We don't need to take materialist atheism as a whole seriously.

[It Aint Necessarily So]

And there are agnostic atheists just as there are agnostic theists. Atheism, itself, is the theistic counter-assertion that if no proof of gods exists, then no gods exist. Most atheists are too willfully ignorant to recognize that they are posing this counter-position

We still have no need for your gods.

 

[Corvus]

No, I'm admitting that atheists are all savage, mass-murderers. I mean, without god, everyone reverts to a psychopathic state. Just look at that villain Stephen Hawking. He'd run over every child in the world with his wheelchair if he could.

He needs locking up the evil child hating *******. Still I am an atheist as well so I had better hand myself over to the authorities before I embark on an orgy of mayhem and sadistic violence.

 

[PureX]

We still have no need for your gods.

Another example of how ego closes the mind. It's the fatal flaw of atheism.

 

[Thief]

We still have no need for your gods.

until your last breath and the grave is immediately at hand....

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

we know the universe had a beginning
the motion we observe proves it

The motion only proves an outward trajectory from a fairly common place of origin for much of the observable mass that surrounds us. It says nothing to whether or not this was the first such event, nor can we really know for certain what started the mass on that trajectory. Nor can we, personally, even know how much of the observable mass truly adheres to some "trajectory" we are only ever informed of, and how much other mass has never even been examined or can't be due to current technological limitations. Which is why it is all only a guess. A guess at something that happened BILLIONS of years ago. It is actually fairly dumb to pretend you have any idea what happened.

the serious question is ......which came first?
Spirit?
or substance

How is this a serous question? Substance? All around us. We get to interact with it, we are made of it, it is literally anything and everything we're able to grasp using our bodily senses. Spirit? Does it even exist? Ever interacted with it? Maybe you would say you have, but I never have. What is it made of, if not "substance?" If it is not substance... then I would argue that it is insubstantial... and, indeed, unsubstantiated. Nor can it be substantiated. You can't prove to me it is there. Substance however... is a "duh" sort of idea. Here I am, typing on a keyboard made of substance. I wouldn't be able to eat lunch this afternoon were it not for the substance of my mouth and digestive tract, and also the various substances that will go into the sandwich I put together, or the soup I heat up. Spirit, however, doesn't make such marks on our daily lives - and has never made a mark in my life whatsoever (which, I might add, is the same story for A LOT of people). A more serious question is "Who gives a crap about 'spirit'?"

God is the Cause
the universe is the effect

Also unsubstantiated, and incapable of being substantiated.

 

[Thief]

The motion only proves an outward trajectory from a fairly common place of origin for much of the observable mass that surrounds us. It says nothing to whether or not this was the first such event, nor can we really know for certain what started the mass on that trajectory. Nor can we, personally, even know how much of the observable mass truly adheres to some "trajectory" we are only ever informed of, and how much other mass has never even been examined or can't be due to current technological limitations. Which is why it is all only a guess. A guess at something that happened BILLIONS of years ago. It is actually fairly dumb to pretend you have any idea what happened.


How is this a serous question? Substance? All around us. We get to interact with it, we are made of it, it is literally anything and everything we're able to grasp using our bodily senses. Spirit? Does it even exist? Ever interacted with it? Maybe you would say you have, but I never have. What is it made of, if not "substance?" If it is not substance... then I would argue that it is insubstantial... and, indeed, unsubstantiated. Nor can it be substantiated. You can't prove to me it is there. Substance however... is a "duh" sort of idea. Here I am, typing on a keyboard made of substance. I wouldn't be able to eat lunch this afternoon were it not for the substance of my mouth and digestive tract, and also the various substances that will go into the sandwich I put together, or the soup I heat up. Spirit, however, doesn't make such marks on our daily lives - and has never made a mark in my life whatsoever (which, I might add, is the same story for A LOT of people). A more serious question is "Who gives a crap about 'spirit'?"


Also unsubstantiated, and incapable of being substantiated.

it's one or the other.....
substance can take off under it's own volition.......
or Something set it off

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

it's one or the other.....
substance can take off under it's own volition.......
or Something set it off

You're just spouting what you think is obvious, and what you think sounds good. "Substance" does a whole lot of things all by itself... all the time. Crystals grow - a relatively slow endeavor... but still particles in motion, still "taking off" at some scale, and all without any intervention... in other words, matter acting/moving "under its own volition." Chemical reactions are constantly happening when the elements in less stable compounds meet their more stable counterparts and jump ship/swap to form new compounds - this releases or consumes energy, and puts the particles involved into a tizzy of movement - again, no guiding hand necessary. The property of gravity in the universe also causes untold amounts of mass to be in constant motion. Stars putting such pressure on their contents that it super-heats and causes chain fusion reactions that not only move the matter all over the place, but also transform basic elements into other elements. And yes, gravity "set off" the motion in this case, but that's possibly the main force at work in the culmination science currently terms "the big bang", provided that it actually happened. Gravity is there, always. Your body is even in a gravitational relationship with all the stars so many light years away. Looking for an uncaused cause? There's one that you can actually see at work throughout the entire universe.

And finally... life. Human beings and the other living things of this world. All made up of substance... and all of them (even the plants) growing and moving on their own. You would posit "spirit" as the reason for such movement and growth. But once again... any proof? There's certainly proof of the substance of such things. The spirit? Not so much.

 

[1137]

1137

I take it from your silence that you concur with my #40.

I'd nonetheless be grateful if you could tell me what objective test ─

will tell us whether any entity or phenomenon is a god or not,​

will distinguish the 'immaterial' from the imaginary, and​

will distinguish the 'immaterial' from the non-existent.​

Thanks

Sorry I missed your post. Honestly the existence of immaterial things differentiates it from non existence, a rather simple solution.

 

[blü 2]

1137

Unfortunately you propose a subjective test.

That's not useful, I'm afraid.

We need objective tests, since the claim is that we're dealing with real things, that is, things that have objective existence.

Do you have such tests?

 

[Thief]

You're just spouting what you think is obvious, and what you think sounds good. "Substance" does a whole lot of things all by itself... all the time. Crystals grow - a relatively slow endeavor... but still particles in motion, still "taking off" at some scale, and all without any intervention... in other words, matter acting/moving "under its own volition." Chemical reactions are constantly happening when the elements in less stable compounds meet their more stable counterparts and jump ship/swap to form new compounds - this releases or consumes energy, and puts the particles involved into a tizzy of movement - again, no guiding hand necessary. The property of gravity in the universe also causes untold amounts of mass to be in constant motion. Stars putting such pressure on their contents that it super-heats and causes chain fusion reactions that not only move the matter all over the place, but also transform basic elements into other elements. And yes, gravity "set off" the motion in this case, but that's possibly the main force at work in the culmination science currently terms "the big bang", provided that it actually happened. Gravity is there, always. Your body is even in a gravitational relationship with all the stars so many light years away. Looking for an uncaused cause? There's one that you can actually see at work throughout the entire universe.

And finally... life. Human beings and the other living things of this world. All made up of substance... and all of them (even the plants) growing and moving on their own. You would posit "spirit" as the reason for such movement and growth. But once again... any proof? There's certainly proof of the substance of such things. The spirit? Not so much.

all movement.....growth included.....
has been set into motion

back to the beginning
the first motion
the birth of reality

something other than substance .....caused it

 

[Thief]

1137

Unfortunately you propose a subjective test.

That's not useful, I'm afraid.

We need objective tests, since the claim is that we're dealing with real things, that is, things that have objective existence.

Do you have such tests?

i don't think you can find a suitable petri dish

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

all movement.....growth included.....
has been set into motion

back to the beginning
the first motion
the birth of reality

something other than substance .....caused it

Not necessarily. There never had to be a beginning. Beginnings are a contrivance of man - likely a psychological need based on the fact that we are trapped between our own beginning and ending - and so foist that same set of requirements onto all ideas we contemplate. I find it rather juvenile, if I am being honest.

 

[Valjean]

Another example of how ego closes the mind. It's the fatal flaw of atheism.

Ego? It's based on formal logic -- mathematics. No ego.

until your last breath and the grave is immediately at hand....

No atheists in foxholes, eh?

You would posit "spirit" as the reason for such movement and growth. But once again... any proof? There's certainly proof of the substance of such things. The spirit? Not so much.

"Spirit," like aether or phlogiston, strikes me as a facile convenience to bolster a baseless proposal.

 

[Thief]

No atheists in foxholes, eh?.

foxhole?......as in six feet down?

probably

and likely

 

[Thief]

Not necessarily. There never had to be a beginning. Beginnings are a contrivance of man - likely a psychological need based on the fact that we are trapped between our own beginning and ending - and so foist that same set of requirements onto all ideas we contemplate. I find it rather juvenile, if I am being honest.

so you stand opposed to the notion of a primordial singularity?

and prefer a huge number of them?

and would deny.....one of them had to be first

 

[blü 2]

Thief

i don't think you can find a suitable petri dish​

Alas, the absence of such tests leaves rather a large hole in things once the claim is made that god is real. (If that's not the claim, then no problem, of course.)

 

[Valjean]

all movement.....growth included.....
has been set into motion

back to the beginning
the first motion
the birth of reality

something other than substance .....caused it

Poetic speculation

i don't think you can find a suitable petri dish

So your proposal must remain hopeful speculation, at best.

 

[Valjean]

so you stand opposed to the notion of a primordial singularity?

and prefer a huge number of them?

and would deny.....one of them had to be first

You still presuppose a "beginning," in the commonly accepted, subjective sense. You're trying to squeeze a square Reality into the round hole of human sensory experience.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

so you stand opposed to the notion of a primordial singularity?

and prefer a huge number of them?

and would deny.....one of them had to be first

I just try not to get caught up in pretending I know things that I don't. I don't always succeed (obviously), but to definitively state that the universe's existence necessitates that it had "a beginning" seems ludicrous. And yes, I personally prefer the idea of a universe based on revolution/cycles. Does that mean I know that that is the way the universe "works?" Of course not. I have no basis upon which to claim that I know. I can't witness its beginnings or non-beginnings, I can't do anything but contemplate the possibilities and come to rest on one that I think is the best fit... and neither can you. Maybe the universe had some defining moment where you could claim that it "began" - but I doubt it looked much like any of us have ever thought. Why would it?

 

[Thief]

I just try not to get caught up in pretending I know things that I don't. I don't always succeed (obviously), but to definitively state that the universe's existence necessitates that it had "a beginning" seems ludicrous. And yes, I personally prefer the idea of a universe based on revolution/cycles. Does that mean I know that that is the way the universe "works?" Of course not. I have no basis upon which to claim that I know. I can't witness its beginnings or non-beginnings, I can't do anything but contemplate the possibilities and come to rest on one that I think is the best fit... and neither can you.

a good line of reason is better than.....'I don't know'