A Universe from Nothing?

[Polymath257]

it begins with a choice

Spirit first?
or substance?

and if you think it begins somewhere else......show me

Since you have not given the definition of either of those concepts, an answer is impossible.

By the most often used definitions, I would say that spirit doesn't exist at all and that substance is too vague a term to be useful.

Now it is *your* turn.

 

[Thief]

What do you mean by spirit?



You first. What do you mean by your question?

Reasonable people don't answer to questions with yes or no if they don't know the answer. Reasonable people also tend not to answer a question they don't understand. And you haven't given us the means to understand what you're actually trying to ask.

Reasonable people don't answer blindly.

it's one or the other......

and if you are blind......
I guess you just are

 

[Darkstorn]

it's one or the other......

Is spirit substance, or separate from it?

and if you are blind......
I guess you just are

Empty assertion.

 

[Thief]

I shall now spoon feed the children
it will taste bad

if substance first......you are already dead
you simply haven't stopped breathing

it is written....
Let the dead bury the dead

to insist on definition (dragging your feet as you do)

the discussion is dead
and you simply haven't stopped posting

I have chosen Spirit first

 

[Darkstorn]

I shall now spoon feed the children
it will taste bad

if substance first......you are already dead
you simply haven't stopped breathing

it is written....
Let the dead bury the dead

to insist on definition (dragging your feet as you do)

the discussion is dead
and you simply haven't stopped posting

I have chosen Spirit first

You might have chosen spirit first. But you chose willful avoidance of the forum guidelines second. This is still not debating, it's you asserting and proselytizing. You are judging us.

 

[Thief]

You might have chosen spirit first. But you chose willful avoidance of the forum guidelines second. This is still not debating, it's you asserting and proselytizing. You are judging us.

not at all......I could care less

I reason as does science....an item at rest will remain at rest
substance is not.....'self'......motivated

Spirit first

 

[Polymath257]

I shall now spoon feed the children
it will taste bad

if substance first......you are already dead
you simply haven't stopped breathing

I disagree. I don't die until I stop breathing.

it is written....
Let the dead bury the dead

So?

to insist on definition (dragging your feet as you do)

the discussion is dead
and you simply haven't stopped posting

But it is *your* fault the discussion is dead. By not giving definitions, you make sure that real discussion is impossible.

I have chosen Spirit first

Whatever that means. Which is still not clear.

 

[Thief]

I disagree. I don't die until I stop breathing.



.

you do not actually disagree
you do not understand

 

[Darkstorn]

not at all......I could care less

You haven't exactly shown this statement to be true.

I reason as does science....an item at rest will remain at rest
substance is not.....'self'......motivated

I think you're using science wrong.

Spirit first

So you only asked it so you could tell those who reply "substance" that they're going to suffer god's wrath... That is not a reasonable or logical argument though.

you do not actually disagree
you do not understand

This is again asserting that others don't know, only you do.

I can tell you that you don't understand, and it would be an equal claim to yours. Except not really: I have evidence. Of you not understanding what you're talking about. May i present your own posts?

 

[Polymath257]

you do not actually disagree
you do not understand

And one reason for my lack of understanding is that you refuse to give definitions. There could be others, but that is the main one currently.

 

[gnostic]

And one reason for my lack of understanding is that you refuse to give definitions. There could be others, but that is the main one currently.

No, polymath. He always refused to give definitions to his so called Spirit and Substance.

He always dance around it, or ignore the requests altogether. He will demand answers for us, demand evidences and proof, but he will give nothing in return, except repeating his same stupid mottos (eg "Spirit, first" or "Spirit before substance") over and over again.

Some of us have been asking the same questions that you are asking now, in much older threads.

To date, he has not given a single adequate answer to these questions. So don't feel bad.

And that's really ok to me, because it reveal just how dishonest and ignorant he really is; he doesn't realise that his behaviour is self-defeating and he is tarnishing his religious belief without much help from us.

 

[Thief]

You haven't exactly shown this statement to be true.



I think you're using science wrong.



So you only asked it so you could tell those who reply "substance" that they're going to suffer god's wrath... That is not a reasonable or logical argument though.



This is again asserting that others don't know, only you do.

I can tell you that you don't understand, and it would be an equal claim to yours. Except not really: I have evidence. Of you not understanding what you're talking about. May i present your own posts?

no you are misquoting me

so try to present my own posts......intact

 

[Thief]

No, polymath. He always refused to give definitions to his so called Spirit and Substance.

He always dance around it, or ignore the requests altogether. He will demand answers for us, demand evidences and proof, but he will give nothing in return, except repeating his same stupid mottos (eg "Spirit, first" or "Spirit before substance") over and over again.

Some of us have been asking the same questions that you are asking now, in much older threads.

To date, he has not given a single adequate answer to these questions. So don't feel bad.

And that's really ok to me, because it reveal just how dishonest and ignorant he really is; he doesn't realise that his behaviour is self-defeating and he is tarnishing his religious belief without much help from us.

if you son't have defs of your own......
you are not up to this discussion

 

[Darkstorn]

no you are misquoting me

so try to present my own posts......intact

Wait what?! Your argument is that i'm misquoting you. Even though i'm quoting you VERBATIM. I am not changing things, i am not adding things. YOU SAID THOSE THINGS.

In fact, in my last post i replied to TWO of your posts, without leaving out ANYTHING. That's to me, the opposite of misquoting: I quoted TWO of your posts, without changing a word, in a single post.

I think your claim here is unsupported: You haven't shown how i misquoted you. And you won't be able to.

You are now just crying about random things because you can no longer debate the original issue.

 

[Polymath257]

No, polymath. He always refused to give definitions to his so called Spirit and Substance.

He always dance around it, or ignore the requests altogether. He will demand answers for us, demand evidences and proof, but he will give nothing in return, except repeating his same stupid mottos (eg "Spirit, first" or "Spirit before substance") over and over again.

Some of us have been asking the same questions that you are asking now, in much older threads.

To date, he has not given a single adequate answer to these questions. So don't feel bad.

And that's really ok to me, because it reveal just how dishonest and ignorant he really is; he doesn't realise that his behaviour is self-defeating and he is tarnishing his religious belief without much help from us.

My only point is that he doesn't clarify his terms and then mocks people for not understanding his terms.

Sounds like some sort of ego trip to me.

 

[gnostic]

if you son't have defs of your own......
you are not up to this discussion

Why do you think people ask you the same questions over and over again, when you keep bringing up "spirit" and "substance".

Everyone know what the definitions are, Thief. What are different are you usage of those terms, and the context of how you use them, that make it different from dictionaries.

That's why people ask you what you mean by them, asking for clarification and definitions for each of them.

The honest thing would be explain those terms by what you mean, especially if they don't match up with the dictionary.

But no, you don't do that, because you won't. You give each person who ask you, a bloody run-around. That's being evasive and dishonest. And at other times when they disagree with you, you insult them, so that's being rude and arrogant.

Why won't you explain what "you" think each of these two terms mean, and be done with it? If you did so, no one would ask you again?

Have you given any thoughts as why people don't like you?

It is your attitude, how you treat them when they make simple requests for clarifications.

It is not just atheists and agnostics who don't like you; theists don't like your attitude too, because you are being evasive and rude to them as well, when they disagree with you.

I disagree with a lot of people, but I do my best to answer them even if should they disagree with me, without resorting to evasive tactics.

I don't know if this what your religion teaches you to do, or isn't it just you.

My advice is this: Give your definition or explain what you mean by them, and be done with it.

Is it really so hard to do that?

 

[cirillo]

my opinion is this:
God has no beginning
He created the universe billion years ago
From nothing comes nothing
Other prefer to call Him The First Cause
We dont know if it happened in a split second or many years
but is irrilevant

 

[Regolith Based Lifeforms]

I don't think your qualified (capable) of a mature discussion

try asking a moderator

X

 

[Regolith Based Lifeforms]

And one reason for my lack of understanding is that you refuse to give definitions. There could be others, but that is the main one currently.

Apparently he hopes you will die in order to avoid facing his own reality.

 

[Thief]

Why do you think people ask you the same questions over and over again, when you keep bringing up "spirit" and "substance".

Everyone know what the definitions are, Thief. What are different are you usage of those terms, and the context of how you use them, that make it different from dictionaries.

That's why people ask you what you mean by them, asking for clarification and definitions for each of them.

The honest thing would be explain those terms by what you mean, especially if they don't match up with the dictionary.

But no, you don't do that, because you won't. You give each person who ask you, a bloody run-around. That's being evasive and dishonest. And at other times when they disagree with you, you insult them, so that's being rude and arrogant.

Why won't you explain what "you" think each of these two terms mean, and be done with it? If you did so, no one would ask you again?

Have you given any thoughts as why people don't like you?

It is your attitude, how you treat them when they make simple requests for clarifications.

It is not just atheists and agnostics who don't like you; theists don't like your attitude too, because you are being evasive and rude to them as well, when they disagree with you.

I disagree with a lot of people, but I do my best to answer them even if should they disagree with me, without resorting to evasive tactics.

I don't know if this what your religion teaches you to do, or isn't it just you.

My advice is this: Give your definition or explain what you mean by them, and be done with it.

Is it really so hard to do that?

my advice is ......come prepared for the talk
you don't need definition
supposedly...you have a brain

Spirit first?
or substance?