Burden Of Proof

[Taz]

Burden of proof (philosophy) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The person making a claim has the burden to prove it with evidence

Try explaining that to ding.

It's not my burden to prove anything to you. I don't care what you believe. I don't care if you suffer through life. Your suffering through life is your burden and your proof.

If you put an idea forward, it's up to you to back up what you say, otherwise, what you say is meaningless and just an opinion from someone who can't EVER back his shit up.

I have. Many times. The physical laws of nature, the biological laws of nature and the moral laws of nature all point to intelligence as the source or matrix of existence. You are the one who has no proof.

See? You post your personal opinion because you have no links that tie what you say to empirical scientific evidence. Every. Single. Time.

Physical laws of nature, biological laws of nature and moral laws of nature are not opinions, dummy.

The ball is in your court to provide your burden of proof.

You have no links that show that what you said scientifically ties into it.

Your typical critical theory response. My burden of proof has been satisfied. Now provide your burden of proof for why you believe as you do.

Proof isn’t your personal opinion. You suck at this.

Again... Physical laws of nature, biological laws of nature and moral laws of nature are not opinions, dummy.

You can’t scientifically tie them into what you’re saying. EPIC FAIL.

Same answer as the last one, dummy. Science says everything I posted about examining the natural world. Logic concludes the rest.

You think it is a coincidence that the universe popped into existence hardwired to produce beings that know and create?

I think that you have yet to prove your invisible friend, and science doesn’t either, otherwise provide a link that says so.

Sure did. Pick pick out one thing I wrote that you can prove is wrong.

It’s an opinion, because you provide no link to back yourself up. I could care less what your opinion is.

 

[ding]

Burden of proof (philosophy) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The person making a claim has the burden to prove it with evidence

Try explaining that to ding.

It's not my burden to prove anything to you. I don't care what you believe. I don't care if you suffer through life. Your suffering through life is your burden and your proof.

If you put an idea forward, it's up to you to back up what you say, otherwise, what you say is meaningless and just an opinion from someone who can't EVER back his shit up.

So many on this board make empty proclamations and when pressed fail to back up their arguments. All you can do is ask the right questions and when they fail to answer them their cards are shown. Simple as that

Really?

At the heart of this debate is whether or not the material world was created by spirit. If the material world were not created by spirit, then everything which has occurred since the beginning of space and time are products of the material world. Everything which is incorporeal proceeded from the corporeal. There is no middle ground. There is no other option. Either the material world was created by spirit or it wasn't. All other options will simplify to one of these two lowest common denominators which are mutually exclusive.

So we need to start from that position and examine the evidence we have at our disposal which is creation itself. Specifically, the laws of nature; physical, biological and moral. And how space and time has evolved. And how we perceive God.

If we perceive God to be some magical fairy tale then everything we see will skew to that result. There won't be one single thing that we will agree with or accept. Whereas if we were trying to objectively analyze the evidence for spirit creating the material world we would listen to the whole argument and not look for trivial things to nitpick.

But since this is my argument we will use my perception of God. Which is there no thing that can describe God because God is no thing. God is not matter and energy like us and God exists outside of our four dimension space time. In fact the premise is that God is no thing. That God is a spirit. A spirit is no thing. Being things we can't possibly relate to being no things. A two dimensional being would have an easier time trying to understand our third dimension than we - a four dimensional being - would in trying to understand a multi-dimensional being outside of our space time. The closest I can come to and later confirm with the physical laws is that God is consciousness. That Mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality - that the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff. It is Mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life, and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create.

So now that a realistic perception of God has been established we need to examine the only evidence at our disposal. It should be obvious that if the material world were not created by spirit that everything that has unfolded in the evolution of space and time would have no intentional purpose. That it is just matter and energy doing what matter and energy do. Conversely, if the material world were created by spirit it should be obvious that the creation of the material world was intentional. After all in my perception of God, God is no thing and the closest thing I can relate to is a mind with no body. Using our own experiences as creators as a proxy, we know that when we create things we create them for a reason and that reason is to serve some purpose. So it would be no great leap of logic to believe that something like a mind with no body would do the same. We also know from our experiences that intelligence tends to create intelligence. We are obsessed with making smart things. So what better thing for a mind with no body to do than create a universe where beings with bodies can create smart things too.

We have good reason to believe that we find ourselves in a universe permeated with life, in which life arises inevitably, given enough time, wherever the conditions exist that make it possible. Yet were any one of a number of the physical properties of our universe otherwise - some of them basic, others seemingly trivial, almost accidental - that life, which seems now to be so prevalent, would become impossible, here or anywhere. It takes no great imagination to conceive of other possible universes, each stable and workable in itself, yet lifeless. How is it that, with so many other apparent options, we are in a universe that possesses just that peculiar nexus of properties that breeds beings that know and create.

The biological laws are such that life is programmed to survive and multiply which is a requisite for intelligence to arise. If the purpose of the universe was to create intelligence then a preference in nature for it had to exist. The Laws of Nature are such that the potential for intelligence to existed the moment space and time were created. One can argue that given the laws of nature and the size of the universe that intelligence arising was inevitable. One can also argue that creating intelligence from nothing defies the Second Law of Entropy. That creating intelligence from nothing increases order within the universe. It actually doesn't because usable energy was lost along the way as a cost of creating order from disorder. But it is nature overriding it's tendency for ever increasing disorder that interests me and raises my suspicions to look deeper and to take seriously the proposition that a mind without a body created the material world so that minds with bodies could create too.

If we examine the physical laws we discover that we live in a logical universe governed by rules, laws and information. Rules laws and information are a signs of intelligence. Intentionality and purpose are signs of intelligence. The definition of reason is a cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event. The definition of purpose is the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists. The consequence of a logical universe is that every cause has an effect. Which means that everything happens for a reason and serves a purpose. The very nature of our physical laws point to reason and purpose.

All we have done so far is to make a logical argument for spirit creating the material world. Certainly not an argument built of fairy tales that's for sure. So going back to the two possibilities; spirit creating the material world versus everything proceeding from the material, the key distinction is no thing versus thing. So if we assume that everything I have described was just an accidental coincidence of the properties of matter, the logical conclusion is that matter and energy are just doing what matter and energy do which makes sense. The problem is that for matter and energy to do what matter and energy do, there has to be rules in place for matter and energy to obey. The formation of space and time followed rules. Specifically the law of conservation and quantum mechanics. These laws existed before space and time and defined the potential of everything which was possible. These laws are no thing. So we literally have an example of no thing existing before the material world. The creation of space and time from nothing is literally correct. Space and time were created from no thing. Spirit is no thing. No thing created space and time.

If the universe were created through natural process and we are an accidental happenstance of matter and energy doing what matter and energy do, then there should be no expectation for absolute morals. Morals can be anything we want them to be. The problem is that nature does have a preference for an outcome. Societies and people which behave with virtue experience order and harmony. Societies and people which behave without virtue experience disorder and chaos. So we can see from the outcomes that not all behaviors have equal outcomes. That some behaviors have better outcomes and some behaviors have worse outcomes. This is the moral law at work. If the universe was created by spirit for the express purpose of creating beings that know and create we would expect that we would receive feedback on how we behave. The problem is that violating moral laws are not like violating physical laws. When we violate a physical law the consequences are immediate. If you try to defy gravity by jumping off a roof you will fall. Whereas the consequences for violating a moral law are more probabilistic in nature; many times we get away with it.

Morals are effectively standards. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed based upon some universal code of common decency that is independent of man.

So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man how come we all don't behave the same way when it comes to right and wrong? The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.

Man does know right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not violate it. You can see this behavior in almost all quarrels and disagreements. At the heart of every quarrel and disagreement is a belief in a universal right and wrong. So even though each side believes right to be different each side expects the other to believe their side should be universally known and accepted. It is this behavior which tells us there is an expectation for an absolute truth.

If there were never a universal truth that existed man would never have an expectation of fairness to begin with because fairness would have no meaning. The fact that each of us has an expectation of fairness and that we expect everyone else to follow ought to raise our suspicion on the origin of that expectation.

Your turn.

Total load of fartsmoke with no links, even to all that shit you copy&pasted.

Which is your typical response when you have nothing. You can't argue the reasons why you believe the way you do. All you can ever do is to criticize the arguments of others. You criticize what you don't believe to arrive at what you do believe without ever having to examine what you believe. You couldn't make an argument for your beliefs if your life depended upon it. You don't possess the intellectual capacity to articulate what you believe and why you believe it.

I do and I did. And it has never been refuted.

I get that you believe that but you show zero proof that science agrees with you.

You got that backwards, dummy, you have no science that disputes anything I said.

Pick a sentence I wrote that you dispute. I'll wait.

Science doesn’t say that there’s an invisible superbeing. You lose, cum guzzler.

Science says everything I posted about examining the natural world, dummy. Logic concludes the rest. Go learn something.

Where does science say that there’s an invisible superbeing? You anus licker.

Why are you getting so upset over this, Taz?

It must really bother you that the universe popped into existence hardwired to produce intelligence. That's what science tells us.

Science says no such thing, you imbecile. Last chance, link me to some science that explains that.

What do you think the big bang is, dummy?

 

[Taz]

What I'm saying is that scientists today should be able to find evidence of a 40 day worldwide flood however many years ago that it happened. So why haven't they?

Look Taz, I've advised you before that it is you who have made up a story about a 40 day worldwide flood. You view the story from modern English and the perspective of the 21st Century. I spent a lot of time with you explaining the account from the Hebrew language and the perspective of thousands of years ago. You did not listen. You are not listening still. Perhaps you never will. In any case, good luck trying to find scientific evidence for the way you insist upon perceiving the account. Try to keep in mind, seventy percent of believers do not take allegorical and symbolic Bible stories literally. When we want the scientific or historical perspectives, we select science and history texts. I recommend atheists do likewise.

You have to move the goalposts because you think that the bible isn’t credible, so we agree on that.

 

[ding]

Burden of proof (philosophy) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The person making a claim has the burden to prove it with evidence

Try explaining that to ding.

It's not my burden to prove anything to you. I don't care what you believe. I don't care if you suffer through life. Your suffering through life is your burden and your proof.

If you put an idea forward, it's up to you to back up what you say, otherwise, what you say is meaningless and just an opinion from someone who can't EVER back his shit up.

I have. Many times. The physical laws of nature, the biological laws of nature and the moral laws of nature all point to intelligence as the source or matrix of existence. You are the one who has no proof.

See? You post your personal opinion because you have no links that tie what you say to empirical scientific evidence. Every. Single. Time.

Physical laws of nature, biological laws of nature and moral laws of nature are not opinions, dummy.

The ball is in your court to provide your burden of proof.

You have no links that show that what you said scientifically ties into it.

Your typical critical theory response. My burden of proof has been satisfied. Now provide your burden of proof for why you believe as you do.

Proof isn’t your personal opinion. You suck at this.

Again... Physical laws of nature, biological laws of nature and moral laws of nature are not opinions, dummy.

You can’t scientifically tie them into what you’re saying. EPIC FAIL.

Same answer as the last one, dummy. Science says everything I posted about examining the natural world. Logic concludes the rest.

You think it is a coincidence that the universe popped into existence hardwired to produce beings that know and create?

I think that you have yet to prove your invisible friend, and science doesn’t either, otherwise provide a link that says so.

Sure did. Pick pick out one thing I wrote that you can prove is wrong.

It’s an opinion, because you provide no link to back yourself up. I could care less what your opinion is.

Copy a sentence I wrote and explain how it is wrong. You can't do it.

 

[Taz]

Burden of proof (philosophy) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The person making a claim has the burden to prove it with evidence

Try explaining that to ding.

It's not my burden to prove anything to you. I don't care what you believe. I don't care if you suffer through life. Your suffering through life is your burden and your proof.

If you put an idea forward, it's up to you to back up what you say, otherwise, what you say is meaningless and just an opinion from someone who can't EVER back his shit up.

So many on this board make empty proclamations and when pressed fail to back up their arguments. All you can do is ask the right questions and when they fail to answer them their cards are shown. Simple as that

Really?

At the heart of this debate is whether or not the material world was created by spirit. If the material world were not created by spirit, then everything which has occurred since the beginning of space and time are products of the material world. Everything which is incorporeal proceeded from the corporeal. There is no middle ground. There is no other option. Either the material world was created by spirit or it wasn't. All other options will simplify to one of these two lowest common denominators which are mutually exclusive.

So we need to start from that position and examine the evidence we have at our disposal which is creation itself. Specifically, the laws of nature; physical, biological and moral. And how space and time has evolved. And how we perceive God.

If we perceive God to be some magical fairy tale then everything we see will skew to that result. There won't be one single thing that we will agree with or accept. Whereas if we were trying to objectively analyze the evidence for spirit creating the material world we would listen to the whole argument and not look for trivial things to nitpick.

But since this is my argument we will use my perception of God. Which is there no thing that can describe God because God is no thing. God is not matter and energy like us and God exists outside of our four dimension space time. In fact the premise is that God is no thing. That God is a spirit. A spirit is no thing. Being things we can't possibly relate to being no things. A two dimensional being would have an easier time trying to understand our third dimension than we - a four dimensional being - would in trying to understand a multi-dimensional being outside of our space time. The closest I can come to and later confirm with the physical laws is that God is consciousness. That Mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality - that the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff. It is Mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life, and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create.

So now that a realistic perception of God has been established we need to examine the only evidence at our disposal. It should be obvious that if the material world were not created by spirit that everything that has unfolded in the evolution of space and time would have no intentional purpose. That it is just matter and energy doing what matter and energy do. Conversely, if the material world were created by spirit it should be obvious that the creation of the material world was intentional. After all in my perception of God, God is no thing and the closest thing I can relate to is a mind with no body. Using our own experiences as creators as a proxy, we know that when we create things we create them for a reason and that reason is to serve some purpose. So it would be no great leap of logic to believe that something like a mind with no body would do the same. We also know from our experiences that intelligence tends to create intelligence. We are obsessed with making smart things. So what better thing for a mind with no body to do than create a universe where beings with bodies can create smart things too.

We have good reason to believe that we find ourselves in a universe permeated with life, in which life arises inevitably, given enough time, wherever the conditions exist that make it possible. Yet were any one of a number of the physical properties of our universe otherwise - some of them basic, others seemingly trivial, almost accidental - that life, which seems now to be so prevalent, would become impossible, here or anywhere. It takes no great imagination to conceive of other possible universes, each stable and workable in itself, yet lifeless. How is it that, with so many other apparent options, we are in a universe that possesses just that peculiar nexus of properties that breeds beings that know and create.

The biological laws are such that life is programmed to survive and multiply which is a requisite for intelligence to arise. If the purpose of the universe was to create intelligence then a preference in nature for it had to exist. The Laws of Nature are such that the potential for intelligence to existed the moment space and time were created. One can argue that given the laws of nature and the size of the universe that intelligence arising was inevitable. One can also argue that creating intelligence from nothing defies the Second Law of Entropy. That creating intelligence from nothing increases order within the universe. It actually doesn't because usable energy was lost along the way as a cost of creating order from disorder. But it is nature overriding it's tendency for ever increasing disorder that interests me and raises my suspicions to look deeper and to take seriously the proposition that a mind without a body created the material world so that minds with bodies could create too.

If we examine the physical laws we discover that we live in a logical universe governed by rules, laws and information. Rules laws and information are a signs of intelligence. Intentionality and purpose are signs of intelligence. The definition of reason is a cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event. The definition of purpose is the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists. The consequence of a logical universe is that every cause has an effect. Which means that everything happens for a reason and serves a purpose. The very nature of our physical laws point to reason and purpose.

All we have done so far is to make a logical argument for spirit creating the material world. Certainly not an argument built of fairy tales that's for sure. So going back to the two possibilities; spirit creating the material world versus everything proceeding from the material, the key distinction is no thing versus thing. So if we assume that everything I have described was just an accidental coincidence of the properties of matter, the logical conclusion is that matter and energy are just doing what matter and energy do which makes sense. The problem is that for matter and energy to do what matter and energy do, there has to be rules in place for matter and energy to obey. The formation of space and time followed rules. Specifically the law of conservation and quantum mechanics. These laws existed before space and time and defined the potential of everything which was possible. These laws are no thing. So we literally have an example of no thing existing before the material world. The creation of space and time from nothing is literally correct. Space and time were created from no thing. Spirit is no thing. No thing created space and time.

If the universe were created through natural process and we are an accidental happenstance of matter and energy doing what matter and energy do, then there should be no expectation for absolute morals. Morals can be anything we want them to be. The problem is that nature does have a preference for an outcome. Societies and people which behave with virtue experience order and harmony. Societies and people which behave without virtue experience disorder and chaos. So we can see from the outcomes that not all behaviors have equal outcomes. That some behaviors have better outcomes and some behaviors have worse outcomes. This is the moral law at work. If the universe was created by spirit for the express purpose of creating beings that know and create we would expect that we would receive feedback on how we behave. The problem is that violating moral laws are not like violating physical laws. When we violate a physical law the consequences are immediate. If you try to defy gravity by jumping off a roof you will fall. Whereas the consequences for violating a moral law are more probabilistic in nature; many times we get away with it.

Morals are effectively standards. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed based upon some universal code of common decency that is independent of man.

So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man how come we all don't behave the same way when it comes to right and wrong? The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.

Man does know right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not violate it. You can see this behavior in almost all quarrels and disagreements. At the heart of every quarrel and disagreement is a belief in a universal right and wrong. So even though each side believes right to be different each side expects the other to believe their side should be universally known and accepted. It is this behavior which tells us there is an expectation for an absolute truth.

If there were never a universal truth that existed man would never have an expectation of fairness to begin with because fairness would have no meaning. The fact that each of us has an expectation of fairness and that we expect everyone else to follow ought to raise our suspicion on the origin of that expectation.

Your turn.

Total load of fartsmoke with no links, even to all that shit you copy&pasted.

Which is your typical response when you have nothing. You can't argue the reasons why you believe the way you do. All you can ever do is to criticize the arguments of others. You criticize what you don't believe to arrive at what you do believe without ever having to examine what you believe. You couldn't make an argument for your beliefs if your life depended upon it. You don't possess the intellectual capacity to articulate what you believe and why you believe it.

I do and I did. And it has never been refuted.

I get that you believe that but you show zero proof that science agrees with you.

You got that backwards, dummy, you have no science that disputes anything I said.

Pick a sentence I wrote that you dispute. I'll wait.

Science doesn’t say that there’s an invisible superbeing. You lose, cum guzzler.

Science says everything I posted about examining the natural world, dummy. Logic concludes the rest. Go learn something.

Where does science say that there’s an invisible superbeing? You anus licker.

Why are you getting so upset over this, Taz?

It must really bother you that the universe popped into existence hardwired to produce intelligence. That's what science tells us.

Science says no such thing, you imbecile. Last chance, link me to some science that explains that.

What do you think the big bang is, dummy?

Your link doesn’t work.

 

[Taz]

Burden of proof (philosophy) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The person making a claim has the burden to prove it with evidence

Try explaining that to ding.

It's not my burden to prove anything to you. I don't care what you believe. I don't care if you suffer through life. Your suffering through life is your burden and your proof.

If you put an idea forward, it's up to you to back up what you say, otherwise, what you say is meaningless and just an opinion from someone who can't EVER back his shit up.

I have. Many times. The physical laws of nature, the biological laws of nature and the moral laws of nature all point to intelligence as the source or matrix of existence. You are the one who has no proof.

See? You post your personal opinion because you have no links that tie what you say to empirical scientific evidence. Every. Single. Time.

Physical laws of nature, biological laws of nature and moral laws of nature are not opinions, dummy.

The ball is in your court to provide your burden of proof.

You have no links that show that what you said scientifically ties into it.

Your typical critical theory response. My burden of proof has been satisfied. Now provide your burden of proof for why you believe as you do.

Proof isn’t your personal opinion. You suck at this.

Again... Physical laws of nature, biological laws of nature and moral laws of nature are not opinions, dummy.

You can’t scientifically tie them into what you’re saying. EPIC FAIL.

Same answer as the last one, dummy. Science says everything I posted about examining the natural world. Logic concludes the rest.

You think it is a coincidence that the universe popped into existence hardwired to produce beings that know and create?

I think that you have yet to prove your invisible friend, and science doesn’t either, otherwise provide a link that says so.

Sure did. Pick pick out one thing I wrote that you can prove is wrong.

It’s an opinion, because you provide no link to back yourself up. I could care less what your opinion is.

Copy a sentence I wrote and explain how it is wrong. You can't do it.

Your link is broken.

 

[ding]

Burden of proof (philosophy) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The person making a claim has the burden to prove it with evidence

Try explaining that to ding.

It's not my burden to prove anything to you. I don't care what you believe. I don't care if you suffer through life. Your suffering through life is your burden and your proof.

If you put an idea forward, it's up to you to back up what you say, otherwise, what you say is meaningless and just an opinion from someone who can't EVER back his shit up.

So many on this board make empty proclamations and when pressed fail to back up their arguments. All you can do is ask the right questions and when they fail to answer them their cards are shown. Simple as that

Really?

At the heart of this debate is whether or not the material world was created by spirit. If the material world were not created by spirit, then everything which has occurred since the beginning of space and time are products of the material world. Everything which is incorporeal proceeded from the corporeal. There is no middle ground. There is no other option. Either the material world was created by spirit or it wasn't. All other options will simplify to one of these two lowest common denominators which are mutually exclusive.

So we need to start from that position and examine the evidence we have at our disposal which is creation itself. Specifically, the laws of nature; physical, biological and moral. And how space and time has evolved. And how we perceive God.

If we perceive God to be some magical fairy tale then everything we see will skew to that result. There won't be one single thing that we will agree with or accept. Whereas if we were trying to objectively analyze the evidence for spirit creating the material world we would listen to the whole argument and not look for trivial things to nitpick.

But since this is my argument we will use my perception of God. Which is there no thing that can describe God because God is no thing. God is not matter and energy like us and God exists outside of our four dimension space time. In fact the premise is that God is no thing. That God is a spirit. A spirit is no thing. Being things we can't possibly relate to being no things. A two dimensional being would have an easier time trying to understand our third dimension than we - a four dimensional being - would in trying to understand a multi-dimensional being outside of our space time. The closest I can come to and later confirm with the physical laws is that God is consciousness. That Mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality - that the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff. It is Mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life, and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create.

So now that a realistic perception of God has been established we need to examine the only evidence at our disposal. It should be obvious that if the material world were not created by spirit that everything that has unfolded in the evolution of space and time would have no intentional purpose. That it is just matter and energy doing what matter and energy do. Conversely, if the material world were created by spirit it should be obvious that the creation of the material world was intentional. After all in my perception of God, God is no thing and the closest thing I can relate to is a mind with no body. Using our own experiences as creators as a proxy, we know that when we create things we create them for a reason and that reason is to serve some purpose. So it would be no great leap of logic to believe that something like a mind with no body would do the same. We also know from our experiences that intelligence tends to create intelligence. We are obsessed with making smart things. So what better thing for a mind with no body to do than create a universe where beings with bodies can create smart things too.

We have good reason to believe that we find ourselves in a universe permeated with life, in which life arises inevitably, given enough time, wherever the conditions exist that make it possible. Yet were any one of a number of the physical properties of our universe otherwise - some of them basic, others seemingly trivial, almost accidental - that life, which seems now to be so prevalent, would become impossible, here or anywhere. It takes no great imagination to conceive of other possible universes, each stable and workable in itself, yet lifeless. How is it that, with so many other apparent options, we are in a universe that possesses just that peculiar nexus of properties that breeds beings that know and create.

The biological laws are such that life is programmed to survive and multiply which is a requisite for intelligence to arise. If the purpose of the universe was to create intelligence then a preference in nature for it had to exist. The Laws of Nature are such that the potential for intelligence to existed the moment space and time were created. One can argue that given the laws of nature and the size of the universe that intelligence arising was inevitable. One can also argue that creating intelligence from nothing defies the Second Law of Entropy. That creating intelligence from nothing increases order within the universe. It actually doesn't because usable energy was lost along the way as a cost of creating order from disorder. But it is nature overriding it's tendency for ever increasing disorder that interests me and raises my suspicions to look deeper and to take seriously the proposition that a mind without a body created the material world so that minds with bodies could create too.

If we examine the physical laws we discover that we live in a logical universe governed by rules, laws and information. Rules laws and information are a signs of intelligence. Intentionality and purpose are signs of intelligence. The definition of reason is a cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event. The definition of purpose is the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists. The consequence of a logical universe is that every cause has an effect. Which means that everything happens for a reason and serves a purpose. The very nature of our physical laws point to reason and purpose.

All we have done so far is to make a logical argument for spirit creating the material world. Certainly not an argument built of fairy tales that's for sure. So going back to the two possibilities; spirit creating the material world versus everything proceeding from the material, the key distinction is no thing versus thing. So if we assume that everything I have described was just an accidental coincidence of the properties of matter, the logical conclusion is that matter and energy are just doing what matter and energy do which makes sense. The problem is that for matter and energy to do what matter and energy do, there has to be rules in place for matter and energy to obey. The formation of space and time followed rules. Specifically the law of conservation and quantum mechanics. These laws existed before space and time and defined the potential of everything which was possible. These laws are no thing. So we literally have an example of no thing existing before the material world. The creation of space and time from nothing is literally correct. Space and time were created from no thing. Spirit is no thing. No thing created space and time.

If the universe were created through natural process and we are an accidental happenstance of matter and energy doing what matter and energy do, then there should be no expectation for absolute morals. Morals can be anything we want them to be. The problem is that nature does have a preference for an outcome. Societies and people which behave with virtue experience order and harmony. Societies and people which behave without virtue experience disorder and chaos. So we can see from the outcomes that not all behaviors have equal outcomes. That some behaviors have better outcomes and some behaviors have worse outcomes. This is the moral law at work. If the universe was created by spirit for the express purpose of creating beings that know and create we would expect that we would receive feedback on how we behave. The problem is that violating moral laws are not like violating physical laws. When we violate a physical law the consequences are immediate. If you try to defy gravity by jumping off a roof you will fall. Whereas the consequences for violating a moral law are more probabilistic in nature; many times we get away with it.

Morals are effectively standards. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed based upon some universal code of common decency that is independent of man.

So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man how come we all don't behave the same way when it comes to right and wrong? The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.

Man does know right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not violate it. You can see this behavior in almost all quarrels and disagreements. At the heart of every quarrel and disagreement is a belief in a universal right and wrong. So even though each side believes right to be different each side expects the other to believe their side should be universally known and accepted. It is this behavior which tells us there is an expectation for an absolute truth.

If there were never a universal truth that existed man would never have an expectation of fairness to begin with because fairness would have no meaning. The fact that each of us has an expectation of fairness and that we expect everyone else to follow ought to raise our suspicion on the origin of that expectation.

Your turn.

Total load of fartsmoke with no links, even to all that shit you copy&pasted.

Which is your typical response when you have nothing. You can't argue the reasons why you believe the way you do. All you can ever do is to criticize the arguments of others. You criticize what you don't believe to arrive at what you do believe without ever having to examine what you believe. You couldn't make an argument for your beliefs if your life depended upon it. You don't possess the intellectual capacity to articulate what you believe and why you believe it.

I do and I did. And it has never been refuted.

I get that you believe that but you show zero proof that science agrees with you.

You got that backwards, dummy, you have no science that disputes anything I said.

Pick a sentence I wrote that you dispute. I'll wait.

Science doesn’t say that there’s an invisible superbeing. You lose, cum guzzler.

Science says everything I posted about examining the natural world, dummy. Logic concludes the rest. Go learn something.

Where does science say that there’s an invisible superbeing? You anus licker.

Why are you getting so upset over this, Taz?

It must really bother you that the universe popped into existence hardwired to produce intelligence. That's what science tells us.

Science says no such thing, you imbecile. Last chance, link me to some science that explains that.

What do you think the big bang is, dummy?

Your link doesn’t work.

Take what I wrote, copy a sentence and don't come back until you can explain why it is wrong and please try to make it insightful.

 

[ding]

Burden of proof (philosophy) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The person making a claim has the burden to prove it with evidence

Try explaining that to ding.

It's not my burden to prove anything to you. I don't care what you believe. I don't care if you suffer through life. Your suffering through life is your burden and your proof.

If you put an idea forward, it's up to you to back up what you say, otherwise, what you say is meaningless and just an opinion from someone who can't EVER back his shit up.

I have. Many times. The physical laws of nature, the biological laws of nature and the moral laws of nature all point to intelligence as the source or matrix of existence. You are the one who has no proof.

See? You post your personal opinion because you have no links that tie what you say to empirical scientific evidence. Every. Single. Time.

Physical laws of nature, biological laws of nature and moral laws of nature are not opinions, dummy.

The ball is in your court to provide your burden of proof.

You have no links that show that what you said scientifically ties into it.

Your typical critical theory response. My burden of proof has been satisfied. Now provide your burden of proof for why you believe as you do.

Proof isn’t your personal opinion. You suck at this.

Again... Physical laws of nature, biological laws of nature and moral laws of nature are not opinions, dummy.

You can’t scientifically tie them into what you’re saying. EPIC FAIL.

Same answer as the last one, dummy. Science says everything I posted about examining the natural world. Logic concludes the rest.

You think it is a coincidence that the universe popped into existence hardwired to produce beings that know and create?

I think that you have yet to prove your invisible friend, and science doesn’t either, otherwise provide a link that says so.

Sure did. Pick pick out one thing I wrote that you can prove is wrong.

It’s an opinion, because you provide no link to back yourself up. I could care less what your opinion is.

Copy a sentence I wrote and explain how it is wrong. You can't do it.

Your link is broken.

The proof of evidence is in your court.

 

[Taz]

Burden of proof (philosophy) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The person making a claim has the burden to prove it with evidence

Try explaining that to ding.

It's not my burden to prove anything to you. I don't care what you believe. I don't care if you suffer through life. Your suffering through life is your burden and your proof.

If you put an idea forward, it's up to you to back up what you say, otherwise, what you say is meaningless and just an opinion from someone who can't EVER back his shit up.

So many on this board make empty proclamations and when pressed fail to back up their arguments. All you can do is ask the right questions and when they fail to answer them their cards are shown. Simple as that

Really?

At the heart of this debate is whether or not the material world was created by spirit. If the material world were not created by spirit, then everything which has occurred since the beginning of space and time are products of the material world. Everything which is incorporeal proceeded from the corporeal. There is no middle ground. There is no other option. Either the material world was created by spirit or it wasn't. All other options will simplify to one of these two lowest common denominators which are mutually exclusive.

So we need to start from that position and examine the evidence we have at our disposal which is creation itself. Specifically, the laws of nature; physical, biological and moral. And how space and time has evolved. And how we perceive God.

If we perceive God to be some magical fairy tale then everything we see will skew to that result. There won't be one single thing that we will agree with or accept. Whereas if we were trying to objectively analyze the evidence for spirit creating the material world we would listen to the whole argument and not look for trivial things to nitpick.

But since this is my argument we will use my perception of God. Which is there no thing that can describe God because God is no thing. God is not matter and energy like us and God exists outside of our four dimension space time. In fact the premise is that God is no thing. That God is a spirit. A spirit is no thing. Being things we can't possibly relate to being no things. A two dimensional being would have an easier time trying to understand our third dimension than we - a four dimensional being - would in trying to understand a multi-dimensional being outside of our space time. The closest I can come to and later confirm with the physical laws is that God is consciousness. That Mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality - that the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff. It is Mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life, and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create.

So now that a realistic perception of God has been established we need to examine the only evidence at our disposal. It should be obvious that if the material world were not created by spirit that everything that has unfolded in the evolution of space and time would have no intentional purpose. That it is just matter and energy doing what matter and energy do. Conversely, if the material world were created by spirit it should be obvious that the creation of the material world was intentional. After all in my perception of God, God is no thing and the closest thing I can relate to is a mind with no body. Using our own experiences as creators as a proxy, we know that when we create things we create them for a reason and that reason is to serve some purpose. So it would be no great leap of logic to believe that something like a mind with no body would do the same. We also know from our experiences that intelligence tends to create intelligence. We are obsessed with making smart things. So what better thing for a mind with no body to do than create a universe where beings with bodies can create smart things too.

We have good reason to believe that we find ourselves in a universe permeated with life, in which life arises inevitably, given enough time, wherever the conditions exist that make it possible. Yet were any one of a number of the physical properties of our universe otherwise - some of them basic, others seemingly trivial, almost accidental - that life, which seems now to be so prevalent, would become impossible, here or anywhere. It takes no great imagination to conceive of other possible universes, each stable and workable in itself, yet lifeless. How is it that, with so many other apparent options, we are in a universe that possesses just that peculiar nexus of properties that breeds beings that know and create.

The biological laws are such that life is programmed to survive and multiply which is a requisite for intelligence to arise. If the purpose of the universe was to create intelligence then a preference in nature for it had to exist. The Laws of Nature are such that the potential for intelligence to existed the moment space and time were created. One can argue that given the laws of nature and the size of the universe that intelligence arising was inevitable. One can also argue that creating intelligence from nothing defies the Second Law of Entropy. That creating intelligence from nothing increases order within the universe. It actually doesn't because usable energy was lost along the way as a cost of creating order from disorder. But it is nature overriding it's tendency for ever increasing disorder that interests me and raises my suspicions to look deeper and to take seriously the proposition that a mind without a body created the material world so that minds with bodies could create too.

If we examine the physical laws we discover that we live in a logical universe governed by rules, laws and information. Rules laws and information are a signs of intelligence. Intentionality and purpose are signs of intelligence. The definition of reason is a cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event. The definition of purpose is the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists. The consequence of a logical universe is that every cause has an effect. Which means that everything happens for a reason and serves a purpose. The very nature of our physical laws point to reason and purpose.

All we have done so far is to make a logical argument for spirit creating the material world. Certainly not an argument built of fairy tales that's for sure. So going back to the two possibilities; spirit creating the material world versus everything proceeding from the material, the key distinction is no thing versus thing. So if we assume that everything I have described was just an accidental coincidence of the properties of matter, the logical conclusion is that matter and energy are just doing what matter and energy do which makes sense. The problem is that for matter and energy to do what matter and energy do, there has to be rules in place for matter and energy to obey. The formation of space and time followed rules. Specifically the law of conservation and quantum mechanics. These laws existed before space and time and defined the potential of everything which was possible. These laws are no thing. So we literally have an example of no thing existing before the material world. The creation of space and time from nothing is literally correct. Space and time were created from no thing. Spirit is no thing. No thing created space and time.

If the universe were created through natural process and we are an accidental happenstance of matter and energy doing what matter and energy do, then there should be no expectation for absolute morals. Morals can be anything we want them to be. The problem is that nature does have a preference for an outcome. Societies and people which behave with virtue experience order and harmony. Societies and people which behave without virtue experience disorder and chaos. So we can see from the outcomes that not all behaviors have equal outcomes. That some behaviors have better outcomes and some behaviors have worse outcomes. This is the moral law at work. If the universe was created by spirit for the express purpose of creating beings that know and create we would expect that we would receive feedback on how we behave. The problem is that violating moral laws are not like violating physical laws. When we violate a physical law the consequences are immediate. If you try to defy gravity by jumping off a roof you will fall. Whereas the consequences for violating a moral law are more probabilistic in nature; many times we get away with it.

Morals are effectively standards. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed based upon some universal code of common decency that is independent of man.

So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man how come we all don't behave the same way when it comes to right and wrong? The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.

Man does know right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not violate it. You can see this behavior in almost all quarrels and disagreements. At the heart of every quarrel and disagreement is a belief in a universal right and wrong. So even though each side believes right to be different each side expects the other to believe their side should be universally known and accepted. It is this behavior which tells us there is an expectation for an absolute truth.

If there were never a universal truth that existed man would never have an expectation of fairness to begin with because fairness would have no meaning. The fact that each of us has an expectation of fairness and that we expect everyone else to follow ought to raise our suspicion on the origin of that expectation.

Your turn.

Total load of fartsmoke with no links, even to all that shit you copy&pasted.

Which is your typical response when you have nothing. You can't argue the reasons why you believe the way you do. All you can ever do is to criticize the arguments of others. You criticize what you don't believe to arrive at what you do believe without ever having to examine what you believe. You couldn't make an argument for your beliefs if your life depended upon it. You don't possess the intellectual capacity to articulate what you believe and why you believe it.

I do and I did. And it has never been refuted.

I get that you believe that but you show zero proof that science agrees with you.

You got that backwards, dummy, you have no science that disputes anything I said.

Pick a sentence I wrote that you dispute. I'll wait.

Science doesn’t say that there’s an invisible superbeing. You lose, cum guzzler.

Science says everything I posted about examining the natural world, dummy. Logic concludes the rest. Go learn something.

Where does science say that there’s an invisible superbeing? You anus licker.

Why are you getting so upset over this, Taz?

It must really bother you that the universe popped into existence hardwired to produce intelligence. That's what science tells us.

Science says no such thing, you imbecile. Last chance, link me to some science that explains that.

What do you think the big bang is, dummy?

Your link doesn’t work.

Take what I wrote, copy a sentence and don't come back until you can explain why it is wrong and please try to make it insightful.

“What do you think the big bang is, dummy?”

Even science doesn’t pretend to know what the BB was because they can’t see that far back. Look it up.

 

[Taz]

Burden of proof (philosophy) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The person making a claim has the burden to prove it with evidence

Try explaining that to ding.

It's not my burden to prove anything to you. I don't care what you believe. I don't care if you suffer through life. Your suffering through life is your burden and your proof.

If you put an idea forward, it's up to you to back up what you say, otherwise, what you say is meaningless and just an opinion from someone who can't EVER back his shit up.

I have. Many times. The physical laws of nature, the biological laws of nature and the moral laws of nature all point to intelligence as the source or matrix of existence. You are the one who has no proof.

See? You post your personal opinion because you have no links that tie what you say to empirical scientific evidence. Every. Single. Time.

Physical laws of nature, biological laws of nature and moral laws of nature are not opinions, dummy.

The ball is in your court to provide your burden of proof.

You have no links that show that what you said scientifically ties into it.

Your typical critical theory response. My burden of proof has been satisfied. Now provide your burden of proof for why you believe as you do.

Proof isn’t your personal opinion. You suck at this.

Again... Physical laws of nature, biological laws of nature and moral laws of nature are not opinions, dummy.

You can’t scientifically tie them into what you’re saying. EPIC FAIL.

Same answer as the last one, dummy. Science says everything I posted about examining the natural world. Logic concludes the rest.

You think it is a coincidence that the universe popped into existence hardwired to produce beings that know and create?

I think that you have yet to prove your invisible friend, and science doesn’t either, otherwise provide a link that says so.

Sure did. Pick pick out one thing I wrote that you can prove is wrong.

It’s an opinion, because you provide no link to back yourself up. I could care less what your opinion is.

Copy a sentence I wrote and explain how it is wrong. You can't do it.

Your link is broken.

The proof of evidence is in your court.

I’ve already proven that you can’t back up what you say with links that are scientific and relevant to what you’re saying.

 

[Meriweather]

You have to move the goalposts because you think that the bible isn’t credible, so we agree on that.

The Bible is quite credible. It focuses on human behavior. You tend to think it focuses on the weather.

 

[Taz]

You have to move the goalposts because you think that the bible isn’t credible, so we agree on that.

The Bible is quite credible. It focuses on human behavior. You tend to think it focuses on the weather.

You simply change the meaning of the stuff you don’t agree with. Might as well write your own fairy tales.

 

[Meriweather]

You simply change the meaning of the stuff you don’t agree with. Might as well write your own fairy tales.

No. I study the language, the history, and the culture. It is not a fairy tale, Taz. Nothing magical about it. It is a simple tale of a man facing a flood. Modern English changes the meanings. There is a lot of things Noah and I appear to disagree--but the two things we do agree on is that the flood was not a literal 40 days--and nor did it cover the planet.

 

[Slade3200]

Burden of proof (philosophy) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The person making a claim has the burden to prove it with evidence

Try explaining that to ding.

It's not my burden to prove anything to you. I don't care what you believe. I don't care if you suffer through life. Your suffering through life is your burden and your proof.

If you put an idea forward, it's up to you to back up what you say, otherwise, what you say is meaningless and just an opinion from someone who can't EVER back his shit up.

So many on this board make empty proclamations and when pressed fail to back up their arguments. All you can do is ask the right questions and when they fail to answer them their cards are shown. Simple as that

Really?

At the heart of this debate is whether or not the material world was created by spirit. If the material world were not created by spirit, then everything which has occurred since the beginning of space and time are products of the material world. Everything which is incorporeal proceeded from the corporeal. There is no middle ground. There is no other option. Either the material world was created by spirit or it wasn't. All other options will simplify to one of these two lowest common denominators which are mutually exclusive.

So we need to start from that position and examine the evidence we have at our disposal which is creation itself. Specifically, the laws of nature; physical, biological and moral. And how space and time has evolved. And how we perceive God.

If we perceive God to be some magical fairy tale then everything we see will skew to that result. There won't be one single thing that we will agree with or accept. Whereas if we were trying to objectively analyze the evidence for spirit creating the material world we would listen to the whole argument and not look for trivial things to nitpick.

But since this is my argument we will use my perception of God. Which is there no thing that can describe God because God is no thing. God is not matter and energy like us and God exists outside of our four dimension space time. In fact the premise is that God is no thing. That God is a spirit. A spirit is no thing. Being things we can't possibly relate to being no things. A two dimensional being would have an easier time trying to understand our third dimension than we - a four dimensional being - would in trying to understand a multi-dimensional being outside of our space time. The closest I can come to and later confirm with the physical laws is that God is consciousness. That Mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality - that the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff. It is Mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life, and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create.

So now that a realistic perception of God has been established we need to examine the only evidence at our disposal. It should be obvious that if the material world were not created by spirit that everything that has unfolded in the evolution of space and time would have no intentional purpose. That it is just matter and energy doing what matter and energy do. Conversely, if the material world were created by spirit it should be obvious that the creation of the material world was intentional. After all in my perception of God, God is no thing and the closest thing I can relate to is a mind with no body. Using our own experiences as creators as a proxy, we know that when we create things we create them for a reason and that reason is to serve some purpose. So it would be no great leap of logic to believe that something like a mind with no body would do the same. We also know from our experiences that intelligence tends to create intelligence. We are obsessed with making smart things. So what better thing for a mind with no body to do than create a universe where beings with bodies can create smart things too.

We have good reason to believe that we find ourselves in a universe permeated with life, in which life arises inevitably, given enough time, wherever the conditions exist that make it possible. Yet were any one of a number of the physical properties of our universe otherwise - some of them basic, others seemingly trivial, almost accidental - that life, which seems now to be so prevalent, would become impossible, here or anywhere. It takes no great imagination to conceive of other possible universes, each stable and workable in itself, yet lifeless. How is it that, with so many other apparent options, we are in a universe that possesses just that peculiar nexus of properties that breeds beings that know and create.

The biological laws are such that life is programmed to survive and multiply which is a requisite for intelligence to arise. If the purpose of the universe was to create intelligence then a preference in nature for it had to exist. The Laws of Nature are such that the potential for intelligence to existed the moment space and time were created. One can argue that given the laws of nature and the size of the universe that intelligence arising was inevitable. One can also argue that creating intelligence from nothing defies the Second Law of Entropy. That creating intelligence from nothing increases order within the universe. It actually doesn't because usable energy was lost along the way as a cost of creating order from disorder. But it is nature overriding it's tendency for ever increasing disorder that interests me and raises my suspicions to look deeper and to take seriously the proposition that a mind without a body created the material world so that minds with bodies could create too.

If we examine the physical laws we discover that we live in a logical universe governed by rules, laws and information. Rules laws and information are a signs of intelligence. Intentionality and purpose are signs of intelligence. The definition of reason is a cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event. The definition of purpose is the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists. The consequence of a logical universe is that every cause has an effect. Which means that everything happens for a reason and serves a purpose. The very nature of our physical laws point to reason and purpose.

All we have done so far is to make a logical argument for spirit creating the material world. Certainly not an argument built of fairy tales that's for sure. So going back to the two possibilities; spirit creating the material world versus everything proceeding from the material, the key distinction is no thing versus thing. So if we assume that everything I have described was just an accidental coincidence of the properties of matter, the logical conclusion is that matter and energy are just doing what matter and energy do which makes sense. The problem is that for matter and energy to do what matter and energy do, there has to be rules in place for matter and energy to obey. The formation of space and time followed rules. Specifically the law of conservation and quantum mechanics. These laws existed before space and time and defined the potential of everything which was possible. These laws are no thing. So we literally have an example of no thing existing before the material world. The creation of space and time from nothing is literally correct. Space and time were created from no thing. Spirit is no thing. No thing created space and time.

If the universe were created through natural process and we are an accidental happenstance of matter and energy doing what matter and energy do, then there should be no expectation for absolute morals. Morals can be anything we want them to be. The problem is that nature does have a preference for an outcome. Societies and people which behave with virtue experience order and harmony. Societies and people which behave without virtue experience disorder and chaos. So we can see from the outcomes that not all behaviors have equal outcomes. That some behaviors have better outcomes and some behaviors have worse outcomes. This is the moral law at work. If the universe was created by spirit for the express purpose of creating beings that know and create we would expect that we would receive feedback on how we behave. The problem is that violating moral laws are not like violating physical laws. When we violate a physical law the consequences are immediate. If you try to defy gravity by jumping off a roof you will fall. Whereas the consequences for violating a moral law are more probabilistic in nature; many times we get away with it.

Morals are effectively standards. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed based upon some universal code of common decency that is independent of man.

So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man how come we all don't behave the same way when it comes to right and wrong? The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.

Man does know right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not violate it. You can see this behavior in almost all quarrels and disagreements. At the heart of every quarrel and disagreement is a belief in a universal right and wrong. So even though each side believes right to be different each side expects the other to believe their side should be universally known and accepted. It is this behavior which tells us there is an expectation for an absolute truth.

If there were never a universal truth that existed man would never have an expectation of fairness to begin with because fairness would have no meaning. The fact that each of us has an expectation of fairness and that we expect everyone else to follow ought to raise our suspicion on the origin of that expectation.

Your turn.

I’ll address the first part and may I suggest you keep posts to a few points at a time to facilitate better discussion. There’s no way I can address all your points without writing a novel and even then details get missed. It’s better to drill down on specifics rather than flood the zone with too much at once. With that said... I appreciate your share.

I think you hit on something that I can agree with which is the idea that God, the spirit, allah or whatever else you want to call it is not a thing. Frankly I see the concept of god as something that we do not yet understand so there are all kinds of different ways that we try and explain it. None of which I believe in as they are nothing more than guesses and theories.

even saying that God is consciousness, that’s just another theory or philosophy that’s been explored for centuries, look up Kant if you haven’t already. But the fact remains that we are still speaking about the unknown.

if you accept that it is truly an unknown then the discussions we have on what’s right and wrong are irrelevant and we realize that what we are really seeking is an explaination that satisfied what we need. For some it is piece of mind, others it’s a sense of purpose and community, to others it is a feeling of intellectual challenge. To each their own

 

[ding]

Burden of proof (philosophy) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The person making a claim has the burden to prove it with evidence

Try explaining that to ding.

It's not my burden to prove anything to you. I don't care what you believe. I don't care if you suffer through life. Your suffering through life is your burden and your proof.

If you put an idea forward, it's up to you to back up what you say, otherwise, what you say is meaningless and just an opinion from someone who can't EVER back his shit up.

So many on this board make empty proclamations and when pressed fail to back up their arguments. All you can do is ask the right questions and when they fail to answer them their cards are shown. Simple as that

Really?

At the heart of this debate is whether or not the material world was created by spirit. If the material world were not created by spirit, then everything which has occurred since the beginning of space and time are products of the material world. Everything which is incorporeal proceeded from the corporeal. There is no middle ground. There is no other option. Either the material world was created by spirit or it wasn't. All other options will simplify to one of these two lowest common denominators which are mutually exclusive.

So we need to start from that position and examine the evidence we have at our disposal which is creation itself. Specifically, the laws of nature; physical, biological and moral. And how space and time has evolved. And how we perceive God.

If we perceive God to be some magical fairy tale then everything we see will skew to that result. There won't be one single thing that we will agree with or accept. Whereas if we were trying to objectively analyze the evidence for spirit creating the material world we would listen to the whole argument and not look for trivial things to nitpick.

But since this is my argument we will use my perception of God. Which is there no thing that can describe God because God is no thing. God is not matter and energy like us and God exists outside of our four dimension space time. In fact the premise is that God is no thing. That God is a spirit. A spirit is no thing. Being things we can't possibly relate to being no things. A two dimensional being would have an easier time trying to understand our third dimension than we - a four dimensional being - would in trying to understand a multi-dimensional being outside of our space time. The closest I can come to and later confirm with the physical laws is that God is consciousness. That Mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality - that the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff. It is Mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life, and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create.

So now that a realistic perception of God has been established we need to examine the only evidence at our disposal. It should be obvious that if the material world were not created by spirit that everything that has unfolded in the evolution of space and time would have no intentional purpose. That it is just matter and energy doing what matter and energy do. Conversely, if the material world were created by spirit it should be obvious that the creation of the material world was intentional. After all in my perception of God, God is no thing and the closest thing I can relate to is a mind with no body. Using our own experiences as creators as a proxy, we know that when we create things we create them for a reason and that reason is to serve some purpose. So it would be no great leap of logic to believe that something like a mind with no body would do the same. We also know from our experiences that intelligence tends to create intelligence. We are obsessed with making smart things. So what better thing for a mind with no body to do than create a universe where beings with bodies can create smart things too.

We have good reason to believe that we find ourselves in a universe permeated with life, in which life arises inevitably, given enough time, wherever the conditions exist that make it possible. Yet were any one of a number of the physical properties of our universe otherwise - some of them basic, others seemingly trivial, almost accidental - that life, which seems now to be so prevalent, would become impossible, here or anywhere. It takes no great imagination to conceive of other possible universes, each stable and workable in itself, yet lifeless. How is it that, with so many other apparent options, we are in a universe that possesses just that peculiar nexus of properties that breeds beings that know and create.

The biological laws are such that life is programmed to survive and multiply which is a requisite for intelligence to arise. If the purpose of the universe was to create intelligence then a preference in nature for it had to exist. The Laws of Nature are such that the potential for intelligence to existed the moment space and time were created. One can argue that given the laws of nature and the size of the universe that intelligence arising was inevitable. One can also argue that creating intelligence from nothing defies the Second Law of Entropy. That creating intelligence from nothing increases order within the universe. It actually doesn't because usable energy was lost along the way as a cost of creating order from disorder. But it is nature overriding it's tendency for ever increasing disorder that interests me and raises my suspicions to look deeper and to take seriously the proposition that a mind without a body created the material world so that minds with bodies could create too.

If we examine the physical laws we discover that we live in a logical universe governed by rules, laws and information. Rules laws and information are a signs of intelligence. Intentionality and purpose are signs of intelligence. The definition of reason is a cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event. The definition of purpose is the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists. The consequence of a logical universe is that every cause has an effect. Which means that everything happens for a reason and serves a purpose. The very nature of our physical laws point to reason and purpose.

All we have done so far is to make a logical argument for spirit creating the material world. Certainly not an argument built of fairy tales that's for sure. So going back to the two possibilities; spirit creating the material world versus everything proceeding from the material, the key distinction is no thing versus thing. So if we assume that everything I have described was just an accidental coincidence of the properties of matter, the logical conclusion is that matter and energy are just doing what matter and energy do which makes sense. The problem is that for matter and energy to do what matter and energy do, there has to be rules in place for matter and energy to obey. The formation of space and time followed rules. Specifically the law of conservation and quantum mechanics. These laws existed before space and time and defined the potential of everything which was possible. These laws are no thing. So we literally have an example of no thing existing before the material world. The creation of space and time from nothing is literally correct. Space and time were created from no thing. Spirit is no thing. No thing created space and time.

If the universe were created through natural process and we are an accidental happenstance of matter and energy doing what matter and energy do, then there should be no expectation for absolute morals. Morals can be anything we want them to be. The problem is that nature does have a preference for an outcome. Societies and people which behave with virtue experience order and harmony. Societies and people which behave without virtue experience disorder and chaos. So we can see from the outcomes that not all behaviors have equal outcomes. That some behaviors have better outcomes and some behaviors have worse outcomes. This is the moral law at work. If the universe was created by spirit for the express purpose of creating beings that know and create we would expect that we would receive feedback on how we behave. The problem is that violating moral laws are not like violating physical laws. When we violate a physical law the consequences are immediate. If you try to defy gravity by jumping off a roof you will fall. Whereas the consequences for violating a moral law are more probabilistic in nature; many times we get away with it.

Morals are effectively standards. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed based upon some universal code of common decency that is independent of man.

So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man how come we all don't behave the same way when it comes to right and wrong? The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.

Man does know right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not violate it. You can see this behavior in almost all quarrels and disagreements. At the heart of every quarrel and disagreement is a belief in a universal right and wrong. So even though each side believes right to be different each side expects the other to believe their side should be universally known and accepted. It is this behavior which tells us there is an expectation for an absolute truth.

If there were never a universal truth that existed man would never have an expectation of fairness to begin with because fairness would have no meaning. The fact that each of us has an expectation of fairness and that we expect everyone else to follow ought to raise our suspicion on the origin of that expectation.

Your turn.

Total load of fartsmoke with no links, even to all that shit you copy&pasted.

Which is your typical response when you have nothing. You can't argue the reasons why you believe the way you do. All you can ever do is to criticize the arguments of others. You criticize what you don't believe to arrive at what you do believe without ever having to examine what you believe. You couldn't make an argument for your beliefs if your life depended upon it. You don't possess the intellectual capacity to articulate what you believe and why you believe it.

I do and I did. And it has never been refuted.

I get that you believe that but you show zero proof that science agrees with you.

You got that backwards, dummy, you have no science that disputes anything I said.

Pick a sentence I wrote that you dispute. I'll wait.

Science doesn’t say that there’s an invisible superbeing. You lose, cum guzzler.

Science says everything I posted about examining the natural world, dummy. Logic concludes the rest. Go learn something.

Where does science say that there’s an invisible superbeing? You anus licker.

Why are you getting so upset over this, Taz?

It must really bother you that the universe popped into existence hardwired to produce intelligence. That's what science tells us.

Science says no such thing, you imbecile. Last chance, link me to some science that explains that.

What do you think the big bang is, dummy?

Your link doesn’t work.

Take what I wrote, copy a sentence and don't come back until you can explain why it is wrong and please try to make it insightful.

“What do you think the big bang is, dummy?”

Even science doesn’t pretend to know what the BB was because they can’t see that far back. Look it up.

That's the stupidest thing I have ever heard.

 

[ding]

Burden of proof (philosophy) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The person making a claim has the burden to prove it with evidence

Try explaining that to ding.

It's not my burden to prove anything to you. I don't care what you believe. I don't care if you suffer through life. Your suffering through life is your burden and your proof.

If you put an idea forward, it's up to you to back up what you say, otherwise, what you say is meaningless and just an opinion from someone who can't EVER back his shit up.

I have. Many times. The physical laws of nature, the biological laws of nature and the moral laws of nature all point to intelligence as the source or matrix of existence. You are the one who has no proof.

See? You post your personal opinion because you have no links that tie what you say to empirical scientific evidence. Every. Single. Time.

Physical laws of nature, biological laws of nature and moral laws of nature are not opinions, dummy.

The ball is in your court to provide your burden of proof.

You have no links that show that what you said scientifically ties into it.

Your typical critical theory response. My burden of proof has been satisfied. Now provide your burden of proof for why you believe as you do.

Proof isn’t your personal opinion. You suck at this.

Again... Physical laws of nature, biological laws of nature and moral laws of nature are not opinions, dummy.

You can’t scientifically tie them into what you’re saying. EPIC FAIL.

Same answer as the last one, dummy. Science says everything I posted about examining the natural world. Logic concludes the rest.

You think it is a coincidence that the universe popped into existence hardwired to produce beings that know and create?

I think that you have yet to prove your invisible friend, and science doesn’t either, otherwise provide a link that says so.

Sure did. Pick pick out one thing I wrote that you can prove is wrong.

It’s an opinion, because you provide no link to back yourself up. I could care less what your opinion is.

Copy a sentence I wrote and explain how it is wrong. You can't do it.

Your link is broken.

The proof of evidence is in your court.

I’ve already proven that you can’t back up what you say with links that are scientific and relevant to what you’re saying.

No. You haven't. Copy a sentence I wrote and explain how it is wrong. You can't do it. The proof of evidence is in your court, dummy.

 

[ding]

Burden of proof (philosophy) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The person making a claim has the burden to prove it with evidence

Try explaining that to ding.

It's not my burden to prove anything to you. I don't care what you believe. I don't care if you suffer through life. Your suffering through life is your burden and your proof.

If you put an idea forward, it's up to you to back up what you say, otherwise, what you say is meaningless and just an opinion from someone who can't EVER back his shit up.

So many on this board make empty proclamations and when pressed fail to back up their arguments. All you can do is ask the right questions and when they fail to answer them their cards are shown. Simple as that

Really?

At the heart of this debate is whether or not the material world was created by spirit. If the material world were not created by spirit, then everything which has occurred since the beginning of space and time are products of the material world. Everything which is incorporeal proceeded from the corporeal. There is no middle ground. There is no other option. Either the material world was created by spirit or it wasn't. All other options will simplify to one of these two lowest common denominators which are mutually exclusive.

So we need to start from that position and examine the evidence we have at our disposal which is creation itself. Specifically, the laws of nature; physical, biological and moral. And how space and time has evolved. And how we perceive God.

If we perceive God to be some magical fairy tale then everything we see will skew to that result. There won't be one single thing that we will agree with or accept. Whereas if we were trying to objectively analyze the evidence for spirit creating the material world we would listen to the whole argument and not look for trivial things to nitpick.

But since this is my argument we will use my perception of God. Which is there no thing that can describe God because God is no thing. God is not matter and energy like us and God exists outside of our four dimension space time. In fact the premise is that God is no thing. That God is a spirit. A spirit is no thing. Being things we can't possibly relate to being no things. A two dimensional being would have an easier time trying to understand our third dimension than we - a four dimensional being - would in trying to understand a multi-dimensional being outside of our space time. The closest I can come to and later confirm with the physical laws is that God is consciousness. That Mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality - that the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff. It is Mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life, and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create.

So now that a realistic perception of God has been established we need to examine the only evidence at our disposal. It should be obvious that if the material world were not created by spirit that everything that has unfolded in the evolution of space and time would have no intentional purpose. That it is just matter and energy doing what matter and energy do. Conversely, if the material world were created by spirit it should be obvious that the creation of the material world was intentional. After all in my perception of God, God is no thing and the closest thing I can relate to is a mind with no body. Using our own experiences as creators as a proxy, we know that when we create things we create them for a reason and that reason is to serve some purpose. So it would be no great leap of logic to believe that something like a mind with no body would do the same. We also know from our experiences that intelligence tends to create intelligence. We are obsessed with making smart things. So what better thing for a mind with no body to do than create a universe where beings with bodies can create smart things too.

We have good reason to believe that we find ourselves in a universe permeated with life, in which life arises inevitably, given enough time, wherever the conditions exist that make it possible. Yet were any one of a number of the physical properties of our universe otherwise - some of them basic, others seemingly trivial, almost accidental - that life, which seems now to be so prevalent, would become impossible, here or anywhere. It takes no great imagination to conceive of other possible universes, each stable and workable in itself, yet lifeless. How is it that, with so many other apparent options, we are in a universe that possesses just that peculiar nexus of properties that breeds beings that know and create.

The biological laws are such that life is programmed to survive and multiply which is a requisite for intelligence to arise. If the purpose of the universe was to create intelligence then a preference in nature for it had to exist. The Laws of Nature are such that the potential for intelligence to existed the moment space and time were created. One can argue that given the laws of nature and the size of the universe that intelligence arising was inevitable. One can also argue that creating intelligence from nothing defies the Second Law of Entropy. That creating intelligence from nothing increases order within the universe. It actually doesn't because usable energy was lost along the way as a cost of creating order from disorder. But it is nature overriding it's tendency for ever increasing disorder that interests me and raises my suspicions to look deeper and to take seriously the proposition that a mind without a body created the material world so that minds with bodies could create too.

If we examine the physical laws we discover that we live in a logical universe governed by rules, laws and information. Rules laws and information are a signs of intelligence. Intentionality and purpose are signs of intelligence. The definition of reason is a cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event. The definition of purpose is the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists. The consequence of a logical universe is that every cause has an effect. Which means that everything happens for a reason and serves a purpose. The very nature of our physical laws point to reason and purpose.

All we have done so far is to make a logical argument for spirit creating the material world. Certainly not an argument built of fairy tales that's for sure. So going back to the two possibilities; spirit creating the material world versus everything proceeding from the material, the key distinction is no thing versus thing. So if we assume that everything I have described was just an accidental coincidence of the properties of matter, the logical conclusion is that matter and energy are just doing what matter and energy do which makes sense. The problem is that for matter and energy to do what matter and energy do, there has to be rules in place for matter and energy to obey. The formation of space and time followed rules. Specifically the law of conservation and quantum mechanics. These laws existed before space and time and defined the potential of everything which was possible. These laws are no thing. So we literally have an example of no thing existing before the material world. The creation of space and time from nothing is literally correct. Space and time were created from no thing. Spirit is no thing. No thing created space and time.

If the universe were created through natural process and we are an accidental happenstance of matter and energy doing what matter and energy do, then there should be no expectation for absolute morals. Morals can be anything we want them to be. The problem is that nature does have a preference for an outcome. Societies and people which behave with virtue experience order and harmony. Societies and people which behave without virtue experience disorder and chaos. So we can see from the outcomes that not all behaviors have equal outcomes. That some behaviors have better outcomes and some behaviors have worse outcomes. This is the moral law at work. If the universe was created by spirit for the express purpose of creating beings that know and create we would expect that we would receive feedback on how we behave. The problem is that violating moral laws are not like violating physical laws. When we violate a physical law the consequences are immediate. If you try to defy gravity by jumping off a roof you will fall. Whereas the consequences for violating a moral law are more probabilistic in nature; many times we get away with it.

Morals are effectively standards. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed based upon some universal code of common decency that is independent of man.

So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man how come we all don't behave the same way when it comes to right and wrong? The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.

Man does know right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not violate it. You can see this behavior in almost all quarrels and disagreements. At the heart of every quarrel and disagreement is a belief in a universal right and wrong. So even though each side believes right to be different each side expects the other to believe their side should be universally known and accepted. It is this behavior which tells us there is an expectation for an absolute truth.

If there were never a universal truth that existed man would never have an expectation of fairness to begin with because fairness would have no meaning. The fact that each of us has an expectation of fairness and that we expect everyone else to follow ought to raise our suspicion on the origin of that expectation.

Your turn.

I’ll address the first part and may I suggest you keep posts to a few points at a time to facilitate better discussion. There’s no way I can address all your points without writing a novel and even then details get missed. It’s better to drill down on specifics rather than flood the zone with too much at once. With that said... I appreciate your share.

I think you hit on something that I can agree with which is the idea that God, the spirit, allah or whatever else you want to call it is not a thing. Frankly I see the concept of god as something that we do not yet understand so there are all kinds of different ways that we try and explain it. None of which I believe in as they are nothing more than guesses and theories.

even saying that God is consciousness, that’s just another theory or philosophy that’s been explored for centuries, look up Kant if you haven’t already. But the fact remains that we are still speaking about the unknown.

if you accept that it is truly an unknown then the discussions we have on what’s right and wrong are irrelevant and we realize that what we are really seeking is an explaination that satisfied what we need. For some it is piece of mind, others it’s a sense of purpose and community, to others it is a feeling of intellectual challenge. To each their own

Not all behaviors lead to equal outcomes. Logic supports that failed behaviors lead to worse outcomes and successful behaviors lead to better outcomes. It is self evident. Not to mention that no one want to be seen as bad even when they do bad. You see it n every quarrel. Both can't be right but each sees the other as being bad and themselves as good.

 

[Taz]

You simply change the meaning of the stuff you don’t agree with. Might as well write your own fairy tales.

No. I study the language, the history, and the culture. It is not a fairy tale, Taz. Nothing magical about it. It is a simple tale of a man facing a flood. Modern English changes the meanings. There is a lot of things Noah and I appear to disagree--but the two things we do agree on is that the flood was not a literal 40 days--and nor did it cover the planet.

So if the flood was regional and didn't last very long, why would Noah need to build a boat with 2 of every animal in the Middle East (since it wasn't worldwide, I assume that only local animals were taken.)

 

[Taz]

Burden of proof (philosophy) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The person making a claim has the burden to prove it with evidence

Try explaining that to ding.

It's not my burden to prove anything to you. I don't care what you believe. I don't care if you suffer through life. Your suffering through life is your burden and your proof.

If you put an idea forward, it's up to you to back up what you say, otherwise, what you say is meaningless and just an opinion from someone who can't EVER back his shit up.

So many on this board make empty proclamations and when pressed fail to back up their arguments. All you can do is ask the right questions and when they fail to answer them their cards are shown. Simple as that

Really?

At the heart of this debate is whether or not the material world was created by spirit. If the material world were not created by spirit, then everything which has occurred since the beginning of space and time are products of the material world. Everything which is incorporeal proceeded from the corporeal. There is no middle ground. There is no other option. Either the material world was created by spirit or it wasn't. All other options will simplify to one of these two lowest common denominators which are mutually exclusive.

So we need to start from that position and examine the evidence we have at our disposal which is creation itself. Specifically, the laws of nature; physical, biological and moral. And how space and time has evolved. And how we perceive God.

If we perceive God to be some magical fairy tale then everything we see will skew to that result. There won't be one single thing that we will agree with or accept. Whereas if we were trying to objectively analyze the evidence for spirit creating the material world we would listen to the whole argument and not look for trivial things to nitpick.

But since this is my argument we will use my perception of God. Which is there no thing that can describe God because God is no thing. God is not matter and energy like us and God exists outside of our four dimension space time. In fact the premise is that God is no thing. That God is a spirit. A spirit is no thing. Being things we can't possibly relate to being no things. A two dimensional being would have an easier time trying to understand our third dimension than we - a four dimensional being - would in trying to understand a multi-dimensional being outside of our space time. The closest I can come to and later confirm with the physical laws is that God is consciousness. That Mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality - that the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff. It is Mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life, and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create.

So now that a realistic perception of God has been established we need to examine the only evidence at our disposal. It should be obvious that if the material world were not created by spirit that everything that has unfolded in the evolution of space and time would have no intentional purpose. That it is just matter and energy doing what matter and energy do. Conversely, if the material world were created by spirit it should be obvious that the creation of the material world was intentional. After all in my perception of God, God is no thing and the closest thing I can relate to is a mind with no body. Using our own experiences as creators as a proxy, we know that when we create things we create them for a reason and that reason is to serve some purpose. So it would be no great leap of logic to believe that something like a mind with no body would do the same. We also know from our experiences that intelligence tends to create intelligence. We are obsessed with making smart things. So what better thing for a mind with no body to do than create a universe where beings with bodies can create smart things too.

We have good reason to believe that we find ourselves in a universe permeated with life, in which life arises inevitably, given enough time, wherever the conditions exist that make it possible. Yet were any one of a number of the physical properties of our universe otherwise - some of them basic, others seemingly trivial, almost accidental - that life, which seems now to be so prevalent, would become impossible, here or anywhere. It takes no great imagination to conceive of other possible universes, each stable and workable in itself, yet lifeless. How is it that, with so many other apparent options, we are in a universe that possesses just that peculiar nexus of properties that breeds beings that know and create.

The biological laws are such that life is programmed to survive and multiply which is a requisite for intelligence to arise. If the purpose of the universe was to create intelligence then a preference in nature for it had to exist. The Laws of Nature are such that the potential for intelligence to existed the moment space and time were created. One can argue that given the laws of nature and the size of the universe that intelligence arising was inevitable. One can also argue that creating intelligence from nothing defies the Second Law of Entropy. That creating intelligence from nothing increases order within the universe. It actually doesn't because usable energy was lost along the way as a cost of creating order from disorder. But it is nature overriding it's tendency for ever increasing disorder that interests me and raises my suspicions to look deeper and to take seriously the proposition that a mind without a body created the material world so that minds with bodies could create too.

If we examine the physical laws we discover that we live in a logical universe governed by rules, laws and information. Rules laws and information are a signs of intelligence. Intentionality and purpose are signs of intelligence. The definition of reason is a cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event. The definition of purpose is the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists. The consequence of a logical universe is that every cause has an effect. Which means that everything happens for a reason and serves a purpose. The very nature of our physical laws point to reason and purpose.

All we have done so far is to make a logical argument for spirit creating the material world. Certainly not an argument built of fairy tales that's for sure. So going back to the two possibilities; spirit creating the material world versus everything proceeding from the material, the key distinction is no thing versus thing. So if we assume that everything I have described was just an accidental coincidence of the properties of matter, the logical conclusion is that matter and energy are just doing what matter and energy do which makes sense. The problem is that for matter and energy to do what matter and energy do, there has to be rules in place for matter and energy to obey. The formation of space and time followed rules. Specifically the law of conservation and quantum mechanics. These laws existed before space and time and defined the potential of everything which was possible. These laws are no thing. So we literally have an example of no thing existing before the material world. The creation of space and time from nothing is literally correct. Space and time were created from no thing. Spirit is no thing. No thing created space and time.

If the universe were created through natural process and we are an accidental happenstance of matter and energy doing what matter and energy do, then there should be no expectation for absolute morals. Morals can be anything we want them to be. The problem is that nature does have a preference for an outcome. Societies and people which behave with virtue experience order and harmony. Societies and people which behave without virtue experience disorder and chaos. So we can see from the outcomes that not all behaviors have equal outcomes. That some behaviors have better outcomes and some behaviors have worse outcomes. This is the moral law at work. If the universe was created by spirit for the express purpose of creating beings that know and create we would expect that we would receive feedback on how we behave. The problem is that violating moral laws are not like violating physical laws. When we violate a physical law the consequences are immediate. If you try to defy gravity by jumping off a roof you will fall. Whereas the consequences for violating a moral law are more probabilistic in nature; many times we get away with it.

Morals are effectively standards. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed based upon some universal code of common decency that is independent of man.

So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man how come we all don't behave the same way when it comes to right and wrong? The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.

Man does know right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not violate it. You can see this behavior in almost all quarrels and disagreements. At the heart of every quarrel and disagreement is a belief in a universal right and wrong. So even though each side believes right to be different each side expects the other to believe their side should be universally known and accepted. It is this behavior which tells us there is an expectation for an absolute truth.

If there were never a universal truth that existed man would never have an expectation of fairness to begin with because fairness would have no meaning. The fact that each of us has an expectation of fairness and that we expect everyone else to follow ought to raise our suspicion on the origin of that expectation.

Your turn.

Total load of fartsmoke with no links, even to all that shit you copy&pasted.

Which is your typical response when you have nothing. You can't argue the reasons why you believe the way you do. All you can ever do is to criticize the arguments of others. You criticize what you don't believe to arrive at what you do believe without ever having to examine what you believe. You couldn't make an argument for your beliefs if your life depended upon it. You don't possess the intellectual capacity to articulate what you believe and why you believe it.

I do and I did. And it has never been refuted.

I get that you believe that but you show zero proof that science agrees with you.

You got that backwards, dummy, you have no science that disputes anything I said.

Pick a sentence I wrote that you dispute. I'll wait.

Science doesn’t say that there’s an invisible superbeing. You lose, cum guzzler.

Science says everything I posted about examining the natural world, dummy. Logic concludes the rest. Go learn something.

Where does science say that there’s an invisible superbeing? You anus licker.

Why are you getting so upset over this, Taz?

It must really bother you that the universe popped into existence hardwired to produce intelligence. That's what science tells us.

Science says no such thing, you imbecile. Last chance, link me to some science that explains that.

What do you think the big bang is, dummy?

Your link doesn’t work.

Take what I wrote, copy a sentence and don't come back until you can explain why it is wrong and please try to make it insightful.

“What do you think the big bang is, dummy?”

Even science doesn’t pretend to know what the BB was because they can’t see that far back. Look it up.

That's the stupidest thing I have ever heard.

"Just this month, researchers officially announced the discovery of the most distant galaxy we've ever seen, from over 13 billion light-years away: EGS-zs8-1, located in the constellation of Boötes."
"The Giant Magellan Telescope will enable us to look back through time to see the birth of stars, galaxies, and events that occurred shortly after the Big Bang."
"And, hopefully, the GMT will find it. The GMT's primary goal is to photograph the Big Bang, to help us understand the origins of the universe. "

The telescope looking for the beginning of time

 

[Taz]

Burden of proof (philosophy) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The person making a claim has the burden to prove it with evidence

Try explaining that to ding.

It's not my burden to prove anything to you. I don't care what you believe. I don't care if you suffer through life. Your suffering through life is your burden and your proof.

If you put an idea forward, it's up to you to back up what you say, otherwise, what you say is meaningless and just an opinion from someone who can't EVER back his shit up.

I have. Many times. The physical laws of nature, the biological laws of nature and the moral laws of nature all point to intelligence as the source or matrix of existence. You are the one who has no proof.

See? You post your personal opinion because you have no links that tie what you say to empirical scientific evidence. Every. Single. Time.

Physical laws of nature, biological laws of nature and moral laws of nature are not opinions, dummy.

The ball is in your court to provide your burden of proof.

You have no links that show that what you said scientifically ties into it.

Your typical critical theory response. My burden of proof has been satisfied. Now provide your burden of proof for why you believe as you do.

Proof isn’t your personal opinion. You suck at this.

Again... Physical laws of nature, biological laws of nature and moral laws of nature are not opinions, dummy.

You can’t scientifically tie them into what you’re saying. EPIC FAIL.

Same answer as the last one, dummy. Science says everything I posted about examining the natural world. Logic concludes the rest.

You think it is a coincidence that the universe popped into existence hardwired to produce beings that know and create?

I think that you have yet to prove your invisible friend, and science doesn’t either, otherwise provide a link that says so.

Sure did. Pick pick out one thing I wrote that you can prove is wrong.

It’s an opinion, because you provide no link to back yourself up. I could care less what your opinion is.

Copy a sentence I wrote and explain how it is wrong. You can't do it.

Your link is broken.

The proof of evidence is in your court.

I’ve already proven that you can’t back up what you say with links that are scientific and relevant to what you’re saying.

No. You haven't. Copy a sentence I wrote and explain how it is wrong. You can't do it. The proof of evidence is in your court, dummy.

Everything you've said without backing it up is bogus. Which is everything you've ever said.