Popper when asked if falsifiability is itself falsifiable or if it fails its own criteria

[ding]

I don't know what you like to say with this sentence.

It's an example of something that can't be falsified.

As well the sentence "god exists" and the sentence "god not exists" makes not a big sense in philsophy and/or science. For believers in god it's not clear what the word "exists" means in case of the "the creator". The question "Did god exist when he had created existence per se"? shows this very well. God transcendends existence - our existence is in this case part of a meta-existence of god. And for the believers in atheism the question is just simle: "Why exists something at all?" or "Why exists existence?".

Agreed, God transcends our existence. He created space and time from nothing which is our reality. Our reality could cease to exist but God's reality would continue on. Eternal and unchanging.

Sorry to say, but your beliefs are fabrications ... without empiricism and falsibility.

Why not fabricate two (2) “Gods” or gods, or more? Why not make up a “reality” where one god’s domain ends and another one’s starts? Or, both interact?

Anyone can make up “convenient” ideas, but our reality needs SOME empiricism, or it’s not falsifiable or science (knowledge).
Religious faith is equivalent to “i don’t know, but it sounds good to ME”.

Fabrications, huh?

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.

 

[zaangalewa]

I don't know what you like to say with this sentence.

It's an example of something that can't be falsified.

As well the sentence "god exists" and the sentence "god not exists" makes not a big sense in philsophy and/or science. For believers in god it's not clear what the word "exists" means in case of the "the creator". The question "Did god exist when he had created existence per se"? shows this very well. God transcendends existence - our existence is in this case part of a meta-existence of god. And for the believers in atheism the question is just simle: "Why exists something at all?" or "Why exists existence?".

Agreed, God transcends our existence. He created space and time from nothing which is our reality. Our reality could cease to exist but God's reality would continue on. Eternal and unchanging.

Sorry to say,

I will read it later, because I think what now will come is without any substance.

but your beliefs are fabrications ... without empiricism and falsibility.

Why not fabricate two (2) “Gods” or gods, or more? Why not make up a “reality” where one god’s domain ends and another one’s starts? Or, both interact?

Anyone can make up “convenient” ideas, but our reality needs SOME empiricism, or it’s not falsifiable or science (knowledge).
Religious faith is equivalent to “i don’t know, but it sounds good to ME”.

Short: What you said is indeed without substance. Your belief in atheism means: "You don't know, but it sounds good to you".

 

[PK1]

I don't know what you like to say with this sentence.

It's an example of something that can't be falsified.

As well the sentence "god exists" and the sentence "god not exists" makes not a big sense in philsophy and/or science. For believers in god it's not clear what the word "exists" means in case of the "the creator". The question "Did god exist when he had created existence per se"? shows this very well. God transcendends existence - our existence is in this case part of a meta-existence of god. And for the believers in atheism the question is just simle: "Why exists something at all?" or "Why exists existence?".

Agreed, God transcends our existence. He created space and time from nothing which is our reality. Our reality could cease to exist but God's reality would continue on. Eternal and unchanging.

Sorry to say,

I will read it later, because I think what now will come is without any substance.

but your beliefs are fabrications ... without empiricism and falsibility.

Why not fabricate two (2) “Gods” or gods, or more? Why not make up a “reality” where one god’s domain ends and another one’s starts? Or, both interact?

Anyone can make up “convenient” ideas, but our reality needs SOME empiricism, or it’s not falsifiable or science (knowledge).
Religious faith is equivalent to “i don’t know, but it sounds good to ME”.

Short: What you said is indeed without substance. Your belief in atheism means: "You don't know, but it sounds good to you".

You are correct; i don’t know about fantastic ideas that have no basis in observational evidence and i am emotionally secure about it.

 

[PK1]

I don't know what you like to say with this sentence.

It's an example of something that can't be falsified.

As well the sentence "god exists" and the sentence "god not exists" makes not a big sense in philsophy and/or science. For believers in god it's not clear what the word "exists" means in case of the "the creator". The question "Did god exist when he had created existence per se"? shows this very well. God transcendends existence - our existence is in this case part of a meta-existence of god. And for the believers in atheism the question is just simle: "Why exists something at all?" or "Why exists existence?".

Agreed, God transcends our existence. He created space and time from nothing which is our reality. Our reality could cease to exist but God's reality would continue on. Eternal and unchanging.

Sorry to say, but your beliefs are fabrications ... without empiricism and falsibility.

Why not fabricate two (2) “Gods” or gods, or more? Why not make up a “reality” where one god’s domain ends and another one’s starts? Or, both interact?

Anyone can make up “convenient” ideas, but our reality needs SOME empiricism, or it’s not falsifiable or science (knowledge).
Religious faith is equivalent to “i don’t know, but it sounds good to ME”.

Fabrications, huh?

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.

Yes, your ideas are fabrications.
You made up the “spirit” (non-material) concept and its need for “purpose”.
You don’t seem to understand science “laws” or you use them beyond scientific justification.
There is no evidence for anything outside our “material” world, i.e., nature.

 

[ding]

It's an example of something that can't be falsified.

As well the sentence "god exists" and the sentence "god not exists" makes not a big sense in philsophy and/or science. For believers in god it's not clear what the word "exists" means in case of the "the creator". The question "Did god exist when he had created existence per se"? shows this very well. God transcendends existence - our existence is in this case part of a meta-existence of god. And for the believers in atheism the question is just simle: "Why exists something at all?" or "Why exists existence?".

Agreed, God transcends our existence. He created space and time from nothing which is our reality. Our reality could cease to exist but God's reality would continue on. Eternal and unchanging.

Sorry to say, but your beliefs are fabrications ... without empiricism and falsibility.

Why not fabricate two (2) “Gods” or gods, or more? Why not make up a “reality” where one god’s domain ends and another one’s starts? Or, both interact?

Anyone can make up “convenient” ideas, but our reality needs SOME empiricism, or it’s not falsifiable or science (knowledge).
Religious faith is equivalent to “i don’t know, but it sounds good to ME”.

Fabrications, huh?

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.

Yes, your ideas are fabrications.
You made up the “spirit” (non-material) concept and its need for “purpose”.
You don’t seem to understand science “laws” or you use them beyond scientific justification.
There is no evidence for anything outside our “material” world, i.e., nature.

Prove it. Prove what I wrote is a fabrication.

 

[ding]

It's an example of something that can't be falsified.

As well the sentence "god exists" and the sentence "god not exists" makes not a big sense in philsophy and/or science. For believers in god it's not clear what the word "exists" means in case of the "the creator". The question "Did god exist when he had created existence per se"? shows this very well. God transcendends existence - our existence is in this case part of a meta-existence of god. And for the believers in atheism the question is just simle: "Why exists something at all?" or "Why exists existence?".

Agreed, God transcends our existence. He created space and time from nothing which is our reality. Our reality could cease to exist but God's reality would continue on. Eternal and unchanging.

Sorry to say, but your beliefs are fabrications ... without empiricism and falsibility.

Why not fabricate two (2) “Gods” or gods, or more? Why not make up a “reality” where one god’s domain ends and another one’s starts? Or, both interact?

Anyone can make up “convenient” ideas, but our reality needs SOME empiricism, or it’s not falsifiable or science (knowledge).
Religious faith is equivalent to “i don’t know, but it sounds good to ME”.

Fabrications, huh?

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.

Yes, your ideas are fabrications.
You made up the “spirit” (non-material) concept and its need for “purpose”.
You don’t seem to understand science “laws” or you use them beyond scientific justification.
There is no evidence for anything outside our “material” world, i.e., nature.

I’ve been a practicing engineer for almost 35 years. I’ve probably forgotten more science than you ever knew.

 

[PK1]

As well the sentence "god exists" and the sentence "god not exists" makes not a big sense in philsophy and/or science. For believers in god it's not clear what the word "exists" means in case of the "the creator". The question "Did god exist when he had created existence per se"? shows this very well. God transcendends existence - our existence is in this case part of a meta-existence of god. And for the believers in atheism the question is just simle: "Why exists something at all?" or "Why exists existence?".

Agreed, God transcends our existence. He created space and time from nothing which is our reality. Our reality could cease to exist but God's reality would continue on. Eternal and unchanging.

Sorry to say, but your beliefs are fabrications ... without empiricism and falsibility.

Why not fabricate two (2) “Gods” or gods, or more? Why not make up a “reality” where one god’s domain ends and another one’s starts? Or, both interact?

Anyone can make up “convenient” ideas, but our reality needs SOME empiricism, or it’s not falsifiable or science (knowledge).
Religious faith is equivalent to “i don’t know, but it sounds good to ME”.

Fabrications, huh?

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.

Yes, your ideas are fabrications.
You made up the “spirit” (non-material) concept and its need for “purpose”.
You don’t seem to understand science “laws” or you use them beyond scientific justification.
There is no evidence for anything outside our “material” world, i.e., nature.

Prove it. Prove what I wrote is a fabrication.

Your ideas are not concrete enough to have supporting evidence; they are also not falsifiable.
Why don’t you “prove” that 100 gods don’t exist?

 

[ding]

Agreed, God transcends our existence. He created space and time from nothing which is our reality. Our reality could cease to exist but God's reality would continue on. Eternal and unchanging.

Sorry to say, but your beliefs are fabrications ... without empiricism and falsibility.

Why not fabricate two (2) “Gods” or gods, or more? Why not make up a “reality” where one god’s domain ends and another one’s starts? Or, both interact?

Anyone can make up “convenient” ideas, but our reality needs SOME empiricism, or it’s not falsifiable or science (knowledge).
Religious faith is equivalent to “i don’t know, but it sounds good to ME”.

Fabrications, huh?

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.

Yes, your ideas are fabrications.
You made up the “spirit” (non-material) concept and its need for “purpose”.
You don’t seem to understand science “laws” or you use them beyond scientific justification.
There is no evidence for anything outside our “material” world, i.e., nature.

Prove it. Prove what I wrote is a fabrication.

Your ideas are not concrete enough to have supporting evidence; they are also not falsifiable.
Why don’t you “prove” that 100 gods don’t exist?

Still waiting for you to explain specifically how they are wrong.

 

[PK1]

As well the sentence "god exists" and the sentence "god not exists" makes not a big sense in philsophy and/or science. For believers in god it's not clear what the word "exists" means in case of the "the creator". The question "Did god exist when he had created existence per se"? shows this very well. God transcendends existence - our existence is in this case part of a meta-existence of god. And for the believers in atheism the question is just simle: "Why exists something at all?" or "Why exists existence?".

Agreed, God transcends our existence. He created space and time from nothing which is our reality. Our reality could cease to exist but God's reality would continue on. Eternal and unchanging.

Sorry to say, but your beliefs are fabrications ... without empiricism and falsibility.

Why not fabricate two (2) “Gods” or gods, or more? Why not make up a “reality” where one god’s domain ends and another one’s starts? Or, both interact?

Anyone can make up “convenient” ideas, but our reality needs SOME empiricism, or it’s not falsifiable or science (knowledge).
Religious faith is equivalent to “i don’t know, but it sounds good to ME”.

Fabrications, huh?

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.

Yes, your ideas are fabrications.
You made up the “spirit” (non-material) concept and its need for “purpose”.
You don’t seem to understand science “laws” or you use them beyond scientific justification.
There is no evidence for anything outside our “material” world, i.e., nature.

I’ve been a practicing engineer for almost 35 years. I’ve probably forgotten more science than you ever knew.

Ha ha. Nice try.
Based on your comments, i am SURE i have much more experience in science & its philosophy than you.

 

[ding]

Agreed, God transcends our existence. He created space and time from nothing which is our reality. Our reality could cease to exist but God's reality would continue on. Eternal and unchanging.

Sorry to say, but your beliefs are fabrications ... without empiricism and falsibility.

Why not fabricate two (2) “Gods” or gods, or more? Why not make up a “reality” where one god’s domain ends and another one’s starts? Or, both interact?

Anyone can make up “convenient” ideas, but our reality needs SOME empiricism, or it’s not falsifiable or science (knowledge).
Religious faith is equivalent to “i don’t know, but it sounds good to ME”.

Fabrications, huh?

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.

Yes, your ideas are fabrications.
You made up the “spirit” (non-material) concept and its need for “purpose”.
You don’t seem to understand science “laws” or you use them beyond scientific justification.
There is no evidence for anything outside our “material” world, i.e., nature.

I’ve been a practicing engineer for almost 35 years. I’ve probably forgotten more science than you ever knew.

Ha ha. Nice try.
Based on your comments, i am SURE i have much more experience in science & its philosophy than you.

Really? What’s your background in science?

 

[PK1]

Sorry to say, but your beliefs are fabrications ... without empiricism and falsibility.

Why not fabricate two (2) “Gods” or gods, or more? Why not make up a “reality” where one god’s domain ends and another one’s starts? Or, both interact?

Anyone can make up “convenient” ideas, but our reality needs SOME empiricism, or it’s not falsifiable or science (knowledge).
Religious faith is equivalent to “i don’t know, but it sounds good to ME”.

Fabrications, huh?

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.

Yes, your ideas are fabrications.
You made up the “spirit” (non-material) concept and its need for “purpose”.
You don’t seem to understand science “laws” or you use them beyond scientific justification.
There is no evidence for anything outside our “material” world, i.e., nature.

Prove it. Prove what I wrote is a fabrication.

Your ideas are not concrete enough to have supporting evidence; they are also not falsifiable.
Why don’t you “prove” that 100 gods don’t exist?

Still waiting for you to explain specifically how they are wrong.

Plz reread my prev post about evidence & falsifiability.

 

[ding]

Agreed, God transcends our existence. He created space and time from nothing which is our reality. Our reality could cease to exist but God's reality would continue on. Eternal and unchanging.

Sorry to say, but your beliefs are fabrications ... without empiricism and falsibility.

Why not fabricate two (2) “Gods” or gods, or more? Why not make up a “reality” where one god’s domain ends and another one’s starts? Or, both interact?

Anyone can make up “convenient” ideas, but our reality needs SOME empiricism, or it’s not falsifiable or science (knowledge).
Religious faith is equivalent to “i don’t know, but it sounds good to ME”.

Fabrications, huh?

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.

Yes, your ideas are fabrications.
You made up the “spirit” (non-material) concept and its need for “purpose”.
You don’t seem to understand science “laws” or you use them beyond scientific justification.
There is no evidence for anything outside our “material” world, i.e., nature.

I’ve been a practicing engineer for almost 35 years. I’ve probably forgotten more science than you ever knew.

Ha ha. Nice try.
Based on your comments, i am SURE i have much more experience in science & its philosophy than you.

Which comments did you take exception with and why?

 

[ding]

Fabrications, huh?

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.

Yes, your ideas are fabrications.
You made up the “spirit” (non-material) concept and its need for “purpose”.
You don’t seem to understand science “laws” or you use them beyond scientific justification.
There is no evidence for anything outside our “material” world, i.e., nature.

Prove it. Prove what I wrote is a fabrication.

Your ideas are not concrete enough to have supporting evidence; they are also not falsifiable.
Why don’t you “prove” that 100 gods don’t exist?

Still waiting for you to explain specifically how they are wrong.

Plz reread my prev post about evidence & falsifiability.

Please read my previous comment about an in depth explanation.

Surely you can explain how I am wrong.

 

[ding]

Fabrications, huh?

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.

Yes, your ideas are fabrications.
You made up the “spirit” (non-material) concept and its need for “purpose”.
You don’t seem to understand science “laws” or you use them beyond scientific justification.
There is no evidence for anything outside our “material” world, i.e., nature.

Prove it. Prove what I wrote is a fabrication.

Your ideas are not concrete enough to have supporting evidence; they are also not falsifiable.
Why don’t you “prove” that 100 gods don’t exist?

Still waiting for you to explain specifically how they are wrong.

Plz reread my prev post about evidence & falsifiability.

Would you agree that the material world can be used as evidence to investigate its origin?

 

[ding]

We know the material world exists. We can study the material world.

 

[PK1]

We know the material world exists. We can study the material world.

Of course we know the material world exists; we live in it & observe it!
Making up stuff beyond OUR natural world is not science, nor practical.

Gotta go ...

 

[ding]

We know the material world exists. We can study the material world.

Of course we know the material world exists; we live in it & observe it!
Making up stuff beyond OUR natural world is not science, nor practical.

Gotta go ...

And yet from the material world we can determine that space and time had a beginning and it began by following the laws of conservation and quantum mechanics. Which means those laws existed platonically outside of space and time and before space and time.

 

[ding]

Think, McFly, think.

 

[zaangalewa]

It's an example of something that can't be falsified.

As well the sentence "god exists" and the sentence "god not exists" makes not a big sense in philsophy and/or science. For believers in god it's not clear what the word "exists" means in case of the "the creator". The question "Did god exist when he had created existence per se"? shows this very well. God transcendends existence - our existence is in this case part of a meta-existence of god. And for the believers in atheism the question is just simle: "Why exists something at all?" or "Why exists existence?".

Agreed, God transcends our existence. He created space and time from nothing which is our reality. Our reality could cease to exist but God's reality would continue on. Eternal and unchanging.

Sorry to say,

I will read it later, because I think what now will come is without any substance.

but your beliefs are fabrications ... without empiricism and falsibility.

Why not fabricate two (2) “Gods” or gods, or more? Why not make up a “reality” where one god’s domain ends and another one’s starts? Or, both interact?

Anyone can make up “convenient” ideas, but our reality needs SOME empiricism, or it’s not falsifiable or science (knowledge).
Religious faith is equivalent to “i don’t know, but it sounds good to ME”.

Short: What you said is indeed without substance. Your belief in atheism means: "You don't know, but it sounds good to you".

You are correct; i don’t know about fantastic ideas that have no basis in observational evidence and i am emotionally secure about it.

Your problem is you have rules for others which are not you own rules. You are not self-reflective: To believe not to believe makes this belief not to the only possible correct form of belief - completely independent from anything what you feel or not feel. What do you feel when you hate people who use a tootbrush and someone kills this damned tooth brush users? Relief? Although no one forces you to use a tooth brush? And means your belief now no one is allowed any longer to speak about the risk caries?

 

[JimBowie1958]

If I got the attributions mixed up, I apologize. They got kind of entangled, lol.

As well the sentence "god exists" and the sentence "god not exists" makes not a big sense in philsophy and/or science. For believers in god it's not clear what the word "exists" means in case of the "the creator". The question "Did god exist when he had created existence per se"? shows this very well. God transcendends existence - our existence is in this case part of a meta-existence of god. And for the believers in atheism the question is just simle: "Why exists something at all?" or "Why exists existence?".

Agreed, God transcends our existence. He created space and time from nothing which is our reality. Our reality could cease to exist but God's reality would continue on. Eternal and unchanging.

It is interesting to me that Einstein has basically proven that, through his Laws of Relativity as applied in the Big Bang theory, time is finite and did not always exist.

Wherever the flow of time ultimately came from, however many iterations of creation you care to supposed, ultimately time had a start somewhere from something that exists outside the flow of time. This in turn means that that being that is outside of time has 0 flow of time and Relativity says that this entity is thus infinite in mass and energy.

Cantors Continuum Theory, which is mathematically solid is defined as the 'set of all possible sets'. As applied to Reality this would mean that the Creator, which is infinite, would have a mind and personality as well.

This is not speculative, these are firmly established laws of science and mathematical theory, in fact Set theory is the foundation of Modern Mathematics.

Don't fall for the oligarchs of the Wests lie that God does not exist or that there is any plausible reason to doubt that He does.

but your beliefs are fabrications ... without empiricism and falsibility.

Why not fabricate two (2) “Gods” or gods, or more? Why not make up a “reality” where one god’s domain ends and another one’s starts? Or, both interact?

Anyone can make up “convenient” ideas, but our reality needs SOME empiricism, or it’s not falsifiable or science (knowledge).
Religious faith is equivalent to “i don’t know, but it sounds good to ME”.

No, these falsehoods stem from your ignorance about religion and science. Religion is not science, obviously, and does not have to stand for empirical confirmation.

Short: What you said is indeed without substance. Your belief in atheism means: "You don't know, but it sounds good to you".

Few atheists have any inkling or idea about what God really is, and so they rightly reject their own delusions about God, but not God as accurately conceived of.