Maynman:

Science don’t work on logic, they work on fact and data, and even so show me the sufficient logic of the element and not elements.

But you only learn the concept of “god” through religion. You said the idea of “god” is in most traditions, please mention 2 of those traditions.

Well, you believe what you don’t Know.
Is radiation not physical, radiation do mutates and it’s tangible, so how can radiation come from a source that is not physical, intangible and immutable?

This discussion is not limited to science. In fact, science can only be used in very tiny snippets here because this discussion is mostly far beyond the realm of science.

PS: The word radiation I used, is for want of a better word and does not refer to any radiation you might understand by science.

DeepSight:


This discussion is not limited to science. In fact, science can only be used in very tiny snippets here because this discussion is mostly far beyond the realm of science.

PS: The word radiation I used, is for want of a better word and does not refer to any radiation you might understand by science.

Science by definition means Knowledge, so is it ignorant and beliefs that you’re using in your discussion?

Then you have to find the perfect word to explain how your intangible god made a tangible thing.
You’re riding on so much assumptions.

Maynman:


Science by definition means Knowledge

Sorry, that is not the definition of science. Furthermore, there are many fields of knowledge outside that which is scientifically derived.

KnownUnknown:


If causes and effects were straightforward and not a complex set of factors acting simultaneously, the first cause argument could stand. But nature can’t be said to be simple “cause and effect”. Take daylight for example?
What is the “cause” of daylight? Think about it carefully and see if its a simple case of “cause and effect”

The rotation of the Earth as it receives the light of the sun is the cause of the effect of night and day.

Since this first cause has no support and can’t be logically deduced, it can have whatever attribut you want. It wholly depends on simplifying existence to a series of causes. If you do that, there is no reason to terminate this chain of cause at the “first cause”

I hope you understand that an infinite regress of causes would render the inescapable result that no universe would exist. If you do not grasp this, happy to expatiate. Dwell on it a little though.

This first cause or god you speak of, why should it be the first cause. Why not the 10th cause?
Maybe there is a first cause that caused the effect that became the second cause that caused the effect that became the third cause………became the ninth cause that caused the effect that became the tenth cause that caused the universe.

It could actually be the millionth or zillionth cause. This will take nothing away from the basic point that there must needs be an origin or source of all things - save those things which are self-existent.

If I accept your first cause that is “unknowable”, can I go a bit further and ask about the second cause? Maybe it is knowable. Yes?

It very well could be unknowable. There are many things even within the universe which will forever remain unknowable.

What does it mean to be beyond this reality or universe. Is the first cause the only thing that is beyond this reality or are here other…….causes.

What rests beyond our given reality is great and unfathomable. To use a loose analogy, imagine yourself as a character in a book - let's say Mario Puzo's "The God Father." Now, much exists outside that book. People, places, planets, universes, worlds, realms, creatures - and even other books and their own characters. If you stop to consider that this reality is likely a simulation, then this will resonate even deeper. So no, its not just the source or origin that exists beyond this reality. An infinity of imponderable dimensions exist beyond this reality.

Frankly, the deist’s claim is just as arbitrary and unfounded as the theist’s. These are just claims that really do not mean anything. “Transcendence”. “Beyond the universe” ………..”to infinity and beyond”

No it is not arbitrary or unfounded to say that things exist beyond the universe. One simple question you can ask which demonstrates this is this: Into what is the Universe expanding?

It’s not hard to speak about God. It’s just impossible to make sense when you speak about God. God remains an idea that is shaped by whoever is espousing it. That includes attributes and location. I even created a God the other day called McMickie the Leprechaun. It will drown you in Guinness if you offend. Of course, McMickie is timeless, spaceless, immaterial…………..and He just told me that He is also Maximally Great. And yes, he sits on my shoulder.

Fair enough.

We can say the universe (including humans. An error in thinking caused by most religions and philosophy is regarding humans as separate from the universe as if we aren’t inherently a part of the universe) is self existent. The universe exists and there is does seem to be direction. The universe is continuously morphing “self existently”.

Why can’t the universe be the self existent principle. The universe exists and its fundamental nature is unknowable and its functioning is beyond human understanding. You don’t have to go “beyond” the universe to find “god”.
And before you say it, let me say that the Big Bang is not the beginning of the universe but the expansion for universe. So, the universe can be as “eternal” as god is claimed to be because it has no beginning and the expansion gave rise to space time or the “first cause” of time.

The Universe cannot be self existent because it is both tangible and mutable. A self existent thing is necessarily intangible and immutable. It simply IS. It is not created. It does not "commence." It does not die. It does not change. It is a necessary component of primordial existence itself. An example is infinite and real space and another is infinite and real time. These are self existent things. The universe, a material thing, can never be self existent.

This statement is just a wild claim and is not factual. It doesn’t even say anything.
Now this arises from the fact that if it is indeed the beginning of all other beginnings, it must itself be unbegun. Why? Because I said so.

As I have explained, with an infinite regress of causes, nothing would ever exist. No universe would ever exist, and certainly no trigger will ever become a real causative agent in any meaningful sense. I hope you see this, nonetheless, happy to expatiate.

What if these realities and dimensions you speak of have their own uncaused first cause. Why should your first cause of reality A be the first cause of reality B and C? Simple, because you say so.

There are probably different causes of different things my friend, none of these obviates the discussion on a source of all realities. A founding principle in short.

Your whole argument is god exists because it is the nature of god to exist. Maybe it’s the nature of gods to exist? There is no reason to stop making claims at one, you can multiple this “self existent” thing indefinitely. Their nature is necessary and fundamental and not contingent on anything.

Oddly enough, and even though it is open to mockery, maybe this is not such a bad description of what I am saying. So long as you understand the philosophical difference between necessary things and contingent things, you would not think this so silly. To exemplify: would you consider it silly if I say to you that infinite space is self existent?

If not, please just replace the word "god" there, with infinite space. Because it appears the word "god" causes problems, and understandably so.

Now we know the gender. I’m guessing “Creation” means he “created” the universe. How does he and did he create?

We dont know any gender, whatever pronoun I used was only for convenience and you know that already.

He sounds very human. Just give it whatever morals and purpose you want, after all you already know the gender.

Religious notions of God are often very human. I don't think God ITSELF is human in that way. Most of our notions of the "goodness" of God and all that are nothing but fantasies. God, if and where it exists, is more likely a neutral primordial source of existence.

DeepSight:


Sorry, that is not the definition of science. Furthermore, there are many fields of knowledge outside that which is scientifically derived.

Sorry to you too, That’s the definition of science. so is is it ignorance and beliefs that you’re using in your discussion?
You are yet to tell me the clear definition of “god”.

Maynman:


Sorry to you too, That’s the definition of science. so is is it ignorance and beliefs that you’re using in your discussion?
You are yet to tell me the clear definition of “god”.

What you have presented is an archaic definition. An ancient one, which is no longer applicable. The origin and etymology of a word is not always descriptive of its current meaning. Today, science is not a synonym for knowledge. This is a fact. There are fields of knowledge outside scientific knowledge. This is also a fact.

Here is the definition of science from the Oxford Dictionary -

science
/ˈsʌɪəns/
noun
noun: science
1.
the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation, experimentation, and the testing of theories against the evidence obtained.
"the world of science and technology"
Similar:
branch of knowledge
area of study
discipline
field
a particular area of science.
plural noun: sciences
"veterinary science"
a systematically organized body of knowledge on a particular subject.
"the science of criminology"
2.
ARCHAIC
knowledge of any kind.
"his rare science and his practical skill"

As far as the context of this discussion is concerned, we evidently speak of science in terms of the known areas of natural scientific study such as physics, biology, chemistry, cosmology, etc.

DeepSight:


What you have presented is an archaic definition. An ancient one, which is no longer applicable. The origin and etymology of a word is not always descriptive of its current meaning. Today, science is not a synonym for knowledge. This is a fact. There are fields of knowledge outside scientific knowledge. This is also a fact.

Here is the definition of science from the Oxford Dictionary -

science
/ˈsʌɪəns/
noun
noun: science
1.
the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation, experimentation, and the testing of theories against the evidence obtained.
"the world of science and technology"
Similar:
branch of knowledge
area of study
discipline
field
a particular area of science.
plural noun: sciences
"veterinary science"
a systematically organized body of knowledge on a particular subject.
"the science of criminology"
2.
ARCHAIC
knowledge of any kind.
"his rare science and his practical skill"

As far as the context of this discussion is concerned, we evidently speak of science in terms of the known areas of natural scientific study such as physics, biology, chemistry, cosmology, etc.

Who made it an archaic definition which is no longer applicable? You?

Even what you posted said what i said, science means knowledge.
None of your definition says “physics, biology, chemistry, cosmology
You ascertain knowledge through observation, experimentation, and the testing of theories against the evidence obtained not only LOGIC. So which area is Knowledge used without all these but only logic? Deepsight?.
Even Physics was known as natural philosophy before, hope you know what “philo” means.
Biology was discovered by a philosopher.

so is it ignorance and beliefs that you’re using in your discussion?

Nah wa ọ!
So worshipers of SCIENCE can't even agree on the definition of their god!

DeepSight:

This discussion is not limited to science. In fact, science can only be used in very tiny snippets here because this discussion is mostly far beyond the realm of science.
PS: The word radiation I used, is for want of a better word and does not refer to any radiation you might understand by science.

Maynman:

Science by definition means Knowledge, so is it ignorant and beliefs that you’re using in your discussion? Then you have to find the perfect word to explain how your intangible god made a tangible thing.
You’re riding on so much assumptions.

MaxInDHouse:
Nah wa ọ!
So worshipers of SCIENCE can't even agree on the definition of their god!

Don’t deity worshippers have different gods, is your god name not yahweh?

Please don't bite me, settle the trouble between you and your fellow believer in SCIENCE!

Maynman:

Don’t deity worshippers have different gods, is your god name not yahweh?

MaxInDHouse:
Please don't bite me, settle the trouble between you and your fellow believer in SCIENCE!

Please Stop barking and looking for trouble where there’s none. We are discussing with facts and not accepting beliefs complied by a GOVERNING body that owns your life.

And i hope you both agree after reading many books on the same subject!

Maynman:

Please Stop barking and looking for trouble where there’s none. We are discussing with facts and not accepting beliefs complied by a GOVERNING body that owns your life.

Maynman:

Who made it an archaic definition which is no longer applicable? You?

Even what you posted said what i said, science means knowledge.
None of your definition says “physics, biology, chemistry, cosmology
You ascertain knowledge through observation, experimentation, and the testing of theories against the evidence obtained not only LOGIC. So which area is Knowledge used without all these but only logic? Deepsight?.
Even Physics was known as natural philosophy before, hope you know what “philo” means.
Biology was discovered by a philosopher.

so is it ignorance and beliefs that you’re using in your discussion?

Look, lets not distract the conversation by quibbling on a pedantic point. Whatever you describe science as is fine. The fact is that in this discussion the relevant usage is the study and observation of the natural world.

As opposed to something like art, literature, philosophy or music for example.
Capisce?

Maynman:


Please Stop barking and looking for trouble where there’s none. We are discussing with facts and not accepting beliefs complied by a GOVERNING body that owns your life.

MaxInDHouse:
And i hope you both agree after reading many books on the same subject!

And I hope you continue worshipping your masters in your watchtower that have brainwashed you with forged jewish books.

DeepSight:


I didnt jump to that conclusion, it follows naturally: and in following naturally please you have to look at 1 - 4 and take them on board as well.

Maybe it will help you to try to picture nothingness. The stagnant, borderless, infinite void. Now, we understand that "nothingness" does not exist and thus this borderless infinite void is not nothing, it is something.

It is real, infinite space and it is intangible. This is why I have often described this real/infinite space as "the void into which things are interpolated." In the same way, real/infinite time cannot be delimited. It is, as I have often said, 'the void into which events are interpolated." It is perfectly intangible and immaterial and per force self existent. It cannot but exist, it is fundamental.



Spacetime as conceived in today's physics is a material thing and this is why I was careful to say "real/ infinite" time and "real/infinite" space - a distinction which I believe I have made to you before, and which I have just described above.

I will chuck my failure to agree with your premises and conclusion to my ingrained methodological naturalist thinking pattern. I need substantive elements in other to consider any assertion as plausible. You seem to me like someone saying magenta is not a shade of purple because it has its own name, simply giving something a name doesn't change its nature.

DeepSight:


Look, lets not distract the conversation by quibbling on a pedantic point. Whatever you describe science as is fine. The fact is that in this discussion the relevant usage is the study and observation of the natural world.

As opposed to something like art, literature, philosophy or music for example.
Capisce?

Philosophy is Science. you should look up how “pysics, biology, chemistry and cosmology came to being.” All through philosophy. Physics was formally called natural philosophy.

Science as a word Literally Means Knowledge.
How do you arrive at knowledge? You ascertain knowledge through observation, experimentation, and the testing of theories against the evidence obtained not only LOGIC.

DeepSight:


Look, lets not distract the conversation by quibbling on a pedantic point. Whatever you describe science as is fine. The fact is that in this discussion the relevant usage is the study and observation of the natural world.

As opposed to something like art, literature, philosophy or music for example.
Capisce?

Your fellow believer has apologized so go and hug him and forget about JWs for now!

Maynman:

And I hope you continue worshipping your masters in your watchtower that have brainwashed you with forged jewish books.

MaxInDHouse:


Your fellow believer has apologized so go and hug him and forget about JWs for now!

Yahweh worshipper, Is that how you apologize to your masters in watchtower?
Why you so desperate and shameless like small boy jehovah?

Ọmọ he don do your fellow believer has asked you to hide your differences in your god.
You don't have to blame your grievances on me nah!

Maynman:

Yahweh worshipper, Is that how you apologize to your masters in watchtower?
Why you so desperate and shameless like small boy jehovah?

MaxInDHouse:
Ọmọ he don do your fellow believer has asked you to hide your differences in your god.
You don't have to blame your grievances on me nah!

Yahweh worshipper Is this how you lie brazenly like your jehovah?
Why are you so desperate and shameless like small boy jehovah?
Best performing orgy organization

Maynman:

Philosophy is Science. you should look up how “pysics, biology, chemistry and cosmology came to being.” All through philosophy. Physics was formally called natural philosophy.

Science as a word Literally Means Knowledge.
How do you arrive at knowledge? You ascertain knowledge through observation, experimentation, and the testing of theories against the evidence obtained not only LOGIC.

Haba. I have said lets leave the point and move on. You want to remain stranded on the definition of science? That's not the topic you know. I still dont agree with you, but I'd rather not get stuck here. The substantive discussion remains.

DeepSight:


Haba. I have said lets leave the point and move on. You want to remain stranded on the definition of science? That's not the topic you know. I still dont agree with you, but I'd rather not get stuck here. The substantive discussion remains.

That’s the beauty of it, you don’t need to agree, it still remains fact.
And knowledge is gotten through observation, experimentation, and the testing of theories against the evidence obtained not only LOGIC.
You are yet to make a substantive claim, just assumptions over assumptions.

LordReed:


I will chuck my failure to agree with your premises and conclusion to my ingrained methodological naturalist thinking pattern. I need substantive elements in other to consider any assertion as plausible. You seem to me like someone saying magenta is not a shade of purple because it has its own name, simply giving something a name doesn't change its nature.

Oh but I am not simply giving names.
Lets look at this question - Into what is the Universe expanding?

You see, I dont know if the reason I ask this repeatedly misses you. The reason is simple. Science today describes space as a fabric within the universe. If that is strictly the case, into what space is the universe expanding. The point I am trying to make is that there is obviously a realm of space beyond that which is described as the physical space of this universe alone. As such I am not just reeling of names. I am describing extant reality.

Maynman:


That’s the beauty of it, you don’t need to agree, it still remains fact.
And knowledge is gotten through observation, experimentation, and the testing of theories against the evidence obtained not only LOGIC.
You are yet to make a substantive claim, just assumptions over assumptions.

My friend, if you want to remain stuck on the definition of science, I will have to leave you there. Nice chatting.

DeepSight:


My friend, if you want to remain stuck on the definition of science, I will have to leave you there. Nice chatting.

you are the one remaining stuck.
knowledge is gotten through observation, experimentation, and the testing of theories against the evidence obtained not only LOGIC.
You are yet to make a substantive claim, just assumptions over assumptions.

Maynman:

you are the one remaining stuck.
knowledge is gotten through observation, experimentation, and the testing of theories against the evidence obtained not only LOGIC.
You are yet to make a substantive claim, just assumptions over assumptions.

Alright, cheers, appreciated, nice chatting. Good morning.

DeepSight:


Alright, cheers, appreciated, nice chatting. Good morning.

You’re welcome my friend.

Maynman:


You’re welcome my friend.

Ok I see what you attached. Physical space in this universe is said to have substance to it. Material substance. It is not nothing. This is the subject of my discussion on the difference between space as so described and the intangible self-existent space I speak about. To be clear, this "fabric" (metaphorical or not - and Einstein did not mean it metaphorically by the way) - is not said to exist outside this universe is it? That is the beginning of the point that there exists an altogether different sort of space which is infinite.

DeepSight:


Oh but I am not simply giving names.
Lets look at this question - Into what is the Universe expanding?

You see, I dont know if the reason I ask this repeatedly misses you. The reason is simple. Science today describes space as a fabric within the universe. If that is strictly the case, into what space is the universe expanding. The point I am trying to make is that there is obviously a realm of space beyond that which is described as the physical space of this universe alone. As such I am not just reeling of names. I am describing extant reality.

How can you know what the universe is expanding into when we can't even investigate the boundary? How are the scientists wrong if you acknowledge that the universe we are in is separate from whatever may be outside the universe?

DeepSight:


Ok I see what you attached. Physical space in this universe is said to have substance to it. Material substance. It is not nothing. This is the subject of my discussion on the difference between space as so described and the intangible self-existent space I speak about. To be clear, this "fabric" (metaphorical or not - and Einstein did not mean it metaphorically by the way) - is not said to exist outside this universe is it? That is the beginning of the point that there exists an altogether different sort of space which is infinite.

Post all your claims. Especially the einstein claim on fabric.
Space is Space, what’s “physical space”?

In addition Maynman, let me just say that there is nothing like "empty" space within the universe.