Christianity

[Sculptor]

Special case exceptions and circular reasoning.

None of the above. However, whole numbers and basic integers are hard for some people.

It's quite fine: I'm quite content to see you go. Bye.

You are self deluded.

[Age]

An infinite regression of included causes leads to the irrefutable conclusion and Truth that thee Universe, Itself, is thee, so-called, 'included cause', or just thee Creator, Itself.

Which NO one can refute.

Well done Age, you have discovered the secret of philosophy. All ya gotta do is find some unfalsifiable premise and build a logically coherent story around it. Unfortunately, like armchair philosophers the world over, and some pros to be frank, you have fallen at the first hurdle by failing to appreciate that a coherent story isn't necessarily a true story. It's a weakness exploited by politicians, pseudo-scientists, conspiracy nuts, religious freaks and a range of snake oil salesmen, quacks and charlatans. It's easy to do. Here's an example:
Age is in fact an AI experiment being conducted by a research team hidden in the basement at UCL, on a culture of mould one of the researchers found on a piece of cheese at the back of his fridge, 11 years ago. Having developed software sophisticated enough to persuade mould that it has a life, the team decided to see if they could convince members of the public, with mixed results. Despite objections by some on the ethics committee, the experiment has been allowed to continue.
Anything you say to refute this claim is just what mould would say.

You wrote and said:
Tell us one irrefutable fact. If you fail to do so, there's your example.

In my next reply to you I told you an, OTHER, irrefutable fact. You, however, very conveniently, for you, failed to acknowledge this Fact.

You, however, then moved on to mention ANOTHER post of mine, which was in reference to something completely different that someone "else" had said, and started going off on some tangent that has absolutely NOTHING to do with what I was talking about. See, what I have said, which you are now replying to is only an unfasifiable premise because it is ACTUALLY a PROVABLE Fact. which contrary to your current BELIEFS or ASSUMPTIONS is ALSO ANOTHER PROVABLE Fact.

Also, and by the way, even if there was some virtual world where there is a piece of mould that goes under the name "uwot", for example, and which believes it is being intelligent here, then ANOTHER IRREFUTABLE fact is that that culture of artificially intelligent mould is STILL existing in the 'real world'. Again, this is IRREFUTABLE, and so, AGAIN, is unfalsiable because it is a Fact, which has ALREADY been PROVED True.

[Age]

But, 'the mind, can NOT cause 'YOU' to move, right?

YOU is the uncaused causer, the unmoved mover.

As 'you' have been informed countless times already, 'you', the one known as "dontaskme" here, in this forum, are absolutely FREE to word things in absolutely ANY way 'you' like. But, if 'you' are going to use words or language that does NOT make sense to "others", then 'you' are NOT achieving what 'you' are so desperately 'trying to' achieve here.

And, saying, "YOU is ..." does NOT make sense to the "OTHER" ones of 'you', human beings here.

However, although what 'you' are 'trying to' say and allude to here is VERY CLEAR and ALREADY VERY WELL UNDERSTOOD. But 'you' are just using the Wrong words AND language.

But as long as 'you' FULLY understand what 'you' are saying and meaning here, then that is all that REALLY matters, correct? However, if as 'you' claim "dontaskme" is REALLY only speaking to "dontaskme", then WHY do 'you' feel the need to express out loud here, in this forum, where "OTHERS" can SEE, and respond?

YOU cannot be known by any thing known, because a known thing knows nothing...the KNOWN is a conceptual mental construction, already couched within awareness itself one without a second. Awareness cannot know itself, without turning that KNOWN into 'another knowing self', which is and always will be it's own construction.

Ultimately, knowing source can never be on the outside , looking back at itself, for there is ONLY source one without a second.

.

[Age]

I don't think Immanuel Can is rejecting the idea of creation from nothing the way perhaps Janoah understands creation from nothing. Immanuel Can is standing upon his belief, his preferred theory, that God created the world from nothing, and most certainly is not Himself nothing ;IC is not rejecting the idea that the creator exists, is Something, and was and is the agent of creation.

Thank you, B. Of course.

That is why I was deliberately using the phrase "uncaused cause," not "no cause" or "nothing."

"From nothing" really should be understood not to mean "by nothing," because God is not "nothing."

So, here we have a human being who BELIEVES in a thing, which is supposedly some 'thing', but when questioned for CLARITY about what this 'thing' ACTUALLY IS, this human being completely and utterly FAILS to explain and CLARIFY.

In other words this human being has absolutely NO idea NOR clue about what 'it' is that this human being BELIEVES IN, other than what some "OTHER" human being has told this human being.

But it should be understood to mean, "Not out of materials that were already present,"

LOL talk about 'trying to' come up with and SAY just about ANY thing in an attempt to justify and rationalize the OBVIOUSLY DISTORTED and Wrong BELIEFS this one ALREADY HAS and HOLDS ONTO DEARLY.

because those materials themselves would simply take our theory back to the causal-regress problem.

But there is ACTUALLY and LITERALLY absolutely NO 'problem' at all here.

So that would be impossible.

LOL

An Uncaused Cause of some kind is undeniably at the root of a non-eternal, linear system of causes. We can't really escape that fact...at least, not if we understand the maths implicated. And undeniably, we are in just such a universe as that: one with linear time and causality in it.

Creation from nothing seems daft to non-believers in God.

An infinitely regressing causal chain is the thing that ought to seem "daft," to anybody familiar with rudimentary mathematics.

I am not a mathematician but I think negation in mathematics is an alternative form of confirmation.

I think you're confusing mathematical "negation" with something like scientific "Verificationism" and "Falsificationism," perhaps.

In maths, negation isn't an alternate form of confirmation. In maths, the negative is the opposite, absence or denial of the positive equivalent.

But in empirical science, falsification of a theory is aimed at eliminating false theories, and verificationism is aimed at affirming true ones: so there, unlike in maths, they are sort of aimed at the same positive task.

[Age]

Well, that's not relevant to the question in hand, which is whether the universe had to come from an uncaused cause, or an infinite regression of a chain of causes.

The latter's impossible. So that means we have to opt for the uncaused cause explanation.

What makes you think the universe had to come from somewhere?
The very idea is a contradiction.

Is the universe governed by cause and effect? If you believe it's not, then you can't believe in science at all, since science absolutely depends on it. Do you believe in entropy? Entropy must surely be out best-evidenced set of natural laws. Do you believe in mathematics? Mathematics apply everywhere in the universe, regardless of particulars. That's a powerful source of information and prediction. Do you believe in cosmology? Cosmology shows us that the universe is expanding, and thus is not past-eternal.

So if you believe in science and maths, then you are going to have to figure out that the universe could not have an infinite chain of prior causes. Such a chain, by definition of "eternal", has not commencement point. It never starts. So if this universe, linear, entropic, expanding, causal as it is, were also eternal, it would never have existed at all.

Hence, the conclusion is undeniable: whatever exists now had to begin with a Cause that was itself not subject to linear time, causality, entropy or expansion. It had to be an uncaused Cause.

LOL you make us laugh "immanual can".

Your so-called "argument" here contains False AND Wrong "premises", and although your conclusionn IS ACTUALLY CORRECT, it is based on and exists only because of your OBVIOUSLY underlying Wrong AND False BELIEFS and ASSUMPTIONS.

If you would like to start again, and this time with and from the end ACTUAL Truth of things, then let us proceed.. However, if you want to REMAIN living in and with DISTORTED BELIEFS and ASSUMPTIONS, then just carry on the way you have been.

[Age]

What makes you think the universe had to come from somewhere?
The very idea is a contradiction.

Is the universe governed by cause and effect? If you believe it's not, then you can't believe in science at all, since science absolutely depends on it. Do you believe in entropy? Entropy must surely be out best-evidenced set of natural laws. Do you believe in mathematics? Mathematics apply everywhere in the universe, regardless of particulars. That's a powerful source of information and prediction. Do you believe in cosmology? Cosmology shows us that the universe is expanding, and thus is not past-eternal.

This response is not relavant.
Of course things are caused, and there are effects.
Of course there is such a thing as cosmology.
We are witness to expansion.

'you', human beings, also observed and witnessed 'a flat earth', 'a sun revolving around a earth', 'a Universe that began', as well as many other things, but as has ALREADY been PROVED True a LOT if what 'you', human beings, observe and witness is NOT true NOR correct AT ALL. An 'expanding Universe' is just ANOTHER one of these False and Wrong observations, which 'you', human beings, have and make.

'you' are NOT witnessing an 'expanding Universe'. 'you're are just IMAGINING it. This is because 'you' are LOOKING AT 'things' through and from the 'BELIEF-sytem' tied to the human brain, instead of LOOKING from and through thee Truly OPEN mind.

So if you believe in science and maths, then you are going to have to figure out that the universe could not have an infinite chain of prior causes. Such a chain, by definition of "eternal", has not commencement point. It never starts. So if this universe, linear, entropic, expanding, causal as it is, were also eternal, it would never have existed at all.

Hence, the conclusion is undeniable: whatever exists now had to begin with a Cause that was itself not subject to linear time, causality, entropy or expansion. It had to be an uncaused Cause.

You still have not answered the question.
You are just contradicting yourself.
If you believe everything has to have a cause then you have to find a cause for the cause.
If there is such a thing as an uncaused cause then that undermines your whole point.

No it does NOT.

But because of what you and "immanual can" are PRESUMING what the word 'God' refers to, you are BOTH DISILLUSIONED here.

[Age]

Can you provide any more information? Do you know at least what kind of cheese it was?

Sadly not, Gus. The original sample was eaten by a PhD candidate after a particularly exuberant pub crawl several years back. He now speaks four languages he was previously unfamiliar with.

Just MORE DETRACTION from thee Fact that I have ACTUALLY DONE what "uwot" CLAIMED I had NOT, and could NOT DO.

[Age]

Immanuel Can wrote:

"From nothing" really should be understood not to mean "by nothing," because God is not "nothing." But it should be understood to mean, "Not out of materials that were already present," because those materials themselves would simply take our theory back to the causal-regress problem. So that would be impossible.

An Uncaused Cause of some kind is undeniably at the root of a non-eternal, linear system of causes. We can't really escape that fact...at least, not if we understand the maths implicated. And undeniably, we are in just such a universe as that: one with linear time and causality in it.

I agree that God is uncaused cause and so forth much as IC says. No other theory of the existence of God makes sense . I think IC is saying that God's continuing act of creation includes that God also makes linear time and causality, but I'd rather attribute this capability to Adam who also named all the animals.

I myself don't believe in God as a Person. I believe in the Absolute as either 1. what nature does, or 2. what nature does plus all the things of nature. I can't commit to 1. or 2. I.e. I can't commit to pantheism or panentheism.

But WHY even 'try to' "commit" to ANY human being madenupnidea and conception?

WHY NOT just ACCEPT and AGREE WITH what is IRREFUTABLY True?

Like for example that Nature, Itself, is in Existence, and through the natural evolving cycle of Nature, Itself, ALL 'things' are being created, or thus are just a part of Creation, Itself.

The word 'God' once MEANT and ACTUALLY just refers to this One ever-lasting and ever-changing NATURAL cycle of the evolving Creation, itself. Or, in other words, just the 'uncaused cause', as some refer to 'It' and call 'It', or, literally, the 'included cause', as spell check spells 'It'

[Age]

Hence, the conclusion is undeniable: whatever exists now had to begin with a Cause that was itself not subject to linear time, causality, entropy or expansion. It had to be an uncaused Cause.

That's exactly what nonduality teaches. You know, that concept you said you don't believe is truth..

Make your mind up... ffs...

You like to call no thing a thing.

Whereas nonduality doesn't call no thing any thing. Reality doesn't need a body double. . or an actionman like you. There are only reactions known, because reality is one unitary action.

The actionman does not like being excluded from the limelight, and that is why you prefer to ignore me, because you hate not being the centre of attention don't you...but notice I never ignore your posts... why's that then?

It's because the absolute truth can easily put out the lie. That's why. You cannot argue with what is always and ever the absolute truth.

No claim, no blame, no fame.... if you say you know....you don't.

But, ALL of 'your', human being's', teachings, like "non duality", "christianity", "buddihsm", "islam", and ALL of the other ones, ALL contain Truth. And, ALL of the Falsehoods within ALL of them are just 'your', OWN human being', Wrong interpretations AND misconceptions.

If, instead of continually listening to and accepting those Wrong and False teachings, 'you', adult human beings, individually, ACTUALLY started taking responsibility and learned to LOOK and LISTEN for and by "yourselves", then 'you' WILL be ABLE TO distinguish between what IS ACTUALLY True AND what IS ACTUALLY False.

After all, ALL of 'you', posters, here, in this forum, are just 'trying to' talk about, and are ALL alluding to, thee EXACT SAME Thing/s anyway.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Just MORE DETRACTION from thee Fact that I have ACTUALLY DONE what "uwot" CLAIMED I had NOT, and could NOT DO.

To wit: POSSESSED and STAMPED Page 90 as your sole possession.

[Immanuel Can]

Just MORE DETRACTION from thee Fact that I have ACTUALLY DONE what "uwot" CLAIMED I had NOT, and could NOT DO.

To wit: POSSESSED and STAMPED Page 90 as your sole possession.

Interesting.

Age managed to have an irrational disagreement (punctuated by CAPS of course) with absolutely everything anyone said and still managed to be entirely devoid of positive or coherent content. You have to admire the ability to do so much work without, even accidentally, saying something useful.

[Age]

Just MORE DETRACTION from thee Fact that I have ACTUALLY DONE what "uwot" CLAIMED I had NOT, and could NOT DO.

To wit: POSSESSED and STAMPED Page 90 as your sole possession.

I have NO idea what you are saying or alluding to here.

[Age]

Just MORE DETRACTION from thee Fact that I have ACTUALLY DONE what "uwot" CLAIMED I had NOT, and could NOT DO.

To wit: POSSESSED and STAMPED Page 90 as your sole possession.

Interesting.

Age managed to have an irrational disagreement (punctuated by CAPS of course) with absolutely everything anyone said

Well this is OBVIOUSLY a VERY False CLAIM.

I only disagree with those thing that ALL of 'you', human beings, are saying which are False, Wrong, and Incorrect here. And, I only POINT OUT SOME of the MORE OBVIOUS ones. But there are MANY MORE that I could POINT OUT and SHOW.

and still managed to be entirely devoid of positive or coherent content.

What you SEE as being "ENTIRELY devoid of positive or coherent content" "others" SEE the EXACT OPPOSITE.

As has ALREADY been PROVED IRREFUTABLY True, through and from your writings "immanual can".

You have to admire the ability to do so much work without, even accidentally, saying something useful.

So, you can say, 'God exists', but when challenged and questioned on this BELIEF, of yours, you FALL and completely CRUMBLE to pieces "immanual can". As PROVED ALREADY IRREFUTABLY True throughout this forum.

Also, ONCE AGAIN, what we can CLEARLY SEE here is these posters, in the days when this was being written, would spend more time 'trying to' LOOK AT 'me' and TALK ABOUT and DISCUSS 'me', instead of just concentrating on what I ACTUALLY say and write, and POINT OUT.

[uwot]

See, what I have said, which you are now replying to is only an unfasifiable premise because it is ACTUALLY a PROVABLE Fact. which contrary to your current BELIEFS or ASSUMPTIONS is ALSO ANOTHER PROVABLE Fact.

Age, you cannot even prove that you are not a piece of mouldy cheese. Furthermore, it is an irrefutable fact that you referring to others as 'you human beings' is evidence that you are in fact a piece of mouldy cheese.

[Age]

See, what I have said, which you are now replying to is only an unfasifiable premise because it is ACTUALLY a PROVABLE Fact. which contrary to your current BELIEFS or ASSUMPTIONS is ALSO ANOTHER PROVABLE Fact.

Age, you cannot even prove that you are not a piece of mouldy cheese.

This is only in "uwot's" little world, which let us NOT FORGET also contains a universe THAT BEGAN, and IS EXPANDING.

And, because you do NOT like the IRREFUTABLE Fact that you are NOT even ABLE to PROVE your CLAIMS, then you SEE this INABILITY, or yours, MUST ALSO belong to EVERY one "else" as well.

However, once you learn how to communicate effectively, so that what IS ACTUALLY True can and WILL 'come to light', as some say, then you will UNDERSTAND WHY your perception of things here was SO Wrong and DISTORTED.

Also, as I have ALREADY INFORMED you PREVIOUSLY, there is absolutely NOTHING in the whole Universe, including even the Universe, Itself, that can persuade a person to SEE thee ACTUAL PROOF of some thing, while that person is BELIEVING the opposite is true. So, what this means is that whilst you are BELIEVING that I am a piece of mouldy cheese, then you are OBVIOUSLY NOT OPEN to SEEING NOR HEARING what thee ACTUAL Truth of things is here.

Furthermore, it is an irrefutable fact that you referring to others as 'you human beings' is evidence that you are in fact a piece of mouldy cheese.

So, you want to CLAIM here that you can express an 'irrefutable fact' while also CLAIMING that I NEVER could. Seems VERY CONTRADICTORY, and VERY HYPOCRITICAL as well.

What you CONTINUALLY FORGET "uwot" is that 'evidence' is NOT PROOF, and that the two are VERY DIFFERENT things. WHEN you come to learn and understand this Fact FULLY, then will also be closer to SEEING and UNDERSTANDING, what you OBVIOUSLY do NOT want to LOOK AT and SEE, and that is that I have ACTUALLY ALREADY posted IRREFUTABLE Facts here, in this forum. Just like you have done just here, now.

Also, DO NOT FORGET 'you', adult human beings, can SEE and FIND 'evidence' just about anywhere, for what 'you' ALREADY BELIEVE and/or ASSUME is true. As evidenced, and PROVED True, ALREADY by 'your' writings here, in this forum.

Also, if you REALLY want to CLAIM an irrefutable fact in regards to what "another" says and/or writes, then I suggest that from now on you copy them verbatim. Otherwise, you could be PROVED Wrong, ONCE AGAIN.