Are You a Materialist?

[TheInfiniteLight]

This is a lot of mumbo jumbo and half thought assertions. Planes of infinity that are less infinite than the incorporeal dimension? How do you know all this and what possible evidence do you have?

You also say illogical things like incorporeal plane without space and time where souls reside. Seriously this.meaningless. how could souls do anything without time? They couldnt do anything if there was no time to do stuff.

And a plane without space is a contradiction. A plane is a two dimensional coordinate surface with two axes x and Y. So clearly there are two dimensions of space or else it's not a plane. Anyways your entire post makes no sense and it's like youre just combining random math and spiritual words to sound profound when you're just not at all unfortunately.

You think that the universe is finite, as if existing within a 'bubble'. Well if it does then what would be on the other side of the bubble? Nothing? Nothing cannot exist. If by definition a 'bubble of a universe' existed then what is the support of that bubble? For a bubble to exist it must have support on its outside not just its inside? Then what are you going to say that the universe exists within a universe? What supports the latter universe? Another bubble? The time and space of this dimension are infinite. I call this a plane of existence for lack of a better term. All planes of existence are infinite because if a universe existed within a universe it would still be the same universe because it occupies the same time and space. What I am saying is that there is universes that exist apart from each other, occupying different time and space because nothing cannot exist, its impossible for nothing to exist. I call this the universal continuum; where it logically follows that nothing cannot exist and if it is evident that there is one time/space continuum then there are infinite time/space continuums. It is also evident in that there is world upon world within this planar existence. From the microcosm to the macrocosm the image is an image of truth. Just as in this time and space there is evidence of one universe, however, on an infinite plane that evidence supports the assumption that there is in fact a multiverse that this universe is a part of within this time and space. The evidence of that is that there are a multitude of galaxies within this universe. From the microcosm there is an image of truth that points to the macrocosm, meaning that there are in fact a multitude of universes within this infinity. I say that the Light is the infinity of infinities because all time/space continuums (which are infinite within themselves) are taken directly from the Light as creation. You can still take an infinite part from an infinite part and still have the source that much more infinite than the part allotted for creation. It remains infinite because it is not of the same time/space continuum. It is the correct interpretation of this universe to have world upon world representing all of creation from microcosm to macrocosm. It's not mumbo jumbo. Its genius that God is considered by such a mortal to be completely infinitesimal.

 

[serp777]

You think that the universe is finite, as if existing within a 'bubble'. Well if it does then what would be on the other side of the bubble? Nothing? Nothing cannot exist. If by definition a 'bubble of a universe' existed then what is the support of that bubble? For a bubble to exist it must have support on its outside not just its inside? Then what are you going to say that the universe exists within a universe? What supports the latter universe? Another bubble? The time and space of this dimension are infinite. I call this a plane of existence for lack of a better term. All planes of existence are infinite because if a universe existed within a universe it would still be the same universe because it occupies the same time and space. What I am saying is that there is universes that exist apart from each other, occupying different time and space because nothing cannot exist, its impossible for nothing to exist. I call this the universal continuum; where it logically follows that nothing cannot exist and if it is evident that there is one time/space continuum then there are infinite time/space continuums. It is also evident in that there is world upon world within this planar existence. From the microcosm to the macrocosm the image is an image of truth. Just as in this time and space there is evidence of one universe, however, on an infinite plane that evidence supports the assumption that there is in fact a multiverse that this universe is a part of within this time and space. The evidence of that is that there are a multitude of galaxies within this universe. From the microcosm there is an image of truth that points to the macrocosm, meaning that there are in fact a multitude of universes within this infinity. I say that the Light is the infinity of infinities because all time/space continuums (which are infinite within themselves) are taken directly from the Light as creation. You can still take an infinite part from an infinite part and still have the source that much more infinite than the part allotted for creation. It remains infinite because it is not of the same time/space continuum. It is the correct interpretation of this universe to have world upon world representing all of creation from microcosm to macrocosm. It's not mumbo jumbo. Its genius that God is considered by such a mortal to be completely infinitesimal.

Except you clearly arent a physicist so you're making all of these claims in spite of all the scientific possibilities. And you're just making assertions that have no evidence. One possibility is a finite universe in a finite multivers, etc. I dont know if the universe actually has finite space or not but i certainly dont preach so matterba factly. And why couldnt there be nothing outside the boundry of the universe? Its possible the edges of the space could be curved. And we know that when space and time cMe into existence a moment after the big bang it was finite since it was expanding exponentially. Just because you cant imagine the structure of space where there isnt anything outside doesnt mean it cant be possible. The point is youre talking about things you cannot know are true or even likely and basing it on the limits of your imagination of physics understanding. Youre using mumbo jumbo like your explanation of light for instance to argue something meangingless since youre not using a physics definition. For instance light being the infinities of infinities is completely meaningless. Light is finite and can be measured or absorbed on solar panel and quantified with specific values. You're throwing in jumbo jumbo terms that make no sense, perhaps you could explain all this infinity jargon and macrocoam multiverse assertions, etc.

 

[TheInfiniteLight]

Except you clearly arent a physicist so you're making all of these claims in spite of all the scientific possibilities. And you're just making assertions that have no evidence. One possibility is a finite universe in a finite multivers, etc. I dont know if the universe actually has finite space or not but i certainly dont preach so matterba factly. And why couldnt there be nothing outside the boundry of the universe? Its possible the edges of the space could be curved. And we know that when space and time cMe into existence a moment after the big bang it was finite since it was expanding exponentially. Just because you cant imagine the structure of space where there isnt anything outside doesnt mean it cant be possible. The point is youre talking about things you cannot know are true or even likely and basing it on the limits of your imagination of physics understanding. Youre using mumbo jumbo like your explanation of light for instance to argue something meangingless since youre not using a physics definition. For instance light being the infinities of infinities is completely meaningless. Light is finite and can be measured or absorbed on solar panel and quantified with specific values. You're throwing in jumbo jumbo terms that make no sense, perhaps you could explain all this infinity jargon and macrocoam multiverse assertions, etc.

What is nothing outside the limits of the universe? Is it a vacuum? If it is a vacuum then isn't a vacuum something? How could nothing have dimension? Even if were nothing, outside of the universe, it would have to have dimension to support the universe otherwise what holds the form of the universe? Nothing? You're the one that is illogical and doesn't make sense. I may be mumbo jumbo, however, my nickname for you is Illogical.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

What is nothing outside the limits of the universe? Is it a vacuum? If it is a vacuum then isn't a vacuum something? How could nothing have dimension? Even if were nothing, outside of the universe, it would have to have dimension to support the universe otherwise what holds the form of the universe? Nothing? You're the one that is illogical and doesn't make sense. I may be mumbo jumbo, however, my nickname for you is Illogical.

Your ideas about science are naive. Looking at science in general you can see that it is all just mathematics. The mathematics has the 0. When you complain about nothing, aren't you then in a way equally complaining about the zero ? You are naively focused on form, on tangibility, on observability, on measurability. Science is really just mathematics, and mathematics is basically congruent with semitiocs, which is the study of symbols.

 

[TheInfiniteLight]

Your ideas about science are naive. Looking at science in general you can see that it is all just mathematics. The mathematics has the 0. When you complain about nothing, aren't you then in a way equally complaining about the zero ? You are naively focused on form, on tangibility, on observability, on measurability. Science is really just mathematics, and mathematics is basically congruent with semitiocs, which is the study of symbols.

Then if I guess if everything is mathematics then I guess Islam is mathematics. My belief system doesn't pertain to science nor mathematics. It pertains to the soul. I don't have to prove anything to anyone. I just have to know myself. Like Jesus says, whoever does not know themselves dwells within a poverty and is that poverty. Do you think the scientific method is my soul? All of what I say, ever, pertains to my soul. I don't care if you believe. I just like staring at my reflection.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Then if I guess if everything is mathematics then I guess Islam is mathematics. My belief system doesn't pertain to science nor mathematics. It pertains to the soul. I don't have to prove anything to anyone. I just have to know myself. Like Jesus says, whoever does not know themselves dwells within a poverty and is that poverty. Do you think the scientific method is my soul? All of what I say, ever, pertains to my soul. I don't care if you believe. I just like staring at my reflection.

I agree with the belief in the soul, but you said wrong things about science.

We can choose, and one of the ways in which we can choose is to choose about what is real in respect to what is in the spiritual domain, and what is in the spiritual domain chooses the way the material domain turns out. What is in your soul, or even if you have one, that is a matter of opinion, the conclusion can only be arrived at by choosing it. Facts, mathematics, only applies to what is chosen, to the creation.

 

[TheInfiniteLight]

I agree with the belief in the soul, but you said wrong things about science.

We can choose, and one of the ways in which we can choose is to choose about what is real in respect to what is in the spiritual domain, and what is in the spiritual domain chooses the way the material domain turns out. What is in your soul, or even if you have one, that is a matter of opinion, the conclusion can only be arrived at by choosing it. Facts, mathematics, only applies to what is chosen, to the creation.

I wasn't talking about science. I was revealing my soul. When did I ever mention I was talking about science?

 

[leibowde84]

Your ideas about science are naive. Looking at science in general you can see that it is all just mathematics. The mathematics has the 0. When you complain about nothing, aren't you then in a way equally complaining about the zero ? You are naively focused on form, on tangibility, on observability, on measurability. Science is really just mathematics, and mathematics is basically congruent with semitiocs, which is the study of symbols.

Science is a method af gaining understanding. The scientific method is a method of procedure consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

I wasn't talking about science. I was revealing my soul. When did I ever mention I was talking about science?

You were talking about nothing and that it is illogical and such, that does not sound like belief to me.

 

[TheInfiniteLight]

Science is a method af gaining understanding. The scientific method is a method of procedure consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

I'm still waiting for you to list the explanations other than God for the reasons of existence. We know God is one argument. Explain the others to me. Make a believer.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I'm still waiting for you to list the explanations other than God for the reasons of existence. We know God is one argument.

We do?

 

[TheInfiniteLight]

We do?

I asked that guy in the post to list me the "other" explanations about existence. I stated the most obvious, however, he refuses to give me the "other" arguments about existence. The most obvious, being God, he refuses to accept. However, it is the only explanation his mind can grasp, yet he still refuses to acknowledge it as a possibility. So he knows what he don't knows. And he doesn't know what he does know. And he is trying to pass this off as a sound argument.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I asked that guy in the post to list me the "other" explanations about existence. I stated the most obvious, however, he refuses to give me the "other" arguments about existence. The most obvious, being God, he refuses to accept.

How is God an argument for existence at all, let alone "the most obvious" one?

 

[TheInfiniteLight]

How is God an argument for existence at all, let alone "the most obvious" one?

To those who don't believe God, He is not with them. To those who believe God, He is with them. God, to us is the most obvious cause. To those who don't believe--they have no explanation. If God is not obvious to you then I ask you to state the explanation that is most obvious to you. You have no explanation, you do not believe, therefore you are utterly lacking an explanation.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

To those who don't believe God, He is not with them. To those who believe God, He is with them. God, to us is the most obvious cause. To those who don't believe--they have no explanation. If God is not obvious to you then I ask you to state the explanation that is most obvious to you. You have no explanation, you do not believe, therefore you are utterly lacking an explanation.

Do you think making up an answer that "feels right" is better than just being honest and admitting "I don't know"?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

To those who don't believe God, He is not with them. To those who believe God, He is with them. God, to us is the most obvious cause.

The fact that a person believes in God doesn't necessarily mean that he accepts the seemingly absurd or unfounded assumptions that you seem to need to:

- God caused everything, including himself
- nothing but God can cause God
- nothing but God can cause the Universe.

None of this is obvious. I'd also say that "God did it" isn't an explanation; it isn't even that much of a claim.

 

[Marisa]

What if God is made up of matter, even sub atomic particles, etc. Then you're whole definition of Materialism includes God as well, and you're really saying nothing. Materialism as a philosophy is a love of things, possessions, with little or no interest in spirituality or doing what's "right" for everyone, Materialism is inherently more selfish as one puts one's own needs and desires above those of others. The Buddha was very anti Materialist, and by Materialist I mean almost no relation to your wikipedia definition.

I mostly agree with this. I'm turned off by materialism because to me, it talks about someone who is more concerned with accumulating wealth and status than in being a good person. People like Joel Osteen and other mega church pastors are, in my opinion, more interested in exploiting their faith for material gain than in living what they profess to believe.

This of course applies to some who have no faith as well. But then there are those like Bill Gates who profess no particular god belief, amass great material wealth, and set about serving humanity with it. Those people may very well be better at living a god belief than those who proclaim a god belief.

 

[leibowde84]

I'm still waiting for you to list the explanations other than God for the reasons of existence. We know God is one argument. Explain the others to me. Make a believer.

You are again missing the point and are arguing from ignorance. The lack of a current scientific explanation is not evidence for God. That is a leap in logic.

Argument from ignorance (Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorancestands for "lack of evidence to the contrary"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there is insufficient investigation and therefore insufficient information to prove the proposition satisfactorily to be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four,

1. true
2. false
3. unknown between true or false
4. being unknowable (among the first three).[1]

In debates, appeals to ignorance are sometimes used in an attempt to shift the burden of proof. (Argument from ignorance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

My answer to your question would be:

1. We don't know yet
2. We don't know yet
3. We don't know yet
4. It is possible that the Universe is in a constant loop of expansion and retraction. So, it is possible that there never was "nothing" and there have been many big bangs throughout cosmic history.

 

[viole]

I'm still waiting for you to list the explanations other than God for the reasons of existence. We know God is one argument. Explain the others to me. Make a believer.

You make the assumption that there is a reason for existence.

Aren't you aware that you are begging the question?

Ciao

- viole