To you soldat du christ the use of the term "nothing" is never and can never be used as actually meaning "absolute nothing" by very definition of the term "nothing" cannot exist and as such there was never a state of "absolute nothing" Its a logical fallacy. So when you were trying to argue with haunted about "nothing existing" you, whether you realized it or not" were arguing off a misunderstanding of what the word technically means in the English Language and this slight misunderstanding caused a disagreeance between you can haunted. This little scenario quickly illustrates how easily language and the diffrening interpretations of it can cause argument when there is actual agreeance. Language is most certaintly the ultimate barrier In communication. It is the imperfect tool that we as humans use to interpret this universe and communicate with eachother.
If you are actualy open to new information i would love to talk about all this with you. Just be sure you skepticism doesn't turn into cynicism. So just like we cannot prove gravity is a physical thing, we also cannot prove a soul/spirit exists. For example, can you put gravity in a jar and paint it red? To quote Kent Hovind. My assumption is that we can better describe it in our inate ability to be self aware, self inquisitive, etc. That's where i beleive it is
A Ah i see what you mean. That makes alot of sence. The way i see it, is that when scientists claim there is "Nothing", this is a placeholder for what they can't test with science. But by using basic reasoning we can eliminate and infer serveral possibilities both consistant with logos and theoligy. Like Multi said, the only logical conclution is what remains after all other possibilities are eliminated. That's all there is to it, all materialist origion theory is falsifiable through BASIC logical reasoning.
i'm just going to use soul and consciousness as the same thing because i don't think there really is a solid definition of what a soul actually is. this is all just going to be my thoughts without research because i'm honestly too tired to keep duckduckgo'ing everything atm. i think a consciousness, a person being selfware of there own existance is an abstract result of how our brain works, its an interesting result though because i don't think we know how it works and when looking a quantum physics, i think it was proven that a physical state of a particle, atom, what have you isn't chosen untll after it is observed. this throws up the interesting question of how do we exist if we have to observe it before we can exist? could the universe only exist in the way we currently see it because that's how we choose to observe it and it could exist in an entirely different form if observed in another manner? this idea i think can lend itself towards an "after life" of sorts from our consciouness choosing to observe something else after our bodies have died. at the end of the day we don't know specifically so i don't think we can say with absolute certainty like we can we evolution and gravity to name a couple. i do find it interesting to explore different hypothesies put forward.
Less is known to us about the human brain than is known to us about the observeable universe. It is by FAR the most complex observable "organism" if your comfortable calling it that. In your brain quantum entanglement is happening or superposition. This means we are clearly connected to other quantum states at all times. You may think, haunted, that you know what you see when you see it but your perceptions are INFINITELY limited by your brain through your physical sensory organs. We don't know reality or what the true form of anything actually is. Our brains, which we know next to nothing about, must model reality for us. If you were born blind, you would never have any slight inclination of what sight actually is. It wouldn't matter who explained it to you or if they could even prove without a doubt to you thatbit existed. You would still be 100% in the dark, pun intended, about what sight actually is. This is the world we live in. We are blind to an infinite amount of perceptions and concepts that truly exist simply due to the limitations of our physical sensory organs.
In fact we still have no idea as to what true sight is.... As we can only see 1/octillincth of the elctromagnetic light spectrum. This means we will always live in the dark, regardless of how knowledgeable we beleive ourselves to be. This doesn't mean i beleive we should stop pursing knowledge but it does mean that as long as we are limited by our brains reality(which will be out entire existence on this earth) we technically are infinitely unknowledgeable about the TRUE form of existence in this universe. Its pathetic really. So when I see people make claims about how they know what happens after death because they can see it with there eyes it makes me faceplam lol I mean how foolish and arrogant is that?
I love this saying. "The universe is NOT as strange as we could imagine. No, its stranger than we could POSSIBLY imagine.
I feel like you haven't even read the thread. You're just defaulting to the "crazy christian" stuff, when in reality it is the non-religious people who are making a mess and calling names.
Yes that " nothing" that caused the BiG Bang is actually an infinitely dense singularity that the universe "expanded" from. Which clearly an "infinitely dense" singularity couldn't be further from nothing. Scientists use the term nothing as a means of ignoring the in ignorable. If you beleive in infinity as a concept you beleive in the concept of a "God" whether or not you actually attribut the word GOD to an Infinity.... ,well that I cannot say. Anyone who believes actual infinites do not exist is by default arguing that absolute nothing exists. There is a reason you can't dived by zero. Non existence or nigh value cannot "create" existence/value. Its literally one of the easiest things to prove. This means some infinite form of existence has always existed, stil exists and always will exist!
The 'life is an illusion' argument is self defeating. It's like saying there are no truths, but that statment is made assuming it's true. If you are so confidant you don't know anything than don't pretend to know that nothing is real. Our universe is made up of logic, and consitantcies. It is at it's foundation 0's and 1's. When it comes to things we cannot confirm 100% like the orgions of the universe, all we can do is speculate. And in that sence we (athiest/theist) are all on equal footing. We also share the same observational evidence, historical evidence, and logical truths. Also, evolution is not 100%. Many would argue it is an outright embelishment and a slap in the face to science.
Not at all. I've been following and Pit in my input above. I noticed the issue that caused the trigger was the statement "being willfully ignorant" and at that point everyone jumped down the other guys throat. You can't do that from either side of the argument
Life as we percive it is an illusion but clearly there is real energy to percive. This is why I said we shld not stop prusing knowledge but know that we are infinitely limited by our perceptions. I think its important to bring that up as a reminder to stay humble before beginning a discussion as such.
Understanding the limitations of the human mind is a given, the alternitive would be to say that we can one day know everything with 100% certainty. Theists, like myself accept this. There are constants, we can observe this. Using what we do know with 100% certainty, we can then begin to takle the unknown. To come to the MOST PROBABLE, conclution.
Genisis 2:7 'And the LORD God formed man ofthe dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.". To me genisis supports the idea(not theory) of evolution. This is how I personnaly interpte it. We were made from the DUST of the earth. Our bodies form IMO did come from the bacteria of the earth thorough the process if evolution. Yet the bible is very clear that our "souls" were breathed into us by GOD and us and our free will souls were "breathed" into us by GOD. Meaning tbe existence of our souls came into being later in the evolutinary process. I think it would be absolutely moronic to not interpretate genisis as metaphorical. I mean we can observe things as simple as dog breeds and see first hand how extremely diffreng traits can be passed on genetically based on breeding and environment that each generation was raised in. Its a quick snapshot of evolution on a micro level. The Bible was never meant to scientifically explain things. That's where my language barrier argument comes into play.