Do you believe in God?

[Danoff]

Yes time and space are basically entwined, so when I suggest that there are things that exist beyond the limitations of time I'm basically suggesting that there are things that simply exist outside of and beyond the limitations of this current universe, most likely non-physical.

If this universe is all that there is then it must be an infinite one no? Otherwise where are its limits and what is there beyond it's limits. When you think about it it kind of becomes obvious that there are simply no limitations, no beginning or end points. That infinite possibility is the true nature of reality, another way of defining infinite possibility I guess is to use the term God.

Our universe includes nothing. By its definition, lack of existence exists within our universe. It is everywhere. A lack of time existed just now, in between this moment and the next. A lack of space infinitely exists within space. So nothing by definition is present in our universe. So is the universe.

Asking what is beyond space and time is a bit like asking where the edge of the surface of the Earth is. Space and time do not have an "edge". They are our universe. And there is no reason to suspect that there is a dimension that exists within our universe and "beyond" our universe. Even defining that does not make sense. You either ignored, or did not understand what I was saying about how every way that you would define "beyond" is framed from within our universe.

Nothing exists, by definition. And our universe exists, by definition. We know that in the absence of our universe, is nothing. What else might be "outside" of our universe we do not know, and it is difficult to even say how we would. But certainly you are a long way off from demonstrating that something must exist outside of our universe.

When put to it, you don't seem to even know how to tell whether something does exist, and you don't even seem to be willing to say that the universe exists at all.

Pure awareness is the only thing that exists, and pure awareness has no properties or qualities to it, it simply knows
whatever it is placed upon.

You seem to be saying that the universe exists, and that something outside of the universe must exist. And you want to call the universe god, and the thing outside of the universe "god" (which in both cases is an abuse of that word, which does not mean "the universe" and "things outside the universe"). Yet you also maintain that the only thing you can prove is that you exist as the thinker of your thoughts (Descartes), and that "awareness" in general exists, which is presumably beyond you being the thinker of your thoughts.

You're gonna have to get all of this straight for me.

Does the universe exist?
Does something outside of the universe exist?
Do you exist?
Does awareness exist outside of you?

...how do you know?

 

[Chris123]

So you're happy to engage in massive double-standards, got it.

You demand proof for non-existence, and despite plenty of examples being provided you ignore them all, however, you want proof of resistance to just be accepted because you say so?

Nope, doesn't work like that at all.

You provided no proof for total non existence because its simply not possible. You want proof for existence? Its pretty simple, just sit still and be. There is no proof of existence needed because you are simply already an awareness that exists, by simply sitting still and being you are already existing as an awareness, what further proof is needed. Its the most obvious thing that you're overlooking, but that tends to happen when you get too caught up in the mind and its need to understand things through thought.

 

[Scaff]

You provided no proof for total non existence because its simply not possible. You want proof for existence? Its pretty simple, just sit still and be. There is no proof of existence needed because you are simply already an awareness that exists, by simply sitting still and being you are already existing as an awareness, what further proof is needed. Its the most obvious thing that you're overlooking, but that tends to happen when you get too caught up in the mind and its need to understand things through thought.

That’s not proof, it’s assumption. So still a double standard, repeating the same faulty logic doesn’t make it true, nor does it prove it. You want non-existence to be externally verifiable, but drop that standard for existence.

How do you know you are not simply a simulation within a programme? That you do not exist at all and have no consciousness, and are in fact nothing more than code?

 

[Famine]

Pure awareness is the only thing that exists, and pure awareness has no properties or qualities to it, it simply knows whatever it is placed upon.

This is not a good argument.

If there are no meaningful differences between a thing that exists and a thing that does not exist, there is no way to define what exists and what does not - thus either nothing exists or everything does... and they both happen the same time. Try again.


Do your wings exist? Why not?

I could ask you the same question, "What is the difference between a thing that exists and a thing that does not exist?" and you'll never be able to truly put it into words other than saying "Oh a thing that exists exists and a thing that doesn't exist doesn't exist".

It's actually incredibly easy, and certainly doesn't require overthinking... just a spot of thinking. I'm trying to lead you there, by getting you define for yourself what it is that differentiates what exists from what doesn't, by determining the properties and qualities of a thing you say exists and the things you say don't exist.

Do your wings exist? Why not?


Incidentally, if your awareness is the only thing that exists, I'm merely a part of your mind. And that part of your mind is trying to get you to use some reason in your thought process. You should probably listen to the bit of yourself telling you that you're wrong and why.

Makes you think, eh? Or not.

 

[Chris123]

The best argument you can really come up with is to talk about wings, is that it? Well okay, let me take a stab at this. You're referring to my wings which don't exist, well okay then. But you're still describing me as something the exists regardless of whether or not I have wings, and then when you talk about wings you're still referring to something as opposed to nothing. I've asked countless times now and I'll ask again, describe to me what absolute nothingness is like without first referring to something. You simply can't and never will, its just not possible.

Let me repeat, I don't want to hear about wings or me not existing before I was born or any of that drivel. I've asked a straight forward question, describe to me what absolute nothing is like. When you can do that without referring to something then you've made a point, but you cant and never will be able to. Its like me asking what is darkness like, all you can say is that its where there is very little light. But as I've already pointed out there is no such thing as absolutely no light, the best you can get to is an extremely small amount of light, but never none at all. There is effectively no such thing as darkness, just as there is no such thing as nothingness.

 

[Danoff]

@Chris123's not even trying. Some of what he just said was literally demonstrated to be false like 1 page back and he wasn't listening to a word of it.

 

[Chris123]

@Chris123's not even trying. Some of what he just said was literally demonstrated to be false like 1 page back and he wasn't listening to a word of it.

Whats the matter, can't answer my simple straight forward question? Nah, I didn't think so.

 

[Danoff]

Whats the matter, can't answer my simple straight forward question? Nah, I didn't think so.

No, you're not listening, or trying, or open to any of this discussion. Watch:

That's like saying darkness is the lack of light, yet there is still some degree of light in darkness.

That's fundamentally untrue. It is entirely within human capabilities to build an environment within which there is zero light, and there are objects we can indirectly observe that not only reflect and emit zero light but which absorb all light that interacts with them.

But as I've already pointed out there is no such thing as absolutely no light, the best you can get to is an extremely small amount of light, but never none at all.

You just jogged right on with the same thing that was just explained to you was a complete falsehood.

 

[Scaff]

Whats the matter, can't answer my simple straight forward question? Nah, I didn't think so.

Actually your question has been answered repeatedly, examples have been provided, citations have been proved and yet you ignore them all, dismissing them out of hand.

The reason seems to be that you are not an honest broker at all, you have no intention of engaging in meaningful discussion, but would rather ignore and move goalposts to ensure that your 'god of the gaps confirmation bias remains intact.

 

[Chris123]

No, you're not listening, or trying, or open to any of this discussion. Watch:








You just jogged right on with the same thing that was just explained to you was a complete falsehood.

Show me how it is possible to have an environment with zero light.

Actually your question has been answered repeatedly, examples have been provided, citations have been proved and yet you ignore them all, dismissing them out of hand.

The reason seems to be that you are not an honest broker at all, you have no intention of engaging in meaningful discussion, but would rather ignore and move goalposts to ensure that your 'god of the gaps confirmation bias remains intact.

"Describe to me what absolute nothingness is like without referring to something", I'll wait.

 

[Famine]

The best argument you can really come up with is to talk about wings, is that it?

It's not an argument.

I'm giving you an opportunity to see how something can clearly not exist, and to think for yourself how you can clearly say that this is a thing that does not exist - in order to help you along the path of being able to determine the properties of things that do not exist and things that do so that you can define for yourself how something exists. Or doesn't.

I've asked countless times now and I'll ask again

Whats the matter, can't answer my simple straight forward question?

Yeah, no. I've been asking you from the very start how you can tell the difference between something that exists and something that doesn't. You've done everything except answer.

describe to me what absolute nothingness is like without first referring to something.

Why that caveat? Non-existence is defined by existence, much as the concept of nothing is defined by the concept of something - and the number 0 is defined by other numbers.

Let me repeat, I don't want to hear about wings or me not existing before I was born or any of that drivel.

It rather looks like you don't want to hear about anything that would force you to challenge your rather odd philosophical position.

Its like me asking what is darkness like, all you can say is that its where there is very little light. But as I've already pointed out there is no such thing as absolutely no light, the best you can get to is an extremely small amount of light, but never none at all. There is effectively no such thing as darkness, just as there is no such thing as nothingness.

Unlike you, I've already answered that for you - as @Danoff pointed out.


Now, to repeat:
How would you differentiate something that exists from something that does not? What are the qualities and properties of a thing that exists in order for us to say it exists, and to say something that does not have those qualities and properties does not?

What is the difference between a thing that exists and a thing that does not exist?

 

[huskeR32]

One side of Dunning-Kruger is on full display today.

 

[Scaff]

"Describe to me what absolute nothingness is like without referring to something", I'll wait.

I thought it was existence you were interested in, why have you moved the goalposts again?

Oh, and why the caveat?

 

[Chris123]

I thought it was existence you were interested in, why have you moved the goalposts again?

Oh, and why the caveat?

Yep, I thought so.

 

[Danoff]

Actually your question has been answered repeatedly, examples have been provided, citations have been proved and yet you ignore them all, dismissing them out of hand.

The reason seems to be that you are not an honest broker at all, you have no intention of engaging in meaningful discussion, but would rather ignore and move goalposts to ensure that your 'god of the gaps confirmation bias remains intact.

BTW if you were looking for a less favorable term for "god of the gaps" you can call it "argument from ignorance". Kinda frames the problem with it:

 

[Scaff]

Yep, I thought so.

You thought what?

You have repeatedly reframed your point and now have changed the question and insist on a caveat with no justification, I'm going to be blunt, you are not half as smart as you think you are, so wind the ego back in.

 

[Chris123]

Okay, it's getting late so I'll just leave this one here. Can someone here please show me how absolute nothingness is possible and actually describe to me, or better still paint me a picture of what it actually looks like. First one to do it gets a cookie.

 

[Famine]

Okay, it's getting late so I'll just leave this one here. Can someone here please show me how absolute nothingness is possible and actually describe to me, or better still paint me a picture of what it actually looks like. First one to do it gets a cookie.

While you're away, have a think about answering literally any question asked of you before you go demanding answers from others.


Do your wings exist? Why not?

 

[Scaff]

Okay, it's getting late so I'll just leave this one here. Can someone here please show me how absolute nothingness is possible and actually describe to me, or better still paint me a picture of what it actually looks like.

I repeat my question (after having answered your original question repeatedly and having you either ignore or avoid the answers) why have you changed the question?

First one to do it gets a cookie.

I'd settle for you actually answering the questions that have been asked of you, you've made a number of rather bold claims with zero supporting evidence, you don't just get to run away from them.

 

[Danoff]

"Describe to me what absolute nothingness is like without referring to something", I'll wait.

You don't deserve another answer to this, because you refuse to engage, and have demonstrated that you're not listening. But I feel like answering (again) so I'm going to.

Your wings do not exist. And yet the fact that I referred to "your" and "wings" in that sentence, doesn't make them exist. Language is included in "something" right? So if I use language to answer this question, I'm necessarily referring to something. In order to fully answer your question the way you demand, one would have to cease to exist.

But it does not matter if someone refers to something in order to describe nothing. That does not prove that nothing is impossible. In fact, nothing is necessarily possible. I just happened, infinitely. How much of a lack of time is there in the second between 4:50:00 pm and 4:50:01 pm. An infinite amount. An infinity of an absence of time exists at all times. Similarly an infinity of a lack of space exists everywhere. How much of a lack of space is there between my finger and my keyboard... infinity.

Nothingness absolutely exists. Everywhere, at all times, infinitely so, by definition.

 

[Chris123]

While you're away, have a think about answering literally any question asked of you before you go demanding answers from others.


Do your wings exist? Why not?

Do my wings exist? Wait, hold on a minute. Are you actually referring to me as something that exists? No way, surely this can't be. My wings may not exist but I exist, as you've clearly demonstrated by referring to me as something that exists. There is always existence because non existence is just a figment of imagination, one that cant even be imagined properly.

 

[Danoff]

Do my wings exist? Wait, hold on a minute. Are you actually referring to me as something that exists? No way, surely this can't be. My wings may not exist but I exist, as you've clearly demonstrated by referring to me as something that exists. There is always existence because non existence is just a figment of imagination, one that cant even be imagined properly.

...and you've jogged on.

 

[Famine]

Do my wings exist? Wait, hold on a minute. Are you actually referring to me as something that exists? No way, surely this can't be. My wings may not exist but I exist, as you've clearly demonstrated by referring to me as something that exists.

I refer to your wings as well. Does that mean I'm referring to them as something that exists? Do they therefore exist, because I referred to them?

For that matter, because I referred to them, does that mean I exist?


Once you see what the properties and qualities of the things that exist are that mean we can say they exist - even if you think that's only your own consciousness - and why things that don't exist don't have those properties and qualities, you'll spot the absurdity of your argument.

You are flat refusing to entertain anything that would make you examine what you're saying, while demanding answers from other people onto which you've nailed ludicrous conditions. You haven't even spotted that your requirement for possibility to be infinite includes the possibility of nothingness (for that to be impossible requires a limitation on possibility, thus it is not infinite), despite me pointing it out to you...

 

[Rallywagon]

Do my wings exist? Wait, hold on a minute. Are you actually referring to me as something that exists? No way, surely this can't be. My wings may not exist but I exist, as you've clearly demonstrated by referring to me as something that exists. There is always existence because non existence is just a figment of imagination, one that cant even be imagined properly.

Those wings are pretty non existent though, huh?

 

[Chris123]

Those wings are pretty non existent though, huh?

Oh yeah they're totally non existent, they never existed at all. Still doesn't get around the fact though that there is no such thing as a total non existence of anything at all. These wings may not exist, but there is always something that exists isn't there. The nature of reality is for something to exist rather than total nothingness.

Unless you can prove to me that it's possible for there to be totally nothing at all as aside from actually something I think we're done.

Oh, and I'm still waiting on someone to show me proof that it's possible to create an environment with zero light. I've been told I've been proven wrong but have seen no actual evidence from the guys who rave about empirical evidence as if it's going out of style.

 

[Joey D]

Oh, and I'm still waiting on someone to show me proof that it's possible to create an environment with zero light.

Absent of visible light or absent of anything on the electromagnetic spectrum because those are two very different things.

 

[Rallywagon]

Oh yeah they're totally non existent, they never existed at all. Still doesn't get around the fact though that there is no such thing as a total non existence of anything at all. These wings may not exist, but there is always something that exists isn't there. The nature of reality is for something to exist rather than total nothingness.

Unless you can prove to me that it's possible for there to be totally nothing at all as aside from actually something I think we're done.

If it's possible for one thing to not exist, which you have now admitted to being true, its possible for everything to not have existed.

Absent of visible light or absent of anything on the electromagnetic spectrum because those are two very different things.

Oh come on now, don't move the goal posts for him. He clearly said light.

Unless you can prove to me that it's possible for there to be totally nothing at all as aside from actually something I think we're done.

Bud, you were done before you even posted your first comment. When you asserted you opinions and fallacies as if they were some sort of fact. You didn't come in here for a discussion, you came in to swing your dick around. Bravo, no ones impressed.

 

[Pako]

I see this thread is still going strong. What strikes me is maybe the thread title should be, "Can you prove God exists?". Belief in something does not have to be rooted in scientific fact for the belief to exist. There really is no right or wrong answer that can be proven one way or the other.

And if the thread title is changed, one might ask, "Can you prove God doesn't exist?" which the scientific community will quickly respond with, 'that's not how science works'. A scientific philosopher may even go as far as to say to prove that something does not exist, one would have to prove the existence of everything to prove the void or non-existence of something that doesn't exist with everything.

I am, however, glad to see continued discussion on the topic. I think it's worth the time to explore things we don't understand or come to blindly accept.

 

[Imari]

I see this thread is still going strong. What strikes me is maybe the thread title should be, "Can you prove God exists?". Belief in something does not have to be rooted in scientific fact for the belief to exist. There really is no right or wrong answer that can be proven one way or the other.

I think that's just the way that many believers approach the question. They see it as an opportunity to display their "proof" that God is real, just like many people do when having similar conversations about religion in the real world.

And just as in the real world, there are few people who are happy to merely state that they hold their belief regardless of the objective truth because of whatever reasons. The reason might be that they enjoy the community, or they feel that it makes them be a better person, or that it jives with how they'd like to view the world even though they accept that there's no objective reason for that to be so, or anything.

No, instead people have to be right about their belief in God, and that's where the conflict with science and the scientific method comes in. Belief is essentially an internal feeling, and you can't tell someone that they don't feel the way they do. But when they insist that their feelings correspond with some objective reality, you sure as hecky can show that not to be the case.

I think belief and science can co-exist quite happily, but it's very much a case of requiring both to stay in their lanes.

 

[Dotini]

I think belief and science can co-exist quite happily, but it's very much a case of requiring both to stay in their lanes.

I'm vitally interested in the requirement (and enforcement, sanctions and taboos) part, and just exactly how that gets done. As a libertarian with liberal social views and conservative economic views, I'm acutely aware of always being in a tiny minority. I have no defense against the tyranny of the majority. One false step and I'm road kill.