The Debate of God.

[tumbleweed41]

Think about this: in order to fill a room with light, darkness must first be the case. Were it not so, the room would always be lit. But the fact that when you switch the light off the darkness returns, that tells us that darkness is the default condition in an on/off scenario. You cannot have on without off, just as you cannot have wave without trough. Darkness is the passive condition against which light is manifested.

Matter may not require a vacuum to exist, but it requires space. Otherwise, it would just be an undifferentiated blob without form.

Dark does not physically exist. Without light energy, there is nothing to visibly perceive, thus we call it dark.
Light is measurable, darkness is not.

Heat is measurable, cold is not.

What do you call the absence of electromagnetic energy? What is the so called opposite that must first exist for electromagnetic energy to exist?

 

[godnotgod]

In the early universe, the energy density was so high that material particles could not exist. The universe was filled with light. Whether it could be measured is irrelevant. As the universe expanded the energy density was reduced enough for particles to be stable. Eventually they clumped together to make the stars etc we see now.

What I strenuously deny is your notion that something can exist only in the presence of its opposite. That is simply not true.

I recommend that you look beyond your abstractions to things as they actually are.

They can ONLY exist by virtue of their opposites, since 'opposite' means 'relative', and relative means inseparable. So the moment you speak of good, you are also speaking of evil automatically. You cannot define one pole of a set of relative opposites without including the other. It is virtually impossible. It is like saying that positive exists without negative.

If, as you say, 'the universe was filled with light', what, then, was the universe? And what was the original source of this 'light'? You have the same problem the religionists have in trying to account for the origin of matter.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Semantics and word-play do not equal reality.

 

[godnotgod]

Dark is the absence of light. Light is energy, dark is the absence of that energy.
Just as cold is the absence of heat. Heat is energy, cold is the absence of that energy.

Light does not require dark to exist, nor does matter require a vacuum to exist.

To say that dark is the absence of light is, essentially, to say that it is its relative opposite, simply because you are defining what darkness is via light, rendering them interdependent one upon the other. Now, if you can define darkness without any reference to light, I might consider your claim as valid.

If light is energy, then darkness is entropy, as some have suggested.

Yes, light requires darkness to exist. How can light be defined except in contrast to relative darkness? If all were light, you would be blinded, unable to detect light at all.

 

[godnotgod]

Semantics and word-play do not equal reality.

Ultimately, you are correct, as reality itself is non-dual, and therefore, what we see as relative opposites are actually a single reality, eg, 'lightdark', 'plusminus', 'soundsilence', etc. All sets of relative opposites are concepts only. We only discriminate them as 'this and that' to satisfy the demands of the conceptual mind.

 

[godnotgod]

Dark does not physically exist.

...and so it is the opposite of 'physical', which is 'non-physical'. No problem.

Without light energy, there is nothing to visibly perceive, thus we call it dark.

Again, it is its opposite, the in-visible. Note that you are defining light in terms of its relative opposite, darkness.

Light is measurable, darkness is not.

...being the opposite of measurable, which is the immeasurable.

Heat is measurable, cold is not.

ditto...

So there is this non-physical, invisible, immeasurable darkness, the opposite of the physical, visible, and measurable light.

What do you call the absence of electromagnetic energy? What is the so called opposite that must first exist for electromagnetic energy to exist?

Entropy?

 

[godnotgod]

Now if we take this a step further, in that one pole of any set of opposites cannot exist without the other coming into play, we see something like this:

...in which each polar opposite contains within it the essence of the other.

 

[Thief]

Every time you shift your attention to me instead of answering the question at hand, you tear your rice paper.

You are the one who made the reference to the words of the prophets as being primary, and yet do not seem to understand one of the most important lines in scripture from the lips of Yeshu himself.

"'These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me."
Matthew 15:8

You did proof read this before you posted?
And you did go back to review how you ended up taking this stance?

And now you say it's about me?

 

[Thief]

I am simply going to use this thread as a means to discuss the existence of God with anyone. I am constantly discussing this with people, and feel I should have a main thread to post on.

If anyone wishes to argue that god (or whatever deity you believe in) is true, I have questions ready. Thank you.

It all revolves around a choice.
Substance first?...or Spirit.

If you say substance then spirit is begot of chemistry.
Your spirit fails when your chemistry fails.
Body goes in the box and the box into the ground.
Eternal darkness is physically real.
No form of light follows anyone into the grave.

If your Say Spirit first....then God is creator and all things are of Him.

 

[godnotgod]

It all revolves around a choice.
Substance first?...or Spirit.

If you say substance then spirit is begot of chemistry.
Your spirit fails when your chemistry fails.
Body goes in the box and the box into the ground.
Eternal darkness is physically real.
No form of light follows anyone into the grave.

If your Say Spirit first....then God is creator and all things are of Him.

You are creating a division and conflict between what you think are 'flesh' vs. 'spirit', and it shows your misunderstanding. Flesh and spirit are concepts, and not reality. If you had read your scripture, you would have noticed that 'the Word BECAME flesh', making them one and the same, like dye dissolved in water. We are the Infinite nature itself being temporarily expressed in this human form, just as the sea is temporarily expressing each wave. The wave does not endure, but the water it is made of remains with the sea, and it is never separated from the sea.

The Gnostics believed that the body was like old clothing that was discarded upon death. The Christians believe the flesh is the source of sin, and there is an internal battle going on between the flesh and the spirit. Both of these views show an ignorance of nature, and the source of the problem is a view which places a supernatural power over and above the natural world, when, in reality, the natural world and the world of the miraculous are one and the same. Once this is realized, all imaginary conflicts and/or separations between 'spirit' and 'flesh' are dissolved away. As I have stated previously:

"The universe [ie; the world; the flesh] is, in fact, none other than the Absolute itself as seen through the glass of Time, Space, and Causation"

Form goes into the box. There is no self that does.

 

[Thief]

You are creating a division and conflict between what you think are 'flesh' vs. 'spirit', and it shows your misunderstanding. Flesh and spirit are concepts, and not reality. If you had read your scripture, you would have noticed that 'the Word BECAME flesh', making them one and the same, like dye dissolved in water. We are the Infinite nature itself being temporarily expressed in this human form, just as the sea is temporarily expressing each wave. The wave does not endure, but the water it is made of remains with the sea, and it is never separated from the sea.

Form goes into the box. There is no self that does.

To use the verb.... 'to be'....in any fashion is a statement of existence.

You above post is self-contradicting.

 

[godnotgod]

You did proof read this before you posted?
And you did go back to review how you ended up taking this stance?

And now you say it's about me?

You refuse to address the question:

How does the mind of a child qualify him for entry into Paradise?

 

[godnotgod]

To use the verb.... 'to be'....in any fashion is a statement of existence.

You above post is self-contradicting.

Being is not existence.

Abraham was existence, through time.

Yeshu was being, outside of time.

Being is unborn and deathless.

Existence is birth and death.

'Before Abraham was, I AM'

 

[Looncall]

Ultimately, you are correct, as reality itself is non-dual, and therefore, what we see as relative opposites are actually a single reality, eg, 'lightdark', 'plusminus', 'soundsilence', etc. All sets of relative opposites are concepts only. We only discriminate them as 'this and that' to satisfy the demands of the conceptual mind.

Mere word salad. How amusing.

 

[godnotgod]

Mere word salad. How amusing.

It is science and its dissection of reality that is the Master Chef.

 

[PolyHedral]

...and so it is the opposite of 'physical', which is 'non-physical'. No problem.



Again, it is its opposite, the in-visible. Note that you are defining light in terms of its relative opposite, darkness.



...being the opposite of measurable, which is the immeasurable.



ditto...

So there is this non-physical, invisible, immeasurable darkness, the opposite of the physical, visible, and measurable light.



Entropy?

Reality is defined in terms of positives only. There is only light, energy, heat, etc. Darkness and cold are the absence, not the opposite of those things. If you like, you can discard the concepts entirely; they are mere shorthand.

What is the opposite of mass? How do I produce anti-light?

 

[Thief]

Being is not existence.

Abraham was existence, through time.

Yeshu was being, outside of time.

Being is unborn and deathless.

Existence is birth and death.

'Before Abraham was, I AM'

And when you stand before the mirror....you tell yourself...
What?

And God is not allowed to say...'I AM!'

And you would like to 'think' your line of reason would stand well before Him?

 

[Anatta]

Thief,

I don't know whether you've heard this type of argument before (if you've read Hume or Kant or any Theravadin scholars then you probably have), but here goes:

If omnipotence and a beginningless and endless existence are the attributes of a god, then it would appear than the existence of such a being is not possible.

If we wish for an omnipotent god who created the known universe, then this god must also have created the very concept of existence (the existence/non-existence duality), which we know so well as one of the underlying features of what we call space-time. But if we say that god created spacetime and therefore existence itself, then what do we mean when we say that this god "always existed", or that he/she existed before the universe was created?

The suggestion that something existed before the dawn of existence itself is nonsense, unless we allow for some other reality, some "external" universe with its own space-time, where god existed before the creation of our universe, where the creation of our universe was initiated, and where existence/nonexistence were already possibilities.

But if we propose this as a solution, we strip god of omnipotence, as we place him under the constraints of this other universe and its conditions. We are also avoiding the problem, because if god existed before he created our "bubble" of logical and physical laws, then he did it within the confines and rules of some other, larger "bubble" with it's own laws, which must exist beyond the outer edge of our bubble. In this way we can keep trying to displace god to the "outer universe", and run into the same problem every time: we simply subject god to the rules of another, more distant and external location.

In this way, by insisting on god's divine attributes, we deny him existence. And if we insist that he exists, we are forced to deny his "godliness". In this way, logic makes the existence of a god impossible.

 

[Thief]

Thief,

I don't know whether you've heard this type of argument before (if you've read Hume or Kant or any Theravadin scholars then you probably have), but here goes:

If omnipotence and a beginningless and endless existence are the attributes of a god, then it would appear than the existence of such a being is not possible.

If we wish for an omnipotent god who created the known universe, then this god must also have created the very concept of existence (the existence/non-existence duality), which we know so well as one of the underlying features of what we call space-time. But if we say that god created spacetime and therefore existence itself, then what do we mean when we say that this god "always existed", or that he/she existed before the universe was created?

The suggestion that something existed before the dawn of existence itself is nonsense, unless we allow for some other reality, some "external" universe with its own space-time, where god existed before the creation of our universe, where the creation of our universe was initiated, and where existence/nonexistence were already possibilities.

But if we propose this as a solution, we strip god of omnipotence, as we place him under the constraints of this other universe and its conditions. We are also avoiding the problem, because if god existed before he created our "bubble" of logical and physical laws, then he did it within the confines and rules of some other, larger "bubble" with it's own laws, which must exist beyond the outer edge of our bubble. In this way we can keep trying to displace god to the "outer universe", and run into the same problem every time: we simply subject god to the rules of another, more distant and external location.

In this way, by insisting on god's divine attributes, we deny him existence. And if we insist that he exists, we are forced to deny his "godliness". In this way, logic makes the existence of a god impossible.

The one item that has a problem is to say 'I AM!'
Prior to the singularity...void.
Kinda hard to say 'I AM' when there is no 'evidence'.

Constraint of God's ability?....only by His own hand.
He created a universe (one word) and in so doing created the 'laws' by which it operates.
For this universe to remain 'as it is'....He must abide....'as He made it'.

Consider stepping over a high ledge to see if the angels will catch you.
Deny the laws of this world for your sake?

Time does not exist btw.
It is no more than a quotient on a blackboard.
It is not a force...nor a substance.

 

[godnotgod]

Reality is defined in terms of positives only. There is only light, energy, heat, etc. Darkness and cold are the absence, not the opposite of those things. If you like, you can discard the concepts entirely; they are mere shorthand.

What is the opposite of mass? How do I produce anti-light?

This is hilarious! Don't you see? The precise moment you say 'positive', you AUTOMATICALLY imply 'negative'. The former is active, the later passive. You are thinking of 'negative' as a correlating 'something' to that which is 'positive', when it is the non-existence of something. Now, if you were to further state that light is not even a positive, but simply is a reality with no corresponding opposite, then you are making light an Absolute.

In the case of darkness, which some are saying is the ABSENCE of light and not its opposite, the absence of something of a positive manifestation IS its opposite, since the word 'negative' means exactly that:


neg·a·tive   (from Latin negātīvus; denying

1: expressing or containing negation;

2: characterized by the absence of distinguishing or marked qualities or features; lacking positive attributes
(opposed to positive): a dull, lifeless, negative character.
*****

ne·ga·tion   

1: something that is without existence; nonentity.

2: the absence or opposite of something that is actual, positive, or affirmative: Darkness is the negation of light.

dictionary.com
*****

Existence can ONLY be understood in terms of the negation of existence, which we call 'non-existence', which is the absence of existence.

re: mass: is simply the amount of solids, or matter in question, but matter cannot exist without space. So solid and space are relative opposites.

re: anti-light: does'nt apply, as that would be the same light existing in different moments in time, as in 'anti-matter', but darkness, the opposite of light, would still apply.