To prove God not existing, atheists conflate God with invisible unicorns.

Hi, Pachomius.
To answer your question: No, but it's a possibility.

Now, are you going to have the decency to respond to my last post to you (#437).
You called me out on multiple occasions to provide you with a response (#381, #406), even baiting me to respond.
And when I do respond to you, you simply go quiet on the matter.
Not particularly gracious of you, is it.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

If you separated the fabric of space-time, into separated threads of time and separated threads of space, if you followed a pure thread of time, one can move in time without space. If you followed a thread of space, you could move in space without time.

The latter, or moving in space without time, allows you to be everywhere and/or anywhere at the same time. If there was even the tiniest quanta of potential within a large volume of empty space, by being in all places at the same time (infinity) this would create a summation effect; potential adds up.

All you need to do is make this summation come to a focus. This can be done by superimposing the limits of space-time onto this fabric of pure space without time. We could embroider a small patch of space-time, onto the fabric of pure space. One would everywhere (fabric) at the same time to gain the summation, while also in one definitive space-time spot; worm hole.

Moving in time without space limitations; thread or fabric of time, allows one to know the history of this space-time patch no matter its size, since one is not limited by space but only time. Threads of time sort of occurs in the human imagination, where we can imagine cause and effect and sequences of events while never moving in space. If we could use a pure thread of time, the imagination would contain omniscience.

If we add it all up, we will need a piece of pure time fabric and a piece of pure space fabric. These will be connected by a small patch of space-time that expands. The patch brings to focus the potential of infinite space as well as the timeless wisdom needed to proceed.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

right. the energy is contnious , as is universe.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Well then the emotion is illogical, and it goes on... how can something that takes EVERYTHING off you and leaves you homeless, but still in love be logical?

 

Considering that millions of people are in love one way or the other, to parents, kids, partner, family even dog, then it logically would come from a source, a single source, God or maybe the Trinity in Christianity, like the face of each side of a pyramid in Egypt.

 

Your grasp of "logic" is somewhat more than tenuous.
There's no need to posit "god" as the source of love.

 

What would you call it? a black hole? Tenuous...

 

Love is a feel. When you are worried, happy, thoughtful, concerned...is all that God as well? They are all material responses. It's all within your brain.

 

So you are saying the brain is illogical? Love is a feel? Love is so much more.

 

No, I didn't say anything about the brain being illogical. The brain is the brain. Of course love is a feeling. What else could it be? Nothing says that our feelings have to be logical.

We can be illogical without a God.

 

The brain creates the illogical "feeling" therefore in you opinion the brain is illogical.

What other feeling is illogical?

 

The brain is the organ. It itself isn't illogical anymore than the heart is illogical. It functions.

Our thinking, our feelings aren't guaranteed to be logical or accurate or anything else. There would be no religion is that was the case.

What other feeling is illogical? Plenty. But I wouldn't characterize love as being illogical in most cases.

We are illogical when we buy lottery tickets. We are illogical most any time probabilities are involved. That's why "miracles" exist. We think the probabilities are too great for chance to account for it when that's not the case.

Is it logical for people to argue that Jesus arose from the dead?

We have no problem with being illogical.

 

I have to apologize to everyone for not replying to your posts as much or at all, in particular to your statements addressed to my statements, as to satisfy you.

You see, usually I decide not to dwell further on the issue, because you have your say and I have my say; and I know that for sure neither you nor I will be convinced by your reasoning, unless we first concur on concepts and principles of reasoning on facts and logic -- but from history we know that does not happen.

So, I just leave it to readers to make their own finding on which side makes more sense.

Otherwise, it will come to either you or me just repeating our respective statements uselessly, and waiting for one to give up and the other having the last word repeated.

 

Dear Sarkus, I like to have a one on one exchange with you.

First, let us wind up your dissatisfaction with the matter of your saying that everything with a beginning has a cause (from me) is not an example of logic but only a claim, and from my part asking you to produce an example of logic similar to everything having a beginning has a cause.

You refer to posts ##381, 406, 437.

I looked up the said posts, tell me from your part how did our exchange end?

Would you like to resume our exchange on my example of logic in my statement that everything with a beginning has a cause, and you with your statement that it is not logic but just a claim.

 

Okay, Sarkus, let us now take up the matter of the universe having come forth from nothing

Pachomius said:
Okay, addressing all atheists, tell me, Do you maintain that the universe came forth from nothing?​

Hi, Pachomius.
To answer your question: No, but it's a possibility.
​

What is your concept of possibility?

And also what is your concept of nothing?


I will just interact with you so that I can concentrate on this issue whether the universe came forth from nothing, it is of the most keen interest for me.

And also if you prefer, the earlier issue between us on the logic of everything with a beginning has a cause, which you deny to be an example of logic and I see it to be an example of logic.

So, dear other posters here, I have to abstain from reacting to your posts even directly addressed to me, for the time being.

 

why love is being degraded to the level of barter system.
attraction keeps society alive. love is not attraction but love contains attraction , sex.
love does not need a cause, love victimizes mindlessly.

 

About love, the insight I have come to is that the love of a mother for her child is the acme of love and the exemplar of genuine loving in all life forms.

 

right. we all men are women, we become women with women,
this is cosmic existence.

 

With you baiting me for a response and then ignoring my replies on the matter.

That would depend on whether you still think it an example of logic or just a claim. If the latter, no. If the former, you can not show it to be an "example of logic" other than by actually showing the logic you used to arrive at your conclusion... and thereby demonstrating my point for me - that in and of itself your statement is not an example of logic... the logic being how you arrived at that statement, not the statement itself.
Whether the conclusion is a sound or even valid conclusion from whatever propositions you begin with has yet to be addressed.

 

Possibility: To the best of my knowledge, if the conditions were in place an infinite number of times, the likelihood of occurrence of the event in question would tend to a non-zero level.

Nothing: in the sense used it is the notion that no particles exist, that there is no spacetime, and from this "nothing" such properties as particles and spacetime itself can emerge.

From a purely philosophical point of view, however, I tend to like the view that nothingness is "the purest indeterminate possibility of everything possible". Which of course begs the question that if it happens it must ultimately have come from this "nothing". In essence it is pure possibility, with nothing actually existing.