One Eyed Jack
New member
I believe I do get that. Now do you have a response that pertains in any way to what I just posted?
Last edited:
Battle Royale VII Specific discussion thread
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
- Status
I believe I do get that. Now do you have a response that pertains in any way to what I just posted?
attention
New member
Mr One Eyed Jack:
Your mistake is to assume that - since it is an obvious necessity for you to state that you had some sort of begin - that that would be or could be a necessity for the world in total.
Like I already explained anything that has a begin and has an end, has a begin in something other then itself and has an end forming it also into something other then itself.
There is and never has been or never will be a begin from or an end in nothing.
Do you get that?
Your mistake is to assume that - since it is an obvious necessity for you to state that you had some sort of begin - that that would be or could be a necessity for the world in total.
Like I already explained anything that has a begin and has an end, has a begin in something other then itself and has an end forming it also into something other then itself.
There is and never has been or never will be a begin from or an end in nothing.
Do you get that?
One Eyed Jack
New member
I'll take that as a 'no' in response to the question I just asked you.
attention
New member
Me One Eyed Jack:
Physical law are not entities that can be made from something.
They are the way in which the world itself in the objective sense correlates and interacts with itself.
The physical laws we have stated are conformant to what we observe what happens in the world.
You state something that contradicts with itself, since you state that a 'great nothing' is a possibility or has a reality. But nothing is only a term we use for the fact that we describe a situation in which there is not anything that has existence.
It is obvious that non-existence is not existence.
Your manipulating of words, make 'nothing' into 'something' ain't gonna help you out.
A nothing is only nothing. Not the source or cause of any something.
Physical law are not entities that can be made from something.
They are the way in which the world itself in the objective sense correlates and interacts with itself.
The physical laws we have stated are conformant to what we observe what happens in the world.
You state something that contradicts with itself, since you state that a 'great nothing' is a possibility or has a reality. But nothing is only a term we use for the fact that we describe a situation in which there is not anything that has existence.
It is obvious that non-existence is not existence.
Your manipulating of words, make 'nothing' into 'something' ain't gonna help you out.
A nothing is only nothing. Not the source or cause of any something.
Last edited:
One Eyed Jack
New member
And they aren't something that can exist in nothing, which was my whole point.
I'm not the one who is trying to do that.
I never said it was.
attention
New member
Mr One Eyed Jack:
ALRIGHT!
It seems we do agree then on this
A nothing does not exist. And it can not become a something. A nothing is not something, it does not have existence. There are no physcis laws in nothing, because physics laws only exist if there exists something.
A nothing is only nothing.
So something has existed always, since a begin in nothing or an end in nothing is not conceibvable.
That 'something' we happen to observe and reflect in our minds.
That is what we call the objective material world.
The objective material world is that what exists apart, independend and outside of our consciousness.
Apart from the objective material world itself , we have our reflections of that world in our minds.
The mind is a world on itself. But ultimately it has it's orgin in the material world, cause it could not have started in nothing.
Neither there could have been a mind, that would exist in a nothing, that is : it could not exists without there being an objective material world.
Do we so far agree?
ALRIGHT!
It seems we do agree then on this
A nothing does not exist. And it can not become a something. A nothing is not something, it does not have existence. There are no physcis laws in nothing, because physics laws only exist if there exists something.
A nothing is only nothing.
So something has existed always, since a begin in nothing or an end in nothing is not conceibvable.
That 'something' we happen to observe and reflect in our minds.
That is what we call the objective material world.
The objective material world is that what exists apart, independend and outside of our consciousness.
Apart from the objective material world itself , we have our reflections of that world in our minds.
The mind is a world on itself. But ultimately it has it's orgin in the material world, cause it could not have started in nothing.
Neither there could have been a mind, that would exist in a nothing, that is : it could not exists without there being an objective material world.
Do we so far agree?
attention
New member
CapnFungi:
You drop in at an arbitrary point, we already were past that point, and you make a totally ARBITRARY and UNNECESSARY assumption, based on nothing.
I STARTED my reasoning about the weird assumption about how and if it could have been the case that ANYTHING (anything at all) known to exists or theoretically COULD exist, would NOT exist.
To express this more clearly, any entity X which we define or assume or know that has existence, we ASSUME that it would not exist.
And with ANY existing entity we mean ANYTHING. You state that it is theoretically possible for some Deity to exist? Fine with me.
We just assume that also THAT like everything else, has no existence.
Just in our ASSUMPTION, that is, because we know of course, there is a world in the first place.
Now the question is: Is that or can that be a realit?
What would there be?
Nothing
What would have happened?
Nothing
So that could not be a reality. Since it would not explain there is a world.
Conclusion:
Whatever there exists or not exists, it has existed in some or other form always.
And for you deity, I am affraid, it has no role in this. I am not in any way assuming anything about this deity, wether it CAN or CAN NOT exist is of no conscequence to the reasoning itself.
The only thing I show that there is no necessity in assuming that a deity would need to exist, the only thing we need to assume is that there must have always been an objective existing world, in whatever form or constitution.
What you understand as a Deity, as the essential and primary thing about the world, is what I understand as the objective existence of the world itself.
And I am not anywhere making any arbitrary assumptions about the state of existence in whatever physical form or substance or constitution.
I just assume that whatever is there, exists in an objective way.
If for you that SAME idea is better understood or know as this Deity, that is fine with me. All I can say that IF that Deity exists objectively, that that also is something that exists. And if in our assumption we assume that there would not exist anything, neither that deity or anything else that exist, would exist.
But as we have seen - with or without a real and objective existing deity - a nothing can not be something and can not cause or form or shape the world.
So whatever is there objectively, it must have been there in some or other form always.
I am not biased or presupposing anything anout the existence of anything.
I am just pondering the question of what is there that objectively exists.
You drop in at an arbitrary point, we already were past that point, and you make a totally ARBITRARY and UNNECESSARY assumption, based on nothing.
I STARTED my reasoning about the weird assumption about how and if it could have been the case that ANYTHING (anything at all) known to exists or theoretically COULD exist, would NOT exist.
To express this more clearly, any entity X which we define or assume or know that has existence, we ASSUME that it would not exist.
And with ANY existing entity we mean ANYTHING. You state that it is theoretically possible for some Deity to exist? Fine with me.
We just assume that also THAT like everything else, has no existence.
Just in our ASSUMPTION, that is, because we know of course, there is a world in the first place.
Now the question is: Is that or can that be a realit?
What would there be?
Nothing
What would have happened?
Nothing
So that could not be a reality. Since it would not explain there is a world.
Conclusion:
Whatever there exists or not exists, it has existed in some or other form always.
And for you deity, I am affraid, it has no role in this. I am not in any way assuming anything about this deity, wether it CAN or CAN NOT exist is of no conscequence to the reasoning itself.
The only thing I show that there is no necessity in assuming that a deity would need to exist, the only thing we need to assume is that there must have always been an objective existing world, in whatever form or constitution.
What you understand as a Deity, as the essential and primary thing about the world, is what I understand as the objective existence of the world itself.
And I am not anywhere making any arbitrary assumptions about the state of existence in whatever physical form or substance or constitution.
I just assume that whatever is there, exists in an objective way.
If for you that SAME idea is better understood or know as this Deity, that is fine with me. All I can say that IF that Deity exists objectively, that that also is something that exists. And if in our assumption we assume that there would not exist anything, neither that deity or anything else that exist, would exist.
But as we have seen - with or without a real and objective existing deity - a nothing can not be something and can not cause or form or shape the world.
So whatever is there objectively, it must have been there in some or other form always.
I am not biased or presupposing anything anout the existence of anything.
I am just pondering the question of what is there that objectively exists.
Last edited:
One Eyed Jack
New member
Originally posted by attention
Mr One Eyed Jack:
ALRIGHT!
It seems we do agree then on this
To an extent. You believe the physical universe is all there is. I don't.
In a physical universe, this is correct.
The mind is a component of our soul, which doesn't have a physical existence, yet it exists -- just not in a physical sense.
No. See above.
attention
New member
No. Where did I say that.
I stated also something to the contrary in the post I made before this.
I stated FIRST and in PRIMARY instance there is an OBJECTIVE MATERIAL world.
Material and objective existence is about what realy exists. You try to reduce that to physical matter, energy and that sort of things, but that is not what I am stating. I am not stating that the world of electons, atoms, and physical stuff is everything there is.
We happen to live in a world wich contains many items. Let us for instance take some existing entity: a school institution.
Does that have objectivce existence? Yes, of course.
It is therefore a material and objective entity.
But does a school institution exists in the form of physical matter only? Clearly not. And we are not denying the fact that a school building, the contents of class rooms, the stuyd material, and the physical persons (teachers, staff, students) are made of physical matter.
But the school institution is not to be understood in terms of physical matter only. Because we can take any person in or out of the school institution, this won't effect the existence of the school institution. Neither if the school building would be burnt down.
The school institution is an organisation form, which consists of a board, staff, teachers, students, classprograms, study courses, study materials, and physical buildings.
All that would not be explainable in terms of physical matter, we would be totally missing the point then.
APART from the material objective world, there is the world of consciousness. This is a world on itself.
But this world of the mind and consciosness does not exist on itself. Ultimately it has it's origin in the OBJECTIVE MATERIAL world.
Consciousness can only exist, if there is an objective material world in the first place.
That is what I have stated.
Yes and no, which I will try to explain. I of course agree with you that our thoughts and emotions are not made out of "atoms" or "electrons", and not even "neurons" or "synapsis" etc.
And to use an anology of computers: neither do programs exist in the form of chips or electronic circuits and that sort of things. Programs exist in the form of instructions, coded in some higher level computer language.
There is of course a correspondence between reflection on and of the world in our mind, and the objective material world itself.
Most of our thoughts and emotions are based on what we see and experience in the material world, because we are sensuous beings, that can (in part) reflect the material world.
When we observe the brain in closer examination we can even see the activities of thought processes in our brain. Dependend on the kind of acticity we perform mentally, this shows up as energetic activity in some or other locations of the brain.
Whatever we can state about the mind itself, which in itself is also something which needs to be studied in greater detail, I think it is stateable that the world of consciouss, while it is a world on itself, on the other hand has not a truly independend existence. Consciousness just can not exist in and for itself. We need always to presuppose an objective material world already exists.
Consciousness is not the primary thing the world contains. It's origin must somehow be based on the objective material world.
That does not mean that we exactly know HOW the material world itself developed into a consciouss life form, since there might be still many unknown factors.
The only thing we CAN and DO state is that the formation and development must be based on the objective material world.
And a last remark, I am not denying any possibilities for things which can exist in the mind or a mindly form. Wether that are things that reflect on something real (that is: based on the objective material world) or not.
Just that I do not assume that a mindly, consciouss form can form the basic ingredient of the world. The objective world must be based on the objective existence of a material reality.
All kinds of organisation forms of matter, wether that be a school institution, the human society, or our consciosness, are realy existing material entities, which exist objectively, not just subjectively.
Ultimately they are based on material things, and can't exist without them (what would a school institution be, without the teachers, less programs, students, physical buildings, etc?)
One Eyed Jack
New member
All right, this conversation has drifted far enough off the topic of this thread. Let's not carry it any further.
attention
New member
One Eyed Jack:
You can stop the discussion if you think that would be necessary to do so if it has gone off-course. You are the moderator here, not me, so obviously, you can interfere with the discussion. But I think the discussion was in itself good and to the point, and not off-topic. We were making actually some progress, I think. Almost reaching a conclusion.
You can stop the discussion if you think that would be necessary to do so if it has gone off-course. You are the moderator here, not me, so obviously, you can interfere with the discussion. But I think the discussion was in itself good and to the point, and not off-topic. We were making actually some progress, I think. Almost reaching a conclusion.
attention
New member
Bob Enyard's 9-th post
Bob Enyard's 9-th post
Bob Enyard's 9-th post
It's obvious from almost all of Bob's post that he does not understand what both materialists, science and atheists states.
He must be dwelled to much in his incredible belief system, that contrary to science has not offered any explenation for anything in a scientific way, that he can not even trutfully represent here to us, what materialism, science or atheism actually state or not state.
He therefore goes on misrepresenting the ideas of materialism, science and atheism, and then 'debunks' his own misrepresentations and creations of his own imagination.
And because he proofs to us again and again that his misrepresentations and creations of his own imagination DO NOT WORK and can NOT account for the fact and the way in which the actual and objective material reality exists, he does NOT offer any proof that materialism, science or atheism is incorrect, but that his Deity, his creation of imagination does not offer ANY explenation.
Let us examine some of the statements of beliefs he presents to us.
Bob beliefs the following:
1. All of the material causes, can only be leveled down to the level of atoms and electrons.
It is like a person that walks in a forest, and can not see the forest through the trees.
But:
Materialism has a far more richer understanding of matter then this misrepresentation of Mr Bob Enyard comes up with. From all the arguments I have ever read that favours the position of theists and creationists, the foremost strategy they use (wether willingly or unwillingly) is to misrepresent a scientific idea or explenation, and then proof that that can't be the case.
They claim then:
See! Science can not explain fact X, Y or Z, since explenation A, B or C can not possible provide an explenation. So a scientific explenation is wrong, therefore the theistic explenation must be the truth.
In reality though, they did not proof that materialism, science or atheism is wrong, they only proof that their own misconceptions about materialism, science or atheism are wrong.
First of what is matter in the way materialism understands it?
Matter as a concept of thought and abstract category, is that what exists outside of one's own consciousness, is independend and apart of it. Matter is abstract in the sense that it does not denote a specific substance, but denotes a category of substances and objective things. Matter only exists in it's concrete manifestations. Like electrons, stars, humans, a state, an army, a factory, etc.
So for example a school institution. Is that something that belongs to the objective material reality?
For sure it does! I went to such a school institution. Perhaps Mr Bob Enyard and his followers also should someday visit such an institution where one can learn the real explenations that science gives, and not the misrepresentations we are offered here.
How are we going to describe a school institution? Where do we start? Are we gonna investigate the atoms the floor of the school building is made of, and with that hoping that we might - if we have investigated them all - have achieved any knowledge about a school institution?
Of course not! Only a fool would proceed that way. What matters to the objective reality of a school institution are not the physical components of a school building, neither as that of school books, or teachers, but what matters are their organisational components, and the relations between them.
So a school institution has a board of directors, guiding the school. It has a staff, that looks after the belongings of the school. It has teachers that do the teaching. It has study courses and study materials. It has classes with students. It has a school building and class rooms. That is what describes in the most brief terms what a school institution is about.
2. Any shortcoming in scientific explenations, in the sense that our scientific knowledge has not and never will have absolute knowledge about all of reality, makes his belief in a Deity more credible.
The whole approach Mr Bob Enyard makes towards science, is that of a pre-bias from his own belief, which claims that it know the absolute truth even before humankind was investigation all of the knowledge we have aquired in so many fields since that time.
His only approach is that either science knows the Absolute Eternal Truth or science is not worth anything at all.
One of the themes of his 9-th post was the impossibility of the natural development of DNA from previously existing materials.
At the basis of his ascertion was the statement that science had not found the actual chemical development mechanism for forming DNA or even the first protein. Based on and despite that fact, Mr Bob Enyard then makes us belief, that although there is NO known mechanism for forming DNA or any of it's necessary proteins, he can nevertheless conceive of that, and calculate the probability of the forming of the first protein..... based on his own imagined mechanism. And even when he extends that mechanism to the whole (observable) universe, and using the most favourite probability calculus, he proved to us that his imagined mechanism for forming the first protein DOES NOT WORK and could not even in a trillion years have formed even the first protein!
Congratulations, Mr Bob Enyard. You just PROVED to us that your Deity, the creation of your imagination does not work!
The actual mechanism based on the objective material world, nature and the forces of nature, which formed proteins and DNA from previous existing stuff however DID WORK!
Proof:
DNA and proteins DO EXIST!
The fact that his mechanism (unlike that of nature which DID produce DNA and proteins) does not work, is because the actual known DNA neither works the way he imagines it to work.
When a DNA copies itself when a cell splits, there are not the mechanisms of mere absurd chance at work. If that would be the case, there would not be a single DNA that could ever re-produce itself.
Two questions to Mr Bob Enyard and other believers.
Mr Bob Enyard. I apologize for being so nasty not to believe in your creations of mere imagination. But a hard and solid fact of life known to me and many others, is that the idea of a Deity at work, that could account for every possible feature we may find in the universe, does not have any credibility.
Any form of perceptions of reality in the most basic sense, starts with the distinction between one's own mind, and the objective material world. At the basis of this, we simply have to ask ourselves: which of these (my consciousness versus the objective material world) existed in primary instance?
It is a very simple and most basic question one can ask. It is so utterly stupidly simple, that perhaps a few people look over it, and don't see the relevance of it.
We have to acknowledge namely the fact that it is simply inconceivable that my (or anyone's consciousness) could form the basic ingredient or primary entity of the existing material world in total. This simply because the fact that if that were the case, it would mean that BEFORE the actual material and objective reality existed, my existence would have been that of a single, unique and very lonely existence form. Since if I (my consciouss form, or that of any consciouss being) would be the primary thing of which the world would be dependend, this would mean I would not have any object that would exist outside of me. For me, no objective reality would exist. And not also that, but in something else - a third object - neither I would be an object, since no object outside of me would exist. So the possibility for any objective relations, that could constitute an objective world, would not be present. It would therefore mean that my existence would not be objectively based. In other words: I would not exist.
Question 1:
How hard is it for you - or any believer - to conceive of such a simple and irrifutable truth?
The answer Materialism give to this basic question of Philosphy is this: the objective material reality which we can perceive of directly through our sensory perceptions, and indirectly through the investigations of science, is a material reality that exists independend of anything else.
The only answer to all your questions of origin of the physical universe, life and consciousness, is the fact that there is:
- No account for the start of all that from a previous existing consciouss being
- No account for that starting from nothing.
The first account, we already explained above. The second account is the utterly simple truth that a begin in or from nothing is no begin nor end. Since nothing is not a begin nor end. Nothing is only nothing.
Which means to account for the fact that we happen to witness the fact that an objective material world DOES exist, must mean that it has existed always. That is the material objective reality, has not have a begin, since it could only begin in or from nothing, which is not a begin. Neither can the material objective reality ever end, cause the only end we could think of, would be in nothing. But nothing is not an end either. Nothing is only nothing.
This fact - which is the fact of the eternal existence of the objective material world in total - at first sight contradicts our experience we have of the world. Everywhere we look and everything we observe, we will always conceive of any material objective existing thing of having a definite begin and end.
This happens to be true for stars, for planets, for all living things and for humans too of course, and every material existence form as finite part of the whole.
But unlike the objective material world in total, these things all denote finite material forms, and only a part of the world.
All begin and all end we know of, are not conceived of a begin or end in/to nothing, but always denote the fact that previous existing things transform and shape a new thing, which then begins to exist, and end in transforming into other things.
For instance: the begin of a star is where a contracting cloud of gaseous material in the universe, reaches a state in which the amount of matter, density and temperature reach a certain condition that makes it possible to ignite thermo-nuclear processes. That transformation denotes the begin of a star.
The end of a star denotes the fact that almost all it's fuels have been used up in the thermo-nuclear reactions, and the star swells up to novae or super-nivae propertions and burns up rapidly the remaing fuel, and the explodes it's outer cores, and erupting large quantities of stellar material into space. The remaining part of the star then contracts to - depending on the mass- either a brown or white dwarf, a neutron star or black hole.
This thus means that any begin and any end is a begin from a previous something(s) and an end into a posterior something(s).
The question of origin thus is not leading in any way to magic, creation, deities, the supernatural, the Holy Spirit or God.
Anyone with a fair deal of consciousness and self-consciousness knows that fact. It would be time for the believers to also start looking at reality from a realistic perspective and self-consciouss persective, and drop the ancient belief system of "supernatural" causes and omniscient beings, drop the reliquis of ancient consciousness, and step into the reality of the world of today.
Question 2:
How hard is it for you - or any believer - to conceive of such a simple and irrifutable truth?
Bob Enyard's 9-th post
Bob Enyard's 9-th post
It's obvious from almost all of Bob's post that he does not understand what both materialists, science and atheists states.
He must be dwelled to much in his incredible belief system, that contrary to science has not offered any explenation for anything in a scientific way, that he can not even trutfully represent here to us, what materialism, science or atheism actually state or not state.
He therefore goes on misrepresenting the ideas of materialism, science and atheism, and then 'debunks' his own misrepresentations and creations of his own imagination.
And because he proofs to us again and again that his misrepresentations and creations of his own imagination DO NOT WORK and can NOT account for the fact and the way in which the actual and objective material reality exists, he does NOT offer any proof that materialism, science or atheism is incorrect, but that his Deity, his creation of imagination does not offer ANY explenation.
Let us examine some of the statements of beliefs he presents to us.
Bob beliefs the following:
1. All of the material causes, can only be leveled down to the level of atoms and electrons.
It is like a person that walks in a forest, and can not see the forest through the trees.
But:
Materialism has a far more richer understanding of matter then this misrepresentation of Mr Bob Enyard comes up with. From all the arguments I have ever read that favours the position of theists and creationists, the foremost strategy they use (wether willingly or unwillingly) is to misrepresent a scientific idea or explenation, and then proof that that can't be the case.
They claim then:
See! Science can not explain fact X, Y or Z, since explenation A, B or C can not possible provide an explenation. So a scientific explenation is wrong, therefore the theistic explenation must be the truth.
In reality though, they did not proof that materialism, science or atheism is wrong, they only proof that their own misconceptions about materialism, science or atheism are wrong.
First of what is matter in the way materialism understands it?
Matter as a concept of thought and abstract category, is that what exists outside of one's own consciousness, is independend and apart of it. Matter is abstract in the sense that it does not denote a specific substance, but denotes a category of substances and objective things. Matter only exists in it's concrete manifestations. Like electrons, stars, humans, a state, an army, a factory, etc.
So for example a school institution. Is that something that belongs to the objective material reality?
For sure it does! I went to such a school institution. Perhaps Mr Bob Enyard and his followers also should someday visit such an institution where one can learn the real explenations that science gives, and not the misrepresentations we are offered here.
How are we going to describe a school institution? Where do we start? Are we gonna investigate the atoms the floor of the school building is made of, and with that hoping that we might - if we have investigated them all - have achieved any knowledge about a school institution?
Of course not! Only a fool would proceed that way. What matters to the objective reality of a school institution are not the physical components of a school building, neither as that of school books, or teachers, but what matters are their organisational components, and the relations between them.
So a school institution has a board of directors, guiding the school. It has a staff, that looks after the belongings of the school. It has teachers that do the teaching. It has study courses and study materials. It has classes with students. It has a school building and class rooms. That is what describes in the most brief terms what a school institution is about.
2. Any shortcoming in scientific explenations, in the sense that our scientific knowledge has not and never will have absolute knowledge about all of reality, makes his belief in a Deity more credible.
The whole approach Mr Bob Enyard makes towards science, is that of a pre-bias from his own belief, which claims that it know the absolute truth even before humankind was investigation all of the knowledge we have aquired in so many fields since that time.
His only approach is that either science knows the Absolute Eternal Truth or science is not worth anything at all.
One of the themes of his 9-th post was the impossibility of the natural development of DNA from previously existing materials.
At the basis of his ascertion was the statement that science had not found the actual chemical development mechanism for forming DNA or even the first protein. Based on and despite that fact, Mr Bob Enyard then makes us belief, that although there is NO known mechanism for forming DNA or any of it's necessary proteins, he can nevertheless conceive of that, and calculate the probability of the forming of the first protein..... based on his own imagined mechanism. And even when he extends that mechanism to the whole (observable) universe, and using the most favourite probability calculus, he proved to us that his imagined mechanism for forming the first protein DOES NOT WORK and could not even in a trillion years have formed even the first protein!
Congratulations, Mr Bob Enyard. You just PROVED to us that your Deity, the creation of your imagination does not work!
The actual mechanism based on the objective material world, nature and the forces of nature, which formed proteins and DNA from previous existing stuff however DID WORK!
Proof:
DNA and proteins DO EXIST!
The fact that his mechanism (unlike that of nature which DID produce DNA and proteins) does not work, is because the actual known DNA neither works the way he imagines it to work.
When a DNA copies itself when a cell splits, there are not the mechanisms of mere absurd chance at work. If that would be the case, there would not be a single DNA that could ever re-produce itself.
Two questions to Mr Bob Enyard and other believers.
Mr Bob Enyard. I apologize for being so nasty not to believe in your creations of mere imagination. But a hard and solid fact of life known to me and many others, is that the idea of a Deity at work, that could account for every possible feature we may find in the universe, does not have any credibility.
Any form of perceptions of reality in the most basic sense, starts with the distinction between one's own mind, and the objective material world. At the basis of this, we simply have to ask ourselves: which of these (my consciousness versus the objective material world) existed in primary instance?
It is a very simple and most basic question one can ask. It is so utterly stupidly simple, that perhaps a few people look over it, and don't see the relevance of it.
We have to acknowledge namely the fact that it is simply inconceivable that my (or anyone's consciousness) could form the basic ingredient or primary entity of the existing material world in total. This simply because the fact that if that were the case, it would mean that BEFORE the actual material and objective reality existed, my existence would have been that of a single, unique and very lonely existence form. Since if I (my consciouss form, or that of any consciouss being) would be the primary thing of which the world would be dependend, this would mean I would not have any object that would exist outside of me. For me, no objective reality would exist. And not also that, but in something else - a third object - neither I would be an object, since no object outside of me would exist. So the possibility for any objective relations, that could constitute an objective world, would not be present. It would therefore mean that my existence would not be objectively based. In other words: I would not exist.
Question 1:
How hard is it for you - or any believer - to conceive of such a simple and irrifutable truth?
The answer Materialism give to this basic question of Philosphy is this: the objective material reality which we can perceive of directly through our sensory perceptions, and indirectly through the investigations of science, is a material reality that exists independend of anything else.
The only answer to all your questions of origin of the physical universe, life and consciousness, is the fact that there is:
- No account for the start of all that from a previous existing consciouss being
- No account for that starting from nothing.
The first account, we already explained above. The second account is the utterly simple truth that a begin in or from nothing is no begin nor end. Since nothing is not a begin nor end. Nothing is only nothing.
Which means to account for the fact that we happen to witness the fact that an objective material world DOES exist, must mean that it has existed always. That is the material objective reality, has not have a begin, since it could only begin in or from nothing, which is not a begin. Neither can the material objective reality ever end, cause the only end we could think of, would be in nothing. But nothing is not an end either. Nothing is only nothing.
This fact - which is the fact of the eternal existence of the objective material world in total - at first sight contradicts our experience we have of the world. Everywhere we look and everything we observe, we will always conceive of any material objective existing thing of having a definite begin and end.
This happens to be true for stars, for planets, for all living things and for humans too of course, and every material existence form as finite part of the whole.
But unlike the objective material world in total, these things all denote finite material forms, and only a part of the world.
All begin and all end we know of, are not conceived of a begin or end in/to nothing, but always denote the fact that previous existing things transform and shape a new thing, which then begins to exist, and end in transforming into other things.
For instance: the begin of a star is where a contracting cloud of gaseous material in the universe, reaches a state in which the amount of matter, density and temperature reach a certain condition that makes it possible to ignite thermo-nuclear processes. That transformation denotes the begin of a star.
The end of a star denotes the fact that almost all it's fuels have been used up in the thermo-nuclear reactions, and the star swells up to novae or super-nivae propertions and burns up rapidly the remaing fuel, and the explodes it's outer cores, and erupting large quantities of stellar material into space. The remaining part of the star then contracts to - depending on the mass- either a brown or white dwarf, a neutron star or black hole.
This thus means that any begin and any end is a begin from a previous something(s) and an end into a posterior something(s).
The question of origin thus is not leading in any way to magic, creation, deities, the supernatural, the Holy Spirit or God.
Anyone with a fair deal of consciousness and self-consciousness knows that fact. It would be time for the believers to also start looking at reality from a realistic perspective and self-consciouss persective, and drop the ancient belief system of "supernatural" causes and omniscient beings, drop the reliquis of ancient consciousness, and step into the reality of the world of today.
Question 2:
How hard is it for you - or any believer - to conceive of such a simple and irrifutable truth?
Last edited:
nothing is an end to something ????
Attention as completely debunked this notion. I haven't read one rational argument against on these boards that shows where he is wrong or even could be wrong.
Fairy tales and supperstion is no match for reasoned argument and never will be.
Peace
Corky
lol, very amusing coffee. which clearly furthers my point about reasoned argument. :thumb:
Peace
- Status