Burden Of Proof

[Slade3200]

Burden of proof (philosophy) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

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

Try explaining that to ding.

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

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

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

Really?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Your turn.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why are you getting so upset over this, Taz?

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

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

What do you think the big bang is, dummy?

Your link doesn’t work.

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

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

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

That's the stupidest thing I have ever heard.

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

The telescope looking for the beginning of time

There is no beginning of time. Infinite has no beginning or end. Origin of our universe is a better way to phrase it.

However you want to refer to it is fine, but there was a beginning of our space and time. There is no way around this. Red shift, cosmic background radiation, Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations and the Second Law of Thermodynamics tells us that space and time did have a beginning. If the universe is expanding then it must have a beginning. If you follow it backwards in time, then any object must come to a boundary of space time. You cannot continue that history indefinitely. This is still true even if a universe has periods of contraction. It still has to have a beginning if expansion over weights the contraction. Physicists have been uncomfortable with the idea of a beginning since the work of Friedman which showed that the solutions of Einstein's equation showed that the universe had a beginning.

I don’t deny that the universe had a beginning so you can say space time as we know it had a beginning however the concept of infinity as far as I can understand is something that we can not fully comprehend yet we can know it exists.

pi not repeating would be a real world example of infinity.

True... except for pi does does have a beginning. Infinite with no beginning is what I think is impossible to understand.

 

[ding]

Burden of proof (philosophy) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

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

Try explaining that to ding.

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

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

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

Really?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Your turn.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why are you getting so upset over this, Taz?

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

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

What do you think the big bang is, dummy?

Your link doesn’t work.

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

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

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

That's the stupidest thing I have ever heard.

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

The telescope looking for the beginning of time

There is no beginning of time. Infinite has no beginning or end. Origin of our universe is a better way to phrase it.

However you want to refer to it is fine, but there was a beginning of our space and time. There is no way around this. Red shift, cosmic background radiation, Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations and the Second Law of Thermodynamics tells us that space and time did have a beginning. If the universe is expanding then it must have a beginning. If you follow it backwards in time, then any object must come to a boundary of space time. You cannot continue that history indefinitely. This is still true even if a universe has periods of contraction. It still has to have a beginning if expansion over weights the contraction. Physicists have been uncomfortable with the idea of a beginning since the work of Friedman which showed that the solutions of Einstein's equation showed that the universe had a beginning.

I don’t deny that the universe had a beginning so you can say space time as we know it had a beginning however the concept of infinity as far as I can understand is something that we can not fully comprehend yet we can know it exists.

pi not repeating would be a real world example of infinity.

True... except for pi does does have a beginning. Infinite with no beginning is what I think is impossible to understand.

I agree. It is hard to wrap ones mind around.

 

[Taz]

Burden of proof (philosophy) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

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

Try explaining that to ding.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Your link is broken.

The proof of evidence is in your court.

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

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

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

Once again... Copy a sentence I wrote and explain how it is wrong. You can't do it. The proof of evidence is in your court, dummy.

Here you go jizz guzzler, "Once again... Copy a sentence I wrote and explain how it is wrong. You can't do it. The proof of evidence is in your court, dummy." The proof of evidence isn't in my court because you've never proven anything, just gave your OPINION.

Still not proving anything, Taz. You have to logically show the error.

Now go back and write something insightful, dummy.

Logically, if you've never backed up what you say with proper, relevant links, then you haven't actually proven anything, just gave an opinion.

Show me what is wrong, dummy?

I just did, you're just not very bright, asswipe.

Actually you didn't. I'm still waiting. Chop chop.

Logically, if you've never backed up what you say with proper, relevant links, then you haven't actually proven anything, just gave an opinion.

Logical proofs based upon science. You can't dispute the science or the logic. Saying I haven't proven it isn't the same thing as proving it. I win. Again.

Your shit isn’t based on anything because you never have any relevant links. You just don’t get it.

The big bang isn't nothing, dummy?

Are you drunk and sucking cock?

The big bang isn't nothing, dummy.

So that's a yes. Got it.

 

[Taz]

Burden of proof (philosophy) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

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

Try explaining that to ding.

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

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

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

Really?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Your turn.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why are you getting so upset over this, Taz?

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

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

What do you think the big bang is, dummy?

Your link doesn’t work.

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

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

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

That's the stupidest thing I have ever heard.

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

The telescope looking for the beginning of time

There is no beginning of time. Infinite has no beginning or end. Origin of our universe is a better way to phrase it.

However you want to refer to it is fine, but there was a beginning of our space and time. There is no way around this. Red shift, cosmic background radiation, Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations and the Second Law of Thermodynamics tells us that space and time did have a beginning. If the universe is expanding then it must have a beginning. If you follow it backwards in time, then any object must come to a boundary of space time. You cannot continue that history indefinitely. This is still true even if a universe has periods of contraction. It still has to have a beginning if expansion over weights the contraction. Physicists have been uncomfortable with the idea of a beginning since the work of Friedman which showed that the solutions of Einstein's equation showed that the universe had a beginning.

I noticed that you didn't respond to my quoted and linked post. You cum swallower.

You mean the quote that acknowledged the big bang as the origin of the universe?

You must be hard of reading. My links show that science can't see all the way back to the BB. You pathetic shit eater.

So how do they know there was a big bang, dummy?

It's a theory, asswipe.

So is evolution, right? So is relativity, right?

And we still believe them until proven otherwise. Same for the universe having a beginning, dummy.

A theory is a theory is a theory. You can quote me on that. Asslickkker.

All science is a theory, dummy.

No it’s not, asswipe. Gravity, as one example, has been proven.

If another theory comes along that better describes gravity, we will drop the current understanding in a heart beat.

That's how science works, dummy.

No, gravity has been proven, we can add to what we know about it, but gravity is a fact. Jizz sucking dummy.

If another theory comes along that better describes gravity, we will drop the current understanding in a heart beat.

That's how science works, dummy.

So you admit that the BB is just a theory. Good for you. Jizz lover.

 

[Slade3200]

Burden of proof (philosophy) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

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

Try explaining that to ding.

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

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

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

Really?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Your turn.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why are you getting so upset over this, Taz?

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

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

What do you think the big bang is, dummy?

Your link doesn’t work.

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

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

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

That's the stupidest thing I have ever heard.

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

The telescope looking for the beginning of time

There is no beginning of time. Infinite has no beginning or end. Origin of our universe is a better way to phrase it.

However you want to refer to it is fine, but there was a beginning of our space and time. There is no way around this. Red shift, cosmic background radiation, Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations and the Second Law of Thermodynamics tells us that space and time did have a beginning. If the universe is expanding then it must have a beginning. If you follow it backwards in time, then any object must come to a boundary of space time. You cannot continue that history indefinitely. This is still true even if a universe has periods of contraction. It still has to have a beginning if expansion over weights the contraction. Physicists have been uncomfortable with the idea of a beginning since the work of Friedman which showed that the solutions of Einstein's equation showed that the universe had a beginning.

I noticed that you didn't respond to my quoted and linked post. You cum swallower.

You mean the quote that acknowledged the big bang as the origin of the universe?

You must be hard of reading. My links show that science can't see all the way back to the BB. You pathetic shit eater.

So how do they know there was a big bang, dummy?

It's a theory, asswipe.

So is evolution, right? So is relativity, right?

And we still believe them until proven otherwise. Same for the universe having a beginning, dummy.

A theory is a theory is a theory. You can quote me on that. Asslickkker.

All science is a theory, dummy.

No it’s not, asswipe. Gravity, as one example, has been proven.

If another theory comes along that better describes gravity, we will drop the current understanding in a heart beat.

That's how science works, dummy.

No, gravity has been proven, we can add to what we know about it, but gravity is a fact. Jizz sucking dummy.

If another theory comes along that better describes gravity, we will drop the current understanding in a heart beat.

That's how science works, dummy.

So you admit that the BB is just a theory. Good for you. Jizz lover.

Whoa... somebody needs their coffee. A little grouchy pants this morning are we?

 

[Taz]

Burden of proof (philosophy) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

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

Try explaining that to ding.

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

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

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

Really?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Your turn.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why are you getting so upset over this, Taz?

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

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

What do you think the big bang is, dummy?

Your link doesn’t work.

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

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

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

That's the stupidest thing I have ever heard.

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

The telescope looking for the beginning of time

There is no beginning of time. Infinite has no beginning or end. Origin of our universe is a better way to phrase it.

However you want to refer to it is fine, but there was a beginning of our space and time. There is no way around this. Red shift, cosmic background radiation, Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations and the Second Law of Thermodynamics tells us that space and time did have a beginning. If the universe is expanding then it must have a beginning. If you follow it backwards in time, then any object must come to a boundary of space time. You cannot continue that history indefinitely. This is still true even if a universe has periods of contraction. It still has to have a beginning if expansion over weights the contraction. Physicists have been uncomfortable with the idea of a beginning since the work of Friedman which showed that the solutions of Einstein's equation showed that the universe had a beginning.

I noticed that you didn't respond to my quoted and linked post. You cum swallower.

You mean the quote that acknowledged the big bang as the origin of the universe?

You must be hard of reading. My links show that science can't see all the way back to the BB. You pathetic shit eater.

So how do they know there was a big bang, dummy?

It's a theory, asswipe.

So is evolution, right? So is relativity, right?

And we still believe them until proven otherwise. Same for the universe having a beginning, dummy.

A theory is a theory is a theory. You can quote me on that. Asslickkker.

All science is a theory, dummy.

No it’s not, asswipe. Gravity, as one example, has been proven.

If another theory comes along that better describes gravity, we will drop the current understanding in a heart beat.

That's how science works, dummy.

No, gravity has been proven, we can add to what we know about it, but gravity is a fact. Jizz sucking dummy.

If another theory comes along that better describes gravity, we will drop the current understanding in a heart beat.

That's how science works, dummy.

So you admit that the BB is just a theory. Good for you. Jizz lover.

Whoa... somebody needs their coffee. A little grouchy pants this morning are we?

Dingbat likes to call people names so I'm just returning the favor. And he's homophobic, so a gay slur really gets him.

 

[Slade3200]

Burden of proof (philosophy) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

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

Try explaining that to ding.

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

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

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

Really?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Your turn.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why are you getting so upset over this, Taz?

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

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

What do you think the big bang is, dummy?

Your link doesn’t work.

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

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

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

That's the stupidest thing I have ever heard.

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

The telescope looking for the beginning of time

There is no beginning of time. Infinite has no beginning or end. Origin of our universe is a better way to phrase it.

However you want to refer to it is fine, but there was a beginning of our space and time. There is no way around this. Red shift, cosmic background radiation, Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations and the Second Law of Thermodynamics tells us that space and time did have a beginning. If the universe is expanding then it must have a beginning. If you follow it backwards in time, then any object must come to a boundary of space time. You cannot continue that history indefinitely. This is still true even if a universe has periods of contraction. It still has to have a beginning if expansion over weights the contraction. Physicists have been uncomfortable with the idea of a beginning since the work of Friedman which showed that the solutions of Einstein's equation showed that the universe had a beginning.

I noticed that you didn't respond to my quoted and linked post. You cum swallower.

You mean the quote that acknowledged the big bang as the origin of the universe?

You must be hard of reading. My links show that science can't see all the way back to the BB. You pathetic shit eater.

So how do they know there was a big bang, dummy?

It's a theory, asswipe.

So is evolution, right? So is relativity, right?

And we still believe them until proven otherwise. Same for the universe having a beginning, dummy.

A theory is a theory is a theory. You can quote me on that. Asslickkker.

All science is a theory, dummy.

No it’s not, asswipe. Gravity, as one example, has been proven.

If another theory comes along that better describes gravity, we will drop the current understanding in a heart beat.

That's how science works, dummy.

No, gravity has been proven, we can add to what we know about it, but gravity is a fact. Jizz sucking dummy.

If another theory comes along that better describes gravity, we will drop the current understanding in a heart beat.

That's how science works, dummy.

So you admit that the BB is just a theory. Good for you. Jizz lover.

Whoa... somebody needs their coffee. A little grouchy pants this morning are we?

Dingbat likes to call people names so I'm just returning the favor. And he's homophobic, so a gay slur really gets him.

I see. The appropriate response to somebody acting out of line is to act out of line in return. Got it

 

[Taz]

Burden of proof (philosophy) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

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

Try explaining that to ding.

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

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

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

Really?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Your turn.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why are you getting so upset over this, Taz?

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

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

What do you think the big bang is, dummy?

Your link doesn’t work.

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

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

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

That's the stupidest thing I have ever heard.

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

The telescope looking for the beginning of time

There is no beginning of time. Infinite has no beginning or end. Origin of our universe is a better way to phrase it.

However you want to refer to it is fine, but there was a beginning of our space and time. There is no way around this. Red shift, cosmic background radiation, Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations and the Second Law of Thermodynamics tells us that space and time did have a beginning. If the universe is expanding then it must have a beginning. If you follow it backwards in time, then any object must come to a boundary of space time. You cannot continue that history indefinitely. This is still true even if a universe has periods of contraction. It still has to have a beginning if expansion over weights the contraction. Physicists have been uncomfortable with the idea of a beginning since the work of Friedman which showed that the solutions of Einstein's equation showed that the universe had a beginning.

I noticed that you didn't respond to my quoted and linked post. You cum swallower.

You mean the quote that acknowledged the big bang as the origin of the universe?

You must be hard of reading. My links show that science can't see all the way back to the BB. You pathetic shit eater.

So how do they know there was a big bang, dummy?

It's a theory, asswipe.

So is evolution, right? So is relativity, right?

And we still believe them until proven otherwise. Same for the universe having a beginning, dummy.

A theory is a theory is a theory. You can quote me on that. Asslickkker.

All science is a theory, dummy.

No it’s not, asswipe. Gravity, as one example, has been proven.

If another theory comes along that better describes gravity, we will drop the current understanding in a heart beat.

That's how science works, dummy.

No, gravity has been proven, we can add to what we know about it, but gravity is a fact. Jizz sucking dummy.

If another theory comes along that better describes gravity, we will drop the current understanding in a heart beat.

That's how science works, dummy.

So you admit that the BB is just a theory. Good for you. Jizz lover.

Whoa... somebody needs their coffee. A little grouchy pants this morning are we?

Dingbat likes to call people names so I'm just returning the favor. And he's homophobic, so a gay slur really gets him.

I see. The appropriate response to somebody acting out of line is to act out of line in return. Got it

No, the appropriate response is to be nastier than he is. Now you can go back to grabbing balls.

 

[ding]

Burden of proof (philosophy) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

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

Try explaining that to ding.

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

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

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

Really?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Your turn.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why are you getting so upset over this, Taz?

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

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

What do you think the big bang is, dummy?

Your link doesn’t work.

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

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

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

That's the stupidest thing I have ever heard.

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

The telescope looking for the beginning of time

There is no beginning of time. Infinite has no beginning or end. Origin of our universe is a better way to phrase it.

However you want to refer to it is fine, but there was a beginning of our space and time. There is no way around this. Red shift, cosmic background radiation, Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations and the Second Law of Thermodynamics tells us that space and time did have a beginning. If the universe is expanding then it must have a beginning. If you follow it backwards in time, then any object must come to a boundary of space time. You cannot continue that history indefinitely. This is still true even if a universe has periods of contraction. It still has to have a beginning if expansion over weights the contraction. Physicists have been uncomfortable with the idea of a beginning since the work of Friedman which showed that the solutions of Einstein's equation showed that the universe had a beginning.

I noticed that you didn't respond to my quoted and linked post. You cum swallower.

You mean the quote that acknowledged the big bang as the origin of the universe?

You must be hard of reading. My links show that science can't see all the way back to the BB. You pathetic shit eater.

So how do they know there was a big bang, dummy?

It's a theory, asswipe.

So is evolution, right? So is relativity, right?

And we still believe them until proven otherwise. Same for the universe having a beginning, dummy.

A theory is a theory is a theory. You can quote me on that. Asslickkker.

All science is a theory, dummy.

No it’s not, asswipe. Gravity, as one example, has been proven.

If another theory comes along that better describes gravity, we will drop the current understanding in a heart beat.

That's how science works, dummy.

No, gravity has been proven, we can add to what we know about it, but gravity is a fact. Jizz sucking dummy.

If another theory comes along that better describes gravity, we will drop the current understanding in a heart beat.

That's how science works, dummy.

So you admit that the BB is just a theory. Good for you. Jizz lover.

It is a scientific theory as all scientific theories are. Which means we treat them as the truth until proven otherwise.

So... the universe popped into existence being hardwired to produce intelligence. There's your proof of God.

 

[ding]

Burden of proof (philosophy) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

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

Try explaining that to ding.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Your link is broken.

The proof of evidence is in your court.

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

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

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

Once again... Copy a sentence I wrote and explain how it is wrong. You can't do it. The proof of evidence is in your court, dummy.

Here you go jizz guzzler, "Once again... Copy a sentence I wrote and explain how it is wrong. You can't do it. The proof of evidence is in your court, dummy." The proof of evidence isn't in my court because you've never proven anything, just gave your OPINION.

Still not proving anything, Taz. You have to logically show the error.

Now go back and write something insightful, dummy.

Logically, if you've never backed up what you say with proper, relevant links, then you haven't actually proven anything, just gave an opinion.

Show me what is wrong, dummy?

I just did, you're just not very bright, asswipe.

Actually you didn't. I'm still waiting. Chop chop.

Logically, if you've never backed up what you say with proper, relevant links, then you haven't actually proven anything, just gave an opinion.

Logical proofs based upon science. You can't dispute the science or the logic. Saying I haven't proven it isn't the same thing as proving it. I win. Again.

Your shit isn’t based on anything because you never have any relevant links. You just don’t get it.

The big bang isn't nothing, dummy?

Are you drunk and sucking cock?

The big bang isn't nothing, dummy.

So that's a yes. Got it.

I'm glad that is settled.

 

[ding]

Burden of proof (philosophy) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

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

Try explaining that to ding.

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

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

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

Really?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Your turn.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why are you getting so upset over this, Taz?

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

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

What do you think the big bang is, dummy?

Your link doesn’t work.

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

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

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

That's the stupidest thing I have ever heard.

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

The telescope looking for the beginning of time

There is no beginning of time. Infinite has no beginning or end. Origin of our universe is a better way to phrase it.

However you want to refer to it is fine, but there was a beginning of our space and time. There is no way around this. Red shift, cosmic background radiation, Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations and the Second Law of Thermodynamics tells us that space and time did have a beginning. If the universe is expanding then it must have a beginning. If you follow it backwards in time, then any object must come to a boundary of space time. You cannot continue that history indefinitely. This is still true even if a universe has periods of contraction. It still has to have a beginning if expansion over weights the contraction. Physicists have been uncomfortable with the idea of a beginning since the work of Friedman which showed that the solutions of Einstein's equation showed that the universe had a beginning.

I noticed that you didn't respond to my quoted and linked post. You cum swallower.

You mean the quote that acknowledged the big bang as the origin of the universe?

You must be hard of reading. My links show that science can't see all the way back to the BB. You pathetic shit eater.

So how do they know there was a big bang, dummy?

It's a theory, asswipe.

So is evolution, right? So is relativity, right?

And we still believe them until proven otherwise. Same for the universe having a beginning, dummy.

A theory is a theory is a theory. You can quote me on that. Asslickkker.

All science is a theory, dummy.

No it’s not, asswipe. Gravity, as one example, has been proven.

If another theory comes along that better describes gravity, we will drop the current understanding in a heart beat.

That's how science works, dummy.

No, gravity has been proven, we can add to what we know about it, but gravity is a fact. Jizz sucking dummy.

If another theory comes along that better describes gravity, we will drop the current understanding in a heart beat.

That's how science works, dummy.

So you admit that the BB is just a theory. Good for you. Jizz lover.

Whoa... somebody needs their coffee. A little grouchy pants this morning are we?

Dingbat likes to call people names so I'm just returning the favor. And he's homophobic, so a gay slur really gets him.

I'm not homophobic. You repeatedly refer to blacks as "chimps" and you repeatedly use homophobic slurs. Racism and homophobia tend to go hand in hand.

 

[ding]

Burden of proof (philosophy) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

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

Try explaining that to ding.

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

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

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

Really?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Your turn.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why are you getting so upset over this, Taz?

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

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

What do you think the big bang is, dummy?

Your link doesn’t work.

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

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

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

That's the stupidest thing I have ever heard.

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

The telescope looking for the beginning of time

There is no beginning of time. Infinite has no beginning or end. Origin of our universe is a better way to phrase it.

However you want to refer to it is fine, but there was a beginning of our space and time. There is no way around this. Red shift, cosmic background radiation, Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations and the Second Law of Thermodynamics tells us that space and time did have a beginning. If the universe is expanding then it must have a beginning. If you follow it backwards in time, then any object must come to a boundary of space time. You cannot continue that history indefinitely. This is still true even if a universe has periods of contraction. It still has to have a beginning if expansion over weights the contraction. Physicists have been uncomfortable with the idea of a beginning since the work of Friedman which showed that the solutions of Einstein's equation showed that the universe had a beginning.

I noticed that you didn't respond to my quoted and linked post. You cum swallower.

You mean the quote that acknowledged the big bang as the origin of the universe?

You must be hard of reading. My links show that science can't see all the way back to the BB. You pathetic shit eater.

So how do they know there was a big bang, dummy?

It's a theory, asswipe.

So is evolution, right? So is relativity, right?

And we still believe them until proven otherwise. Same for the universe having a beginning, dummy.

A theory is a theory is a theory. You can quote me on that. Asslickkker.

All science is a theory, dummy.

No it’s not, asswipe. Gravity, as one example, has been proven.

If another theory comes along that better describes gravity, we will drop the current understanding in a heart beat.

That's how science works, dummy.

No, gravity has been proven, we can add to what we know about it, but gravity is a fact. Jizz sucking dummy.

If another theory comes along that better describes gravity, we will drop the current understanding in a heart beat.

That's how science works, dummy.

So you admit that the BB is just a theory. Good for you. Jizz lover.

Whoa... somebody needs their coffee. A little grouchy pants this morning are we?

Dingbat likes to call people names so I'm just returning the favor. And he's homophobic, so a gay slur really gets him.

I see. The appropriate response to somebody acting out of line is to act out of line in return. Got it

No, the appropriate response is to be nastier than he is. Now you can go back to grabbing balls.

Which would be another thinly veiled homophobic slur.

We could move our welfare and food stamps programs over there. That would at least get rid of the unproductive chimps.

Nah, she loves it here. I hear that she's going to do her acceptance speech at an inner-city chimp loot-out, and light the first store on fire.

Plenty of chimps think Kanye is a jackass too.

I stopped after three. There were so many more.

 

[Taz]

Burden of proof (philosophy) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

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

Try explaining that to ding.

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

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

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

Really?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Your turn.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why are you getting so upset over this, Taz?

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

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

What do you think the big bang is, dummy?

Your link doesn’t work.

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

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

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

That's the stupidest thing I have ever heard.

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

The telescope looking for the beginning of time

There is no beginning of time. Infinite has no beginning or end. Origin of our universe is a better way to phrase it.

However you want to refer to it is fine, but there was a beginning of our space and time. There is no way around this. Red shift, cosmic background radiation, Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations and the Second Law of Thermodynamics tells us that space and time did have a beginning. If the universe is expanding then it must have a beginning. If you follow it backwards in time, then any object must come to a boundary of space time. You cannot continue that history indefinitely. This is still true even if a universe has periods of contraction. It still has to have a beginning if expansion over weights the contraction. Physicists have been uncomfortable with the idea of a beginning since the work of Friedman which showed that the solutions of Einstein's equation showed that the universe had a beginning.

I noticed that you didn't respond to my quoted and linked post. You cum swallower.

You mean the quote that acknowledged the big bang as the origin of the universe?

You must be hard of reading. My links show that science can't see all the way back to the BB. You pathetic shit eater.

So how do they know there was a big bang, dummy?

It's a theory, asswipe.

So is evolution, right? So is relativity, right?

And we still believe them until proven otherwise. Same for the universe having a beginning, dummy.

A theory is a theory is a theory. You can quote me on that. Asslickkker.

All science is a theory, dummy.

No it’s not, asswipe. Gravity, as one example, has been proven.

If another theory comes along that better describes gravity, we will drop the current understanding in a heart beat.

That's how science works, dummy.

No, gravity has been proven, we can add to what we know about it, but gravity is a fact. Jizz sucking dummy.

If another theory comes along that better describes gravity, we will drop the current understanding in a heart beat.

That's how science works, dummy.

So you admit that the BB is just a theory. Good for you. Jizz lover.

It is a scientific theory as all scientific theories are. Which means we treat them as the truth until proven otherwise.

So... the universe popped into existence being hardwired to produce intelligence. There's your proof of God.

It's a theory, still unproven.

 

[Taz]

Burden of proof (philosophy) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

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

Try explaining that to ding.

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

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

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

Really?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Your turn.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why are you getting so upset over this, Taz?

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

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

What do you think the big bang is, dummy?

Your link doesn’t work.

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

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

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

That's the stupidest thing I have ever heard.

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

The telescope looking for the beginning of time

There is no beginning of time. Infinite has no beginning or end. Origin of our universe is a better way to phrase it.

However you want to refer to it is fine, but there was a beginning of our space and time. There is no way around this. Red shift, cosmic background radiation, Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations and the Second Law of Thermodynamics tells us that space and time did have a beginning. If the universe is expanding then it must have a beginning. If you follow it backwards in time, then any object must come to a boundary of space time. You cannot continue that history indefinitely. This is still true even if a universe has periods of contraction. It still has to have a beginning if expansion over weights the contraction. Physicists have been uncomfortable with the idea of a beginning since the work of Friedman which showed that the solutions of Einstein's equation showed that the universe had a beginning.

I noticed that you didn't respond to my quoted and linked post. You cum swallower.

You mean the quote that acknowledged the big bang as the origin of the universe?

You must be hard of reading. My links show that science can't see all the way back to the BB. You pathetic shit eater.

So how do they know there was a big bang, dummy?

It's a theory, asswipe.

So is evolution, right? So is relativity, right?

And we still believe them until proven otherwise. Same for the universe having a beginning, dummy.

A theory is a theory is a theory. You can quote me on that. Asslickkker.

All science is a theory, dummy.

No it’s not, asswipe. Gravity, as one example, has been proven.

If another theory comes along that better describes gravity, we will drop the current understanding in a heart beat.

That's how science works, dummy.

No, gravity has been proven, we can add to what we know about it, but gravity is a fact. Jizz sucking dummy.

If another theory comes along that better describes gravity, we will drop the current understanding in a heart beat.

That's how science works, dummy.

So you admit that the BB is just a theory. Good for you. Jizz lover.

Whoa... somebody needs their coffee. A little grouchy pants this morning are we?

Dingbat likes to call people names so I'm just returning the favor. And he's homophobic, so a gay slur really gets him.

I'm not homophobic. You repeatedly refer to blacks as "chimps" and you repeatedly use homophobic slurs. Racism and homophobia tend to go hand in hand.

You got butthurt because I called you a jizz guzzler. You faggot.

 

[ding]

Burden of proof (philosophy) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

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

Try explaining that to ding.

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

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

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

Really?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Your turn.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why are you getting so upset over this, Taz?

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

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

What do you think the big bang is, dummy?

Your link doesn’t work.

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

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

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

That's the stupidest thing I have ever heard.

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

The telescope looking for the beginning of time

There is no beginning of time. Infinite has no beginning or end. Origin of our universe is a better way to phrase it.

However you want to refer to it is fine, but there was a beginning of our space and time. There is no way around this. Red shift, cosmic background radiation, Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations and the Second Law of Thermodynamics tells us that space and time did have a beginning. If the universe is expanding then it must have a beginning. If you follow it backwards in time, then any object must come to a boundary of space time. You cannot continue that history indefinitely. This is still true even if a universe has periods of contraction. It still has to have a beginning if expansion over weights the contraction. Physicists have been uncomfortable with the idea of a beginning since the work of Friedman which showed that the solutions of Einstein's equation showed that the universe had a beginning.

I noticed that you didn't respond to my quoted and linked post. You cum swallower.

You mean the quote that acknowledged the big bang as the origin of the universe?

You must be hard of reading. My links show that science can't see all the way back to the BB. You pathetic shit eater.

So how do they know there was a big bang, dummy?

It's a theory, asswipe.

So is evolution, right? So is relativity, right?

And we still believe them until proven otherwise. Same for the universe having a beginning, dummy.

A theory is a theory is a theory. You can quote me on that. Asslickkker.

All science is a theory, dummy.

No it’s not, asswipe. Gravity, as one example, has been proven.

If another theory comes along that better describes gravity, we will drop the current understanding in a heart beat.

That's how science works, dummy.

No, gravity has been proven, we can add to what we know about it, but gravity is a fact. Jizz sucking dummy.

If another theory comes along that better describes gravity, we will drop the current understanding in a heart beat.

That's how science works, dummy.

So you admit that the BB is just a theory. Good for you. Jizz lover.

It is a scientific theory as all scientific theories are. Which means we treat them as the truth until proven otherwise.

So... the universe popped into existence being hardwired to produce intelligence. There's your proof of God.

It's a theory, still unproven.

By your standard all theories are unproven.

 

[ding]

Burden of proof (philosophy) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

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

Try explaining that to ding.

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

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

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

Really?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Your turn.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why are you getting so upset over this, Taz?

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

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

What do you think the big bang is, dummy?

Your link doesn’t work.

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

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

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

That's the stupidest thing I have ever heard.

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

The telescope looking for the beginning of time

There is no beginning of time. Infinite has no beginning or end. Origin of our universe is a better way to phrase it.

However you want to refer to it is fine, but there was a beginning of our space and time. There is no way around this. Red shift, cosmic background radiation, Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations and the Second Law of Thermodynamics tells us that space and time did have a beginning. If the universe is expanding then it must have a beginning. If you follow it backwards in time, then any object must come to a boundary of space time. You cannot continue that history indefinitely. This is still true even if a universe has periods of contraction. It still has to have a beginning if expansion over weights the contraction. Physicists have been uncomfortable with the idea of a beginning since the work of Friedman which showed that the solutions of Einstein's equation showed that the universe had a beginning.

I noticed that you didn't respond to my quoted and linked post. You cum swallower.

You mean the quote that acknowledged the big bang as the origin of the universe?

You must be hard of reading. My links show that science can't see all the way back to the BB. You pathetic shit eater.

So how do they know there was a big bang, dummy?

It's a theory, asswipe.

So is evolution, right? So is relativity, right?

And we still believe them until proven otherwise. Same for the universe having a beginning, dummy.

A theory is a theory is a theory. You can quote me on that. Asslickkker.

All science is a theory, dummy.

No it’s not, asswipe. Gravity, as one example, has been proven.

If another theory comes along that better describes gravity, we will drop the current understanding in a heart beat.

That's how science works, dummy.

No, gravity has been proven, we can add to what we know about it, but gravity is a fact. Jizz sucking dummy.

If another theory comes along that better describes gravity, we will drop the current understanding in a heart beat.

That's how science works, dummy.

So you admit that the BB is just a theory. Good for you. Jizz lover.

Whoa... somebody needs their coffee. A little grouchy pants this morning are we?

Dingbat likes to call people names so I'm just returning the favor. And he's homophobic, so a gay slur really gets him.

I'm not homophobic. You repeatedly refer to blacks as "chimps" and you repeatedly use homophobic slurs. Racism and homophobia tend to go hand in hand.

You got butthurt because I called you a jizz guzzler. You faggot.

Not at all. I am more than happy to give you enough rope to hang yourself. You show your true colors with every post.

 

[Taz]

Which would be another thinly veiled homophobic slur.

We could move our welfare and food stamps programs over there. That would at least get rid of the unproductive chimps.

Nah, she loves it here. I hear that she's going to do her acceptance speech at an inner-city chimp loot-out, and light the first store on fire.

Plenty of chimps think Kanye is a jackass too.

I stopped after three. There were so many more.

So what's your point, you fucking chimp jizz guzzler.

 

[ding]

Which would be another thinly veiled homophobic slur.

We could move our welfare and food stamps programs over there. That would at least get rid of the unproductive chimps.

Nah, she loves it here. I hear that she's going to do her acceptance speech at an inner-city chimp loot-out, and light the first store on fire.

Plenty of chimps think Kanye is a jackass too.

I stopped after three. There were so many more.

So what's your point, you fucking chimp jizz guzzler.

That you are racist and homophobic.

 

[ding]

and angry

 

[Taz]

Which would be another thinly veiled homophobic slur.

We could move our welfare and food stamps programs over there. That would at least get rid of the unproductive chimps.

Nah, she loves it here. I hear that she's going to do her acceptance speech at an inner-city chimp loot-out, and light the first store on fire.

Plenty of chimps think Kanye is a jackass too.

I stopped after three. There were so many more.

So what's your point, you fucking chimp jizz guzzler.

That you are racist and homophobic.

Not homophobic at all, that's you. As for racist, I treat all the races equally, even White jizz guzzlers like you.