GOD IS DEAD

Cosmo Cavediver writesMost wankers as you call them would understand that the thread is not primarily about physcis but about God. Since however, you havent understood much else, its doubtful you could comprehend the main thrust of the thread either. Take it real slow, youll get it after a while. Cosmologist. That explains alot. An ape like creature that is limited to a puny planet in an insignificant galaxy, that hasnt even been to the moon himself or past it trying to understand the whole ball of wax. Talk about an exercise in futility. I suppose someone has to do it.I get the further impression that you like to promote yourself and your status in the world in this website, but since it would be rude of me to say so, I will not. Question, do you have any logicians in your family, if so, I would seek them out gain the benifit of thier specialties.If you will excuse me now I have to respond to Onifre's last post, one with actual arguments, that are worthy of some attentionD Bertot

Bertot writes: Onifre writes: Surely your kidding, but ok. Objectivity has to do with sound principles in relation to real world properties. When you apply that objectivity to the sound principles of dedutive reasoning, conclusions will follow that are definitive and absolute and unavoidable, at times. In this instance it has to do with the ultimate or absolute nature of things. I It is truely amazing that without even trying or mentioning it you exclude out of your list, the science of deductive reasoning, I dont think this is done by accident. The foundation for all of the sciences and those you mention above, is 'deductive reasoning', before , during and afterwards. It should be clear to any thinking person that deductive reasoning is inseperable from any science, especially to those that are dealing with the ultimate nature of things.The so-called "scientific method" you advocate is an misnomer. It makes great use of the science of deductive reasoning in its tenets, then at the same time rejects those same principles in use of finding answers in the question of things. It assumes that the same principles it employs in one connection to explain physical properties, may not be used to explain other questions of existence and origins. The simple point is that the science of deductive reasoning is the only way to explain the answers to the very difficult questions. The physical sciences as they are called are of very great value and should be pursued at all costs, however, the science of deductive reasoning should not take a back seat to anything. Its only when you change the meanings of words, concepts and ideas, that 'deductive reasoning' and its obvious and inexcapable conclusions gets left behind. And I dont think it is on accident, its to avoid conclusions that people just dont like. Try real hard to understand this very simple principle. Deductive reasoning applied to the real world often times and especially inthis instance have nothing to do with Human evolved langualge, arm chair musings, philosophy, ideologies, religiosity or any other ology. Its is a scientific principle brought about by the oldest form of scientific endeavor, logic. Sometimes those conclusions based on that science are irresistable and unavoidable and relate and correspond directly to the real world. "Meaningless", "pointless" and "purpose", have nothing to do initially with the understanding of thecold hard facts. Those facts are that our reasoning abilites demonstrate the obvious conclusions of certain deducible and unavoidable facts, which others much better than myself have adequately demonstrated. Now watch this, if there were no human beings or any other reasoning creatures here, this would not change this simple fact. The fact that humans are here helps give "meaning" and "purpose" to those cold hard facts.Your contention that no one has given a good reason for the purpose of the universe, is I believe, the mother of all silly assertions. Reality has, Reason has, Humans have, Design has, Cosmology has, All sciences have, a simple observation and experiential association with the real world has. Puropose most certainly does have meaning if there are only a couple of logical possibilites and conclusions and for all intents and PURPOSES only one real possibilty, God. Its is no great accomplishment to set aside reality and a very obvious reasons for the existence and puorpose of things. It only takes an exercising of Will. I believe I have now demonstrated why that is the case. The "second" which is actually the first warrents enquiry for very obvious 'scientific reasons', unless you want to throw reason and its obvious conclusions out the window. Investigate anything you want. But when you do you will be using that God given ability to reason and deduce and conclude. The science if you apply ALL OF IT and correctly will point you to a creator, who ever you think it is or what that may be.Correct "logic and reasoning" will point to a creator without initially any ridiculous claims. What one believes after that will be based on other available evidence. Go Bible, go Bible, go Bible, go Bible, wag you head back and forth and move your shoulders while singing that diddy. No remember infinity has nothing to do with theology its reality, reason, and commonsense. Something had to exists forever without beggining or end. To demonstrate that it was not God, one would have to prove that matter itself is eternal, a conclusion I believe that you have admittely stated is short of physics abilites. I can reproduce those quotes from yourself if you wish. No theology or philosophy yet. I agree totally. You however, can mix physics and reason.This is why I challenged Cavediver to put the very technical terms, concepts and ideas in simple readable english and explanations. Onc e this is done it will be very clear that there are no other possibilites than those already purposed. I believe the best that has been offered thus far is that certain particles seem to come from nowhere, a conlcusion that would need to be demonstrated that it was coming form "nowhere" a conclusion which could not be demonstrated, tested or actualized in any way form or fashion. There will always be "something" else, in this context.. What possibilty may have occured 14 Billion, six months, two days, 30 minutes and 1 second ago. Cant physics reduce it to an exact time? Reasoning at that point TAKES OVER, its not out the window. Something produced those results and so on and so on and so on and so on. Even as the super braniac wheelchair dude indicates,as quoted by the Agobot. The reason I believe the braniac makes this statement, is due to the fact that reason compels him in that direction.I await your dogmatic reply, ha ha.D BertotEdited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.

Onifre writes:Onifre, thanks for your latest response its very odd but interesting and I believe I can demonstrate why. I wll get to it later this evening, you know real world crap and all that.ThanksD BerotEdited by Bertot, : No reason given.

Bluesbrothers writes:I thought we werent suppose to use the word "Homo" on this website. Ofcourse I an just kidding for all you Homo Erectus' out there.The reason I bring it us is this, (Gesturing with hands)Its because, well, you see, that, you know um, its just due to the fact that, because certain, if you think about it, sorta of what were talking about is that, well you see, because. Ok Ill stop here.

Agobot writes:Perhaps the stand up comedian (Onifre) could assist you as to what I was on about, I guess it went over your head.D BertotEdited by Bertot, : No reason given.

Onfrie writes;My task here gets easier as we proceed, I will demonstrate why that is so in another paragraph. In the first place I dont see what the difference would be showing one person verses one thousand, so that part of your sentence has no relevance. Actually I have demonstrated and shown why God is really the only logical conclusion, even if there are only two possibilties.While you have been arguing "at" my position I would like to point out to the rest of the class that you have failed to provide another explanation in the area of possibiltes for the existence of things besides the only two. This is an old debating tactic that is usually effective if your opponent is not unable to see it, ofcourse I do. I thought I would just point that out to the rest of the class, since you brought them up, the class that is.I dont know where you learned how to draw valid conclusions but if I have not demonstrated the plausability of God's existence, then it is doubtful you will be unable to percieve anything. I will deal with that once again for you down below. Now to demonstrate how my task is becoming easier and easier. Do you remember that episode of 'Sanford and Son', where they went to that one individuals house to pick up a piano the fellow was giving away. Whilst, amoung other things, making fun of his very effeminate nature, Fred and Lamont tried getting the piano out the door, they were having trouble. Fred said, its not going to work. Lamont said that the first law of physics says if it came in the door it could go out. After trying again it got wedged, to which Fred said, and the second law of physics is STUCK. You had to be there, trust me it was funny, if you saw Fred do it.Simply put Onifre, your stuck. Your physics, as wonderful as they are and as applicable as they are, will only allow you to argue and demonstrate a position such as the existence of things to a certain point. Amassing all physical knowledge that is possibile will not undo or change these very basic principles After that point, observation, experience, the nature and existenceof things falls squarely under the perview of logic and deductive reasoning. Reguardless of what you discover by this science, it will not allow you to formulate a conclusion above and beyond the principle of, two and only two possibilites. That being that either matter is eternal or a God that is eternal created that matter and set it in motion. Your sentence I believe above involved the word "plausabile", correct? If one cannot see as even Hawking can that this very much allows the plausibility of a creator, it is doubtful you will see anything.You are also correct in your contention that it is "un-debatable", not because one cannot form a Valid conclusion in the matters. Its un-debatable, because it will reach a logical empass in the choices that reason will allow. That is exacally why my task is getting easier and easier in this context, you have no where to go in the argument or in reality. as your ability to debate the topic fades and as your inability to provide alternate possiblites fails, you resort to calling the science of logic and deductive reasoning, "opinions".Your further slipping away is demonstrated in refering to logic and deductive reasoning and axiomaic truths, as "My logic" or "Your logic". They are simple demonstratable truths whether you believe them or not. I could very easily believe that because I have not died yet, or experienced death, that I somehow will not die. My opinion does not count agaisnt reality Onifre. These truth a are not musings or opinions. Because of the nature of things, Entropy, Infinite progession and regression and the such like, it becomes even less likey that matter is eternal in any real sense. One would have to find properties that do not exhibit these qualites to demonstrate that there is no need for a creator. Assuming the universe in self-contained and demonstrating it are two different things. My examples are reality and the very existence of things. In physics you demonstrate principles based on observation and experimentation of physical properties. These principles were real before you discovered them, correct? Bear in mind that Logic and deductive reasoning are simply terms to define reality. Reality and its conclusions are what they are if we decide to deduce its principles or not. Or if we decide to classify them as logical, deductive principles. Its reality first, valid conclusions second. Again, as I stated before, if no thinking person or creature were here it would not change the principles. Was gravity an actuality before anyone discovered it?So your contention that this is "My logic" or "Your logic', falls by the wayside as an argument, or as a negation of the principles that I have set out. If you want to define, reality, axiomatic truths and valid conclusions as "skeptical" (incredulity), then be my guest. I will simpy wait for other explanations, which you have failed to provide. Your assertion that these obvious truths are tenative is certainly not a refutation of them. What more could a person do except to point out reality.Actually I said that the scientist used fundamental principles that allow them to draw at times very valid conclusions, I didnt say that they always use it in a different way than anyone else or religous people If it is done right anyone can use it correctly to form valid conclusions. However, in this instance and the topic at hand, the axiomatic truths are there regardless of how you view them or evaluate them. You will always come to or forced to the same conclusion, regardless the amount of information obtained. Your hung up on terms and phrases. Reality and the existence of things, applied to deductive reasoning brought me to this conclusion, youve got it exacally backwards. Its all the same principles everyone uses in everyday walks of life. I dont have to experience being hit by a bus to know or understand all of the principles, to know it will hurt. Observation of reality and simple understanding allow me this priveledge. My belief in a creator comes from reality then reason. As I read your comments, it reminds me of a person that, however they came to be unable to physically walk, trying to do physical therapy to show them how to walk again. Remember, Its Reality and truths in reality along with deductive reasoning together to form as in this instance, irresistible conclusion, void of opinions or beliefs.D BertotEdited by Bertot, : No reason given.

Vacation writes:So your main argument is that your are not denying the very real possiblity of a deity, that a diety is a valid explanation for the existence of things and it should be included as a valid explanation of things in the classroom, concerning the Origins of life in the universe. Oh happy day.Some nitwit, bubbleheaded judge, notwithstanding, eh.D BertotEdited by Bertot, : No reason given.

Agobot writes:No he didnt spread fake bones around, your champions have the amazing ability to construct whole creatures out of a single tooth or a bone fragment. Quite literally they make a mountain out of a mole hill, and exclaim, "see we found it, no really we did, everybody look over here, we are scientists and we cant be wrong".Besides this, why did numerous types of primates (gorillas, apes) and a whole host of other hairy goomers suvive and human beings but not one example of this intermediate imaginary contrivance. Can we really believe that millons of types of these things could simply disappear or be out competed?Isnt it just a little supicious that not one example survived to the present day or that past generations do not seriously consider them.D Bertot

Agobot writes: You brought it up I didnt. Im not interested at this point what hard atheists position are or are not on evolution. As far as the pope accepting evolution, I would say he is Catholic, so that is tantamount to getting just about everything else wrong as well, so why not evolution as well. For heavens sake the man thinks he is Inspired when speaking on spiritual matters.If you mean by evidence in my face, bone fragments and tooth examples, Ill just wait for one of these harry goomers that magically went out of existence, every example of them, to walk out of the woods. And theres about as much chance of that happeing that I will become Superman in my life time.Stile, the rafter and floor analogy provider, writes:Actually, these two statements are as far from what I said, as they could possibly be. When you say, "in other words", you are putting it mildly.No 1. is a categorical statement as is if it were true and could be demonstrated. This is what you would need to demonstrate to eliminate the very real possibilty of No. 2. All indications suggest that nothing in existence is indeed eternal, which establishes the very real possibility of No 2, logically and rationally.No 2. Deducing the very plausabile existence of God is not something that is a product of the imagination. Proving anything is not what we are talking about here, demonstrating it logically and rationally from a scientific standpoint of deductive reasoning is. Thank you, a ray of sunshine at long last. Neither will it be able to provide an answer to this question outside the science of Logic and deductive reasoning, at any point. Instead of complaining about my position, please simply provide another solution than the two offered. Stile think about it logically (you know that other science). I never said that the eternality of the universe was impossible, I simply said that most indications suggest that mattter does not posses the characteristics of eternality, which would indicate that something that did posses these characteristics is a very plausable explantion based on deductive reasoning not imagination. There are only two choices, neither of which can be proved absolutely, but thats not required. From a rational and logical standpoint both are plausable explantions to the question, and they are the only choices one has to work with. One only has to demonstrate that you can "know", these are the only choices. Your missing the point Stile.
It is the simplest of suggestions to ask anyone to logically deduce another choice, its not possible, which makes it an axiomatic truth that is consistent no matter how much information one aquires. If science could somehow aquire all physical knowledge or even penetrate and discover the spirit world, this axiomatic truth would not change. This principle is the very fiber of existence. If nothing or us were here it would not be an issue, right. As soon however as something is here it reduces itself to only two possibilites.Im not imagining anything on way or the other, its simply just the way it is, no matter what concept or term you apply to it. Its reality. You can rack your brain trying to come up with another alternative and you will go as mad as that philosopher in the video. Now that boys belt slipped right off the track
Onfire writes:No I am saying that there are no other choices even if you do explain everything. When you or they do find out everything, either matter will have existed forever or God will have created it. You seenm to choose matter and I God, both are very plausable from a rational standpoint, you for your reasons and me for the fact that of entrop, you have to decide for yourself. The scriptures say that a man is without excuse for not seeing the existence of God. At any rate it is not a product of imagination. the existence of things themselves, law and order, apparent design and many other factors including the Word of God, lend credabile support some very logiacl and rational principles. It does not matter what the theory suggests its what it can demonstrate and it cannot demonstrate the eternality of matter.Also, while there are concepts of finite and infinite in physics, this does not exclude the very real (reality) concept of things having always existed (without beginning or end)verse limited in character and make up or having never existed then being brought into existence. these term are real becuse you can apply them to reality,. Physics canonly enhance this very real principle. I dont need to understand theoretical principles to know very basic principles that are reinforced by the very old scinece of deductive reasoning in observation of reality. It was always there or it was not. If it was not there is only one other possibility. Wait a minute , before you were certain that these things could be demonstrated, now you reduce it to,"theorectical" and "hypothesize", which is tantamount to saying you have no real clue at all. What I can "think" is based on very demonstratable truths. Another assertion immediately following an admission that you as a lay person and even qulified people do not know. But now you say you know that matter was not matter before the BB. Matter was some form or property of something, or it was created from another type of existence (spirit), thats the point.
Your exclusion of these basic truth from you interpretation of physics does not exclude them from reality. Another example of your admission of defeat by not providing me with another solution to my proposition.Think about it rationally, even if we dont understand all the principles of everything, it should be possible atleast to theorize another possibility than the two, corrrect? So just give it a shot from this perspective. Provide me with another solution that is not a rearranging of these two principles. So you begin to see that those bafoons in the middle ages[ Thomas Aquinas] were not as ignorant as we might have thought. The unmoved mover and prime mover and all that. As great as physics is, it has not provided a solution past these very old principles. And it will not. By implication you remove logic and deductive reasoning from the "standards of science" as you call it, when in fact these are the very principles that establish the point I am suggesting and demonstrating. Real science and science in its purest form supports the reality of a creator, whatever you wish to call him/it. True science does not "contest" reality it supports it.
I believe the threads title was 'God is Dead' and now you are claming you have demonstrated this fact by suggesting that I have eliminated myself by default. You havent even got started with demonstrating things from a physics standpoint much less that God is not a reality and very plausabile explanation. So how can you demonstrate that God is not a logical possibilty when you dont even understand admittdley, the theorizes behind theoretical physics. Still missing the point are we? You need to demonstrate that "logic and deductive reasoning" are not a scientific method, in the first place and in fact they are. Your above contention notwithstanding. In the second place the only reason anyone "knows about anything", not just the big Shlabang, but anything, is existence and reality and observation and understanding of reality. Before I even get close to determining the specifics of matter I can come to a very real and valid conclusion, that it only has two possible properties and solutions. To demonstrate my point as valid, I only need to demonstrate the limited characteristics of one to establish the only other possibilty of the other. again, instead of just complaining about my suggestion, simply provide me with another alternative. You dont need physics to do that do you? I wont even grace this completley non-sensical statement witha reply. By pulling from the supplies of his infinte knowledge, wisdom and power. How do you or anyone else make or create something? Since I do not understand the nature of your request in this question, I will wait for further clarification. You question at this point makes no sense. You have got to be kidding me, your standard for what is reality and rational is is everybodys opinion, give me a break. Dont make me start on the disagreements alone in your "scientific community". You do understand that there are people that still believe that we never went to the moon and those that believe the Holocost never happened correct.
As for the "context" and "context of this discussion alone", people may disagree with the conclusion of only two possibilites, yet all they need to do like yourself, is provide another solution. Quit complaining about one thing or another and present it. Logic and deductive reasoning only presents the plausiability of both possibilites, I never said it absolutely proves one or the other. Subsequent evidence deliniates between the two choices to make one more likely thant the other. At any rate logic and valid reasoning firmly establish the very real idea of a creator. Obviously it is very difficult for you to get anything correct. Its is irrelevant wehether science admits its limits or that I am amazing or not, neither of these are considerations. What is true and what is amazing is that axiomatic truths establish undeniable truths in reality which no matter what is applied to thits principles will not change it tenets. Now that my friend is amazing Wrong. Physics is the explanation of physical properties. Logic and the science of deductive reasoning demonstrate the only logical possibilites of the physical proprties. In a lot of ways the science of logic is superior to the science of physics, not in all ways only in some.
The there is no incredulity (skepticism) involved in the only choices. You would spend your time in a better fashion providing me with another solution, than compalin about me and mine.
I pick reason and commonsesnse and reality. Does that answer your little question. Its funny you are working so hard with the art of logic to demonstrate a point that cannot be overthrown, now that is iorony for you. Then have Joe physicist provide me with another solution. I think Dr Hawking already disagrees with you and that aint a good start for you.
Bertot writes: SUC (stand up commedian) writes: If you cant see my point in this context is doubtful you will be able to see much else. So then you are saying physcists are the only people that can understand reality
I dont know anyone that can understand the "principles of theories" in connection with the reality of existence and things. Would you like for me to provide you with the quotes from hundreds of people including yourself in this present discussion that firmly admit as much. Try and understand this my friend, the no boundary theory provides no answers for the ultimate nature and existence of things. It does however, provide tenative answers about how things possibily operate.
Musing and day to day reasoning do not discribe unavoidable reality and axiomatic truths. Sorry those are the cold hard facts. This illustration while amusing, has nothing to do with what I have been maintaining. You would have spent you r time better giving the story where he was once asked "what are you going to do when you die and find out you were wrong, what will you say to God". He stated he would simply state there was not enough evidence. He like yourselves are flat wrong.I can just see the lord saying to Carl S and Bertrand, well fellas if you hadnt changed the meanings of words like science and evidence, perhaps you would not have had such a hard time seeing the obvious evidence. Its reality and commonsense all the way down, all the way up, and all around. I see reality and existence supported by the science of logic and commonsense to the conclusion of a acouple of possibilites. Ill stop at this point seeing you have not provided me with another solution, other than comedy. I see existence of things, but no trutles supporting anything. Maybe your Pot allows you to see things that are not there also, eh?D Bertot. Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.

Cavediver wrties:Really? Do me a favor, humor me and represent them in simple, yet non-abusive english and lets see if they do not fall within the two categories. I cant refute imaginary things. Remember now, Mr Wonderful and amazing put them in simple english without alot of technical jargon. Agreed?I dont need your nurse-maiding or anything else to study something. Also, it must be the ultimate irony for you to suggest that someone else has an attitude. You really do need to come down out of the palace for a while. I guess just being British initially entitles you to be an arrogant pompous moron, the rest must just be you as a person, what do you say? Although I was in your fine country for three years and I dont ever remember meeting anyone like yourself. I guess every country has a few of them like yourself, they must try and keep ones like yourself under wraps. I will give you one thing, you never stop with the intimidation angle. Do you really think this makes you believeable or acceptable. I can go through any of your threads anywhere any witness the same condecending attitude. Hey clown, its not working.
Besides this how much does one need to know to understand simple words by Mr. Hawking that all of this does not preclude the concept of a creator, only that it would limit us in understanding when he accomplished this task. Then there are all the other admissions of limitations about the theories and concepts. Talk about not needing to be nurse-maided, go back and read them. Its my guess that your hardline position and attitude twords theists wishes that he and others had not made these comments. Grow up rocket scientist. Hey guess what I was right on both counts, you are an arrogant pompus jerk and you do hate theists, imagine that? Are you telling me that a hardline atheist would know what Faith is or is not. Like so many of your other non-sensical comments where in the world did that COME FROM and what in the world does it mean?It does not matter the wieght of evidence presented to you in any thread you will simply ignore and dismiss it. Now you are trying in this thread to deny an obvious fact that even Dr Hawking seems to allow. Im sorry, did I fail to say before your an unobjective moron, if I did, let me say, your an unobjective moron."Crude rehtoric" and "attempts to wield concepts far above your understanding". More attempts at intimidation from cavediver. Forgive me mighty one, for not understanding anything without your guidance and wisdom. You are a PIECE OF WORK.I excused you once before in another post. Now it seem I will have to do it once again. Ifyou will excuse me now have to respond to posts with actual arguments in them. Literally I cannot find one single thing that resembles an argument in your above post, excluding abuse, intimidation and posturing. Do you really believe people cant distinquish between the two. Grow up knothead ("knot" ,"interlacing that forms a lump"). Boy, lump of something sure does discribe you.D BertotEdited by Bertot, : No reason given.

Bertot writes: Cavediver writes or avoids is more like it:Now pay attention class. This is what is called an evasion in argumentation. The reason he wont do this for you is that he knows his attempts will fail, just like his attempts to replace abuse with answers fails to get the job done. Again, this fellow calling anyone abusive is the mother of all irornies.Cavediver,please put in simple english the response that indicates there can be more than the two logical choices, other than those I have set out. You made the contention that you had offered 2 other choices, please quit the song and dance routine and present them. Please by all means nurse-maid me. If you cant I will accept this as a consession in the matter. Again, this is not only ironic but comeical. You telling someone else they are Pontificating, lieing and distorting is simply a side-splitting joke.So, "was a evangelical Christian for 22 years", is the same as saying you still are, correct, maybe, or a flat know. Or at bare (bear) minimum you still believe in a creator correct? Or is it simply a very real possibility in your mind form a reality standpoint. In any of these instances, while I am very happy for your admission, you give up your "seemingly" hardline position in this discussion.If I am wrong and something is wrong with my reading comprehension, please present the line from any post (besides this one)I have ever been in discussion with you, that suggest that you believe in a creator. Now, class watch and see if he does this, I predict he wont, just like he has not produced in simple english another alternative. More distraction and double talk. Im still waiting. Please ole wise one, help us simple folk out in language we can understand. This shouldnt be a problem for such a wise and powerful person such as yourself. He means here the physical world and eternality. Changing words in physics to avoid certain well established meanings, such as, without beginning or end, (eternal) does not change change the obvious reality that things either have been here forever or they have not. Eternal or eternality used in a non manipulative sense simple means it had a beginning or it did not.The universe and everything we see and understand about it, suggests that its characteristics (nature) is one of contengency, each thing depends on its existence for something else. Also, things go from lesser to greater and back to lesser again, until they cannot regain the properties they once had, (their dead) At any rate (no pun intended), it takes the action of something or someone else to revive that source, if it can be revived, in most cases it cannot.
Everything we can see and understand has an obvious beginning, even the universe, which strongly suggests that it like anything else in make up, is not eternal in character, unchanging, without beginning or end. All you have to do cavediver is demonstrate that matter is eternal given this very observable principle I have just demonstrated from a reality standpoint.Onifre writes:That childrens song comes to mind. All around the mulberry bush. Around and around we go. Ill let you be the weasel and the monkey chasing eachothers arguments, ok. Something or someone produced the BB. You do not know what existed before the BB and you certainly cannot say it was not matter of some sort. Either eternal material or an intelligent creator brought it into existence, or futther existence, if you wil. It appears you are not a very experienced debater, or you are avoiding obvious points just to keep the ball in play. Onifre, God or a creator is not an imaginary concept, it is one that falls squarely within the realm of observable, demonstratable, reality based upon the science of deductive reasoning. There are only two choices, of which God (creator) is clearly one. Religion has nothing to do with it. Your free to choose between obvious logical choices, which you seem to have disregarded in word only. Simply because you are avoiding reality doesnt mean everyone else has to. Pop goes the weasel.(small sleander fleash eating animal). Humans understand no more now, outside of God about the universe than they did in the beginning. Explaiing how a tree works, does not tell you where it came from.And anyone disavowing God, or the very real possibilty of an creator lacks an obvious ability to reason correctly. Yes, science does a fine job in explaining matter, its just limited to give you any answers outside that context. That is where the science of deductive reason takes over. It does not matter what the NBP says or does not say, it wont get you anycloser to an explanation of things or where they came from. If it did you would have long since presented it in this debate and avoided the song and dance routine.
Eternal is eternal no matter what twist you wish to put on the word. Things, before or after the BB existed forever or they did not. Here is an obvious example to avoid that conclusion, you stae and quote: They only make no sense to someone that has rejected reality and theability to use reason and commonsense. Also, to those that will make every concerted effort to avoid the conclusion of a creator. Matter, material or things, what does it matter, you know what I am talking about, your just like that 'Sanford and son', piano your stuck. They helped to demnstrate that even these fellows are groping the dark (quite literally I might add)for answers to things they cant begin to understand. Further since I and others have gotten in trouble for simply presenting links, then making no arguments from them, I would suggest you make an argument form the ones youprovided and I will respon to it, agreed? You are correct, I have not brought anything (new) to the table that has not been in existence and established for countless centuries. These principles are as firmly fixed in history and reality as reality itself, because they are reality. Every atttempt by you fellas to ignore and disregard them, falls in utter defeat.
A creator is a principle based in reality, observation and deductive reasoning, as quoted by the amazing Hawking.
The eternality of things, matter, material, or what ever you want to it is not a theory of any sort. Things exist, this should be obvious even to YOU. If they do, there are olny two choices for them. I will admit this is the most eloquent you have been thus far in an attempt to explain our discussion, but it is involved with so many contradictory and confusing ideas. What you arefailing to realize is that there are obvious solutions and answers if you will to the questions of existence and ultimate nature of things, if you are looking in the right direction and using the correct "principles"of evaluation.I dont need to fill anything in,it fills itself in. They are axiomatic principles that need no research or explanation. But by all means research and explore anything you want. If I am speculating I am doing it with the best possible information and the best possible evaluative tools in reality, obdservation, logic and deductive reasoning. I wont remind you again that you use these very basic, yet sound principles every waking moment of you little existence, so tell me again who is speculating.Tell me, is your stand-up comedy as bad as your debating skills, ha ha.You keep telling me I dont understand the NBP, yet you never explain really why it offers someother solution to the question of things, other than to change the menaings of words, concepts and ideas. Then you say, there is no need to worry about what came before this or that. You do realize that is not debating dont you? Im sure most little old ladies have much better reasoning skills than yourself. If you do need assistance though perhaps you could enlist the help of those heavy weight apologists, Pen and Teller, Or perhaps Bill Marr, now theres some mental giants I wouldnt want to mess with. Oh by the way Im being facetious.P.S. Sorry for the lateness of my responses at times, I simply do not have enough time in the day for all of it, but rest assured I will get to every post. I would like to get to Straglers post 267 at some point here in the future it looks interesting.
D BertotD BertotEdited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.

Onifre writes:Your post are becoming shorter and shorter because you are runnining into a brick wall. Thats the whole point of the truth about there only being two alternatives, therefore you are limited in your response. Actually this will be the simplest post thus far to respond to due to the fact that it is repleat and fraught with so much circular reasoning and contradiction. This is ofcourse a natural result of the position you are trying to maintain. As a Matter (no pun intended) of fact I have already said it does not matter what you call whatever existed prior to the big bang, if you want to call it matter, if you want to call it something, if you want to call it 'that stuff', if you want to call it material or attach any name or nomenclature to it, it does not matter.
You will recall I said, something, no matter what it is called existed prior to the big shalbang. I think most people would agree with this point. Then you cooroborate this point by saying, "I think we can all agree on that", correct?.Then you say, in response to me saying, that something or someone caused the big bang: These are argumnetation tactics to avoid obvious points. Ok so,the BB is not a creation point but a continuance of something else.You now see the utter contradiction you are starting to involve yourself in, from which you cannot extracate yourself. Now you are calling that which existed before the BB, both something and nothing at the same time. It does not matter if you say it was the point of creation or the start of something else, the point is the same.These very fine examples you provide clearly demonstrate that "something" was there which produced the very technical explanation of the expansion, correct? So I think it is safe to say we can stop the quibbling about wehther there was SOMETHING that produced the BB and it is obvious this is not just my assertion, as you have clearly agreed with this simple point in the above quote from yourself, correct? So now we are are back to square one. Either that SOMETHING existed forever, eternally or something eternal in nature created it. Unless you are now willing to provide me with another alternative. Then in a very clear admission from your quotes it becomes obvious that even these "experts" are not sure what the nature of matter is or how we should define it, or how it can be applied to the nature of things, before during or after. Actually the two quotes you provided, while very informative and helpful are repleat with admissions of , maybe this or maybe that, why, because it is impossible for them to know with 100% accuracy. Simply because they do not agree with the standard definition of matter, or do they apply it the same way, does it follow that "nothing" was there to produce these results. So to your statement that, "Nothing created the BB", is simply non-sensical and completley ridiculous. I think you might have already demonstrated that something was there to produce it in your above statements, but you have also said, that nothing produced the BB, so to clarify, which position would you like to maintain in our continuing discussion, SOMETHING OR NOTHING, or something as nothing, or nothing as something. You really do need to be specific here. This statement seems as an attempt at an argument but ends up being just an assertion. Im not really sure what you are trying to say. I have already demonstrated that belief in God has nothing to do with mythology, philosophy, religion or any concepts of theology, but that it is a very real deductive alternative to the existence of "things", due to the fact that material things depend on thier existence for something else. Also, that things start, continue, and the digress to a point where they cannot regain thier former state, a positon that is clearly indicative of the fact that "things" are not eternal in nature. All you have to do is refute that very simple, observable point and demonstate that "things" are indeed eternal in nature.It should be obvious to anyone at this point that you are now avoiding the task of providing another solution besides the two and only two alternatives in connection with this question. In an attempt to avoid this point you now start criticizing peoples reasons for believing in God. You could do this if it werent appaernt that belief in God is rooted in reality, observation and a valid reasoning process which allows his existence to be a very clear alternative to the idea that "things", physical things are eternal in nature.No one here is suggesting that one can PROVE the existence of God absolutely, only that it is a very real answer to the nature of things and existence. It violates no reasoning principles and it violates no obdervable laws of nature, as a matter of fact when you start observing the nature of things it starts to look like the only real answer. The manner in which I have demonstrated the existence of God is both logical and reasonable in relationship to reality and observable things. One would need to demonstrate the mehtod as logically invalid, not simply cry that it involves circular reasoning, it i as valid a conlclusion as any principle could ever be.
Further in your estimation of my conclusions above, you very carefully avoided pointing out the fact that "things" tend to depend for thier existence on something else and that they start, continue and finally get to a point that cannot be regained (entropy), etc. Leaving these points out of my method as you call it, is Im sure not by accident on your part. In other words you purposely misrepresented my position.In this instance the evidence suggest that the universe and the nature of things could not be a product of themselves, atleast that is one alternative and it is not a logical contradiction. No blind faith is required to come upon this type of knowledge. Both positons involve some faith, but they are the only positions that anyone can espouse, if not give me another one please. You are running alot of ideas together here that really have no correlation to eachother. No group is required to change the meanings of words. You have already clearly indicated that the word Eternal in physics has a different meaning that in its common usage. I pointed out that it does not matter what physics wishes to call it, reality, commonsense and deductive reasoning would clearly indicate that "things" either existed forever or they had a start.
Matter is not the point. You keep bringing this up to avoid the point that "something", regardless of what you call it has to be eternal. I dont care what the NBP suggests, in fact whatever it suggests, its not that it has an ultimate explanation of the nature of things. If it does then please provide that explanation in simple english as I have suggested that Cavediver do. To which it now appears he has opted not to do.D Bertot

Onifre writes: On the contrary, I am very carefully reading everything, looking for an argument that suggest another solution, and I find none. I find alot of complaining about my method, which I will address in a few. What would a meaningless internet victory profit me, neither of us is getting paid, there is no recognition to be gained by anyone, since no one knows who you are. Your statement is both illogical and especially unwarrented. Try and understand this my friend, we are speaking two different languages, atleast we might as well be, as indicated by your and Stragglers comments, which I will adddress in a few, if I can get finished with these unnecessary comments. The root of the problem is that you refuse to view deductive reasoning as a science and are further unable to see that you can reach conclusions that at times are unavoidable and irresistible using this method. In this instance it is that there are only two solutions to the existence of thingsand a creator is clearly one of those very logical and demonstratale solutions or possibilites In other words its a valid conclusion based on the observable and verifiable evidence. You however, want to maintain that it must be tested, I on the other hand say it is being tested and demonstrated in and just the same way your method demonstrates things. The conclusions that physics "demonstrates" at times are theories, speculation and hypothesis, even though they are based on the best possible information, they are not proof of absolute truth.
We can only continue if you understand these points.The debate thus far. Ag. said what would happpen if believers suddenly understood God was dead, several people offered thier points of view. Rahvin said, numerous other possibiltes, I said What other possibiltes, nobody has offered another one. Onifre and Bertot have been dancing around this point. Bertot has been waiting for another solution, O complains about his method but offeres no other solutions to the only two. O and B are now debating the meanings of words, ideas and concepts. O and B are speaking two different languages. Bertot has demonstrated that there are only two possibilites, one of which is a creator in the context of the science of deductive reasoning. Because a creator is a valid conclusion (not proof) that falls within the area of science, it involves no religious thought or concepts. That being the case it identifies itself as scientific and teachable as an explanation in ANY classroom. Since you insist on avoiding the question I keep putting before you I will asked it again. Does the NBP offer any solutions as to the origins of things, yes or no?Does it present another solution to the only possible two solutions in the context of the discussion. If so what is it?
Its possible I was wrong depending on how we were using the word "eternity". Remember that you complained about my usage of that word and that I pointed out that no matter how physics uses it, there is still a concept of no beginning or no end, never having a starting point or an ending. You applied it to walking in a circle and I applied it to the existence of matter, material, or stuff. So I would have to say I was not wrong, especially since you have not given me another solution. Onifre please pay attention. You have maintained that matter did not exists before the BB, but that Something did. If what happened at the BB was DIFFERENT than what was before, yet still something, it would follow that it was the beginning of something else. Surely even you can see this point based on your own contentions No I do not, because proof is not what we are talking about, it exists for nothing, including physics answers to the origins of things. Based on this line of reasoning of yours, physics has provided proof of nothing beyond that which we can observe. That which we can observe applied to physics cannot prove that matter is eternal in its character (having always exisited), it therefore cannot demonstrate that it was not created by something that is eternal in character. Both positions are based in truth and faith. The truth is that matter is eternal or it is not, logic would dictate this point beyond ANY DOUBT. As a matter of fact I continue to challenge you to giVe me another solution. If physics is essentially God in your estimations and statements, why cant it tell us the ultimate and true nature of things? Do you mean to tell me that you are basing your conclusions on insufficient evidence are your conclusions only faith after all? Your making the same mistake Rahvin and Cavediver did, your assuming there are other possibilties in your phrase, "then theres no end to the storieS about ORIGIN that well have to accept as equal to that of sciences". Onifre, what other STORIES (solutions)? Please put it forward. Give me another solution.
Your further assuming that the science of deductive reasoning cannot carry you to axiomatic truths, the conclusions of which are not only testable but irrefutable. You whole attempts in this debate are indicative of this fact.My friend, logic and deductive reasoning when applied to axiomatic truths are never wrong and certainly not SUBJECTIVE. If my conclusions are wrong or subjective you would have long since provided another solution. My prediction is that you will not even make an attempt. By all means, proceed. Actually I am none of these things, Im only better than you in this area, which is not saying much, ha ha.Straggler (big bulbous scary eye dude) writes I think I have addressed most if not all of your contentions in Onifre's posts. If you feel I have not then present that point and I will try to address it as well.Remember, proof is not required or possible. Axiomatic truths are both tried and tested. the evidence in some areas will lead you to conclusions that are demonstratable and irrefutable, yet not absolutely provable, because such a thing exists for nothing.I have kids bithdays and such coming up, so I will be very busy the next few days. I am enjoying the discussion so please do not go away. Hopefully others will chime in and offer there comments.Agobots original contention, specualting about the possibility of God being dead or non-existent is not even a remote possibility. There is therefore no need to worry about what my fellings would be otherwise.D Bertot

AG writesI will take a wild guess and assume you did not want me to address this, correct? If you do, I will. This is NOT another logical possibility because it immediately assumes that something was PRIOR to that event.. If there was not one would need to demonstrate that those properties came from "nothingness" or that THAT those and other materials are eternal, a task that is for all intents and purposes impossible.I often hear people say that these Laws of existence were designed this way. That is not exacally correct. Its just the way things are if ANYTHING ANYWHERE exists, physical or spiritual. If there were only the spiritual world and no physical, the rules would be the same. Those spiritual properties would have to be eternal or not, only part of them could be finite, at some point something would have to be eternal if ANYTHING ANYWHERE EXISTS AT ALL.This why the scriptures say that a person is without excuse. Not to threaten people, but to point out that it is just the NATURE of EXISTENCE. Simply put it could not be otherwise, no matter what you discover or explain in another science.Reality, the nature of things, existence, logic and deductive reasoning are you DADDY. Whos you daddy? Logic and deductive reasoningD BertotIts just the nature of existence itself. Hence the statemnet, "Whom shall I say has sent me?. Say to him, "I AM, that I AM, has sent you" Eternal self-existence.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.

Strag writes: Im not even sure this is a valid statement, let alone makes any sense. Why would nothing have to be or do anything. Did you borrow some of Onifre' pot? Youve got to be kidding me. Does not a simple observation of reality and existence of things suggest the obvious conclusion of always existed or finite in character. By what stretch of the imagination do you come to the conclusion that this is some philosophical ideology man. You are forced to this simple very reasonable conclusion by simply being here. Its conclusion is axiomatic, there are only a couple of choices, as such, it should be OBVIOUS you are dealing with absolutes in reality, no imagination is required..Then your position is that all things have simply always existed, or does this not matter to you at all anyway.Try and address this argument before you conclude that it is a phily rather than a evi position. If it (anything)exists it was always there in some form forever or something eternal in character and nature set it in motion, given the characteristics of all things we are aware of at present. You can easily dismiss my argument as philosophy and set it aside by giving me another alternative. If you cannot it stands as it has for thousands and thousands and thousands of years as a valid principle, axiomatic in character.If you adopt that it was simply always there then you will need to look for something in the nature of things that does not have the qualities of change and or deterioration, ie entropy. Ignoring this fact does not make it go away.Onifre writes: Like Sraggler you are jesting. The existence of things and its origins is testable from the mere fact that it exists. There is only two possiblites, it always existed or it did not. Nobody in his or her right mind would suggest that this principle is not real or testable by simple observation and understanding. Reducing its possible reasons for existence to the reality of obvious logical choices is not only science and testable, but to suggest otherwise is simply ludicrous.I think you are missing this very simple point, maybe it will help. Reality, and physical properties, in whatever manner they represent themselves, matter or other wise, and the facts and conlusions that flow from those properties are inseparable, essentially they are one and the same. In this instance "anything" in existence can be demonstrated to have always existed or started by another source at someother point. This conclusion that flows from the reality of existence and the properties is inserable from eachother. Its a natural and observable conclusion, not a product of the imagination.
The NBP does not address the question because it goal is not to explain its origins but simply to expalin its make-up and nature. Only the science of logic and deductive reasoning in conjuntion with properties and reality can answer these questions. it gives you the ability as being created in Gods image to deduce certain inexcapable conclusions. GO LOGIC. Im not sure what this means, however it should be obvious to anyone that eternality is a very real possibility in the nature of things, one way (God or Cosmological) or another. If things did not exists by themselves forever, then one would logically want to know where they came from. I was not indicating that it was the starting point of everything, only that it was different form what was before, as you are. This does not extracate you from you problem, it only pushes the process bacwards to someTHING else, so what, what have you demonstrated, Nothing. As stated before, physics cannot answer any of these question, not now or ever.
If at some point it did it would discover only one of two possibilites or choices. Nothing could be clearer than that.There are two vital principles here. Your physics will never extracate you from this problem, or at bare minimum it will never set aside this indistructable truth, because it is founded and rooted in reality and undeniable, observable fact. Believing in God is not a product of the imagination, but axiomatic truths that limit the choices of experimentation.Secondly, these principles which have been around for thousands of years are tried and tested against the real world. You can denounce them or dismiss them as untestable and unverifiable, however you will have to check your brain at the door to do so. If this were the case my friend Hawking would certainly not exclude the possibility of a creator.Because things exist, the eternality of something is unavoidable.
If these theories present any alternative solutions than the two, then feel free to present them at any time. Reality and Logic are your daddy Onifre, while I am speaking in jest ofcourse, I am also serious. I agree, matter is not eternal in character, but reality would require something to be. "NO scientific theory leads to that conclusion" , if you are limiting what science to naturalist conclusions, agreed? This is an assertion I have already dimissed as illogical and unwarrented. Actaully you are exacally backwards, its physics that does not apply in the science of origins of reality and properties. It can only explain its properties, then logic and the science of deductive reasoning takes over at that point. Heck, I would like to be there when it happens, to watch it bring us right back to square one in understanding.Straggler writes: There is no conclusion which could be more clear than an axiomatic one. Things are here for a REASON, that is reality and reality limits its choices as to why. God is the most reasonable of all those choices. I would stake my very life on it and indeed I am. So to answer your question, Yes.D BertotEdited by Bertot, : No reason given.