MacDaddy01:


we dont know what is beofre the big bang. If there was a trigger, yes it wouldnt be noodle, neither will it be spiritual ectoplasm

And that ends the discussion.

#FSM DEBUNKED!

Good day, noble kind and gracious sir.

Deep Sight:

Numbers do exist, otherwise you won't even be typing. I don't expect that you are philosophically mature enough for us to venture into the discussion on numbers though.

Lol, he clearly isn't. I am happy to ask you a question though just to test. Why can the first cause not be an abstract such as a number?

Mr_Anony:
By thinking. I presume you are capable of thought are you not?

So I think, therefore...........i should be able to pull anything out of my head and call it god, the uncaused cause of all eternity.

Good. So you agree with me that in the final analysis, its all about our mental constructs and nothing more.
Thank you, Mr. Anony.

plaetton:

So I think, therefore...........i should be able to pull anything out of my head and call it god, the uncaused cause of all eternity.

Good. So you agree with me that in the final analysis, its all about our mental constructs and nothing more.
Thank you, Mr. Anony.

Wow! do you think really? Are you capable of thought?

Mr_Anony:
Lol, he clearly isn't. I am happy to ask you a question though just to test. Why can the first cause not be an abstract such as a number?

Or even a mathematical equation, or a sound or harmonic sequence?

Mr_Anony:
Lol, he clearly isn't. I am happy to ask you a question though just to test. Why can the first cause not be an abstract such as a number?

Indeed it is so as far as the finite can perceive: and an abstract is still an existent: and a real existent for that matter when we speak of the first cause: given that its existence is inferred directly from other very real existents: the material universe.

Mr_Anony:
Wow! do you think really? Are you capable of thought?

Dont be funny now.

Deep Sight:

And that ends the discussion.

#FSM DEBUNKED!

Good day, noble kind and gracious sir.

Perfect answer.

plaetton:

Dont be funny now.

I am not, I am getting at something if you would oblige me. Just humor me. can you think? yes or no

plaetton:

Or even a mathematical equation, or a sound or harmonic sequence?

And these are still existents.

In reality, GOD is as you have said above,but more: it is the infinite equation, the eternal sound, the limitless harmonic sequence of all reality.

Deep Sight:

Numbers do exist, otherwise you won't even be typing. I don't expect that you are philosophically mature enough for us to venture into the discussion on numbers though.




O really? Oya, show me the smallest particle na?

Numbers exist? Are you mad? They are only ideological constructs. the number 2 does not exist in real life, it is only the figure we use to represent something double in value.


The smallest particle
http://education.jlab.org/qa/quark_01.html

Mr_Anony:
Lol, he clearly isn't. I am happy to ask you a question though just to test. Why can the first cause not be an abstract such as a number?

What? Are you and deep sight arguing that numbers exist in real life?

And you expect me not to ridicule you guys? Are you mad?

Mr_Anony:
wow! the bolded is a plain example of willful ignorance. "I do not know, I do not want to ponder it but I am very happy to ridicule it"
I am sorry sir, that's just poor.

How did you[b] leap[/b] from "I do not know" to "I do not want to ponder"?

I admire your leaps of faith.
lol

I am like a child eager to know. You are like the grandfather who claims to already know.
So you are the one who has to defend what you claim to know.

Deep Sight:

And these are still existents.

In reality, GOD is as you have said above,but more: it is the infinite equation, the eternal sound, the limitless harmonic sequence of all reality.

So god is the sum of all reality. Right?



Hmmmm. Its deja vu all over again.
You see. you have come full circle to agree with me, a pantheist.

If god is the sum of all existence, then there could not have been a time when he created or caused anything to be created.
Like I stated in a another thread,the god would not be distinguishable from anything else in existence.
therefore the idea of a god is null and void because all that exists,the permanent somethingness, the universe being perhaps just an offshoot, has always been and did not come into being at any point.

MacDaddy01:

Numbers exist? Are you mad? They are only ideological constructs. the number 2 does not exist in real life, it is only the figure we use to represent something double in value.


The smallest particle
http://education.jlab.org/qa/quark_01.html

Olodo. Read your own link.

This is what it says -

So far it looks like there is nothing smaller inside an atom than quarks. Our experiments look for evidence that quarks have some sort of shape or structure. If they do have a shape or structure rather than just being a point (which by itself is a very difficult concept to understand), then there might be some sub-quark constituents. At present there is little or no evidence of any structure to the quark. Maybe there is though! That might be something for you, the next generation, to look for and try to figure out!

Numbers exist? Are you mad? They are only ideological constructs. the number 2 does not exist in real life, it is only the figure we use to represent something double in value.

Numbers do exist. But it is beyond you to discuss the issue. Far far beyond you. I wont waste my time trying to do so with a nit wit. Read carefully this post -

https://www.nairaland.com/315294/atheists-empirical-reasoning-existence-god/8#4551331

plaetton:

So god is the sum of all reality. Right?



Hmmmm. Its deja vu all over again.
You see. you have come full circle to agree with me, a pantheist.

If god is the sum of all existence, then there could not have been a time when he created or caused anything to be created.
Like I stated in a another thread,the god would not be distinguishable from anything else in existence.
therefore the idea of a god is null and void because all that exists,the permanent somethingness, the universe being perhaps just an offshoot, has always been and did not come into being at any point.

Wrong, because the universe demonstrably had a beginning. Simples.

^^^^
You throw all these abstract and superlative attributes like eternal, immutable, uncaused ,etc, about, and then you put restrictions as to who or what is fit to wear them.

Deep Sight:

Wrong, because the universe demonstrably had a beginning. Simples.

Yeah. No problems with that idea.
But the universe is just an offshoot, an inflection point, and perhaps an insignificant phase of the permanent somethingness.
Do you agree?

plaetton:

How did you[b] leap[/b] from "I do not know" to "I do not want to ponder"?

I admire your leaps of faith.
lol

I am like a child eager to know. You are like the grandfather who claims to already know.
So you are the one who has to defend what you claim to know.

Actually, I was describing your condition. You do not know what the first cause is, you are not willing to ponder it yet you are happy to ridicule it.

I am glad you can see your condition for what it is when you don't realize it describes you.

You are not like a child eager to know, you are more like a child stuffing his ears and chanting: spaghetti! spaghetti! spaghetti!

plaetton:

Yeah. No problems with that idea.
But the universe is just an offshoot, an inflection point, and perhaps an insignificant phase of the permanent somethingness.
Do you agree?

Yes, and in saying this, you have acceded to the existence of a pre existent, which is the thing from which this universe proceeds.

# Plaetton closed.

Good day, noble kind and gracious sir.

Deep Sight:

Olodo. Read your own link.

This is what it says -

So far it looks like there is nothing smaller inside an atom than quarks. Our experiments look for evidence that quarks have some sort of shape or structure. If they do have a shape or structure rather than just being a point (which by itself is a very difficult concept to understand), then there might be some sub-quark constituents. At present there is little or no evidence of any structure to the quark. Maybe there is though! That might be something for you, the next generation, to look for and try to figure out!



Numbers do exist. But it is beyond you to discuss the issue. Far far beyond you. I wont waste my time trying to do so with a nit wit. Read carefully this post -

https://www.nairaland.com/315294/atheists-empirical-reasoning-existence-god/8#4551331

You are quite mad to try to argue that numbers exist. You were proven wrong and now you want to shift and dump the argument. Hell no! Numbers do not exist and only an idiot or dishonest theist would argue they exist. They are ideological constructs.


It is like saying 4 exist or kilograms exist. They dont. They are ideas that we use as units of measurement. I weigh 72 kilograms, I exist but not the 72 kilograms. Another person would measure me in stones. They are just constructs. They are not existent in real life.

As for the smallest particles, we know nothing smaller than quarks. That is the end of the story. There might be speculation of something smaller but there is no evidence for that yet.

Deep Sight:

Yes, and in saying this, you have acceded to the existence of a pre existent, which is the thing from which this universe proceeds.

# Plaetton closed.

Good day, noble kind and gracious sir.

Another smackdown answer.

MacDaddy01:




You are quite mad to try to argue that numbers exist. You were proven wrong and now you want to shift and dump the argument. Hell no! Numbers do not exist and only an idiot or dishonest theist would argue they exist. They are ideological constructs.


It is like saying 4 exist or kilograms exist. They dont. They are ideas that we use as units of measurement. I weigh 72 kilograms, I exist but not the 72 kilograms. Another person would measure me in stones. They are just constructs. They are not existent in real life.

As for the smallest particles, we know nothing smaller than quarks. That is the end of the story. There might be speculation of something smaller but there is no evidence for that yet.

Perhaps, you should define for us what it means for something to exist. How do we know that something exists?

MacDaddy01:

You are quite mad to try to argue that numbers exist. You were proven wrong and now you want to shift and dump the argument. Hell no! Numbers do not exist and only an idiot or dishonest theist would argue they exist. They are ideological constructs.

I cannot engage you in a discussion as advanced as that about numbers. You are not fit for such a discussion. I have told you that I am se.xually masochistic but not intellectually masochistic. So no thanks.

As for the smallest particles, we know nothing smaller than quarks. That is the end of the story. There might be speculation of something smaller but there is no evidence for that yet.

No: there is no limit to sub particles.




[/quote]

Mr_Anony:
Actually, I was describing your condition. You do not know what the first cause is, you are not willing to ponder it yet you are happy to ridicule it.

I am glad you can see your condition for what it is when you don't realize it describes you.

Y[b]ou are not like a child eager to know, you are more like a child stuffing his ears and chanting: spaghetti! spaghetti! spaghetti!

[/b]
Am rolling on the floor laughing.

I have pondered the first cause since I was 5yr old.
I do not pretend to know and I'm not willing cop out and claiming the most comforting idea that comes into my head or regurgitated every sunday.
I would rather continue to ponder and ask questions along the way.
I do not envy you who has already found an answer that is soft, cuddly and sweet in the mouth, much like spaghetti.

Mr_Anony:

Perhaps, you should define for us what it means for something to exist. How do we know that something exists?

How do we know that something exist?


Tangibility!


See, touch, smell, feel, taste, hear.......,measurable, quantifiable, etc



Anything beyond our senses is non-existent. Unless you have some 6th sense you want to share with us.

plaetton: [/b]
[/b]
Am rolling on the floor laughing.

I have pondered the first cause since I was 5yr old.
I do not pretend to know and I'm not willing cop out and claiming the most comforting idea that comes into my head or regurgitated every sunday.
I would rather continue to ponder and ask questions along the way.
I do not envy you who has already found an answer that is soft, cuddly and sweet in the mouth, much like spaghetti.

If indeed you have pondered the first cause for so long, then you ought to have pondered its tenable attributes. I listed some earlier. UP TILL NOW, NONE OF YOU HAVE ADDRESSED THAT QUESTION I GAVE YOU ABOUT ATTRIBUTES, AND THE SOURCE FOR SUCH: CAUSALIY

COWARDS - Address the question!

Deep Sight:

I cannot engage you in a discussion as advanced as that about numbers. You are not fit for such a discussion. I have told you that I am se.xually masochistic but not intellectually masochistic. So no thanks.



No: there is no limit to sub particles.

lol.....there is no discussion. Any rational person knows that numbers do not exist. They are ideas, ideological constructs. Have you experienced number 4 ?



Hail the new God, number 4! Another abstract that Deep Sight believes exists

MacDaddy01:


How do we know that something exist?


Tangibility!


See, touch, smell, feel, taste, hear.......,measurable, quantifiable, etc



Anything beyond our senses is non-existent. Unless you have some 6th sense you want to share with us.

By that token, time itself does not exist. Nor do thoughts. Nor do emotions. Nor do ideas.

Deep Sight:

I cannot engage you in a discussion as advanced as that about numbers. You are not fit for such a discussion. I have told you that I am se.xually masochistic but not intellectually masochistic. So no thanks.



No: there is no limit to sub particles.

Regarding your debunked particle nonsense,


If you cant show me what is smaller than a quark, then shut the feck up. Dont do Anony Houdini with me

MacDaddy01:



lol.....there is no discussion. Any rational person knows that numbers do not exist. They are ideas, ideological constructs. Have you experienced number 4 ?



Hail the new God, number 4! Another abstract that Deep Sight believes exists

Read the link i gave you,i wont waste my time explaining to you.

Deep Sight:

Yes, and in saying this, you have acceded to the existence of a pre existent, which is the thing from which this universe proceeds.

# Plaetton closed.

Good day, noble kind and gracious sir.

I do not see how I have done so.
All I have conceded is that the big ba.ng could have been a mere inflection in existence that spawned new characteristics to the what already is.
It still means there was no creation and no creator.