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



## RandomPoster

When asked if falsification is itself falsifiable or if it fails its own criteria, Karl Popper responded:

“The first thing you do in a philosophy seminar when somebody proposes an idea is to say it doesn’t satisfy its own criteria. It is one of the most idiotic criticisms one can imagine!”

  In your opinion, is this a valid response?


----------



## Billy_Kinetta

If one can successfully argue that it does not satisfy its own criteria then said response is imbecilic.


----------



## mamooth

The concept of falsifiability doesn't work well outside of experimental physics.

For example, can we falsify the concept of a black hole with an experiment? Not really. But nobody would argue that such astrophysics isn't science.


----------



## RandomPoster

If the falsifiability principle is the demarcation of science and is itself not falsifiable, would that mean that the demarcation of science is unscientific?


----------



## ding

RandomPoster said:


> When asked if falsification is itself falsifiable or if it fails its own criteria, Karl Popper responded:
> 
> “The first thing you do in a philosophy seminar when somebody proposes an idea is to say it doesn’t satisfy its own criteria. It is one of the most idiotic criticisms one can imagine!”
> 
> In your opinion, is this a valid response?


No. It’s not.


----------



## ding

RandomPoster said:


> If the falsifiability principle is the demarcation of science and is itself not falsifiable, would that mean that the demarcation of science is unscientific?


I don’t know. Maybe. How is the concept of falsifiability not falsifiable?


----------



## RandomPoster

ding said:


> RandomPoster said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the falsifiability principle is the demarcation of science and is itself not falsifiable, would that mean that the demarcation of science is unscientific?
> 
> 
> 
> I don’t know. Maybe. How is the concept of falsifiability not falsifiable?
Click to expand...


  Falsifiability says that in order to be scientific a theory has to be falsifiable.  Since it defines falsifiability as a requirement to be scientific, as soon as a theory is deemed unfalsifiable, it becomes by falsifiability's own definition unscientific.  I realize this seems circular, but you either accept falsifiability as a demarcation of science or you don't.  There is no one fact that could definitively disprove falsification.  Popper himself did not consider falsifiability to be falsifiable and was annoyed when asked about it.


----------



## ding

RandomPoster said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RandomPoster said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the falsifiability principle is the demarcation of science and is itself not falsifiable, would that mean that the demarcation of science is unscientific?
> 
> 
> 
> I don’t know. Maybe. How is the concept of falsifiability not falsifiable?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Falsifiability says that in order to be scientific a theory has to be falsifiable.  Since it defines falsifiability as a requirement to be scientific, as soon as a theory is deemed unfalsifiable, it becomes by falsifiability's own definition unscientific.  I realize this seems circular, but you either accept falsifiability as a demarcation of science or you don't.  There is no one fact that could definitively disprove falsification.  Popper himself did not consider falsifiability to be falsifiable and was annoyed when asked about it.
Click to expand...

The concept of falsifiability itself is not scientific. Science is the study of nature to discover the order within nature so as to be able to make predictions about nature. It seems to me that the concept of falsifiability is philosophical in nature. 

But it is funny that he got annoyed when it got flipped around on him.


----------



## zaangalewa

RandomPoster said:


> When asked if falsification is itself falsifiable or if it fails its own criteria, Karl Popper responded:
> 
> “The first thing you do in a philosophy seminar when somebody proposes an idea is to say it doesn’t satisfy its own criteria. It is one of the most idiotic criticisms one can imagine!”
> 
> In your opinion, is this a valid response?



No. Self-reference is a basic element of philosophy. Example: The way to peace is peaceful or not a way to peace.


----------



## zaangalewa

ding said:


> RandomPoster said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the falsifiability principle is the demarcation of science and is itself not falsifiable, would that mean that the demarcation of science is unscientific?
> 
> 
> 
> I don’t know. Maybe. How is the concept of falsifiability not falsifiable?
Click to expand...


Thesis: "Swans are [only] white"
Falsification: "Swans are not [only] white"

Now I falsify the falsification "Swans are not not [only] white" = "Swans are [only] white"


But what happens really, when we think about such a "problem"?

I have a concept: "Swans are white" (up to this moment I saw always only white swans).

Now I take a more exact look into reality and I am able to find a foto of a black swan somewhere on the other side of the globe. The foto is trustworthy.
Now I'm able to say "My former concept was wrong - it has to be modified". But what is the best way how to modify it? The falsification "Swans are not white" makes not a big sense, because "[Most] Swans are white" is still a true sentence. Black and white are not colors. Additive color mxing: black is the absence of color - white is a mix of all colors. Subtractive color mixing: black is the mix of all colors - white is the absence of color.

So the "best" new concept - specially if we think about Occams razor too - seems to be now: "Swans are colorless". (As long as we will not find a colored swan).

The problem now: No one understands intuitively the sentence "Swans are colorless". So the most people will say: "Swans are white - but I heard black swans exist too".

So if you think now about the word "falsification" - is this really what we are doing when we think and learn?


----------



## ding

zaangalewa said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RandomPoster said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the falsifiability principle is the demarcation of science and is itself not falsifiable, would that mean that the demarcation of science is unscientific?
> 
> 
> 
> I don’t know. Maybe. How is the concept of falsifiability not falsifiable?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thesis: "Swans are [only] white"
> Falsification: "Swans are not [only] white"
> 
> Now I falsify the falsification "Swans are not not [only] white" = "Swans are [only] white"
> 
> 
> But what happens really, when we think about such a "problem"?
> 
> I have a concept: "Swans are white" (up to this moment I saw always only white swans).
> 
> Now I take a more exact look into reality and I am able to find a foto of a black swan somewhere on the other side of the globe. The foto is trustworthy.
> Now I'm able to say "My former concept was wrong - it has to be modified". But what is the best way how to modify it? The falsification "Swans are not white" makes not a big sense, because "[Most] Swans are white" is still a true sentence. Black and white are not colors. Additive color mxing: black is the absence of color - white is a mix of all colors. Subtractive color mixing: black is the mix of all colors - white is the absence of color.
> 
> So the "best" new concept - specially if we think about Occams razor too - seems to be now: "Swans are colorless". (As long as we will not find a colored swan).
> 
> The problem now: No one understands intuitively the sentence "Swans are colorless". So the most people will say: "Swans are white - but I heard black swans exist too".
> 
> So if you think now about the word "falsification" - is this really what we are doing when we think and learn?
Click to expand...

The concept of falsifiability in the context of this discussion is that it is a statement that can’t be falsified.

Such as God doesn’t exist.


----------



## zaangalewa

ding said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RandomPoster said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the falsifiability principle is the demarcation of science and is itself not falsifiable, would that mean that the demarcation of science is unscientific?
> 
> 
> 
> I don’t know. Maybe. How is the concept of falsifiability not falsifiable?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thesis: "Swans are [only] white"
> Falsification: "Swans are not [only] white"
> 
> Now I falsify the falsification "Swans are not not [only] white" = "Swans are [only] white"
> 
> 
> But what happens really, when we think about such a "problem"?
> 
> I have a concept: "Swans are white" (up to this moment I saw always only white swans).
> 
> Now I take a more exact look into reality and I am able to find a foto of a black swan somewhere on the other side of the globe. The foto is trustworthy.
> Now I'm able to say "My former concept was wrong - it has to be modified". But what is the best way how to modify it? The falsification "Swans are not white" makes not a big sense, because "[Most] Swans are white" is still a true sentence. Black and white are not colors. Additive color mxing: black is the absence of color - white is a mix of all colors. Subtractive color mixing: black is the mix of all colors - white is the absence of color.
> 
> So the "best" new concept - specially if we think about Occams razor too - seems to be now: "Swans are colorless". (As long as we will not find a colored swan).
> 
> The problem now: No one understands intuitively the sentence "Swans are colorless". So the most people will say: "Swans are white - but I heard black swans exist too".
> 
> So if you think now about the word "falsification" - is this really what we are doing when we think and learn?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The concept of falsifiability in the context of this discussion is that it is a statement that can’t be falsified.
Click to expand...


Replace the expression "falsification" just simple with  a multiplication *(-1) then it is more clear that this changes not really something in the structure. Specially not if you falsify the falsification. I don't know how many millions of students were frustrated, because they never understood the concept "falsification". Perhaps that's not so astonishing, because there is just simple not a lot to understand.



> Such as God doesn’t exist.



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


----------



## ding

zaangalewa said:


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


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


----------



## ding

zaangalewa said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RandomPoster said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the falsifiability principle is the demarcation of science and is itself not falsifiable, would that mean that the demarcation of science is unscientific?
> 
> 
> 
> I don’t know. Maybe. How is the concept of falsifiability not falsifiable?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thesis: "Swans are [only] white"
> Falsification: "Swans are not [only] white"
> 
> Now I falsify the falsification "Swans are not not [only] white" = "Swans are [only] white"
> 
> 
> But what happens really, when we think about such a "problem"?
> 
> I have a concept: "Swans are white" (up to this moment I saw always only white swans).
> 
> Now I take a more exact look into reality and I am able to find a foto of a black swan somewhere on the other side of the globe. The foto is trustworthy.
> Now I'm able to say "My former concept was wrong - it has to be modified". But what is the best way how to modify it? The falsification "Swans are not white" makes not a big sense, because "[Most] Swans are white" is still a true sentence. Black and white are not colors. Additive color mxing: black is the absence of color - white is a mix of all colors. Subtractive color mixing: black is the mix of all colors - white is the absence of color.
> 
> So the "best" new concept - specially if we think about Occams razor too - seems to be now: "Swans are colorless". (As long as we will not find a colored swan).
> 
> The problem now: No one understands intuitively the sentence "Swans are colorless". So the most people will say: "Swans are white - but I heard black swans exist too".
> 
> So if you think now about the word "falsification" - is this really what we are doing when we think and learn?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The concept of falsifiability in the context of this discussion is that it is a statement that can’t be falsified.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Replace the expression "falsification" just simple with  a multiplication *(-1) then it is more clear that this changes not really something in the structure. Specially not if you falsify the falsification. I don't know how many millions of students were frustrated, because they never understood the concept "falsification". Perhaps that's not so astonishing, because there is just simple not a lot to understand.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Such as God doesn’t exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know what you like to say with this sentence.
Click to expand...

No, I think I get it.


----------



## zaangalewa

ding said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know what you like to say with this sentence.
> 
> 
> 
> It's an example of something that can't be falsified.
Click to expand...


As well the sentence "god exists" and the sentence "god not exists" makes not a big sense in philosophy and/or science. For believers in god it's not clear what the word "exists" means in case of the expression "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 simple:_ "Why exists something at all?"_ or _"Why exists existence?"_.

We imagine for example when we go home back to our father that our existence here ends: We die. But this is not clear too, because we were existing before our birth too. Perhaps it's indeed possible to become reborn and to live more than only one life too. But it's also possible to go home into the meta-existence of god directly after our death. But perhaps we are meta-existing and existing the same time too. An interesting detail: _"Everyone dies - not so I" _is indeed a true sentence, because we never will be able to make the experience of our own death - but we are easily able to see the death of all other existing things.


----------



## ding

zaangalewa said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know what you like to say with this sentence.
> 
> 
> 
> It's an example of something that can't be falsified.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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?"_.
Click to expand...

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.


----------



## zaangalewa

Erinwltr

And what exactly is "funny". Are you able to verbalize this?


----------



## JimBowie1958

Falsifiability is an axiom of science. 

The axioms of science are derived from philosophy of science and theology, not from science.

Therefore falsifiability being falsifiable is not germane to science itself.


----------



## PK1

JimBowie1958 said:


> Falsifiability is an axiom of science.
> 
> The axioms of science are derived from philosophy of science and theology, not from science.
> 
> Therefore falsifiability being falsifiable is not germane to science itself.


Falsifiability within an EMPIRICAL context (our universe) is an axiom of science ... and its methods (philosophy of physics, philosophy of biology, philosophy of psychology, etc).

Theories are based on at least some direct observable evidence. More evidence, stronger theory, especially if data are reproduced by multiple, independent researchers.  
If one can reproduce cause/effects, such as quantum entanglement, then scientific knowledge moves from theory, probability to fact.


----------



## PK1

ding said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know what you like to say with this sentence.
> 
> 
> 
> It's an example of something that can't be falsified.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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?"_.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...

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”.


----------



## ding

PK1 said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know what you like to say with this sentence.
> 
> 
> 
> It's an example of something that can't be falsified.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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?"_.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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”.
Click to expand...

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

PK1 said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know what you like to say with this sentence.
> 
> 
> 
> It's an example of something that can't be falsified.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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?"_.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry to say,
Click to expand...


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

zaangalewa said:


> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know what you like to say with this sentence.
> 
> 
> 
> It's an example of something that can't be falsified.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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?"_.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry to say,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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”.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Short: What you said is indeed without substance. Your belief in atheism means: "You don't know, but it sounds good to you".
Click to expand...

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

ding said:


> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know what you like to say with this sentence.
> 
> 
> 
> It's an example of something that can't be falsified.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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?"_.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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”.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...

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

PK1 said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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?"_.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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”.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...

Prove it. Prove what I wrote is a fabrication.


----------



## ding

PK1 said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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?"_.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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”.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...

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


----------



## PK1

ding said:


> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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”.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Prove it. Prove what I wrote is a fabrication.
Click to expand...

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

PK1 said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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”.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Prove it. Prove what I wrote is a fabrication.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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?
Click to expand...

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


----------



## PK1

ding said:


> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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”.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I’ve been a practicing engineer for almost 35 years. I’ve probably forgotten more science than you ever knew.
Click to expand...

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


----------



## ding

PK1 said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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”.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I’ve been a practicing engineer for almost 35 years. I’ve probably forgotten more science than you ever knew.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ha ha. Nice try.
> Based on your comments, i am SURE i have much more experience in science & its philosophy than you.
Click to expand...

Really?  What’s your background in science?


----------



## PK1

ding said:


> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Prove it. Prove what I wrote is a fabrication.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still waiting for you to explain specifically how they are wrong.
Click to expand...

Plz reread my prev post about evidence & falsifiability.


----------



## ding

PK1 said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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”.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I’ve been a practicing engineer for almost 35 years. I’ve probably forgotten more science than you ever knew.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ha ha. Nice try.
> Based on your comments, i am SURE i have much more experience in science & its philosophy than you.
Click to expand...

Which comments did you take exception with and why?


----------



## ding

PK1 said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Prove it. Prove what I wrote is a fabrication.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still waiting for you to explain specifically how they are wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Plz reread my prev post about evidence & falsifiability.
Click to expand...

Please read my previous comment about an in depth explanation. 

Surely you can explain how I am wrong.


----------



## ding

PK1 said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Prove it. Prove what I wrote is a fabrication.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still waiting for you to explain specifically how they are wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Plz reread my prev post about evidence & falsifiability.
Click to expand...

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

ding said:


> 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

PK1 said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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 ...
Click to expand...

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

PK1 said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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?"_.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry to say,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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”.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Short: What you said is indeed without substance. Your belief in atheism means: "You don't know, but it sounds good to you".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are correct; i don’t know about fantastic ideas that have no basis in observational evidence and i am emotionally secure about it.
Click to expand...


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.



zaangalewa said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


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.



ding said:


> 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.



zaangalewa said:


> 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.


----------



## zaangalewa

ding said:


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



What is "to study"? In a bio-psychological view this is a change - an experience - in the material structure of the matter of a concrete brain. But what I say about here is now an immaterial idea. An idea, which is by the way plausible but still without evidence. Example of an alternating idea: In case our brain would be something like a smart phone for our spirit then the one who reads the messages of this phone is not a part of the material of the handy. When you will study this material then you are only able to get very indirectly some knowledge. How to find out in such a case that the producers of the hypothetical machines, which are producing smart phones, are made from biological entities with two arms and hands? I guess who thinks materialistic thinks often only very poor - without to trust in god and the fantasy it needs for a blind chicken to find a corn and sometimes a corn schnapps too.

You for example existed once before any atom started to build your body and your brain. Evidence: Someone with a time machine could travel a million years back into the past and do something there so you never will be born - ah sorry: so you never was born. And I'm in this case now so crazy to speak with a not existing nothing. This shows clear a million years ago existed something, which was leading to this what you are now. But this what you was a million years ago was part of an "invisible world" - or do you see all around you the souls of the future beings, whose destiny you are now?


----------



## zaangalewa

JimBowie1958 said:


> If I got the attributions mixed up, I apologize. They got kind of entangled, lol.
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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,
Click to expand...


It came "from" a nowhen without this flow - "from" a timeless situation.



> however many iterations of creation you care to supposed, ultimately time had a start somewhere from something that exists outside the flow of time.



Or from nothing at all. Perhaps it is on an unknown reason for the nature of nothing not easy to be nothing or ot is necessary for "the nothing" to be not nothing too.(Not nothing is something - so an "extreme" nothing has perhaps inevitably to be something.)



> 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.



This "entity" - if possible to say so - is outside of space, time, matter and energy by being not creation but creator. Only the creation is under influence of the "relative factor" (gamma factor, Lorentz factor) of the theory of relativity.   The expression 1 − v^2 / c^2  shows by the way a half circle for v<c



> Cantors Continuum Theory,



Cantor?



> 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.



No no. Cantor found a or the fundament of mathematics and was a solution for the so called "existential crisis of Mathematics". Nevertheless mathematics on its own is not a materialistic science. Mathematics is a world full of ideas.



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



So it is.



> 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.



Existence is not a problem for god. If he should exists not now then he could exist a second later. Was god existing when he created everything out of nothing - specially when he started to create the existence per se?



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

[/Quote]

The problem for atheists is to understand what's the difference between their belief and their knowledge.


----------

