RE: Proof of God
March 10, 2015 at 8:31 am
(This post was last modified: March 10, 2015 at 8:31 am by pocaracas.)
(March 10, 2015 at 7:39 am)Harris Wrote:What if nothing has a beginning?(March 3, 2015 at 10:33 am)pocaracas Wrote: "We are star stuff".
Electrons and other elementary particles, the sort that make up everything we know of... those are eternal, in a time-forward sense.
Going back in time, we hit the Big bang and we can't say...
“Anything that has a beginning has an end.” That means a thing that has a beginning cannot be eternal. This is the law of nature and no one can challenge that.
You ever thought of that?
(March 10, 2015 at 7:39 am)Harris Wrote:Me... I'm a high-level object made of of many low-level objects. Sadly, the way they assemble to make me is ephemeral.(March 3, 2015 at 10:33 am)pocaracas Wrote: It means the building blocks of the Universe have always been there. Like the building blocks of my body had been around for a long long while before they assembled into me.
You have a unique identity. There is no other you. You had a beginning and you will have an end. After your end, nature would not reassemble you again and you will never come back to this earth. End of the story.
Does that matter whether your elements were present in the eternal past or they will remain in the eternal future when there is no you? Do you have any reason to think that matter is eternal?
And no, matter is not eternal... but energy is... apparently.
Like Lavoisier said "Nothing is lost, nothing is created, everything is transformed".
Quantum vacuum does break this nice rule once in a while, though...
(March 10, 2015 at 7:39 am)Harris Wrote:Amusing how you cannot grasp the notion that highly complex high-level processing is what you call consciousness...(March 3, 2015 at 10:33 am)pocaracas Wrote: Harris Wrote:
Is “Natural” some law or force or is it some mystical phenomenon. How and why NATURAL is happening. What exactly NATURAL is? Do you have ANY scientific definition for it?
Pocaracas Wrote:
In this case, Natural phenomenon is mindless.
Can be studied, probed, measured... somehow...
You are trying to assimilate something, which is mindless as the foundation to develop your mindful arguments. Amusing!
And it all goes on your brain.
(March 10, 2015 at 7:39 am)Harris Wrote:1. who said I'm not aware of what life is?(March 3, 2015 at 10:33 am)pocaracas Wrote: errr.... I am aware of no beings apart from this universe. So sentient and non-sentient begins are part of the universe and have come about through a long, long chain of events.
If causality is a strict thing for all fields, even quantum, then it was going to be this way.... if not, then some randomness played a part.
Either way, I am not aware of any being apart from the Universe and I cannot fathom how could someone become aware of such beings... can you?
You are not aware of:
1. what life is
2. What is death
3. what is sense
4. what is consciousness
5. Why we sleep, (science does not have a clue.)
6. what is gravity,
7. Is the universe finite or infinite?
Yet you are conscious being living in the universe, you sense and feel, you sleep and wake, and you use gravity in every moment of your life.
2. Who said I'm not aware of what death is?
3. I know very well what a sensory input is.
4. I'm quite aware of what consciousness is.
5. I know why I sleep... if you don't know why you sleep, then maybe you should try sleep deprivation for a week or two.
6. Gravity is a force exerted on all matter and by all matter, proportional to the amount of matter and inversely proportional to the distance between the two pieces of matter.
7. The known universe is finite. The unknown universe could be many things and infinite is one of them... who knows?
(March 10, 2015 at 7:39 am)Harris Wrote: You believe in all those unknown things without knowing them but you are reluctant to use your logic to realise an obvious fact that:
Why there is something rather than nothing?
Why do you was a "why" question?
Don't you think you're intentionally poisoning the well?
"Why" presupposes some sort of reasoning behind the fact. If the chain of events leading to there being matter was mindless, then no reason can be invoked and the "why" becomes moot...
I admit it's common for human language to ask a "why" question when they mean to ask a "how" question... is this what you're doing?
The "how" refers you back to the present state-of-the-art theory on this: quantum vacuum. Maybe it's wrong, maybe it needs a lot of tweaking to be right, maybe it needs to be completely scrapped and replaced by something far better... But, nowadays, it's the best we have.
