it doesn't really matter if humans (or any cognizant minds) are around to "witness" or "contemplate" matter or energy - those things will go right on doing their thing without us.

Of course it does matter a great deal - because it is indeed the Sentient MIND that DEFINES those things and experiences them ... if that mind was NOT PRESENT then there is no perception OF that reality at all - and if we removed ALL MIND all faculty - then as above - please tel me who or what KNOWS that reality at all..??.. You too are thinking as an INDIVIDUAL - whereas Iam speaking of a PRIMAL UNIVERSAL MIND and not a unique individualised form at all, but the actual FACULTY and ABILITY itself - this faculty and ability IS MIND - is it not..??.. Remove the ABILITY and then tell me - how do you know if those things you mention continue or not..??...You do NOT know - as it is MIND that literally ALLOWS and CAUSES you to know any and EVERYTHING - remove mind completely then from the entire scenario and now ther eis nothign ther eot know any existance at all - is there..?>..

And if nothing "knows existance" - then how can you ever convince me that there IS an existance at all..??.. .

There can NEVER be an existance of any type at all, unless a MIND is Present to define and experience that reality....lol....OBVIOUS - UNDENIABLE - you dont see the implications of the things you are saying....lol...but you simply cannot seperate MIND from EXPERIENCE OF REALITY - take away mind and all EXPERIENCE stops and ceases - you become NONE EXISTANT !!! This is "death" Folks - the ABSENCE of MIND itself - that is all it is - Mind has vacated the form and it is now inanimate...Mind is the POWER SOURCE - the ENERGY that causes EVERYTHING in reality - and this is LITERALLY so

Case in point - the matter outside of the edge of our observable universe at any given moment. Would you really make the case that as our sphere of "observable universe" expanded over the years, that all that matter that was uncovered/realized ONLY AT THAT MOMENT started interacting with the other bodies of the universe? 'Cause that's basically what you are saying - that it takes a mind to realize energy, or for energy/matter to exist. Which is straight poop.

Yes but again try to appreciate here you are thinking in INDIVIDUAL terms as opposed to a universal Primal Mind...Just because We individually become aware of certain phenomena at a precise moment - does not mean or preclude OTHER MINDS from encountering that phenomena at ANY given time - BUT - again try to appreciate this - if we removed ALL MIND from the universe - then there is absolutely no way to know or experience ANYTHING and so all these phenomena you mention are irrelevant and obsolete WITHOUT the Presence of Mind... Surely you (all) begin to see now..?..Remove mind COMPLETELY and there is NO ABILITY to perceive or experience ANYTHING

If then we removed this faculty RIGHT AT THE START of the universe - then NOTHING WOULD BE CREATED - not ever - we simply would have NO PERCEPTION OF REALITY - and again all this would be irrelevant WITHOUT that Mind being Present

This tells us logically that there MUST have been a MIND present even before ANYTHING OCCURRED - MUST have been - because the ENERGY ITSELF IS THE MIND

 

[loverofhumanity]

Creationism requires faith since we were not there when it happened.

Evolution, i.e. abiogenesis also requires a great deal of faith considering that no one would have been there to have seen it.

The question is, Who do you put your faith in? God's witnesses or scientists who tell you there is no God who created?

Also the fact that no one can tell us that there isn't a higher intelligence than man in the universe as the universe has not yet been fully explored.

All we know is that man did not design or create himself and that it would take a supreme intelligence to put together something as intricate and complex as mans body and mind. Proof of this is that after thousands of years and the greatest minds, we still don't know all there is to know about the human body and mind.

We must make allowance that a higher intelligence exists as we can't create even a tiny seed.

 

[Reggie Miller]

No it's not. Consider,

Evolution: the gradual development of something, especially from a simple to a more complex form.

Abiogenesis: the natural process of life arising from non-living matter.​

Note how evolution deals with the development of something already existing, and that abiogenesis deals with bringing something into existence. In this case, life from non-life. Just as a mother gives birth to a son, but is not herself the son, so too abiogenesis gives birth to evolution, but is not itself evolution.

NOW, you might say that, "If evolution did not arise through the hand of god then it would have to have arisen through abiogenesis," which, although not necessarily true, is at least a bit more sensible. It's failing is in thinking that abiogenesis and god are the only ways by which evolution could have arisen on Earth. Panspermia, is the hypothesis that life exists throughout the Universe, and is distributed by meteoroids, asteroids and planetoids.

Well, I think someone should help out you, and who ever else might believe what you say. Don't you?


.

Evolution without an intelligent creator requires abiogenesis. If you can't see that or admit it then you have a problem.

It is the equivalent of Creation without a Creator. Simply not possible.

 

[rusra02]

I did not relay my statement as some sort of proof. I relayed it as a rebuttal.

A man that carved a name into a tree is much different than millions and millions and millions of years of genetic variation by way of gene mutation, gene drift, and genetic shuffling. Obviously, nature can do things on its own.

Let me give you an example. If you put a rat and a snake in a cage, who survives? The snake of course. It's called survival of the fittest, and it happens on a daily basis. The more fit to survive DOES survive. That's how nature works.

I do not find convincing the theory that mutations are responsible for all living things. Nor do I believe there is evidence for this. Both snakes and rats continue to thrive, despite one being prey for the other. My main point is nothing happens without a cause. To claim the finely-tuned universe, our amazing planet, and all it's brilliantly designed creatures happened without an intelligent Cause, is a claim requiring extraordinary credulity or purposeful denial, IMO.
The Bible speaks of "men who are suppressing the truth in an unrighteous way, because what may be known about God is clearly evident among them, for God made it clear to them. For his invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, so that they are inexcusable." (Romans 1:18-20)

 

[loverofhumanity]

Evolution without an intelligent creator requires abiogenesis. If you can't see that or admit it then you have a problem.

It is the equivalent of Creation without a Creator. Simply not possible.

If one looks at nature or the universe they follow laws from which they cannot deviate. They have no will. No intelligence. How is it possible for non intelligence that has no will create to its own laws and parameters? Many of the laws that govern our universe represent complex mathematical formulas not randomness.

Mathematics is found in all existence as deeply complex algorithms. They just put themselves there?? How do molecules and cells know how to order and structure themselves? They don't? Then they just luckily happen to all be working together?

If one have a house of bricks and leave it for hundreds of years, weather and time will reduce it to a pile of bricks or lesser but let's be generous and leave all the materials to build a house such as bricks steel etc for 100,000 years. If we return then will those bricks and materials have formed a house?

Without a builder and architect you can't design or build a home and it's only common sense that neither can the universe exist without a master builder and architect.

We don't know all the how's but it's impossible for something to create itself out of nothingness. Only an intelligent Being Who possesses all knowledge can achieve such things.

 

[MonkeyFire]

I wish to be, I've always been. I believe, I'm always gonna be.

 

[rusra02]

There's a fundamental difference between any man-made, or creature-made object and things like DNA/RNA, complex organs and appendages, etc. To the point that, when you stumble upon a watch lying on the beach, it is different from the landscape - and obvious anomaly, something formulated by hands, wrought from disparate materials - not something "grown" or otherwise produced by the Earth and natural processes. However, on that same beach, when you stumble across a crab, it does not draw to mind the same idea of craftsmanship having been at work. Perhaps a completely different idea of "craftsmanship", but certainly not the one that sees hands at work, actually formulating something from raw materials.

And so, I submit that when you compare man-made objects and naturally occurring ones you are really comparing apples and oranges. And there is absolutely NO REASON to think that there had to have been a "set of hands" behind the creation of naturally occurring objects - especially not in the same way that you make that connection with a painting or a watch. It doesn't follow - no matter how much you'd like it to.

Many people agree with your point of view. Many, on the other hand, do see intelligent design displayed in the plants and animals all around them. I number myself among the latter.

 

[rusra02]

Atomic decay doesn't. Your argument has collapsed at it's first step.

Your comparison is flawed as we know those are constructed items as we can identify not only the process but the one creating these objects. This is nothing but the long refuted watchmaker analogy.

The rest of your argument are nothing more than arguments from incredulity. I can't understand X therefore God.

I believe we can identify the one creating all the amazingly complex entities around us. As Romans 1:20 states: "For [God's] invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, so that they are inexcusable."

 

[Sunstone]

 

[jonathan180iq]

Well alrighty then...

Hi Folks...

Jonathan; Yer funny video mate - use an idiot to try to discredit me - usually the way when there is no other defense eh..?...cant beat him so I will try to mock him and hope everyones attention gets deflected from the truth...lol... TWICE even you try the same tactic here - just shows you have nothing to refute my ideas with legitimately...lol..

Pointless though, as look - its not even Me saying the things HES saying in that video is it.>??..lol.. Im saying what IM saying and NO, that vid does NOT debunk what I SAID....That hat I mention DID begin already to change into a fossil - the first stages of the process yes..?.. Another 50 years the process would be further along - and another 50 and so on and so on - until eventually that hat WILL be a bona fide fossil....BUT - what you fail to explain is the extraordinary TIME DIFFERENCE - for as said I will be generous, and lets say we found that hat right at the start - 1% into the process took 50 years - so - maths and logic is always our allie - 50 years per 1 % takes only that small 5000 years to become a complete fossil...

The hat was not fossilized - that's the whole point... Your "reasoning" and "math" about how this all works is not supported by the science of the process. So, you're just wrong.

lol - IRRELEVANT - lol - your SECOND failed attempt to ridicule me - now my hands are somewhat tied here but I will tell you directly you simply do not know anything about cannabis if you think it somehow makes me "less intelligent" or if you think it makes me somehow "less worthy" or "less credable" as as you imply....lol...Foolish irrelevant remark you just made that yet again is there solely to deflect from the truth - isnt it..??.. I already know you are no authority to be judging me, so I will just laugh openly at your naivete and tell you straight you know nothing at all of the things you imply...lol...

You don't like that I called you on it, do you?

You're making quite a few incorrect assumptions here and then running with them for a whole paragraph/run-on sentence.

I smoke weed, for the record - Regularly. And I know plenty about cannabis.
What most druggies fail to realize is that while the experiential nature of being high can seem enlightening, it's a fully synthetic experience, created by chemical shifts and releases in the brain. What we see as an opening of the mind to the true nature of reality when high is really nothing more than a real-world dream. The conclusions and experiences that you come to while under the influence of any drug is not a real one. To base your understandings of reality on something that you thought about while you were baked is foolish.

It doesn't make you less intelligent. That's not my argument. What it does make you is deluded.

YES I BELIEVE ALL THOSE THINGS AS FACT !!!

Then your position has a logical hurdle that it cannot jump.

If those things did not exist prior to a mind being able to perceive them, how did the mind come to be? If they existed prior to perception, then your premise is wrong. You have no way around this.

And to just make sure we're clear, as you've stated, I'm not talking about your mind, or my mind. I'm talking about any mind.

NO !!! I believe those things BECAUSE there is a MIND PRESENT to directly EXPERIENCE them - and of course there was such a mind present THROUGHOUT the ENTIRE CREATION PROCESS....What IM saying and that you fail miserably to see is that IF you REMOVED THE MIND COMPLETELY - then for sure ALL THAT EXISTANCE MUST CEASE - as it IS the MIND itself THAT HAS THAT EXPERIENCE OF EXISTANCE !!!!

OBVIOUS and totally undeniable - MIND is the FACULTY and the actual ABILITY to PERCEIVE and EXPERIENCE REALITY - yes..?....

Obvious then - if we remove MIND COMPLETELY - then for sure there is NO POSSIBLE WAY TO EXPERIENCE ANYTHING - and so undeniably NOTHING exists !! I ask the question and you simply can not answer it can you..??....REMOVE MIND COMPLETELY - now tell me - WHO or WHAT is left to KNOW or EXPERIENCE this universe you envision..??... Remove mind and there is nothing to even ponder consider or even imagine such an existance at all period full stop....Indeed - remove mind and yes indeed - FULL STOP - everything CEASES as it is MIND that GIVES DEFINITION TO EVERYTHING and it is MIND alone that HAS THAT EXPERIENCE OF EXISTANCE !!!!

If there is no mind, then there is nothing to experience. Correct. Well done. You got that part right..
Problem is, no one is disputing that. It's a given.

But you've still made no headway into the biggest problem facing your argument.

If there is a MIND PRESENT to perceive that reality then no problem - but again - take that mind away COMPLETELY - and now tell me who or what is there to a) hear the sound and b) to even know that the thing is a "tree".....The tree is ONLY there BECAUSE the mind PERCEIVES it to be so - if NO MIND WAS PRESENT AT ALL - then tell me please - who or what HAS that perception..??.....

No one is there to hear the sound - that's the classic argument. You've properly assessed the thought experiment - now answer it.

If a tree falls in the wood and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound?

The sound is ONLY a sound once a MIND defines it thus....If there was no mind to INTERPRET the wave of energy INTO sound then the sound CEASES TO EXIST - literally NO BODY HEARS IT so it is NOT sound at all just a movement of energy that nobody can perceive...lol... .Again, remove mind and tell me now WHO or what is perceiving this sound and defining it thus..??... Do you see yet how intrinsically vitasl andd necassary the Presence of Mind ACTUALLy is..??..lol...

But there are factual reverberations of air and energy without the mind, are there not? If someone was there to see the tree, but they were deaf, would the tree make a sound? You're saying that it doesn't. And you're wrong about that too.

lol - NO IM NOT - YOU are trying to make it seem that way - but Iam ACTUALLY saying such things still existed BECAUSE OTHER MINDS WERE PRESENT BEFORE MINE....I already told you - not MY mind - not YOUR mind - but ALL MIND - the FACULTY and ABILITY to perceive and experience reality... Remove that COMPLETELY and for sure EVERYTHING CEASES.......Of course though BEFORE my individual Mind arrived here in this body, many many OTHER minds were already here and so Creation has always been apparant, stable and defined BY those MINDS PRESENT....Do try to let it sink in.....lol....if you took ALL MIND away right at the start - the FACULTY TO PERCEIVE is removed and the so called "world out there" simply ceases to exist...

Look - its easy to grasp - you already witness it every time you sleep - you REMOVE your mind form THIS slice of reality and so THIS REALITY CEASES TO EXIST - once you return the mind the reality here, it just pops back into existance - doesnt it..?.....This should give you a basic understanding of the greater universal truth - MIND causes defines and EXPERIENCES ALL EXISTANCE !!

So remove all minds that ever existed - Go way back to a time when there was nothing and no one to perceive anything at all... Is the Universe still here? Did the planets still exist? Did trees still grow?

I knew this would be the stumbling block for many here - it is really hard to conceive a state of "none existance" - and yet it can be experienced directly (briefly) just as I emphasised before, and without that direct experience it will be really hard to grasp the implication of what Im saying...GNOSIS really is crucial here... There was "NO STUFF"
created before the mind, as understand the ENERGY that will become "stuff" IS the MIND itself - the same commody - same resource - inseperable MIND IS ENERGY - a fully ABSTRACT NOTION - energy does NOT even exist unless a MIND is present to define and experience that reality......This is a recording....I repeat..................lol....

How many ways must I explain it before it dawns..?... MIND itself, and mind alone - defines and experiences ALL reality and ALL EXISTANCE - remove that mind completely and you remove the ABILITY itself - all reality ceases.....

From the point of perception, yes. But not factually.

lol - as we all clearly see - Im providing answers a plenty - every point raised thus far...Can YOU say the same..??...Seems you struggle more as you didnt even attempt my questions seriously just tried to brush them off - and instead tried "ridicule" as your first recourse...lol...wanna try again..?....I asked the same questions above...Go for it...

You're certainly doing something...

Ah now you wish to change the parameters - move the goal posts so to speak...lol...Listen - we are speaking of removing ALL MIND - the ENTIRE FACULTY - not just an individual mind but the COMPLETE ABILITY to PERCEIVE and EXPERIENCE...OBVIOUSLY - if you remove that FACULTY entirely then all perception and all experience HAS stopped - HASNT IT..??...And WITHOUT perception or experience then there simply is NO REALITY APPARANT - is there..??.. The things I say ARE true - if you stick to the premise of ALL MIND (as one mind of course many forms) and not just an individual.. You think individually and perceive this existance still as an INDIVIDUAL mind - and this is severely handicapping your perception of the greater reality you are a part of always....Your mind is one part of a much much MUCH greater entitty - and as I say - until you get some direct experience of that truth, then all this metaphysical truth is bound to go right over your head here....

I've not changed anything. I'm challenging your assertions with simple questions and you're getting upset because you can't answer them adequately. Perhaps you should consider refining your position.

lol - AGREED - but please note - we WOULD stop existing if ALL MIND were removed in that fashion

Yes. If we were all dead, we would cease to be. Our bodies would still be buried somewhere in the Earth, which would still exist regardless of whether or not we were aware of it.

 

[viole]

Evolution without Creation IS abiogenesis. There is no need to attempt to lecture me.

I think this is incorrect. Evolution is not concerned with the start of life, but only with its development under the premise of a simple startup, whose mechanisms are still unknown.

So, you can be a creationist for what concerns this startup, and a naturalist for what concerns its further development.

Which, by the way, provides a possible answer to the challenge in the OP.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Skwim]

Evolution without an intelligent creator requires abiogenesis. If you can't see that or admit it then you have a problem.

First of all, "requires" is a heck of a lot different than your "is": "evolution is abiogenesis" (your original contention) Vs. "evolution requires abiogenesis." Moreover, there's always the possibility of panspermia, which you conveniently ignore. And If you can't see that or admit these two points then you have a problem.


.

 

[Reggie Miller]

First of all, "requires" is a heck of a lot different than your "is": "evolution is abiogenesis" (your original contention) Vs. "evolution requires abiogenesis." Moreover, there's always the possibility of panspermia, which you conveniently ignore. And If you can't see that or admit these two points then you have a problem.


.

But, friend, panspermia also requires abiogenesis before it could happen.

 

[Reggie Miller]

I think this is incorrect. Evolution is not concerned with the start of life, but only with its development under the premise of a simple startup, whose mechanisms are still unknown.

So, you can be a creationist for what concerns this startup, and a naturalist for what concerns its further development.

Which, by the way, provides a possible answer to the challenge in the OP.

Ciao

- viole

How are you going to have evolution without either abiogenesis or a Creator?

 

[viole]

How are you going to have evolution without either abiogenesis or a Creator?

Simple. In the same way you can study the evolution of prices without being concerned about where money, or the value we attribute to it, comes from.

Ciao

- viole